Truth Magazine

By Randy Harshbarger

The work ethic is certainly a part of Bible teaching. God intended for man to be busily engaged in meaningful labor. Adam and Eve were given the responsibility to “dress and keep” the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15). Paul says that when we labor we should remember that we are working “unto the Lord, and not unto men” (Col. 3:23). If a man will not work he should not be allowed to eat (2 Thess. 3:7-10). Jesus was not a lazy person. John 9:4 says: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day:: the night cometh, when no man can work.” While the emphasis of this verse is primarily spiritual, one could not meet with the crowds, instruct the apostles, and confront many enemies, if he were a lazy person. Our Lord felt compelled to do what had to be done and he did not wait until he “felt like working” or until “everything was just right.” Consider a few admonitions from Proverbs about this Bible subject.

Proverbs 6:6-11: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: so shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.

Proverbs 19:15: Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger.

Proverbs 12:24: The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.

Proverbs: 18:9: He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster.

Proverbs 21:25: The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labor.

Proverbs 22:13: The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets.

What can we learn from these verses? First, we can learn how to work from watching others. The sluggard needs to consider the industry of the ant. The ant labors incessantly to provide for himself. The sluggard stays in bed too long. Second, laziness breeds more laziness. Many get used to the ideal of not working and like it. Third, the lazy man will always be under the control of others. When he makes no effort to provide for himself and his own, he becomes subject to the control of others. Fourth, to be lazy is to waste one’s life and opportunities that God has given. We must be good stewards of these blessings (1 Cor. 4:2). Fifth, the lazy man sits around all day dreaming about gold and silver and gets nothing; the industrious man gets busy and does something. Sixth, if you do not want to work any excuse is good enough!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 22, p. 676
November 19, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

It was my good fortune to again moderate for brother Kevin Campbell in his third debate with the Baptists. The debate was held in Gulfport, MS in the meeting house of the Missionary Baptists during the week of September 21-25, 1992.

The sound and faithful brethren at the Morris Road church supported the debate with both their presence and prayers, as well as with numerous works of faith and labors of love. Even though the debate was in a Baptist church building, there were more brethren than Baptists at every service. Baptists probably out number Christians a 100 to 1 in that area, but during a debate one would never know it. The attendance of the Baptists was pitiful! There were less than ten of them present during one of the sessions. However, despite the woeful attendance, brother Campbell was able to speak to more alien sinners during the debate than he would have spoken to during most any series of gospel meetings.

The poor attendance by the Baptists is attributable to a number of diverse factors. First, they have taken such a whipping at the hands of truth as handled by brother Campbell that they are tired of coming and being embarrassed by their error. Insincere and dishonest hearts are like that when they love their sect more than the Savior, when they love their denomination more than the doctrine of the Lord, when they love their party position more than they love the Master’s message. Second, I suspect (this is just a guess, just my opinion) that their lack of attendance reflects the lack of strong, doctrinal teaching that once characterized Missionary Baptists. There was a time when Missionary Baptists held the zeal and fervor of those pesky Campbellites whom they loved to hate! There was a time when they believed they were the Lord’s church, when they believed and taught that they were right and others were wrong, when they were willing to debate and earnestly contend for the Baptist way. But, alas, that time has nearly seen its complete eclipse. No longer are the Missionary Baptists the combative, doctrinally dogmatic people they used to be, or so it seems to me.

Liberalism and the compromise of ardently held principles have been the bane of many old-fashioned Landmark Missionary Baptists. Any time a group begins to soften and weaken and blunt its distinctive message, it does so with the best of intentions – “Maybe we are too dogmatic, too rigid, too harsh, unloving and severe; maybe if we toned down our approach we would appeal to more people.” That is how they reason, but it never works. For a distinct proposition, whether it be true or false, to survive, it must be uncompromisingly and unashamedly thrust before the hearts of men and women with great zeal, vigor and determination (cf. the book of Acts and the experience of the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.).

Bobby Sparks was brother Campbell’s opponent. Mr. Sparks has been schooled in the doctrine of Missionary Baptists. He utilizes the arguments of Bogard, Chastain and Garner. Though he speaks with a high pitched voice, which is almost shrill at times, he is very effective. With Bogard and Barr dead and with Chastain and Garner now aged and ill, Sparks is as good a debater as the Baptists have. He should not be taken lightly. Unfortunately for Mr. Sparks, he not only had to contend with the truth, but he also had to face brother Campbell.

As usual, Kevin was well prepared. Brother Campbell does his homework. He researches an opponent’s doctrine and has a chart to respond to nearly anything that is said. He is extremely efficient in his use of his time and material and is a master at summarizing his opponent’s general thrust. Then he proceeds to pick it apart, bit by bit, piece by piece. It is unfair, though, for me to boast of Kevin’s abilities. His work does not reflect himself. His handling of the truth serves the cause of truth and righteousness. When he finishes, one is impressed with the truth. He does not draw attention to himself but to the word of Christ. That is, perhaps, one of the things that I admire most about him – “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5).

Arguments Advanced

While it would be impossible to review all of the arguments used, you may be interested in hearing some of the quibbles that Mr. Sparks made. Before citing them, I must issue a word of caution to squeamish souls. What follows is not pretty. Some people are repulsed by strong arguments and counter attacks against error. If that describes you, do not read this next section, for it is saturated (like Matt. 22; Rom. 9; and the books of Gal. and Heb., as well as Col. 2 and 1 Jn.) with the arguments of error and the answers of truth. If such things make you queasy, please do not read what follows.

But here is the irony of what follows. Brother Campbell may be criticized by some for his strong, pointed refutation of error. However, when you are reading his response, please observe what the spirit of error, Mr. Sparks said! Consider the snide, facetious, evil arguments that Mr. Sparks made against your Lord and Savior! Observe the blasphemy in all its stark, scathing reality! Must an enemy of the Son of God, full of all subtlety and all mischief, be allowed to wrest and twist the truth and confuse and condemn the souls of men to eternity, unchecked and unopposed? Brother Campbell does not think so. How about you? “Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?”

Sparks argued that if we must be baptized to get into Christ, then Christ dwells in our baptistries. So, he said, since Christ dwells in the water, then when we pull the plug and drain the baptistry, Christ must go down the sewer! But one must be baptized in water before he can be a member of the Baptist Church. Hence, the Baptist Church dwells in the water. When the baptistry is drained, the Baptist church goes into the sewer.

Mr. Sparks said that his Baptist school sometimes teaches Catholic children. He shows these young Catholics their errors, but when he wants to baptize them, the Catholic parents refuse. So, he said, I can lead them to Christ, but if baptism is essential, then all those poor, innocent Catholic children are lost because their parents will not allow them to be baptized. Sparks blamed the plight of those children on brother Campbell.

Brother Campbell wondered about Jewish children who might be sent to Mr. Sparks for some religious training. Sparks would expect them to believe on Christ, but if the Jewish parents refused to allow their children to confess Christ, then Sparks’ doctrine condemns all those poor, innocent Jewish children. Would that mean that faith in Christ is not essential? If baptism cannot be essential to salvation because it would mean that some were lost who did not obey it, then confession of Christ cannot be essential to salvation on the very same basis.

Throughout all these quibbles, brother Campbell patiently and persistently pressed the Scriptures against Mr. Sparks. The evasion and subterfuge was answered, not only with logic and parallel reasoning, but also with Bible passages.

Mr. Sparks argued that the expression in Acts 2:38, “for the remission of sins,” means “because of” the remission of sins. He never attempted to show why that Christ’s blood was not shed “because of” the remission of sins. Jesus shed his blood “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). If repentance and baptism are engaged in “because of” the remission of sins, why is it not true that Christ shed his blood “because of” the remission of sins? Sparks never tried to explain.

Sparks did say that “for” sometime means “because of.” As proof, he cited Mark 1:44 and Revelation 16:10. When Kevin showed that the original terms were not the same, that the word “for” in Acts 2:38 was not the same word used in the texts cited by Sparks, Mr. Sparks simply tucked his tail, ducked his head and ran for cover. He said nothing else about it.

On the apostasy question, “once saved, always saved,” Mr. Sparks said that a child of God could commit every sin except the sin of unbelief. Brother Campbell asked why Hebrews 2:12 says, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” If a child of God cannot become an unbeliever, why is Hebrews 2:12 in the Bible? Mr. Sparks has not yet explained it. Could it be that his position is wrong?

Brother Campbell effectively used Hebrews 10:26-29 to show that a child of God could be lost. “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

Kevin showed that one sanctified by the blood could sin willfully and merit a punishment worse than physical death. After much goading and prodding, Sparks finally said that the “he” that was sanctified in the text was none other than Jesus Christ. Yes, he said it. He said that Christ is the “he” referred to: Jesus as the one sanctified in the passage, not a child of God. Kevin asked Mr. Sparks if Jesus trod himself under foot. He asked Sparks just what sins Jesus had that caused him to need to be sanctified by his own blood. Again, Sparks played the part of the proverbial ostrich and said nothing else about his blunder. The audience saw his obvious error. The truth of the passage was made to shine as brother Campbell continued to appeal to the text.

Brother Campbell is to debate Bobby Sparks again, January 25, 26, 28, 29, 1993, in the meeting house of the Pruett and Lobit St. church in Baytown, TX. All four nights will be on salvation by the gospel of grace. We hope that many of you will be able to attend.

These debates do a lot of good. They strengthen brethren in the truth, and they give the lost an opportunity to hear it. In the constant conflict and controversy of the first century, the church “multiplied,” as great numbers “were added unto the Lord.” In the last century, the church grew in the midst of the din of debate and discussion. Contrary to the views of some, we need more, not less, controversy. Pray for brother Campbell and for all who are fighting the good fight of faith on every front, whether it be around the kitchen table in a home Bible study, in a class, in the pulpit or in debate. We can all “be fellow helpers to the truth,” “that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 7; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 22, pp. 678-679
November 19, 1992

By Olen Holderby

Some time back, in a psychological setting, the above title was “invented” to use as a title in writing about two things: (1) The wife whose multi-personalities, and the frequent change from one to the other, finally sent her husband to the grave, (2) How that husband, Jim, before his death, tried to cope with the frustrating circumstances. Apart from the psychological use, the title would probably make little sense. But, I’ll tell you what – it makes about as much sense as some of what one hears and reads about marriage, divorce, and remarriage these days.

A conversation which this writer had with a bunch of school teachers a few years back, while working with the public schools is well remembered. While sitting in the teachers lounge early one morning, I listened to their conversation about religion. After a few minutes, my comment was, “You school teachers absolutely amaze me!” Of course they wanted to know the reason for my amazement. My explanation was very simple, “All of you are educated and trained to go into the classroom, and there influence boys and girls to think and reason intelligently; and you are apparently doing a good job in that area. However, in your remarks about religion and your personal convictions you have thrown that intelligence right out the window.” I got up and walked out, leaving them with open mouths and puzzled looks.

Yes, most brethren seem to be able to reason intelligently on such subjects as: how to become a Christian, origin of the church, worship, etc.; and its seems that God’s word is sufficiently plain on these subjects. We continue to hear stressed the plainness and simplicity of God’s Word as we argue our case before the religious world. This is as it should be; for indeed it is so! When it comes, however, to divorce and remarriage, it appears that many just throw that intelligence out. God’s word is no longer plain enough, and we just have to make all kinds of allowances. Of course the same could be said for a few other subjects, i.e.: fellowship, unity, deity of Christ, etc. To put it another way, while we condemn the Pentecostals for substituting feelings for God’s word, verily we do the same in reference to divorce and remarriage. Perhaps we need to well digest Romans 2:1, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

The truth of the matter is that almost every subject concerning Christianity, at some point in the past, was considered to be difficult and “unsettled.” Some subjects were thought to be without sufficiently plain revelation. Men begged for allowances; and, every time these allowances were granted men got further away from the truth of God. This writer has seen no reason to think it shall be different today. Lessons of history seem to have little impact on the thinking of man. Having said these things, let us get back to the subject of:

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

I know of none who would be so foolish as to say that all subjects are equally easy to be understood. Peter declared of some of the writings of Paul, “. . . in which are some things hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). Hardness is not impossibility; the fact that some subjects require more time than others, does not put them out of the reach of anyone with “normal” intelligence. It is to be recognized that difficulty is proportional – depending on the one experiencing it. Personally I believe it is true with our own brethren, as it is with most religionists: when preconceived ideas and prejudicial thinking are eliminated, most difficulty is gone.

The following is self-explanatory, easily understood and, I believe, sets forth God’s truth on the subjects.

Who has the right to marry?

1. A virgin – one who has never been married (1 Cor. 7:28).

2. A widow – one whose mate is dead (1 Cor. 7:39).

3. One whose mate has committed adultery (Matt. 19:9a).

Note: When you get married, will you marry one who has a right to get married?

Who has no right to marry?

1. One who is already married (Rom. 7:3a).

2. One whose unbelieving mate has departed (1 Cor. 7:11-15).

3. One who has been put away (Matt. 19:9b; 5:32b).

Note: When you get married, will it be to someone who has no right to be married?

The reason for divorce (not considering legal aspects):

1. The question put to Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matt. 19:3)

2. The Lord comments, and he leaves no room for any “every cause” idea (vv. 4-6).

3. Jesus is asked a second question, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? ” (v. 7)

4. Jesus replies to the second question: in doing so he skips completely over the Mosaic period and Mosaic law to “the beginning,” to God’s original design for marriage (v. 8).

5. Jesus gives his own verdict in the matter (see above points). Some are wont to say that one may be divorced for many reasons, but only one, fornication or adultery, grants the right of remarriage. Jesus here gives only one reason for divorce period! (v. 9)

There are three errors, presently, being pushed in varying degrees, though the proponents do not necessarily agree. The first one is that “the one guilty of adultery, and is put away, may remarry without sinning.” The above points clearly establish that such a person has no right to marry. It makes no difference how much we may argue about the question, Jesus still said, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). It will continue to read that way regardless of what men may say.

The second error concerns 1 Corinthians 7:15; it is argued that this passage gives the believing mate the right to remarry, when the unbelieving mate departs. Again, the above points show that such an one has no right to marry. Such a person could not marry without having obtained a divorce; and, he could not get a divorce except for “fornication,” according to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:9.

The third error is, “The alien sinner is not subject to God’s marriage law.” This error would permit the alien to be married any number of items, and he is to continue with the mate whom he has at the time he obeys the gospel, all his pervious relationships are abolished at his baptism. In such a case, baptism is made the consummating act of that last marriage. The truth of the matter is that God designed marriage for all men in the very beginning, and Jesus refers to this fact in his remarks to the Pharisees in Matthew 19. By declaring that someone is not subject to God’s law may be a convenient way around that law, but it does not change the expressed law of the Lord in the least. Evidence would seem to show that this error was born out of convenience and the desire to avoid making some difficult decisions.

Some have been heard to say that they understand Romans better than Matthew 19:9. I see nothing extremely difficult about God’s law for marriage, divorce, and remarriage; though some particular circumstances (with certain unknowns) may produce some “head-scratching.” It still appears, at least to this writer, that when we can remove the preconceived ideas and prejudicial thinking, most of the difficulty is gone. May God help us all to root out both of these from our thinking!

No, God’s marriage law is not difficult to understand, but it is often extremely difficult to get men to respect that law. As long as we tolerate the multi-theories and teachings of men, more and more the subject will sound like “The Late Husband of Jim’s Six Wives.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 22, pp. 685-686
November 19, 1992

By Patrick Donahue

Even Christians Make Charges of Phariseeism That Would Condemn Jesus

In our last article, we pointed out that denominationalists over the years have accused Christians of being Pharisees. The same charges and many additional ones are now being made by those who are supposed to be members of God’s church. I believe that many, if not all, of those making these charges misunderstand what Phariseeism really was. According to their view of Phariseeism, as seen in their explanations for their charges, the “arch-enemy” of the Pharisees in biblical times, Jesus Christ himself, would be charged a Pharisee! Notice that Jesus would have been accused of many of the most common of the charges now being made by Christians, which are listed below.

Jesus was a “legalist.” A simple definition for “legalism” would be, “strict adherence to law.” According to this definition, Jesus was a legalist, because he believed in strictly following God’s law. About a still binding (at that time) old law, he said in Matthew 5:19, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Remember Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:1-2? They worshiped God by burning incense, but were destroyed by God, because they didn’t do it exactly as God prescribed. It has been my experience that anytime the charge of legalism is made, the accuser is not willing to follow God’s law as completely and as accurately as the accused. Contrary to popular opinion, we should be legalists. We should learn from Jesus, and Nadab and Abihu that we must follow God’s law completely and in every detail. So the next time you are called a legalist, consider it a compliment.

Jesus was “picky.” Some Christians have been accusing their brethren of being too picky with some passages in the Bible. I wonder what they think of Jesus’ “pickiness” when he made an argument based upon just the tense of a verb in Matthew 22:32? Was Paul too “picky” when, in Galatians 3:16, he based a point on an Old Testament word not being plural? What about James? Would they think he was too picky when he said in James 2: 10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all”?

Jesus “debated the Bible.” It hasn’t always been this way, but many Christians have decided that debating the Bible is wrong. “The Pharisees spent all their time wrangling over minor doctrinal points they might say.” Don’t we realize that it is not what we think, but what Jesus thought and did that matters? What would you call what Jesus did as recorded in Mark 13:13-37, if it was not debating the Scriptures? Acts 15 even records a debate with Christians on opposite sides of the question in dispute.

Jesus would be accused of having a “judgmental attitude.” It seems that some Christians have confused preaching the truth against sin with having a “judgmental attitude.” The truth is that quoting Mark 16:16 to one who has not been baptized is not having a judgmental attitude, and quoting Matthew 19:9 and Revelations 21:8 to someone in an unscriptural marriage is not having a judgmental attitude either.

Jesus was an “extremist.” Yes, Jesus was an extremist. His teaching was so extreme in John 6:53-58 that “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (v. 66), because they thought it was such an “hard saying” (v. 60). Jesus taught that we should be “extremely” forgiving of someone who sins against us and then repents (Lk. 17:3), when he told us in Matthew 18:22 that we should be willing to forgive “until seventy times seven.”

Jesus believed in “law keeping.” Don’t let it be heard that you believe that we live under law to God today or somebody will accuse you of thinking that there is no difference between the New Testament and the law of Moses, or accuse you of being a New Testament Pharisee. We must not let that kind of persecution keep us from preaching Galatians 6:2, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” It is amazing to me how someone who understands that Christians are to avoid sin, cannot understand from 1 John 3:4 (“sin is the transgression of the law”) that Christians are to keep (not transgress) the law.

Jesus would be accused of having “too narrow a fellowship.” It seems that anybody who still believes in withdrawing from brethren that walk “disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6) is said to have too narrow a fellowship. Some reason that as long as a church is on the “non-institutional churches of Christ” list, it must be okay. It seems that everyone but the so called “Pharisees” among us are ignoring passages like Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” and 2 John 10- 11, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (of Christ, v. 9), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

Jesus didn’t know that “it is better to love than to rebuke.” One brother said that “the only ‘strategy for victory’ entails a proper balance between truth and love. Another has said that “love is more powerful than physical force, than sarcasm, than rebuke, than argument.” I suppose than many think that the Pharisees were good on the truth and rebuke side, but not too good at love. As we saw in our last article, they were not good at any one of the three. The Scriptures do not contrast truth, or rebuke, with love. To the contrary, we are to speak “the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). Love is not the opposite of rebuke; instead it is the motivation for rebuke, they are inseparable. Notice this from a reading of Proverbs 3:12, “For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.”

Jesus would be thought of as being “too negative.” The “positive mental attitude” philosophy advocated by the world has permeated God’s people. More and more, we hear the demand (and the compliance with the demand) for more “positive” preaching, and less, if any, “negative” preaching. We are told that the problem with the Pharisees is that they were too negative in their teaching. It is true that Jesus’ message had positive elements in it, but it is also a fact that he was one of the most negative preachers in the history of time. Read for yourself his scathing rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. Most churches today would not be able to take the negative preaching from Paul that the church at Corinth took. Among other things, he rebuked them for division in chapter 1, for harboring an adulterer in chapter 5, for taking the brethren to law in chapter 6, and for improprieties in the Lord’s supper in chapter 11. A desire for less negative preaching by Christians today seems to indicate that many people are tired of being made to feel guilty for the sins that they are practicing. Brethren, we cannot afford to let up.

Jesus believed in “just using a lot of proof texts.” One “preacher” has claimed that “there is no book, chapter, and verse for book, chapter, and verse.” Although they would not admit it in word, many of our more popular meeting preachers indicate by their preaching that they agree with this sentiment. They are “too good of a speaker” to just do like Paul and persuade “concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets” (Acts 28:23). It is indicated that “reasoning with them out of the Scriptures ” (Acts 17:2-3) would bore the audience and not hold their attention. Instead we are told that we need more stories and jokes to get the gospel (so-called) message across. I don’t know about you, but I think I will continue to do like Apollos, and show “by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28). After all, the gospel is actually the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

Jesus was “dogmatic.” In today’s religious world, any person who “earnestly contends for the faith” (Jude 3) is thought of as dogmatic. If that is the case, I want to be dogmatic. Anything that is as important as God’s truth is certainly worth rigorously contending for. Evidently Paul thought so. Acts 17:17 reads, “Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.” From just a casual reading of the sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7), we can see that Jesus was very dogmatic about the truth he was bringing into the world. The audience sure knew it as vv. 28-29 of chapter 7 reads, “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” If being dogmatic means that we refuse to compromise the truth under any circumstances, then Paul was certainly being dogmatic as recorded in the context ending with Galatians 2:5, “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

Jesus thought of the Bible as a “book of rules,” a “list of do’s and don’t’s.” When one brother was questioned from the Scriptures concerning a false position he took on the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question, he replied, “You have the wrong approach to the Bible, you think of it as a book of rules.” With the concept of the Bible that this brother has, you could make God’s word say anything you want it to. It is obvious that Jesus thought of the Old Testament as a book of rules. When asked by the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?,” Jesus answered in v. 17, “If thou wilt enter into life ‘ keep the commandments,” and further proceeded to name a few of them. Many non-Christians and Christians alike don’t like it, and stringently object to it, but the Bible still says, “He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7).

Jesus believed it “only takes one sin to separate from God.” For “more security” and in order to allow “fellowship” with more people, many have come to the new conclusion that one sin does not necessarily separate us from God, especially if we are “sincere.” I don’t see how they learned this from Isaiah 59:2 (“your iniquities have separated between you and your God”) or Romans 6:23 (“For the wages of sin is death”). They certainly could not have learned it from the examples of Adam and Eve, Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon the sorcerer, all of which were condemned by one sin. Security is nice, fellowship is great, but both are damaging when interpreted more loosely than the Bible allows.

Jesus believed in keeping the “letter of the law” as,well as the spirit. Many have been labeled Pharisees because it is claimed that they, as well as the Pharisees, emphasize the “letter” of the law over the “spirit” of the law, as if ssuchh were possible. Men usually use this terminology with “let,ter” meaning what the words actually say, and “spirit” meaning what the words really mean. First of all, this way of using the terms is not a Bible way. For example, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, the contrast of “letter” and “spirit” has nothing to do with keeping the law outwardly verses keeping the law inwardly; instead, it is a contrast between the Old Testament law (v. 14) and the New Testament law (v. 6). Second, even granting the terminology as it is being used, it is impossible to keep the outward without having the right attitude, and vice versa. Matthew 13:19 shows this by teaching that everything we do on the outside comes from the inside; either we have both a good outside and a good inside, or we have both a bad outside and a bad inside, there is no mix. Obviously, the only way we can know what Jesus really meant is from the words he actually said. Jesus not only believed in keeping the “letter” of the law, he believed in keeping the “jot” and “tittle” of the law (Matt. 5:18-19).

Jesus would be thought of as being “too strict.” Everybody has heard many times that the Pharisees’ main problem was that they were too strict with God’s law. This is simply not the case. Even the text used to show that they were too strict, Matthew 23:23, really shows that they were not condemned by Jesus for being too strict, but for not being strict enough. They were not rebuked for being good at keeping the “fighter” matters of the law; instead they were rebuked for not being good at keeping the “weightier” matters of the law. They were not condemned for doing God’s law, but for not doing God’s law. I imagine Uzzah found out about the strictness of God when he touched the ark in 1 Chronicles 13:7-10. Jesus was so strict with the old law that he said in Matthew 5:18, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Jesus taught in Matthew 7:5 that we are supposed to get the beam out of our own eye so that we can get the mote (smallest speck) out of our brother’s eye. God’s way is a strict (strait and narrow) way (Matt. 7:14), accusations of Phariseeism notwithstanding.

Conclusion

As has been shown, according to some Christians’ view of Phariseeism, Jesus Christ himself would be labeled a Pharisee. Therefore, we shouldn’t get discouraged if some call us a Pharisee for simply following in the steps of Jesus (1 Pet. 2:21). We must not let false accusations keep us from continuing to follow Jesus’ example, even if it does mean being called a Pharisee by some our own brethren. To you who are making the charges: realize that most of your charges could be levied verbatim against Jesus. Make sure you understand exactly what Phariseeism is before accusing someone else of being one. Don’t make emotionally filled charges, just to get out of having to strictly follow the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 22, pp. 691-693
November 19, 1992