Truth Magazine

By Stan Cox

Christians have long objected to the demands for union and tolerance among the denominations. We have rightly pointed out that sincerity is simply not sufficient in deter-mining acceptance before the Almighty. The claim that as long as a person is sincere in his worship, he is accepted by God does not jibe with what is revealed in his will. Notice Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! ‘ This text clearly indicates that acceptance by God is dependent upon obedience to him. He is accepted who, “does the will of my Father in heaven.”

Other verses teach the same exact thing. Notice 2 John, verse 9, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” John is stating that acceptance by God is contingent upon fidelity to his revelation.

We may notice that God expects us to mark and avoid those with whom he has no fellowship. Following the declaration of John noted above, he further states in verses 10 and 11, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”

It is alarming that some brethren are now espousing the fellowship of those who teach certain false doctrines, or engage in certain sinful practices. Such clearly is in conflict with the principles we enumerated. However, some believe that they have found a “loophole” in the fourteenth chapter of Romans. The contention is that the principles outlined in that chapter, in which we are to “receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things” (v. 1), should govern our treatment of conscientious brethren who teach false doctrine.

Some assert that the esteeming of “one day above another” as addressed by Paul in verse 5 constitutes unauthorized worship, and therefore, sin. The claim is that the action violates the principle set forth in Galatians 4:10-11. However, the Scriptures reveal that under certain circumstances, this approving of one day above another is acceptable before God (cf. Col. 2:16-17; Acts 21:15-36). The context of Romans 14 indicates that both of the scenarios (eating of meat and esteeming of one day above another) are matters of no consequence to God. To claim that esteeming one day above another as discussed in the text constitutes unauthorized worship is to place Paul’s command to “receive one who is weak in the faith” in direct conflict with John’s admonition to “. . . not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”

Notice the following about the scenarios revealed in the context. First, it was equally right to eat meat or eat only herbs, esteem or not esteem a day, as each is received by God (vv. 3-5). Notice that in the fifth verse, in regard to esteeming one day above another, Paul exhorted each to “be fully convinced in his own mind.” It is ridiculous to suggest that Paul was encouraging a man engaged in sinful practice to be fully convinced in his mind that the practice was acceptable. That is tantamount to Paul telling the brother to believe a lie. If this observance was sinful Paul would be encouraging that sinner to repent.

Additionally, the significance of the phrase, “for God has received him” in verse 3, is that God has received him in his eating of meat. The construction of the Greek, involving the Greek participle translated “him who eats” demands this. Harry Osborne rightly observed this in his written debate with Marshall Patton when he penned, “Therefore, the brethren of Romans 14:3 are described as those God received in their actions of eating and not eating meat. Some try to make God’s accepting of them an event solely connected with their baptism, but this overlooks the use of the participle. The point emphasized is that God ‘received’ them as an `eating one’ and a ‘not eating one.’ Their actions were both right or lawful in and of them-selves” (“Romans 14,” Harry Osborne, Faith and Facts, Vol. 19:1 [Jan. 1991], 19). The force of the grammatical argument brother Osborne uses is devastating, but hardly needed. The context of the passage clearly reveals that the one who God is able to make stand is the one who is eating meat.

Finally, one could observe the day or not observe the day “to the Lord” (v. 6). One note about this third point. Some have objected to the phrase “to the Lord” as indicating that this necessarily proves they were accepted by the Lord.

This argument is specious, as the context clearly indicates just that. Remember that Paul revealed God has received the meat eater in his action. Paul indicated that these men were acceptable before God. No distinction was made between the esteemer of days and his potential antagonist, both were acting “to the Lord.” It is significant that Paul used the two scenarios interchangeably in verse 6 of the text. If one dealt with matters of indifference, and the other with sinful worship, Paul would not have confused us with this coupling.

In effect, God does not care whether one eats or not. God does not care if one esteems one day above another or not. They are matters of indifference to God, and therefore those who disagree should receive one another. To insert matters of consequence to God into this passage does violence to the context. If we decide to fellowship false teachers, adulterers, immoral people, idolaters, etc., based upon the application of these instructions from Paul, we twist his words. In fact, the true meaning of Romans 14 becomes clear in the absurdity of these applications. Saying that any Christian could practice sin, or espouse false doctrine and do it “to the Lord” is farcical! There is no comfort to be found in that great chapter for those who would fellowship error. Brethren, let us remain pure!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 21-22
April 20, 1995

By Johnny Stringer

One of the most controversial issues of our time is the role of women in our society. Christians are especially concerned with determining the woman’s role in the spiritual realm. In view of the prominent place That teaching occupies in the religion of Christ, we must ascertain the woman’s responsibility in the teaching of God’s word; and in order to do this, we must consult the final authority in all religious matters, the word of God.

General Principle: Women Are to Teach

The general principle is clear: Women are to teach. When persecution in Jerusalem forced the Christians to flee to other places, “they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). This included women. Moreover, the writer of Hebrews was writing to both men and women when he said that they ought to be teachers (Heb. 5:12). The instruction to teach through singing is directed to all Christians, including women (Col. 3:16). Older women are to teach younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). Priscilla participated in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). Some women were given the gift of prophecy, which involved teaching (Acts 2:17; 21:9). Seemingly, women taught Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5).

There are two passages, however, which place a restriction on a woman’s teaching. In obedience to the general principle that she is to teach, a woman may teach in any capacity or circumstance which does not violate the restriction these passages place on her. The passages are 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. In this article we will discuss 1 Timothy 2:11-12, and in a following article, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

1 Timothy 2:1-12

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Paul is emphasizing the woman’s responsibility to maintain her place of subjection. This teaching was based not, as some suppose, on the culture of the day, but on the facts that Adam was formed first (v. 13) and that the woman, not the man, was deceived (v. 14).

1. The Prohibition. “But I suffer a woman not to teach” does not mean that she is not allowed to teach at all in any situation. If it did, it would contradict the passages cited above, which require her to teach. It would mean that she could not obey the command of Colossians 3:16 to teach in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. It would mean the older women could not obey the command to teach younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). In fact, it would mean that a mother could not tell her small child that Jesus is the Son of God or that God made the flowers; this would be teaching, and she could not do it if Paul meant that she is not to teach at all.

It is obvious, therefore, that Paul was not forbidding all teaching. Paul wrote these words in connection with the woman’s responsibility to be in subjection. The kind of teaching that would be forbidden in that context is teaching which would violate the principle of being in subjection.

What we have determined from the context and related passages, some Greek scholars say can be ascertained from the grammar of the Greek text. They affirm that the expression “nor usurp authority over the man” is explanatory; that is, it explains that the teaching of which Paul speaks is that which usurps authority over the man.

Lenski, for example, affirms, “. . . `neither to exercise authority over a man’ states the point involved in the forbidding to teach.” After expressing agreement with Lenski, Homer A. Kent, professor of New Testament and Greek at Grace Theological Seminary, remarked, “I regard `neither to exercise authority over a man’ to be somewhat exegetical of the previous clause and giving one of the reasons why the prohibition to teach is made.” Finally, Stephen W. Paine, professor of Greek at Houghton College affirmed, “… the interpretive step which identifies `to teach’ with ‘to take (the) authority’ is justified and Lenski is grammatically correct.”

Greek scholarship, however, is not necessary. Remember, we learned it from the context and related passages before hearing from the scholars.

2. Learn in Silence. When men are present, rather than directing the study, she is to “learn in silence,” maintaining her place of subjection. The command to learn in silence does not mean that she is not to utter a word in a Bible class. The word translated “silence” (hesuchi) is the same word that is translated “quietness” in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, where Paul exhorted men “that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” If it means in 1 Timothy 2:12 that women may not utter a sound in a Bible class, then it means in 2 Thessalonians 3:12 that men may not utter a sound on the job.

Obviously, this is not the meaning. The woman is not to be loud and boisterous. She is to manifest a meek and quiet spirit (1 Pet. 3:4). She is not violating this principle if she quietly and meekly asks a question or submits a point for the class’s consideration. Inasmuch as the principle under discussion is subjection, Paul means that she is not to be loud, dominating, or boisterous so as to be out of subjection. Being under subjection involves a quiet, calm disposition.

Conclusion

This passage clearly restricts the woman’s teaching. She may not be in charge of a Bible class in which men are present, nor may she proclaim God’s word from the pulpit to an audience including men. To do so would be out of subjection, for she would be in control of the study rather than learning in quietness.

The woman may teach in any circumstance in which she does not violate the principle of remaining in subjection to men. Another passage emphasizing this principle is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which will be considered in the next article.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 20-21
April 20, 1995

By Dick Blackford

To “profane” something is to take that which is holy and treat it as common. This is the reason I don’t applaud in worship unto God.

Worship to the Almighty, Eternal, Sovereign God is unique, in a class by itself. (1) Only in the Lord’s supper do we eat a meal that is not designed to satisfy physical hunger. It was eaten purely as a memorial, after the disciples had already eaten the passover feast. Meals eaten at holidays in our time are feasts designed to satisfy physical hunger. (2) In worship we pray to God. It is a solemn and serious occasion. But we do not pray to Elvis to celebrate his birthday. (3) In giving, we are to do so cheerfully, not grudgingly, as God has prospered us. The I.R.S. does not require this attitude when we pay our taxes. Also, the Lord does not specify in dollars and cents, but the I.R.S. does. (4) In singing to God we are to “make melody in the heart” (Col.3:16). This is not required when singing at a secular event. (5) In preaching, we must preach only the truth. But in social and political speeches there is no such requirement. One can even make inflammatory speeches against the government.

If clapping is a scriptural form of worship, couldn’t the Lord have thought of it?

Arguments For Clapping In Worship

1. “If we would clap to celebrate a ball game, how much more does Jesus deserve our applause?” Re-ply: This is not the way scriptural authority is established. That can only be established from Scripture. If we can eat popcorn to celebrate a ball game, how much more should we eat popcorn in worship to God? (Don’t blame me for the absurdity of any of these arguments. I am only showing what else it “proves” if the arguments are valid.) If we can eat black-eyed peas and hog jowl to celebrate New Year’s Day, how much more should we eat these in worship to God? (I hesitate to make these arguments since some already have coffee and donuts in Bible classes. So far, they haven’t gone “whole hog” and said we can have these in the worship assembly.) If we would pull pranks to celebrate April Fool’s Day, how much more should we pull pranks in worship unto God? If we shoot fireworks to celebrate Independence Day, how much more should we shoot fireworks to celebrate our independence from sin and the Law of Moses? If we play “Pin The Tale On The Donkey” to celebrate our children’s birthdays, how much more should we do so to celebrate our Lord’s birth? If we take the day off from work to celebrate Labor Day, how much more should we take the Lord’s Day off to celebrate that we are laborers in the vineyard of the Lord?

Had enough? How about one more. If we wear false faces to celebrate Halloween, how much more should we wear false faces in worship? All of these are the consequence of not basing an argument on Scripture but on human reasoning from secular events.

2. “Applause means the same as saying `Amen.”‘ Reply: According to what standard of authority? It never meant that in the Bible. When a curse was pronounced by the priest upon an adulteress she was to respond by saying “Amen, Amen” (Num.5: 11-31). If clapping is another way of saying “Amen” it is difficult to imagine the woman applauding when a curse was pronounced upon her.

Moses pronounced twelve curses on the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. After each curse Israel was to respond “Amen” (Deut.27:15-26). Could they have substituted a round of applause and been acceptable to God? Would it be acceptable for us to close our prayers with a round of applause instead of an audible “Amen” (I Cor.14:16)? Most of the epistles end with an “Amen.” How do you communicate hand clapping in writing? This shows that something is being communicated in writing that there is no equivalent for. There is no record where “Amen” was used in a secular way. It is a word which belongs to the spiritual realm. Clapping belongs in the secular realm and is associated with sports and entertainment. There is a good reason for this since clapping is never mentioned in the New Testament.

Webster’s definition of applause includes cheering and stomping the feet. Those who defend clapping must of necessity defend these also.

3. “If we can change the holy kiss to a handshake (Rom.16:16), then we can change `Amen’ to applause.” Reply: The Bible does not command the kiss as a form of greeting. Paul was not instituting kissing as the proper way to greet. The custom of kissing as a form of greeting or endorsement had been practiced for thousands of years (Exod. l 8:7; 1 Sam.10:1; etc.), so Paul was not beginning a new practice. He was regulating the attitude with which this custom was practiced. It was not a command to kiss. The emphasis was on the kind of kiss. When greeting with a kiss it was to be a holy kiss. It was not to be a hypocritical kiss, like that of Judas (Mk. 14:44) or of Joab (2 Sam.20:9). Nor was it to be a lascivious kiss (Ga1.5:19-21), but a holy one. Whatever form of greeting is the custom at a particular time and place, it should be pure.

Booing And Hissing?

If one may applaud a sermon to show approval (as one may show approval in this manner at a ball game), then why could not one equally boo or hiss to show disapproval if he disagrees? In a matter of time our services would be filled with applause (including stomping the feet), wolf whistles, cat calls, boos, and hisses. The right for one is the right for the others. If the silence of the New Testament authorizes applause then it also authorizes boos, hisses, jeers, etc. Is this really what we want? Has worship become so casual to us that there is no difference in our behavior and degree of solemnity at worship or at an entertainment event?

Perhaps unwittingly, brethren have bought into the idea advanced in debate by some defenders of instrumental music in worship, that “worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it” (Given O. Blakely, Blakely-Highers Debate). Since the Scriptures are silent about applause and nothing is said to indicate that clapping is an acceptable substitute for saying “Amen,” and since it is also silent about booing, hissing, etc., we believe we have concluded rightly that God does not approve either practice in worship or in a religious context.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 2
May 4, 1995

By Mike Willis

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous (1 John 3:11-12).

The record of Cain killing his brother Abel startles us in the record of Genesis. Soon after God created man, Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. Consequently, they were driven out of the Garden to separate them from the Tree of Life. After leaving the Garden, Adam and Eve had two children  Cain and Abel. Cain was a farmer and Abel was a shepherd.

In the course of time, both brought their sacrifices for worship. “And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell” (Gen. 4:4-5).

The difference in the two sacrifices is given in Hebrews 11:4  “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Abel offered his sacrifice by faith, but Cain did not. Faith can only exist when it is grounded in the word of God. One cannot act by faith unless God has spoken and told a person what he must do. A person acts by faith when he obeys the word God has spoken. From this we conclude that God had commanded how he was to be worshipped and Abel obeyed, but Cain disobeyed.

As a result, Cain became angry because God accepted Abel’s worship but rejected his own. In the process of time, Cain’s anger and jealousy overcame him to the point that he murdered his brother.

Why Did Cain Murder His Brother?

1. Because he was of the evil one. John plainly states that Cain was “of the devil.” This means that he had come under his influence. Instead of having his life guided and directed by the revealed will of God, Cain was allured by the Devil into following the course of life he wished for him.

2. Because he resented that God accepted Abel’s worship and did not accept his. When God spoke to Cain about his disposition and attitude, he said, “Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin Lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:6-7). The Lord warned Cain that sin was lying at his door like a despot wishing to subdue him and bring him into subjection. Cain did not conquer his feelings toward his brother. His brother’s acceptance by God was something he hated. He harbored his ill will in his heart until it grew into such a monster that he was able to kill his own brother.

The Danger of Harboring Hatred

I doubt that Cain always felt ill toward his brother. There must have been days when they were young that they played together and enjoyed each other’s company. But something happened. Something began to fester underneath the skin. Not being removed and corrected, the insignificant irritation became infected and grew into a malignant sore. Finally, it destroyed his soul.

Sometimes brethren get crossed with one another. The Bible tells us how to deal with such problems:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican (Matt. 18:15-17).

When these instructions are ignored and rejected, the insignificant problems between brethren grow into cancerous sores. They fester and fester until they erupt, pouring out their poison and puss. With Cain, the eruption was to murder his brother Abel his companion of his youth, his own flesh and blood. With others, sometimes the eruption is to say unkind and hateful things about another, to gossip and slander the brother behind his back, to undermine the good that he is doing, etc. Sometimes the poison becomes so strong that it will divide brethren one from another and church splits occur.

A person may think that the proper way to handle his anger, bitterness and resentment is to keep it bottled up inside. The immediate situation may appear better because the confusion of working through one’s differences does not occur. However, the long range problem is magnified. Every future conflict is magnified by the pent up anger and bitter resentment. Little problems become major issues because of the underlying animosity. The Lord knew what was best for good relationships between brethren when he commanded that brethren work trough their differences immediately instead of allowing them to fester.

Conclusion

There is a difference between how righteous and wicked people handle their problems. “:The wicked envy the good the blessedness of their goodness, and try to destroy what they cannot share. The war between good and evil is one of extermination; but the wicked would destroy righteous, while the righteous would destroy wickedness by converting the wicked” (The Pulpit Commentary 73). Which describes your feelings toward your brethren? Are you beginning to feel more like Cain? If so, this should be a warning sign to take a careful self-examination.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 2
April 20, 1995