Cooperation

Posted on July 25, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Webster defines the word “cooperation” to mean, “To act jointly with others; to unite for a common effort.” Luke 5:4-11 provides an example of cooperation. In this passage, we find two fishing boats cooperating together to bring in a great catch of fish.

The question is, can churches cooperate? Can two or more churches work together in a common cause? Some brethren have said “no.” Other have said, “Yes, but only in the area of benevolence and then only in cases of emergency.” How do we respond?

Benevolence

We clearly have scriptural precedence for churches cooperating together in benevolent relief. This example is set forth in Romans 15:25-26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. Who can deny such?

But some say this only allows for churches cooperating one with another in emergency situations. Is this so? Consider the following: (1) This collection took considerable time to gather and transport (see 2 Corinthians 8:10-11; 2 Corinthians 9:1-2). Does this sound like an urgent emergency? (2) Not all in Jerusalem, or even all the saints were suffering from poverty (see Romans 15:26). (3) It appears that some who sent money to Jerusalem were in equally poor or seemingly even worse shape. Those in Jerusalem that did suffer poverty are described as ‘poor’ (ptochos, Romans 15:26); while those in Macedonia who were giving to those poor in Jerusalem are described as being in ‘deep poverty’ (bathos ptochos, 2 Corinthians 8:1-4). The Macedonians were in poverty to the extreme degree. Could it be that there is something more going on here than just poverty relief? (4) Paul asked the brethren to pray that this collection be accepted by the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:30-31). (5) This collection was for a much greater purpose than poverty relief. This was about pulling Jew and Gentile together in the one body (2 Corinthians 9:10-15).

Evangelism

Yes, most recognize that churches can cooperate in benevolent activities. But, can churches cooperate together in evangelism?

There is a principle set forth in the Bible – It is the argument from the lesser to the greater. Jesus used this argument (Luke 12:6-7;  14:1-5; 15:1-4). If one could assist an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath, then couldn’t one help a man in need? If one would go look for a sheep that was gone astray, then shouldn’t Jesus seek the lost? Paul also used this form of argumentation (1 Corinthians 9:9-11; 1 Timothy 5:17-18). If an ox was to be supported physically in its work, shouldn’t a preacher or an elder be?

An Example

Read Acts 15:22-33. Thomas Warren has said of this passages. “This passage shows that one church can scripturally send some of its own men to render assistance to another church… this passage shows that the assistance which one church may give another may involve spiritual matters…this passage shows that one church may send a writing to another church. This writing may involve spiritual matters. This shows that a church may send a tract to another church. If a church may send one tract to another church, it may send a number of tracts to another church. This passage shows then, in light of the fact that a church may send a number of tracts to another church, that a church may send funds to another church so that the receiving church may use those funds in the purchase of writings which involve spiritual matters… if a church may send funds so that tracts may be purchased the same principle which allows this would also allow radio time to be purchased…” (Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes, p. 77-78).

Brethren, this subject can get to the point of ridiculous. Brother Warren tells this story, “Two churches in town, each with a television program, and one of the preachers loaned the other preacher some chalk. This chalk had been furnished by the congregation with which the first preacher was laboring. The second opposed church cooperation in ‘evangelism.’ When, in debate, it was pointed out to him that the principle which would allow one church to give chalk to another church would also allow it to give other assistance as well; I am told the preacher who had received the chalk gave the other preacher some money in order to pay for the chalk. This shows how ridiculous some of these ideas have become” (ibid, p. 45).

Church Autonomy

“What about church autonomy?” This is a common objection. “Churches lose their autonomy when they cooperate,” it is said.

Folks, this simply is not true. Did the churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia give up church autonomy in contributing to the great collection for Jerusalem’s poor saints? Brother Warren has said, “Elders don’t lose their right of self-rule just because they send funds somewhere else” (ibid, p. 110).

Posted in Chruch, Fellowship, Soul Winning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Grace Series: Grace Not Debt

Posted on July 22, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5).

The term “work(s)” is being used of perfect obedience. It refers to one who never, in an entire lifetime, has need of forgiveness of sin. He does not need the blood of Christ applied to his life. It refers to one who merits heaven. This is evident from the words which follow: “just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin’” (Romans 4:6-8). “The man to whom the LORD does not impute sin is the pardoned person. God does not count his sins against him because he is no longer a sinner. The man to whom God imputes sin is the one still in his sin” (Robert Taylor Jr., Studies in Romans, p. 81). David needed forgiveness, and he was granted such by God’s grace, on conditions (Psalm 32:1-5 cf. Proverbs 28:13). Important: Meeting conditions for pardon is not the type of “work(s)” under consideration in Romans 4.

No one who has sinned (and that is all of us, Romans 6:23) can by a human act merit salvation (Note: I am not speaking of accepting God’s terms for pardon. I am speaking of meriting salvation). “For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted him for righteousness’… How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised” (Romans 4:3, 10). Many Israelites, and Judaizing teachers, put their trust in circumcision. However, Abraham was not circumcised, or even commanded to be, until he was ninety-nine years old (Genesis 17:10-11, 24-25). Yet, Abraham was counted righteous before this (Genesis 15:6), more than thirteen years before this (Genesis 17:25 cf. 16:15). Abraham lived a life of faith. (1) He moved his family from Ur (Acts 7:3-4; Genesis 11:31; 15:7; Nehemiah 9:7), and Haran (Genesis 12:4), because of his faith (Hebrews 11:8-10, 15-16). (2) His faith caused him to build altars and worship God wherever he went [e.g. Moreh (Genesis 12:6-7); Bethel (Genesis 12:8; 13:3-4); Hebron (Genesis 13:8)]. (3) He offered tithes (Genesis 14:19-20 cf. Hebrews 7:5-ff). All of these things were done before his circumcision. Abraham was not counted righteous because of flawless law-keeping (Romans 4:1-4). Abraham was not counted righteous by some meritorious act, as some seem to have considered circumcision (Romans 4:9-10). Circumcision, by itself, was not the important thing. Trust in God was. He was counted righteous because he lived his life by faith.

What about complying with God’s conditions for pardon? Salvation is a gift of God. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23). Yet, gifts can be conditionally given (Romans 6:16-18 cf. 6:3-4). Naaman was required to dip seven times in the Jordan to be cleansed of his leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-14). Who thinks that he earned such cleansing from leprosy? A man born blind was required to “go wash in the pool Siloam” in order to receive sight (John 9:1-11). Did this act merit sight? Or, was such simply a test of faith? Jericho was a gift to Israel (Joshua 6:2). Yes, they were required to march around the wall thirteen times, and blow trumpets, and shout (Joshua 6:3-5). Does such make such any less a gift? Of course not! There is nothing we can do to merit salvation (Romans 6:23). God certainly does not owe us salvation. However, we can comply with God’s conditions for pardon. It is only in this sense that we can save ourselves (Acts 2:40 ASV).

Posted in Faith, Forgiveness, Grace, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holy Spirit: Indwelling (Part 3)

Posted on July 21, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

We continue our study of some key wordings.

Giving/Receiving

“He whom God has sent speaks the words of God for (God – supplied by the KJV, NKJV) does not give the spirit by measure (unto him – supplied by KJV)” (John 3:34).

Some have suggested that this teaches that there are different measures of the Spirit. Jesus received the Holy Spirit without measure. The apostles received the apostolic measure. Many Christians, in the first century, received the miraculous means. We, today, received a non-miraculous measure.

This verse is not teaching this. While it is true that the apostles received greater miraculous abilities than others, such is not under consideration in this passage. Furthermore, a non-miraculous giving of the Spirit is not in view.

What is this verse teaching? It is affirming that Jesus’ message was from God. Then, there is an appeal to the evidence from the Spirit. There seems two possibilities here: (1) This could refer to God giving the Spirit to Jesus. James MacKnight commented, “God has given him the inspiration and assistance of the Spirit, without these limitations and interruptions wherewith they were given to all other prophets” (Lockwood, Mistakes Regarding the Holy Spirit, Hammer & Tongs, March – April 1996).   (2) This could refer to Jesus giving the Spirit to His disciples. B.F. Westcott commented, “Christ speaks the words of God, for his words are attested by his works, in that he gives the Spirit to His disciples as dispensing in its fullness that which is His own” (ibid), cf. John 15:26.

“We are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him” (Acts 5:32).

The context is miraculous. Peter healed a lame man and preached Jesus (Acts 3:1-26). Peter and John were arrested (Acts 4:1-3). Peter told the council that the miracle was accomplished through the authority of Jesus (Acts 4:5-10). The council could not deny the miracle (Acts 4:15-16). However, they commanded them to cease speaking in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:17-18). The apostles did not cease their work. More miracles were worked (Acts 5:12-16). The apostles were again arrested (Acts 5:17-18). They were freed by an angel (Acts 5:17-20). They continued to preach (Acts 5:21-25).   They were again arrested (Acts 5:26-28). They told the council that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 5:31). Proof? The apostles testified to such. However, there was more than just their testimony, the Holy Spirit also testified of this (Acts 5:32). This is not speaking of a non-miraculous indwelling which one only concludes he has because the Bible says so.

“Peter and John… prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit… Then, they laid hands on the, and they received the Holy Spirit. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money” (Acts 8:14-18).

“They heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, ‘Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’” (Acts 10:46-47).

“He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ So they said to him, ‘We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit’ …And when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon then, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:2-6).

All of these passages clearly refer to a miraculous reception of the Spirit. Stephen Wiggins has concluded, “When the word ‘received’ is used in the New Testament in connection with the Spirit being ‘given’ to Christians it is always a miraculous reception of Spiritual gifts either by direct outpouring or indirectly through apostles’ hands” (Wiggins, An Ordinary Reception of the Spirit? Hammer & Tongs, May – June, 1995).

“This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? … Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Galatians 3:2, 5).

Judaizing teachers were troubling the church. Franklin Camp commented, “Did the Judaizing teachers confirm themselves as apostles by imparting the Spirit through the laying on of hands? … Paul in imparting gifts to the Galatians, provided proof of his apostleship, the genuineness of the gospel he preached, and the assurance to the Galatians that they were children of God by faith in Christ when baptized, and heirs of the promise of Abraham (Galatians 3;26-29)… It ought to be clear that a non-miraculous reception of the Spirit would have served no purpose in relationship to Paul’s argument” (Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, pp. 143-144).

“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever – the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him…” (John 14:16-17).

Jesus was about to depart this world (John 14:1-3, 19, 28; 16:7, 28). He would not leave them as orphans (John 14:18). Another Helper would be provided (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-13).

The context is important. Guy Woods commented, “The verb ‘receive’ is the rendering of a Greek term meaning to take, to seize. Soon the enemies of Jesus would seize him and take him from their midst; but the another whom the Lord would send could not thus be taken, and the reason is, the enemies of the Lord could not see him… Thus, this comforter the apostles would not lose!” (Woods, The Gospel According to John, p. 312). Wayne Jackson commented, “The Greek term for ‘receive’ is flexible; it can convey the sense of ‘to lay hold on’ or to ‘seize by force.’ The ‘seizure’ aspect would seem to be the correct meaning in context. The ‘world’ was about to seize Jesus by force and murder him. They would be unable to achieve any such goal with the Spirit, the reason being they cannot see him, nor do they know him” (Jackson, A New Testament Commentary, p. 180). Marion Fox noted, “The word ‘receive’ (lambano) is used to refer to taking something, or someone by force in the following passages: Matthew 5:40; 17:25; 21:35; Mark 12:3, 8; Luke 5:5; 9:39; John 7:23, 12:13; 18:31; 19:1, 6, 23, 40; Acts 2:32; 16:3; 17:9; 2 Corinthians 11:20, etc.” (Fox, The Work of the Holy Spirit, Vol. 1, p. 433).

Posted in Holy Spirit, Jesus, Miracles, Phrase Study, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lessons From the Moon

Posted on July 17, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

The moon provides benefits to mankind.  The Bible says, “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth’; and it was so.  Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made stars also.  God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:14-18).  The moon and stars not only give us light at night, they also help us keep track of time.  It takes 29 1/2 days for the moon to complete a full lunar cycle.  The lunar phase helps us keep track of the passage of time; and by the stars, one can navigate a ship.

The moon also plays an important role in sustaining life in the oceans and seas upon earth.  Anyone who has maintained a pond or fish tank knows that keeping the water aerated is essential to the life of most aquatic plants and animals.  In comes the moon in God’s design.  The moon creates the tides.  On any given spot on the Earth’s beaches one can observe the ocean level rising for about six hours and then falls for about six hours. Then the cycle is repeated.  Tide and wind helps keep the ocean aerated.

The moon helps cleanse the oceans as well.  The area between the low and high tide line is called the intertidal zone.  Many of he organisms which live in this region feed off of things which would otherwise pollute the oceans  Thus the moon moves water around aiding in cleansing the oceans waters.

The moon also teaches us something about God’s wisdom in designing this Earth.  Water, particularly salt water, ocean currents, and convection help to prevent greater extremes of temperature on this planet.  John Hudson Tiner writes, “Vast oceans cover much of the earth’s surface. Ocean water absorbs heat in winter and releases it in summer, helping to moderate the earth’s temperature…An extreme example is the earth’s moon. The moon orbits the Earth, so it is, on average the same distance from the sun as the Earth.  The moon has no water.   For that reason, temperatures jump to more than 93 degrees C (200 degrees F) on the sunlit side.  After the sun sets, temperatures plunge to -73 degrees C (-100 degrees F)” (Tiner, The World of Chemistry,pp. 83-84).  Moreover, we all know that the moon is pockmarked by meteorites;  while, due to eath’s atmosphere most meteors (named meteoroids before entering the earth’s atmoshere, named meteors if entering earth’s atmosphere,  and named meteorites  if striking or impacting the earth or moon or some planet) burn up  in the mesosphere (a layer of the earth’s atmosphere) because of friction between the meteor and the earth’s atmosphere.  God made this Earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18).

Next, we perhaps can learn something of the age of the universe from the moon. When Neil Armstrong was planning to go to the moon Bob Hope asked him what his greatest fear was.  He responded without hesitation, “moon dust.”  NASA, assuming the Earth and moon was very old, thought accumulated cosmic space dust would be 50 to 80 feet deep!  They put huge pods on the Lunar landing Eagle to prevent the craft from sinking into this cosmic space dust.  The Earth with its wind, rivers, and oceans, they thought would erode such – there would be no signs of such accumulations here.  But, on the moon it should be thick.  There would be no erosion to wash or blow it away.  It would just build deeper and deeper.  What did they find?  Paul D. Ackerman writes”There was not a billion years worth of dust, nor was there a million years worth of dust.  There was, in fact, only a few thousand years worth of dust on the moon’s surface”(Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All, p.21).

Posted in Apologetics, Evidence, Nature, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Grace Series: Grace for Grace

Posted on July 15, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“And of His fullness we have received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:16-17).

There is a contrast between what Moses brought to man and what Jesus brought to man. Curtis Cates commented, “The law of Moses pointed up sin and made sin ‘exceeding sinful,’ but it could not bring full and complete forgiveness and freedom from sin’s guilt, thus the ‘remembrance of sins year by year’ (Hebrews 10:3; Romans 7:13). It was characterized more by law than by grace; law without the shedding of Christ’s blood was inadequate. It killed, but could not give life (2 Corinthians 3:6). Only by the shedding of the blood of the precious Lamb of God (John 1:29) would full and immediate forgiveness be possible. Thus, forgiveness in the Old Testament was in promise, through offering animal sacrifices, looking to and typical of the coming Messiah (Romans 9:30-10:4). The Hebrews writer stated, ‘God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect’ (Hebrews 11:40)” (Curtis Cates, Studies in John, The 18th Annual Denton Lectures, p. 67).

What is Not Meant

This does not mean that there was no grace before Christ. “Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:8). Ezra said in prayer, “grace has been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape” (Ezra 9:8).

This does not mean that there was not (in any sense) forgiveness before Christ. God counted them as forgiven when they complied with their part of His requirements for forgiveness (cf. Leviticus 4:22-23, 25-26). However, the blood of Christ was still required (Hebrews 9:9; 9:15; 10:1-4; 10:19-22; 11:39-40; Galatians 4:4-5). Here is an illustration, though imperfect: A utility company will count your bill as paid upon receiving your check. Though, it technically is not paid until the check clears the bank. God counted those of old as forgiven (in a sense) though it would require the blood of Christ.

This does not mean that there was not any truth before Christ. The Psalmist said of the LORD, “Your law is truth” (Psalm 119:142), and “the entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160).

This is not teaching that man today is not amenable to law. Man is today amenable to law (Galatians 6:2; James 1:25; 2:8; Hebrews 10:16 cf. Jeremiah 31:33; Isaiah 2:3; Romans 8:2; 8:6-7; 1 Corinthians 9:21). One cannot sin unless law exists (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; 5:13). “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).

What is Meant

We have received “grace for grace” (John 1:16). This could be literally rendered “grace instead of grace” (The Zondervan Parallel New Testament). Whatever grace existed under the Old Testament, far superior exists under the New Testament. Sins are no longer annually remembered (Hebrews 9:12 cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 10:1-4 cf. Leviticus 16). They had forgiveness in promise (though they were counted as forgiven when they complied with their part of God’s conditions for forgiveness). We have forgiveness in reality. This grace was prophesied of by the prophets of old (1 Peter 1:10-11).

However much truth was revealed under the Old Testament, we have received far more. His eternal purpose is accomplished in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:11). Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

This grace and truth is “of His fullness” (John 1:16). It could be literally rendered “out of His fullness.” He came “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14 cf. 1:16; 1:17).

“Oh the depths and the riches of God’s saving grace flowing down from the cross for me! There the debt for my sins by the Savior was paid in His suffering on Calvary!” (Song: Oh the Depths and the Riches by Tillit S. Teddlie).

Posted in Forgiveness, Grace, Jesus, Old Testament/New Testament, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holy Spirit: Indwelling (Part 2)

Posted on July 13, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

In this part, we will begin to set forth how I understand some key wordings.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit

“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38-39).

Some brethren have thought that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is salvation. This will not work. Baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38); Yet, Cornelius and his company received “the gift of the Holy Spirit” prior to baptism (Acts 10:44-48).

My view is that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” refers to miraculous endowment.   Consider: (1) The phrase “the gift of the Holy Spirit” only appears twice in Scripture (Acts 2:38; 10:44-46). In Acts 10, the phrase is associated with miraculous endowment. (2) There appears to be a parallel with the Great Commission.

Mark 16:16-17: belief | (repentance cf. Luke 24:46) | baptism| salvation| signs follow.

Acts 2:38: (belief cf. Acts 2:36-37) | repentance | baptism | remission of sins | the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Some believe that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whether miraculous or not. They reason: (1) The promise was to the Jews, their children, and those afar off (gentiles) and even as many as the Lord God would call (Acts 2:39). (2) Since, it is the case that He calls us by the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14), and (3) since, it is the case that miracles have ceased (1 Corinthians 13; Ephesians 4), then (4) this must include a non-miraculous “gift of the Holy Spirit.” However, it should be pointed out that the term “call” (proskalew) is not the word used for being called by the gospel (Kalew). The word in Acts 2:39 is used elsewhere of being called to an office, position, or work (cf. Acts 13:2; 16:10). The language of Acts 2:39 is rooted in Acts 2:16-18 (cf. Joel 2:28-29). (2) The language sounds universal. Yes it does, if taken alone. Remember that this is also true of Mark 16:17-ff. The rest of the scriptures must be considered. Other passages indicate the duration of miracles (1 Corinthians 13; Ephesians 4).

Consider these words about Acts 2 – “Does it not seem unusual that every reference to the Spirit from the first verse to verse 33 speaks of the miraculous, and then Peter, without any explanation, passed to the non-miraculous in verse 38? Place yourself in the audience on that Pentecost day. You have seen the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit. You asked for an explanation of the miraculous. The preacher quotes a passage that mentions only the miraculous and then you are promised the Spirit as a non-miraculous indwelling. What would be your reaction? In the days of miraculous manifestation, for an apostle to promise the Spirit and one receive no spiritual gift would have made that person question the credibility of the apostle” (Franklin Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, p. 153).

Some brethren have spent much time trying to prove that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” refers to not the Holy Spirit as a gift, but to a gift which comes from the Holy Spirit. While I do believe that this refers to a gift which comes from the Holy Spirit, and not to the Holy Spirit as a gift, I do not see how such can be established by grammar alone. Consider – “The gift of God,” in Romans 6:23, clearly refers to a gift from God, eternal life. “The gift of righteousness,” in Romans 5:17, seems to refer to righteousness (a right standing before God) as a gift. The Wise Men from the East, it could be said, brought gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Gold, frankincense, and myrrh were the gift.

These are my thoughts. Study for yourself. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted in Holy Spirit, Miracles, Phrase Study, Signs, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two Are Better Than One

Posted on July 9, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“There is one alone, without companion: He has neither son or brother.  Yet there is not end to all his labors, nor is his eye satisfied with riches…  Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor.  For if they fall, one will lift up his companion.  But woe to him who is alone when he falls for he has no one to help him up.  Again, if two lie down together, they will keep warm; But how can one be warm alone?  Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him.  And a three-fold cord is not quickly broken.”    ~ Ecclesiastes 4:8-12

It is good to have family and friends.  Consider the following story…

The Wives of Weinsberg 

(Adapted from a retelling by Charlotte Yonge)

It happened in Germany, in the Middle Ages.  The year was 1141.  Wolf, the duke of Bavaria, sat trapped inside his castle of Weinsberg.  Outside his walls lay the army of Frederick, the duke of Swabia, and his brother the emperor Konrad.

The siege had lasted long, and the time had come when Wolf knew he must surrender.  Messengers rode back and forth, terms were proposed, conditions allowed, arrangements completed.  Sadly, Wolf and his officers prepared to give themselves to their bitter enemy.

But the wives of Weinsberg were not ready to lose all.  They send a message to Konrad, asking the emperor to promise safe conduct for all the women in the garrison, that they might come out with as many of their valuables as they could carry.

The request was freely granted, and soon the castle gates opened.  Out came the ladies – but in startling fashion.  They carried not gold or jewels.  Each one was bending under the weight of her husband, whom she hoped to save from the vengeance of the victorious host.

Konrad, who was really a generous and merciful man, is said to have been brought to tears by the extraordinary performance.  He hastened to assure the women of their husbands’ perfect safety and freedom.  Then he invited them all to a banquet and made peace with the duke of Bavaria on term much more favorable than expected.

The castle mount was afterwards known as the Hill of Weibertreue, or woman’s fidelity.

(Bill Bennett, The Moral Compass, page 510)

Posted in Ecclesiastes, Family, Love, Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holy Spirit: Indwelling (Part 1)

Posted on July 7, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

I know of no one (who believes the Bible) who denies the fact of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Bible speaks of an indwelling of God, the Father (John 14:23; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 John 4:12-15; 2 John 9), an indwelling of the Christ (John 14:23; Romans 8:10; Ephesians 3:17; 2 John 9), and an indwelling of the Spirit (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19).

While the fact of the Spirit’s indwelling is not a point of controversy, the manner of the Spirit’s indwelling has been passionately discussed and debated through the years.

In this writing, we will set forth the common views held by brethren. There are three major views.

 1.   Literal Indwelling

This is without question the most popular view. Many good brethren have held this position (e.g. Gus Nichols, Hugo McCord, Roy Lanier Sr., Johnny Ramsey).

Brethren who hold this position, typically believe that at baptism the Holy Spirit literally takes up residence within the believer. Several passages are used in support of this: (1) Those baptized were promised, “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). (2) The Holy Spirit was given to who obey God (Acts 5:23). (3) Various passages mention the Spirit dwelling in Christians (e.g. Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:14).

Many who hold this position grant that there is a miraculous component to some of these passages. However, they believe that the Holy Spirit still literally indwells, though non-miraculously. For example – “the gift of the Holy Spirit” includes the miraculous (Acts 2:38 cf. 10:44-48). However, it is reasoned that a non-miraculous measure must continue, since those on Pentecost were told, “the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39).

A word of caution to those who do not hold the position of a literal indwelling: Not all who believe in a literal indwelling are Calvinistic or Pentecostal in their thinking. Most, among us, do not believe in continuous revelation. Though, I have met a few who do, following their subjective feelings and thoughts thinking that such is guidance from the Holy Spirit.

2.  Figurative Indwelling

This is also a quite popular view. Many good brethren have held this position (e.g. Alexander Campbell, H. Leo Boles, Foy Wallace Jr., Guy Woods, Perry Cotham).

Brethren, who hold to this position, typically believe that when a believer allows God’s word to live within him, it can be said that the Spirit dwells in him. Consider these illustrations: (1) If I said, “I see your father in you,” I would be speaking figuratively. I would mean that you have certain characteristics and mannerisms which identify you with your father. (2) “Robert Browning said, ‘Open my heart and you will see graven on it Italy.’ Does anyone think that the word ‘Italy’ or the boot shaped outline of Italy is literally tattooed on Browning’s heart?” (Ron Crosby, Indwelling of Deity, Hammer and Tongs, March – April 1995). (3) Here is an illustration from Reader’s Digest (April 1979, p.61), “A young lady writing on the positive influence of her deceased parents said, ‘Both my parents will remain in my nerves and muscles and mind until the day I die'” (Crosby, ibid). No one would deny that figurative language is being used. Even so, many brethren believe that such is the case with the indwelling of the Spirit.

Here are a few passages which are sued to support such: (1) Ephesians 5:18-20 and Colossians 3:16-17 are parallel passages. Ephesians 5:18 instructs “be filled with the Spirit.” Colossians 3:16 instructs “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.”   (2) The indwelling of Christ seems figurative. (a) Paul said that it was no longer he who lived but Christ lived in him (Galatians 2:20). This is obviously figurative language. It is a contrast of rulers, Paul’s rule v. Christ’s rule. (b) He wrote to the Galatians, “I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you” (Galatians 4:19). He obviously has in mind the same type of indwelling he had (cf. Galatians 2:20). (c) Paul prayed for the Ephesians that “Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Ephesians 3:17). This prayer was for those who already had faith (cf. Ephesians 1:15). (4) Satan dwelt in Pergamos (Revelation 2:13). No one takes this literally. This simply means that Satan’s influence was especially strong there.

Those who hold this view do not believe “the gift of the Holy Spirit” has anything to do with a non-miraculous indwelling. Some believe that this refers to salvation (Galatians 3:26-29 cf. Genesis 12:1-3 cf. Acts 3:24-26). Others believe that this refers to miraculous endowment (cf. Acts 10:44-48).

A distinction is made between receiving the word (Acts 2:41) and letting the word dwell richly within a believer (Colossians 3:16). Consider this: it is possible in some sense to receive Christ before baptism (John 1:12 cf. Galatians 3:26-28), and yet this is certainly not the same as Christ formed in a believer (Galatians 4:19 cf. 2:20). Receiving the word refers to a willingness to listen (cf. Acts 17:11). It, at times, is used of favorably receiving the word or for obeying the gospel (Acts 8:12 cf. 8:14; 10:48 cf. 11:1). Letting the word dwell richly in one’s life refers to a Christian whose life is ordered by the Word. Colossians 3:15a reads, “let the peace of God rule in your hearts…” [the peace of God refers to the Gospel of peace (Romans 10:15; Ephesians 6:15)]. Colossians 3:16a. reads, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…” These thoughts seem parallel.

A word of caution to those who do not hold the position of a figurative indwelling: Not all who believe in a figurative indwelling are Deists, nor do they believe that the Spirit is the word. All, whom I know, believe that God providentially works in this world. None known to me thinks that the Spirit is the word. Example – A man may split wood with an axe. It may be said that the man split the wood. It may be said that the axe split the wood.  However, such does not make the man an axe. The Holy Spirit gave man the inspired word. It is by means of that word man is converted and sanctified. However, the Holy Spirit is not the word.

3.  Miraculous Indwelling

This is a less widely held view than the other two. It really is not a totally distinct viewpoint, but may be considered a sub-point to the previous position. There are good brethren who have held this position (e.g. Franklin Camp, Guy Woods, Stephen Wiggins).

Brethren, who hold this position, believe that many or even most of the Holy Spirit passages have to do with miraculous endowment and gifts, and have nothing to do with a non-miraculous indwelling. The following points are typically made: (1) The term “gift of the Holy Spirit” occurs but twice in scripture (Acts 2:38; 10:44-48). Acts 10 clearly refers to miraculous endowment. (2) The “giving” and “receiving” of the Spirit is often connected with miraculous endowment (Acts 8:14-18; 10:44-47; 11:17; 19:1-6; Galatians 3:2, 5; Ephesians 3:7; 4:7-13). (3) The term “filled” with the Spirit is often connected with inspiration and miracles (Luke 1:15 cf. 1:76; Luke 1:41 cf. 1:42-45; Luke 1:67; cf. 1:67-79). (4) The context of Acts 5:32 is miraculous (cf. Acts 3:1-7; 4:1-10, 15-19; Acts 5:17-32). (5) The church at Corinth is referred to as “the Temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19). God did not literally dwell in the Tabernacle and Temple of old (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; 6:18; Acts 7:47-50; 17:24-25). However, He did manifest Himself in the Temple (2 Chronicles 7:1-2). The Tabernacle/Temple represented His presence (Exodus 25:8; 29:45-46). Sometimes, there was even a visible manifestation (Exodus 40:34-38; Leviticus 16:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:15; 1 Kings 8:10; 2 Chronicles 7:1-3). Likewise, the church represents Him, and at Corinth there was at this time a visible manifestation of His presence (1 Corinthians 12-14).

Those who hold this position do not believe that the promise of Acts 2:39 refers to a non-miraculous indwelling. Some think the reference is to salvation. Others believe the reference is to miraculous endowment (cf. Acts 2:16-18). The word “call” (proskalew) is not the word used for being called by the gospel (kalew). This word is used of being called to an office, position, or work (cf. Acts 13:2; 16:10).

A word of caution to those who do not hold the position of miraculous indwelling: Not all who hold this position are Pentecostals, and not all are Deists. All known to me believe in prayer and providence.

While it is true that brethren differ over this matter, this should not be viewed as a matter of fellowship. So long as one’s position does not change what man must do to be saved, how man is to worship, and how he is to morally live, and other essentials, there is no reason to divide.

Posted in Fellowship, Holy Spirit, Miracles, Phrase Study, Textual study, Type/Antitype, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Basics From The Beginning

Posted on July 2, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

The world is in a state of confusion. It has left the moorings of the basics as taught in the early chapters of Genesis. It is now tossed upon the ever changing sea of individual subjective thought. It needs to be reminded…

1.  There is a God and He created this material universe. 

“In the beginning (time) God (force) created (action) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)” (Genesis 1:1).

He created plants (Genesis 1:11-12), sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:16-18), aquatic animals and birds (Genesis 1:20-21), land animals (Genesis 1:24-25), and man (Genesis 1:26-27). Moses wrote, “In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11). The writer of Hebrews declared, “Every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

2.  God created man in His image.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make men in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be Fruitful and multiply; fill the earth, and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea; over the birds of the air; and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Genesis 1:26-28).

Man did not arrive on earth by chance. God made man.

Man is not a newcomer to earth. He did not evolve from simpler life form. Man has been observing creation “since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). That is, since the sum total of creation (cf. Genesis 2:1; Exodus 20:11). The creation of man is near enough to the beginning that Jesus said, “From the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6).

Mankind (male and female) was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). The language has to do with authority (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, where the male, and not the female, is in the image of God). God gave man dominion over the rest of creation. Robert Morey commented, “Image of God simply meant that man was created to be and do on a finite level what God was and did on an infinite level. Man was created to reflect God in the created order” (Bert Thompson, Rock Solid Faith, Vol. 2, p. 110). Just as God has dominion over man (and all of creation), God has given man dominion over the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26-27 cf. Psalm 8:3-8).

There is a difference between man and animal. Animals can be eaten (Genesis 9:3), but man is not to shed man’s blood “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Man is treated with dignity for this same reason (James 3:9-10).

When God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,” we get a hint of the complex nature of the Godhead. The Father was involved in creation (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Son was involved in creation (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:1-2). The Holy Spirit was involved in creation (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4; Psalm 104:30a).

3.  God created marriage.

“And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him… Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to man’” (Genesis 2:18, 22).

The animals had mates. However, Adam had not yet been given a mate. He was alone. There was nothing comparable to him. It seems that God wanted Adam to grasp this point.

Then, God made woman. He created marriage. He did not create Adam and Steve or Eve and Edith. He created Adam and Eve. He joined one man and one woman. The institute of marriage  is based on this (Genesis 2:24). This union of husband and wife is to be more permanent than even parent and child (Genesis 2:24). Jesus taught – “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).

4.  Man and woman have different roles in the home.

“And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him’” (Genesis 2:18).

Eve was created to be Adam’s helper. Adam was first formed and then Eve. Paul wrote, “Man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9). Eve was plainly told, after eating the forbidden fruit, that her husband was to rule over her (Genesis 3:16).

Paul grounded the woman’s role in creation (1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:13-14). In God’s plan man is to be the leader in the home (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:3-5), and in the church (1 Timothy 2:8-15; 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).

God spoke to Eve about childbirth (Genesis 3:16), and to Adam about farming (Genesis 3:17-19). This seems to indicate a different focus. The wife is to be a homemaker (cf. Titus 2:5). The husband is to be a breadwinner. Yes, a woman can help bring in income (cf. Proverbs 31:16, 24). Yes, a man can help in domestic work (cf. Genesis 18:1-8). However, there is a different focus or emphasis. There is a division of responsibilities.

5.  Work is not a curse.

“Then the LORD took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it” (Genesis 2:15 cf. 2:18).

Work became more difficult as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin (Genesis 3:17-19, 23). However, it is a mistake to think that work itself is a curse. Man was designed to work (Genesis 2:15, 18).

God has always expected man to work. He did in the patriarchal system (Genesis 3:17-19, 23; 4:2). He did in the Mosaic system (Exodus 20:9-11; Deuteronomy 5:13-14). He still does (Ephesians 4:28; 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-15). Work allows man to sustain life on earth, without someone working no one could live.

God designed the work week around the creation week (Exodus 20:9-10; Deuteronomy 5:13-14). Man needs rest. God set that at one day out of seven. Men have tempered with this, but it still works best. David Barton has written, “Following the French Revolution (1789), France made a calendar change so that workers were allowed one day rest in ten rather than the traditional religiously based one in seven… Apparently, the result on the workers’ health and morale was so detrimental that one day rest in seven was reinstituted” (Barton, Original Intent, p. 67, footnote).

6.  Man is accountable to God.

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall die’” (Genesis 2:16-17).

They ate and there were consequences. They were cast out of the garden. They were cut off from the tree of life, and thus, began to physically die. They lost their close relationship with God, and thus, spiritually died.

What did God mean, when He warned that they would die the day in which they ate? They did not immediately, physically die (Genesis 4:1-5:5). Here are some possibilities: (1) It is possible that this means that their physical death would become certain on that day. Eric Lyon has written, “The available evidence shows… that the Hebrew idiom (‘in that day’) refers to the certainty of death, not the immediacy of it. For example, King Solomon once warned a subversive Shimei: ‘For it shall be, on the day (some original wording – B.H.) you go out and cross the Brook Kidron, know for certain you shall die…” (1 Kings 2:37). As the next few verses indicate, Shemei could not have been executed on the exact day he crossed the Brook Kidron. Solomon did not call for him until after Shimei had saddled his donkey, went to King Achish at Gath, sought and retrieved slaves, and returned home (approximately 50-60 miles round trip). It is logical to conclude that this would have taken more than just one day (especially considering a donkey’s average was only 20 miles a day…). It was only after Shimei’s return from Gath that King Solomon reminded him of his promise saying, ‘Did I not make you swear by the Lord, and warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain that on the day you do out and travel anywhere, you shall die?’ (1 Kings 2:42).  As Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton noted, this phrase (in Genesis 2:17; 1 Kings 2:37, 42 and Exodus 10:28-ff) is underscoring the certainty of death, not its chronology (Lyons, The Anvil Rings, Vol. 1, p. 32). (2) Some have suggested that an immediate physical death is warned of, but God substituted animal sacrifice. Garry Brantley commented, “God did not require them to pay the full penalty for their transgression, but set in motion a redemptive plan in which He accepted a substitutionary sacrifice for sin. This is reflected in the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, and ultimately in the physical death of Christ. In Adam and Eve’s case, it might be that the animals from which God made the skins to clothe their naked bodies represented the first sin offering” (Brantley, Questions and Answers, Reason & Revelation, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1995). This is an interesting theory. However, nothing indicates that the clothes of skin were from a substitute sacrifice which spared their lives. Though, it is possible. (3) Some have suggested that this refers to spiritual death. They lost their close fellowship with God. God become distant. They died spiritually. However, the language, “you shall surely die,” at least usually, refers to physical death (Genesis 2:16-17; cf. Genesis 20:7; 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Kings 2:37,40; 2 Kings 1:4, 6, 16; Jeremiah 26:8. Exceptions –  Ezekiel 3:18; 33:8; 33:14). It seems to me that the first explanation is the best. Though, the second is an interesting theory.

Some might wonder: “What’s the big deal? Why would God so react to the eating of this fruit?” The answer to this is that God placed a choice before them. The choice was not so much about the fruit. It was about whether they would follow God’s will or their own will. They had rejected the rule of God for the rule of self. The big issue in every age is who will be God – God or self?

God is gracious and merciful. He pre-planned a way for man’s redemption. Victory over Satan would come through the seed of women (Genesis 3:15 cf. Galatians 4:4). This plan was in place before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:18-20). Redemption can be found “in Christ” (Ephesians 1:7 cf. Galatians 3:26-27).

 

Posted in God, Man, Marriage, Nature, Phrase Study, Sin, Textual study, Work | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

One Life Can Affect Another

Posted on June 29, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

I came across the following touching story many years ago –

Jean Thompson stood in front of her fifth grade class on the very first day of school in the fall and told the children a lie. Like most teachers, she looked at her pupils and said that she loved them all the same, that she would treat them all alike. And that was impossible because there in front of her, slumped in his seat on the third row, was a boy named Teddy Stoddard. Mrs. Thompson had watched Teddy the year before and noticed he didn’t play well with the other children, that his clothes were unkept and that he constantly needed a bath.

And Teddy was unpleasant. It got to the point during the first few months that she would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen, making bold X’s and then marking the F at the top of the paper biggest of all. Because Teddy was a sullen little boy, no one else seemed to enjoy him either.

At the school where Mrs. Thompson taught, she was required to review each child’s records and put Teddy’s off until last. When she opened his file, she was in for a surprise. His first-grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is a bright, inquisitive child with a ready laugh. He does his work neatly and had good manners… he is a joy to be around.”

His second-grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is an excellent student, well-like by his classmates, but he is troubled because his mother has a terminal illness and life at home must be struggle.”

His third-grade teacher wrote, “Teddy continues to work hard but his mother’s death has been hard on him. He tries to do his best but his father doesn’t show much interest and his home life will soon affect him if some steps aren’t taken.”

Teddy’s fourth-grade teacher write, “Teddy is withdrawn and doesn’t show much interest in school. He doesn’t have many friends and sometimes sleeps in class. He is tardy and could become a problem.”

By now Mrs. Thompson realized the problem but Christmas was coming fast. It was all she could do, with the school play and all, until the day before the holidays began and she was suddenly forced to focus on Teddy Stoddard. Her children brought her presents, all in gay ribbon and bright paper, except for Teddy’s, which was clumsily wrapped in the heavy, brown paper of a scissored grocery bag. Mrs. Thompson took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents. Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing, and a bottle that was one-quarter full of cologne. She stifled the children’s laughter when she exclaimed how pretty the bracelet was, putting it on, and dabbing some of the perfume behind the other wrist.

Teddy Stoddard stayed behind just long enough to say, “Mrs. Thompson, today you smelled just like my mom used to.” After the children left she cried for at least an hour. On that very day, she quit teaching reading, and writing and speaking. Instead, she began to teach children. Jean Thompson paid particular attention to one they all called “Teddy.” As she worked with him, his mind seemed to come alive. The more she encouraged him, the faster he responded. On days there would be an important test, Mrs. Thompson would remember that cologne. By the end of the year he had become one of the smartest children in the class and… well, he had also become the “pet” of the teacher who had once vowed to love all her children exactly the same.

A year later she found a note under her door, from Teddy, telling her that of all the teachers he’d had in elementary school, she was his favorite. Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy. He then wrote that he had finished high school, third in his class, and she was still his favorite teacher of all time. Four years after that, she got another letter, saying that while things had been tough at times, he’d stayed in school, had stuck with it, and would graduate from college with the highest of honors. He assured Mrs. Thompson she was still his favorite teacher.

Then four more years passed and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he had got his bachelor’s degree, he decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still his favorite teacher but that now his name was a little longer. The letter was signed, Theodore F. Stoddard, M.D..

The story doesn’t end there. You see, there was yet another letter that spring. Teddy said he’d met this girl and was to be married. He explained that his father had died a couple of years ago and was wondering… well, if Mrs. Thompson might agree to sit in the pew usually reserved for the mother of the groom. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not she word that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing. But, I bet on that special day, Jean Thompson smelled just like… well, just like she smelled many years before, on that last day of school, before the Christmas holiday began.

You never can tell what type of impact you may make on another’s life by your actions or lack of action. Sometimes just a smile on the street to a passing stranger can make a difference we could never imagine. Would it be nice if we all could have this impact on people?

I love this story. It reminds us that we should try to get to know each other. It is easy to misjudge a situation. It reminds us of how one life can affect another life. It reminds us that a teacher who shows care and concern can have a positive effect.

If one fact-checks this story, one finds that the story is a work of fiction. It was penned by Elizabeth Ballard in 1974. It was printed in HomeLife Magazine (a Baptist publication) in 1974, and again in 1976. Radio giant Paul Harvey read this story on his radio broadcast April 4, 1998. Many have mistakenly believed it to be non-fiction.

Still, one life can affect another. This is why Paul instructed Timothy, “Be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12).  This is why Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

Love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). Let’s notice: (1) Bears all things. The original word (stego) means “to cover, to keep confidential” (B.A.G.); “to cover, to protect by covering” (Thayer). “Instead of trying to broadcast all the dirt and filth we know about other people through gossip, let us speak of others the best we can. Let us quietly work to help others correct their faults” (Williams, The More Excellent Way, pp. 37-28). (2) Believes all things. “Love looks for the best in others and gives the benefit of the doubt” (Dodson, Brown Trail class notes). (3) Hopes all things. “Love worketh for all, even the worst, hoping they will repent” (Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 199). Love sees potential and tries to bring out the best in others. (4) Endures all things. The original word (hupomeno) means, “to remain i.e. abide, not recede or flee” (Thayer). Love is not flighty. It is not fair-weathered. Progress sometimes takes time. Let us lovingly try to help other (Luke 10:36-37; Galatians 6:1-2; James 2:15-16; 5:19-20).

Posted in Christian Influence, Love | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment