Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

The book of Philemon in the New Testament is short in length, but teaches us a great lesson about dealing with others. The apostle Paul wrote it as a letter to a fellow Christian, Philemon. The letter was carried by Philemon’s runaway slave Onesimus who had been converted to Christ by Paul.

The letter is basically a request by Paul for Philemon to release Onesimus from physical service so that Onesimus might join Paul in the spiritual service of preaching the gospel. Paul does not require Philemon to do as he wishes, even though Paul had authority to do so. Listen to the way Paul expresses it:

Therefore, though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you being such a one as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ – I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me (Phile. 8-11, NKJV).

Instead of compelling Philemon to release Onesimus, Paul shows the confidence in him to act of his free will and grant the request. Near the end of the letter, Paul affirms that trust in Philemon saying, “Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say” (21). The apostle Paul did not use feigned compliments or flattery to trick one into some action (2 Cor. 4:1-2). Evidently, Paul had seen or heard of some goodness in the character of Philemon which was the basis for this confidence.

However, the fact that Paul saw some good in the character of Philemon which spurred this trust does not suggest that Philemon was without faults. No doubt, Philemon was filled with the same weaknesses and faults that all of us have. If the apostle had wanted to look for deficiencies in Philemon, he could have found them. If Paul had focused on those shortcomings, he could have declared his doubts about Philemon rather than his confidence in him. The result would have been a far different letter than the one we have preserved by God in our Bibles.

Example of Jesus

Jesus had the same approach as he showed confidence in people of the world to turn from their sin and error unto his truth in John 4. The disciples did not understand why Jesus was talking with a Samaritan woman who was a sinner. They saw no potential in her for anything good.

As Jesus looked out on a field recently planted, he gave a simple illustration of the difference between his view and that of the disciples. “Do you not say, ‘There are still four months and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest!” (Jn. 4:35)

Simply put, Jesus saw what could be based on the Samaritan woman’s desire to hear his teaching. The disciples merely saw what was presently so. Jesus looked for the good that was in the woman and where it could lead. The disciples looked at her faults and stopped at that point. Both saw the woman as a sinner, but Jesus’ hope for her redemption separated his view of her from that of the disciples.

Towards the Lost

Which view do we have of others? Do we look for the good in those who are presently engaged in sin and seek to show them the truth of God’s word? Jesus saw an adulterous woman and tried to convert her through the truth of God (Jn. 4:16-26). If we came in contact with a woman who had been married and divorced five times, would we see her as a good prospect for the gospel? Surely we should see such a woman as one who needs to be shown the error of . her present path, urge her to repent, and show her the truth which leads to salvation. Paul saw a runaway slave and taught him the truth of the gospel through which he was born again in obedience to God (1 Pet. 1:22-25).

Too often, we look at those caught in the practice of sin as unreachable and consider it a waste of time to teach them. We tend to seek prospects who are morally decent and already interested in religious matters. Clearly, those people need to hear the gospel message. However, the “down-and-out” sinners of the world also need to hear the gospel message. Paul, a former murderer and blasphemer, made the point this way:

This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life (1 Tim. 1:15-16).

In the Marriage Relationship

When we have problems with our mates, do we have the proper confidence in them from which we can resolve the trouble? The divorce rate of our society could be reduced drastically if husbands and wives would look for the good in the other and act with that in mind, rather than looking for the bad and seeking revenge. All too often, couples get into the “never-always syndrome” in dealing with the other. The wife says, “He always. . . ” to which the husband responds, “She never. . . ” As long as each sees the marriage as “always” a problem and “never” a blessing, no solution to the trouble can be reached. Each partner must look for the good in the other as the starting point towards progress. Separation and divorce are not the solution to problems!

The Bible declares a positive basis for marriage on the part of both spouses (Eph. 5:22-33). The husband is to “love” his wife and seek her good above his own. The wife is to respect her husband and submit to his leadership. The things commanded of each partner suggest they must have some confidence in the other. After all, love and respect do not flourish in the midst of suspicion, animosity and resentment.

Dealing With Children

In dealing with our children, do we see the good in them and let our actions be guided by the dreams of where that could lead? Or do we see their faults and constantly rebuke or berate them? The Bible maintains a difference between proper discipline and provoking a child to wrath (Eph. 6:4). Such provoking brings the child to be discouraged rather than corrected and benefitted (Col. 3:21). Proper discipline points out the right way and seeks peace, not continued hostility (Heb. 12:9-11).

I have seen the terrible result of children whose parents showed no confidence in them. When a parent constantly dwells on the burden presented by a child, the child hears it. When an exasperated parent expresses a desire to get away from a child, it has an effect upon the child that endures beyond the tension of the moment. Our children need to feel our love for them and our confidence in them even in times of correction. Misbehavior needs to be seen as a departure from the child’s norm, not a norm from which the parent would like to depart. There is a big difference between the two!

The same principle should govern other associations. Whether it be the classroom teacher interacting with the students or a boss dealing with the workers, proper confidence in the good qualities of others is more productive than constant fault-finding. In a local church, this quality is absolutely essential if peace and brotherly love are to prevail.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 11, pp. 323-324
June 6, 1991

By Weldon E. Warnock

In chapter four of his book, brother Hailey discusses the New Covenant. He concludes that only those who enter a contract or agreement with God on his terms are in covenant relationship with him. He wrote, “The alien is not under the covenant law of Christ until he brings himself under it by obedience to its terms” (p. 52). On page 60 he summarizes, “The alien is not under the covenant of Christ, having never submitted to its conditions or demands.” By “conditions or demands” he means the terms of pardon. Hence, brother Hailey, by his own admission, has the alien under at least part of the New Covenant.

Covenant Accountability

Admittedly, a person would have to comply with the conditions or demands of the New Covenant to enter covenant relationship with God. But this is not the issue. The issue is – accountability. Is an alien accountable to the New Covenant, whether he submits to it or not? I maintain he is!

Those before Moses’ time did not have to acknowledge God’s rule over them to be obligated to worship and serve him. The Jews did not have to personally agree to the covenant given at Mt. Sinai for them to be bound to keep that covenant. Certainly, the Israelites entered covenant relationship by agreeing to covenant terms (Exod. 19:3-8; 24:3,7,8), but those who knew not the law and grew up in idolatry were no less obliged to keep the covenant than those who knew and obeyed it. Jeremiah said unto idolatrous Judah, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyed not the words of this covenant” (Jer. 11:3; cf. 7:24-28). Likewise, those who live under the Messianic rule of Christ do not have to surrender to his covenant in order to be amenable or accountable to it.

God’s covenant does not necessitate a mutual agreement with man, but rather it is a sovereign, unilateral dispensation of grace of his part; a command, law, or obligation he imposes on his creatures. The following quotations reflect this.

(1) Unger’s Bible Dictionary: As man is not in the position of an independent covenanting party, such a covenant is not strictly a mutual compact, but a promise on the part of God to arrange his providences for the welfare of those who should render him obedience (Third edition, 1966, p. 224).

(2) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: The original meaning of the Heb. berith (covenant, wew) . . . is not “agreement or settlement between two parties,” as is commonly argued. Berith implies first and foremost the notion of “imposition,” “liability,” or “obligation,” as might be learned from the “bond” etymology discussed above. Thus we find that the berith is commanded. . . . (“he has commanded his covenant,” Psa. 111:9; Jgs. 2:20), which certainly cannot be said about a mutual agreement. As will be shown below, berith is synonymous with law and commandment (cf. e.g., Deut. 4:13; 33:9; Isa. 24:5; Psa. 50:16; 103:18) and the covenant at Sinai in Exod. 24 is in its essence an imposition of laws and obligations upon the people (vv. 3-8) (Vol. 2, p. 255).

(3) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Diatheke (covenant, wew) is from first to last the “disposition” of God, the mighty declaration of the sovereign will of God in history, by which He orders the relation between Himself and men according to His own saving purpose, and which carries with it the authoritative divine ordering, the one order of things which is in accordance with it (Vol. 2, p. 134).

(4) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: In the OT the word (covenant, wew) has an ordinary use, when both parties are men, and a distinctly religious use, between God and men. . . . There are also two shades of meaning . . . one in which it is properly a covenant, i.e. a solemn mutual agreement, the other in which it is more a command, i.e. instead of an obligation voluntarily assumed, it is an obligation imposed by a superior upon an inferior. . . * In general, the covenant of God with men is a Divine ordinance, with signs and pledges on God’s part, and with promises for human obedience and penalties for disobedience, which ordinance is accepted by men (Vol. 2, 727-728).

John Murray, in The New Bible Dictionary (p. 266), said, “It is a mistake to read Exod. 19:5-6; 24:7,8 as if making of the covenant had to wait for the promise of obedience on the part of the people.” I believe brother Hailey makes this mistake about the covenant of Christ when he says the 4 1 alien is not under the covenant law of Christ until he brings himself under it by obedience to its terms.” His concept of covenant differs from all of the above reputable works.

The covenant of God is identified in the Bible as ordinances, laws, commandments and words. In Exodus 24:7 Moses “took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people.” This book of the covenant contained the “judgments” (ordinances, ASV) that Moses was to set before them in Exodus 21:1. In Exodus 24:12 Jehovah describes this covenant as law and commandments. God does not have to wait till I agree before he gives a law to which I am accountable.

Through Jeremiah God said he would “make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. . . . I will put my law in their inward parts” (Jer. 31:31-34; cf. Heb. 8:8-12; 10:15-17). Observe that God’s law would be in their “inward parts” (mind, Heb. 8:10). This is necessary for those who come into covenant relationship with Jehovah. Such relationship is effected by coming under the blood for the remission of sins. Though this new covenant was to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, it also included the Gentiles. The phrase, “I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Heb. 8:10), not only fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophecy, butt also Hosea’s concerning the Gentiles (Hos. 2:23; cf. Rom. 9:24-26).

In his commentary on Hebrews, F.F. Bruce includes a footnote on chapter 8, vv. 8-13 by J. Skinner and E.K. Simpson, which says, “The fact is, Jeremiah’s prophecy and the New Testament fulfillment give a new depth of meaning to the old term ‘covenant.’ In any case, the biblical covenant is much more than ‘a compact between God and man’; it is not a suntheke, an agreement between parties who are more or less equal in status, but a diatheke, a settlement by a superior on inferiors, ‘tendered on the one hand for acceptance on the other… (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 176).

Therefore, the New Covenant is not a matter of whether we agree to its terms, but it is a case of God placing demands, conditions and obligations upon the whole human race. If we want to receive the blessings of the New Covenant, then we must submit our will to its terms in order to make them a reality. All men are accountable to the New Covenant, but not all men have placed themselves under contract to its precepts. This is the major flaw in brother Hailey’s reasoning. He makes only those in covenant relationship accountable.

Sometimes an objection is made to the position that alien sinners are amenable to the law of Christ by such questions as: “Are unbelievers sinning when they do not partake of the Lord’s Supper?” The answer is “yes” in the ultimate sense because God would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), even the truth of worshiping and serving the Lord. Paul said at Athens, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:26-27). Men sin for not following Jesus!

1 Corinthians 9:20-21

In his endeavor to refute the position that the unregenerate are under the New Covenant, brother Hailey states that such position contradicts what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 (p. 49). In that passage Paul wrote, “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law.”

Brother Hailey concludes, “Those who had not obeyed the gospel were not under law to Christ as was Paul, though they were under God’s universal moral law – had been from the beginning and would be until the end of time. But they were not under the New Covenant of Christ” (pp. 49-50).

Nothing is said in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 about the Jews and Gentiles being under a universal moral law. Paul said the Jews were “under the law,” the law of Moses, and the Gentiles were “without law,” meaning, “without the law of Moses.” The Mosaical law had been abrogated for over twenty years by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, yet, he says the Jews were under the law, i.e., the Mosaical law. Paul was using accommodative language. The Jews regarded themselves under the law, but in actuality the law had been annulled (Col. 2:16; Heb. 8:6-13; 10:9). Let us notice the following comments about 1 Corinthians 9:20-21:

Lutheran Commentary. Commenting on “under the law,” it states, “Those who regard themselves still under the obligations to comply with the demands of the Ceremonial Law.”

Adam Clarke. He says that “under the law” means: “To those who considered themselves still under obligation to observe its rites and ceremonies. . .”

A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. “He (Paul) conciliated the Jews and those who regarded the law as binding by observing their scruples.”

Expositor’s Greek Testament. “Anomos (without law, wew) was the Jewish designation for all beyond the pale of Mosaism (see Rom. 2:9-16, etc.): Paul became this to Gentiles (Gal. 4:12), abandoning his natural position, in that he did not practice the law of Moses amongst them nor make it the basis or aim of his preaching to them; see Acts 14:15ff; 17:22ff. He was anomos therefore, in the narrow Jewish sense;” not so in the true religious sense.

James MacKnight. He translates v. 21, “To persons not subject to the law of Moses, I became as not subject to that law, by not enforcing it on them . . . … MacKnight believes that “not under law” referred to not being subject to the law of Moses. This is in agreement with what the Expositor’s Greek Testament said about anomos.

Hence, Paul is not teaching that the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles are not amenable to the law of Christ, but rather he is saying that he became all things to the Jews who considered themselves under the law of Moses and all things to the Gentiles who are spoken of as beyond the pale of Judaism. While becoming all things to all men, Paul let us know that he was not lawless, but rather under law (ennomos) to Christ.

E.M. Zerr said it right when he wrote, “When Paul was mingling with those who were not Jews, he did not try to press the Jewish customs upon them, but he did advocate the law of Christ which was and is binding upon all mankind.”

Issue Is Not Covenant Relationship

On page 52, brother Hailey states, “So, if one is under God’s covanent in Christ, he is under the blood of Christ, and if under the blood of Christ, he has remission of sins.” Farther down on the page, he declares, “The part of the new covenant law which is addressed to the alien is that by which he obtains the remission of sins and is translated into His kingdom (Col. 1: 12-13). ” The argument in the first quotation is that if an alien is amenable to the law of Christ, he is sanctified by the blood, and being washed in the blood, he has remission of sins before he obeys the gospel. But, according to brother Hailey’s second quotation, the alien is under God’s covenant in Christ, at least in part, therefore, he is under the blood (if not totally, then in part?), and has remission of sins (at least in part?).

As we suggested earlier, an alien would have to agree to the terms of the New Covenant, and come under the blood of Christ before he could enter a covenant relationship with God. But, may I reiterate – the issue is not relationship,it is accountability. Is an alien accountable to the teachings of the New Covenant? The answer is an emphatic, “Yes”!

The perfect moral principles were exemplified in Christ Jesus, and are completely revealed in the New Testament (Jn. 16:12-14; Col. 2:10; 2 Pet. 1:3-4). Jesus is the light of the world (Jn. 8:12). However, we are told that an alien sinner lives under a different code – the universal moral law. He is not subject to the perfect law of liberty (Jas. 1:25), but he is amenable only to the law written on the heart (Rom. 2:15). This so-called universal moral law is a phantom law, elusive and visionary; a will-o’-the-wisp. Where is this law? What are its specifications and limitations? Even brother Hailey says, “The specific words in which the precepts of that law were expressed were not recorded and preserved” (p. 58), and “lost to history” (A Commentary on Isaiah, p. 538).

If the unregenerate are not under the New Covenant, it makes no sense whatsoever for us to condemn the denominations for their religious error. If they are not subject to the law of Christ, they are not transgressing any law by their false practices. But Jesus said that those who obey not his will, even though they say they have prophesied in his name, cast out devils in his name and have done many wonderful works in his name, Jesus will profess to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (lawlessness, NASB – Matt. 7:21-23). Whose law did they disregard? Jesus never knew them, hence, they were not in covenant relationship. It seems clear to me that they violated the law of Christ.

Matthew 19:3-9

In the chapter on “the New Covenant,” brother Hailey makes Matthew 19:3-10 refer solely to citizens of the kingdom. He asserts, “From beginning to end according to Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus was talking about his kingdom the kingdom of heaven – and was laying down principles that govern it. Therefore, in the light of the entire context of the Gospel, it is clear that when Jesus answered their question concerning divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:3-9, He was going beyond the law of Moses to the law of His covenant – It appears that nothing could be clearer than that Matthew 19:3-10 referred not to the world, but to the citizens of ‘the kingdom of heaven,’ the kingdom He came to establish” (p. 55).

Unquestionably, Matthew 19:3-10 is applicable to citizens of the kingdom. But is it applicable only to those in the kingdom? If it is then marriage is a church ordinance and only those in the church or kingdom have the right to marry. All couples, therefore, who come to obey the gospel must by necessity be required to also undergo a marriage ceremony. If marriage laws are not applicable to alien sinners, how can marriage itself be?

Marriage was instituted in the garden of Eden thousands of years before the church was established. The home and the church are two separate institutions. Brother Hailey’s position makes the marriage relationship an integral part of the kingdom. This just is not so! The principles regulating marriage were established with Adam and Eve and have never changed. God made concessions under Moses, “but from the beginning it has not been this way” (Matt. 19:8, NASB). The same principles of Genesis 1:27; 2:18-24 to which Jesus referred in Matthew 19:3-9 are just as universal now as they were in the Old Testament world.

Jesus states in Matthew 19:9, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The word “whosoever” is an indefinite relative pronoun which pictures anyone in general. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus said, “That whosoever (anyone, pas) shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” What if the put away was an unbeliever? Jesus said her being put away causeth her to commit adultery. What about the “whosoever” that marries her? He commits adultery, even if he is an alien.

Although Matthew’s Gospel is characteristically the gospel of the King and his kingdom (as brother Hailey indicated), and it was addressed to Jewish Christians, there are teachings contained therein that are not exclusively for citizens of the kingdom. The marriage law of Matthew 19:3-9 is one of those. Let us notice how the word “whosoever” is used in several places in Matthew’s Gospel.

(1) Matthew 7:24. “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.”

(2) Matthew 11:6. “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”

(3) Matthew 12:32. “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

(4) Matthew 12:50. “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

(5) Matthew 21:44. “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

We can readily see that these passages have universal application. We conclude that Matthew 19:9 (and Matthew 5:31-32) is just as universal as these Scriptures.

The Gospel of Mark was written to Gentile Christians showing Jesus the Servant of God and man. In this context Mark states (10:2-12), basically, what Jesus said concerning divorce and remarriage as recorded by Matthew. In vv. 10-11 Mark wrote, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Marks omits the exception stated in Matthew’s account, but adds a woman putting away her husband.

Luke, who depicts the humanity of Jesus, wrote, “Whomsoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery” (Lk. 16:18). A.T. Robertson said about Luke’s Gospel, “He comes to the interpretation of Jesus from a world-standpoint. . . . He thus stands outside of the pale of Judaism and can see more clearly the world-relationship and world-destiny of the new movement. With Luke, Jesus is distinctly the world’s Savior. The accent on sin is human sin, not specifically Jewish sin” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 1940). The sin of divorce and remarriage is broader in application, therefore, than just those in covenant relationship; it includes humanity in general.

Brother Hailey asks on p. 57, “. . . what then is the relation of people of the world to what Jesus said in Matt. 19:3-9? The question was asked by Jews who were subject to God under the law of Moses. It pertained to their law, and Jesus answered it from that point of view.” But on p. 55 he wrote, “. . . Matthew 19:3-10 referred . . . to the citizens of ‘the kingdom of heaven,’ the kingdom He came to establish.” If Matthew 19:3-9 pertained to the law of Moses on p. 57, how could it apply to only citizens of Christ’s kingdom on p. 55? If brother Hailey can transfer Jesus’ teaching to the Jews in Matthew 19:3-9 to Christians, then I can transfer the teaching of Matthew 19:3-9 that would also include the alien sinner by the same process.

Indeed, alien sinners are accountable to the New Covenant!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 11, pp. 336-339
June 6, 1991

By Jimmy Tuten

I. The danger of placing too high an estimate upon oneself:

A. Humility (vv. 3-5, think of self, but not too highly). We are to think soberly (Gr. sophronein, sanely, in one’s right mind. This cuts the very vitals of human weakness and pride. It prohibits anyone from forming and entertaining an estimate of self above that which is true.

1. Arrogance and pride are all characteristic of the worldly life, but to the Christian self is denied and crucified (Lk. 9:23; Gal. 2:20; 6:14; 2 Cor. 5:15). There is no room for self-elevation, pride, or arrogance . . . no room for thinking too highly of oneself.

2. Essential to a team player (so with members of Christ’s team, 1 Cor. 12).

3. Recognize who we are and what we are (1 Pet. 2:9, royal priesthood, etc.).

4. The reason for walking humbly:

a. What we are and have came from God (“dealt to every man the measure of faith”). This is a working faith that includes abilities (gifts) that God gives.

b. “Measure of faith.” Faith is put for religion, or Christianity, being the main thing in it (2 Cor. 5:7). Hence, confidence in God rather than self (Lk. 14:11). The well-being of the community of believers is dependent upon our understanding of the true estimate of self.

c. Special Note: Some think the “measure” is miraculous (cf. Lard) as expressing itself in the possession and exercise of spiritual gifts. Whiteside has the more correct view, i.e., faith is a measuring instrument, and through the enlightenment afforded by the faith one should be governed thereby in the estimate formed of one’s self (cf. Eph. 4:7,13; 2 Cor. 10:12-13).

(1) “Soberly,” Gr. phroneo, right mind, being sane, sensible estimate of self. This sensibleness is first vertical (in relation to God’s estimate), then horizontal (man to man, 2 Cor. 10: 12ff).

(2) Man must first see himself as nothing, the acceptance of which makes him something for God. Meekness is the first requirement for obedience to God (Matt. 5:3, i.e., seeing one’s true worth in relation to God).

d . It includes the faith, the drive, or confidence to use the gifts, be they natural or spiritual (Matt. 17:20; 1 Cor. 13:2, faith being a divine gift is something about which one man can boast). Let us appropriate God’s Word, believe what God says about us, admit what we really are and enter by faith into what we should be. Examples of thinking too highly: “I don’t miss a service” so I have the right to judge those who miss Sunday night.

e. Summary: Measure of faith is the God-given natural capacity to absorb the instruction in the Word, thus being able to try out in practice the ability we possess.

B. Usefulness (vv. 6-8). Cf. Jas. 1:17; 1 Cor. 4:7. Each has received from God a measure, but he has received it! We must use it!

I live for those who love me, for those who know me true,

For the heaven that smiles above me, and awaits my spirit too;

For the cause that lacks assistance, for the wrong that needs resistance,

For the future in the distance, and the good that I can do.

– George Banks

1. 2 Corinthians 6:1, workers together with God.

2. Christians must be workers (“dealt to every man”). We must be workers together with other Christians. We must work together with God.

3. Working is not enough; working together is not enough; working together with God is what God requires.

4. Many bind themselves to some man-made purpose or goal, but surprisingly enough, many work together quite well under it. But God does not accept it. The plan to work must be from God (2 Tim. 2:5; 1 Tim. 1:8).

5. If we are to be useful it must in accordance with God’s plan (Matt. 7:23; Psa. 127: 1; Matt. 15:13).

Which Are You?

Two brothers once lived down this way:

One was DO, the other was SAY.

If the streets were dirty, the taxes high,

Or the schools were crowded, SAY would cry,

“My, what a town.” But brother DO,

Would set to work and make things new.

And while DO worked, SAY would cry:

“He does it wrong. I know that I

Could do it right!” So all the day

Was heard the crank of brother SAY.

But this one fact was never hid;

SAY always talked; DO always did!

Conclusion:

1. Realization of our relationship in Christ will prove an effective preventive of pride, breeding the spirit of humility in the exercise of any and all responsibilities.

2. How badly the church needs this truth. Nothing would better harmonize her life and remove her petty bickerings, jealousies, and criticisms that so often arises in the ordinary course of her activities.

3. Let us have an attitude of readiness of whatever service the Lord may require of us. The act becomes the attitude, life-long and constant; always yielded, willing, waiting, to do his will.

4. As a man soweth, so shall he reap (Gal. 6:7, “the thorns that I have reaped are of the tree I planted. I should have known what fruit would spring from such a seed” – Lord Byron). Another has said:

“If I had thought – If I had dreamed the gallows was meant for me, I’d never have built it quite so high or half so sturdily.”

5. “Have this mind in you . . .” (Phil. 2:5-11).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 309-310
May 16, 1991

By Bill Crews

Some churches have been in the news lately. These are those who take the position that to treat our physical illnesses by any other way than faith in God and prayer to God is wrong and sinful. They think it a sin, they think it an indication of a lack of faith in God, to consult a doctor and to take medication or to receive medical treatment. Their honesty or sincerity is not in question here, but their handling of the Scriptures is!

The New Testament does not teach that miracles of healing are available to all believers throughout time. Such miracle-working was of a temporal duration and designed to confirm the truth being taught and to produce faith in that truth. On the miracles of Christ and their purpose read John 2:11,23; 3:2; 5:36; 6:26-27; 10:24-25,37-38; 20:30-31; Acts 2:24. On the miracles of the twelve and others read Matthew 10:1,5-8; Luke 10:1,8-9; Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4; Acts 8:5-6,13; 9:33-35, 40-42; 13:11-12; 14:3; 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. The word of the Lord was revealed and confirmed; it does not need to be, and it will not be, revealed again or confirmed again.

If the purpose of miracles of healing was to alleviate the physical suffering of believers and was available to any believer who had sufficient faith, we would not read about such as the following: Paul had some kind of infirmity that caused him great suffering; three times he earnestly prayed that it might be removed, but it wasn’t! (2 Cor. 12:7-9) Epaphroditus came to Paul at Rome and became gravely ill, but Paul who had miraculously healed so many did not miraculously heal him (Phil. 2:25-30). And Paul who had miraculously healed so many left Trophimus at Miletus sick (2 Tim. 4:20).

Certainly we are taught to have faith in God, to trust in God, and to pray diligently. We are even to pray for those who are sick (1 Pet. 5:7; Phil. 4:6; 3 Jn. 2).

The New Testament does not teach that it is wrong to seek or receive medical attention. Healing herbs and medicines are a part of God’s creation – remedies that he made available to man. Medical practitioners are but drawing upon the knowledge and wisdom that God made available and but cooperating with and using the great laws of nature that God authored. God has given us bodies that have remarkable defenses against diseases and wonderful resources that attack diseases and work to heal injuries. He has provided a host of elements and procedures that can be discovered and properly used to prevent, alleviate or cure human suffering of all kinds. It is not a lack of faith or trust for man to utilize these. Consider the following:

1. No condemnation of medical remedies can be found in the Bible (this is not an endorsement of “quack” doctors or “quack” remedies; nobody is ready to defend any but ethical practioners and proven remedies).

2. If surgery on the human body is inherently wrong, why did God require circumcision of the male descendants of Abraham (Gen. 17), and why did he choose what we now know from a medical standpoint to be the best time (the 8th day)?

3. Many of the laws that God gave to the Israelite nation, besides being tests of their faith, have proven to be the wise thing to do for the protection of man’s physical health. Dr. R. V. Bingham authored the book, The Bible and the Body, in which he “enumerates six laws designed and instituted of God to insure Israel’s national health”: “Sanitation, preventing infection (Deut. 23:14); Sterilization, guarding against contagion (Lev. 11:32,39,40); Quarantine, isolating infectious disease (Num. 5:4; 31:22-23); Hygiene and Dietetics (Lev. 11; 19:7; Num. 11:19-20); Physical Culture; each Israelite, even the priest, worked his own lot (Deut. 16:16); Recuperation, the seventh day and the seventh month reserved for rest.”

4. The Bible mentions a number of plant products that were used by the people for medicinal reasons, and such use was not labelled sinful: aloe, anise, balm of Gilead, caperberry, cummin, figs, fitches, gall, mandrake, myrrh, ointment, olive oil, rue, saffron, and wine.

5. To alleviate his affliction with boils Job sat in ashes and scraped his boils with a potsherd (Job. 2:7-8).

6. Isaiah prescribed a cake of figs to be laid upon Hezekiah’s boil (2 Kgs. 20:7).

7. Physicians are referred to in such places as Job 13:4; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and Jeremiah 8:22. Employing the services of such physicians is not condemned. When Jeremiah wrote: “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” we can be sure that God was not drawing upon a figure that he regarded as sinful. It was not wrong to use balm. It was not wrong to employ the services of a physician.

8. If the use of medicine for the healing of the body was sinful, God would not use such a figure in a good sense as he does in Proverbs 17:22. “A cheerful heart is a good medicine. ” Compare also Ezekiel 47:12 and Revelation 22:2.

9. Jesus said, “They that are in health have no need of a physician; but they that are sick” (Lk. 5:31). Again, this was an illustration of a point (see v. 32), but Jesus would not use as an illustration of an important spiritual point a practice that was sinful.

10. Jesus taught a parable in which he depicted a man rendering medical aid to a victim of robbery (the “good Samaritan” poured oil and wine on the wounds of the injured man and bound up those wounds). He also said to the innkeeper, “Take care of him.” See Luke 10:29-37.

11. Paul commanded Timothy to resort to a medical remedy (to stop using water and to use a little wine) for his stomach’s sake and for his frequent infirmities (1 Tim. 5:23).

12. Paul refers to Luke as “the beloved physician,” (Col. 4:14) about 10 years after he is first referred to in the inspired record (Acts 16:10). It could not have been a sin for a man to work as a physician. Luke was a sometime companion of Paul and wrote two New Testament books, Luke and Acts.

To be sure, both medicines and physicians are limited in what they can accomplish (yet, it stands to reason that there are still many undiscovered remedies and many unknown procedures – the science of medicine is always in a state of growth and improvement), but it is not sinful for a Christian to either consult a physician or to take medication. Yes, he should pray unto God and trust in God. And no, he should not exalt men above God. (Reprinted form church bulletin).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 11, pp. 321, 343-344
June 6, 1991