Truth Magazine

By William V. Beasley

One of the great themes of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the superiority of the new dispensation over the old one. This is taught each time; with but one exception (6:9), the word “better” (Gr., kreitton “better; i.e. a. more useful, more serviceable . . . b. more excellent. . .” – Thayer, 359) is found. The English word “better” is found thirteen times in Hebrews. In fact, “better” is found more often in Hebrews than in any other New Testament book. It is found more only in Proverbs (20 times) and Ecclesiastes (23 times). The gospel dispensation is shown to be superior by having, among other things, a better.- (1) Hope – 7:19; (2) Testament – 7:22; (3) Covenant – 8:6; (4) Promises – 8:6; (5) Sacrifices -9:23; (6) Possession – 10:34; (7) Country – 11:16; (8) Resurrection – 11:35.

After having demonstrated the superiority of the new covenant, the author shows (Heb. 13:10-14, our text) that it is in fact exclusive. It is not a question of degrees (good, better, best) and of being able to choose. The “better” is the one and only one.

It is a question of “We” versus “They.” “We” are Christians, those of the new, better covenant; “They” are those people remaining in Judaism, serving at the physical tabernacle. The “altar” is by metonymy (a figure of speech; li., change of name), Christ himself. To eat (partake) of the altar is to partake of the sacrifice on or of the altar (see Jn. 6:53-55). Remember: “they have no right to eat” (13:10).

A reason is given from the Old Testament to explain why “they have no right to eat” (13:10). “For” (13:11) ties what is to be said back with what has already been said; the sin offering was to burned “without the camp” (13:11; see Exod. 29:14; Lev. 4:12, 21; 9:11; 16:27). I do not know if the Jews, as they burned the sin offering without the camp, understood the significance of their actions or if they understood the import of the Old Testament passages or not. The Hebrew writer did; it was to typify the coming Messiah’s death. “Wherefore” (13:12) ties this verse with what has just preceded. “Jesus . . . suffered without the gate” (13:12; see Jn. 19:17). The suffering of Jesus without the gate/camp disassociated him and all blessings in him from the old covenant. The blood of Jesus was shed for those who lived under the old covenant (Heb. 9:15), but that ceased when the old was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). All who would come to Jesus, both Jew and Gentile, must come to him without the camp (13:13), i.e., outside of Judaism, outside the precepts of the old law.

The application in context is, as we have already said, to Judaism, to the law of Moses. The Jews were now free from the man-made corruptions of the law of Moses; they were to come to Jesus separate from the law of Moses as it was revealed by God. They were set free from all of the law (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:13-17 [“shadow” – Heb. 8:5; 10:1]).

Jews had to come to Jesus without the camp,- they had to leave the religion of the law of Moses, Judaism. No right thinking man would advocate that Gentiles, who never were under the law of Moses, are to go back to Judaism. Sad to say some do so teach (premillennialism, dispensationalism). To appeal to the law of Moses for authority to do anything is to attempt to go back under the old law (Gal. 5:4).

This principle (“without the camp”) plus other passages of Scripture shows that other applications can be/should be made. We can be impressed with the exclusiveness of the gospel system (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-27; Matt. 10:34-39; 15:13; Jn. 14:6).

One must come to Jesus without the camp of paganism and/or idolatry. One cannot come to Jesus and continue to serve at the altar of an idol (Matt. 6:4). I have read of American Indians who practice their native religion . . . and are members of some denominational church. They have not, in fact, come to Jesus. To come to Jesus one must leave the idol (Col. 3:5) of modern America, covetousness.

Jesus is to be found, as a Redeemer and constant Guide, only when one is without the camp of worldliness. The worldly man is a “profane person” (Heb. 12:16; see also 1 Tim. 1:9; 4:7; 6:20). The fornicator is not the only profane person. This would include all who: (1) Treat the religion of Jesus Christ with contempt; (2) Are “too busy” for the Lord, worship services, speaking to others about the Saviour; (3) The “Here and Now’ers.” Worldliness also refers to all liars (Rev. 21:8). Included are the religious liars, those who know (?) more about what pleases God or is acceptable to him than God himself. These reveal themselves with such statements as: “I know the Bible teaches ________ , but I believe ” or “I wouldn’t trade what I feel/have in my heart for . . . Truly, man must learn to “Let God be found true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

“Let us therefore go forth unto him without the camp” (13:13) of denominationalism (Eph. 4:4 [1:22-23]; Matt. 15:13). Denominationalism is the exact opposite of that for which Jesus prayed (Jn. 17:20-21). Can we obey 1 Corinthians 1:10 while we teach different doctrines (different from one another and different from the word of God)? Wear different religious titles? Are members of different churches (so-called)? How can we obey the precept of Romans 3:4? We must learn to give Book, Chapter and Verse for all that we believe, teach or practice. We must learn to respect the silence of the Scriptures (Heb. 7:11-14).

Jesus Christ suffered without the gate, showing that one must come to him without the camp of Judaism in order to be saved (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Let us, you and me, determine to come to Jesus without the camps of idolatry/paganism, worldliness and/or denominationalism that we might serve God in the one body, the one church.

To do so will place you in the position of “bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:13), and also give the promise of dwelling in the Heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 13:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, pp. 466-467
August 6, 1992

By P.J. Casebolt

A good preacher’s wife would be the female counterpart of what some brethren consider to be the ideal preacher. She would be the composite of a woman 39 years old, with 35-40 years of experience; a mixture of blonde, brunette, redhead; outgoing, yet reserved; always with her husband, but never away from her children; stands beside him in the pulpit and at the door as he shakes hands with the congregation, but stays in the background; fashionable and attractive, yet plain; a social butterfly who is conversant on every topic, but never gossips.

What I mean to say is that no two preachers are the same from the standpoint of personality and ability, yet we have arbitrary concepts of what “a good preacher’s wife” should be.

I was preaching for several years before I was married, and I would have to be a polygamist if I had married all the woman that brethren (and sisters) told me would make a good preacher’s wife. But, according to some preachers now, I could have done that as an alien sinner, and baptism would have washed away all the polygamy, if not the wives, Of course, I would have to have done it (the marrying), in a country where polygamy was lawful. And every single preacher and every preacher who has become a widower knows whereof I speak.

When I went to one congregation for a meeting, the brethren had three prospects that would make me a good preacher’s wife. One was not a Christian, one was only half-converted, and the other one was 15 years older than I was. I guess the latter would be somewhere around 80 now, and brethren would be gossiping as to why I married a woman 15 years my senior.

The sectarian concept of a good preacher’s wife for me would be embodied in the title, “Evangelist and Mrs. P.J. Casebolt” – a husband and wife team with the wife singing or playing special music or testifying publicly about what a good preacher her husband was. And the modern concept of assigning (or usurping) public roles for women in the assemblies of the church is becoming all too prevalent among the Lord’s people. For the benefit of those who have never read their Bibles, or who have never heard “their” preacher teach on the subject, I refer you to such passages as 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and Titus 2:3-5.

I have no objection to a preacher’s wife, or any other woman, teaching children or other women. And if the preacher’s wife is capable of doing this in her home congregation, or in a meeting where her husband is preaching (both by invitation), I have no problem with that as long as she behaves like a woman should and doesn’t neglect her other duties as a wife and mother.

Brethren have prayed for me and my wife, and for our family, and such prayers were and are appreciated. But I think (and hope) that they understand my wife’s role in her relationship to the preacher as well as I understand it. But within the past few years I keep getting the impression that some folks are making arbitrary qualifications for preacher’s wives which may make it either impossible or unscriptural for the next generation of preachers to find “a good preacher’s wife.”

Even as one preacher may have talents above and beyond those of other preachers, that doesn’t mean that all preachers have to possess those talents. In a verse, the qualifications for a good preacher or “minister” (1 Tim. 4:6) are stated in 2 Timothy 2:2 – “faithful” and “able.” And while one preacher’s wife may have talents not possessed by other women, it doesn’t follow that we should use one woman’s talents as a criterion for all preacher’s wives.

Some preachers are married before they decide to preach. Must they trade in their wife for “a good preacher’s wife”? Some preachers quit preaching for different reasons, but should they trade their wife to some other preacher who needs “a good preacher’s wife” (by brotherhood standards)? I know that sounds ridiculous, but that’s the way I intend for it to sound, to get my point across.

Some preachers’ wives have all that they can do being a wife (“help meet” – suitable) to their husbands and a mother (or grandmother) to their children. They may have to try much harder than the many-talented women who can do several things well.

A good wife will make a good farmer’s wife, a good carpenter’s wife, a good lawyer’s wife, a good doctor’s wife – or a good preacher’s wife. And God will be satisfied, and so should the brethren.

“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord” (Prov. 18:22). And the good wife of Proverbs 31 is not necessarily a preacher’s wife. But if a preacher has a wife like that, “she shall be praised” (v. 30), by the preacher, by her children, and by the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, p. 487
August 20, 1992

By Brooks Cochran

Remember Lot’s wife. Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it (Lk. 17:32-33).

Whenever I think of lukewarm Christians this passage comes to mind. It serves as a warning. Lot’s wife, though nameless, was lukewarm in her attitude toward God and the salvation he offered when the “cities of the plain” were to be destroyed (Gen. 19). She began her journey to safety with her husband and daughters; but the farther they went from Sodom the more she lagged behind. As a result she perished along with the inhabitants of Sodom.

Implied in these words is the fact “that Lot’s wife was seeking to hang on to her life in Sodom, and that, consequently, she lost her life in its destruction. The word ‘look back’ has the connotation of ‘looking intently.’ It might possibly be rendered ‘lagged back,’ or maybe even ‘returned back.’ In any case, she was not with her husband and daughters, so that only she perished” (Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, 355-356).

Lot’s wife efforts to save herself from the destruction of the cities lack the determination as seen in her husband and daughters. Her heart was still in the city. She evidently did not appreciate all that had been done for her salvation (Gen. 18:16-33). She almost made it to safety; but sadly she allowed her vigilance to relax. As in the words of the writer of Hebrews, she came “short of the grace of God” (Heb. 12:15, NASB).

Jesus gave this warning for our good. As Lot’s wife was destroyed because of her divided loyalty, so too, will professed Christians who seek to hang on to the things of the world. It is sad to see such individuals who are lukewarm in their attendance, giving of their means, personal evangelism and general support of the local work. They are making an effort to reach safety; but their heart is torn between Christ and the things of the world. As time passes they linger farther and farther behind until they become unfaithful. In the end they will perish along with the people of the world.

If these words apply to you it is not too late to catch up. But you must hurry as none knows what the future holds. Jesus spoke of lukewarm Christians in Revelation 3:15,16. His remarks were not complimentary: “. . . because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew (vomit) thee out of my mouth.” This is not a nice thought, but at least you know what Jesus thinks of lukewarm individuals. Determine now to get “hot” for the Lord and be totally committed to his work.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, p. 481
August 20, 1992

By Robert F. Turner

In John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bk. 2, Par. 20), we read, “It thus appears that none can enter the kingdom of God save those whose minds have been renewed by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit.” He cites 1 Corinthians 2:14, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned. ” He defines “natural man” as one who trusts to the light of nature; and says, as respects understanding spiritual mysteries, “though he exert himself, it is of no avail: they are . . . hidden from human discernment . . . made known only by the revelation of the Spirit. ” A few sentences later: “The mind of men have not capacity enough to know their calling.” He calls us “prating Pelagians” who say God, by the teaching of his word, directs man to truths he could not otherwise have known.

1 Corinthians 2:11 makes it clear that things of God must be revealed by God – man cannot take them by his own wisdom. But the context here says God has revealed his truths to chosen witnesses, who make his truths known by inspired teaching. Calvin is saying each hearer or reader must have some indwelling, enabling power in order to understand the message of the inspired speaker or writer. Calvin’s “natural man” is the unregenerate – any one who has not been miraculously changed by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. With such a view there is no point in preaching the gospel message to alien sinners. One must wait until God has miraculously saved them before they can understand it.

This is consistent with Calvin’s TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Preservation of the elect. But it runs counter to free will and a gospel message that is seed of the kingdom, sown in honest and good hearts and producing fruit in those who hear, believe and obey (Lk. 8:1 If). The natural man of I Corinthians 2 is one who rejects the miraculously confirmed message of the inspired apostles and prophets in favor of his own human wisdom. This is a far cry from saying the Bible cannot be understood except by one who has some personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Paul had said, “My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom (appealing to the “natural man,” rt) but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (2:4-5). The self-crucifying message of the cross (1:18f) calls for faith in a power higher than man; for humble people who welcome the confirmed words of God even though they reveal matters that could never have been known by human wisdom alone. “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery. . . ” (v. 6); and the “we” and “us” right on through the chapter refer to those who spoke (or wrote) by inspiration. Paul is not saying no alien sinner can understand his message. He is saying they must trust the confirmed word rather than their own wisdom.

Consider Ephesians 3:1-5, where Paul says he (and other apostles and prophets) received information by revelation, but he “wrote” so that “when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (vv. 3-4). Calvin is dead right in saying man cannot know the things of God apart from the revelation of God by His Spirit. He is dead wrong in assuming the recipients of the message by the Spirit were incapable of passing it on to “every creature” in all the world. Man is taught by the Holy Spirit when he receives their message.

Despite these truths, I see things in “our” bulletins that disturb me. After setting forth a truth concerning material possessions, “. . . natural man cannot comprehend such things, God gave us his Spirit to enable us to discern them ” (1 Cor. 2:11). Again, “How does each new babe grow? He must study (2 Tim. 2:15), but God must give him discerning power” (1 Cor. 2:14). And, “God give us the wisdom to understand his commands (Jas. 1:5) (check that passage – rft), and the power to accomplish each and everything he commands (Eph. 1:19) (check that one too, in its context – rft). 2 Timothy 3:17 does not limit that which God had “throughly furnished” to the written word. ” Would you call the writer of these statements, and more like them, a Calvinist?

Sometimes we are hasty to label – especially to apply a general system label to someone who may only be in error on a point or two – and it is my hope that error is limited in this case. However, such statements as these spring from a misconception of Spirit operation today, and can only encourage further error. It seems apparent that the writer believes in the “personal indwelling” of the Holy Spirit. But most of our brethren who so believe are hard put to say what the Spirit, apart from the word, does for us. Not the writer of these statements. He indicates the indwelling Spirit (1) gives us the ability to understand the word; (2) leads us apart from the word; (3) “enables” us to walk in the light; and various other things.

It seems once a person accepts the concept of miraculous indwelling, he sees that in every passage on the Holy Spirit and his effect upon us. Those who differ with him are “not spiritual” or have never been “born again.” I remember a man telling me I could not understand the plan of salvation because I did not “have the Spirit.” I asked where he got such an idea, and he cited 1 Corinthians 2:14, saying, “Read it, just read it!” Of course I replied, “Why should I read it? According to you, I cannot understand it.” I tried to help him read it in its context, but apparently he could not understand that.

Man’s “flesh” is not, of itself, sinful; but one who puts appetites of the flesh above the service of God is “fleshly” in a sinful sense. And the God who gave us “flesh” also gave this “natural” man the capacity to examine, reason, and draw conclusions. “Human reasoning” is not, of itself, bad. It is, in fact, one of the characteristics that sets man above the beast. We must use this capacity in reading and studying God’s word – a message compatible with the man to whom it is given. We read first, then believe (Jn. 20:31; Rom. 10:17), not the other way around. The unsaved man can understand the word, and “come” of his own free will in obedient faith. But if he refuses to accept God’s word because it does not conform to conclusions of his own experience and learning, apart from the revealed message, he is a “natural man” in the sinful sense of the word (1 Cor. 1:21).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, pp. 485-486
August 20, 1992