Truth Magazine

I don’t know if you read the following article but it is worthy of note. It appeared in the June 18, 1998 Arizona Republic.

“It’s the common dilemma every parent faces. You nurture them, guide them, lead by example, but once they reach their teen years, it often goes right out the window as adolescents try to reinvent themselves and recommit the mistakes their parents made.

Mike Balis, a Paradise Valley ophthalmologist, could see it coming. His younger daughter, Elizabeth, 14, was trying out her wings, and Balis wasn’t too sure he liked her cruising altitude.

Then something happened. The father found out that his usually-health- conscious daughter had sampled a cigarette. ‘When I found out she had experimented with smoking, I was disappointed.’ Balis said. ‘Initially, I was angry.

‘I decided that rather than confront her with rage or anger, that the best thing would be to write her a letter that was informational and instructive, and would convey to her my reasons for not wanting her to do it.’

Here is that letter . . .

“Dear Elizabeth:

I have written this letter to you because I love you. When I heard that you had smoked, I was not angry. I was sad, but mostly I was disappointed. You had led me to believe that you understood the risks involved in smoking, and that you would ‘never try it.’

I know how important peer pressure is, and how trying something new is exciting and fascinating. Exploring new territory is usually a positive endeavor, as long as the end result isn’t potentially self-destructive. Often our judgment is clouded by emotions that are stronger than wisdom or reason. We all make mistakes. I don’t want you to make a mistake that could affect the rest of your life.

Please take the time to read this letter in its entirety. I wrote it to inform you, not to harass you. Although everyone knows about lung cancer and smoking, there are many other considerations regarding this addiction that merit consideration.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a huge federal agency that studies disease patterns, nicotine addiction is more powerful than heroin or cocaine. One out of four intravenous cocaine users become addicted. One out of two smokers become addicted. There is no safe level of tobacco use.

Each day, 6,000 kids smoke for the first time. Three thousand of these kids become regular smokers, and the vast majority continue smoking for the rest of their lives. The CDC estimates that 5 million children living today will die early

because of the decision they make as adolescents to use tobacco.

Tobacco companies spend over $5 billion a year on advertising, and most of their ads are designed to appeal to kids. Virtually all adult smokers began their habit as children. Many internal memos and documents that have been circulated within the tobacco industry reveal the strong motivation that the cigarette manufacturers have to hook kids on smoking. Here are some examples:

Memo from a tobacco company:

Realistically, if our company is to survive and prosper, over the long term, we must get our share of the youth market. In my opinion, this will require new brands tailored to the youth market.

R.J.R. should make a substantial long-term commitment of manpower and money dedicated to younger adult smoker programs.

These companies recognize that the vast majority of smokers start before the age of 18.

Since older smokers either quit (if they can) or die from smoking-related illness, the youth market is the major source of replacement smokers.

Memo from another tobacco company:

Today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens. Tobacco advertising works, and children are the ultimate victims. The strategy of the manufacturers, marketing companies and retail stores is to hook kids on smoking. Health is not their concern — making money is their only motivation.

The average smoker begins at age 13 and becomes a daily smoker by age 14½. Cigarettes kill more than 400,000 people a year. Smoking causes more deaths in women than breast cancer. That’s more than from alcohol, crack, heroin, murders, suicide, car accidents and AIDS combined. Smoking is the most preventable cause of premature death in this country. Most adult smokers realize the dangers but they just cannot stop smoking. Indeed, the business of “stop- smoking” remedies is a multibillion-dollar industry.

Some of these remedies include hypnosis, biofeedback, psycho-therapy, subliminal tapes, motivational seminars, group therapy, stop-smoking clubs, and support groups. The store shelves are full of nicotine chewing gum, skin patches, tobaccoless cigarettes, and pills, all of which are designed to help ‘kick the habit.’ Few of these ‘cures’ work. Most smokers go right back to the habit after a brief period of time. Forty percent of teenagers who smoke daily have tried to quit and have failed. Forty-two percent of young people who smoke as few as three cigarettes go on to be- come regular smokers.

Why start smoking when the vast majority of existing smokers regret that they ever started, and are so desperate to stop that they are spending billions of dollars per year to free themselves from this horrible addiction?

Why start a habit that makes your breath bad, almost always causes a chronic cough, and stains your teeth and fingers? Why join that group of desperate individuals who, after a brief flight, run through the airport with an unlit cigarette dangling from their mouth, in desperate anticipation of lighting up? Why assemble in those little alleys outside office buildings with other nervous smokers get- ting their fix, as they stand around, inhaling those precious fumes amid piles of crushed cigarette butts? Tobacco use accounts for over one-third of all cancer-related deaths. Do you know what a carcinogen is? A carcinogen is a chemical that is known to induce cancer in healthy tissue. Cigarette smoke contains 43 known carcinogens. That means that these 43 agents have been proven, in laboratory tests, to cause cancer.

We all know about smoking and lung cancer. What about other cancers that are caused by smoking? The following list includes the cancers that are known to be associated with smoking: lung, colon, rectum, anus, liver, stomach, bladder, throat, tongue, lip, esophagus, breast, kidney, cervix, ureter, pancreas, leukemia, myeloma.

The negative effects of smoking are not limited to cancer causation. Some other disorders caused, or made worse by smoking, include: back pain due to lumbar disc disease, spinal fractures, hip fractures, emphysema, bronchitis, influenza, pneumonia, diabetes, high blood pressure, in- fertility, osteoporosis, stroke, heart attack, dental cavities, tooth loss from gum disease, premature wrinkling, delayed wound healing, ear infections, headaches, premature menopause, stomach ulcers.

Why are smokers at so much greater risk for heart disease and stroke? Because nicotine is a powerful vasoconstrictor. It causes blood vessels to narrow so that they carry less blood. Another effect of nicotine is that it raises blood pressure. High blood pressure is a known cause of heart attack and stroke. Smoking also causes atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), a condition that narrows and clogs blood vessels.

When I do an eye exam, I know if the person I’m examining is a smoker. I can determine this by looking inside their eyes. The blood vessels in the eyes are much smaller in smokers. They are very narrow and they contain many areas called focal constriction. The vessels look as if they are in spasm. Smokers also have a greater incidence of macular degeneration and ischemic optic neuropathy, two serious eye conditions that can often cause blindness.

You’re a great kid. You’re full of life and energy. You’re just a normal, rebellious teenager who wants to experience life to the fullest. That’s OK, but please consider the risks of some of your explorations. You have a healthy body — it is essentially brand new. Please consider the consequences of smoking before you try it again. Why start a habit that is responsible for more disease and death than any other voluntary endeavor?

I respect you immensely, and I love you as much as I respect you. Please choose wisely.

Love, Dad”

The letter you just read was not written by a Christian (at least I am unaware of him being a baptized believer) nor a preacher-type with something “spiritual” to prove. It was written by a doctor of medicine and a father to his daughter. Lessons can be learned from the letter.

If you are a Christian there are more considerations of smoking. It violates 1 Corinthians 3:16 which says we must take care of our body. It violates 2 Corinthians 6:17 which says we must come out and be separate from the world. Smoking is worldly. If you are an adult smoker you violate Luke 17:2 which says it would be better if you were drowned than for you to set a bad example, thus causing a little one to stumble. Smoking sets a bad example. Smoking is a waste of money and violates the principle of steward- ship outlined in 1 Corinthians 4:2.

Add to the things above that smoking makes your breath bad, your temper short and your clothes stink. I know, I was a smoker.

Some excuse and justify the conflicting and contradictory doctrines of denominationalism by saying that we cannot understand the Bible alike. Though God tells us we may understand the truth, some say it is impossible to do so (John 8:32; Eph. 3:4; 5:17; 1 Tim. 2:4). Let us see the inconsistency of those who say this.

Those who say we cannot understand the Bible alike will say that we must believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God. They will not permit disagreement. All alike must understand that Jesus died for our sins and that he was raised from the dead by the power of God (Rom. 4:25; 10:9, 10). Let them explain how it is that we are expected   to under- stand the Bible alike with respect to the life and      death of Jesus while they say it is impossible in other areas.

It is said that we cannot know the purpose of baptism. We cannot agree on whether or not baptism is one of the conditions of pardon, therefore, we may go our separate ways. You may believe that baptism is not essential for salvation, and I may believe that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). However, it does not matter in God’s sight since we cannot understand it alike.

If that is true, if it does not matter, and if we are free to believe either way, what about the element in which we are baptized? Does it matter? If I believe baptism is valid if one is immersed in buttermilk, am I just as free to believe that as you are to believe that baptism is in water (Acts 8:36; 10:47)? Would you insist that for baptism to be acceptable it must be performed in water and not in a pile of leaves? Must we understand alike that baptism is in water and not in whipped cream?

Others say we cannot agree on which church is right. Hence, I may go to “my church” and you are free to “join the church of your choice.” If that be true, is one free to choose not to be a member of any church, not even the Lord’s (Acts 20:28; Eph. 2:16; 5:23, 30, 32)? If we cannot “bind” one church over another, then Jim Jones, who led his “church” to commit suicide, is as valid as the Lord’s body. What about those nut-case groups who kill themselves to hitch a ride on a spaceship tethered to a comet? Are those churches as good as the one for which Jesus suffered and bled and died (Eph. 5:25, 26)?

It has been said that some would justify adulterous marriages because there is no consensus on the knotty issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Let us grant that since we cannot understand it alike that folks are allowed to enter into nearly any kind of question- able marriage relationship. Because there are many hard questions about divorce and remarriage, we will welcome nearly any married couple into our fellowship. Alright, then, suppose a fellow says he is not sure that marriage is limited to males and females. No, he is “not certain” that he can “understand it like you do.” He believes it is possible that God may allow marriages of men to men and women to women, not to mention the marriage of a man to a horse or a woman to a billygoat.

What now? Do we “demand” and insist that he under- stand with us that scriptural marriage can only be between a man and a woman (Matt. 19:3-6; 1 Cor. 7:2-5)? If so, what happens to the idea that we cannot understand the Bible alike?

By Donald P. Ames

Recently I was given a shoe box of old sermons on cassette, along with some old bulletins, etc. dated about 10-20 years ago. Among the bulletins, I found a newspaper clipping by a lady from Decatur, Illinois bearing the above heading. It was in reply to a previously submitted letter, but bore no date, so I have no real way of determining just when it was written. Nevertheless, she made a strong case for her position, and I thought it might be good to review it in Truth Magazine. Not only are we to be ready to give a reason for the hope within us (1 Pet. 3:15), but by such an examination, it may help us avoid being caught by surprise sometime in answering this position, which is bound to increase in popularity in the religious world today.

She begins by pointing out that Paul mentions Priscilla’s name before that of Aquila (see Acts 18:26), a practice “unheard of” at that time. And while the KJV reverses them again to list Aquila first, in the Greek, Priscilla is listed first! Such listings frequently show who was the more influential of those listed. From this fact, she boldly states it was “because Priscilla is the pre-eminent teacher over the church.” However, in this passage, while Priscilla may have taken the leadership in the study, it was not “over the church,” but rather they took Apollos aside and privately taught him “the way of God more perfectly.” The most that can be made from this passage is that a woman can study with a man privately. Our writer has assumed too much from the passage, and affirmed a position the passage does not teach.

She next affirms that Junia (Rom. 16:7) was a “woman missionary, started new churches and filled the role of pastor.” (While “pastor” is a term for an elder, I understand she is using it in the denominational sense of a “preacher.”) Now while the name is a woman’s name (as can be determined from the Greek word used), the only thing Paul says about her is that she and Adronicus were his “kinsmen . . . fellow prisoners . . . who were in Christ before me.” No sources I could find affirmed the role she alleges Junia filled. Again, she has assumed, asserted, but has not proven the argument.

“Tryphena, Tryphose, and Persis (Rom. 16:12) were women evangelists” she next boldly states. Again, granting they are womens’ names, and they “labored much in the Lord,” nowhere does the Bible refer to them as “evangelists.” There are many ways a woman could labor in the Lord without being an evangelist, as seem in 1 Timothy 5, etc. So again, she has assumed the point she is trying to make.

Next she alludes to Deborah as a prophetess from the O.T. book of Judges. However this shows nothing about whether or not a woman can be an evangelist or an elder in the N.T. age. We are not under the Law of Moses today (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15-16; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8), but under Christ (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-23; etc.). The O.T. is not our source of authority, hence this argument has no bearing on the point under study.

Her next point is that “Phoebe was a deacon.” This has reference to Romans 16:1, where the RSV did use the term “deacon” with reference to Phoebe. However all other reliable translations use the term “servant” instead. The word “deacon” can refer to the office of a deacon, or it can simply refer to one in the role of a “servant” (cf. John 2:5). As Paul set forth the qualifications for the office of a deacon in 1 Timothy 3, he states in v. 12: “Let the deacons be the husband of one wife.” That pretty well settles the gender question. There are no qualifications set forth for a female deacon, and no record of any ever serving as such. A footnote in the Nelson KJV Study Bible notes this problem and says: “No specific specifications however are given of such an office.”

Such women are better viewed as being either the wives of deacons (cf. 1 Tim. 3:11) or godly widows who were supported financially by the church (cf. 1 Tim. 5:9, 10). Here it is best to understand Phoebe’s role to be that of a “helper.”

The next argument she presents is that “Nympha was an elder.” Reference here is to Colossians 4:15, and she boldly states, “The churches met in the homes of the elder of that church.” (Again, elders are plural in the N.T. — there was no “the elder” of a church.) But again, one of the qualifications of an elder is that he is to be the “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6). Again, the gender question is settled by Paul. And although the KJV plainly states “the church which is in his house,” I understand the Greek manuscripts are not quite so plain — some using the male form of the name, some the female; some saying “his house,” some “her house,” and some “their house.” However many Christians of that time opened their homes for brethren to have a place to meet (cf. Acts 12:12; 1 Cor. 16:19; etc.), often in small groups. But because they might have had the space for such a meeting is no proof they were “in charge” or served as “the elder” over that church. Again, it is assumed, affirmed, and asserted, but lacking in proof. Hospitality did not make one an “elder” of the church!

Then she states that the only reason Jesus chose men as apostles was “because oral Jewish law would not recognize a woman as a witness. Her testimony was worthless and Jesus needed witnesses the Jews would accept.” Yet she would have us to believe he would turn around and appoint them as evangelists and elders to bear testimony to the whole world. I hardly think so! She even turns around and notes that Jesus appeared first to Mary after his resurrec- tion and “commissioned her to apostle the Apostles.” Did she not bear “witness” that he had resurrected? Does our writer have inside information of Jesus’ motives the Bible doesn’t reveal to us? Did he reverse himself that quickly? Jesus selected men to serve as apostles, and while she would like to expand that role, the authority is going to have to come from God, not human supposition!

Paul plainly states that the evangelist is to preach “with all authority” (Tit. 2:15), that he is to preach the word and to reprove, rebuke, and exhort (2 Tim. 4:2). He also plainly states a woman is not to “usurp authority over the man” (1 Tim. 2:13). There is no reference to women serving as evangelists or elders in the N.T. and Paul has spelled out the reasons why, as we have noted in this study. Human speculation does not replace divine revelation. Our writer concludes by going to Mark 10:42-44, where Jesus says we are not to seek lordship, but be servants; and concludes he was dealing with “leadership in the spiritual realm” and clearing the way for women to later become evangelists. And while the Bible affirms there is “no difference” in Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female (in acceptance or preference) in Christ (Gal. 3:28), God still has roles for each to fulfill (see Eph. 5:22f; 1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34-35; Tit. 2; etc.). Let us beware we do not try to add to the word of God to suit society today, or seek to achieve roles God has not assigned to us.

By Mike Willis

Recently, the front page headline reported that the Southern Baptists passed a measure affirming that women must graciously submit to their husband’s “servant leadership.” This made front page news because it is so out of step with the feminist agenda. An explanation was given that Baptists believe in the “literal interpretation” of the Bible, a deceitful way of saying that others reject what the Bible clearly affirms. The news story for us Christians is not that the Southern Baptists forthrightly affirmed Bible doctrine, but that the secular press viewed this position as so out of step that it was front page news copy.

The model for the home promoted by feminism is egalitarian. The feminist “ideal” is “equal partner” marriages with interchangeable roles of bread winner, house keeper, child trainer, etc. Writing against the concept of women being subject to men in the home, Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Nancy C. Hardesty wrote, “Equality and subordination are contradictions” (All We’re Meant To Be 163).

That subordination does not mean inequality can be seen easily. One can illustrate the principle of submission by referring to civil authorities. One may be smarter, have better decision making skills, and be more qualified as a leader than a police officer, but when he flashes his lights, one’s obligation is to submit to his authority. One stands as a police officer’s equal, but still is subordinate to him.

The feminist agenda has spread so throughly in our society that some women want “obey” left out of their marriage vows. Can we leave out feminine subjection and be true to God’s word?

The Biblical View of the Role of Men and Women

The creation reveals the respective roles of men and women. Man by himself was in a state of separation, being alone (db,“separation. . . b. with sf. (89 t.) to express the idea of by oneself, alone (prop. in his, thy, my separation), Gn. 2:18 it is not good for men to be wdbl; alone,” BDB 94). The Lord made for man a “help meet” (wdgnk rz(). The word “meet” is from the substantive dgn, used to mean “acc. to what is in front of = corresponding to, Gn 2:18 I will make him wdgnk rz( a help corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself, v. 20 among the animals there was no wdgnk rz(” (BDB 617). Note the concept that woman was made as a “help, succour” to man. Man was not made as a help, succour to woman. Some modern trends would place women in the career field with man as the stay-at-home helper.

This reverses the pattern revealed in creation.

Indications of the role of man and woman are seen in the divine comments about the first sin. Adam was called to account for his disobedience (3:9). Why call Adam to account since Eve led the way in disobedience? The answer is that Adam was the head of the family and responsible for leading it. The role of Eve in her “leading” is condemned. Adam sinned when he “hearkened unto the voice of thy wife” (Gen. 3:17). Eve was placed in a position that her husband would “rule” (l#m, “rule, have dominion, reign,” BDB 605) over her.

The Old Testament recognizes the role of subjection for women throughout its pages. The word “husband” is frequently translated from l(b, the verb form of which means “marry, rule over.” The noun means “owner, lord” and is used of the husband on many occasions (BDB 127). Sarah referred to her husband Abraham as “her lord” (Gen. 18:12). The word “lord” is here translated from Nwd), which is used to refer to Jehovah as Lord, masters in a slave re- lationship, and husbands in their role over the home. This passage is cited in 1 Peter 3:6 as an example for women to follow in their submission to their husbands.

The New Testament is very explicit about the role of subjection in the family. The husband is the “head” of the home just as Christ is the “head” of the church (kefalh&: “head. . . metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent; of persons, master, lord; tino/j, of a husband in relation to his wife,” Thayer 345) (Eph. 5:23). We do not have an egalitarian role with reference to Christ. He is the supreme Lord who issues commands for us to obey. In the same manner as he is head over the church, so man is the head of the home. The nature of his rule is explained in the text:

• It is self-sacrificing (5:25). It is based on a self-sacrificing love in which the husband places the needs of his companion above his own needs. This excludes dictatorial, tyrannical rule in the family. A husband who only thinks of what he wants in ruling his family is not following the example of Christ.
• It is a giving rule (5:25).
• It is a rule that manifests love for his wife equal to what he has for himself (5:28).
• It is a rule that provides a home in which the wife is  nourished and cherished (5:29).

The wife is to submit to her husband’s rule (5:22). The word upota/ssw means “to arrange under, to subordinate; to subject, put in subjection. . . mid. to subject one’s self, to obey; to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice” (Thayer 645). The same word is used for one’s submission to the following: (a) One’s relationship to civil government (Rom. 13:1, 5); (b) A slave to a master (1 Pet. 2:18). The wife is to submit “as unto the Lord” (5:22). Her submission to the Lord Jesus is voluntary, not forced. Hers should be a voluntary submission to her husband. Her submission is to be “in everything” (5:24), not merely to those things that he says that she wants him to say. Her submission is “fitting” in the Lord (Col. 3:18).

1 Peter 3:1-6 commands the submissive role to the woman. She is to submit herself to his rule (3:1). She is to manifest a “meek and quiet” spirit. The word “meek” is from praoj which means “gentle, mild, meek” (Thayer 534). It is from the same word group as appears in James 1:21, “receive with meekness the engrafted word.” The idea is that of yielding one’s will to the authority of the word. In 1 Peter 3:1 the yielding is to the authority of the husband’s leadership. The word “quiet” is from hsu/xioj which means “quiet, tranquil.” The idea is not silence but quietness (cf. 1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:12). Sarah gave an example of “obedience” (3:6). The text referred to is Genesis 18:12. It records the time when three angels appeared to Abraham in Hebron near the Oaks of Mamre. He told Sarah to prepare supper for the guests saying, “Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth” (18:6). Sarah obeyed. The modern woman might not be so inclined.

The woman who is married is described in Romans 7:2 as upandroj. The word is translated “wife” but literally it means “under i.e. subject to a man” (Thayer 638).

The text in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 teaches the subjection of women. The order of submission (11:3): (a) God is the head of Christ. (b) Christ is the head of man. (c) Man is the head of woman. Man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man (11:7). The order of submission is related to creation (11:7). Man is not from the woman, but woman is from the man. Man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man (11:9). The preposition “for” is translated from dia/ which is used in this text to mean “for the benefit, [Eng. for the sake of]” (Thayer 134). The wearing of the customary veil was the symbol in the first century of this relationship to a man.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 speaks of her submissive role in worship. The woman is forbidden to “speak” in the assembly. She is forbidden to speak in the same manner as the others previously mentioned (14:28, 30). Under the circumstances described the tongue speaker and prophet could not speak (i.e. publicly address the assembly). The reason given for the woman’s role is that the Law teaches her to be under obedience (cf. Gen. 3:16). It was shameful for her to “speak” (the opposite of “be silent” and, there- fore, used in the context to mean “publicly address the assembly,” cf. 14:28).

1 Timothy 2:12-15 also speaks of the submission of women. The woman is to learn in “quietness.” The word hsuxi/a means “quietness: descriptive of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others. . . silence” (Thayer 281). The role of women is tied again to creation: (a) Adam was first formed, then Eve (2:13). (b) Eve was deceived in the transgression (2:14). Woman shall be saved if she accepts her God-defined role.

1 Timothy 5:14. Women are “guides” to the house. The word is derived from the verb oikodespote/w which means “to be master (or head) of a house; to rule a household, manage family affairs: 1 Tim. v.14” (Thayer 439).

Titus 2:5. The woman is to be “obedient” (upotassome/naj) to her own husband. If she is otherwise, she will cause the word of God to be blasphemed (Tit. 2:6).

Cultural Influences Challenge The Home

The biblical view of the respective roles of husband and wife is being culturally challenged. Perhaps that is always so in all cultures. In some middle east countries, women are treated almost as if they were sub-humans. Were we to live in those societies, we would need to preach about how that culture influences one’s concept toward the roles of men and women. We must not be blind to how our own culture is influencing our views toward the respective roles of men and women. Our young ladies are being taught that they should not be submissive to their husbands. Perhaps one should look at the marriages of feminists who are teaching this to see how well these principles are working in their own homes. Those who are repeatedly divorced make poor advisors about how to have a happy marriage.

We must shape our families according to the word of God, not according to the culture (Rom. 12:1-2). Those who teach us not to spank our children and those who teach wives not to be submissive to their husbands are both sending twentieth century cultural messages contrary to God’s word. We must look at these messages and make a conscious decision to reject them in order to be submissive to the word of God! The reason for this subjection is the same in both cases: what God commanded is for our own good.