Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edward

Men will give account for their deeds. Just because God does not punish men for their sins on the spot does not mean that we will escape giving account. In order that you might have a good understanding of what the Bible teaches about the judgment, take a look at these points.

(1) The judgment day is certain. The apostle Paul said, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). Just as surely as you live, there will be a judgment day. Are you ready for it?

(2) The judgment day is an appointed day. As Paul preached to the Athenians he said, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).

(3) The judgment will be universal. Everyone will be in the judgment. As Jesus pictured the judgment scene, He said, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats” (Matt. 25:31-32).

(4) The judgment will be individual in nature. The judgment will not be a group judgment but each will be judged individually. “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Each one is responsible for his own actions while he lives and, in judgment, each will be held responsible. So are you pleased with your actions? Are they in harmony with the Word of God?

(5) We will be judged according to our deeds. John said, “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works” (Rev. 20:12). All things will be laid opened at the judgment (Eccl. 12:13-14). We will give account for every idle word (Matt. 12).

(6) Christ will be the judge. “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (Jn. 5:22). Since we will stand before Christ to be judged, we had better listen to Him while we live.

(7) The Word of God will be the standard in judgment. Jesus said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48). Since the.-word of God will be the standard. by which we will be judged we must obey the teachings of the word.

(8) The reward will be handed out in judgment. “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his. Father with his angels; arid then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 16:27). The reward will either be eternal death or eternal life (Matt. 25:46). Which will it be for you?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, p. 146
February 28, 1980

By P. J. Casebolt

(Note: The following article first appeared in the Cameron Sower, edited by brother Casebolt. Since original bulletin space was limited, it is being re-written and lengthened for us in Truth Magazine.)

The Philippian church possessed many commendable traits. One of these was their determination to “have fellowship in the gospel,” that others may enjoy the same hope and blessings which they had received by the preaching of the gospel. The Philippian church began early in this grace and continued faithfully (Phil. 1:5-7; 4:14-18). The only exception to this rule seemed to be when they lacked opportunity (Phil. 4:10). The Philippians manifested an attitude toward the gospel which needs to be. revived: they considered their fellowship in the gospel a grace, a privilege, and an opportunity to have fruit which would abound to their account.

Preaching the gospel is not just a practice which originated with preachers themselves, for the benefit of preachers. Neither is it something which the church “hires” as though it were some secular service. Paul taught the Corinthians, “Even so bath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14). Both preachers and the church need to understand that gospel preaching is something which the Lord ordained, and all attitudes toward it should be based on this fact.

Sometimes I get the impression that some brethren think they have been ordained by the Lord to make sure that preachers do not “live of the gospel.” Those brethren treat the preacher like an enemy of the faith instead of one with whom they should have fellowship. Brethren, how are you going to support the gospel (have fellowship in it), if you do not support those who preach that gospel? The two are inseparable. Yet, when some congregations begin looking for a preacher, they try to think of ways to economize and “save the Lord’s money” at the preacher’s expense. It is like the preacher has lost his “seniority” by changing locations and is forced to start negotiating all over again. Once again, he is forced to defend his God-given right to “live of the gospel.”

Brethren try to justify their actions sometimes by saying that it is not right to “waste the Lord’s money,” or “preachers shouldn’t be over-paid.” Then tell me, I pray, how the church is going to save the Lord’s money by restricting the Lord’s preacher who preaches the Lord’s gospel? Can we save the money better by keeping it in a bank account? Can we save it better by building comfortable and expensive buildings? Can we save it better by paying the expenses of several preachers who come to “try out,” and finally by paying a big moving expense for the preacher selected? Will the Lord be pleased if we present Him with a large checkbook balance when He comes as proof that we saved His money? If the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 means anything, it surely has an application in this matter.

I know young preachers who have literally been starved out by antagonistic brethren and forced to turn to secular pursuits in order to pay their debts and provide for their families. Just when the church should be encouraging young preachers who have both the desire and ability to preach, it seems that we employ the Darwinian theory of “the survival of the fittest,” and thereby assure the next generation that they will not have enough preachers to do the Lord’s work. It should be of little comfort to boast that we have saved so much of the “Lord’s money” that there are comparatively few preachers left to “live of the gospel.”

Many preachers will continue to preach as they have opportunity, but it is sad that some brethren have succeeded in limiting their opportunities. I cannot understand it.. How are you going to over-pay a preacher who is faithful and able? In the first place, he will not accept too much of the “Lord’s money” and, if he is prospered sufficiently, he will put that much more back into the Lord’s work. A few preachers may not be able to manage money as well as some others, but maybe it is not all their fault. In my earlier years of preaching, I had to juggle my income and expenses in such a way that it should have earned me an honorary degree in bookkeeping and accounting. Maybe my methods were not the most orthodox, and though I did not accept the “survival of the fittest” theory, there were times when I was affected by it.

Why do some brethren feel that they have a divine mandate to keep the preacher poor, while they enjoy all the advantages of a prosperous society? We have already noticed the idea that because the preacher is paid out of the “Lord’s money” the church should “save” all it can. We all need to understand that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof,” and that all of us need to use our blessings as good stewards of the grace of God. If brethren can take vacations, trade cars, and do a host of other things with the money God has allowed them to have, why have a different set of rules for the preacher? If those brethren who continually find fault with the preacher and his use of the “Lord’s money” would manage what the Lord has given them a little better, maybe they could give more to the Lord.

If some preachers are guilty of false doctrine or practice, then they need to repent or quit preaching. If they will not do either, then brethren should not pay them just enough to “hold them down,” they should not get a dime of the “Lord’s money.” If some brethren think preachers have it so easy, why do not more of them start preaching? Why is there “a famine in the land” for good preachers? Yes, there are congregations who have the proper attitude toward the preaching of the gospel, and use the Lord’s money in the Lord’s work as best they know how. And, that is why preachers are reluctant to move from these congregations and be at the mercy of those who think they can “save the Lord’s money”. by keeping the preacher in a lower bracket.

Paul was criticized by the very ones who should have commended him (2 Cor. 12:11). One reason the Corinthians did not appreciate Paul and the preaching of the gospel may have been because Paul was not burdensome to them (2 Cor. 12:13). Paul asked forgiveness for his part in the matter. I must confess that in my earlier years of preaching. I have been guilty of not teaching brethren properly concerning the matter of supporting the gospel. I let brethren put me on the defensive, and spent too much time arguing with brethren about my right to live of the gospel, a right which God gave before I was born, and should not need defending.

We preachers need to understand that God has allowed us to be “put in trust with the gospel . . .,” and this sobering thought will keep us humble and determined to use the Lord’s money spent on us as efficiently as possible. And, we need to teach brethren that they are allowed (privileged) to support the gospel by having fellowship with those who preach it. Do not worry about what brethren will think if you teach them their duty regarding this matter, any more than you would worry about what they think when you teach them their duty concerning the Lord’s supper or assembling. Do not waste time arguing with narrowminded brethren about the preacher’s right to live of the gospel the Lord has already decided this matter. If brethren will support you to preach the gospel, “use it rather.” If not, support yourself, and preach where and when you can.

Let us all determine that the situation described by Jeremiah will not prevail when the Lord returns, that we are not forced to say, “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved” (Jer. 8:20).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 140-141
February 21, 1980

By Dudley Ross Spears

It has always been true that to live right, one needs the courage to do so. Teenagers are confronted with the temptations that belong to their generation, regardless what the generation is. Sin has been with every generation of people to whom the reading of this article is possible or will be possible. The disguise of sin changes, but it remains the same. Bathtub gin of the roaring twenties is replaced by a toke from a joint of grass. But there is no difference in the fact of sin. Courage is still demanded to live right.

There was a young man named Daniel who was taken into captivity by the Babylonians with the rest of the Jews. This youngster was fortunate in that he was selected to serve in the king’s court. Daniel was especially bright and exceptionally physically endowed (Dan. 1:4). In order to properly cultivate the good looking young men of the court, the following order was issued by Nebuchadnezzar, the king: “And the king appointed for them a daily ration from the king’s choice food and from the wine which he drank, and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king’s personal service. Now among them from the sons of Judah were Daniel, Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah” (Dan. 1:5-6).

A three-year, full scholarship to be educated in every branch of wisdom, including the literature and language of the Chaldeans, would be highly prized by any youth of any generation. Daniel and his companions were granted such a scholarship and needed not to participate in any kind of athletic event. Being of the Jewish people, they immediately encountered problems. Eating the food of the king’s table and drinking his wine would defile these Jewish men. “Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank” (Dan. 1:8a). He begged permission from the commander of the officials to be excused from these things that would have defiled him. Daniel was granted such a favor, but it took courage for him to say, “No, I will not do that which will defile me.” He is an example for all of us of the courage that enables us to live right.

Daniel had some strong convictions about what he ate and what he drank. He could not, in good conscience, compromise his convictions and do that which would be contrary to the law of Jehovah. Daniel was convicted by the law of Moses that he should serve only one God. The law forbade the Jews to serve any other God (Exo. 20:3). Certain meats were forbidden to the Jews (Lev. 11:2-47). In eating at the table of the king of Babylon, Daniel would be put in a position of violating these ordinances. H.C. Leupold says, “All meals served at the king’s table were feasts in honor of the gods. That involved that a portion of the meat to be served would first be dedicated to some god in sacrifice. The eating of the remainder meant sharing in the sacrificial meal, which was, of course, in honor of the god to whom a portion had been sacrificed. To share in such a feast was the equivalent of honoring such an idol, admitting his claims and existence, and so practically denying the one true God. For that reason Daniel refused such contamination” (Exposition of Daniel, p. 66).

Three things seem to have been involved. (1) There was the heathen wisdom Daniel would acquire. (2) There was the wearing of a heathen name. (3) There was also the eating of heathen food. In Daniel’s reaction to these three things we learn something about convictions as well as tolerance. Names meant nothing to Daniel and did not involve him in a compromise of his convictions, so he accepted the name, “Belteshazzar.” That name could have meant, “the prince whom Bel favours” or it could have meant “Bel protect his life.” This “Bel” was the god of the Babylonians. It matters very little what it meant Daniel did not object to being called that, for it meant no change in his convictions.

The wisdom he accumulated from being educated by the heathens meant nothing to him spiritually. What he learned and how much he learned did not produce a change in his life at all. He remained a faithful, God-fearing young Jewish man, true to his commitment to Jehovah. There is nothing wrong in getting all the learning and wisdom possible. Solomon said, “A wise man will hear and increase in learning and a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel” (Prov. 1:5). As long as a youngster never forgets the basic teaching from the will of the Lord, education will pose no danger to the soul. Some people cannot handle a lot of education, though, and go off after many stupid philosophies and “the opposing arguments of what is falsely called, `knowledge”‘ (1 Tim. 6:20). Daniel is a good example of a man staying with his convictions even though he had probably the best education of anyone in the Bible.

The meat of the king’s table was a different matter. If he ate of it, he would have made a breach of the will of God. This he had to refuse to remain faithful to Jehovah. He politely said, “No, I cannot defile myself.” Sometimes it is really difficult for us to get out of situations like the one Daniel faced. We are tempted to make some sort of excuse that will not put us in a bad light with our friends. Or, perhaps we take delight in being as blunt as we can, often insulting someone who may offer us a drink of alcohol or ask us to do something contrary to our convictions. Do not get excited at me, friend, but by insulting a person who invites us to do something we feel would defile us will not provide us much of an opportunity or atmosphere to teach that person why we consider something to be sin. I think it is called “tact.” Paul says we should, “with gentleness correct those who are in opposition; if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). That will be good to remember the next time we are invited to participate in something wrong.

The young prophet Daniel stood firm and there is a very good reason for such a stand. The passage says, “Daniel made up his mind.” The literal translation of this is, “he set his heart upon not defiling himself.” This indicates that there was a very deep resolve in the heart of Daniel. Leupold says on this, “The Hebrew idiom describes what Daniel did as `laying upon his heart not to defile himself.’ There were no outward scruples. Daniel laid his resolve `upon his heart.’ We endeavor to catch the force of this idiom by rendering the verb be `solemnly resolved”‘ (Ibid., p. 67). Someone once said, “Resolution took its rise in the depths of the soul, like a river in the hills far away.” Anyone of us can stand firm like Daniel – if we have the depth of resolution that we will not sell ourselves cheap and become defiled. There is a German hymn that says, “Fest and treu wie Daniel,” which means “firm and true like Daniel.” I wish we had that song in English hymnals.

Like all men of all ages, we need convictions that are strong to meet the challenges we have every day we live. Convictions are also contageous – they breed strength in others. The resolve of Daniel seems to have strengthened the others with him. Who can know but that by having the courage to live right they may influence others to live right. The devil’s crowd knows the power of influence. They have their convictions and they influence people to do wrong. It is time that in our lives we have the courage to “overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). An intelligent stand for the truth, an uncompromising firmness of convictions and some good common courtesy brings admiration from the enemies of right living. When Daniel acted as he did and begged permission of the king’s representative to be allowed not to defile himself, the representative had respect for Daniel. Sometimes help comes from unexpected places.

No one can deny that living right is difficult. If it is not one thing, it is something else that lures us from a path of righteous living. No matter what it may be, we have the following promise, “The righteous also shall hold on his way and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger” (Job. 17:9). In a piece called, “Guesses at Truth,” I found the following line with which I close this article. “Few persons have courage enough to appear as good as they really are.” It means, dear friend, that courage will help us see that we can live right. May God bless us all with that courage.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 139-140
February 21, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer” (Psa. 19:7-14).

In this reading we learn, among other things, David’s attitude toward the word of the Lord, and his desire to be innocent of presumptuous sins. This attitude could well be repeated by many today, in the church as well as outside of it. Presumption is defined as “too great pride, hope, or confidence; also, something which is believed to be so, but not proved.” Thus, presumption is a sin, either way it might be taken, and actually becomes a matter of trying to help God.

Men in the Old Testament times were guilty of “helping God.” When God promised Abraham that He would bless him and his seed after him, Abraham had no child. This being true, and Sarah being barren, Abraham was not able to see how this promise would be kept. Therefore, he committed the sin of presumption by attempting to “help God” by taking Hagar, his wife’s handmaid, who bare him Ishmael (Gen. 16:1, 2). This was not only rebellion to God’s marriage law (Matt. 19:8), it was in ignorance of God’s true purpose, revealed in Gen. 17:1-19. This sin of presumption led to family grief, in addition to displeasing God.

When God commanded Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites because of their sins (1 Sam. 15:1-3), and he returned with Agag, the king, and the best of flocks, his was the sin of presumption. He was trying to “help God” by saving for sacrifice. This was direct rebellion against God’s order. Besides, He does not want such sacrifices. “And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22). For this, God rejected Saul from being king (1 Sam. 15:23).

Moses sought to “help God” by striking the rock, when God had commanded him simply to speak to the rock (Num. 20:8) in order to bring forth water for the Israelites. Moses no doubt believed that this should be done; yet, it was in disobedience to God’s command and, because of it, Moses was denied the privilege of leading the children of Israel into the land of Canaan, the promised land. He presumed it would be alright, but it was not!

Uzzah committed such a sin by touching the ark of the covenant, which he and others were not allowed to do (2 Sam. 6:6, 7). He, too, thought he could “help God,” but as a result was punished with instant death.

The question naturally arises with some, “What is wrong with such, when it’s only an effort to `help God’?” The sin is in seeking to “help God”; for first it shows distrust of God; does He need our help? And then, it shows conceit; can we give such help?

These were not the only ones guilty of the sin of presumption; others in that age, and many today, are guilty. Those who write creeds by which religious people are to be governed are guilty of “helping God.” Does He need man’s help in determining what is to be believed or practiced? Can man give such “help”? Is he capable of it? Jeremiah said in the long ago, “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps”(Jer. 10:23). Though the human creeds are claimed to be simply a help in understanding what God has written, it remains that they are an addition to God’s plan, and it is presumptuous for man to attempt to help God in this respect. Men presume (believe a thing to be right without proper proof) that many things are acceptable to God, when in reality they are rebellion against Him. Sprinkling for baptism, baptism because one is saved, wearing of religious titles, and such are only a few in denominationalism.

Various missionary arrangements, the “sponsoring church,” and others, without scriptural proof are no less sins of presumption than the others mentioned; yet some brethren insist upon such. Binding various opinions, likes and dislikes because of prejudice, brethren fall into the same class. For a man to think he can improve upon God’s arrangement, His organization for His church, and His work and desires, is to be guilty of “helping God,” committing the sin of presumption. Additions to the divinely authorized worship and work of the church are among the sins of “helping God.” He has revealed His will and His way, expects man to walk accordingly, and man had best be content to abide within His teaching!

Those who presume that they know better, and can do better with their promotions, go beyond that which is written (2 John 9), leading the way as it were, in things without divine sanction. Such is an effort to “lead” God, and is therefore, rebellion. Even though many are doubtless sincere in their efforts, it remains – presumption is sin!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, p. 138
February 21, 1980