Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

On my recent trip to America I heard several favorable comments concerning brother Mike Willis’ editorial, “A Plea For More Tolerance” which appeared in the March I Guardian of Truth. A few I talked to indicated that this indicated a change in policy and attitude on the part of brother Willis.

Editors get their fair (and unfair) share of criticism. In this case, I would like to give evidence that the attitude of brother Willis on this subject (continuous cleansing of the blood of Christ) has been brotherly throughout. He has been practicing what he preached in that editorial.

In late October 19811 submitted an article entitled, “Who Can Discern His Errors?” I later reminded Mike about the article and in a letter dated May 27, 1982 we began a correspondence on the subject. At that time, he did not want to print my article without a lengthy rebuttal, and I merely wanted the article to contribute to the current discussion without entering into a debate. But throughout our correspondence, Mike repeatedly showed that he was not in any way regarding me as a false teacher.

Here are some quotes from his letters: “I certainly do not consider you an enemy of righteousness, although I disagree

with you on this passage. What I think is that both of us need to give very careful attention to this verse (Psa. 19:12) that we might use it correctly in our discussions with the grace-unity brethren” (27 May 1982). In the article of rebuttal he wrote: “Do not misunderstand me I am not charging brother Williams with accepting any of the tenets of the grace-unity movement.” On 3 August 1982 he wrote: “I appreciate your amicable disposition in our correspondence. I hope that I am being equally kind and gentle in replying.” (He was, by the way.) Finally on 28 October 1982 he wrote: “Brother Williams, I have pressed you on the matter of how you should act toward those who are guilty of sins of ignorance. I am fully aware that you and I act the same way toward them. I am charging that these are the necessary conclusions from your argument and not that they are your conduct. I know that you will repudiate the conclusion.” And finally, “I look forward to hearing from you again and pray that the Lord will continue to bless you and your work.”

The tolerance that Mike pled for in March 1984 is the tolerance which he has been practicing. It is the tolerance which I believe all Christians should be practicing. In this spirit brethren can discuss subjects of difference and the result will only be good.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 532
September 6, 1984

By Ronny Milliner

What does fornication, murder, lying, abortion, adultery, instrumental music in worship to God, and church supported orphan homes have in common? There might be a number of things you might be able to think of, but one thing that these things have in common is an abuse of Matthew 12:1-8.

Individuals who believe that they can engage in the above practices have often used this passage of Scripture as a “proof text.” We want to examine their abuse and see exactly what is found in this passage.

Abuses By Modern False Teachers

Those who are familiar with situation ethics are probably aware of this passage being used to justify everything from murder to lying to fornication and more. Joseph Fletcher, author of Situation Ethics, wrote, “The plain fact is that love is an imperious law unto itself. It will not share its authority with any other laws, either natural or supernatural. Love is even capable of desecrating the Holy of Holies, the very tabernacle of the altar, if human hunger cries for help . . . . The periscope Matt. 12:1-8 . . . left no doubt about Jesus’ willingness to follow the radical decisions of love. He puts his stamp of approval on the translegality of David’s . . . act” (p. 85). Of course, Fletcher’s application is that anything could be permissible, depending on the situation in which one found himself.

An author associated with the Christian Church used this passage to ridicule our idea of the silence of the Scriptures. He wrote, “But this theory of . . . ‘law of prohibitive silence’ contradicts Jesus here, since God had not expressly stated anywhere that any others than priests could eat that bread and live, much less live and be justified by Jesus’ (sic). This is a case where not the letter but the real spirit behind the letter was observed in careful conformity to God’s intention and will” (Harold Fowler, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 610). If this argument be so, then there would be nothing wrong with playing instruments in worship to God. Plus, anything else that was not specifically prohibited would be permissible.

In an article entitled “The Exception-Making God,” brother Michael Hall writes, “The hunger of David and his men, the need of Jesus and His 12-member staff, the need of the physically maimed who sought to be healed on the Sabbath (Luke 13:11-17), etc., are all examples of human need that necessitated an exception to some rule . . . . God is flexible about His rules because he does care about men. That’s why the Bible is not a legal document, but a book of principles . . . everything is not as cut and dry as you might think!” (Ensign, January 1978, pp. 14,13). So the conclusion could be made that due to the physical needs of orphans, that we can set aside any rule that might be found in the Bible dealing with the matter in order to meet the needs of the orphans. In other words, the situation sets aside any law of God.

The Allegations Against The Disciples

The Pharisees accused the Lord’s disciples of breaking the Sabbath law. The violation as viewed by these Jews was in the act of the disciples’ plucking the heads of grain. The Pharisees would have called this action harvesting, thus work.

But were the disciples really breaking God’s law or were they just violating one of the many traditions of the Jewish fathers? The Law of Moses certainly prohibited harvesting on the Sabbath (Ex. 34:21). But that same law made a distinction between harvesting with a sickle and the simple plucking of a few heads of grain by hand (Deut. 23:25).

Actually, the Pharisees seem to have had the same problem that our Baptist friends have concerning the word “work.” When the Law commanded no “work” on the Sabbath, was all work or just some types of work forbidden? A study of the passages on the following chart shows that not all “work” was forbidden.

THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT

NOT PERMITTED	PERMITTED
1. Plowing and harvesting (Ex. 34; 21).	1. Holy convocation – worship to God (Lev. 23:3; Ezek. 46:3; Lk. 4:16-30.
2. Gathering sticks (Num. 15:32-36).	2. Afflict God’s punishment (Num. 15:32-36).
3. Kindling a home fire (Ex. 35:3).	3. Circumcision (Jn. 7:22-23).
4. Baking and boiling (Ex. 16:23).	4. Work of the Temple (Num. 28:9-10; Lev. 24:8; Mt. 12:5).
5. Treading, hauling and trading (Neh. 13:15-18).	5. Good works (Mt. 12:9-14).
WORKS OF PROFIT	WORKS OF GOD

Thus, the disciples had only violated the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law, not the Law itself. The Pharisees should “not have condemned the guiltless” (Mt. 12:7).

The Arguments Of Jesus

In answering the charge of the Pharisees, Jesus uses five arguments. His first argument is the case of David eating the shewbread. The Pharisees would not have wanted to condemn their great king David. Jesus, in appealing to this situation, does not justify or condemn David. He simply appeals to these Jews on their own ground. R.C. Foster, in his Studies in the Life of Christ, comments, “it is the ‘argumentum ad hominem’ – the argument based upon that which the opponent accepts. The Jews did not criticize David for eating the shewbread under such trying circumstances, why critize the disciples when they were but breaking the Pharisees interpretation of the Sabbath law?” (p. 457).

Jesus’ second argument concerned the work of the priests in the Temple. They had a number of duties in the Temple. For example, they were to double the daily sacrifices on the Sabbath. Would the Pharisees’ condemn the priests as violating the Law? Jesus adds, “But I tell you, there is something greater than the temple here!” (Mt. 12:6, Williams Translation). The priests worked in the service of the Temple, but the apostles worked in the greater service of Christ.

Argument number three was based on Hosea 6:6, “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Actually this statement is a Hebraism called “the limited negative,” and could be translated, “I desire not only sacrifice but also mercy.” God was not saying He had no desire for sacrifices, for it was He who had commanded sacrifices. But He also commands mercy. The work of Jesus, and so the work of His apostles, was the work of mercy.

The fourth argument is found in Mark’s gospel of this account. Mark 2:27 reads, “And He said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” The Sabbath was not made to be a burden on man. It was designed to give man a time to get away from his physical labors. He would thus have time to reflect on things spiritual and engage in the works of God. The Pharisees did not have the proper understanding of the Sabbath.

Finally Jesus shows this question is a matter of authority and that He “is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12:8). J.W. McGarvey summarized this last argument when he wrote, “As Lord of the day Jesus had right to interpret it and to apply it, and to substitute the Lord’s day for it. In asserting his Lordship over it, Jesus takes the question outside the range of argument and brings it within the range of authority” (The Fourfold Gospel, p. 213).

Conclusion

If this view that the human need takes precedence over any law of God is correct, then there would be no need to suffer for Christ. Every martyr that died for His Lord died needlessly if this view is so. Another consequence of this doctrine is that the will of man would be above the will of God. What God stated could only be applied by the will and situation of man. Every one would have their own interpretation in their situation making the law of God meaningless.

Disobeying even so-called “ceremonial law” carried grave consequences. Ask Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2). Instead of teaching a setting aside of divine law, Jesus taught that even the least commandment must be obeyed (Mt. 5:17-20; 23:23). We leave these modem thinkers with this question: Would Jesus have been justified in obeying the Devil by turning stones into bread, because of the “human need” for food (Mt. 4:1-4)? We think not.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 527-528
September 6, 1984

By Mike Willis

Sometimes Christians expect that life will always be pleasant. We should not become pessimistic and one with a bad attitude toward life. However, we are realistic. Adversities come into the lives of all mankind.

We should not be like those who become unrealistic in their “Positive mental attitude” approach. When five inches of rain has already fallen, the weatherman is predicting that the present rain will continue for two or three more days, the basement is flooding, and the rain presently is coming down in sheets, there is no need for me pasting a smile on my face, grinning fro ear to ear, and saying, “What a lovely day we are having!”

We wish that we could always live on the mountain tops. However, the would be no mountain tops were there no valleys, and every individual mus walk through the valleys. We are sometimes persuaded that Christianity i to be equated with living on the mountain tops–smiles, cheery disposition everything going the way we dream it should, etc. Unfortunately that unrealistic.

Adversities come in life. Every family faces such things as illnesses, deaths, loss of friends, loss of jobs, bills, and other unpleasant experiences associated with living. To face and overcome these problems of life, a Christian needs to have “patience.”

Patience Is Endurance

When we read that the Christian should add “Patience” to his faith (2 Pet. 1:6), some think of patience as the ability to control one’s tongue when he hits his fingernail with a hammer. The character trait involves much more than this. “Patience” (hupomone) means “the characteristic of a man who is unswerved from his deliberate purpose and his loyalty to faith and piety by even the greatest trials and sufferings” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon p. 644).

In Romans 5:34, Paul wrote, we glory in tribulations also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience hope . . . .” James added, “Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing” (Jas. 1:34). Tribulations and the trying of one’s faith produce the trait of “patience” or endurance and steadfastness.

It is true that prosperity has its own peril, and makes its own demands on the human spirit. But when the sky is clear above us, when loving friends stand round us with protecting care, when privileges abound on every side, it is comparatively easy to maintain an equable and obedient mind. We can row with the stream and sail with the favouring wind. But the hour must come to us that comes to all in time, when we have to face difficulty, or to bear obloquy, or to sustain heavy loss, or to go on out way with a lonely heart, or to suffer some keen and all but crushing disappointment (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 9, p. 475).

When such an adversity comes, one’s patience is tested. Will the Christi maintain his faith in God? Will he continue to worship God? Will he maintain his moral purity? Will he continue in prayer?

Adversity Displays One’s Strength

The proverb says, “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength small” (Prov. 24: 10). The day of adversity displays whether a person is strong or weak in faith. You will be tested, the same as the rest of us. Will yo faith sustain you in the crises of life?

In the hour of adversity, one must draw on the past reservoirs for faith. In the hour of trial, one does not have time to build up his faith. He draws from what he already has. That is why one must constantly be growing in faith–to be prepared when the trial comes. Every Christian needs to be studying the word of God, drawing close to God in prayer, bringing every relationship of his life in harmony with God’s will, and eradicating every sinful thought and deed from his life. By doing so, he is building his faith. When the adversity comes for such a person, he will find the strength to overcome the temptation and tribulation.

There are those Christians who are not redeeming the time in growing as they should as Christians. They do not read their Bibles, pray, visit the sick, try to teach the lost, or otherwise grow in the grace of Christ. Trials come for these kinds of Christians as well. Frequently, these Christians forsake the Lord in the hour of trial. We sometimes lament that such Christians might have been faithful to this day except some tremendous adversity fell upon them. We should remember that this adversity, which is common to the lot of all men, simply manifested that their faith was already weak.

Conclusion

We must all face the adversities of life. Consequently, we must be developing the perseverance and endurance in our character which will enable us to remain faithful in the hour of trial. “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise” (Heb. 10:36) let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us” (Heb. 12:1).

If the hour of trial should come upon you today, how well would your faith sustain you? Would your conduct in the hour of trial simply manifest to the world that you have not been growing and developing as a Christian should? Or, would your conduct demonstrate that you had been applying yourself diligently in becoming the mature Christian which God expects us to become?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 546, 569
September 20, 1984

By Don Willis

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork . . . ” (Psa. 19: 1). The Apostle Paul said, “. . . that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-29).

Little children look into the marvels of nature and exclaim that God is Great. When a little child looks at the magnitude of the stars, or views the shooting star, complete Divine amazement fills his heart. Children easily accept the truth: God is, God is All Powerful, God is Love!

Nature ascribes greatness unto God. The naked eye views the heavens and is made to wonder. There is no adequate means to describe the reality of the heavens, except God! In 150 A.D. Ptolemy claimed that there were about 3000 stars. Galileo, in 1608 A.D., with the assistance of the telescope, recognized that the stars are innumerable.

In 1924, with more modern telescopic ability, scientists estimated that there are over 100,000,000,000 (that is 100 Billion) suns in our galaxy. They further said, there were at least one trillion galaxies. If a person commenced to count the suns in the Milky Way alone, and could count 200 suns a minute, it would take 1000 years just to count the suns! Where did all this phenomena originate? The easiest explanation is, “The heavens declare the glory of God. . .”

The greatest wonder, short of God, is the mind of mankind! God made man with the capacity to look up toward the heavens, and to believe in the great God that created all. No other creature that He produced has this capacity. God made us excellently! Let us look and glorify Him!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 528
September 6, 1984