Truth Magazine

By Ron Howes

The exercise of the authority of civil governments is ordained of God. So often in reading the statements of some of my brethren vehemently denouncing war and the Christian’s participation in it, the thought is left with me that these fellows somehow think that “sword-bearing” is evil. Far from being evil Paul told the Romans that this was “to thee for good!” (Rom. 13:4). Surpassing even his claim to its goodness, he declared in (Rom. 13:3) “that . . . rulers are not a terror to good works” and follows this fact with the admonition “do that which is good!” Face it friend, the sword bearing authority, legitimately exercised, is a good work.

The Roman legionnaire, engaged in what military historians label a police action in first century Palestine, is here singled out as being a “minister of God.” Some retort, “Yes, -he’s a minister of God, but what he’s doing is evil!” Notice their argument:

1. God commands civil government to bear the sword.

2. Killing with the sword is a sin.

3. Therefore God commands a sin.

The well-traveled apostle of the empire answers that sword bearing is not evil, but “good” (Rom. 13:4).

Paul’s comments on the goodness of sword-bearing by government, come close on the heels of his command to overcome evil with good. The rule of context allows us to ignore the chapter division and carry on with his definition of what God uses to “overcome evil with good.” The answer? The minister of God, he who “bears not the sword in vain!” From Paul’s argument we derive these four clear cut principles.

1. Civil government is God-ordained (Rom. 13:1).

2. Civil disobedience is God-condemned (Rom. 13:2).

3. Civil government’s rule is good, not evil (Rom. 13:3).

4. The sword-bearer is God’s righteous minister (Rom.13:4).

Against these time-weathered principles of the Christian’s civil responsibility come some of the scriptural pugilists of our day seeking to condemn the soldier as the sinner and exalt the pacifist as the true minister of God. Such, was not Paul’s intent. Paul viewed legitimate civil authority as good, bearing the sword for the government as good, and civil disobedience as evil.

With such tired rationale as “all war is evil,” and “all killing is evil,” and “overcome violence with nonresistance,” they would have us keep our sons out of the armed forces, burn the electric chair, and sell our rifles and pistols lest when attacked we should commit some act of violence to stop violent men. But brethren, where is the scripture that commands such?

1. A sword-bearing soldier is doing a good work (Rom. 13:3).

2. A Christian can do that which is a good work (Eph. 2:10).

3. Therefore, a Christian can be a sword bearing soldier.

My Country Right or Wrong?

Definitely not! Just as it is true that some killing done by soldiers and policeman is good, it is also true that not all killing done by soldiers and policemen is good. In Luke 3:14 John told some soldiers on service (see the margin of the A.S.V.) three solid principles of good civil service. The text states

(1) Extort from no man by violence, (2) accuse no man wrongfully, and (3) be content with your wages.

We see that the soldier also is governed by law. Our civil law mirrors these precepts of the baptizer, and it is in this context of the responsible, legal, implementation of the right to bear the sword that we can and must defend it. Whether it is a Christian wearing the sword or a non-Christian makes little difference. Whether it is the policeman on the street, the soldier on the foreign battlefield, or the warden pulling the switch on the electric chair, the law of God governs the responsible use of their authority to kill.

The Christian As A Policeman

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ concept of civil government is that it is ordained of the devil. We sought to show in article one that the legitimate function of the civil government is not just tolerated by God, but originated with Him. According to Paul’s fourth principle, the sword-bearer is God’s righteous minister. According to the rule of the universal application of God’s law, Jew and Greek, rich and poor, wise and foolish are equally responsible to render obedience to those precepts. This rule, plainly stated to a soldier in Acts 17:30, says “all men, everywhere.” The pacifist view of Romans 13:4 must say one of two things:

1. Some men, somewhere have been ordained of God to commit unrighteous acts, or

2. What is a righteous act for the sinner is not a righteous act for the saved.

Either conclusion demands a double standard, makes God a respector of persons, and is something this writer must, therefore, reject.

From Romans 13:4 here is our argument in three points:

1. It is a righteous act for a policeman to kill in the line of duty.

2. A Christian may do that which is a righteous act (Eph. 2:10).

3. Therefore, a Christian may be a policeman and kill in the line of duty.

It is perhaps necessary at this juncture to state that what we are arguing for is the legitimate exercise of the prerogatives of civil government as ordained in Rom. 13:1. In our civilization, civil, military, and international law govern the legitimacy of the sword-bearing function. To defend that right is to defend it within the confines of the laws that govern it, and the law of God from which it came. This is by no means a defense of every policeman who ever fired a pistol. The policeman who takes bribes, breaks the law, or murders the innocent is just as guilty as a common criminal. This is the- only context in which it can and trust, be defended. Gads law demands responsible implementation.

Matt. 22:17 binds the responsibilities of good citizenship on the Chrisian, whether taxes, service on juries, or mandatory enlistment in the armed forces: The Christian is to be a model of respectful submission to duly constituted law, and this includes, the word-bearing function.

Truth Magazine XXII: 14, pp. 237-238
April 6, 1978

By Irvin Himmel

Questions are sometimes asked about angels. All of these inquiries are not from little children. Having never seen an angel, having never felt the touch of one, and having never heard one speak, all that I know about such creatures is what I find in the word of God.

(1) Angels are real. If we can believe the Bible on any point, we should believe what it reveals about angels. Unlike leprechauns, elves, or others among fairies, angels belong to the realm of reality, not to fantasy and fiction. Jesus taught that when a sinner repents, “there is joy in the presence of the angels of God” (Lk. 15:10). One might as well say that God is a mythological character as to classify angels in that category. Repeatedly, from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible speaks of angels as actual beings. To assert that angels are “pure thoughts” or “exalted thoughts,” as Mary Baker Eddy explains them (Science And Health With Key to the Scriptures, pp. 298, 299), is manifestly absurd.

(2) Angels are a higher order than humans. Angels are not to be classed as Deity. The Son of God is superior to the angels (Heb. 1:4). When the Son of God took on humanity by becoming flesh and dwelling on earth, He was made “a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7,9). This makes it clear that humans are lower in rank than angels.

(3) Angels have great strength. David said, “Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength. . .” (Psa. 103:20). These heavenly creatures possess might that is not given to men. When the Lord comes again, He will come with His “mighty angels” (KJV) or “angels of his power” (ASV). During the reign of Hezekiah the Assyrians marched into Judah, but an angel of the Lord smote their army so that 185,000 died (2 Ki. 19:35). This one angel had the power to wipe out so many Assyrians in a single night that Sennacherib left Judah immediately.

(4) Angels are not to be worshiped. Because of their great strength, the suddenness with which they have sometimes appeared, and the manner in which they have come before men, frail humans have been tempted to worship angels. For example, the apostle John on Patmos was rather overwhelmed by the angel that he saw and heard. John said, “And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel . . . .Then said he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God” (Rev. 22:8, 9). This holy angel reminded John to worship God. Paul connected the idea of worshiping angels with “will worship,” which is worship devised by the will of man-a plan of homage totally apart from the will of God (Col. 2:18-23).

(5) Angels are messengers of God. In Gen. 22:11-18 one may read about an angel of the Lord that called unto Abraham out of heaven. God used an angel whose name was Gabriel to reveal certain facts to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist (Lk. 1:5-25). That same angel was God’s messenger sent to Mary, a virgin of Nazareth in Galilee, to inform her that she would give birth to the Son of the Highest (Lk. 1:26-38). The word “angel” means a messenger. God’s holy angels are His heavenly messengers.

(6) Angels are ministering spirits. After showing that the Son of God outranks the angels, the Hebrew writer says of the angels, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Heb. 1:14). Although they often appeared in human form in the Bible, they are spirit beings. The ancient Jewish sect called the Sadducees said, “there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit” (Acts 23:8). Jesus exposed the errors of the Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.

(7) Angels do not marry. The Sadducees’ argument to disprove the resurrection pertained to marriage and was based on the assumption that the husband-wife relationship will continue beyond this life. Jesus said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:29, 30).

(8) Angels are subject to Christ. Peter tells us that Jesus Christ “is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1 Pet. 3:22). This harmonizes with Paul’s teaching in Eph. 1:20-23.

(9) Some angels sinned. “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6). Peter teaches us that God “spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Pet. 2:4). Our Lord spoke of everlasting fire, “prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Wicked men and wicked angels will be judged and punished.

(10) Angels cannot change the gospel. God has placed the responsibility of preaching the gospel in the hands of men, not angels. An angel spoke to Philip the evangelist to put him in contact with the eunuch from Ethiopia, but it was Philip who preached to the eunuch (Acts 8:26, 35). Cornelius saw and heard an angel, but it was by the mouth of Peter that he and the other Gentiles at Caesarea heard the gospel (Acts 10:3; 15:7). Neither men nor angels are allowed to change the gospel. Paul wrote, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any, other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).

The foregoing are plainly revealed facts about angels. All that I know about these wonderful heavenly messengers is what the Bible discloses. That is enough.

Truth Magazine XXII: 14, pp. 236-237
April 6, 1978

By Jeffery Kingry

There is a definite attitude displayed toward evangelists and their support by some brethren and churches that is decidedly unscriptural. Brethren speak of “hiring a preacher” and having him “work for us.” Their idea is that a man, rendered free from a 9 to 5 job by the church’s support, in turn becomes an employee of the church.

I have had brethren inform me that as an employee of the church, I would be expected to work 40 to 50 hours a week. Above and beyond my “supported time” I would be expected to put forth “individual” hours to fulfill my personal responsibility as a Christian. Congregations (and preachers as well) have submitted “contracts” that must be agreed to and signed before “employment” can be accomplished. In some instances the contract is renewed annually after a review by the church. Is any of this scriptural? I think not. The basis for all of this kind of behavior stems from a basic misunderstanding of the work of an evangelist, and what his support consists of.

Hire A Preacher?

Our word “hire” carries with it the concept of submission for pay that is characteristic of the employer-employee relationship. Webster’s Dictionary defines it, “To purchase the personal services of for a set sum, to get done by pay, to employ.” Yet this idea of purchasing or buying a service is not one that is taught in the scriptures. For example, the word translated “hire” in the Greek is misthos. It is used in 1 Tim. 5:18 to encourage brethren to support those elders who labor well. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine, for the scripture saith, Thou shaft not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the laborer is worthy of his reward (misthos).” No-one misunderstands that an elder is still an elder, functions as an elder and is responsible as an elder, whether he is supported or not. No one would ever suggest “hiring an elder.”

In Luke 10:7, Jesus sent out seventy disciples to that the “kingdom is at hand.” He told them to go from city to city, receiving their food and lodging from the hospitality of those they taught. “And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: For the laborer is worthy of his hire (misthos).” No one would say that those who exercised hospitality to the Seventy “employed” those teachers, were their “bosses,” or had the power to require a certain degree of self-appointed service from the Seventy to assure that they “earned their wages.”

While scriptures do teach that an evangelist labors in the Gospel and has a right to expect a reward (hire) from the gospel, scripture utterly rejects the concept that the evangelist (any more than the elder, apostle, or teacher) “sells personal service for a set sum.” On the contrary, the evangelist may receive misthos but he is not a misthotos, or hireling. Misthotos is used four times in scripture: once as “hired servant” (Mk. 1:20) and three times as “hireling,” as in Jn. 10:12,13. “Here it expresses, not only one who has no real interest in his duty, but one who is unfaithful in the discharge of it; that sense attaches always to the word rendered “hireling” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary, p. 222).

To be sure there are hireling preachers (Rom. 16:17,18; 2 Pet. 2:3,14, 15), hireling elders (Acts 20:29; Tit. 1:7b), and false Apostles (Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2) who will preach, teach, and deceive wherever there is personal gain to be found. But the true man of God (1 Tim. 6:11) is not an employee of the church, but a servant of Jesus Christ (tom. 1:1; Jas. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1). A preacher serves and answers to God (2 Cor. 6:4). If the evangelist serves God and pleases his master, he should be acceptable to the church. In this sense a preacher can never be a servant of the church and no amount of support can make him that way. In what way then is he a servant of the church?

In Col. 1:24 Paul declared, “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church — whereof I am made a minister.” How was Paul a minister-servant of the church? As Albert Barnes put it, “The object seems to be . . . a privilege to suffer in the cause of Christ . . . not for the Colossians alone . . . but for his preaching to the Gentiles at large . . . and that he suffered the same kind of persecution as Christ for the church, not that he suffered as much as Christ . . . but that he felt that it was an object to be earnestly desired to be made in all respects just like Christ . . . what he says is based on the leading desire of his soul — To Be Just Like Christ.” In other words the evangelist serves the body in the same way that Jesus did-as a messenger of truth (2 Cor. 2:1517; 3:6; 4:1-5) willing to suffer, even to die for the truth (2 Cor. 6:3-6; 2 Tim. 2:3, 4). A man cannot be paid to do that (1 Cor. 9:16-27).

What Then Is The Money For?

Words like “hire,” “buy,” and “employ” denote the purchase of a service. One may purchase the service of a hireling, but never the service of one who serves another master (Matt. 6:24). The true man of God serves God in all things whether supported or not. The church may free him to do more by supporting him in the work he is doing. There is a distinct difference between “support” and “hire.” I may support an artist, a government, a cause, and never exercise any control or authority with my funds. My only control is a decision either to support or not to support. It is in this way that the church rewards the man of God for his service in teaching, study, rebuke, and evangelism. The preacher is “controlled” in the same way any individual member is. If a preacher sins, he is not to be “fired” but disciplined, the same as every other member. Money spent on evangelism is not benevolence. “If any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10) is a principle that applies to preachers as well as anyone else. God did not mean for the indolent to live off the church. But, any control a preacher’s support may bring a church over the man is a shame upon the church and the evangelist as well.

Paul is a perfect example of the true evangelist that all preachers should emulate. His relationship to a local work had nothing to do with his support. While working in Corinth he received his subsistence from the brethren in Macedonia (Phil. 4:10-15; 2 Cor. 11:9). Even when his living ceased from other churches, he would labor with his hands and continue preaching (2 Thess. 3:8). Paul did the work, as hard and as well as he knew how. He knew he had a right to live of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:4-14) but his joy was in preaching the word (1 Cor. 9:18); often he purposely refused money given to him by some brethren lest some use it as a charge of “hireling” against him (1 Cor. 9:15). He also stated, “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more” (v. 19). Paul did not count hours and divide his days into “church’s paid time” and “my time.” He belonged to Jesus, and he gave all of himself that he might perhaps save a few before he slept with the Lord. When brethren ask about hours spent in service by an evangelist who really serves God, they betray their ignorance of what being a preacher is all about.

Conclusion

If you are looking for a diligent Christian who will work in the community where you live and you wish to free him to spend all of his efforts in God’s service, then there are good men available. You can tell them by their fruits (Eph. 5:9; Gal. 5:22, 23). Paul told Timothy “Put the brethren in remembrance . . . labor, suffer reproach . . . command and teach . . . be an example . . . in word, in manner of life, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity . . . give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine . . . meditate upon these things, give thyself wholly to them that thy profiting may appear to all” (1 Tim. 4:6ff). You will be able to tell the difference between a hireling and the servant of God. The hireling will agree with all you say, meet all your demands, sign your contract, take your money, and give you nothing in return except a scratch behind the ear, or a congregation filled with error, division, and hatred. The man of God will prick your conscience, rebuke your sins, build up your soul, motivate you to work, and run the race with you hand in hand. He will be independent, with a head as hard as flint, and will knuckle under to no demand that smacks of compromise. His support will not be a matter of indifference to him, but his words to you will not lose their edge because you sign his check. You see, the real servant of Christ pleases his boss, because he knows that the only paycheck that matters is that one he gets in eternity.

Truth Magazine XXII: 14, pp. 232-233
April 6, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

John said, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” (1 Jn. 4:15). This passage is often used by Baptists and others to prove that one is saved before and without water baptism. They connect it with the confession of the Ethiopian eunuch, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37). Since the eunuch confessed his faith before baptism, God dwelt in him and he in God before baptism. Therefore, they conclude, salvation, forgiveness of sins, occurs before baptism.

Examination and Refutation of the Argument

On the surface, at first glance, the argument may appear to have merit. Let us look at it a little closer.

(1) False doctrines concerning the nature of Jesus sprang up in the days of the apostles. Some sects said Jesus was a mere man. Certain others said he did not possess a fleshly body. John said, (a) “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” (1 Jn. 4:2) and (b) “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” (1 Jn. 4:15). Each group claimed communion with God, but John shows that- one who denies the manhood and Sonship of Jesus is not of God; God does not dwell in him, and he does not dwell in God. John is not considering the point at which one is saved from his sins.

(2) What about the Roman soldier? He “feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54). Was this soldier of God? Did he dwell in God and God in him?

(3) “And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God” (Mk. 3:11). Were they saved?

(4) Many of the chief rulers of the Jews believed on Jesus, “but they did not confess him” (Jn. 12:42). This poses a problem for “faith only” advocates who use 1 Jn. 4:15 as proof of salvation. They believe one is saved “at the point of faith.” Then these chief rulers were saved, but “they did not confess him.” What do we do with these? According to the faith only argument, they were saved, but in view of 1 Jn. 4:15, they are lost. Will some Baptist tell us the state of these chief rulers? Were they saved or lost?

(5) If one is saved when he confesses Christ prior to baptism, we have one saved before the Lord promised. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). So, if the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was saved before baptism, he was saved contrary to the promise of Jesus. The same type argument can be made on Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Gal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:3, 4; Jn. 3:3, 5.

(6) Confession of Christ as Lord is essential (Rom. 10:9, 10). However, many call him, “Lord,” who will not obey him. “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say” (Lk. 6:46)? “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” (Matt. 7:21). If we use 1 Jn. 4:15 to show that one is saved before baptism, if we say confession is always indicative of salvation, then those who call him, “Lord, Lord,” are saved in their disobedience. If not, why not?

(7) An item cannot be a condition of salvation and an evidence of salvation at the same time and in the same sense. Romans 10:9, 10 reveals that confession is a condition unto salvation, while in 1 Jn. 4:15 it is an evidence of salvation. However, the argument we are. reviewing makes no distinction. It would have the confession of Rom. 10:9, 10 equated with (the same thing as) the confession of 1 Jn. 4:15. As such, confession is represented as both a condition and an evidence of salvation at the same time and in the same sense. That is impossible.

Faith, for example, is a condition of salvation (Jn. 8:24; Heb. 11:6). Faith is an evidence of salvation (1 Jn. 5:1). But it is not a condition and an evidence at the same time and in the same sense. A condition points forward; an evidence looks backward.

Belief and confession are conditions unto salvation (Rom. 10: 9,10).

Belief and confession are evidences of salvation (1 Jn. 4:15; 5:1).

In the first case, salvation is to be obtained after the conditions are complied with. In the second, salvation, previously acquired, is demonstrated or evidenced by faith and confession. Without faith, whether before or after salvation, it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Without confession, whether before or after salvation, it is impossible to please God (2 Tim. 2:12).

(8) Conclusion: No interpretation of a passage can be allowed if it contradicts other plain statements of Scripture. See point number five above. Even if one could not explain the place of 1 Jn. 4:15, he would know that it cannot prove salvation before baptism because the Holy Spirit said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:4, 38).

Truth Magazine XXII: 14, pp. 231-232
April 6, 1978