Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

Recently the Gospel Advocate carried an article by Richard Black, in which he says, “When brethren endeavored a quarter-century ago to bind where God had not legislated, valiant soldiers met Anti-ism head on and it careened into death throes. Only a remnant operating underground remains. Victors, in some quarters, became enchanted with success to the extent that they now march under the banner: Anything goes! The philosophical, enigmatical errors of liberalism intended to sweep as a tide.”

Black, like others of his thinking, has the foolish notion that one can keep his cake and eat it, too. The brethren a quarter-century ago were not trying to bind where God had not bound; they were trying to get men like Black to cease and desist in spiritual efforts which transgressed the law of God (2 John 9). Those brethren could not abide within the word of God and at the same time cause the church of Christ to engage in the works they so strongly desired. They chose to go beyond the word of God and do as they pleased in the matter. When faithful men of God stood in the way and asked for Bible authority for churches of Christ to be so engaged in them, they received no verses from the word of God, but were simply called “Anti.” To be called such was not a proper response, and neither did it solve the problem created by the liberal. Others think, like Black, that liberalism conquered the plea of God’s men who stood crying for Bible to support the practice of the churches; that they went into “death throes”; that “only a remnant operating underground remains.” This is what Rubel Shelly thinks. (See Freed-Hardeman Lectures, 1970, p. 33.) But more knowledgeable men say, “A substantial number of churches have come to oppose such cooperative programs of evangelism as the Herald of Truth and the homes for orphans and aged, as they are presently organized . . . . This is the most serious division, numbers-wise, that churches of Christ have suffered” (Bill Humble, The Story of the Restoration, p. 74).

Liberalism’s problem now is, anything goes! How true it is! If one opposed the efforts of liberalism in the churches he would be an “Anti”! Perish the thought. They cannot stop the onward digressive march liberalism is making in the churches and they know it. Black is whistling in the dark. How much better to have stayed with the truth.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 42, p. 678
October 23, 1980

By Mike Willis

We are constantly reading about someone going somewhere to preach the gospel in some area where it is desperately needed. Without detracting from what these good men are doing in hard areas, I would like to suggest that there is a neglected mission field very nearby to many of us. I am referring to the home.

Many homes exist in which only one mate is a Christian. Other homes raise several children without any of them choosing to become a Christian. The number of children of Christians who are lost to the world is large enough that it should be alarming to every Christian. The rise in the number of divorces which are occurring in the families who are Christians and the number of serious family problems facing Christian families reminds us of the need of the gospel in the home. These evidences portray the “Christian home” as a neglected mission field.

Although there are many directions to go in applying these observations, I would like to primarily direct attention to the situation which exists when one marriage partner is a Christian and the other is not. We are reminded that Christianity is not revolutionary with reference to existing social arrangements; marriages are not destroyed because one person becomes a Christian and the other does not (I Cor. 7:12-24). However, there come times when a person, desiring to be obedient to the Lord, must choose between serving the Lord and holding on to his mate (Matt. 10:34-39). In cases where one marriage partner becomes a Christian and the other does not, what is the Christian to do?

The apostle Peter wrote the following instructions directed to this situation. He instructed Christian women regarding how they should conduct themselves toward their unbelieving husbands.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting tee hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement (1 Pet. 3:1-6).

Let us notice the following observations drawn from these verses.

1. These verses presuppose the study of God’s word. In the opening verse, Peter mentioned the failure of the attempt to convert the unbeliever with the word. I would suggest, first of all, that every person who is married to an unbeliever should begin by studying the word of God with him. I have frequently heard Christians warn people who came to visit them not to mention the Bible because the mate was not a Christian. A person might conclude that they are afraid that they might hear the gospel and become a Christian, judging by this conduct. If I were married to a non-Christian, I would want those who might have some influence over my mate to do what they could to teach her the gospel. Hence, if you are married to a non-Christian, begin by trying to teach the word of God to him.

2. Use the influence of a holy life. In the event that teaching the gospel does not have an impact on the non-Christian, the Christian mate has no right to use pressure to try to make the unbeliever obey the gospel. Withholding conjugal rights, pouting, and other forms of misconduct used to bring pressure on the unbeliever will only cause a deep resentment. The only influence which can be brought upon the unbeliever other than the teaching of the revealed word is the influence of a holy life. Consequently, Peter mentioned things which should be characteristic of the holy life of a Christian wife trying to influence her unbelieving companion.

a. Be in subjection. Becoming a Christian does not release the wife from her responsibility to be subject to her husband. All wives are commanded to be in subjection to their husbands (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-23); hence, the same is required of the Christian wife married to a non-Christian husband. However, this is even more necessary for the Christian married to the unbeliever. She must so conduct herself that he sees the virtue of her life and desires to become a Christian. Refusal to be subject to her husband would be damaging to her attempts to convert her husband.

The subjection of the believer to the unbelieving husband needed to be stated for another reason. Frequently the believer is subjected to forms of abusive treatment because of her faith in God. The husband might blaspheme the Christ who died for us. He might impose hardships which make it difficult for her to assemble with the saints or in some other way make it difficult for her to serve her Lord. Nevertheless, she must be in subjection to her husband. These are not reasons for rebelling against God’s holy commandment to be subject to the husband.

b. Chaste conversation. The second thing which Peter commanded of the believing companion was chaste manner of life (conversation in the AV refers to manner of life and not merely one’s speech). The word from which chaste is translated means “pure from carnality, chaste, modest” and “pure from every fault, immaculate” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 8). Hence, the believing wife must be sure that her- conduct is above reproach.

She must be careful to maintain her-purity for her husband. Hence, she should dress in such a way that she does not call attention to her body (1 Tim. 2:9-10). She should not be a flirt or man chaser. She should not put herself in compromising situations which might make her husband suspicious or jealous. In every way, she should reserve herself sexually for her husband and him alone.

Her blameless conduct should also show itself in other aspects of her life. Her speech should be pure. Her house should be well-kept. She should prepare meals suitable to the budget and the man’s taste. In no way should she leave herself open to the criticism that she is spending all of her time at the church and leaving her responsibilities related to the home undone. In all of these matters, she should conduct herself above reproach.

c. Reverence the husband. Peter instructed that the wife should manifest “chaste conversation coupled with fear” (I Pet. 3:2). The word phobos is not referring to “terror” but to “reverence and respect.” The example of Sarah’s reverence for her husband Abraham, calling him “lord” (1 Pet. 3:6) demonstrates what Peter meant. The unbelieving husband should be respected.

Though there are cases in which a husband so abuses his wife that she cannot respect him, these cases are rare. In normal cases, the husband gets along with his wife in every respect except that he is not a Christian. The wife should respect such a man as this. He goes to work every day, brings home his pay-check for the family to use; he does not indulge his appetites by wasting his money on drinking, gambling, or wasteful luxuries. Such a man deserves the respect of his wife. The Christian wife should give the respect which is properly due such a man, not withholding it simply because he is not a Christian.

d. Limited emphasis on outward adorning. Peter commanded that the Christian wife should not place an undue emphasis on the outward appearance. Some have mistaken the construction of this verse to make it teach that this is an absolute prohibition of women wearing jewelry or plaiting the hair. If that is so, the same verse becomes an absolute prohibition against her wearing clothes, for all three are mentioned in the same list (1 Pet. 3:3)! Instead of that being what Peter is saying, he is emphasizing the need of not making these things one’s primary emphasis. John 6:27 contains a similar construction. There Jesus said, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life . . . .” Jesus was not commanding men not to work for a living; He was simply emphasizing the need for working for something more important than bread alone. That is exactly what Peter is saying in this verse.

The Christian woman should not place such an emphasis on the adorning of the body that the spirit is neglected. Some women chase after the things pertaining to outward appearance to such an extent that the home is disrupted thereby. I have known some women who constantly kept their husbands in debt or broke in order to pay for the clothes, shoes, jewelry, knickknacks, and other unneeded items. A Christian woman will not treat her husband in this manner; if she does, she only causes him to disrespect her.

A word of caution needs to be mentioned here. This verse is not commending the woman who has no concern for how she looks or keeps house. The woman who does not comb her hair, wash her face, spruce up a little, and otherwise take care of her body is not more spiritual than the one who does these things. The truth of the matter is that the woman who lets herself go is likely to lose a husband. This immoral world holds too many attractions to allure the husband whose wife makes no effort to be attractive to him!

e. Emphasis on the character. The Christian wife will be primarily interested in adorning the spirit, not merely the body. She realizes that the spirit is incorruptible (1 Pet. 3:4). I might add that it is also precious in the sight of man! Poverty may keep a woman from wearing fancy clothes and old age may dim the beauty of the body but nothing can prevent one manifesting a well-adorned spirit.

Beauty will fade with age. A beautiful wife with an ungodly, ugly disposition cannot hold a husband very long before he will be wanting to look somewhere else. The woman whose sole concern is an attractive body well adorned is unaware that she is “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). The kind of spirit which this woman needs is one that is meek and quiet.

The word praeos is defined as “gentle, mild, meek.” Some equate meekness with weakness; however, it should be remembered that Jesus was described as meek (Matt. 11:29). The word esuchios is defined as “quiet, tranquil.” It is the same word as appears in 1 Tim. 2:2; hence, it is not referring to silence. Both of these words describe a disposition which is the opposite of that of a self-asserting, caustic, stormy, bitter disposition. This is quite a contrast to the picture of woman presented by supporters of the E.R.A. Nevertheless, these are the traits demanded by the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

The Christian wife who is married to an unbeliever might truly desire to do more for the advancement of the gospel of Christ. She might wish that she could go with a Christian husband into a foreign land to preach the gospel. Such cannot be the case. However, she needs to realize that there is a mission field in her home. No doubt, in addition to her unbelieving companion, there will be children born into the family. She can take the gospel to each of them. Let her begin by trying to teach the word to her husband and children. If this fails, she should try to win these people for Christ by her conduct.

Unfortunately, God has not revealed that the unbeliever will become a believer in every case in which this is done. She might do her best to teach her mate and live a blameless life before him and still lose her husband to the Devil. She should not blame herself or feel that she has failed as a Christian in such a case. Rather, she should persevere in living a life which pleases the Lord.

I remember worshiping with a woman who had several kids a few years ago. A number of times, I tried to talk to her husband about the gospel. Every time that I failed, I wondered whether or not she was leading a good example before him. As the years have passed, I have watched every one of her children grow up. All of them are faithful Christians; two are married to Christians. Nevertheless, her husband remains an unbeliever. I admire that woman more every day as I contrast the impact of her godly life upon her family with that of other women in the same situation as her who lose their children. She never dressed luxuriously, never caused any. problems in the church, was always ready to address the bulletin, clean the building, or teach a class as she had the opportunity to serve, and to do whatever she could to promote the kingdom of God. I pay tribute to her and the hundreds of God-fearing sisters which I have in Christ who are doing what they can in their own private mission field to win the lost for Christ. God bless each of them.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 42, pp. 675-677
October 23, 1980

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Paul wrote in 2 Tim. 3:11, “Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at 1conium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.” How is is that the Lord delivered him out of them all, yet he endured them?

Reply: The Greek word for delivered is from ruomai and means rescued. The same word is used in Matt. 27:43 when the enemies of Jesus passed by the cross and railed on him, saying, “He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now . . . .” The word is also used with reference to Paul’s deliverance from this body of death (Rom. 7:24), to his deliverance from the mouth of the lion (2 Tim. 4:17) and from every evil work (2 Tim. 4:18). The primary meaning of the passage under consideration is that the Lord rescued Paul from the hands of his enemies. Paul was rescued from the hands of his enemies who had left him for dead at Lystra (Acts 16:19). There was yet work for Paul to do.

In another sense, the Lord delivered Paul from these afflictions and persecutions by providing him with the strength to endure them. This is the idea expressed in 2 Cor. 12 concerning his “thorn in the flesh.” He had besought the Lord three times to remove it but the Lord told him, “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my power is made perfect in weakness” (v. 9). Paul then concluded, “Most gladly therefore will I glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (emphasis mine, HH, 2 Cor. 12:9, 10).

The Scriptures do not teach that we, as Christians, will be free from afflictions and persecutions (2 Tim. 3:12), but they do teach that God will supply us with the strength to endure them. Neither are we free from temptations, but God delivers us from falling into them by providing the way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). It is tragic that we do not always take the route of escape. Paul wrote in Phil 4:13, “I can do all things through him that strengtheneth me.” God supplied Paul with the strength to carry out God’s will in spite of afflictions and persecutions. Paul was rescued from the hands of his enemies in some instances, and in afflictions, the strength of the Lord enabled him to endure them. We are not free from trials today, but when we put our trust in the Lord and obey Him, He is with us (Ps. 23:4) and He will supply the strength for us to endure them.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 42, p. 674
October 23, 1980

By Herschel E. Patton

Is the above expressed desire and advice good or bad? It depends on what is meant. If the advice is to think and act independent of every wind that blows or persuasive influence rather than to be like a “reed shaken by the wind” or a bark “tossed about by wind and wave,” it is good. The Bible condemns this: “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14). “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed” (Jas. 1:6).

But, if the advice, and desire, is to utterly disregard every consideration and influence except your own fleshly desires and appetites, it is bad. Both the Bible and experience teach that children or men “left to themselves” come to disaster (Prov. 29:15; Rom. 1:21-32).

The me of the advice and desire mentioned, and often expressed, is the person and life-style that one has found through personal experimentation to give pleasure or satisfaction. “Whatever gives you satisfaction or fulfillment and makes you happy,” we are told, is what you should be and do. This is “finding oneself” and discovering the real me! This is what is meant by these ear-tickling platitudes so frequently desired and advised. Thus, if one is “turned on” by sexual freedom without marriage, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, commune living, etc., if he finds fulfillment and satisfaction in such, he has found the real “me” and, we are told, he ought to be accepted by society because “That’s the way he is.”

The same philosophy is followed in selecting a church and being religious. “Me” is god. It is always “me,” “my,” “mine,” “how I feel,” “-what I think,” or “what I like” that inspires and activates the devotees of this philosophy. It is humanism, pure and simple. It is a philosophy that rejects God, man as a living soul answerable to his creator, the Bible as God’s divine revelation, and would discourage being influenced by parents, laws, church, school, or any segment of society.

The Worse Advice You Can Receive

“Be your own self,” according to this popular philosophy, is the worst and more destructive advice you could receive, and your fancied desire “to be me” is the most deceptive and damning desire you can have. Why? Because “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die” (Rom. 8:13). “To be carnally minded is death” (Rom. 8:6). “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:8). “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12).

If you will not accept this truth from Scripture, just look at history – the destruction of ancient Rome and numerous other nations that became humanistic, or look about you, at the unhappiness and disastrous end of thousands who followed a humanistic course.

Finding The Real “Me”

No one needs to set out to find “who I am – myself the real me.” This is not a hidden, concealed matter. God, your Creator, has shown who and what you are or should be. You are a human being, a living soul (Gen. 2:7), composed of body and spirit (Matt. 10:28), responsible for “glorifying God” here on earth and answerable to Him.

What you actually are (made yourself into) is clearly visible to others, as well as yourself, through your attitude and deeds. Maybe you are a selfish, pompous fool (Luke 12:16-20)! Maybe you are an ignorant, decieved worshipper (Matt. 7:21-23)! You can learn from the Bible (God’s mirror) what you really are and what you need to do. Neither society nor your own heart (mind) are true mirrors.

But, you say “I doubt the Bible!” Are you saying there is more logical evidence for human thought and feelings as authority for right and wrong, success and failure, than there is for Scripture?.I challenge anyone to find -a contradiction, an untruth, or a recommended course of action that results in destruction and ruin in Scripture: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:9). “. . . the foolishness of God is`wiser than man; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25).

What You Should Desire And Seek

Instead of wanting, to be “Me” or “Your own self,” you should desire to be ` od’s man or woman.” The apostle Paul is a good example. “I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

If that rich farmer of Luke 12 could have submerged “I” and “my” into “God’s will,” he would not have been a fool destined for eternal death. The prodigal son of Luke 13 left home in search of himself -the real me – through experimentation with riotous living. When he finally “came to himself,” he saw the “me” of riotous living; he did not like what he saw. He was in a pig pen, poorly clad, and hungry. In contrasting the “me” then with the one of former years, he realized that he had acted foolishly. He had set out to find what he already had in his father’s house – happiness, fullness, and satisfaction.

If you will deny and crucify self, sink your will into God’s will, and follow His leading carefully, you will like “yourself,” be liked by society, and, most of all, especially be loved by God. Living for self will never bring happiness; it will make you obnoxious to others, a stinch in the nostrils of God, and result in your denial and condemnation at the judgment for eternity. Quit trying to find “yourself” and “searching for me” and get busy making the present “you” into a man or woman of God.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 42, pp. 673-674
October 23, 1980