Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Dreams of unity have motivated actions that are noble and other efforts that are disgraceful to the name of the Lord. Ironically, some unity movements have brought forth new divisions and deepened existing cleavages.

The search for happiness is an honorable quest, but true happiness can be found only in submission to God. This truth is expressed vividly in the book of Ecclesiastes. The search for eternal life is a virtuous quest, but the abundant, unending life that men desire can be obtained only through allegiance to Jesus Christ. This is the essence of the New Testament message. In like manner, the search for religious unity is a commendable quest, but the unity for which our Master prayed in John 17:20,21 can be attained only by loving loyalty to him in doctrine and in practice.

Some people are so enamored by visions of unity that they compromise New Testament teaching with religious error in order to have oneness. They surrender what is written and accept human traditions for the sake of broader fellowship. Matters of faith are shifted to the realm of opinion in order that doors of enlarged participation may be opened to them.

The Spring 1992 issue of One Body gives a good example of how far some will go in the quest for harmony with their religious neighbors. Founded by Don DeWelt, One Body promotes unity between Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. A report from Steve Bishop of Burlington, Mass., includes the following:

On December 22 the Bedford Christian Church and Burlington Church of Christ, churches not more than 13 minutes from one another, united for a Christmas Candlelight Service. The service was held in Bedford’s building and used a capella and instrumental music. The instrument being played by a member of the Burlington Church of Christ! Joining in this service was the Brookline Church of Christ.

Brookline has been participating in missions funding and other joint projects with the Christian Church for many years but for Burlington this was the first time in ten years that the churches had been together. And it was the first time the Christian Church had actively participated in a service with the Burlington Church. You see ten years ago, the Churches of Christ invited Bedford to their Fifth Sunday Worships but would not invite them to participate in any leading role. That barrier was broken this year!

For those of us in the Burlington Church and the Brookline Church instrumental music is a non-issue. We believe it is a matter of opinion, so there is really nothing to stop us from enjoying one another’s fellowship.

There is absolutely no authority in the New Testament for a Christmas Candlelight Service. When the Burlington and Brookline congregations agreed to participate in that kind of service they left the teaching of Jesus. I am unable to find anything in the apostolic writings either by example or by command that would warrant such a service. One must go to the traditions of Catholicism and denominationalism to find services of this kind. In those human traditions he also finds Easter Sunrise Services, Lenten Services, Good Friday Services, Laymen’s Day Services, Thursday Night Communion Services, and other observances that are foreign to the New Testament.

According to Steve Bishop, the Burlington and Brookline congregations have concluded that instrumental music is a I inon-issue” or “matter of opinion.” If the New Testament reveals the kind of music that we are to use in worship, and it does, how could this be a matter of opinion? If Burlington and Brookline decide that sprinkling is a matter of opinion, they can enjoy the fellowship of more of their religious neighbors. If they decide that the purpose of baptism is a matter of opinion, they can stretch their fellowship to greater lengths. If they decide that praying to Mary is a matter of opinion, presto! they can fellowship a larger company.

Since the New Testament teaches us how to worship, the invention of other ways is not to be regarded as a “nonissue.” We are taught in the word of the Lord that the action of baptism is a burial, therefore the substitution of sprinkling is not a “non-issue.” Anything that is contrary to New Testament teaching is a serious matter; to dismiss it as a “non-issue” ignores its seriousness.

The venerable J.W. McGarvey wrote in the Millennial Harbinger (Nov., 1864):

In the early years of the present Reformation, there was entire unanimity in the rejection of instrumental music from our public worship. It was declared unscriptural, inharmonious with the Christian institution, and a source of corruption. In the course of time, individuals here and there called in question the correctness of this decision, and an attempt was occasionally made to introduce instruments in some churches.

Outlining his reasons for objecting to instrumental music in worship, McGarvey noted:

. . . Seeing that in different dispensations there are some differences in the acts of acceptable worship, we cannot know what is acceptable under a particular dispensation, except by express statements of revelation with reference thereto. We cannot, therefore, by any possibility, know that a certain element of worship is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation, when the Scriptures which speak of that dispensation are silent in reference to it. To introduce any such element is unscriptural and presumptuous.

In the Harbinger (Apr., 1868), McGarvey conceded:

This question of instrumental music is becoming a serious one. There are many who favor it, and who will listen to no argument against it. By the cry of progress and conformity, it is making its way over the heads and hearts of many of our best brethren and sisters.

There was unity on the music to be used in worship in the days of the apostles. Mechanical instruments were conspicuously absent. There was unity on this point in the early years of the Restoration Movement, when, as McGarvey expressed it, “there was entire unanimity in the rejection of instrumental music from our public worship.” Division came when mechanical instruments were introduced and a variety of attempts made to justify their presence in worship.

In Lard’s Quarterly (Oct., 1867), there appeared a long article by Dr. H. Christopher of St. Louis, Mo., giving historical facts about the use of instrumental music in worship, and pointing to the follies of innovations and corruptions. Christopher insisted that introducing instrumental music in worship violates principle. “It can not be done without abandoning our ground and giving up our fundamental principle,” wrote Christopher.

Moses E. Lard commended Dr. Christopher’s article, adding a few comments of his own:

The question of instrumental music in the churches of Christ involves a great and sacred principle. But for this the subject is not worthy of one thought at the hands of the child of God. That principle is the right of men to introduce innovations into the prescribed worship of God. This right we utterly deny. The advocates of instrumental music affirm it. This makes the issue.

To wave the hand and pronounce instrumental music in worship a “non-issue” is to sidestep a fundamental point. Compromise of principle in order to have unity places one in a trade-off position. If we can trade one principle for unity, how many other principles can we surrender for broader unity? What good is a united body of people without principles?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, pp. 387-388
July 2, 1992

By Carol R. Lumpkin

There is not a child of God but who would rejoice when a local church grows spiritually and in numbers. I would raise a question, “Are numbers always the best?” The right kind of numbers always is the best and will glorify God.

When the Jews obeyed the gospel Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41), they were added by the Lord to his church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23). Each and every individual who has obeyed the gospel since (Acts 2), has done the same (no exception). Each convert adds one (number) to the Lord’s church. This is the way God planned for it to be from the beginning of time.

When the wrong kind of numbers are added to a local church membership roll it spiritually contaminates that church. The increase is repugnant to God and his word; not only that, but the local church is a party to that one in sin. If not, why not? “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). But I hear someone cry out, the elders approved the action and they are to blame and I am not. This just plain is not true. Elders are over the flock to direct the flock according to the word of God (1 Pet. 5:1-3; Heb. 13:17). Local members who follow elders into error are also guilty.

Local churches are accepting as members (numbers), people who have married, divorced, and remarried, when the first marriage was not scripturally resolved. “Whosoever shall put away his wife (husband), except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her (him) which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). “For the woman (man) which hath an husband (wife) is bound by the law (God’s law) to her husband (his wife) so long as he (she) liveth; but if the husband (wife) be dead, she (he) is loosed from the law of her husband (his wife)” (Rom. 7:2).

When a wife or husband leaves the marriage bond to co-habit with another, adultery is committed which breaks the bond of marriage (1 Cor. 6:15-16). This permits the innocent one to divorce and gives permission to scripturally remarry. By scripturally, I mean one who is eligible, according to the word of God, to be married to.

I have read where about fifty percent (50%) of all first marriages result in divorce. The sad and disappointing thing about this is the local church of Christ often is accepting these people without any evidence of repentance. When this is done, God will not accept the person or the church which accepts them while in sin. God requires the church to be kept clean and pure; hence remove from the midst all that work iniquity.

When two individuals marry and later divorce and remarry without fornication (adultery) being the reason, neither party, I repeat, neither one is scripturally free to remarry. Preachers, elders and members, must abide by the New Testament law of Christ regardless of who may be affected and regardless of what people may have to think or say.

Spiritual adultery is a serious problem involving the Lord’s church. Some elders and preachers close their eyes for the sake of numbers by accepting those who have come from liberal churches, sometimes even from denominational churches, without any requirement of doing what the God of heaven requires. To meet and worship with a church which teaches false doctrine and practices unscriptural works is to engage in sin. The sin is not forgiven by just expressing a desire to be a member of some conservative church, The Bible still teaches confession of sin (1 Jn. 1:9), repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22).

Preachers and elders must avoid leaving the idea in one’s mind that just casting one’s lot with a church, by being recognized by request to be another number, is all that God requires.

“That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). Based upon the above Scripture, the local church must be kept pure and clean to be a part of that glorious body of Christ. Numbers! Yes, when they are the scriptural kind. Numbers! No, when they are the unscriptural kind. It is later than we think. The judgment is coming, be prepared.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 398
July 2, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). In the context of his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul contrasts human wisdom with divine wisdom. He shows the absolute futility of man apart from the gospel. It is the gospel, he affirms, that is both God’s wisdom and power unto salvation. By “the preaching the cross” man can have “fellowship” or communion with God and the forgiveness of his sins or salvation. The story of the cross appears as weakness and foolishness unto man, but it is the power and wisdom of God to save. Why was such a base, ignoble, weak and foolish thing as “the preaching of the cross” chosen? It was chosen (1) “to confound the things which are mighty” in the eyes of men, (2) “to bring to nought” things that are honored by men, (3) in order “that no flesh should glory in his presence,” and (4) “that . . . he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

In the blood of the cross of the Christ we find the hope of the gospel. The center and circumference of all genuine gospel preaching is the cross of Calvary. The echoes of the execution, the cries of the cross, resound and reverberate throughout the gospel. Whether one is speaking of the promises made to Abraham, or of “the hope which is laid up for you in heaven,” he is preaching the cross and making known the true grace of God (Gal. 3:8; Col. 1:5,6). If one claiming to be a gospel preacher speaks of something that is not a part of the blood of the everlasting covenant, he had better cease to preach it (1 Cor. 4:6; Heb. 12:25).

There is a current trend that has borrowed an old philosophy from denominational and modern, fundamental evangelicalism. The concept is this: Let us preach the physical facts of the cross and the actual death of Jesus and let us not dwell on how one becomes a Christian, or on the work, worship and organization of the church. While these items are necessary and important, when we preach them we are liable and likely to ignore “the preaching of the cross.” A more liberal spirit speaks of “preaching the man and not the plan.” Others say that the New Testament is a “love letter” and not a law book; hence, we should bind the “life” of our Lord as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but not the “rules and regulations” of the epistles.

While we cannot read another person’s mind (1 Cor. 2:11), it is not difficult to see the effects of such teaching. First, though, the word of God does not urge us to “preach the man and not the plan.” Rather, in the most urgent terms, it insists on the constant teaching, “with all longsuffering and doctrine,” of “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27; 2 Tim. 3:14-4:5). Second, a result of such preaching as they advocate will be the destruction of the plain pattern of gospel obedience and of behavior in the house of God (1 Tim. 1: 16; 3:14,15). Third, the unique and distinct nature of the church will be lost (Heb. 8:5). When the plan, purpose and pattern of any institution is relegated to a secondary status, its original design will be desecrated and destroyed (cf. Rom. 1:21; 1 Sam. 8; 1 Kgs. 12:26-33). Fourth, a false distinction is made between the things of the gospel. Thus, though no apostle ever said so, the Lord’s supper becomes “the most important part of our service.” Ultimately, the day of its observance will become merely a “legalistic,” “Pharisaic technicality,” which concerns only “coldeyed formalists.” Singing unto the Lord, with or without mechanical instruments, becomes inconsequential. Jesus’ death on the cross is our salvation, so sermons on the “how” and “what” of Bible baptism are seen as “divisive and sectarian.” This is the spirit that would feign exalt the cross and lower its conditions.

In opposition to this disposition, we have devoted this series of articles. In the last issue, we noted the things that “Philip the evangelist” did not preach. Now, we shall see:

What Philip Preached

As seen and cited earlier, Philip “preached Christ,” “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:5,12,35). Assuredly, we should all preach what Philip preached (1 Pet. 4:11; 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:6-12). In the “preaching of the cross,” what did Philip preach? Philip preached:

1. Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Remember the question of the eunuch, “Of whom speaketh the prophet this?” (Acts 8:34; Isa. 5 3:7,8) It was in response to that query that Philip spoke. One is preaching Christ and his cross when he speaks of Jesus as “him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write” (Jn. 1:45; 5:46,47; Lk. 24:2527). As we address a premillennialist on the throne and the crown of the Christ, we are preaching “unto him Jesus” (Acts 2:30,31; 8:35; 17:2,3; 18:4-6). Some would argue that a book on the errors of premillennialism (e.g., Foy E. Wallace, Jr., God’s Prophetic Word) is a case of ignoring the cross and putting too much emphasis “on refuting false doctrine” while taking the cross “for granted.” It is a false dichotomy. Philip preached Jesus as the answer of the purposes and promises of God, and he was preaching “Jesus” when he did so. Therefore, one is preaching the gospel, the cross, when he preaches of Jesus from the Old Testament (Acts 8:35; 10:43).

2. That Christ is the Son of God. We know that Philip “preached Christ unto them.” When Paul “preached Christ,” he preached “that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). So, to preach that Jesus is the Son of God is to preach the gospel, the cross. When one argues with a Mormon or a Muslim on the sonship of the Son of God, he is preaching Christ. Do not be fooled into thinking that one is neglecting the cross of Christ or giving it secondary consideration if he is debating the nature of Deity with a Jehovah’s Witness. To preach Christ is to preach “that he is the Son of God” (1 Jn. 1:1-3; 4:14,15; 5:5,9-12,20). One does not deny the centrality of the cross in salvation when, “by many infallible proofs,” he establishes Jesus as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4).

3. “The things concerning the kingdom of God.” After his resurrection but prior to his ascension, Jesus, too, spoke “of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). To speak of the kingdom of God is to speak of the rule or reign of God (Matt. 28:28; Eph. 1:20-23; Col. 1:13,18-24). To speak, as we shall presently show, of the kingdom of God is to speak of the church of God (Matt. 16:18,19). However, notice that the text does not say that Philip spoke of the kingdom of God, but of “the things concerning the kingdom of God” (Acts 8:12; cf. 1:3 – “things pertaining to the kingdom of God”). But more about that later.

Obviously, not every reference to the kingdom of God is a reference to the church. The kingdom is spoken of in at least three different senses. In this, it is comparable to the word, “saved … .. Saved-may refer to (A) salvation from past sins (Mk. 16:16; Acts 3:19; 2 Pet. 1:9; Rom. 10:9,10), to (B) the present salvation enjoyed by the Christian (1 Cor. 15:2) and to (C) salvation in heaven (Rom. 5:9; 13:11; 1 Pet. 1:9). Likewise, the kingdom of God is spoken of as (A) the universal rule of God (1 Chron. 29:11; Psa. 47:2,7,8; 103:19), as (B) the heavenly kingdom, the abode of the saved in eternity (1 Cor. 15:50; Acts 14:22; 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 1:11; Matt. 25:34), and as (C) the church (Matt. 16:18,19; Col. 1:13,18; Heb. 12:23,28).

If I told any 16 year old, “I am going to purchase a car, and I will give you the keys to my automobile,” do you think he would be confused by my use of the terms, “car” and “automobile”? Me, neither! So, Jesus said, “I will build my church . . . and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:18,19). Keys are symbolic of entrance. Control of the keys is control of use and access. The apostles announced the terms of entrance in the kingdom in that they pronounced the conditions of pardon (Jn. 20:23; Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38,47; 10:39-43,48). One is added to the church or translated into the kingdom when he obeys the gospel (Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:13; 3:6; Col. 1:13).

Observe some parallel comparisons of the church and kingdom of Christ.

1. The church is “a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6).

“My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36); hence, it is a spiritual kingdom (Jn. 3:3-8; Rom. 14:17; Heb. 1:8).

2. One is called out of the world and into the church by the gospel (1 Pet. 1:22-25; 2:5-9; Eph. 2:16; 3:6).

One is called unto his kingdom and glory by the gospel (1 Thess. 2:12,13; 2 Thess. 2:13,14).

3. The Lord’s supper is in the church (1 Cor. 10; 11).

The Lord’s supper is in the kingdom (Matt. 26:29).

4. By one Spirit, we are baptized “into one body,” the church (1 Cor. 12:13).

We are “born of water and of the Spirit” to “see” or “enter” the kingdom (Jn. 3:3,5).

5. The temple, tabernacle, house or church is not made with hands (1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6; 8:2; 9:11).

The kingdom was made “without hands” (Dan. 2:44,45).

6. God set Christ on his own right hand and gave him to be head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:20-23; Col. 1:18).

God set his king on his holy hill of Zion (Psa. 2:6). Since kings are set over kingdoms, Christ has rule over his kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; Acts 2:30,31; Zech. 6:13; Heb. 1:3,8; Lk. 1:32,33).

7. “Saved,” “us,” “righteous” are “the house (church) of God” (1 Pet. 4:17,18; Heb. 3:6; 1 Tim. 3:15).

“Righteousness” is the sceptre of Christ’s kingdom (Heb. 1:8,9; Rom. 14:17).

8. The “mountain,” government, house (church) of the Lord and his word go forth “from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:2,3; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6).

God set his king upon his holy hill of Zion; his government, throne, dominion and kingdom began “at Jerusalem” (Psa.2:6; Lk. 1:32,33; 24:47,49; Acts 1:6; 2:5,30,31; 11:15).

9. “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:21). After his death, Christ was made head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9-11).

“In thy kingdom” equals “into thy glory” (Matt. 20:21; Mk. 10:37). Christ entered into his glory after his death (Lk, 24:26; 1 Pet. 1:11).

10. Christ is the Savior of the body, the church (Eph. 5:23).

Christ will “deliver up the kingdom unto God” (1 Cor. 15:24).

In his farewell address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-38), allow the peerless Paul to tell what he had preached among them. First, he preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Second, he preached “the gospel of the grace of God.” Third, he preached “the kingdom of God” (cf. Acts 19:8; 28:23,31). Fourth, he “ceased not to warn every one night and day” about “grievous wolves” who would speak “perverse things to draw away disciples.” Fifth, he commended them “to God, and to the word of his grace.” Sixth, he taught them “to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus.”

All of the items above are a part of what it means to “preach the kingdom of God,” and to preach the cross. Repentance and faith are essential ingredients of preaching the cross and kingdom of Christ. Preaching God’s grace, which brings salvation and teaches us to live pure lives (Tit. 2:11-14), is preaching the kingdom. Warnings against false doctrines and false brethren are a necessary part of preaching the cross, for such men “are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18). Preaching that encourages benevolence and that reminds us of the words of the Lord Jesus in caring for our fellow man is preaching the cross and its kingdom. Be not deceived by those who would beguile you with smooth words and sweet speeches and have you believe that you are somehow forgetting the cross of Christ when you speak of similar subjects.

4. “The name of Jesus Christ.” To preach the name of Jesus Christ is to preach the authority of the Son of God (Matt. 28:18,19). When David met Goliath “in the name of the Lord of hosts” (1 Sam. 17:45), he came in the power and by the authority of Jehovah. In 1 Samuel 25:4-9, David sent out “ten young men” who were to speak “in (his) name.” “And when David’s young men came, they spake to Nabal according to all those words in the name of David and ceased.” Perhaps the most important aspect of the young men’s work is that they “ceased.” Whenever one speaks or acts in the name and by the authority of the king, he must speak and act as directly commissioned and charged by the king himself. He dares not to do less or more. So, when one speaks or preaches in the name of Jesus Christ, he had better know when to “cease.” He had better know not to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6). In short, he must speak as divinely directed by the Lord in his word (1 Pet. 4:11).

In Jeremiah 34:16-18, God said, “Ye turned and polluted my name.” How had they done so? How had they polluted the name of the Lord? They did so by doing their own will, by not listening to the Lord’s instructions, by transgressing the covenant, by not performing “the words of the covenant. ” The surest way on earth to incur the Lord’s wrath is to pollute his name, and Jeremiah says that the way we do that is to disobey divine direction of the word of God.

Jesus said, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me” (Jn. 17:6). And how did he manifest the “name” of God? “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me” (Jn. 17:8). One preaches the name of Jesus Christ when he makes known the words of Jesus Christ. It is just that simple. If you want to preach his name, if you want to glorify his name, then preach the word, preach the cross. Anything that does not have the name of heaven behind it is without the authority of God. Thus, when Philip preached “the name of Jesus Christ,” when “he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” he did so with the full power and authority of the Son of God (Acts 2:38; 8:12; 10:48; 19:5). To preach baptism “for the remission of sins” is to preach in the name of Jesus Christ (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43,48). It is to preach “the cross of Christ.” When you are too spiritual, too holy, to preach repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, you are too sanctimonious and vainly puffed up by your carnal mind (Col. 2:18).

Again, the “name of Jesus Christ” is the “power of Jesus Christ” (Acts 3:6,12,16; 4:7,10,12). Study those texts. It was in the name, by the power and authority of Jesus Christ, that the lame man was raised up. There is no other power or authority under heaven “whereby we must be saved.” Further, Ephesians 1:20-23 and Philippians 2:9-11 are coordinate passages. Christ was “given . . . a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . and every tongue should confess” (Phil. 2:9-11). Pentecostal people say that this name is the name, “Jesus.” No, that cannot be, for he was given that “name” at his birth, however, this “name” was his dominion, power and authority, when, after his death, he “was made head over all things” (Eph. 1:20-23; Col. 1:18; Matt. 28:18; Lk. 24:46,47).

Philip preached this “name.” When he did so, “both men and women” “believed . . . and were baptized” (Acts 8:12). When one, like Billy Sunday of yesteryear or Billy Graham of today, claims to “preach the name or cross of Christ,” we know they are not doing so, for “men and women” are not believing and being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” as they were when Philip truly preached his name, cross and kingdom (Acts 2:38; 8:12; 10:43,48; 16:31; 19:5). Remember, those who leave off or neglect the word of God, on this or any other part, are polluting the name of God (Jer. 34:16-18). They are not exalting the cross of Christ. They are not “preaching the cross.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, pp. 390-392
July 2, 1992

By Dan King

After Moses had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness, they encamped on the plains of Moab, with the promised land just on the other side of the Jordan river. There he rehearsed with them the exploits he had experienced with their parents and themselves through the years now past. In the course of this careful reconstruction of events, the tired old leader spoke of one particular memory he had, namely, of that time when he had despaired of the obligations of his office. He had informed the Israelites: “I am not able to bear you myself alone” (Deut. 1:9), and, “How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife.” The job was too great for him! Israel had come to be so large a nation that one man could never judge their problems and handle all their strifes by himself.

Great a man as Moses was, he knew his limits. This passage teaches many good lessons and sets forth a number of helpful principles which are not only represented here, but throughout the Word of God. All church workers today should consider these thoughts and apply them to their own situation. Now, if you are not a worker in the church (and you know whether you are or not), then you need to become one. God has no place in his kingdom for those who merely wish to sit back and watch – or worse than that – sit back and watch others work and then criticize them! The majority of the parables of the kingdom are “work situation parables,” that is, they describe people working in the fields or vineyards, fishing, investing, or engaged in some other productive enterprise. The obvious conclusion we are to draw from this is that God wants us to be “producers” too. When you become a worker, then you will appreciate the significance of the following points gleaned from Deuteronomy, chapter one.

1. The principle of human limitation. In vv. 9 and 12 Moses expressed his exasperation with the endless tasks before him. He could have worked himself completely “into the grave” and would never have been through. “I am not able. . . ” and “How can I. . . ” express the frustration he felt. Teachers, elders, deacons, preachers – all Christian workers – at times feel the same way. Some are working to make a living for their families, attempting to spend some time with their children and spouses, while contributing their spare time to the cause of Christ. In the face of these pressures, sometimes they are faced with the unrealistic expectations of others. Do not feel that you are alone, Moses felt the same way.

2. The principle of multiplying workers. Moses told the people to find among themselves men of ability and wisdom which he would appoint over the tribes: “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you” (v. 13). This inspired man knew that, to get more work done, you must have more workers. Concentrating the efforts of the same few will not increase the output of a congregation today to any large extent. What the church needs is more people who are not already involved in the work to “pitch in. ” Why did Jesus choose twelve men as his apostles? Why did he send out the seventy? Why did he appear to “above five hundred”? Because one man could not do it alone. Jesus was not sent to do all of God’s work, but to prepare workers and get the work started. When he had accomplished that, he was ready to go back to his Father. The Lord said: “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his harvest” (Lk. 10:2); and, in another place: “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal” (Jn. 4:35-36).

3. The principle of shared responsibility. The judges were charged by Moses to hear the cases between brethren, and only to bring the case to Moses if it were too hard for them to settle (vv. 16-17). Moses was not so jealous of his position that he was unwilling to “delegate responsibility.” No successful person can be. Often church workers are so anxious to guard a job for themselves that they refuse to train others to take their place when they are gone or are out of town. This can be the product of petty jealousy, and ought never to rear its ugly head in the kingdom of God. The result can be an almost permanent hardship for the church in the event they move, have extended sickness, or are taken from us by death. Learn to share responsibility. This is God’s way. Paul told Timothy to train others to take his place, even as Paul himself had trained Timothy (2 Tim. 2:2).

4. The principle of ultimate accountability to God. “Ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s” (v. 17). Those of us who are doing little for the work of Christ, save showing up occasionally at the worship services, had better know that someday we must all give account to God (2 Cor. 5:10). “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be” (Rev. 22:12). So said God about the judgment. Those of us who are not producing anything toward the cause of Christ, save concern on the part of faithful and vigilant workers, need to awake to what the judgment will be about. It will be “according to our works,” as per this and other scriptures.

Apply these divine principles to your labor in the kingdom of heaven. They will make of you a more fruitful worker, and the overall effect will be the growth of the church and a greater volume of work done.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 396
July 2, 1992