Truth Magazine

By H.E. Phillips

Every time I see or hear of this I think of the scene the Lord gave of the judgment in Matthew 25. He said the treatment one gives to “one of the least of these my brethren” is the treatment given to the Lord. You just remember this: what you do (or do not do) to the brethren, you do to the Lord.

That feeling of disgust becomes more loathsome when I see some brother unduly honored, praised and bowed to as if he were an emperor, and for no reason other than that he is rich, popular, highly educated academic-wise, and socially or politically powerful. The political maneuvering, financial mergers, and social alliances are avenues by which many seek to have others respect their persons, or they seek to express their respect of the persons of others.

I can imagine someone saying, “That writer is trying to make himself a champion of the poor and less fortunate among brethren,” or “He is envious and jealous of those who are more fortunate and more popular than he.” Nothing is further from the truth on both counts. There is no special virtue and purity or literacy, and there is no special evil and impurity about wealth, fame and academic attainment. It is as disgusting to me to see the poor and less educated look with disdain upon those who have worked hard to acquire wealth and education as it is in reverse. The extremes in wealth, popularity, educating, etc., have nothing to do with how onebrother ought to treat another. This is the very point of this lesson. Men ought not to be judged and respected upon their persons, but upon what their lives are as measured by the word of God.

Let me give the reason why I abhor the abuse of some and the unearned praise and honor of others. To show respect of persons means to accept (or reject) one upon the basis of who he is or what he has. It means “acceptance of faces” or persons; to receive or reject one on appearance or recognition of his person alone.

The matter of showing “respect of persons” is mentioned nine times in the New Testament: five times of God and four times of men. In each of the five passages relating to God it is affirmed that He is no respecter of persons and the areas where he does not respect persons are given. But in the four verses where showing “respect of per-sons” relates to man they show the very nature of the sin and where it leads. Three verses are found in James 2 and one in Jude. This respect of persons is unjust and unfair in the measurement of a man; it makes man a judge of others by his own standard and ignores God’s standard of right and wrong, and the word of God says it is sinful. This pits the truth against the person. If I respect the person I tend to “bend” the truth to make it conform to the per-son. But if I honor God and his truth I will strive to persuade the person to conform to truth. He then deserves respect, not because of his person, but because of his obedience to the truth.

We are taught to be like Christ. All who believe the Bible believe God to be perfect in every sense. If God does not respect the person of any man, it must right, merciful, just, holy, and Christ-like to show respect to no man’s person. If we learn to do this the law of the Lord will be far more meaningful to us. The law of the Lord will become the standard of judgment and not the person of any man.

First, God respects the person of no man in accepting those who be-come his children. The Jews had the notion that they were favored by God because of their nationality, but God showed Peter and the six Jews with him when they went to the house of Cornelius that “God is no re-specter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34, 35). Every man is not accepted by the Lord, but it is not on the basis of his person that he is rejected; it is because of his disobedience. Peter said the truth is that “God is no re-specter of persons: but in every nation” (Jew and Gentile) “he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” It is what a man does and not who he is that determines whether he is accepted with God.

Second, God respects the person of no man when sin is involved. The righteous judgment of God, “who will render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6), applies equally to “the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” (vv. 9, 10). With God sin is sin whether it be by Jew or Gentile. “For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:11, 12). If you transgress the law of the Lord, he will not stop to check whether you are a Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, popular or unknown, ruler or servant, scholar or unlettered. You will be a sinner whoever you are because God respects the person of no man when sin is involved.

Third, God will render good to those who do good without respect of persons. The poorest, least es-teemed man on earth will receive good from the Lord for the good he has done, and it will be by the same standard and on the same principle that the most es-teemed on earth will receive it. “Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free . . . neither is there respect of persons with him” (Eph. 6:8, 9). What-ever good any man doeth he will receive of the Lord, and the person of that man has nothing to do with it. It is what the man does, not who he is, that counts with God.

Fourth, God will render just punishment to all who do wrong without respect of persons. “Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of per-sons” (Col. 3:24, 25). The most noted evangelist or the most highly esteemed bishop in the Lord’s church will receive the same punishment for his wrong as any other person on the face of the earth. His position or his honor will in no wise affect God in dealing out the just wages for his wrongdoing.

Fifth, the judgment of God to-ward every man will be without respect of persons. “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of per-sons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear” (1 Pet. 1:15-17).

Now compare this with man’s dealing with man. “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou here, or sit here under my footstool: are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? … But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors” (James 2:1-4, 9).

These verses picture the abominable condition so evident among many brethren today. A well-known evangelist will come into an assembly and some brethren will act is if Christ himself has arrived. They must honor him with special eulogies and favors. They do the same for a very rich man, a famous political figure, or a noted entertainer. But these same brethren will hardly speak to an unknown, poor man who is “just a faithful Christian.” If you think I am saying that all well-known evangelists, rich brethren, and brethren who have become successful in their fields of endeavor should be ignored and the poor honored, you have missed the point of this study. The word of God teaches that we should treat the rich and poor alike. We should honor the brethren  all brethren, regardless of who they are or what they have. They should be respected for what they have done and are doing for the living word of God. This is the way God deals with all of us.

We show respect of persons for personal advantage. It is a selfish move. We tend to favor the wealthy because we hope to profit by it. We run after the influential because we expect to enhance our own influence and popularity by the association. We associate with the powerful because we desire to be secure. What can the poor, weak and unknown do for me? Nothing! Why then should I give him any special attention? This is the root of the whole matter. There is no love for the brethren, and, consequently, no love for God (1 John 4:20, 21).

The Spirit said by Jude that the evil “brute beasts” who had committed every conceivable sin known to man, were walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage (Jude 16). The ASV says, “showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.” Like many brethren today, these were using flattering words to show respect of persons for their own personal advantage. Let us learn to treat others without partiality and measure them by what they do according to the standard of God’s word and not according to their persons, who they know, and what they have.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 16-18
August 1, 1996

By Paul J. Casebolt

When I began to preach in the late 1940s, I soon en-countered a colloquial expression voiced by both those in churches of Christ, and those not in the church. I think that the expression may have been made in derision by those not in the church, but some in the church seemed to reluctantly concede that the observation was not without some merit.

Preachers in churches of Christ were accused of centering their sermons in the Book of Acts, and even some preachers in the church observed that everywhere they traveled, brethren were conducting Bible classes in the Book of Acts. As far as non-members were concerned, they may have felt that references to the examples of conversion in Acts emphasized baptism too much. And, preachers in the church may certainly have connected the events of Acts 2 with the commission given to the apostles, the invitation of the Lord, and the establishment of the church.

In retrospect, one thing was certain: brethren in general did seem to have a better knowledge of the Book of Acts compared to their present-day counterparts, and the churches were in much better shape from the standpoint of unity, doctrine, and practice than they now are. And I think that I can see a direct connection between the situation as it then existed, and now.

We may have erred in emphasizing that the Book of Acts was “a book of conversions,” and that its content was primarily directed toward the alien sinner, or non-member. It is true that alien sinners were converted by the thousands, and that sinners today must obey the same commands in order to be saved. And the Lord will add those being saved today to the same church that is mentioned in Acts 2:47.

But I think that we have either failed to grasp another important fact about the Book of Acts, or we have for-gotten what we once knew, and have neglected to teach and preach that fact. The apostles’ doctrine and examples found in Acts are indispensable to the welfare of the Lord’s church (Acts 2:42).

We must remember that the church is responsible for preaching the gospel to the lost, and that the Book of Acts is an example of the church discharging this responsibility. The gospel was to be preached in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and then to “the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8), and the church discharged its responsibility in this mat-ter (Col. 1:23). No other generation has saturated the earth with the gospel as did the church of the first century, and partly because we are divided as to whether the church can accomplish its mission or whether we should turn this task over to some human institution or arrangement.

Some are even teaching that the church has no organization, no work, no worship, and no mission. The Holy Spirit instructed the church at Antioch to “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2). The church which sent Paul and Barnabas to “the work” was later assembled to hear Paul and Barnabas rehearse”all that God had done with them” (Acts 14:27). Paul later tells us that “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).

The church has a mission, a work, a worship, and an organization, and there is no better place in the Bible to find these things described and proscribed than in the Book of Acts. The church was not to be patterned after the old earthly Israelite kingdom (Acts 1:6), and this fact is ignored by the premillennialist and by brethren who attempt to change the spiritual nature of the church (John. 18:36). Jesus ascended into the clouds of heaven, and “shall so come in like manner” (Acts 1:9-11). This manner is described in other passages of Scripture outside of Acts, and certainly does not harmonize with the idea that Christ returned the “second time” (Heb. 9:28), in A.D.70 at the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ is still reigning “on David’s throne” (Acts 2:22-36), and shall continue to do so until the conditions of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 are fulfilled.

The Book of Acts teaches the church concerning the mat-ter of needy saints, both in precept and example. The Jerusalem church took care of its own needy (Acts 4-6), the Antioch church sent relief to their brethren in Judea, Paul and Barnabas delivered this help to the elders (Acts 11:27-30), and Acts 21:18 has reference to the time when Paul helped to transport the contribution of several churches to the needy saints at Jerusalem. Some study and preaching in the Book of Acts will go a long way towards helping brethren resolve their problems concerning benevolence.

Besides evangelism and benevolence, the matter of edification was addressed and accomplished in The Acts of the Apostles. When the churches rested from Saul’s persecution, they were edified (Acts 9:31). There was continual edification in the church at Antioch by the “prophets and teachers” of that congregation (Acts 13:1, 2). Paul and Barnabas traveled among churches already established for the purpose of edification, confirmation, and exhortation (Acts 14:22).

When churches were established and ready, elders were ordained “in every church” (Acts 14:23). This, along with Paul’s instructions to the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:28-31), gives no support to the sponsoring elders/church idea so prevalent in the brotherhood today.

The worship of the early church is partially addressed in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7. No “fellowship halls” were erected for the purpose of entertaining people or satisfying fleshly appetites, and an approved apostolic example establishes the time for observing the “breaking of bread” or the Lord’s sup-per (Acts 20:7). And Paul certainly did not endorse at Troas what he condemned at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17-34). But brethren will reject this apostolic example of Acts 20:7 in order to destroy the force of a like example in Philippians 4:14-18.

It may well be that the church of our time is in worse condition than the church of the first century and the 1940s because we have failed to heed the church’s responsibilities as described by the apostles’ doctrine and examples recorded in the Book of Acts.

And maybe we can begin to correct some of the doctrinal problems and division so prevalent in the church of our time by trying to find the church in the Book of Acts in-stead of the alien sinner. We might even be successful in converting more sinners by practicing what we used to preach.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 5
August 15, 1996

By Robert F. Turner

Over-eating becomes an occupational hazard for preachers, especially for those in meeting work, so when our hostess asked if she might serve a late-night snack, I replied with emphasis, “I couldn’t eat a thing!”

“We have some rolls,” she coaxed. “Not a thing  not a thing,” I said with a firmness of which I was proud.

“What about a piece of pie? Cheese and crackers? A cup of coffee?”

And I became more obstinate, “Please, I do not want anything to eat!”

And then she said, “We have a big freezer of homemade peach ice cream!”

Well, everybody knows that homemade peach ice cream is not a thing  it is a spirit. He had some homemade peach ice cream.

Later, painfully reflecting upon my vices (resolutions come easiest following indulgence  a drunkard makes his finest resolutions while his head throbs and the “bite” lingers), I tried to analyze the situation. Where did I go wrong? How can I strengthen my defenses?

The hostess (very helpful now that the damage is done) says this points up the basic difference in the viewpoint of men and women: “A woman would just shrug her shoulder and say, `I have changed my mind; I’ll take some ice cream.’ But no! A man must rationalize. A man must justify his former position. All that stuff about homemade peach ice cream being not a thing but a spirit. Really!”

You will notice that with either sex she manages to get her way. They eat. the homemade peach ice cream.

On the other hand, maybe this (wouldn’t you know it) skinny little hostess has a point. The human race is filled with self-justifying individuals determined to satisfy their appetites for food, drink, pride, and their own way in the church, who would “bust a hame” before they would admit they were wrong or had changed.

There is no easy way to reduce or to solve other life problems. If they were easy to conquer they wouldn’t be problems. The church grows fat with worldliness because brethren think they can be Christian soldiers without fighting the good fight. Sunday resolutions are nullified by weekday snacks.

(Reprinted by permission from Robert F. Turner, Stuff About Things, pp. 79-80.)

TRUTH

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 1
August 15, 1996

By Lewis Willis

Do you remember when Pilate was trying to release Jesus at the time of his trial? He found Jesus to be innocent and wanted to release him. But the Jews would not permit Pilate to do so. They created so much confusion that he washed his hands before them declaring, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.” The Jews answered, “His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matt. 27:24-25). They were ready to accept responsibility for the death of Jesus. Later, when they were confronted with their sin, they were not so ready to accept it (Acts 2:36-37; 7:52-57).

Today their children do not want the blood of the Savior to be on them, as their fathers had said. Radio City Music Hall was scheduled to present the show, Jesus Was His Name on June 2-13. The Akron Beacon Journal reported that the show was postponed “when religious leaders complained that the $24 million show implicates Jews for the crucifix-ion of Christ.” The blood of Jesus does not sit well on the children of those who had him crucified! However, the facts cannot be denied. One may not like the fact that his greatgreat-great-grandfather was hung as a horse thief, but he cannot change that fact. Neither can the Jews change the fact that they had their Messiah, our Savior, murdered!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 18
August 1, 1996