Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

A correspondent asks for clarification on who are the “we” reflected in the title of my recent articles entitled, “Are We Doomed to Divide over Every Difference on Divorce and Remarriage?” (Guardian of Truth, August 15 and September 5, pp. 496-98 and 548-50). The reader also requested some discussion of how the “brotherhood” divides, though that term was not used in the articles. Through the years, some brethren have been sensitive to references to such terms as “we” and the “brother-hood.” It is felt in some cases that the terms are used too vaguely, or even that they are used unscripturally in reference to a denominational concept of the church as a conglomerate of local congregations and such service institutions as publishing businesses, bookstores, and schools. It is in order that such terms be properly clarified and that we “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

“We” in Context: Brethren,

Christians, God’s People

“We,” of course, is a pronoun, and its point of reference must be deter-mined by the context. In the articles, “Must We Divide…?”, the word “brethren” is used often, beginning with the first two paragraphs (“we be brethren,” and, “brethren to dwell together in unity,” Gen. 13:8; Ps. 133:1). Synonyms used in the article include “God’s people,” “people” dedicated “to a restoration of the ancient order of things,” and “Christians.” “We” refers to “people” professing to serve God, as in the following statements:

As time goes on, more and more people under the influence of these theories participate in such worldly practices as immodest dress (in mixed swimming and daily dress too), gambling (lottery tickets and Las Vegas too), dancing, and drinking intoxicants (beer, wine, mixed drinks, etc.). This carnality will in-crease. Worldly-minded people and spiritually minded people inevitably separate themselves from each other (2 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 5:11) (GOT, August 15, 1996, p. 498).

The “people” referred to are we who profess to be Christians. If this use of “we” is not scripturally accurate, would someone please point out why or how?

Wherever brethren come into contact with each other, however they (we) may work together at any time, they (we) will face questions and issues which must be scripturally resolved. For instance, if they (we) are to work together as members of the same local church, they (we) must agree with each other on “the faith of the gospel” in order to strive “together for the faith of the gospel”  they (we) must be united in “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” (Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:5). If a local church wants to use a man to preach in a gospel meeting, the same unity must exist between the church and the preacher, even though he is not a member of that lo-cal church. In that case, the church and the preacher are the “we” who will find themselves united or divided. The same is true if a church is to provide financial support to a man to preach somewhere else. In that case, the church and the preacher are the “we” who will find themselves united or divided. If two or more brethren wanted to travel and preach together where there are no churches (as Jim McDonald and I have done alongside Filipino preachers), “we” must be united in the faith of the gospel.

If a couple of preachers wanted to teach some lessons on an individual basis to improve the understanding and skill of younger preachers, the teachers would need to be united in the truth of the gospel. Brother Harry Pickup, Jr. has taught some lessons of that kind from time to time through the years. He does not give the right hand of fellowship to premillennialists or institutionalists to teach “damnable heresies” to these young men, but he brings in people of “like precious faith” to help him teach (2 Pet. 2:1; 1:1). Here is the reason for that, in the form of a rhetorical question: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Brother Pickup might say of those who walk together with him in presenting the truth, “‘We’ try to present lessons which are challenging, profitable, and practical.” If he made such a statement in a context referring to himself and like-minded teachers, it would not imply that he conceived of a brotherhood-wide organization of churches and human institutions.

Some false teachers tried to create the impression that Paul was not preaching the same gospel preached by faithful brethren in Jerusalem. This tactic was designed to drive a wedge of division between Paul and the Jerusalem saints. To defeat this tactic, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, where Peter and other prominent brethren publicly ex-changed “the right hands of fellowship” to demonstrate that they all were united in faith, preaching, and practice (Gal. 2:9). Brethren some-times have in mind local church fellowship when they speak of ex-tending “the right hand of fellowship,” but “the right hand of fellowship” may acknowledge the common faith and practice of any two brethren on other occasions as well.

John’s Use of “We” and “Us”

In the Epistles of John as else-where, careful attention must be given to the point of reference or the antecedent of pronouns such as “we” and “us.” Sometimes, the writer has in mind a more restricted reference and sometimes a broader one. This is true in common with our use of language today. Context is always the guide. In 1 John 1:1-3, “we” is used exclusively of the apostles of Christ as his chosen eyewitnesses, but in 1:6 – 2:6 “we” is used of professed Christians in general. The very nature of some of John’s statements shows that division was inevitable among the “we,” be-cause error and sin were being excused and justified. Two very different mindsets were developing:

Truth and Unity

Error and Division

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another….If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us….If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that sayeth, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

These contrasts were not theoretical or academic, but were reflected in the attitudes and conduct of brethren. Some among the “we” or “us” were beginning to advocate and practice the errors described by John  apostasy and division were developing. In warning against these dangers,

John is not speaking exclusively of our efforts as members of one specific local church, but of our lives as Christians in general  in all aspects of our conduct.

In 1 John 2:19 (“They went out from us…”), John in essence explained that people who abandon apostolic teaching sooner or later separate from those who adhere to that teaching. John recognized that when men leave the faith, they leave the faithful. As in Philippians 3:15-19, we not only can recognize apostolic teaching but also distinguish between those who adhere to that doctrine  “walk by the same rule”  and those who depart from it  “enemies of the cross of Christ.” This is true in a lo-cal church or in any other situation where we encounter professed brethren.

In 2 John 9-11, Christians are taught not to “receive” or to endorse by words of commendation anyone not abiding in “the doctrine of Christ.” This principle applies to each of us whether we might contemplate aiding such a man with personal hospitality, or traveling and preaching with him, or agreeing to accept him into local church membership, or working with him in a gospel meeting (even when we are hopeful “he won’t preach his false doctrine here”), or joining our-selves with him in any other spiritual work. We are to recognize and distinguish between those who follow apostolic teaching and those who do not, wherever we may encounter them (Phil. 3:15-19).

“The Brotherhood”: Christians,

Not Churches Combined

Into An Organized Structure

Clarification has been requested on what the “brotherhood” is and how it can divide. 1 Peter 2:17 says, “Love the brotherhood.” This refers to loving brethren in Christ generally  as members of the same local church  as saints in distant places  when we visit them or they visit us  when-ever and however we may encounter them. The suffix “hood” refers to “a group sharing a specified state or quality” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed., 1991). In this case, it is the state or quality of being baptized believers, professed Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ. The units making up the brotherhood in 1 Peter 2:17 are individual Christians, not churches, and not service institutions operated and utilized by Christians (whether bookstores, publishing businesses, schools, etc.).

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter limes some shall depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1). When some among us depart from the faith, there is division. When brethren part ways as individuals, they eventually and inevitably part company in all of the ways they formerly worked and worshiped together  in individual efforts and in local churches. As a consequence of that process, individuals will separate with regard to working together in publishing journals and other religious literature, but stores and businesses are not the brotherhood spoken of in Scripture.

While there is no organization combining local churches into a brotherhood of churches, churches of Christ share a common head and thus a common standard of truth, faith, and practice. Speaking from that viewpoint, Paul said he taught the same thing “everywhere in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 11:16). Ties of love for the Lord, for the truth, and for each other existed between brethren who worshiped in various congregations from place to place (Col. 2:1-5). Churches sharing those common bonds of truth and love exchanged greetings, information, and varied communications with each other (Col. 4:7-18; Rom. 16:16; Acts 18:27).

When some of those churches departed from the inspired standard and refused to repent, they thus were divided or separated from churches which continued to maintain that standard. Mutual greetings and other communications ceased. Though never joined by organizational ties, they once shared a common allegiance to the authority of Christ and to the task of preaching and practicing his word, but while some churches faithfully maintained that commitment, others lost it. The unfolding of such a division is reflected in the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor, as recorded in Revelation 2-3. Again, I emphasize, this is not a division of an organization of combined churches, but it is a division of faith and practice which can be recognized between or among local churches.

When individual brethren become divided in faith and practice, eventually the local churches in which they were once united become divided, and eventually entire local churches can be recognized as embracing one faith and practice or another. Such division has occurred over instrumental music, missionary societies, premillennialism, and institutionalism. Churches which become corrupt in doctrine and practice often form organizational arrangements which centralize and combine local churches into some larger structure, some organized brotherhood ofchurches, but churches which maintain the New Testament pattern of faith and practice do not do so (1 Cor. 4:17).

When faithful preachers cry out against rising dangers, they sometimes are charged with harboring the concept of some imaginary organization constituting a brotherhood of churches. Vague aspersions are cast publicly and juicy rumors are shared privately about self-appointed “guardians” stirring up trouble by trying to “run things” and “control the brotherhood.” Generous references are made to “brotherhood directors,” “brotherhood dictators,” “brotherhood watchdogs,” attempts to impose “an official creed on the brotherhood,” and the like.

In the first place, the logic of some among us is curious and convoluted. When faithful brethren use Scripture and moral persuasion to warn about certain dangers, this “proves” they believe in an imaginary brotherhood of churches and are seeking to exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers in it. But, when their critics cry out against the dangers they see (such as certain supposed brotherhood directors), this “proves” they do not believe in an imaginary brotherhood of churches and they are not brotherhood dictators or even watchdogs. Solomon explained this kind of logic when he said, “The legs of the lame are not equal” (Prov. 26:7).

Secondly, such charges were used as a smokescreen by those promoting and defending false doctrine during the divisions over instrumental music, missionary societies, premillennialism, and institutionalism. Faithful men have always suffered the illogical and inconsistent charges of such critics without being intimidated and without losing sight of the very real doctrinal issues which lay behind the charges. Such charges are being used as a smokescreen now by those promoting and defending false doctrine on divorce-remarriage, fellowship, Romans 14, and related matters. Brethren, let us assess these tactics for what they are and resolve not to be diverted from the very real doctrinal issues which lie behind such charges, “lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 16-18
January 16, 1997

By Mike Willis

From the time that my mother taught the book of Acts to the children’s class at church, I have been impressed with the Apostle Paul. I can distinctly remember how close to tears I came when I learned that he was beheaded by Nero. Most of us have been impressed by the life and work of this godly man.

However, Paul’s life was not without his critics. Had we lived in Paul’s time, some of us might not have appreciated him so much as we appreciate him today. Wherever he preached, trouble and confusion followed close behind. Paul was right in the middle of the conflict that occurred in the church over whether or not Gentiles should be compelled to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15; Gal. 2). When the church at Corinth had trouble, Paul was right in the middle of it, writing letters and making visits to correct the problems there (1-2 Corinthians). A riot broke out in Ephesus because he was converting so many people to Christ that the local merchants thought their business of making images to Diana would be destroyed (Acts 19). Indeed, Paul was a controversial per-son in his day. We may honor his name today, but some among us would not welcome such a man into the pulpit of our local church.

Criticisms Against Paul

Paul established the church in Corinth and worked with it for eighteen months (Acts 18:11). When trouble came to the church while he was preaching in Ephesus, he wrote 1 Corinthians to address the problems there. Sometime during his stay in Ephesus, he made a trip to Corinth to help solve their problems (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1). After this second trip, men began working in Corinth to destroy Paul’s reputation. Second Corinthians records much of this conflict. Here are some of the criticisms that were made about Paul’s work:

1. He is fickle. This charge is implied in the statement in 2 Corinthians 1:17  “When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me here should be yea yea, and nay nay?” Because Paul changed his plans about when he would come to Corinth, those who were trying to undermine his work charged him with fickleness, attributing motives for changing his plans that were untrue. He changed his plans to “spare them” (2 Cor. 1:23) and to avoid a second visit that would be painful and full of sorrow (2 Cor. 2:1-4).

2. His bodily presence is weak. Many of us admire men with a personal charisma that draws others to them. But this was not Paul’s character. His “Charges Against Paul” continued from page 2 bodily presence was weak. His critics said he was “base” and “weak” when present (2 Cor. 10:1; 13:1).

3. He writes terrifying letters. In contrast to his bodily presence, Paul’s letters were “bold” (2 Cor. 10:1). They charged that he “terrified” them with his letters, “for his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10).

4. He is not a good speaker. Some found Paul’s pulpit preaching lacking. They said that “his speech is contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10) and that “he is rude in speech” (2 Cor. 13:6). Apparently, Paul’s opponents were not impressed by his pulpit delivery and used that to undermine his work at Corinth.

5. He doesn’t accept support. One of the things that Paul was criticized for at Corinth was his refusal to accept sup-port from the church at Corinth. Paul was not against preachers being supported from the church treasury, for he had argued for this right in 1 Corinthians 9:1-15. While he labored in Corinth, he supported himself by tent making (see Acts 18:3) and received financial support from other churches on sporadic occasions (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15-16). Instead of appreciating Paul’s sacrificing so that the gospel might be preached among them, the Corinthians condemned Paul for not taking support from them. The exact nature of this criticism is not known. Some think that it came because itinerant philosophers were usually supported by their disciples. Others think that Paul’s refusal of support from Corinth was interpreted as an indication that Paul thought himself lesser than the Jerusalem apostles. However, it was interpreted, there can be no doubt that he was criticized for not taking their support (2 Cot 11:7-9; 12:13-15; etc.).

6 He used others to take money from the Corinthians. When his opponents could not criticize Paul for taking money, they charged that the funds raised by Titus for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem was really Paul’s craftiness in deceitfully taking the Corinthians’ money for himself (2 Cot 13:16).

7. Paul is beside himself. Some appear to have made the charge that Paul was so caught up in what he was doing that he was a “zealot” who had lost all balance  that he is “beside” himself (2 Cor. 5:13).

He was dishonored, had evil reports spoken about him, and was charged with being a deceiver (2 Cor. 6:13). Some charged that he had wronged, corrupted, and defrauded brethren (2 Cor. 7:2). They charged that he “walked ac-cording to the flesh” (2 Cor. 10:2).

Paul’s Self Defense

Paul found repugnant his having to defend himself. He said, “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you” (2 Cor. 12:11). In his self-defense, he repeatedly described his relating his conduct as “speaking like a fool” (2 Cor. 11:16-17, 21, 23; 12:6, 11). He was embarrassed that he had to write about what he had done to demonstrate to the Corinthians that he was an apostle of the Lord Jesus and had conducted himself honorably. The Corinthians had known Paul long enough that he did not need an epistle from or to them (2 Cor. 3:1-2). Why should he have to defend himself to them? Nevertheless, he was compelled to do so because his opponents were undermining his work.

Why Were These Men Attacking Paul?

What was at stake in Corinth that Paul felt the need to address the charges against him? There was much more involved than false charges being made against an innocent man. The false charges were motivated by a rejection of the Lord’s gospel and the preaching of another gospel. Paul’s opponents at Corinth were Judaizers (see 2 Cor. 11:22). The doctrine that was at stake was that discussed in the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15; Gal. 2) and in the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. That issue was this: “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The reason that these false apostles in Corinth attacked and undermined Paul’s reputation was because they rejected the gospel that he preached! Because they did not believe that a person could be saved by faith in Christ Jesus without keeping the Law of Moses, they at-tacked the man who was preaching salvation by faith in Christ. Paul charged that they preached “another Jesus,” received “another spirit,” and preached “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). They were “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:20). Whatever charges these false teachers had to make to undermine his influence they were willing to make be-cause they hated the gospel message that he preached. The issue was not the moral character of Paul but which gospel would prevail!

The ministers of Jesus Christ are the objects of slanderous, personal attacks from time to time. This has been true since the days of the apostles and continues to be true to-day. Those associated with Guardian of Truth have been maliciously attacked just the same as Paul. We have been charged with showing respect of persons by covering up known sins of those associated with us, lying, keeping files on brethren for malicious purposes, writing a creed, acting like buzzards, and many other slanderous words. Those who speak such slander assure us of their unfeigned love. But, what lies behind these charges? Is it a genuine concern for the souls of men who have stumbled into sin, who are leading others to commit the same kinds of sins, and are defending those sins as righteous deeds? Not at all. Rather, the charges are being made by malicious men because they reject the gospel which is being preached. There are men who want fellowship broadened to include men who preach a different gospel. Specifically the issue is focusing at this moment in time on receiving those who are teaching a contrary doctrine on divorce and remarriage. Some who teach the truth on divorce and remarriage wish to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who teach error on the subject. The reason that they make personal attacks is because they reject the gospel that is being preached  the gospel that says that those who preach false doctrines on divorce and remarriage should not be fellowshipped (Matt. 19:9; 2 John 9-11). To undermine the gospel, they attack the messenger, just like the Judaizers attacked Paul.

What Should We Do?

We should do exactly what Paul did. Paul was resolved to continue preaching what he believed whether or not the false teachers in Corinth ever respected him. He was deter-mined that “every word should be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses” (2 Cor. 13:1). Those who were guilty of sin would not be spared (2 Cor. 13:2). Unless the Corinthians repented of their sins and changed their ways, there was going to be a great confrontation when Paul arrived.

Paul did not say, “We should allow local church autonomy to prevail. If there are churches who believe that one should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved, let them preach that message. They probably will not be able to fellowship some whom the rest of us could fellowship. Other local churches will preach salvation by grace through faith and receive into their fellowship Gentiles who have not been circumcised and do not keep the Law of Moses. We will just have to respect local church autonomy and agree to disagree.” That ploy to extend fellowship to those who were teaching another gospel did not work in Paul’s day, so why should we allow it to work in our own time?

Conclusion

Do not be distracted by malicious slanderers who try to divert men’s attention from the gospel by attacking the messengers. Cling to the gospel message and those who faithfully preach and live it!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 2
February 6, 1997

By John Humphries

Thanks to our Heavenly Father and your prayerful sup-port we have completed our gospel work in India for this fall. John Steward Tyler and I left on October 2 for India and returned to Louisville, Kentucky on November 15. This recent trip completed 20 years for me in doing gospel work there. I first began going to India in 1976. God willing and with your prayerful support, I will try for another 20 years!

The efforts went well in my judgment. The gospel was preached to many precious souls and Bible classes were con-ducted for many saints in different places. We had a Bible study with nearly 60 Indian preachers in Shanthi Nagar (near Hyderabad). I gave a general survey of the Bible and John S. gave a study of the miracles of Jesus. The preachers said that the studies were very helpful to them and that they will present the material to the people in the various villages where they labor in the gospel. This is what we wanted to accomplish.

After the work with the preachers in Shantlai Nagar, another smaller class for preachers was conducted in the Guntur District which is southeast of Hyderabad. Also, we separately preached in gospel meetings with various congregations. One of the largest meetings was with the

Bharath Nagar church where T. Wilfred preaches. We had overflow crowds each night. Brethren had to place benches outside the meeting house with outside lighting to accommodate the crowd. I hated to stop the meeting but our stay in India was drawing to a close. In all of the meetings we baptized 83 precious souls into Christ. The Indian preachers have told me that they were also baptizing converts during the time while John S. and I were in gospel meetings in other places; and so the total number of baptisms was about 120.

Brother William (Bill) Beasley also was in India during this time and was faithfully teaching and baptizing souls into the Lord. We met together a few times and talked over the phone a time or two. He was covering a different part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was also teaching preachers and holding gospel meetings in various places. We are confident that much good was done.

In the twenty years that I have been going to India, the church has dramatically grown from a mere handful of brethren to several thousand brethren all over the state. There are now far too many places for me or any other person to cover in the six weeks that we generally stay in South India. When several of us go, we usually split up into different teams. John S. and I did this on this trip. We teamed with faithful Indian gospel preachers.

We are presently (in India) printing 10,000 Telugu language Bibles. This is a tremendous task as you can well imagine and is still going on diligently as I write this report. Also, the Indian brethren are printing up many tracts in the South Indian languages. Brother Bill Beasley has written several excel-lent tracts and some of these are being printed at this time. I also have several that I have written and these are being printed in India. These tracts will do much good as the people love to read anything that they can get their hands on. It is a real blessing to be able to get material into their hands that will teach them the truth and save their souls. The only limit to the number of tracts that we print is in the funds that we have avail-able. We could use some help if any is interested and able to respond.

The most distressful occurrence during this stay in India was the horrible cyclone (hurricane) that hit Andhra Pradesh. Winds were in excess of 100 miles per hour and the rain was exceedingly heavy. It was the worst storm in a decade. Thousands lost their lives and many more lost everything that they had  which wasn’t much to begin with by our standards in the West! Many brethren were affected by the storm’s fury. Homes were destroyed. Crops were either washed away or blown away. Farm land was ruined for years to come. Lives were lost and families were disrupted. The government is reacting  slowly  to the disaster. However, Christians are not at the top of the list by any means! Hindu officials and bureaucrats look after their

Some of us have already responded to their needs. Brother T. Wilfred (faithful Indian preacher) is acting as a messenger for some of the brethren to see that the help is received by the needy brethren in coastal Andhra Pradesh. John S. was caught in some of the heavy rain as he and some of the Indian brethren fled the storm. Also, Bill Beasley was conducting Bible classes in the area. The storm blew the roof off of the place where they were having the studies. Fortunately, the brethren were not inside at the time.

I certainly regret having to report these tragedies in India. However, I feel that you brethren would want to know of these things. Remember these dear brethren in your prayers, please. They are hurting.

On the other hand, there are many positive stories that I could tell concerning my experiences in India. While there are many stories concerning individuals (Indians)who have made great sacrifices in order to be Christians, there are success stories as well of brethren who excelled at their work and received much deserved recognition. You must understand that it is a very rare occurrence in India when a Christian (non-Hindu) is highly honored by the government. I am referring to brother Vinaya Kumar, Head Master for a high school in Andhra Pradesh, who received the National Teacher of the Year award in India. This is a very prestigious honor as there are millions of teachers in India! He went to New Delhi (capital of India) and received the honors. Needless to say, this brother is an outstanding gospel preacher as well! I have known him since 1976. He and I have worked together in many gospel meetings. He is a skillful translator. He has also translated a number of our tracts into Telugu for printing.

May I mention, too, that there are several gospel preachers in India that could really use some help as far as monthly support is concerned. I can assure you that $35 a month would be a great blessing to them and would relieve them of the pressure of trying to make ends meet while they preach among the poor daily wage people in the villages. If anyone is interested, please get in touch with me.

If anyone has any questions concerning the gospel work in India, please contact me. I will do my best to answer your inquiries. Thank you for your interest and support of the India effort. God willing, I will be returning to India next fall. If you can help, please let me hear from you so that I can know how to plan my trip budget. Please put us in your budget for 1997. Thank you for any consideration.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 10-11
January 16, 1997

By Norman E. Sewell

I love to read, but I’m not an avid newspaper reader. I learned a long time ago not to believe everything I see in the paper or on TV. But I have noticed lately a lot of fairly young people are mentioned in the obituary column. Some, of course, are quite young, in their 20s or 30s, but there seems to be a very large number in their 40s and 50s, and that’s getting too close to home. Perhaps it is just that too many people in my own age group are dying and it re-minds me of my own mortality. In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, chapter 5, he writes of a time when we will put off our earthly bodies and put on one suited for eternity. It becomes clear that he is not writing about death so much as he is writing about what lies beyond death. Note some of Paul’s description: “For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up of life” (vv. 2-4).

Death is the end of life and activity here on the earth. Solomon wrote about this: “For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun” (Eccl. 9:5-6, NKJV). The simplest way to under-stand these verses is just to recognize that death ends our existence and our activities on this earth, under the sun. Death is just a part of the process determined for us all by God  the journey through this world as we travel on toward our eternal destination.

At the end of chapter 4, once again in 2 Corinthians, he described some of the persecution that he and the other apostles endured. Paul wrote: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:16-18). From this we are to understand that the eternal things are more important than the temporary things.

And it is clear that there is more to man than just a body. This body that we wear is mortal and thus corruptible. And at some time we will all put off this body and put on one suited for eternity. Jesus warned his disciples about the cruel things that men would do and then told them: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). There is something far worse than dying, and that is to be destroyed spiritually, to lose your own soul or yourself (Luke 9:25).

As we read a moment ago Paul had said, “Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16). All of us would have to admit that our outward man is growing older, definitely on its way to perishing. Can we all say that our inward man is being renewed day by day? Are we really getting better and better spiritually? The process of maturing as Christians never ends. We never get so “good” that we no longer need to be “renewed.” Paul wrote to the Ephesians, “that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:22-24). Even though we have put off the old man it seems as though he keeps fighting to get back into prominence in our lives. Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians and warned them: “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish” (Gal. 5:17). Paul says to put away that old man and to be renewed in our minds; to make ourselves more like God. Which one is winning the battle in your life? Is it the old man of sin, the man devoted to the flesh? Or is the inward man? What are you doing to strengthen the inner man and to be renewed day by day?

Paul prayed for the Colossians, “that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and in-creasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power? for all patience and longsuffering with joy” (Col. 1:9-1 1). To be renewed, to be strengthened, to walk worthy of the Lord and to bear fruit we need to be “filled with the knowledge of His will.” This only comes through diligent study of God’s word, striving to rightly apply it to our lives. Then with Paul we can look forward to the time beyond death when “mortality may be swallowed up of life.”

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 19-20
January 16, 1997