Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In Paul’s description of the apostasy which would occur in the last days, he said that men would come, having “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5). Godliness has both a form and a power. We need to understand what godliness is in order to see how one could have the form of godliness without its power.

What Is Godliness?

Some have defined “godliness” as “God-like-ness,” but that is a poor definition of the word. Translated from eusebeia, godliness means “piety towards God” (Thayer, p. 262). It denotes a manner of life which shows reverence and respect for God. In pagan literature, a person showed “godliness” by his participation in the public worship of the pagan gods and by his respect for sacred things.

The opposite of “godliness” is “ungodliness.” Translated from asebeia, ungodliness is “want of reverence towards God, impiety” (Thayer, p. 79). In his Synonyms of the New Testament, R.C. Trench said that “ungodliness” is “positive and active irreligion, and this is contemplated as a deliberate withholding from God of his dues of prayer and of service, a standing, so to speak, in battle array against him” (p. 242). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines asebeia as “complete contempt for God and his will . . . it can be used for the wicked doer in the broadest sense” (Vol. VII, p. 188).

The Power of Godliness

Godliness is reverence for God, piety. It is expressed in such verses as Habakkuk 2:20 – “But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him” (cf. Psa. 33:8). Recognition that one is in the presence of God becomes a motivating force in one’s life. B.C. Caffin expressed the idea this way:

A godly man sets God always before him; the thought of God controls his whole life; his effort to do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus, to live unto the Lord, to seek his glory only. This holy reverence for the felt presence of God can only be maintained in the life of faith and self-control; in the worldly fife of mere pleasure and business it cannot flourish. God is the center of the devout life, the life of godliness (The Pulpit Commentary. 2 Peter, pp. 13-14).

The power of godliness can be seen in Joseph’s resistance of Potiphar’s wife’s advances. He said, “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9) His awareness of the presence of God kept him from committing adultery. This is the power of godliness?

Some hold the forms of godliness but do not have its power. They express piety with their lips and go through the motions of reverencing God in worship, but commit deeds of ungodliness. Jim Bakker is a good example of one who manifested the forms of godliness but lacked its power. His television shows expressed love for God and men. He spoke frequently about the Holy Spirit and prayer, all the while being guilty of adultery, bribery, cover-up, fraud, and other forms of wickedness. This is the form of godliness without its power.

Applications of Godliness

1. In attendance of public worship. One should show enough reverence for God to be present in the worship assemblies (Heb. 10:25). The man who willfully absents himself from the worship assemblies manifests these attitudes: (a) lack of thankfulness toward God (we who receive go many blessings from God should feel thankful toward him for his grace toward us); (b) lack of interest in the study of God’s word; (c) lack of interest in the spiritual welfare of other Christians (Heb. 10:24). How can a man claim to be godly while withholding from God his worship?

2. In his conduct at worship services. Ethan the Ezrahite said “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the ai , saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (Psa. 89-7). How much reverence is shown to God when a person disrupts the worship assembly by whispering, talking, passing notes, sleeping, playing with babies, etc.? How much reverence is shown to God by not participating in singing? How much reverence is shown to God by being present in the worship assembly but looking upon it as a burdensome chore (Mal. 1:13-14)?

3. In dress at the worship assembly. There is no standard of dress which must be worn when assembling with other saints to worship God. God does not legislate a coat and tie for men or high heels and dress for women. However, there is a degree of respect shown by how we dress. A preacher who showed up to perform a wedding wearing blue jeans, a T-shirt and tennis shoes would be condemned for his manner of dress. He would be showing a lack of respect for the occasion.

What attitude does a person show toward God when he shows up for worship wearing a shirt imprinted with an emblem of Coors beer or a picture of some rock singing group (KISS)? Has one shown a reverence for God by wearing such attire?

4. In the use of God’s name. One of the Ten Commandments was “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exod. 20:7). “Holy and reverend is the name of the Lord” (Psa. 111:9). Under the law of Moses a man was stoned to death for cursing and blaspheming the name of the Lord (Lev. 24:10-16). Our society, like that of many others before, shows little regard for the name of God, using his name for cursing men and strong exclamatory remarks. The man who uses God’s name in cursing is an impious man.

Conclusion

Are you a godly person? Do you have only the form of godliness or do you also have its power? Your awareness of God’s presence and your intention to walk pleasing to him manifests godliness in your life. “Exercise thyself… unto godliness. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:7-8). “Godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Tim 6:6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 738, 751
December 21, 1989

By Harry R. Osborne

Asa was the third king of Judah after the division of the kingdom. The two kings preceding him, Rehoboam and Abijah, exemplified the way of error. The inspired writer sums up the seventeen year reign of Rehoboarn by saying, “He did that which was evil, because he set not his heart to seek Jehovah” (2 Chron. 12:14). In summing up the life of Abijah, the Bible says that he walked in “the sins of his father” and that “his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God” (1 Kgs. 15:3). Asa, however, did not follow the path of apostasy, but “did that which was good and right in the eyes of Jehovah his God: for he took away the foreign altars, and the high places, and brake down the pillars, and hewed down the Asherim, and commanded Judah to seek Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandments” (2 Chron. 14:2-4).

In his effort to effect this time of restoration, Asa called Judah together to worship God and commit themselves unto his service. Notice the words of 2 Chronicles 15:12-13:

And they entered into the covenant to seek Jehovah, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul; and that whosoever would not seek Jehovah, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

The context goes on to show that Asa meant what he said. His own mother, Maacah, had an idolatrous image. Her sin was not tolerated. She was removed from her place of queen as Asa cut down her idol, ground it to pieces and burned the remains (2 Chron. 15:16). No preferential treatment was given, for Asa loved God more than any person, “whether small or great.”

In recent years, several events have made me think back upon this account. After all, the need for insisting upon purity in doctrine and practice by all, “whether small or great,” exists today as it did in the time of Asa. However, from time to time we hear the plea to exempt some from the close scrutiny of truth because they are “great.” Those who try to uphold and apply God’s standard of truth are often seen as the evil ones. It is often amazing to hear the objections some raise to the ones who simply try to preach the truth and call all to practice such.

I wonder if any such effort existed in Asa’s time. Just think what those opposing Asa’s efforts for God’s cause could have said:

“Who does that young fellow think he is anyway? ” Asa was probably in his late twenties or early thirties when this happened. Those who did not like the principles he upheld could have called him a “young buck” who was not “dry behind the ears” or the Hebrew equivalent thereof. They could have asked who this “Johnny-come-lately” is to challenge the way things had been for fifty years or more. If they made such put downs of Asa, would the truth he upheld be any less so?

‘That guy is just out to make a name for himself!” They could have said the whole thing was the result of “wanton glory” as Asa sought “self-promotion.” In attributing evil motives to Asa, they could have persuaded many people that Asa was the problem, thus diverting attention from the real issue. They may even have accused Asa of “manufacturing issues” so that he could attack “otherwise faithful brethren because of some difference of understanding concerning some point of Bible teaching.” The results would have been devastating to Judah if such would have caused them to accept sinful practices in their midst.

“He is just too legalist!” It would have been a little early for them to call Asa a “Pharisee,” but surely there was some comparable term of derision in that day. Some may have scoffed at Asa’s emphasis on the need for doctrinal truth. They could have claimed that “spirit is more important than truth.” One of them could have exclaimed, “I know some people in idolatry who have more spirit in their little finger than some of my conservative brethren have in their whole body!” No doubt, the fellow could have added, “I had rather err on the side of charity on such matters as these than on the side of rigidness.” Would such objections have made strict adherence to God’s commandments less necessary?

“We need to be more tolerant.” One brother might have mused, “If blackballing and ostracism were consistently applied few of us would have enough friends for a potluck supper.” They may have noted the fact that “the high places were not taken away” by Asa (1 Kings 15:14). This could have caused one to plea, “There seems to be some space for tolerance in this area. Am I overstepping the boundary of good judgment to suggest that we may need to make room for more? After all, we disagree in other areas which are surely as crucial.” One of the intellectuals could have concluded, “I confess that consistency is a formidable reason why I can work and worship with this private practicer of idolatry in spite of our differences.”

“Why can’t Asa just be positive?” After all, most of Asa’s actions recorded in the Bible would be regarded as “negative” by most people today. He tore down idols, demolished their altars, burned what remained, removed his mother as queen, and drove out the homosexuals. (Oh how we could use him as king in this country!) It is worth noting that the inspired commendation of Asa in 1 Kings 15:12-13 is composed entirely of such “negative” actions. Man’s subjective assessments of events as “positive” or “negative” do not change God’s view of them.

Who knows, some could have even tried to use Asa’s removal of his mother against him. They might have decried Asa’s action as a “personal attack” and “an unheroic assault on an old queen” who has “earned the respect and esteem of the people in Judah of our time.” Who knows, Maacah may have even been “a legend in her own day.” When they got through lauding and praising all of the past accomplishments of Maacah, would her idolatry be any better? As a matter of fact, would not her place of honor and respect have made her more dangerous in leading others into her error?

Lest one think this whole exercise in speculation is wasted space, let me note that the above statements are merely modified forms of things being said today. Take away the reference to Asa’s opposition to ancient error and replace it with some brother’s opposition to modern error and you’ve got it. Substitute the ridicule or character assassination of some faithful teacher for that of Asa and the words are identical. Instead of Maacah, use the name of some preacher of error or defender of some sinful practice and you will recognize current speech among our brethren.

If such objections would have failed to justify an acceptance or compromise with error in Asa’s time, why would they work in our time? Don’t be deceived!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 739-740
December 21, 1989

By Anonymous

Recently, a friend of mine let me read an article from Christianity Magazine, entitled “Still Single,” written by Ed Smith. The article dealt with the subject of a Christian’s attitudes toward those who are single. Due to different comments which have been directed toward me in the last few years, I thought I would like to write an article “looking through the eyes” of a single female Christian. I guess the general thesis of this article would be based on 1 Corinthians 7:34 – “The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.” In this article, I want to discuss different areas of my life, and what I have come to feel are my responsibilities in those areas.

Hospitality

1 Peter 4:9 commands, “Be hospitable to one another without grumbling.” Being single does not relieve me of the following obligations:

(a) Visiting/sending cards/preparing food for the sick or shut-ins.

(b) Preparing food or just being there for those who have lost loved ones.

(c) Being a source of encouragement for those who are weak in the faith.

(d) Having get-togethers for young and old to have association with each other.

(e) Preparing a meal or taking the visiting preacher and family to a restaurant during the gospel meeting.

The list could go on and on. Hospitality is a responsibility one has regardless of her marital status. Along the same lines as hospitality, 1 Timothy 6: 19 states, “Let them do good, that they may be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share.” Maybe I am not rich by this world’s standards, but I should be willing to share what I do have with others. One of my favorite passages for this discussion is Mark 10:29-30: “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time – houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions – and in the age to come, eternal life.” Although I may not have a physical family that needs financial assistance, I do have a spiritual family that may need my help. My marital status does not relieve me of the obligation to help the needy, if I am in the position to do so.

The Work Ethic

I graduated from high school in 1980, during the time when the ERA and the National Organization for Women were reaching new heights in our society. During the last 10 or 15 years, more women are working outside the home and have made career advances into areas which were once predominately male-oriented. Because of all these influences from our society, too many Christians assume that, if a female from the age of 25 or older is not married, she is a product of this type of society thought, and all she wants is to be a “career woman.” During my last quarter at the university, I took a class named “Seminar: Business Ethics.” My final paper was titled “Ethics and the Bible.” One of the passages I used in the paper (which has become a very applicable passage in my life) is 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” Since I am not married, then I have an obligation to try to make a living for myself. I do not look at my position in life as being a choice of being a “career woman,” but a position necessitated by basic financial survival in this world.

The Scriptures

I want to start this section with these two Scriptures: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek, For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘the just shall five by faith'” (Rom. 1:16-17) and “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Regardless of one’s marital status, the opportunity to teach and stand for the truth is always there! There are so many children and women’s classes that need good women teachers. There are so many opportunities for a single Christian female to discuss the Bible with friends, coworkers, relatives, etc. I enjoy going to classes that fellow Christians have in their homes, and meeting different people who share the same precious faith. I enjoy going to gospel meetings (whether it is at my local congregation or to visit another congregation) where the preacher has the courage to preach a good, biblical sermon, regardless of the reaction of the audience being positive or negative. If the preacher is standing for the truth, he deserves my support and encouragement. As one in the audience, I have to make sure that I am more concerned with the message than the messenger. If I am not concerned about the message, I could one day fall into the category of those mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:3-4; “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth; and be turned aside to fables.” Being a woman does not shield me from this danger.

Marriage

I grew up as a preacher’s daughter. I got to see many marriage problems that others may never see. Some may feel that this would be a disadvantage of growing up in a preacher’s home, but I do not think of it that way. I now understand that marriage may not be the answer to one’s desire for happiness or the answer for one’s fear of being alone. I truly can get an idea of how serious marriage actually is from the following passages:

(1) Matthew 5:23 – “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

(2) Matthew 19:4-6 – “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'”

(3) 1 Corinthians 5. This entire chapter deals with the attitude of a congregation toward fornication.

From the above passages, some very serious conclusions come to my mind:

(1) I know I have to rind someone who is eligible to marry.

(2) Marriage is for life. There is no room for this attitude: Well, if this doesn’t work out, then we can part our ways.”

(3) If my spouse decides to divorce me, without scriptural cause, I would have to stay single for the rest of my life. Even though I did not cause the divorce, I still would not have the right to remarry. If I did remarry, I would lose the fellowship of fellow-Christians and the right relationship with the Lord.

These conclusions are the only ones I can draw from the above passages. With all due respect and kindness, the wording of the passages is not going to change, regardless of men standing in the pulpits or writing in papers or women talking to me on a one-to-one basis trying to convince me other wise. The bottom line is that marriage is a serious, fife-time commitment; it is not to be entered into with a halfhearted effort. If I meet someone whom I may want to consider to be my husband, then I must be willing to live with his good points and his faults (there is no guarantee that his “faults” will ever change) for the rest of my life. Until I find someone to whom I can make that type of marriage commitment, then I better not try to place a wedding band on my finger.

Criticisms of Friends

In the final section of this article, I want to discuss some conversations that I have had with some very good Christian friends (who have the best intentions in the world and whom I love dearly). They have stated, what I call, criticisms concerning my attitude toward marriage. I find the situation to be humorous, due to the fact that most I of ~ these criticisms are given on a voluntary basis (without me initiating the conversation). Since I am still (using their terminology) “an old maid,” the only logical explanations for my being unmarried are: my standards are too high, my priorities are not what they should be, I must not have any desire to be married, etc. I do not think there is a criticism that I have not already heard. The only response I know to give my friends (when these criticisms are directed toward me) is the following: There are so many opportunities and things for me to do as a single Chrisitan, that I cannot find the time to sit around and feel sorry for myself because I do not have a husband. If the right man comes into my life, then I would be very happy to have the opportunity to be a Christian wife and mother. But in all reality, that situation may never occur. Philippians 4:11 states, “Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content.” Right now, I am in the “state of being single,” and my top priority is to be a Christian. So to answer the question: Can an unmarried woman “care for the things of the Lord”? The answer is “Yes!” I have a passage done in a cross-stitch pattern that is sitting on my desk at work, and I would like to close the article with the passage (it has become the motto of my life). It is Proverbs 31:30-31 – “Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands, And let her own works praise her in the gates.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 25, pp. 746-747
December 21, 1989

By Robert F. Turner

Church scholars generally agree that the nature of the church began to change very early in its history, and that this change was directly related to the development of a bishopric system. This soon became more than a change in church government. It resurrected the essence of the priestly system of Judaism and put an elevated class of brethren (the priests) between the “lay” member and God. This ruling class became “the church”; so that by them “the church” acted, authorized, approved or forbade. “The Church” (the priesthood) controlled the sacraments (“channels of grace”); and became the only means by which salvation may be obtained (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia). It is not surprising therefore, that in the very early efforts of the Protestant reformers the priestly system was much discussed, and the “priesthood of believers” became a rallying cry. The sufficiency of the Scriptures, the importance of one’s conscience, and Jesus Christ as sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5) – all are violated by a priesthood (or “church”) that officially interprets, and though whom the “laity” must approach God. When the reformers declared that all saints are “priests” with all rights pertaining thereto, they were hitting at the very heart of the apostate church. Today we are so far removed from the essential elements of this ancient conflict that its principles seem poorly understood, and seldom evoked. So, we study “priesthood.”

Vine says a priest is “one who offers sacrifice and has charge of things pertaining thereto.” Westcott goes deeper, saying man’s consciousness of sin, variously realized, hinders his approach to God (the unseen power), and promotes a shrinking from it. He seeks harmony with God, and “the provision of this access is the work of the priest.” From very early times heads of families served as priests with God’s approval. We have examples in Israel’s patriarchs: Abraham (Gen. 12:8), Isaac (26:25), and Jacob (35:1). But there were others also: Noah (Gen. 7:20), Melchizedek (14:18), Job (Job 1:5), and Jethro (Ex. 18:1,10-12). Even in pagan societies, perhaps by degeneration from the original concept, there has been the shaman, “medicine man,” or guardian of an oracular shrine. These mediate and serve at an altar on behalf of others.

Just prior to the giving ot the Law, and before the Aaronic priesthood was established, God said Israel should be unto him “a kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6). This seems related to an earlier command: “Sanctify unto me all the first-born” (Exod. 13:2). However, later, when the Levites were set apart, it was “instead of all the first-born” (Num. 3:12,41; cf. 8:15-18). The Israelites were so filled with fear at the giving of the Law that they asked for a mediator between them and God (Deut. 5:23-27), and some scholars suggest Israel forfeited its general priesthood by rebellion and lack of faith. Whatever the case, we know the Aaronic priesthood was established to represent the people of Israel before God and their access to God was via these priests. But messianic prophecies foretold a more general priesthood (Isa. 61:1-6) and suggested that men of other nations would be taken “for priests and for Levites” (Isa. 66:18-21).

In the New Testament the language of Exodus 19 is applied to Christians. We are “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1 Pet. 2:5,9). This better priesthood is both royal and holy for Christ our High Priest is both King and Priest, after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7). John says Christ “has made us kings and priests” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10, KJV), or “a kingdom and priests” (ASV). Paul writes: “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service” (Rom. 12:1, AS). Clearly, “a kingdom of priests” finds its realization in spiritual Israel.

The Hebrews writer tells us the figurative nature of the Aaronic priesthood is replaced by the real thing, and explains that Christ entered not into the holy place made with hands “but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:9,24). He concludes that we should have boldness to “enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” or “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” being sanctified by his blood (10:19f). We may “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (4:15f). Christ made possible a direct relationship between each saint and his God. No “priestly order,” no “church” stands between the child of God and his Father. He is a priest, and his prayers and service go directly to heaven’s throne.

Now, what are the consequences of this direct priestly relationship which true saints have with God through Jesus Christ? It does not negate their obligation to one another – to assemble, work and worship together, to show concern for one another, and to function collectively in a local church. Rather, it negates the institutional concept of “church” and emphasizes our individual responsibility to the Lord. There can be no proxy worship or service. Each saint (priest) is obligated to “offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually … to do good and communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb. 13:15-16). Understood and practiced, this would erase the “audience” concept of “attending church,” and make us a vibrant serving priesthood.

If all are priests this eliminates clergy-laity distinctions. There can be no hierarchy in the church for “one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). All members, even preachers, are brethren, and neither “Brother” nor “Reverend” are preacher titles. Scriptural overseers and deacons have different tasks to perform, and should be esteemed “for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:13), not for rank that puts one over another (Matt. 20:25-28). All priests can baptize, serve the Lord’s Supper, teach, etc., dictated only by work abilities and orderly arrangement (1 Cor. 14:40), and not as official “administrators.” Neither “the church” nor some special bishopric system is needed to authorize or validate our worship – as taught by Roman Catholicism. Little wonder the “priesthood of believers” was a critical issue in Reformation history.

That same Reformation history, records shameful perversions of this principle: by civil authorities, as they escaped “church” control, and by peasants who rebelled against authority in general. Today some use individual equality to deny scriptural oversight, orderly worship, even the local church itself, but such selfish abuses must not cause us to compromise this all important fundamental. Divine control and priesthood are fully compatible, and should result in more dedicated service according to God’s pattern. The priestly types of Judaism were strictly regulated and “no man . . . that hath a blemish shall come nigh to offer the offerings of Jehovah” (Lev. 21:21). Shall we of the antitype be less concerned about purity and the responsibility this places upon us?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 741, 753
December 21, 1989