Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

Some of the most dedicated Christians that I have known have been members of our Armed Forces. Being part of the military community they are trained to follow orders, remain at combat readiness at all times, make whatever sacrifices needful (including separation from home and family, even loss of life and limb), and place duty and honor, courage and country before all other worldly things. My work with congregations made up of military personnel has shown them to be (generally speaking, of course) just as sacrificial and dutiful in the cause of Christ, and often even more so, than in their service to their homeland. This observation is made not to extol the virtues of militarism or unduly compliment one segment of the brotherhood but for the sole purpose of taking note of the underlying cause of Paul’s selection of one of his great metaphors: that of the Christian as soldier.

“Fight the good fight of faith . . .” (1 Tim. 6:12) is a charge issued to those who are engaged in conflict, spiritual in nature, but conflict nevertheless, no less deadly than that fought in the carnal sphere. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God . . .” (Eph. 6:12-13): and, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” (2 Cor. 10:3, 4).

Those who take upon themselves the work of soldiering recognize hardship as a component of the soldier’s life. Total dedication is an absolute essential also: “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him as a soldier” (2 Tim. 2:3-4).

But there are soldiers and there are soldiers. As Thomas Paine forcefully pointed out in the springtime of our own land of liberty: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country” (The Crisis, 1776). A crisis of one type or another is usually the means by which we may distinguish the true patriot and soldier from the “summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” as well as the mercenary warrior. Our own recent crisis in Viet Nam revealed the half-hearted commitment to liberty (stimulated by socialistic and liberalistic trends of thought and philosophy) which characterized a large segment of the youth of the sixties.

This is a dramatic demonstration of the point with which we currently concern ourselves: crises bring out the best or the worst in us. Oh, it is there all the time, either lurking in the deepest recesses of our minds or cradled in our heart of hearts. Timidity or heroism, disreputation or honor, self-love or sacrifice, cowardice or conscience – and the crisis of a moment, the “zero hour” of conflict and battle, or even the threat of it will betimes act as the necessary stimulus which betokens who we really are and where we really stand, or even whether we stand at all.

In the church, the crisis of issues quite often lets us in on who the real troopers are. It also identifies the summer soldiers. When the missionary society and instrumental music questions threw the church into the awesome and traumatic ordeal of division, those who were willing to fight the progress of digression were few and far between. But they faced more than mere loneliness for the struggle was carried on at great cost to themselves and their families and to all who were sympathetic to the cause. No one would have loved peace more than them, but if they had quietly sat by and watched the church go back into denominationalism we would have little honored their memory. And the God who told them to “buy the truth and sell it not” would have had little pleasure in such compromising ways either.

A comparable situation has arisen in the more recent problems over institutionalism, centralization, and liberalism. In many cases, men have held fast to biblical precedent and the New Testament pattern for the church and its work at great personal cost and sacrifice, while others who today hold seats of authority and prestige in those very institutions and agencies often flip-flopped in order to “swim with the current” on these issues: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Guy N. Woods, Bill Humble, Earl West, Harold Hazelip, to mention but a few. The quotations of Guy N. Woods still come back to haunt him from his Annual Lesson Commentary and other sources. Moreover, his recent silence on points of conflict with Ira North, editor of the Gospel Advocate point out this willingness to hush up in order not to rock the boat. It would be very difficult for us to believe that he does not oppose many things that are currently happening across the brotherhood, knowing his past positions. Earl West’s tract on Church Cooperation remains today as sound as it was when he preached the sermon that was its basis – even though the same could not be said of brother West. Bill Humble’s thesis written at the University of Iowa on the problem of cooperatives in the early restoration movement is a sufficient rejoinder to the position he now occupies on the cooperation issue. On and on we could go. Preachers who worked in those days tell of the numerous men who talked a good fight and whispered a good stand but then felt the breeze to see which way the wind was blowing. Upon finding out that it was not blowing their way they adjusted their convictions and their preaching to fit the flow of brotherhood opinion.

What has all of this to do with the present and the future? Just this: every new generation seems to face a new set of issues or problems. Some depart from the faith and some faithfully enter the struggle armed with the Sword of the Spirit, ready to suffer whatever may be their lot. They know that the scars of war will be deep and painful. They know that the contest itself will be dreadful and nightmarish. They shudder and march on in resignation. Yesterday’s friends will be today’s foes. Comrade-at-arms will lose their courage and flee the lines of battle leaving them to fight alone. Worse yet, traitors will try to cover their flight from truth by switching sides. When the engagement is over the soldier, wounded and bleeding, will stumble home only to meet barbs of criticism from his supposed friends and fellow-countrymen. They did no fighting. They never even went near the battle zone. But they know best how the war should have been conducted. Armchair generals they are; and still no stroke from the declared enemy could smart like theirs do. Later generations may applaud and call one a hero. For now he will be labeled a brute and a barbarian.

Yet such is a soldier’s life, whether he fights in the forces that protect the native land or in the legions of the Lord. He does not fight to please the crowds or satisfy the public or on account of his thirst for blood or even as a “soldier of fortune” but because right is on his side and he is on the right side. The great general Douglas MacArthur once said, “No one loves peace more than a soldier.” I suspect he is right, for none knows the real horror of war save the man with experience on the front. However, peace is too expensive when right and justice and truth are the price.

For the soldier of the cross a whole host of crises could be listed; the crisis of preaching support, of inflation, of hard times, of lack of appreciation; of failure, of closed doors, of indifference, of laziness and lethargy in the church, of too little help, of too few hours in the day, of persecution, of lack of love, of worldliness, and many, many more. Whatever the crisis may be, though it really boils down to this: what kind of a soldier are you? What kind am I? Paine’s immortal words could well be rephrased to fit the case: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his Master.” Paul wrote, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life . . . ” If we fail or flee the contest it will not be the fault of the cause for which we fight or the weapons with which we fight or even the enemy which we fight. The fighter, the soldier will be to blame. The annals of military history are rife with examples of courage, sacrifice and heroism in the waging of carnal combat. Can we afford to do less? Can the Lord’s people afford to offer less than men who usually only squabble over land boundaries?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, pp. 247-248
April 10, 1980

By Bina Beasley

For approximately ten years I was a member in good standing of the Cool Springs Baptist Church of Cool Springs, Kentucky. I had become a Baptist about five years before my marriage to W.M. Beasley and remained a Baptist for another five years after our wedding. During a part of my ten years as a Baptist I served as secretary for the Baptist Sunday School. I also served as song leader; I would stand by the organ and lead the singing during worship services.

Most of the Baptists with whom I worked and worshiped were hard working, sincere, good moral individuals. My decision, after much study, to leave the Baptist Church was not the result of hard feelings against Baptist brethren. I left because there were things in the Baptist Church which were not to be found in the New Testament scriptures.

Among those things which I failed to find in the New Testament, but which things were a prominent part of the Baptist religion, were the “mourner’s bench salvation” and voting people into the church. People were exhorted, through Baptist preaching, to come to the mourner’s bench and pray through for salvation (i.e., pray until they could persuade God to save them). According to the New Testament, I have learned that the persuasion was going in the wrong direction. God does not need to be persuaded to save; He gave His Son that He might save sinful men. The beloved apostle Paul wrote, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11). When the mourners had “come through,” as they called it the preacher would take (have them tell) their experience. The preacher would then ask something like, “Do you believe that God for Christ’s sake has pardoned your sins and saved you?” Upon receiving an affirmative answer he would further ask, “Do you want to be baptized and join the church?” After another answer of “Yes,” the Baptist preacher would say to the congregation, “You have heard their experience; all in favor of receiving them into the church and giving them full fellowship after baptism, show the right hand.” They taught that a person was saved without being baptized in obedience to Christ’s command (Mark 16:16); but, that same individual had to be baptized to be a member of the Baptist Church. According to Baptist doctrine, as I was taught it for ten years, it is easier to be saved and go to heaven than it is to become a Baptist.

I was taught, believed and would contend with my husband that “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) meant “because of the remission of sins.” I believed, because of Baptist teaching, that one’s sins were remitted (forgiven) and then he was to be baptized. I could not believe, nor does any Baptist that I know teach, that “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28) means that Christ shed His blood on the cross of Golgotha because of the remission of sins. I do believe, and Baptists ought to believe, that the two (Acts 2:38; Matt. 26:28) mean the same thing: Christ shed His blood “for (in order to, the remission of sins,” and that man is baptized, in obedience to the Christ, “for (in order to) the remission of sins. “

While a member of the Baptist Church I attended business meetings held for both men and women and voted on things pertaining to the work and worship of the Baptist Church. This voting was done, once again, by showing the right hand. I showed my right hand enough while I was a member of the Baptist Church to last me from now on.

Another problem which I had as a Baptist was believing what was taught about not falling from grace (the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” or the impossibility of apostasy). In a sermon on this subject the local Baptist preacher, J.H. Towe, said, “I could be going down the road with brother Joe Fulton and shoot him down, and it would not touch my salvation.” I knew from studying my New Testament (Rom. 13:9; 1 John 3:15) that this could not be right.

During most of my years as a Baptist I did not know that the Baptist Church had a creed book. I did not know it until my husband asked the Baptist preacher in Cool Springs, Kentucky where he (my husband) could purchase one. The Baptist preacher told my husband to write to the Baptist Book Store in Louisville, Kentucky (we were living in Ohio County, Kentucky at the time) and ask for Pendleton’s Church Manual. He did and they sent one to us.

My conversion to the truth of God’s word was hastened by a Baptist preacher who preached during a revival at the Cool Springs Baptist Church. He preached a lesson showing from the scriptures that the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33). My husband wrote out a question for the Baptist preacher and asked me to give it to him. My husband told me that Baptist preacher would not answer the question. I thought he would, and said so! The question, “Since the church is the bride of Christ, whose name should the church wear?” was not answered by the Baptist preacher. I now realize that he did not dare answer it. Instead of answering an honest question he said something like, “I came here to save lost souls and not to argue.” I knew from personal experience that questions asked of preachers of the church of Christ were answered because they had a question box by the door of their building. I had put questions in the box during gospel meetings and had always had them answered.

My husband and I were blessed with one daughter. I saw that I did not want her to be reared in the Baptist Church. I finally learned the truth and was baptized into Christ, thus becoming a Christian.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, pp. 246-247
April 10, 1980

By Mike Willis

Answering Objections

There have been a number of false doctrines taught with reference to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. As the incidences of marriage, divorce and remarriage for unscriptural reasons has increased in America, the number of those sympathetic and propagating these beliefs continues to increase. Churches are being disturbed in some sections of the country rather widely over some of these false doctrines. Consequently, we need to examine these ideas.

Adultery Does Not Constitute Divorce

In the Frost-Moyer Exchange on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Brother Lloyd Moyer took the position that the act of committing adultery caused a divorce to occur. He wrote as follows:

Since the first marriage has ceased to exist, how is it possible to adulterate that which does not exist? Though adultery was committed when they first joined themselves together in intercourse because they were still the husband or wife of someone else, subsequent sexual intercourse between them is not adultery. They are no longer the husband or wife of someone else. They are sinners because they have committed adultery. And by this sin of adultery they caused their previous marriage to be dissolved.

The results of this belief of Brother Moyer seem to be rather obvious. If the act of adultery severs the marriage relationship then both the innocent and the guilty party are freed from that marriage bond and have the right to remarry.

There are several things that are wrong with this doctrine as propagated by Brother Moyer and some who have followed in his steps. I would like to suggest them as follows:

1. .There is no scripture citation given which proves that adultery causes a divorce. The scriptures say that the committing of the act of fornication gives one the right to put away his mate (Matt. 19:9; 5:32). They do not say, however, that the act of fornication necessitates the putting away of one’s mate or that it automatically causes the divorce to occur. Rather it teaches that the one who is innocent has the right to put away the guilty party.

2. If the act of fornication causes one to be divorced from his wife, we have got some rather interesting problems developed between a husband and his wife. For example, take the situation in which a man goes out and commits fornication against his wife, comes home, tells his wife about it, and she forgives him; they are reconciled to one another and live together thereafter. If I understand any thing at all about what Brother Moyer has said, the act of fornication which this man committed broke his marriage relationship to his wife. Hence, they were divorced in the sight of God. Consequently, when this man went back and cohabited with his wife, he would not be cohabiting with one to whom he was married (according to this ‘doctrine) but would simply be guilty of fornication. And I suppose that the first act of fornication which he committed would bind them in marriage again and thereafter they would be approved in God’s sight. This is the most ridiculous and absurd position that I have ever heard.

3. Any time one commits fornication or adultery, he either becomes married or divorced. Another result of this false doctrine is that any time a person goes out and commits fornication or adultery, he becomes either divorced from the one to whom he is married or married to the one with whom he has just committed fornication. Hence, a man that has a succession of adulterous or fornication relationships goes through a list of women to whom he has been married, though he might never have intended to be married in the first place. If not, why not?

I think we can safely set aside this position as a false position that is not found in the scriptures. One can be married without cohabitation; you will remember that the angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph referred to Mary as his wife although they had not cohabited (Matt. 1:20, 25). Hence, a person can be married to another individual whether cohabitation ever occurs or not. The mere act of cohabiting does not thereby cause a divorce to occur; rather, it only permits the innocent party the right to obtain a divorce.

Adultery Cannot Be Committed With One’s Wife

Another false doctrine that has been perpetuated in recent years on the marriage, divorce and remarriage issue is the idea that one cannot commit adultery with his wife. This doctrine in essence says that if a person is married to an individual, he cannot commit adultery with her. That is all well and good if the marriage is approved of in the sight of God. But, in an unscriptural relationship, it is indeed altogether possible for a person to commit adultery with his wife. Romans 7:1-3 states as much.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

This passage refers to a woman that is married to another man while her husband is living. Despite the fact that they are married, she is still called an adulteress. Hence, one can commit adultery in a relationship of marriage. The only way that I can see that this can make sense is for a situation to be such that men approve of a relationship calling it marriage and where God does not approve of that relationship. Hence, it is one that is proof positive that adultery can be committed with one who is a legal mate.

The Lord Does Not Forgive Adultery

Some take the position that, inasmuch as one says that the person in an unscriptural marriage relationship must separate, God does not forgive adultery. Let it be stated point blank that God does forgive adultery. Actually involved in this objection is a re-definition of adultery. To demonstrate that this word is being redefined by those who are making such a charge, notice the quotation from the Smith-Lovelady debate, from the pen of Glen W. Lovelady.

Matthew 19:9 does NOT deal with marriage separation. It tells you what you did if you messed up your marriage. YOU COMMITTED ADULTERY, and that is where Matthew 19:9 stops, dear friends. It does not tell you what to do after you have done it, and the same thing is true in Matthew 5:32 . . . The passage tells you what you do when you mess up your marriage. YOU COMMIT ADULTERY and you cause the other one to commit adultery, THAT MARRIED YOU (Smith-Lovelady Debate on Marriage Divorce & Remarriage, page 84).

Notice that this quotation demonstrates this special definition of adultery as being the act of putting away one’s mate and this is not of course the meaning assigned to it by any lexicographer. Hence, this third objection comes out of a re-definition of the word adultery. You will recall, in going over the text in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, that we defined moicheub to mean “unlawful sexual intercourse with one other than his mate.” In the objection raised before us, the word “adultery” has been subtly changed in meaning. It is made to mean the “act of divorcing.” Hence, what they mean is that the act of divorcing cannot be forgiven. When one remembers that the act of adultery is not the act of divorcing a mate but the act of sexual intercourse with someone else other than his wife, this whole objection is removed. It becomes exactly the same as any other sin that is committed by a person.

For example, a man who is guilty of lying must quit lying in order to obtain forgiveness of his sins. If a man who is guilty of lying habitually is baptized into Christ, every time that he has committed lying prior to baptism is washed away at baptism. However, if he commits the same sin, lying, after his baptism, he is separated from God thereby. In a similar fashion, one who is guilty of committing the act of adultery (sexual intercourse with one other than his own mate) prior to baptism is forgiven of all the occasions when he committed sexual intercourse with someone other than his own mate when he is baptized. However, committed that sin again after baptism is still sinful and must be forgiven by the blood of Christ in order for that person to go to heaven. The habitual commission of a sin with no intention of repenting of it certainly cannot be acceptable in the sight of God.

Both Parties Are Allowed To Marry Again When A Divorce Has Occurred For The Sin of Fornication

On March 25, 1976, Glen W. Lovelady affirmed the following proposition: “The scriptures teach that the put away adulterer can remarry without committing sin.” This issue is discussed in the Smith-Lovelady Debate. However, this citation of the proposition shows that some are convinced that the put away adulterer has the right to remarry. The argumentation is based on human reasoning alone. There is absolutely no scripture that can be cited that gives the put away adulterer the right to remarry. If so, please let somebody bring it forward and give the evidence of it.

The human reasoning that is cited pertains to this kind of argumentation. They say whenever the innocent party divorces the guilty party, that their relationship is broken. If it is broken for one, it is broken for both parties in the marriage and, consequently, neither one of them can commit adultery against the other in subsequent relationships because that marriage no longer exists. Hence, on this kind of argumentation, this conclusion is justified without the citation of a single scripture. However, I want us to notice. what the scriptures teach.

Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 both state that a person commits adultery if he puts away his wife and marries another, except when that person who is put away is guilty of fornication. Now I would like for somebody who takes this position, to tell me how a, put away adulterer can cite Matthew 5:32 as proof of his right to remarry. The put away adulterer cannot say, “I put away my wife because of adultery,” for that has not been the case. He is the guilty party, not her. Consequently, he has to fall under the general handing of the law without the exception. He is one who has put away his wife and married another without putting her away for the sin of fornication on her part. The scripture clearly states that those who put away their wives and marry another, for whatever reason it might be other than fornication, is guilty of adultery in any sexual relationship that might follow. Hence, my conclusion is that, not having a scriptural reason for putting away his mate, this man is guilty of adultery when he remarries.

1 Corinthians 7

There are several arguments which have been made on 1 Corinthians 7 that need our attention. One of the arguments that has been made on the passage is to say that 1 Corinthians 7:14-15, grants the right of remarriage to one whose mate has deserted him. 1 Corinthians 7:14-15 reads as follow:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

You will notice that this context is not dealing with normal desertion. Many times what is the occasion of dessertion is that the husband got tired of putting up with the griping of the wife and decided to leave. Skipping town, he neglects his responsibility to her of whatever sort they might be. Then he does not show up again for some time; when he does come back he expects all the normal conjugal rights.

This is not what 1 Corinthians 7:14-15 pictures. On this occasion, Paul was writing about the situation of a Christian being marrfed to a non-Christian. If the non-Christian mate is willing to live with the Christian, the Christian has an obligation to try to live with that person. On the other hand, if the non-Christian mate decides to leave the Christian mate, Paul said, she is “not under bondage in such cases.” Notice, however, what “such cases” are. They are cases in which an unbelieving husband or wife is unwilling to live with that Christian, not because of the manner in which she conducts herself with reference to cleaning house, general personality traits, or appearances, but because she is a Christian. In a day whenever Christians were being persecuted, there would, no doubt, be some unwilling to live with a mate who was subject to being persecuted and who endangered all those near her. Hence, if this passage allows desertion as a right for remarriage, it only allows it for those who are unwilling to stay because his mate is a Christian.

However, the phrase, “is not under bondage” does not necessarily mean that they have the right to remarry. The phrase can just as easily be understood to mean one is not under bondage to fulfill the normal responsibilities of a married person. Hence, she would not be responsible for washing his clothes, cooking his meals, fulfilling his sexual desires, and other marital responsibilities, in the occasion that a man deserted her. Regardless of what we understand this passage to teach, we can see that it does not offer any consolation for those who have divorced their mate for an unscriptural reason and remarried. As a matter of fact, the subject of remarriage is not even mentioned in I Corinthians 7:14-16.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 must also be considered in any study of marriage. There the alternatives for the married with reference to separation are mentioned. We cite the passage as follows:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Whenever a separation or divorce occurs for an unscriptural reason, the alternatives of the Christian are laid down in this passage. Any person who wants to be acceptable to God in such a relationship must (1) be reconciled to her mate, or (2) remain unmarried. Those are the only alternatives that are available. Of course the exception of fornication must be kept in mind in any study of all that God has said on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, pp. 243-246
April 10, 1980

By Don R. Hastings

When we think of people who possessed great faith in God, we think of Abraham. No offspring of men has ever shown more faith in their Creator, than did Abraham. In Hebrews eleven, more verses are devoted to telling of Abraham’s faith than any other person. Many times in the Bible, God is referred to as the “God of Abraham.” God identifies Himself as the “God of Abraham.” (Gen. 26:24; Ex. 3:6; text). Only Abraham “was called the friend of God” (James 2:23; 2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8). Abraham was “the friend of God” because when God promised, he believed; when God commanded, he obeyed (John 15:14).

God promised Abraham, “I will make of thee a great nation . . .” (Gen. 12:2). That nation was the Israelites, or Jewish, nation. The Jews took great pride in being the fleshly descendants of Abraham (John 8:33, 39; 2 Cor. 11:22). John the Baptist and Jesus taught the Jews that just being the children of Abraham would not save them, but to please God, they must have the faith of Abraham (Matt. 3:9; John 8:37-40, 56-59). Those of us today whose faith has moved us to become the children of God “are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:6-9, 26-29).

Abraham was the son of Terah, who was a descendant of Shem, a son of Noah (Gen. 11). Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran (Gen. 11:27-32). Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was also his half-sister (Gen. 20:12). He was born about 1996 years before Christ and died at the age of 175, or about 1821 years before the birth of Christ (Gen. 25:7, 8). God changed his name from Abram, which means “exalted father” to Abraham, which means “father of a multitude” (Gen. 17:5).

Abraham’s great faith in God was manifested by:

His Prompt Obedience To God’s Call (Genesis 12:1-3)

Abraham’s call was a divine calling; no other call is as important. We have, also, a divine calling (Matt. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17). We are called through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14). Jesus said, “For many are called, but few chosen” (Matt. 22:14). Have you, like Abraham, obeyed God’s call? Are you among the “called out” people of God?

Abraham did not hesitate, or delay, in obeying God’s call (Gen. 12:4). If you have not obeyed God’s call to give your life to Jesus, why are you waiting? We often sing the song, “What do you hope, dear sinner, To gain by a further delay? Your Savior is longing to bless you; There is danger and death in delay.” Shall God’s long-suffering, in providing us opportunity after opportunity to obey His call, be in vain (Rom. 2:4; 1 Pet. 3:9)? God will not call you forever!

Abraham did not ask others, including his own family, what they thought of God’s call; he obeyed! When we know what God commands us to do, we should do it with, or without, others approval (Matt. 10:34-39). Do not try to rationalize away God’s command!

Abraham’s obedience meant sacrifice. He was separated from his dwelling place, country and friends. He took Lot because Lot’s father and grandfather were dead, so he must have felt responsible for Lot”s welfare (Gen. 11:28, 32). We, also, must be separated from anything that would supplant God as the center of our love and service (2 Cor. 6:17, 18).

Abraham proved his complete trust in God for “he went out, not knowing whither he went” (text). We will possess a fear of the unknown, especially if we think there is danger involved. For example, I am as bad as my children when it comes to waiting in the doctor’s office and knowing there is a shot waiting for me when I get to see the doctor. Many are not willing to turn their lives completely over to God and trust His wisdom and power (Prov. 3:5, 6; 2 Cor. 5:7). We sing, “Where He leads me I will follow . . .,” but do we mean it? Many insist on guiding their own lives and do so to their soul’s damnation (Prov. 14:12; Jer. 10:23). Their philosophy is, “It is my life, I will live it the way I want.” Others are willing to obey God as long as they can see the wisdom behind His commandments.

He Did Not Return To His Native Land

Upon his arrival in Canaan, he encountered many hardships. The inhabitants of the land of Canaan were hostile; a famine struck in Canaan; he and Lot had to separate; he rescued Lot from some kings; etc. He wandered about living in a tent as a stranger in a foreign land (Acts 7:5).

Even though leaving his native country was a test of his faith, remaining where God wanted him to be was a greater test of faith. Many start out following the Lord with zeal and enthusiasm, but the hardships and trials of life soon discourage them and they turn back to the world and Satan (John 6:66; 1 Tim. 5:15; 2 Pet. 2:20-22).

The Lord’s call to Abraham included great promises (Gen. 12:1-3). His call to us, also, includes great promises (Matt. 10:32; 19:29; Rev. 3:5). Do you have the faith of Abraham to obey God (Mark 16:16)? Do you have the faith to give your life completely to Him? Do you have the faith to remain steadfast in His service? Jesus said that Abraham was “in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:22-30). Will you be there?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, p. 242
April 10, 1980