Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Introduction

The following article appeared in the Nashville Banner on Friday, May 9, 1997 and was printed on page A-10. This story, written by Frances Meeker, the Banner Religion Editor, and entitled “Communion Bread a Blessing to Hungry Man,” is a perfect illustration of political correctness run amuck. Read it and laugh. Read it and wonder. Read it and weep.

“Communion Bread a Blessing to Hungry Man”

By Frances Meeker

We am told that man does not live by bread alone. But a few Sundays ago, a street person found what he must have thought was bread from heaven. It was the Holy Communion bread at the historic Downtown Presbyterian Church on Church Street. On this particular Sunday, communion stewards had customarily placed the communion bread on a silver tray along with an empty silver communion cup on a table in the vestibule. When the communion service was about to begin, communion steward and church elder Jim Kelley hurried to get the bread and cup for the Rev. John Hilley, who was waiting at the altar. But the bread was gone. Kelley hurried back into the sanctuary and whispered his dilemma to Hilley. “John told Jim to go back out there and look very carefully,” said Luann Pilkington, who provides the communion bread. But it still wasn’t there.

Kelley frantically started down the stairs to the kitchen and met steward Kevin Haw carrying oatmeal cookies to serve with coffee after the worship service. “And in a lightning stroke of genius, Jim just took the cookies, put them on the silver communion tray and marched down the aisle,” Pilkington said.

Nobody could explain what had happened to the loaf of unsliced bread that should have been on the communion tray until that night, when choir member Tom Ashley ran into his friend, Mike Esslinger.

Esslinger said that he was bicycling down Church Street that morning and saw a street person coming down the church steps eating a loaf of bread “folded in half’ under his arm. The church steps come down to the Church Street sidewalk, making the tables in the vestibule visible to passersby.

“Mike said the man was really chowing down,” Ashley said.

The congregation was happy to learn that somebody who was hungry got the bread, Pilkington said.

“At least he got a loaf of bread for breakfast,” she said.

The next Sunday after worship services, the minister and his son, Aaron, 5, went to pick up the minister’s wife, the Rev. Janet Hilley, who is serving as interim preacher at Trinity Presbyterian Church.

It was communion Sunday at Trinity (the Downtown church observes communion on the first Sunday of the month and Trinity church observes it on the second). Aaron noticed the remains of the communion bread being taken out of the sanctuary.

“At our church,” he announced somewhat smugly, “we have oatmeal cookies.”

O.K., I’ll admit the story contains a certain amount of humor. The punch line delivered by five-year old Aaron Hilley is genuinely funny. However, the article is replete with politically correct errors and modern misconceptions. It would be an interesting exercise for us to play “Count The Errors” with this article, but for the sake of brevity, let us focus on just three. This article reflects a politically correct and totally erroneous view of homelessness. It reflects the widespread denominational view of the Lord’s supper. Finally, it manifests an acceptance of women preachers, which is also in direct opposition to the word of God.

The Issue of Homelessness

This article reflects a politically correct view of the problem of homelessness. “The congregation was happy to learn that somebody who was hungry got the bread,” Pilkington said. “At least he got a loaf of bread for breakfast,” she said.

Certain people are beggars because they suffer from a handicap or illness. For example, in the New Testament we read of beggars who were blind (Mark 10:46-52; John 9:1-9) and others who were lame (Luke 16:19-23; Acts 3:1-6). This reminds us that some people are destitute because of circumstances beyond their control. Such persons are de-serving of compassion.

The Bible also speaks of those who are beggars because they are slothful (Prov. 6:6-11; 20:4; 24:30-34). This re-minds us that some people are destitute because they are too lazy to work. There is a huge difference between those who cannot work and those who will not world

Many who are homeless suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction. A person does not go to bed one night as a normal person and wake up the next morning as a gutter drunk. A person certainly doesn’t plan to live on the street with only a cardboard box to protect him from the cold. How, then, do they reach that sad condition? In many cases, homelessness results from a succession of bad choices. They choose to drink. They choose to use drugs. They choose to be lazy and irresponsible. They run rather than face up to problems. Before too long, another life is irretrievably mined.

Thus the apostle Paul admonished the Thessalonians to work with their own hands so they would have need of nothing (1 Thess. 4:11-12). We should labor so we can support the weak (Acts 20:35) and help those in need (Eph. 4:28). However, if anyone is too lazy to work, he should not eat (2 Thess. 3:10-12).

The Issue of Worship

This article reflects a politically correct view of the issue of Christian worship, especially as it relates to the Lord’s supper. Many today would argue, “Worship at the church of your choice in the manner of your own choosing.” Thus substituting oatmeal cookies for unleaven bread was called “a lightning stroke of genius.” However, this was not the only error in this article relating to the Lord’s supper. It does not appear that they were going to use unleavened bread in the monthly communion service. The missing bread was described as “a loaf of unsliced bread.” A street person was seen coming down the church steps eating a “loaf of bread folded in half under his ann.” This doesn’t sound like a wafer of unleaven bread to me. Furthermore, note that the Downtown Presbyterian Church observes communion on the first Sunday of the month while the Trinity Presbyterian Church observes it on the second. This is another departure from the pattern of the early church, who met to break bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

Authority for the Lord’s supper can be traced back to Jesus’ admonitions on the night of his betrayal, when he celebrated the Feast of Unleavened Bread with his disciples (Matt. 26:17-18; 26:26-29). Unleavened bread was used in the Passover Feast (Exod. 12:15). This prohibition against leaven was given in part because the Jews were to be ready to march out of Egypt at a moment’s notice (Exod. 12:11). It also reflected the idea that leaven represents the defiling influence of sin (1 Cor. 5:6-7).

Bible authority is established by direct command, approved example, and/or necessary inference. Furthermore, Bible authority falls into two categories: general authority and specific authority. At times, God has left the actual method of obedience to the judgment of Christians. When God has not specified what he wants us to do or the method by which we are to obey, we may use any action or method which comes within the realm of the general command or example. General commands and examples include all that is necessary to the carrying out of that command.

At times, when teaching by command or example, the Lord would specify the particular aspects of obedience he required. When God specifies what he wants us to do, or the method by which we are to obey, we are limited to what he says. In such cases we are not free to use any other methods. Specific statements or examples exclude anything out-side the scope of that which is specified (Num. 24:12-13; 2 John 1:9; Rev. 22:18-19). We must learn to respect the silence of God’s word. The silence of God often prohibits rather than permits.

This principle applies toward singing. The New Testament specifies singing as the type of music God desires in Christian worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). This excludes other types of music, such as instrumental music.

It also applies toward the elements of the Lord’s supper. Through the example of Jesus Christ, we understand that the Lord’s supper is to be observed with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine (1 Cor. 11:23-25). This excludes any other element, such as coke and oatmeal cookies.

The Issue of Women Preachers

This article reflects a politically correct view of the role of women, especially as it relates to the ministry. It manifests an acceptance of women preachers, speaking matter-of-factly about the minister’s wife, the Rev. Janet Hilley, who is serving as interim preacher at Trinity Presbyterian Church. Such expressions of feminism, although widely popular, are in direct opposition to the word of God.

The Bible clearly limits the role of women in the public worship of the church. Women are to keep silent in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34-35). They are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

This is not to say that women are inferior to men, but it is a reflection of the roles that God intends for men and women. Within the relationship of marriage, the Bible teaches that the man is to exercise loving headship, and the woman is to manifest a spirit of respectful submission (Eph. 5:22-33).

Despite the limitations expressed in Scripture, there are many ways for a woman to serve God. First and foremost, she can labor together with her husband to raise her children up in the Lord. She can instill faith, love, holiness and self-control in the hearts of her children (1 Tim. 2:15). She can also actively teach other children in the Bible classes at church. She can follow the example of Aquila and Priscilla who took Apollos aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26). Older women can teach the younger women (Tit. 2:3-5). Like Lydia, she can show hospitality by opening her home to other Christians (Acts 16:14-15). Like those women who labored with Paul in the gospel, Christian women can assist evangelists, pastors, and teachers in countless ways (Phil. 4:2-3).

Conclusion

In this lesson, we have considered a rather humorous example of political correctness run amuck. However, the subject is not really all that funny when you consider the sad consequences that befall those who reject the authority of Scripture (John 12:48). It is unacceptable for us to simply do what is right in their own eyes (Deut. 12:8). It is unacceptable for us to follow the crowd in doing evil (Exod. 23:2). Realizing that we must stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give account of our doings, let us be faithful to the will of God (2 Cor. 5:10-11).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 17 p. 6-8
September 4, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

The imagery of battle with Christians as soldiers appears often in the New Testament. We are challenged to “put on the whole armor of God” in Ephesians 6:11. Near the end of Paul’s life he said, “I have fought a good fight” (2 Tim. 4:7). He called on Timothy to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12). In that vein he wrote:

You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier…. Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they may obtain salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory ( 2 Tim. 2:3-10).

Preaching the gospel has its own rewards. To see lives changed by the power of the gospel is fulfilling. To see congregations grow from the teaching of the word is most satisfying. But it is not always easy. The Lord never promised it would be easy. There are hardships to be borne and one who is not willing to endure these things should never start. Take a look at some things which must be endured.

We have to endure inconvenience. There are times when personal plans must be set aside in order to attend to some pressing need of the moment related to the work of preaching “in season and out of season” and trying to be “a good minister of Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 4:6). A man, or his family, with a “me first” attitude will not fill the bill.

We must learn to endure criticism. Sometimes we have it coming. But whether we have it coming to us or not, you can be sure it will come. Our Lord was not exempted from this and neither were the apostles and early preachers of the gospel. Some just won’t like plain preaching of the truth. They will not “endure sound doctrine” but prefer fables (2 Tim. 4:3-4). If a hearer does not have a love for the truth in his heart, you will never be able to say it to please him. He may lecture you on how you should have said it when all the time it was not how you said it at all but what you said. That is not to discount the importance of gracious words, seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6). Gospel preachers may have motives questioned. He and his family may seem to live in a fishbowl. The simple remedy for all of this is to faithfully teach the word the best you can and “be an example of the believer.” Preach the truth and then practice what you preach. You will have a conscience void of offense before God and those who love the truth will hold up your hands and help you in the work.

We may have to endure opposition. Those bent on following some error in doctrine or personal ungodliness will not always take kindly to reproving and rebuking. Their efforts may go beyond criticism. They may work to create an element of opposition to put pressure on elders or some of the men who sit in business meetings. Sometimes the real issue remains unstated. I know of one man who went to the elders and told them that if they did not stop the preacher from preaching against Masonry that he would see to it that the Masons in the congregation (and he claimed there were several) would withhold their contributions so they would not be able to pay the preacher or do the other work they had planned. Sometimes the opposition comes from without. Powerful community figures may rise up in arms against faithful preachers of the word because they have affected cherished beliefs or practices. I know of one preacher who awoke one morning to find his yard full of beer and whiskey bottles because he had preached on the radio against legalizing liquor in the county where he lived. Carl McMurray was recently arrested in Russia for preaching the gospel. Details are sketchy but we will have a fuller report later.

We must be willing to suffer financially. Paul said he knew how to “abound” and to “suffer need” (Phil. 4:12). Notice that Paul was not always hungry. Sometimes he said he was “full.” Sometimes he abounded. But in either case he was able to carry on his work. Whether the brethren sent enough for him to “abound” or he had to work with his hands making tents, he was willing to work night and day that the gospel might be preached. He said, “Woe is me if I preach not the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). All of us must live within our means. But if a man does not know that he can earn more money in the world of secular business, given his education and experience in dealing with people, than he can as a preacher of the gospel, then he is probably not bright enough to preach anyhow! In all this a preacher needs the loyal support of his wife and children.

All of us have to suffer discouragement. Sometimes we preach for months at a place, or in meeting after meeting and see very few, if any, obey the gospel. Ungodly attitudes and practices in the lives of some remain unchanged. It is easy to seek Elijah’s cave and have a genuine pity party. Or to be like Jeremiah who grew weary of preaching to people who paid no attention to what he said. The Lord sustained Elijah, and Jeremiah had that fire “shut up in my (his) bones” so that he could not refrain from speaking. And God will take care of us too. We look at people who have heard enough gospel to change the world and who remain in their sins. We want to take hold of them and ask, “Why? Why don’t you obey the Lord?” We reexamine the content of our preaching. We ask, “Lord is it I?” “Am I just not cut out for this work?” “Should I quit trying to preach and let someone who can do it better go on with it?” You say, “brother Adams, have you ever felt that way?” Oh yes, many times. Then my wife, or an elder, or a close personal friend jars me to reality by reminding me that we can only plant and water but that God gives the increase. So, I’ll just keep on planting and watering and leave the rest to the Lord and to the hearts of those who hear.

Is it worth it after all? Oh yes! Paul said, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). Paul added that these hardships are only temporary and “light afflictions” when weighed in the scales of eternity.

The world needs to hear what we have to say and so do our brethren. We will just have to toughen up and endure hardships. We can’t afford to quit and the world can’t afford for us to quit either, whether the world knows it or not.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 17 p. 3-4
September 4, 1997

By Frank Jamerson

When brethren are confused about whether Christ came to fulfill the law and prophets or to perpetuate them, it is time to get back to basics! Some are teaching that “Continuity of law is evident in Matthew 5:17,” and Jesus did not “dismantle the law and give a new one,” He only “took away the ceremonial aspects of the law.” My affirmation is that Jesus fulfilled the promises, the prophecies and the law, and all of it passed away. We can please God only by following the New Covenant revealed through Christ and ratified by his blood.

The Law and The Prophets

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-19).

Most of the material in this article is taken from a book written by James D. Bales in 1973, entitled: “Christ: The Fulfillment of The Law And The Prophets.” (It is out of print now. All quotations will be from this source.) When Jesus said he came “to fulfill the Law,” was he talking about the “moral law,” the “ceremonial law,” or all the Law? Those who contend that he came just to fulfill the “ceremonial law” have a problem with the context, for the next verses talk about murder, anger, lust, adultery, divorce, telling the truth, resisting evil, and loving your enemies (Matt. 5:21-48). Jesus also said that he came to “fulfill the Prophets.” Was he referring to some of the prophets, or all of them?

John said, “For the law was given through Moses” (John 1:17), and Paul said that the law given “four hundred and thirty years” after the promise was intended to last “till the seed should come” (Gal. 3:17, 19). Did God mean to say that “the ceremonial law was given till the seed should come”? Whatever Jesus affirmed about the Law, he also affirmed about the prophets in Matthew 5. If he meant that he would perpetuate the Law, it must also mean that he would perpetuate the prophets. Whatever “fulfillment” did for one it did for the other! (Jesus used the expression “law and prophets” to include the whole Old Testament system (Matt. 7:12; 22:40). The Hebrew writer said God “spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets” but “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Deb. 1:1, 2). We are not to “hear” Moses or the prophets, but the Son of God!

Fulfill, Not Destroy

What is the difference between destroying and fulfilling? God told Moses he would “raise up for them a Prophet like you” (Deut. 18:18). When Jesus came, did he destroy that prophecy or fulfill it (Acts 3:22, 23)? Zechariah said that Jesus would rule both as a priest and a king on his throne (Zech. 6:13). When Jesus came, did he fulfill that prophecy, or destroy it? When the prophecies were fulfilled, what happened to them? “When one says that we are no longer under the law and the prophets, he is not saying that Jesus destroyed them by perpetuating them, but rather that he brought them to an end by fulfilling them” (20). “Christ did not come to annul the purpose of the law and the prophets. He did not bring them to naught by failing to fulfill them. He did not abolish them in the sense that one abolishes a promise by refusing to fulfill it. But he did bring the law and the prophets to an end by fulfilling them…. If Christ perpetuated one part of the law, he perpetuated all of the law, since none was to pass until all was fulfilled” (23, 24).

But, what about the prohibition against “breaking one of the least commandments” (Matt. 5:19)? First, would one of “the least” be moral or ceremonial? Jesus had just said that “one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (v. 18). Second, was Jesus saying that even the least commandments would continue after the law was fulfilled? No, he was saying that those who have the disposition, under either law, to ignore “the least commandments” do not have the right attitude toward God’s word. Paul said, “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets” (Rom. 3:21). Just as surely as righteousness is through faith in Christ, the law and the prophets accomplished theft purpose, and though they have historical value, they “passed away.”

Moral and Ceremonial Law?

It is certainly true that some of God’s laws deal with moral conduct and others with ceremonial actions, but does the Bible teach that the ceremonial law passed away but the moral law remained? Look at a few verses in Romans and ask, “Which law is under discussion?” “For the Gen-tiles, who do not have the law …. (2:14). Is this moral or ceremonial law? The Jews “rested in the law” and had the advantage over Gentiles “because to them were committed the oracles of God” (2:17; 3:1, 2). Was it only the ceremonial law that gave the Jews advantage? Those who had received the law became “dead to the law through the body of Christ” (7:4). Now, “we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by …” (v. 6). Again, was this just the ceremonial law which had held them and to which they died? If so, why did Paul say, “I would have not known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, You shall not covet” (v. 7). His illustration of law is one of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:17)!

Let’s take a brief look at the book of Galatians. “Man is not justified by the works of the law . . . for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (2:16). Which law does Paul mean? Was flesh justified by the moral law but not by the ceremonial? “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (3:2). Did they receive the Spirit by the moral law, but not the ceremonial? “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse . . . But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the just shall live by faith” (vv. 10, 11). Again, did the Galatians live by the moral law given through Moses? “For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise” (v.18). Was the inheritance by the moral, but not the ceremonial law? “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator” (v. 19). Was it just the ceremonial law that was given through angels by the hand of a mediator? “Before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law” (v. 23). Again, which law? (Romans 7:6, 7 identifies the law under which they had been “held” as the one that forbad coveting!) “There-fore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ . . . but after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (vv. 23-25). Unless the law is “the faith which would afterward be revealed,” we are not under it!

Notice one passage in Hebrews. “Anyone who rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28). Does Moses’ law include the moral law? (See Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:1-6.) The writer, in this context, contrasts Moses’ law with trampling “the Son of God underfoot,” and counting “the blood of the covenant” by which we are sanctified a common thing (Heb. 10:29). No, we are not under the law of Moses, either the moral or ceremonial part, but under the covenant that was dedicated by the blood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:16-18). (Take your concordance and read every use of “law” in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and ask the question  Is it moral or ceremonial? This will show the folly of the “one covenant” theorists who claim that them are “two laws” [moral and ceremonial]).

James Bales concluded: “Where is the moral law found revealed in its fullness? It is found in Christ, in the New Covenant. We do not have the authority to go to the Old Testament, select something which we would like to be an eternal principle (which he calls moral law), and bind it on God’s people today. We cannot know that it is an eternal principle unless it is also found in the New Testament” (69). This harmonizes with the Hebrew writer’s contrast between the things “spoken through angels” (cp. Gal. 3:19) and the things that “fast began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb. 2:2, 3).

Those who deny that the whole law passed away have the impossible task of determining which of the Old Testament laws to bring over. Is the prohibition against eating blood (Lev. 17:10, 11), moral or ceremonial? (Some who believe the moral laws of Moses are binding are teaching that prohibition against eating blood was removed, so it must be “ceremonial”!) Is giving your wife a certificate of divorce and sending her away (Deut. 24:1-4), moral or ceremonial? (Some advocates of an unchanging moral law contend that this is still God’s law; others say it is not so!) God gave David his “master’s wives” (2 Sam. 12:8). Is polygamy moral or ceremonial? (One advocate of this theory says he does not know.) What about concubines (2 Sam. 5:13)? What about a brother taking his deceased brother’s wife (Deut. 25:5)? Is this part of the moral or the ceremonial law? Was it moral for Ezra to tell God’s people to put away their wives that they did not have a right to marry (Ezra 10:3, 4), or is this part of the ceremonial law that has been taken away? Must we examine every law in the Old Testament and agree on whether it is moral or ceremonial before we know what we should do under the law of Christ? Such is unscriptural and impossible!

Conclusion

The blood of Christ did not ratify the promise to Abraham. It was in effect for two thousand years before it was fulfilled. The blood of Christ did not ratify the First Covenant. It was ratified by the blood of animals (Exod. 24:7, 8; Heb. 9:19), was fulfilled and passed away. Every time we observe the Lord’s supper, we are reminded, “this cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). “The fact that there are similar principles in both Covenants, does not mean that we obey these because they are in the law of Moses … Moses was inspired of God to reveal the Old Covenant to Israel, but God speaks to us today through his Son (Heb. 1:1, 2). We obey these principles not because they are in the law of Moses, but because God has placed them in the NEW Covenant” (74). Amen!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 6-8
August 21, 1997

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:9-11).

When Paul tells us that “such were some of you,” he tells us something about several people. He tells something about some of the Christians at Corinth  their past and their present. He tells something about those who converted these people. He tells something about the brethren who were willing to receive these people.

Someone had made pro-found changes. When Paul said, “such were some of you,” he means that they were no longer “fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners.” They had been cleaned up. They had been forgiven and no longer practiced their former sins. The adulterers (married or unmarried) who had been committing adultery no longer did. The homosexual was no longer a homosexual because he no longer practiced homosexuality. The drunkard was no longer such because he did not still get drunk. The fornicator had quit his fornication. One apparently did not quit his fornication or else he took it up after becoming a Christian. Paul told the Corinthians what they needed to do about him (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

Someone had convened these people. Some one was willing to reach out to these people with the gospel. It is one thing to boldly preach against the fornication, adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness and such like, warning that such “will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” It is another thing to be willing to take the time and expend the effort to teach a fornicator, a homosexual, a thief, or a drunkard. Could our problem be that really, deep down in our hearts, we would prefer not to have people with such unsavory backgrounds as members of the church where we attend? We had rather reach those folks across the street who are well-respected people in the community or that nice couple who would not really have to make too many changes in their life-style. But that woman down the street who entertains men regularly, would not make “us a good member.” Nor would that man we see staggering home almost every week-end. Nor would that fellow that everybody in town knows to be “gay.” Nor would that woman who has been married five times and presently living with a man who is not her husband (cf. John 4:17, 18). No, they would not be “good members” without changes in their hearts and life styles, but, should we assume that the gospel will not touch their hearts and change their lives without even trying to approach them with it?

If someone had not been willing to reach out to these people at Corinth, Paul would have had to say “such are” instead of “such were.” The gospel is not just for those good neighbors who only need some minor doctrinal or moral adjustments  it is also for those who are steeped in the vilest of sins.

Someone had received these people. They were part of the local “church of God which is at Corinth.” Not only had someone reached out to convert these people, after they were converted the brethren at Corinth had received them into their fellowship. Notice Paul said, “such were some of you.” This means that not all the brethren had such vile backgrounds. Yet, they were willing to receive those who had been of such unsavory character. Today, if we are not careful, those of us who have been given a proper Christian upbringing may become rather smug and self-righteous, finding it hard to accept with open arms those who were formally of such “low character.” Oh, we give lip service to the power of the gospel to save sinners  all sinners  but still find it hard to unconditionally accept those with backgrounds described by Paul in our text  even after it can be said “such were some of you.” This writer has known preachers to get in trouble with congregations for their efforts to study with and convert such “low life.” After the studies produced results, these brethren let it be known that they had rather not have people with such backgrounds as members. No matter that the gospel had reached them, changed their hearts and lives and lifted them to a higher plane  the fine cultured (?) brethren with good backgrounds (at least in their own eyes) could not bring themselves to fully accept them as members of the congregation. They are often allowed to be members but not really “received” because their every move is watched for any signs of their former life that might be used to discredit them and those who were willing to reach out to convert them.

Brethren, we all need to remember that “while we were still sinners” that Christ died for us. He died for every man  regardless of his previous record. When any person will hear and obey the gospel of Christ the Lord will save him.

Let us not forget that we were ourselves sinners  some guilty of the same sins listed in the text, while some did things not considered as vile by good people but all guilty! The same grace that saved us will save any sinner. The Lord accepted us when we turned from our sins and obeyed his terms of pardon. The Lord will accept the fornicator, the homosexual, or the drunk when he turns from his sin and obeys. We need to reach out and try to convert them. When they are converted, we had best not only accept them, but accept them with the joy that befits rejoicing over one who was lost and is found. (Read Luke 15.) Our Lord said for us to preach the gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15). Let us not pick and choose our creatures, let us try to reach every creature possible regardless of his background. Who is wise enough to know, in advance, who will or will not be changed by the gospel?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 12-13
August 21, 1997