Truth Magazine

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

By John McCort

The psalmist David exclaimed, “I will praise thee; for I am fearful and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). As scientists continue studying the human body, they are discovering how intricate and well-organized the human body actually is. Scientific technology has been able to point out the fact that the human body is not a chaotic, disorganized mass but is a very well designed and well organized object.

The evidence of design has been magnified by some recent research done on the human eye.

The human eye is such a wonderful optical instrument that it has long been pointed to as an organ too complex to have evolved by chance. Recent research has served to re-enforce this argument. Experiments have been conducted to determine the ultimate sensitivity to light of the human eye. The amazing result is that an eye may be stimulated by as little as six quanta of light. A quantum of light is an extremely small amount of electromagnetic energy. It is the smallest packet of energy of which light consists. It is the ultimate in smallness. The research results indicate that the alteration by light of only two or three molecules in the eye results in the brain receiving an impression of light. This is as close to ultimate sensitivity as can be desired. This incredible sensitivity is evidence of the high level of perfection of nature. However, still more remarkable is the fact that two or three molecules must be affected to produce a sensation of light. Sometimes molecules break down spontaneously. If the brain did not require the coincidental breakdown of two or three, the brain might be deceived by false impressions of light coming from the accidental death of a molecule instead of the arrival of a quantum of light. How likely is it that this wonderful organism was produced by a series of lucky accidents? The odds against it are staggering (Paul Zimmerman, Darwin, Evolution, and Creation, p. 93).

The evidence of supreme design is found everywhere from the vastness of the universe to the most minute particles of matter. Everything is suspended on a delicate balance. How could anybody but a fool say there is no God!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, p. 667
October 16, 1980

By Lynn Trapp

Brethren who oppose the use of a plural number of drinking vessels in the Lord’s Supper have for years tried to make an effort to fit the figure of speech, metonomy, into their scheme of things. These brethren seem unable to avoid seeing some significance to the drinking vessel which the Lord “took” (Kittel says it was “. . . the pitcher which stood filled on the table . . .,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6, p. 148) when He instituted the supper. Therefore, these brethren have devised a series of “rules” which they believe govern this figure of speech. These “rules” were recently given by Richard D. Frizzell in the Old Paths Advocate (Jan. 1, 1980, pp. 3, 9-10). He said,

From the above definitions of Metonomy we learn several facts about this figure of speech: (1) The object named is not the thing suggested; (2) There is a real object, not an imaginary one, named; (3) both the thing named and the thing suggested-must exist; (4) In metonomy of the “container for the thing contained” the container named must contain the thing suggested; and (5) One can only suggest the contents of as many cups as he names (p. 9, emphasis his, LT).

I should point out that no qualified grammarian has ever been produced who confirms these “rules.” Instead, they have been contrived and devised, most likely by Ervin Waters. E.W. Bullinger says, “No one is at liberty to exercise any arbitrary power in their (figures of speech, LT) use . . . . There is no room for private opinion, neither can speculation concerning them have any authority” (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. xi). I propose to demonstrate that Frizzell’s “rules” are “private opinion” and “speculation,” therefore, they have no authority:

“Rule” number one says, “The object named is not the thing suggested.” This statement is very true except for one thing – the application made by brother Frizzell is totally incorrect. First, he contradicts himself when he says, “So do not let the big word Metonomy frighten you. It simply means that two things are suggested to the mind by the mention of one of them which readily suggests the other” (p. 9). 1 am not “frightened” by the word metonomy, but I am frightened by brother Frizzell’s use of it. He tells us that the thing named is not the thing suggested, and then does an about face and tells us that it is the thing suggested. Thus, he gives the word “cup” both figurative and literal significance at the same time, a thing impossible in metonomy (even though sometimes, when the thing named has to be present, such as a drinking vessel to contain liquid, it still has no significance in the metonomy). The points of Frizzell’s “rule” are that the object named is not the thing suggested and, in addition to this, the object named does not have significance in the sentence in which it is used as a figure of speech. Please notice some specific cases. (All the passages used are listed by Bullinger as illustrations of Metonomy of the Subject under the sub-heading of “container for the thing contained.”) Deuteronomy 28:5 says, “Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.” In this passage the basket and the kneading bowl are used to represent their various contents; and yet, no special blessing is upon the containers themselves, but the produce of the land which they would contain. In Psalms 49:11 where the “inner thought is, that their houses continue forever,” the houses, which are put for the “households,” have no significance. “They do not desire that their houses, i.e. buildings, continue forever, but that their families do. (See also 1 Tim. 3:4)

The second “rule” is that “there is a real object, not an imaginary one, named.” I would ask here, when the “altar” (Heb. 13:10) is named to suggest the sacrifice of Christ, what “real object” is being named? If it is the cross, then I would ask in what sense one applies the word “altar” to the cross? The cross is a figurative altar, but it is not a “real” altar. David said, “Thou doest prepare a table before me in the presence -of mine enemies” (Psa. 23:5). What “real” table is named in this passage? What significance is there to the “house” and “tent” of Proverbs 14:11? Do the wicked only live in houses and the upright only in tents? The scriptures, written by the inspiration of God, do not substantiate Frizzell’s “rules.”

The third “rule” listed by brother Frizzell says, “both the thing named and the thing suggested must exist.” The only thing wrong with this “rule” is that it is just not so. Edom was told that they would drink of “the cup” (Jer. 49:12). The thing suggested by reference to “the cup” is the punishment by God mentioned in verses 7-11. I, personally, know of no “real” drinking vessel which could contain an intangible like punishment. Perhaps Frizzell can tell us what “real” cup is named in Jeremiah 49:12. This point can be seen even clearer in the prophecy of Ezekiel (23:31-33). The content of the cup is “horror and desolation” (v. 33). No “real” cup exists and no “real” cup is being named. Real drinking vessels do not contain horror and desolation; they contain only tangible objects like liquids. In fact, it would be as impossible to put horror and desolation into A real drinking vessel as it is to put love and devotion into a bottle.

“Rule” four maintains that “the container named must contain the thing suggested.” In this “rule,” Frizzel says that because “cup” is named, a bottle, a pitcher, or a bowl cannot be the drinking vessel used in the Lord’s supper. I ask, must the cup always contain fruit of the vine in order to be the “cup of the Lord”? Webster defined “drink” as to “a. swallow . . . b. to take in . . . c. to take in or receive in a way suggestive of a liquid being swallowed.” If the container must always contain the contents, then one has not drunk the “cup of the Lord” unless he “swallows” or “takes in” a drinking vessel containing the fruit of the vine. If not, why not? But, again, the scriptures will not substantiate this “rule.” Noah’s house (Gen. 7:1) was told to enter the ark. In .this case, the “household” (the thing suggested) is contained by the ark and not the “house” (the thing named). Since Proverbs 14:11 mentions the “house of the wicked” and the “tent of the upright,” are we to understand that all wicked persons must be contained in one (see “rule” 5) house and all upright persons must be contained in one tent? Surely, the folly in such reasoning is clearly evident.

Brother Frizzell’s last “rule” – “one can only suggest the contents of as many cups as he names” – is more devoid of proof than all the others combined, and yet, this is the one they must prove in order to make metonomy fit their doctrine. Jacob asked Laban, “But now, when shall I provide for my own house” (Gen. 30:30)? In spite of this, we find that his “house” was contained by, at least, four different and separate dwelling places (Gen. 31:33), not any one of which was a “house.” The father of Moses was of the “house of Levi” (Exod. 2:1); but, surely, we are not expected to believe that the great number of Levi’s descendants, which must have been living in the time of the captivity, were all dwelling or being contained in one house. Yet, according to Frizzell, since only one house is named, only the contents of one house could have been suggested. But it gets worse! Ezekiel mentions those from the “house of Togarmah” (Ezek. 27:14). Togarmah was the greatgrandson of Noah. Can you image how large the building would have been in order to contain the family of Togarmah in the time of Ezekiel? Further, Joshua 13:6 mentions the “hill country” of Lebanon. Since only one hill is named, we are to believe that there is only one hill in Lebanon? Obviously, as Bullinger suggests, “hill” is named to suggest the “mountainous region” (p. 575). Also, the “grave” of Isaiah 38:18 cannot be stretched to mean that all the dead persons in Isaiah’s time were interred in one grave. This so-called “rule” makes absolutely no sense, scriptural or otherwise.

Brother Frizzell’s “rules” have all fallen by the wayside in the face of scriptural facts. He and his brethren will have to search elsewhere for substantiation of their divisive “one drinking vessel” concept, for metonomy gives them no hope; it rather establishes that “the cup” is not the literal drinking vessel, as far as significance is concerned, but is the contents, the fruit of the vine.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 666-667
October 16, 1980