Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

On Monday, June 24, 1991, the National Commission on Children issued its 500-page report, offering suggested solutions to problems of children in American life. The Commission was created by President Reagan and Congress, consisting of leading health, education and social welfare experts, children’s advocates, business representatives, Bush administration officials and elected office holders. On many TV news programs, the head of the Commission, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, of West Virginia, was interviewed.

Basically, the Commission recommended a $56 billion package. No one knows where this money is supposed to come from, but the big problem regarding children, according to the Commission, is money – we are not spending enough money on the well-being of our children. Commission member Marian Wright Edelman said, “It is very clear that millions of Americans out there understand that something has come loose and that we need to invest in children and families” (Akron Beacon Journal, 6-25-91).

Several reasons were given in explanation of the current status of many children. While most American children are “healthy, happy and secure,” many have serious problems. Those problems are caused by the disintegration of the family, poverty, the lack of health care, divorce, teen-age pregnancy and single-parent families, alcohol, drugs, lack of child support payments, working mothers and parents who have too little time to spend with their children. For all of these problems, the Commission suggests that $56 billion will give us the solutions. Will throwing money at these situations solve them?

Dr. Elizabeth Specht of Akron commented that the report gave little attention to “the No. 1 priority,” which she identified as the prevention of teen-age pregnancy. She said, “If a 14-year-old sexually active girl walks into the office, she needs help with birth control.” Is that really what she needs? Will we solve her problems with birth control pills? Mark Real, Director of Children’s Defense Fund-Ohio, said the proposal for a $1,000 tax credit for children will lead the way to provide a steady income supplement to help poor children. Does this man actually think that needy children will receive that $1,000? Everyone can feel confident that an alcohol or drug addicted parent will buy $1,000 worth of food and clothes for each of his children as soon as the check arrives. Right? We have been doling out millions of welfare dollars to those same parents for years and we still have the problem. Will $56 billion more solve the problem? Is it remotely possible that we are moving in the wrong direction in our search for a solution to this national dilemma?

I do not wish to make this a political statement, or, for that matter, a social welfare statement. However, there is one more thought I wish to emphasize. The national Center for Disease Control in Atlanta reported on June 13, 1991 that over I million babies, or 26 percent of U.S. newborns, were born to unmarried women in 1988. We are told that people fear the spread of AIDS, and that this is helping control immorality in our country. If this is so, one wonders what the percentage of births to unmarried women would otherwise be.

Friends, we have a major problem in America regarding these matters. However, $56 billion – or $56 trillion, for that matter -will not solve it. Too many people do not realize that God restricted sex to the marriage relationship (Heb. 13:4). Sex outside of marriage is condemned as a sin which will prevent entrance into heaven (Gal. 5:19-21). We can solve about 26 percent of this national problem if people would stop committing the sin of fornication! And that would not cost a dime!

God teaches parents that they have a responsibility to care for their children. He teaches mothers to love their children and keep the home (Tit. 2:4-5). He teaches fathers to provide for the needs of their families (I Tim. 5:8). If fathers do not do this, they are worse than infidels, according to the Scripture. Parents are taught to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). The Federal Government will not have to spend a dime on most of these problems if parents will only do what God told them to do!

The National Commission on Children is looking in the g place for a solution to this problem. They are looko money, and trusting in it, to solve this problem. Inthey should be looking to God and his Law as the solution (1 Tim. 6:17). This happens too often. Men go to the wrong well in search of thirst-quenching water. It seems we learn. No amount of money will rebuild shattered dreams. The solution is to instill the Law of God which will prevent their collapse occurring, with all of the attendant that such brings. Until parents accept their obligations discharge them, they sentence themselves and their children to the horrors that this Commission seeks to address. Again, it must be said, the Bible is simple, and it full of solutions that common people can understand, which will elevate us from the pitfalls of sin, and give meaning and to life. Unfortunately, the “wise” men of the world ignore the only workable solution to our problems. The Bible solution is unthinkable to such men of “wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:19-20).

I shall close with two passages: “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25). “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, pp. 558-559
September 19, 1991

By Bobby Holmes

J.W. McGarvey died in 1991 at the age of 82. He was the author of several commentaries and other works on Bible subjects. He was recognized as a Bible scholar far and wide. He lived in a critical period of the church’s history – a period when the church was being divided over the introduction of instrumental music and missionary societies. Like all human beings he was capable of mistakes; some of them he recognized, some of them he probably did not. On one occasion he gave this advice:

You are on the right road, and whatever you do, don’t let anyone persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that used instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinctions between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of them who are preaching the truth today. It won’t work.

As already noted, McGarvey lived at a time when churches were being divided over the introduction of instrumental music. The disturbance was not caused by those who opposed the introduction of the instrument. The disturbance was caused by those who introduced the instrument. Note what McGarvey said that he learned. He had tried to “go along with” those who were “for” the instrument even though he personally did not agree with it. About such action as “going along,” he said, “it won’t work. ” You can’t “go along” with something when it is unscriptural: it must be opposed.

Someone has said that those who will not learn from history are destined to repeat its mistakes. How true this is today. The church is being disturbed about human institutions tied to the church treasury. Today, as in McGarvey’s day, the disturbance is not caused by those who oppose the introduction of these human institutions. Today, as then, the disturbance is caused by those who introduce them. They must bear the stigma of “dividing the church. ” But just as in McGarvey’s day, so it is today. There are people who do not believe that such human institutions tied to the church are scriptural and yet they attend churches that either support such or else support preachers who teach that the support of such is scriptural . . . like McGarvey, they are “going along.” Others think that we ought not to object and that it is best to just “go along.” Like McGarvey, at the start I (they) believed that was the only way to do it. To those who are attending such congregations, who are just “going along with it,” listen to what this man learned! “It won’t work!” There is but one remedy for error. Teach against it. Actively oppose it. Error will not die out; it must be fought out; it must be taught out.

But we do not want to take the word of any uninspired man as the rule of faith and practice. Let us suggest some reasons given in the Bible to show that “going along with it” won’t work.

(1) In 2 John 9- 10 the apostle tells us: “Whosoever goeth onward and abides not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God . . . . If any one cometh unto you, and bring not this teaching (the teaching of Christ – bh) receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting (or bid him Godspeed, AV) for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This verse shows plainly that a person is forbidden to teach anything that Christ has not authorized. But it shows that we cannot encourage, endorse, or support financially, morally or vocally what Christ has not authorized. Why? We are partakers of the evil deeds. We become just as guilty as he is. He is wrong for what he teaches, but those who support and endorse him are equally at fault.

(2) “A man that is a heretic after a first and second admonition reject,” says the inspired apostle Paul in Titus 3:10. A heretic is a man who chooses his opinion and substitutes it for truth. Some of those who are advocating the church support of human institutions admit that this is not a matter of faith to them. Well, if it is not a matter of faith, it must be opinion . . . and it is one they have chosen. Those who oppose such church support of human institutions do not do so as a matter of “opinion” but as a matter of conscience, and faith. It is not an “opinion” with them. Now those who have chosen their “opinions” have done so to the dividing of the church. This verse says they are not to be “gone along with.” They are to be admonished, once, even twice. But “after a first and second admonition reject.” No, we can’t just “go along with such” and remain true to God and keep the church pure.

These are just two of several reasons that could be given to show that McGarvey had scriptural basis for urging people to oppose error and not to just “go along with it.” And then he had the personal experience of having tried to go along. To those of you who read these lines and are in churches which support either financially or morally human institutions from the Lord’s treasury, learn a lesson from the Scriptures and history. “It won’t work.” (Adapted from Bible Bulwarks, Feb. 1965.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, p. 561
September 19, 1991

By Martin Pickup

The Jerusalem Collection was an important aspect of Paul’s work during his third missionary journey. In 2 Corinthians 9:12-13 Paul explained to the church at Corinth what he hoped this gift from Gentile churches to the needy saints of Jerusalem would accomplish:

The ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God. Because of the proof given by this ministry they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all.

When Paul speaks of the “contribution to them and to all” in v. 13, the word “them” obviously refers to the poor saints in Jerusalem. But to whom does the word “all” refer? Since Paul repeatedly identifies the Jerusalem Collection as a ministry to “saints,” the most reasonable interpretation is that “all” refers to all Christians. But Steve Gibson argues that “all” refers to all men – both believers and unbelievers.(1) Institutional brethren want to interpret the verse in this way because it would nullify one of the arguments made against church-sponsored benevolence institutions, viz., that New Testament churches never used their funds to relieve non-Christians.

Brother Gibson admits that he interprets 2 Corinthians 9:13 in light of Galatians 6:10, a verse which he claims is listing unbelievers as recipients of the Jerusalem Collection.(2) If Gibson’s view of Galatians 6:10 is not correct (and my previous articles have tried to show that it is not), then his argument for seeing unbelievers in 2 Corinthians 9:13 is greatly weakened. Still, in this final article I would like to respond to the specific assertions which Gibson makes about 2 Corinthians 9:13.

The Meaning of 2 Corinthians 9:13

The Jerusalem Collection was a work of benevolence, but it was also much more. As an offering from Gentile churches to Jerusalem saints, it demonstrated that Gentile believers now shared a common faith with Jewish believers. It manifested the Gentiles’ spiritual bond, not only with the Jewish saints at Jerusalem, but with all others (Jew or Gentile) who had accepted the gospel which had gone forth from Jerusalem. For this reason, Paul says that the recipients of this benevolence would glorify God for the “contribution to them and to all.” The contribution was sent to needy saints in Jerusalem, but it signified unity with every Christian.

Despite the fact that the New Testament repeatedly identifies the recipients of the Jerusalem Collection as “saints,” brother Gibson says that saints were only the main recipients. He says that the words “and to all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 indicate that unbelievers also received these funds. This view creates several problems for anyone who holds it.

First of all, it must be admitted that from the beginning of Paul’s discussion of the Jerusalem Collection in 8:1 until the end of chapter 9, he never refers to anyone other than saints receiving these funds. If, at the close of the discussion, the words “and to all” mean that the funds were going to unbelievers also, then Paul has introduced a completely new idea which he had not previously mentioned. Not even in his first letter to Corinth had Paul said that unbelievers were included in the relief effort; 1 Corinthians spoke only of “the collection for the saints” (16:1). All Gibson can do is assume that on some prior occasion Paul had made it clear to the Corinthians that this was also a collection for non-saints. And yet, how strange that when Paul writes to the church at Rome and informs them of his mission to Jerusalem, he describes it only as follows: “Now I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:25-26). If unbelievers were also receiving the Jerusalem Collection, why didn’t Paul say so when he informed the church at Rome about the Collection?

Paul’s Terminology

Another problem for Gibson’s view is the terminology Paul uses when referring to the Jerusalem Collection. The Greek word for “contribution” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 is koinonia, a word which means “sharing” or “fellowship.” Throughout the New Testament koinonia denotes the spiritual sharing-together of saints with God, with the things of God, or with other saints. Paul employs this word in 2 Corinthians 8:4 to refer to the Jerusalem relief effort, and again in 9:13 and Romans 15:26 to denote the contribution itself. Paul’s use of this term indicates that the contribution was a sign of Christian fellowship between those giving it and those receiving it. As Joseph Thayer says, it was “an embodiment and proof of fellowship.”(3) Persons outside the fellowship of Christ could not have been the intended beneficiaries of this contribution.

Gibson tries to circumvent this argument by pointing out that religious fellowship is not always implied in a monetary transaction between Christians and sinners. He says that if koinonia were used to designate a contribution to sinners, it would simply denote a sharing of funds with no suggestion of religious fellowship.(4) But throughout the New Testament koinonia is used to refer to religious sharing, not transactions between Christians and sinners. More specifically, the context of 2 Corinthians 8-9 makes it clear that Paul is using the word to refer to religious sharing. He speaks of the “koinonia of the ministry to the saints,” and says that “because of the proof given by this ministry they will glorify God for your obedience” (8:4; 9:13). There is no way around the fact that when Paul uses koinonia to refer to the Jerusalem Collection he means that the contribution signified religious fellowship. The word must bear this connotation in 9:13 when Paul speaks of the “koinonia to them and to all.”

Gibson admits that koinonia indicates religious fellowship when it is used of a contribution from saints to other saints.(5) But this is exactly what we have in 9:13 with the words “koinonia to them” (which Gibson agrees is referring to Jerusalem saints). If “koinonia to them” suggests religious fellowship, then “koinonia . . . to all” must suggest the same thing. The phrases “to them” and “to all” are both connected syntactically to koinonia in this sentence. The contribution could not signify religious fellowship with some recipients, yet not signify it with other recipients.

Paul also uses another term which indicates that the Jerusalem Collection was a sign of religious fellowship. The word for “collection” in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is logeia. Adolf Deissmann says that in the Greek world logeia was “used chiefly of religious collections for a god, a temple, etc.”(6) Paul obviously used this term because the funds of the Corinthian church were a religious collection for the saints of God. It does violence to Paul’s language to say that these funds were also intended for those who were not worshipers of Christ.

Future Contributions?

Some scholars believe that “and to all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 is not referring to beneficiaries of the present relief effort, but to those who might receive benevolence from Corinth in the future. If this view is correct, then Gibson suggests that Paul is including unbelievers among the recipients of these future contributions.(7) Again, the stated purpose of the present contribution and Paul’s use of the words koinonia and logeia negate Gibson’s suggestion. Even the sources Gibson cites to support this view (J.W. McGarvey and The Interpreter’s Bible) do not claim that Paul is talking about unbelievers in this passage. McGarvey says that Paul “took no collection for [non-Christian Jews], and . . . they were in no manner in this thought in this connection.”(8)The Interpreter’s Bible specifically states that “and to all” refers to “other acts of helpfulness to ‘all’ other Christians as opportunities arise.”(9)

Pantas

The Greek word for “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 is pantas. Gibson devotes a good deal of attention to this word as he seeks to prove that “and to all” refers to non-Christians. One argument Gibson makes is that pantas is used in Galatians 6:10 to refer to “all men” (both believers and unbelievers). Gibson says that it should be understood exactly the same way in 2 Corinthians 9:13. The King James version even translates pantas in 2 Corinthians 9:13 “all men.”

Several facts about this word and its usage need to be understood, however. First of all, pantas is an adjective.(10) A Greek adjective does not always modify a noun; it is often used as a substantive (i.e., as a substitute for a noun). When an adjective is used in this way, translators sometimes insert an English noun into the text to assist in bringing out the substantive idea to the English reader. The insertion is called an interpolation.(11) The important thing to realize is that context always determines what an adjectival substantive has reference to. In the words of grammarian Nigel Turner, “The absence of the noun . . . occurs in adjectival and other kinds of attributes . . . and the context supplies its lack.(12)

When the King James Version renders pantas in 2 Corinthians 9:13 “all men,” the word “men” is merely an interpolation; it is not in the Greek text. The context must determine whom “all” refers to. In Galatians 6:10 the context clearly indicates that pantas there means “all men.” The context of 2 Corinthians 9:13 is different. In this verse Paul is concluding a discussion of the ministry to the saints in Jerusalem, and the context indicates that pantas here refers to all other saints.

Gibson affirms, however, that pantas as used in 2 Corinthians 9:13 must mean “all men” because this is how Joseph Thayer defines the word. Thayer never refers specifically to 2 Corinthians 9:13 in his remarks, but Gibson appeals to Thayer’s general discussion of pantas when used “without any addition” (i.e., without another word grammatically connected to it).(13) Gibson makes this statement: “Thayer says that when such a plural form appears ‘without any addition, the meaning is all men. Therefore, Gibson says, “pantas, by definition, includes non-saints.”(14)

Gibson is misreading Thayer. Thayer is not saying that this use of pantas always means “all men.” He is saying that it sometimes means “all men,” and at other times it means a more limited group. Gibson overlooks the following passages which Thayer includes in his examples of pantas used without addition. Consider who is being referred to in these verses:

Matt. 21:26 – all the multitude in the temple.

1 Cor. 8:1 – all the members of the church who had knowledge.

1 Cor. 8:7 – all the members of the church.

Jn. 3:26 – all the Jews who were coming to be baptized.

Matt. 14:20 – all the multitude at the feeding of the 5000.

The context of each of these passages limits the “all” under discussion to a particular group of people. Gibson errs greatly when he says Thayer supports the view that pantas in 2 Corinthians 9:13 must include unbelievers. In reality, Thayer’s comments only confirm the fact that context must determine whom this word is designating.

Do the Scholars Really Agree with Gibson?

Those brethren who see unbelievers in 2 Corinthians 9:13 are hard-pressed to find scholars who agree with them. Gibson lists several as endorsing his position,(15) but his construction of their statements is dubious at best. Because the translators of the New International Version render pantas “everyone else,” Gibson concludes that they understand it to include unbelievers. But “everyone else” can just as easily mean every other Christian. The same is true of the short explanatory notes by Albert Barnes (“all others whom you may have the opportunity of relieving”) and John Wesley (“who stand in need of it”).(16) These men may simply be talking about other Christians. How can Gibson confidently claim otherwise?

Matthew Henry says that the contribution was proof of the Corinthians’ “true love to all men.” Gibson says he means by this that the contribution was given to both believers and unbelievers. It is more likely, however, that Henry is referring to the matter of Jew-Gentile relations within the church. Whenever Henry speaks expressly about the recipients of the Jerusalem Collection, he identifies them only as saints.(17)

Commentator Hans Betz, in a footnote to 2 Corinthians 9:13, refers the reader to Galatians 6:10 and his commentary on that verse. Gibson concludes from this that Betz believes 2 Corinthians 9:13 speaks of unbelievers receiving the Jerusalem Collection. I fail to see how Gibson can draw this conclusion. Betz never even mentions the Collection in his comments on Galatians 6:10. Whenever Betz does speak about the Collection in his commentary, he says only that it was for the Jerusalem saints.(18)

Gibson is guilty of clear misrepresentation in several instances. I have already discussed how he misconstrues what Thayer says about pantas. He does the same thing with the comments of Alfred Plummer. Because Plummer paraphrases the last part of 2 Corinthians 9:13, “contribution to their need and to the general good,”(19) Gibson says that he must understand pantas to include unbelievers. But Plummer means the good of brethren generally; he is not talking about unbelievers. In a later commentary he specifically states that pantas means “a benefit conferred on the brethren at Jerusalem is a benefit to the whole body of Christians.”(20)

Gibson also misrepresents the view of Ralph Martin. Martin gives the following explanation of the phrase “and to all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13: “We must take the phrase to be a general one in praise of the generous spirit that moves the readers, and would move them wherever there may be a need.” Gibson assumes that “wherever there may be a need” means the needs of unbelievers. But Martin is talking about the needs of Christians. He specifically refers the reader to the commentary of R. V. G. Tasker which, he says, gives the same interpretation as the one he has presented.(21) Tasker’s commentary says this: “The Corinthians, contribution is for the poor saints at Jerusalem only; but the fellowship which was expressed in it was, the apostle assumes, felt for all other Christians.”(22)

Final Thoughts

Steve Gibson’s view that the Jerusalem Collection went to unbelievers is untenable. Neither Galatians 6:10 nor 2 Corinthians 9:13 teach it. I cannot help but be disturbed by Gibson’s misuse of scholarly writings to try to shore up his position. The scholars do not affirm what Gibson says they affirm; often they affirm just the opposite. The word of God deserves better treatment than this.

Institutional brethren need to accept the fact that there is no New Testament example of church funds being used in benevolence to non-Christians. There must have been many indigent persons in Jerusalem and elsewhere during the first century – both Christians and non-Christians. But New Testament churches relieved only needy Christians. Surely this should teach us something about the work of a local church. Individual Christians are to do good to all men, but through the local church Christians render a special good to the household of the faith.

Endnotes

1. S. Gibson, Galatians 6-10 and the Great Collection (Taylor, TX: published by the author, 1990), pp. 76-93.

2. Ibid., p. 76.

3. J. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors), p. 352.

4. Ibid., pp. 88-91.

5. Ibid., p. 90.

6. A. Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East (New York: Harper, 1922), p. 105.

7. Ibid., pp. 79-80.

8. J.W. McGarvey and P. Pendleton, Commentary on Thessalomans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (Delight; Gospel Light, 1875), p. 219.

9. The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10 (New York: Abingdon, 1953), p. 379.

10. Pantas is the masculine, accusative, plural form of pas which means “all, every.”

11. An interpolated word is usually italicized in our Bibles.

12. J.H. Moulton and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), Vol. 111, p. 16.

13. See Thayer, p. 492.

14. Ibid., pp. 79, 95.

15. Ibid., pp. 82-85.

16. A. Barnes, Notes on 2 Corinthians and Galatians (New York: Harper, 1856), p. 202; L Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: Mason, 1842), p. 464.

17. M. Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: Revell), n.d., pp. 628-634.

18. Hans Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 101-103, 310-311.

19. A. Plummer, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1903), p. 165.

20. A. Plummer, International Critical Commentary, Vol. 28 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915), p. 267.

21. R. Martin, 2 Corinthians (Waco: Word Books, 1986), p. 294.

22. R.V.G. Tasker, 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), p. 129. The only commentators Gibson appeals to whom I have not addressed are the following, whose works have been unavailable to me: D.D. Wheddon, C.H. Zahniser, F. Carver, and G.R. Beasley-Murray.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, pp. 554-556
September 19, 1991

Oh, the lengths some will go to justify themselves. I guess I shouldn’t be shocked, but frankly, I find it difficult to understand how people can label themselves Christians and then turn around and deny that the words of Christ have any application now. I am finding it really hard to appreciate a book that recently was given to me. The book was written by a brother whom I know out in Oregon. This brother claims to have rethought the subject of marriage and divorce, and he has come up with the idea that the teachings of Jesus during his personal ministry just don’t apply now, but that they belong to a bygone Jewish dispensation. I believe with all my heart that the teaching Jesus did before the cross comprises his will, and that his will came into effect after his death (Heb. 9:16,17). In this article I want to show that the teaching of Jesus during his personal ministry applies now, and particularly since this brother from Eugene denies it, I want to emphasize that the Sermon on the Mount is for this age.

Christ’s teachings are for this dispensation. He preached the coming kingdom in Matthew 4:17, and a great number of his parables describe the kingdom (“the kingdom of heaven is like. . . “). He defined true greatness in the kingdom. He identified the foundation of the church he would build and promised Peter the keys of the kingdom. Jesus told Nicodemus about the new birth into the kingdom and spoke to his disciples concerning the type of character citizens of that realm must possess. He told how a rich man would find entry difficult. He taught about resolving problems between brethren and how matters should be handled before they are brought before the church. Does this sound like teaching for a past Jewish dispensation? Of course not!

Not only did Jesus preach the kingdom message, but his words are said to be new – they are unique. (This Oregon brother has the idea that Jesus merely taught the law of Moses.) Jesus claimed that he alone revealed the Father, and told his disciples that the prophets had not heard what he made known (Matt. 13:17). Jesus taught that Moses had not given them the true manna from heaven, but that he provided it through his words (Jn. 6:32-35,63). Furthermore, he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). The completeness of Christ’s authority is proclaimed in Hebrews 1:1-3, and then the writer asks, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him?” (2:3) Our brother’s denial of the words of Jesus becomes more alarming when we recall that 2 John 9 warns that we do not have God if we do not abide in Christ’s teaching (doctrine).

Now let’s go to the Sermon on the Mount. (Our brother makes this to be only a restatement of the law of Moses and directions for those who were still under that law.) First, notice that this sermon was addressed particularly to Christ’s disciples (Matt. 5:1; Lk. 6:20) and repeatedly he speaks of what will be acceptable in “the kingdom of heaven.” I believe it is especially significant that Jesus again and again says, “You have heard that it was said,” and each time he quotes from the Old Law; and then with each quotation he declares, “but I say unto you.” In each of these declarations Jesus introduces something new; a new emphasis, or a new spiritual application or else something completely different from anything given hitherto. Where does the Law teach that calling someone a “fool” puts one in danger of hell fire, that lustful looking equals adultery in the heart, mat putting away a mate causes the mate to commit adultery, that a person is not to swear at all, that a disciple is not to resist an evil person but to turn the other cheek and go the second mile and that one should love his enemies? Where does the Law teach such? Nowhere. (The closest this brother could get to loving enemies under the Law was to show that the Law required an Israelite to love a stranger – that is not the same thing at all.) Other new teachings given by Jesus are: forgive or you will not be forgiven; seek the kingdom of God first; and as we judge others, so shall we be judged. Climaxing the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that “whoever” heard him but does not keep his sayings is like a fool building on the sand, but he who hears and obeys is like a wise man building on a rock (Matt. 7:24-27). But according to the writer of the book, Christ spoke falsely when he said “whoever.” According to the Oregon writer a person can hear the sayings of Christ and not do them and be a wise man!

In conclusion, the teachings of Jesus are authoritative for this age. I dare not seek to nullify the “whoever” in his teaching on marriage and divorce in Matthew 5:32; 19:9. I fear to reject his words and am concerned for anyone who does so. Jesus say, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him – the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, p. 560
September 19, 1991