Truth Magazine

By John W. Hedge

I once engaged a lady in conversation who denied the existence of God but who, as she expressed it, “worshiped the god of nature”. I observed that she used the word “creation” several times as she talked with me about her “god of nature.” Finally, I got her “flagged down” in her high praise of her “god of nature” to where I could ask a question about her repeated use of this word. The question was, “Can you have a creation without first having a creator?” I could see by the twitching of her face that she was stunned; but rallied with a smile saying, “Oh, I use that word with reference to nature,” to which I replied, “Yes, yes, I understand that you used it with reference to the god of nature which you worship, but my question still has not been answered. If nature is a “creation” who created nature?

Then I closed in for a little frank talk with this university graduate. I said, “Lady, you have been drinking too far down the stream of learning and the stream has become contaminated. You may not know it, but your class of nature worshipers is mentioned in the Bible. In the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the church of Rome, he speaks of a class who would become infidels simply because they did not like to retain a knowledge of God, “worshipers of the creation, more than the Creator who is blessed forever more” (Rom. 1:18-28). This lady tried to cast aside the truth I tried to teach her by saying, “I just don’t see it as you do – so you go your way of thinking and believing and I’ll go mine.” But I have an idea that what I taught her on that occasion stuck in her mind and ever afterwards. She was not as strong in worshiping her “god of nature” as she had been previously. In God’s creation as seen in the natural realm and, of which we are all a part in this world, everything bespeaks the fact of the existence of a Creator. Only the fool says in his heart, in order to shirk responsibility to God, “there is no God” (Psa. 14:1). But I wonder if there is any difference in God’s sight between the fool who says in his heart there is no God, and the man who avows his faith in God and yet lives as through there is no God. What about all ye who claim to believe in God?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 134
March 3, 1983

By Steve Wallace

With the giving of the Great Commission, the early disciples, as well as all Christians, received their marching orders. It is a commission to go “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). Of course, it is the gospel of Christ that is the “power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” Those who are lost in sin throughout the world cannot “come to the Father” without submitting to the Son (Jn. 14:6). The conditions which Jesus gave for salvation in Mark 16:16 are both belief and baptism.

As we have the early disciples for our example, let us “follow” them in seeking acceptable soil for the gospel seed to be sown in. We find the first instance of the commission being executed in Acts 2. Having heard the gospel preached the people asked the question, “What shall we do?” (v. 38). Taken in light of the conditions laid down in Mark 16:16, two things were necessary: (1) understanding; (2) positive reaction. One could not believe what he did not understand; nor would one be baptized if he did not react positively to the gospel message. So really we have three categories of people under consideration: (1) those who would both understand and react positively; (2) those who could not understand; (3) those who could understand but would not react positively. Let us briefly consider the latter two.

Those who contend that infants are fit subjects for baptism need to keep the divine order, i.e. belief before baptism, in mind. The argument made by some, that what Jesus said in Matt. 19:14 (“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me”) authorizes infant baptism misses the point of the verse entirely. The Lord went on to say, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” denoting the present innocent condition of little children. One must first be lost to be in need of salvation. The gospel is the divinely ordained means of saving the lost. In order to be scripturally baptized, one must first believe. That is, he must first understand before being able to positively react to the requirements the Lord has placed upon him. An infant cannot do this. Those who would find infants in the accounts of the household conversions in the book of Acts are not only guilty of presuming beyond the realms of divine revelation, they must also circumvent the order for salvation of believing first and then being baptized.

Let us now consider those who could understand but would not react positively. There were many people who heard the gospel preached by the early disciples who did not react positively. Some need to hear the gospel more than once (Acts 17:32). Some need to be studied with privately (Acts 18:26). It is necessary that a Christian not maximize the importance of one soul and minimize others. They are all the same in the sight of the Lord. The idea that we simply “must” convert one who is a member of our family or a close friend often ignores more fertile soil at the expense of what is often a wayside hearer. There are people in this world, perhaps representing the majority, who have no interest in their spiritual state (2 Cor. 4:3-4). People who are guilty of following religious traditions (Matt. 15:8-9) and those whose hearts have become hardened by sin (Matt. 7:6) are many times unwilling to make any change in obedience to the gospel. The Lord realized this and clearly shows what our reaction should be to such people (Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17-18; Acts 13:46).

Let us go forth preaching the gospel to the good and honest hearts round about us. Let us not be found seeking to baptize those who are incapable of believing. We ought also strive to be perceptive enough to realize when to turn from those who are unwilling to submit to our Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 134
March 3, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spears

Facts About Revelation 20

The twentieth chapter of Revelation is the passage millennialists and dispensationalists run to as a basis for their imaginary millennial kingdom. Since the expression “live and reign with Christ a thousand years” is found in that passage, they take it to be a literal thousand year reign here on earth. They make several miscalculations about the passage.

There is nothing in the passage to indicate an earthly reign of a thousand years. It simply refers to a reign without designating whether it is heaven or earth. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that all saints will reign with Christ. The passage specifies those “beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God.” There is nothing to indicate that the number 1,000 is to be regarded as a literal time period.

Here are pertinent facts about Revelation 20:

1.There is nothing in this chapter that is not taught elsewhere in the Bible. If so, what is it?

2.The context shows that the main idea is the conquest of Satan – not the thousand year reign with Christ.

3.If the number 1,000 is considered here as a literal time period, – it is the only place in Revelation where a number denoting a period of time is used literally. There is no exception to this. Let the millennialists show otherwise.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 133
March 3, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Does the Greek grammatical subjunctive in Galatians 6:10 and the context of the chapter authorize collective, general benevolence from a local church treasury?

Reply: Paul wrote in Galatians 6:10, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of faith.”

Those who believe and teach that the local church is to engage in general benevolence (extend relief to both saints and non-saints) rely upon this verse as a proof text. They assume that because the exhortation “let us” is in the plural, it must therefore mean the church. This is a wrong assumption, as the plural does not always involve collective action, as we shall see. An exhortation or a command may be addressed to a group, but the doing of it may be enjoined upon individuals rather than a collectivity. For a clear example of this, consider the familiar passage, Acts 2:38, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you. . .!” In the command to repent, pronoun “ye” is second person plural; whereas, in the command to be baptized “every one” is third person singular. The group is addressed but the command is to be obeyed by individuals. The same is true in Galatians 6:1, where Paul wrote, “Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” The exhortation is given to a group; “brethren” is plural and “ye” (Gr. humeis) is a plural nominative. But the obligation enjoined is not upon the local churches but upon individuals. We notice that Paul adds, “looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” “Thyself” (Greek: seauton) is masculine accusative singular and “thou” (Greek: su) is understood to be second person singular. It would be senseless to apply the latter part of the exhortation to collectivities, local churches.

The Galatian letter is addressed to churches, yet there are individual responsibilities in the epistle that are not to be performed by the churches. Already we have observed that verse 1 is a case in point. Then throughout the passage, beginning with that verse, it is obvious that the obligations are those of the individual. We observe that through verse 8 are the expressions “thyself,” “one another ,” “a man,” “himself,” “he,” “his ,” “himself ” “each man,” and “him.” In verse 9, Paul wrote, “And let us not grow weary in well-doing.” This admonition, as well as that which follows, is the conclusion of what he has written in the preceding verses. “Let us” in both verses is a hortatory subjunctive in the plural but involves individual, not collective, action.

A hortatory subjunctive is not always confined to collective action. Commenting upon this part of speech (the hortatory subjunctive), Dana and Mantey state: “When one exhorts others to participate with him in any act or condition, the subjunctive is used in the first person plural” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek N. T., p. 171).

The hortatory subjunctive is not always in the plural. There is an exception. I recently read a statement from the pen of a brother who was trying to prove that “let us” in Galatians 6:10 necessitates general benevolence upon the part of the church. He asserted that the hortatory subjunctive is always in the plural, but that is not true according to Dana and Mantey. They state: “The first singular of the subjunctive is sometimes used in a request for permission to do a thing (cf. Matt. 7:4; Lk. 6:42)” (Ibid., p. 171). So in the former instance as stated above, the hortatory subjunctive is always in the first person plural; however, in the latter instance just quoted, it is in the first person singular. Certainly, this has no bearing on Galatians 6:10 because we all agree that the hortatory subjunctive “let us” is in the first person plural, but the correction of an inaccurate statement is in order. In an exceptional case, this subjunctive can be used in the singular.

There are several examples of the hortatory subjunctive in the Hebrew letter, some of which we shall note. “Let us fear. . .” (4:1), “Let us therefore give diligence” (v. 11), “Let us hold fast our confession” (v. 14), “Let us therefore draw near” (v. 16), “Let us draw near” (10:22), “Let us lay aside every weight” (12:1), “Let us run with patience” (12:1). These hortatory subjunctives are used in the plural and they are examples of what is taught in Galatians 6:10. The author in each of these examples is exhorting others to participate with him. It is not the church, but individuals, who are to comply.

It is absurd to assume that because an exhortation is in the first person plural that it by necessity means the church or collective action. Those who insist that it does, should consider verse 13 of Galatians 6. Referring to Judaizers, Paul wrote, “but they have a desire to have you circumcised.” The pronoun “you” (Gr. humas) is second personal accusative plural. Paul was addressing churches, but was he saying that the Judaizers would have the churches circumcised? This would be nonsense. But if the plural “let us” in verse means the church, then why would not the plural “you” in verse 13 also mean the church? In a forum discussion several years ago in which I was engaged, I heard a brother declare that he was one of the very few who does believe that the church is to be circumcised. His statement that he was one of the very few who believes this is an understatement if ever I heard one, because I do not know of anyone who shares that view. He could not have meant spiritual circumcision because Paul adds in verse 13, “that they may glory in your flesh.” It was fleshly circumcision referred to by Paul.

The same writer who asserted that “according to the laws of Greek Grammar, a hortatory subjunctive is always in the first person plural. . .” is not only inaccurate on that point but also displays some poor logic. Referring to Paul he asks, “If he wished to imply a command to each individual in Gal. 6:10, why then did he not employ a third person singular imperative instead of changing to a hortatory subjunctive?” We simply ask in reply, if Paul wished to imply a reference to individuals in Galatians 6:13, why then did he not employ a third person singular instead of the plural “you”? What proves too much proves nothing; because, if the use of “let us” in verse 10 necessitates churches, then the plural “you” in verse 13 would do the same.

We have seen that the hortatory subjunctive, when used in the plural, may apply to individuals rather than churches. This is the case in Gal. 6:10 because the context of the entire passage (vv. 1-10) is individual. It is important that we properly distinguish between the scripturally authorized work of the church and that of the individual. This distinction is germane to the issues confronting the Lord’s people.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 132-133
March 3, 1983