Truth Magazine

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

By Lewis Willis

The great desire of David, King of Israel, was “to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord” (1 Chron. 28:2). However, because David had been a man of war, God would not permit him to build the temple. In this chapter, David gathered all the leadership of Israel together, announcing to them that God had chosen his son, Solomon, to rule over Israel and to build the temple. Then, still before the leadership of the nation, David issued this charge to Solomon: “And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever” (1 Chron. 28:9). Though this was a statement made to an ancient king, it surely contains some good instruction and exhortation for us today. Herein, we give brief attention to teach of the things which David said.

1. David told Solomon to know God. Too many people are like the Gentiles who, Paul said, refused to know God (Rom. 1:21). He charged that “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:28). How can we today know God? Let us allow the Scriptures to answer that question: “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:3-4).

2. The next thing David said was, serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind. Service to God has always been required of men. The “perfect heart” follows directions from God. Note 1 Chronicles 29:19, “And give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes.” When Paul discussed the planned contribution of the Corinthians to assist needy brethren, he said they needed a willing mind. “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (1 Cor. 8:12). Ours is to be a wholehearted service to God. Jesus said, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment” (Mk. 12:3).

3. Next David said the Lord searches all hearts and understands all imaginations of the thoughts. One is re-minded of the statement the Lord made to Samuel when David was being selected as King. “But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). In Psalms 139

David talked about how God searched and knew him. He said God knew him when he sat down and when he got up; that he was acquainted with all his ways and words. There was no place David could go out of the presence of the Lord (Psa. 139:13). He later welcomed the search of God: “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psa. 139: 23-24). We should remember that God knew the evil imaginations of the hearts of men in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:5). Man is defiled before God because of evil thoughts. Jesus said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things while defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man” (Matt. 15:19-20). Also, we must remember that we shall give account unto God for our thoughts and actions. Many pas-sages speak of this impending day of reckoning (Rom. 14:12; Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 5:10). To the church at Thyatira, Jesus said, “And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works” (Rev. 2:23).

4. David told Solomon that if he would seek the Lord, he could find him. Jeremiah wrote, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:13). David said a blessing is in store for those that “seek him with the whole heart” (Psa. 119:2). Jesus rebuked some people who sought him for the wrong reason an. 6:26). Paul told the people in Athens, “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27). Jesus said that those who seek, will find the Lord (Matt. 7:7). Eternal life is promised to those who seek glory, honor and immortality (Rom. 2:7). Who are you seeking? What are you seeking?

5. Finally, David told Solomon, “but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever.” Joshua had made a similar statement to the nation of Israel: “If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good” (Josh. 24:20). If we do the will of God, he has promised, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5). We must understand that man is the one who does the “forsaking,” when he turns aside to do evil. The Lord will not tolerate this, so he turns away. But, it is man who “moves,” not God. He is constant and willing for us to be near him. We simply must not forsake him.

As you can see, this is a rich text, containing many valuable lessons for men throughout all ages. Let us make certain that we learn these valuable lessons.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 10, p. 9
May 19, 1994

By Olen Holderby

This is really an article about obedience to God; but, with considerable emphasis on “the man in the pew.” First, let us talk about 

Obedience to God

I do not think it necessary to offer a definition of the word “obedience”; rather, I believe it to be more helpful if we understand the attributes of obedience, as given in the scriptures. These attributes ought to be a challenge to every child of God that lives upon the face of God’s earth.

Obedience is a learned process: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8). Ephesians 6:1-4 clearly shows that this is true even in the rearing of children. Obedience is a lesson which we all must learn; it does not come automatically, nor does it come easily. Have we learned this lesson, and have we learned it well?

Obedience to God must be complete obedience, in every thought, in every word, and in every act  if we are to be pleasing to God. “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: . . . Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience of Christ when your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor. 10:3-6). This passage, alone, fully and plainly establishes the fact that obedience to God must be complete, covering every facet of our lives. Partial obedience, my friend, will not stand the test, neither here nor in the judgment. Each of us must examine himself carefully (2 Cor. 13:5); and, each of us must be honest in his conclusions. Have we really yielded ourselves in compete obedience to God?

Obedience to God must be a willing obedience. Jesus taught this when he spoke of those who honored him with their lips, but their hearts were far from him (Mk. 7:6-8). Willing obedience is the only obedience that will free us from sin, keep us that way, and make us servants of righteousness. “But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18). This passage shows that acceptable obedience is an act of the will, coming from the heart. In 2 Timothy 3:1-5 Paul spoke of those who had a form of godliness, but were denying the power thereof. Timothy was urged to “turn away” from such and for good reason: Those whose obedience was just a form would, sooner, or later, end up with one or more of the sins enumerated in these verses. Read them carefully; for, this is exactly where those are headed whose obedience is not a willing obedience, but just in form.

Obedience to God must be understood to be for man’s own good. Since man cannot properly direct himself (Jer. 10:23), and since there is a way that seems right but the end is that of death (Prov. 14:12), God sent his Son Jesus Christ to bless us “in turning away every one of you from his iniquities” (Acts 3:26). James says, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (Jas. 1:25). God wants our obedience because it is best for us, and not because it is best for him. God can get along without us, but we cannot get along without him.

Do not forget these attributes of obedience, for they are essential ingredients for our obedience to be acceptable to God. We must earnestly work on these things for the simple reason that the eternal welfare of our souls is at stake.

Obedience In Teaching

Even though God expects all his children, at some point, to be teachers (Heb. 5:12), we shall be concerned in this section with the “man in the pulpit.” Yes, the gospel preacher must examine his own obedience  especially in his preaching.

He is plainly told what he shall preach, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). This gospel must be preached to every creature, both before and after his baptism (Matt. 28:19-20). Yes, the gospel is to be preached to both Christian and non-Christian. To the Christians in Rome Paul declared, “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Rom. 1:15). Further, he is limited in his preaching to the gospel; and he is condemned if he preached anything else (Gal. 1:8-9). Long before Christ was born, God said, “… he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully” (Jer. 23:28). Concerning the coming of his Son into the world God said, “. . . he shall speak unto them all that I command him” (Deut. 18:18). After he arrived in the world, that Son said, “I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him (the Father)” (Jn. 8:26). In John 12:49-50, that same Son affirms, “I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. . . . Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” Jesus did not speak more, nor did he speak less than what the Father told him to say.

The apostles followed the example of their Lord. Paul said to the Ephesian elders, “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). When it is said that the Apostles preached the gospel, it meant that they preached all of God’s truth on any subject at hand. But, why did they do this? They did it because the people had a right to the truth, the whole truth (Deut. 18:19). The truth, and only the truth, would free their souls of sins and keep them that way (1 Pet. 1:22-23; Jn. 8:32). Anything less than the whole truth would be presumptive disobedience.

In spite of the examples of Christ and the apostles, many preachers have become thieves of God’s Word  stealing it from their hearers. Listen to it, of the false prophets God said, they “steal my words every one from his neighbor” (Jer. 23:30). We can easily understand and apply this statement to the denominational preacher who does not preach all of God’s plan of redemption, or all of God’s plan for worship, etc. But, is it not also true of preachers in the Lord’s church who will not preach all of God’s truth (as they perceive it) on the moral issues with which we are confronted? What about those who say that they will not preach on the subject of divorce and remarriage from the pulpit? If we are to believe the excuses used by such fellows, then we must conclude that both Jesus and his apostles must have used terrible judgment, did not want peace, and were real disturbers of God’s people. I think C.R. Nichol said it best and had it right, “The preacher or teacher today who withholds any of God’s truth from the people is as much a thief as were the false teachers of old” (Sound Doctrine I:128). Such preachers or teachers take from their fellows what rightfully belongs to their fellows, they steal God’s words from their neighbor. And, this is true whether it is done publically or privately. Having thus dealt with “Obedience in Teaching,” we now turn to 

Obedience to the Teaching

This is where we talk to the “man in the pew.” I am using this term to refer to all those who sit in the pew and listen to preaching. This part of my article is a plea to every “man in the pew” to listen carefully, to consider prayerfully, and to act honestly and consistently. I beg you, therefore, to hear me!

Permit me, first, to describe some scenes with which I am personally acquainted. Scene #1. The people in this congregation sat for years and listened to the truth preached on all subjects at hand. The preacher resigns; and the majority of these people wish to hire a man that believes the very opposite of that to which they have listened for years.

Scene #2. The people of this congregation, after listening to the truth for a number of years, just do not believe it makes much difference what a preacher believes, just so he is well-liked and a good mixer. Scene #3. Here the people have listened to a not-so-well known preacher for years, but he does preach the truth. But, when a better known preacher begins to teach error, they just will not tolerate their preacher calling attention to that fact. Dear reader, do you get the picture of what I am talking about? Other scenes could be used, but these must suffice. Now, back to the “man in the pew.”

What about this man in the pew? What is wrong with him? Is he dishonest, pretending to support the truth until his chances to change things occurs? Has he become a “slop-bucket” permitting the false teacher to fill an empty head with garbage? Can he no longer think for himself? Have human relationships become more important to him than his relationship to God? Has he permitted himself to become just a tool, a pawn in the hands of anyone who tickles his ears? Has he lost his faith in God and his word? Has he really listened to the truth preached? Do these questions arouse any thought? That is what they are meant to do.

Does God have anything to say, especially, to the man in the pew? The man in the pulpit is charged, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). In like manner, the man in the pew is charged, “We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Heb. 2:1 , NAS). In 1 Timothy 4:12, the man in the pulpit is instructed, “be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” For what reason is the preacher to be an example? Is it not so that others can follow and be right? What kind of an example will the man in the pew follow these days?

When Paul said, “I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17), cannot the man in the pew understand that such is just as important to him as it is to the man in the pulpit? Does the man in the pew understand Jude 3, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints?” Or, was this written only for the man in the pulpit?

The ideal situation is plainly expressed in 1 Timothy 4:16, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” However, this would be true only if the man in the pulpit would do this; and, the man in the pew would obediently follow that doctrine. I would to God that it was completely as this passage suggests; but, we both know, don’t we, that it has not worked as it should. Either the man in the pulpit has not preached the truth, the whole truth; or, the man is the pew has not followed.

The church of the Lord is not composed of only preachers; the vast majority is of the man in the pew variety. The man in the pew must join the battle. He must rise up “in arms” in defense of the truth. He, as others, must put on the whole armour of God (Eph. 6:11 ff); and, he must fight the good fight of faith (2 Tim. 4:7). When it is all over, we shall be able to say, with the Apostle Paul, “Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:57). My brethren “in the pew,” I beg of you to do just this!

If elders are present and they are doing well their job of watching for souls (Heb. 13:17), by all means, uphold their hands, submit to them, and let them know of your solid backing (1 Thess. 5:12-13). If elders are lacking, and error is taught, the man in the pew must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). The man in the pew must learn to demand the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in both teaching and practice. The purity of the Lord’s church fully depends upon this (Eph. 5:25-27). Again, my brethren in the pew, I beg you to do this!

The man in the pew pays the salary of the preacher; and if you pay the salary of a purveyor of error, you become partaker of his evil deeds (2 Jn. 9-11). What God does not accept, and he does not accept the false teacher, we dare not accept. On the other hand, what God accepts, we dare not reject. You have every right, and duty, to make sure that the money which you give to the great Cause of the Lord, is used in perfect harmony with God’s truth. And, again, brethren in the pew, I beg you to make this your business!

The man in the pew must find courage to stand fast and behave like men (1 Cor. 16:13,8,9), and he must do this in face of all opposition. The fear mentioned in 2 Timothy 1:7, is a cowardly fear (deiliaos), of one not standing for truth and right. Revelation 21:8, says the fearful have their part in the lake of fire. Brethren in the pew, don’t let this be you; find the courage to say and do as God would have you do in defense of the truth.

The man in the pew might say, “Does it really make any difference?” In reply I ask, Where have you been? Where is your Bible? Have you lost your faith in God’s word? (Rom. 10:17) Are you really willing for the eternal welfare of your soul to rest in the hands of another man, any other man? I beg you to think about this, my brother in the pew!

It would seem that one who preaches God’s truth and only God’s truth, is loved and respected less and less. Paul expressed it like this, “And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved” (2 Cor. 12:15). It is heart-breaking to see this repeated over and over. My brethren in the pew, you can change all this by taking a firm stand for the truth and by joining hands with those who stand only for the truth. I beg you to do so!

While you go about to do these things, and more, you must always keep in mind that there never is a time when a Christian can become unchristian and still be accepted by God. You life, too, must be in harmony with the gospel (Phil. 1:27); you must not permit the world to be your pattern of behavior (Rom. 12:2).

Yes, this is a plea, a passionate plea, to every man in the pew, to pay “more earnest heed to the things (truth) which you have heard.” Facts do not cease to be facts because they are ignored; nor, will God’s instructions to us change because we ignore them. We must heed the call, now, before it is too late.

Now, on the personal side. Make no mistake about it, I (along with others) will not quit! We must fight, at all costs, for our souls (and yours) are at stake. However, my years are rapidly winding down. I beg you to join me (and others) in the fight. Let nothing silence us but death! Even then, may it be said of each of us, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them” (Rev. 14:13). My brethren in the pew, will you listen? May it ever be so!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 10, p. 6-8
May 19, 1994

By Frank and Joyce Jamerson

Jill Louise Jamerson. . . . It had a wonderful ring to it. We had a girl’s name picked for three babies, but they turned out to be named Randy, Byron and Allen. Somehow, with this fourth one, the name we had picked before just did not click. It was to be Jill, if by some chance we should finally have a girl.

She arrived early Sunday morning on her mother’s birthday. We were soon to learn that she was in distress as a result of meconium aspiration which caused a hole in one lung and it collapsed. We prayed for her life and after the initial recovery, had a healthy little girl.

Being almost seven years younger, our boys thought she was a queen, and treated her as such, often teasing her about being one. They all doted on her, pestered her, adored her. They dressed her in funny clothes, invented puppet shows, and one Christmas season wrapped her with artificial pine boughs. We had to stop them when it came time to plug her in.

Being the center of attention started early. The older members of the Rose Hill congregation in Columbus, Georgia always praised her, commenting on each new thing she accomplished and on each new dress her grandmother made. Jill was five years old when we moved to Dothan, AL. There were several young children among the members at Honeysuckle Road, and the first Sunday no one commented on her new dress. On the way home she said, “Humph . . . not one person told me I was pretty.” We knew we had our work cut out!

Six-year-old Jill, who loved to sing, and could hum “Jesus loves me” even before she could speak words, prepared a song in anticipation of the talent show at Florida College camp. She was able to go early because we were both counselors. Before leaving, we were at a pot luck supper and she announced to Dot Moss, “I can sing a song,” and Jill proceeded to pump out “I Know a Heartache When I See One.” When she per-formed it at camp, it brought the house down, and of course, her brothers were first to their feet in applause!

Everywhere we went, people were drawn to this friendly, bubbling little ball of enthusiasm. She accompanied her Daddy on several meetings and made friends so quickly we called her our ambassador.

When she was very young, one night after Bible reading, she insisted that she needed to be baptized. Her mother was sitting on the bed with her and asked her why she thought she should be baptized. She gave the correct answer; but when asked to define repentance, she thought a while then said, “Well, I guess if I don’t know what it is, I don’t need to do it.” She did obey the Lord when she was twelve and within a few weeks another half dozen young people had followed her example.

She was a good student, and was chosen to participate in Dothan’s talent pool. Being a somewhat independent thinker, she would defend her conclusions with an unwavering persistence, being sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but not minding if there was opposition. In later years this was to her advantage; unless of course, she had drawn the wrong conclusion. In that case, you had better be ready to prove your position, for she did not accept “just because” as an answer. Once convinced, she would readily admit defeat and accept right.

She was crushed when the decision was made to move to Lakeland, Florida. She was fifteen years old, ready to begin her sophomore year in high school and closely bonded to friends she had been with since kindergarten. Her activities with the band and flag corps included high hopes of being Dothan’s next drum major, and we were ruining her life!

She became an only child overnight, when the move was made, because her brothers remained in Alabama. Jill had heard the reputation of the Lakeland High band, so we bought our house in that school zone. She started band camp the day after we moved here, and was voted friendliest in band each of the three years. In her junior year she advanced to the symphony band, and in her senior year was assistant drum major. The highlight of her senior year was the symphony band’s trip to Chicago to perform for the American Bandmasters Convention.

These years, as with most teens, were the toughest for avoiding evil. Somehow, she usually came to right conclusions and we were amazed at her ability to keep her head on straight. She would typically burst through the door after school or work with “Mom, guess what?,” and then tell what someone had said or done and how she had responded. On one such day, the topic of conversation at work had been how many of the six or eight girls who worked at the sandwich shop were still virgins. There were only two and about three weeks later, the other girl came in and announced that she no longer held that status. When she started to tell Jill about the details, Jill stopped her and said, “I’m not interested in hearing about your sex life.” As the girl turned her back and said, “Well, at least I have one,” Jill walked around in front of her, held up her left hand, and pointed to her ring finger and said, “No, I don’t have one. I don’t intend to have one until I get something right here!” End of discussion.

One of the major decisions we had to face our first year here was whether to allow her to go the junior-senior prom. Though she was a sophomore, a senior had asked her to go to the prom with him. After we investigated the local practices, we told her that we could not in good conscience allow her to go to the prom. As she and her mother sat on the bed discussing the decision, she finally saw that the principle in 1 Corinthians 8, influencing others to do wrong, would apply. It was hard for her to accept, but when she saw the tears in her mother’s eyes, she said, “Well, Mom, don’t let it get you bent all out of shape, it’s not worth it.” About a week later, she told her mother, “I’m glad you all said no, I don’t think I could have gone anyway.”

The next year a new boyfriend asked her to go to the prom. She told him that she could not go because she did not dance. He wanted to know what was wrong with that, so she proceeded to explain lasciviousness to him. He listened for a while, and then said, “Jill, would you go to the beach with me?” When she said “no,” he said, “All right, I was just checking your consistency.” Then he used the line, “We will go and not dance.” She told him that she could not do that because she knew that other girls were looking up to her and she could not disappoint them. During her senior year, she had dated the same boy for the whole school year, so he did not even ask! A group of her close friends went somewhere else on prom night. (Here is an interesting fact. The first boy was a Christian. He dropped her and got another date for the prom. The next two boys were members of denominations. The first said, “If my girlfriend cannot go, I wouldn’t feel right about going,” and the next one knew her well enough not to even ask.)

During her senior year, she was nominated by the Band to be on homecoming court. In connection with this, she had to be in a skit on Wednesday night at the school. She went to the principal, Mr. Dunn, and said, “I have a problem. I go to church on Wednesday nights and this skit is on Wednesday night.” He agreed to let her group go first; so, she changed clothes in the car at stop lights arriving in time for Bible study. Afterward, she repeated the process arriving back at school in time to take a curtain call with her group. While she was talking to Mr. Dunn, she also asked if she could be obligated to attend the homecoming dance if she won. He assured her that others had not attended and it would be no problem. We will always have a kind regard in our hearts for that principal because of the way he put her at ease and supported her convictions.

Florida College was on her mind, and she was eager to graduate and get on with life. Her GPA dropped in college, for this `party waiting to happen’ had so many friends and so little time! Life was wonderful and she had found the true meaning of being able to associate with Christians and not be in the minority. Her outgoing personality endeared her to many of the students. A class-mate wrote that she was “an example of delight in life, talent in band, strength in volleyball, humility to admit when you were wrong, pride in what was right, confident to reach out and light up someone’s day with a sincere compliment, sure enough to know who you were, what you did and how to enjoy doing it.” She loved God, loved her family and friends, and knew we loved her.

At the beginning of her sophomore year at Florida College, after a volleyball game one evening, she developed a severe headache and went to her room, where she fell into a coma. Two days later she was pronounced dead. The medical report revealed that she had a malignant brain tumor that had hemorrhaged.

In her death, as in her life, she influenced others to examine themselves. We know of eight young people in Lakeland who were baptized after her death. She was been the crowning jewel of our family, and now wears another crown.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 10, p. 16-17
May 19, 1994