Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

If I was the Devil, I would consider myself to basically have two problems: (1) How I could keep control of people in general? (2) How I might ensnare the Christian?

1. If I was the Devil, the very first thing I would do would be to discredit the inspiration, perfection, and authority of the Scriptures. I would do my best to find an argument that would keep you out in the world from accepting these as attributes of the Scriptures. Perhaps I could do so through your schooling, your friends, the music to which you listen, or through the published materials which you read. How-ever, I would not dare to show you 2 Timothy 3:16; James 1:25; or 1 Corinthians 4:6 and 2 John 9. For should you read these you could believe that all Scripture came by inspiration of God, that it is a perfect law, and that you were to be limited in teaching and practice by those Scriptures. Thus, I might fail here, but I would not give up.

Next, if I was the Devil I would try to persuade you that you had plenty of time to obey the gospel, that you had some things that you could and should enjoy before you settle down to become a Christian. Of course if you managed to read 2 Corinthians 6:2 or Hebrews 3:15, you could see things a little differently. Then, should you happen to read the examples of conversion in Acts of the Apostles you would immediately see the urgency in obeying the gospel. So, again I might fail, but I would not quit.

Should you really believe the Scriptures and knew that you should obey in haste, I would point out how difficult it would be for you to live the lifeof a Christian. You just couldn’t do it, I would point out. Look at all those who are trying and how far short they fall; you would not wish to be a hypocrite in such an effort. If some truly concerned Christian should have you read Galatians 6:2, you would know that you would have the help of other of God’s people. And, to make matters worse for me, that same Christian might have you read 1 Corinthians 10:13. I could see failure of my efforts here, because you would realize that you had the assistance of the Almighty.

Has the Devil Been Talking to You?

2. If I was the Devil I would wish to en-snare the Christian, thus weaken or destroy the influence of the church. I would advertize my products as belonging in the home, I would point to all the celebrities using them, and how that in moderation they were harmless. And, I would point to the popularity of those who use my products. For the places which I wished you to go, I would make such as clean and attractive to the eye as possible. For the young, I would have a “chaperon” for all these places and activities. Yes, sir, if I was the Devil that is exactly what I would do. Live it up, when in Rome do as the Romans do, I would say. But, I would be very careful that you did not read 1 Thessalonians 5:22 or Romans 12:2, especially if you were really honest. For, then, you would see something wrong with my reasoning. Then, if you should read Ephesians 5:6 and you really wanted to reach heaven, you would want no part of my advice. This is all true because, you see, my success depends greatly upon your cooperating with me. Alas, I might fail in this if you did not wish to walk with me.

Has the Devil been talking to you?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 10
June 2, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

The chart below is self explanatory. Many things are said to be “in Christ.” These items are listed and the Scriptures cited. How does one get “into Christ” where the benefits and blessings are located? The Bible says we are “baptized into Jesus Christ.”

HOW DOES ONE THINGS IN CHRIST

GET “INTO (In His Body, Church)

CHRIST” 1. All Spiritual Blessings Eph. 1:3

WHERE THESE

BLESSINGS 2. Grace 2 Tim. 2:1

ARE? 3. Salvation 2 Tim. 2:10

4. Eternal Life 1 Jn. 5:11

5. Redemption Eph. 1:7

6. Forgiveness of Sins Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14

“BAPTIZED

INTO JESUS 7. Righteousness 2 Cor. 5:21

CHRIST” 8. God’s Love Rom. 8:39

Rom. 6:3 9. Born Again 2 cor 5:17

Gal. 3:27 10. Peace Jn.16:33

 

Men today tell us that we should stress the blessings in Christ, but that we should not give emphasis to baptism and the church. Should we follow their advice? Are the items “in Christ” a part of God’s provisions of grace while the way to obtain those blessings (baptism) is not?

1. Noah was a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5). (A) Suppose he told men that salvation from the flood was by finding “grace” as he had done but failed to tell them that deliverance from drowning was in the ark and that they had to be in the ark to be saved. (B) Suppose he told some that salvation by grace was “in the ark” but failed to tell them where the ark was located. Would this have been right? Let us ask Noah. Noah, why did you tell men to find grace and not tell them where that grace was obtained? Noah, why did you tell some that salvation was “in the ark” but fail to tell them where the ark was located? Noah replies:

I believe that we are too busy trying to preach ourselves. We are trusting too much in the ark and not enough in God. Men trust in the map that tells them how to get to the ark rather than in God. If I preach that men must be in the ark to be saved, they will trust in the ark as their savior. The ark does not save. God saves. Therefore, I believe in emphasizing the message about the grace of God that I found (Gen. 6:8). If I preach that the ark is the place of deliverance from the flood and tell men how to get “into” it, that would make me a “preacher of the ark” and not of “grace.” Men might charge me with teaching “boat salvation” if I tell the truth, so I just preach “grace” and trust in the Lord.

Can you imagine Noah saying such things? No; yet that is what men say of us today when we preach that salvation is in the Christ and that Jesus is “the savior of the body,” the church (Eph. 5:23).

2. In Numbers 21, the people murmured against the Lord. He sent “fiery serpents” among them. Many were bitten and many died. They cried unto the Lord for deliverance. God told Moses to lift up a brazen serpent. Those who looked on it were healed. God’s grace made the serpent of brass. His love and mercy provided for their healing. Should Moses have told the people of God’s grace, love and mercy while refusing to tell them to come to the serpent of brass and look on it in order to be healed? Should Moses have reasoned that if he dwelt on the serpent of brass that men would trust in it rather than in the Lord? Should he have told them of what God had done for them in graciously granting the brazen serpent but fail to tell them where the serpent was located so they could come and look on it and live?

I can hear Moses’ critics: “Moses, you should preach God’s love and his desire to save. You should not preach so much on the serpent. You should not spend so much time telling men where the serpent of brass is located. They are trusting in the map that leads to the serpent rather than in God. Moses, you are preaching `snake salvation.’ It is alright to tell men of the brass serpent, but do not spend so much time on where it is located and do not tell them that they must `look’ on it in order to be healed. When you do that, people put their faith in their eyesight and not on the Lord.”

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of men be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:14, 15). Men had to be told of the lifting up of that serpent in the wilderness. Men had to be told how to receive the healing in that serpent (come, look and live). Men must be told of the lifting up of the Son of man on the cruel cross. Then they must be told how to appropriate the benefits of that death on the cross (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”).

3. Naaman was told to dip seven times in the river Jordan (2 Kgs. 5). When he did. so, he was cleansed of leprosy. Let us hear Elisha’s critics. “Elisha, you said nothing about God’s great grace and power. You told Naaman, `He that goeth and is washed shall be cleansed.’ You made it sound like the water was Naaman’s savior. Now, we believe that Naaman had to dip or be diseased, just like you do, but we believe that you should put more emphasis on God’s grace and love and not so much on the dipping and the water. Why did you fail to stress God’s power and grace to heal? Why did you not mention those things? That is the trouble with prophets today. They preach the doing of the dipping and leave out the kindness that cleanses.”

Would that have been a fair criticism of Elisha? No, and neither is it fair to criticize gospel preachers who do as Elisha did through his messenger. When we tell men what to do and how to be healed from sin, we are not ignoring or neglecting the grace of God. We are not making the water our savior. Elisha did not. We do not. In fact, when Naaman obeyed the prophet’s word, he said, “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel” (2 Kgs. 5:15). He did not trust in the washing or in the water. He trusted in God after he did what God said do. It is just as true today. If Elisha had such critics and if he had listened to them, Naaman would have died of leprosy!

One Ark, One Serpent, One River, One Cross, One Body

We may speculate that Noah was not the only one whohad access to a sailing vessel. Surely, someone had a ship; it is unlikely that Noah had the world’s only boat. How-ever, as we know, he had the only boat that would float. Are we being negative and narrow-minded when we declare that all of those outside the one, true ark drowned? Did the screams, prayers and sincerity of those perishing in the waters of the flood count for nothing? Were they really all lost outside the ark?

Only one serpent of brass was upheld in the wilderness. Only one provided for healing of snake bite. What about a prayerful prophet, miles from the camp, who constructed his own serpent of brass? Could he call men to it and tell them that they need not make a long trip to Moses’ serpent? Could he tearfully tell them that God is a God of grace, love and compassion? Could he tell them to simply bow “right where you are and say the sinner’s prayer”? Could he tell them to pray and look on his substitute serpent? Could he promise them a healing if they would take “a look of faith”? Yes, he could have done all those things, but to what avail? Would it have helped? Are you so narrow-minded that you actually believe there was only one, true serpent? When you preach and point to Moses’ serpent, are you not putting your faith in the healing power of the serpent and not in the grace and power of God?

Naaman thought that “Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus” were just as suitable as the Jordan. “May I not,” he angrily protested, “wash in them and be clean” (2 Kgs. 5:12). Was there really only one, true river? Could noble Naaman have washed in the Wabash, could he have dipped in the Danube, and been healed? The Jordan had no healing power of itself; baptism has no healing power apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:21). The church cannot save; a wooden boat cannot save; a brazen serpent cannot save. However, only those who obey God’s chosen appointments can be saved by his grace and power.

Three crosses were “lifted up” the day Jesus died. Shall we say that by choosing the proper cross that we are worshipping wood and trusting in a tree to save? Shall we have “the cross of our choice”? We can no more pick and choose our own cross than the Israelites could pick and choose their own serpent. So, we come to the only cross that can save, that of the Christ. How do we obtain the healing afforded by that cross? Do we pray to it? Do we bow before a symbol of it? Do we wear a replica of it around our necks? Do we simply acknowledge that cross and “claim” its power to remit and redeem? “What must I do to be saved?”

Does the answer to that question take away from the cross and Jesus’ death? Did Noah’s entering of the ark negate God as his savior? Did the Israelite who looked on a material serpent deprecate God’s power? Did Naaman’s washing in Jordan deprive God of the glory of his healing? No (2 Kgs. 5:15)! And when a man preaches the truth regarding water baptism he is not turning men from the death of Christ. He is leading them to it (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12). We are “baptized into his death.” Telling Naaman what to do and where to do it did not discredit the power of God. Telling snake bitten men where the brazen serpent was and how to be healed by it did not turn men from the work of God, and telling men what to do to be saved doesnot turn men from the grace of God and the cross of Christ!

(1) God reconciles men “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:19)

(2) God reconciles men “in one body,” the church (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16).

Conclusion: Men are reconciled unto God if they are in Christ, in his body, the church.

(1) One “in Christ” is not an alien (Eph. 2:12, 13).

(2) One “in the household, or church of God” is not a foreigner (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15).

Conclusion: One is in God’s family if he is in Christ, in his body, the church.

(1) People are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3, 4; Gal. 3:27).

(2) People are “baptized into one body,” the church (1 Cor. 12:13).

Conclusion: People who have not been baptized are not in Christ, in his body, the church.

Are the facts and conclusions above true? One brother has said that he is “not one of those `circle drawing,” arrow pointing’ preachers.” That is presumably how he “answers” the Scriptures cited above. Smirky grins and snide disclaimers cannot upset the firm foundation of God! The material above is the truth, not because we say it, but because it is what the Bible teaches. What of those who refuse it? “But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).

It will not suffice to say, “We point men to Christ and the cross and not to baptism and the church.” There is no excuse for those who sweetly state, “We point men to Christ and the cross of grace and not to baptism and the church.” One cannot have Christ and he cannot lead men to Christ apart from the word of Christ. Men do greatly err who believe to the contrary. Do not be fooled by those who eloquently “mouth” or speak the term, “Christ,” but who would seek to turn you from the “word of Christ” in the New Testament.

(A) Jesus said, “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Lk. 10:16). Those who refuse the teaching of Jesus on baptism and the church refuse Christ and God the Father! (B) Jesus said, “He that receiveth whomsoever I send (the word of the “holy apostles and prophets” of the New Testament  LRH) receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” On. 13:20). Those who preach the truth on baptism and the church as taught by the apostles are the ones who receive Christ and God. Those who speak against the preaching of those items do not receive Christ; they have not God (2 Jn. 9). (C) Jesus said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48). The one who does not receive the words of Christ concerning baptism and the church directly and personally rejects Jesus!

Final “Word Of Exhortation”

Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly, Bill Love (author of The Core Gospel), C. Leonard Allen (author of The Cruciform Church), and others are having an impact among churches and preachers of Christ. The material in this lengthy series is designed to combat their philosophy. Many do not perceive the need for this series. They will say that we are fighting straw men and windmills, foes that do not exist. If they are right, no harm is done by reminding brethren of these basis truths, and, therefore, no offense should be taken to these warnings. (Oh, how fervently do I pray and fondly do I wish that they were correct in their assessment!) They do not believe that such views exist among children of God. However, letters and articles, experience and observation speak to the contrary. If you have not seen or heard such things as we have discussed, thank God. If you have not, it is likely that you will. Restless winds of doctrine are stirring; there is a covert network of men and minds that resent the teaching of the word of God we have set forth. Their mouths and methods are subtle. If possible, they would deceive the very elect. Keep your eyes and your Bible open (Acts 17:11).

The faith began in a fight (Acts). Every bit of ground that has been gained for the kingdom of God has been taken and seized. None of it has been granted or given. Our old “adversary” fights hard and dirty. He never relents. He uses honey and artful guile to attract followers. What he cannot win on the battlefield, he will seek to connive and carve out at the bargaining table of compromise. What he cannot answer, he will seek to question. What he cannot dispute, he will seek to cloak in doubt. What he cannot conquer, he will seek to confuse. What he cannot outrun, he will seek to outlast. What he cannot defile, he will seek to discourage. “We are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11). “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). “Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11).

Do not allow “the book of the law” of the Spirit to “depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have I not commanded thee? Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee withersoever thou goest” (Josh. 1:8, 9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 6-9
June 2, 1994

By Harry R. Osborne

If we are trying to do right, there are some places that we just do not go. For instance, we have no business in a “crack house” if we are not looking for drugs. We have no business in a porno shop if we do not wish to pollute and pervert our mind. There is a harmful influence exerted by even being in the wrong place.

The book of Proverbs speaks of this fact repeatedly (see Proverbs 2). It depicts life as being a journey upon one of two distinct paths. On either path, we are said to be in distinct associations which influence our actions.

The “way of goodness” is the road traveled by those seeking to do right. It is also referred to as “the paths of life” or “the paths of righteousness.” Those who walk in this way are said to seek and find wisdom.

The “way of evil” is traveled by those who turn away from the right way revealed by God. Other terms like “the ways of darkness” and “the paths of death” are used to describe that environment of sin. Those who walk in the way bring themselves to spiritual death and aid others towards that same end. Much of the Bible reaffirms the horrible influence of being in the wrong place with the wrong surroundings.

David allowed an evil influence to affect him by remaining on the roof with a view where he saw Bathsheba bathing (2 Sam. 11:2-5). The effect of giving his lusting eyes the opportunity to look was adultery, then lying, then murder, and finally open shame. All of it started from the influence of the wrong place.

Might we be guilty of allowing ourselves to be in a place where lusting eyes could bring us to sin and shame? With the state of undress common in modern “swim wear,” can we really say the beaches and pools of today are much different than David’s view of Bathsheba? Is it any wonder that we have a growing rate of teenage pregnancy when we have such increasingly immodest dress in our time?

Genesis 19 shows the grossly wicked society of Sodom and its effects upon Lot and his family. When a city is so filled with the evil of homosexuality, the citizens are led to accept moral depravity of every kind. After being surrounded by the perversion of homosexuality, Lot’s daughters came to view even incest as permissible.

When we allow our families to be influenced by the entertainment industry who seeks to reshape our thinking about moral issues like homosexuality, are we far behind the situation of Lot’s time? Is it any wonder that our society has a growing rate of other moral perversions when we are told to accept the perversion of homosexuality? If we wonder whether such action is perverted, God answers the question plainly (Rom. 1:26-27).

Paul sounded an alarm about the problem of evil influence in simple words when he said, “Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). Being in the wrong place with the wrong people has always pulled one in the wrong way. It still does today.

We need to urge our children to stay away from the drug houses and places of evil repute. We need to teach them to flee from such ungodly surroundings, rather than compromising with it by their presence. Failure to flee from the evil will lead to a greater acceptance of the evil and ultimately to participation in it.

At the same time that we urge our children about these things, let us remember the same is true about the influence of evil within our homes. The child who hears about the evils of drug abuse going on in a crack house will not be persuaded when the lecture comes from an alcohol using mom or dad in their own house. They will see the inconsistency.

The child who hears about the need to stay away from the places where fornication and immorality take place will not view the advice too seriously if the parent giving the advice has a TV program on which parades such evils into the living room. Filth from the streets is still filth when it is dressed up, glamorized, and broadcast on television.

Instead of heeding the influence of the evils around us, we need to separate ourselves from them and let God’s will influence our thinking. Our efforts to do that will be aided by turning away from the influence of the wrong place and letting our minds be filled with God’s word.

How can we do this in our homes? We can show our children a few right places. We can gather around the table with Bibles open to study God’s word. We can gather on our knees in prayer. In every day life, we can let God’s word and his ways have the place of honor needed in our homes.

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

By Mike Willis

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

In our first article in this series, we emphasized that the Bible reveals the wrath of God just as certainly as it reveals his love. We need to learn what is revealed about God’s wrath just as certainly as we learn about his love. In the second article, we emphasized that the wrath of God is revealed against ungodliness. Ungodliness (asebeia) is that impiety that refuses to have God in its knowledge, becomes vain in its opinion about itself, and, while professing itself to be wise, becomes a fool. In the third article, we showed that God’s wrath is revealed against unrighteousness by his giving men up to the development of unrighteous conduct. We studied the specific ex-ample of this in homosexuality, as shown by Paul.

In this lesson, we intend to demonstrate that the ungodliness of men who refuse to have God in their knowledge leads to a society full of every form of unrighteous conduct. God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against this unrighteousness. Paul described the society in which this has developed by listing the vices common to it. Consider these with me:

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (Rom. 1:28-32).

We will profit from a closer examination of each specific vice mentioned.

1. Unrighteousness (adikia). Adikia is the precise opposite of dikaiosune (justice). The Greeks defined justice as “giving to God and man their due” (Barclay 26). The man who is adikia is the man who deprives God and other men of their rights. It is general expression of wickedness that is broad enough to include many forms of injustice. It manifests itself when men steal from one another, abuse each other, or otherwise treat each other in unjust ways.

2. Fornication (porneia). This word does not appear in the better manuscripts, although it is in the KJV. The word refers to all forms of sexual immorality, including fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, etc. Sensuality has developed in our society to such a degree that being a “virgin” is judged to be bad for our teenagers. Fornication is used in movies to entertain us. Explicit bedroom scenes is the daily fare of soap operas. The message that fornication is an acceptable form of behavior has been passed down to our children to such a degree that a large number of our children are conceived outside of wedlock.

3. Wickedness (poneria). This is a general word for sin but it is used in a more specific sense in this passage to describe a malicious attitude. Barclay explained the meaning of this word as follows: “There is a kind of badness which, in the main, hurts only the person concerned. It is not essentially an outgoing badness. When it hurts others, as all badness must, the hurt is not deliberate. It may be thoughtlessly cruel, but it is not callously cruel. But the Greek defined poneria as the desire of doing harm. It is the active, deliberate will to corrupt and to inflict injury” (26-27). This is the word used to describe Satan as “the evil one.” Moses E. Lard described the word as the “deep-seated hatred accompanied by the wish and will to do others personal injury” (63). This is the spirit manifested when a man takes a brick and slams it against the head of another man for the sole purpose of inflicting pain on him because he has the wrong color of skin.

4. Covetousness (pleonexia). This word basically de-scribes the desire to have more. Barclay described it as “the spirit which will pursue its own interests with complete disregard for the rights of others, and even for the considerations of common humanity” (Barclay 27). In a material sphere, it is the grasping at money and goods, regardless of honor and honesty; in an ethical sphere, it is an ambition which tramples on others to gain something which is not properly meant for it; in a moral sphere, it is the unbridled lust which takes its pleasures where it has no right to take them. It is a greedy desire that honors no law. This is the spirit reflected when an athlete wishes to win so much that he would inflict injury on his opponent to gain an advantage.

5. Maliciousness (kakos). Kakos is another very general word for badness. It describes a person who is destitute of every quality that makes a man good. He has a general bent in his character towards wickedness.

6. Full of envy (mestous phthonos). A person can see the good in another and emulate it. When this occurs good is accomplished. However, a person can see the good in another and begrudge him of it. It resents in another what is fine. When this happens, envy represents a warped and twisted human emotion. This emotion can poison a character until it bursts out in violence.

7. Murder (phonos). Murder can take many forms, ranging from abortion to euthanasia. It can occur in a drive-by random shooting, family violence, robberies, killings by hit men, gang retaliation, killings related to drug deals, etc. Rarely a night passes in any major city in our country when there is not a murder to report in the morning news.

8. Debate (eris). The English word “debate” is used in several senses, one of which is an orderly discussion of differences. Debates are conducted as a means of arriving at truth and are honorable. Our Congress uses them daily to consider all sides of a particular legislation. They have served the cause of truth well in religious discussions when honorable men calmly discuss whether or not a particular practice is authorized by the word of God. This is not the kind of “debate” that is condemned in this passage.

The word eris describes a “contention which is born of envy, ambition, the desire for prestige, and place, and office and prominence” (Barclay 28). Lard described it as “the disposition to be contentious and quarrelsome. It is the standing violation of the law of peace” (64). The action condemned here is the constant fussing and quarrelling that some discussions degenerate into.

9. Deceit (dolos). There are many forms of deceit ranging from lying and stealing to using underhanded methods to get one’s way. Many church controversies have been caused by clever manipulation to leave the wrong impression. For example, a man might be opposed to some truth that is taught from the pulpit because it condemns his practice. Rather than forthrightly disagreeing with the doctrine taught, he might start a campaign against the preacher saying, “I agree with what he says, but I don’t like the manner he says it.” He then paints the man as rude, boorish, and unnecessarily offensive in what he preaches until he persuades members of the congregation to align with him in calling for a change in the pulpit (i.e., to fire the preacher). This is one form of deceit.

10. Malignity (kakoetheias). Barclay translates this Greek word as “the spirit which puts the worst construction on everything” (29). He then comments, “If there are two possible constructions to be put upon the action of any man, human nature will choose the worse. It is terrifying to think how many reputations have been murdered in gossip over teacups, when people maliciously put a wrong interpretation upon a completely innocent action.”

11 and 12. Whisperers (psithuristas) and Backbiters (katalalos). Both of these words refer to the slandering of another’s character but the two words distinguish two different manners in which it is done. The whisperer spreads his malice in secret. He works underhandedly. As he visits from place to place, he destroys the reputation of his brother over the kitchen table, although he may never publicly say a word in opposition to him. Worse yet, he may even publicly talk about what a good man the brother is. A backbiter is more public in his slander. Both words describe the malicious spirit which destroys the good reputation of others.

13. Haters of God (theostugos). Thayer describes this vice as meaning “exceptionally impious and wicked.” I think of the conduct of Madelyn O’ Hair as a good example of what a person who hates God is like. She spews her poison everywhere she goes, trying to destroy men’s faith in God. There is nothing sacred that she would not belittle.

14. Despiteful (hubristes). Hubris is that pride that defies God. Thayer defined the word to describe “an insolent man, one who, uplifted with pride, either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong” (Thayer 633-634). Barclay says there are two elements to it: (a) he defies God; (b) he is cruel and insulting. It is the sadism that hurts others just to witness their pain. We speak of someone doing something just to “spite” him. He has no good coming to himself from his action except the pleasure he takes in seeing the other man wince in pain.

15. Proud (huperephanos): “showing one’s self above others. . . with an over-weening estimate of one’s means or merits, despising others or even treating them with contempt, haughty” (Thayer 641). This man feels con-tempt for his fellow and delights in making him feel small.

16. Boasters (alazonas): “an empty pretender, boaster.” He is the pretentious man, the snob. Barclay commented, “He is the kind of man who boasts of trade deals which exist only in his imagination, of connections with influential people which do not exist at all, of gifts to charities and public services which he never gave or rendered. He says about the house he lives in it is really too small for him, and that he must buy a bigger one. The braggart is out to impress others  and the world is still full of such people” (31).

17. Inventors of evil things (epheuretas kakon). This wickedness has been described in the Proverbs (cf. Prov. 6:18  “a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” and Prov. 24:8  “he that deviseth to do evil”). It describes that spirit that is plotting and planning some mischief (see Prov. 1:10-16 where some youths planned a robbery).

18. Disobedient to parents (goneusin apeitheis). This characterization of the wicked is only understood when one understands that parents have authority over their children. Children are to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1-3). There are many things that parents have to make judgment decisions on. Their years of experience better qualify them to make those decisions than the inexperienced children. In order for harmony and peace to exist in the home the authority of the parents must be recognized. When children refuse to honor their parents’ oversight in such matters as the time to be home from a date, style of one’s haircut, not wearing a ring in one’s ear, dress codes, etc. they manifest a sinful spirit before God as well.

19. Without understanding (asunetos). The Hebrew described a man as a fool (nabal) who refused to have God in his knowledge. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7). Those who have refused to have God in their knowledge become vain in their reasoning and their senseless heart is darkened. Hence, they are without understanding. Even the simple moral decisions that our children can make are impossible for those without under-standing to know with certainty. Think of the moral ambivalence the worldly wise men have about such issues as homosexuality, abortion, etc.

20. Covenant breakers (asunthethous). Men enter covenants with each other in many spheres of life, but especially in business. There was a time when huge agreements could be sealed with a handshake and every person involved honored his word. Things are different today. Every party so distrusts the other that he feels the necessity of hiring an expensive lawyer to so write a contract that the other party cannot break his word without severe legal and monetary repercussions. Despite this, after the agreements are signed, frequently one party will hire an expensive lawyer to figure out how to break the covenant without suffering the consequences.

The covenants between two people are nowhere more disregarded than in marriage. A man and woman vow to each other to “forsake all others and cling to you, and you only, until death do us part.” They promise to do this “in sickness and in health, in poverty and in wealth, and in circumstances favorable and unfavorable.” Yet, their words frequently mean nothing to them. If someone else catches his eye, he walks away from the covenant he made with the wife of his youth in hot pursuit of someone else.

21. Without natural affection (astorgos). Storge refers to family love. The natural affection that should exist between family members is not always present. Barclay commented about Roman society, “Never was the life of a child so precarious as at this time. Children were considered a misfortune. When a child was born, the child was taken and laid at the father’s feet. If the father lifted up the child that meant that he acknowledged it. If he turned away and left it the child was literally thrown out. There was never a night when there were not thirty or forty abandoned children left in the Roman forum. Every night in life children were literally thrown away” (32). Barclay’s comments are somewhat dated, for the life of a child is probably more threatened today than it was in Roman times. The most dangerous place for a child to be is, not playing in the middle of an interstate, but in the womb of his mother. American mothers kill 1.6 million of their offspring every year.

Abortion is one example of being without natural affection. But, this is not the only example of it. Our society shows it absence of natural affection in such things as euthanasia, desertion through divorce, refusal to pay child support, desertion in nursing homes, child abuse, and wife abuse.

22. Implacable (aspondos). This word is absent in the better manuscripts; hence, implacable does not appear in the later translations. The word literally means “without a libation, i.e. without a truce, as a libation accompanied truces; then, one who cannot be persuaded to enter a covenant” (Vine). The word describes that kind of character that cannot be placated, appeased, mollified, and calmed. There are some men who, once crossed, can never be appeased. They are unforgiving.

23. Unmerciful (aneleemonas). Lard describes this as “to be merciless or unforgiving to those who err. The pitiless man shows no leniency to those who are out of the way, but cruelly exacts the last farthing” (66). Godet cited as an example of the Gentiles being unmerciful, their flocking to the cities to witness the fights of the gladiators, crying for the blood of their victims and shouting at their death.

Conclusion

These sins, the products of reprobate minds, are the result of refusing to have God in one’s knowledge. God’s judgment against ungodliness is to withdraw his restraining hand in order that sin might become so fully developed that the cup of his wrath is filled to the brim. As a nation, our leaders have made a conscious choice to throw aside Christian ethical principles. We can, therefore, expect to witness the very sins enumerated in Romans 1 to grow in number. Perhaps the depravity which comes from the blackness of sin will remind people of the light of the gospel and a spirit of revival will occur. If not, God’s judgment will fall on this nation (Jer. 18:7-10).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 10, p. 2
May 19, 1994