Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Eddie was a clerk in a hardware store. He made a name for himself as the most inefficient and contentious sales-man ever. The atmosphere when he was absent one day was like the tranquil beauty of summer weather after a bad thunderstorm. One regular customer remarked on the difference. “Eddie ain’t just away for the day,” said the proprietor, “He don’t work here no more.”

“Do you have anyone in mind for the vacancy?” asked the customer. “Nope,” said the proprietor cheerfully, “Eddie didn’t leave no vacancy.”

This little story reminds us of some folks in the church. It is so seldom that they attend services that no one really misses them when they are absent. They are such that no great loss is felt if they move to another city. Like Eddie, they leave no vacancy. Others can be absent for only one or two services and they are missed. Why? Because they are dependable. When their seat is vacant people take notice.

Church attendance is not the only matter of importance in the life of a Christian. However, it is a pretty good index to the temperature of one’s fervor for the Lord. Non-attending members are usually non-participating in other aspects of the Lord’s work. One must fill a place, render needed service, and be a participant before he can leave a vacancy.

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

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Context is from the Latin, contextus, meaning that which is woven together. Good Bible students know the value of context in biblical interpretation. Passages must be woven together with other pertinent information to get a clear picture. Somewhere I heard, “A text out of context often becomes a pretext.”

“Handling aright the word of truth” involves considering any biblical pas-sage in the light of its context. Words and phrases often have different shades of meaning in different contexts.

I believe that we need to be careful (1) lest we give a text a broader application than its context warrants, (2) lest we use a context to overly restrict a text, or (3) lest we lose sight of the writer’s message in our applications. Here are some examples of the use and abuse of texts and contexts.

2 Corinthians 5:7

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.” This passage is popularly quoted as a proof text against walking by one’s opinion. Either explicitly or implicitly speakers frequently make “opinion” synonymous to “sight.” While the Bible clearly teaches that our walk is to be by faith (according to the word of God) and not according to our own opinions, it is not what this verse says. In this context, Paul contrasts our present life on earth with our future life in heaven  our “earthly house” with the “house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (v. 1). We are now “at home in the body” but “absent from the Lord” (v. 6). We look forward to being “absent from the body” and being “present with the Lord” (v. 8). Hence, “we walk by faith” now without seeing the Lord, but will walk “by sight” when we are “present with the Lord.” Remember “faith is . . . evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).

Isaiah 55:8-9

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” It is certainly true that God’s wisdom is inherently far superior to man’s wisdom and God’s way of doing things is not the way man would inherently behave. I have no problem with using this verse to point these facts out. However, we may be missing the real thrust of God’s message to Israel through the prophet by not viewing these verses in the light of their con-text. Taken in context, this is actually a call for Israel’s repentance. In verse 6, Isaiah admonishes them to “seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near.” Then in verse 7, “let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous his thoughts; let him return to the Lord and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Then verse 8 begins with “for” referring back to verse 7. The prophet then invokes the words of the Lord to reinforce his call to repentance. They needed to repent because God’s thoughts and ways were not their thoughts and ways, but they should have been. Instead of thinking as God thinks and walking in God’s ways, they had come to follow their own ways and thoughts. The gap had become as wide “as the heavens are higher than the earth.” The wicked needed to forsake his way and return to the Lord’s way. The unrighteous man needed to forsake his thoughts and think like the Lord.

2 Corinthians 13:5

“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith.” I have no problem with using these words at face value in a general way to urge people to look at their lives to see if they are living according to God’s word. In context, what is Paul was really saying to the Corinthians? He finds himself having to defend his apostleship (cf. 12:12-13), offering proof that Christ was speaking in him (v. 3). Since they had come into the faith under Paul’s preaching he urges them to just “examine yourselves.” Were they in the faith? Of course they were. He asks, “Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?” Of course they knew. By examining or looking at themselves they would find proof of Christ speaking in Paul. If they wanted proof of Paul’s apostleship they needed to look no further than themselves and their claim to being in the faith. If under his preaching they were not disqualified (reprobates, KJV), surely then they would know that Paul was not disqualified (v. 6). In other words, the Corinthians themselves were the “proof of the pudding” that Paul was an apostle  if they would just examine themselves they would know that.

1 Timothy 2:12

“And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Here is an ex-ample where one needs to look at the general context as well as the immediate context. I have known some conscientious people who feel that is wrong for a women to teach over a man or have authority over a man under any circumstance. For example, they feel that a lady could not be a man’s boss on the job. A lady could not teach men in a college classroom. Nor could she be a principal in a school with men teachers. She would have authority over them. A young lady could not deliver a valedictory address at her graduation. After all, the verse does say that a woman cannot “teach or have authority over a man”  period. Or does it?

Here the general context must come into play. These words are in a book dealing with spiritual matters  not secular matters. The teaching and authority under consideration is in the spiritual realm. It is not dealing with teaching mathematics or science. Nor is it dealing with authority in the school system or work place. If the application is universal throughout all realms of life, then a woman could not hire a male gardener and exercise any authority over his work.

I went to a college where the Bible is taught along with secular subjects. I sat at feet of some great lady teachers in some of my secular courses. Believe me, they had authority over the classes even to the point of being able to order one to leave the class. However, all my Bible classes and other classes dealing with spiritual matters, I sat at the feet of men. I could not, in view of this verse, have taken a Bible course under a woman  but science and English are courses of a different color.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” In this example and the one to follow, a general principle is invoked and applied to the specific situation being discussed. It is an abuse of the context to make the general principle apply only to situations described by the immediate context. In these verses, Paul is dealing with a specific situation in an unusual kind of church assembly at Corinth. It is likely that “your women” refers to prophets wives. At any rate, the only women under consideration were married women with husbands, whom they could ask at home. No doubt, this was an assembly where spiritual gifts were exercised.

However, the reasons given for these women not speaking and being submissive are general principles that would apply to all women in the church. The reasons given are “as the law also says” and “it is shameful for women to speak in church.” What “the law also says” does not apply just only to prophet’s wives in assemblies where spiritual gifts are exercised. It would apply to that kind of situation, but it would apply to any other situation that violated the law on the submissiveness of women. The reason it was wrong for a prophet’s wife to speak in the churches is the same reason “it is shameful for women (in general, not just “your women” ) to speak in church.” I believe it is an abuse of the context to limit application to just duplications of the specific situation described in this immediate context.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” This example, like the one above, invokes a general principle and applies it to a specific matter. Since the context of this verse shows that the specific problem at Thessalonica was that of idleness or free-loading, some have concluded that this verse only authorizes us to withdraw from lazy bums among us. Some have relied so heavily upon the context that they have mistranslated atoktos (“disorderly, out of ranks [often so of soldiers] . . . deviating from the prescribed order or rule, Thayer) by substituting the word “idle” for “disorderly” as in the New International Version. However, most reputable translations have it “disorderly” or “unruly.”

An idle lifestyle is one way to “walk disorderly,” but there are other ways to “deviate from the prescribed order or rule.” So, Paul simply applied the general rule of withdrawing from every brother who walks disorderly to specific brethren who were walking disorderly  namely, brethren who were “working not at all” (v. 11) or idle. But, we must not refuse to with-draw from brethren who are walking in other forms of disorderliness.

Conclusion

Let us become more aware of the context in our study. Let us not stretch the application of passages beyond what the context will allow  nor make applications more limited than the context warrants.

Guardian of Truth XL: 6 p. 14-15
March 21, 1996

By Dick Blackford

There are a number of people who are as fearful of the Bible as Little Red Riding Hood should have been of the Big Bad Wolf. Who are these people and what are they afraid of?

The Supreme Court

They recently ruled against a teen-age girl who had an assignment to write a report on a historical character. She wrote hers on Jesus. The teacher gave her an “F” because of her controversial choice. It happened in the heart of the “Bible belt” near Nashville, Tennessee. There is an abundance of evidence that Jesus was a historical character  much more than for Socrates, Plato, Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, and others. Never mind that our coins and calendars are dated from his birth. To exclude historical information because it corresponds with the Bible is censor-ship of the worst kind. To do so is neither American, civil, nor liberty. With such logic our children should not be exposed to the Mayflower Compact, Patrick Henry’s famous speech, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, the Pledge of Allegiance and other similar documents because they extol another controversial character  God.

Would the student have been given an “F” if she had chosen to write on Martin Luther King, Jr. or Charles Darwin? Certainly not. But there is an obvious bias against the central figure of the Bible. The teacher, the school board who backed her, and the Supreme Court all deserve an “F” for fearful. It took less courage to make the decision they made (Matt.10:32).

Hollywood

They have yet to make a movie that is true to the Bible. It is as if they are compelled to misrepresent it in some way. Lately, movies like The Last Temptation are actually vicious attacks on the word of God as they slander Jesus and make scoffing sacrilege. Others also pervert family values taught in the Bible. But most sitcoms totally omit religion as part of people’s lives, unless to make light of it. So the Bible is either perverted and ridiculed or omitted. It is rarely depicted in a favorable light as a positive solution for the abundant problems of our day.

The White House

I know the president often laces his campaign speeches with Bible quotes in trying to cover all the political bases. But they are limited to a few select verses that are often taken out of context (and in some cases actually misquoted) to support what he is trying to say. However, he never quotes verses on morality, such as Romans 1:26, 27, which condemns homosexuality. (While governor of Arkansas he tried to strike down the laws against homosexuality and bestiality.) He seems bent on making this an accepted way of life. Nor does he quote Scripture on respect for life. His pro-choice view is pro-abortion. It says, “I want you to have the right to murder your preborn child.” Such Scriptures would conflict with that view. Claiming to be personally opposed to abortion does not free him from the moral dilemma. Pontius Pilate was personally opposed to the crucifixion of Jesus, but he took a pro-choice position when he said “Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?” (Matt.27:17). The very man who was supposed to uphold justice, perverted it. And “its deja vu all over again.”

Perhaps we, as Christians, are not praying enough for our leaders (1 Tim. 2:2).

The Media

A large percentage of articles that deal with Christianity are negative toward the Bible. A case in point is two recent issues of Time Magazine. The first (December 4, 1995) extolled evolution and the “big bang” on its cover and in its content. The second (December 18, 1995) raised the question on the cover “Is the Bible Fact Or Fiction?” The article tells us that “tales from the Bible are in doubt”  that scholars doubt the existence of Abraham and the patriarchs, Moses, the Exodus, and Joshua’s conquest of Jericho because of no archeological evidence. They fall into the same blunder as skeptics who were their forerunners who denied the existence of the Hittites for the same reason. The skeptics were later proven wrong. The mind set of skeptics is to assume the Bible is wrong till proven right. It is a shame they don’t approach evolution with the same mind set (“big bang,” animal origins, etc.) Except they see, they will not believe  unless it supports evolution.

Why?

Why are these afraid of the big black book? Why do they feel compelled to slander and misrepresent the Bible? We never see them approach other historical documents with such disdain. Their treatment of the Bible is reminiscent of Jehoiakim who took his penknife and cut up the Scriptures of Jeremiah and burned them in the fire (Jer. 36). The reason Jehoiakim so reacted is because the Scriptures said some things he didn’t want to hear. It is no different now. The Bible calls us to a high standard of morality, which is not popular today. In a time when a lust for self-indulgence permeates the air men develop a disdain toward one who called us to live a life of self-denial (Matt.16:24). The truth is, the powers that be in Washing-ton and Hollywood cannot deal with Jesus and his superior system of ethics and justice.

When giving the Bible a fair hearing one has to be overwhelmed with the concept that its author had the total welfare of his readers in mind. But when one looks at those who are afraid of the big black book, it isn’t difficult to see their ulterior motives in ruling against, attacking and slandering the word of God. If the Bible is right, all will be called to account for our behavior on the day of judgment (2 Cor.5:10). Men (and women) will have to answer for their lying, stealing, homosexuality, adultery, hypocrisy, covetousness, irreverence, etc. Many of these are common in the upper (?) echelons of society.

There is no reason to be afraid of the Bible. It is our best friend. The attitude of those who are afraid of it is a far cry from the Christian who can say “0 how love I thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psalm 119:97).

Guardian of Truth XL: 6 p. 1
March 21, 1996

By Steve Willis

Blue Moon

“Scientists got a surprise when they compared a new ultra-violet image of the Moon with the one taken in visible light: the lunar surface looks pretty much the same in both images. Compared to visible images, lunar UV images are more sensitive to rock freshness and should highlight the regions that were resurfaced by impacts during the last 1 to 2 billion years.

“Based on lab tests of Apollo samples, the scientists expected the UV image to be essentially a negative of the visible one. `That the Moon does not appear reversed in the UV is quite a mystery,’ says Randy Gladstone, head of the team that made the study. `We have our work cut out to explain it.’ Gladstone is at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas; the UV images were taken by Endeavour’s Astro-2 payload in March 1995.”

Comment

It seems to me they expected to see most of the Moon’s surface to be one color where it was old, and that it should have appeared the opposite where it was new. By “old” they would have meant 4-4.5 billion years, and by “new” or resurfaced, they would have said less than 2 billion years. In fact, if the UV theory is right, what is old looks new and what is new looks old. These type of mysteries have been in abundance of late.

Now under “The Quasar Epoch” these quotes, not in their entirety:

“A new quasar survey has found that these distant cosmic powerhouses did not flicker on randomly. Instead, almost all quasars appear to have lit up at roughly the same time, which may tell astronomers when the first galaxies started to form.”

Again don’t think scientists are agreeing to a young-universe as many creation researchers maintain. They say this about the quasar epoch: “The quasar epoch must have lasted from red shift 2.7 to 1.7, which corresponds roughly to 2 to 3 billion years after the Big Bang” (both reports on page 30). The question would be “Why did they all turn on all at once?”

But it gives one another thing to think about when he reads Genesis 1:3, “`Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

If you’ve been following some of the Age-of-the-Universe reports based on the recent Hubble telescope finds, you’ve seen that there is a crisis going on. Researchers are finding the universe to be younger than some of the stars in it. This fits neither the Bible view, nor the Big Bang cosmologies. While thinking they see stars that they would measure as 15-20 billion years old, earlier in 1995, the universe was only dating from 8-11 billion years old. Figuring something was wrong, they, turned the Hubble telescope to another part of the universe to try to measure an expansion rate that they would use to figure the age of the universe. Here are their findings:

“Plugging their values into the Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe, associates get an age of 9.5 billion years since the Big Bang. Because stellar astronomers claim to have measured stars as old as 15 billion years, this paradox between extragalactic and galactic methods of fixing the universe’s age still stands (from Astronomy, January, 1996)”

All I’m trying to relate with this information is that creationists aren’t the only ones grappling with the “facts”so are other scientists. The creationist has the advantage of believing God’s word that says GOD created the heavens and the earth, and when He did so it was mature and probably mature looking.

Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 23
March 7, 1996