Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

For years, we have had to deal with the question, “Can we understand the Bible alike?” Denominational folks have argued that our differences are caused by our inability to understand the Bible alike. When we tried to discuss water baptism with them, they showed little interest in participating, thinking the discussion was futile, because we cannot under the Bible alike. The evangelical denominations reduced the things essential to salvation to a few arbitrary points which they consider the “core gospel”; only these few points in the “core gospel” are revealed with sufficient clarity to expect all men to agree upon them. The rest of New Testament revelation, which they labeled “doctrine,” is not revealed with sufficient clarity to expect agreement, according to this theory. In response to these doctrines, our brethren wrote numerous articles and tracts on the theme “Can We Understand The Bible Alike?”

In more recent years, this denominational argument has surfaced among our own brethren. The unity-in-diversity brethren have argued that we must have unity in “gospel” with diversity in “doctrine” because we cannot understand the Bible alike. Their argument went something like this:

Can anyone perfectly understand the Bible? Does anyone know all of the truth? Is it possible that there is one thing taught in the Bible that you do not know? If you can be accepted by God with your imperfect understanding of the Bible, so can those in the institutional churches of Christ and the Christian Church. Peace will never be restored by universal conformity. The minds of men can no more all think alike than their faces all look alike.

The conclusion was that we must have unity in diversity because we cannot under the Bible alike.

Leroy Garrett expressed the idea that men cannot understand the Bible alike and must, therefore, have unity in diversity as follows:

We likewise question the practice of rejecting any brother on the basis of his misunderstanding of scripture. There are surely grounds of excluding a brother from the fellowship of the congregation, but a sincere and well-meaning misinterpretation of the Bible is not among them. Whether a brother is right or wrong in this or that interpretation of scripture is beside the point whether I receive him as a brother beloved (“How Men Use The Bible To Justify Their Divisions,” Thoughts On Unity, p. 104).

Ira Rice quoted an advocate of unity-in-diversity as follows:

Can we understand the Bible alike? Well, it all depends on what you mean by “can.” There is theoretical possibility and there is possibility of the most realistic sort. Can a person playing dice, throw seven for a thousand times in a row and do it fairly? It’s technically possible.

Can Willie Mays play the complete season next year and hit a home run every time he comes to bat? It’s possible. Can Johnny Unitas throw a touchdown pass on every single offensive play? It’s possible. If we say that all people can understand the Bible alike we can only mean possibility in the most theoretical sense. Anything else is impossible. For the truth is that it is not realistically possible for even two people to understand the Bible alike or the Constitution or Hamlet, unless one of them should let the other do the thinking (Axe on the Root, Vol. II, p. 59).

The argument for “unity-in-diversity” on the grounds that the revelation of God is not sufficiently clear is an attack upon God’s ability to communicate clearly, adequately, and effectively with man. The implication is that God was either incapable or unwilling to speak in words which men could understand alike.

Man Can Understand the Bible

The writings of the Bible are called a “revelation” (Eph. 3:3). The word from which. “revelation” is translated, apokalupsis, means “prop. a laying bare, making naked . . . a disclosure of truth, instruction, concerning divine things before unknown” (Thayer, p. 62). In order for something to be called a “revelation,” it must be something that can be known, once having been revealed. Unless man can understand the Bible, it is not a revelation!

God says that a man can understand his revelation. Paul said,

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ). . . (Eph. 3:2-4).

This passage plainly affirms that man can understand God’s revelation of his will to mankind.

God commands a man to understand his revelation. In Ephesians 5:17, Paul commanded, “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). God has not commanded of man that which is impossible for man to do – to understand his revealed will. Hence, we are forced to the conclusion that man can understand the revelation of God.

God made salvation contingent upon understanding his revealed will. In John 8:32, Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ” One’s freedom from sin is conditioned upon his knowing the truth.

Men Have Known the Truth

Not only does the Bible state that men can know the truth, the inspired record shows that men have known the truth. Here are some examples:

1. Nehemiah 8.- 7-12. The Lord commanded Nehemiah to read his word to the people. “So they read the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:8). Later, the book adds, “And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.” These Jews understood the revelation of God.

2. Timothy. Paul said that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures from the time that he was a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15). The revelation is so clear that even a child can understand it. this is also confirmed by the prophets. Isaiah foretold the way of holiness which the Lord would reveal saying, “And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring man, though fools, shall not err therein” (35:8). Regarding this last phrase, Edward J. Young wrote,

The way will be so clearly marked, so well constructed and so easy to follow that even fools would not go astray thereon. Again, the contrast with the actual condition is vivid. One who travels in the desert without guide or without knowing the way that he must go, may very easily lose his way. The path is sometimes obliterated by the sand; it is not clear-cut and well defined. The way of holiness, however, is one that does not lead astray; it leads to its destination. “The circumstance that even the foolish cannot miss the way, indicates the abundant fulness of the salvation, in consequence of which it is so easily accessible; and no human effort, skill or excellence is required to attain the possession of it” (Hengstenberg) (The Book of Isaiah, Vol. II, pp. 453-454).

3. Some apostates. There are some men who apostatized from the truth, although they had known the truth. In Hebrews 10:26, the author condemns those who “sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth.” The apostates in 2 Peter 2:20-22 had “known the way of righteousness,” but turned away from it and were likened to a dog returning to eat its vomit again.

These examples confirm that men have been able to know the truth. Material emphasizing this point can be multiplied through a study of the following passages: Luke 1:1-4; Acts 17:11; Matthew 13:23; John 7:17; 8:31-36.

Men Can Understand The Bible Alike

To say that men can understand the Bible is to affirm that men can understand the Bible alike because the Bible does not teach 100 different things on any given subject. Its revelation is consistent with itself. It does not teach both “Thou shalt not commit murder” and “Thou shalt commit murder.” Hence, if two people understand God’s word, they necessarily will understand it alike.

To illustrate this truth, if two people add a given set of numbers and both of them correctly understand the sum of those numbers, their answers will agree. In a similar way, if two people correctly understand God’s revelation on a given subject, their answers will agree.

When men state that they cannot understand the Bible alike, we should raise the question, “Why can they not understand the Bible alike?” I suggest to you that, if men do not understand the Bible alike, the fault does not lie with God. God made man as he is and he inspired men to write the Bible as it is. The inspired revelation (made as it is) was designed for man (made as he is) as an all-sufficient revelation of things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

To charge that God wrote the Bible in an unclear manner’ ambiguously, is to lay the fault for our misunderstandings at the foot of God – to charge him with blame. To attack the clarity of God’s revelation implies that the Scriptures have a multiplicity of interpretations and meanings, any one of which is just as good as any other. If God wrote ambiguously, he either did it willfully or unwillfully. If he willfully wrote ambiguously, and yet holds man responsible for knowing his truth as a condition for salvation (Jn. 8:32), then God is not good. If he unwillfully wrote ambiguously, he is not omnipotent, being unable to write with clarity.

Does the fault for men understanding the Bible differently lie in the fact that we are finite, human beings? Let us not forget that God created us as we are and that he is aware of the limitations of human language and the human mind. Knowing this, God would have to take this consideration in communicating his will to us; otherwise it would no be a revelation. Revelation is nothing else than God accommodating his message to man in human language – language which man can understand clearly. If God failed in this purpose, in accommodating his revelation to man’s ability to understand, he is not the omnipotent God he claims to be.

Problem Not New

That men understand the Bible differently is not a knew problem; it existed in the first century. Some men thought that the Scriptures affirmed that Jesus was the Christ and others disagreed. Some men taught that the resurrection was already past (2 Tim. 2:17-18) and others disagreed. Some men taught that men could have fellowship with Christ and walk in darkness (1 Jn. 1:6) and others disagreed. To what were these differences attributed? Did men propose a unity-in-diversity based on man’s inability to understand the Bible alike? Not in the New Testament!

Differences in understanding the Bible were attributed to prejudice (Acts 17:32), obstinate refusal to submit to God (Matt. 13:15; Acts 7:51), jealousy (Acts 13:42-44; 17:5), lack of study of the word of God (Matt. 22:31-32), and other failures by man – failures for which God held him accountable. On no occasion in the Scriptures when men differed on doctrinal matters was an implication made that God’s revelation was unclear or ambiguous on the subject. Repeatedly, man was indicted; neither the ambiguity of the Scriptures nor man’s constitutional makeup was ever used to explain or justify differences regarding what the Bible taught.

The Application

When men begin attributing the cause of doctrinal differences to lack of clarity in God’s revelation, based on good men disagreeing on some subject, and when they appeal for unity-in-diversity on that grounds, there is no logical place to draw a line beyond which unity-in-diversity cannot be allowed.

If our differences over divorce and remarriage can be attributed to a lack of clarity in the revelation of God, because good men disagree, then our divisions over church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church arrangement, church sponsored recreation, etc. fall into the same category for the same reasons – good men have disagreed on what the revelation of God says on this subject. The same can be said about our divisions over premillennialism and instrumental music. The principles used to justify unity-in-diversity on the marriage question can be and have been applied to justify unity-in-diversity on each of these themes.

But, why stop at this point? Why not apply the same principles to baptism? Good men disagree on the action, purpose and subject of baptism. If good men disagree on these subjects, the revelation of God must lack clarity. Therefore, we should be tolerant of our differences. “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7). We can have unity-in-diversity on the subject of baptism with “Christians” in all denominations.

But, why stop at this point? Why not apply the same principles to the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ? Good men disagree on whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If good men disagree on these subjects, the revelation of God lacks clarity. Therefore, we should not pass judgment on the faith of our Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist friends. We can no more expect all men to think alike than we can expect all men to look alike. We must therefore have a unity-in-diversity on the subject of Jesus.

But, why stop at this point? Why not apply the same principles to the existence of God. Good men disagree on whether or not there is a God. If good men disagree on this subject, God must not have clearly revealed himself to mankind. Therefore, we should not pass judgment on our atheist and agnostic friends. We should practice a unity-in-diversity as our friends in the United Church of Christ have done.

How Clear Are the Teachings of God?

No doubt some are reacting by saying that God’s teachings on baptism are sufficiently clear that we cannot tolerate diversity of doctrine on that subject. Would someone like to compare Mark 16:15-16 and Luke 16:18?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery

How can we expect men to agree that conformity in doctrine is demanded on one verse but not on the other? If we can practice a unity-in-diversity on the one verge, we can practice unity-in-diversity on the other.

Conclusion

I do not want to leave the impression that I know everything. I do not. However, I do not have to know everything absolutely and exhaustively to know some things certainly. I do not understand everything about mathematics, but I certainly know that 2 + 2 = 4 and can demand conformity on that truth. The things which are revealed to us in God’s word can be known. We have every right to expect that men can understand them. And, if they understand them at all, they will understand them alike.

The appeal to lack of clarity as the reason for unity-in-diversity totally undermines Bible authority, using disagreements among men to release men from responsibility to the plain statements of God’s revelation.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 706, 725-727
December 7, 1989

By Billy Ashworth

Recently, Vanderbilt University sponsored a “Dialogue” on the subject of “The Truth About Jesus.” Attractive brochures were sent out to various churches here in Nashville, including the Hillview church where I preach. A panel of “distinguished” scholars, according to liberal religionists, was to discuss such subjects as “The Truth About Jesus,” “Portraits of Jesus in Cultural Context,” I ‘Can We Tell The Truth About Jesus?” For the full week of September 17-23, the blasphemous movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ,” was shown twice daily – a total of 14 times!

This “Dialogue” is a classic example of extreme liberalism in religious matters. I dare affirm that not one single panelist believes the Bible to be the Living Word of the Living God (Heb. 4:12). 1 also affirm that probably not a single panelist believes in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection and ascension, and/or the miracles of Christ being reality.

Although I did not, of course, attend the “Dialogue,” I have several news articles about it taken from the Nashville Tennessean. On September 20, 1989, an article appeared written by Ray Waddle, religion news editor of the Tennessean. I quote:

“Jesus would have refused to join the Christian throng who protested The Last Temptation of Christ, author Will Campbell argued last night at a forum on ‘the Truth about Jesus!’ It behooves me to remind those brethren that, in my judgment, Jesus wouldn’t have been with them, I Campbell, the Mount Juliet-based preacher, told about 200 people at Vanderbilt University as a guest panelist. If they are going to hold up signs, they ought to say, He was against killing and war and wanton destruction of the earth. We love our Jesus so please don’t tell lies about him.’

“The question of the truth about Jesus – was he the God-man or the man nobody knows? – was taken up by Campbell and seven other panelists last night, hoping to make sense of the furor over the film, Last Temptation of Christ, which opened on campus this week. Based on a work of fiction, the movie explores the painful temptations Jesus was likely to face. (Notice, they admit the movie was based on fiction! Subsequent articles about the discussions seem to place the fictional movie on a par with, or a notch above the New Testament which reveals the only truth man can know about Jesus, and all one needs to know.)

“Some panelists expressed confidence that the real Jesus can be known with reasonable certainty though the scriptures. (This is the only sound statement made in the entire reviews I can recall. I suspect such statements were ignored by the writer while he emphasized the liberal garbage. BA) Others argued more pessimistically that the truth and message of Jesus were distorted beyond recognition almost immediately by the church that sprang up after his death and resurrection as recorded in the New Testament.

“Theologian Thomas Altizer (of “God is dead” infamy, BA) defended Nikos Kazantzakis, the Greek author of the 1955 book on which the movie was based, as a man firmly in the mold of radical prophet who constantly offends most deeply held religious doctrines of the day. ‘One must negate our traditions about Jesus in order to open oneself to Jesus,’ said Altizer, an influential thinker who teaches at the State University of New York. Altizer asserted that no religious figure in history has inspired more resistance and controversy than Jesus, whose revolutionary use of parables was soon lost or rejected by the church, which turned his message into alien philosophical doctrines of ‘infinite distance from the original event.’

“Campbell similarly argued that the church replaced Jesus’ dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent. (I would like for these “wise and prudent” theologians to tell how they learned the truth about the “revolutionary use of parables of Jesus being lost or rejected by the church” or that the church “replaced Jesus’ dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent.” After nearly four decades of diligent study of the New Testament, I have failed to find any such foolish and rotten doctrines. Since we have over forty parables of Jesus in the New Testament, I wonder how many parables of Jesus were rejected. And Campbell’s assertion about Jesus’ “dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand being replaced by the church with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent,” is totally unfounded in the Word of God which is all Truth. It would be interesting to hear Campbell tell what the “dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand” was. Oh, how I wish I had been there and had a chance to ask him!)

In the Tennessean (September 26, 1989, Section B-1), an article by Ray Waddle was headed “Panel says Jesus, Scriptures conflict. ” I quote:

“The historical Jesus of Nazareth will always be an elusive figure who bears little or no resemblance to the Scriptures Christians use in worshipping him, a panel asserted last night. But modem liberal pessimism about the possibility that people can know anything about the real Jesus does nothing to invalidate his mysterious, inspirational hold on millions, one of the panelists added.

“He is a figure around whom people gather – and revelation happens, Walter Harrelson, Old Testament professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School, said near the end of a panel discussion on ‘The Truth about Jesus’ at Vanderbilt University. ‘I don’t want to say that questions about his history have no relation to these affirmations of faith. They must intersect in some strange way.’

“Harrelson appeared with Jean Elshtain, Vanderbilt political science professor, and Robert Funk, director of the Westar Institute in Pomona, Cal., in the final panel capping a week of campus discussions centered around questions of Jesus raised by the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. Funk’s Wester Institute sponsors an ongoing study group of mainstream liberatsabplars called the Jesus Seminar, which has won notoriety by concluding that most of the various written sayings of Jesus in the New Testament and Other sources are not likely authentic.

“‘He seems to have been a wanderer, which puts him in the category of living on the margins of society,’ Funk said. ‘He seems to have flunked the Fifth Commandment, to honor your father and mother. To say, Unless you hate your father and mother you’re not ready for the kingdom of God What does that mean? Was he ready for the funny farm? Did he mean it literally?’ (Consider the blasphemous, irreverent statements here. How could such a person direct an “ongoing study group of mainstream liberal biblical scholars called the Jesus Seminar” with any objectivity? Also, why do they continue such liberal activity based on infidelity, unless it is to destroy faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? BA)

“The ‘vulnerable, perplexed’ Jesus of the movie Last Temptation says much more about director Martin Scorcese’s view than it can about the historical Jesus, Elshtain said. During a question-and-answer period, some students questioned Funk’s assumptions about the historical unreliability of the New Testament.

“One argued that scholars impose a double standard if they question the New Testament, but accept the veracity of surviving accounts about Roman emperors such as Tiberias.”

I believe these accounts adequately expose this whole “Dialogue” as a sham as far as the theme “The Truth about Jesus” is concerned.

To the question, “Can We Know the Truth about JesusT I can answer for myself with an emphatic yes! The reason for my answer is that the New Testament reveals the truth about Jesus. For the majority of the participants and panelists I can the answer the question for them with an emphatic no! Why? Because they have rejected the only source that reveals the truth about Jesus – the New Testament. Of course, these way-out liberals apparently think that such uninspired and biased men such as the author of the book from which the movie, The Last Temptation of Jemis, was made, can shed some truth about Jesus.

The wonderful statement that Jesus made and has been recorded in the gospel according to Matthew 11:25, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent (intelligent, NASB), and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight” is so appropriate for the infidels of our day.

Several years ago, brother Harris Dark told me concerning the infidelity that emanates from Vanderbilt School of Divinity: “They don’t come out and say that the Bible isn’t true, they just ask leading questions of doubt.” That is the same tactic used by the devil since the seduction of Eve in the garden – asking leading questions of doubt that lead people into agnosticism. The fledging theology students who come under such influence leave and go out and make other infidels.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 707-708
December 7, 1989

By Lewis Willis

When we in the Lord’s Church attempt to teach our friends the truth about the worship of the Church, most of them find that truth to be unbelievable. They cannot imagine that they can’t worship like the Jews worshiped. They run to David and his instruments of music which he used in his worship and they try to justify their instruments with his. All too frequently, and sadly, it is impossible to get people to see the truth about worship. The design of this article is to examine why a change in worship should seem so strange.

The Bible shows us three great periods or dispensations of time: Patriarchal, Jewish or Mosaic, and Christian. Just as there is a requirement for worship by those of us living in the Christian Age, those people who lived in the Patriarchal and Jewish ages also had a requirement for worship. And, there were differences in the worship God required of the people who lived in each age. It is my view that we will never understand the worship of the New Testament Church until we acknowledge this fact.

During the Patriarchal Age, religion was confined to the family. God conducted religious “business” through the heads of those families like Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. God required that animal sacrifices be offered on altars built by these families. Thus, we read of Abel offering his sacrifice to God (Gen. 4:4). After the flood, Noah built an altar and offered animal sacrifices (Gen. 8:20). Lest his children fail to sacrifice as they should, Job continually offered sacrifices for them (Job 1:5). The practice of sacrifices being offered by the heads of the patriarchs of those great families was acceptable with God.

However, the practice of the Patriarchs, which was acceptable with God, would have condemned a Jew. Why? Because God changed the law of animal sacrifices. In the Jewish Age God did not permit heads of families to offer their own sacrifices. He assigned this responsibility to Moses’ brother Aaron and to the men of the tribe of Levi (Exod. 28:1; Num. 18:1-7; 25:11-13). They were the only ones who could offer sacrifices which God would accept. On one occasion King Saul offered a sacrifice which he was not authorized to offer and he was reproved by Samuel, the prophet (1 Sam. 13:8-14). If Saul had been like the denominationalist of our day, he would argue: “If Noah and Abraham could offer animal sacrifices, I feel it is alright if I do the same. ” Obviously, there is a difference with God. He gave Noah and Abraham authority to offer sacrifices. He did not give that authority to Saul. I believe anyone wanting to see, can see that the change in the Law governing these people also changed what was acceptable with God. Because it was right under the Patriarchy did not make it right for the Jews. Because it was worship to God, he had the right to change it if he pleased. And, that is exactly what he did!

It is essential that we understand that we do not live in the Patriarchal or the Jewish Age. We live in the Christian Age. And, guess what? God has changed the worship again! That’s right, God changed the worship which now is acceptable with him. In fact, we can no longer offer animal sacrifices like the people used to offer. Such were acceptable for them, but not for us. We are to offer up sacrifices alright, only we offer our “bodies” as “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1). We are taught to offer “the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” (Heb. 13:15). Suppose I said, “I don’t want to do it that way. I like it better and get more out of it the other way. I want to continue to offer animal sacrifices.” Never mind that the blood of animals could not perfect men (Heb. 10:1-4). You would be trying to correct my error, wouldn’t you?

Not only did God change the kind of sacrifices, he even changed who could offer them. Under the Patriarchy, the head of the family offered the sacrifice. Under the Jewish economy, the Levitical priesthood offered the sacrifices. But, not any more! Now, we who live in the Christian Age are authorized to offer our own sacrifices – all of us! Christians (each of us) are “an holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5). We are called “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). We are the royal priesthood because God, through Christ, has made us “kings and priests” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). The distinction between clergy and laity and arrogance of Catholicism’s priesthood ignores this fundamental Bible truth. But, they argue, “They had a priesthood in the Old Testament, why can’t we have one now?” Why? Because God authorized them to have a special priesthood then but he does not authorize us to have one now. We must learn this lesson.

So I ask, “Why does it seem so strange that we cannot worship like God’s people used to worship?” Why can’t we have Dad build an altar and offer animal sacrifices? Or, why can’t we have a special priesthood to handle our sacrifices? Abraham and David had these things, didn’t they? Yes, and David had his instruments of music. But, God changed the law – the rules – and what they did is no longer acceptable with him. That is all we need to know to learn the truth about worship today. We have a new and better covenant. We now offer living, spiritual sacrifices, which includes our worship in which God specified that we “sing and make melody in (our) heart” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Patriarchal or Jewish worship will not be accepted – only the worship appointed for us in this Christian Age. Will you allow yourself to learn this lesson?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 705, 728
December 7, 1989

By Steve Moseley

“Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim. 3:11-12). A wife and children are prerequisites for appointment to the office of deacon. The need for this requirement was explained under the qualifications of bishops in verse 5, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

We have an example of part of the work of deacons in Acts 6. Some believe that those appointed in Acts 6:1-7 were not true deacons. Their conclusion is based on the assumption that the office of deacon had not yet been established. Others assume that the office of deacon did exist but there were no deacons assigned with the duties of caring for the Grecian widows. They conclude that the seven men appointed in Acts 6 represented the first deacons assigned to care for the foreigners (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, and Ecclesiastical Literature, p. 705). One does not have to make any assumptions about the work these men were given. They ministered by making sure that the needs of the Grecian widows were not neglected. Who could be better suited for such service than men who had proven their ability by providing well for their own families?

Marriage is a divine institution, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Husbands and wives are to become one (Matt. 19:6). There is no closer relationship that can exist between a man and a woman. The experiences of one will have an effect on the other, because to a degree all experiences are joint experiences. They share one another’s joys, sorrows and responsibilities. A man can not take on the major task of serving as a deacon without the support and encouragement of his wife. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find some qualifications for the wife and family listed among those of the man who might serve as a deacon.

The Qualifications of the Deacon’s Wife

First, she must be a Christian. This is understood from the statement, “faithful in all things.” Would God give qualification for service in his kingdom to someone not in his kingdom? How could he expect an unbeliever to accept and maintain them? He would not! By the very fact that he has stated qualifications that must be met by the deacon’s wife, we must conclude that she must first be a child of God. She could not understand her husband’s sacrifice and service, if she were not a faithful Christian. How else could she be expected to encourage him; contribute the sympathy; and make the sacrifices that will be required of her? God has not called to “special service” those who have never answered the gospel call to service!

The mates that people choose say something about their Christian maturity. What does it say about a Christian who takes as his lifelong companion one who is not a Christian? At best it demonstrates poor judgment and at worst that he is not “grave,” but lack genuineness in his faith. It says that he doesn’t fully understand the relationship of a man and a wife and perhaps not even the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22-33).

Second, she must be “grave” (1 Tim. 3:11). This is the same positive qualification that deacons must possess (1 Tim. 3:8). She has a, sense of conduct worthy of respect and honor. It’s seen in a character that is noble and dignified. The genuineness and stability of her faith generates this respect.

Third, she must not be “slanderous. ” This is from the Greek word diabolos. This verse (1 Tim. 3:11) is the only place it is translated “slanderer” in the KJV. It is translated ” false accuser” twice and “devil” thirty-five times. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, “. . . is used as a noun, translated ‘slanderers’ in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the reference is to those who are given to finding fault with the demeanour and conduct of others, and spreading their innuendos and criticisms in the church.” A deacon’s wife should not be a ” she-devil, ” one who goes about making false accusations.

Most congregations have enough real problems and shortcomings to keep the elders and deacons busy. A deacon doesn’t need added discouragement from his wife. Such a “she-devil” is like Job’s wife who encouraged him to “curse God, and die” (Job 2:9). The real problems of the church she blows out of proportion. If there aren’t enough problems she’ll fabricate some. This type wife would soon drain the zeal and energy of a good man.

Fourth, she must be “sober. ” To limit the meaning to simply the abstinence from alcohol would be a mistake. In Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon (2nd ed.), it defines naphalos as, “. . temperate in the use of alcoholic beverages, sober, clear-headed, self-controlled.” It describes a person with a well balanced life. She abstains from those things that would be harmful and uses the things that are good in moderation. She is not extravagant or excessive in dress or speech. Her life shows common sense and she practices self-restraint with the strength that comes from a clear mind.

The Qualifications of Deacons’ Children

The Scriptures tell us that elders are to have “children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim. 3:4) and “having faithful children not accused or riot or unruly” (Tit. 1:6). Yet of the deacons we are told only that they should be men, “ruling their children and their own houses well.” This is a positive command directed toward the deacons and not toward their children. Unlike the children of elders there are no qualifications for the deacon’s children. Because of this a young man with very small children might qualify as a deacon. However, as his children grow, a deacon may have to use his physical strength and will have to use his spiritual strength to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). In so doing he will continue to prove himself one who rules his house well.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 681, 687
November 16, 1989