Truth Magazine

By Hugo McCord

All Bible lovers recognize an unpayable debt to expert scholars whose years of close study have given us the meaning of the Spirit’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words in our own language. According to Professor Arndt, Joseph Henry Thayer spent “twenty-two years of arduous labor” to prepare a revision of the Grimm Lexicon. However, those scholars are not “inspired” (2 Tim. 3:16, theopneustos, ‘God-breathed’), and none of them would claim to be error-free.

Since worship directed to the heavenly Father “must” (said Jesus, John 4:24) be done in a certain way, conscientious Christians will leave “no stone unturned,” no word unstudied, that will tell them what God will accept.

One of the words that the Holy Spirit has used to let us know how to worship God acceptably is psallo. In 1957 William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich brought Walter Bauer’s German lexicon of the Greek New Testament into English. Bauer had translated psallo to mean “sing.” Arndt and Gingrich, on their own, added a phrase, “to the accompaniment of a harp.”

The new lexicon was considered to be “first rank in its field” (J.W. Roberts), and it gave welcome assurance to instrumentalists that the New Testament commands mechanical music in Christian worship. Previous lexicons (Grimm-Thayer, Green, Abbott-Smith, etc.) had limited the New Testament meaning of psallo to “sing,” but now that a lexicon with scholarly credentials had added the words, “to the accompaniment of a harp,” the matter was considered settled once for all in favor of the instrument.

However, since scholars had now lately determined that psallo requires the accompaniment of a harp, then no longer could instrumentalists say that mechanical music is optional. Further, not only must Christians use instrumental music, but each one must have his own instrument, just as each one does his own singing. The command in Ephesians 5:19 is to each Christian to “sing” (aido) and to “play” (psallo). So a Christian who sings but does not play is doing only half of what the Lord commanded. Is a person personally worshiping if a choir does the singing and an organist does the playing? Is proxy worship acceptable?

The A-G Lexicon Made A Mistake

Was the addition of a harp in the A-G lexicon really the end of the matter? Why had previous scholarly lexicons limited the New Testament meaning of psallo to “sing”? After the death of Dr. Arndt in 1957, Dr. Frederick W. Danker was appointed to work under the direction of Dr. Gingrich for a revision of the A-G Lexicon.

Under the date of September 28, 1962, I wrote to Dr. Danker:

On the word psallo, since Thayer, Green, Abbott-Smith, etc., limit the New Testament meaning to sing praises, I would appreciate the reasoning that brought Doctors Arndt and Gingrich to insert “to the accompaniment of a harp” in relationship to Romans 15:9; Ephesians 5:19; and 1 Corinthians 14:15. Further, why is this phrase excluded in relationship to James 5:13?

Under date of October 2, 1962, Dr. Danker replied:

It was so kind of you to take the time to make your inquiry regarding the word psallo. I see by comparison with Bauer’s first edition that the editors of the A-G have incorporated the obvious Old Testament meaning into the metaphorical usage of the New Testament. Bauer did not make this mistake, and we will be sure to correct it in the revision. I doubt whether the archaeologists can establish the use of the harp in early Christian services.

Dr. Danker consulted with the senior editor, Dr. Gingrich, and copy was sent to the University of Chicago Press omitting the phrase “to the accompaniment of a harp.” Dr. Danker wrote to Bruce Curd in 1964 that in a new printing, the phrase had been omitted. When Bruce inquired of the University of Chicago Press why the phrase was still in the new printing, he

Professor Gingrich feels that the comment makes valuable contributory information, and he prefers to leave this expression in.

So Professor Gingrich overruled Professor Danker.

However, Dr. Danker did not give up. When I wrote to Dr. Danker again (May 23, 1964), apparently he did not want to have a public disagreement with Dr. Gingrich, and only briefly replied that I would “see the results” of his “research” in “the scholarly channels.” But finally Dr. Danker prevailed, and the phrase was omitted in the 1979 printing, with an added explanation that those who favor “`play’… may be relying too much on the earliest meaning of psallo.”

However, Professor Gingrich’s prejudice for the instrument, not his scholarship, caused him to insert in the corrected B-G-D that “the NT does not voice opposition to instrumental music.” Similarly, the NT does not voice opposition to holy water, images, vestments, prayer candles, dancing in the worship, incense, the papacy, gambling, and ham in the Lord’s Supper. But the absence of “voice opposition” is not permission. When God is quiet, should a human being speak?

The Corrected B-G-D Has a Mistake

Though the B-G-D lexicon has removed Professor Gingrich’s phrase, “to the accompaniment of a harp,” it has gone too far in saying that psallo in modem Greek [that is, since the Old Testament] means `sing’ exclusively … with no reference to instrumental accompaniment” (p. 891).

On the contrary, in the very century in which the New Testament was written, psallo could mean “sing” or “play,” depending on what the writer had in mind. Josephus, in the first century A.D., wrote of some who “psalloed on the harp” (Antiq., 6, 8, 2), in which example psallo could not mean “sing.” Psallo with the meaning “play” is in the first century Strabo (Geography, 1, 23; 14, 2, 26) and in the first century Plutarch (Life of Pericles, 1, 5), and in the second century Lucian (The Parasite, 17). A second century inscription is cited by Moulton and Milligan (Vocabulary, psalmos) in which psalmos signifies a song sung with a harp being played by the fingers.

Likewise, Paul commanded Christians to do two things: aido and psallo (Eph. 5:19). If in Paul’s timepsallo meant “`sing’ exclusively” (B-G-D, 891) and aido meant the same thing, then Paul was commanding “singing and singing. ” Apparently then, Paul was commanding “singing and playing.”

But on what was the playing to be done? He did not command that it be done on a harp (as David did, Ps. 33:3; 68:25; 71:22), but on the “heart” (Eph. 5:19). If the instrument was a harp, then the playing necessarily would be literal, with each Christian having his own harp (as David). But the instrument was the heart, on which literal playing was impossible.

Therefore, psallo in Ephesians 5:19 must be figurative, that is, “plucking the strings of the heart.”

Professor Danker calls this a “metaphorical usage.” Of-ten the phrase is translated “making melody with your heart.”

So the apostle commanded two things: (1) singing (external as “the fruit of the lips,” Hebrews 13:15), and (2) playing (internal, on the “heart”). Since the earliest meaning of psallo (strengthened from psao, to touch) is to strike, pull, twang, or pluck, the translation of Ephesians 5:19 becomes:

… speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing [aido] and plucking [psallo] the strings of your heart to the Lord.

But in the other four occurrences of psallo in the New Testament, the renowned B-G-D lexicon says the word “means `sing’ exclusively . . . with no reference to instrumental accompaniment”:

… I will acknowledge you among the Gentiles, and I will sing [psallo] to your name (Rom. 15:9).

… I will sing [psallo] with the spirit, and I will also sing [psallo] with the understanding (1 Cor. 14:15)

… Is any happy? Let him sing praise [psallo] (James 5:13).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 8-9
August 15, 1996

By Ron Halbrook

“Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, where-unto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:8-11).

We must distinguish days God forbids us to observe from days he permits us to observe. Galatians 4 forbids imposing upon the church special days of religious observance, but does not forbid what we commonly call holidays. A holiday appointed by custom or government celebrates some person, event, or season, often including cessation from work. National, seasonal, secular, and family activities are emphasized. God may be recognized, as he should be in all phases of life, but the day’s activities are not the function of the church. A holy day is appointed by a church or other religious body to be observed as a religious festival, often including cessation from work and special worship activities. The following chart summarizes the distinction between the two kinds of days:

Holy Day Holiday

Set by church of other Set by custom or

religious body government

Special religious services National, seasonal,

and activities not secular, and family

authorized by God activities

Bind as church function, Recognize God, but not

claim to honor God bind as church function

Some holy days are recognized only within a certain religion, such as Hanukkah by the Jews (commemorating the rededication of the Temple at Jerusalem after its defilement by Antiochus of Syria) or Ramadan by the Muslims (commemorating Muhammad’s first so-called revelation). Other holy days have developed into national holidays with both religious and secular elements and activities, such as Christmas or Easter. Separation of church and state has diluted some holy days into holidays of national, seasonal, and family significance.

God has set aside no holy days involving religious festivals and exemption from work in the Gospel Age. God ordained that Christians worship him on the first day of the week, but otherwise there are no special instructions or limitations defining what can or cannot be done on that day. Holidays should be limited to national, seasonal, and family oriented activities and not imposed upon the church.

Authority to Appoint a Holy Day

Only God has the authority to appoint a holy day. Under the Law of Moses, God commanded the Jews to “remember the sabbath day (our Saturday), to keep it holy” by abstaining from work and reflecting on their deliverance and rest from Egyptian bondage (Exod. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15).

God ordained three annual feasts requiring all Jewish males to come to Jerusalem (Exod. 12; 23:14-17; 34:18-23). The Passover Feast or Feast of Unleavened Bread in the spring commemorated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. God’s blessings in the first fruits of the harvest were celebrated as the Feast of Harvest or of Weeks, also called Pentecost because it occurred fifty days after Passover (thus on our Sunday). The Feast of Ingathering came at the conclusion of the year’s harvest.

The Annual Atonement involved sacrifices offered “for all their sins once a year” (Lev. 16). Every seventh year was to be “a sabbath of rest unto the land,” when no crops were planted, and every fiftieth year was proclaimed The Jubilee, when all debts were cancelled (Lev. 25). Holy days were to be observed exactly as God commanded to the detail.

The Law of Moses made man more conscious of sin and of God’s provision for forgiveness which ultimately would come in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. When Christ died, he removed the Old Law, “nailing it to his cross, ” thus ending all of its holy days (Col. 2:14-17). Christ arose “on the first day of the week” and his church was established on Pentecost Sunday (Mark 16:2; Acts 2). Through his Apostles, Christ ordained that Christians meet for worship “on the first day of the week,” especially to eat the Lord’s supper in remembrance of his death and to give a portion of their financial prosperity for the work of his church (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Christians may meet any time, even daily, to teach his word, sing, and pray (Acts 2:46).

Christ ordained his church to worship on Sunday but authorized no holy days, feasts, or festivals requiring exemption from work or other special observances. The Holy Spirit warned that when Christians teach people to “observe days, and months, and times, and years,” they return to “the weak and beggarly elements” of false religion (Gal. 4:8-11; 5:1). Weak Christians may feel compelled in con-science to set aside a certain day for special devotion to God on a personal and private basis, which God permits until growth removes the scruple, but to bind such scruples on others is “contrary to the doctrine” of Christ (Rom. 14:1-6; 16:17-18).

Holy Days Appointed by Men

As prime examples of what the Holy Spirit forbad, Holy Days in Roman Catholicism are festivals honoring God, Jesus, or dead people declared “saints” (Mary, the Apostles, and others). Such observances were borrowed from Judaism and pagan-ism in an effort to “convert” people by adopting and adapting their false practices. Easter began as Pasch when apostate Christians of the 2nd-4th centuries revived the Jewish Passover as a festival of Christ’s death and resurrection each spring. The celebration gradually absorbed pagan concepts and practices associated with Estera, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring and fertility in the 8th century (with roots back to Astarte, an ancient Chaldean goddess of heaven). Christmas began in the 3rd-4th centuries as a festival of Christ’s birth, absorbing Roman celebrations for the sun gods Mithra and Saturn in December. God has always warned his people not to borrow or copy pagan practices (Deut. 12:29-32; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). Such compromise with error is the work of “the man of sin,” the spirit of all who “depart from the faith” (2 Thess. 2:3-4; 1 Tim. 4:1).

Many such days have been designated by Catholicism through the centuries. Holy Days of Obligation are feast days other than Sunday on which Catholics are obligated to attend mass and abstain from unnecessary servile work. There are ten such days but the number in force varies from one country to another: Circumcision (of Jesus; Jan. 1), Epiphany (first manifestation of Christ to Gentiles, the Magi; Jan. 6), Saint Joseph (earthly father of Jesus; Mar. 19), Ascension (of Christ to heaven; 40 days after Easter), Corpus Christi (Christ’s body offered in the Eucharist; Thursday after Trinity Sunday), Saints Peter and Paul (June 29), Assumption (Mary taken bodily to heaven; Aug. 15), All Saints (Nov. 1), Immaculate Conception (Mary not inherit original sin; Dec. 8), and Christmas (birth of Christ; Dec. 25). God authorized none of this.

Holidays, Not Imposed Upon the Church

Holidays are not necessarily holy days, but some holy days have a dual status as holidays involving seasonal, secular, and customary activities not imposed upon the church. A number of these activities had their roots in religious associations which largely have been lost (just as the names of the days of the week originally honored ancient gods). Common U.S. holidays include New Year’s Day (first day of calendar year; Catholic holy day focused on events of infancy of Jesus; Jan. 1), Valentine’s Day (token of affection sent to one of opposite sex on anniversary of third century Christian martyr; Feb. 14), Easter (resurrection of Christ; first Sunday after first full moon occurring on or after Mar. 21), Mother’s Day (memorial honoring mothers began in West Virginia, then in churches of Philadelphia on May 10, 1908; proclamation by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914; second Sunday in May), Father’s Day (memorial honoring fathers began in Spokane, Washington in 1910; third Sunday in June), Independence Day (American colonies declared independence from England on July 4, 1776), Halloween (British tradition developed from All Saints’ or All Hallows’ Eve, the evening before Catholic “saints” are honored, originating 600’s-800’s to replace night druids feared god and spirits of wicked dead; Oct. 31), Thanksgiving Day (day to thank God for blessing families and nation, began in Plymouth Colony in 1621; proclamation by President George Washington in 1789, made legal holiday by Congress in 1941; fourth Thursday in Nov.), and Christmas (birth of Christ; Dec. 25).

Guidance From God

What does God teach us to do about holy days and holidays?

1. For the church to observe holy days not authorized by God dishonors God. We cannot obey God’s word by adding to or diminishing from its commandments (Deut. 4:1-2; Rev. 22:18-19). God’s faithful prophet cried out against King Jeroboam when he “ordained a feast” not ordained by God himself (1 Kings 12:32-13:2). One of the marks of men who “pervert the gospel of Christ” is that they teach men to “observe days, and months, and times, and years” such as Christmas and Easter (Gal. 1:6-9; 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-23). The church honors God by worshipping as he directs in song, prayer, and Bible teaching, and on the first day of the week giving and the Lord’s supper (Col. 3:16; Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

2. Christians must avoid compromising with error by participating in holy days. God teaches us not to be “unequally yoked together with unbelievers” by supporting their error but rather to “come out from among them, and be .. . separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing” (2 Cor. 6:14-18; Rev. 18:4). Holy days ought not to be brought into a true church of the Lord, and Christians ought not go into digressive and denominational churches to participate in their holy days. Neither should Christians compromise by allowing their children to sing religious songs with instrumental music in school holiday programs, or to sing songs promoting holy day error even without instruments (such as songs teaching Christ was born on Christmas, Christmas honors Christ, worship of Mary, etc.). Rather than having fellowship with such activities, we should lovingly and firmly reprove them (Eph. 5:11).

3. Civil rulers, families, and individuals can acknowledge God without imposing holy days on the church. After King Darius saw Daniel delivered from the lion’s den, he proclaimed that all men should “tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever,” but he did not propose a new feast day be added to God’s pattern of worship for the Jews like Jeroboam did (Dan. 6:25-26). We should pray that all rulers today will acknowledge and honor God both privately and publicly (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

Jewish families banded together to form synagogues to teach God’s word in a setting similar to family devotions, but did not compete with the Temple worship by offering sacrifices or by calling Jews to Jerusalem for a new feast day. God approved the synagogue system, just as God approves of families providing religious training today without intruding on the work and worship of the church (Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 4:16; Eph. 6:1-4). Governments and families can thank God for his blessings on such occasions as Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, Mother’s Day, or Father’s Day without imposing any of the trappings of a holy day on the church.

4. Christians must use caution in authorized liberties. Holy days are not authorized for the church, but most holidays in America can be observed on an individual basis where national, seasonal, and family activities are involved. Some people may confuse liberties with obligations. The scruples of new converts and weak Christians may make them feel obligated to offer special devotions to God on an individual basis on certain days until they learn better, but such acts must not involve sin or be imposed on the church (Rom. 14:1-6; 16:17-18). A person converted from Judaism or from a sabbatarian denomination might feel conscience bound to offer God certain devotions on Saturday. Those who understand such liberties should not compel the weaker Christian to violate his conscience.

We must remember the rule, “Let not your good be evil spoken of’ (Rom. 14:16). That is, we might do something that is technically right, but do it in a way which misleads others. We could violate that rule by causing someone to violate his conscience, or even by doing something that suggests approval of sinful error. It is right to eat meat, but if someone makes a point of saying the meat was used earlier to honor an idol, Paul said do not eat it lest people think we honor idols (1 Cor. 10:25-29). It is right to sing songs about the birth or resurrection of Jesus, but if young people are asked to sing such songs in Christmas or Easter programs at school, they should decline lest people think we honor such days as holy. Songs like “Frosty the Snowman” and “Jingle Bells” are simply seasonal and leave no such impression.

5. Sin is still sin on holidays. Holidays do not justify willful absence from worship services, failing to give as prospered each Sunday, drinking intoxicants, or wearing immodest dress (shorts, swimsuits, tank tops, and other revealing attire in the presence of the opposite sex). Drinking parties, beach parties, extravagant spending, and other sins are very popular on certain holidays. Christians should stand out as beacon lights of purity in a world darkened by sin (Matt. 5:14-16).

Conclusion

God is not honored by perverting the gospel to add holy days but by obeying his word in worship as in all things (Col. 3:17). If we are in a church which observes holy days, we are not in a church approved by God. We leave sin and error by accepting the gospel of Christ. When our faith in him leads us to repent of our sins, to confess him as God’s Son, and to be immersed in water by his authority, our sins will be washed away in his blood. Then, we will learn to observe all things he commanded and to abstain from all other things (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 3:19; Rom. 10:10). Christians who err confess their sins and pray for forgiveness in order to be cleansed by Christ’s blood (1 John 1:7-9).

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 16-18
April 4, 1996

By H.E. Phillips

I have difficulty trying to understand how men can in-vent a philosophy of religion that so widely differs from their fellow man and then claim that they are all right. Is religion something that is right just because one believes it? If one man believes that Christ was born of a virgin, did miracles, died, and arose from the dead, and another believes that Christ was born of a woman out of wedlock, died, and did not arise from the dead, can both be right? Now when you figure out how a rational, intelligent man can believe two people can be right in such opposite views, you can then explain how a man can believe both of these views at the same time and not oppose himself. This makes no sense to me, and yet it is the basis of denominationalism.

In 1966 a book was published on “Critical Studies in Church of Christism” called Voices of Concern, edited by Robert Meyers. It contains 17 chapters by as many writers who claim to have been “within the Church of Christ segment of the Restoration movement” or “recently out of it” (Introduction by Robert Meyers). Some of these I have personally known in years past when they at least professed to be members of the church of Christ. Others I did not know. I have read what some of them have written.

All these “Voices of Concern” have two things in common: they all were members of the church of Christ at one time, and they all were dissatisfied and criticized what they called “Church of Christism.” From this point they go in all directions. Some left completely, some joined various denominations, and some joined the radical liberals, which is just another denomination. Their criticisms range from personalities in the church to the New Testament doctrine of salvation, worship, and the nature of the church.

It is hard for one who has heard the truth and knows anything of the Lord’s church to believe that some of these who wrote in Voices of Concern denied baptism for the remission of sins, the Lord’s supper on the Lord’s day, immersion as scriptural baptism, the inspiration of the scriptures, the deity of Christ, and issued a plea for the use of instrumental music in worship, fellowship with all religious groups, and about every innovation ever invented.

I am not interested here in examining any one of these essays on what is wrong with the church of Christ. I am interested for the moment in why they think as they do. The attitude toward the authority of Christ is the tap root to all these radical views. The attitude toward the authority of Christ is really an attitude toward Christ himself. It was interesting to note that most of these who wrote in this book were educated in some of the “Christian Colleges” who have for many years emphasized liberal views toward the word of God. Their eggs hatched! The bitter fruits are seen in such books is this one, denying the very foundations of the faith once delivered.

Every chapter in Voices of Concern asserts a belief (of some kind) in Christ, and at the same time denies what Christ teaches in his word. I have concluded that every-one of these who still professes any faith in Christ believes the only basis of fellowship and the only standard of right to be a belief that Christ is the Son of God.

Suppose we take this as the criteria of acceptance with God. Which Christ shall be the basis of fellowship with God? Is it the one who was born of a virgin, did miracles, called himself the Son of God, died, and arose from the dead; or is it the one born of man and woman, really did no miracles, died, and is still dead? He cannot be both! Is it the Christ who winks at disobedience to the will of his Father in heaven and accepts all who profess some form of religion, or is it the Christ who demands obedience to his will and will come in flaming fire to take vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of Christ (2 Thess. 1:8)?

And suppose we accept the view proclaimed in Voices of Concern (and many more like it) that all denominations are right. Of course, they do not believe that all people in denominations will be saved, but they believe one can be saved in any denomination. Some of them limit salvation to “segments of the Restoration Movement.” If some one cries that belief in Christ is legalism and too narrow, will it then be right to accept religions that are anti-Christ? This is the principle upon which they left “Church of Christism,” as they call it. If there is any difference in principle, I am unable to see it.

The whole problem with these renegades is the authority of Christ. When they understand the Christ, the Son of God, revealed in the New Testament, they will understand that his authority is all; there is no other authority in religion. When they recognize this authority and acknowledge it in obedience, they will be in the Lord’s church and no other. The Lord only adds to his church, and he adds only the saved to his church (Acts 2:47). “Segments” or “heirs” of the Restoration Movement will have no more meaning to them than the Reformation Movement or the Inquisition of the middle ages. I want to be an heir of God through Christ, and movements of all kinds can be buried with all other dead movements.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 10-11
August 15, 1996

By Donald P. Ames

As we continue our study, we have noted the man of God and the tragedy that befell him. Now let us consider some other lessons that we can also learn from this chapter.

The Other Prophet

What do we really know about this other prophet? He was old (13:11). He knew about Jehovah. And he was a prophet! Maybe at one time he too had thought about speaking against Jeroboam, only to decline when he considered what it might cost him. Whatever may have happened, God did not select him as a reliable witness to carry his message to Jeroboam.

And why did he lie to the man of God (13:18)? Surely he knew the difference! Or, could it have been that he also lied to himself (2 Thess. 2:11-12)? Could it be that he wanted to visit with the man of God so badly, he actually convinced himself God was going to approve of his actions? How many times do we try to deceive ourselves  even in the face of obvious facts (13:16-17, cf. James 1:22-27). Sometimes we feel we can get by with a little “white” lie and no one will ever know (Rom. 3:8). How easily we forget a lie is still a lie to God  regardless of what “color” we may claim it is. It is still a lie, whether we falsely convince ourselves, only tell half of the truth (Acts 5), or deliberately lie with the full realization of what we are doing (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 1 John 4:1). When he later prophesied the death of the man of God, I wonder if the full depth of his own involvement also sunk in (Matt. 18:7). Truly he had much to answer for.

Certainly he is also a clear reminder that we should not believe every man who claims to speak for God. Some will lie deliberately. Some are servants of money rather than God. Some may be honestly self-deceived. But no man can stand up in the day of judgment and say, “It was all his fault.” God has told us his will, and we are the ones who must answer for whether or not we have done it.

And when God clearly says one thing, and man says something else, someone is wrong! And you can rest assured, it is not God! Had this great man of God but taken a few moments to consult with God, his life would have been spared. Maybe this prophet just coveted the presence of the man of God. Maybe he felt if the man of God could just come and visit, that would wipe away all those years of failure. Is this not implied when he also sought to be buried in the same tomb along side the man of God (13:31)? How many have you known who have never obeyed the gospel, yet felt if they could just “run in the company” of a good Christian, that would make them OK? It may be a man/ woman who brags about what a great Christian their spouse is. Or their parents. Or even their kids. Or neighbor. If only we could learn the lesson no one else can get us into heaven (see Ezek. 14:14, 20; Jer. 15:1). Each of us is going to have to answer for our own actions (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:12).

But notice also when the sad news of the death of the man of God was received, he set about to try to make amends by bringing him back, burying him in his own tomb, and mourning for him. But alas, it was too late! He cried, “Alas, my brother” (13:30). If only he could do some-thing to undo what he had done! If only he could have another chance! But sometimes we learn too late there is no way we can undo the harm we have caused. Many a parent has wept and prayed over an unfaithful child or loved one. “If only I had obeyed sooner!” “If only I had not started him down the wrong road.” “If only I had realized what I was doing then!” “If only …”

But even in this tragedy, the purpose of God is accomplished! Realizing the evil he had caused, and still seeking justification by association in his plans for his own death, he also reconfirmed God’s promise against Israel spoken by the man of God  “For the saying which he cried out by the word of the Lord . . . will surely come to pass” (13:32). How sad that it sometimes takes the death of one we admire to finally enable us to speak against the evil about us. Has it suddenly changed? No, it was always evil! But when it finally “affects us,” we realize the need to speak out! But by then it may fall on deaf ears, as it did in this case.

No amount of longing, association, or mourning with-out true repentance is going to make us right in the eyes of God. He may use us as a warning to others of the consequences of sin (cf. Jude 5-11), but we shall indeed answer for our sins (John 5:28-29; Rom. 14:12). Don’t wait until you shed tears of remorse for those you have hurt to decide to change your way of living! Now is the only time you have  use it wisely in God’s behalf!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 15
August 15, 1996