Truth Magazine

By L.A. Stauffer

The conception of human offspring, according to natural law, occurs only when the sperm of a man unites with the egg of a woman. In the case of Jesus, though, writers of the first century report that he was born of a virgin. The writers agree that a power outside of nature made the conception possible. It was a miracle, a supernatural event-a verifiable occurrence in nature caused by a power from beyond nature.

“Impossible,” “incredible,” “superstition” are a few of the reactions modern men display toward these Biblical accounts. Assessing the modern mind, Harry Emerson Fosdick, a rank modernist, concluded: “To them miracles are antecedently improbable, stories of them seem in general unreliable, reliance on them seems practically undesirable, and so in the end the whole matter becomes pretty much unbelievable” (Modern Use of the Bible, p. 155). As for himself Fosdick said, “I find some of the miracle-narratives of Scripture historically incredible” (Ibid., p. 164).

History

As incredible as it may seem to many folks, the virgin birth of Jesus is nonetheless a matter of historical record. Reporting from the viewpoint of Mary the mother of Jesus, Luke, a first-century historian known for his accuracy, says she was “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph” (1:27). He also recorded the response of Mary when the angel announced that she was to have a child. “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (1:34). Mary knew as well as anyone in today’s so-called scientific and enlightened age that virgins do not naturally have babies. The angel then explained, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God” (1:35). The conception of Jesus was therefore miraculous, demanding the injection of power from outside nature.

Matthew, one of Jesus’ apostles, reported essentially the same facts. His account related the appearance of an angel to Joseph, Mary’s betrothed husband, to assure him that Mary’s pregnancy was not of another man but of the Holy Spirit. “Joseph thou son of David,” the angel said, “fear not to take unto thee Mary they wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (1:20) Matthew then noted that this event fulfilled a prophecy announced several hundred years before. The prophet Isaiah, he records, had said: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23).

Possible

As already noted, a common reaction among modern men to this kind of a report is-“impossible.” The word “impossible,” though, is a rather strong term. Unbelievers should consider what this objection to the virgin birth of Jesus requires. It demands proof that no power exists outside nature. One must demonstrate, as C. S. Lewis describes naturalism, that “nature is the whole show.” An unbeliever cannot admit the possibility that power exists outside nature without conceding the possibility that the power may have injected itself into nature to cause the virgin birth of Jesus.

Furthermore, folks who consider nature the whole show must honestly reflect upon facts which nature of itself cannot explain. Nature, for example, offers no explanation of the origin of matter, of life and of the intricate designs in nature. Any interpretation of these facts calls for power unknown or unobserved in nature. The word “impossible” must exit through the same hole in nature which any outside power enters. The same power, therefore, which can create matter or life can also effect conception in the womb of a virgin. Infidels must, in other words, disprove the existence of God to prove the impossibility of a virgin birth, for “with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26). God Himself said, “Is anything too hard for Jehovah?” (Gen. 18:14).

Credible

The real issue, then, is not whether the virgin birth is possible, but whether it is believable. Here several factors must be considered. Its believability, to begin with, is related to the identity of the child who is born of the virgin. A report that Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar or Hirohito was born of a virgin would not be credible because none of them has shown any signs of deity otherwise. If such an account were found, it would be meaningless anyway. What has any one of them promised which demands divine power and which ignites any interest in whether they were born of a virgin?

Jesus, however, declared that He was the Son of God and promised He could and would provide an eternal life of bliss to all obedient believers. Claiming to be God’s Son, He has likewise consigned the unbelieving and disobedient to eternal punishment in hell. If any evidence of this claim exists, then the virgin birth is believable and worthy of investigation. The credibility of the virgin birth of Jesus rests, for example, on the evidence for His incarnation, transfiguration, miracles and resurrection. And these summon an abundance of witnesses to the deity of Christ and, as a result, to the credibility of His birth of a virgin.

New Testament writers, to put it another way, never appealed to the virgin birth to prove that Jesus is God’s Son or to confirm the truthfulness of Christianity. Paul, for example, appealed to the resurrection of Christ, concluding from it that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power” (Romans 1:4). Peter, who also testified of the resurrection, confirmed the truthfulness of Christianity on the grounds of the transfiguration. On the mount he saw the majesty of His brightness and heard the voice which said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Thus, Peter affirmed, “we did not follow cunningly devised fables” (Matt. 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:16-18). In addition to his testimony to the resurrection, the apostle John devoted his entire gospel to the miracles of Christ, observing finally: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye may have life in his name” (John 20:30,31).

Despite the testimony of many witnesses to the deity of Christ, unbelieving scholars are disturbed by the silence of these same apostles concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Some modernists have even implied that these writers knew nothing about it. At one time it was argued on the basis of this silence that the virgin birth of Jesus was a second-century myth which had been tacked onto the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Reasoning in this way from silence, though, can be rather precarious. May one, for example, infer that John knew nothing about the Lord’s Supper simply because he nowhere mentioned it?

A simple explanation for this silence can be given. All facts, even in a court of law, do not possess the same evidential value. Lawyers customarily present the most obvious and most demonstrable facts. The virgin birth, as James Orr noted, was obviously a fact of “essentially a private nature.” Even a doctor, such as Luke, could not upon examination observe and verify a virgin conception. Since the apostles were ordered to preach the gospel of faith in Christ to every creature, they naturally appealed to facts they themselves had observed and that the enemies of Christ had opportunity to witness. The virgin birth of Jesus is not believable because it is observable, but because it is reported of one who proved in many other ways he was God’s Son.

The credibility of the virgin birth also rests on the agreement of the witnesses and the reports. In this case the testimony of two witnesses is given in two accounts. Matthew’s account, as noted earlier, is based on Joseph’s experience and Luke’s record on Mary’s experience. The two narratives are different, and yet not contradictory. This is evidence of their independence. James Orr wrote, “The independence of the narratives is a guarantee of their worth. It shows that they are not inventions of either of the Evangelists, but are drawn from an outside source-nay, from two sources, which are distinct, yet agree in their testimony to the essential fact” (The Virgin Birth of Christ, p. 36).

The two gospels not only agree on the essential fact that a virgin was empowered by the Holy Spirit to give birth to a child, but also on the incidental and minute details where false witnesses normally contradict one another. Orr has compiled in the following quotation both the essential and incidental agreements of these two narratives.

(1) Jesus was born in the last days of Herod-Matt. 2:1,13; Lk. 1:5. (2) He was conceived by the Holy Ghost-Matt. 1:18,20; Lk. 1:35. (3) His mother was a virgin-Matt. 1:18,20,23; Lk. 1:27,34. (4) She was betrothed to Joseph-Matt. 1:18; Lk. 1:27; 2:5. (5) Joseph was of the house and lineage of David-Matt. 1:16,20; Lk. 1:27; 2:4. (6) Jesus was born at Bethlehem-Matt. 2:1; Lk. 2:4,6. (7) By divine direction He was called Jesus-Matt. 1:21; Lk. 1:31. (8) He was declared to be a Savior-Matt. 1:21; Lk. 2:11. (9) Joseph knew beforehand of Mary’s condition and its cause-Matt. 1:18-20; Lk. 2:5. (10) Nevertheless he took Mary to wife, and assumed full paternal responsibilities for her child, was from the first IN LOCO parents to Jesus-Matt. 1:20,24,25; Lk. 2:5ff. (11) The annunciation and birth were attended by revelations and visions-Matt. 1:20; Lk. 1:27,28. (12) After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Nazareth-Matt. 1:23; Lk. 2:39″ (IBID., pp. 36,37).

The credibility of these accounts is founded likewise on the fact that they are contemporary reports of the birth of Christ, a quality of evidence missing in the narratives of so-called paganistic miracles. The story of the birth of Jesus is not a myth which grew over many centuries and was then eventually accepted as true. This gospel story comes from the first century. The facts do not sustain the modernistic view that the narratives of Jesus’ birth originated in the second century and formed no part of the original gospels of Matthew and Luke.

In the first place, no unmutilated copies of the New Testament omit Matthew 1 and 2 or Luke 1 and 2. Some New Testament passages are missing from certain manuscripts, but not these four chapters. This is true also of the many translations of the New Testament: Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, etc. Even the writings of the earliest “church fathers” such as Ignatius (A. D. 110) and the so-called “Apostles Creed” (A. D. 100-120) accept the virgin birth of Jesus at the beginning of the second century.

In the second place, even skeptical literary scholars, men who study the styles of writers, admit that the accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus formed a part of the original gospels. James Moffatt, for example, wrote, “No hypothesis of literary criticism or textual emendation can disentangle the conception of a Virgin Birth from a story which is wrought together and woven on one loom” (The Supernaturalness of Christ, Wilbur Smith, p. 83). Adolph von Harnack, who denied the virgin birth and whom Williston Walker called the “prince of church historians,” conceded after demanding and exacting research that “Luke’s gospel originally included chapters 1 and 2. The testimony of the virgin birth of Jesus was given, then, at the time it occurred when any available evidence to the contrary could be raised to dispute it. And yet no such evidence has been made available.

Not Superstition

Skeptics, nonetheless, hold to lingering doubts, viewing the narratives as paganistic superstitions. In the words of David Hume, the Scottish historian and philosopher, they feel miracles are “observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations.” Considering the word “chiefly” this is a fairly accurate observation. The facts, however, demonstrate that Palestine in the first century is an exception to the rule. A. T. Robertson, who has been especially close to this period through his study of the Greek language, said, one must not “think that it was an ignorant age. What we call the `Dark Ages’ came long afterwards.” It is remarkable, moreover, that David Hume not one time mentions a miracle of Christ in his essay “Of Miracles.” He wrote on miracles and superstition in the “Dark Ages” and among pagans, but does not so indict Christ and Palestine of the first century.

Furthermore the New Testament itself confirms the lack of credulity in first-century Palestine with reference to both the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. Mary, for example, showed a lack of credulity in questioning the virgin birth when it was first announced unto her. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, demanded scientific proof before believing in the resurrection of Christ. After the resurrection he wanted to see and touch the scarred body of his Master. The Athenians likewise showed an unsuperstitious nature when they scoffed at the preaching of Christ’s resurrection by Paul (Lk. 1:34; John 20:24-29; Acts 17:32).

Some skeptics, though, are still under the impression that virgin birth stories were common among ancient people and that the Biblical account is just one of a long list. Wilbur Smith observed two things with reference to these alleged parallel stories. “First, that in pagan mythology, it is not claimed that any hero is born of a virgin” (Op. Cit., p. 96). James Orr also argued that the New Testament contained the only true account of a virgin birth in ancient literature. Smith said, in the second place, that the style of the New Testament narratives is wholly unlike pagan myths. They are, he said, “utterly free from all artificial embellishment, remarkably devoid of unnecessary details, without the slightest tinge of mythological exaggeration, and in every way showing sobriety and restraint in composition” (Op. Cit., p. 85). Neither the society of firstcentury Palestine nor the Biblical accounts fit into the mold of paganism and its myths.

Men and women of the first century simply were not known to believe just any kind of story. Neither did the apostles expect them to. The apostles announced to the world what they saw and heard, confirming their own message by observable signs which followed (Mk. 16:17-20). This scientific evidence became the foundation of belief. It is this kind of evidence that convinced much of the world that Jesus is “the only begotten Son” of God-born of a virgin.

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 4-7
May 13, 1976

By Cecil Willis

No being who has ever existed upon this earth has so influenced every facet of life, and every culture, as has the meek and lowly Jesus of Nazareth. Even the most blatant infidel has to recognize His coming. Every time he dates a letter or a legal document, he tacitly admits to the existence and magnitude of Christ. More books have been written about Him than about any other being who lived upon this earth. Five thousand new books were written regarding Him last year. The berating infidel has some concept of morality. Yet there is no way whatsoever for him to say that one “ought” to do this or that, or that one “ought not” to do this or that, except as this “oughtness” relates to the will of Jesus and His Father, God Almighty. Had Jesus never lived, nor the will of God never been revealed, rationalistically speaking, there could be no standard of morality.

Jesus made exalted claims for Himself. He said that “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (Jno. 14:9). He claimed equality with God (Jno. 5:17,18). He claimed to be the promised Messiah, “the Son of the Blessed” (Mk. 14:61-64). The worst charges that could be brought against Him were that He loved sinners, and ate with them (Matt. 9:10-13). But this charge He readily admitted, for His purpose in coming to earth was to “seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). Jesus challenged his enemies to convict Him of any sin (Jno. 8:46). He accepted worship from a leper (Matt. 8:2); from a ruler of the synagogue (Matt. 9:18); and from a blind man (Jno. 9:35-38). Yet this same Jesus taught that only Deity was to be worshipped (Jno. 4:23,24). He claimed that the shedding of His blood would bring remission of sins (Matt. 26:28; Matt. 20:28). It was said of him that “Never man so spake” (Jno. 7:46). Many were astonished at His teachings (Mk. 7:37; Lk. 2:47). His works were equally as astonishing (Lk. 5:26).

Is it any wonder that this Divine Being in the flesh, who brought salvation within the grasp of all, who lived sinlessly, who was the world’s greatest teacher both in manner and message, and who wrought such wonders, signs, and mighty works should so influence men and their lives and literature? This author could never put into more eloquent language the influence of Christ than has already been done by far superior writers. Hence, this article will be closed by three classic quotations about the influence of Christ.

Under the heading, “Jesus, the Perfect Man,” C. P. J. Mooney on December 22, 1911, wrote in the Commercial Appeal of Memphis the following impressive lives. A line or two of this piece might be objectionable to you, just as I would have written a few of the statements differently. Though written in 1911, the content of this article is as fresh as the contents of tomorrow’s newspaper.

Jesus, The Perfect Man

“There is no other character in history like that of Jesus.

“As a preacher, as a doer of things, and as a philosopher, no man ever,had the sweep and the vision of Jesus.

“A human analysis of the human actions of life that is amazing in its perfect detail.

“The system of ethics Jesus taught during His earthly sojourn 2000 years ago was true then, has been true in every century since and will be true forever.

“Plato was a great thinker and learned in his age, but his teachings did not stand the test of time. In big things and in little things time and human experience have shown that he erred.

“Marcus Aurelius touched the reflective mind of the world, but he was as cold and austere as brown marble.

“The doctrine of Confucius gave a great nation moral and mental dry rot.

“The teachings of Buddha resulted in mental and moral chaos that makes India derelict.

“Mohammed offered a system of ethics which was adopted by millions of people. Now their children live in deserts where once there were cities, along dry rivers where once there was moisture, and in the shadows of gray, barren hills where once there was greenness.

“Thomas Aquinas was a profound philosopher, but parts of his system have been abandoned.

“Francis of Assissi was Christlike in his saintliness, but in some things he was childish.

“Thomas A. Kempis’ IMITATION OF CHRIST is a thing of rare beauty and sympathy, but it is, as its name indicates, only an imitation.

“Sir Thomas More’s UTOPIA is yet a dream that cannot be realized.

“Lord Bacon writing on chemistry and medicine under the glasses of the man working in a twentieth century laboratory is puerile.

“The world’s most learned doctors until a hundred and fifty years ago gave dragon’s blood and the ground dried tails of lizards and shells of eggs for certain ailments. The great surgeons a hundred years ago bled a man if he were wounded.

“Napoleon had the world at his feet for four years, and when he died the world was going on its way as if he had never lived.

“Jesus taught little as to property because He knew there were things of more importance than property. He measured property and life, the body and soul, at their exact relative value. He taught much as to character, because character is of more importance than dollars.

“Other men taught us to develop systems of government; Jesus taught so as to perfect the minds of men. Jesus looked to the soul while other men dwelled on material things.

“After the experience of 2000 years no man can find a flaw in the government systems outlined by Jesus. Czar and Kaiser, President and Socialist, gave to its complete merit their admiration.

“No man today, no matter whether he follows the doctrine of Mills, Marx or George as to property, can find a false principle in Jesus’ theory of property.

“In the duty of a man to his fellow no sociologist has ever approximated the perfection of the doctrine laid down by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

“Not all the investigation of chemists, not all the discoveries of explorers, not all the experience of rule, not all the historical facts that go to make up the sum of human knowledge on this day in 1912 are in contradiction to one word uttered or one principle laid by Jesus.

“The human experience of 2000 years shows that Jesus never made a mistake. Jesus never uttered a doctrine that was true at that time and then became obsolete.

“Jesus spoke the truth; He lived the truth, and truth is eternal.

“History has no record of any other man leading a perfect life or doing everything in logical order.

“Jesus is the only person whose every action and whose every utterance strike a true note in the heart and mind of every man born of woman. He never said a foolish thing, never did a foolish act and never dissembled.

“No poet, no dreamer, no philosopher loved humanity with the love that Jesus bore toward all men.

“Who, then, was Jesus?

“He could not have been merely a man, for there never was a man who had two consecutive thoughts absolute in truthful perfection.

“Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be-a divine being-or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave to the world as a heritage.”

The Incomparable Christ

Another great piece of literature regarding the influence of Christ has been passed down through the ages. I wish I knew the author’s name so that I might give him credit for a wonderful composition. But unfortunately, I have only seen it attributed to the prolific writer, Mr. “Selected.”

“He came from the bosom of the Father to the bosom of a woman. He became the Son of man that we might become sons of God. He put on humanity that we might put on divinity. He left the region where the rivers never freeze, winds never blow, frost never bites, flowers never fade; where there are no undertakers, no doctors needed, because no one is ever sick; where graveyards never haunt, death never comes, and where no funerals are never conducted.

“He was born contrary to the laws of nature, was reared in obscurity, and lived in poverty; only once did he ever cross the boundaries of his own small country; he had no wealth or influence, training or education, and his parents knew nothing of the niceties of social traditions.

“In infancy, he startled a king; in boyhood, puzzled the wise; in manhood, ruled the course of nature.

“He healed the multitudes without medicine, and made no charge for his services. He never wrote a book, yet all the libraries of the world could not contain all the books that could be written about him.

“He never wrote a song, and yet he has provided the themes for more songs than all earthly writers combined.

“He never founded a college, yet all the schools of earth have not had the students that sat at his feet.

“He never practiced medicine, yet has healed more broken hearts than the world has ever taken note of.

“He never marshaled an army, never drafted a soldier, or fired a gun, yet no leader has ever had the volunteers, who, under his orders, made rebels stack arms and surrender to his command, never firing a shot.

“He is the Star of astronomy, the Rock of geology, the Lamb and Lion of zoology, the Harmonizer of all discords, and the Healer of all diseases.

“Great men have come and gone; He lives on. Herod could not kill him; Satan could not seduce him; death could not destroy him; and the grave could not hold him.

“He laid aside his purple robe for a peasant’s gown. He was rich but for our sakes became poor, that we might be rich. How poor? Ask Mary? Ask the wise men? He slept in another’s manger; rode another’s ass; he was buried in another’s tomb. All others have failed; he never. The ever perfect one, the chief among ten thousand; altogether lovely.”

One Solitary Life

Yet the most beautiful piece, though much briefer, is attributed by some to Phillips Brooks. It was a favorite piece to Brother Luther Blackmon, and I often have heard him recite it, with great emotion upon himself and upon his hearers. Others have attributed this literary gem to James A. Francis. Perhaps some literary specialist will inform us as to its genuine authorship. But it is a beautiful description of the influence of Jesus, regardless of who wrote it.

“Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He worked in a carpenter shop until he was 30, and then for three years he was an itinerant preacher. He never held an office. He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put his foot inside a big city. He never traveled 200 miles from the place where he was born. He never did one of the things which usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but himself.

“While he was a young man, the tide of public opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. He was turned over to his enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While he was dying, his executioners gambled for the only piece of property he had on earth, and that was his coat. When he was dead, he was laid in a private grave through the pity of a friend.

“Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone, and today he is the central figure of the human race and the leader of the column of progress.

“I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that were ever built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth, as that One Solitary Life.”

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 2-3
May 13, 1976

By Mike Willis

“Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ” (Jude 1). So begins the next to last book of our New Testament, Notice that the Christians are addressed as “those who are the called.” Several other passages describe God’s people in a similar manner (Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:24; Rev. 17:14). Thus, in our study of the descriptive terms by which Christians are called, we must include a study of the term “called of God.”

Definition

The term translated “called” is kletos; it is a term used to describe those who have obeyed the gospel. Klesis is another cognate word sometimes used to describe Christians; it is generally translated by the gerund “calling.” Both are derived from kaleo “to call.” Sometimes kaleo is used in a special sense meaning “to invite.” Because it is used for God’s invitation through the preaching of the gospel, the word takes on a technical sense to mean those who have accepted God’s invitation which was addressed to them in the gospel. Closely related to this word is the Greek word for church, ekklesia. Thus, the church is composed of the “called out” ones.

Even as we value invitations today on the basis of from whom we received them (e.g. an invitation from the President of the United States is more valuable than an invitation from me), we should also notice the source from which our invitation comes. Our invitation or calling comes from no one less than God Himself (Eph. 1:18; Phil. 3:14; 2 Tim. 1:9). God has invited us to the benefits which this calling brings not on the basis of the fact that we are somewhat but on the basis of His grace (2 Tim. 1:9). We do not deserve the salvation which He has invited us to enjoy. Access to this salvation has been made possible for us through Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:6).

Inasmuch as the word “calling” is used in another sense in contemporary usage, we need to be sure that we distinguish it from this special usage. We sometimes use the word “calling” to refer to one’s station in life. Too, we sometimes use the word to refer to one’s vocation. Neither of these usages has any bearing upon this discussion.

Characteristics of Our Calling

Noting to what we have been invited is worth our time. I am obviously more interested in attending the World Series than in watching someone slop the hogs. We have been called to enjoy fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), to attain peace with God and ourselves (1 Cor. 7:15; Col. 3:14-15; Phil. 4:7), to inherit eternal life (1 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 Pet. 5:10), to participate in His kingdom (1 Thess. 2:12), and to liberty (Gal. 5:13). These are not things to be sneezed at! God has prepared quite a series of blessings for those of us who accept His invitation. Because the calling originates with God and terminates in heaven, it can be called a high calling (Phil. 3:14), a holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9), a heavenly calling (Heb. 3:1), and a calling of hope (Eph. 1:18, 4:4).

How We Are Called

Inasmuch as each of us is interested in answering such an invitation, we need to know how we shall be invited by God. While Jesus was on earth, He personally encountered men with His invitation for them to become His disciples, saying “Come, follow Me” (cf. Mt. 4:18-22). However, even then, the teaching process was employed. Jesus taught, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, `And they shall all be taught of God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me” (Jn. 6:44-45). Today, we are called through the teaching of God’s word. Paul wrote, “And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:14).

Inasmuch as the Corinthians are described as the “called” (1 Cor. 1:24), we can study how they were called and learn the method by which men are called. In Acts 18:8, we read of how they were called: “And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.” The men who were styled the “called” were simply those who had heard the Gospel preached, believed it, and obeyed it. The manner in which the Corinthians were called is exactly the same manner in which all others are called out. We need not wait for an angelic visitation, a still small voice in the middle of the night, or any other type of miraculous experience (e.g. glossolalia-Tongue-speaking). God has called us through the preaching of the Gospel. The invitation is already out; He is waiting for our response.

The High Calling Demands High Living

Paul wrote, “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called” (Eph. 4:1). Thus, God, who has extended to us such a high calling, expects us to conduct ourselves in accordance with it. Even as I would be expected to dress appropriately and act accordingly should I receive an invitation to attend a White House dinner, so also those who have been called out by God are expected to act in a certain fashion in keeping with their calling. Peter said that we had been “called … out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9); “God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:7). Therefore, God expects those whom he has called to maintain ethical purity, to walk above the world.

Conclusion

Some of our songs emphasize the fact that God is calling us. One says, “God is calling yet;” another says, “Jesus is tenderly calling thee home;” still another says, “I can hear my Savior calling.” Listen to Him call: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and My load is light” (Mt. 11:28-30). “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20). “And the Spirit and the bride say, `Come.’ And let the one who hears say, `Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost” (Rev. 22:17).

This invitation will not be extended indefinitely; if you want to partake of the benefits resulting from it, you must respond before you die or before Jesus comes again. When and if you accept the invitation, you will become a part of all of the others who have accepted it-a part of the called of God, the church.

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 12-13
May 6, 1976

By Denver Niemeier

Many things that not too long ago were plentiful are now in short supply. There are many shortages in evidence today that affect our daily lives.

While these shortages are of concern to all of us, there are others that should be of greater concern to every child of God. They are those “Shortages” to be found in the body of Christ. These “Shortages” are not the result of anything that is lacking from the divine, but they exist because of human failure. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 shows us that every instruction man has need of has been provided by God, so, therefore, anything that is lacking is because man has failed to follow that instruction and thus “Shortages” occur.

The “Preacher Shortage” as it has been called is one that most members of the church are aware, and is very widespread. Various factors have contributed to this shortage. One factor that I call “taking advantage” of the preacher has discouraged some men. Many times brethren have no idea of how to support a preacher, and as the result preachers make sacrifices that others of the church do not. Most of those who have to do with deciding what a preacher is to receive as his support have never had the experience of trying to live on “what the brethren give him.”

Those who preach have had the experience, as they have gone forth preaching, of some brother slipping up to him and quietly saying “here is a little something for you,” and too many times that is what it is-“a little something.” Preachers are asked to preach somewhere, are put to the travel expenses plus the time involved preparing and presenting the lesson, and are sometimes paid and sometimes not.

Brethren, we should not let “preachers” take advantage of the brethren in regards to the support he is to get; however, let us not be guilty of being involved in taking advantage of preachers: The lack of fair, adequate support has discouraged some from becoming preachers.

Another thing to consider is that too often we are reluctant to use men who are “just starting” or do not possess a degree or have at least attended a certain school. Too often the inexperienced preacher finds himself working with a small (many times new) group while the man of some years’ experience usually commands a place in a well-established congregation. Encouragement should be given to all to study, learn and apply oneself to teaching God’s word, and the fellow just starting out needs to be used. By the setting up of such unnecessary standards, men are discouraged from preparing themselves to preach.

The impression is given at times by members of the church that only those who depend on the brethren for all of their support are “full-time” preachers. Men are needed who devote all of their time working for the growth of the kingdom; men are also needed who support themselves in secular jobs to work in the Lord’s vineyard. Every Christian should be preaching (teaching) everywhere, all of the time, to every person, regardless of the manner they are scripturally supported.

There is also a shortage of “Qualified Leadership” in the church. Numbers of congregations are, and in some cases have been for years, without elders. The organization of the church is important; it is a part of God’s plan. However, liberties are taken with it that brethren would not stand for in respect to things such as worship, work, etc. It is not uncommon to find substitute arrangements being used. We should be as concerned (if not more) about the “Elder Shortage” as we are about the shortage of preachers. But, very little concern and effort sometimes seems to be found where there are no elders that such a shortage exists. Elders are qualified men (1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1), and, of course, if the qualifications are not found in men then there can be no elders. The spiritual qualifications are those that are developed, and every Christian is to possess them. If men do not have them, they should be working toward developing them.

The New Testament speaks of elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and in every city (Tit. 1:5). If that was the way in New Testament times according to God’s plan, then why isn’t it the way now?

We are rightly concerned that our teaching, worship, work, and name is as God’s word reveals. We are concerned that congregations are independent and self-functioning. But, are we as concerned as we should be about how the congregation is organized? In congregations that are without elders, who actually does what the elders would do if they had them?

Some are convinced that no one can fulfill the qualifications that have been given. The qualifications of being “the husband of one wife,” “having faithful children,” “not accused of riot or unruly,” “having his children in subjection with all gravity,” are those that some do not possess because they are not married, or if they are they have no children. Now take a look at the rest of the qualifications – compare those spiritual qualities for the elder; how different are they from those things that are to be characteristics in the life of every Christian? God has not given a list of qualifications that cannot be met by men.

Some just do not want, or think they do not need elders. But, if we are interested in pleasing God we are to do as He wills, and His will sets forth that there are to be elders in every church in every city (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5).

Some prefer to have preacher-oversight. This even happens sometimes where there are men who are supposed to be elders. There is no conflict in God’s plan between elders and preachers. Both are called for, and for his plan to be as he would have it both are needed.

When elders do their work, the congregation will be growing and developing as God’s children. Men will be trained and encouraged to preach God’s word, and as members of the congregation develop, men will come forth who possess the spiritual development needed by one to qualify as an overseer of God’s people.

Brethren, if a congregation has no elders, have you ever stopped to think that someone is doing the work of the elders? It is not unusual to find congregations both small and large using other arrangements in carrying on their work.

The church is in a sad state of affairs when we find Christians unconcerned about being and doing what God required.

Elders: “I have often stated, and do not now have cause to retract, that if there cannot be found in the church of Christ today, men who meet Paul’s requirements of an elder, we have a very poor set of Christians on earth today and that righteousness has reached a very low ebb” (The Eldership by Herbert E. Winkler, Page 86).

How concerned are you? Are you doing what you can to relieve these shortages?

Truth Magazine, XX:19, p. 11-12
May 6, 1976