Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

Jesus was an unusual person. He was God-Man, that is he was both human and divine. John said of Jesus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:1,14). Although Jesus was the Son of God, there are some things he never had:

Jesus Never Had an Earthly Home

Can you imagine a person not having a home? There is not a sweeter word than the word home, It is a good feeling when one has been away to be able to go home. Often it is said of Jesus, “And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when evening was come, he was there alone” (Matt. 14:23). Jesus himself said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20).

Some who have good homes do not appreciate them soon enough.

No Earthly Father

A boy needs an earthly father. It is sad today that many of our young people are being reared without an earthly father. Child correction is the primary responsibility of the father (Eph. 6:4).

Jesus had no real earthly father. He was born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14).

Jesus Never Had a Long Life

The lives of a lot of people are wiped out at an early age. The average life span of men is about 72 years now. Jesus only lived to be about 33 1/2 years old. The Bible refers to him being “about thirty years of age” (Lk. 3:23). Although Jesus lived a short earth life, he lived a full and busy life. He said, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (Jn. 17:4). Jesus did more in his short life than most ever think about doing. “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (Jn. 21:25). A short, but full and busy life.

No Sin in His Life

Jesus never had any sin in his life. He lived a life of sinless perfection. The Hebrew writer said of Jesus, “For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). The apostle Peter said, he “did no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22). Paul told the Corinthians that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). Can you imagine a man living on this earth and never, not once, doing anything sinful?

Jesus Never Had Any Desire to Get Even

Many today carry around a grudge, just waiting for the right moment to get even with others. Not Jesus. Peter said, “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again” (1 Pet. 2:23). It is written in Isaiah that, “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7). We would do well to follow his example.

Never Had Any Other Disposition Than to Obey

“Thy will be done” (Matt. 26:42) was the Lord’s disposition toward his Father! “I come to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:9) was his purpose in life, even to the point of being “obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8). We need to be like him in our attitude of obedience.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, p. 372
June 18, 1992

By Dan King

When one studies the meetings of the New Testament, two strike us as closely akin to what we today call “business meetings.” The first is the meeting of the Jerusalem brethren to consider the needs of Grecian Jewish widows who had been formerly neglected in the daily ministration of the church (Acts 6:1-7). The text says, “And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said. . . ” (v. 2). In this case, action was taken and results were immediately apparent: “And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (v. 7).

The other example is the meeting of the leading lights of Jerusalem to resolve the difficulties over the issue of circumcising Gentile converts: “And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. . . ” (Acts 15:6). Although “there had been much questioning” (v. 7) then and “no small dissension and questioning” (v. 2) earlier, yet an effective job was done in maintaining the order of the group and of ultimately coming to a consensus on the issues involved. Furthermore, they took immediate and decisive action to stop the “uncertain sounds” which were emanating from Jerusalem on the matters in dispute.

These two Bible examples are clearly models for us to follow in holding meetings in the churches of today. Clearly decisive action is the thing which brought about the desirable results in both instances. These brethren did not just get together to talk, they met in order to act. Unfortunately, all too often these days, our brethren meet in order to talk, rather than to act. Meetings of this type remind us of the comments made by John Kenneth Galbraith about the meetings held by President Herbert Hoover after the horrible stock market panic of 1929. I offer them here since they are so very apropos:

Yet to suppose that President Hoover was engaged only in organizing further reassurance is to do him a serious injustice. He was also conducting one of the oldest, most important – and, unhappily, one of the least understood rites in American life. This is the rite of the meeting which is called not to do business but to do no business. It is a rite which is still much practiced in our time. It is worth examining for a moment.

Men meet together for many reasons in the course of business. They need to instruct or persuade each other. They must agree on a course of action. They find thinking in public more productive or less painful than thinking in private. But there are at least as many reasons for meetings to transact no business. Meetings are held because men seek companion ship or, at a minimum, wish to escape the tedium of solitary duties. They yearn for the prestige which accrues to the man who presides over meetings, and this leads them to convoke assemblages over which they can preside. Finally, there is the meeting which is called not because there is business to be done, but because it is necessary to create the impression that business is being done. Such meetings are more than a substitute for action. They are widely regarded as action.

The fact that no business is transacted at a no-business meeting is normally not a serious cause of embarrassment to those attending. Numerous formulas have been devised to prevent discomfort. Thus scholars, who are great devotees of the no-business meeting, rely heavily on the exchange of ideas justification. To them the exchange of ideas is an absolute good. Any meeting at which ideas are exchanged is, therefore, useful. This justification is nearly ironclad. It is very hard to have a meeting of which it can be said that no ideas were exchanged (The Great Crash: 1929 138-139).

Sad to say, the “no-business” meetings of Herbert Hoover and his colleagues did not lead to decisive action which might have avoided the collapse of the economy and the onset of the great depression of the 1930s. Instead, they met only to “exchange ideas” and to “create the impression that business is being done.” Nearly an entire generation of Americans grew up in poverty because action was not taken at that one point in history when something could have been done to avert disaster. All they did was talk.

All too often this description fits precisely what happens in the church. We meet about a problem and we talk, but we do nothing decisive. We “take the matter under advisement,” or, as we usually put it: “Let’s think some more about this until the next business meeting, then we’ll talk about it some more.” Such procrastination does nothing except to compound the problem and often make it more difficult or impossible to solve. Think about it:

The automobile engine that “freezes up” because of lack of oil could have been saved if oil had been added before it was too late. Simple administration of antibiotics can save the amputation of an infected limb, if only applied in time. We ought to “consider a thing wisely and carefully”- yes! But then we ought to act. This is the apostolic example from Acts 6 and 15: careful consideration followed by immediate, decisive action.

The following is an outline of what should be the practice in meetings wherein serious problems requiring immediate attention are dealt with. Please notice that this scenario is precisely what the apostles and brethren of the first century did with respect to important questions:

1. Introduce the problem. Describe it completely and precisely, so that all present understand it.

2. Suggest alternative solutions. Sometimes alluded to today as “brainstorming,” this pits the concerted wisdom of the group against the problem. It also gives everyone present the feeling of being included in the process, even if their suggestion does not prove to be the one followed. All should be listened to thoughtfully and without negative comment, at least at first. This permits a free exchange of ideas.

3. Discuss the various alternative solutions to see if they actually solve the problem or create other difficulties.

4. Arrive at a consensus. This assumes, of course, that we are dealing with a group of fair-minded people who can reason together and ultimately agree upon the best solution from among the alternatives. But this is the teaching of 1 Corinthians 1:10 – “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. ” If the Lord commanded it of his people, then it must be possible! We certainly remind the sectarian world of how this requires doctrinal unity. We, also, need to be reminded that it applies to us in our dealings with one another.

5. Develop an action plan.

6. Assign those responsible to put the plan into effect.

7. Carry through on the plan immediately. Get it done! If a thing is worth doing then it is worth doing right. And if it is worth doing right, then it is worth doing right then!

In churches of today we will be like the first century church in our “business meetings” only if we transact business in those meetings. If we only talk of business, then we are, in effect, holding “no-business” meetings. If the result of our meetings is prompt, decisive action, then and only then – are we following the apostolic examples.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 373-374
June 18, 1992

By Frank Himmel

During a recent family reading of Proverbs 2 we paused to consider verse 19. Wisdom says in reference to an adulteress, “None who go to her return again, nor do they reach the paths of life.” What does it mean, none return again?

Most expositors take it as stating a general rule. “It is very rare that any who are caught in this snare of the devil recover themselves, so much is the heart hardened, and the mind blinded, by the deceitfulness of this sin. Having once lost their hold of the paths of life, they know not how to take hold of them again, but are perfectly besotted and bewitched with those base lusts” (Matthew Henry).

Sadly this observation is true. The unbridled lust which leads one to adultery will likely lead him there again and again. One so naive as to fall for the adulteress’ flattering words (e.g., she “understands him” as his wife does not) is apt to repeat his folly. Witness the number of people who are in their third or fourth marriages, or those who have quit bothering with marriage and just cohabit with one “lover” after another. I confess that I do not understand why anyone, even those who disregard God’s law, would seek a marriage partner among adulterers. They have proven unfaithful to their vows once. Is there reason to think they will not do so again?

I do not mean to rule out forgiveness, by God or man. “No one gets so far into sin that God will not receive him back if he makes the proper amends. But the danger and rule is that a patron of the kind of life described above will continue therein to the end of life” (E.M. Zerr).

Now consider another sense in which the statement, “None who go to her return again,” is true. And in this sense it is not a general rule, but an absolute certainty.

No man who becomes involved in adultery will ever be the same again. He cannot return to where he was. He can be forgiven by God. He can be forgiven by his mate. He can be forgiven by the spouse of his partner in adultery. But things can never be quite the way they were.

The implicit trust his mate placed in him has been broken. The special intimate relationship between husband and wife has been violated. The painful memory of the act remains in the consciences of all involved, try as they may to remove it. The feelings of guilt are still there. To the extent the sin is known to others the reputation is damaged. If those involved are Christians the Lord’s holy name is reproached. If they have children who know of the affair the confidence of those little ones is shaken. Time will aid in healing these wounds, but it cannot completely erase the them.

Some mates elect to put the adulterer away. If they so choose, he/she loses the privilege of a God-approved marriage (Matt. 5:31,32; 19:9), despite what men may say about the matter. His only options are to remain single or be reconciled to his mate (1 Cor 7:11).

Before you become involved in this or any sin, take time to sit down and count the cost. Do not be dazzled by the enticing array in which Satan clothes sin. Look at what is inside. Look at the price you may pay. Look at where you will be after the momentary pleasure in past. Are you entering a place from which there is no return?

“The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; he who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out” (Prov. 6:32,33).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, pp. 385, 407
July 2, 1992

By Weldon Warnock

It was refreshing to read brother Jackson’s third affirmative without his thrashing Thrasher or exprobating Mr. Editor. Brother Thrasher must have done a better job on Jackson in their debate than we are led to believe in Jackson’s affirmative.

No, Warnock is not in a bind! Brother Jackson is just dreaming. He has been trying to get me into a bind, but his cords are like the seven green withes with which Delilah bound Samson, easily broken as a piece of string when it touches the fire (Judg. 16:7,9).

The church, indeed, has an obligation to some orphans. I said this in the Guardian of Truth article to which brother Jackson alluded. But Jackson conveniently overlooked what I said in the article, “If there are orphans who are Christians, then the church may relieve their needs.” This statement was made in the context of whom the church may relieve, viz., needy saints. The local church is to provide for its own (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32; 6:1-3; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25,26, etc.), and if some of them happen to be orphans, then, by all means, the church is to help. These are the passages, brother Jackson. Furthermore, I stated in my first negative that the local church “has a responsibility toward orphans if they are needy saints, or the responsibility of needy saints.”

Brother Jackson is a good one to talk about orphans’ care when the institutional homes operated by the brethren (the kind of home in his proposition) won’t even take a homeless child that is under three years old, severely retarded, psychologically unstable or extremely physically handicapped. Friends, this is the kind of religion that these institutional homes are practicing.

I was falsely charged with citing Titus 3:1 to prove the church can obey the laws of the land. The brother must have blurred vision. I said no such thing! What I did say was, “The local church, the collectivity, in its God ordained functions is not subordinate to civil government.” In that context, I cited Titus 3:1 and stated, “If (if, brother Jackson) the church has the same relationship the individual does to government, then the church could ‘be ready to every good work’ (civic works), like having a Voluntary Fire Committee for the community, etc.” I was not affirming that the church is in Titus 3:1, but rather the text is individual in nature. I then asked, “What about it brother Jackson?” He observed the passover.

In reference to singing, Jackson maintains that Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:26 are individual (outside of the assembly), but the church is in them. Brother Guy Woods said in regard to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, “this is corporate (congregational) action” (Spiritual Sword, July, 1990, p. 35). Brother Alan Highers, who quoted brother Woods, argued the same thing. Brother G.C. Brewer was also quoted by brother Highers as saying that the instruction in these verses “cannot be followed by a man when he is in solitary confinement or is otherwise alone.” But Jackson says it is also individual. Can you obey Ephesians 5:19 when you are alone, brother Jackson?

Since Jackson contends that a human organization may handle the visiting of orphans for churches in James 1:27, would he allow a Singing Saints Society to take care of the singing for churches in Ephesians 5:19? He cannot logically oppose a society for singing since he endorses a society for visiting orphans and widows in James 1:27. Why is a human society through which churches work permissible in James 1:27, but not acceptable in Ephesians 5:19?

James 1:27 is the thrust of this discussion. I maintain it is individual in scope and does not include the local church. Brother Jackson says it involves the church, but the church cannot visit the orphans and widows (except send money) as it is not a home, so he drags into James 1:27 an institutional home through which the church works. Is he forgetting that the Jerusalem church in Acts 6:1-6 took care of their widows without a board of directors and superintendent? They had more than two or 22, but the local church did it. They provided for their indigent widows, and we may do the same, such as providing money, a house, food, clothing, etc. The church provides me a house and it doesn’t need a Preacher’s Aid Society to do it. The first century church aided people, needy saints, and not “homes.” This is the way we may take care of the two or 22. Brother Jackson sees an institutional home through which the church takes care of its widows and orphans.

Observe in Jackson’s third affirmative how he totally ignored what I said about the “church’s widow” in 1 Timothy 5 and the “individual’s widow” in James 1:27. He can’t answer it topside, edge or bottom. The widow in 1 Timothy 5 whom the church is to help is a faithful saint who is destitute. She “trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day” (v. 5). This is the same widow in v. 16 the church is to relieve. But James 1:27 is a different situation. The widow in James 1:27 might be my neighbor who is not a faithful saint as mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:5. Jackson, does James 1:27 only authorize the church to care for the kind of widow in 1 Timothy 5:5?

Looking at James 1:27 more closely, it states that pure and undefiled religion also entails keeping oneself unspotted from the world. I suppose that some brethren could establish an institution through which the church may send money to help men and women to overcome the world. We could call it the “Holy Development Home.” It seems to me if the first part of James 1:27 demands a human institution, the last part would, too.

Brother Jackson does not like my diagram in my second negative because it does not have enough human organizations in it with their board of directors. Of course, that is easy to fix by just adding an “S” to organization in the diagram. This would just make more of the same. There is not a whisker of difference between having one organization and several as all of them are without Bible authority through which churches work. But brother Jackson wants to be well represented, so he says, “Bring on the boards.” One cannot do all of the works for the church, but several can, he surmises, This is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever heard in my 38 years of preaching.

We are having trouble getting brother Jackson to understand that “visit” also includes visiting those in prison (Matt. 25:43). Actually, he does not know what to do with my argument on “visiting those in prison,” except to say that a jail is not a benevolent institution. Yet, Jesus teaches us to “visit those in prison.” If the church may fulfill its duties through a human institution in visiting orphans and widows, why can’t it work through a human institution to visit those in prison? Common sense teaches us it may. Christians imprisoned in ancient times bad to be visited and fed (cf. Heb. 10:33-34). Thus, we could have a Prison Relief Society through which churches visit.

So, we have, following the logic of Jackson’s argument, an institutional home for widows and orphans, a hospital for the sick, a penal society for prisoners, a type of monastery for the prevention of worldliness, a singing society for praising God in song, and a church builder’s corporation for erecting meetinghouses, providing they don’t put them all under one board and the institutions are operated by members of the church. Friends, when we embrace institutionalism, there seems to be no stopping place, with the result being the church entangled in the parasitic barnacles of human institutions.

Brother Jackson, if a disaster occurred in the front of the Knollwood building, we would call 911. What would you do in Alabama?

We are told by Jackson that he approves church contributions to a charitable hospital. This is strange in light of the fact that he endorses churches contributing to the Bible departments of “our” colleges, although they charge tuition and several dollars for each credit hour. Why does the hospital have to be charitable, but the college doesn’t? Oh, consistency, where art thou!

Marvin Vincent has some interesting comments on James 1:27. He says, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: to visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction “(Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 736). Jackson’s religion for the church in James 1:27 is done by proxy through mere money.

My brother still has difficulty with Galatians 6:6. It is so simple that I am baffled at his perplexity. Paul simply states that individuals are to give to support the gospel. Many do this directly to the preacher. But, in 2 Corinthians 11:8 and Philippians 4:15-16, churches support preachers. Surely this is not too difficult for brother Jackson to see.

Jackson declares he already knows about the grammar in Galatians 2:10, 6:10 and 1 Timothy 5:16. Then, apply it and quit stuggling to get collective action into “we” and “us.”

We must again pay our respect to Jackson’s modus ponens syllogism as to its soundness. He says I know “nothing about distribution.” Of course, Jackson thinks he does. A fellow doesn’t have to know much to see that Jackson’s syllogism is fallacious. Basically, his conclusion or consequence does not logically follow from his premises. He did not have institutional home in his premises, but he has it in his conclusion. He attempts to dodge this falsity by saying “the term ‘home’ is generic, referring to every type of home, and appears in three of five premises.” Therefore, Jackson has every type of home in his premises. Every type would be a house, relationship, family, business (as funeral home), county and state home, Baptist home, one’s country, and even the grave. (Wonder if the church could have a burial society?) In this, Jackson didn’t shoot himself in the foot, as he thought I did, but he got himself right between the eyes. He knocked himself out of the bout. Jackson’s syllogism allows the church to contribute to any and every kind of home.

In a conversation with a professor of logic at the University of Dayton, he told me the syllogism of Jackson’s was what is called in logic, “informal fallacy.” He said it contained a subtle shift of meaning from the premises to the consequence or conclusion. This is quite revealing. I have said all along that Jackson shifts and changes his usage of “home,” depending on what his immediate need is. You had better quit using syllogisms brother Jackson; they get you into trouble. Who was it Jackson said knew nothing about distribution?

Briefly, I need to notice what Jackson says about being a father is not a “peculiarly religious act.” He says it is not peculiarly religious if it is not based on religion. He gave an atheist as an example. He said, “Why even atheists are good fathers. They do so on some basis other than religion, so it is not peculiarly religious.” But this would be true with visiting widows and orphans. We could say, “Why even atheists help orphans and widows. They do so on some basis other than religion, so it is not peculiarly religious.” Again, Jackson has knocked the props out from under himself. He has now eliminated James 1:27 from being peculiarly religious! This is the trouble one gets into when he arbitrarily sets up his own rule for religious activity. A Christian who is being a good father is doing a religious act. Is Jackson trying to tell us that a man who provides for his own (1 Tim. 5:8) and brings his children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) is not practicing religion?

James MacKnight correctly stated in regard to caring for orphans, “These, when they proceed for a regard to the welfare of society are termed virtuous actions; but when done from a regard to the will of God, and to promote his glory, they become pious actions, and make a chief part of true religion.” The atheist may act virtuously, but the Christian father practices pure religion from a regard to the will of God and his glory.

Little children who are homeless need our love and care. Thank God for those who open their hearts to provide for homeless children. The issue with me it not about visiting orphans, but rather who is to do the visiting.

I am confident I have shown brother Jackson’s position to be unscripturally founded and patently false. Consequently, it must be rejected and repudiated. May the Lord help us to always walk in truth and right.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 342-344
June 4, 1992