Truth Magazine

By Harry Osborne

The word “Pharisee” or a form of it is used 101 times in the New Testament. That those references are overwhelmingly negative is not news to anyone remotely familiar with the Bible. Our purpose in this study is to identify why the Pharisees were the repeated object of our Lord’s condemnation. To understand that, we must not turn to secular history to give us the answer, but to the Bible.

The most detailed statement from Jesus showing the reason for his condemnation of the Pharisees is found in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Since Mark 7 explains the background more fully, let us see what it says:

And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.) And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the preceptsof men. Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God; ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do (Mark 7:1-13).

This passage makes it clear that Jesus condemned the Pharisees because of their failure to adhere to the pattern of Scripture, instead substituting “the tradition of the elders” as being on a par with God’s word. The process by which they did so is made plain.

Process of Replacing Divine

Law with Human Tradition

First, they left the commandments of God (v. 8). When God’s commands are cast away as the absolute standard, the stage is always set for apostasy. The same thing was seen during Hosea’s time (Hos. 4:6-10). They did not do as God had commanded in loving his law and letting it be their sole guide (Ps. 119:10-11, 72, 77,103, 105, 167, et. al.). When we leave the boundary of divine teaching and doctrine, we are by definition in a way of sin and separated from God (2 John 9).

Second, Jesus notes that in the place of God’s commands, the Pharisees substituted “the tradition of men.” Yes, they thought that the traditions they set up through their rabbinical traditions were based upon God’s command, but their focus for determining right and wrong was on human tradition rather than the Scripture. The tradition had a good intent of being a “hedge around the law” according to the rabbinical writers, but its effect was to replace God’s law with man’s law. However good the original intent, the effect was to negate God’s teaching by turning attention to a standard other than God’s word.

Third, Jesus says they rejected the commandment of God in order to keep their tradition. Of course, they would have denied this charge, but it was true. Jesus proved that by noting the conflict that came to exist between the plain command of God and their tradition. God commanded, “Honor thy father and mother” (Exod. 20:12; et. al.). The fulfillment of that command obviously involved a monetary responsibility towards one’s father and mother. But the tradition to which the Pharisees held taught that one need not help his parents if he declared that the portion of income with which he would have cared for his parents was given to God. When such a conflict between human tradition and divine law occurred, which one did the Pharisees uphold? The tradition of men! Thus Jesus rightly charged that they rejected the commandments of God to keep their tradition.

Jesus summed up his condemnation of the Pharisees by saying that were guilty of “making void the word of God by [their] tradition.” Jesus goes on to make it clear that his example just given was not the only case in which they made God’s law of no effect by their traditions. He says, “And many such things ye do.” The Pharisees’ practice was replete with examples of supplanting divine commands with human traditions. This passage clearly demonstrates that the Pharisees did not focus upon God’s law to seek author-ity from his word for their actions. They did not demand “book, chapter, and verse” for all that they did. They sought for human law and tradition to authorize their actions. For this, they stood condemned by the one who had a part in authoring that rejected law.

Pharisees Fail to Judge by

Proper Standard

In Matthew 12:1-8, the Pharisees see Jesus’ disciples plucking grain from the field and eating it on the sabbath. Upon seeing this, the Pharisees say to Jesus, “Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.” Why do they make this charge? No principle of the law of Moses was violated by plucking corn to eat. So what could be “unlawful” about their action? Their charge was based upon their traditions and Jesus corrects such as he teaches about how to tell the difference between those who do that which is “not lawful” and those who are “guiltless” (vv. 3-8).

Jesus first asks, “Have ye not read what David did?” Read where? Obviously, in God’s law. The reference is to David’s actions in eating the showbread (1 Sam. 21:6). Jesus says that was “unlawful.” Why? Because the law which they were to read said only the priest could eat the showbread (Lev. 24:9). The Pharisees would not condemn David in this action even though it was against the law.

Then Jesus directs their attention to the law again, this time making his appeal to the actions of the priests in the temple on the sabbath. For anyone else to kindle a fire as the priests did would be to “profane the sabbath” (Exod. 35:3). Why? Because the law said so! Yet, the priest were “guiltless” when they did so. Why? Because the law authorized their actions (Num. 28:9-10). In applying the principle to his disciples, Jesus, as “lord of the sabbath” who gave the regulations governing that day, pronounced the disciples “guiltless.” Why? Because judgment according to the law showedsuch. Thus, Jesus shows that the Pharisees were the ones to be condemned for judging by a standard other than God’s law while his disciples were justified by that standard.

Conclusion

The failure of the Pharisees to appeal to the Scripture as the absolute standard for their conduct was at the root of many other problems for which they were condemned. Their rejection of Jesus for doing miracles on the Sabbath was a result of that false concept. Their attempts to trap Jesus in speech were not the result of a close investigation of his conduct in light of Messianic prophecy, but because he violated their traditions and so posed a threat to their authority. Their self-righteousness and pride were a result of their looking to their traditions as the standard for judgment, rather than God’s law. Their failure to understand the weighty matters of the law came, not as a result of carefully scrutinizing the law, but from a failure to put their focus on that law sufficiently. Jesus said they should have paid close attention to even small matters of the law, but not to the exclusion of the principles which should have been seen as foundational to that law (Matt. 23:23).

The Pharisees’ pretentious prayers, permitted by their traditions, were an abomination to God and the true, quiet reverence demanded of his people (Matt. 23:13-14; 6:5-8). Their hypocrisy so strongly condemned by Jesus in Matthew 23 was the result of leaving the commandments of God and holding fast to human tradition. Pharisees never came under condemnation of Jesus for holding too closely to the provisions of God’s law. No one ever did! The condemnation of the Pharisees came, simply put, from a failure to seek authority from God for all that they did. Book, chapter and verse preaching would have helped!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 6-7
September 5, 1996

By Tant Williams, Jr.

After forty-one years in the Union (Republic) of South Africa, preacher W. Ray Votaw and his helpmate, Thena, have retired to the Gist community, deep in the heart of East Texas Pines, about thirty miles east of Beaumont. This is his native turf. His health is day-to-day, inasmuch as he has carotid and cardiovascular blockage plus asbestosis of the lungs. Physicians are working with him.

Following a hitch in the Navy during World War II, Ray completed two years of study at Freed Hardeman College. He preached a couple of years and then enrolled at Harding College. After being invited to preach in South Houston, Texas in 1952, he transferred to the University of Houston. In 1954 he made a decision to preach the Gospel in the Union of South Africa. Heartbroken brethren of the South Houston Church agreed to support him in East London, coastal city on the Indian Ocean. Ray and Thena, with two little girls, departed from the Hobby Airport, flew to New York, caught the Queen Mary, arrived in Southampton, caught “The Mail Boat” Pretoria Castle, arriving in Cape town August 2, 1954. (Ray has received wages from the South Houston Church for nearly forty-five years.)

The Votaws succeeded an anxiously departing evangelist. Ray coped with working among English-Indians, Coloreds and the Black Tribal-people. After a few years, the Votaws moved inland a thousand miles to Springs, Transvaal, near Johannesburg, where he would be more centrally located. Here he be-came more and more active among the indigenous blacks. Although Ray had studied both the Afrikaans and Xhosa languages for awhile at the East London Technical College, he had to depend on trusted translators from twelve different tribal language groups as he went far and near to teach them, living with them, learning their habits, likes and dislikes, developing a trust that would endear him in their hearts. He warned them of false teachers; they protected his physical presence from disenchanted tribesmen.

His home in Springs was always open to the blacks (and others) for teaching, exhortation, and fellowship. The months became years, and the years became decades. There were problems, he sought to guide them from the Americanization of the whites. So, “as shades of the African night descended upon their kraals, and the younger ones crowded about the aged as they sat before the campfires, the old ones would say, `He came only with the Bible, nothing else. He taught us from the Word of God, to tell of a Savior who could help us in our sinful condition. We learned to depend upon him for the truth because he spoke only words of truth. Now, the weight of the world has fallen upon him, his hair has whitened with the ages of his service. He must return to his homeland for his remaining years. We will miss him and his family.

As soon as he announced that he would be returning to the states because of ill health, there began a steady stream of visitors to his home to say their tearful goodbyes, and to wish him better health and a long life. It was a moving experience that the Votaws will long remember.

Ray Votaw has no doubts that the blacks will be all right in their various churches. He had taught them to he independent and do their own work, even when he was with them. He never sent “home” glowing reports of numbers, because there were none. They learned not to depend upon him, but conducted their own service. Sometimes these services might last all day into the night. Baptisms could occur without an invitation song; men might take a candidate to the river for immersion, even while Ray was speaking to them. They learned to do by doing in their own surroundings.

Ray and Thena had their sad moments of twisting anguish. Their youngest daughter died of cancer in a Beaumont hospital; two grandchildren were awarded to the divorced South African husband by the courts of that country. In another year Celeste, the oldest daughter died of a heart attack. His mother, one brother, three sisters, Thena’s mother and father died during this period of time. Now 8,000 miles separate them from the middle daughter, Sharon, the wife of preacher, Eric Reed, and mother of three, of Bellville, Cape, RSA.

How was his rapport or relationship with other preachers and teachers? He tangled often with those of the “institutional persuasion,” finally convinced two prominent figures of the errors of their stand, in addition to one state side preacher, who is now in RSA. With those who stood with him on the above question but had peculiar beliefs on indifferent matters, the full use of Romans 14 was needed to maintain good working relationships. He was considered a leader by all parties.

Amongst the blacks some physical problems sometimes developed, but as a usual rule the blacks took care of such to stave off a fighting confrontation. Outside of religious circles, more than once, brother Votaw had to defend himself against criminal elements, receiving a broken jaw and losing several teeth in one encounter. A strange set of circumstances singled him out by an international crime syndicate. Fearful for the lives of his family and having to be constantly on guard against all kinds of “entrapment,” he worked behind the scenes with just a couple of law officials who were themselves frightened for their lives. The suspected “hit man” was imprisoned in another country; this relieved some pressure. He ultimately fortified his domicile, electronically as well as with physical measures, using a faithful black brother as night watchman and at times as bodyguard for Thena.

Such was the experience of Evangelist W. Ray Votaw and his family in preaching and teaching the gospel of the New Testament in the country of South Africa. His plans are to continue to assist the brethren in any way possible to express his love for them. “Night fires are burning, and aged men are relating the history to young ones inside the kraal.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 20-21
April 4, 1996

By H.E. Phillips

The religious world today relies greatly upon what it pleases to call “saving faith” to produce salvation and eternal life. I believe there is such a thing as saving faith, but I do not accept the definition given to it by denominationalism. Such expressions as “accepting Christ as your personal Savior,” “believing in the Lord Jesus,” and “getting saving faith” are frequently used by the sectarian preachers. But what does the Bible say about the faith that saves?

Especially in the epistles written to the Romans and Galatians the contrast is drawn between “faith” and “works of the law of Moses.” “This only would I learn of you, Receive ye the Spirit by the works of law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal. 3.2).

While the works of the law will not justify, the work of obedience to the faith is essential to the faith which saves. “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). In contrast to this we read: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). The answer to this alleged conflict between these two passages is easily understood if we learn that the same kind of “works” is not under consider-ation in both passages. One is the works of the law of Moses whereby the Jews sought salvation, and the other is the obedience to the faith whereby the obedient believer is saved from past sins.

1. Faith is a mental act. It is the act of the mind in accepting as true the testimony given. “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). In Romans 10:10 we learn that the heart is man’s instrument of belief. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” The gospel, therefore, is addressed to the hearing of man: to his heart, for this is the part that believes. But is this mental act all that is involved in the idea of the faith that saves? Is that what the Spirit meant when he said Abraham was justified by faith? Was it just a mental act and nothing more?

2. Faith is spoken of as that body of truth delivered by the Holy Spirit which produces belief in the heart. John said: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:30, 31). Again, “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith (revelation) of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe” (the mental act of receiving the truth  Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:22). The next verse says: “But before faith (revelation of Christ) came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should after-wards be revealed.” Now verse 25: “But after that faith (the rev-elation of Christ: the gospel) is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (the law of Moses). Jude 3 says: ” . . . it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith (revelation of Christ) which was once delivered unto the saints.”

3. Faith also includes the response to any and all requirements that the body of truth delivered by Christ contains. No one can claim to have the faith that saves until and unless he responds to those requirements the faith demands.

Hebrews 11 contains a list of men who were blessed by faith and in each case the blessing came at the point of response to what truth demanded. Notice these statements:”By faith Noah . . . moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (v. 7). “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went” (v. 8). “By faith Abraham, when he was tried offered up Isaac …” (v. 17). “By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land . . .” (v. 29). “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days” (v. 30).

The faith that saves is that state of mind that accepts the revelation of Christ and responds to whatever requirements are found in it to receive the promised blessing. If one should hear the word, believe the word  mentally accept it as true  but will not obey the requirements contained in it, he will no more be saved than the devils who believe in this way (James 2:19). This is the true doctrine of “faith only” or “salvation at the point of faith.”

Following are some passages that prove that faith must be obeyed before it blesses. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven! but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). “. . . and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was de-livered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18). One must obey the faith (truth) to be saved by faith.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 9-10
September 5, 1996

By Berry Kercheville

Early in the morning on January 6, 1996, Mack Kercheville breathed his last after fighting various illnesses for over four years. Mack had preached the gospel for over 56 years. He preached his first gospel meeting when he was fourteen years old. Yes, you read that right, fourteen years old. He had gone with his father Berry (my grandfather), who was scheduled to preach a two week gospel meeting. The meeting had gone so well that at the end of the two weeks the brethren were unwilling to close the meeting. Berry, however, needed to go to a nearby town to start an-other meeting. So he suggested that his fourteen-year-old son, Mack, continue the meeting. Mack gladly took the meeting up where his father had left off. When his father returned, the brethren told him that he could go on because they had a preacher in Mack that was doing just fine.

At sixteen, Mack began regular preaching and did not stop until illness restrained him. He preached his last sermon in December of 1991. How many men today have not only determined at such a young age that they will preach the gospel, but have also prepared themselves for the task? How many parents have raised their children to give such dedication to God?

In 1943, Mack moved to El Paso, Texas to begin work in Spanish at the Rivera Street church. When he first arrived, he could barely introduce himself in Spanish. He would write out his sermons so that he would be able to deliver them in an understandable way. However, within a few months he had learned the language well enough to deliver his sermons from notes alone. From that time on he would give his life to bring the gospel to the Mexican people. He traveled to Chile, to Argentina, and repeatedly to the interior of Mexico. Since Mexico would not allow American preachers to live in the country, Mack chose to live in El Paso where he would have easy access to the country.

Because of Mack’s work, numerous Mexican preachers were trained, and many churches established. The Rivera Street church, as well as the churches in Juarez that Mack so often worked with, are all self-supporting. In fact, it is the English work in El Paso that has the greatest need, not the Spanish work.

Mack did not seek to attain a name for himself. Mack quietly went about his work of teaching the Mexican people. He slept in one room homes with dirt floors. He was out night after night teaching. He traveled with hardship and sickness (from contaminated water), but never complained or turned back from the task before him. At the funeral, all of us in the family cried as we heard the Spanish speaking people sing. Many related to me how grateful they were to Mack for bringing the gospel to them.

Mack Kercheville was a champion of the faith, a man willing to fight spiritual battles that others were unwilling to fight. He was a true servant of God. He gave his life to save lost people in a foreign land. He is survived by his wife of 51 years, Nell, three daughters, and six grandchildren. You may write Nell at 1803 Jerry Abbott, El Paso, Texas 79936.

(The following article is a summation of the work of Mack Kercheville in Mexico as told by his wife of 51 years. Mack died January 6, 1996. He preached for 56 years, predominately in Spanish.)

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 8
April 4, 1996