Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Several years ago, I wrote an article on “Fellowship and First Corinthians” (Truth Magazine, Vol. XIX, No. 14, p. 8) in which I presented the teaching of that book pertaining to the subject of fellowship. I thought that the material was relevant to the discussion of the issues of the day. As somewhat of a sequel to that article so far as style is concerned, I would like to consider the teaching of the book of Galatians as to the subject of fellowship. I have sought to use the material in this book in such a manner as to relate it to our problems today.

The churches of Galatia were troubled by men who were coming among them disturbing them. The peace and harmony which normally characterized the local church were broken by these brethren. Consequently, Paul had to write instructions explaining how these false men needed to be handled in order that whole churches would not be led away from the teachings of Christ.

The Nature of the Apostasy

In order to understand the subject of fellowship in Galatians and to relate it to modern problems, we need first to know what the apostasy in the churches of Galatia was like. The book speaks of those who were minded to revert to the Law of Moses as a means of justification. However, there was not a total break with Christianity; instead, they wanted to keep the best of both systems. The Judaizers did riot deny the virgin birth, the atoning death of Jesus Christ, His burial, His resurrection, His ascension, His present position as Lord of lords and King of kings, or baptism. By present day definitions among the “grace-fellowship” brethren, they believed the “gospel.” Rather, the Judaizers tried to compel their Gentile brethren to be circumcised, observe the Jewish holy days, and otherwise to keep the law. Their apostasy pertained to “doctrine.”

One of their reasons for wanting to bind these Mosaical laws upon their Gentile brethren was to avoid persecution. The Jews were persecuting their brethren who became Christians because they abandoned observance of the Mosaical law. Paul wrote, “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also” (4:29). Later, he asked, “But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished” (5:11). As he concluded his letter he stated the motive of the Judaizers; he said, “Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may boast in your flesh” (6:12). By persuading the Gentiles to be circumcised, the Judaizers could avoid persecution from their Jewish brethren; they could brag about how many Gentiles they had proselyted.

The book of Galatians shows that the two systems of salvation through observance of the Mosaical law and the obedience of faith to the Law of Christ are incompatible. One cannot mix the two. The man who tries to go back to the Mosaical law to receive circumcision falls from grace, severs his relationship with Christ, and is a debtor to observe the entire law of Moses (5:1-4).

From these comments, we see that the apostasy that was going on in Galatia was from within the church. By today’s terminology among the “grace-fellowship” brethren, it was a “doctrinal” apostasy. With this in mind, it is interesting to notice some of the passages which speak about fellowship found in the little book to the Galatians. How did Paul treat the subject of fellowship with those who reverted to the law of Moses? Did he say, “We may as well expect everyone to like the same kinds of food as to expect everyone to agree on doctrinal matters in the church”? Did he believe in a unity-in-diversity of the sort which is advocated by Carl Ketherside and Leroy Garrett with reference to this “doctrinal” matter? Let us consider several of the important passages in this book with this in mind.

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1:6-9

1. The apostasy led by the Judaizers perverted the gospel of Christ. Notice the several things which Paul said of the Judaizers. They were following a different gospel; they distorted the gospel of Christ; the gospel which they preached was not really a gospel at all; the gospel which they preached was contrary to that which the apostles preached to them. Hence, this doctrinal error destroyed the very heart of the saving gospel, although it neither denied any of the seven facts or denied the one act (baptism) which,, brought men into fellowship with God’s Son.

2. The doctrinal apostasy damned one’s soul. The man who preached this doctrine was accursed. Brethren, I have read several different descriptions of what awaits the saints in heaven, but this is not one of them. The men involved in this doctrinal apostasy were destined to hell! They were not pleasing to God and, therefore, stood condemned before Him. We shall see later in this article that not only were the ones who taught this heresy condemned but also they who followed it.

3. The Judaizers were disturbing the churches. They went everywhere to teach their apostasy of binding the law of Moses upon Gentile Christians. Everywhere they went, churches were disturbed. Even as the church in Antioch was disturbed by these brethren, so were the churches in Galatia.

Gal. 2:1-10: Paul’s Trip To Jerusalem

Space will not permit me to reproduce this long passage, but open your biblical text to that place and notice the points which we observe from it. Paul went to Jerusalem as a result of a direct revelation from God (2:2). While there, certain Jewish brethren attempted to compel Titus who accompanied him to be circumcised. Paul described these brethren as “false brethren” (2:4). To these brethren, Paul refused to yield by way of subjection for even such a short period of time as one hour (2:5).

(In light of the fact that Paul circumcised Timothy to avert Jewish prejudice (Acts 16:3), his refusal to cir-cumcise Titus becomes even more significant. The former was done because Timothy was a Jew who would be working among Jews; the latter was not done because such would have been tantamount to accepting the Judaizer’s legislation that Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved. Inasmuch as this would have been to compromise the gospel, to bind where God had loosed, Paul refused to allow Titus to be circumcised.)

Consequently, Paul presented the gospel which he preached to “those who were of reputation” in private. When they saw that he was preaching the revelation of God through Jesus Christ, they gave to Paul and Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship” (2:9). This right hand of fellowship would not have been extended to the Judaizers nor would it have been extended to Paul and Barnabas had they been preaching a gospel contrary to the revelation of Jesus Christ. Hence, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem somehow concluded that they must have doctrinal agreement before the right hand of fellowship could be extended to these men.

Those who preach “unity-in-diversity” would have extended the right hand of fellowship to the Judaizers as well. They would have told us that it would be ridiculous to expect all brethren to understand this matter alike. Not so, the first century apostles! They believed that all brethren had to accept and believe the same thing about this. They did not write about poor, ignorant brethren with imbecility of intellect who could not understand these matters.

Truth Magazine XXII: 24, pp. 387-388
June 15, 1978

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Evolutionists argue that since there are similarities between the ape and man, man either descended from the ape, or from a common parent. Hence, resemblance between animals and man, and between animals and plants, form the basis for argumentation in favor of the theory . of evolution. In my presence recently, one argued that since man and the ape have a spinal column, they must have come from a common ancestor! Such an absurdity hardly needs refutation, but since there are those who believe that similarities of certain features of man and the ape show identity, a few comments would be in order along this line.

No one denies that there are similarities between man and the ape! They have much in common. After all, God did form both in the same environment. In that God said of these creatures, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind,” it is obvious that the ape came from the earth. “Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 1:24; 2:7). The fact that man is a separate creation, separating him from the animal creation, does not deprive him of his animal characteristics. They have many likenesses and similarities because both are of the animal kingdom, and both are of the earth! The difference between man and the ape lies in the fact that man alone is a special creation, endowed with peculiar privileges, which in this respect separates him from animals. Instead of showing identity, similarities manifest a creative plan.

Ignore Differences

While there are indeed certain characteristics that are similar, there are major differences between the ape and man. These tend to show that they are not a common parentage. Since my friend used the spinal column in his effort to uphold evolution, let us make this observation: the ape walks with a stooping posture, while man walks in an up-right position. The ape depends upon very powerful neck muscles to carry his head in a horizontal position. Man has no such muscles in the back of his neck. To walk up-rightly, the ape is under great strain for the spinal column is not designed to carry the head in this position. Since man’s spinal column is designed to support the head, he is able to walk about with ease. The up-right position is natural with man, but such posture is unnatural with the ape (Christianity And False Evolution, by A.S. Zerbe; p. 82). There is, therefore a radical difference in the structure of the backbone of the man and that of the ape. In man, the spinal column fits into an opening in a centrally located spot in the back of the head. This balances the head on the vertebral column (Modern Science And Christian Faith, p. 175). Such conditions do not exist in the bone structure of the ape. In addition to this, it has been stated that there are over “150 major differences between the body of an ape and body of a man” (Witnesses Against Evolution, p: 17). The distinguished evolutionist, Huxley, said “every bone of a gorilla bears marks by which it might be distinguished from the corresponding bone of a man . . . no intermediate link bridges the gap” (Zerbe, op. cit.). There are similarities, but the differences are so great and marked that the chasm thus far has not been bridged.

Absurdity of the Position

If similarities between man and the ape show that at one time they ultimately were the same, then with little effort one could show the similarities between the common rat, the elephant and the horse. Were these ultimately the same? Absurd! Just because one has thick lips and curly hair, does that make him an African? If I had a Roman nose, would that make me a Roman?

“It has beets proven that of the milk of animals, human milk more nearly resembles ass’ milk. `Here the resemblance is marked not only by quantitative analysis, but by the fact that human milk, like ass’ milk, leaves no residue of nuclein or paranuclein on digestion and the casein of both produces an alkaline reaction.’ If one were inclined to treat so serious a matter ironically he could say that man is more nearly an ass than an ape” (Zerbe op. cit., underscore mine, jt). I think enough has been said along this line.

Conclusion

In order to live upon the earth, man naturally resembles the animal in that he must eat, breathe, etc. It is no great surprise to see therefore, common traits between man and animals. There is some connection, but this in no way supports the probability that one is a descendant of the other. A careful study of the facts points out that evolution has not a chance. It is still an unproven hypothesis!

Truth Magazine XXII: 24, p. 386
June 15, 1978

By Earl Robertson

Man is a creature of need. Man is a two-fold being: flesh and spirit. His inward man has moral and spiritual needs and God complements them. The outward man is physical and has sociological, biological, and economic needs. His economic needs may be met without marriage; he may labor either for others or himself and thereby earn his living. One does not have to married to do this. However, the sociological and biological needs of man have their answer within the home-marriage.

The “gay” world of our day offers varied and manifold answers to our problems, but their answers are not true and they do not really satisfy. Their program of liberation spans the gambit from “common-law” live-ins to sodomy, and this is neither the will of God nor what any morally conscious person can do. The Bible is ignored by many seeking happiness. The substitution of man’s ways for God’s ways in meeting one’s needs leads to disappointments and unbearable heartaches.

Man’s Help Meet

God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Gen. 2:18). This “help meet” for Adam was Eve. God made only one Eve for one Adam-one man and one woman. Dwight M. Pratt says, “Whatever interpretation the latest scholarship may give to the story of woman’s formation from the rib of man (Gen. 2:21-24), the passage indicates, most profoundly, the inseparable unity and fellowship of her life with his. Far more than being a mere assistant, `helper’ (ezer), `help,’ `helper’ (Gen. 2:18), she is man’s complement, essential to the perfection of his being. Without her he is not man in the generic fulness of that term” (ISBE, p. 3100).

Man emphasizes his sociological needs and longings for a matrimonial companion in that he leaves his father’s house and cleaves to his wife (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5). When he does this, he is to love her even as his own body (Eph. 5:28). If one does not so love, there should be no marriage! The formation of this union is in recognition of the fact that “the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8, 9). These verses are not saying that the woman has no social needs, but are showing “Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). Adam existed with his needs-“not good to be alone”-before Eve was created. When she was created she also had sociological needs. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication… let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).

The experience one has in losing a companion or that a person has in solitary confinement is most difficult and in some cases unbearable. Marriage is designed by the Lord for companionship. Man is a social being.

God made both man and woman and he knows the needs of both. Human life and living processes are known in applied biology. The biological needs and responsibilities of man and woman are complemented and discharged in the unit of marriage. The Bible teaches the husband and wife to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). No other relationship (than husband and wife) may scripturally bear children. Paul says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). The sexual needs of both men and women are met only in marriage, and any other arrangement is identified and called fornication by the Lord. Both the husband and the wife must recognize their blessings and responsibilities in the marriage relationship. The New Testament says, “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not the power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (1 Cor 7:3-5). These verses state the possession of power and the need to exercise it. “Incontinency” is want of self control, intemperance.

Abuse of Blessings

Many of the marriage problems stem from a failure in this area. Some fail to live as the Bible instructs and, consequently, problem after problem is experienced in that home. If the home survives these failures and problems it is, through this period, a most miserable and unhappy relationship. In some cases it leads to fornication, which, if tolerated by that one’s companion, leads to further evil and unhappiness in that home. Marriage, designed and established by the Maker of man, is for man’s happiness and well-being; it preserves purity and chastity and prevents immorality (1 Cor. 7:2, 5). In the establishment of a home (marriage), both parties solemnly promise to so live as the word of God teaches, but often when the infatuation is passed, the solemn promises are forgotten. Do not forget the vow you made before God!

Love Is Not Cheap

Marriage is for man’s benefit and he should appreciate and honor it with deep reverence for Him who established it. “The institution of marriage is founded on the requirements of man’s nature, and dates from the time of his original creation …. Man, as an intellectual and spiritual being, would not have been a worthy representative of Deity on earth, so long as he lived in solitude, or in communion only with beings either high above him in the scale of creation, as angels, or far beneath him, as the beasts of the field. It was absolutely necessary, not only for his comfort and happiness, but still more for the perfection of the divine work, that he should have a `help meet for him,’ or, as the words more properly mean, `the exact counterpart of himself -a being capable of receiving and reflecting his thoughts and affections” (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 5, p. 772).

Marriage, therefore, involves God; He established and sanctified it. He did so out of His own wisdom and for the betterment of man. The love which the husband should have for his wife is not the cheap passionate compulsion the Greek philosophers often used, eros; but it is as Aristotle defined, “friendship in a superlative degree.” If such love be true, it can be for one person, and for one person only. Paul uses the same word commanding the husband to love his own wife that he uses telling of Christ’s love for the church. “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). This love is not cheap! The wife must see that she reverence her husband (Eph. 5:33): Too many times wives do not consider the position of the husband; he is the head, and she should respect him as such.

The Permanency Of Marriage

Marriage is to be as permanent as the life of those who enter into it. Make sure you marry because you love, and then guard that love with diligence. Only two things in God’s sight can sever one’s marriage and give one the right to another companion: death and fornication. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” says Jesus (Matt. 19:6). Furthermore, Jesus says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication. and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). I am persuaded that many do not know what marriage is when they contract it; that they do not know its permanency and sacredness. Many are abusive and beastly in their behavior, and live like an alley cat committing adultery at will. God promises to condemn each one who so lives! Usually, such marriages produce life-time suffering for little children. They grow up without love, care, and understanding. They deserve better treatment than this! However, it will only be when husbands and wives live like God teaches that the whole family will enjoy the best of life. If churches would teach and practice what the Bible says about marriage the homes would be better and so would the churches!

Truth Magazine XXII: 23, pp. 378-379
June 8, 1978

By Jeffery Kingry

Approximately fifty million people in America gamble. Gamblers in America bet an estimated $50 billion annually -more than is spent on education, religion, or medical care. The annual profit of professional gambling interests is estimated to be greater than the combined profit of the one hundred largest corporations in the United States (Lycurgus M. Starkey, Mr. Money, Mania, and Morals, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964, p. 15, 29).

The jingle of the Maryland State Lottery is “You Have To Play To Win!” Coupled with the smiling faces of happy winners, the advertisements sell an average of $90 million worth of lottery tickets annually. But, behind the bright posters and television ads, carefully hidden from public view, is the corruption which gambling brings to individuals and to society. Gambling’s danger, like fornication, is compounded by the fact that it is not only harmful, but also alluring. The two, with alcohol, are often intertwined as “the good life” promoted wherever we turn.

Crime and Gambling

Nevada, which has had legalized gambling since its origin as a state, has had the highest crime rate of any state in the Union. Its per-capita crime rate is double the national rate, and its number of suicides triples the national average. Reno, Nevada, a gambling mecca for millions, has the highest crime rate of any city its size in the nation, according to FBI statistics. The report on gambling and organized crime prepared by the Senate Committee on Government Operations states that, “the chief source of revenue for organized crime is illegal gambling.” The report further states “The huge profits from illegal gambling are the primary source of funds to finance the other activities of organized crime: drugs, prostitution, fencing, and loan sharking” (Gambling And Organized Crime, Senate Report, March 28, 1962, p. 2).

Further, an article by Milton R. Wessel in The Nation (October 22, 1960 declares, “Fully half of the syndicate’s income from gambling is earmarked for protection money paid to police and politicians. Approximately 4.5 billion dollars annually goes from professional gambling interests to public officials as bribes.” The Senate Crime Investigation Committee commented, “In states where gambling is legal, the alliance of gamblers, gangsters, and government will yield only to the spotlight of publicity and the pressure of public opinion. But where gambling receives a cloak of respectability through legalization there is no weapon which can be used to keep the gamblers and their money out of politics” (Estes Kefauver, Crime In America, Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1951, p. 126).

In the state of Maryland, a legalized lottery has been in existence since 1973. This state has had a legal numbers game since 1976. Before this, the state had legal slot machines and pin-ball machines. The corruption became so great, that these were made illegal by law, but soon replaced by the “numbers” game. Every year, organized gambling / crime politicians introduce bills to return slot machines and money paying pin-balls to the State. Last year these interests were defeated by only a small margin. Legalized lotteries are now flourishing in 15 other states.

Between 1973 and 1977, the state of Maryland took in $428.5 million dollars from gambling citizens. Of that figure, $198.4 million was paid out in prizes, $169.9 million went to the state as income, and $160.2 million went for “expenses.” Legalized parimutuel betting at racetracks also swells the state’s and politician’s pockets. The governor of Maryland and three of his associates, former legislators, were convicted of racketeering, bribery, and fixing of race dates to provide themselves with more days to make money. The governor and his friends were found to have purchased a majority of the stock in two racetracks, providing an interesting “conflict of interest.” Special Federal prosecutors have already convicted former county executives, state’s attorneys, and state legislators on similar charges.

Gambling and the Economy

Most successful efforts to eliminate gambling from communities have been led by business and labor leaders. One labor spokesman said, “Our labor organization opposes commercialized gambling because of its drag upon the community and economy, diverting purchasing power from job-producing industries” (R.P. Edgar, The Push For Legal Gambling, Pulpit Digest, May, 1965, p. 15). Along with an increase in gambling goes an increase in unpaid bills, embezzlement bankruptcy, and absenteeism from jobs. Gambling centers have great difficulty in attracting .industry. After gambling was legalized in Great Britain, bad debts increased 20%. Gambling produces nothing, adds nothing to the economy or society, or nation.

Gambling and Character

Gambling corrupts the character of man in several ways. The “something-for-nothing” crave which gambling stimulates undermines character. Gambling appeals to the weakness of the soul that the Christian hopes to control and put to death in his life: covetousness, greed, selfishness, recklessness, callousness, etc. Gambling excesses promote theft, irresponsibility, neglect of family and leads to such personal and social evils as divorce and delinquency. Often, the gambler hurts innocent people like his own family.

Seen in its true light gambling is selfish, destructive, harmful and irresponsible. While the Bible contains no “thou shaft not” in regard to gambling, it does condemn the spirit and consequences of gambling. Solomon said, “They lad in wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one who is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof” (Prov. 1:18, 19). While gambling does not necessarily destroy ones body, “greed for gain” certainly corrodes and destroys the soul. It dehumanizes the one who is caught in its grip. Covetousness is self-slaughter.

“He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house” (Prov. 15:27). One is reminded of Achan, who, in his greed for that which he had not labored for, appropriated some of the spoil of the banned city, Jericho. He brought down destruction upon his whole house. In another sense, the man who, deprives his family of comfort and support in order to pursue his chronic losses, hurts, not only himself, but all who depend on him.

Jeremiah had a word which applies to modern lottery winners. “As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so is he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall lose them in the midst of days, and at his end shall be a fool” (Jer. 17:11). Several recently written newspaper articles on those newly rich lottery winners demonstrate vividly that suddenly winning a million dollars is not the dream that it is cracked up to be. Their gain, gotten at the expense of thousands of others brought no happiness to the winners. Hounded from their homes, living in isolation and loneliness, alienated from friends and family, these “lucky” winners quickly find that the joy and happiness promised in the lottery ads is a cruel lie.

Conclusion

Because the desire to get something for nothing and an opportunity to gamble go hand in hand, an :attack on one, requires an attack upon the other. It is a matter of record that as gambling becomes more and more accessible more people gamble. Thus legalization is not an answer to the gambling problem. The Christian should oppose legalization of gambling as a citizen and as a voter.

Among the arguments advanced to justify gambling is one that claims that all of life is a gamble or a risk. But, risk-taking in the normal routine of life is different than the risk of gambling. Gambling makes an artificial risk which rewards some at the expense of others. Risks taken in life are a creative process, like the contractor who risks his capital to build a home that he then sells to someone who needs a place to live. All profit in the transaction, and get what they want. More than chance is involved in developing a profit.

Another argument offered is that one individual buying an occasional lottery ticket, or dropping a quarter into a slot machine, or spending “recreation” money on the horses is a legitimate way to have fun. Gambling may be fun (most temptations are), but the cost to the individual, to his family, the economy, and society is too high to justify it. There is no scriptural or moral way to justify gambling. The Christian must therefore “eschew evil.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 23, pp. 377-378
June 8, 1978