Truth Magazine

By J. W. McGarvey

There is a progress upward, and a progress downward; a progress forward, and a progress backward; a progress away from the truth, and a progress in the truth. Whether we are in favor of progress or not, depends upon its direction. It is common to speak of two classes in the church, the progressives and the conservatives. That a man should be conservative is not objected to by any; but to call a man progressive is a reproach in the estimation of some, and a compliment in the estimation of others. We have had some newspaper writers, for some years back, who frequently startle us with notes of alarm in reference to the progressive tendencies among us; and some other writers who hold up to contempt and ridicle the man who opposes progress. Why this difference? Are those writers actually as antipodal as they seem to be? The latter will tell you that Jesus progressed far beyond the Pharisees and scribes; that the apostles progressed away from the Judaizers; that Luther progressed beyond the Pope; that Alexander Campbell progressed beyond the sects; and that the man who is opposed to progress condemns all of these great movements, and would have been on the wrong side had he lived at either of the great epochs which they mark in history. Is there really a class of men among us who oppose this kind of progress? Surely if there is, we ought to hunt them o;t, and drive them into their holes, where they will not obstruct the forward movements of religious society.

But again, we are told that these scoffers at progress think they know all that is to be known, and are determined that no man shall progress beyond them by learning anything which they have not discovered. It is said that the Pharisees were this way toward Jesus, and the Romanists toward Martin Luther, and the sects toward Alexander Campbell; and thus the opposers of progress are made to take a very low seat in the kingdom of God.

I have had some thoughts with reference to the exact issue involved in this controversy, and have been led to make some inquires which may throw a little light upon it. I have inquired, in what way did Jesus progress beyond the Pharisees? Now, to progress beyond a man, means, in the current sense of the phrase, to go as he has gone in a certain direction, and then go farther in the same direction. I ask myself, in what line of progress did Jesus overtake the Pharisees, and pass beyond them? Certainly not in the line of tradition; for instead of going beyond them in that, He traveled in the opposite direction, and tried to pull them back from all the progress which they had made. Neither was it in the line of Sabbatical observances; for in this He met them face to face, and compelled them to turn back again to the law as it was. Nor was it in the line of divorce; for here He pushed them all the way back to Adam and Eve, re-enacting the law of marriage which prevailed in the garden of Eden. Indeed, I find but few things in which He differed from them that are not of the same category. The difference consisted not in starting with them and going beyond them in the same direction, but in starting back from their point of progress and returning to the letter of the law, or to a true interpretation of it.

So it was with Luther. His work was not to start even with the Romanists and progress beyond them; not to start with the knowledge which they possessed, and acquire more of the same kind; but to turn back from where they stood, and throw away, as useless or injurious, the greater part of what they had learned. And so with A. Campbell and his co-laborers. It was a movement, not beyond the position of the sects, but backward in the opposite direction. They were progressing forward, away from the Bible, outstripping each other in the race for new inventions of men; this movement was a progress backward toward the Bible which they had abandoned.

Now, it is true, that in all these cases there was some progress made in actual knowledge of the Scripture. Jesus made such progress; so did Luther; so did Campbell. But this is not the progress objected to. Where is the man who objects to this progress? He is not to be found, unless it be in the ranks of those who are progressing beyond and away from the word of God. The Pharisees had thus progressed; hence, they opposed Jesus. They opposed Him because He opposed them, and went in the opposite direction from them. So with Luther and the Romanists; with Campbell and the sects.

What, then, is the progress objected to? Briefly, it is this: it is that which begins with a melodeon in the Sunday School, and progresses toward a grand organ in the church; which begins with a relaxation of discipline, and progresses toward no discipline at all; which begins with belittling the Eldership, and progresses toward a pastorate as a substitute; which begins by declaring the unbaptized in the kingdom, and progresses towards the reception of them into the church; which begins by scouting the demand for soundness in the faith, and progresses to all manner of unsound teaching; which, in short, begins at the same point of departure with the sects, and aims to progress up to them all, and finally, beyond them all in unauthorized teaching and practice, – This, and this only is the progress condemned. True progress is still backward – backward toward the apostles, toward the doctrine, the terms of pardon, the worship and the discipline which they instituted. Push your progress in this direction if you wish to have a hard fight for every inch of ground you gain. If you would sail smoothly on the current, let your progress be in whatever direction the popular current flows.

 

Postscript: The Past Is Present

 

By Ron Halbrook
Xenia, Ohio

 

John William McGarvey (1 March 1829-6 October 1911) was educated under such men as Alexander Campbell and W.K. Pendleton at Bethany College (1847-50), then learned to preach largely through the encouragement and example of T.M. Allen while living in LaFayette County Missouri (1850-62), and finally settled down as a preacher and teacher of preachers in Lexington, Kentucky (18621911). The article on “True Progress” reflects the early decades of McGarvey’s work when he was earnestly trying to answer what he called heaven’s “loudest call”: “The loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is for warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, extermination, against everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament” (Millennial Harbinger, 1868, p. 219).

The major exception and failure in McGarvey’s life to answer heaven’s call was in his hearty participation in various societies which were intertwined with the churches for evangelism, edification, and benevolence. This is what David Lipscomb meant when he said of McGarvey, “He is so often and so thoroughly right on so many points that I feel indignant when he tramples on his own principles to go wrong” (Gospel Advocate, 1909, p. 169). McGarvey viewed the societies “not as permanent institutions, but as temporary expedients” until local churches learned to do their own work, which would eliminate every “excuse for the organization of a missionary society; for then the work would be going on in the most simple and effective method possible, and in a way expressly provided for in the New Testament” (American Christian Review, 1863, p. 194). In this, McGarvey admittedly failed to “progress backward toward the Bible” and thus unwittingly progressed “beyond and away from the word of God,” to borrow his own explanation of “True Progress.”

McGarvey’s mention of heaven’s “loudest call” in the 1868 Millennial Harbinger was provoked by A.S. Hayden’s attempt to justify such innovations as instrumental music under the banners of “Expediency and Progress” (M.H., 1868, pp. 135-44). For twenty years, McGarvey waged stern and relentless warfare against instrumental music in worship, as, for example, in the article on “True Progress.” But, when “the party for the innovation proved to be the popular party, and they finally succeeded in winning to their cause so nearly all of the preachers and congregations,” McGarvey thought it “useless to continue repeating arguments and evidences which were unheeded” and then “turned his pen to other subjects” (Autobiography of J. W. McGarvey published in special issue of The College of the Bible Quarterly, April 1960, p. 44). The fact is that McGarvey compromised his convictions by failing to cry out any longer against the instrument, because he knew that this was the price required in order for him to sustain fellowship with the society brethren. How sad that in this he trampled on his own principles and failed to heed heaven’s loudest call!

McGarvey was a prolific and influential writer. His articles first appeared in the Millennial Harbinger and in Benjamin Franklin’s American Christian Review. Moses E. Lard solicited McGarvey’s aid as a chief contributor of articles in publishing the short-lived Lard’s Quarterly (September 1863 – April 1868). Lard and Winthrop H. Hopson counseled with Robert Graham, Lanceford B. Wilkes, and McGarvey in 1868 about the possibility of starting a new paper. A “Prospectus of The Apostolic Times” appeared in December, bearing the names of those five widely-respected preachers, and announcing,

The absorbing object of the Paper will be the propagation and defense of the Gospel as it came pure from the lips of Christ and of the Apostles. On this grand theme it will decline even the semblance of a compromise. Whatever aids this, it will aid; whatever opposes this, it will oppose. To the primitive faith and the primitive practice, without enlargement or diminution, without innovation or modification, the Editors here and how commit their Paper and themselves with a will and purpose inflexible as the cause in whose interest they propose to write.

The Apostolic Times hoped to counteract the Christian Standard’s laxness, a paper which had been started to interject the social political issues in the War Between the States because other papers excluded such discussion as not befitting to the gospel, and which had been started also to overcome the embarrassment experienced by emerging liberals who found most of the journals narrow-minded and lacking literary merit. James A. Garfield, a prime mover in the beginning of the Christian Standard, was disappointed that it was not more liberal than it was and recognized Editor Isaac Errett to be a compromiser “as fearful of the liberal tendencies of the time as he is of the conservative.” Garfield was confiding to assistant editor Burke A. Hinsdale, who was using his influence to bring the Standard to openly “fight for a liberal Christianity” and who opted not to preach full-time because of “a lack of completest sympathy with the Disciple Brotherhood” (Garfield-Hinsdale Letters, pp. 109, 126). The Apostolic Times was determined to openly fight these liberal or “progressive” tendencies, and McGarvey’s article “True Progress” is but one of the many cannonades delivered in the war. The article appeared in Vol. III, No. 29 (26 October 1871), on page 228. The war conducted by the Apostolic Times was lost because the paper was caught in the cross fire created by the inconsistency of supporting societies but opposing other innovations. I.B. Grubbs and S.A. Kelley began editing the paper in 1876, Hopson bought it in 1878 and kept it for over a year, but it died in 1885. McGarvey edited another such ill-fated venture, the Apostolic Guide (1885-93), then turned his pen to “Biblical Criticism” in a column under that name for the Christian Standard until his death in 1911. The Standard approved both the societies and the instrument, but appeared to be relatively conservative in comparison to the rise of unmitigated theological liberalism. Many like McGarvey who once pledged not “even the semblance of a compromise” on certain issues were forced to seek contentment with compromise by giving their energies to other issues. This is not the course of a fierce, independent, wholehearted loyalty to Jesus Christ!

If our readers cannot see by now the striking parallel between events in McGarvey’s day and in the present, to further lengthen this article could not make them see any better. None are so blind as those who will not see. The speaker or writer must be clear, but the hearer must be honest of heart. Jesus said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (Jn. 7:17). Let us determine to seek and pursue only that progress which is backward toward the Lord himself, the apostles, the doctrine, the terms of pardon, the worship, the organization and discipline of the New Testament. We dare not go along with brethren in an effort to get along with them when they depart from the Bible, lest we trample on the Savior’s word and become deaf to heaven’s call. For any of us to say, “It can’t happen to me,” is to display the kind of arrogance which invites destruction.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 39, pp. 631-633
October 4, 1979

By Alexander Campell

Under this head we have just read an article in the Christian Messenger for January last. The charitable Editor seems to use this term “opinion “, in such a latitude as to cover almost all the laws, ordinances and worship of the Christian institution. This would not be a matter so much to be regretted, if he did not make this his opinion of opinions a principle of action; and, in fact, give it the sanction of a law. Does any person ask how this can be? I answer, by stating his own case and his own decision of it. He says, “My opinion is that immersion is the only baptism. But shall I, therefore, make my opinion a term of Christian fellowship. If in this case I thus act, where shall I cease from making my opinions terms of fellowship? I confess I see no end. But you may say that immersion is so plainly the meaning of Christian baptism, you know not how any honest man can be ignorant of it. This is the very language of all opinionists: says one, `The doctrine of Trinity is so plainly taught that I cannot think any honest man can deny it.’ So speak all sectarians respecting their opinions. Shall we reason with them on the impropriety of making their opinions tests of Christianity and terms of fellowship, and do the same? Is this consistency? Is this the spirit of reformation? You may say my idea of baptism, as meaning immersion, is not an opinion, but a fact. So say the orthodox respecting many of their unscriptural opinions, and are as firmly persuaded of them as you can be respecting immersion not being an opinion of baptism. Here again a disinterested umpire is needed. The case I shall leave, sub judice, till a satisfactory determination of the matter be made.” This is his case. But unfortunately the benevolent writer does not leave it sub judice, but makes his opinion of opinions a principle of action; and therefore exhorts his brethren to commune with unimmersed persons, because, in his opinion, the Lord has received them, and, in his opinion, we ought to receive them. “Shall we,” says he, “refuse communion with those with whom the Lord communes?”

Here are three opinions asserted, and a course of conduct projected and enforced from them. First-It is his opinion that the Lord has received the Paidobaptists, at least the honest Paidobaptists. It is, in the second place, his opinion that we should receive them into Christian fellowship: and, in his opinion, they who do not receive them act inconsistently; and hence comes the exhortation to make expediency, rather than the old apostolic usage, a rule of action. Is this leaving the matter sub judice?

To exhort to receive honest Paidobaptists to all the rights, immunities, and privileges of citizens in the kingdom of Jesus, is, as respects leaving the matter sub juice, or undecided, as inconsistent as to exhort not to receive them. The Editor of the Messenger seems not to regard the exhortation to receive them to be as incompatible with his own reasoning as an exhortation to exclude or refuse them. In one sentence, he who exhorts to receive into christian communion unimmersed persons, however honest, makes his opinion a law of action just as much as he who exhorts to reject them, according to the reasoning of our liberal brother.

But now, as this worthy friend of liberal principles thinks he has left the matter sub judice, or undecided, I will beg his attention to a few remarks on his use of the term “opinion, ” and his rule of action. Opinions are always,.. in strictpropriety of speech, doubtful matters, because speculative. If ever the word be applied to matters of testimony, to laws, institutions, or religious worship, we must be confounded in our faith and practice. If, in his style, opinion apply equally to immersion and the doctrine of the Trinity, then it will apply equally to the Messiahship of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead, eternal life, and every item of the chrisitan faith and hope. One man may say, `I am of opinion that Jesus did not die for our sins; that his death was that of a martyr or witness for the truth of God’s philanthropy, and as an example to us.’ And another is of opinion that immersion, the Lord’s table, and the literal resurrection of the body, are all carnal notions and unworthy of a spiritual man.’ Both appear to be honest and pious men. Shall the christian divide the ground with them, and only say he is of a different opinion? This is not the charity which rejoices in the truth.

I know that baptism means immersion as certainly as I know that menus means a hand, and penna a pen; or as certainly as I know that sprinkling is not pouring, and pouring is not dipping. I know as certainly that eis means into, as I do that in does not mean out, nor out, IN. I believe as certainly the Christian facts as I believe any events of the American Revolution. I will not say that he who says he is of opinion that George Washington lived two hundred years ago, and was the same person who is called Oliver Cromwell, is to be regarded as a believer of the American history, but ply differing in opinion from me. I cannot regard him as only differing in opinion from one who maintains that we are, from the New Testament, as much bound religiously to observe Easter and Christmas, as we are the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper. He may call me uncharitable, but I will be honest though I hazard his contumely.

But here is the error. We are represented as refusing communion with him with whom God communes, if we do not recognize as a fellow-citizen every one whom God regards as one of his people. Has God any where commanded us to sit down at the Lord’s table with a person who refuses to be immersed because he was sprinkled? Or has he enjoined upon me to treat any person as a brother in the Lord because he has recognized him as such, when he fails to keep the ordinances of the Lord? It is only in obedience to the Lord, not on the principle of expediency, but because the Lord has enjoined it, that we are to associate with any person as a brother in the Lord. Nor do I say that none are Christians but those who walk orderly; we only say that we are commanded to associate with those only who walk orderly. If we can dispense with the neglect or disobedience of one Christian, we may with another; and so on till we have in the church all the vices of the world.

We are always safe when we act constitutionally, or according to the law of our Sovereign Lord the King; unsafe when we act from our opinion, or sense of expediency, or the fitness of things. He who is so enlightened as to say that immersion into the name, &c. is the only baptism Jesus Christ appointed, and that none can enter into the kingdom of Jesus but such as are immersed or born of water, and yet takes upon himself to set this institution aside upon his own opinion of expediency, presumes more upon his opinion and upon the pliability of his Lord and Master, than we for the universe dare presume. Of all men, he who knows his Master’s will, and does it not, is most obnoxious to the displeasure of his Lord.

To say that a new state of things has arisen, to which the New Testament laws and usages will not apply, is at once to set aside the perfection and applicability of the Book, and to weaken the obligation of every Christian institute, and our own hands in waging war against error.

Call not this an opinion; or, if you do, call my belief that Jesus is the Son of God, an opinion too; and every thought, volition, and affection of the heart, an opinion. I trust while our much esteemed friend of the “Messenger” holds this matter sub judice, he will not act as if he had decided the matter. (Quoted from Millenial Harbinger, Vol. II, pp. 101-104.)

Truth Magazine XXIII: 39, pp. 629-630
October 4, 1979

By Mike Willis

Dr. A. Dudley Dennison wrote, in his book Windows, Ladders, and Bridges pp. 101-102), the following comments about one’s priorities in life:

Not long ago, a survey was taken of men who had survived heart attacks in their forties. Most reported that these coronary episodes had made them confront, as never before, the whole question of life’s purpose, and how to live it. Several of the men felt that having a coronary was the best thing that had happened in their lives. They felt they had been wasting their lives up to that point, and the new chance they now had to reorder their priorities might otherwise never have come. One man reported that, as one form of therapy, his doctor had given him the assignment to write a clear statement of what he wanted to accomplish with the rest of his life. For the first time in years that man seriously took stock of where he had been going and where he should be going with his life.

Another man expressed gratitude to a nurse who had had a great deal of experience in the care of heart patients. She’d been able to make him feel that he was a very fortunate man, because relatively early in life he’d been warned against what she described as “breaking your heart chasing rainbows that can’t be caught and would be worthless if they could be.”

What happened to these victims of heart attacks needs to happen to more of us; that is, we need to reassess our priorities in this life. Each of us needs to constantly reassess the goals which he has in this life.

David spoke of the chief goal in his life when he wrote, “One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple” (Psa. 27:4). Frankly, I can think of no greater goal in life than the one which David mentioned. Will you take a few minutes to meditate on David’s goal with me?

“One Thing Have I Desired Of The Lord”

Man’s heart needs to be single. It needs to be set on one thing. A divided allegiance with reference to one’s service to God is fatal. Jesus taught that a man cannot serve two masters (Mt. 6:24). Where one’s treasure is, there will his heart be also (Mt. 6:22-23). When it is torn between two loyalties and goals, it cannot serve either of them sufficiently.

Not only does man’s heart need to be single, it needs to be set on spiritual things. Many have a single heart – a single heart set on temporal things. We can read constantly of men and women who have set their heart on some temporal goal (such as a career in sports or acting, money, a house, and other temporal goals). These were not the “one thing” which David desired. Apparently, David had learned that the pleasures of this world are fleeting. “The eye is not satisfied with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing” (Eccl. 1:8). The pleasures of sin are but “for a season” (Heb. 11:25). The world and all that is in it are passing away (1 Jn. 2:17).

Hence, Christians need to emulate the example of David and set our hearts on things which are above (Col. 3:1-2). David said, “One thing have I desired of the Lord!” Having his heart set on spiritual things, a man recognizes that only the Lord can fulfill his heart’s desire. Hence, he turns to God to find satisfaction. Yet, in this, he realizes that his desire will not be fulfilled by empty yearning left alone.

“That Will I Seek After”

David realized that he must speak after the things which his heart desired if he ever expected to have them. Mere yearning after something will not result in the obtaining of it. There must be efforts united with the desire in order to obtain the heart’s desire.

Another thing that is rather obvious at this point is this: a man’s energies are usually consumed in pursuing the things which his heart desires. A man is a unified being: whatever his heart desires is what his body does. A man does not commit wickedness out of a good heart; rather, his heart is evil, and therefore, he does evil (Matt. 12:33-35.) Realizing this aspect about man, we are able to judge whether or not a man truly loves the Lord through his actions.

I cannot look into another person’s heart and judge whether or not he loves God. I can, however, judge the nature of his fruits. If a man’s life is characterized by habits such as forsaking the assembly of the saints, neglect of prayer, failure to study God’s word, and boredom in worship, I can guarantee you that his heart is not set on spiritual things. He is not seeking after them because he has no love of them. The things which his heart desires is what he has time for doing.

Brethren, the things of God are worth every effort we can put forth to obtain them. In the parables of the merchant who found the goodly pearl and the man who stumbled upon a treasure which was hidden in the field, Jesus revealed that man should sell everything he had in order to obtain the kingdom of heaven. The spiritual things which God has available for His children are worth whatever we have to give up in order to obtain them. So, let us set our affections upon them and seek them with all of our might.

“That I May Dwell In The House of The Lord All The Days Of My Life”

The object of David’s desire is now revealed to us. His one desire of the Lord and the thing after which He sought was to be able to dwell in the house of the Lord all of his life. This blessing must be understood in its historical context. The “house of the Lord” was the tabernacle. The tabernacle, in Israelite worship, was the place of God’s presence, the divinely revealed place and program of worship, and the place in which God revealed His will to man. There were several occasions in David’s life when he was separated from the house of the Lord. On such occasions, David sang, “O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; to see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary” (Psa. 63:1-2; this psalm was written while David was in the wilderness of Judah, separated from the house of the Lord). Indeed, he confessed, “Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth” (Psa. 26:8). The house of the Lord, one must observe, pertained to the “days of my life;” hence, there is no reference in this to heaven.

Even as David had appreciation for the house of the Lord under the Old Covenant and longed to dwell in it all of the days of his life, even so should Christians appreciate, adore, and long to dwell in the house of the Lord under the New Covenant, His lovely church (1 Tim. 3:15). Though the world around us might not be content with the simple ways which God has ordained in the church, the Christian should frankly confess his love for the people of the Lord (“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise . . . .” – 1 Cor. 1:26-27), the worship authorized by the Lord (a worship which has little appeal to the fleshly parts of man), and the program of work to be carried on by the people of God.

Frankly, I am contented with the house of the Lord which is revealed in the Scriptures. I have no desire to go flirting with man-made denominations and other religious innovations of men. I am perfectly content and happy with the house of the Lord.

I pray to the Lord that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all of the days of my life. For I am not content to run to the house of the Lord spasmodically; I want to dwell there. I want the constant association of the Lord and His people. I want my relationship to be so close to the Lord that when I am in trouble, I am not turning to a complete stranger for help; I am turning to my “bosom buddy,” my constant companion throughout life. Furthermore, when I testify that I want to dwell in the house of the Lord all of the days of my life, I am recognizing that I want to dwell in the house of the Lord during the days of my youth – the days during which young people of this world are “sowing their wild oats,” during the strength of manhood, and during the last days of my life on this earth.

During the days of dwelling in the house of the Lord, I want to devote every ounce of my energies to His service. I want the Lord to wear out my temporal body in His work. This is my earnest desire. To the best of my ability to express it, this is what I understand that David wanted as his one desire of the Lord.

“To Behold The Beauty of the Lord, And To Inquire In His Temple”

The psalmist had two primary reasons for wanting to be in the house of the Lord: (a) to behold the beauty of the Lord and (b) to inquire in His Temple. Let us notice these two blessings which He desired to obtain through dwelling in the house of the Lord.

David longed to see more of the beauty of the Lord. The glorious attributes of God manifest the beauty of His character. Being a Spirit, God is n -it considered beautiful because of physical appearance; his beauty is in His character and characteristics. The attributes of God which manifest His beauty include the following: (1) omnipotence; (2) omnipresence; (3) omniscience; (4) holiness; (5) mercy; and (6) grace. There are other attributes of God which show His beauty which others could readily add; however, I am impressed also with the balance in His character. God is not filled with a mushy love which allows others to tread over Him; God is not so stern in His holiness that He makes no provisions for sinful men to have access to Him. Rather, His character is balanced.

We learn of the nature of God through several ways. We learn of His omnipotent power and divinity through the things which are made (Rom. 1:19-21). We learn about Him through the Law of Moses. By looking at Christ, we can see God (Jn. 14:9). Furthermore, we learn about God through the gospel. As we learn the glorious attributes of God,we are drawn to Him like a moth to a flame; His character attracts men to Him.

It is in the house of the Lord, i.e. in the church, that I hear that word of the Lord expounded which reveals to me the nature of God. It is also there that I learn what God wants me to do in this life. David wanted to be in the house of the Lord that he might “inquire in the Temple.” The Jews learned the will of God through the revelation given by God through the high priest when he used the Urim and Thummim to learn God’s will in a matter. David wanted to be in the house of the Lord that he might continue to have access to the word of the Lord.

God’s word is revealed to us through the Bible. In preaching God’s word, men learn what God desires for . them to do in this life. Men assemble together in the presence of God to learn more about what God desires for them to do in this life (cf. 1 Cor. 14:24-25). Even as David wanted to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of his life in order that he might learn more about God’s will for his life, so also should Christians want to be in the Lord’s house with other saints to learn more about God’s will in this life.

Conclusion

If you started the sentence, as David did, “One thing have I desired . . .,” how would you finish it? Would you conclude it in the same fashion as David did? I pray that it will not take a heart attack to awaken each of us to placing his priorities in the order which God demands that they be placed.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 39, pp. 627-629
October 4, 1979

By Don R. Hastings

The Lord was with Joseph when he was unjustly thrown into prison. (Gen. 39:21-23). It is hard to accept punishment which we deserve, but it is extremely difficult to maintain a good, pleasant disposition when the punishment is unjust (1 Pet. 2:19, 20; Gen. 40:15). Even though Joseph was the victim of slander and his freedom was taken away, he did not become bitter and filled with vengeance (Eph. 4:31, 32; Rom. 12:9).

In prison, Joseph rose to the top again (Gen. 39:22). Joseph so conducted himself that he won the complete confidence of the keeper of the prison just as he had Potiphar’s. God wants His children to do their best for Him under every situation. Like Joseph, we need to remain faithful to God in spite of all that the devil may do to discourage us.

Joseph told the butler and the baker the meaning of their dreams (Gen. 40). Joseph gave God the credit for the interpretations of dreams (Gen. 40:8; 41:16; 1 Cor. 1:31). Again, Joseph was sinned against, for the butler forgot to make mention of him before Pharaoh (Gen. 40:14, 23). It hurts to be forgotten. We can all relate to that. Suppose someone tells you that they will pick you up the next day at 10 o’clock. Then, a few days later tell you they are sorry they forgot you? We all know how important it is to us not to be forgotten. Well, two years finally passed and Joseph was still in prison (Gen. 41:1). Finally, Pharaoh had a dream and the butler remembered Joseph (Gen. 41:9-13).

The Lord was with Joseph when he was called before Pharaoh. “. . . And gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house” (Acts 7:10).

Joseph told the meanings of Pharaoh’s dreams (Gen. 41:14-36). Joseph was over all the people except Pharaoh (Gen. 41:40). Pharaoh honored Joseph before all the people (Gen. 41:41-44). Pharaoh gave Joseph a wife and unto them were born two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:45-52). Later, Joseph said of his sons, “They are my sons, whom God hath given me here” (Gen. 48:9). Do we consider our children to be gifts from God?

Joseph did not permit his great wealth, honor, and power to cause him to be filled with pride and to forget the one who had given him these blessings. He did not permit his sudden rise to fame and glory to change him from being a humble servant of the Most High (Gen. 42:18). Many children of God find that their faith decreases as their prosperity increases, for they place more of their hope and trust in their riches and less in their Creator (1 Tim. 6:17; Mark 10:24). Prosperity sometimes causes Christians to love this world (I John 2:15-17). The “care and riches and pleasures of this life” have caused many spiritual deaths (Luke 8:14). Many Christians have gone off to Egypt to work and, when they prosper, they become Egyptians! I cannot think of anyone who handled adversity and success any better than Joseph!

What makes the character of Joseph even more commendable is that he resisted the strong temptation of bitterness, hatred, discouragement, fornication, and pride at a very tender age, for he was 17 when sold into slavery and only 30 when he was made governor over Egypt (Gen. 37:2; 41:46).

Why was the Lord with Joseph? Because he feared God. Do you fear God? You do not if you refuse to keep His commandments. Joseph maintained a strong, constant faith in God. Have you? If your faith has wavered, you need to ask God for forgiveness and renew your faith in Him.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 39, p. 626
October 4, 1979