Truth Magazine

By Ken McDaniel

During a recent gospel meeting that I preached, the lo-cal evangelist and I went calling on a few individuals in hopes of motivating some to faithfulness and setting up Bible studies with others who have not yet been saved. As is often the case, we struck out several times due to no one being home. On one return visit, however, we found an individual home who welcomed us inside.

We introduced ourselves which, no doubt, clued him in as to why we were there. Still, he seemed glad for our company and asked us to sit for a while. After a bit of small talk, finding some common ground, we got to the point. We invited him to the meeting and then moved into a more personal conversation about his soul and his relationship with God.

The things we had to say came as no surprise to him because, as a youth, he had attended the services of a church of Christ with his parents. We asked him if he felt he was saved. He answered, “No.” We asked if he knew what would happen if he died in that condition. He said, “Yes,” indicating that he would go to hell. We asked if he felt he could be saved without being baptized. He replied, “Not according to the Bible.” With so many years having passed from the time he attended services as a boy  he being an older man now  we asked if he ever gave much thought anymore about being saved.

After a brief moment of silence, he replied, “I’d like to tell you some-thing I have never told anyone before.” He explained that in his home town the church held a meeting every summer. At the age of fourteen, he decided he would be baptized during the next meeting, though he told no one. One day, a week or so before the meeting, he went to the river to fish and was sitting, enjoying the stillness. He began to hear the noise of laughter in the distance. It was coming from a boat drifting down the river toward him. As it rounded the bend, he recognized who was in it  Shady Lane, the town drunk, and the preacher. In bewilderment, he slipped back into the bushes where he watched and listened. He couldn’t believe what he heard. They were telling and laughing at each other’s dirty jokes. When they got directly in front of him, he stepped out and waved hello, much to the preacher’s surprise, who was in the midst of guzzling a “Falstaff” beer.

Our host went on to explain that although he wanted to tell his parents, he was afraid because his dad did not tolerate lying. “Why, if he even thought you were lying,” he said, “dad would whip you, especially if it was about someone else.” The story about the preacher would have probably seemed like a lie to his dad and would have most likely got-ten him a whipping, so he thought. Who would have believed the preacher had been floating down the river with the town drunk, drinking beer and laughing at dirty jokes?

The boy wasn’t baptized during that meeting, and, probably close to fifty years later, has still not obeyed. While at home, he continued to go to church, but when he moved out that ended too.

Who is to blame Shady, the preacher, or the boy, who now distanced from the hurt by several years has still not yielded to God’s will? I tried to express to him that I felt for him, and that surely what he saw must have been crushing for a young boy ready to commit himself to God. However, I tried to help him understand that God has been kind and merciful to him. He has allowed him many years to mend, come to his senses again and be saved. We encouraged him to do so that very day, but he still wasn’t ready.

He said he realizes his reason for not being saved will not excuse him; regardless, that was the motive for his decision.

How sad indeed! A man bound for hell who knows it, but who also knows what to do to avoid it. Yes, he is right. God will not excuse him for refusing to obey the gospel (see 2 Thess. 1:8,9). It was not the Lord who wronged him; it was a hypocritical preacher who had opportunity to make things right but apparently failed to do so.

Though there are many applications that could be made from this story, the one that is most meaningful to me is the effect our actions have on others. Here was a boy ready to obey the gospel. He had made up his mind that when the invitation song was sung at the next meeting, he was going to walk down that aisle, be buried with Christ in baptism and have his sins washed away (see Galatians 3:27, and Acts 22:16). But he still has not done so because he was hurt so deeply by seeing the preacher, who was sup-posed to be a spiritual and godly man, drinking and laughing at dirty jokes. If what our friend said is true, though the preacher was not making a great effort to conceal his sins, he probably wasn’t expecting anyone to be there or to notice him. Then instead of trying to make things right, he inflicted more harm by trying to conceal his sins from the congregation at the expense of a young tender soul. As a result, one is now headed for eternal destruction.

Sometimes we, too, are more apt to give in to temptation when we think no one is watching. But as this story illustrates, the potential always exists. Needless to say, nothing is hidden from the Lord (see Heb. 4:13). Just think! Should someone see you, a Christian, living inconsistently with the teachings of the New Testament, it could cause him to fall away or never become a Christian at all.

As Peter admonished, we must always be careful to keep ourselves pure and our conduct honorable before others: “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation (1 Pet. 2:11,12). Similarly, Jesus stated, “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lamp stand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven”(Matt. 5:13-16).

When we conduct ourselves in a pure and godly manner, we adorn the doctrine of God instead of defaming it (see Tit. 2:10). By doing so, others are encouraged to be-come Christians  to be as we are  not discouraged. Let us, therefore, always be careful to be godly. A soul other than our own may depend on it.

That Sunday before services, the preacher wasn’t standing in his usual place by the door. He was out on the sidewalk greeting people. As soon as he saw the boy coming, he went to meet him. He warned the youngster not to tell anyone about what he had seen.

Guardian of Truth XL: 6 p. 16-17
March 21, 1996

By Steve Willis

Israel’s King Hoshea’s Name Found on an Ancient Seal

Remember your memorized Old Testament dates? 722 B.C. come to mind? The … Captivity . . . of . . . Israel by the . . . Assyrians? OK who was Northern Israel’s last king? Hoshea! He reigned circa 731 to 722 B.C. when his nation fell. You can read about that in 2 Kings 17, and it took place during the times of Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah, who also speak of northern Israel’s sin and captivity.

2700 Years Later

Recently a seal, used to stamp official documents, came to auction at Sotheby’s in New York. In the “Antiquities and Islamic Works of Art,” it was dated to the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. It was also there misidentified as Phoenician and estimated to bring $1200 to $1800 at auction. The pictures in the catalog were clear enough to bring more, for it was actually purchased for $80,000 in December 1993. Shlomo Moussaieff, an Israeli collector from London, had purchased it.

What did he get? The royal seal of King Hoshea’s servant Abdi’  whose longer name was probably Obadiah (not the prophet). In this case “servant” would be like “minister” in many governments, or “secretary of . . .” in the U.S. This seal is from that 732-722 B.C. time period. It would be used to establish something as official from the king or his servant by pressing their seal into soft clay or wax. This would leave an official impression, similar in purpose as a notary’s stamp does for us today.

The seal was described by Andre Lemaire in the Biblical Archaeology Review: “The seal is translucent and brown carnelian  or rather orange chalcedony according to an expert gemologist  scaraboid in shape [like a scarab beetle  spw] and perforated from top to bottom so that it might eventually be work around the neck on a string or mounted. It is one inch high, slightly over one-half inch wide and one-third inch thick” (November/December 1995, 49). There is a picture of a man walking, with his face at a profile. He is wearing a long kilt, and a short wig, and holds a scepter identified as a papyrus scepter. There are a few Egyptian-style marks, popular on many things in antiquity; notably a winged-sun where the name would normally have been. Perhaps this was especially used to curry favor with the Egyptians when Israel was trying to avoid becoming a vessel to Assyria (see 2 Kings 17:4 and Hos. 7:11).

The wording, which identifies it as relating to Bible times is on both sides of the man. It reads: L’BDY `BD HWSH’, “Belonging to Abdi servant of Hoshea.” The style of lettering is Old Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) and matches this period of time, as it can be compared with other inscriptions, such as the Siloam tunnel inscription in the time of Judah’s king Hezekiah. In addition to God’s providence, it was probably this tunnel that saved Jerusalem from Assyrian capture at the same time of Israel’s fall (see 2 Kings 18: 17, 27, 31; 19:23-24; 20:20).

A couple of other archaeological points. One, though the seal did have one at auction, the new owner also obtained a housing for seals, and it is believed that this may be the very housing box for the Abdi’ seal. It was a 2-inch wide gold mounting that would hold the seal when in use. Both seal and housing are pictured on the cover of BAR.

Secondly, Lemaire wrote of other seals in the article. One from the eighth century B.C., and was made of amethyst, and the owner’s name was Habli. This Habli-seal has enough points comparison to make Lemaire think both seals were made in the very same workshop, and possibly even by the same artist. Lemaire suggested it was a shop in Samaria.

Ultimately, Samaria which had become the capital of northern Israel fell to the Assyrians. Many were taken away to other lands. People from other lands were moved to Israel. Those left in the land became known as the Samaritans, and would become enemies to Judah and the Jews, even to the time of Jesus. And though history can bring us this “remnant” from the past, the Lord would pre-serve his remnant from “all Israel”  such as Paul was  in Christ (see Rom. 11:1-5).

Guardian of Truth XL: 6 p. 21
March 21, 1996

By Mike Willis

Sometimes the preaching is boring. Even Babe Ruth did not hit a home run every time he batted! Sometimes a person is tired and fights sleep  I’ve been there too! Consequently, everyone is not totally edified by every sermon that is preached and some sermons are not as beneficial to a person as another might be.

But this is not what this article is discussing. This article wants to address that kind of listening that tolerates the preacher saying some-thing but has no intention of changing one’s conduct. The Scriptures describe some who had this attitude toward preaching. God described Israel’s attitude toward Ezekiel’s preaching. He said,

And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not (33:31-32).

Do these words describe our attitudes toward preaching?

We come out of worship and comment, “That was such a good sermon, preacher.” We comment about his ability, “He is such a good preacher.” But what do we do about what is preached? Try these examples on for size:

1. Modest dress. Nearly every year, I preach a sermon on modest dress because we come to that time of the year when many take off most of their clothes and go swimming in public swimming pools, beaches, and water theme parks. Many go out in public wearing shorts that cover not nearly enough of the body. Some go to church and listen to a sermon on immodest dress, but go ahead and dress like we want to. This makes me think of God’s words to Ezekiel: “thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.” Is that what is going on in this case?

2. Being on time. From time to time we stop to comment on the need for us to be conscious of our time. There are times when there are more Christians standing in the hall while the opening song for Sunday morning worship is being sung than there are inside the auditorium. We all agree that the first song and prayer are just as important as any other; we all agree that the coming in late disrupts our classes. But what do we do about it? This makes me think of God’s words to Ezekiel: “thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.” Is that what is going on in this case?

3. Attending the business meetings. Everyone agrees that the church functions best when we have all involved in the local work. When men choose not to attend business meetings, the church suffers because: (a) there is a segment of men who are not giving us the benefit of their judgment; (b) there is a segment of men who do not volunteer to carry a share of the load of work. Sometimes business meetings discuss important issues and men of strong conviction some-times have different judgment about those issues. The Lord willed that we have discussions that sort out what the truth is. The wise man said, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). There have been many times that I have gone into meetings strongly committed to one point of view and seen my view change as I listened to what others have to say. This is how the Lord wishes us to help one another.

I also confess that business meetings do not move as fast as I sometimes wish. Sometimes there is long and drawn out discussion about relatively insignificant issues. Usually this happens because the one chairing the meeting wants to give everyone opportunity to be heard and does not wish to leave an impression that anyone’s point of view is unimportant. These are commendable attitudes and we should be able to see through the minor aggravation to appreciate the brotherly spirit behind it.

Having admitted that these things are so and that occasion-ally some words are spoken in a business meeting that do not need to be said or said in the tone that it was said, nevertheless we recognize that, in the absence of elders, this is the most effective way to carry on our business. Is the church’s business important enough to take an extra 1 ‘h to 2 hours every month to discuss how to improve our service?

We recognize the truthfulness in what is stated, but what do we do about it? Do we arrange our schedules so that we can be there? Do we thicken our sensitive skin so that we are not so easily irritated? Do we think about ways to improve the Lord’s work at this place and then join hands with others who also are interested? Or, do we sit back and listen to another exhortation and go ahead and do what we want to do anyway? This makes me think of God’s words to Ezekiel: “thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.” Is that what is going on in this case?

Let’s be careful to avoid that kind of listening that tolerates a person telling us what we know is true but then doing nothing to change our conduct. Sometimes I get the feeling that brethren come to church to get their weekly scolding for misconduct and then go away and live like they wish for another week, returning on Sunday to go through the same thing all over again. This is not healthy. Not all preaching needs to be scolding and what deserves to be scolded needs to be changed. We can do better.

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 2
April 4, 1996

By Johnny Stringer

Introduction

“Behold, how good and how pleas-ant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1). Unity is surely to be desired, but differences arise and interfere with unity among brethren. This article will discuss the various categories of differences and the scriptural ways of handling them.

Differences in Matters Pertaining

to Congregational Activity

We must agree to the point that we can worship and work together in the local church. Paul instructed the Corinthians that they were to have no divisions but be joined in the same mind and judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not mean that they could have no disagreement about anything. Romans 14 shows that there is room for some differences within limitations. Paul was condemning the divisions among the Corinthians. He was requiring them to agree, therefore, to the point that they could avoid division, worshiping and working together in harmony. Similarly, the Philippians were required to strive together as one in furthering the gospel (Phil. 1:27).

Such agreement is possible when brethren look to the same authority to guide them (2 John 9; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Col. 3:17). If it were not possible, God would not require it, for God does not demand anything beyond our abilities.

There are two kinds of differences involving congregational activity:

1. Differences that arise because some will not be guided by the Scriptures. Some, for example, may insist that the congregation engage in an unscriptural practice. In that case, we must not yield to the advocates of error in order to have peace and unity. Truth must not be sacrificed or compromised (Prov. 23:23; Jude 3; John 8:32).

2. Differences in matters of personal judgment. In carrying out scriptural mandates, congregations must make decisions regarding specific details that the Scriptures have not spelled out. For example, in carrying out the command to assemble, decisions must be made as to the times the congregation will meet. Such decisions are matters of judgment. In making such judgments, meekness and the de-sire for peace must prevail (Eph. 4:1-3; Gal. 5:22-23; Heb. 12:14; Jas. 3:17). If it does, brethren will be willing to yield to the judgment of others rather than press their own judgment to the point of causing strife.

Differences in Private,

Personal Matters

There are four kinds of differences in this category:

1. Differences of opinion about matters not vital to salvation. For ex-ample, some brethren have wasted their time arguing over what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was. Such questions are of no consequence and should not be a source of strife. Brethren should heed 2 Timothy 2:23.

2. Differences in matters of judgment regarding one’s personal service to the Lord. As they planned a second journey, Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement over whether they should take John Mark. This was a matter on which God had not revealed the truth; it was a matter of personal judgment. The disagreement resulted in each preacher acting in accordance with his own judgment. They separated, Paul taking Silas and Barnabas taking Mark. This was not a disagreement that affected whether they could worship in the same congregation. We have already seen that in judgments regarding congregational matters, there must be compromise, for without it, peace in the congregation cannot be preserved. In private matters, how-ever, each one may practice what he believes to be best without disturbing congregational unity. For example, one couple may think it best to home school their children and may try to persuade another couple to do so. The other couple may judge such not to be best. These couples may strongly disagree, and each couple may act in accordance with its judgment; but each couple continues to love the other couple and worship and work with them in the congregation.

3. Disagreements with brethren because they are teaching or practicing things that are clearly sinful. The congregation must not tolerate sinful conduct or teaching among its members (Eph. 5:11; 1 Cor. 5; Tit. 2:10; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). Romans 14 does not deal with things that are clearly sinful. If it did, it would contradict the above passages.

4. Disagreements with brethren regarding practices that are questionable. The practices discussed in Romans 14 were not condemned; yet some could not engage in them with a clear con-science. There are things some Christians today cannot do in good conscience; yet, there is no clear-cut condemnation of those practices in the Scriptures.

Some, for example cannot in good conscience observe Christmas, even in a non-religious way; some cannot in good conscience serve as policemen; some cannot in good conscience play cards even when no gambling is involved. Most brethren who cannot do these things, however, do not consider the scriptural teaching to be so cut-and-dried that they can bind their conclusions on others. We must recognize a distinction between cases of clear-cut sin and cases that are not so cut-and-dried. Certain scriptural principles may be clear as a bell, but devoted Christians may reach different conclusions regarding the application of these principles in all the varied circumstances of life. We must make allowances for differences in such matters.

Here is where Romans 14 must be applied. When practices are involved that are not clear-cut cases of sin, let each individual act according to his conscience, not condemning those who differ. Otherwise, the church will be endlessly splintered. If brethren get to the point that no brother can ever worship or have fellowship with anyone who can engage in a practice in which he cannot engage, enormous problems will ensue. We simply must recognize, whether we like it or not, that there are practices in the questionable category.

A question arises at this point. We have said that when the Scriptures clearly condemn a practice, we must not tolerate it, but when the matter is not so clear-cut, we must allow for differences. The question: Who decides whether a matter is clear cut or not? Is someone going to provide a list for us? No list is needed. Discipline is exercised on the congregational level. When a situation arises within a congregation, the brethren in that congregation must decide whether it is a matter of unquestionable sin that cannot be tolerated or whether it is not. It is the business of the congregation to deal with such situations to the best of its ability in the light of scriptural teaching.

What about the divorce and remarriage question? There has been much discussion lately as to whether the principles of Romans 14 should be applied when those who have unscripturally divorced and remarried seek acceptance in a congregation. I believe that as brethren in any congregation make this decision, they should consider the clarity of New Testament teaching. Matthew 19:9 and Romans 7:1-3 clearly teach that if one did not put away his first mate for the cause of fornication, his second marriage is adulterous. There is another point that cries out for consideration: In view of the seriousness and magnitude of the problem of divorce and remarriage in our society, it is vital that God’s people take a firm stand against unscriptural divorces. But how can a congregation exert a strong influence for truth on this matter if there are people in the congregation who are clearly living in adulterous marriages?

It should be pointed out, however, that the question of whether the first mate was put away for fornication is not always cut-and-dried. Some-times, when there is some doubt regarding that question, we must al-low an individual to act according to his conscience; we must leave the matter between him and God.

The fact is that if the truth about divorce is firmly preached in a congregation, it is unlikely that it will be necessary for that congregation to decide whether or not to accept those who are in adulterous marriages. Usually, when the truth is preached strongly and forthrightly, those in adulterous marriages will either repent or leave because they find the preaching intolerable.

Conclusion

I do not claim to have all the answers to all the questions that arise regarding fellowship and Romans 14. I only hope that this contribution to the discussion will be helpful.

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 6-7
April 4, 1996