Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

Jeff Asher, who preaches at the Dumas Drive Church of Christ in Amarillo, Texas, met Dr. Charlie Arehart, Pastor of the Metropolitan Community church of the Rockies in Denver, Colorado, in two oral debates this spring on the subject of the morality of the homosexual lifestyle. Both men were unusually well prepared for the discussions and were capable in their presentation. This subject is one brethren need to be informed about. Issues that affect the world and denominations eventually affect us. There are already the first signs among the extreme left wing of institutional brethren of a willingness to fellowship practicing homosexuals. Liberal theologians are trying to achieve biblical justification for homosexuality, claiming that anti-homosexual bias led to mistranslation of the Scriptures. Thus, it is the purpose of this review to present an overview of the debates to give readers a brief introduction to the evidence for and against divine approval of homosexuality.

Qualifications of Disputants

Dr. Charlie Arehart: Dr. Arehart is a practicing homosexual and says he has been gay as long as he can remember. He was formerly a Methodist pastor and honorably transferred to the MCC. Charlie has a Master of Divinity from Asbury Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Ministry from Iliff School of Theology. He is a member of the national Board of Elders of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a denomination that exists for the gay/lesbian community and their supporters.

Jeff Asher: Jeff Asher engaged Robert Williams, the first openly gay Episcopal priest, in a radio exchange on homosexuality on Amarillo radio in 1989 (Williams is now dead of AIDS). Jeff’s debate notes, prepared for this discussion, have been printed as a booklet entitled Out of the Closet, published by Faith & Facts. Jeff recorded a series of television exchanges with Dr. Arehart for the program of the Highlands Ranch Church of thirst in Denver. The two debates grew out of these TV discussions.

Debates and Propositions

The disputants first met for debate in the MCC building in downtown Denver April 4-7. The follow-up debate was in Amarillo May 9, 10, 12, 13. I moderated for Jeff, and, since Dr. Arehart elected not to have a moderator, I, in effect, presided over the two discussions. Both men maintained perfect order and stuck with the task of presenting the evidence each believes upholds his position. Jeff Asher affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that all sexual intercourse between human beings of the same sex is sinful.” Charlie Arehart affirmed: “The Scriptures do not teach that sexual intercourse between all human beings of the same sex is sinful since they refer positively to gay persons.”

Procedure for Review

I shall simply present the major, affirmative arguments each disputant made in the two debates to give the readers a synopsis of the issue. Since I am writing only a capsule summary of the debates, I will not present the replies each disputant made to the other’s arguments, but both debaters paid careful attention to the other’s speeches. Since Jeff was in the affirmative first, the review will begin with a summary of his affirmative arguments.

I intend to be objective in presenting the material. To help achieve this goal, both Jeff and Charlie have had the opportunity to read the review and to offer suggestions for changes.

Asher’s Affirmative

Jeff Asher presented five affirmative arguments. We will examine them in order.

First Argument: Homosexuality is sinful because it violates the divine plan for the home (Matt. 19:1-9). Jesus affirmed that human sexuality is under divine authority. This authority over man inheres in the creation (Matt. 19:4-5; cf. Rom. 9:20-21). God is the one who determines who shall be joined (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13-18; Gen. 2:23-25), and Jesus exercises this authority under the New Covenant (Matt. 19:9; cf. Heb. 1:2). Men have not been granted the prerogative of setting the terms of their marriage covenants (Matt. 19:6).

Jesus restricts the expression of human sexuality to biblical marriage. The order of creation is lifetime, monogamous, heterosexual marriage (Matt. 19:5; Rom. 7:1-4; Matt. 19:8). God did not ordain any other kind of sexual relationship involving either humans or animals (Gen. 2:18-25). There is no place here for same gender sexual relationships.

Second Argument: Homosexuality is sinful because it is fornication for the unmarried (1 Cor. 7:1-9). The apostle Paul reveals that marriage is a matter of liberty (vv. 1,6), he restricts sexual intercourse to biblical marriage (vv. 2-3), and he does not offer same gender sexual relationships as an option to the unmarried (v. 2). The argument concludes that Paul condemns all sexual relationships, as fornication and, therefore, sinful (1 Cor. 6:9; 7:2,9).

Third Argument: Homosexuality is sinful because it is adultery for the married (Heb. 13:4). Marriage is precious, i.e., to be had in honor (Ibid.). One holds his marriage in honor by keeping himself pure, being set apart to his wife (or husband) only (1 Thess. 4:3-7). It is marriage that is to be held in honor; and this, by definition, is a man/woman relationship (Gen. 2:24-25; Matt. 19:1-9), monogamous (Matt. 19:5), and for life (Matt. 19:6,9). Since the Hebrew writer says all marriage is to be held in honor, this is universally applicable. The conclusion is, when married men leave their wives to have sexual relations with men, or when women leave their husbands to have sexual relations with women, they commit adultery (Heb. 13:4).

Fourth Argument: It is specifically condemned in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27). Brother Asher offered an exegesis of Roman 1:18-27 in which he showed that the over-all problem of the Gentiles was the rejection of the authority of God, the same sin of which Charlie is guilty. He pointed out that Paul taught that homosexuality is self-abusive (v. 24), disgraceful (v. 26), unnatural (vv. 26-27), vulgar (v. 27), error (v. 27), forbidden (v. 24), and condemned (vv. 18,29). He charged that homosexuals received the very “recompense” of which the apostle spoke (v. 27) in their own bodies. Asher argued that homosexuality was “against nature” (v. 26) in that it violates God’s created order.

Fifth Argument: Homosexuality has always been sinful. There was never a time when men were without law from God (Rom. 4:14; 5:13). A survey of biblical history shows this is certainly true with respect to sexual behavior: the marriage law was universal from the beginning (Gen. 2:24-25; Matt. 19:8), the sinfulness of homosexuality is exemplified in every age (Gen. 19; Judg. 19; Rom. 1:18-31; 2 Pet. 3:9), it was condemned under the Mosaic code (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:22; 20:13), and was specifically condemned by Christ and his apostles (Matt. 19:1-9; 1 Cor. 7:1-9; Heb. 13:4; Rom. 1:26-27).

Arehart’s Affirmative

Dr. Arehart’s strongest argument in audience appeal was his own personal testimony. He asserted he was born gay and could not change. He told of being raised a Methodist, accepting Christ at a Billy Graham Crusade, and being called to preach. He concluded, “God called a gay to preach” and offered John 15:16 as a text to prove this calling was a divine approval of his sexual orientation. Arehart retold with pathos his several attempts to over-come being gay  including “praying through to victory,” an exorcism, and counseling by a “Christian psychologist,” a recognized Baptist scholar. He recalled that the psychologist finally told him, “You are homosexual; you are Christian; God doesn’t give a damn.” From that point on Charlie Arehart has accepted his gay orientation and the homosexual lifestyle. He described his basic theology as the four pillars of Methodism: the Scriptures, tradition, reason and personal experience.

Reliability of Scriptures: Charlie contended we cannot take the Bible as our only source of authority. He asserted that one third of the Hebrew words in the Old Testament need to be redefined as the result of recent tablet finds in Syria, emphasizing changes in vowel markings. Dr. Arehart also argued that there are a great many Greek texts for the New Testament and that widespread and important differences exist between them. He also contended that many biblical words are mistranslated. Charlie asserted that the Bible has errors in it. As examples, he asserted that the Septuagint text doesn’t match the Massoretic text, and described the vowel markings below Hebrew vowels, contending they were uncertain and that the disputed differences could greatly affect the meaning of Scriptures. He denied the dictation theory of inspiration. He said the church once condemned Galileo, and, as it was forced to change from teaching an earth centered universe, it would be forced to change on homosexuality.

Cultural Relevance: Dr. Arehart also argued that many passages are no longer culturally relevant and offered 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as one example. He called himself a “Christian evolutionist” and a “process theologian.” He said the world is maturing, while God always remains the same, but that God is actively involved in human affairs. He asserted that the human race quickly became non-monogamous, and that marriage in the Old Testament was simply a property rights issue. He asserted the Hebrew Scriptures did not condemn as adultery a Jewish man having sex with another woman than his wife unless that woman was the wife or virgin daughter of another Hebrew. He was described the Bible as a “patriarchal book” which has been used to oppress blacks, gays, and lesbians, but, more than any other group, women. He charged that the Scriptures have been employed to beat women down to chattel and to keep them subservient. He predicted the day will come when female images of God in Scripture will be universal language. He recognized that God is neither male nor female and concluded that inclusive language is in order when describing God. Charlie stated that the purpose of Matthew 19:3-9 was to elevate the status of women, and that Jesus did not intend for his teaching on marriage to be applicable to all. He contended that divorce was the “most Christian approach” for 50% of the marriages in Colorado.

Situation Ethics: He called himself a “situational ethicist” and endorsed the statement by Norman Pittinger: “Sex is good; sex with someone you know is better; sex with someone you love is best.”

Wholly of Grace: Arehart contended we are saved by grace through faith alone On. 3:16). He accused Asher of creating a “works righteousness dynamic” in which one has to be good enough to be saved.

Bias Against Gays: Dr. Arehart charged that New Testament passages which seem to condemn homosexuality were mistranslated as the result of the prejudice of the church against gays, a prejudice, he asserted, which resulted from the widespread acceptance by early Christians of the apocryphal book, “The Epistle of Barnbas,” a ridiculous work which explains Old Testament prohibitions against eating unclean animals on the basis of the supposed sexual activities of the animals.

Positive Mention of Gays: Charlie produced several biblical examples he contends are positive mention of gays. He is absolutely positive the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual (1 Sam. 18:20; 2 Sam. 1:25-26). He also presented Ruth and Naomi as likely lesbian lovers. He argued that eunuchs are passive partners in homosexual intercourse and offered Matthew 19:10-12 as Jesus’ endorsement of homosexuality and the Ethiopian eunuch as a positive example of a gay person (Acts 8:26-39). He contended that the word “servant” in Matthew 8:5-13 means “young male lover” and that, when Jesus healed him, he tacitly endorsed his homosexuality.

Conclusion

Brother Jeff Asher defended his position admirably and crushed the arguments presented by Dr. Arehart. I have never seen a debater better prepared for his opponent’s argumentation. Dr. Arehart is an able defender of his position. He relies heavily on the book Social Tolerance of Homosexuality by Yale professor Dr. John Boswell, him-self homosexual.

Both of the debates are available on video tape from Rich Hubartt, 3012 Foxfire Cir., Indianapolis, IN 46214, telephone (317) 327-1776, who has produced professional quality tapes. Be careful in viewing them with mixed audiences. Of course, the subject itself is not suitable for young children, and Dr. Arehart used language in the first debate that is not acceptable to Christians and would be very embarrassing to a mixed audience.

The first printing of Jeff Asher’s book Out of the Closet has sold out. Faith & Facts will print a second edition which will include Brother Asher’s revised debate notes. This includes material that, due to time constraints, was not presented in the debates. This will arguably be the best source book in print for a scriptural study of the subject of homosexuality and should become a classic. John Boswell’s book is the main source of the arguments by liberal theologians that passages which condemn homosexuality are mistranslated, and Asher’s debate notes thoroughly refute Boswell.

This is must material for gospel preachers. Newspapers regularly carry articles claiming homosexuality is a morally valid lifestyle. American disapproval of gays and lesbians is on the wane. This is now the point issue in the humanistic attack on biblical morals. I recommend that we join this national debate by writing letters to the editors of newspapers, refuting the articles and letters defending homosexuality, and by teaching Christians, especially our teenagers and young adults, the truth. If we do not prepare and act, our young people, who are under heavy pressure on college campuses to accept and even participate in homosexuality, will be lost to humanistic amorality.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 6-8
October 20, 1994

By J. Wiley Adams

“What doth is profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled: notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doeth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

The above passage is in a context of individual responsibilities. It depicts a situation wherein a brother or sister in Christ is in need of assistance. It also relates the case of one who, though aware of the need does not do anything about it. It also speaks of the cold indifference that some-times is true when love and mercy are called for.

Once there was a gospel preacher many years ago who was in a real bind financially. Desperately he sought to avoid asking the church for benevolence. He called first one relative and another. The stiff, cold answer was “sorry, I cannot help you.” An in-law was called who said to go to Western Union and wait. It will be there in an hour and a half. It was later learned that he borrowed the $100 needed so badly and sent it at once. He knew the person who asked him was honest so he asked no questions. “There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:24). Another friend said this one time: “Friendship is the inexpressable comfort of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words.”

There is another realm in which the “be ye warmed and filled” concept sometimes prevails. This is in the matter of preacher support. Brethren in the churches may declare they are “self-supporting.” What they mean by this is that, with respect to securing a “full-time” preacher, “that is all you are going to get” whether it is enough or not because, you see, this church is “self-supporting.” Are they? They want a full-time preacher on part-time pay because they have issued their proclamation that they are “self-supporting.”

Evangelistic support is sometimes equated with benevolence. In the Woods-Cogdill debate in Birmingham late in the ’50’s brother Woods made the mistake of saying this to Roy Cogdill to which he vehemently replied that “gospel preachers are not the object of charity.”

Let me add that there are some congregations which are not able to fully support the preacher and other churches and individuals assist. This is proper. Paul said to the Corinthians, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service” (2 Cor. 11:8). The Philippians sent “once and again” to Paul’s necessity at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:16). He also said in 1 Corinthians 9:14  “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”

Brethren, it is easy when an individual in need or a gospel preacher needs support in preaching the gospel to say, in fact, “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled” and do nothing to help bring it to pass. It is so easy to turn down an appeal for support by faithful gospel preachers by the “be ye warmed and filled” concept. Brethren, if you can help and do not, it is not enough to say we’ll pray for you, or just have faith and the Lord will take care of you, or it is going to turn out all right, or as soon as we finish some “growth” projects, check with us again. Mercy, mercy, mercy, brethren! We can do much better about this than we often do. However, many others do well in these matters and we commend them. This article is not for them.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 5
October 20, 1994

By Jeff May

Some years ago when I attended college, a number of classes were listed as prerequisites. If a class was listed as a prerequisite, it meant I had to take that class first. If the ideas taught in that class were not learned first it would cause great difficulty in the classes which followed.

Such is also true with this article. If the student of God’s word does not first recognize the distinction between the individual and the church, his further study of the Bible will be fraught with difficulty. He may also fail to understand the objections of many brethren to certain church practices.

Many have supposed that whatever the individual Christian can do, the local church can do also. Others have offered that if the local church cannot do a certain work then neither can the individual. Is this so? Can a valid distinction be made between the local church and the individual?

If no distinction can be made then every command given to the individual is also duty of the local church. If no distinction is to be made we are wasting our time trying to determine if a passage is addressed to the individual or the church.

A Definition of Terms

When I mention the individual, I have reference to the individual Christian who was saved by the blood of Christ in obeying the gospel. Such an individual is added by Christ to the church (universal). The English word church is used to translate the Greek noun ekklesia. Ekklesia simply means the “called out.” In a religious sense, it is used by God to refer to all the saved who are called out of the world and into the body (church) of Christ. One cannot join himself to the universal church. He is added to it by Christ (Acts 2:47). In this article, when I use the word “church” I primarily have in mind the local church. Hasn’t the issue through the years been about what the local church is authorized to do in contrast to what the individual may do? The local church is the “called out” in a given locality such as “the church of God, which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). The local church was made up when one by one the saved individuals “joined” themselves to one another agreeing to work together in the collective responsibilities God would assign to them as a local church.

The Work of the Local Church

Many discussions have taken place among brethren concerning the “work of the church.” The meat of these discussions was on what the local church could and could not do in its work as a collectivity. Collective action takes place when the individual members of a group act jointly. Collective action can only occur in the local church because it is impossible for the universal church to assemble on earth. The universal church has no local boundaries and no earthly organization.

A second source of action in the kingdom of Christ is distributive action. The universal church can only function distributively as each member walks according to the teachings of the King. Examples of the term “church” being used “distributively” are easy to spot in Scripture. For example, the individual members contribute distributively on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:12), but the funds, once contributed, then belong to the church collectively and may be used only in collective work the Lord has authorized. Also Luke records that Paul “made havoc of the church” (Acts 8:3). Did he make havoc of the church when it was together as a collectivity? No, he made havoc of the church distributively by “entering every house” (Acts 8:3). Notice also in Acts 11:12 that the church in Jerusalem was spoken of as having ears. As a collectivity does a local church have a set of big ears? Why no! This is speaking of the ears of each member of the church distributively.

Now, some desire to reason that what the church can do distributively it can do collectively. This cannot be! Watch what happens if you follow this line of reasoning. If every member of the church had a widow for which he or she cared, would that mean the church was caring for those widows in clear violation of 1 Timothy 5:16? Again, if every member was a part of the armed forces would that mean that the church was a part of the armed forces (2 Cor. 10:3,4)? In the local church in which I labor we have many farmers. If all the members farmed would that make farming a work of the church? Can you see the problem? You cannot gain authority for collective activity from what members may do distributively.

The Bible sets forth a clear distinction. At this point, we may simply ask, “If the individual functions in exactly the same way as the local church functions, why did God establish the local church at all?” There is a distinction.

There Is a Distinction

I will now share with you some passages which show a distinction between the individual and the local church in such a way that one could hardly miss it.

1 Timothy 5:16

“If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows.”

Can we see in this passage that the individual is to relieve the widow so that the church is not burdened? Isn’t this a clear distinction?

Matthew 18:1517

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that `by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

Can’t we see in these verses that the individual and sometimes individuals are to act first in correcting this problem? As a last resort, the church enters into the situation. Could the distinction be any clearer?

1 Timothy 3:15

“. . . but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Did Paul write so that Timothy might learn to behave himself within himself? If there is no distinction between the individual and the church that is what the passage says!

1 Corinthians 11:18

“For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.”

This text clearly shows that individuals “come together as a church.” If they “come together as a church” isn’t there a way they act separately or distributively not as the church?

Acts 5:14

“While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Notice closely. Ananias sold a piece of property and brought a portion of the selling price and laid it at the apostles’ feet. At this point a distinction is made. The money changed ownership and control. The money belonged to the individual (Ananias) until he laid it at the apostles’ feet. From then on, it belonged to the church. Now, if we cannot say that whatever belongs to the individual also belongs to church, why would we say, “Whatever the individual does the church must also do?” Are we seeing the clear distinction?

Revelation 3:1,4

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, `These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead”‘ (Rev. 3:1).

“You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4).

Notice that as a collectivity the church at Sardis was proclaimed dead but a few individuals had not defiled their garments. Isn’t this another clear distinction?

Just a Few More Distinctions

As an individual, I spank my child in an act of discipline (Heb. 12). But the local church cannot inflict physical disciplinary action on anyone.

As an individual I may raise money for the American Cancer Society. Did Christ die on the cross so that his church might devote itself to this effort?

As an individual, I may endorse, support and vote for a political candidate. But where is the authority for the local church as a collectivity to do the same?

As an individual, I am taught to love my wife emotionally and physically (1 Cor. 7:35). But I would be really upset if the local church thought it had that same responsibility!

A Few Concluding Remarks

In this article, I have not entered into discussing issues that stem from this key distinction. Obviously, this distinction will be used heavily in discussing what the local church may do in benevolence, edification and evangel-ism. It will the job of other writers to deal with those areas.

My job was to present the biblical distinction between individual action and church action. I am convinced that has been done. Both the individual and the local church must always act within the confines of authority. They each must recognize and closely abide by the distinct work God has given to them. All must be done by the authority of the Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17). To fail to recognize the distinction of the individual and local church will lead to acting without authority and result in having to depart from Jesus (Matt. 7:2123).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 14-15
October 6, 1994

By Mike Willis

The book of 2 Corinthians exposes Paul’s pain as a result of those who were attacking him and undermining his influence. Many charges were made against Paul which hurt him. He was heartbroken that men said these abusive things about him and even more distraught that some at Corinth actually believed them.

Consider some of the charges Paul’s enemies made to undermine his influence and destroy his reputation:

1. Paul was fickle. Because Paul changed his plans about when he would come to Corinth, his enemies charged that his word could not be trusted. Paul responded, “When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?” (1:17) He told them that all of his plans were subject to the providence of God. How does one answer such foolish charges against him?

2. Paul wrote weighty letters, but his bodily presence was weak. His enemies had seen the letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Not only had Paul written 1 Corinthians, there is evidence in the Corinthian correspondence of other letters that are not extant. We do not know the tone or length of Paul’s letters, but his enemies maliciously charged that Paul “terrified” the Corinthians by his letters (8:9), described his letters as “weighty,” and contrasted them to Paul’s personal presence which they described as “weak.” Paul wrote, “For his letters, say they are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech is contemptible.” He used their words to describe himself when he said that he was “in presence base among you, but being absent am bold toward you” (10:1). How does a man answer these charges? Does he deny that his letters were weighty? Does he boldly assert that his personal presence was as strong as the next man’s? There really is little that a person can do to answer such malice.

3. Paul was rude in speech. Paul alluded to this charge in 11:6  “But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge.” Paul was schooled and educated; nevertheless, he determined that in his preaching he would not resort to “excellency of speech or of wisdom” in declaring the wisdom of God. Therefore, his speech and his wisdom were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor. 2:1-5). As a result, his enemies charged that he was “rude” in speech. But how does one answer such foolish charges?

4. Paul was not an apostle because he did not take support when preaching at Corinth. While preaching in Corinth, Paul labored with his own hands to support himself and to help those with him. Later, he did receive some “outside support” while there (2 Cor. 11:8). Rather than seeing Paul’s nobility in this conduct, his enemies charged that he had committed an offence against the Corinthians by not accepting support while laboring among them (2 Cor. 11:7-9). How does a man answer such foolish charges? Paul assured them that he did not forego their support because he did not love them, but the only proof he cited was “God knoweth” (2 Cor. 11:11).

Paul’s Pain

These charges caused Paul pain and grief. On several occasions his suffering is reflected in his emotional out-bursts in 2 Corinthians.

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:11-12).

Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man. I speak not this to condemn you: for I have said before, that ye are in our hearts to die and live with you (2 Cor. 7:2-3).

Paul was hurt by what his enemies said about him and how those whom he had served were being turned against him by their malicious words.

What Was Behind These Attacks?

These attacks were not motivated merely by personal jealousy. Paul’s enemies were attacking Paul because what they were teaching was different from what Paul was teaching. Consequently, Paul’s defense was not the jealous guarding of his personal reputation; rather, it was a repudiation of the false gospel that the enemies were teaching. He wrote:

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye received another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him (2 Cor. 11:1-4).

Paul called attention to the fact that the Corinthians received the false teachers but were closing their hearts to the one who taught the gospel in its purity. Even today, some who besmirch the names of faithful gospel preachers are ready to receive, commend, and endorse those who teach another Jesus, receive another Spirit, and teach another gospel.

Paul asserted that these men were false apostles and false teachers.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works (11:13-15).

The Corinthians tolerated abusive treatment from these men. Paul described how the false teachers treated the Corinthians in these words: “For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. ..” (2 Cor. 11:19-20).

We might profit from this record of the abusive treatment of Paul’s person by learning to look behind the personal charges that are made to what is animating them. Sometimes when gospel preachers are castigated as guardians of the party, guardians of the orthodoxy, watch dogs, legalists, writing long letters, and similar personal epithets, these are smokescreens used by the enemies of righteousness to distract the minds of men from the issues of truth which are at stake. Sometimes faithful brethren believe these malicious charges, just as some at Corinth believed the malicious words against the Apostle Paul. Men who have the truth do not need to resort to malicious charges to defend what they preach. They can simply cite book, chapter and verse to prove that the things that they teach are so. When men cease giving book, chapter, and verse answers and start ranting and raving against those who call for Bible authority, this is reason to re-examine the message that is being taught by those bent on under-mining the influence of men who call for Bible authority.

Conclusion

Our age is no more immune to malicious attacks against the servants of God than was the apostolic age. We grieve to witness faithful servants of Christ maligned and can only offer to them this comfort: others before us have suffered the same malicious attacks. Peter wrote, “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Pet. 3:13-15). He exhorted that we imitate the example of our suffering Savior who “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:22-22).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 2
October 20, 1994