Truth Magazine

By Jim Sasser

In Truth Magazine (Vol. 23, No. 34, August 30, 1979), Brother Keith Sharp had an article on the subject of vengeance. There were several good and timely things said on the subject. But, there were some things that were said that I cannot agree with because I feel that they were statements made without scriptural authority. Let me bring a few of these things to your attention as they were written and then say a few words about them.

Vengeance, As The Word Is Used In The Bible

The word “vengeance” is used 42 times in the KJV of the Bible. All but 3 of these times have reference to God’s vengeance. The remaining 3 are of such nature that they were not pleasing to God. So, we should see by this that God has not left the idea of vengeance in the hands of men to conduct as they please. In studying this subject, one might also take time to study the words “avenge” and “avenger.”

Human Nature

In his article, Brother Sharp said, “Human nature demands revenge for wrong suffered, for this is justice.” I feel assured that human nature will always demand vengeance or revenge, but as far as such always being justified is another matter all together. As far as we can determine from the Scriptures, with regard to the Lord and His faithful apostles, those of our spiritual leaders, none of them sought to avenge himself when he suffered ill treatment. Such should tell us that to seek vengeance is human and not divine. In fact, I think the word human is the crux of the whole matter. It is that which brings about the emotional appeals and excuses that are made by my brethren for getting involved in the vengeance taking business.

Last night, I heard a very fine sermon on the twelfth chapter of the Book of Romans. The preacher started out by using the first two verses as a basis upon which to build. The idea was to accept and apply the first two verses of the chapter and all else would fall into place easily.

Yes, if we would submit our bodies as living sacrifices to God and if we would transform out minds and bring them into harmony with Jesus Christ instead of conforming to this world, this matter of vengeance would be no problem.

Civil Government

Brother Sharp said, “Civil government has as both its right and responsibility and administration of this justice, Rom. 13:3, 4.” I could not agree more. God has set up His avenging body, and that body is the civil government of our land (Rom. 13:1-7). Any vengeance that is to be taken, is to be taken by this body. This avenger can use the legal forces at his disposal to get the job done, such as, the police, army, courts, etc. We, as Christians, must abide by the laws of the civil government, regardless of the nature of the government, as long as such laws do not require us to violate the laws of God (Acts 5:29).

Brother Sharp said, “There are clear apostolic examples that teach a Christian has the right to take all legal measures at his disposal to protect his rights against the onslaught of evil-doers, even to the use of the armed powers of the state.” He then cites Paul’s actions in Acts 23:12-25; 25:9-12. I, too, believe that such civil powers are ordained of God and can be used for our protection (Rom. 13:1-7). But what Brother Sharp has failed to show, even though he advocates such, is any scripture that would allow a Christian to personally be a part of this civil government, police, army, etc, and take the steps of vengeance himself. Paul did not. Jesus did not. Nor did any other who we can read about take such steps of vengeance.

“Vengeance Belongeth Unto Me . . .”

This statement was made by the Lord and not by man (Rom. 12:19-21). It goes on to say, ” . . . . I will recompense, saith the Lord.” The trouble with many Christians today, and seemingly Brother Sharp is included in the number, is that they are not willing to allow the Lord to take the vengeance that He says He will and that He says in His. They desire to do it themselves. They desire to be a part of the vengeance taking force of the land. They, seemingly, would be very willing to be the arresting officer with gun in hand, the prosecuting lawyer, the judge, and finally, the one who would pull the switch to take the criminal’s life. It is the right and responsibility of the civil government to do any and all of these things, but a Christian is not allowed to be a part of such.

Carnal Emotions

Brother Sharp says, concerning the Lord’s statement “resist not him that is evil” (Matt. 5:39), “Is this a demand that Christians must passively submit to any and all sorts of physical violence? Must one watch a maniac kill his family and destroy his property, without lifting a finger to resist? Is this an injunction against Christians serving in the armed forces or on a police force?” He goes on to tell of “an outstanding lesson on the Christian and civil government, defending the right of a Christian to bear arms for his government,” that he had heard some years ago.

Once again, I too, must refer to the very fine lesson that I heard just last evening. Even though vengeance was not the primary subject of the lesson, the failure to transform our lives -and minds into the spiritual channel of God, and the seeming readiness we have for conforming to the world and human nature, are the reasons for our bringing forth such carnal appeals for our own vengeance. We are so afraid of that intruder that is going to break in and take our lives or the lives of our loved ones, that we are willing to take vengeance into our own hands and even kill if necessary. In doing this, we are willing to put the saving of our physical lives above the salvation of our eternal souls (Matt. 10:28).

No Scripture

I know of no scripture that would allow a Christian to participate in any vengeance taking venture. Neither do I know of a scripture that would allow a Christian to be a part of a vengeance taking organization. Do you?

Undoubtedly, Brother Sharp does think that-there are such scriptures for he said, “Our Lord does not demand that we be passive in the face of onslaught and danger. He does allow us to protect our lives, our family and our property. He does not forbid us to serve in the military or police forces.”

The assertion above, and that is all that it is for no scripture was given or can be given, is the fruit of wishful thinking and carnal desires. Brother Sharp can look as long as he wills, but he will not be able to come up with the scripture that will allow Christians to take vengeance for themselves nor to kill in self-protection. This type of worldly thinking will cease when we truly reach the goal that is mentioned in Rom. 12:1, 2. We are afraid that we are going to lose this world’s goods, or our physical lives, or we might have to live in a country that does not have as many earthly freedoms as we have been used to, or we might have to spend a few years in a prison dungeon, etc. So, what if these things do come upon us in our life time? If we are transformed in our minds and bodies and are in harmony with the Lord we will not worry too much about such trivial things. May the Lord bless us to reach that goal.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, pp. 745-746
November 22, 1979

By Stephen P. Willis

Every once in a while we hear someone tell another to go to the Devil (or some such phrase). It is usually meant as an extreme sign of contempt for the other. But many people, and some are Christians, are constantly going to the Devil. If they are not careful in what they do, they are going to spend an eternity with him. How often do you go the Devil?

Many people go to the Devil for their philosophies of life. We hear of atheism, agnosticism, humanism and a lot of other “isms.” We hear the attitude that says, “Surely a loving God will save everybody.” Or we hear, “It doesn’t make a bit of difference what I believe or do, as long as I am sincere and try to help my fellow man.” That is the Devil’s advice. The Bible teaches us to be wary of his philosophy: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, rather than according to Christ”‘ (Col. 2:8). Are you going to the Devil?

In connection with the Devil’s philosophies we find those who think that they can be saved apart from the means that Jesus named. “There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Any other method that excludes belief and baptism (Mk. 16:16) will not save and is the Devil’s method. Where are you seeking your salvation?

Some would go to the Devil for their occupations. I am referring to those jobs that are sinful, or that lead other to sin. Del Winiger once said, (paraphrasing), “If you have a job that hinders your serving the Lord, quit it, and I’ll guarantee that you will get a better job. It may not pay as much, but it will be a better job.” Amen! Are you getting your job from the Devil?

In relation to our friends, some of us will go to the Devil to choose our closest ones. Certainly we ought to go to our brothers and sisters in Christ first. “Bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). Probably more important than our friends is our choice of a marriage partner. Parents, teach your children to follow the examples of righteous men and women in the Bible and not to go to the Devil for mates. Paul said that he had the right to have a wife who is a believer (1 Cor. 9:5), although he did not exercise that right remaining single (as far as we know). He taught that saints should not be bound with unbelievers in 2 Cor. 6:14.1 Cor. 7 tells the saints who is already living with an unbeliever not to seek to be released from that bond. But if the mate does die, one should choose another partner (if another is to be sought) from the saints. When one goes to the Devil for a marriage partner, he is bound to have trouble with his father-in-law.

Yet, in another area do we often go to the Devil: our entertainment. Places where lusts are easily aroused, drunkenness is encouraged and the suchlike are certainly not places where a saint ought to be. Consider your entertainments: are they of the Devil? Even proper entertainment can be of the Devil if one engages in it when he ought to be serving God. Do you miss worship services to attend entertaining events?

If one were told to go to the Devil to find reading material would he find what you are reading? As with the forms of entertainment, if you engage only in secular reading and do not study the word of God, you are caught in another of the Devil’s vices. We sometimes think of different kinds of libraries public, private, children’s, etc. Do you go the Devil’s library?

Paul taught the Corinthians of another wrong in which they were going to the Devil. They had legal matters which they thought could not be settled among themselves. While it is true that the powers-that-be sometimes require us to take on to court (to officially file a claim, make a statement, etc.), but there are times when it can be avoided and should be! It is at this time if a brother goes to court against another brother, he has left the arena that God has appointed for these decisions: the church. That one has gone to the Devil for his legal case (see 1 Cor. 6:1-11).

The New Testament speaks of saints’ “leaving their first love” (Rev. 2:4), and that there are things which are not “according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). It makes me wonder why one will try to serve God and Christ at all if he is willing to go to the Devil in some of these other areas. He is not acceptable in so doing. He is wasting his time in both areas. He is not fully serving Christ. He is doing enough to serve the Devil, but he could “enjoy” many more sins, even if it would only be for a reason. Why even worry about doing any good if one will not fully serve Christ? I think that it is because we know to do right is what God desires. We just fool ourselves into thinking that a departure from the true path will not harm our spiritual welfare. It will! Why not make the changes needed to be fully serving the Lord?

Your life may reflect the life of Jesus and you may now be acceptable to Him. It may not be. I hope that none of my readers will find contempt with another and be told to go to the Devil. But, if you do, or you overhear it, please try to remember this short lesson. Where are you going? To Christ or the Devil? With whom will you spend your eternity? With Christ or the Devil? It depends on where you are going now. Go to Jesus!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, p. 744
November 22, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

One of the perennial “delicate” subjects among brethren is the support of preachers. Over the years, I have heard some rather interesting “explanations” of support. They have ranged from the idea that a preacher ought to provide his own support by working (this one, obviously, considers that preaching is not work, a contention hardly likely to go uncontested) to the extreme that all a preacher does is “preach two sermons and teach two Bible classes a week,” contending thus that supporting him is a waste of the Lord’s money. This also might be subject to some dispute. Interspersed between these is the growing recognition that a preacher does have a right to be supported in his work in preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 9:1-23) at a level to permit him to provide for his family responsibility (1 Tim. 5:8). There still needs more recognition of the fact that his check is gross pay, while that of most brethren working in secular jobs is net. That is, theirs has already had taken out of it such things as social security; income tax, several varieties of insurance and, usually, some kind of a retirement plan. The preacher must subtract this from his pay check before any fair comparison can be made. Also, he has some added expenses inherent in his work, including increases in telephone and automobile expenses, cost of books and a few other things. I do not want to dwell on these, however, and only mention them in passing. I want to consider at greater length several other points needing understanding by brethren.

First, in my experience, there are too many saints who consider the preacher to be the paid employee of the church, that the relationship is one of employer and employee. This is not according to the New Testament. Paul makes it plain that support is a fellowshipping, a sharing of the supporting brethren in the work that the preacher is doing in spreading the gospel (see Phil. 1:5; 4:15, other texts). There are some consequences of such an attitude that must be realized, then corrected among brethren. First and foremost is that if a church can pay a preacher to preach, he thus has a price, and for a higher one, he can be paid not to preach something! This, usually, being something the brethren do not want to hear (see 2 Tim. 4:2-4). This hardly comports with Paul’s instructions in that text. On a secondary basis, I have yet to find a church that has enough money to pay me “for preaching.” If it is only a job, and nothing more, I can enjoy my “work” in another “job” a great deal more, without the heartache and personal agonizing that goes into preaching. I have met few experienced preachers who do not agree with me in this. Another serious consequence in this “employer-employee” thinking is since he is an employee, he can be used by others in the church to do their work, or do the work which can be much easier done by them, to leave him free to study and teach, which are his primary functions. Thus, preachers are pushed into the position of doing the “churchin.” Brethren, that ought not to be. A third consequence of such thinking is that our “employee,” the preacher can, since “he has more time than anyone else in the congregation,” get out and do more personal work.

It would be difficult to find a notion more foolish than that, and one more dangerous. Even holding it allows the holder to sit back relaxed, thinking with self-satisfaction, that “we’re doing our work, we’re taking care of our responsibilities.” Hopefully, those so believing will learn better before judgment. Even from a practical standpoint, however, this is nonsense. In the first place, the preacher who works, does not have “more time than other brethren”; he will have far less than most. Secondly, in the local community, he is a relative stranger and classed as a migrant. It is considered his “job” to knock on doors and do personal work, thus not many of those he contacts will give him serious consideration. Next, he has far fewer local contacts than the newest saint who has lived there for any period of time. Again, my own experience teaches me that there is not a member of the church who does not have (or would not, if he would work at it the way he wants the preacher to do) more opportunities to teach the aliens than the preacher. Any church that has a mind to work can grow; the plan is simplicity itself – it is outlined in full in Acts 8:4. Read it, and see how much depends on the preacher doing the church’s personal work. What is said there is: “each one win one.” Any takers? Of course the preacher is to do personal work – his, not the church’s!

Another situation needing some comment: the (bad) habit of some brethren in failing to consider the preacher’s needs when he moves with them. Since he is a stranger to the area, his ideas of the cost of living are apt to be somewhat inaccurate, no matter how closely he manages his income. Likely, not wanting to impose on brethren, he will ask only what he feels he needs to provide for his responsibility, allowing no margin for unforseen expenses. But what if he under-guesses (that does happen, you know)? Some folks simply tell him, in effect, “Sorry about that; we can’t (they mean, won’t’) consider a raise until you have been here for a year.” Now that is sensible! Right? Preachers do not have unions to fight for what is fair; they must depend upon the good-will of brethren to do what is right for them. I am not overstating the case when I say this does not always happen.

On more than one occasion, I have heard words such as, “May the Lord keep you humble; we’ll keep you poor” in reference to the attitude of too many brethren. One preacher was so sensitive to the criticism of brethren concerning his support that he never wore new clothing until he had it hang in his closet for a week or so. I asked him what this was for. His response: “So when brethren remark, `Oh, that’s a new coat you have, isn’t it?’ I can say, `No, I’ve had it for some time now.”‘ Silly? Depends on how much you have had others leaning on you. One preacher-friend said it this way: “The world will take care of you, but your brethren will let you starve to death.” He spoke from personal experience, and might be excused if he did exaggerate a little for emphasis. His case is not the only one I know of. Now brethren get into this sort of thinking probably for one of two reasons. Either they just do not know what is happening and so do not know their preacher’s needs. If this is true, a little investigation would be in order. The other possibility is just plain covetousness. I would pray my brethren would not be guilty of this, passing it by under the guise of stewardship. Yet I fear some are so.

One more situation: the tendency of preachers to move every two or three years to better their economic situation, and corollary to that, the tendency of congregations to want the preacher to move every two or three years. What a gross waste of the Lord’s money, in many cases! I have known more than one man to move because his financial situation was so bad he could not continue as he was, and the brethren flatly refused to make any adjustment. On the other hand, they were more than willing to spend hundreds of dollars trying others out and, when a selection had been made, spend several thousand to move him there. Try dividing the total cost of this activity out on a monthly basis to get some idea how much better off the congregation would have been financially, if a sizable raise had been offered the previous preacher.

The attitude on the part of brethren concerning what to offer a new man is in need of some overhauling, too. I once sat open-mouthed in wonder in a business meeting where it was proposed and passed (over my objection) that the new man be offered between two limits set at the meeting, with the urging of the brethren to “keep it as low as possible.” Not a word was said about the mar’s need. Needless to say, when the prospective preacher learned of this attitude, he did not move. Some in that congregation are probably still wondering why he refused. (At that time, I was not preaching, so I had no personal position to defend.)

Brethren, preachers are no different than you. They get hungry, need clothing, must be treated by doctors when they get ill, require a roof over their heads, grow old and need some kind of retirement, have a wife and kids whose needs cost money, and so on. They are not “outsiders”; they are members of the body of Christ with you, and associated with you in the work in that place, with you fellowshipping them in this. Treat them accordingly. No preacher ought to try and make the gospel a way of gain (1 Tim. 6:5) and honest ones will not do so. But they do need to be supported at a level which satisifies their needs.

Brethren, think on these things.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, pp. 742-743
November 22, 1979

By William C. Sexton

Recently I have corresponded with some brethren who contend that a teacher can scripturally be called “false” only if the heart is insincere. The false teacher is only the man who is knowingly and willingly distorting the message!

These brethren are using three sources of information to support their case, and I affirm that they are misusing all three:

1. First, they are claiming that the Greek word pseudodidaskalos is limited to one with an impure motive. Such is not true, however, and we need to see that such is not true, according to the authorities on the Greek word meaning.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (pp. 676, 144), says of pseudos (false): “a lie; conscious and intentional falsehood: . . . in a broad sense, whatever is not what it professed to be.” On page 144, this authority defines the word didaskalos (teacher): his seventh definition reads, “of false teachers among Christians: 2 Tim. 4:3.” These brethren quote only the first part of Thayer, because it agrees with their claim, but to limit the use to that is to fail. It includes that to be sure, but by no means is limited to that usage as they claim.

Arndt and Gingrich, in their monumental work, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (p. 899), said of the word pseudodidaskalos, false teacher, “one who teaches falsehoods.”

Barclay M. Newman, Jr. in A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 200), says of the word pseudodidaskalos, “false teachers, one who teaches what is not true.”

James Strong in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Complete and Unabridged (p. 78), says, under number 5572 of the word pseudodidaskalous: a spurious teacher, i.e. propagator of erroneous Chr. doctrine: – false teacher.”

The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Harper (p. 441) said of the word pseudodidaskalos – “a false teacher, one who inculcates false doctrine. N.T.”

It is clear to the unbiased mind, I believe, that these authorities of the Greek word translated “false teacher” understand the meaning to be describing the person who is teaching something claiming it to be of God when in fact it is not! Consequently when any of us teaches things, claiming that such is from God and it is not, then we re “false teachers.”

2. Secondly, these brethren are saying that the English word “false” is limited to one who is knowingly and willingly telling something that they know is not according to the facts. Such is not true. Webster says that the basic idea is “not accurate; in error; incorrect; wrong; mistaken: as a false argument” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, p. 524).

As with the Greek, in English to claim that the word is limited to a person who has an evil “motive” is to miss the mark – applying arbitrarily the meaning one wants to a word and dismissing the other legitimate meanings. Such is harmful, and we need to recognize the fault, point to it, and be sure that we are not taken in by it.

3. The New Testament passage, 2 Pet. 2:1 ff, is claimed by these brethren to limit the description of “false teachers” to people with evil motives, consciously trying to lead people away from what they know is the inspired word of God. Read the passage, beloved, to see if such is true. I affirm that such is not the case. To limit the meaning to such is like limiting the “false teacher” to “covetousness” because I such is used in the passage. However, not every false teacher has to be covetous; neither does a “false teacher” have to have an evil motive, although no doubt some “false teachers” do have evil motives. The motive, however, is not the criterion; rather it is the nature of the message and its claims!

The passage is a warning that “false teachers” – people teaching something other than the message delivered by the “holy men” speaking as they were “moved by the Holy Ghost”, 1:20-21 – would come and that we need to know that they can and will do us harm! We must be aware of the fact that they will be around and that the result of following them is destruction! We must have something more, beloved, than the ability to read their heart in order to identify them.

Question: If a teacher is “false” only when his/her heart is insincere, how can I detect a “false teacher”? What is required for me to detect one? Read his/her heart? Is that an impossible test? Is that really the aim? If that is the real test, how many “false teachers” are we going to identify? Friends, I pray that you will think on these things and respond to the God of Heaven’s message.

Food for thought: perhaps some of the most effective “false teachers” are the ones who are deceived themselves! Was Paul a “false teacher” when he “thought” that he “ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9-10)? When one is led by a “blind” leader – one having a good motive but out of the way – is he safe (Mt. 15:14)? Is there a passage that says one is safe if his motive is pure (cf. Mt. 7:21-23)?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, p. 741
November 22, 1979