Truth Magazine

By Wayne S. Walker

There is a theory that has been developed and is going around among some brethren that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually belong in the Old Testament, so that the teachings of Jesus contained in these books do not reveal New Testament doctrine to the church, but are simply his explanations of the Old Testament law and thus were applicable only to the Jews. We began discussing this idea in a previous article, in which we saw that while yes, Jesus did live and die under the Old Testament law, he also began making known certain aspects of his New Testament will even prior to his death, just as a testator draws up his will and may sometimes even reveal portions of it before he dies. But this whole concept raises a very important issue.
 
If it is true that what Jesus said during his personal ministry pertained only to the Jews under the Old Testament, how then can any of his teachings as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be cited to establish truth that is relevant to us? Yet, we see that the New Testament writers of Acts through Revelation frequently appealed to the words and actions of Jesus while on earth in teaching the church. In Acts 20:35, Paul cited something that Jesus personally said as pertaining to the lives of Christians. We do not know exactly when Jesus spoke these words, because they are not recorded in the gospels (note John 21:25). However, the important point concerns how Paul, an inspired apostle, treated what Jesus himself said. Did he imply that it was simply an explanation of the Old Testament law, or did he use it in such a way as to show that it was something that is binding on Christians? Thus, it is important for us to determine how the New Testament writers viewed the words of Jesus.

We see that the apostles and prophets who wrote Acts through Revelation did indeed indicate that Jesus’ words and actions while on earth are binding on those under the New Testament. This is true concerning marriage (1 Cor. 7:10-12). Paul wrote, “I command, yet not I but the Lord.” What did the Lord teach? It was that a wife is not to depart from her husband and a husband is not to divorce his wife. Where did the Lord teach this? One place is found in Mark 10:6-12. We would conclude from Paul’s statement that in this passage Jesus spoke God’s general law for all mankind under his New Testament regarding the relationship between husband and wife. Then Paul wrote, “I, not the Lord, say.” Jesus did not specifically teach anything about the marriage relationship between a believer and an unbeliever, so Paul addressed that situation here by inspiration (note 1 Cor. 14:37). But we see that Paul appealed to Jesus’ teaching before his death to establish the truth regarding God’s general law for husband and wife.

This is also true concerning the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Upon what basis did Paul teach the Corinthians about the Lord’s supper? He did not say, “I am an inspired apostle; this is what I am telling you, so you must do what I tell you.” He could have done that, but rather, he appealed to the example of Jesus to establish the elements and the purpose of the Lord’s supper, even citing the very instance of its institution by the Lord as recorded in Matthew 26:26-29. The question must be asked, are these words of Jesus only an explanation of the Old Testament law applicable to the Jews? The answer is, absolutely not! Even though they were spoken before his death, he himself says that they are things that will be applicable in his kingdom, the church, after his death. If this is the case regarding his teaching on the Lord’s supper, why can it not be the case regarding his other teachings? Thus, we see that inspired apostles appealed to the teaching of Jesus before his death to establish God’s will for us today.

We also see that the apostles and prophets reveal that our salvation was first spoken by the Lord himself. This gets us back to the question that we discussed in our last article as to what Jesus came to reveal. Read Hebrews 2:1-4. The inspired writer is talking about the need to “give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.” We know that he is not talking about Old Testament teaching, because he contrasts this with “the word spoken through angels.” Now, how do we learn the things to which we need to give earnest heed so as not to neglect the great salvation? The writer says that they began to be spoken by the Lord. Now, did the Lord himself speak only things which were applicable to the Jews under the Old Testament? According to the Hebrew writer, he spoke things which we, under the New Testament, need to hear and to which we should give the more earnest heed.

Sometimes the argument is made that Jesus came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; therefore, his teaching on earth was only preparing them for his coming kingdom by calling them back to keeping the Old Testament law and thus does not have any application to us. It is true that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He even makes this statement in Matthew 15:21-24. However, in the context he is not talking about his teaching in general, but the sphere of his personal ministry, and most of all the miracles that he performed. The fact is that while Jesus was sent to prepare the Jews for his coming kingdom, he did so by announcing what would be required of people when they became citizens of that kingdom. Read Matthew 5:3-16. Is Jesus just explaining the Old Testament law here? No, in fact, in verses 17-20 he goes on to say that he would fulfil the Old Testament law. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, and as long as it was in effect he certainly taught the Jews to keep it. But he also began preparing people for his kingdom by speaking of things that relate to the great salvation that would be available in his kingdom after his death.

Then, we see that the apostles and prophets tell us that we must consent to the words of Jesus Christ. In 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Paul puts the “words of our Lord Jesus Christ” on a par with the “doctrine which accords with godliness,” and says that if a person will not consent to them both, he is a false teacher who needs to be withdrawn from. What does it mean to “consent”? The word in the original language means more than just agree with. We agree with the Old Testament as inspired Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17). However, we are not under it and do not obey it. The literal meaning is “come to” (cf. Heb. 4:16, 1 Pet. 2:4). Thus, the idea is to come to the words of Jesus as applicable to us.  It would seem from this passage that any doctrine which says that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ were for the Jews only and not for us today would have to be wrong. Consider a couple of examples of the words of Jesus that apply to us today.

Jesus taught about worship (John 4:23-24). Do these words of Jesus apply to the Jews under the Old Testament or to Christians under the New Testament? They certainly did not apply to the Jews under the Old Testament because according to the law they had to worship in Jerusalem, whereas Jesus says that the hour is coming when the place of worship will not matter. These are some words of Jesus, spoken before his death, to which we must give consent. Also, Jesus taught about church discipline (Matt. 18:15-18). Do these words of Jesus only explain Old Testament law to the Jews or reveal New Testament doctrine to the church? One proponent of this theory affirms that “the church” in this passage is “the church in the wilderness,” a phrase used by Stephen to refer to the congregation of Israelites (Acts 7:38, KJV). However, there is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament that remotely resembles this instruction, and besides, Jesus had just not long before promised to build his church using very similar language (Matt. 16:18-19). So here we have some more words of Jesus, spoken during his earthly life, to which we must consent.

Sometimes the argument is made that if we start looking to the words of Jesus to establish New Testament doctrine, we have a problem because sometimes Jesus did speak specifically to the Jews about the Old Testament law, and thus we could never know for sure if what Jesus was saying is applicable only to the Jews or to us. We recognize that there were times when Jesus was talking to a Jew about some aspect of the Old Testament law, as he did with the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16-17). However, that is not always the case. The context usually makes this quite plain. And, in fact, I would suggest that unless the context indicates otherwise, we had probably better take the words of Jesus, through whom God speaks to us today, as being New Testament doctrine and thus applicable to us.

Furthermore, we have this same so-called “problem” even with the rest of the New Testament from Acts through Revelation. There were times when Paul spoke specifically to the church at Corinth about miraculous spiritual gifts, and said some things that are not applicable to us today because we do not have those miraculous spiritual gifts. But, again, the context usually makes that clear, and it is not a big difficulty in most instances. Therefore, because Jesus Christ came to reveal God’s will to mankind and establish the New Testament, we need to pay attention to the words of Jesus, even the words that he spoke while on earth, because the inspired writers of the New Testament treat them as binding on the church which he built and about which he taught so much during his personal ministry.

310 Haynes St., Dayton, Ohio 45410

By Jonathan L. Perz

Iam writing in response to an article entitled “The Law, Money,
and  Modesty” by Frank Jamerson (Truth Magazine, October 21, 1999; Vol. XLIII, No. 20, 14-15). While I appreciate the overall message brother Jamerson expressed, I believe he inadvertently did a grave disservice to the subject of modest apparel in making his point. Indeed, it is nothing short of fact that we cannot bind the Law of Moses today, as brother Jamerson contended. However, in proving this point, he alludes to what “some contend” regarding modest apparel and ties it to a rather extreme conclusion. While it is not impossible to imagine well-meaning brethren taking the Old Testament examples of Adam and Eve and their tunics (Gen. 3:21) and the priests and their attire (Exod. 28:42) and concluding that we must wear “linen trousers to the knee” (seventh paragraph), it is very difficult to see such a conclusion being upheld. If it were, we would have a “problem” (sixth paragraph). Yet, by linking these Old Testament examples with this conclusion and not giving a proper conclusion for such examples, brother Jamerson inadvertently belittles anyone who would use such Scriptures to help people understand the New Testament principle of modest apparel. I preach on immodest apparel and I use the Old Testament examples set forth, as well as many other examples — both in the Old and New Testaments. I know of other preachers, like myself, who do so also. Yet, in no way do we draw the conclusion set forth. Furthermore, in no way do we teach that God gives men and women today “specific attire” to wear (sixth paragraph).

Now, I do not believe for a second that brother Jamerson intentionally meant to belittle anyone. However, it is not so much the preachers who use these examples that concern me, as it is the harm the examples themselves suffer when shed in such a light.

Brother Jamerson points out two contexts in the New Testament that deal with the subject of modest apparel — 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 and 1 Peter 3:3, 4. With one minor exception, that is, 1 Peter 3:3, 4 should include verses 5-6 (which I will explain momentarily), it is agreed that this is the law that Christ’s blood binds upon us.

However, after pointing us to these two contexts, brother Jamerson writes, “We may wish that God had given a specific length, height, and tightness of the skirt, but he did not, and to teach the Old Law as God’s standard is the same mistake as teaching the Old Law on giving” (7th paragraph). I agree, God has not given us the specific length, height, and tightness in these New Testament citations. But, he has clearly given us principles to help us understand what length, height, and tightness should be deemed, as a minimum, unacceptable. Some of these God given principles are found in the examples of Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen. 3:21) and the priest’s attire (Exod. 28:42; also Exod. 20:26), among others.

Is it not true, that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for . . . instruction in righteousness,” among other things (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? Are we not talking about being righteous when we speak of modest apparel? Therefore, is it not true that these Old Testament principles ought to, in some way, help us understand what God deems righteous and what God deems unrighteous? More specifically, through the Old Testament can we not come to understand what God says constitutes nakedness and what God says constitutes clothed? Do not these principles of nakedness and clothed address, in some way, the specifics of length, height, and tightness? I believe this is the impact of verses such as Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11. We are to turn to these Old Testament examples, take heed and learn. We can have comfort and confidence knowing what God accepts and does not accept, wearing clothing that conforms to these consistent principles.

Yet, several other questions come to mind in light of such thinking. Has God’s standard of modesty changed between the Old and New Covenants? Are not the writings of Moses and the other Old Testament writers inspired of God, as much as Peter and Paul’s? Is not the principle of God’s very own thinking in the Garden a sufficient enough principle to follow, even in the Christian age under the New Covenant? Principally, should we not take the same pains in dressing ourselves as God did in assuring the priest’s nakedness was not exposed (cf. Exod. 20:26)? Was Peter guilty of sin or of being a “Pharisee” (last paragraph) when he directed brethren back to the examples of “the holy women” of “former times,” specifically Sarah, Abraham’s wife (1 Pet. 3:5-6)? For that matter, was Jesus guilty of sin when he cited his Father’s teaching from the Old Testament regarding divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:1-9)?

My concern is that brother Jamerson’s article leaves us confused regarding the use of the Old Testament principles regarding modest apparel. He confuses and interchanges the “Old Law” with the “principles taught in the Old Law” when he says, “The principles taught in the Old Law were written for our learning, but we must remember that it was not dedicated by the blood of Christ . . .” (last paragraph). Does “it” refer to the Old Law, or its principles? Indeed, the Old Law hangs on the cross with our sins (Col. 2:14), but most of its principles are alive and well as they are established in the New Testament!

The subject is further confounded when he, more or less, leaves the dictates of modest apparel to nothing more than the customs of the day by saying, “The New Testament teaches that women should conform to the customs of the day, so long as they do not conflict with God’s law” (6th paragraph) and again, “when it was customary for women to wear garments to the ankle, Christian women would have been immodest to have worn a garment just to the knees” (7th paragraph). I agree, we must not conform beyond that which will conflict with God’s law, but how do we know what customs conflict with God’s law? How can we determine when a mini-skirt is too short? What shorts and tops are acceptable? Is a halter-top modest? Is it acceptable for a Christian to wear a thong bikini if everyone else is wearing one? The fact is, the customs of the day change regarding length, height and tightness. For that matter, almost anything goes now when it comes to length, height, and tightness! Does this mean anything goes for Christians?

I believe the crucial question for the Christian is, “Have God’s principles changed?” I agree that we cannot derive “exactly what is modest,” but we can draw a finer line than the dictates of conscience and worldly fashion customs. I agree with brother Jamerson that God has not bound the “tunics of skin” Adam and Eve wore and the “linen trousers” the Levitical priests wore.  However, I firmly believe God has bound the principles that dictated such attire when he said, “that women adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9).

Can we know what is naked and what is clothed, what is modest and what is immodest? Can we know what is shamefaced, chaste, and sober and what is not? Can we know, to some degree, what manifests a “gentle and quiet spirit” and what does not? Can we know what professes godliness with good works and what does not? To say we cannot is to say God has given us commands that we cannot possibly understand, let alone keep. If we say we cannot, can we ever really know what God has declared “ostentatious” or “skimpy” (last paragraph)?  Once again, I agree, “. . . if Christians understand the principles of godliness and have a heart that is transformed, the externals will take care of themselves” (Rom. 12:1-2). This is why we must never be deterred from illustrating New Testament principles with Old Testament examples that help us to understand perfectly the principles of godliness and transform our hearts!

The fact of the matter is this, when we go to the Old Testament and use examples that teach timeless principles harmonious with what is revealed in the New Testament, we are no more guilty of binding the Law of Moses than Peter or Jesus. However, if we go the Old Testament regarding modest apparel and declare that men must wear the exact articles of clothing God prescribed for those of old — we are indeed guilty of binding the Law and we have indeed become “estranged from Christ” (Gal. 5:4). Friends, there is a clear distinction — one that we must never lose sight of.

1621 Hillcrest Dr., Green Bay, Wisconsin 54313

By J.S. Smith

In both testaments of the holy Scriptures, God teaches and demands integrity in his people. Christians should, above all, be people of their word, trusted to do as they say. But what of promises that one makes which he later learns are evil? Are such promises still binding upon him, or does God expect a facet of his repentance to be casting off such vows?

Under the Law of Moses

Vows made during the Mosaic dispensation were to be considered seriously before being uttered, because to break such an oath was sinful. Ecclesiastes 5 succinctly summarizes the position of the law regarding oaths and the danger of making them rashly. “Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. . . . When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed — Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands” (Eccl. 5:2, 4-7)?

Very clearly, the Holy Spirit teaches that failure to fulfill a vow to God was sinful. Vows were quite common in the Old Testament. Jacob vowed upon entering Mesopotamia to give the Lord a tenth of his estate at Bethel (Gen. 28:20-22). We also have the example of a parent vowing to devote her child to the Lord’s service in the case of Hannah and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:22-28). Such a vow could be redeemed, however, if the one taking the oath changed his mind (Lev. 27:2-3). The price of redemption was valued in terms of silver so that the oath could not lightly be altered at little expense.

A man’s vows were considered more binding than a woman’s. “If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (Num. 30:2). A woman’s vow could be overridden by her father or husband (Num. 30:3-16).

Finally, the law contained a provision for situations in which a rash oath was made to do evil and later regretted prior to its fulfillment. “Or if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it — when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters” (Lev. 5:4). The remaining verses of this chapter prescribe the manner by which the penitent oath taker can have the priest make sacrifice for his sin. He was not obligated to fulfill the oath he made rashly, especially if it was a promise to commit evil, but was yet a sinner for making the rash oath in the first place. 

Perhaps the case of Jephthah is an example of a rash oath (Judg. 11). With an idolatrous mindset, he promised to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house if God would give him a victory already assured by the Spirit of the Lord. Following the battle, his own daughter emerged to greet him at home and he felt compelled to sacrifice her. Should he have kept this vow? It does not seem that Jephthah ever realized that it was sinful to commit human sacrifice and so an appeal to redemption or atonement for making a rash oath seem unlikely.

Just as clearly, we understand that killing his daughter would be sinful. It violated the law of Moses in that it was murder (Exod. 10:13) and a form of undesirable worship which was worthy of the death penalty (Lev. 20:1-5).

There is also the case of David and Nabal in 1 Samuel 25. David sought to purchase food from Nabal while traveling, but was rebuffed and the future king vowed to God that he would wipe out Nabal’s family: “May God do so, and more also, to the enemies of David, if I leave one male of all who belong to him by morning light” (v. 22). That vow was sinful to make and would have been sinful to execute, as David learned when Nabal’s longsuffering wife, Abigail, came to entreat David to spare him. David decided not to carry through with his oath: “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! And blessed is your advice and blessed are you, because you have kept me this day from coming to bloodshed and from avenging myself with my own hand” (1 Sam. 25:32-33). David realized that vengeance belonged to God, not him (Deut. 32:35) and that although he had called God to witness his homicidal vow, fulfilling it would be adding sinful execution to sinful intent. He was grateful someone prevented him from keeping a vow to do evil.

In The New Testament

When the Lord arrived, he quickly began to teach against forswearing, making vows without any genuine intention of fulfilling them. “Swear not at all . . .  But let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘ no,’ ‘no,’” he taught on the mount (Matt. 5:34-37).

Christians are to be true to their word and keep their promises, but again one wonders about promises that are made to do evil, perhaps ignorantly, which are revealed prior to fulfillment. Should the Christian keep his vow to do evil or should he repent of it?

What of the Catholic priest who makes vows to God to keep his collar for a lifetime but then is converted to the truth? Should he keep that vow or should it be part of his repentance? The same can be asked of the nun and monk.

Across America today, homosexuals are being married by liberal denominationalists, claiming to carry God’s blessing. Such couples are making vows to God like those heterosexual couples make. What if I have opportunity to teach them? Should I get them baptized and command them to continue living in sin, for it is part of their vow to God?

More pertinently, what of the heterosexual couple who marries without scriptural authority for some reason? Suppose one of the spouses is a put away fornicator, who then is converted. Should she keep her vow made to God to commit adultery, in effect, or should she repent completely (Matt. 19)?

The answer to all these questions is obvious. A vow to commit sin should be repudiated as soon as knowledge conquers ignorance.    

An Example

When I was 17-years-old and a senior in high school, I was faced with just such a conundrum. In March, I asked a young lady to accompany me to the prom. In April, I began visiting the local church of Christ and was taught by Harry Rice and a host of other godly people that modern dancing was lewd and wrong. May was coming and the prom with it and my conscience was nagging at me. 

Should I follow my newly disciplined conscience and break my prom date or should I be true to my promise to the young lady, who surely would have been rather upset at that late date?

I made the wrong choice and kept my promise to her. I committed sin that night in the lewdness of dancing (Gal. 5:19) when I could have made a stronger point on faithfulness instead. I regret keeping that promise; I wish I broken it and been true to God’s word instead.

Conclusion

Christians should be people of their word and should not make promises rashly. When they vow to be somewhere or do something, they should carry through with it, even if the costs rise for some reason. Vows to commit sin, however, should be repudiated, as David cast off his rash oath to murder Nabal’s household, once Abigail brought him to his senses.

SmithJeffS@aol.com.

By Heath Rogers

Sermon preparation takes a lot of work: deciding what to preach on, hours of study, placing thoughts in outlines that flow well, creating points that will be understood and remembered after the sermon is over, tying in an invitation. If a preacher hasn’t put a lot of work into preparing his sermon, it will show. I have several books on how to prepare and deliver a sermon, but none on how to listen to a sermon. Isn’t that strange? I believe that what takes place on the listeners’ side of the pulpit is just as important as what happens on the preacher’s side.

When a person leaves a worship service and complains, “I didn’t get anything out of the sermon,”  “I couldn’t understand what he was saying,” or when one leaves services and forgets what the sermon was about before he even gets to his car, something has gone wrong. But is this always the preacher’s fault? Yes, perhaps the preacher could have done a better job on presenting his material, could have chosen a better text or a more appropriate topic. But, could it also be that the listener didn’t put forth any effort?

The Bible tells us that there is a right way to listen to a sermon in order to get the most out of it. Allow me to make three suggestions from James 1:21-22: “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

First, James tells us what to do before the sermon —        “ . . . lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.” We expect the preacher to be prepared when he gets behind the pulpit. Doesn’t he have a right to expect us to be prepared to listen? We do this by removing sinful things from our mind — laying aside all filthiness and wickedness. All the sinful and troublesome things that are cluttering our minds and demanding our attention need to be removed.

Might I suggest that you spend some time before you leave for worship services reading and meditating upon the word of God. I know Sunday mornings are busy, but instead of setting the alarm clock where you will have just enough time to make it to services, why not set it early so you have enough time to arrive prepared? On the way to services listen to gospel hymns, or quietly meditate upon passages of Scripture or the worship you are about to engage in. And during worship, pay attention to the words of the songs you sing. They will also prepare your mind to receive God’s word. Some people spend a lot of time and take much care to make sure they are prepared physically (dress, hair, make-up, etc.), but how much time is spent in spiritual preparation before worship services?

Second, James tells us what to do during the sermon — “. . . receive with meekness the engrafted word.” We must listen to what is being preached. In the Parable of the Sower, the first soil (the wayside soil,  Matt. 13:4) represented the heart which does not understand the word (v. 19). The word is not received into the heart and it is lost. It is our job as listeners to receive the word.

We receive the word by understanding it. This is partly the preacher’s responsibility — he needs to preach the word in a way that can be understood as easily as possible. I have heard more than one sermon which went straight over my head. I am all for preachers getting an education, but they need to remember who they are preaching to. If a sermon is so complicated that it can’t be understood, then it can’t be received! If it can’t be received, it is a waste of time and effort.

We also receive the word by accepting it and believing it to be true. We are told to receive it with “meekness.” Why meekness? Meekness is humility, mildness, or strength under control. W.E. Vine says of this meekness, “It is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting; . . . it is only the humble heart which is also the meek, and which, as such, does not fight against God and more or less struggle and contend with Him” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words). To receive the word with meekness means we accept it without disputing, resisting, struggling or contending. Some people just can’t do that. But we must.

Another important part of listening to a sermon is realizing that we are receiving the word of God. We are listening to that “which is able to save your souls.” Paul reminded the Thessalonians, “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). It doesn’t matter if we are listening to a well seasoned preacher in his 70s or 80s or listening to a teen-aged boy struggle through his first Wednesday night invitation, it is the word of God that we are hearing! It is demanding of our attention. There are important things that we could be hearing about — how to invest our money and prepare for our future, how to get the best education for our children, how to protect ourselves from disease, violence, theft, etc. But when we hear the word of God preached, we are hearing that which can save our soul. All these other things will be gone some day, but our soul lives forever. Where it lives will depend on how we have received the word of God!

Third, James tells us what to do after the sermon — “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” After we hear the sermon, and have studied what we heard to make sure it is the truth (Acts 17:11), we must apply it to our lives and do it. We are to receive with meekness, which means that what the word tells us to do — we do. We don’t dispute or resist — we do it.

Bible instruction is not complete until it is applied to the lives of people. We can attend every service and hear every sermon ever preached, we can attend every Bible class and have a good understanding of what the Bible teaches, but until we apply that knowledge to our lives it does us no good.

And we need to make application of the sermon to ourselves — not to other people! If the sermon is about prayer — consider your prayer life. If the sermon is about brotherly love, consider your attitude towards your brethren. If the sermon is about the work of the church, consider how you fit in and what you can be doing. After their sermon, preachers often hear, “I know someone who needed to hear that one.” While that may be true, you happen to be the one who heard it — what did you get out of it?

If we hear, but fail to do, we have deceived ourselves. The word is able to save our souls, but not until we make application of it to our lives. The world is full of people who claim to be Christians, who say they are saved and are headed for Heaven. But their lives haven’t been changed by the word of God because they have failed to do what the word tells them. They have no more applied the word of God to their life than the man in the moon. Yet, they are convinced they are saved. They have deceived themselves — how sad! How tragic! Jesus spoke of these people in Matthew 7:21. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Only those who do the will of God will enter Heaven. Are you a “doer” or a “hearer only”?