Truth Magazine

By Andy Alexander

A recent article in the Nashville Banner (4-11-89) described the upcoming efforts of the homosexuals to try to repeal the sodomy laws of Tennessee. Sam Adams, a board member for the Southeastern Conference for Lesbians and Gay Men, states that the homosexuals are “looking for a gay Selma.” This is a reference to the fight that began over racial issues in Selma, Alabama in the sixties.

Homosexuals claim these laws should be repealed because the alternate lifestyle they are living is not hurting anyone else and their “sexual orientation is a given birth attribute.” Mr. Adams also states that the homosexual’s “biggest enemy” is the “traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist Christian.” While we are going to the expense of changing the laws, why not apply this same reasoning to other offenses and see if other laws should be changed along with the sodomy laws and save the tax-payer the expense of rewriting future laws?

Should the laws against the pedophile be changed? A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children. This is an alternate lifestyle and the pedophiles can make the same claims that their sexual orientation is a given birth attribute and they are not hurting anyone else. If both the child and the adult consent to this arrangement, then who is getting hurt? And, before you claim the child should not be allowed to make this choice, check your position on the right of a child to choose an abortion without her parent’s consent.

We must agree with Mr. Adams who says education is important to changing these laws. We will have to educate the traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist Christian who will stand opposed to this law change as well. And should Mr. Adams oppose this: would he then be considered a traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist anti-pedophile?

What about the laws against the Peeping-Tom? The Peeping-Tom probably just has a disease he inherited at birth and no one should stop him from fulfilling his “natural” desire to peep in windows. Or, would Mr. Adams be a traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist anti-Peeping Tom when it corries to changing these laws?

This may appear funny to some, but those who have chosen this sinful way of life are in danger of the Judgment. The biggest friend the homosexual has is God in heaven who loved him so much that he gave his Son to die on the cross so that his sin-stained soul may be washed clean (Matt. 26:28). The Christian who is bold enough and loves him enough to try to correct him from his inevitable doom is truly his best friend on earth.

More Questions for the Sodomite

Is it certain that when two consenting adults choose to commit homosexuality they are not hurting anyone else? What if one has AIDS and is unaware of that fact or doesn’t care if he infects others? What about the parents who brought them into this world by heterosexual means? We are shown some parents on television who accept this in their children, but this is the exception rather than the rule. It is painful and shameful to their parents in most cases. What about those who choose this lifestyle after they have been married and they leave their mate for someone of the same sex? No one gets hurt? What if children are involved? Will the scorn and ridicule that the child is unfairly subjected to not hurt? Granted, the child doesn’t deserve such ridicule, but whose fault is it that he has to undergo it?

Heterosexuals who uphold the Law of God and oppose changing the sodomy laws have been labeled by a new term “homophobic.”” A homophobic is “a person who fears, dislikes, or hates homosexuals” (World Book Dictionary, 1989, p. 1014). Homosexuals are claiming that heterosexuals are the ones with the problem and that they should change their attitude toward homosexuality.

The sin of homosexuality affects others and it most definitely affects the homosexual. It separates him from his Maker and if he remains in this sinful state, it will cause his eternal damnation (Isa. 59:1-2; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Our society is becoming more corrupt day by day and things which at one time were hideous and shameful are now displayed on public television as fashionable and the “in-thing” to do. The prophet Jeremiah lived in a time like this and he warned the people against living in such a depraved way.

Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord (Jer. 6:15).

Jeremiah gave the solution to their problem in the next verse when they exhorted the people,

Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls (Jer. 6:16).

The people of Israel chose to continue in their sinful way of living and God fulfilled his promise to them by allowing Babylon to cast them down.

God has given us the standard of righteousness and changing the laws of man will not change the law of God (Rom. 1:16-17; Gal. 1:6-10). It is our duty as creatures to seek God who created us and glorify him as God and we can only do this by changing our stubborn will and humbly submitting to his will (Acts 17:27; Rom. 1:21; Heb. 5:9). God made us and he deserves our thankfulness, our praise, and our obedience.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 591, 594
October 5, 1989

By Vestal Chaffin

The apostles had been cast into prison by the high priest and Sadducees, because they preached Jesus and the resurrection from the dead. The Lord sent his angel and delivered the apostles from the common prison, and gave unto them one of the most sacred and solemn charges that was ever given to man. He told them to, “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life” (Acts 5:20). They were to teach all that the Lord had revealed to them. They were not to try to speak in such a way as not to offend the people, or to gain favor with the rulers, by good words and fair speeches; but they were boldly to proclaim the gospel.

This charge carries with it one of the most weighty responsibilities ever given to a human being. This, in substance, is the same charge given by Christ when he gave them the great commission to, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19); or “Preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). They had been doing a very fine job carrying out their first charge, because, “Believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women” (Acts 5:14). But there was a need for renewing this solemn charge, and impressing upon the apostles their responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God.

The apostles had been arrested once before, and had been threatened and, “Commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:17-18). There was the danger of the apostles becoming discouraged, and disheartened with this often repeated opposition. Then too, the apostles’ working of miracles had grown very popular with the multitude, and there was especially the danger it seems, of the apostles being carried away with this popularity, and to omit that part of the gospel that was causing the opposition, namely, the resurrected Christ.

The sect of the Sadducees were leaders in the opposition to the apostles, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angels, nor spirit” (Acts 23:8). The resurrection of Jesus was the very heart and core of the message of the apostles (Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30). It was in the name of the resurrected Christ, or by his authority, that they were doing their preaching and they healed the “lame man” (Acts 3: 1-11; 4:9, 10). It was by the name, or authority of the resurrected Christ that “many signs and wonders” were wrought “in Solomon’s porch” (Acts 5:12), and the “sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits” were healed (Acts 5:16). But since there is so much opposition to this name, and the resurrection connected with it, why not just omit that part of the message? The answer is simple. They could not “speak . . . to the people all the words of this life,” and leave off the resurrection.

Notice carefully that the charge is to, “Speak . . all the words of this life.” No, not just a part of the “words of this life,” but all! Not just those things the people like to hear, but “Speak as the oracles of God,” and all that God said upon any and every subject “that pertains to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The life referred to here is not our civil rights, or the social life in this world, but it is eternal life. That is the reason why the charge is so weighty, because it pertains to things eternal. This in essence is the same charge the apostle Paul gave to Timothy when he said, “I charge thee therefore before God, and Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:1-2).

God recognized that not all the people would accept, or even wanted to hear the apostles preach Jesus and the resurrection, yet he told them to “Speak . . . all the words of this life.” Even so, it is today. We have the same charge to “be instant in season, out of season.” We have the same responsibility today, to “Speak . . . all the words of this life,” whether the people want to hear it or not!

There are those today, both in the church and out of the church, who do not want a preacher to tell them “all the words of this life.” For example: There are those who do not want to hear “all the words of this life,” regarding modest dress (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Many people today do not want to hear “all the words of this life” concerning marriage and divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:32; 19:6-9). But we must preach it whether they like or not.

Many in the church today do not want to hear “all the words of this life,” about worldliness, and ungodly living, dancing, gambling, petting, mixed bathing, and many other things of a worldly nature. But we must preach what God has said about these things, whether they like it or not (see 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Tit. 2:11-12). Many who profess to be members of the church today, do not want to hear “all the words of this life” about the work of the church- preaching the gospel (1 Thess. 1:6-8; 1 Tim. 3:15); edifying itself (Eph. 4:12,16); helping the needy saints (Acts 4:34-35; 2 Cor. 8,9). Many do not want to abide in this teaching.

Shall we not preach all that God has said about these things because many do not want to hear? God forbid! You may not be a popular preacher if you “speak . . . all the words of this life,” but you cannot be faithful to God’s sacred and solemn charge if you refuse to do so. No man can be a faithful gospel preacher and “pure from the blood of all men” and fail to “declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). “Herald and preach the Word! Keep your sense of urgency. Stand by, be at hand and ready, whether the opportunity seems to be favorable or unfavorable, whether it is convenient or inconvenient, whether it be welcome, or unwelcome, you as a preacher of the Word are to show people in what way their lives are wrong and convince them, rebuking and correcting, warning and urging and encouraging them, being unflagging and inexhaustible in patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2, The Amplified Bible).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 584-585
October 5, 1989

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