Truth Magazine

By Darrel Haub

The phrase quoted as a title of this article is taken from Nehemiah 8:5 which describes the people’s initial response to Ezra’s opening of the book of God’s law in their presence. This was not a fleeting response because, we read in Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra read from this book from morning till midday, and while the Levites helped them to understand what was read the people stood in their place (Neh. 8:7). Also we notice in this matter that they were able to maintain a worshipful attitude throughout (Neh. 8:6). This led to the restored observance of the Feast of Booths which lasted seven days (Neh. 8:13-18). Every day, for the seven days of this feast, Ezra read from the book and the people responded like the the first day. After this great time of worship conducted during the first eight days of the seventh month, the people of Israel returned for more reading and worship on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (Neh. 9:1-3). This reading and worship led to confession of sins and reformation of lives. There are lessons for us in this example of those events.

The first lesson we can learn from this is the proper conduct while God’s word is being read and explained. Is this not what we do in our Bible study and sermon periods of service? In far too many cases today we have become lax in demeanor in our gatherings to the point that reverence is not apparent. It is not uncommon to see all sorts of activity going on among those assembled to consider God’s word. This is so much so that those of the world notice our lack of respect for the purpose of our gathering. Children may not act quietly all of the time and that is normal but, in some cases, it is other adults who make them this way, much to the dismay of their parents who are trying to teach them proper conduct in services. There is a time to play with children but not when we are assembled to consider God’s word. It is distractive to others and our own concentration to be passing children around like toys. How can we think about spiritual matters while we are amusing ourselves with how cute our children or grandchildren are? Brethren, I do not see this happening among those who stood to listen to Ezra and the Levites. Do you?

A second lesson to learn from this event is the fact that they participated in lengthy services each day for eight days and then, with but few weeks between, they returned for more. In my lifetime we have reduced our gospel meetings from two weeks length to, in some cases, a week-end. We can hardly tolerate six days of daily assembling. Saturday evening services are far too much! Sermons must be short today, some say. Even though school lectures normally run about 50 minutes, sermons which include reading from God’s word with explanation to help us understand the meaning must be no longer than 30 minutes with a rare exception of possibly 35 minutes on occasion. Brethren, we need to evaluate our attitudes in this matter. Even the TV news is so brief we often do not get the full picture from it. I am afraid that our restriction on sermon lengths is doing this to our Bible knowledge also. With our society becoming more depraved each day, do we not need more gatherings to consider God’s word? Let us encourage our elders to plan more and longer periods of study by our full attendance at all services of gospel meetings and Bible classes. In too many cases the last two or three days of a gospel meeting are mostly attended by visitors from area churches. This ought not be. Was it in Nehemiah’s day?

This event also teaches us something about the work we who stand before assembled Christians should be doing. Ezra and the Levites read from the Word of God and helped the people to understand its meaning. I doubt that this was entertaining. It was not designed to be. It was instructional. Are we not tempted in some cases to search for something new to preach? We dare not allow this search to take us to theologians for authority in our lessons. Quotes from scholars might be used well to help us understand what the Word says, but ought not be used in the place of God’s Word. Illustrations well used help make the lesson come alive and become implanted in our memories, but they ought not become our lesson instead of the reading and explanation of God’s word. Even men as great as Paul only taught the simple gospel to men who were accustomed to hearing and responding to great orators (1 Cor. 2). It is not our responsibility to be like Paul? Yes it is. Every Christian ought to demand this of our preachers. But alas, in far too many cases we see the desire for entertaining speeches which is evidenced in the fact that few come to hear Bible based preaching while crowds flock to hear lessons long on entertainment and short on substance.

The final lesson that I want to draw from this event is that it took this extended reading of God’s word with the explanation of its meaning to eventually lead Israel to repent of and confess their sins. Have you ever asked yourself, “Why are we not converting more people today?” In some cases we are not even saving our own children. Could it be because we have reduced our activities of reading God’s word and helping people to understand it so that the word is not able to work in their hearts? I have read from men who have conducted longer gospel meetings who have said that often the latter days of the meeting bring most of the responses. Today we end our meeting when the most fruit is yet to be harvested.

Let us close this article with an observation. The people in Nehemiah’s day were very ready for the reading of God’s word in order to know it. You see, they had just come out of seventy years of Babylonian captivity. This captivity was so impressive that they never returned to idolatry again. Today we who are Christians have been released from the bondage of sin and are traveling the road to heaven. How are we going to make it without the benefit of knowing God’s word? Knowledge of that word is gained by reading it, learning what it means.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, pp. 39-40
January 18, 1990

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven (Matt. 7:21).

Three procedures are crucial in determining and doing the will of God: information, interpretation, and application. Error in any of these causes one to miss the mark. So, care must be exercised at each, juncture.

Information

All Scripture is inspired of God, able to make one wise unto salvation, and furnish the man of God unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-16). Therein is God’s complete and final revelation to man all the information needed to do God’s will (Jude 3).

Knowledgeable Bible students, good concordances, commentaries, good articles, good books or other helps may great assist us in finding the needed information, but we must accept only the Scriptures as divine authority. The noble Bereans had an open mind to receive help from those who preached to them, but they were careful to “search the Scriptures daily to see if the things were so” (Acts 17:11). Such is an excellent practice.

One needs all the information on a subject before deciding what God’s will is on that subject. One verse, one chapter or even one book seldom has all of the information needed. For example, the steps in becoming a Christian are put together by combining the information from several passages. The same is true of what God expects of us in worship to him and other aspects of his will.

Interpretation

After gathering information from the sacred text, one must correctly interpret it. Even though we often hear, “Oh, that is just your interpretation,” from some whom we try to teach, “interpret” is not a bad word. Brethren sometimes, out of frustration, reply, “We do not interpret, we just take what it says.” Perhaps it would be more profitable and accurate to ask such a person to show us wherein we have misinterpreted or mishandled the word of Truth. We also rightly deplore the Catholic idea that the Scriptures must be officially interpreted by the Church.

So, if, by “interpret,” one means arbitrarily giving the Scripture a meaning that suits him, then no one has the right to interpret. However, if by “interpret” one means determining the correct meaning in the light of context, word definitions, idioms, etc., then we must do a lot of interpreting. Words must be considered in the light of their definitions, contexts (general and immediate), historical settings, etc. For example, David said, “I prevented the dawning of the morning” (Psa. 119:147 – KJV). Did David keep the sun from rising? Looking up the archaic definition of “prevent” (to go before or precede) helps to understand that David simply meant that he got up before daylight. It took a little “interpreting,” but we now know what David was really saying.

“Oh,” but you say, “I still think we should always just take the words at face value without any interpreting.” It is not always that simple. Sometime ago, while visiting my hometown, I met a brother, whom I had known from childhood. He asked if I had heard that a certain married couple, whom we had both known for years, had been separated. When I expressed surprise, he said, “Well, it must be true, because last week during our meeting down at (he called the name of the place), she (the wife) came forward at the invitation song and the preacher said she had ‘left her first love.”‘ How could I argue with evidence like that? It is obvious that my friend accepted the words, at least in his mind, at their face value – without interpretation,

So, while no one has the right to interpret, or more correctly misinterpret, Scripture any way he chooses, everyone has an obligation to interpret correctly.

Application

After searching the Scriptures for information and correctly interpreting it, thus having a clear understanding of the teaching, one must proceed to application. He must translate his knowledge into faith and practice. He must apply what he has learned to situations at hand. For example, he reads that “lasciviousness” will keep one from the heavenly kingdom. He correctly interprets the term. Now, he must apply it to certain speech, gestures, clothing, etc.

We learn from the Scriptures that New Testament congregations were always autonomous. We must apply this principle to the structure of congregations today to see if we are in harmony with it.

It is important that we understand both principles and applications. It is my conviction, based on observation, that the same basic problems repeat themselves among brethren because of a failure to grasp both principles and applications. Some understand scriptural principles quite well, but have problems progressing from principle to present-day application with any degree of accuracy. They may believe the New Testament teaching of the autonomy of the local church, yet not see that “associations,” “conventions” and “sponsoring churches” violate the autonomy principle. They understand that the Bible commands “modest apparel,” but are hard pressed to name any specific clothing that should be considered immodest.

Conversely, some have learned, from applications they have heard teachers make, that certain things are right or wrong. So, they may vigorously defend certain practices while opposing things that are exact parallels in principle. Or they may oppose certain things while accepting parallel items. For “ample, some have heard so much preaching against certain immodest articles of clothing that they would not be caught in public wearing these items. Yet, let a new style come along that may be just as sensual as what they already accept as wrong and they are the first to wear the new thing – maybe even to church. Or they may be heard speaking and seen gesturing in a way that reflects as much immodesty of character as anything anyone has ever worn. They believe certain things are “immodest” without having really learned anything about modesty.

The failure to understand both principle and application spells trouble down the road. An analysis of the institutional controversy of the ’50s and ’60s illustrates this problem. Generally speaking, all sides of the institutional/sponsoring church controversy taught the same principles. It was rare to find a preacher who would not say that: (1) the church is sufficient to do all that God gave the church to do, and (2) the Bible teaches congregational autonomy. The differences arose over the application and/or misapplication of these principles. The divisive controversies of the 1800s and early 1900s had left most brethren with the deep conviction that churches of Christ should not support “missionary societies” nor use “the instrument” in worship. No preacher, on either side of the issues of the 1950s and 1960s, wanted to be identified as endorsing either the societies or mechanical instruments of music in worship. Most of them had heard from their youth that such innovations were wrong and to be avoided. However, many showed their lack of understanding of the principles that made the societies and instruments unscriptural innovations. They had learned the applications well but had failed to grasp principles.

They did not see that the principle that makes it wrong to build and maintain societies through which churches do their preaching work, also makes it wrong for churches to build and maintain benevolence societies through which churches care for the needy. They had trouble seeing that the same principles that make instrumental music wrong, also makes other innovations to the work and worship of the church wrong. While many held steadfastly to the principles, they did not apply the principles across the board. As the years passed, many have abandoned the principles. They have come to see that they cannot consistently hold to the principle of congregational autonomy while supporting institutions and “sponsoring churches,” so they no longer believe in the autonomy principle. Some have seen that they cannot maintain the principle that we must have command, example, or necessary inference for all that we do in religion while practicing many of the innovations (such as the many “ministries” and “ministers” not found in the New Testament) of the past few decades. So, many no longer make any pretense of holding to such a principle of authority.

This is why it is so vitally important for those who still have a deep respect for scriptural authority to spare no effort in fully collecting, properly understanding, and correctly applying the information contained in the Book. Once we understand the principles with their applications, we need to fully teach them. It is not enough to just teach scriptural principles without making clear and logical applications as we teach. Nor is it enough just to list the specific applications without making every effort to help folks fully understand the principles behind the applications. Let us learn skillfully to combine the two unto the edifying of the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, pp. 38, 55
January 18, 1990

By Irvin Himmel 

A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones (Prov. 17:22).

This proverb, like many others, draws a contrast. The difference is between a merry heart and a broken spirit. The former does good; the latter is detrimental.

Merry Heart

The heart under consideration is not the physical organ that pumps the blood. The heart which is brought into focus here is the mind – the heart which thinks, reasons, understands, purposes, and has emotions.

One’s heart is the center of his life. The tone of the heart (thoughts and attitudes) affects the whole life. If it is a merry heart, there is joy, cheerfulness, and pleasantness present. A cheerful outlook relates to the manner in which problems are handled, how well one does in his work, and the ability to get along with people.

A number of factors contribute to a joyful heart. The following are significant:

1. Peace with God. The heart may seem merry due to laughter and humor, fun and jovial conversation. However, there can be no deep spiritual joy in the heart without favor with God. The gospel of Christ is God’s remedy for sin and guilt. It shows us how to have peace with God. It reveals the way of salvation. One who has submitted to Christ through obedience to the gospel has good reason for true joy. To the saints at Colosse, Paul wrote, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful” (Col. 3:15).

2. Strong Faith. The New Testament teaches us to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). The child of God is given assurance of all things for which he is taught to hope by faith. And faith gives conviction of things in the unseen realm (Heb. 11:1). The joy that we have in Christ grows out of strong faith. Paul wrote to the Philippians about the “joy of faith” (Phil. 1:25). Many who profess religion have no real joy in their hearts because they are so weak in faith.

3. Active Service. Joy comes to the heart of the Christian who participates actively in the Lord’s work. There is diligence in Bible study, regularity in prayer, faithfulness in assembling with the brethren, earnestness in doing good, carefulness in righteous conduct, and unselfishness in service. The joy produced by this active participation is the delight of faith in action.

4. Contentment. Paul wrote, “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (Phil. 4:11). Again he mentioned that “godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Tim. 5:6). The person with a merry heart has learned to make the best of his situation, whatever his circumstances.

A merry or joyful heart does good like a medicine which is just the right prescription. A cheerful disposition is a valuable asset.

Broken Spirit

A broken spirit has the opposite effect of a merry heart. It dries up the bones, which is a way of saying that it saps life and paralyzes hope.

“The spirit is the power of self-consciousness which, according as it is lifted up or broken, also lifts up or breaks down the condition of the body” (F. Delitzsch).

There is a definite relationship between one’s mental attitude and his bodily health. Many illnesses are not due to organic causes at all. “They are the results of our attitudes rather than the ills of the body. . . A person who always dwells on the negative aspects is a pessimistic person in all he does and thinks. However, it is foolish to attribute all ills to ‘a broken spirit.’ A broken arm is a broken arm despite any mental attitude you may have about it. Any amount of thinking will not replace a good cast. But the merry heart not only prevents many problems, it also helps to cure them” (Chas. W. Turner).

The following are some of the causes of a crushed spirit:

1. Bringing the future into the present. We need to learn to live one day at a time. Jesus said, “Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:34, NASB).

2. Burden of guilt. An individual who feels the heavy weight of sin pressing down on his soul may be broken in spirit. He needs to turn to the Lord for forgiveness.

3. Gloom. Some folks live on despair and misery. They make others around them miserable. They always look on the dark side of things. In gloom there is no merit. Dejection and melancholy break the human spirit.

‘Nothing has such a direct tendency to ruin health and waste our life as grief, anxiety, fretfulness, bad tempers, etc.” (A. Clarke).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, p. 45
January 18, 1990

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Several times in what we identify as Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians (there probably was a previous letter, 1 Cor. 5:9), the apostle spoke of having firsthand information concerning their problems and questions. For example, those of Chloe’s household had reported contentions in the church (1 Cor. 1:11), the brethren had written to Paul (1 Cor. 7:1), and Paul had visited with Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17-18). In chapter seven, Paul specifically responded to their written inquiries about domestic relationships. Among Christians today, assertions have been made by different ones who think they find justification in this chapter for second marriages in cases other than those described in Matthew 19 and Romans 7.

The “Present Distress”?

First, their letter and Paul’s answer were written in the midst of a “present distress” (v. 26) when Christians who married could expect “trouble in the flesh-” (v. 28). Paul was concerned that the cares of married life might keep some from serving the Lord “without distraction” (vv. 32-35). He, therefore, cautioned against marrying. Some have discounted much of the apostolic instruction in this chapter because of those circumstances. It should be observed that when Paul appealed to the “present distress,” the issue was only whether to marry or not and, even then, the disciples were given freedom to make the choice (vv. 8-9). If they married, all those responsibilities God placed on mates were to be observed (vv. 1-5) and they were not allowed to depart (vv. 10-16). Neither were any divine regulations governing married life changed during or because of the “distress.”

Paul Versus The Lord?

Second, in conjunction with questions raised about the impact of the “present distress” there is another issue concerning the relation between what Paul was presently saying and what the Lord had said while with the apostles. Some have argued that Paul’s instructions are optional because they represent his opinions and were not guided by the Spirit. Careful reading of the text should dispel this notion:

(a) In verse six, Paul says that the authorization for temporary relief from the responsibilities of mates (v. 5) was granted as a “concession,” not a “commandment.” The “concession” was from the Lord and it was intended to provide time for prayer leading to reconciliation. The apostle was not, however, “commanding” a separation. Nothing in the text indicates that Paul’s words here were not inspired.

(b) In verses ten and twelve, the apostle first stressed what Jesus had himself initially taught, namely that a wife must not depart from her husband (v. 10); and then he presented the later specific instruction now given to him by the Lord that the Christian living with a non-Christian should not leave the mate (v. 12). Again, there is no contradiction between Paul and Jesus, and there is no indication that Paul was speaking on his own apart from inspiration. The statements simply call attention to the fact that Paul’s directive was an application growing out of Jesus’ own words. That fact is further emphasized in v. 17 when Paul gave “order” (authoritative command) concerning the things taught in the passage.

(c) Toward the end of the chapter, Paul affirmed that he had been allowed to write his “judgment” on the advisability of marrying under the present circumstances (vv. 25,26,40). If we were to grant that Paul was expressing purely human judgment, we would be forced to recognize that he clearly declared it to be judgment and that he spoke only about a matter in which God allows Christians to make a decision. It is optional whether one marries and Paul also clearly stated that his judgment was not compulsory. The truth is, however, that Paul was not simply expressing his own humanly fallible opinion. He was, instead, expressing apostolic judgment guided by the Spirit of God. He said, “I give judgment as one whom the Lord in his mercy has made trustworthy” (v. 25). Paul spoke often of having been given grace or mercy to teach faithfully God’s will (Eph. 3:7-8; 1 Cor. 3: 10; 2 Cor. 4: 1 f; et. ao. The fact that this “judgment” is concerned with a permissive matter does not in any way argue that it was uninspired. You might ask yourself, “If Jesus himself had been advising people who were contemplating marriage under those conditions, what other possible advice could he have given?” Surely he would have told them it was better not to marry unless being unmarried posed such a stumblingblock to their moral purity that they stood in danger of becoming unchaste. It should also be observed that Paul concluded the chapter by saying, “I think I also have the Spirit of God” (v. 40), and thus, at the least, he indicated divine compliance in the judgment.

Divorce, But Not Remarriage?

Third, Paul repeated the “command” of “the Lord” that ‘,’a wife is not to depart from her husband” (v. 10). Some have found comfort in Paul’s next phrase, “even if she does depart.” The Christian, they say, may divorce without sin for cause other than fornication if there is no subsequent sexual activity. Among these some go on to say that if the former mate commits fornication, the “innocent” party is free to put him/her away in the heart and marry again, whatever the cause of the original divorce.

The statement “but even if she does depart” (v. 11) does not free one to disobey the command of verse ten. Actually, Paul was only stating what the Christian must do who has left a mate in ignorance of or in spite of the command 9 $not to depart.” This passage is like many others in which an inspired writer “plains provisions made or what to do or to avoid after sin has occurred. In another place Paul said, “Do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you” (Rom. 11:18). Remembering does not justify boasting. John said, “My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). Certainly the provision of an Advocate does not make it all right to sin. James said, “But if you have bitter envy and self seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth” (Jas. 3:14). The prohibition against going further to boast and lie against the truth does not soften the bitter envy and self-seeking.

The truth that God does not condone divorce was clearly reinforced when Paul returned to the original command. He said, “And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (v. 11).

Remain in Your Calling?

Fourth, when Paul addressed these Christians who were married to non-Christians, he told them not to leave their mates but instead to stay in their marriages. “God has called us to peace,” he said (v. 15). We are not to seek freedom from circumstances in which we find ourselves when we are called into Christ. Such circumstances as circumcision and slavery were used by Paul as illustrations (vv. 17-24).

This passage has been used to teach that Christians who are “married” a second, third, or fourth time may stay with the mate they have at the time of conversion despite the causes of former divorce action. Reasoning thus affirms the thing to be proved and argues in a circle. No preacher I know would declare that the professional thief or contract murderer may remain in his “calling.” I have not talked with one who will proclaim that the homosexual or polygamist may remain in the sinful relationship. All must affirm that repentance requires leaving sinful practice (1 Cor. 6:9-11). What these persons are claiming is that the relationship is not sinful and/or that activity shared in the relationship is not sinful. That is the thing to be proved! If one argues that because the sins of the past are forgiven the relationship may continue, by what line of reasoning would he not be forced to argue that two unmarried people living together are forgiven and thus may continue in a relationship God did not previously approve? If they argue that these persons are not under the law of Christ prior to baptism, by what reasoning could he ever point to the homosexuality, polygamy, and multiple marriages of the worldly rich and famous as sinful? Some, in my humble and perhaps simple view, have become educated beyond their intelligence!

Remarriage in Verse 15?

Finally, some have found another cause for divorce and remarriage in the phrase “not under bondage” (v. 15). That is the subject of another article and, therefore, I will simply call attention to the fact that only by implication based on one’s own opinion concerning the interpretation of the verse can he assume that it authorizes remarriage. Paul says nothing of remarriage in this section of the chapter. In fact, he only approaches the subject of remarriage twice in the entire chapter, once directly and once indirectly. In verse 39, he says that he woman whose husband is dead may remarry. In verse 11, the commanded the woman who had left her husband to remain unmarried.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 11-12
January 4, 1990