Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Acts 26 records the confrontation of Paul the apostle with Agrippa the King. It is a classic meeting. On the one hand we see a lowly preacher and prisoner, a slave of the King of Kings. On the other we see a young king in all his pomp and power, a King of slaves. The sermon Paul preached has been strained and screened twice through the sieve of the Spirit. First, Paul spoke as the Spirit gave him utterance on that grand occasion (Matt. 10:18-20). Second, of all the sermons that fell from the lips of the apostle to the Gentiles, this i’s one of the few selected and preserved; therefore, the words of Paul before that august assembly are worthy of weighty consideration and contemplation.

However, we leave that happy task for you. Our purpose is not to reflect upon Paul’s discourse. Rather, we want to pay particular attention to the final judgment of Paul made by King Agrippa. He heard the speech. He was supposed to listen to Paul in order to assist Festus in filing formal charges against the apostle (Acts 25:24-27). But when the accused had concluded his “answer,” the King said, “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar” (Acts 26:31, 32). Two facts make Agrippa’s conclusion astounding and astonishing; first, the content and nature of the sermon and, second, the person of Agrippa, who he was.

Paul preached the gospel of promise and prophecy, “saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts 26:22). This gospel included and incorporated the promise made to the patriarchs, the fathers, which is the hope of Israel (Acts 26:6-8). Evidently, the King believed the prophets, for he surely cherished the hope and promises (Acts 26:3, 27). Paul argued that the gospel was a message of “truth and soberness” (Acts 26:25). It must not be viewed as foolishness and falsehood if it is truth and soberness. Agrippa’s verbal acquittal of Paul revealed his disposition toward the basic facts of the gospel, i.e., they are true and sensible.

King Agrippa was the great grandson of the Herod of Matthew 2 who tried to slay the baby, Jesus. He was the great nephew of the Herod who had John the Baptist executed. His Father was the Herod who slew the apostle James with the sword and who imprisoned Simon Peter (Acts 12). His very family was steeped in the blood of Christians. His Father said the apostles were worthy of death (Acts 12), but Agrippa said that Paul was not worthy of death, that he might have been set free. Thus, did Agrippa repudiate his sire’s view of the gospel and its ardent advocates, the apostles. Perhaps Agrippa did not recognize the fact that his favorable vindication of Paul was a condemnation of his family’s persecution of the way of Christ. He acknowledged the truth, but he did not obey it. He believed the apostles should not be bound for their preaching of the prophets. In this, he assuredly differed from the threatenings and slaughter which were so ominously breathed out by his ancestors and predecessors. How ironic; How sad!

There are many modern day Agrippas in attitude. They love to listen to the word of God. They acknowledge the doctrine of the Lord. They will speak in defense of it, but they have never been obedient to it. Oh, how tragic! especially since Jesus said, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30).

If you are one of these, please answer the question of Jesus, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say” (Lk. 6:46)?

Truth Magazine XXI: 34, p. 53
September 1, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

In his letter to the saints at Rome, Paul wrote about the idolatry that engulfed the Gentiles. Men had been given opportunity to know God, but “they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:21-23).

1. Some profess to know that God does not exist. A few years ago Charles Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, was one of this nation’s champions of “no-God-ism.” Later, Mrs. Madalyn Murray O’Hair gained the dubious distinction of being the chief voice crying in America that there is no God. While disavowing communism, she has sown the seeds of the same brand of atheism that prevails in communist countries.

If there is no God, how did intelligent life originate? How could an impersonal force produce a personal being? How could that which neither thinks nor wills produce that which thinks and wills? How could lifeless matter ever by chance grouping of the particles produce that which is not matter, a soul? How could that which has no self-consciousness, and consequently no purpose, ever produce that which is self-conscious and which shows the. result of purpose? How could that which has neither life, consciousness, intelligence, nor morality produce a living, conscious, intelligent, moral being?

The individual who claims to know that there is no God is placing man, the thing made, above the Maker. Atheism is the fruit of human conceit. People turn to atheism because they are unwilling to admit that there is wisdom greater than that found in human intelligence. The Bible is right when it says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14:1).

2. Some profess to sit in judgment on the word of God. It never ceases to amaze me that there are men who claim to believe God, and claim to accept the Bible as God’s revelation, yet they are constantly pronouncing judgment on God’s decrees. For example, the Bible plainly reveals that the wicked will be cast into hell, the lake which burns with fire and brimstone (Mk. 9:43-48; Rev. 20:10, 15; 21:8).. Some profess themselves to be so wise that they pronounce the doctrine of eternal punishment as “unjust” and “contrary to the nature of God.” They evidently feel that they know more about how God ought to handle the wicked than He knows. How absurd that puny man should exalt his wisdom above the wisdom of God!

3. Some profess to be wise above that which is written. Paul told the Corinthians that they needed to learn “not to think of men above that which is written,” or to use the wording of the New American Standard Bible, “not to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Some people are just sure that it pleases God to accompany the singing in worship with the playing of musical instruments. It is not so written in the New Testament. If it is, where is the passage? Others are positive in their minds that sprinkling will suffice for baptism. It is not so written in the Bible. They are exceeding what is written. And others insist that burning incense is perfectly lawful as a part of our devotion to God. But where does the New Testament authorize us to burn incense to God?

4. Some profess to know that God’s word does not mean what it says. Men have argued that “water” in John 3:5 means everything imaginable except water. One woman told me that “water” means “the word” in that passage. I asked her if that is what “water” means in Acts 8:38 where Philip and the eunuch “went down both into the water.” She replied, “Well, that could mean that they were both digging down deep into the word.” I guess that is supposed to mean that Philip figuratively immersed the eunuch in one of those “in-depth” studies that some preachers talk about!

Some religionists maintain that “one body” in Eph. 4:4 does not really mean that the Lord has only one, church.Yet Paul identified the body as the church in that same letter (Eph. 1:22,23). They would sooner believe that “one body” means three hundred bodies than to believe that it means just what it says.

5. Some profess to know all the answers. No question is too complex or difficult. They have an answer for every inquiry. How can they profess themselves to be so wise? The Bible does not answer every curious questfon that man might frame. There are some things undisclosed, and these secret things belong to God (Deut. 29:29). It is the part of wisdom and humility for man to admit his limitations of knowledge.

Men often become fools by professing themselves to be wise.

Truth Magazine XXI: 33, pp. 525-526M
August 25, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In writing to Timothy, Paul gave this instruction: “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). That is the rendering of the American Revised Version. The King James Version renders it, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

While the two versions differ some what in their rendering of this important passage, the meaning is the same. To present one’s self approved unto God requires a knowledge of His will, which comes only through diligent study. To rightly divide the word of truth is to handle it aright. To handle aright the word of truth requires that it be rightly divided.

To speak of rightly dividing the word of truth, suggests that it is susceptible of a wrong division. To speak of handling aright the word of truth implies that it can be handled improperly. The fact is that much of the confusion and division in the religious world of today stems from just such an improper handling or division of the Bible. With many, the Bible is just a convenient book by which to prove men’s preconceived ideas. Consequently, positions are taken and doctrines espoused, and then .the Bible is brought into use to prove them. The result is that passages of scripture are often taken out of their context and quoted indiscriminately, without any regard as to who wrote them, to whom they were addressed, the time of writing, or the circumstances under which they were written.

Such would be a gross mishandling of any book, or library. No competent physician, treating a case of typhoid fever, would go to his library and take down some book at random and begin reading just where it happened to fall open. No competent lawyer, dealing with a matter involving real estate would attempt to prepare his case by consulting at random just any book on law.

Yet that is the way that the Bible is often read. Many begin to read just where it happens to fall open, and without any regard for the division between the Old and New Testaments, and without any consideration as to who is speaking, or to whom it is spoken, they apply it to present day conditions and problems. Such is an indiscriminate handling of the Bible and inevitably leads to confusion and ridiculous conclusions. Most of us have heard of the man who claimed that he could prove from the Bible that it was right for a man to hang himself. First he went to Matthew 27:5 which tells us that Judas went out and hanged himself. Then he went to Luke 10:37 where Jesus is recorded as saying, “Go, and do thou likewise.” Now, who could deny his conclusion? It was in the Bible, was it not? But of course, we know that it was an indiscriminate use of these two passages of scripture that led him to a ridiculous conclusion. Yet it was no more ridiculous than some other conclusions to which others have come as a result of a haphazard scrambling of unrelated scriptures.

The Word Of Truth

At this point someone asks, “Is not the Bible all true? And if so, does it not all apply to us?” This raises the question, What do we mean by the expression, “The word of truth?” And, “What do we mean when we say that the Bible is true, when it records things that were said that were obviously not true?” As an example, the third chapter of Genesis records some words that were spoken by Satan. He preached a lie to mother Eve. We know the sad story. God had said concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). But Satan said to Eve, “Thou shalt not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). Obviously what he said was a lie. Yet it is recorded in the Bible and we say that the Bible is true. The point is, the Bible is historically true in recording what the devil said, even though what he said was a lie. Or, to express it another way, what the devil said was a lie, but it is true that he said it.

Another example may be found in Romans 3:8, where we find the words, “Let us do evil that good may come?” Is this true? Is it right to do that which is evil if one believes that good will result? That is the basis upon which some try to justify unscriptural practices. They say, Look at the good we are doing. But when we examine the words of the above scripture in their context we learn that Paul is not stating it as a command, but rather quoting a slanderous report that was being circulated concerning what he taught. What the verse says is, “(. . . as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that good may come.” This allegation Paul denied. So the point is that while Paul repudiated the concept of doing evil that good may come, the Bible is true in recording the fact that some had accused Paul of saying it.

So the truth of the Bible has to do with its authenticity. By that we mean that it gives an authentic record of things done, without condoning evil deeds that it records. It also gives a true quotation of things that were said, even though that which was said may have been false. To this we may add that the Bible gives a true record of commands that God gave at various times in history. Some of these commands were addressed to individuals, and some to a particular nation, and therefore not of universal obligation or application. Of this we shall write in another article.

Recognizing Proper Distinctions

Handling aright the word of truth involves the recognition of certain distinctions in divine revelation. That the Bible itself makes such distinctions is obvious from a reading of Hebrews 1:1,2): “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these. last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (King James Version).

Please notice that three important distinctions are made in this passage of scripture:

1. There is a distinction between what God spoke “of old time,” and what He has spoken “in these last days.” The expression, “of old time,” refers to the Old Testament dispensation. The expression, “these last days,” refers to the Christian dispensation that began with Pentecost, 33 A.D. and will continue until the end of time. True, in both ages God has spoken. But it makes a lot of difference to us as to whether what God said was spoken “of old time,” or spoken “in these last days.”

2. A second distinction that must be recognized concerns the medium through whom God has spoken. The writer of Hebrews said that when God spoke of old time he spoke through the prophets. These were the Old Testament prophets, Moses, Samuel and them that followed after (Acts 3:22-24). In these last days, however, God has spoken to us through His Son. So while it is God who speaks to us in the Bible, it is essential that we make the proper distinction as to what He spoke through the Old Testament prophets, and what he has spoken through His Son.

3. A third distinction is seen in the fact that when God spoke of old time through the prophets, He was speaking to the fathers. By that the writer means those who lived during the Old Testament dispensation. Today, however, when he speaks through Christ, he speaks to us. This is a most important distinction. It is a gross mishandling of the word of truth to regard that which God spoke through the prophets to the fathers, as being addressed to us.

It is a failure to recognize and honor these distinctions that is responsible for many of the errors of Protestantism, especially the Judaistic doctrines of Seventh Day Adventism and the speculative theories of millennialism. Much of the teaching of these cults is based on a mixture of what God spoke of old time through the prophets to the fathers, and what He has spoken to us today through his Son.

In a number of articles to follow, we shall discuss several distinctions that must be recognized in order to handle aright the word of truth.

Truth Magazine XXI: 33, pp. 523-525
August 25, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

John Doe is a preacher who went through the great depression. John and his wife will never forget the financial burden of those years. Their home is small, but it is paid for. They have over 100,000 miles on their eight year old car, and John keeps it in good shape by doing almost all of his own mechanical work. John’s wife shops the sales and buys food on a budget. The Doe’s do not use credit cards, borrow seldom, and then only for short periods of three to six months from a bank. They keep a large savings account against emergencies.

Bill Black is a younger preacher who grew up in the post war boom of the fifties. Bill and his wife bought a house on the G.I. Bill for nothing down and have resold and bought larger homes twice. They owe the bank money on their new car, appliances, and boat. They use several department store credit cards, oil company credit cards, and bank credit cards. They have no savings at all and pay out almost two thirds of their income to their creditors. They live well and worry little that it would take their whole salary for three years to bring them totally out of debt.

Which Way Of Life Is Right?

Consumer credit is an integral part of American culture. Since 1950 domestic American debt has increased from 75.5 billion dollars to over 450 billion dollars. Two thirds of all disposable income in America is owed to someone else. Of our gross national product (the total value of all the goods and services produced in America before overhead or expenses are taken out), 13 percent of it is owed in credit. To give you an idea of the staggering amount of money owed by Americans, if the total domestic credit were divided equally among the population, every man, woman, child in America would owe $2,150. This total does not include the national debt (that amount of money owed by our national government: 396 billion dollars), the public debt of state and local governments (190.5 billion dollars), and the debt of businesses publically and privately owned.

Credit has advantages and disadvantages. Those who save money can expect interest on their savings because people are willing to pay to use their money. Borrowers can enjoy immediately luxuries they would have to wait till they could afford through savings. The borrower enjoys a higher standard of life than would be possible by refusing credit.

The disadvantages of credit, though are immense. The first and most. obvious disadvantage of credit is that it makes everything purchased cost more for the consumer. A house that would cost $10,000.00 if bought outright, costs in the end $15,000 or more. The clothes bought on a store credit card costs 18 percent to 20 percent more by the time it is paid for. Over extension of credit is painfully easy and leads to inflation, extravagance, careless buying habits, and economic instability. Easy credit and lack of discipline often makes it possible to incur so much debt that it is impossible to meet all payments. Default on personal debts results in repossession of goods and loss of credit privileges, to say nothing of the loss to personal esteem and standing in the community. Most economists agree that any person who pays 15 percent or more of his disposable income in installment credit is headed for serious trouble.

Biblical Principles

Under the law of Moses, Jews were not allowed to lend money at interest to their brethren. While they were encouraged to be generous in giving and lending their money, they could not charge their brethren usury of any kind (Deut. 23:19). They could require a “security” from their creditors to insure a debt would be paid, but it could not be something a man needed, like his clothing. God’s anger was kindled, not only at the Jew’s unfaithfulness, but their exacting interest from their brethren, and this habit was one reason they were forsaken by God (Neh. 5:1-13). Oppressing the poor by economic means was equally condemned by God (Deut. 24:6-13). Some sociologists believe the primary reason for the professional success of Jews in the world today is traceable to the willingness of successful Jews to help their brethren economically, without usury. Mosaical law made provision for the canceling of all debts every 50 years during Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-55). Indentured servants were to be released without debt after seven years of service (Ex. 2:12ff). The Jew who pleased God was one who gave of what he had to others without thought for repayment or usury (Psa. 112:5). This same attitude is to characterize the Christian today. It is the responsibility of the lender to give. It is the responsibility of the borrower to pay again. “If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again” (Luke 6:34).

In the New Testament God used the creditor’s relationship to demonstrate man’s relationship to God and his fellow man. The theme of the parable of the unjust steward was to demonstrate the origin of mercy and all blessings and the arrogance to demand exact accounting of debt, when our debts have been so freely and generously forgiven (Matt. 18:23-35).

Within the church, the needs of the members beyond their ability to provide or pay was met by loving sharing of good and by charity (Acts 2:44,45; 6:1-4; 11:29,30; Rom. 15:25-27; 2 Cor. 9:1-5). Jesus taught plainly that a free, generous, and open spirit brings great blessing from heaven: “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn riot thou away” (Matt. 5:42). “He that bath two coats, let him impart to him that bath none; and he that bath meat, let him do likewise” (Luke 3:11).

The test of love on judgment will be our generous distribution of our abundance in love to those who do not have (Matt. 25:35-45; Jas. 2:15,16;.1 Cor. 13:3). Such a practical application of God’s spiritual word will make it unnecessary for any brother to borrow money for the essentials of life.

Credit, Stewardship, And Covetousness

Most trouble that comes to the unwary Christian today because of abuse of credit is a result of covetousness. Few Christians see covetousness as a sin today, or if they do acknowledge it as sin, they do not recognize it as sin in their lives or of their brethren in a practical way. How many brethren give but a small portion 9f their wealth to the Lord because of their overwhelming “bills”? “Keep up with neighbors” is a sin (Ex. 20:17). How many brethren do you know that buy and buy and buy to enjoy the same things their worldly neighbors have. This writer has seen his brethren buy boats, and bigger boats that are seldom used, because of covetousness. Brethren who buy motorcycles, new cars, expensive and overly large homes, ostentatious gadgets, furniture, and furnishings, elaborate and unused libraries or other such collections are playing into the hands of the devil. “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord” (Prov. 30:8,9)? We are to be content with what the Lord has given to us, and a motivating desire for more than food and clothing is sinful covetousness (1 Tim. 6:6-9). The family that is constantly amassing more and more material possessions and going deeper and deeper into debt to obtain them are scripturally covetous (Luke 12:15,33,34).

The Law of Diminishing Return

There is a principle in life that applies to everything of the flesh. It is called “The Law Of Diminishing Return.” Briefly stated it is that the more one possesses, the less satisfied one becomes with what one has, and the greater the desire for more. This principle is true as it applies to all temptations of the flesh: Sexual abuse (Prov. 6:20-35), false teaching (2 Tim. 3:12,13). Drinking alcohol (Deut. 29:19), apostasy through marriage to an unbeliever (1 Kings 16:29-33), etc. This principle is even more true when it applies to the “lust of the eye.”

Stated in Scripture the principle is expressed in several ways: “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase . . . . When goods increase, they are increased who eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes” (Eccl. 5:10,11)?

“Labor not to be rich; wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? For riches make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven” (Prov. 23:4,5).

Materialism, worldliness, covetousness are all sins. Compromise with sin always brings more sin. Christians are told to rebuke sin, and then to have no fellowship with it (1 Cor. 5:11-13). These sins, as all sin, lead people into situations where they lose control of their lives. These sins compel brethren to buy more than they can afford. As God’s servants we are stewards of all that he has given to us, and the use of our resources is to be primarily directed towards spiritual ends (2 Cor. 9:615). When we cannot meet our spiritual obligations to lay by in store with the brethren for the work of the church, for individual benevolence as we have opportunity, for charity towards all men and especially to the household of faith, to support gospel preaching individually and collectively, because all of our substance is wrapped up in “getting” then we stand condemned by God (Luke 16:19).

A Christian’s life before the world is the most public way of teaching God’s will. Therefore the Christian should pay all of his debts and be honest in his financial affairs. The Christian’s life can not include greed for material possessions which lead to unmanageable debt.

Credit is not sinful-but like all things in this world-abused it can cost a man his soul. “Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away the bed from under thee” (Prov. 22:26, 27)?

Truth Magazine XXI: 33, pp. 522-523
August 25, 1977