Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

Before beginning this article, let me say that I write this with no ulterior motives whatsoever. I am not seeking a pay raise, have no quarrels over the pay I am receiving, and feel no need to try to justify a high salary before someone else. I am writing this article simply because I have seen reactions in other areas, and would like to pose some material for thought. Nor am I seeking to get all churches to pay their preacher a big, fancy salary. A preacher should be paid according to that which he delivers, just like anybody else. No doubt we have many preachers who are overpaid, just like there are many not receiving what their talents, and work deserve.

Certainly the idea of supporting the preacher is advanced in the word of God (1 Cor. 9: 14, 2 Cor. 11:8, Phil. 4:15). However, it is interesting to note in many churches throughout the land that many regard the work of preaching the gospel as a labor of love, and thus feel the preacher should be willing to get by on a minimum income or supplement it front other areas without hindering his work. Let its begin by noting that an effective preacher is one who has the time to study and prepare himself, to be able to visit and teach others at their convenience, and not plagued with financial problems of his own every time he turns around. Actually, if many of our preaching brethren would cease and desist part-time work (where not actually necessary) and devote their full time to the preaching of the gospel, they would be far more effective. Some of this is due to their own desires and interests, but some of it is also due to congregations who constantly begrudge the preacher a raise and create such a fuss that perhaps the preacher is even afraid to ask for one when he does need it. I have no criticism against those who must work to make ends meet-my hat is off to them, and I have done the same thing for the last 12 years. Also, I am not against the preacher who is so devoted to his work he will go ahead even without proper support. What I mainly want to provoke your thinking about is situations where this is not the case!

When was the last time you thought about giving your preacher a raise? And what were some of the reactions no doubt heard throughout the congregation? “Why he already makes more than many of us do.” “He has a better home and income than I do now, and Im not complaining,” etc. I wonder how many members really sit down and look at the preachers income objectively. In many instances he is not only busy paying his own Social Security (much of which is paid for by your employers) but his own hospitalization as well. He does not enjoy the luxury of low discount group rates from the local company, as well as many of the side benefits gained by some union. He does not have the company paying part-or in some cases, nearly all-his premiums, as many do. These are expenses that must come out of that “higher income” he seems to be enjoying. Have you priced hospitalization policies lately?

And what about his eventual retirement? No, he does not have that nice big retirement program many industries are busy giving to their employees. This too is another expense he must dig down into his pocket for-if he can even afford one. He must also carry more life insurance on himself, lacking these extra company benefits many have, to provide for his family if something happened to him.

And then there is the matter of that nice home the preacher lives in, many times provided for by the local congregation. : “Boy, I wish I could afford to live in a home like that! ” Sound familiar? Not always. The preacher many times does not have much selection in his home-it may be nice one place, and not really too nice at all in another. He may have adequate room here, and find himself very cramped in the next place. And, while many of the members are making their regular mortgage payments and talking about how good the preacher has it, he has to face the fact he is not having the chance to build tip equity, in a home of his own. When he leaves, he does not get the chance to sell his house, make a nice little profit and then go seeking something better. (Even if he owns a home, he may find himself taking a loss in order to see it sold and enable himself to continue on with the Lords work elsewhere). And, then there is that matter of interest and taxes. Yes, we all hate taxes and complain about them, but never fail to make sure we include all the Real Estate taxes, etc. as well as interest on those hated yearly income tax forms. But, again, he is deprived of the benefit of those deductions because he does not own his own home. Nor is he free to remodel or change a home at will, realizing he is merely “renting” and not the owner of the home. Yes, a fine home-maybe but even that has its drawbacks. And what has he left when your mortgage is paid off?

And then there is the matter of education. He cannot settle down and let his kids go to a good school. He must accept what comes his way as he preaches-good or bad, and hope moving does not upset the younger ones in readjusting to new friends and schools and homes, leaving all the former ones behind.

Also there are the usual expenses that are just naturally inherent in preaching, such as being host for all visiting preachers, taking care of most of the “passing through” people seeking assistance, providing transportation to various meetings, and a library that is adequate to meet and answer any question that may arise within the congregation or as a result of his preaching-and we do like those “in depth” studies!

So, the next time someone suggests a raise for the preacher and you start to react with “Hes already getting more than I am,” pause and reflect why you hired him. Do you know as much and is as much expected from you as is of him? Do you have to maintain such study habits, and provide those extra benefits that he does? Is his security and final settlement as set as yours? Now, who is really the well-paid person within the congregation?

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 14, pp. 11-12
February 8, 1973

By Bill Reeves

The Preterist-View of prophecy denies that there will be a future, bodily resurrection of the dead from the graves! King, therefore, runs right into the face of such passages as Jn. 5:28, 29 and 1 Cor. 15, but he has the special “tools” of an A. D. 70 Advocate to “explain away” the obvious import of these and other related passages.

The context of 1 Cor. 15:12-58 has to do with the literal dead being raised, if Christ was literally raised from the literal dead (and even King admits that Christ was!) But the Preterist-View doctrine makes the discussion of our resurrection one from a figurative death (the dead and decayed “body” of Judaism). But, on the other hand, King (wanting to have his cake and eat it, too) invents his “secondary application” when he is in a tight and needs some Scripture to refer to what happens to us when we die. He then uses some verses from 1 Cor. 15 in his “secondary application.” If we could convince ourselves that God has favored King with such liberty with the Scriptures, we could more easily be taken in by his fanciful doctrine!

To Christ, as Savior and Mediator, all authority in heaven and on earth was given (Matt. 28:18). As such Christ is now reigning and will, Paul says, “till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.” This “death” is just as literal as “dead” in v. 20. At such time, Paul says, Christ “will deliver up the kingdom to God.” His mediatorial reign shall have ended. Of course, the reign of Christ and God in our hearts will never end, if we are faithful unto death, and are saved unto that heavenly kingdom, and have entrance into that eternal kingdom (1 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 1: 11). That will be when He comes the “second time,” not as Mediator and Savior, but as Judge (Heb. 9: 28; Acts 17:31).

But King must deny that at some date future from now Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God. He had to “deliver it up” back in A. D. 70! So, he must deny the obvious meaning of “deliver up,” and give it a forced interpretation. Listen to him: On the word “till” he says: it means “when he really begins to reign in power; not a cessation of activity but a gathering up to a state of absolute power and perfection.” “The word till does not denote cessation of reign, but rather points to a time and an event that will be the zenith of his reign.” A-144 He does not tell us where he gets this “zenith” business! He issues the following challenge: “I challenge anyone to show that Christ is going to give up (his chosen phrase BHR) the kingdom! Hell have it for ever and for ever and for ever!” Well, Brother King, we will be glad to accommodate you, by using a version you yourself turn to when the wording in the KJV does not suit your play-on-words: Berrys Interlinear. It reads, “When he shall have given up the kingdom.” (P. 465). Of course Christ shall reign forever, and has an everlasting kingdom, but He will not reign forever as Mediator, with all authority given to Him. King, do you believe that time will continue forever -time as we know it? All authority was given to Christ for His mediatorial reign, and when that phase of His reigning is terminated, that authority shall be returned, and that is what the apostle Paul is saying in I Cor. 15. That people, saved and mediated by Christ, will be saved forever, and in that sense the kingdom is spoken of as eternal. That phase of the kingdom is yet ahead.

Let us look at Thayers definition of the Greek word translated “deliver up: ” “to give over into (ones) power, or use” (P. 481). The same Greek word (paradidomi) is found in John 19:30. and is translated in the KJV (of all places! ), “give up.” So, to “deliver up” is the very same idea as “give up,” and King is challenging for anyone to show the very thing that the apostle Paul declares! We simply turn over to Paul this play-on-word-artist.

Now, since he likes challenges so well, we issue him one: Show us a version or Greek authority that translates paradidomi (deliver up) as “raise up or restore to rightful place.” A-144 What a definition! And King has the audacity to issue challenges on definitions after such a wild one as that! He must think mighty highly of himself to expect people to accept his verbal inventions on no higher authority than his “ipse dixit.”

King conveniently divides 1 Cor. 15 into sections. See pages 199-201. He says that vv. 1-20 is “given to the bodily resurrection of Christ himself.” Note the phrase, “bodily resurrection.” He uses this in reference to Christs resurrection, but will not use it in reference to anyone eises. Elsewhere he refers to the “traditional resurrection doctrine” A-211 as advocating a fleshly resurrection A-217 in distinction to his “spiritual resurrection.” “The resurrection is spiritual and not fleshly.” A-222 Repeatedly he contrasts “the fleshly view” A-225 with the “spiritual view.” A-197 He speaks of the “literal body view” A-192 as opposed to the “spiritual body view.” A-195 This special phraseology is used for effect! If one takes anything literal, he is fleshly, according to King! We believe in a bodily resurrection, but King insists on representing us as believing in a fleshly one. He believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but will not represent us as believing in a bodily resurrection of the dead, sometime future from now. According to King, ours is a fleshly view, a literal view, the traditional view!

Then, doing a switch on us, he gets off of the bodily resurrection and from v. 21 to v. 58 he gets on his so-called “spiritual resurrection,” while the apostle Paul stays on the same subject, vv. 12-58, and that is, the physical, bodily resurrection of the dead! On Kings sections from v. 2 1 to v. 58, he uses his own invention of “Primary resurrection” and “secondary resurrection.” applying these sections primarily to “the rise of the Christian system itself” out of Judaism, once Jerusalem was destroyed, and secondarily to what happens to a man at death. … His natural body that was sown (verse 44) answers to the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism … from which came the spiritual body … Judaism answers to the field or the world in which the good seed was sown (Matt. 13:37, 38). This natural body, receiving its death blow at the cross and beginning then to wax old and decay (Heb. 8: 13), became a nursery or seed body for the germination, growth, and development of the spiritual body by means of the, gospel. Thus, out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity that became fully developed or resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning of Pauls statement, It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. – A-200 so, thats how King manhandles 1 Cor. 15:21-58, while Paul sticks with his subject of a bodily resurrection, just like Christs!

King denies that the “graves” of Jn. 5:28,29 are literal. A-219 He makes this passage deal “with spiritual, no physical death.” A-219 “. . .the end of Judaism . . . is the resurrection of John 5:28,29.” A-220 Before the Preachers Meeting he said, “Yes, I believe Jesus arose physically from the dead,” but of us he says, “personally, I dont hold to the view that there is a physical resurrection.” “A physical resurrection, however, is denied.” A-204.

Well, after all of Kings misrepresentation of our position, and all of his play-on-words, Jesus still is on record as saying, “. . . all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth,” and Paul, also, saying, “It is sown … it is raised.” That which will be raised a spiritual body is the same as that which was sown. Of course we do not believe that a fleshly body will come from the grave, but that a spiritual body will, and will be the resurrection of that very body which was buried. 1 Cor. 15 describes the body in the grave as that which was “first,” natural… terrestrial, corruptible, “weak,” “earthly,” “flesh and blood,” and mortal,” and declares that it will be resurrected a spiritual body. This is what King denies that the passage teaches. No wonder King does not believe in a bodily resurrection and will not properly represent us as so believing. He hopes by tying “fleshly” onto us we will be “scared” into his Preterist-View heresy!

He denies that Phil. 3: 21 is yet to be fulfilled. According to him it does not refer to the physical body at all! “Why did he use the plural,our and the singular body, if he were talking about a general resurrection of individual dead bodies?” A-194 “The redemption of our body (not bodies) in Rom. 8:23 is equated with our vile body (not bodies) in Phil. 3:21, and corresponds to the redemption of the purchased possession or church in Eph. 1: 14.” A- 194

King, by his forced interpretation of Rom. 8:23 and Phil. 3:21, gets himself into many difficulties. If the singular word “body” refers to the church, as a spiritual body, then he has the church “vile,” and has Paul referring to “our” church! But Paul in Rom. 8:18-25 contrasts the sufferings in the physical body with the glory of the physical body once it is redeemed. In saying “our body,” he uses the part of speech which we call a “synecdoche,” wherein the part is put for the whole (as fifty sails, for fifty ships). King wants to play on the fact that the word “body” is singular. Let him try his little play on 4:23, “your spirit” (did all the Philippians have but one spirit?); on 1 Thess. 5:23, “your spirit and soul and body” (did they have but one of each? or, if the “body” is the church, what is the “spirit” and the “soul?”); on Heb. 10:22, “our hearts” (plural), but “our body washed with pure water” (is the church baptized, King, or are individual bodies baptized? The Greek text says “body,” not “bodies;” therefore, “body” as in the ASV and NASV).

In Phil. 3:21 the Greek text says, as the ASV renders it, “the body of our humiliation,” or as the NASV, “the body of our humble state,” and not “our vile body.” Paul is contrasting v. 20 with v. 21. Whereas the enemies of the cross had only earthly citizenship, a glory pertaining to appetites of the belly, and an end characterized by perdition, Christians have a heavenly citizenship, a promise some day of the glorified body like Christs for the physical body which in this life is subjected to humiliation, and an end characterized by salvation. Paul uses the singular, “body,” just as he uses the singular, “spirit,” in 4:23, etc. The one body is characteristic of each, individual one, and therefore the one is put for the many. This is common in the Scriptures. Note I Jn. 3:19-21, “our heart.” But King knew this when he perverted Rom. 8: 23 and Phil. 3: 2 1. He has a theory to defend!  Route 3

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 14, pp. 9-11
February 8, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

The title of our essay from the pen of the peerless apostle Paul is especially pertinent to any consideration of Matthew 15:1-20.

Matthew 15:1-20

In this text, Jesus calls the tradition of the Jews “your tradition” and the “commandments of men.” These traditions were sacred, hallowed rites that claimed Divine authorship and had been for ages and generations most minutely and meticulously observed. Jesus, the Truth, goes to the core of these religious rituals. He shows that the traditions of the fathers had their origin or source in men, their result in making worship vain and the word void, and their end in condemnation. “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.”

The Lord was approached and reproached for the behavior of his disciples. “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” Jesus fully dealt with this charge. First, he charges their tradition with transgression. Secondly, he says it is “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”

“It Is A Gift”

“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Two things inhere here. ( 1) God requires honor, blessing, or care of children for their parents. This is positive duty. (2) God specifies a condemnation of those who fail to perform their responsibility to their parents, and should one even curse father or mother, “let him die the death.” However, the Jewish tradition said that if one consecrated his savings to the temple or to some other service of God, he was released from the responsibility of succoring or honoring his parents. “It was further ruled that if a son, from any motive whatever pronounced any aid to his parents to be corban (that is to say, a gift -Mk. 7:11), he was thenceforward precluded from affording them help” (Pulpit Commentary). So, their tradition offset or made void the word of God.

All traditions of men have this same fatal flaw. It matters not how highly a practice is venerated or how piously it has been perpetuated, if it is not in the revealed word of the Lord it makes worship vain and the word void. “Infant baptism” is an example. It appears to be an innocent tradition. What harm can there be, though it be not taught in the Scripture, of sprinkling an infant? Volumes have been written on this theme, but briefly, this “innocent” tradition contradicts the nature of the New Covenant. The New Testament includes those who know the Lord, who have the Lords laws in their hearts. It encompasses those who will not have to be taught to “Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest” (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-11). Baby baptism excludes and precludes other scriptural acts which are to precede immersion; namely, faith, repentance, and confession (Mk. 10: 16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:9, 10). This is a second serious indictment and conviction. So. infant sprinkling is not innocent, but guilty. It is not harmless, but deadly (Matt. 15:8. 9, 1:3).

Mechanical instruments and other corruptions of the worship of the church after the New Testament order are other items that stand accused and accursed as human traditions that should be steadfastly exposed and opposed.

Perversions of the work and organization of local churches are likewise the result of human appendages being fused and joined to the New Testament structure. Charging the church with works not assigned to it are traditions of men. Supplying the church with additional activity naturally forges the necessity for supplementing it with further organizational arrangements, all of which are devised, designed and delivered by men.

But a tradition of men, whether it comes from within or without the faith, is a pollution of the Divine order. The Divine arrangement is perfect and any change is essentially a change for the worse. A human alteration is a Divine abomination.

The lesson of Matthew 15 and of all Scripture is that traditions of men render it impossible for one to please God. A tradition of men nullifies the word of God. Further, every tradition of God must be diligently observed and preserved. It remains for all who love the Lord and who want to go to heaven to reject the traditions of their fathers and to return to the traditions of the Father as revealed in the word of God.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 14, pp. 7-8
February 8, 1973

By Rolland W. Fritz

God is the source of all truth (Isaiah 46:9-10; John 17:17). Gods authority In the New Testament dispensation, and therefore in the time in which we are living, is revealed and exercised through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1: 1-2; Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1: 17-23; Matthew 17:5; John 12:48). We find this authority plainly set forth by the disciples who spoke and wrote the Bible under the influence of the Holy Spirit (John 16: 13; 14:20: 2 Timothy 3: 16-17).Therefore, the ones who are following the only safe course in religion today are the ones following the Bible. The others are following courses of men, which will lead to destruction and damnation (Matthew 15: 7-14).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 14, pp.5-6
February 8, 1973