Truth Magazine

By Ronny Milliner

“Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things” (Lk. 10:41). When we think of Martha, sister of Mary and Lazarus, this statement usually comes to mind. Yet there were many good qualities about Martha and some other things we can learn from her.

Martha was probably the older sister of Mary and Lazarus since the house is referred to as “her home” (Lk. 10:38). Some have even suggested she was the widow of Simon the leper or near relative of him (Mt. 26:6; Mk. 14:3). Her Aramaic name meant “mistress.” The Greek counterpart, kyria, meant “lady.” Some have thought John was writing to her in his second epistle. While we can not be certain about these things, let’s take a look at some of the traits of Martha.

Mourner of Her Dead Brother

John 11 tells of the death of Martha’s brother Lazarus. After his death, “many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother” (Jn. 11:19). Martha was expressing the natural grief of one who had lost one very dear to them. Martha loved her brother.

But I have seen situations where a brother or sister would not even attend their own mother’s funeral because they were not on speaking terms with another brother or sister in the family. Such unnatural affection is shameful! Surely there should exist a close tie between family members like that which existed between Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

But what about our spiritual family? Acts 8:2 says “loud lamentation” was made over the death of Stephen. Do we suffer with other members who are suffering (1 Cor. 12:26)? And what about those who are “dead in. . . trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1)? Paul said he had “great sorrow and increasing grief” in his heart for his lost kinsmen (Rom. 9:1-3). Maybe we need more mourners among us.

Adviser To The Lord

“Martha was a woman of impulse, energy, practical duty; like Peter, she was ready even to give advice to her Lord, and eager to put everybody in his rightful place” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XVII, p. 90). This trait was certainly not one of Martha’s good points. When Jesus arrived after Lazarus’ death, Martha said, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died” (Jn. 11:21). When Jesus was ready to raise Lazarus from the dead and had said, “Remove the stone,” Martha piped up, “Lord, by this time there will be a stench; for he has been dead four days” (Jn. 11:39). With Mary sitting at the feed of Jesus while she herself served as hostess, Martha felt the need to counsel the Lord. She said, “Lord do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me” (Lk. 39:40). What nerve!

Of course we still have some around today who feel they must advise the Lord. There are those who feel they need to advise Him on what kind of music He should want in worship to Him. There are those who feel they need to advise Him on which organization can do a better job of doing His work. There are those who feel they need to advise Him on which kind of sinners He should save. All of these advisers need to read Romans 11:34. The passage says, “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?”

Resurrection-Believer

Jesus told Martha, “Your brother shall rise again.” Martha replied, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day” (Jn. 11:23-24). Martha believed in the resurrection from the dead. She believed in the resurrection even in a day when some denied the resurrection (Mt. 22:23; Acts 22:8). She believed in the resurrection even before life and immortality were brought “to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 2:10).

We can believe in the resurrection from the dead because of the One who is “the resurrection and the life.” Martha certainly believed in Him. She referred to Him as “Lord,” “Christ,” “the Son of God,” and “He who comes into the world” (Jn. 11:27). She had enough faith in Him to say, “Even now I know that whatever You ask God, God will give You” (Jn. 11:22). Let us remember the bold declaration by Jesus on this occasion of raising one from the dead. He declared, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die.” He then asked, “Do you believe this?” (Jn. 11:25-26)

Teller About Jesus’ Call

After speaking with Jesus, Martha returned to her home. The record then says she “called Mary her sister, saying secretly, ‘The Teacher is here, and is calling for you'” (Jn. 11 -28). One author comments, “No sooner was she in the house then she called her sister. Her soul was all ablaze. Her faith was full and running over. Her heart was almost bursting to communicate its joy and satisfaction, and especially with a desire that her sister share the same, and go to the fountain and drink of its living waters. Genuine faith in Christ is ever communicative. . . (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XVII, p. 120). In this act Martha was like Andrew and Philip (Jn. 1:40-46).

Jesus calls for our relatives. He calls for our neighbors and friends. He calls for our fellow-workers and schoolmates. In His call He says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light” (Mt. 11:28-30). Do they know of that call? Jesus expects us to tell them.

Hospitality-Shower

John 12:1-2 says, “Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they made Him a supper there; and Martha was serving;. . . ” It seems Martha was always ready to open up her home to Jesus and His followers.

The Bible certainly teaches that this trait should be found in all of us. We should be “practicing hospitality” (Rom. 12:13), and to do so “without complaint” (1 Pet. 4:9). Hebrews 13:2 exhorts, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained ‘angels without knowing it.”

Anguisher About Things

On another occasion of such hospitality, we have the familiar rebuke of Martha by Jesus. “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only a few things are necessary, really only one, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her” (Lk. 10:41-42).

We still have a lot of Martha’s in the church today. Brethren, let’s be aware of the fact that “the worry of the world” will choke out the word (Mt. 13:22). “Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth” (Col. 3:2). “Do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. . . . But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you” (Mt. 6:25,33).

Conclusion

“According to a fragment of a Coptic gospel belonging to the second century, Martha was present with the other two Mary’s at the empty grave of Jesus (cf. Mt. 28:1-11), and went and informed the disciples” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. III, p. 2000). We really know nothing of Martha after the resurrection of Jesus, but surely she must have been a zealous and faithful member of the Lord’s church.

John 11:5 reads, “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” Let us so live that we can be close, loving friends of Jesus.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 44-45
January 16, 1986

By S. Leonard Tyler

Most religious people will quickly respond, “I certainly will. That is what I want. Our church does that, if it didn’t I would not remain in it.” But what a pity that such is not really the fact. To allow you to observe what I mean — we ask, “where does the Bible teach any group of people to write for themselves a creed, discipline, confession of faith, catechism, or constitution by which they are governed in their church?” The answer is not a straight forward reply. Here it is, “But the Bible does not say, ‘Thou shalt not write a concise document by which to make our doctrine understandable and definite.”‘ We answer, “No, but does it say write them?” They are written for the very purpose for which God gave us the Bible. If this document contains more than the Bible, that is too much. If less than the Bible, that is too little. If it differs from the Bible, it is wrong or the Bible is wrong. If it contains exactly what the Bible does, we have the Bible, hence your document is useless.

Now let us recall the statement at the beginning which was quickly made that willingly and gladly the Bible would be accepted. But what about the response to maintain their creed. It proves unequivocally their failure to accept the Bible only and their determination to persist in having their written document (creed, discipline, articles of faith, etc.) in addition to the Bible. Their creed or church constitution serves the very purpose for which God gave the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:34; 1 Pet. 4:11; Jude 3).

Ask About Baptism

The response usually goes like this, “God, didn’t say, ‘He that believeth and is not baptized shall be lost.”‘ No, but He did say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Now which do you want to be – saved or lost? Are you going to trust your salvation upon what God says, or upon what He did not say?

Instrumental Music

“God,” they continue, “didn’t say, ‘Thou shalt not use mechanical instruments of music in worship.”‘ Again, no, but He did say, “Sing and make melody in your hearts unto the Lord.” Which are you going to do? Which is our guide: what God didn’t say or what God said and the New Testament instructs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16-17)?

But The Bible Does Not Say

“But the Bible does not say,” is not confined to those outside the church. The same words are echoed among the saints. There are those within the church of our Lord who will fanatically acclaim, “The Bible does not say ‘how’ to preach the gospel, therefore we may establish an organization through which the gospel can be preached more efficiently and effectively.” The Bible does not tell us how but it does commission or direct the church to teach the word as the “pillar and ground,” support, “of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 4:12). God, through Christ, has given sufficient “organization or divine arrangement” through which the work is to be done. In the first century, under the direct directions of the Holy Spirit no organization was used, authorized or needed in addition to or instead of the church. The local church stood apart from any other organization to serve God’s divine purpose upon the earth. It worked then, why will it not work today? We have no further information from God, no other plan can be of divine origin — only human. What about it I Is man wiser than God today and capable of knowing more about what is required to carry God’s saving message to the whole world than God Himself? If so, don’t you suppose that man will soon come up with a better message of salvation? How vain can man become!

The sponsoring, centralized church is foreign to the work of the first century church of our Blessed Lord. It is also foreign to the New Testament. Therefore, no one or group has any divine right to practice any such set-up with God’s approval.

This same principle is true in edification. The church is authorized of God to so edify itself by practicing and speaking the truth in love so all growth may be unto him who is the head – Christ (Eph. 4:15-16).

The benevolent work was done by the church with no extra organizations, or done individually by Christians. The glory was given to God. The poor saints were the object of the church’s care (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 1 Tim. 5:16). And, so far as we have right to know, this was the practice of the church for some nineteen hundred years – the church of Christ. One must search diligently the history of the Lord’s church to find any sort of a benevolent organization within her framework or to which she contributed before the twentieth century. All of the benevolent institutions or orphanages or asylums associated with or tied to the church – to which the church contributed to enable the institution to do her benevolent work – have been established within the nineteen hundreds. What did the church do before the nineteen hundreds?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, p. 51
January 16, 1986

By Mike Willis

During the last two years, our liberal brethren (those who support human institutions from the church treasury, practice church sponsored recreation, and accept the sponsoring church form of organization) have entered dialogue with the conservative Christian Churches on unity. Many liberal brethren seem ready to fellowship those in the Christian Church; indeed, some have already jointly participated in benevolent work. However, a wave of protest from the older, more conservative liberal brethren has appeared in recent months. These brethren recognize the threat which this unity movement is posing and are now sounding the alarm. Articles on instrumental music appear frequently in the journals published by our conservative liberal brethren.

Recently Sam E. Stone, the editor of Christian Standard, wrote the editorial printed on the opposite page. The Christian Standard began in 1866 especially to promote the missionary society and can now be identified as a journal which represents the views of the independent Christian Church. It appears to be a reaction to some of the material circulated by the conservative liberals. Please read that editorial.

Where To From Here?

Our liberal brethren need to give attention to what editor Stone said.

On the other hand, no Christian or congregation should condemn those brethren who may choose to employ musical accompaniment with their singing. We are perfectly willing to forego the use of a musical instrument in worship (and have done so many times), but we are not willing to be bound by a non-Scriptural legalism that forbids its use. Christian liberty, as well as sensitive consciences, must be respected.

This constitutes an announcement that the Christian Church has no intention of giving up the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship.

I knew that was the case all along. Our forefathers made every sincere effort to appeal to those brethren in the love of God and for the sake of unity to give up the instrument in order that we might be one in Christ. They loved their instrument more than they loved their brethren or divine truth. The church was divided and remains divided because these brethren refuse to give up instruments of music in worship (and many other things).

The only other alternative that remains is for those who have opposed using mechanical instruments of music in worship to give up their opposition to them. Are our liberal brethren ready to do that? Obviously some of our liberal brethren are not willing to quit opposing the instrument and some are. It is difficult to know just how many brethren stand where. However, it is obvious that any movement which occurs will have to be made by those who have historically been opposed to using mechanical instruments of music in worship. The Christian Church people have announced that they are not willing to move an inch.

Replying To Editor Stone

Sam Stone made several comments which need to be addressed. I trust that I can do so in a spirit of love and concern for the souls of men. I hold the conviction that he is practicing sin and leading others to participate in sin. Consequently, he must be opposed because his doctrine leads men to introduce items in worship authorized solely on the authority of men rendering their worship vain (Matt. 15:8,9; Col. 2:21-23). What is said is written to prevent others from being led into sin and to lead him out of it. If my wording seems strong, stronger than others might like, please understand that my deep convictions are motivating me. Like Jesus, I cannot remain passive when I see the worship of God being corrupted (Jn. 2).

1. The Christian Church does not insist that everyone must worship with an instrument. Editor Stone wrote, “Certainly no congregation should insist that everyone must worship with an instrument.” This statement appears charitable. What he means is that he will not oppose those Christians who, for conscience sake, must worship in congregations which do not use instruments. What is implied, but unexpressed, however is this: We are bound and determined to have instruments in our worship and, if a person does not believe that they should be used, he will have to go somewhere else to worship. There is no way that a Christian who opposes instruments of music in worship can obey the divine command to worship God in song in a congregation which uses instruments of music! To these people, Stone leaves only two choices: (1) do not worship God in song in our congregations or (2) go somewhere else to worship.

2. Stone opposes the exclusion-by-silence principle. He wrote, “We feel it is impossible to hold the exclusion-by silence principle with consistency.” If Stone opposes “exclusion by silence,” he should tell us on what basis he opposes the following:

Infant baptism

Sprinkling and/or pouring

Burning incense

The papacy

Restructuring the Christian Church

United Christian Missionary Society

Using items other than unleavened bread and fruit of the vine on the Lord’s table

Partaking of the Lord’s supper at some frequency other than the first day of every week

Partaking the Lord’s supper on some day other than the Lord’s day

This list could be extended. However, if Stone opposes ‘exclusion by silence,” let him produce a “thou shalt not” which forbids these things being practiced. Surely, he would not be so inconsistent as to say that “some things are excluded by silence but others are not.”

If Stone thinks he might have trouble applying the “excluded by silence” position with consistency, he should begin to look at the inconsistencies which have followed those who believe silence authorizes. Some think the Scriptures do not prohibit restructuring the Christian Church; some think the Scriptures do not prohibit fellowshipping the pious unimmersed; some think the Scriptures do not prohibit speaking in tongues, modern healing, etc.; some think that “rock gospel” should be used in worship. How consistently can Stone apply the “silence gives consent” position?

3. Stone minimizes the instrument by pointing to other divisions among us. He wrote,

Further, solving the instrument question cannot by itself bring about unity. The acapella churches of Christ give ample evidence of this sad truth within their own ranks. While none of their congregations use instrumental music in worship, they remain seriously fragmented over other issues (e.g. Sunday schools, individual Communion cups, orphanages, premillennialism, etc.)

My fellow editor needs to be reminded that accepting the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship will not bring unity among us. The Christian Churches give ample evidence of this sad truth within their own ranks. While all of their congregations use instrumental music in worship, they remain seriously fragmented over other issues (e.g. receiving into fellowship the pious unimmersed, verbal inspiration, use of “rock gospel” music, charismatic movement, ecclesiastical organizations, etc.).

Conclusion

Stone refuses to be bound by a “non-Scriptural legalism.” I join with him in that. I too refuse to be bound by a non-scriptural legalism. Worship that is prescribed and devised by man damns one to hell (Matt. 15:8-9; Col. 2:21-23). I want no part of that and neither does he.

However, we are disagreed over whether or not the mechanical instruments of music can be used in worship with the approval of God. This issue revolves, as it always has and always will, upon a discussion of what God’s word authorizes. If I am correct in teaching that mechanical instruments are not authorized, he and his brethren have sinned by introducing unauthorized innovations into worship and opening the way to many other unauthorized items. If he is correct that instruments of music in worship have divine approval, those of us who have opposed them have sinned by making laws where God has made none (1 Tim. 4:1-3). We are driven back to a study of the Scriptures to find where the truth lies.

I commit myself to an honest investigation of those Scriptures with Stone or anyone else. I am willing to give up anything I teach or practice which cannot be authorized by the word of God. If he will join me in that commitment, I am confident that we can understand what the God of heaven has revealed and join hands in practicing what He has authorized by command, example, or necessary inference.

Unity cannot be attained between us without discussing the issues which have divided us. We are not divided by faithful brethren failing to show love – either in this generation or the one which preceded us. We are divided because some things have been introduced into the worship, work, and organization of the church to which others object. Until these items are removed or shown beyond shadow of reasonable doubt to be authorized of God, so that a man who walks by faith can practice them, division will continue to exist. The only alternative is for a man to compromise his conscience to the point that he will fellowship those who are practicing what he considers to be sin. This I refuse to do. Though I treasure unity of Christians, I have no desire for unity with those who have forsaken the ways of God to practice things for which there is no Bible authority. The Bible not only forbids unity with these people (2 Jn. 9-11), but commands that Christians oppose them (Rom. 16:17-18; Rev. 2:14, 20). I intend to follow what my God has commanded.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 34, 54-55
January 16, 1986

By Lewis Willis

From the Adults! The greatest treasure this world has is its children. Potential that defies the imagination resides in these little ones. That potential will be either for good or evil. It is within the scope of our ability to determine and establish that the potential be good. However, it is a fatal mistake to think that it will be good just because we want it to be. There are forces at work which intend to assure that it is evil. And, these forces will stop at nothing to achieve their purposes. That which is upright, honest, truthful, virtuous, noble, honorable, respectable, just and fair will not so much as be considered in the pursuit of evil. The beauty and innocence of our children will not even stop the rush toward wickedness. In fact, it is becoming increasingly evident that worldly minds are willing to sacrifice even our precious children to establish their goals.

It will shock you to hear this, if you haven’t heard it already, but let me illustrate what I mean. The Akron Beacon Journal (11/8/85), reported that “the Dutch government has proposed lowering the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 years.” This legislation is to be presented to Parliament in February. If adopted, “it would be legal for adults to have sex with minors as young as 12, pro vided the minor had not been coerced or seduced with gifts or promises,” according to a Justice Ministry spokeswoman. Ans Koning, a spokeswoman for those who back this bill, said “adults who have sexual relations with youths should not be branded as criminals as long as they refrain from coercion. . . . This does not belong in criminal law.”

Thus, the Dutch government will have to decide whether a child of 12 is capable of deciding if he will become sexually active or not. I think a better thing for Parliament to consider is whether or not those who introduce such a ridiculous proposal have the mental capacity to be a part of a ruling body for a nation. Those who would introduce such an absurd law either do not know the mental capacity of 12-year old children, do not care what happens to them, or they are so committed to the cause of evil that the stop at nothing to achieve their purposes. In any case, they must be stopped! Child abuse must be stopped, whether is comes from some beastly, alcoholic, drugusing parent, or from legislators who would turn rapists loose on innocent, unsuspecting children. If adults are going to be turned loose on 12-yearolds, why not on those who are 10 or 8? Are people so stupid that they think a 12-year-old can evaluate all the consequences of the sex act? If so, the world is in worse shape than we thought.

On one occasion Jesus called a little child unto Him and, setting the child before His disciples, taught them some lessons they need to learn – lessons illustrated by the innocency and humility of the child. This is what He said about those who harm and abuse children: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him -that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6). It is better for a man to be killed than for him to deliberately cause harm and injury to an innocent child – to cause that child to go astray so that it is in jeopardy in God’s sight. It is hard to imagine the depravity of mind in one who would cause, or permit to be caused, such a thing to happen.

Children are presented to parents who are expected by God to love and cherish them, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Providing all of their needs – mentally, socially, morally, economically and spiritually – is the burden of their parents. No parent is what God wants him to be who neglects this responsibility (I Tim. 5:8). As a matter of fact, that passage says that one is worse than an infidel if he fails to make those provisions. Too many parents are A.W.O.L. where their children are concerned. One of the saddest commentaries on our times is that parents not only fail to protect their children from harm and need, but, frequently, they are the source of that harm.

I was just thinkin’, that many of us would be in censed if one of our Senators or Congressman introduced such a bill in Washington. We would be appalled that trusted representatives would at tempt to foist such evil upon our children – and rightfully so. However, I wonder how many of us, as parents, are working diligently in teaching, training and in disciplining our children in that which is good. Do we find the time to read God’s word to and with them? Do we pray with them regularly? Do we try with all our might to see that they are in Bible classes and have their lessons and pay attention to the study of God’s Word? Or, are we careless and indifferent toward their needs? If some politician should succeed in passing legislation such as that discussed herein, would your child know enough to see evil in such an idea? If not, we should all be praying, “Lord, protect our children from us and from all who would do them harm!”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, p. 38
January 16, 1986