Truth Magazine

By Barney Keith

The edification of the saints is one of the objectives of our assemblies. We are made to wonder at times just how much of this is accomplished. The church at Corinth was instructed to conduct assemblies in such a manner “that the church may receive edifying” (1 Cor.14:5). Paul admonished, “Let all things be done unto edifying” (v. 26). His concern was that certain disorder in their meetings would prevent edification.

While Paul was dealing in 1 Corinthians 14 with a kind of assembly that cannot be duplicated today (one where spiritual gifts were being exercised), this chap-ter does set forth some lessons that clearly are applicable today in making our own assemblies more profitable. True edification can occur only when conditions are conducive to such. We shall consider some of them briefly.

True Edification

Requires Teaching

Without teaching or instruction there will be no edification. Paul declared that the brother who prophesies “edifieth the church” (v. 4). God’s will was being revealed and it was necessary that it be taught. It is no less necessary that it be taught today. Initial faith comes from this (Rom.10:17). Maturity of growth comes from increased acquaintance with the word of God (Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2). A congregation that receives very little teaching that calls attention to Scripture will not be edified, but will become vulnerable to the ravages of false doctrine and apostasy. Interesting, but pointless, tales about one’s personal life, big doses of psychology, heavy expo-sure to popular denominational authors, and even  enthusiastic “feel-goodism” will never edify Christians in the right way. Elders in every congregation should insist upon good solid Bible teaching from the pulpit and in the classrooms. There will never be a substitute for this.

True Edification

Requires Understanding

As a corollary to the above, edification can occur only when peopleunderstand what is said. How can one be built up if he does not comprehend the message of the speaker or teacher? A problem at Corinth was created when some used languages (“tongues”) that were unintelligible to the audience. Paul likened it to “speaking into the air” (v. 9) when there was no understanding. Evidently prophesying was in the vernacular and would require no translator. The brethren would be edified by this, for they could understand. Their praying also needed to be in an understandable language. Otherwise people could not say, “Amen” when the prayer was finished (v. 16). No person is edified by what he does not comprehend.

It is just as necessary in our day for preaching to be intelligible. Special effort should be made toward clarity of speech, God’s message of truth should not be obscured by befuddling, confusing verbiage. Flights of oratory with vocabulary unfamiliar to the average person may greatly amaze, but will hardly instruct the common man. The best teaching is done by simplicity of speech. Our Lord expressed the grandest of truths in the simplest of ways. The great apostle Paul took care that his preaching be done “not with excellency of speech” (1 Cor.2:1) and not “in persuasive words of wisdom” (2:4).

Despite the best efforts one may make, on occasions someone may leave an assembly saying, “I don’t agree with what he said.” One should not, however, have to say upon leaving, “I couldn’t understand what he was talking about.” Let us make the teaching plain. If the hearer claims not to understand, let us strive to be sure that his failure is due to his own attitude of heart and not to our failure to speak plainly.

Edification Requires Decent, Orderly Procedure

Edification is expedited by orderly procedure in the services. This is easily seen in verses 26-40. Whatever causes confusion or distraction unnecessarily militates against the profit that should be received from teaching. Paul shows in verses 29-30 that the commotion created by several prophets trying to speak at one time was destructive of edification. Mentioned also in this context is the disruptive speaking out by certain women, a clear violation of the divine order (35, 36). “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,” Paul declares in verse 33. His instruction is, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (14:40).

One cannot help wondering just how much edification occurs in an assembly where attention is distracted by things which generally ought not to go on during worship. What justification can be found for a steady stream of children to the restrooms  something that could be avoided by parents seeing to that at a more appropriate time. (A few people have certain physical problems over which they have no control. These comments intend no criticism of such cases.) Distraction sometimes may be due to boisterous, unruly children who are allowed to continue without proper correction.

And what about the noisy rattling of paper bags to get snacks out for the kids? Or even the unpleasant sounds across the way from clipping nails? Or perhaps the constant whispering (?) to those nearby? Problems of this sort may vary from place to place. Let us never forget that hearts are to be focused upon worshiping God “in spirit and in truth.” Effort should be made, as much as is possible, to create and maintain an atmosphere that makes that kind of worship possible (John 4:24).

And Another Thing

While not under consideration in the Corinthian text, it surely is in order to say something else that is obvious to all. True edification cannot occur when a schismatic, belligerent atmosphere pervades a congregation. An assembly for worship should never be in shambles from a shouting match or shameful outburst of anger. “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” Shame on those who allow passion and pride to prevent worshipful devotion to him in whose august and holy presence they have met.

True edification arises from “the wisdom that is from above,” which, according to James 3:17, is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits …” The opposite behavior, he says, is “earthly, sensual, devilish” (v. 16). Edification cannot flourish in such soil.

Edification Is Possible

Edification of the church is possible! God does not re-quire that which we cannot do. True edification will take place (1) with the teaching of God’s word, (2) understand-ably presented, and (3) in an assembly conducted decently and in order with the proper spirit of brotherly love. Let us be concerned always with “things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom.14:19). We need all the edification we can get to help us make it to heaven!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 1
September 5, 1996

By Dan King

The natural longing which exists within each one of us to “better our situation” and improve upon our lifestyle, grows out of a deeper instinct within the human soul. Our parents wanted us to “have it better” than they did, and we want out children to “do better” than we have. One gets the impression that we human beings are either impossible to please, or else there is an instinct that resides within us which points us to-ward another and incomparably better future than anything we are ever able to enjoy here in this world. I am convinced that the latter is the case. Like the patriarchs of the book of Genesis, “We have not here an abiding city, but we seek after the city which is to come” (Heb. 13:14). So, no matter how good we have it now, we are never satisfied, nor shall we ever be, this side of heaven.

Peter speaks of the consummation of this present world, with its very elements dissolved, yet concludes upon a clear note of hope:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3:10-13).

The prospect of being stripped of what we have by the “death knell” of this present universe should give us no joy. After all, there are some very good and pleasant aspects of our beautiful planet which we would hesitate to sacrifice to fiery destruction. Yet, if we could be assured, with absolute certainty, that this is merely a trade-off, and we will come out the better for it, then we could “look for and earnestly desire the coming of the day of God.” That is the idea. It is not what we lose that is important. It is what we gain in the transaction. This is what really counts.

Peter points out four things we ought to appreciate in order to keep this terrible and wonderful future time in proper perspective:

These things are all to be dissolved. All earthly things, material possessions, earthly power and prestige, worldly accomplishments and ambitions, will be no more. As Christ said, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). Some things really matter, while others actually do not. We must keep our perspective: “If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth (Col. 3:1-2).

What manner of persons ought we to be? Realizing that this world and its possessions and attainments have no long-term future, no permanency, places the emphasis where it belongs: upon developing Christian character: “holy living and godliness.” What will abide is what we send on ahead of us into eternity (Matt. 6:19-20), and the qualities we allow God to develop in us, while here, which make us fit citizens of the heavenly kingdom: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof’ (Gal. 5:22-24).

We ought to look for and earnestly desire the coming of the day of God. As the writer of the Hebrew epistle said: “They that say such things make it manifest that they are seeking after a country of their own . . . they desire a better country” for they are truly “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Heb. 11:13-16). As the old hymn says, “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passing through; my treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue.” We must have the outlook of John who, when robbed of all earthly moorings and sent to the prison-isle of Patmos wrote, “He who testifieth these things saith, `Yea: I come quickly.’ Amen: come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).

According to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth. The Christian keeps his anchor tied securely to the promises of God. No earthly loss, discouragement or frustration can break the chain. We see beyond this world, its treasures and achievements. There is ahead a destination where we truly can say, “The first things are passed away,” and where God will say, “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev. 21:4, 5). When we consider the terrible evils we will put behind us, “we who are spiritual” can appreciate with great anticipation “new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.” How can we? Because God promised! As a popular expression has simply but majestically articulated it: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 5
April 4, 1996

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