Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The story of Joseph has been a favorite story of all generations. There are many lessons to be learned from it. At one point in the record, Reuben rebuked his brothers for their mistreatment of Joseph some 22 years earlier. He said, “Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? Therefore, behold, also his blood is required” (Gen. 42:22). The concept of “sinning against the child” caught my attention. There are many ways men can be guilty of sinning against their children. Here are some of them:

1. By refusing to get them medical treatment. Some Pentecostal religions teach modern day “faith healing.” Many of these Pentecostals are sincere people who try to live what they believe. Some have refused to give their children medical treatment because of their belief that going to a doctor manifests a lack of faith in God. On some occasions, the children have died.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that a blood transfusion is a violation of the Bible prohibition against eating blood (Acts 15:29). Taking a blood transfusion is no more eating blood than have a kidney transplant is eating kidney. Nevertheless, some Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to allow a doctor to give their child a blood transfusion. One some occasions, their children have died. Both of these examples show parents sinning against their children by not providing adequate medical treatment.

2. By abortions. If we can agree that depriving a child of medical treatment is a sin against the child, we should have no trouble seeing that hiring a doctor to kill an unborn baby is a sin against that unborn child. In America, over 1.5 million babies a year are killed by parents who are “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31).

3. By child abuse. Other parents sin against their children by physically abusing them. From time to time the newspaper recounts some parent beating his child until the body is bruised and bones are broken. Pictures of small infants who have been the victim of parents who beat them unmercifully, and sometimes even killed them, are shown on TV and in the newspaper from time to time.

Sometimes children are used to satisfy perverted sexual urges. In homes where live-in lovers are present or step-fathers are rearing the children, there is a higher incidence of sexual abuse. Sometimes wicked men satisfy their perverted lust with mere babies.

Other parents abuse their children verbally. Many a child enters adulthood with a low self-esteem and many mistaken concepts of what it means to be a spouse and parent because their parents have verbally abused them. They are emotional cripples who may never fully recover.

I suspect that the preceding forms of sinning against children are rarer among Christians than the next ones will be.

4. By spoiling them. Many parents spoil their children. Here are some ways this is done:

a. ByJailing to restrain them. Eli was condemned for his conduct toward his children because he failed to restrain his sons (1 Sam. 3:13; 2:22-24,29). The Scriptures command parents to provide discipline for their children. The Proverbs teach: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. . . . The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. . . . Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul” (Prov. 22:15; 29:15,17).

At one time or another, most of us have been around children whom the parents did not restrain. I have seen mothers try to “talk” their children into obeying them, rather than using the rod to drive the foolishness out of them. This conduct is justified by saying, “I love my children too much to spank them.” If such a parent truly loved his children, he would see that allowing one’s child to grow up with the character traits he was manifesting was unhealthy. These children grow into undisciplined adults who expect to get their way by throwing “tantrums.” Parents who fail to restrain their children sin against them.

b. By spoiling them. We sometimes spoil our children by giving them too much. The spectacle at Christmas giving may illustrate what I mean. Parents and grandparents provide their children and grandchildren with such expensive toys today, that there is little appreciation shown for them. I remember one Christmas when my daddy gave me a red wagon. I remember the guilt I felt because I knew how much it had cost him. Needless to say, the wagon was precious to me and I took good care of it.

In contrast to that attitude, children open their presents on Christmas morning with little or no appreciation for what they have received. The parent who is watching the child open the present may try to coax the child into saying “thank you” for the gift. The child is only interested in going on to the next gift, regardless of how much the giver sacrificed to give the gift. When Christmas morning is over, there is little appreciation for what was received because we have given our children everything he wants and many things he never had occasion to desire. By giving our children everything they ever want, we deprive them of learning to appreciate what they have. Too, we do not allow them to learn the valuable lesson of working to earn what they want.

c. By teaching them that the world revolves around them. Some parents spoil their children by making them the center of everyone’s attention. They grow up thinking that the whole world is there to satisfy their wants. I have visited in homes where the adults could not carry on a conversation because of the constant interruptions by the children. The parents never stopped the child saying, “You go off to play while we talk.” Instead, the children controlled the entire situation. Perhaps that is why another generation spoke the adage, “Children are to be seen and not heard.”

Truly this generation is not doing a very good job of teaching their children the respective places of adults and children. Consequently, there is little respect shown for the elderly. I have seen elderly men and women stand while a child sat in the best seat in the house, without the parent ever telling the child to get up so the older person may sit down. Moses wrote, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:32). We shall not improve our society by ignoring divine law.

5. By provoking them to anger. Paul said, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged” (Col. 3:21). Parents who provoke their children to anger sin against their children. By “provoking to anger” the Lord did not mean that momentary emotional reaction which occurs when spanking a child. He was describing that deep-seated anger and bitterness which build up in a child through improper correction. We can be guilty of provoking our children to anger by constant fault finding, unjust comparisons with siblings, too harsh a punishment, inconsistent punishment, etc.

6. By not teaching our children good work habits. Paul said, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). If my children have not learned good work habits so that they can provide for themselves by the time they leave my house, I will have sinned against them.

7. By not teaching them how to be saved. I have a responsibility as a parent to teach my children about God (Eph. 6:4). If my children reach adulthood without knowing what to do to be saved, I will have sinned against my children. Even as a parent takes the time to teach his children how to drive a car (sometimes at great risk of life and limb), he should also teach his children how to live so as to please God.

Many parents are sinning against their children by not teaching them the right priorities. Jesus said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). What do we teach our children when we allow them to miss worship to attend ball games, go on a date, stay home to watch TV, work at McDonalds, and such like conduct? Are we guilty of teaching our children that nearly anything takes priority over worshiping God? If so, we are sinning against our children.

8. By not setting a good example before them. Jesus taught Christians to be the salt of the earth and light of the world (Matt. 5:13-16). There is no part of the world so precious as our children. They should see a good example of what being a Christian is by our lives. Parents who tell their children, “Do as I say, not as I do,” sin against their children. The children, who are such good imitators, learn to do as their parents do. What influence am I going to have on my children if I curse, drink, smoking, watch filthy movies, gossip, murmur and complain, etc.?

Conclusion

Our children are a sacred inheritance from the Lord (Psa. 127:3). As with any stewardship, let us be faithful to the Lord with that which has been entrusted to us (1 Pet. 4: 10). Failure to do this will cost us severely, not only throughout eternity, but even in this life. The wise man wrote, “A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother. . . . He that begetteth a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the father of a fool hath no joy” (Prov. 17:21). To guard ourselves from this earthly sorrow, let us not “sin against the child.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 102, 117-118
February 20, 1992

By O.C. Birdwell, Jr.

On many occasions, especially in past years, brethren have prayed for the preacher that he might preach the gospel in its purity and simplicity. We sometimes get the feeling that this kind of preaching is not as much desired today and is even less often done. There is, however, a need for it, and such preaching is the kind the Bible authorizes.

Preaching the Gospel

Paul said that Christ sent him “to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). Furthermore, he said, “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). Paul was sent to preach and felt duty bound before God to do that for which he had been sent. The apostles were told to go teach people, baptize them, and then to teach them all things the Lord had commanded (Matt. 28:18-20). The church today is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15); evangelists are to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2); and all Christians are to be “light” and “salt” (Matt. 5:13,14). All should function as faithful stewards of what God has committed unto our trust. The gospel must be preached to the extent of our ability and opportunity.

Preaching the Gospel in its Purity

Preaching the gospel in its purity goes beyond just preaching. Often a preacher is commended and praised because he is a preacher, with no consideration given to what he preaches. Paul said, “But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1). To Timothy and Titus, on at least eight occasions, Paul speaks of “sound doctrine,” “sound words,” “sound in the faith,” or “sound speech.” Yet, even brethren are heard making light of the idea of something or someone being “sound.” Being sound in the faith comes from hearing and obeying sound doctrine. The alternative to being sound is being unsound. If one does not hear and obey sound speech or sound doctrine he is unsound. The same can be said for a congregation. If sound doctrine is rejected the congregation becomes unsound.

Preaching the gospel in its purity relates to the content, or the thing preached. This was Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 1:21 where he said, “It was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” In reference to the word “preaching” a footnote says “thing preached.” God saves through the message preached. The message, however, to save, must be the pure, undefiled word of God. Paul said, “For we are not as the many corrupting the word of God” (2 Cor. 2:17). Here the meaning is “making merchandise of the word of God.” This is one way it can be corrupted (2 Pet. 2:2,3).

Other ways of corrupting the word are revealed. God said, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Deut. 4:2). John wrote, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). One makes the message of the word impure when he adds to, takes from, or supplements for its teaching.

The following are some specific problem areas:

(1) One may preach an impure gospel by failing to teach the facts of the gospel. Christ died for our sins, was buried, and arose from the dead the third day (1 Cor. 15:1,2). This must be preached and believed. Surveys show that multitudes, even many who claim to be Christians, do not believe these facts and do not want them preached.

(2) The commands based upon these facts must be preached. Salvation from past sins does not come at the point of belief. The people on Pentecost believed Peter’s preaching about Christ and the resurrection but were told to repent of their sins and be baptized unto the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). Salvation comes when there is obedience from the heart to the “form of teaching” (Rom. 6:17). If the commands are not obeyed or if they are altered in any way, the word preached is corrupt and impure.

(3) An example of Christians turning to an impure gospel is related by Paul in Galatians 1:6-9. I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.

Those who troubled the Galatians were adding to the word of Christ such things as circumcision. When the Christian is required to obey parts of the Old Law, or the traditions of men, in order to be a Christian the Word is perverted or changed. The gospel is not preached in its purity.

(4) Preaching that relates to church worship and work may be impure. From some we are hearing about a new way of interpreting Scripture. They call it a “New Hermeneutic. ” The fact is, however, this “New Hermeneutic” is about as old as false doctrine. The method denies the authority of approved apostolic examples, and in many instances, questions the inspiration and authority of the written word of God. Bible teaching, they say, is obscure and difficult to understand. They conclude by inferring, if they do not forthrightly state, that all that is necessary is for one to have a sincere heart and trust in the grace of God. Through this process instrumental music in church worship, human innovations in church work, and adultery in the life are made acceptable.

(5) Not only is there impure oral preaching, written teaching often lacks purity. Paul asked, “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men?” (Gal. 1:10) There are areas wherein it may be acceptable to please men. We may dress acceptably, have a pleasing disposition and manner, speak fluently and grammatically correct, and in other ways be likeable and pleasant. Our written message may have a good style and all that goes along with an acceptable paper. There is one thing, however, that must characterize our writing. It must teach truth. Sound doctrine must be taught. A best seller, written by Max Lucado, is presently being bought by the thousands. If the book teaches anything it teaches that God worked a miracle in response to nuns who prayed for a stairway. To the author the great Christians are people such as Moody of the past and rank denominationalists of the present. Some seem to think that such writing by a brother in Christ is great, when the truth is, it contains impure and corrupt teaching.

Preaching in its Simplicity

To the Corinthians, Paul wrote, “But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ” (2 Cor. 11:5). About this verse Albert Barnes said, “By the admixture of philosophy; by the opinions of the world there was danger that their minds should be turned away from their hold on the simple truths which Christ had taught” (Commentary on 2 Corinthians). Present day preachers must not turn away from the simple truths in the Lord’s New Testament. We need to remember that although God’s scheme of redemption for lost humanity is indeed profound, the facts, commands, and promises of the gospel are simple and easy to be understood. Directions pertaining to the life, work, and worship of the Christian are just as easily understood.

In Nehemiah 8:8 we find the following: “And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading.” This is preaching in its simplicity. Read distinctly and present the textual meaning so the listeners can understand in order to make proper application.

John A Broadus wrote, “We must use words and phrases that exactly express our thoughts.” This is a challenge to everyone but especially to the gospel preacher. There is so much at stake in our preaching that we must learn to present our message so it can be understood. Sermons are often preached in which the thoughts and beliefs of the preacher are, seemingly, purposely veiled. One may even fear for the listeners to know what he truly believes, so he preaches all around his subject and never explains what he believes to be the truth. We are quite often hearing the statement, “You did not understand me.” Surely one may occasionally make an inadvertent statement, or he may not say enough about a subject to make his position clear. Yet, this is not the problem with some. They preach sermon after sermon and write article after article, but still say, “You do not understand me.” Any preacher who cannot present so as to be understood what he believes on any Bible subject, including Grace-Unity, The Work and Worship of the Church, and Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, should quit preaching until he learns how to properly express himself.

It is feared by many, including this writer, that some are not preaching the pure word in its simplicity because it is not presently believed. They, therefore, do not want to be understood. Their interests and purposes are best served when they quote from multitudes of denominationalists and false brethren; then conclude by saying that much is obscure, hard to be understood, and many preachers disagree.

Conclusion

God, through the prophet Hosea, describes wayward Israel’s condition in the following words: “Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity, ye have eaten the fruit of life (faithlessness); for thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men” (Hos. 10:13). Problems exist among us today because too many trust in their own way and in the teaching and ways of their “mighty men.” What we all need to do is get back to preaching the gospel in its purity and simplicity.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 3, pp. 85-86
February 6, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

As Acts 2 has been styled the hub and heart of the precious, pristine promises and panoramic prophecies of the Old Testament, so Acts 7 is the hinge of the book of Acts. Prior to Stephen’s address, the gospel generally was confined to Jerusalem, but ever afterward as the door of faith swung outward, the disciples, ignited by the fires of persecution, “went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).

Stephen’s discourse was occasioned by the Jews who charged that he “ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against -1 his holy place, and the law . . . (and) that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which. Moses delivered us” (Acts 6:13,14). In response to the question, “Are these things so?”, Stephen commenced his famous speech. All who would endeavor to teach and preach Jesus Christ should imitate and emulate his method and manner, for as “they were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6: 10), so none can do today.

What Stephen Did Not Preach

Stephen was on trial, not only for his life, but also for his Lord. With oratorical skill, he could have saved his life. How? First, by condemning the idolatry of those “uncircumcised Gentiles,” and lauding the “one, true and living God of Israel,” he could have obtained favor and escaped death. However, this would have converted no one to Christ. They believed in Jehovah; they abhorred idolatry. That was not the issue. A sermon like that of Paul in Acts 17 would have enhanced his stature, perhaps, but he did not preach what they wanted to hear. Rather, he preached what they needed to hear. With personal comfort and convenience in mind, one can avoid and evade the disfavor of the masses, but he will answer to God for it (Ezek. 3:17-21).

Second, Stephen could have curried popular favor by contrasting the gross immoralities of the Roman rulers with the pure and blameless lives of “my dear brethren,” the Pharisees (cf. Lk. 18:9-14; Phil. 3:3-6). All he would have said would have been true, and it might very well have saved his life, but it was not what his audience needed. It is so easy to “preach the truth” while cautiously ignoring the real needs of lost and dying souls. Stephen did not seek this diversionary escape hatch as hirelings will do.

Third, with sincere pride. Stephen could have noted the glories of David and Solomon. With the recitation of the honor of ancient Israel, he could have swelled the hearts of his audience. He could have expressed his contempt for Caesar and Rome and told how the glory of God’s kingdom supercedes that of the kingdoms of men. Again, it would have been the truth, but it was not the issue at hand.

Fourth, he could have sought relief from his opposers by appealing to the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-40). Political .expediency was not a breach through which Stephen would flee the assaults against himself and the truth. “Testing the wind” and “feeling the pulse” are activities best left meteorologists and doctors. While exercising wisdom and judgment, faithful gospel preachers will “cry aloud and spare not.” They will not use political tactics to advance themselves when truth is at stake.

Characteristics of Stephen’s Preaching

The traits of Stephen’s sermon are needed greatly. Observe them. Study them. Apply them. Instruct a preacher of the gospel “in the way of God more perfectly” if his efforts are not patterned after those of the steadfast, stalwart Stephen.

1. Use of Scripture: The fiber and fabric of Stephen’s address is webbed and woven, laced and lined with Scripture. Note the numerous citations and quotations of Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah and Amos. He did not merely allude to a passage and then launch out on the sea of human wisdom, traditions and philosophies. He preached Scripture.

Do not allow a speaker’s charm, poise, grace, wit, wealth, wisdom and worldly attainments to blind and obscure “what” you are hearing – “Take heed what ye hear” (Mk. 4:24). While wit, eloquence and humor may ornament and decorate a discourse, one should leave “after dinner” speeches on a banquet table. They have no place in the pulpit nor in the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Does the preacher use Scripture, cite Scripture, expound and explain Scripture? Stephen did. Does he illustrate and demonstrate Scripture? Stephen did. Does he read Scripture, giving the sense and causing the understanding to be enlightened (1 Tim. 4:13; Neh. 8:8)? Stephen did. If a preacher does not, he needs to learn to do so, or seek another field of work, for he will be a hindrance and a detriment to the cause of Christ.

2. Application of Scripture: Stephen not only used Scripture, he also applied it. Stephen, “full of faith and power,” showed the Jews that as their fathers had rejected Joseph, Moses and the prophets, so they had repudiated the Just One of whom the prophets spake (Acts 7:51,52). Though at first they did not recognize the relevance, pertinence or significance of his history lesson, it was brought down with the force of a sledge hammer as ‘they perceived that he spake of them” (cf. Matt. 21:45; Acts 7:51-54). The Scriptures were applied directly and personally to their lives, to their particular situation.

Conservative Baptists will “amen” every admonition to worship God “in spirit and in truth,” and will agree that the Bible is “our only rule of faith and practice,” but when one deals directly with their particular errors, he may then be able to reach the “honest and good heart.” Institutional brethren will applaud (often quite literally!) every appeal to “make all things according to the pattern.” However, only when their specific errors are shown to be contrary to the New Testament plan, can one begin to teach them the truth and lead them from the errors of church sponsored recreation, sponsoring church arrangements, societies, etc. Christians want the virtues of “modesty and morality” to be extolled, but what of specific rebuke of bikinis, social drinking, dance halls, lottery tickets and pornography viewed in the home on cable TV?

As Stephen applied Scripture in direct confrontation, so must we (Gal. 2:11-14; 2 Tim. 2:16-18). Scripture not applied is Scripture denied.

3. Origin of Scripture: While Stephen did not argue for the veracity, integrity and authenticity of Scripture’s Divine origin, his words assumed them to be God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). Genesis 12 was what “God . . . said” (Acts 7:2,3). In Genesis 15, “God spake” (Acts 7:6). The “living oracles” were what “saith the Lord” (Acts 7:38,44,49,53). A preacher must ever speak so as to project the Bible as the word of God, and expect his audience to receive it as that (1 Thess. 2:13). This awesome, sublime fact should both humble and embolden all who would preach the word.

4. Authority of Scripture: The origin of Scripture inherently inscribes it with power and authority. Stephen’s authority for his declaration and proclamation of Jesus as the Just One was rooted in the authority of the Scriptures. His words and arguments beat the drum of scriptural authority which says, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20; Acts 7:37,44).

When one loses respect for the authority of the Scriptures, he will appeal to them less frequently. It is not the reverse. He does not make fewer references to Scripture and then lose respect for it. No, first, he loses respect for the absolute authority of the word of God and then he turns away his ears from the truth and is turned unto fables. Sound doctrine and godly living are a consequence of a deep and profound reverence for the authority of Scripture.

5. Comfort of Scripture: Help and hope are not found in the ingenious, clever reasonings of men, but in Scripture (Rom. 15:4). Stephen did not cite learned men of wealth and influence who had become “obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7), for truth is not established by who has or has not accepted it (Jn. 7:47-52; Acts 4:13; Phil. 3:3-7).

Stephen’s comfort and confidence were based on him who is the Rock, the firm foundation of God which standeth sure. He was not puffed up by his own human energy nor by a spasm of enthusiasm generated and inflated by his own mind. He knew that though one may fluff a pillow, it still will not stand under weight or pressure. Hence, his “true heart in full assurance of faith,” rested and relied on the “testimony of God” (2 Tim. 1:7,8; 1 Thess. 4:18).

6. Condemnation of Scripture: Initially, Stephen’s debating and preaching had resulted in a number of “negative” results. First, it had drawn the ire of people who formerly had been respectful of the new born faith (Acts 2:47; 5:11-16). Second, it created an outcry that resulted in public disturbance and unfavorable publicity. Third, it led to the separation of brethren who formerly had rejoiced and eaten from house to house “with one accord” (Acts 2:46; 4:32; 8:1; 11:19). Talk about giving the church a “black eye” before the public and “driving people away!

Stephen had “aired the dirty linen” of Israel’s rebellion and apostasy before the world, and then he proceeded to convict his audience of the same. He succeeded. His auditors were indeed “convicted.” With withering words of condemnation, Stephen concluded, “Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:5 1). He charged them with stubbornness and hardness of heart and with being traitors, “betrayers and murderers.” His conclusions were those drawn from the well of truth and righteousness and not from the reservoir or cistern of his own feelings and opinions.

Is it possible that a man’s preaching that results in such havoc, misery, turmoil, suffering and death can ever be termed a “success”? Yes, for it must be remembered that the word of God is a savor of life and of death (2 Cor. 2:14-17). The problem is not of the seed but of the soil (Lk. 8:11-15). Peter pointedly charged those in Acts 2 with murder and 3000 souls responded in repentance and baptism, but when Stephen did so, they killed him. The seed and the sower were not the problem. It was the soil (Mk. 4:14-20).

John the Baptist told Herod it was “not lawful” for him to have his brother’s wife. For this plain, direct application and condemnation, John was beheaded. In a similar vein, Paul told the Corinthians that they accepted so gross an immorality that even the Gentiles would not tolerate it (1 Cor. 5:1). He rebuked them for it, and it resulted in repentance and restoration (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2; 7). What was the difference? Was Paul more tactful and less abusive than John? No, the difficulty was in the soil, the heart, not in the seed, the word.

Conclusion

Stephen had not learned how to “win friends and influence people” by “accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative.” He did not seek to promote “selfesteem” and leave people “feeling good about themselves.” Peter’s success on Pentecost began with a total loss of self-esteem and good feelings (Acts 2:37). They were brought to their spiritual knees as they saw the true condition of their souls. After obedience in baptism, they could rejoice in the remission of sins (Acts 2:38,41-47; 8:39; 16:34).

Likewise, Stephen sought to show the Jews their poverty of spirit with the use, application, origin, authority, comfort, and condemnation of Scripture. Therefore, we today, with a message of peace on earth and good will toward men, must preach the truth, the whole truth and only the truth and press it upon the hearts of men. As Stephen’s example demonstrates, our duty is not to promote self-esteem or to attempt to make men feel good about themselves. Our responsibility, devoid of the fear of men, is to sound out the word of the Lord, to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto the kingdom of God, that they might receive forgiveness of sins and the inheritance which is given to them that are sanctified by faith in Christ. In short, “Preach the word.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 3, pp. 83-85
February 6, 1992

From Parkersburg, West Virginia

See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men (1 Thess. 5:15).

I worked at a secular job from April of 1972 until August of 1990, a total of just over 18 years. My former place of employment was a factory that manufactured gypsum wallboard. They mined the raw material and processed it all under one roof. During my tenure I worked at all capacities on an hourly basis. I worked in the mine, production, quality, shipping, and maintenance, I saw it all. I am saying all this to verify my credentials. I did not push a pencil. I skinned my knuckles. I saw those who, on a daily basis, rendered evil for evil as is said in our passage.

Of course, one is sure to say, these were worldly people and you expect them to have acted in a worldly fashion. There were those who engaged in fisticuffs, pulled knives, threatened each other, lied, plotted against each other, etc. It was wearisome to always deal with “one side against the other” in everything one tried to do. Whether real or imagined a grudge was held most of the time. Those who held the grudge could scarcely wait for an opportunity to retaliate. This led to a snowball effect that would go on and on with little purpose and no profit.

I think of these things from time to time. I especially think of them when brethren exhibit the same spirit. I think of them when brethren use every opportunity to lash out with some carnal retaliation against other brethren who have harmed them in a real or imagined way. I think of those I once worked with when I come to the sad conclusion that some brethren are only surpassed in rendering evil for evil by a few who are in the world. I will grant that there are few brethren who act in this manner. However those few cause others much grief and turmoil and it ought not to be so!

I am sure someone may think that I am being soft, but hear me out. Brother or sister, if a real harm has come to you, does that give you the right to retaliate? Our passage says that it does not! Jesus, whom all Christians are to imitate (1 Cor. 11:1), taught a doctrine of non-retaliation (Matt. 5:38-44) and practiced what he preached (1 Pet. 2:21-23). The thinking that “I have a right to get even ” rests on the corruption of the world and not in the gospel of Christ. If a brother or sister does legitimately harm us in some way, we are to go to that person and correct him or her (Matt. 18:15-17). We are not to plot and plan some carnal retaliation.

To quote an old expression: “Wrong cannot right the wrongs that wrong hath done” (William Arthur Dunkerley in Dies Irae – Dies Pacis). To quote an old Scripture: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Paul of Tarsus in Rom. 12:19-21).

Brethren, consider those things that have harmed you in the past or might come your way in the future. Remember to engage in the practice of our Lord and not in the practice of the world.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, p. 45
January 16, 1992