Truth Magazine

By Arthur M.Ogden

God’s revelation is so beautiful; so marvelous, Its bits and pieces so entwined that every partial of it fits harmoniously together to make one complete embodiment of truth. If this were not true, we could never determine when one was teaching the truth, but since every jot and tittle of the truth harmonizes, we can know the truth and expose error. Any position taken on any Bible passage that does not perfectly harmonize with every other passage on that subject must be identified as a false position.

In this study, I want us to take a good look at 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in its context, and its relationship to other passages which deal with the same subject, in order that we might harmonize it with all that the Bible says on the subject, and be consistent in our conclusions. Paul said, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Those who would forbid Christian women from teaching classes of other women or children quote this passage loud and long. It is their sugar stick. They want to leave the impression that Paul is saying, “I suffer not a woman to teach, period.” They know as well as I, that it cannot be so. It must be qualified. If it were not qualified, Christian women could not sing (Col. 3:16), be teachers of good things (Tit. 2:3), teach their children (2 Tim. 1:5), or even teach as Priscilla did in Acts 18:26. If Paul was saying, “I suffer not a woman to teach, period,” then we have Christian women doing what Paul forbid. You can see that Paul’s statement must be qualified, but there is only one way to qualify it and harmonize it with all other passages on the subject, and that is to believe the Truth. The false teacher will never harmonize it by his position.

Thayer on Didasko

Some try to qualify it by qualifying the word didasko (to teach). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon is quoted to try and prove their contention. Thayer defines didasko, “(a) to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses. (b) To be a teacher (c) To discharge the office of teacher, conduct oneself as a teacher” (p. 144). Now, it should be remembered that though Thayer is an authority in his field, he is not an infallible authority, and when he cites a text as an example of the use of a word according to a given definition, as he cites 1 Timothy 2:12 in conjunction with (a), he is giving his personal opinion as to its use in that given text. Thayer did not understand 1 Timothy 2:12 any more than any other false teacher. By giving this restricted meaning to didasko in this text, he sought to solve his problem. But Thayer understood that didasko meant more than the above definition. He further defines it, “to impart instruction, instil doctrine into one. . . . Col. 3.16; to explain, expound, a thing; to teach one something.” You see, didasko means all of this, and Thayer knew this, but he seeks to give the meaning of words as he understands them to be used in given texts. It should be noted, however, that if Thayer misunderstood a text, he might well misunderstand the use of a given word in that text.

I suggest that the majority of the world’s greatest Greek scholars have not agreed with Thayer’s use of didasko in 1 Timothy 2:12. There are hundreds of them in (he translations and more than two-thirds of them recognized that the rendering of didasko as “to teach” was the correct rendition in this text. Surely, if didasko had had the restricted meaning that Thayer gives it for this text, they would have known it, and would have translated it accordingly, but they did not so translate it. The word means “to teach” and that is the way they translated it.

Look at Thayer’s definition again. Note (a) “to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses.” One would get the impression from that definition, that Thayer is talking about preaching a sermon. Maybe he intended to leave that impression, but if you will check the words “didactic” and “discourse” you will find that these words identify any logical line of reasoning that is “intended to instruct.” Now, think about it. Isn’t that what we do when we sing spiritual songs (Col. 3:16)? Isn’t that the way Eunice and Lois taught Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5), and the way Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26)? Surely, all of that teaching was “intended to instruct.

Thayer’s second definition is (b) “to be a teacher.” The very thing that Paul commands the aged women to be in Titus 2:3. He said they were to be “teachers of good things.” You see, you cannot qualify 1 Timothy 2:12 by Thayer’s definition. The same is true of his third definition.

Other Qualifications

When false teachers use Thayer’s definition to qualify the passage, they realize that they have forbidden women to be teachers in the Public School System, so they must qualify it even further. They then say 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are parallel passages and both apply “in the church.” We sing in the church, don’t we? So, therefore, according to this false position women cannot sing “in the church.” Also, since false teachers seek to qualify the text by in the church, they leave the door open for women to teach and usurp authority over men at any time and place that is not described as in the church. I tell you, they cannot harmonize 1 Timothy 2:11-12 with the Bible. They cannot harmonize it with their own teaching.

To further qualify their false position on 1 Timothy 2:12, false teachers will say that a woman is not to be a teacher in “any class the church may arrange.” This is supposed to permit women to teach by example, teach her children, be a teacher of good things, and even teach as Priscilla did in helping to teach Apollos, as long as the church does not arrange it. The problem wi(h it is, (1) Paul did not say it, and (2) it still will not permit women to sing in any grouping “the church has arranged.”

Recognizing that the above qualifications would not forbid Christian women from teaching any group that would not be described as “in the church” or “class the church may arrange,” false teachers are forced to further qualify it. They usually add in public or in worship. Even that addition will give them no comfort for it too prohibits women from singing (worship) in the public assemblies of the church.

All of these and other qualifications are put on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in an effort to sustain a false doctrine. Recently, in public debate, I charged my opponent with changing God’s Word to read: “But I suffer not a woman to teach (that is: be a teacher, deliver a didactic discourse), in the church, or in any class the church may arrange, or in public, or in worship; nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” He accepted (his and his and Mr. Thayer’s rendition of the passage. It certainly is not what the Bible says.

The Truth Harmonized

There can be no substitute for the truth. As stated in the firs[ paragraph of this article, the truth perfectly harmonizes with every partial of it. There is no lie of the truth (1 Jn. 2:21). When the truth on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is found, it too harmonizes perfectly with every other passage. Let us consider the context.

In the first seven verses of the chapter, Paul talks about God’s will for all men to be saved through Jesus Christ who died for all, and that he had been ordained to preach the gospel to them. In verse 8 he says, “I will therefore that men (Greek; andras, males) pray every where.” The nature of this statement in view of its context shows that women cannot pray every where. why? ‘The same reason women are told in verses 9-12 to (1) dress modestly, (2) “learn in silence with all subjection,” (3) not “to teach,” and (4) “nor to usurp authority over the man,” The reason is her relationship to man. She cannot pray everywhere because of her relationship to man (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1-16). She is to be in “subjection” (v. 11), and she is “not to usurp authority over the man” (v. 12). She cannot pray or teach in any capacity that causes her to violate her submission to man, but when she does not sustain a relationship to any inan, she cannot violate the passage. That is why she does not violate it when she teaches a class of other women or children. In these classes she does not have a relationship to men when teaching.

Paul then gives the reasons for the regulation. (1) “Adam was first formed,” and (2) “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (v. 13-14). The first reason is as old as Eve, arid the second nearly as Old (Gen. 3:16). From the beginning it was not so that wonian should violate and ignore their submission to man, and she niust not do so even today, but let us not dare to forbid christian women to do what they art commanded to do.

Women are commanded to sing (Col. 3:16), and they can do so as long as they do not violate their submission to man. Likewise, they can be teachers of good things, teach the younger wornen (Tit. 2:3-5), teach by example, teach their children (2 Tim. 1:5), and teach like Priscilla (Acts 18:26), and do it all without violating their submission to man and without exercising authority over man. That is the truth about it, and it is the only way 1 Timothy 2:11-12 can be harmonized with those passages teaching women to teach.

Next article: “Wells With Water.”

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 696-698
November 4, 1976

By Daniel H. King

The sentiment of skepticism and unbelief which pervades all of human society at the present time has a singular facet which has led to its appeal to a large segment of mankind. Strangely enough, that facet is that it leaves people oblivious to any purpose for existence. It may not sound as though this exactly jibes, but it is clear that the mail who is set on having his own way about things anyway is left with a free hand by such a sentiment. In fact, he is left to determine what he most wants to do with his own little span of mortality — that, even in the face of what every other individual wants to do with his. God does not even enter the picture.

There is no arguing the point that this is only a new form of license. It is different from the old forms in title and description only. Its effects are the same. Its contemporary title is “freedom,” but at a glance it is evident that it has formerly paraded under the designations “antinomianism” and “libertinisin.” In the past, as now, it has been the practice for such ideologies to undermine and then remove the thing which hindered its acceptance, Usually that has been the Bible or parts of it. In this case it involves the Bible and the One Who inspired it. The surgical removal of both from the consciences of men and women in our day has been successfully completed by, of all people, the “doctors” of the clerical profession. The success of the operation is evident all about us. People are now more than ever living with themselves in the center of their attention. Husbands, wives, parents, children, friends, country, and even religion, have given way to the preeminence of self. The past and the future are also put out of sight arid out of mind. The present is the going commodity. And, admittedly, all is well if the philosophy of our day is correct in assuming that there is no over-all, all-encompassing, all-engrossing purpose for the universe in general and man in particular, If this is true why should one be the least interested in anyone or anything except the all-important me in the all-important now.

By means of this applied philosophy the combined forces of religion have brought more genuine peril and misery upon humankind than ever a molten idol or apostate church dared to hope. Animated by it people go about from day to day undauntedly making decisions to lie to, steal from, cheat, rape, and even kill their fellow human beings when the other’s interests come into conflict with their own self-interests, Freed from the bonds of a so-called “out-dated” morality and motivated solely by beastly instincts, they prowl without pang of conscience or fear of destiny-alas, to their minds there is none. The religionists told them this when they compromised with current scientific theory and informed them that they were one with the animal kingdom, alike animals, and alike without future beyond the cessation of biological functioning. And, while platitudes and cliche’s are sufficient as motivation to acceptable moral behavior for the intellectual elite who peddle them to the rank and file they are an unsatisfactory substitute for religious law couched in divine imperatives the like of, “Thou shalt and “Thou shalt not. . .”

Why should we wonder that drugs and sex are the ,escape routes taken from the dog-eat-dog treadmill of life by so many of-our young? Why be surprised that the oldsters whose faith has been destroyed bury themselves in a grave of alcohol or materialism? And, when either finds that none of these offer any real repose, why are we shocked at suicide as an inviting alternative to the depressing aimlessness and purposelessness of it all? On the whole they are left a bit like the female salmon that has struggled long and hard to make her journey upstream to the place of her origin. She deposits her eggs and her purpose in the ongoing process of nature has been accomplished. She travelled the long distance to procreate, and having done so she swims about aimlessly, waiting to die. That’s all there is left for her. Similarly, to their hurt and to the hurt of the rest of society, that is all there is left for too large a portion of the world’s population today.

And, realistically now, is there any logical reason why Iliev should. not act like the lower creatures in their daily intercourse with their fellows? Their pupose in living has,been ascertained by their “intellectual” and “spiritual” leaders to be no higher-nor more noble than that of animals. What could be a possible reason for their making daily decisions in tune with any standard other than the biological urge or personal ambition which manifests itself at the time the decision is made? In light of !he presuppositions under which they operate, obviously there is none. Man enters the world selfishly crying out for nourishment and comfort for himself and usually leaves it wishing for more life for himself. During the interim why should he make moral decisions with anything in mind except his own personal gratification? If there is nothing outside of and superior to himself demanding of his attention and intention, then he should not. (And by “superior” we mean superiority in his estimation of it, whether in power or in worth or both). If he is going to practice selflessness there must be something in it for him (at least to get him started). All talk of selflessness or selfless action is just so much hogwash without an attendant conviction which makes even this a matter of personal gratification, This is a coarse reality, but it is simply true that practical (not theoretical) morality is unworkable without an undergirding “ulterior motive” to make it operable. In the past that motive was to enjoy heaven and avoid hell, with a vacillating primacy to the one or the other. With this motivation stripped away by the clerics themselves, however, men just will not be bounded by platitudes. The motivation is gone. So is absolute moral law. What is left is not very pretty to look at-and even worse to live with.

But it is all too clear that morality, goodness, justice, and the multitude of other excellent virtues that we love in others have their place in all of us and in the larger purpose of the universe as a whole. Furthermore, the ugly vices and malignities that we regard as contemptible in others: greed, haired, cruelty, etc., have no rightful place in either and serve only to thwart the worthy goal for which the creation evidences that it was brought into being. Notwithstanding the clarity of these truths, men live on in a haphazard fashion. It is even ludicrous to entertain the notion that they will not continue to lull themselves into aimlessness by promoting the idea that it is all a Grand Enigma, even though all of logic and reason (and even the very existence of logic and reason) militate against this comfortable illusion. The simple reason for this is that they like it better, nonsensical though it be. Meaninglessness is the basis upon which their philosophy of life is based as well as the reason that life can be exploited in pursuit of self-interest. Purpose and order, on the other hand, demand a moral standard in keeping with purposeful existence. Standards in the moral sphere enjoin restrictions and limitations. Enigma is therefore the much-to-be-preferred alternative.

Contrariwise, when we ask the seminal question “why?”, and answer it with “God!”, then all of the parts of the puzzle fall into place for us-even my part. Genuine virtue does not have to be legislated for us be human governments. We do not have to be cajoled into it by empty platitudes. Instead, virtue and right action is viewed by us as a functionary in a Grand Scheme in which we all play a real and important role. Those who do not take their cues are “wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 13). They are without purpose, unguided. And, the man is an utter fool who thinks that he can stimulate them to virtue as a regular response without God and the Bible being the stimuli. The present state of things should be sufficient argumentation to satisfy any questioner of this point. Not until men recognize that they are creatures made in the image of the eternal, benevolent, and glorious God (Gen. 1:27), and that all other people are alike fashioned in His image will they be able truly to love and respect their neighbors as they do themselves. Not until they see that their every decision for good or for evil is cosmic and eternal both in its significance and its consequence will they learn to make their judgements based on an external moral standard set up and enforced by One who loves them and has their best interest always in mind (1 John 5:3). And, not until men view their lives as filled with purpose and intent (Psa. 139:16) by God Who by His grace and mercy has granted them their few days of sojourn will they want to use them up in the pursuit of anything except self-interest (Eccl. 12:13).

Indeed, God is the Reason for it all. He is both the Ultimate Cause of everything and the Reason for the continuance of all that is. This world is riot without purpose and neither are we. Is God the Supreme Factor that motivates your every decision? Is His Word the standard for your conduct? Remember, you have a part in His Grand Scheme–and life would be, is, and always will be aimless without Him. If you do not believe that, then merely open your eyes and take a good look around you. Unknowing witnesses testify on every side. The aimlessness of their lives stands as a stark testimony to this principle. “Reverence God and observe His commandments; because this is the whole purpose of man.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 694-696
November 4, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Last week we set out to study a few of the cases of conversion recorded in the book of Acts to see how they coincide precisely with the commandments we have seen to be enjoined upon us by the direct commands of the Lord. We want to see that those of whom the Bible speaks as having obeyed the Lord did the same things that we must do to be saved. We have studied the themes of faith, repentance and baptism now for quite some time, and at the present we are devoting ourselves to a study of some cases of conversion to see that these individuals did believe, repent and were baptized.

Last week we studied the conversion of Saul the persecutor, later called Paul the Apostle. It was seen that he did exactly the same things that you and I are to do. He believed, repented and was baptized.

Now we want to consider the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, as recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Inasmuch as the Eunuch lived under the same law as that under which you and I live, and will be judged by the same authority as will you and I, when we notice the things that he did by divine sanction, then we may learn those things that you and I must do.

The Background

“But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip saying, arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the same is desert. And he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship; and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet, Isaiah” (Acts 8:20-28). For one to understand exactly what was happening in the Scriptural account of this man’s conversion, it would. be best for him to know just a little about the geographical background of the lesson. In the first part of the eighth chapter of Acts, Luke tells us about the terrible persecution that was wrought upon the church in Jerusalem. So great was this persecution, that it was necessary for all the people, except the apostles, to leave the city of Jerusalem. But the marvelous part about this tragedy of the persecution and dispersion of this great church in Jerusalem is that they turned what seemed to be tragedy into good. Rather than being discouraged by their scattering, they went everywhere preaching the word.

One of the members of this congregation at the time of this scattering because of persecution, went to a town about thirty-six miles to the north of Jerusalem, called Samaria. The Scriptures say, “And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ” (Acts 8:5). This preacher, Philip, is the same one who told the Ethiopian eunuch what to do to be saved. He was preaching in Samaria at the time that the angel appeared to him and told him to go to the south, unto the road that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza.

The eunuch had been to Jerusalem to worship according to the law of Moses, and was returning to his native land, which was quite a distance south of Palestine, even south of Egypt. On his return home, he was riding on the road that went from Jerusalem to Gaza. The angel appeared to Philip and told him to go down to this road. Gaza was a small seacoast town, somewhat to the southwest of Jerusalem, So as the eunuch made his journey back home, God sent this preacher, Philip, and had him intersect the eunuch on this Jerusalem-Gaza road, and there teach him what he must do. The merciful providence and wisdom of God is seen in that even though. the preacher arid the sinner were quite a distance separated, yet they were brought together, in order that the eunuch might be taught..

The idea of many denominationalists is that all that one had to do to be saved is to be a religious person, but one sees that the eunuch was obviously very devoted to that which be thought to be right. It was no easy matter for one to make the long, slow journey from Ethiopia. to Jerusalem to worship God, but his sincerity motivated him to be on his way. But in spite of his sincerity and his religious life, still there was much that be needed. This man was living as though Moses’ law was the one by which he was to be judged, unconscious of its replacement by the law of Christ. He was a religious man, but religiously wrong, in spite of the contentions of so many today that would say that any religious life will save one.

Furthermore, in the conversion of this sinner, it should be noticed that there, was a miracle wrought in connection with this man’s salvation. But there was a vast difference in the purpose of the miracle performed in connection with his salvation, than in the purpose that men would have us believe miracles are for today. What was the miracle? It was simply the divine appearance of the angel to Philip to tell him to go unto the south, unto the way that goetb down from Jerusalem to Gaza, and preach to the eunuch. Upon whom was the miracle performed? It was performed upon the preacher instead of upon the sinner. God did not perform any miracle upon the sinner to save him, or to show him that he had been saved, but the miracle done in connection with his salvation was to show Philip where to go to preach to this man. The plan was the same. Paul says that, “It pleased God through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe” (1Cor, 1:21). So the miracle was to bring the preacher to the sinner, in order that by the preaching, the eunuch might believe, obey and be saved by it.

But to go back to !he text to see what the eunuch did to be saved: “And the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? and he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is, so he openeth not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: His generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other? And Philip opened his mouth and beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus” (Acts 8:28-35).

The Message

One thing that we readily learn from this passage of scripture is the value of using the Old Testament passages to establish the fundamental faiths of the system of Christianity. When Philip sought to preach Jesus to this man, he began by pointing back to the prophecies written centuries before which looked forward to the Messiah. The Old Testament prophecies are the strongest proofs, to my mind, of the deity of Christ, and when linked with the resurrection of Christ from the dead, these historical proofs prove without doubt that Jesus Christ was not man, but was God in the flesh.

The scripture we just cited says that Philip began from this passage in Isaiah and preached unto him Jesus. Here we have a chance to learn what it means to preach Jesus. We may learn what it includes and what it excludes; what it involves and what it omits. So many times we hear people say, “I wish that preacher would preach Jesus, and leave this or that alone.” Frequently, they say that one should not preach about the church, but should just preach Jesus, or they should not preach so much about the name, for after all, there is nothing in a name. Or they will say, “I wish he would just preach Christ and quit preaching on baptism.” The trouble with these people is that they do not know what preaching Christ means.

What does it mean to preach Christ? In this same eighth chapter of Acts, we find a record of where this same preacher, Philip, went down to the city of Samaria, and “proclaimed unto them the Christ” (Acts 8:5). Now Philip preached what everybody thinks that a preacher ought to preach today, and so it is. We should preach Christ. But what did Philip preach? The Scripture leaves us without doubt as to what he preached, for it tells us exactly: “But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12), What does it mean to preach Christ? It means to preach about the kingdom or the church; to preach the name of Christ to the exclusion of all others; and to preach baptism.

As Philip answered the inquiry of the eunuch as to whom the prophet Isaiah referred when he pictured the suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53, Philip stated that he was speaking of Christ? This Old Testament prophecy was the starting point that Philip used to preach to the man the Christ. But what did he preach to him, when he preached to him the Christ? This is a very easy question to answer, for we know what the eunuch did after Philip preached unto him. Certainly he did what Philip told him to do, and Philip had only told him those things that were included in preaching Christ. What did the eunuch do? He was baptized; “And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:35-39).

The Scripture says that Philip preached unto the eunuch Jesus, and then immediately after he had preached to him, the eunuch upon arriving at water, asked what hindered him to be baptized. So to preach Jesus is to preach baptism.

The Baptism

But let us also notice how this man’s baptism occurred. The Scripture says that they came unto a certain water, they both went down into the water, and Philip baptized him, then they both came up out of the water. Is this the way that your baptism occurred? If not, it follows that you just have not been baptized. Many people come to a bowl of water, and have some church official sprinkle a few drops of water on them, and then they call that baptism. In the light of this passage, and of all other passages in the New Testament, sprinkling or pouring cannot be baptism.

As they were riding along in the chariot, they approached, came Dear, or came unto this certain water, then they commanded the chariot to stand still, Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water (it would be rather absurd and ridiculous to see the preacher and the candidate try to go down into the amount of water that those who sprinkle and pour for baptism use). and while in the water, Philip baptized the eunuch.

Denominational preachers for many years made the argument that Philip could not have baptized, or immersed, the eunuch, for the Bible itself says that they were in a desert, and there could not have been enough water to immerse a man in a desert. But there is just one thing wrong with this argument. The Bible does not say they were in a desert. It says that they were on the road that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert. It was the city of Gaza that was desert, or deserted, and not the whole country.

But regardless of the geographical data, to those who honor and respect the Bible as authentic, Philip and the eunuch came unto a certain water great enough for both of them to go down into it, and to baptized, or immerse the eunuch in it. In fact the Bible states that they did precisely that. It takes an unbeliever in the Bible to make an argument stating that they could not have come to enough water to baptize a man, for the Bible says that they did.

The action of baptism should be definitely determined after reading this passage, They came unto, went down into, and came up out of the water, Can you say this of sprinkling? Or of pouring? Do you come unto the water, go down into the water, and then come up out of it? If not, then you have not been baptized according to New Testament authority.

The “New Creature”

But notice furthermore flow the Scriptures describe the eunuch after he had been baptized. It says that he went on his way rejoicing. He had every reason to rejoice. Now he could know that he had done what God would have him do. In the sixteenth chapter of Acts we have the record of the conversion of the Philippian jailer. He believed, repented and was baptized. The scripture says that after he had done these three acts that he rejoiced, just as did the eunuch. The Bible says of him, “And he took them (that is Paul and Silas) the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God” (Acts 16:33,34). Paul, whose conversion we studied last week, was blinded and fasted from the time that the Lord appeared to him, until Ananias came to him and told him what to do to be saved. After arising, and being baptized, he took food. He rejoiced. It is altogether fitting and proper that one rejoice as did these individuals after they obey the gospel, for they then know that they have obeyed the Lord.

Conclusion

What did the eunuch do to be saved? He heard the gospel preached to him. He believed it, and obeyed it. He believed, repented, or changed his mind about living under the law, and was baptized for the remission of his sin. You can be saved the very same way, and in no other way. We plead with you to accept the invitation of the Lord, and obey these commandments.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 691-694
November 4, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

(1) One may extol the virtues of morality, bravery, kindness, and humility but be possessed of none of them. One may excoriate the vices of intemperance, cowardice, harshness, and arrogance but be polluted with all of them.

(2) Are you familiar with the expression, “Be not deceived?” Even casual students of the Bible recognize it. Wherever and whenever you find the expression, be prepared to confront an absolute truth. When the Spirit says, “Be not deceived,” He is saying, in our language, “Do not make auy mistake about it; here is the way it is; what follows is the truth and any other idea is wrong.” The statement is doctrine’s way of securing rapt attention, for a certain fact is to be set forth. See 1 Cor. 15:33 and Gal. 6:7, 8.

(3) We may also learn from the term, “Beware.” It was a favorite word of the Master—“But beware of men” (Matt. 10:17); “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Saducees” (Matt, 16:6): “Take heed and beware of covetousness” (Lk. 12:15). Where and when do we use the word, “beware?” It is always in the face of crisis and danger. It is never used lightly. One must beware of a Cobra bite not of a mosquito. No one picks up a sign saying, “Beware, Wet Paint!” But we are quick to warn, “Beware of fallen rock.” So, let us not take the term lackadaisicallv when we find it in Scripture. It is a word of exclamation and of extreme peril; so, beware when you see the word, “beware.”

(4) “Blessed is the man that walketb not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners. nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful, But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night’ (Psa. 1:1, 2). Upon what do you meditate in your mind and conversation? Is it sports, soap operas, the stock market, materialistic plans? What? If so, you are not the one who is “blessed,” “O how love I thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psa. 119:97). Is it yours?

Truth Magazine XX: 44, p. 690
November 4, 1976