Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

I regret the need for this discussion but am glad to have it with him, knowing his kind spirit. Both of us intend to conduct ourselves as Christians (Matt. 7:12). We hope to promote study, not start a running battle. I am glad to defend the action of the West Columbia church and its elders because our action is authorized by Scripture. With the elders’ permission, I will use some material which they have used in communicating with others on this topic. On behalf of the elders and the whole church, I commend brother Turner for expressing his reservations without bitterness. We are not far apart as we begin our study; may God help us to be even closer together at its end, “for we be brethren” (Gen. 13:8).

Bible Basis for Asking Questions on Current Issue

Anti-literature brethren called literature “creedalistic” and anti-class folks called classes “denominational,” but that did not make it so. Brethren showed such practices were scriptural under the generic authority to teach.Every passage instructing elders to watch, oversee, and guard the church authorizes them to ask questions by generic authority (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). 1 Timothy 4:1-3 warns about the rise of certain specified issues: “forbid-ding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats.” That did not mean Paul was unconcerned about other matters, but the Ephesian elders were authorized to ask preachers questions such as:

1. Do you forbid to marry? 2. Do you command to abstain from meats? 3. Do those who forbid to marry depart from the faith? 4. Do those who command to abstain from meats depart from the faith? 5. Does preaching “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” include warning of the departures mentioned above?

Someone may disagree with our elders’ format, timing, wording, or some other judgment, but they are authorized to ask specific questions.

1 John 4:1-6 charged early saints to ascertain what preachers believed about certain false doctrines circulating at that time. Brethren were to “try the spirits” with this test: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” This investigation could include asking a man orally or in writing, “Do you teach that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?” If he answered, “I teach only the Bible,” a proper response would have been, “What does the Bible say on this specific subject?” 1 John 4 commands all of us to test teachers; the eldership here chose to send out questions as one way to obey that command.

Paul dealt with a specific list of questions and issues which were current in Corinth (1 Cor., chapter noted):

1. too much confidence in preachers (1-4), 2. moral issues such as living in adultery (5), 3. going to law with brethren (6), 4. danger of fornication (6), 5. marriage questions (7), 6. meats offered to idols (8-10), 7. role of women (11), 8. Lord’s Supper (11), 9. disorder in worship by abuse of miraculous gifts (12-14), 10. doctrine of the resurrection (15), and 11. collection on the first day of the week (16).

Brethren were warned not to support teachers who taught different doctrines on any of these matters (1 Cor. 4:6, 17; 14:37;15:33-34;2Cor.6:11-18;11:13-15).Such passages authorize elders to question preachers on their stand on Bible issues at any time. When they ask, we are authorized to “always give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). To ask and answer elders’ questions no more makes a human creed than to ask and answer questions during a debate (Acts 15:2,7; “dispute” definition).

The elders have discussed for years the need to be as careful as possible in our overall program of spreading the gospel and supporting preachers. The questions reflect many such discussions with the elders, although I did the writing, as they often have me do. Most questions relate to divorce and remarriage, such as those the elders asked Don Givens in 1985 (GOT, 7 May 1992). They have agonized over the growing trend for reputable men to waver (Don Givens, Homer Hailey, Lowell Williams, Jerry and Don Bassett, W.L. Wharton, Terry Sumerlin, etc.). PietJoubert has been supported for years because brethren did not ask questions (recent Paul Williams report, South Africa). The use of these questions was the decision of local elders in the work of a local church. A few other brethren have asked for a copy in wrestling with the same problems. Whether they use a similar format is their own decision. We leave local churches to do their own work. There is no brother-hood wide organization, questionnaire, or mechanism for reviewing the work of preachers on a brotherhood basis, just local churches making independent decisions. The bottom line is our elders do not intend to support men who spread dangerous error on divorce and remarriage, or any other form of digression.

Brother Turner, The Elders, and I Agree

Brother Turner, the elders, and I agree that the passages he cited teach that the whole counsel of God is the only standard of truth, excluding human creeds of every kind (2 Cor. 10:12-13; Acts 20:28-32;1 Pet. 3:15; 5:1-4;1 Jn. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9-11). The questions are preceded by the banner,

“What Saith The Scripture? (Romans 4:3),” with a request for information on “what you believe the Bible teaches on a number of matters. Our purpose is not to create a creed, because we recognize that the New Testament itself reveals the pattern of sound words, and we can neither add to it nor subtract from it.” The elders said the list is in no sense “final or exhaustive.” Only the Bible, not these questions, is the “authoritative doctrinal formula,” “standard of ministerial qualifications,” etc. (“creed” definitions cited by Turner). The Apostles’ Creed is so called because that is what it claims to be. Our questions are called nothing more than questions because that is all they claim to be. We fully endorse the quotations from Lard and Campbell upholding the Bible and rejecting human creeds.

Brother Turner, the elders, and I agree:

Did not Jesus, Peter, and other disciples reply to specific questions asked of them (Jn. 4:9; Acts 11:1-3; Matt. 16:13)? Yes, specific situations provoked appropriate questions, and were answered in the light of truth (Matt. 22:230.

The elders explained the specific situation which provoked appropriate questions: “Dangerous error and a spirit of compromise are spreading.” “Preachers whom we have all known and loved in the past have embraced or excused a number of strange doctrines (Heb. 13:9).” Brother Turner wonders why not question only those believed to be “in error.” That is a judgment call; the elders tried to be impartial, and men they thought to be sound are revealing very unsound views in recent years. Can he offer any advice on how elders can ask questions of preachers considered for support without being charged with creed-making?

Brother Turner, the elders, and I agree that 28 questions cannot identify those who fully “walk in the old paths.” The elders spoke in the context of the old paths on the subjects specified, then explicitly said the topics covered are “not…a creed,” not “final or exhaustive,” “because we recognize that the New Testament itself reveals the pattern of sound words, and we can neither add to it nor subtract from it.” As to “fellowship,” the elders refer to financial fellowship, meaning they will not support men “carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Phil. 4:15-16; Eph. 4:14; 2 Jn. 9-11). For instance, the elders will not support men to preach that saints and sinners have different marriage laws, that “abortion-on-demand” is “a matter of personal choice,” or that churches are apostate for providing “the Sunday night communion” (sample questions). Brother Turner will commend the elders for that determination and agree it is scriptural not creedal. The elders do not refuse to support anyone because of a variation in interpreting a question, lack of 100% agreement on every aspect of a subject, or a man’s preference of another format for stating his stand. All those variables occurred without anyone losing his support!

Paul warned of men who “depart from the faith” by teaching “fables and endless genealogies,” “science falselyso called,” “the resurrection is past already,” “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (1-2 Tim.). He did not mean that those six issues alone are the sum total of the faith, nor that soundness on “the 6” (or “the 28”) is a sufficient “test for orthodoxy,” nor that the only way to depart is by embracing those six errors. “The 6” are “less than the whole truth,” but reflect elements of truth. It could be said, “Men who are drifting would resent and would refuse to answer these six simple questions, but men who uphold the truth are always glad to `give an answer’ speaking `as the oracles of God’ on any Bible subject (1 Pet. 3:15; 4:11).” If someone felt he had a valid reason for not answering, he could offer it. Just as early elders could have asked men about “the 6” without creating a human creed, so can elders today. Hopefully, brother Turner will agree.

The elders asked questions in an effort to avoid creedalism. To support preachers sound on the music issue but not on premillennialism, or sound on those matters but not on institutionalism, or sound on all those subjects but not on divorce and remarriage, is rank creedalism. We agree on that principle. The only question is how to learn where a man stands. The alternative to don’t-ask-don’t-tell and to creedalism is to ask direct Bible questions like our elders did. When to ask, by word or letter, and what to ask, are matters of judgment for each local church. We do not bind our judgment on others, nor wish them to bind a prohibition on us (Rom. 14:1-3). Either extreme is creedalism.

The real danger is not elders asking questions but brethren winking at the unmistakable signs of a new apostasy. Too many brethren are compromising with flagrant error on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:9), sectarian and liberal concepts (1 Tim. 4:1-3), unity in doctrinal diversity (2 Jn. 9-11), the positive mental attitude philosophy (2 Tim. 4:1-5), and rampant worldliness (Rom. 12:1-2). We all agree saints must question preachers about these serious dangers but disagree only on when and how. While differing on this one judgment, “we be brethren” in a common cause, not enemies at war with each other (Gen. 13:8; Phil. 1:27).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 18-19
June 2, 1994

By Robert F. Turner

First, what has been done? (1) A list of 28 questions was sent to 19 or more men, inlcuding men they believed to be sound. This was more than a simple investigation of prospective preachers whose soundness they had reason to doubt. (2) The questions were accompanied by a letter stating, “This will confirm and demonstrate to the brethren here that every single man with whom this church has fellowship continues to walk `in the old paths’ of divine revelation. . .” That says “fellowship” may hinge on these questions, as they identify those who “walk in the old paths of divine revelation. . .” a big order indeed for 28 questions. Moreoever, (3) the letter says, “men who are drifting would resent and would refuse to answer these simple questions.” That anticipates and impugns the motives of all who would take no part in this process.

I do not believe whoever wrote the 28 questions in-tended to write a creed. I believe the senders made an honest mistake, not understanding the essence of a creed, nor recognizing the serious con-sequences. But regardless of good intentions, the elements of a creed are present in what was done. Big oaks from little acorns grow. If a few objective articles could have been published on the essence of creedalism, with no fmger pointing, I believe this thing could have been put to rest with little harm done. But my efforts along this line were hindered. Now I can only pray this “study” will help brethren to recognize and stop creedal developments.

“Creed” is from the Latin credo (meaning “I believe”). Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary says it is “a brief, authoritative doctrinal formual, intended to define at certain points what is held by a congregation, a synod, or a church to be true and essential, and exclude what is held to be false belief” (look up “orthodox”).

Philip Schaff (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1: 4), says, “A creed may cover the whole ground of Christian doctrine and practice, or contain only such points as are deemed fundamental and sufficient, or as have been disputed. It may be declarative, or interrogative in form” (like a list of questions that check for orthodoxy).

In the Campbell-Rice Debate on Creeds (773, 778), Rice names two chief purposes. (1) “A creed is intended to be a public declaration of the great doctrines and truths which we, as a body, understand the Bible to teach. It is not a substitute for the Bible, nor a addition to it. (2) “It is a standard of ministerial qualifications, as well as of the qualifications of other church officers” (his emphasis). He further states, “The Presbyterians have deemed it wise to draw up an outline of the doctrines and truths they understand the Scriptures to teach, and to require all who seek the office of the ministry at their hands, to state distinctly whether they so understand them.” Does that sound vaguely familiar?

A List of Questions or A Creed?

Last year, the elders of the West Columbia, Texas cinuccl sent out a questionnaire to those whom it was supporting and inviting tur meetings to find out what they believed on a number of issues. their moti’i we to err sure that the men were teaching the truth, lest they should be unintentionally supporting someone who was teaching false doctrine. There were 28 questions asked, covering a broad range of subjects, ranging from divorce and remarriage to fellowship, and how matters of human judgment (the covering, weddings and funerals in church buildings, etc.) were handled. Most of those who received the questionnaire responded to the questions and many even commended the elders for their efforts to oversee their work However, two men out of twenty-one objected to the questions and charged that, however well intentioned. the elders had taken the first steps toward formulating a written creed, This exchange is designed to examine this issue: Has a church written a human creed when it sends out a list of questions to those it considers for support or to invite for a meeting?” Although brother Turner did not receive the questions from the West Columbia church, he affirms that it is a creed and brother Halbrook denies, defending the actions of the West Columbia church where he preaches. Neither side wishes to impugn the motives or intentions of the other in this discussion.

Brother Turner initially sent me an article about the subject. Because I had been invited to hold a meeting at West Columbia, I was familiar with the questions and recognized the situation to which he was responding. I hesitated to publish the material. In the meantime, l received another article on the subject from another point of view which I also hesitated to publish. W hen brother Turner contacted me about publishing his article, I suggested publishing the two side by side without additional comment. After reading the other article, we agreed that something better could be arranged. At this point, I contacted brother Halbrook to ask him to defend the practice of the church at West Columbia. Hence, the following arrangement was agreed upon by both brother Halbrook and brother Turner.

Today many think of creeds as synonymous with false doctrines. Most of man’s work does contain error, but a man written list of “I believes,” while not all truth, could be all true and still be a creed. Error is not an essential characteristic of creeds. Note!

I believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, the life everlasting.

This so-called Apostles’ Creed, thought to be the first man-made creed in “Christianity,” was inserted in a letter from Marcellus of Ancyra, about 341, “with a view to prove his orthodoxy” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 2:48). When men of our day set up a document to test for orthodoxy they should expect those who know the history of creeds to question it. Even when true, it is more or less than the whole truth, and promotes man-made standards.

Lard’s Quarterly (Vol. 1, p. 600 published an article on creeds saying, “Aside even from any thing a human creed may contain, we condemn it per se.” And again, “The degrees of approximation to truth are not the point. The thing itself is an apostasy.” In Christian Baptist (Vol. 2:44), A. Campbell says, “I object to all human creeds as terms of communion (fellowship, rt). (1) They say, in effect, `the form of sound words’ (N.T. alone) is not well adapted to our needs. (2) They are designed to exclude the evil and receive the good; but good men will not subscribe for sake of place or office in any church, while evil men who want place or office will subscribe whether they believe or not. (3) They are a source of division.” In Vol. 4, p. 177, he says, “I contend for one divine and infallible creed, and you argue for a human and fallible one along with it, or for the `principle’ of having two creeds.”

I also believe and am confident that I know the truth. I will, and must teach others what “I believe.” But I must insist they look to God for their standard, and not to my beliefs. I have no doubt the senders of the “28” will agree to that statement. But what they did violates its principle  an honest mistake that begs correction.

In a different field, yet condemning inner circle comparisons and urging all to look outside themselves to God’s “rule,” Paul put it clearly. “We dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring them-selves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure toreach even unto you” (2 Cor. 10:12-13).

The “28 questions” are a fixed identical unit, sent alike to all being tested. This can not be justified by Acts 20:28-32, because Paul, for that job, commended them to the “word of (God’s) grace” (v. 32), not by 1 Peter 3:15, for our “reason for hope” is found in the whole truth, not in the “28.” There is no justification in 1 Peter 5:1-4, for feeding the flock requires pointing them to “the Chief Shepherd” whose message is in divine form (the N.T.), not in a specialized unit like the “28.” We do not “try the spirits” by the “28,” but by the words of inspired messengers (1 Jn. 4:6). The “28” is inadequate for guarding against “transgression” (2 Jn. 9-11), for John made the whole “doctrine of Christ” the standard.

Did not Jesus, Peter, and other disciples reply to specific questions asked of them (Jn. 4:9; Acts 11:1-3; Matt. 16:13)? Yes, specific situations provoked appropriate questions, and were answered in the light of truth (Matt. 22:230. But where were either soundness or error tested by a fixed unit of questions? If any elders have reason to believe a prospective teacher is in error, they should question him specifically; not send him the “28” to be used as a testing stone. That is where creedal elements come in. We need not be surprised if the “28” are used by other churches . . . and the creedal concept spreads. Brethren, this is a dangerous course.

The converting of God’s words into thoughts in man’s mind is called “interpretation”; and the words of the “28” must also be “interpreted”  in this case without the advantage of inspired words to study. The reader must assume he knows the writers use of “preaching … the church,” how the kingdom figure is “synonymous” with church (I assume like “flock,” “army,” etc.), and like interpretive problems. I believe I know who wrote the “28,” can be charitable, and believe my answers would be accepted. But had I been sent this “test” I would not have signed it  not because of its content, but because of its creedal tendencies. Now here is the contrariety of such matters. Agree to the content and I am “in.” Question its tendencies (dare to write such an article as this) and according to some I am egotistical, hiding my convictions, afraid of questions, and so, on and on. I do not approve of such tactics from either side.

I welcome brother Halbrook’s efforts to defend the use of the “28,” and sincerely hope he will do just that. The “28” is certainly not personally oriented. My contacts and correspondence with Ron have been congenial and mutually respectful; and I expect his work and mine to be objective and free from impugning motives. I have stayed in the home of one elder who signed the letter accompanying the “28,” and regard him highly. I do not believe either Ron or his elders intended to write a creed, or purposefully used creedal characteristics. We are both interested in pointing all to God’s perfect message, and to this end invite your prayerful attention.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 16-17
June 2, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

The word “sound” means whole, healthy. Metaphorically it is used of doctrine. The book of Titus is a treatise on sound doctrine. Paul said elders are to use “sound doctrine” to convict gainsayers and to stop the mouths of those who go from house to house “teaching things which they ought not” (Tit. 1:9-11). Titus was charged to “speak things which become sound doctrine” using “sound speech” (Tit. 2:1,7-8). Sound words of rebuke would help to correct false teachers so they might be “sound in the faith” (1:13). Sound doctrine would also help the aged men to be “sound in faith” (2:1-2).

Sound doctrine is also related to moral issues. Paul wrote that lawlessness, disobedience, what was unholy, profane, murderers, whoremongers, homosexuals, liars and perjured persons all are “contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:9-10). To teach other than sound doctrine is to contribute to blaspheming the name and doctrine of the Lord. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmising, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself ” (1 Tim. 6:3-5).

The Whole Counsel

What churches should expect of preachers and what preachers should deliver in their teaching efforts would be helped greatly by considering what Paul said to the Ephesian elders. He summarized his word among them by saying, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). That statement must be understood in light of what he said in verse 20  “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you.” The truth of God on any subject is the sum total of all he has revealed on that subject. Did Paul mean that he had given a full exposition of every verse of Scripture written up to that point? No, but he taught what was needed for their benefit. Nothing was withheld which they needed simply because it required drastic change in their thinking or manner of life. Gospel preachers now must preach what is needed, where it is needed and when is it needed. The burden of our message must always be “what saith the Scriptures?”

There are times when preaching must be aimed at specific problems which cry for attention. But we cannot afford to forget that while we are beating back the devil on one front, he is already planning to breach the walls at a point least expected. Hence, the need for balance. Sometimes teaching must be preventive. The best defense against error in all forms is a thorough knowledge of the truth.

It is possible for good men to become hobby riders. Certain subjects so occupy their study and teaching (and writing) that they become larger than life and rallying points of soundness to the neglect of other things equally important. It may be that their convictions on their favorite subjects are entirely correct. But we would all do well to reflect on Paul’s summary statement about “the whole counsel of God.”

Supporting Preachers

Paul said the Philippians had “fellowship in the gospel” with him (Phil. 1:5). They sent “once and again” to his necessities (Phil. 4:16). When Paul preached in Corinth, he received “wages” from other congregations to do service there (2 Cor. 11:8-9). It is important to send wages to men who are faithfully teaching “the whole counsel of God.” If they are teaching error, and you support them in it, then you are having “fellowship” in what is unsound. This poses a great problem for elders or brethren who make such decisions in the absence of elders. No eldership nor any other set of men can put together a sufficient list to cover all contingencies unless it is identical to the New Testament, in which case it is unnecessary. Before brethren ever decide to start supporting any brother anywhere, or invite a man for a gospel meeting, they ought to have good reason to believe that he is committed to faithfully preaching and teaching the word of God.

But how can this be determined? In the case of a man who has had considerable experience, his deeds follow him. It is not all that hard to see the pattern of his work from where he has been and the results left behind. In the case of men unknown to brethren who are asked to support them, it may be that good brethren who are known to them may be able to offer information and recommendation. Barnabas vouched for Paul in Acts 9:26-28. Paul recommended Timothy, Titus and a number of other brethren by name as worthy co-workers in the gospel. If brethren do not know a man, or he is young and just beginning, and you are minded to check into his appeal for support, why not invite him to come and talk with you face to face and discuss any area where there might be some concern? Or talk with him by phone, or correspond with him.

While I do not believe that brethren can draw up a list of questions that will cover all the ground the New Testament already covers, I have never objected to answering questions about what I teach on subjects of interest. I have tried to make it clear that I am a student of the word of God and plan to be as long as I live. That means that as time passes and as I grow in my understanding, I reserve the right to change my mind when convinced that I have missed something. That is an allowance which all of us must make for each other. Young, inexperienced men may have pure hearts and be fully resolved to preach and teach only what they can prove from the word of God, before they have had the time to sort out all the questions which will occupy their study over a lifetime. Should it be obvious to elders that a man is not fully committed to the truth, then certainly he should not be supported. Or if it is learned that he has begun to teach error on any subject, then efforts should be made to show him the error. If he will not correct it, then brethren should not have “fellowship” in spreading what is unsound (unhealthy).

Over the years I have gone to preach several times and discussed the work at certain places with a view to moving there and working in the gospel. Always there have been sessions with brethren to know each other’s mind and I have never resented inquiries into what I believe and preach on any Bible subject. There have been times when I have had to say, “I have not really given enough study to that to answer fully on it but am open to study what the Bible says.” There have been times when I have inquired of the brethren where they stood on certain subjects. A clear understanding of each other in advance is necessary to a productive work together.

While it is in order for brethren to understand each other if they are to have a working relationship, great care needs to be exercised not to be eaten up by our zeal for the Lord’s house. There is a great danger when the same set of questions is circulated from church to church and this becomes the absolute standard by which to measure the soundness of men and their suitability for support in the gospel. I do not believe that simply asking questions of men as to what they preach on subjects of interest at the moment is necessarily creedal. Further, the autonomy of local churches must be respected as brethren attempt to fulfill their God-given duties in spreading the gospel and supporting those occupied in that work. But let us all beware of thinking that the sum total of the gospel revolves around marriage, divorce, remarriage, modest apparel, social drinking, and things of like nature. I, for one, have no hesitation in stating precisely what I believe and preach about any one of these issues and a host of other things which could be mentioned. And it appears to me that sound men could do so in words easy to understand.

Sound speech is that which conforms to divine revelation. Sound life is that which is molded and shaped after the image of Christ. We all need to preach the whole counsel of God, keeping back nothing profitable. But let none of us presume that he can draw up a better standard to determine soundness by isolating a few questions, than the word of God itself.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 3-4
June 16, 1994

By Donnie V. Rader

In Luke 7:1-10 (and the parallel account: Matt. 8:5-13) we find the story of Jesus healing the Centurion’s servant. When this Centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some of the elders of the Jews to Jesus requesting that he heal his servant who was dear to him. Jesus went with them. When he was close to the house, this Roman soldier sent his friends out to Jesus to tell him that he was not worthy that Jesus should come under his roof. He said that all Jesus needed to do was “say the word” and his servant would be healed. He explained to Jesus how he understood the principle of authority for he was a man who had authority.

The text says that Jesus “marveled” at him (v. 9). There are only two times that the Bible says Jesus marveled at someone. On the other occasion he marveled at their unbelief (Mark 6:6). In our text, he marvels at the Centurion’s faith saying, “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (v. 9).

The word “marvel” means wonder or amazement. The NIV uses the word “amazed” in our text. Jesus was amazed at the great faith of the Centurion. He was no ordinary man.

If we have the same characteristics as this man, God will marvel and be pleased with our lives.

What is it about this man that made Jesus say he had such great faith? His faith (like our faith) involves not only what he believes, but also how he lives. Let’s see what we learn from this man.

He Was A Man Of Power  Yet

Interested In The Lord

This was no ordinary man. He was a centurion (a commander of 100 men). He was a man of power who commanded respect and obedience (v. 8). Yet, he was interested in and needed the Lord (v. 3).

Too often the things of this world (such as power, fame or money) lead people astray. These and other things can impress us with our own self-importance to the point that we have no real need for the Lord. The cares of this world can choke out the word of God (Luke 8:14).

That did not happen with the Centurion. He had power and, no doubt, fame and money. Yet, there was a genuine interest in the Lord.

He Cared About Others

1. He cared about his servant (vv. 2-3). His servant was “dear to him.” The one the Centurion cared about was not his superior who could do him favors like promoting him to higher rank. He apparently was not some family member. Rather, he was a slave. A slave or servant was a “living tool” according to the Romans. He was viewed as some hand tool. He could be cast away to die if he became sick. But not this Roman soldier!

2. He cared about the Jews (v. 5). The Jew-Gentile relationship was not good. They hated each other.They were enemies. But, notice in our text that it was the Jews who went on the mission for this Gentile. They told that he loved the nation of the Jews so much so that he built for them a synagogue.

The concern this man had for his servant and the Jews was not ordinary.

We too must learn to care about others. We must treat others as we would have them treat us (Matt. 7:12). Paul tells us not to just think about ourselves, but also think about others (Phil. 2:4). Our concern for others will involve weeping with those that weep and rejoicing with those that rejoice (Rom. 12:15).

If our faith is great, our care for others will also include those who may seem to be unworthy of our care. It will include those of humble living (Rom. 12:16) and even our enemies (vv. 20-21).

This Man Earned The Respect Of His Neighbors

This Roman soldier was a foreigner in Capernaum. His neighbors would, no doubt, watch him closely. Yet, they learned to trust him. His was friendly to them and they to him. They were willing to go on this errand to Jesus for him. The elders of the Jews said he was worthy (v. 4). He earned the respect of his neighbors.

We ought to live in such a way that those around us have a good report about us. Cornelius, another centurion, had a good reputation among all the Jews (Acts 10:2,22). Before men are qualified to serve as elders, they are to have a good report among their neighbors (1 Tim. 3:7). Paul told Timothy to be an example of the believers (1 Tim. 4:12).

He Was An Humble Man

1. He viewed himself unworthy before the Lord (vv. 6-7). He sent word to the Lord that he was not worthy that he should come under his roof.

2. He let God and others esteem him and not himself. Others said he was “worthy” (v. 4). He said he was not worthy (v. 7). Jesus said he had not seen so great a faith even in Israel (v. 9). He was doing what the Proverb writer said, “Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips” (Prov. 17:2).

If God and others are going to esteem us, we must not esteem ourselves (Rom. 12:3,16). If we do promote ourselves, then God and others will not speak favorably of us (1 Pet. 5:5-6).

His Faith Was Great

1. He believed in the Lord  that he he could heal his servant (v. 3).

2. He believed that the Lord was great and worthy (vv. 6-7).

3. His faith was greater than had been seen in Israel (v. 9).

Our faith must grow and increase (2 Thess. 1:3). If it grows, it becomes great. If not, it diminishes in weakness. Let’s grow in grace and knowledge (2 Pet. 3:18).

He Respected The Power And

Authority Of Jesus

The Centurion stood in awe of the power of Jesus (vv. 6-7). He knew the power of the word of God for he said that all Jesus needed to do was “say the word” and the servant would be healed (v. 7).

He well understood the principle of authority. He was a man who was placed under the authority of his superiors. He was also a man with authority over a hundred men. All he had to do was to say “go,” “come,” or “do this” and his soldiers would respond.

We must learn that responding to the authority of God means doing just what he says. We must also impress upon our mind the power of God’s word. When God “says the word” there is real power. God said the words “Let there be light” and there was. God said, “Peace be still” and it was. The same word has the power to convert the sinner (Rom. 1:16) and keep the saved (Heb. 10:39).

What would the Lord say about your faith? Would he say, “I have not seen so little faith”? Would he say, “I have not seen so weak faith”? Would he say, “That’s good, but I’ve seen a lot better”? Or, would he say, “I not see so great faith. . .”?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 14-15
June 2, 1994