Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

James says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5)

God is the giver of all things (James 1: 17), and lie must be so recognized by his servants. The child of God who cannot feel this dependency upon God is sorely lacking. He cannot go far in the spiritual life. Like the trusting child, who realizes his limitations and wants, goes to his own parents with petitions with confidence and without embarrassment, Gods children, too, are to come boldly to the throne of God for gifts. (Heb. 4: 15,16).

James says that God gives “Liberally,” and “upbraideth” not. Jesus had taught this beforehand (Matt. 7:7). The term translated “liberally” in the King James Version is from aplos, and is defined “simply, openly, frankly, sincerely” (Thayer, p. 57). This lexicographer further said parenthetically, “Led solely by his desire to bless: All who have scripturally tried him know this to be true to the fullest! Yet, the great point of emphasis is, the beggar may ask with confidence of receiving and know that God Will not upbraid, i.e., he will not remind you later on of what he has done for you. This genitive singular participle is present active, meaning the word carries continuous action. The Lord does not reproach or disgrace us over and over by reminding us of the blessing he gave. This word is used in the New Testament about sixteen times in various forms. Other English words which translate this Greek word are: revile,” Matt. 27: 44; “suffer reproach, 1 Tim. 4: 10. These usages help us to see the import of the word in James 1:5.”

This is a good lesson for all Christians to learn. When we have had the opportunity to help others along the way, do not use this against any of them later. And, too, when the Lord forgives us, he remembers that sin “no more” Heb. 8:12). When we forgive brethren their trespasses, let us too remember them no more.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, p. 2
February 1, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

Two systems of religion vie for the service of pious hearts. These are the traditions of men and the revelation of God. Not infrequently do reverent minds seek to mix and mingle human tradition with Divine teaching. In the Galatian letter, the apostle to the Gentiles reproved, rebuked and exhorted those who sought to return to their vain manner of life received by tradition from their fathers. In this epistle of the apostle the idea that one can serve God acceptably while clinging and cleaving to ancestral religious relics is forever dispelled.

The Galatians had been “called into the grace of Christ” (Gal. 1: 6). They were “children of God by faith,” having been “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27); thus, belonging to Christ, they were Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29; Rom. 2:28,29). But now they were being “removed” from God (Gal. 1: 6). How was this occurring? They were striving by the law and the traditions of their fathers to be approved of God (Gal. 4: 10; 5:1-4). The source of their authority defiled the sincerity of their service.

Paul, with much personal anguish of spirit, refers to his own past “in the Jews religion.” He recounts and recalls the reasons for his extraordinary success when with exceeding zeal he persecuted the church and the faith. He styles the object of his affections as “the traditions of my fathers” (Gal. 1: 13, 14). One cannot be in the grace of Christ while serving the faith of his family and friends. It remains to this day a choice to all. Choose this day whom ye will serve, whether the tradition of time past or the Leaching of Christ in the present. How long will some stall between their fathers traditions and the Lords teaching? If the Lord be God, follow him!

The Problem Of Source

Are not the teachings of Christ traditions? Yes, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Christians are to “hold” to “traditions” which they have been taught. The question is not shall we disdain all tradition. The issue is one of source. From whence does the tradition

come? If it comes from the word or the letter of the apostles and prophets, we must hold it, but if it does not, we must banish it. A tradition can come from only two sources. Either it is of God or it is of men.

Colossians 2:8 deals with this problem of source. After exhorting them to be “established in the faith,” Paul Fays, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Note that the source is the key to Pauls admonition. If an item of doctrine or practice originates from men, it is not “after Christ.” if, however, it comes from the teachings of Christ through the apostles, then hold it fast. The word or tradition which the Thessalonians and the Colossians received was not “the word of men,” but “the word of God,” the gospel (1 Thess. 2:13; Col 1: 5). The traditions they were to beware of and to accurse were those authored by men.

1 John 4:1, 6, is a witness to this problem of source as it affects traditions or teachings. John says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” The source of the tradition is again given emphasis. Is it “of God?” So, how can we know whether a tradition is “of God?” John answers, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” One who will hear the apostles doctrine, ordinance or tradition is of God and knows God. He that will not hear is the spirit or teacher of error. That is exactly parallel to 2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Tim. 1: 13-hold the traditions which ye have heard of the apostles.

Can you find the tradition of your fathers in the Scriptures? If so, hold it, for it is “of God ” and “after Christ.” If not, “believe (it) not,” for it is error that will corrupt or spoil your soul (Col. 2:8; Jas. 5: 19, 20).

“It Is Easy To Scoff At Truth As Mere Tradition.”

A.T. Robertson, author of the above quote, stroked a string that needs to be strummed. With an utter distaste for human barriers of fellowship and with a total disdain for articles of faith authored by men, “It is easy to scoff at truth as mere tradition.” All saints deplore and despise denominational sects and parties whether they be in or out of the faith. But let no one in his sincerity or in his yearning for unity be led into scoffing at truth as mere human tradition. Not all walls of fellowship are built by men. Some traditions are of God, and when it is determined that a practice is an ordinance delivered by the apostles, let it be kept and defended (1 Cor. 11: 2). Human traditions must be pulled and cast down (2 Cor. 10: 3-5). Every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God must be destroyed. Beware, however, lest you sneer and jeer at the high things of God.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, pp.12-13
January 25, 1973

By Paul K. Williams

“Christ has no hands but our hands to do His work today” is how the song begins. Jesus said, “For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them.” Matthew 25:14.

We have been entrusted with the possessions of Jesus. If any gain is to come from them, we must work. God is not going to broadcast the gospel over a powerful loudspeaker from a helicopter. He has entrusted the gospel to us and commanded as to preach to every creature.

The trust Jesus has put in His disciples is an amazing thing. He has bound Himself so that the success or failure of the gospel is up to His followers. He is not playing games, either. he has said, “I trust you to preach to every creature.” Then He has gone away to leave us to do it.

This great trust is a humbling thing. I know too much about myself. I dont think I would trust the success of the gospel to such as me. But Jesus knows even more about me than I do myself. And His trust is proof to me that I can do what He requires. It makes me look for ways to teach and it makes me look to Him for strength.

Christian, you are vital to the cause Christ died for. He depends on you to get the job of teaching done. Dont make excuses. He knows you better than you know yourself. You can do it, and He knows it. Simply respond to His great trust by doing it.

Preach to every creature!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, p. 11
January 25, 1973

By Bill Reeves

This is article four of several reviewing Max Kings Spirit Of Prophecy. He perverts the allegory of Paul, Gal. 4, doing some “allegorizing” of his own about “two sons in Abrahams household at the same time,” and comes up with an “overlapping” of the “Jewish world” and the “Christian world.” His constant play on words is imperative if he is to establish his Preterist-View doctrine. We now notice his “big gun,” mello.

He cites Matt. 16:27; Acts 17:31; 2 Tim. 4: 1; Heb. 10: 27; and Rom. 8:18, and tells us that these texts in the Greek employ the word “mello” which means “about.” For example, concerning Acts 17:31 be says: “Paul told the Athenians to repent and turn to Christ because he was going to judge the world. But when? How soon would that judgment day come? Many feel that there is nothing in the text itself to indicate time, whether near or afar, but to this we can hardly agree. Most Greek interlinear will furnish this reading: because he set a day in which he is about to judge the habitable world in righteousness, by a man whom be appointed.” “Paul said God was about (mello) to judge the world. This word mello, where found in the resent, active, indicative tense signifies, nothinly intention of purpose but also nearness of action, meaning at the point of, or ready to do what has been stated. Had Paul meant to teach judgment of 2000 or more years future, he certainly would not have used mello in any tense, especially in the present tense. Therefore the judgement of the habitable world (oikoumene) was about to take place in Pauls day, and in view of other related scriptures we have every reason to believe Pauls choice of words conveyed the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit.” A-157.

True to Kings style, he stays with the KJV when it suits him, and runs to the Greek text when convenient. Berry uses the word “about” in the texts cited by King (about to come, about to judge, etc.). Now, King, cite Berry on 1 Cor. 15:24! We will cite it for you: “when he shall have given up the kingdom . . .” Yet King confidently says: “I challenge anyone to show that Christ is going to give up the kingdom.”

He knows that no well-known English version employs that precise phrase, “give up,” in 1 Cor. 15:24, but he forgot about Berry, whom he cites when convenient!

Lets now quote Berry, in his dictionary, on mello: “To be about to do, to be on the point of doing . . . the verb may often be adequately rendered by our auxiliaries, will, shall, must; to delay, only Ac. xxii. 16. The participle is used absolutely: to mellon, the future, Lu. xiii. 9; ta mellonta, things to come, Ro. viii. 38.” So, the KJV, the ASV, and the NASV simply say “shall,” or “will” instead of “about to,” in the texts cited by King.

Berry translates phrases built on mello in this fashion, at times: Luke 13:9, “hereafter;” 1 Cor. 3:22, “coming things;” and 1 Tim. 6:19, “for the future.” How near is mello, King, in these passages?

Thayer defines the word thus, “ to be on the point of doing, or suffering something … to intend, have in mind, think to … of those things which will come to pass by fixed necessity or divine appointment … in general, of what is sure to happen.”

King quotes authorities like all false teachers: just that part that suites him! We shall have occasion to notice more of such in later articles.

The word mello appears in the Greek text in Matt. 11: 14, “And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.” (ASV). The Greek phrase says, literally, “this is Elijah, the about to come one.” For four hundred years (Mal. 4:5) there was a coming one. Jesus said that John the Baptist was that one. As Thayer says of mello, “of those things which will come to pass by fixed necessity or divine appointment,” so John the Baptist was destined to come. Thats what mello means here! At the time of Jesus speaking, John had already come (v. 18)! That “about to come” lasted four centuries!

Rom. 5:14 employs the word mello and Berrys Interlinear reads: “who is a figure of the coming one.” The KJV reads: “him that was to come.” The ASV and the NASV read the same. Actually, “was” is not in the Greek phrase per se, but is properly supplied by the context (see especially the next verse), because the point is that Adam was a type of Christ in his first coming to die for man! Christ was “about” to come for millenniums-ever since the time of Adam! King would love for every mello passage to indicate something “about” to be in the near future! But when Paul wrote Rom. 5:14, the “about to come one” already had come! So, Kings play-on-words fails again!

So desperate is King for something “about to be” that he takes up the notion of “two comings of Elias” A-162 According to this fancy, John the Baptist was the first one, and the “first born ones or remnant of Israel were the messengers that prepared the way for Christs second coming” A-162 in the destruction of Jerusalem, and were the second of the two Eliases. King bases this on Matt. 17:10-13, affirming that since “come” is present tense, and “shall restore” is future, that there was another Elias to come, future from then, and that the word of Preparation for Christs coming in the destruction of Jerusalem, on the part of the saints, was the fulfillment of the second Elias to come!

Verse 11 is an abstract statement on the part of Christ showing that Elijahs coming precedes in time the coming of the Messiah. As for actual fact, Christ makes it crystal-clear in v. 12 that Elijah had already come in the person of John the Baptist! Johns work of “restoring all things” is set forth in Mal. 4:6 and Luke 1: 17, and that is, in a word, his preaching of repentance (Matt. 3:1-12). So, the “two Elijahs” is another invention of false teachers desperate for a proof.

King has a section on the two Adams. A-212ff Here he confuses or runs together (in his constant play-on-words) Rom. 5:14 and I Cor. 15:22. They are not of the same context, but what matters that to King who is most interested in words? Rom. 5:14 speaks of spiritual death and life, while 1 Cor. 15 of physical. King says, after quoting 1 Cor. 15:22, ” But the question is; when did the second Adam make all in him alive? According to Paul, it was at the resurrection or the coming of Christ, when the natural body was raised a spiritual body. But is this still future? The writer thinks not, for Paul said in his Roman letter (60 A.D.) it was at the point of happening then. Concerning Adam, Paul said, who is a figure of him that was to come, (Rom. 5:14). The literal translation here is, who is a figure of the coming (one). ” A-213

Now lets answer Kings question: If your question is based on 1 Cor. 15:22, the answer is that He has not done it yet! Paul did not say in 1 Cor. 15:22 that Christ was “at the point” of doing something. King ran back to Rom. 5:14 for his mello, and hoped that his readers would not catch him at it! But, if his question is based on Rom. 5:14, the answer is that He did it when he died on the cross, thus making justification possible. Friends, read the verses which follow Rom. 5:14, noting especially v. 18, and in chap. 6, vv. 11, 13, 18, 22. That all happened well before A. D. 70. It had already happened in A.D. 60, if that is when Paul wrote Romans. King presses his limited application of the word mello and tries to get Christ coming in A.D. 70 to do what Paul said He was the coming one to do-justify us sinners! If Paul meant that Christ had not come quite yet, then sinners were not quite yet justified until A. D. 70! What a doctrine!

On page 213 in his book, King refers to a good article in Bible Herald, Vol. 18, No. 3 (commenting on Rom. 5:14-BHR). He says that the writer of that article “completely misses the point.” The writer does not; but King is the one who not only completely misses the point, but also misrepresents the writer at the same time! King very subtly slips in his “about phrase” and says, “Paul did not say Christ was about to come in Adams day . . .” Of course Paid did not, and no one said that lie did say it! King is misrepresenting, as so often lie does when he refers to his opponents positions. The writer in Bible Herald was saying what Paid did say, and that is that Adam was a type of one who was coming from the time of Adam until He finally did come, to die on the cross and make justification possible. That was well before A.D. 60! The “nearness” of fulfillment is no point of Pauls. Pauls point was that Christ was the anti-type of Adam, and as such was the coming one, or about to be one, in order to give life for death. When he came is determined by when he gave that life! V. 18, that “one act of righteousness” refers to the cross of A.D. 33! King ignores the context of Rom. 5 and 6, and jumbles it with that of 1 Cor. 15, to make out a case for his fanciful invention of one “world” rising up out of another one at A.D. -Rt. 3

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, pp. 9-11
January 25, 1973