Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Human sexuality is a topic that needs to be taught in the home, in Bible classes, and from the pulpit. Both youth and adults need information and understanding of sex as God designed it and intended it.

Now, many may be offended by such a bold statement. “What? Sex from the pulpit?!” The crucial issue is the lack of understanding of the nature of sex education I am referring to. The misunderstanding most people have of sex education grows out of a limited view of sex. Sex is sometimes equated with intercourse. It is much more than this. Sexuality also involves roles, relationships, and attitudes. It is an integral part of our total being, permeating our personality and including all of our relationships from infancy onward.

The current upheaval in sexual conduct is reflected in the confusion and lack of real knowledge of human sexuality by the world. Mechanical experimentation by “scientists” into the physical operation of intercourse demonstrates one sadly limited view of sex-as if answers to human sexuality could come from a minute study of the progenitive act. Experimentation in trial marriages, group marriages, free of sex in the masculine and love, the exploitation media, unisex attempts to destroy feminine distinctions, women’s liberation propaganda, the move to deify sex (and the reactionary effort to demonize it) all painfully demonstrate widespread and deeply ingrained ignorance of sexuality as God has created and planned it.

Just as sex is not limited to physical union, so sex education is not limited to reproductive education. To be sure this information is needed, but the functions of the body are easily learned in any biology class. There is a wealth of tasteful and accurate material available to aid the parent in answering questions and in giving positive knowledge in this area. But in addition to facts of life, godly sex education also gives proper place to attitudes toward sexuality. Proper sex education involves our place and role as male and female, husband and wife, parent and child, and of our relationships to others of our sex. Godly sex education teaches moral values concerning our sexuality, the right and wrong of sexual behavior.

Understood in this sense, we see that sex education is indeed a prerogative and responsibility of the home and the church. The inherent danger of depending on the school system to provide sex education is that the world is ill-equipped and incompetent to teach what true sexuality is. They may be able to give accurate biological instruction, teach hygiene and provide for physical education, but only those whose faith is centered in God and his revelation can give instruction in attitudes, roles, relationships, and mores. By defaulting on our responsibility we force the young, the misinformed, the confused, and the deceived into seeking answers for their questions elsewhere. God has guaranteed us that those who seek answers in darkness will only find more of the same (Rom. 1:21ff; Eph. 4:1719; Jude 4,7).

The Nature of Sexual Abuse

The basic nature of sexual abuse is centered in ignorance of God’s will. Like all physical and spiritual responsibilities, true gratification, happiness, fulfillment, dignity, self respect, and ultimate salvation depends on faith in God’s teaching and obedience to that will. When men forget God, they lose their bearings and become lost. Seeking to find their own way they only stumble farther away from God and true happiness. In so doing, while believing themselves quite sophisticated, they have indeed become miserably unhappy.

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .” (Rom. 1:21,22). The result of such? Men became sodomists, child abusers, homosexuals. Women became lesbians. Because “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” Sexual abuse led to other abuses personal and social (vss. 29-32) until, the ungodly lives of those poor creatures were utterly destroyed: “Receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (vs. 27).

All sexual “sickness” stems from a failure to know God’s will concerning human sexuality. Studies of the origins of homosexuality reveal a common denominator: the absence of a father figure to give the child a strong sexual self-image, and the presence of a domineering and overpowering mother figure, often looked upon as a competitive threat. When people have no fixed sexual figure to identify with they “pick up” whatever is about. God’s rules for the family, and for our benevolence to the “fatherless and widows” demands that a strong family with a father as head and leader be set forth as a sexual image. Current women’s lib, day care centers, singles adoption laws, easily procured divorce, and apathy of Christians to provide family and male leadership and guidance to the fatherless will only produce more of the same corruption we see all about us today in “Gay lib.” Godly sexual education in the home would eliminate homosexuality. The gospel can bring the homosexual unto newness of life.

Other forms of sexual abuse-fornication, adultery, venereal disease, prostitution, pornography, illegitimacy child abuse, spouse desertion, divorce, male machoism, female rebellion etc. are all products of ignorance of God’s will or an unwillingness to submit to God’s commandments. Only the faithful can expect “blessedness” in their relationships. Sexual abuse always ultimately brings despair and damnation.

We Need to Teach

We need to instruct the young and the misinformed in the church the proper place and role of the father and mother in the home and to one another. Christians need to know and live according to God’s demands of their sex. The scope of this article is too limited to give all the Bible’s teaching on female sexuality, but just a few scriptures listed demonstrate how much God has given us to help the woman determine her sexual role and relationships (Rules of dress and conduct: 1 Tim. 2:9,10; 1 Pet. 3:3,4. Relationships to men: 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Cor. 11:3ff; 1 Tim. 2:11-15. Domestic responsibilities: Matt. 24:41; 1 Tim. 5:9-14; Tit. 2:3-5. To husbands: 1 Cor. 7:2-40; Eph. 5:22-23). Scripture instructs the man his responsibilities as a sexual being (Matt. 5:28; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 6:13-19; 1 Cor. 7:1,2; Col. 3:5,19; Eph. 5:25-33; 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Pet. 3:7).

Only when men and women know who they are and how God wants them to live can they be fully mature spiritually, socially, and physically. In closing I proffer a quote from a brother who has demonstrated in his life a full and proper understanding of God’s will in this area:

“Why did God arrange marriage? . . . God said ‘It is not good that man should be alone.’ One of the functions of marriage therefore, is to provide companionship . . . Man, looked at in one way, is incomplete without woman . . . therefore, a marriage that is the kind that it ought to be is one in which there is companionship. For a man and a woman to be married and be (constantly separated) is certainly not the relationship God desires.

“God made man and he knew what would be best, and God made man with (sexual appetites) …Ther is nothing dirty about it; and nothing is unclean about it; there is nothing. immoral about it; and we ought not to act like there is. But, just as God made man with certain desires, ther are right and wrong ways to gratify these desires. God made man with an appetite for food; he gets hungry. There is a right and a wrong way to gratify that desire. The right way is to work for our food. It is wrong to steal food. We ought to teach our children that God created them with a desire for food, and that the only logical, reasonable, scriptural way to get it is to work for it.

Just as God has proscribed our (hunger), so he has proscribed (our sexual appetites) . …Any effort to get around the basic regulation of Gos is wrong and sinful, and we need to teach our children that it is” (Hiram O. Hutto, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, pp. 3,4).

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 698-699
November 10, 1977

By William C. Sexton

In the first article, we sought to establish (1) God does have a marriage law; (2) it can be and often is violated; (3) the consequences of that violation is sin; (4) unless that sin is forgiven one is lost and cannot enter heaven; and (5) to have those sins forgiven, one must comply with God’s terms of forgiveness, if he is a child of God or an alien. Now, we would like to focus our attention on types of violations. You may be surprised to see us point to this aspect of the subject. However, I suggest to you that herein lies the potential for prevention. Knowing is not enough; an essential part of being able to avoid mistakes and wrongs is to know what mistakes and wrongs are.

I. Default (withholding or deprivation, 1 Cor. 7:2-5). Every man is to have his “own wife.” Likewise, every woman is to have her own husband. A husband that does not give himself to his wife is not observing God’s rules! Likewise, a wife that does not give herself to her own husband is violating the law of God. Worse things have occurred in the marriage relationship due to this basic violation. Prostitutes have recognized this (some have said that if wives served their husbands well they would be put out of business). Such is true. I am convinced that if some husbands had endeavored to satisfy their wives as they deserved, then “another man” would not and could not have entered the picture.

Marriage is designed to meet a very basic need of man, the sexual drive, which is a part of every “normal” man and woman. Paul, the inspired apostle of the Lord pointed to that and specifically charged each not to “defraud ye one the other;” he pointed to the danger that one is placed in when he has withheld from him that which is to be supplied in the marriage relationship. “Satan” is well aware of that basic need and will. take advantage of the deprivation to “tempt you . . . for your incontinency” (v. 5). Abstinence in this area is to be done only with the “consent” of both, only for a short duration, and for a higher purpose (“that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; . . .”). I suggest that a violation of this basic need has led to many a broken home and broken lives; it will produce a multitude of souls in hell for an eternity.

“Love” of the wife by the husband is demanded by the Lord (Eph. 5:25). He who withholds this is violating God’s law, depriving his wife, and injuring his potential for happiness here and now and forever. Submission of the wife to her “own” husband is, likewise, demanded by the Lord (Eph. 5:22). She who withholds this is disobeying God, hurting her husband as well as those who view her life as a Christian, and playing in the flames of hell. May we, beloved, see the Lord’s law. Believe it. Be careful that we apply it, speak it, and love it! Be not violaters of God’s law, least ye be broken by it!

II. Triangle (creating a three party system 1 Cor. 6:16-18). By bringing in a third party, one is guilty of turning a two-party-God-approved relationship into a three-party-God-disapproved relationship. At this point, it is necessary that we look at the meaning of two words: adultery and fornication. English generally distinguishes between them on the basis of being married or unmarried; (1) “fornication” being defined as sexual intercourse between unmarried individuals and (2) “adultery” being between a married person and one other than the one to whom he is married. The Greek words from which these words are translated are: (1) Porneia-fornication; it is the general term that is used to describe all kinds of illicit sexual intercourse; (2) Moicheia-adultery is the specific act of illicit, unlawful sexual intercourse between a married person and another. So, in the New Testament, the ford fornication is the broader term and would, at times, embrace the concept of “adultery” too. But, I suggest to you that there are at least three types of “adultery” spoken of in the New Testament (Matt. 5:28 “heart”; Matt. 19:9 “marry another”; Jn. 8:4 the “act”).

Fornication is a unique sin (1 Cor. 6:16-18). Paul mentions that “every sin” that a man commits, other than fornication, is “without the body;” but fornication is sinning “against his own body.” This verse tells us something about the meaning of being “one flesh.” So, the point, if I understand it, is that when people are “joined” together in the sexual union they are the “one flesh.” This is not saying necessarily that fornication is the worst sin that can be committed, or that it is really any worse than another. But it is saying that it is different from all others, or else I am missing the point completely.

He who will serve God cannot tolerate this sin. God did not tolerate it with Israel (Jer. 3:8). A person who commits fornication in weak moments and then asks to be forgiven, should be forgiven (Lk. 17:3-4). However, when one continues to commit this sin and does not repent and turn to God, a person who is dedicated to God must withdraw from that relationship. A person who will continue to allow such sin to be committed without withdrawing and denouncing it will become a party to the sin (1 Cor. 5:6). Evil is to be recognized, denounced, and separated from (2 Cor. 6:15-18). In our land today, the concept that extra-marital sexual relations is being advanced as being “good” and necessary to “save” some marriages. Such is ungodliness at its peak!

III. Divorce (Putting away a person who has not been unfaithful). Jesus said to “put away,” saving for the cause of fornication, is to cause “adultery” to be committed. Thus, that person who puts away for any other reason would be guilty of violating God’s law. He who so acts, places a person in a position that he is deprived of a need and, thus, tempts him to become a part of a relationship that is not approved of God. Marriage is entered so as to fulfill this need, along with other needs that we have already mentioned. So, let every person who is about to take this step think! Look and see where it will lead.

God tells us that He “hateth putting away: . . .” (Mal. 2:16). Paul dealt with the same concept, as we have noticed before (1 Cor. 7:10-11). First, determine to never depart, but if that step is taken, then be sure that you remain unmarried or be reconciled to the one from whom you departed. Not, enough is spoken about this by teachers and thus young people grow up ignorant of the Lord’s teachings. Therefore, they plunge head-long into something that is to be for life, thinking if it does not work we will “try again.” Are Christians guiltless who allow this to happen, without having done all to advocate the truth of God’s word? I think not!

IV. Remarriage (Matt. 19:9). If a man puts away a wife without her having committed fornication and then marries another, the Bible is as clear as can be that he is guilty of “adultery.” If the one that is put away marries another both she and the one she marries is guilty of adultery. In other words, if two people are married, they divorce and remarry without fornication being committed, then there are four people guilty of “adultery.” This principle is disregarded by many and denied and denounced as “untrue” by many others; some of them claim membership in the “Church of Christ.”

Paul deals with this point in Rom. 7:2-3, not using the exception. If while her husband lives, she be married to “another man” then she is an “adulteress.” Question: a woman marries another man while her husband is alive, so the Bible says that she is an adulteress; now ten years passes, is she any less an adulteress than when it first occurred? What about after twenty years? In fact does time have any bearing on the matter? No! It does not matter if it is fifty years later, she is still an “adulteress.”

Some try to say this woman would be guilty of polyandry. However, the Holy Spirit did not cause Paul to call her a polyandrist; rather he called her an “adulteress.” However, the people who charge her with being a polyandrist would admit that she could not remain such and be pleasing to God; the extent of time she remained would have nothing to do with taking the guilt away. She would have to cease being a polyandrist, if she wanted to become a “saint,” one sanctified by God’s grace and cleansed in the blood of Christ.

There are many theories regarding the violations of God’s marriage law, the consequences, and/ or application of the truth. The next two papers shall be an effort to examine those different theories which are presented by brethren on this matter. I hope that your interest will continue, and that you will give a fair hearing to the things that are said. Then after you clearly understand these concepts, you will evaluate them in the light of God’s word. Having done that, you will then decide what is required of you as an individual; also, you will need then to decide what you feel is required of the congregation of which you are a member.

In closing, however, let us ask the question: Have you violated God’s law in regard to this or any other matter? If so, have you met the requirements to have the transgression forgiven? If not, will you not meet those requirements before it is too late, and you have to suffer the consequences? My prayer is that you have complied with God’s requirements.

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 697-698
November 10, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Major Contribution or Characteristic in Approach to Unity: A recent Roman Catholic author said, “the supranational position” and infallible “authority of the papacy” has become “the most important factor in Church life” (Dvornik, p. 93). Occasional dissent arises and Modernism-Liberalism has attacked Bible, pope, Church, tradition, and anything else claiming infallibility. Basically, though, within Roman Catholicism the popes have achieved and are maintaining their role as “the centre of unity for the Christian world” (Rouse and Neill, p. 22; emphasis added, RH). Many today would find that hard to believe in view of all the publicity certain Roman Catholic dissidents have been receiving. But the quotations given above represent agreement on the modern role of papal dominence, coming from both Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars. True, there have been rumblings in the Roman Catholic empire; but there have always been! The existence of such rumblings of discontent do not determine how “the bottom line” reads. The careful observer will notice that the modern popes manuever and occasionally concede, but here is how “the bottom line” still reads: no firm counter-authority to the pope has been established to this day. Some of his subjects may be ignoring the Lawless One in certain matters; the fact remains that no strong, central spokesman, authority, or mechanism has arisen to replace the central authority of the pope. His role as “the centre of unity” has not been successfully challenged. His dominant role is the overriding theme on the question of unity during the Reformation Age. What the future holds remains to be seen, but there is no certain evidence of a change at this point.

Council of Trent, 1545-1563

This Council was called by Pope Paul III and concluded by Pius IV. The latter demonstrated papal supremacy over present and future councils by personally selecting “a special congregation of cardinals which still functions today” to give the official interpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent (Dvornik, p. 91). Three hundred years after the Council of Trent, John F. Rowe observed, “the Roman Catholic Church of the present day is but a counterpart, theologically and morally, of the council of Trent” (Rowe, p. 276).

The Council of Trent was an all-out effort by Catholicism to turn back the tide of the Protestant Reformation. It specially condemned the teachings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other major Reformation figures. Tradition was declared equal to the Bible as a source of authority, in contradiction to Reformation doctrine. The Roman Catholic canon of the Bible was defined. The Latin or Vulgate Bible was made the official translation, in opposition to translations being made into the common language of the day by many Reformation leaders. Not only did the council state the pope was supreme in all matters,.but it demonstrated the fact by submitting all decisions to him for confirmation!

The Vatican Council, 1869-1870

Pope Pius IX convened the Vatican Council. He did much “preparatory work” through specially appointed commissions beginning in 1865. In other words, much of the outcome of this Vatican Council was predetermined by the Pope himself. The opening of this Council reflected how thoroughly the popes had come to fill the role of the old emperors. “The open Gospel” was placed on the altar just as Emperor Constantine, at the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), set the Bible “in the place of the statue of Victory, which stood in the front of the presidential tribune in the Roman Senate.” As the Roman senate had once acclaimed the Emperor, and as the Council of Chalcedon (451) had acclaimed Emperor Marcian, so at the Vatican Council “all present rendered homage to the pope, presiding at the session” (Dvornik, pp. 95-96 note).

The Vatican Council proclaimed papal infallibility. His infallibility was declared to be a means of expressing the Church’s infallibility. Yet, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his decree is not dependent upon “the consent of the Church” for validity. This extreme exaltation of a man into the very seat of God is so significant that we here will quote the canon verbatim:

“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, namely when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, Is, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, possessed of that infallibility with wlfich the divine Redeemer willed his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable” (Dvornik, p. 102).

We cannot pass from the Vatican Council without noticing the courageous yet pathetic figure, Bishop Joseph G. Strossmayer of Diakove, Croatia (inhabited by Slavic or Serbian people). At the 31st General Congregation, on March 22, 1870, he objected to a statement which identified Protestantism as the origin of all modern heresy. He believed many Protestants sincerely loved Christ and erred only “in good faith.” His objection was defeated and some cried out, “He is another Luther, let him be cast out” (Dvornik, p. 96).

Furthermore, on the very day that the fateful vote was taken defining papal infallibility (85th General Congregation, July 13, 1870), he made a courageous speech opposing the definition. His whole argument was based upon THE SILENCE OF BOTH SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY! Had he been faithful to that principle, it would have “un-made” him as a Roman Catholic; had he been truly faithful to it, it would have made him a simple, New Testament Christian! He declared he had “asked these venerable monuments of truth (the Scriptures, RH) to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is truly the .successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church …. I have then opened these sacred pages. Well (shall I dare to say it?), I have found nothing either near or far. which sanctions the opinion” of papal infallibility. He continued,

“And still more, to my great surprise, I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than of Mahomet who did not then exist. You, Monsignor Manning, will say that I blaspheme; you, Monsignor Fie, that I am mad. Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment.”

Strossmayer repeatedly used statements like “I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse;” Christ is “silent on this point;” “certainly, if He had wished that it should be so, He would have said it;” in “counting up the offices of the church” would Paul “have forgotten the first of these offices, the papacy;” “the Apostle Paul makes no mention . . . of the primacy of Peter;” “the silence of Peter . . . .he surely would have know it.” At one point, he said,

“I go on. Neither in the writings of St. Paul, St. John, nor St. James, have I found a trace or germ of the papal power. St. Luke, the historian of the missionary labors of the apostles, Is silent on this a1l-important point. The silence of these holy men (MARK THOSE WORDS, READER! RH), whose writings make part of the canon of the divinely-inspired Scriptures, has appeared to me burdensome and impossible, if Peter had been pope ….”

Bishop Strossmayer summarized his findings in Scripture and history,

. . “Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles, I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly-I have sought for a pope in the fist four centuries and I have not found him.”

As may well be imagined, this speech was repeatedly interrupted by such cries as, “Silence, heretic, silence,” and, “Shut his mouth, shut his mouth; make him come down from the pulpit,” and, “Get down! Out with the Protestant, the Calvinist, the traitor of the church,” and, “Anathema, anathema, to the apostate.” (All quotations taken directly from Bishop Strossmayer’s Speech In the Vatician Coundil of 1870).

After all that effort, the vote in favor of the definition of papal infallibility carried 451 in favor (plus an additional 62 with reservations) and 88 (another source says 86) opposed (Dvornik, p. 99). Worse than that, a year and a half later Strossmayer notified his companions-in-protest that he intended to yield at least outwardly. As pointed out earlier, the existence of even the strongest protest does not disestablish the power of the pope. One must understand this when he views protest movements within the Roman Catholic fold. The protest of the goat may mean little in relation to the actual authority of the shepherd!

The Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965

This one was called by Pope John XIII and concluded by Paul VI. “When, during the Council’s proceedings, he saw the papal authority endangered, he frequently and sometimes a little anxiously issued reminders that this authority was not to be diminished” (Fey, p. 336). The Council expressed interest in the modern ecumenical movement; but Catholic authorities have long warned that such moves must be from the perspective of the faithful seeking reconciliation with the erring. Some Liberal Catholics might dissent from that view, but no significant spokesman has arisen to champion the view that the removal of the pope might be negotiable in discussions of unity! The Council also discussed internal problems such as liturgy reform, social action, and the work of the laity.

Conclusion to Study

Our study of the so-called Ecumenical Councils should better equip us to understand the working of error, the spirit of lawlessness. Once set in motion, that spirit knows no limits. Let us determine not to turn to the right nor to the left in the smallest particular, but to steadfastly adhere to the divinely approved order of things-the New Testament order. These things are written that we might know how to conduct the affairs of the church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:14-15). Let us not go beyond the things written there (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9).

As the subject of church unity has been prominent since about the beginning of this century, it will continue to be a dominant theme of American Religion throughout this century. But he is a poor observer who has not learned that whatever concepts are stirring in society around us pour over into the church. Just as the pagan “imperial idea” was in the air in the Second and Third Centuries and worked havoc among the people of God, so the modern, lawless “unity ideas” in the air will continue to affect the thinking of brethren. Let us understand what is going on around us so that we may better understand what is going on among us. The search for unity through councils and conventions of one sort or another has no prospect of passing off the scene. It has been here a long, long time. It will continue to be here. This is one of the current ideas of how to effect unity which God’s people must understand and reject. True unity is in Christ, upon his word. Let us “hear his voice” (in the New Testament) and flee “the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10:1-5).

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 695-696
November 10, 1977

By Keith Sharp

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are In the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matt. 5:14-16).

The most difficult task a coach undertakes is to so challenge his team that each player measures up to his full potential each game. Perhaps the most effective way to challenge an athlete is to honestly compliment him on what he can be if he gives his all. When Jesus declared, “Ye are the light of the world,” He presented His disciples with the greatest challenge, as well as the highest compliment, that could ever be honestly extended to mortals.

Jesus Himself is “the light of the world” (Jn. 9:5). Thus, when He called us “the light of the world,” He uttered the most generous compliment ever extended to men. Christians, in a sense, actually sustain the same relationship to the world that the Savior does. This stirring declaration is at the same time the paramount test as well, for it challenges us to live in the world in the same manner as He did. How are Christians “the light of the world”?

Light is eminently good in several ways. Christians must possess the same excellent qualities exhibited by light. The goodness of light is first displayed in that fact it provides visibility. Without light, we can see nothing. Without Christ and the Gospel, the world lies in spiritual darkness (2 Cor. 4:3-4; Jn. 1:5). The only glimpse of Christ that most of the world sees is His reflection in the lives of His disciples (cf. 2 Cor. 3:2-3). As the poet well sang:

“We are the only Bible

The careless world will read,

We are the sinner’s gospel

We are the scoffers creed;

“We are the Lord’s last message

Given in deed and word,

What if the type is crooked?

What if the print is blurred?”

(Annie J. Flint, “The World’s Bible”)

Light comforting it is to one lost in the wilderness to have a lamp to guide him to safety through the blackness of a storm-filled night. How comforting it is to a soul lost in the wilderness of sin to have the example of a faithful disciple to lead him to Christ through the darkness of the sin-cursed world (cf. Phil. 3:17).

We further behold the innate excellence of light in its capacity to heal. Sun light has the ability to help heal wounds and strengthen feeble bodies. Malachi prophesied of Christ, “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun righteousness arise with healing in his wings” (Mal. 4:2). Christians reflect that healing light upon sin-sickened and wounded souls.

Light protects from evil. One of the crime-deterring programs proposed by our government is the installation of more and better lights on city streets, for darkness is the cover for crime (cf. Jn. 3:20). The example of mature Christians protects spiritual babes from the pitfalls of sin.

Light makes life possible. Without the light of the sun, no life would exist on this earth. Without the light of the Son, whose light is seen in His disciples, no spiritual life would exist in this world (Jn. 1:4).

Light exposes things hidden in darkness. Did you ever experience the frustration of searching for something in a dark house at night when the lights were off? Light alleviates the problem. The light of the example of our lives as Christians exposes the deeds of darkness of the sinful people of the world (Eph. 5:11-13).

Thus, the sinful world lies in the terrifying condition of spiritual darkness (cf. Jn. 3:19). Jesus, the light of the world, is the source of all spiritual light to guide the lost to salvation (2 Cor. 4:3-6). He is our sun. But, we, His disciples, reflect His light to the people of the world, who might not know Him save through our example (2 Cor. 3:18). We are the moon, deriving all light from the sun. To reflect His light, we must live as He did (1 Pet. 2:21). The ultimate test by which a Christian should decide whether anything is right or wrong in his life is the simple question: “What would Jesus do?”

In ancient times cities were commonly surrounded by walls and built upon high places overlooking the surrounding terrain. Jerusalem was such a city. This made it doubly hard for an attacker to penetrate the city’s fortifications, for the defenders could easily see approaching enemies and could shoot down at them. But one thing about such a city. It was open to the view of all. It could not be hidden.

Disciples of Christ are like “A city that is set on a hill.” In this figure, Christians are viewed collectively, as the Lord’s church (cf. Heb. 12:22-23). All the world around us sees us and usually pays close attention to our example as a church, because they are (or, at least should be) aware of ‘our claims to be peculiarly God’s chosen people (1 Pet. 2:9-10). As an attacking enemy would view a fortified city from afar, looking for a weakness in its defense, the world views the church, looking for an excuse to call us hypocrites (cf. 1 Pet. 2:11-15; Phil. 2;15). Are there any holes in the walls?

Christians are again likened to “a candle.” This illustrates our relationship as individual Christians to the world. Actually, the words “candle” and “candlestick’ are correctly rendered “lamp” and “stand” in the American Standard Version.

“The houses in Palestine were very dark with one little circular window perhaps not more than eighteen inches across. The lamp was like a sauce-boat filled with oil with the wick floating in it. It was not so easy to rekindle a lamp in the days before matches existed. Normally the lamp stood on the lampstand which would be no more than a roughly shaped branch of wood; but when people went out, for safety’s sake, they took the lamp from its stand, and put it under an earthen bushel measure, so that it might burn without risk until they came back. The primary duty of the light of the lamp was to be seen.

“. . . there can be no such thing as secret discipleship, for either the secrecy destroys the discipleship, or the discipleship destroys the secrecy” (William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. I, p. 119).

To hide your discipleship is to render yourself useless as a light (1 Cor. 10:31-33). Christian, young or old, never. be ashamed to be a disciple to Christ before your friends. It~ is often unpopular, both at school and on the job, to live above the sins of the world, but a lamp must give light.

What, then, is the Christian’s responsibility to the sinful world around him? “Let your light shine before men . . . .” Notice the Master did not teach, “Shine your light.” He exhorted, “Let your light shine.” We should not do good works just to be seen of men (Matt. 6:1). We should .live for Christ whether people see or not. How does one let his light shine? Jesus explained, “that they may see your good works . . . .” Simply live as Christ would have us to live, follow His Will and example in all things, and people will notice the difference (Eph. 5:8; Phil. 2:15).

Why should Christians live before the world in this way? “That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” God is glorified as men submit to His will (Eph. 1:3-12). Our good deeds should not be done to draw men’s attention to our own piety, but to lead them to God who enables us to live for Him (Phil. 2:13). We should not seek glory for the church, but should glorify God in the church (Eph. 3:20-21). All that we do before the ‘world as Christians, whether in word or action, should tend to lead others to God that He might be glorified (1 Cor. 9:19-22: 10:31-33).

Christian, “Ye are the light of the world.” Do you reflect Christ to the people around you in all that you say and do? Do you lead others to Christ by your example? Do you cause men to glorify God?

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 693-695
November 10, 1977