Truth Magazine

I have never written an article for Truth Magazine before. I’ve never thought that I was good enough to do so with my limited ability as a writer. I’ve been a member of the Lord’s church and fellow laborer with God in the preaching and teaching of the gospel of Christ for 30 years. Truth Magazine has been a blessing for me over the years. For 30 years I have preached and taught the gospel in the area that I presently live. I have been a member of a small congregation for 18 years. Truth Magazine has been an excellent aid and tool for me in learning the will of God. Of course an open Bible has been the final say so on religious matters. It is a sad thing though when brethren will not even read a religious paper such as Truth Magazine because I believe they can’t take the truth on certain of their pet sins. I guess they have not read 2 Timothy 2:2 lately. They seem to read everything else.

Recently in Truth Magazine I read brother Fultz’s article dated July 16, 1998 on “Quarreling Brethren.” That particular article mirrored my experience as a teacher and preacher of the gospel. The wide range of issues he struggled with in his early years were also a time of confusion for me. But through reading Truth Magazine and checking the Scriptures, line upon line and precept upon precept, I came to see those issues fall into place and for me were resolved. I don’t mind to say at this point, faithful brethren such as Foy E. Wallace, Jr. and Roy E. Cogdill and all the writers of Truth Magazine played an important part in my resolving these issues.

Brethren, over the years I have taught what I thought and understood to be the truth on such issues as divorce and remarriage, dancing, wearing of shorts, social drinking, mixed swimming, long hair on men, etc. I’ve taught what faithful writers in God’s word over the years have taught concerning such matters, solely for the purpose of saving souls.

I now find myself on the run! The door has been shut in my face with cold calculation by brethren who are supposed to “love one another.” The brethren it seems do not want to hear sermons which deal with these issues for fear that it will drive away the young ones that are coming into the church. So the plan is to get somebody younger and one who will evade these issues and just “preach the gospel.”

So today fundamental gospel obedience and such like are what people want to hear. Tell me what I need to be doing and not what I am not supposed to be doing is the cry heard today.

“Go ahead if you can squeeze in an opportunity some time to preach on these subjects,” they say, “but give us a ‘thou shalt not dance, and thou shalt not wear shorts, or a thou shalt not chew tobacco or be involved in mixed swimming.’” “Where is the chapter and verse?” they wail. No, brethren, you must have a “thou shalt not!” No, words such as lasciviousness, or modesty are not enough to say. We want the verse! As one can tell by this letter and my simple plainness of speech that I am somewhat rude or crude in my explanation of my present feelings as a “preacher on the run.”

Yes, I am discouraged, disheartened, disenchanted, and, it seems, alone when it comes to members of the Lord’s church caring whether or not a brother is cast out and cold shouldered because of this kind of preaching. Brethren, use all the tact you want, or the compassion and kindness and harmlessness as a dove you may — it won’t be enough to prevent the appearing of some brethren through some tactical means of low, underhanded dealing to say in essence, “smile,” you are on your way out and we will have peace and happiness here in the church with one who will just preach the gospel. Of course he will just preach the gospel, but in order to keep his job he will mention not one of the aforementioned sins. Well surely they will let some old buzzard preach every once in a while? No they won’t either. Brethren, you try and change the minds of members of the church today on these subjects! The ones that run the church will not, and just not a few preachers will have enough courage and honesty to teach the truth for fear of losing a job. Maybe it’s time to start all over and build another church for those preaching the gospel (????). I can still “make tents” and support my family, but a real present danger is confronting me daily as I try to be a Christian and preach the gospel (Matt. 28:18-20). I find myself a preacher on the run and nowhere to go. The answer cannot be to just remain silent as a tomb as some do and watch souls slide the slippery slope to hell!

Although frustrated enough, like Jeremiah the prophet, I contemplate doing so. These few words are written in hopes my brethren who write for Truth Magazine might encourage me to stand fast and from “such to turn away” that won’t listen to the whole counsel of God.

Brethren, keep writing articles, but I hope while you are doing so that you are saying the same things to those who are Christians that are there at the church where you preach and teach. From a preacher on the run!

Oldest Extra-Biblical Reference to Solomon’s Temple

Late last year, an inscription in paleo-Hebrew was announced in Biblical Archaeology Review (November/ December). It was on an ostracon, a broken piece of pottery with writing on it. Some doubted its veracity since it appeared on the antiquities market instead of in an archaeological site.

After testing confirmed its antiquity, the inscription was reported to be the oldest extra-Biblical reference to Solomon’s temple. It was a temple receipt for three shekels payment, paid by order of a king “to the house of Yahweh” from “the hand of [Z]echaryahu.” The full translation given follows:

Pursuant to the order of Ashyahu the king to give by the hand of [Z]echaryahu silver of Tarshish to the House (or Temple) of Yahweh Three shekels.

“BYT YHWH” (Beit Yahweh, House of Yahweh) had been reconstructed on an ivory pomegranate that was thought to have served as the head of a priestly scepter in Solomon’s Temple. Since only a part of “YHWH” actu- ally appear on the pomegranate, some scholars suggested “Asherah,” the pagan female deity might be the reading. On the newly published ostracon “YHWH” is “clearly present and easily readable. . . .”

It has been suggested that “Ashyahu” may be one of the alternate names for Yoash (Joash) or Yehoash Jehoash). They are known to have existed from 835 to 796 B.C. in the case of Joash, king of Judah, and 803 to 787 B.C. for Jehoash, king of Israel. The “-yahu” suffix represents a shorter version of God’s name appended to the king’s name. We see this in the “-iah” endings in other names, such as “Zecharyahu” (Zechariah) in the third line.

This is a significant find for reasons other than just being the oldest reference to the “house of the Lord.” The way it was written lends credence to another ancient reference that had been under question: “the house of David.” In Tel Dan, an excavator and epigrapher found an inscription that he read as “the house [or dynasty] of David.” Since some have doubted the existence of David, not regarding the Bible’s accounts, they had to doubt that inscription as well because no word divider was present between “House” and “David.” The “House of Yahweh” also has no word divider. As it is obvious that “Beit Yahweh” refers to the “House of Yahweh,” so must “Beit David” refer to the “House of David.”

A Widow’s Plea

The same issue of Biblical Archaeology Review reported another ostracon, which was a widow’s plea for justice. Here is the English translation by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.:

May Yahweh bless you in peace. And now let my lord, the [king] near your maidservant. [  ] Dead is my husband with no children. And may your hand be with me, and may you give into the hand of your maidservant the estate which you promised to Amasyahu. And as for the wheat field which is in Na‘amah, you gave it to his brother.

Certainly, this reminds us of the parable of the widow and the unjust king who feared not God nor men, that we should pray and not lose heart found in Luke 18:1-8. Her plea was simply, “Give me legal protection from my opponent” (v. 3, NASB). However, remember that she kept coming before him with her plea until he finally answered her plea lest she wear him out (v. 5). The parable was that we likewise, without losing heart, should petition our just Father in heaven to hear our requests.

The ostracon indicates that since the dead husband had no children, his land went to his brother, as per Numbers 27:8-11. The widow was requesting, not by legal right, but perhaps by fairness, that she be able to keep the land.

One wonders if she kept coming back until she got her request.

Lutheranism Comes to Rome

In the fifteenth century, Martin Luther broke from the Roman Catholic Church over his view of “justification by faith” which has been understood ever since as “By grace alone; through faith alone” by Luther’s followers. By this he meant that salvation is entirely out of human hands; “works” has nothing to do with it in his view. This got him excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and began what is called the “Reformation.”

The July 6, 1998 issue of Time reported on a statement published with Vatican approval, according to Edward “Cardinal” Cassidy. Though there were some “caveats” to the approval, it was a “. . . Joint Declaration on the Doc- trine of Justification, toward which Catholics and Lutheran theologians have been toiling since 1967.

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works (International Edition of Time 46).

The Catholics refuse to give up some cooperative agency between God and man giving penance or charity as examples. “The Joint Declaration,” says emeritus Yale theologian, George Linbeck, who helped draft earlier efforts, “reflects the conclusion that Catholicism never denied justification through grace; it was simply more focused on the human drama of the transformed sinner than on the exclusively divine origin of his or her transformation.”

This is an interesting move on the part of the Roman Catholics. It comes at a time when some “Protestants” are denying “faith only” as a part of biblical teaching. David Bercot has written, “If there’s any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it’s the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that those who don’t hold this doctrine aren’t really Christians” (Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up 57.) Bercot continued to show from Scripture and from early writings that “faith only” is the “real heretical” position — denied by the early church. “Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians [and may we now add the Roman Catholics? — SPW] have convinced us that there’s an ir- reconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience” (62). “The early Christian doctrine of salvation gave equal weight to both” (64).

It looks like the Lutherans may finally be “reforming” the Roman Catholic Church, but not in the right direction of Scripture.

What’s Your Sign? Ophiuchus?

Occasionally someone will ask you, “What’s Your Sign?” trying to be friendly. They are asking about your “astrological” sign — not to be confused with “astronomical.” When someone answers, “Aries,” what they mean is that they were born when the sun was in front of the Aries star constellation. Well, maybe they used to be!

As the Earth moves in orbit around the sun, the pole wobbles a bit, so that the constellations no longer appear during the same time of year. They have drifted westward. So the old monthly designations for each of the Zodiac signs no longer correspond, and there has not been an update by astrologers to reflect this change.

In addition to that, the Zodiac signs are not the same equal size, so there really is no way of having an evenly divided year to fit the “12 Zodiac signs.” When astronomers faced this problem 70 years ago, they redrew the “Zodiac” to come up with equidistant spacing. However, they also came up with a 13th Zodiac sign: Ophiuchus, “the serpent bearer,” which is visible in the Summer sky (above and between Sagittarius and Scorpio).

Here are the present dates for the signs according to the sun’s position, but the dates actually fluctuate by a day from year to year:

Capricornus: January 19 to February 15

Aquarius: February 16 to March 11

Pisces: March 12 to April 18

Aries: April 19 to May 13

Taurus: May 14 to June 19

Gemini: June 20 to July 20

Cancer: July 21 to August 9

Leo: August 10 to September 15

Virgo: September 16 to October 30

Libra: October 31 to November 22

Scorpios: November 23 to November 29

Ophiuchus: November 30 to December 17

Sagittarius: December 18 to January 18

I don’t include these so you’ll be a better astrologer. We should not trust in such things as astrology (see the condemnation to Israel in Deut. 18:9-13 and Isa. 47:13-14). I present them here so you may not trust in them when you see them in the newspaper or shopping lines. Perhaps you can show them to a friend as well.

If you have access to a computer and the Internet, you can see more at this web site: http://www.griffithobs.org/SkyOphiuchus.html.

By William C. Sexton

Preachers, elders, and Christians in general are not immune to the common pitfalls of life. That concept, it appears to this scribe, deserves some serious consideration. Over the last forty years, I’ve seen many fall from grace, often into disgrace for themselves, and often affected many other’s lives. At this juncture, however, we’ll limit our expressions to preachers!

First, men who are preachers need to recognize that they can all fall into Satan’s devices (2 Cor. 2:11). Therefore, they need to beware, prayerfully consider situations in which we may be “overcome” in faults (Gal. 6:1ff).

Secondly, people (members in particular) need to recognize that preachers are human beings, with all the potential for evil as everyone else has. One is not to expect them to be iron horses, above temptation, etc.

Thirdly, preachers need to recognize that we are watched by many. Consider the apostle’s instruction to Timothy: “Be thou an example of the believers” (1 Tim. 4:12). A preacher’s family is often under a greater scrutiny than others, and some appreciate that and others resent it! Both the wife and the children are expected to live on a higher moral plane than others! How do you evaluate that? I hope we see it as a good thing; rather than a negative element.

I remember reading some writings of the late brother C.R. Nichol, to the effect that preachers at one time could ride trains free. Once, he occupied a seat with a reporter, and in conversation, he was critical of reporters being harder (more critical) of preachers than on other people. They will write a preacher up for things that other people engage in and escape the attention of the newspaper. The reporter said something that is significant: “You should be appreciative of that! When the average person commits such an act, it isn’t newsworthy! When a preacher commits such, it is news! There is a higher expectation of preachers!”

1. Preachers do neglect their families! I remember reading about one of the highly respected preachers of long ago, who was know for his soundness and effective preaching. But reading about his life, I have said and heard others say: “He was a great preacher, but he sure was not a family man. He sure did neglect his family!” A preacher’s wife was expressing to my wife once that she told her husband: “Why don’t you come home and take care of your ‘home work.’”

2. Often, perhaps pride, stands in the way: a preacher won’t admit that he can be tempted as other men! An older, more experienced, man told me of his conversation with a younger preacher, suggesting that he (the younger preacher) be careful and not get too close to those of the opposite sex. The younger man was offended, saying, “Why, I’m a Christian, you don’t need to warn me about that.” I’ve made it a practice, not to visit a woman alone! Even, if I knock on an elder’s door, and his wife is home alone, I’ll stay outside.

Once I had a young lady whom I had baptized recently, come to see me at my home, and I was there alone. She was innocent, studious, wanting to find the answer to some Bible questions. I told her we would sit on the porch. We sat there and studied. Years later she said she told her mother, that I didn’t invite her into the house. She thought that was strange. Her mother said: “Don’t you see why he wouldn’t?” Maturity, helped her to see the prudence of that, but at the time she didn’t understand why! She thought I was impolite, or something.

How many preachers have we known who lost their dignity, spiritual standing with God, hurt a congregation as well as their family by being imprudent in getting involved with a person they are studying the Bible with! Did they start out to get involved? I don’t think most of them did. But they were unwise, failing to understand that the sexual drive can be stimulated and carry one out of control, so beware! Flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18)!

3. It’s easy to get so many things going that we neglect our families. I recall a time when I was holding down a 48-hour a week job, taking sixteen hours of college, and driving sometimes a hundred miles to preach each Sunday. From one perspective, I accomplished more in that time period than any others, because I had to meet deadlines! On the other land, looking back, listening to my wife, I see that I could have very easily lost my family (had they not been of the character to continue to be faithful, even though I was spending little time with them). Thank God they still love me, and “respect” me for the most part, I believe. However, I regret that I didn’t spend more time with my children as they were growing up. That time passes and can never be regained. I’ve found myself trying to give my grandchildren the attention I didn’t give my son and daughters!

4. Scheduling is a problem. I remember a preacher (O.C. Birdwell) suggesting to me early in my preaching experience (as I was about to embark upon the “full-time” preaching course) that a preacher needs to take some time off — say a Monday or some certain day of the week and be at home with the family. I can attest to the wisdom in following that advise. However, it’s not easy to do!

I was never one to spend as much time on vacation as I could (although we did occasionally go on a few day’s trip — to parks, visiting relatives, sight-seeing, etc). A preacher needs some change-of-pace activities; his family needs to be attended to, also. I have known preachers who scheduled their work so tightly, that they couldn’t go for lunch or alter their time slots for hardly anything. I have never been that tightly scheduled. I try to be flexible. But, there is so much time that one has to spend studying, preparing, etc. even if it is late at night, or whenever one chooses. So, get started early, but make yourself available to changing circumstances, etc.

Remember that we are not immune to the common pitfalls of men! Thanks for allowing me this time in your life!