Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Advice or Divine Instruction?

It is not uncommon to hear something like this: “Paul advised Timothy to `preach the word.'” No, Paul instructed Timothy to preach the word. There is a difference. A recommendation might be accepted or rejected. A note of caution might be ignored. But divine instruction cannot be set aside without imperiling the soul. To view Bible teaching simply as advice contributes to moral and doctrinal relativism. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” is not just good advice; it is a divine imperative.

Meeting Readers of Guardian of Truth

Everywhere we go in gospel meetings, we meet readers of this magazine. Some mention specific articles which they have read with great profit. Some tell me they read it “from cover to cover.” Some say they pass it on to other family members. Some are critical (and that should always be considered) but most express great appreciation for the paper and the efforts of the writers. Sometimes those who write articles wonder if any-one out there ever reads what they write. The answer is “yes.”

Bored or Edified?

“Guard your steps as you go to the house of God, and draw near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know they are doing evil” (Eccl. 5:1). Several times during my lifetime I have read the accounts of those who have made shipwreck of the faith. Common to many of these accounts is a feeling of “boredom” with public worship. They have decided that it is irrelevant. While all of us must admit that there are times when announcements are long, or prayers are long ex-tended and, at times, barely audible, classes are not as interesting as they could be, or sermons are long or not well delivered, or it may be that songs are poorly led, when all is said and done, boredom is the problem of the one who professes to be afflicted by this malady. Why did you come? To be amused? To be entertained? Are you totally passive? Is there not a mental effort to be made on your part to offer worship to the Lord? Parents should be watchful about this attitude in their children. If they do not want to sing, or are fidgety during prayer, or want to talk during the Lord’s supper, or don’t want to stand when the congregation is asked to do so, then these are signs of an attitude problem that needs some adjustment. All of us who take a leading part in any worship gathering ought to do our best to improve our part. But the spirit of the worshiper is crucial to pleasing the Lord. When we have grandchildren who tell us they are “bored” they soon learn that is a fast track to a chore so their minds will be occupied and they won’t be “bored.” That is a state of mind which is under the control of each individual. Are you “bored”? Then do some-thing about your attitude.

Never Enough

“He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This too is vanity” (Eccl. 5:10). The lesson here is clear: Money does not satisfy. He who has much still wants more. It is reported that someone asked John D. Rockefeller how much money he wanted. He replied, “Just a little more.” Paul said, “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). Poverty is not very satisfying either. There is no virtue in it any more than there is in great wealth. The truth is that money has no character of its own. It assumes the character of whomever owns it. $100 can be spent on lottery tickets, alcohol, or pornography. Or it could be used to feed your family, pay a debt, help someone in need, or to preach the gospel. But Jesus was right when he said, “For one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (Luke 12:15). So, put your trust in the Lord. He is an all-sufficient provider.

“The Good Ole Days”

“Do not say, Why were the former days better than these? For you do not inquire wisely concerning this” (Eccl. 7:10). Every younger generation has heard from seniors about the “good ole days.” There are lessons to be learned from history. And there is something good about preserving our heritage. I yet recall many of the stories told by my parents and grandmother when I was a child. But it is entirely possible for the older to abuse the younger about the “good ole days.” Inherent in some of these accounts is the notion that the younger are somehow inferior because they were not born sooner. They cannot help that. There is an implied superiority in such statements as “you just wait until you get to be 75 (or 80, or 85).” Well if they make it to that venerable age, they will have to do just that  “just wait.” Sometimes accounts of the former days include the implication that those who lived through that time were infinitely wiser and remarkably purer than the present generation. And it is possible for that to be so since civilizations tend to decay with time.

But everything about “the good ole days” was not so great or necessarily good. We tend to romanticize the former days. The cowboys of the old west have been elevated to the status of folk heroes. But their life was hard, filled with tedium, brought little financial reward and was far from pleasant. Have you ever been downwind of a stock yard? I know of a congregation that canceled a service because the air conditioner went out on a hot summer Sunday. In the “good ole days” nobody had air conditioning. They opened the windows and created a breeze with fans supplied by the funeral home. I have drawn all the water from a well with a rope tied to the end of a bucket that I care to. I like my faucet in the house, thank you! I have slept under so much cover on a bitterly cold winter night that it was hard to turn over. I’ll just keep my electric blanket, thanks!

There are congregations that live continually in the past. It is sad to see once large and thriving congregations reduced to a mere handful, oftentimes still meeting in the same large house and with some of the older members still trying to relive the glory days of yesteryear when well known men preached to large audiences and where great battles for truth and right were fought. The history of those days ought to be remembered. But congregations have to face present realities and adjust to changes that time and tide have wrought. While we all must be anchored to the truth of the gospel, let us be sure we know the difference in that and being tied to traditions of our own making. Some have become so attached to a piece of physical property that they have lost sight of the true work of the church and the changed prospects for success in a given place. Christ is still head of the church. It is still the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Its business is still to sound out the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8). Listen, brethren! We cannot go into rewind! Yesterday is gone. We can study it and we can learn from the experiences of those who lived it. But we cannot recall it. We are here now and there is work to do, now. Let us “rise up and build.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 3-4
September 5, 1996

By Mike Willis

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Pet. 2:1)

This is the only text in the New Testament in which the words “false teachers” occurs. It is translated from the Greek word pseudodidaskaloi. The argument that is made about who is a false teacher is this: The word pseudomai means “to lie” and when the prefix pseudo- is joined to a word, such as teacher (didaskalos), the emphasis is on his lying, deceitful, and dishonest ways. Hence, to be a “false teacher” says nothing about the content of what is preached. A “false teacher” may be teaching what is the truth, but he is a false teacher because of his lying, deceitful, and dishonest ways.

Certainly no one wishes to defend anyone who is lying, deceitful and dishonest. Those who manifest these traits are ungodly and unworthy of fellowship. Having said that, we are back to the issue of whether or not the descriptive term “false teachers” says anything about the content of what is preached. In order to arrive at a conclusion about this matter, we are forced to investigate the meaning of the pseudo word group.

Looking at the Lexicons

Looking at the root meaning of the Greek word, Conzelmann wrote in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (IX:594-603), “The derivation of the root is uncertain. The primary meaning is `false’ in the broad sense.” He then gave several examples such as “breach of an agreement,” “false assertion,” “error,” “a deliberately false statement.” The active verb means “to deceive” and the passive verb means “to be deceived,” “to deceive oneself.” In the middle voice, the word means “to speak falsely . . . though only the context and not the term itself shows whether this is intentional or not.” Conzelmann added that the noun pseudos means “what is untrue,” “deceit,” “falsehood,” “lying,” “lie.”

One can easily see how this word group is used to refer to intentional deception, what we commonly call “lying.” Many who are “false” intentionally deceive others. But this is not the only usage of the word group.

An antithesis exists between what is true (aletheia) and what is false (pseudos). This usage is rooted in the Old Testament contrast between truth and error (IX:598-599). The Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by Colin Brown), in defining pseudomai, says, The Old Testament proclaims that God is truthful. He and his word can be trusted. When salvation or calamity is prophesied, it is also fulfilled. “God is not a man that he should lie. . . . Has he said and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?” (Num. 23:19; cf. 1 Sam. 15:29). The God-ness of God is proved by the truth of his word and his faithfulness in fulfilling it.

Man, however, has fallen prey to a lie; he has disassociated himself from God, and does not let him be the Lord who, in truth, he is. The prophets make the accusation that God’s people have fallen prey to a lie. Instead of trusting their Lord, they rely on their own strength and on political alliances. They listen to false prophets (Jer. 5:31; Ezek. 13:19 and after), who flatter them and give them false prophecies of salvation, who preach about “drinking and strong drink” (Mic. 2:11), and who use whitewash over their sins (Ezek. 22:28). Hosea pro-claimed the charge from God, “You have ploughed iniquity, you have reaped injustice, you have eaten the fruit of lies” (10:13). The most serious accusation was that the people have put their faith in idols instead of in God which the prophet calls lies. “Their lies let them astray” (Amos 2:4). Lies have become their refuge (Isa. 28:15), and they have renounced their God (Isa. 59:1; Jer. 5:12). Lying, in the eyes of the prophets, is not so much an ethical offence as a basic moral attitude, which turns its back on the true God. It therefore falls prey to the delusion of the lie, as it does to the “nothingness” of existence. To put one’s trust in a delusory lie instead of in the true God is called by Isaiah a “covenant with death” (28:15) (470-471).

This concept underlies several of the New Testament uses of the pseudo word group.

The New Testament takes up the Old Testament witness to the truthfulness and truth of God. Tit. 1:2 speaks of God as the apseudes theos, God who does not lie. God’s truth does not come to light in the unveiling of being in the way that the Greeks understood aletheia. Rather, God’s truth is to be seen as truthfulness in the way that he keeps faith with his promises in history… .

The revelation of God’s truth in Jesus Christ lets the other side of the picture come to light  the lies of men. For men have “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). . . The revelation of God’s wrath against human wickedness (Rom. 1:18-3:20) leads in Rom. 3:4 to the confession: “Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, `That thou mayest bejustified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged”‘ (cf. Ps. 116:1 LXX; Zeph. 3; Ps.51:4ff.)…. (Ibid. 472).

The “lie” then stands in contrast to what is “truth” (unreality vs. reality; truth vs. error). There is inherent in the word pseudo a recognition that the content of what is spoken is false.

Writing to define the specific word pseudodidaskalos Rengstorf commented in TDNT (II:160),

In the NT it occurs only in 2 Pt. 2:1, where it is used with pseudoprophetai (false prophets, mw) for false teachers. The pseudo- suggests both that the claim of the men concerned is false and also that their teaching is erroneous, so that in every respect they are a perversion of the Christian didaskalos (teacher, mw), since they reject the claim of Jesus to dominion over their whole lives.

Arndt and Gingrich

Arndt and Gingrich’s monumental work provides us in-sight on the meaning of the pseudo word group. Consider the following:

Pseudadelphos: “a false brother, i.e. one who pretends to be a Christian brother, but whose claim is belied by his unbrotherly conduct. Paul applies the term to his Judaistic opponents 2 Cor 11:26; Gal 2:4. Of Christians w. wrong beliefs Pol 6:3.”

Pseudapostolos: “false apostle, i.e. one who represents himself to be an apostle without the divine commission necessary for the office.”

Pseudes: “1. Of persons. . . false, lying… Also of the spirit of man. . . Subst. the liar.. . 2. Of things false, lying. . . a false oath.”

Pseudodidaskalia: “false teaching.”

Pseudodidaskalos: “false teacher, prob. one who teaches falsehoods… 2 Pt 2:1.”

Pseudoprophetes: “false prophet, one who falsely claims to be a prophet of God or who prophesies falsely.”

Pseudochristos: “one who, in lying fashion, gives himself out to be the Christ, a false Messiah.”

A Parallel Usage

The usage of the pseudo (false) word group can be compared to the aletheia (true) word group (see TDNT I:232-251). The word “true” can be used in more than one sense. It can be used to describe what is genuine (in contrast to pretense, hypocrisy). We can speak of a “true friend” in contrast to those who pretend to be one’s friend. In this respect the word “true” carries the idea of sincerity, integrity, and honesty. However, the word “true” can also carry the meaning of “truth” in contrast to that which is “false” (error, wrong). The gospel is the “word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:7; Col. 1:5; Eph. 1:13). That does not mean that it is a word spoken by someone who is sincere; rather, it reflects what is reality. It affirms that the inspired Christian revelation is inerrant in contrast with those systems devised by man that are filled with error.

In a similar way, the word “false” can be used to refer to what is done in an underhanded, dishonest way. There are those who are liars, deceivers, and dishonest. However, that does not exhaust the meaning and uses of the term. The word “false” can also be used in contrast with what is “true,” “truth,” or “reality.”

Which is the New Testament usage? The context must determine which definition is intended. There can be little question of whether the men of 2 Peter 2 are ungodly men. That is clearly indicated by such words to describe their conduct as: (a) covetous (2:3); (b) make merchandise of you (2:3); (c) walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness (2:10); (d) despise government (2:10); (e) presumptuous (2:10); (f) self-willed (2:10); etc. However, none of these descriptions is inherent in the meaning of the pseudo prefix.

These false teachers are also described as men who “bring in damnable heresies” (2:1), “denying the Lord that bought them” (2:1), “speaking evil of the things that they under-stand not” (2:12), “forsaken the right way and are gone astray” (2:15), “promise liberty” but this liberty leads to enslavement (2:19), “turning from the holy commandment” (2:21). These descriptions of the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 fit the definition of “false” that corresponds to “error,” “wrong,” “unreality,” the opposite of the truth. Consequently, I conclude that the meaning intended by “false teachers” is that the teacher is teaching that which is false.

This also corresponds with the use of “false prophets” of the Old Testament. The verse parallels the “false teachers” of 2 Peter 2 with the “false prophets” of the Old Testament. As one studies the false prophets of the Old Testament, he is impressed with the fact that many of them obviously were sincere in their belief. For example, the men who had the contest with Elijah on Mt. Carmel were so convinced of the truthfulness of their beliefs that “cried aloud, and cut themselves with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them” (1 Kings 18:28). One could not seriously question whether or not these “false prophets” were sincere in their worship of Baal. That they were sincere did not change the fact that the content of their message was wrong, led men away from God, and had to be resisted by the godly Elijah.

Similarly, “false teachers” frequently are sincere, honor-able men, who are simply mistaken. Nevertheless, their message leads men away from God and into eternal damnation. For that reason they must be resisted.

Conclusion

A man may not always be able to determine the integrity of another. However, he always can weigh what he is teaching against what the Bible says. If what he is teaching is false, he is a “false teacher” in respect to that teaching.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 2
September 5, 1996

By David M. Bonner

When I was living in a dormitory during my college years, several of my neighbors learned an important lesson about their vocabularies. These young men had been living away from the moral guidance of their parents and had acquired the use of a number of “four letter” words. The use of these words had become so habitual, several individuals became totally unaware they were using expletives. When the university had a “parents weekend” they invited their parents to see the dorm. When these young men unknowingly greeted their parents with some of the most vulgar profanity, their mothers were in a state of shock.

God has never wanted his people to use his name in a vain, empty, or idle way (Exod. 20:7; Matt.12:34-37). The Scriptures admonish us to, “Let your speech be al-ways with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one” (Col.4:6). In 2 Timothy 1:13, Timothy was told to “hold the pattern of sound words.” In Matthew 26:73-74 when Peter was told, “for thy speech maketh thee known,” he changed his speech and began “to curse and to swear” in order to convince them he was not a disciple of Christ. That kind of language is still an indicator of one’s spiritual weakness.

The third chapter of James gives a beautiful lesson on using our tongues properly. “For in many things we all stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also” (James 3:2). And in verses 8-11 it says, “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. There-with bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?” These passages admonish us to be judicious in our speech and warn us that our speech is not only an indicator of our spirituality, but also a measure by which others can judge our spirituality.

Fellow Christians, what does your speech say about you? Does it indicate your mind dwells on spiritual things and that your tongue is trained to speak spiritually, or does it indicate worldliness?

I have seldom seen Christians using profanity to the magnitude that my college dorm mates were engaging in, but I have noticed Christians using euphemisms or slang words. Euphemisms are the substitution of an “agreeable” or “inoffensive” word or expression for one that is harsh, indelicate, or otherwise offensive. In other words, these words have the same meaning, but are less offensive to the listener. For an example, when one dies we usually soften our conversation with the bereaved by referring to the de-ceased as having “passed away.” The meaning is the same, but the message is more acceptable. When one uses euphemisms for curse words or other expletives it should be realized that profanity is still being used, it is just “more socially acceptable profanity.”

Some examples of Euphemisms include:

1. Darn or Durn  (euphemism) Damn

2. Dang  (euphemism) Damn

3. Doggone  (euphemism) God damn

4. Gosh, Gash, Garsh  (euphemism) God

5. Gee, Jee  (euphemism) Jesus

6. Golly  (euphemism) God

7. Heck  (euphemism) Hell

The definitions to these words can be found in Webster’s dictionary. The above list is not comprehensive. These words and many other slang words should be eliminated from every Christian’s vocabulary so we do not practice “socially acceptable” vulgarity.

I know that many have used these words in ignorance. Twenty years ago I gave a lesson on this topic. Afterwards, two of the young ladies in the congregation approached me and said, “brother Bonner that was a good lesson, but do you know you too use an euphemism? You use the word `shoot.’ At the time I could not understand how shoot, as in shooting a rifle, could be an euphemism of vulgarity. That evening when I looked it up in the dictionary it said shoot was an euphemism for “sh _ .” You can imagine my embarrassment. I quit using the word immediately, but I still wondered if really any one ever used the word that way or even knew that it was an euphemism for a very vulgar word. Only two days later I heard a woman at school say “oh sh _ .” When I asked her not to talk that way she said, “OK, oh shoot.” Since then I have seen this euphemism used this way numerous times. My point is that it is possible for us to be naive about the words of the world. Once we have learned better we need to speak better.

There are two approaches we can take on this subject. One is to become defensive and refuse to listen. For an ex-ample, I was once told “darn” just means to darn your socks. The other choice we can make is to be open minded enough to realize that, even though words may have double usages or multiple meanings, when people say “oh darn” they are not darning their socks and when they say “oh gee” they are not prodding a team of mules. They are using these words in exclamation. These expletive euphemisms are just “watered down” words which really mean something more harsh.

Matthew 12:36 says we are going to give account for every “idle word” we speak. Doesn’t this plainly say Christians have no business using expletives, euphemisms, vulgarity, or any other form of “meaningless filler words” that do not add to the sense of our conversation? Certainly it does!

When one realizes he should not use these words, what should be done? My college dorm mates were determined to never embarrass themselves again. They initiated a pro-gram to help educate each other by charging fines to anyone in their group that slipped and used any word that is taboo. They quickly cleaned up their language. A local congregation should act as a family, as a group of friends. I am not advocating monetary fines, but if you have brethren who are uninformed about these words, why not make a copy of this article and discuss it with them? I have seen several groups of Christians agree to have other brethren kindly bring to their attention any slip in the use of these words. Long time habits are hard to break, but with the help of friends, it can be done much more quickly and easily. This is what Christianity is all about, helping each other live better spiritually.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 8-9
September 5, 1996

By Donald P. Ames

So many times we focus on one or two people in an account, and fail to see other equally plain lessons. We have noted the man of God and the old prophet, but there is another tragic figure also in this chapter.

Jeroboam

Jeroboam had been selected by God and promised the northern ten tribes of Israel (1 Kings 11). God even promised, “If you heed all I command you . . . I will be with you and build for you an enduring house, as I built for David” (11:38). God kept his promise, but Jeroboam distrusted God, and set about trying to secure his own throne by methods unacceptable to God (1 Kings 12). Now, God is forced to prophesy against his own anointed!

How far had Jeroboam gone? Note in 13:6, he begs the man of God to entreat “the Lord your God”! He no longer claimed any fellowship with God. Why did he not then turn to the “gods” he had set before the nation of Israel (12:28)? He knew they could not help! Certainly this is seen by the way he tried to use his wife to deceive Ahijah (1 Kings 14). It is sad that many are caught up in sin despite all that God has given them. There may be many reasons they got into it. Frequently, rather than turn back away from it, they seek to deny God, as though that would make them OK. But though we may seek to deny there is a God and the fact that someday we will have to stand before him, our denial will not alter any of the facts (Acts 17:30-31; 2 Thess. 1:8). And deep down inside, most of us know such to be so  regardless of how confident we may seem in our denials.

Now, angered at the man of God for daring to rebuke his sinful ways, he seeks to strike out and seize him. He should have heeded the warning (Amos 3:7)! There was still time! The kingdom could still be his! But too many react rather than repent, retaliate rather than regret, and rebel rather than obey! They resort to name calling and character assignation rather than to answer the statements from the word of God. Yes, he was only digging his own grave that much deeper. The man of God exercised great control in dealing with him (cf. Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26).

For his arrogance, God withered Jeroboam’s hand, and caused the altar to be split just as the man of God had said would happen. Note now his plea: “Please entreat the fa-vor of the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me” (13:6). He knew the effect of a righteous man’s prayer (James 5:16). He also knew that when one “turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination” (Prov. 28:9). What right did he have to ask anything of God, considering the way he had repaid him for making him king over the northern ten tribes? Like so many today, he was guilty of taking, but offering nothing back to God in return! But God is not man! God bestows blessings even on the wicked sometimes to try to bring them to repentance (Matt. 5:45; Rom. 2:4). He even loved us while we were still his enemies (Rom. 5:8-10). And Jesus, on the cross, cried out, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34). That love moved us to repent and obey him. And John challenges each of us to try to learn that same kind of love for one another (1 John 4:7-11).

And so, in spite of all that Jeroboam had done in rebel-lion against him, God healed his hand in response to the man of God’s prayers. How happy Jeroboam was! He wanted to reward the man of God, to invite him into his home, to give him a meal to eat, to give him an opportunity to refresh himself before he headed back to Judah (and completely ignored the sin that had caused all the before mentioned events). But, oops! Wasn’t that God who had healed him? Aren’t we willing to show our appreciation to men  and often forget God is the source of all our blessings (James 1:17)? Perhaps because we feel more obligated if we acknowledge Jehovah as the source rather than man, we tend to dismiss God from our thinking and reward men. Again, his thanksgiving was too shallow.

Even after having heard the message from the man of God, seeing the altar split in two as confirmation God had spoken it, having had his hand withered up and then re-stored again by the power of God; Jeroboam hardened his heart again. It is a sad thing to note that some men will not repent, regardless of what God does to bring them to repentance. “It is impossible . . . to renew them again to repentance” (Heb. 6:4-6). This doesn’t mean we should not try, but it is a fact of life that everyone is not going to render obedience to the gospel of Christ It is not our role to force such obedience. Ours is to do the preaching  whether they “hear or whether they refuse” (Ezek. 2:5). The final choice of action is up to them, and the consequences for such. The man of God was not a failure because Jeroboam did not repent, but rather because he himself had failed to do what God instructed. If we have faithfully done our part, God will reward us accordingly, even if those we convert turn out to be wood, hay, and straw rather than gold and silver (1 Cor. 3:9-15).

God will bear with men, and try to bring them to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9), but not forever (Isa. 59:1-2). Jeroboam was offered a warning, a sign, and a blessing; but turned his back on God and continued his wicked way. He “again made priests from every class of people for the high places; whoever wished, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places” (13:33). As a result, “thisthing was the sin of the house of Jeroboam, so as to exterminate and destroy it from the face of the earth” (13:34). Not only did Jeroboam pay for his sins, but it also affected his offspring as well (1 Kings 14:10-11). In trying to secure it all for himself, he lost it all, and his family as well. God begs, “As I live . . . I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, 0 house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11). But God is also just, and will keep his word! You can not by-pass God and come out on top! Let us learn the valuable lesson Jeroboam passed up!

 Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 12-13
September 5, 1996