Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

A few months ago, the wire services reported a horrible case of child abuse from the state of Tennessee. The report told how a step-father had mistreated a child so badly that the child died. The child had done something to offend the step-father so he began making the child walk without stopping for something over a solid day. When the child requested water to drink, the step-father drank water in front of the four or five-year old child and then offered the child tabasco sauce to drink. The punishment continued until the child collapsed and died.

My personal reaction to reading this story was that the father should be punished in a similar fashion. That is, the courts of this land should sentence the father to death by walking him to death, offering him tabasco sauce to quench his thirst even as he had done to his step-child. Perhaps some will think that this is revenge. Since I was not offended and have no reason to seek retaliation, I had rather call it righteous indignation. But, whatever we chose to call it, certainly the case before us reminds us of our parental responsibility as commanded in the Bible. Paul said, “And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Again, he wrote, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart” (Col. 3:21).

The Lord has given parents the responsibility to discipline their children; indeed, children are under the control of the parents. Yet, God has placed a load of responsibility upon the shoulders of those of us who are parents to be sure that we raise our children as they need to be raised. Sometimes, parents abuse their children just as children sometimes abuse their parents. Let us consider some of the ways which parents can be guilty of provoking their children to wrath.

Things Which Provoke Children

1. Cruel and harsh punishment. When a child is beaten to a pulp, when broken bones are the result of a “spanking,” when bruises appear all over the child’s body, etc. the child is being abused. In cases such as was reported from Tennessee, the child would have grown up hating her step-father even if she had lived. Her hate would. have been justified because the father had provoked his child to wrath. Certainly, this must be put at the top of the list of things which provoke children to wrath.

2. Unjust punishment. Sometimes children are punished when they do not deserve to be spanked or to have privileges taken from them. Sometimes the parent comes home from a bad day at work totally frustrated. To vent his anger, the parent will spank his children for things for which they would not be punished on any other day of the week. The child can detect this; he knows that he was punished unjustly and will grow up hating the parent who habitually acts this way. Parents should not punish their children because they (the parents) do not feel good; that is not the purpose of punishment.

3. Inconsistent punishment. Sometimes one wonders how children learn anything. Parents will frequently let Johnny get away with something nine times and then punish him for doing the same thing on the tenth time. How is the child to know whether or not he can do that thing? He is frustrated and all that he has learned from the punishment is to see what mood “the old man” is in before doing it again!

Mothers are guilty of the same thing. They will say to their children, “If you do that again, I am going to give you a spanking.” The child does it again and nothing happens. The child learns that mother really does not mean what she says. Then, about the time he has learned that he can do a certain thing without getting a spanking, mother spanks him. He is confused and justly so. His mother has been inconsistent in disciplining the child. One time Brother Franklin Puckett was visiting in my home when my daughter was about 1 1/2 to 2 years old. I told her to do something and promised her a whipping if she did not do it. She did not do it and I did not spank her. After I had made some remark about my daughter’s disobedience, Brother Puckett (thank the Lord!) straightened me out. He told me that I needed to say what I meant and then to enforce my word. I have not grown to the point that I am the perfect father, but that lesson surely did help me.

4. Showing partiality. The story of Jacob and Esau shows the sorry results which occur in a family when one or both parents show partiality to their children. Surely, the child who witnesses his parent being partial to his brother or sister is provoked to anger by it. When he sees his brother or sister getting away with doing the very same thing he got a whipping for doing just a few minutes before, he is provoked to anger by it.

Sometimes partiality is shown in the comparisons we make of children. The report cards of children are frequently compared even though the children might not be equally talented. This is not fair to the children and they will grow up resenting it. I have already learned that children do not come into the world with the same abilities. Some are mechanically oriented while others are book-oriented from the start. To compare these children in one area without taking into consideration the unique interests and abilities of the given child is unfair to the children. The following poem emphasizes that every child is different and should be accepted as he or she is. We must be careful in comparing children not to provoke them to wrath thereby.

I have a little sister,

That’s not at all like me.

She can write a lovely poem,

But I can climb a tree.

My brother too is special

With freckles on his nose.

When I crash his knee, he dances,

He’s the one that knows.

He made you something special,

You’re the only one of your kind.

God gave you a body

And a bright, healthy mind.

He had a special purpose

That He wanted you to find,

So he made you something special,

You’re the only one of your kind.

(Transcribed from a record by the Bill Gaither Trio.)

5. Neglect. One of the things which provokes my child more than anything is just plain old neglect; it is something which I am continually forced to fight in order that I not be guilty of abusing my precious children. When I have not been at home enough or have not taken any time to sit and talk with my daughter, she begins to act badly. Frequently, the problem lies in me instead of in her.

We preachers are a funny brood. We will rant and rave in the pulpit about how awful some fathers are because they become so wrapped up in their work at the office that they neglect their children during the most precious years of their lives. We sermonize for long periods of time about how awful these parents are. Then, we will read the biography of a preacher who was gone for weeks at a time in meetings, leaving his wife to raise, educate and even bury their children; then, we put the book down and tell the world of the devotion to God which the preacher had. Why is the preacher not just as guilty of neglecting his family as the business man is? Frankly, I can see no difference in the two. So long as my family needs me at home, I will not be running all over the country neglecting them and provoking my children to wrath!

Conclusion

Christians have an awesome responsibility in the rearing of their children. Although children are free moral beings the same as the rest of us are and, therefore, have the ability to chose right or wrong after they have grown up, the things which we do as parents have a lasting effect upon how our children turn out. May each of us have the objectivity to look at ourselves as we rear our children in order that not one of them can point the finger of accusation at us and righteously accuse us of acting in such a way as to provoke them to wrath. May God be with us in the rearing of our children.

Truth Magazine XXI: 34, pp. 531-532
September 1, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

The Lord knew that a positive stand for the truth would cause division. He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter-inlaw against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me.” Jesus did not mean that He takes delight in causing strife. But He demands unqualified obedience to what He said, and that kind of obedience will divide families. We have seen it happen many times. It will also divide churches when there are those in the churches who put the truth ahead of everything else, and some others, including the elders, who are determined that the church shall engage in practices for which they can give not scriptural authority. In such cases brethren who respect the truth will separate themselves. When they do they will be maligned, ridiculed, and ostracized. Every effort will be made to break down their resistance and bring them back. This is just a part of the price you pay for being loyal to the truth above everything else. Paul said, “. . . all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12). I surely do not envy these fainthearted brethren who are more afraid of brotherhood sentiment than they are the wrath of God.

Truth Magazine XXI: 34, p. 530
September 1, 1977

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