Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

It was the love of money that caused Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. Seeing that the Jewish leaders had blood in their eyes, Judas went to the chief priests and asked, “What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” The agreement was that he would be given thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14-16).

After Judas had served as guide to them that took Jesus (Acts 1:16), and following the realization that Jesus was condemned to die, the glitter of the money vanished. Knowing that-he had betrayed innocent blood. He returned the money to the chief priests and elders in the bitterness of remorse and regret. They were totally without sympathy. The wicked Judas, an apostate apostle, hanged himself (Matt. 27: 1-5).

It was the love of money that prompted Gehazi to run after Naaman with an evil scheme. After being healed of leprosy, Naaman wanted to give a present to the prophet Elisha. The prophet would accept nothing and urged Naaman to “Go in peace.” Gehazi was the servant of Elisha. Seeing an opportunity to get gain through deceit, Gehazi followed when Naaman started home. Naaman saw him running behind his chariot, so he stopped. Gehazi said the situation had suddenly changed just as Naaman was leaving his master’s house. Two young men of the sons of the prophets had come in from Mt. Ephraim. They needed a talent of silver and two changes of garments. Gehazi declared that Elisha had sent him to overtake Naaman and let him know that a present for these young men would be accepted. Excitedly, Naaman gave Gehazi

twice the amount of silver requested and the two changes of garments. Gehazi hid the silver and the garments.

Upon his return, Gehazi was questioned by his wise master about where he had been. Gehazi denied that he had gone anywhere. Elisha informed his lying servant that he was aware of his crooked scheme. This was no time to be taking money or other gifts from Naaman. “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever.” Gehazi went out from his master’s presence a leper (2 Kings 5:15-27).

It is the love of money that motivates some preachers to teach falsely. Paul remarked in writing to Titus, “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:10-11).

Some will teach most anything if the price is right. And the threat of being fired if he dares to speak on certain subjects has silenced the preacher who loved money more than truth.

It is the love of money that makes some people miss many of the services of the church. They take the job that offers the highest pay even if they know in advance that they will be required to work when they ought to be in the assemblies of the saints. In some cases people miss services by working on Sunday when it is not a necessity at all. They work as a matter of choice. They choose work over worship because they prefer financial gain over spiritual communion and praise.

Some day we are going to learn that we can be rich and increased with temporal goods, yet in God’s sight appear “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). The problem is, it may be too late when we finally learn that lesson!

It is the love of money that causes a lot of parental neglect. Mothers and fathers have no time to spend with their children. Both parents are working to bring home more dollars. It is assumed that if there is enough money, all the family problems will be solved. In the meantime, where is love? Where is the mother when daughter has a problem to discuss? Where is father when son needs special guidance and fatherly advice?

Many young people have become runaways. Others have become lawless. In a lot of cases, the lack of money did not influence them to do wrong. To the contrary, it may nave been too much in material things and not enough in true values that drove them.

It is the love of money that is behind much of what now works to destroy America. The pushers make dope addicts out of children because they want money. The liquor industry makes alcoholics by the thousands to build fatter profits. Pornography, prostitution, gambling, and organized crime have become big business in America because of the money involved. Corruption in government usually connects with payoffs.

The Bible is right when it declares that “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). No nation is demonstrating this Biblical truth more vividly than twentieth-century America.

Truth Magazine XXI: 29, p. 460
July 28, 1977

By Wm. B. Murrell

There has been much misunderstanding between brethren in England and brethren from the United States over the Christian and camel warfare. The purpose of this article is not to argue the right or wrong of any issue but simply to shed some light on the different attitudes in the two nations. Most brethren in England do not understand the options in America.

The citizen of the United States has now and has always had three choices. He can enter the armed services and bear arms, or he can declare himself a conscientious objector and be exempt from military service, or he can enter the armed services in a noncombatant role. The Englishman does not have this third choice; there is no middle ground. During World War I many a Christian man went to prison rather than fight in the war. Most of those who went to service either did not come back or were not faithful to the church when they returned. In World War II they were allowed to work “on the farm” or other similar work. I am told that just recently there is non-combat service offered in the British services but that it is in name only; that the noncom’s are trained in weaponry. Consequently most British Christians do not understand why so many members of the church from the States are in the armed services.

The World Book Encyclopedia, 1973 edition, page 777, says “The history of conscientious objection in the United States dates back to colonial times, when men had to serve in their colony’s militia …. In 1661, Massachusetts became the first colony to exempt conscientious objectors from service in its militia. Congress passed the first federal draft law during the Civil War. This law recognized conscientious objectors …. The 1940 draft law required religious training and belief’ . . . The 1948 draft law defined religious belief as belief in a ‘Supreme Being’ . . . . But Congress removed the term ‘Supreme Being’ in the 1967 law because the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the term to include vaguely religious philosophies …. In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that men may qualify for conscientious objector exemptions if they oppose war on strong ethical or moral grounds, even if such opposition is not based on religious belief.”

I suppose that among members of the church in the States there are not more than five per cent who believe that a Christian should bear arms in conflict; probably about ten or fifteen per cent who are opposed to any form of military service; and over eighty percent who believe in a Christian engaging in non-combat service. In England these last two percentages would be added together and ninety-five percent would be opposed to any form of military service. Why? Because the middle ground is not offered to them! For this reason, they do not understand the American viewpoint.

Among people who are not members of the church in the States there are few conscientious objectors, although their number has been rapidly growing in the past decade. This is not the case in England where many a man on the street is a conscientious objector and proud of it. In another quote from World Book, “Pacifist groups were most active between World War I and World War II, especially in Great Britain.” There is then a cultural difference that contributes to the lack of understanding of the English Christian toward the American Christian who is in the armed services.

The late Bennie Lee Fudge on the last page of his book ‘Can A Christian Kill For His Government?’ said, “God in his goodness has blessed us in America with the most considerate government known to man in its respect for the conscience of its citizens. It would make no difference in our duty to God, no matter what laws the civil power passed, but our Congress has provided for non-combatant service for the conscientious objector.” Oh how much you and I need to see and appreciate the many blessings we have. Most of us are too close to “home” to really appreciate them.

Truth Magazine XXI: 29, pp.459-460
July 28, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

One of the constant themes of W. Carl Ketcherside is that the New Testament is not a legal treatise, but that it is a series of love letters. The truth is not to be found in an “either-or” selection. The New Testament is a message of love, for God is love. The work of God is also a legal document, for God is, by His very nature, the God of authority. The confusion as to whether or not the New Testament is legality or love exists because of a prominent and prevalent misconception of the essence of love.

Love between man and God and God and man is based on the relationship of authority. The creature and His Creator-that is our status before God. God’s love for men is not syrupy sweet sentimentalism. It is not divorced from law. Christ’s death, the necessity of it, shows that God’s love was combined with His authority. It is no wonder, therefore, that we should find the word of God, “law and love combining,” as the old, beloved hymn says.

Paul wrote very authoritatively to the Corinthians. He wrote and called upon the name of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 5:4). His ultimate purpose was that they “might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you” (2 Cor. 2:4). His appeal to lawful action was not devoid of love. It was the very expression of it. So, to say that the New Testament documents are “love letters” is to beg the question of authority. Even in the area of discipline of children, the word of the Lord entwines law and love. Make your child obey the law, the rule of righteousness, because you love him, that is the consistent teaching regarding the instruction of children. It is the same with respect to our love for the Lord and for one another. Insist upon respect for Divine authority, “For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 5:3).

Yes, it is agreed that the Scriptures are love letters. But those love letters are founded and grounded in the authority of God. “The faith that saves is the faith that obeys” (Gal. 5:6; 1 Cor. 7:19). And the obedient faith is motivated by love; it “worketh by love.” Let us hear none of the idle prattle and idiotic babble that tries to separate God’s word of law from his law of love.

You can mark this down. It is almost axiomatic. When you find someone who wants to talk about God’s love as though it were somehow on a peak above His authority, you have found someone who wants to work and worship in some area or another without Divine authority. All of this love talk is a ruse; it is a guise to hide the fact that some want to go beyond the word of God. The end in view will vary from person to person, but whoever tells you that he is in love with God’s love and tries to play down God’s law, that man is trying to get by with something for which he has no scriptural authority.

Truth Magazine XXI: 29, p. 459
July 28, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

One member of the church to another: “Sorry you quit the church, we miss you.” “Oh, I haven’t quit the church, I just haven’t been coming,” replied the other. “Well,” said the first person, “if you were to quit, how would you go about it?”

It is a rare specimen who will admit, even to himself, that he no longer has any appetite for spiritual things; that the flame that once burned in his heart is now only a faint and fading flicker; that a Lord’s day meeting to worship God is a boresome ordeal; that Bible study holds nothing of interest to him. I doubt that there is a backslider anywhere who is willing to make an honest appraisal of his spiritual condition. In order to avoid seeing himself as he is, he makes excuses. That’s what excuses are for; that’s where they were conceived and born. But next Sunday morning when you are polishing up some old time-worn excuse to relieve your uneasy conscience until the hour for meeting has passed, and you can sink back into your apathy with that comforting little sedative that you have used so long: “We will get started back soon,” I ask you to consider this: Which is worse, just to come out boldly and declare that you are through with the church for good, or to reach the same destination one week at a time?

Some of the excuses we offer the Lord for refusing to attend worship we would not have the nerve to offer an intelligent friend. One says, “I work shift-work.” I’ve heard that one many times. But some of the most faithful members I know where I have preached work shifts that were “inconvenient” for others to attend. I know quite a bit about shift-work first-hand. I ran a shovel three years while preaching full-time for a congregation. Two of those years I worked three different shifts each week: one day, two evenings, and two graveyards. It is true that we cannot always attend every service, but “I work shift-work” is no reason for quitting the church. It’s just an old and tired and overworked excuse.

W e can try the validity of our excuses by offering them to our employers. Try telling him that you want a few days off, with pay, so you can be at home with your baby who has a cold. Try telling him that some real good friends dropped in just as you were ready to leave for work and you thought it would be rude of you not to stay home and entertain them. Or you might try telling him that one of the fellows you worked with said something unfriendly to you and hurt your feelings and that you are not coming back to work until he apologizes and shows a more friendly attitude–and of course you will expect to be kept on the payroll during that time. If that one doesn’t work, tell him that some of the people where you work aren’t all they claim to be (hypocritical); they break company rules all the time and some of them do things that are immoral, and that if the company doesn’t do something about it you are going to QUIT! Just try it! Of course we won’t try it! We know that if our employer did that kind of business, he would not be in business. We offer such gems as these only to the Lord. We might remember that He knows better too.

Truth Magazine XXI: 29, p. 458
July 28, 1977