Truth Magazine

By Rodney Pitts

After seeing the title of this article, many might be compelled to ask why I would write a lengthy article concerning this verse, especially considering how much has been written previously to this point. I will be the first to admit that this article will not be a “revelation” to most people, but it is my hope that the approach and information contained here might help dissolve some of the controversy and confusion that constantly surround this verse and divide brethren.

The verse under consideration, 2 Corinthians 9:13, reads as follows: “While, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men” (NKJV). The question involved in the text is whether the sharing with “all” mentioned at the last of this verse gives authority for the church to be involved in general benevolence, or benevolence designed to give relief to everyone, saint and sinner alike. One might be quick to point out that the text says that they gave to “all men,” but it must be remembered that the word “men” is italicized to show that it is not in the original text, and has been added by the translators. Thus, the answer to the problem lies not in the addition of the word “men,” but in the correct understanding of to whom the “all” refers.

In order to have a correct understanding of the word “all” in this verse, we need to first define it. All, or pantas in the Greek, is defined in two ways: (1) without the article it is “every, every kind or variety or whatever is mentioned or under consideration “, (2) with the article it is “the whole of the one thing referred to, one object, with the noun it means ‘all.’ In the plural it signifies the totality of the things referred to” (all emphasis mine, rbp) (Vine’s Expository Dictionary). Thus, the word does not mean “all men” or “all saints” or even “all sinners” for that matter; it is simply a word that means “all” of whatever is referred to in the context. This point is clearly seen in various verses. In Galatians 2:14 Paul was said to have rebuked Peter before “‘all.” Are we to believe that Paul took Peter and rebuked him in front of sinners in the world, or just in front of “all” the saints present? This same idea is seen in Paul’s admonition to rebuke those that sin before “all” (1 Tim. 5:20). Does the context allow us to believe that Paul was telling Timothy to rebuke erring Christians before saint and sinner alike? Surely from these verses we can see that the word all is limited by the context in which it is found. And, as we shall soon see, the “all” of 2 Corinthians 9:13 is limited by its context as well.

The second point that needs to be considered is the purpose of Paul’s writing of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. A close look at these two chapters will reveal that Paul was writing this to encourage the Corinthians to be ready with their gift when he arrived. Paul had sent some brethren to help them get this gift together (8:6,16-18). And now in this letter he was also encouraging them to finish their work (8:8-11; 9:1-5). Paul explains to them how their gift would supply the needs of the saints and cause God to be praised (9:12). Paul then seeks to motivate them by stating that the “proof of this ministry” (i.e., their actual gift) would cause the saints to glorify God for the Corinthians’ obedience to their confession to the gospel of Christ and for their “liberal sharing with them and with all” (9:13).

Since it was the “administration of this service” and the “proof of this ministry” that would produce the thanksgiving among the saints at Jerusalem (2 Cor. 9:12-13), it is necessary to know what this “service” or “ministry” was. First of all, it is important here to note that “this ministry” was said to be a fellowship in 2 Corinthians 8:4. Thus, this work was a matter of joint participation between all involved. Secondly, the only other Bible knowledge concerning this work is that it was a collection for the needy saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25,26,27,31). Paul told these same Corinthians in his first letter to get their collection ready for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-3). Even within the context of 2 Corinthians 8 land 9 Paul identifies that “this ministry” was for the relieving of the needy saints (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1,12). Thus, if we are going to remain within the teaching and authority of the word of God, we must accept that “this ministry only dealt with the relieving of the needy saints.

With all this in mind, let us now see if we can determine who the “all” refers to in 2 Corinthians 9:13. Does the “all” refer to “all men” as some have suggested? If it does, then the word must be taken out of its context to get this meaning. Does it not seem strange that the saints in Jerusalem would praise God because the Corinthians were giving money to “all men” when “this ministry” that produced the praise was only said to be for the needy saints? Does it not also seem strange that the Jerusalem saints would praise God for the Corinthians’ liberal giving to “all men” when Paul is having to send this letter and these brethren just to get the Corinthians to fulfill their promise to help these needy saints? If Paul had to go to this much trouble to get these brethren to finish their work of helping their own brethren, why would we be inclined to say that they were helping “all men”? The fact of the matter is that nothing within the context even hints that the Corinthians were giving money to non-Christians.

It should also be pointed out that to make the “all” here in this passage refer to “all men” violates the grammatical rules of that adjective. Remember that the word was defined as “every, every kind or variety of whatever is mentioned or under consideration ” (emp. mine, rbp) (Vine’s). Since giving money to “all men,” or alien sinners, is not mentioned or under consideration here in this context, how can we rightfully say that the “all” here makes reference to sinners? Yet, it is sometimes argued that since the “them” within the passage must refer to saints, the “all” must refer to nonsaints. Yet, this misses the actual meaning of the word “them” and applies it farther than the context allows. It should actually be understood as “with them (saints in Jerusalem) and all (saints everywhere else).” This interpretation must be true since the “all” can only refer to something that is under consideration within the context, which is saints.

But, just as the context does not allow the “all” to refer to non-Christians, it would also be misusing this passage to make it say that the Corinthians gave money to all saints everywhere, because the whole work was only for the “saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:25,26, et. al.). So, again we must seek to translate and understand the words of the passage within their context. If we translate the words haploted koinonia (translated as “liberal distribution” KJV), “liberal sharing” (NKJV) as “sincere, or single minded fellowship,” we have disposed of the problem. It should here be noted that this is a very legitimate translation and is held to be correct in Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Greek-English Dictionary of the N. T., by B.M. Newman; Arndt- Gingrich: A Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T.; and basically every commentary I have ever read. Thayer in his lexicon even emphasized the fact that the word koinonia refers to a spiritual fellowship, not just a distribution of goods, by stating that the word’s use here actually referred to a “proof positive of their (the Corinthian’s, rbp) fellowship” with the Jewish brethren. The reason that this translation eliminates the problem is that the whole project, or ministry, was called a fellowship (2 Cor. 8:4), and the Corinthian church could show their sincerity of fellowship to the whole brotherhood through their gift to their Jewish brethren in Jerusalem (i.e., if these Gentiles were willing to help their Jewish brethren, then the whole brotherhood would then know of and experience their fellowship). I believe Lenski made this point quite well when he stated:

Secondly, the saints are seen as glorifying God “also for the single-mindedness of (your) fellowship with them and with all,” i.e., all other saints. The word haplotes is used in the same sense as before (8:2; 9:11); it does not mean “liberality” or “liberal” (our versions) but, as already explained, “single-mindedness.” And koinonia means “fellowship” or “communion” as it did in 8:4 and not “contribution”: (R.V.) or “distribution” (AN.). Every thought of “contribution” is excluded by the phrases “with them and with all.” When we translate “liberality of the contribution for them (the saints) and for all,” the meaning is misleading, for the collection was taken up only for the saints in Jerusalem and not for all saints everywhere. Yet this idea is defended, it is said that this contribution to the saints at Jerusalem is as good as a contribution to all saints everywhere; by helping some really all are helped.

Paul is speaking about something that is far higher than “the liberality of the contribution.” The saints at Jerusalem are pictured as glorifying God “for the singlemindedness of (your) fellowship with them and with all,” i.e., for your spiritual fellowship and communion. It is this fellowship of the Corinthians which extends not only to those saints who are being helped at present but to all God’s saints, whether they are helped or not (Lenski, Interpretation of Second Corinthians, pp. 1185-1186).

It is interesting to note that Lenski never even men~ tions the idea that the “all” could refer to “all men,” or sinners. The context simply will not allow it. No other commentary that I have read gives this “all men” idea as an alternative interpretation. It just does not fit the context in which it is found.

Conclusion

From this material, I believe it can be seen that to understand the “all” of 2 Corinthians 9:13 to refer to “all men,” or sinners, is to wrest it from its context and to do violence to the grammatical rules that govern the usage of the word. It is my hope that this material has been accepted and considered within the light in which was written. May we all continue to study God’s word and seek to preach and practice only what is authorized therein.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 586-587
October 5, 1989

By Michael Garrison

It is a doctrine of several religious groups that eternal punishment is not taught in the Bible. Why do these people reject the teaching of an eternal hell? Well, we don’t have to guess about the answer, nor do we have to make up some plausible reason as an answer. This is because those who do not believe in eternal punishment have told us why they do not believe in it. For instance:

The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally after death cannot be true, mainly for four reasons: (1) because it is wholly unscriptural; (2) because it is unreasonable; (3) because it is contrary to God’s love; and (4) because it is repugnant to justice (Let God Be True, p. 80, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc.. 1946).

So, from the above quote, we see four reasons given why some do not believe in eternal punishment or torment. Let us examine each reason to see if their reasoning stands the test of God’s Holy Word.

(1) Because it is wholly unscriptural. By this, they mean they do not believe this doctrine is taught in the Bible. In Revelation 14:9-11, we can learn something about the subject of eternal punishment. In this passage from God’s Word we are told, “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” So, from God’s Holy Word we do see the doctrine of men being tormented in fire and brimstone, who have no rest day nor night, and we are even told that the “smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.”

To say the doctrine of eternal punishment “is wholly unscriptural” shows an incredible lack of scriptural understanding. (I encourage the reader to read Matthew 25:46 and Mark 9:43-48 as well as other Bible passages on this topic.)

(2) Because it is unreasonable. This is based on nothing but human emotion, not scriptural fact. Perhaps the writer(s) of the above statement do not realize this fact concerning God: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the, heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9). Maybe the fact eternal punishment is not reasonable to some men, but that does not prove that God’s word does not teach it!

We read about some, in Ezekiel 33:17-20, who had an idea like the people quoted above. “Yet children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that of which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.”

Charles Smith, one time president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, said, “The whole scheme of redemption is foolishness to me. Because our parents and forefathers disobeyed God, he would not be on good terms with us until his son was nailed on a cross. That is not reasonable” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, 1952, p. 61). So, even the scheme of redemption is foolishness and something unreasonable to Mr. Smith. Does, that make it so? Of course not! Our faith is to be found in God’s word, not the emotions or prejudices of men (see 1 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 10:17).

(3) Because it is contrary to God’s love. This, too, is based only on human emotion, not God’s word. We are all familiar with John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). He also said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16).

Because of God’s love for lost humanity, he sent his Son to die. God loves all men, but only certain ones (the obedient ones) will be saved. The rest will perish. W.E. Vine says of the word “perish,” “The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well being” (Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 302). J.H. Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon (p. 64) says the word means “. . . to incur the loss of true or eternal life; to be delivered up to eternal misery; Jn. iii. 15,16.”

In Romans 2:5-11, we learn that God is no respecter of persons. Paul says God will “render to every man according to his deeds . . . unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil.” In verse 5, he calls this “the righteous judgment of God.” Who is man to say that God does not love those he punishes?

The doctrine that says God will not eternally punish the disobedient ones and unbelievers, fails to consider the dual character of God’s justice: “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off” (Rom. 11:22). We need to obey God and remain faithful to him.

(4) Because it is repugnant to justice. The word “repugnant” means “contradictory, inconsistent; opposed; antagonistic; etc.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Mr. Webster says “justice” means, “the quality of being righteous; impartiality; fairness; reward of penalty as deserved.” With these definitions in mind, we can see what the writer(s) of the above are saying. They do not accept the teaching of eternal punishment “because it is contradictory or inconsistent or antagonistic to the quality of being righteous or impartial!” Who can believe that eternal punishment or torment inflicted by an all wise God on those who obey him not (2 Thess. 1:7) and are workers of unrighteousness (Rom. 2:8-9) is not justice, reward or penalty as deserved? God will keep his word and forever punish those who are unbelievers or are disobedient to his will. Let us not be in that number!

Conclusion

We see then four reasons to believe God will eternally punish or torment a those who do not believe and obey him:

(1) It is based on God’s Holy Scripture.

(2) It is reasonable, according to God’s revealed will.

(3) It is in accord with God’s love and righteousness.

(4) It is according to God’s righteous justice.

Let us obey God’s will so we will not be cast “into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 582-583
October 5, 1989

By Mike Willis

The book of 2 Peter was written because of Peter’s concern about the influence of false teachers. Consequently, he described the characteristics of false teachers so that God’s people could recognize them. Those characteristics are not limited to one group of men of one period of time; they are the characteristics of false teachers of all time.

Not every false,. teacher will manifest every characteristic revealed by Peter. We would err to conclude that a man is not a false teacher if he manifests only 7 out of 10 characteristics. Nevertheless the attributes of false teachers are uniform to such an extent that these traits appear over and over. Let us study these characteristics:

1. They bring in their doctrine privately. “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily bring in damnable heresies” (2:1). False teachers do not operate above board. Rather, they work in secret, from house to house. What they preach from the pulpit is ambiguous and tenuous. When, someone asks them specific questions about what they are preaching, they cry, “You misunderstood me.”(1) In the meantime, these men work secretly among the members, spreading their damnable heresy. After enough members have been “converted” to his false doctrines’ the false teacher will take over the church.

2. They bring in damnable heresies. “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily bring in damnable heresies” (2:1). The false teacher does not merely bring in poor judgment; he brings teaching which, when obeyed ‘ brings a person into damnation because it causes a man to sin or leads to a rejection of biblical doctrine. “These heresies destroy the soul; they bring ruin both to those who are led astray and to the false teachers themselves.”(2) These are not the differences in judgment of Romans 14 which should be tolerated because God receives the ones teaching and practicing the items under discussion (Rom. 14:1-3). These are doctrines which destroy the soul, leading to eternal damnation.

3. Their doctrines appeal to the flesh. “And many shall follow their pernicious (aselgeia: lascivious; NASB renders it “sensuality”) ways” (2:2). They “walk after the flesh” (2: 10), have “eyes full of adultery” (2:14), and “allure through the lusts of the flesh” (2:18). Peter reminds us that false doctrine has an appeal to the flesh.

False teachers are still spreading their doctrines which appeal to the flesh today. They preach a doctrine which allows mixed swimming, social drinking, gambling, divorce and remarriage for any reason, church sponsored recreation, etc. They “tickle the ears” of the worldly church members, preaching a message which they want to hear.

4. They are covetous. “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2:3). “An heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: which have forsaken the right Way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam. the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.” (2:14-15). The false teachers accommodate their message to the audience – preaching what the audience wants to hear rather than what they need to hear. Because of their love for wealth, they preach a non-offensive message.

As I have witnessed apostasy occur for twenty years, I have noticed that the false teachers are attracted to the larger churches where the salaries are greater. False teachers do not hunt for small churches of 20-30 members to live on menial wages. This is not to imply that every preacher for a larger church is covetous or a false teacher; that simply is not true.

5. False teachers despise authority. Peter said that false teachers “despise government.” The word “government” is kuriotetos, “here it seems to stand for all forms of authority.”(3) They manifest a disrespect for authority and those in positions of authority (such as elders).

6. False teachers are arrogant. “Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed speak evil of the things that they understand not” (2:10-12). False teachers manifest an arrogant spirit. They know more about how to preach than any who have gone before them, even when they have had less than five years of experience. They show no respect for the men who have served the Lord’s cause before them, not hesitating to speak disparagingly of them.

They constantly challenge the “traditional” manner of doing things.(4) Such challenging of tradition is born of arrogance, a disposition that says, “I know better how to do things than all of the wise men who have gone before me.” The false teachers who kick against the boundaries of authorized traditional practices usually go beyond tradition to kick against the boundaries of inspired law.

7. False teachers are self-willed (2:10). A man cannot serve as an elder if he is self-willed (Tit. 1:7). A self-willed man is a man bent on having his own way. False teachers will destroy a church in pursuit of their own way. I have known men who disrupted churches, running off brethren, over matters which they themselves label as “judgment” (such as whether or not the name “church of Christ” should be placed on a sign in the front of the church building).

8. False teachers use rash (2:10) and flattering speech(2:18). They “speak evil of things they understand not” (2:10) and use “great swelling words of vanity” (2:18). They flatter brethren for a purpose – to promote themselves.

9. They promise liberty. “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brougahh in bondage” (2:19). False teachers have always operated under the banner of freedom and liberty. The abortion leaders call themselves “pro-choice”; the homosexuals promote “gay liberation”; those who are redefining the role of women describe their movement as the “women’s liberation movement. “

What is true with these more conspicuous examples of “promising liberty” is also true of the more subtle forms of false teaching. They want to “free” God’s people from “Church of Christ tradition” and brotherhood watchdogs who are “guardians of the party.” While promising their followers liberty, these false teachers lead brethren into damnable heresy, into subjection to the devil.

The Condition of These False Teachers

Peter described these false teachers in these terms: (a) they deny the Lord that bought them (2:1); (b) they are under judgment of God (2:3); (c) they shall perish (2:12); (d) they are cursed children (2:14); (e) the mist of darkness is reserved for them (2:17); (f) they are in worse condition than the alien sinner (2:20-22). Hence, these false teachers are lost, doomed to everlasting hell.

The Threat to Souls

The danger which these false teachers posed was not confined to themselves. They also posed a danger to others. Peter was concerned that “many follow after” (2:2) their damnable heresies. He knew that false teachers “beguile unstable souls” (2:14) and “allure through the lusts of the flesh” (2:18). He was concerned, not only for the souls of the false teachers, but also for those who might be influenced by them.

The reason an epistle such as 2 Peter had to be written was the danger these false teachers posed to other Christians. Good, honest and sincere Christians can be deceived and led into damnation.

Conclusion

Those who think that all of the false teachers died in the first century are mistaken. Those who think that false teachers are no danger to their local congregation are naive. We need to be aware that false teachers are still busy spreading their damnable heresies which lead men into eternal damnation. May we never forget the danger they pose to the church.

Endnotes

1. If a teacher is continually being misunderstood, he either cannot communicate his ideas or is intentionally stating them ambiguously. In the former case, he should not be allowed to teach because his is not “apt to teach” (he is unqualified). In the latter case, he should not be allowed to teach because of the false doctrine which he is preaching in veiled language.

2. B.C. Chaffin, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22, p. 43.

3. Chaffin, p. 45.

4. “Tradition” simply means that which is handed down. That which is handed down can either be right or wrong. In this context, the traditions which are meant are those right practices of judgment which have been tried and proven by brethren for many years. Traditions which are not authorized by Scripture should be challenged and changed.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 578, 598-599
October 5, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Acts 18:24-26 reads thusly:

And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

We are not told directly of Apollos’ response. We are left to infer that he readily recognized the way of God (cf. Acts 17:11,12), as surely he did, else the brethren would not have written that he should be received (Acts 18:27; cf. 1 Cor. 3:5,6). Suppose, though, that Apollos was not convinced by Aquila and Priscilla. What then?

Obviously, further study, debate and argument would have been essential. Paul reasoned for three sabbath days upon one occasion (Acts 17:2,3). He debated for two years and three months in Ephesus (Acts 19:8-10). At another time, the Athenians said, “We will hear thee again of this matter” (Acts 17:32). Paul warned some of hardness of heart and encouraged others to “continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13:40-43). Protracted and extended controversy often is necessary. Frequently, “much disputing” must occur as brethren weigh and sift through issues of difference (Acts 15:2,7). There must be a period of sober, sincere study as men seek to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). If this is not done, some will wrest the Scriptures “unto their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16), and they that be led of them shall be destroyed.

Each situation, person and issue will have to be considered individually on its own merits. Longsuffering forbearance (not indulgence of iniquity) must guard our hearts and guide our actions. Ultimately, one must use his best judgment, discerning good and evil. What is a “teaching opportunity” to one may be “casting pearls” before swine” to another. Whether the issue is circumcision and law (Acts 15; Galatians) or marriage and love (1 Cor. 7), a “thus saith the Lord” must be obeyed, and those who oppose must be exposed.

This very scenario was enacted in the latter part of the nineteenth and the early part of the twentieth centuries in the dispute over societies and the instrument that eventually led to the formation of the Christian Church denomination. David Lipscomb, Benjamin Franklin and others were criticized as church splitters and vilified as Pharisees, men full of the party spirit. The “antis” and the “non-progressives” were chided and derided for their narrow-minded, sectarian bigotry. Debates, lectures and volumes of literature spewed forth as a mighty torrent. In the end, the “spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” were made manifest (1 Jn. 4:1,6). The same thing has transpired in the past forty years institutionalism and related topics. It will do so again on these questions.

Back to Apollos. Those he baptized with the baptism of John would have to be taught (Acts 19:1-5). If Apollos had continued making disciples with the baptism of John while he deliberated the issue of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus, his converts would have been objects of study, explanation and instruction. Some of the principles of Romans 14 would not have applied. But some would have objected, “You are seeking to question brother Apollos’ sincerity, destroy his influence and undermine the unity of the saint.” Beware of making error a martyr and truth a murderer. Beware of apologizing for the source of error and thereby sympathizing for its effects. An Apollos must be loved, taught, reasoned with and prayed for, but the error he espouses must be disputed and confuted.

Finally, what if Apollos, after much prayer, study, meditation and reflection remains wedded and welded to the baptism of John? The years hasten by. Our zealous, intellectual, eloquent brother, mighty in the Scriptures, writes fervently and speaks forcefully for the “things of the Lord,” but persists in the baptism of John. Do we welcome him as a faithful brother? Do we endorse him and his teaching? Do we promote him, defend him and excuse his error while believing the truth on baptism in the name of Christ? If Apollos has a kind, charming manner, he will sway many, drawing away disciples after himself.

However, if we oppose his insidious, damnable heresy, we will be pictured and portrayed as (1) ungrateful for the good Apollos does accomplish; (2) partyistic, sectarian; (3) judgmental, harsh, severe; (4) like unto Diotrephes, desiring prominence for ourselves over Apollos; (5) jealous of Apollos’ talents, abilities and influence; (6) inconsistent, for accepting vegetarians (Rom. 14) and would have a Timothy circumcised (while opposing circumcision), but will not “fellowship brother Apollos”; (7) giving occasion for Hymanaeus and Philetus to blaspheme (2 Tim. 2:16-18), as they point out “your unbrotherly treatment” of our beloved brother Apollos. (Thus, they imply that our opposition to them is but a further reflection of our unloving, hateful disposition. Never mind their error. Since we are so mean in dealing with Apollos, that must be why we oppose them, too.); (8) being more interested in destroying Apollos than in saving him. This ignores the years of study and debate that have occurred. It also impugns motives and borders on 44evil surmising” (1 Tim. 6:4).

These criticisms may be reversed, turned against the critics. Are the critics being ungrateful, partyistic, judgmental, like Diotrephes, jealous, inconsistent and unloving when they so criticize?

Conclusion

What is the result of all this? Truth is obscured. Souls are blinded. Error is allowed to increase “unto more ungodliness,” eating as doth a cancerous gangrene. What is the remedy? Preach the word. Speak the truth in love in love for Christ, in love for truth, in love for the souls of men.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 579-580
October 5, 1989