Truth Magazine

By David Halter

In our small, rural congregation we all take turns cleaning the church building. My turn came to clean the building and I began the task of vacuuming the auditorium. I had just begun to clean one pew and noticed an extremely large amount of dirt on the floor. It seems that some members had not cleaned their feet very well before coming into the auditorium. As I observed the dirt I began to become angry at whoever had done this! I thought that they were very thoughtless in failing to clean off their shoes.

I made up my mind right then and there to preach to the brethren about it. I was ready to let them have it! I couldn’t wait until Sunday so I could give both barrels to them! But just then, I thought, “What if there were no dirt to vacuum, no trash to pick up, no chalkboard to wipe?”

After some thought, I decided to go ahead and preach, but the lesson I now had decided to preach was quite different from the one I first thought of. As I continued cleaning the building several thoughts came to my mind and I wanted to share them with you.

Dirt on the Porch and in the Foyer

This is evidence that people are coming to church (Heb. 10:25). Some people don’t think to wipe their feet, they do not intentionally dirty up the porch and foyer. After all, they could have kept their dirt at home or they could have taken it to the beach, mall, movies or fishing. Thanks for bringing your dirty feet to church!

Dirt on the Seats and Floor

This is evidence that folks are sitting and listening to the teacher or preacher (Acts 20:7-9). It is also evidence they were studying the lesson during Bible class or at least were present (2 Tim. 2:15). After all, they could have stayed at home and watched TV, played a game of ball or visited friends! Thanks for bringing your dirt to church!

Dirt in the Classrooms

This is evidence that parents were bringing their children to church (Matt. 18:1-6). Jesus gave the answer that he did in response to the question by his disciples: “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” I think I know who, don’t you? After all, they could have let their children sleep late, or spend the night with friends! Thanks for bringing your children to church!

Dust on the Chalkboards

This is evidence that faithful brethren were fulfilling the God given role of teaching (2 Tim. 2:2). I thought, at least we had those who were willing, able and ready to do this great work (Heb. 5:12)! After all, they could have said to let someone else do it because they did not have the time or talent. Thanks for dusting up the chalkboards!

Conclusion

Boy! How I had changed my mind! I thought, what an honor and privilege to clean the building! How thankful I should be that brethren were so thoughtful of the Lord’s day worship services. After all, what would a church building be like without at least a little dirt?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 340
June 1, 1989

By Frank Jamerson

The little book of Obadiah is the most “minor” of the Minor Prophets, but it contains two major lessons that are never outdated. Those lessons which we wish to discuss are the hatred expressed in indifference and the sin of pride.

The Edomites were relatives of Israel, being descendants of Esau. The struggle began in the womb of Rebekah (Gen. 25:2426) and continued even to the confrontation between Jesus and the Herods who were Idumeans. Herod the Great (whose father and mother were Idumeans) tried to kill Jesus at birth (Matt. 2), and Herod Antipas (the son of Herod the Great and Malthrace, who was a Samaritan) had John beheaded and tried Jesus, after he was sent from Pilate (Lk. 23:7-12).

This history may seem insignificant, but it relates to the issue of whether God’s marriage law applies to those not under the covenant. John said to Herod Antipas, who had the wife of his half-brother Philip, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matt. 14:4). Other passages also show that God’s marriage law applies to aliens. Paul told the Corinthians that they were to withdraw from brethren who were fornicators, but not “from the fornicators of the world.” (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Again, he wrote “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). God’s marriage law was given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24) and it has applied to all their descendants. The Gentiles who “had not the law” (Rom. 2:14) committed fornication (Rom. 1:29), which includes every form of sexual immorality, including “adultery” (1Cor. 5:2) and “homosexuality” (Jude 7).

Though this is an important lesson, it is not the main lesson we wish to discuss in this article. Notice that Edom claimed to be neutral toward Israel, but God said: “In the day that you stood on the other side – In the day that strangers carried captive his forces, when foreigners entered the gates and cast lots for Jerusalem – even you were as one of them” (Obad. 11). Their indifference was not really indifference, for they “gazed” and “rejoiced” in the day of Judah’s destruction, and even entered the gate to collect spoils (vv. 12,13). Their hatred for their distant brethren was professed in indifference but practiced by active participation when the opportunity arose. Have you ever noticed how often men today who claim that they will “have nothing to do with that person” are not really indifferent, or neutral, when the opportunity arises to do damage?

Another lesson Obadiah taught Edom was the danger of pride. They thought that they were impregnable because of their physical surroundings, but God said: “The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who dwell in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; you who say in your heart, who will bring me down to the ground? Though you exalt yourself as high as the eagle, and though you set your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down, says the Lord” (vv. 3,4).

Whether it is “face pride” (how we look), race pride (racial prejudice) or “grace pride” (feeling we are better than others because of our knowledge of truth), it is all wrong, and God would say to us: “I will bring you down!” Jesus said concerning the publican who was humble in his attitude, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be abased, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk. 18:14). Peter wrote: “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:6).

God has a way of humbling the proud. Have you ever noticed how often single people who know so much about how children should be raised become silent after they have children, or how often those who say “that will never happen to me,” end up “eating crow”? A haughty, unforgiving, self-righteous spirit is the very opposite of the spirit of Christ. The scribes and Pharisees were “too good” to associate with sinners, and even condemned Jesus for doing so, but Jesus had more sympathy for the sinners than the proud Pharisees had for Jesus! If we are not careful, we can show more of the Pharisaical spirit than the spirit of Christ. “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18).

Let us remember the fact that hatred may be shown in a professed indifference, and that pride is deceptive. We must humble ourselves as little children and be committed to doing right and standing for it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 325
June 1, 1989

By Mike Willis

Reproduced on the opposite page is an article by Roy H. Lanier, Jr. entitled “The ‘Para-Church’: Is It God’s?” The article is a well-written article, emphasizing the need for the church not to become a fund-raising organization for human institutions. The article appeared in the March 1989 issue of the Gospel Advocate.

I met brother Lanier for the first time at the Nashville meeting in December 1988. He is a likeable brother and, so far as I know, an honorable man and gentleman. He has treated me with kindness in every association we have had. He understands that brethren can differ without having personal animosity, so I am confident that these comments will be understood to be those from a concerned brother, not full of enmity and malice.

Brother Lanier is a part of the new “anti’s,” those conservative liberals who are disgusted at the liberalism they are witnessing among their brethren. He is more nearly identified with the Spiritual Sword brethren than with any other identifiable group among the liberals.

Nevertheless, brother Lanier was among the liberals when the issues divided brethren twenty to thirty years ago. He was more nearly identified with the old Firm Foundation liberals (who believed that orphan homes had to be under elderships to be scriptural; those under a board of directors were unscriptural) than with their Gospel Advocate cousins (who believed that homes under elderships were sinful; they had to be under a board of directors). He was part of that generation who wanted church supported orphan homes (only if they were organized under elderships) and small fellowship halls. He did not accept church support of colleges, medical missions, day care centers’, schools, camps, nor gyms.

Although the Gospel Advocate published brother Lanier’s article, they are not within a million miles of conceding that he is right in arguing “that today’s generation of churches has carelessly crossed some vital boundaries” of truth by making donations to “extra-organisms” (orphanages, schools, medical units, etc.). By publishing this article the Advocate seems to be throwing him a sop to keep him contented and working with them, instead of breaking fellowship with them. Remember that Editor Kearley teaches, in contrast to Lanier, that churches “may assist with child care centers, Christian schools, Christian camps, and other expedient means,” i.e. what Lanier calls “extra-organisms” (Gospel Advocate [November 1988], p. 5).

Brother Lanier might write strongly against the church making contributions to human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, medical missions, missionary societies, etc.), but do not be deceived. It is doubtful that brother Lanier will ever say that those who practice such things are guilty of sin, separated from God, and should not be fellowshipped.

In the paper which he submitted for the Nashville meeting, brother Lanier argued the same position which is reproduced in the article on the opposite page. After distinguishing the differences between those brethren who believe orphan homes should be under a board of directors and those who say they should be under elders, he wrote,

This is not the position of this paper (i.e., that orphan homes can be under a board of directors, mw), but neither is it a position that requires a break in fellowship. Such arguments are so technical and so dependent upon human reasoning, conclusions, and inferences, that it behooves Christians not to divide the Body of Christ over such conclusions.

Can you imagine David Lipscomb writing a “para-church” article regarding the missionary society in the following words?

This is not the position of this paper (i.e. that missionary societies can be under a board of directors, mw), but neither is it a position that requires a break in fellowship. Such arguments are so technical and so dependent upon human reasoning, conclusions, and inferences, that it behooves Christians not to divide the Body of Christ over such conclusions.

Neither would brother Lanier have written these words regarding the missionary societies of the Christian Church!

I cannot understand brother Lanier putting church support of human institutions (benevolent societies) in the category of sin and then calling on brethren not to allow to sin to break their fellowship one with another. If this isl matter of sin, it falls into the category of 2 John 9-11 and not in the category of Romans 14. If it falls into the category of Romans 14, it is judgment and not sin.

Brother Lanier Can See Clearly

Brother Lanier does not have trouble seeing that one cannot tolerate the practice of sin or those who teach false doctrine when the issue is instrumental music. The Independent Christian Church brethren, such as Don DeWelt, do not insist that churches of Christ start using instruments of music in order for fellowship to exist. They do not insist that we cease believing that using instruments of music in worship is sinful. They are content that we continue practicing what we practice and preaching what we believe, so long as we extend the right hands of fellowship to those in the Christian Church who use instruments of music in worship. Brother Lanier can see that will not work on the issue of mechanical instruments of music in worship. Why can’t he see that this will not work on the subject of church support of human institutions?

More of the Same

Brother Lanier is not the only person affected with this mistaken view. There are those among us who believe the same as he does, but on different issues. They will acknowledge that what a brother is teaching is false doctrine and then continue to call on him for prayer, invite him for lectureships, and treat him as a faithful brother. Such an approach amounts to a policy of accommodation and compromise with false doctrine. This is not the Bible approach to digression and apostasy over matter such as church support of “extra-organisms,” the social gospel agenda, instrumental music in worship, premillennialism, or divorce and remarriage.

Can you image the apostle Paul doing the same with some Judaizing brother in the first century? Can you picture him

saying, “I do not agree with what brother Judaizer has written on justification, but he has such a thorough understanding of the Old Testament history and law that we are going to – invite him for our annual lectureship at Antioch this spring”? Can you image him introducing Hymenaeus saying, “Brethren, I want you to know that I disagree with what brother Hymenaeus has written on the resurrection, for he says that the resurrection has passed already, but we have invited him to preach on love to us here at Ephesus”? Here is what he did write:

This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare: holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:18-20).

But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

These words are from the pen of the same apostle who wrote Romans 14. Romans 14 does not apply to matters which fall into a category of sin rather than judgment. Romans 14 is limited to things that are “clean” (Rom. 14:14),,areas in which God receives the man (Rom. 14:3). Until one can show that God receives a man practicing sin, defending it as righteous conduct and encouraging others to join him in participating in it, he should not apply Romans 14 to that matter.

How to Treat False Teachers

The Scriptures tell us how to treat false teachers. Here are some of its demands:

1. They should be marked and avoided. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause division and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

2. They should not be associated with. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).

3. They should be cast out of the church. In the allegory of Hagar and Sarah, Paul cited the example of Abraham’s casting out Ishmael to exhort that the Judaizers be cast out of the church (Gal. 4:21-30). This was necessary because “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9).

4. They should be rebuked. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather rebuke them” (Eph. 5:11). Paul told Titus to “rebuke sharply” the Cretian false prophets (Tit. 1:13). (Some seem more interested in rebuking those who rebuke false teachers than in rebuking a false teacher.)

5. Deliver them to Satan. Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:20).

6. Do not eat with them or bid them God speed. “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . . If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11).

7. Stop their mouths. “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:10-11).

8. Reject them. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Tit. 3:10).

Conclusion

The Lord rebuked the church at Thyatira for following the course which brother Lanier is following regarding church support of human institutions. The Lord wrote:

Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not (Rev. 2:20-21).

The Lord gave Jezebel a time to repent before making war against her. When she refused to repent, he came against her in judgment (2:22-23). The church at Thyatira sinned in tolerating Jezebel and her false teaching.

I recognize that a period of study, as we presently are in on the divorce and remarriage issue, will be necessary on any issue which confronts the Lord’s people. The breaking of fellowship is not the first step to be taken when a walk toward apostasy begins, but the last. Some of us might think that step should be taken at a different time than others, and each must give the other room to exercise his best judgment. However, the Scriptures are clear that false doctrine and false teachers cannot be tolerated among the saints. He who tolerates false doctrine and extends fellowship to false teachers does so in violation of the word of God.

Furthermore, experience has shown us that toleration of false doctrine and false teaching will not work. Men such as brother Lanier have held their position on church support of human institutions for many years. They have continued to invite those who disagreed with them to meetings and recognized them as faithful brethren, making no distinction between those who believe and practice one thing and those who believe and practice another. Remember J.W. McGarvey’s lamentable and pitiful parallel position regarding the instrument. Brother McGarvey opposed the instrument and condemned it as sin; yet he continued to invite those who disagreed to meetings, recognized them as faithful brethren, making no distinction between those who believed and practiced one thing and those who believed and practiced another. Likewise, brother Lanier continues to tolerate church support of human institutions while they have continued to expand. The Laniers have not stopped the spread of institutionalism among their number, despite their occasional “para-church” articles, just as McGarvey did not top instrumental music despite his occasional articles ag dst instruments of music in worship. The position of calling a practice sin but fellowshipping those who practice the sin did not work. It never will work. I hope we do not have to learn this lesson again from experience on the divorce and remarriage issue.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, pp. 322, 341-342
June 1, 1989

By Tommy L. McClure

The Person Doing the Tempting

1. She was not a common prostitute, but a married wife (vv. 19,20). She was “out on the prowl” while the goodman (her husband) was away on a long journey.

It is evident that she was well-off financially from the manner in which she had decked and perfumed her bed (vv 16,17). She reminds one of Potiphar’s wife who asked Joseph to lie with her, not because of monetary needs but to satisfy her wicked lust (Gen. 39:7-12). Upright people can have more respect, little as that is, for the common prostitute who sells herself to keep body and soul together than for these women! Her husband and neighbors may not have suspected a thing; but, when he was away and the night was black, she went forth playing the harlot, deserting her children (if she had any and had not babied a poodle instead!), betraying the confidence of her husband, contributing to the damnation of a young man’s soul, sinning against God (cf. 8:36), and destroying her own soul (cf. 6:32)!

2. She dressed like a prostitute – “the attire of an harlot” (v. 10). From ancient times, harlots have dressed so as to advertise their profession. Judah mistook his daughter-in-law Tamar for a harlot because of where she sat and how she was dressed (Gen. 38:13-16). “As regards the fashions involved in the practice, similar outward marks seem to have attended its earliest forms to those which we trace in the classical writers, e.g., a distinctive dress and a seat by the way-side” (McClintock & Strong, Article on “Harlot,” Vol. 4, p. 75).

Modern prostitutes dress to accentuate physical endowments and arouse lust. Short, tight, split skirts; tight, low-cut pants and high-cut blouses; the plunging neckline; the cigarette between the fingers and the sauntering walk, are tools of a prostitute’s trade! Regrettably, some women in the church dress the same way; yet, they would be highly offended if compared to the prostitute. Young ladies, if you don’t want to be compared to them, quit using the tools of their trade!

God’s will on women’s dress seems plain enough. “. . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works” (1 Tim. 2:9,10, ASV). “Modest (kosmios) denotes “orderly, well-arranged, decent” (Vine 111, 79); “shamefastness” (aidos) means “a sense of shame, modesty” (Ibid., IV, 71); “sobriety” (sophrosune) “denotes soundness of mind . . . ‘sound judgment’ practically expresses the meaning; ‘it is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to these from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as would overbear the checks and barriers which aids (shamefastness) opposed to it'” (Ibid., IV, 44,45). Instead of a “sense of shame,” the woman of our study had an “impudent face,” rendered “put on a bold brow” (Keil & Delitzsch, v. 13), a demeanor diametrically opposed to a “sense of shame.” There was no sense of shame or blushing in the woman or in her actions and attire. Where is the “decency,” “sense of shame,” and “sound judgment” in the dress described above? Purity of heart will manifest itself in modesty of dress. Ladies, does your dress resemble the attire of an harlot or that of a woman professing godliness?

3. The temptress was crafty and cunning – “subtil of heart” (v. 10). “She is of a hidden mind, of a concealed nature” (Kefl & Delitzsch, v. 10). She likely feigned fidelity to her husband, indicated by her working in darkness instead of light. She flatters her paramours as her only beloved. Note: “Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee” (v. 15). Her use of “thee” and “thy” makes it appear that the young man was the only one for her. The truth was, she loved none of her paramours, but used them only as a means to an end – the indulgence of her sensual desires!

4. She was boisterous and unruly – “loud and stubborn ” (v. 11). The actions and character of this woman were the very opposite of “let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection” (I Tim. 2:11 ASV), “of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1 Pet. 3:4), and the noiseless activity and gentle modesty of a virtuous wife (Prov. 31:10-31). Some wives now remind us of a “loud and stubborn” woman of the text: I speak of those who are all tongue, mouth and noise; who are determined to have their say, right or wrong, no matter where; and, those who are impatient of check and control, despise counsel, and rebel when reproved! Some spineless husbands have timidly let their bossy wives “take over” in the home, and they often try to do so in the church. As to which is worse -spineless husband or bossy wife – I wouldn’t turn around for the difference! Both are wrong (Eph. 5:23-33).

5. She was a gadabout – “her feet abide not in her house” (v. 11). Though her house was well furnished (vv. 16, 17), she evidently hated the confinement and employment of it. Some modern wives are exactly this way. As soon as the husband is off to work and the children are out the door for school, they begin sprucing up (not the house mind you, but their own persons) and are soon “back on the road again,” as the country singer says, busily engaged in the employment they like best – gadding about! Paul said the young women are to be “keepers (workers, ASV) at home” (Tit. 2:5). Of some young widows, he said, “And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:13,14). Matthew Henry well said, “Virtue is a penance to those to whom home is a prison” (Commentary, v. 11). Think about it!

6. She acted contrary to all rules of modesty and decency – “she caught him and kissed him” (v. 13). What a way for a married woman whose husband was away to act on the street in the dark of night! She did this with an “impudent face,” meaning “she hardened her face” (Marg., ASV). It “. . As said of one who shows shamelessness, or, as we say, an iron forehead” (Keil & Delitzsch, v. 13). Like many today, blushing was foreign to her demeanor.

The Temptation Itself – How She Managed It

1. She courted him to eat with her – “I have peace offerings with me” (vv. 14,15). Peace offerings, according to the law, were divided three ways: the fat, kidneys and caul above the liver were God’s (Lev. 3:14-16); the breast and right shoulder went to the priests (Lev. 7:31-34); the rest was for the one who offered the victim (Lev. 7:11-21).

In her reference to peace offerings, she asserts two things: First, her plentiful supply of good provisions. She was evidently attempting to allay any fear on the young man’s part that he would be violently robbed or his pockets be picked. It is sad that what was designed for God’s glory (the peace offering) should be made a tool of sin, but this has often been done (read with understanding Rom. 7:8-13). Second, she asserted her profession of piety (although it was a profession without a possession!). She had been to the temple, so had done her worshipping; she had made her peace offering, a token of peace and reconciliation with God; she had paid her vows, so was relieved of whatever obligations they imposed. Her idea seemed to be, “Whoopee! I have settled my account with God, and am ready for more sin! ” Whatever her thoughts, many obviously think that today! Catholics pay the priest to pray, others come forward for baptism, and some come to confess wrongs, and go their way relieved, with no traceable thought to cessation of the sins.

2. She pretended great affection for him (v. 15). This is indicated by the terms she used. “Therefore” because of the bountiful table for one thing; “came I forth” – she came personally, instead of sending another to bring him; “to meet thee” – not just any man, but him; “I have found thee” – thus complimenting herself on finding him! What follows (vv. 21-23) shows this to be only cheap flattery, designed to get him in her clutches.

This evil woman did two things common to sinners: First, she went to great pains to do her evil work; Second, she pretended to oblige her victim while seeking to destroy him. Bank robbers, communists, anarchists, etc., will spend months, even years, and do whatever is necessary to accomplish their evil purposes. Pretending to oblige the victims began with Satan in Eden (Gen. 3:3,4) and has often been practiced by his servants since (see Ezra 4:1-3; Neh. 6:14; Matt. 2:7-18).

3. She courted him to lie with her (vv. 16-18). First, she tells him of her bed (vv. 16,17). She had prepared it to perfection, so she said! It would please his eye, because decked with coverings of tapestry and carved works; it would pamper his touch, for the sheets were not homespun cloth but fine linen from Egypt; and, it would gratify his smell, being perfumed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.

After the beautiful description, she gave the invitation – “Come!” (v. 18). The devil always paints beautiful pictures of those things which will destroy man. Remember the “Man of Distinction” liquor advertisement? There was the beautiful Great Dane lying by the fire in the elaborate fireplace; the handsome man, in his forties perhaps, with slightly greying temples, dressed in an expensive grey suit was standing there with the glass of liquor in his hand – the “Man of Distinction. ” Of course, the other side was never shown – the drunk in the gutter wallowing in his own vomit; the man in the psycho ward screaming and writhing in his delirium tremens; the man on the hospital bed, almost as yellow as an egg yolk, dying with cirrhosis of the liver; the screech on the highway, the clanging of metal, the shattering of glass, the groans and screams of passengers as glass, oil, gasoline, whiskey and blood mingle together! No, that the devil never shows! He covers it up with his beautiful, hypocritical picture, saying, “Come! Partake! Enjoy!”

Note the woman’s use of the word “love” (v. 18). She means gratification of brutish lust! But, sinners seldom correctly label sin. Infidelity is called “free thought”; fornication is termed “a good time”; digression is called “progress”; obscenity is labeled “art”; and, communistic infiltration is palmed off on an unsuspecting public as “academic freedom”! But, as this young man learned (vv. 22,23), changing the label does not lessen the poison; it only increases the likelihood of its consumption!

4. She anticipates and removes his objections (vv. 19,20). She anticipates the question: “What if your husband catches us? Where will be the ‘solace’ then?” (cf. 6:32-35) In her answer, she calls him “goodman” not “husband.” She ignores the relation of love and duty in which she is placed to him, and speaks of him as one standing at a distance from her” (Keil & Delitzsch, v. 19). Compare the way Potiphar’s wife referred to her husband (Gen. 39:14). Contrast Leah’s reference to Jacob (Gen. 29:32). She also anticipates his thinking: “But what if he returns tonight?” Her answer (vv. 19b, 20) assures him that he went on a “long journey,” so can’t possibly return tonight; he “hath taken a bag of money,” going supplied for a long stay; and, he “will come home at the day appointed,” for he always returns when he says he will, and that is not tonight! Her implication: “Don’t fear; he won’t surprise us; Come, enjoy!”

The Success of the Temptation (vv. 21-23)

The text gives three things which contributed directly to his fall: (a) Her much fair speech” (v. 21). This consisted of her description of provisions she had made (table and bed), her mention of pleasures they would enjoy, and her assurance of impunity. This is the general pattern of all deceivers – provisions, pleasures, impunity! In the case of the devil and Eve (Gen. 3:1-6), the good food was the provision; picking and eating such beautiful fruit, the pleasure; “ye shall not surely die . . . ye shall be as gods” expressed the deceptive impunity. With the chief priests and watchmen (Matt. 28:11-14), “large money” was the provision; things it would buy, the pleasure; and, “if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and secure you,” the expressed impunity. Modern examples include: the dope-ring recruiting peddlers, communists enlisting dupes, atheists captivating souls, and denominationalists making converts. No wonder so much is said against fair speech and smooth words (Psa. 55:20,21; Prov. 5:3-5; Rom. 16:17,18; cf. 1 Cor. 2:4). (b) “The flattering of her lips” (v. 21). As already observed, this consisted in giving him the impression that she had made all these provisions just for him, and he was the only one she cared for. Flattery has two major ingredients: self-interest (Prov. 29:5) and deception (Psa. 12:2), both wrong! (c) His own stupidity and ignorance (vv. 22,23). He is described by three figures: the ox, unconscious that he is being led to his death; the fool (one bereft of reason), unconscious of being led to confinement; and, a bird, unconscious that it is paying its life for one tiny morsel. How ignorant! Stupid! Pitiful! Only those who sneer at the warning and indulge anyway could be more so!

What a downfall it was for this young man! He has started on a course that he may never be able to terminate (cf. 2 Pet. 2:14), one that opens the door to other vices, produces remorse in the soul, debauches the conscience (see 1 Tim. 4:2), brings dishonor to one’s name (but, Prov. 22: 1), may bring disease to his body, and will bring endless damnation to his soul (1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8). “He goes to the slaughter; for houses of uncleanness are slaughterhouses to precious souls” (Matthew Henry).

Solomon’s Application of the Story (vv. 24.27)

1. Hearken to the right one – “unto me” (v. 24). It is not enough to merely hearken; the young man did that, but listened to the wrong one. Others who have made the same mistake include: Eve (Gen. 3), the young prophet (1 Kgs. 13:11-24), and the Israelites who listened to the pessimistic, unbelieving spies (Num. 13:17-33). The majority of the world have their ears turned in the wrong direction now toward skepticism instead of firm belief, toward social benefits instead of spiritual benefits and strength, vice rather than virtue, communistic propaganda rather than responsible freedom, and doctrines of men instead of the word of God. The Lord’s instruction is: “Take heed what you hear” (Mk. 4:24). The soul’s welfare depends on the what and the who of our hearing!

2. Take good counsel when it is given (v. 25). He counsels to guard two things: (a) The heart – “let not thine heart decline to her ways. ” Wishing for her and her ways is to have the mind in the lowest gutter. “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). (b) The actions are to be guarded – “go not astray in her paths. ” To indulge is to go astray; to go astray is to be lost. No better counsel can be given and every young man desperately needs to heed it.

3. Take fair warning when it is given (vv. 26, 27). Look back on the ruin she has wrought (v. 26). Her victims are “many” – not merely one here and there; “yea many strong men” – not just a few weak and simple ones. Hence, great care must be exercised. Look forward to the end of her evil course (v. 27). Her house is the way to hell (Sheol) corresponding to Hades in the N.T. (Vine 11, 187), where the rich man was tormented (Lk. 16:23). It leads to the “chambers of death” – i.e., “to the extreme depths of death” (Keil & Delitzsch, v. 27).

Conclusion

Since the cup of fornication must shortly be changed for the cup of suffering (Rev. 21:8), let all “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18). “Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22). “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

(Note: The writer in indebted to Matthew Henry for the framework and many of the thoughts expressed in this lesson. TLM.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, pp. 326-328
June 1, 1989