Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

The life of Joash, king of Judah, is an interesting study of a character who started in the right path, but ended in shameful disgrace (see 2 Chron. 22:10-24:27). His forty year reign saw him go from a zealous advocate of serving God to a murderer of one who spoke the will of God. His reign started amidst joyful exclamation, “Long live the king!” It ended when his own servants killed him in bed after he was severely wounded in battle. His coronation took place in the house of God as he stood in the traditional place of the kings (2 Kgs. 11:14). By the time of his death, his disgrace was so complete that he was not buried in the tombs of the kings.

What lessons can we learn from such a life? How can we avoid the pitfalls which overcame king Joash? How can we spot the danger signs?

A Faithful Beginning

As a baby, Joash was saved from his ruthless grand-mother, Athaliah, who tried to kill him and take the throne for herself. Joash was taken to the temple and raised for six years under the care of Jehoiada, the faithful priest of God. At the age of seven, Joash became king. At that time, Joash was given the testimonies (the Law), which he had obviously studied at the feet of Jehoiada, to guide him as king.

Following the coronation, the record says, “And Jehoiada made a covenant between himself, and all the people, and the king, that they should be Jehovah’s people” (2 Chron. 23:16). The next verse shows their willingness to put God’s law into practice as they destroyed the temple of Baal and put to death the idolatrous priest. The good influence of a faithful teacher is seen in Joash’s early life by the statement, “And Joash did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah all the days of Jehoiada the priest” (2 Chron. 24:2).

On one occasion, Joash’s zeal to do good even exceeded that of those who had helped teach him the principles of God’s law. Joash wanted to restore the temple and he commanded that it be done speedily. Those in charge procrastinated and Joash rightly reproved them. At his insistence, the money was gathered more quickly, the work was undertaken, and the task was completed. In this in-stance, Joash showed that not only was he influenced to do good, but he also influenced others to do good. It was a noble beginning.

The Process of Apostasy

After the death of Jehoiada, the life of Joash took a downward turn. The record shows how evil companions appealed to his pride. In 2 Chronicles 24:17-18, we read:

Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them. And they forsook the house of Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and served the Asherim and the idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their guiltiness.

The faithful servant of God who formerly bowed in humility to God now was flattered by the evil men who made obeisance to him. As a result, Joash ceased listening to the counsel of righteous men and began listening to the counsel of the ungodly (cf. Psa. 1:1).

Following that advice, Joash forsook God, forgetting the law he had been taught in his youth. He began to practice evil and progressed in that evil until he had influenced all of Judah to follow his wicked ways. The good king who had influenced the people to serve God was now the evil king who led his subjects into condemnation. A tragedy!

The Hardening of the Heart

God did not give up on Joash and the people at their first rebellion. The Bible records the Lord’s appeals for their return and the growing resistance to his pleas:

Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto Jehovah; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear. And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of Jehovah, so that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken Jehovah, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of Jehovah. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, Jehovah look upon it, and require it (2 Chron. 24:19-22).

Jehovah called them to repent through prophets (plural), but they would not listen. When Zechariah rebuked them with the truth, they killed him instead of changing their ways. Of course, killing the prophet did not change the truth he spoke. It merely cut them off from the source which could turn them back to righteousness.

The culpability of Joash is clearly stated. He had turned from his beginnings in a shocking and disgraceful manner. All of the good he had done in his early days would not be remembered because he had renounced it to become the standard-bearer of error and evil. Surely, God could not remember the good, but viewed him as a traitor to evil (Ezek. 33:13).

However, the paradox is that his own contemporaries, whose favor he sought, also forsook him in his death by burying him away from the kings (2 Chron. 24:25). They used him to get what they wanted, but discarded him in the end. The cause of sin cost him everything, but gave him nothing in return. Such is the bargain of sin!

Learning the Lesson Today

The life of Joash is the classic example of apostasy. Those who leave the Lord and cause others to stray are often those who had the noblest of beginnings. They are raised by godly parents or benefit from the influence of faithful saints, elders and preachers. Those influences last for some time and bring about a zealous burst of action for the cause of Christ. But when the trying times come, the way of truth is left for the paths of sin and error.

The downfall frequently occurs at the entry of pride (Prov. 16:18; 29:23). When a man starts to listen to the vain flattery of those who seek to use his influence, disaster is going to be the result. The Bible is replete with examples affirming this fact. A brief look at Restoration history in more recent times shows the same thing. How many times have popular preachers strayed from the “straight and narrow” as they listened to the adulation of adoring brethren? How many times have those of modest beginnings started to compromise the truth as their brethren offered them the presidency of a college, an editorship, or other places of influence? The perks offered by those who love the way of evil many times blind the eyes of the godly soul who is then seduced by pride.

However, it is truly said that the pleasures of sin are only for a season. When one leaves his place as the servant of righteousness to become the master of those heading to apostasy, his glory will be short lived. Those who have used his influence to aid their evil ends will dump him quickly. They want to go even further into apostasy and he is only a tool to start the process. In the end, one so used will be negatively viewed by both sides. Christ and those who continue to stand for his truth will view him as a traitor. Satan and those who proceed in error will forget him because he is merely a transitional figure to them.

Parallel Apostasy of Liberal Brethren

The so called “conservatives” among our erring, liberal brethren are now in that place. Preachers like Wayne Jackson, Tom Warren, Garland Elkins, Wendell Winkler, Gary Workman, Buster Dobbs and Roy Deaver are now being cast aside by the majority of their fellow apostates as the progression of evil continues. These men helped the “progressive” crowd try to justify their unauthorized institutions and sponsoring churches, but now cry out over the “evils” of the equally unauthorized gymnasiums, instrumental music and women preachers called for in many churches among them. They have sown the wind, and they are reaping the whirlwind.

Instead of admitting the obvious and correcting their error, some of our liberal brethren are seeking to deny the connection between their past actions and the present trends among them. In correspondence with this author, Wayne Jackson demanded that I give documentation from his paper when a previous article identified his Christian Courier as “a paper published by our liberal brethren.” Those references were furnished by showing his defense of the unauthorized, sponsoring church arrangement and by refer-ring to a letter (published in Christian Courier) by the elders where he preaches verifying their action as a sponsoring church. Along with this documentation, propositions from Larry Hafley were sent to brother Jackson asking him to affirm his practice regarding the sponsoring church. Possibly seeing his dilemma, brother Jackson has remained suspiciously silent since that time. I do not blame him.

In the latest issue of the Spiritual Sword, Alan Highers has also objected to the connection between his justification of error and the progress of error among his brethren. His denial is given as follows:

The problems of theological liberalism in our midst have not arisen because we support orphan homes or engage in church cooperation. The very suggestion that this is the case (as found occasionally in the periodicals of our anti-cooperation brethren) manifests a myopic analysis and a failure to recognize that some of the most liberal thinkers among us came from the most conservative backgrounds, including some from their midst.’ (The footnote cited the following proof: Edward Fudge, who denies eternal punishment in hell, came from the anti-cooperation movement. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside emanated from the anti-college, anti-located preacher faction [Spiritual Sword, October 1992, pp. 1,51).

For those of you unfamiliar with the “liberal lingo,” their term “cooperation” refers to their unauthorized practice of the sponsoring church which fosters centralization, not cooperation. With the aid of his prejudicial terms, Highers blindly accuses faithful brethren of “myopic analysis” when they correctly show the effects of his error on apostasy in his presence.

Highers commits the ultimate Freudian slip while speaking of Edward Fudge, Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside (despite his recent death) by describing them as “some of the most liberal thinkers among us.” I know of no faithful brother who would describe Fudge and Garrett as being “among us,” but Highers says they are “among” his folks. Hence, Fudge and Garrett presently reside with Alan Highers and his Spiritual Sword comrades — though the household is not a happy one.

It is also worth noting that Edward Fudge is an example of the apostasy discussed in this article. After the death of his good father, Bennie Lee Fudge, Edward left the fellowship of faithful brethren as he continued to promote error. And where did Edward go? That’s right, over to Alan Highers and his Spiritual Sword comrades who received him with open arms. They congratulated him for joining in their unauthorized sponsoring churches and limited social gospel efforts. Now, they give an expression of concern when Fudge adds to his support of one unauthorized practice like the sponsoring church by defending another unauthorized practice like women preachers. In like manner, Highers and his associates protest that they cannot see the connection between those “among” them who have moved from kitchen defenders in their unauthorized “fellowship halls” to athletic supporters in their equally unauthorized “family life center” gymnasiums. While Highers and his Spiritual Sword comrades claim the problem is our myopia, their blindness is as apparent as that of Joash! May God help them open their eyes that they might see.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 20
January 21, 1993

By Donnie V. Rader

When the world became so wicked that God chose to destroy man by a flood, God told Noah to build an ark to preserve himself, his family and the animals. God said more than just “make an ark.” He said, “Make thee an ark of gopher wood” (Gen. 6:14). Instructions that were specific had been given. If Noah was to please God he had to follow carefully the directions he had been given.

Noah and his ark of gopher wood have served to illustrate some very important points on authority through the years. Let’s be reminded of some simple points that we learn from God’s instructions to Noah.

God Has a Plan for How Things Are to be Done

God has not left man to serve him without telling him how to do it. God not only told Noah what to do, but also told him how to do it. The command involves what was to be built: not just anything, but an ark. It was to be built of a particular wood: gopher wood. It was to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. There were also directions for a window and a door. God had a plan.

When the tabernacle was to be built, Moses was to make it “according to the pattern” that he had been given while on the mount before God (Heb. 8:5). Again, God had a plan.

Solomon was directed to build the temple according to the “plans” (NKJV, “pattern” KJV) revealed from God (1 Chron. 28:11-12,19).

Today we must abide by God’s word in all of our service unto him. If God had a plan for the ark, the tabernacle and the temple, surely he has a plan for his church and all it is to do. John wrote, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). We must do all by the authority of our Lord (Col. 3:17).

When God Specifies, All Other Specifics Are Excluded

Authority can be general (including any thing, method, or means of execution which comes within the class of the command). Authority can also be specific (excluding every thing, method or means of execution that comes within the class, which is not specified, of the command).

When God’s command is left in the generic (i.e., no specifics are given) man may choose any specific within that general command. If God had told Noah to build an ark of “wood” (not telling him a particular kind of wood), Noah could have chosen any kind of wood and been within the realm of authority. The command to “go preach” (Matt. 18:19-20) would authorize any method of going: walking, riding, flying or sailing. All God said was “go.” He did not specify the method of going.

When God has specified, man is not at liberty to choose other specifics. All other specifics within that class are excluded. When God specified “gopher wood” that excluded and eliminated the use of any other wood. We can easily see this principle in everyday life. If I were to give you some money and ask you to go buy me some shoes (without specifying the kind of shoes), you would be at liberty to purchase tennis shoes, walking shoes, dress shoes, work shoes or house shoes. However, if I instructed you to go buy me a pair of dress shoes, you would understand that you are not authorized to buy any other kind of shoe. I would not need to say: “Don’t buy tennis shoes, work shoes or house shoes.” The specific “dress shoes” excludes all other kinds of shoes.

If we can see how that works with buying shoes, surely we can see it in areas of serving God. When God specified the kind of music that he wanted (“singing” — Eph. 5:19), that excluded all other types of music. When God specified the elements he wanted in the Lord’s supper (“fruit of the vine” and “unleavened bread” — Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23), that excluded the use of any other elements. When God specified the realm of the elders’ authority (to the flock “among you” — 1 Pet. 5:2), that eliminated their authority over any other congregation. When God specified those to receive benevolent care out of the treasury (“saints” — 1 Cor. 16:1-2), that excluded church benevolence to all others. When God specified which organization is to do the work of preaching and benevolence (“church” — 1 Tim. 3;15; 5:16), that excluded any other organization (such as a missionary or benevolent society) doing that work.

Does Specific Authority “Exclude” or “Only Include”?

There have been a few to quibble that we are wrong in saying that specific authority “excludes” anything. They contend that specific instructions “only include” that which is specified. For example, they would say that the command to “sing” does not exclude instrumental music, but it only includes singing.

This is a play on words. If the specific command “only includes” that which is specified, then other elements within its class are not included. Thus, they are excluded.

“Exclude” means “1. To keep out, or shut out. . . 2. To omit from consideration or notice. . . 3. To put out, expel” (The American Heritage Dictionary 473). When God said “gopher wood” that “keeps out” or “shuts out” the use of any other kind of wood. Thus, the command “excludes” other kinds of wood. My instructions for you to buy some “dress shoes” keeps out or shuts out your buying any other type of shoe.

To Use Another Specific or Kind

Is to Go Beyond the Authority of God

We cannot go beyond what God has said (Num. 22:18;2 Jn. 9). The consequences are serious: we do not have God.One cannot justify the use of that which is not authorized saying that it is an “aid” to doing what God said. To use another kind of wood (pine, oak or cherry) to simply aid in building the ark would be to act without the authority of God. Another kind of wood would be an addition (Rev. 22:18-19) and not an aid. To use the instrument of music thinking it would “aid” the singing, is to act without God’s authority. Instrumental music is another kind of music, thus an addition and not an aid. One could as well justify putting blackberry jam on the unleavened bread (to make it more tasteful) as to justify the instrument or any other addition to God’s word.

We must learn to respect the silence of God’s word. God’s silence is not permissive. It is prohibitive (Heb. 7:14).

God told Noah to make an ark of gopher wood. He was to do that — no more and no less. We must do the same with the instructions he has given to us.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 3, p. 3
February 4, 1993

By Lewis Willis

About anytime I hear that Dick Feagler, local news broadcaster for Channel 3, is going to comment on something, I quickly change the channel! There is something about his way of commenting that just “turns me off.” Having said that, you can imagine my surprise when my wife Joyce called my attention to his Beacon Journal column (2/14/92), and I found some of his thinking worth considering here.

He was commenting on Valentine’s Day, and its custom of expressing “love” for our families and friends. He made an excellent point about how carelessly and incorrectly we use the word “love” on this special day. Even our “love songs” are not about “love,” according to Feagler, but “they are usually about either lust or ego.” How true that is! He said most of them “aren’t very romantic.” He likened some of them to jingles about certain cars. He observed, “Most young men and women know a lot more about the car they pick than they do about the lover they pick. That’s why the divorce rate is over 50 percent.” And, he is right about that, too. He wrote about people “falling in love, . . . I just couldn’t help it. It just happened.” He said it made love sound like some kind of rash, that people catch. Feagler said, “You’re smart to stay away from somebody who claims that love is something he caught from you like stomach flu. Next week he may catch it from somebody else.” Young people, make a note of that!

He proceeded in his article to give a definition of “love” which he borrowed from the book, The Road Less Traveled, by M. Scott Peck. Peck says this: “Love is the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” Feagler added, “Love, in other words, is not a feeling. It’s a decision. An act of the will. It has a goal — to become better and make the loved one better. It has a price — the work of extending yourself.” I like that. I think he has grasp of biblical love, whether he realizes it or not. Before turning to some other sources on the subject of love, the Feagler quote with which I shall close is “They ought to start teaching love in school, but they’re too busy teaching sex. . . Draw a heart around this column and send it to your special someone. Before you load a gun (for a crime of “passion,” LW). Or have a baby. Or buy a ring.” How did this guy learn all of this? It seems out of place with him.

Notice these definitions of the Greek word, agape, translated “love” in the New Testament. “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts . . . Christian love . . . is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered. Love seeks the welfare of all, . . . and works no ill to any” (Vine, 21). Thayer (p. 3) defines love in this way, “. . . to be full of good-will and exhibit the same . . . to have a preference for, wish well to, regard the welfare of.” The Pictorial En-cyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 3, p. 989), says of agapao: “denotes a love founded on admiration, veneration, and esteem. It means to have a preference for, wish well to, regard the welfare of (Matt. 5:43f.). It is to be full of good will both in thought and deed.”

Clearly the feeble excuses for “love” which men frequently discuss fall far short of what the Bible word means. We hear people describe what the Bible calls “fornication” as “making love.” The baby born out of this act of fornication is called a “love child” in the media. Feagler talked of men who shoot women because they “love” them. Is it any wonder that people do not know what Bible love is?

Bible love is not just an emotion. It is not just something that a person catches. It is not a warm response to something or someone because of what they have done for us. It goes farther than that. It is an act of the “will.” It is something we “decide” to do; it is a “deliberate” act. It is the pro-duct of a thought-out matter or circumstance. We “will” to “love” somebody. This is why “love” can be command-ed. The Apostle John wrote, “And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another” (2 Jn. 5). He adds, “For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 Jn. 3:11). Bible love can exist — even love for our enemies — because we “will” to obey the “command” to “love.”

Finally, notice that in all the definitions of love, there is the element of “action.” Love demands that we “act” to the good, and in the interest, of the one that we love. Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). We can “will” to keep his commandments, and we will be “actively doing something” when we obey him. In like manner, when we love someone on this earth, we will “act” in a way that promotes their good, seeks their welfare, and does no ill to them. That is why love for the brethren is such a precious thing. It builds others up. It strengthens and encourages them. It does them no harm.

As we think of those whom we “love,” is it possible to see true, Bible- based love in action? Or, is it some shallow something that will not survive the smallest disturbance? The Lord’s church can be built on Bible love. It will be destroyed by the other kind!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 14
January 21, 1993

By Jady W. Copeland

In our first article we laid the foundation of our lessons on materialism, and how it affects God’s people. His mission on earth was to save man from sin, and our work as his people is to further his message of salvation. The mission of God’s people while sojourning on earth sets the tone of our life, for we are only pilgrims here preparing for the eternal home.

Someone has said, “Money talks.” And sometimes it talks so loudly that others can’t hear what we say. It is not wrong to have money. In our economy it is a necessity and from the Scriptures we learn that some of God’s people were even wealthy; witness Job and Abraham. Now our question is, does my money control me, or do I control my money and use it for his purpose?

Matthew 6:19-34 could well be a text for our entire study on materialism or possessed by our possessions. We en-courage the reader to read carefully this text before finishing this article. But we shall, in this lesson, concentrate on verse 24: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

Everything on earth is ultimately from God; he controls all. Everything on earth is God’s (1) by right of creation, (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11) and (2) by right of possession (Psa. 24:1). In arguing the right of the Corinthians to eat meat, Paul used this principle in 1 Corinthians 10:26. We realize that in our relationship to each other in this life (as equal beings under God) that men do “possess” possessions (Acts 5:4). But God created this world, put us in it temporarily to glorify him and told us how to use what he has provided. Like renting a car, we have the “right” (under conditions set down by the owner) to use the possessions temporarily, but in reality it is his. It is a great temptation for us to make the “creation” our god instead of the Creator. But the Creator (“owner”) has clearly laid down the conditions by which these possessions are used.

Our Master Is God

Our text says, “No man can serve two masters.” The two possible “masters” are God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Keep in mind the above principles; inspiration says that God is the master, and not the things he created. One cannot serve both masters (God and mammon) because they demand opposites. A master demands complete obedience to his commands and wishes. The word “master” here is sometimes translated “lord.” A master has the right to command. When one master leads in one direction and another in the opposite direction, it is obvious you cannot serve both at the same time. They have different objectives, different interests, different goals and different ideals.

But why did Jesus here so plainly state the obvious? Possibly because men think they can serve both. They try to hold on to their wealth, use it to selfish ends, and then confidently assert that they are still serving God. James says, “Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore should be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God” (Jas. 4:4). John states about the same principle in 1 John 2:15. It is common today (I am afraid even among the saints) to see people saying they are serving God, when in reality “action speaks louder than words.” We need only to state here that the Christian’s master is God, not mammon. But are we “possessed by our possessions”?

Money is temporary and like the “use” of the rented car we must treat it as such. Since it is not the “master” we must use money to serve the “Master” just like we use other things God has given us. Just like I must use my God-given talents, my body and my mind to serve the Master, I must use whatever material possessions I have to serve him. Thus “things” can be a help or a hindrance to my service to my God. With the right attitude toward material things, they can be a great asset. Material things can even be a hindrance to one’s acceptance to the “feast” of the Lord (Lk. 14:lf). In this account, one man said he had bought oxen and had to prove them. Another said he had bought a field and had to go see it. But then when one accepts Christ, he sometimes then lets material things keep him from his best service to the Lord. And when he lets his money (or any possessions) dictate his actions rather than the real Master, money has become his god. “Ye cannot serve” both.

Our Trust Must Be In God

Since we have chosen God as the master, our trust must be in him, not wealth. Paul said, “Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey” (Rom. 6:16). No man is forced to obey God. It is a choice. It is also a choice if we choose to make mammon our master. Where is our trust? That tells us who our master is. Whether we admit it (or even recognize it) God knows who our master is because he knows which (God or mammon) master we are obeying. In our context of Matthew 6, Jesus finishes his discourse about this by speaking to the idea of anxiety over material things. if our truth is in God, why worry about these material (temporary) things? Solomon said, “He that trusteth in riches shall fall, but the righteous shall flourish as a branch” (Prov. 11:28).

Perhaps a good example of the above is the story of the man recorded in Mark 10:17-22. He asked about how to obtain eternal life. When Jesus said, “Keep the commandments,” he seemed pleased because he said, “All these things have I observed from my youth.” He must have been feeling pretty good at this point. But when Jesus told him to sell what he had and give to the poor he was disappointed, for he had great possessions. But notice verses 23-25 of this text: “And Jesus looked round about, and said unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and said unto them, Children, how hard it is for them that trust in the riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (emp. mine, JWC). Note, “. . . them that trust in riches . . . . ” You cannot serve God and mammon. The two masters demand the opposite. They are op-posed one to the other.

Man’s Life Consists Not In Abundance of Possessions

In Luke 12:13 we again have a story in the life of Christ that spells out the temporary and relative value of earthly possessions in contrast to heavenly treasurers. A man wanted Jesus to have his brother divide the inheritance with him but Jesus said that was not his purpose here. He did take the opportunity to teach a spiritual lesson by telling the story of the man who had great crops. But note the statement in verse 15 — “for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” The life we are most concerned about is spiritual life in Christ and eternal life in the world to come. This life is temporary and must be treated as such. Wealth does not even guarantee satisfaction in this life. Many are happy who have little wealth because their trust is in God. Many who are rich are unhappy in spite of their abundance of things in this life. To teach this lesson, Jesus told the story of the farmer who had “bumper crops.” The word “barns” in this story indicates a storehouse (English, apothecary). Therefore he may have been speaking of a trader. At any rate he had so much he said, “I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my grain and my good. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry.” But he forgot that “life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” He was not rich toward God.

We must lay up treasures in heaven for “. . . while 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” (2 Cor. 4:18). We must keep our eyes on God not on the things of the world. We are but pilgrims here, and must think of “things” as temporary and to be used to help us glorify God in this life in preparation of the life to come. Let us fully realize the temporary and fleeting things of a material nature are only tools in our hands to be used to prepare our souls for the real life to come with God in eternity.

In the above story of the rich man, let us note some of his mistakes. (1) He ignored God: he was interested in things which would give him ease in life. (2) He had little thought of others. (3) He failed to realize that material possessions would not satisfy the soul. (4) He was covetous. (More about this in our next lesson.) (5) He must not have realized the brevity of life.

In conclusion then, let us remind ourselves that it is not wrong to have money or material possessions. The sin comes when we have the wrong attitude toward money. To help us to have the proper concept of the material let us remember: (1) Everything is from God; he controls all. He is our creator and the giver of all good things. (2) The Christian’s master is God. God is a jealous God, and he will not accept divided worship. If we choose to worship another god other than Jehovah we worship in vain. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (3) Money is not an end within itself. It is only a temporal possession to be used to the glory of God and the up building of his work. So our trust must be in God, and not a “god of this world.” (4) Hence, lay up for yourself treasurers in heaven. This is the real treasure — not the valuables of this world.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 16
January 21, 1993