Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Men constantly are writing biographies about the great deeds which someone has done. A browsing of the biographical section of the library will expose a person to many biographies, sometimes extending into multiple volumes, about men unknown to us. The Holy Spirit summarized the life of Barnabas in these few words: ‘For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith” (Acts 11:24). That is a good tribute for a life well lived.

Who Was Barnabas?

Barnabas is firs; introduced to us in Acts 4:36-37 when he sold a piece of property and brought the money received from it and laid it at the apostles’ feet for distribution among the poor. Later, Barnabas is mentioned as the man who introduced Saul of Tarsus to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27), When news that the church at Antioch was preaching to Grecians was received, the apostles were concerned enough to send Barnabas to Antioch to cheek out the situation. Barnabas was so well received at Antioch that, when the church decided to send money to relieve the destitute in Judea, he was one of the men selected to deliver the funds to the elders at the various churches in Judea. The Holy Spirit set Barnabas apart with Saul to go on the first missionary journey in Acts 13. He participated in the so-called Jerusalem conference (Acts IS) and later ~vent on a missionary journey with John Mark (Acts 15:37-39). We know much more about Paul than Barnabas, but we do know enough to see some lessons from his life.

The Traits of Barnabas

7. He was a good man. To say that a person is good is to affirm that his life is morally pure. Barnabas was nor a thief, drunkard, fornicator, etc. He did not habitually walk in sin. All men stumble into sin from time to time, as did Barnabas, but his general demeanor of life was to abstain from all kinds of evil. That is what being good implies.

Being good implies more than the avoidance of sin. It also implies the positive doing of that which is right. One could not say about the priest and Levite who passed by the man who fell among thieves, in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, that they were good (Lx. 10:25-37). They could see their fellow man suffering and do nothing to relieve that suffering. Barnabas was a good man in that he not on- Iv abstained from evil, but also did good deeds, such as that recorded in Acts 4: 36-37 when he sold his property and gave the money to relieve the suffering of the poor saints.

2. He was full of the Holy Ghost (Acts 11:24). This is not saying that Barnabas had special power from God to work miracles. Rather, it, is used in the same sense as Ephesians 5:18 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” A person is full of the Holy Ghost when he is led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:18). To the degree that a person’s life is full of the things of this world which root out devotion to God, he is no; ‘full of the Spirit.” Sometimes we see men who are so involved in sports, work, accumulating wealth, Barnabas: He Was a Good Mao, .and other such like things ;dint God is effectively rooted out of their lives. These men are not “roil of the Spirit.” When we say that Barnabas was Moil of the Spirit” we describe a life which is fully sin-rendered w the obedience of God.

3. He was; full of faith (Acts 11:241. In order to be described as one full of faith, Barnabas had a deep faith in God. The writer of Hebrews said, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to Cod must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them than diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). We must conclude that Barnabas had a deep faith in God. Second, Barnabas had a deep faith in Christ. He believed and obeyed the gospel. He acknowledged that Jesus was his Lord and lived in obedience to him.

Thirdly. Barnabas hid a deep faith in his fellowman. When others were afraid to have anything to do with Saul of Tarsus who wished to he identified with the church in Jerusalem, Barnabas took him aside, talked to him, became convinced of his true conversion, and subsequently recommended him to the h n4 (acts -27), liana., when the work in Antioch was greaser than t could do alone, Barnabas went to Tarsus to brine Say) to assist in that work. He had faith in Saul.

On the first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas took his cousin John Mark with them. for some reason. John Mark turned back at Perga [Acts ‘ 3:13). When time came for the second journey, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul refused. The disagreement: was so strong that Barnabas and John Mark -cent one e ay. and Paul and Silas went another. Barnabas’ faith in John Mark was justified. He did his work well so that Patti later could write, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for be is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Tin, 4:’ 1). Barnabas’ faith in his fellowman was commendable

The Fruits of His Life

I. He was a liberal giver (Acts 4:36-37). He sacrificed to give to the Lord as witnessed by his selling his property and laying the funds received at the feet of the apostles for them to use to distribute to the poor. Stingy men never accomplish much for the Lord.

He was concerned for the souls of men. Barnabas was willing to leave the comforts of his home to preach the gospel at Antioch, the various cities of the first missionary journey and in his travels with John Mark. He made sacrifices to convert the lost. He had a perception that the gospel was to he taken to the whole world and was willing to be used in disseminating the message. Consequently, he was active in bringing many souls to Christ.

He was a “son of consolation” (Acts 4:36). The text tells us that the apostles changed Joses’ name to Barnabas which means “son of consolation.” Just as Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter because he could see the rock-like character in the man, the apostles could see the good consolation which Joses gave and called him Barnabas. He had the ability to cheer and encourage his brethren. He was not a man who discouraged any good work done in a local congregation, with such words as “It’ll never work” or “We’ve tried that before.” Barnabas had an ability to stir men to greater service.

Barnabas was free from jealousy. When Saul first began working with Barnabas, the Scriptures referred to the pair as “Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2,7). After the events on the island of Cyprus, the pair were referred to as “Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:43,46; etc.). Commentators are generally agreed that the leadership in the group changed from Barnabas to Paul. Sometimes when strong men work together a spirit of jealousy interferes with their work. One is envious of the abilities of the other and bitter words follow. Barnabas was free from this evil spirit.

Someone has said that the most difficult chair to fill in an orchestra is “second fiddle.” The conductor has no trouble filling the chair of “first fiddle” and maybe even third and fourth fiddle. However, few people want to be second fiddle. Barnabas knew how to accept the role of second fiddle without bitterness and animosity.

Conclusion

A few years ago, a good brother and friend preached on Barnabas and said that he hoped that when he died men could say about him what was said about Barnabas — “For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” I have remembered his words for six years now and find myself feeling the same way. I hope that when I come to the end of my way and am lying in a coffin that my children can lean over into the coffin and say, “For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” I feel confident that, if these words can be truly said about me, that 1 soon shall hear these words from my Father, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). (The idea for this lesson was taken from several sources, including Simple Sermons For A World In Crisis by W. Herschel Ford.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 7, p. 2
April 1, 1993

By Ron Halbrook

Man’s ability to justify his sins is amazing. “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). In their efforts to justify divorces and remarriages of every description, men have come up with the following concept. When two people cannot get along and they decide to break up their home in the absence of adultery, it is a sinful tragedy, but the result is that they are both free to marry new partners. Some people would add that after such a divorce, both parties are free to marry new partners only after one of them commits fornication. (After already having repudiated their marriage, and waiting for one or the other to fall into immorality, by some mental gymnastics one party puts away the other a second time!)

Still other folks argue that after such a divorce, when one party finally commits fornication, the other party alone is free to marry someone else. (This too requires the mental gymnastics of a person putting away a second time for another cause the mate whom they have already put away!) According to some of these inventions of men, if the first party enters an adulterous marriage after the separation, his bed of adultery can be transformed into the bed of honor-able marriage by the hocus-pocus and mental gymnastics of his original mate.

How long is he guilty? Until his first mate says, “I don’t want to be bound to that adulterous partner.” That is when that man stops committing adultery (Glen Lovelady in [J.T.] Smith-Lovelady Debate on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage [Brooks, KY: Searching the Scriptures, 1976], p. 69).

The mere words of his first mate sanctify the adulterous marriage.

Such cases, scenarios, and variations might be multiplied endlessly, but they all share the common fallacy of “the waiting game.” They all share the concept that all remarriages, regardless of the circumstances, can be justified by waiting. A person can put a stumbling block before his mate, wait for her to fall over it, and then proclaim himself free to enter another marriage. He could do this again and again, just so he tries to “do better” each time. Or, a person in an adulterous marriage can wait for his mate to say some words which free him from the adultery while allowing him to stay in the very same marriage. Such a theory would allow him to move from one marriage to another again and again if he could get the last mate to say the magic words after each new remarriage.

The Teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:32

Jesus prohibited and precluded every possible variation of “the waiting game” in divorce and remarriage.

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matt. 5:31-32).

Let us notice briefly what the law of Moses said and how men misuse it. Then, we will examine more closely what Jesus said.

During the Mosaic Age, when God tolerated polygamy, he also tolerated divorce for a cause short of fornication: uncleanness or shameful indecency (Deut. 24:1-4). The severe limitations and restrictions placed upon such a divorce discouraged it, but it was permitted temporarily “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matt. 19:8). Some very liberal minded Jews perverted Deuteronomy 24 to justify divorce for any and every cause, and some like-minded brethren today misuse the passage in the same way. Jack Freeman claims, “God was allowing . . . divorce if she burned the toast or the biscuits. . He did under the Law that he gave through Moses” (Marriage Series, No. 1, North Las Vegas Church of Christ, Las Vegas, NV, 1988). Maurice Estes claims, “Divorce for any cause under the law of Moses dissolved the marriage,” even for such flimsy excuses as wife going about “with her hair undone,” and this established “the right of both parties to remarry” (Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: The Scriptures Speak [Morro Bay, CA: Meco Foundation, Inc., 1979], pp. 5-8).

That is the kind of foolishness Deuteronomy 24 was designed to eliminate. This misuse of the Law of Moses is utilized today by some brethren to twist Matthew 5:32 to justify freeing both parties for second marriages no matter what the cause of the divorce. Some brethren profess that both parties are free to marry new mates only if the divorce was caused by fornication, but they end up allowing people to stay in adulterous marriages formed after divorces which were not for fornication. Maurice Estes perverts both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ to argue that “there must be today the same understanding of the effect of a scriptural writing of divorcement: that it frees both parties to remarry” (Ibid., p. 6).

All such arguments lend themselves to “the waiting game” fallacy. It does not matter how or why the marriage breaks up, regardless of how flimsy the excuse, as soon as either party remarries, the other is considered free to remarry. The bottom line is this: All cases of remarriage following divorce for any and every cause can be justified with the help of “the waiting game,” some mental gymnastics, and a little hocus-pocus.

A Rule, One Exception, No Waiting Game

The Law of Christ embodies a rule with one exception. The rule is, “Whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to commit adultery.” The man who divorces his wife for any and every cause will be responsible for her subsequent adulterous marriage. This man will be held accountable to God for causing his wife to fall into sin. That does not exonerate her from guilt in forming and maintaining an adulterous union. In the case presented by Jesus, a subsequent marriage is assumed as is evident from his reference to the one who marries “her that is divorced.” The subsequent marriage is clearly held to be immoral, adulterous, or impure in God’s sight, contrary to the claim that God recognizes or approves every marriage which is legal according to human law (Heb. 13:4). The rule announced by Jesus forever prohibits and precludes people breaking up their marriage and waiting for their mate to commit adultery, as a pretext for claiming the right to select a new marriage partner!

The exception has the following force. “Whosoever shall put away his wife for fornication is not responsible for her subsequent adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. ” Again, Jesus assumes the case of a second or subsequent marriage and condemns it as adulterous, but the man who divorced her because of her immorality is not the cause of the sin she commits when she remarries. The claim that she is living in adultery in the subsequent marriage until her original mate says he releases her is ludicrous, the vain imagination and wicked invention of men attempting to create loopholes in divine law. Waiting for her former mate to say hocus-pocus will not resolve her adultery. If that would suffice, John could have easily resolved the incestuous adultery of Herod and Herodias by getting Philip to say he did not want her back anyway. John told Herod in no uncertain terms, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4).

J.W. McGarvey summed it up well in his excellent commentary on The Fourfold Gospel (p. 242):

Jesus here limits the right of divorce to cases of unchastity, and if there be a divorce on any other ground, neither the man nor the woman can marry again without committing adultery . .. and in no part of the New Testament is there any relaxation as to the law here set forth … and it is there fore held almost universally . . . that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty party could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong.

God’s law on marriage is one man for one woman for life, with only one exception. The exception is that an innocent partner can put away an immoral mate, and marry another person without committing adultery. No theory of man, including “the waiting game,” can nullify or alter one iota of God’s law.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 8-9
March 18, 1993

By Jady W. Copeland

In previous articles we have seen that the purpose of the Lord’s advent into the world was spiritual, and further that the purpose of our work as followers of him likewise is spiritual. Not only does he save us to be finally glorified in the next world, but he uses us to save others (I Tim. 4:15-16; 2 Tim. 2:2). When we stop to think about the fact that our sojourn in the world is so very short, and that “things” are purely temporary, we immediately realize that material possessions are simply tools which we use to save ourselves and those who hear us.

But man is too often bothered with covetousness. We are “possessed by our possessions” (they control us instead of our controlling them) and because they are something we can see, use and enjoy here we too often think more of the material than the eternal. Paul speaks of the ministry of the word and the hardships it causes “pressed on every side, yet not straightened; smitten down, yet not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body” (2 Cor. 4:8-10). Then after speaking of being “delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake” he seems pleased to endure such “that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (v. 11). But it was for the sake of the Corinthians (vv. 12,14). Why would suffering for Christ be so sweet? Read carefully verses 16-18 and note: (1) the outward man is decaying but the inward man is now renewed (better or refreshed); (2) the afflictions are light but they work out “for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory”; (3) and all this because “we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (emp. mine, JWC). The very fact that “things” of this life are temporal should make us consider them as of much lesser importance than the eternal.

In the remainder of this article let us consider the Lord’s money. Money of itself is neither good nor evil. Whether it is good or evil depends on our attitude toward it. Abraham, Job and other Bible characters were rich, but they did not let “possessions possess them.” They were in control of material things. By the Lord’s money we mean funds that have been given into the treasury of the local church to be used by the church in harmony with the will of God. In Acts 5:1-4 we clearly see the difference in “my” money and the Lord’s. Before Ananias and Sapphira laid it at the apostles’ feet, it was theirs (v. 4). After they gave, it did not belong to them. So it is when one gives into the Lord’s treasury on the Lord’s day; before one contributes it, it is his; afterwards it no longer belongs to the individual; it belongs to the Lord in the sense that it is to be scripturally used. “Laid at the apostles’ feet” simply means put under apostolic authority. That is still true today. Monies given into the Lord’s treasury are “laid at the apostles’ feet” in the sense that they are to be used by the direction of inspired teaching. Elders have no authority to use that money except as authorized by Christ.

The Lord’s Money

How is the Lord’s money to be raised? In 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul says, “Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper.” In 2 Corinthian 8 and 9 Paul lays down some principles that must govern us in determining how much we should give. Since the Lord has given this instruction and since the rest of the Bible is silent on the way to raise money for the Lord’s cause, I conclude that this is sufficient. They gave out of their generosity when the need arose. In this case it was benevolence.

Let us note a few guidelines for our giving to the Lord. “As prospered” necessarily implies that some can give more than others. Some have more obligations than others and must give less even though they may have the same salary as one sitting next to him. But we must remember the Lord has prospered us and when there is a need we must remember what he has done for us, even though we may not have as much as we desire. I am afraid that many give only after their selfish pride is satisified, and they think they need more than they actually do. Some believe they are giving as prospered but only after they have an expensive car, home (much larger than needed), boat, swimming pool, etc. I almost get depressed when I see people with such luxurious possessions giving less than a godly brother who makes a third of the former’s salary. I wonder what the Lord thinks!

Prayerfully consider the widow who gave all she had, and was praised by the Lord (Mk. 12:44). And think of the Macedonians who “gave in much proof of affliction and abundance of their joy and their deep poverty” (2 Cor. 8:2). We speak much about “taking the Bible as our guide” but I wonder if we only mean it in regards to “faith, repentance and baptism.” And then when we get a request from one who wants to go to Europe to preach we say, “but we can’t afford it.”

I think a key to giving is found in 2 Corinthians 8:5. “And this, not as we had hoped, but first they save their own selves to the Lord, and to us through the will of God.” Do not we obey Christ because we belong to him (Mk. 9:41)? If he is living in us, are we not directed by his life and teachings — even including our attitude toward things of this world? If he controls us, we act according to his wishes; if Satan controls us (posessed by our possessions), we let selfishness, greed, covetousness and pride get in our way of giving as prospered.

How is the Lord’s money used? We have noted that “laying the money at the apostles’ feet” means putting it under apostolic authority. It is no different today. When I give into the Lord’s treasury, apostolic authority (through the Word) must control the use of that money.

First, it may be used to preach the gospel by supporting the preaching of the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8). Paul “robbed other churches, taking wages of them” that he may preach at Corinth. The church in Philippi sent money to Paul, sup-porting his needs while he preached the gospel (Phil. 4:15-16). In defending his apostleship (1 Cor. 9) he defends the right to refrain from working, and goes ahead to show that “those who proclaim the gospel” have a right to “get their living from the gospel” (v. 14, NASB).

Secondly, the Lord’s money may be used for limited benevolent purposes. In Acts 11:27-30 we learn the brethren sent funds to churches in Judea for relief in time of famine. Years later we find Paul raising funds for the church in Jerusalem from many churches when saints there were in need (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8,9). I know of no Scripture where churches sent the Lord’s money to anyone for general benevolent causes or institutions. It was sent to needy saints in churches in time of emergency.

Other than these two purposes, I know of no apostolic authority for the Lord’s money to be used for other causes.

“I am afraid that many give only after their selfish pride is satisfied, and they think they need more than they actually do. Some believe they are giving as prospered but only after they have an expensive car, home (much larger than than needed), boat, swimming pool, etc. I almost get depressed when I see people with such luxurious possessions giving less than a godly brother who makes a third of the former’s salary. I wonder what the Lord thinks!”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 18-19
March 18, 1993

By Jimmy Tuten

God’s people have something in common with those outside of Christ: the ability of being influenced intellectually, emotionally and morally. We are all affected by impressions. Everything in life leaves its mark on the mind or senses. We all have notions, feelings, and recollections that are brought about by some force or influence, whether it be good or bad. All of us are impressionable. It is a God-given entity. However, our impressionableness needs to be monitored constantly. Where guarded watchfulness in this area is lacking, friction usually results, either in ourselves or with others. Jesus addressed this use when he said, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). It is so easy for us to be so influenced that we do not form sound judgment. A man’s judgment is no better than his information. In fact it is directly influenced by knowledge. One should not be motivated by first impressions any more than he would pass judgment on an automobile by the sound of its horn. Just because a man “toots his own horn” does not necessarily mean that he is proud, or arrogant. He may be trying to tell you something! In judging others it’s always wise to see with the heart as well as with the eyes. “The dove and the woodpecker were returning home from a visit to the peacock. `How did you like our friend?’ asked the wood-pecker. `Is he not disagreeable? His pride, his awkward feet, his hard voice, are unbearable.’ `I did not notice these things,’ replied the dove. `I could only gaze at his beautiful head, his gorgeous colors, and his majestic train” (I Can Do It, p. 70).

“One spring, sometime before the Civil War, a boy in search of work came to Worthy Taylor’s prosperous Ohio farm. The farmer knew nothing much about the boy except that his name was Jim, but he gave him a job. Jim spent the summer cutting stove wood, bringing in the cows and making himself generally useful. He ate in the kitchen and slept in the haymow. Before summer was over, Jim had fallen in love with Taylor’s daughter. When the farmer refused to let him marry her, telling him bluntly, that he had no money, no name and very poor prospects, Jim put his belongings into his old carpet bag and disappeared. Thirty-five years passed before Taylor one day pulled down his barn to make way for a new one. On one of the rafters above the Haymow, he discovered that Jim had carved his full name — James A. Garfield. He was then president of the United States.”

What a lesson for us! Some of us can identify with this incident. We have either shown rashness in forming judgments about others, or else we have gotten off on the wrong foot because of someone else’s wrong impression due to certain circumstances. Whatever the case, early impressions often rob us of opportunities. How sad.

A proneness to judge is condemned by Jesus (Matt. 7:1). However, this rebuke of the censorious spirit is not to be read as forbidding the framing of such judgments of others as circumstances of our position render necessary. Every day of our lives we are called upon to form, and frequently to express a consensus upon men, as well as theories, proposals, events, etc. as to true or false, right and wrong, wise or unwise, expedient or inexpedient. We must judge that we may know how to act. But the point is this: there is the possibility of judging rashly; of judging with bias and prejudice; of judging so as to do wrong to individuals, of judging so as to injure truth and retard progress and improvement.

In Deuteronomy 1:16-17, rules are laid down that have primary application to the administration of law, but their principles are applicable in the formation of decisions upon the character and action of others. They are equally fitted to guide our private judgments. Before acting on your impressions:

I. Gain the real facts of the situation. Solomon said, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Prov. 18:13). Moses commanded, “hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him” (Deut. 1:16). Judgment passed in ignorance of the real facts of the case is unjust. Think of the conflict that would be eliminated if this became a practice of the brethren. The law of Christ demands this of us (Matt. 18:16).

Make an impartial judgment based upon facts (Deut. 1:17). Jesus said, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24).

Righteous judgment should be done fearlessly (Deut. 1:17). Experience teaches us that some brethren are not above time-serving tampering with conviction, of seeking man’s favor, and of doing the thing we do not at heart approve. The dread of temporal consequences sometimes makes cowards of the best of us. Blessed is he, who in doing the will of the Lord, never fears the face of man!

Judgment is rendered with a due sense of responsibility to God. Just as civil judges are vicegerents, deriving their authority from God, striving to express justice, do so with a sense of irresponsibleness and accountability (1 Pet. 2:13-17; Rom. 13:1-7), so is the case of the judgment of Christians. We will be held responsible for our decisions! Any judgment that is biased, untrue, and insincere is a misrepresentation of that truth and rectitude which have their ground in God himself (Matt. 18:7-8,15-20).

If at any time we act on our impressions in the absence of any of the above items, we are incompetent to act, and will be judged accordingly (Matt. 7:2). Plutarch once said, “To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult.” My friends, do not let impressions get the best of you. Be sure your life is secure through obedience to the will of God (Heb. 5:8-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 21-22
March 4, 1993