May/June 2010
Volume 20 No. 3 (Printable [PDF] Version)
Who is an Anti?
by Malcolm L. Hill
The word anti means against. If one has read any church history, he is acquainted with this word. The history of the church of Christ in America is filled with anti-ism.
There have been those who were against located preachers; thus, anti located preachers. There are those who are against Sunday school; thus, anti Sunday school. Starting about 1950, there came a tidal wave of people in the church of Christ that opposed orphan homes; thus, the anti orphan home brethren. The list goes on and on.
Why has this anti-ism arisen in the church? It has been in the church because some brethren do not know their Bible. Some within the body of Christ need to learn Christians go by the Bible and not by what they like or dislike. The antis in the church of Christ need to learn this lesson. The antis did not like located preachers so they fought congregations that had them. The antis did not like Sunday school so they fought them. The antis did not like orphan homes so they fought them.
I have been training gospel preachers for many years in Christian schools and some brethren have fought the work we were doing. Some have refused to support Christian schools because they did not like them or maybe they did not like a teacher or the president of such schools. This kind of activity is anti-ism gone to seed. It is just as bad as anti Sunday school or anti located preacher. We have no right to fight any scriptural work. When we talk about support we are not just talking about supporting with money. We are talking about supporting with prayer, cooperation, good will, and a firm stand for all Bible works. Some Bible doctrine must be involved before a Christian raises his hand in opposition to a work and this would involve a Christian school or orphan home.
Tennessee Bible College is a Christian school and is sound in the faith of Christ Jesus. All Christians should support it unless it is involved in a sinful practice. We stand ready to defend the school any time with reference to its soundness.
Editorial
by Malcolm L. Hill
As many know, I have been having some health problems for the past year and three months. I have had diabetes since 1992 and due to this my feet have become numb because of neuropathy. My right foot broke due to a disease called Charcot foot which destroyed the bone. A sore came on my ankle which could not be healed and I had to have it amputated. I am doing well and all systems are go with me. I am back on the job again.
Due to my health conditions I felt it necessary to pass the torch on to my son David. So on May 1, 2010, at the annual board meeting of Tennessee Bible College the board asked me if I would like to be removed of my responsibilities as President of the College and I told them that I would. They then appointed David as President and asked if I would serve as Chancellor—to which I gladly agreed.
Even though David is my son, I must pay him some compliments. David is a man of the Bible and he knows it very well. He is a very excellent preacher of the Gospel and knows the sacred scriptures well. He has the very highest regard for the authority of the Bible. He understands the nature of human beings and deals well with people. He is not hesitant to stand up for Bible truth. David has been around brotherhood politics all of his life and he knows the current that flows from such. He has a lovely Christian wife and two precious children.
The faculty and staff of Tennessee Bible College were all thrilled with the decision made by the Board of Trustees in appointing David as the president of the school. The transition was as smooth as could be and the school will go on as it has been through the years. I say David will bring improvements in the work and ongoing of Tennessee Bible College.
The Church and Withdrawing Fellowship
by Malcolm L. Hill
by Malcolm L. Hill
Let us start with an individual withdrawing fellowship. Can he as a Christian withdraw fellowship from an unfaithful, impenitent member of the church? I do not find this kind of thing in the Bible. I may decide not to associate with an individual who practices sin and I may expose a brother for practicing sin or for teaching false doctrine, but to withdraw fellowship I cannot. Much of this kind of thing is taking place today.
Can one congregation withdraw fellowship from a member of another congregation? This is not found in the word of God. A congregation can only withdraw fellowship from members in its fellowship. A congregation can mark those who are disrupting the unit within a congregation even though they are not members of the congregation (Rom. 16:17).
Can a congregation withdraw fellowship from a school or Bible college? The Bible nowhere addresses a matter of this kind. Bible colleges and Christian schools are not mentioned in the Bible. Individuals may choose not to give money to such institutions and one may fight them if they are not following the Bible, but if they are following Bible doctrine, churches and individual Christians must support them (I John 1:7; Titus 2:14).
Withdrawing fellowship is for churches. The Corinth church was to withdraw (I Cor. 5:1-11). The Thessalonian church was to withdraw (II Thess. 4:6). Withdrawing fellowship is a congregational matter, not an individual matter.
Social Drinking
by Malcolm L. Hill
by Malcolm L. Hill
Brother Ralph Gilmore heads up the Open Forum at Freed-Hardeman University. In the 2010 Forum he said that the Bible nowhere condemns social drinking. He talked about how terrible drinking alcohol was and is; he said he hated strong drink and he raved and ranted about how terrible it is for society to be given to it, but on the other hand he said God did not condemn social drinking. Brother Gilmore seems to abominate that which he says God approves. Can anyone make any good sense out of such talk and reasoning? One would think that the brotherhood would have much opposition to Gilmore’s comments, but we have heard little about the matter. Where are the men who have written on the subject?
Using Weak Brethren
by Malcolm L. Hill
by Malcolm L. Hill
For years we have tried to warn brethren about using weak brothers in the faith on programs and for gospel meetings. Some jumped to conclusions thinking we were saying they should be withdrawn from. Individuals can be marked or pointed out without it being a withdrawal of fellowship. Romans 16:17 is an example of this. Philippians 3:17 is another example of this.
Much potential evil may come when brethren and churches that are considered sound in the faith use compromisers and half-converted brethren on various programs. Let us show you what we are talking about.
When a sound church uses the unsound and weak, they are commending such individuals to the brethren in that area, and on a wider scale to the entire brotherhood. Some may not like to accept this, but it is true.
We need good, sound, in-depth judgment in the work of the Lord. In a general sense the cause of Christ is taken to lightly. There is a pay day coming some day. We fear for some church leaders and preachers on that day.
Duties of the Elder
by J. W. McGarvey (Continued from the Jan-Feb Issue of Living Oracles)
by J. W. McGarvey (Continued from the Jan-Feb Issue of Living Oracles)
A word thus highly exalted by the pens of prophets, and even by the lips of Jesus, almost appears too sacred to represent the relation and responsibilities of an uninspired laborer in the cause of God. But even before the church came into existence it had been consecrated to this usage, and was a favorite term with the later prophets by which to designate the religious leaders of Israel. Jeremiah pronounces a woe upon the shepherds of his day who destroyed and scattered Israel, and predicts the time when God would bring the sheep again to their folds, and set up shepherds over them who would be real shepherds to them. Jer. xxiii:1-4. The connection shows that the prediction has reference to the Christian age, Ezekiel speaks in the same strain, and in almost the identical thoughts of Jeremiah, except that in contrast with the unfaithful shepherds of his age, he says: “I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, he shall be their shepherd.” Ez. xxiv:1-23.
With such a history, the word shepherd came into the terminology of the church with a most clearly defined secondary meaning. When applied as a title in the church it necessarily represented its subject as the ruler, the guide, the protector, and the companion of the members of the church. When Paul and Peter, therefore, exhorted the elders to be shepherd to the flock of God, all these important and tender relations were indicated by the word.
We have already taken notice of that general conception of the duties assigned the eldership, which is derived from the title applied to the office. In the confirmation of the conclusions drawn from this and overseer are enjoined upon the elder by express command.
In two distinct passages already quoted, (Acts xx:28; I Pet. v:2) the elders are exhorted to be shepherds to the church. This exhortation, or rather this apostolic command, has failed to make its due impression on the English reader, because of the very inadequate translation of poimaino in the common version. It occurs eleven times, and is seven times rendered feed and four times rule. When connected with church work it is uniformly rendered feed. No doubt the translators intended by this rendering to make their version intelligible to their uneducated readers in England and Scotland, where very little is known of a shepherd’s work except feeding the sheep through the long winters. But this attempt at adaptation has led to serious misapprehension; for even to this day, and in America as well as in Great Britain, the term feed in these passages has been understood by the masses as a metaphor for public teaching, and the whole work here enjoined is supposed to be accomplished when a suitable address is delivered to the saints on the Lord’s day. Many an elder has imagined that the chief part of his work is accomplished when he has called together the flock once a week, or it may be once a month, and give them their regular supply of food, even when the food is given is nothing better than empty husks. And many an evangelist, miscalled himself a pastor, has labored under the same mistake. Let it be noted, then, and never be forgotten, that the term employed in these passages expressed the entire work of a shepherd, of which feeding was very seldom even a part in the country where this use of the term originated. The shepherds of Judea, and those of Asia Minor, pastured their sheep throughout the entire year. Their duty was to guide them from place to place to protect them from wild beast, and to keep them from straying; but not to feed them.
The Apostle Paul leaves us in no doubt as to his own use of the term in question; for after the general command, “Be shepherds to the church,” he proceeds to distribute the idea by adding these words: “For I know this, that after my departure shall ravenous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore, watch; and remember that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” Acts xx:28-31. Here, continuing the metaphor of the flock, he forewarns the shepherds against ravenous wolves, who can be no other than teachers of error who would come into Ephesus from abroad, such, for example, as those who had already infested the Galatian churches; (Gal. i:6-7; v:12;) and he commands them to watch. He also predicts that men of their own number, like unruly rams of the flock, would rise up, speaking perverse things, and seeking to lead away disciples after them. The shepherds were to watch against these also, and as they saw symptoms of such movements within, they were to “warn every one, night and day,” as Paul had done.
Here, then, are two specifications under the generic idea of acting the shepherd, and they are strictly analogous to the work of the literal shepherd. It is made the duty of the eldership, first to protect the congregations against false teachers from abroad; second to guard carefully against the influence of schismatics within the congregation; third, to keep watch both within and without, like a shepherd night and day watching his flock, so as to be ready to act on the first appearance of danger from either direction.
The first of these duties is again emphasized in the epistle to Titus, where Paul requires that elders shall be able, by sound teaching, both to exhort and convict the gainsayers, and adds: “For there are many vain and unruly talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped.” Ti. i:9-11. The duty of watchfulness is also mentioned again, and in a manner which shows most impressively its supreme importance. Paul says, “Obey them who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.” Heb. xiii.17. From these words it appears that the object of the watching enjoined, is not merely to keep out false teaching and to suppress incipient schism, but to do these in order to save souls from being lost. That priceless treasure for which Jesus laid down his life is at stake, and the elders of each church, like the shepherds of each flock, must give account to the owner of the flock for every soul that is lost. The task of Jacob, concerning which he said to Laban, “That which was torn of beast I brought not to thee, I bore the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night,” is a true symbol of the task assigned the shepherds of the Church of God. Well might they all exclaim, “Who is sufficient for these things?”
The duty of “taking oversight” is enjoined upon the elders in express terms, and the expression is used as the equivalent of acting the shepherd. Peter says, “Be shepherds to the flock, taking the oversight thereof.” I Pet. v:2. The essential thought in overseership, that of ruling, is frequently enjoined. Paul says to Timothy, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor.” I Ti. V:17. The Greek word here rendered rule, proisteemi, the etymological meaning of which is to stand or place one object before another. But the fact that rulers stand before their subjects, with all the eyes of the latter looking to them for direction, led to the established usage of this term in the sense of ruling. It is so defined in the lexicons, and so used in both classic and Hellenistic Greek. It expresses the rule of a father over his family, I Ti. iii:4-5-12; of a deputy over a district, 1 Mac. v:15; of a King over his subjects, Jos. Ant. viii: 1,2,3, and of the elders over the church, 1 Ti. V:17; 1 Thess. V:12; Ro. xii:v:8.
By use of still another Greek word, Paul expresses in the epistle to the Hebrews the same general idea of ruling. He says: (13:7), “Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God,” again, (verse 17), “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account,” &c.; and again, (verse 24), “Salute them who have the rule over you.” The term here employed heegeomai) means primarily, to lead. When applied to the mind it means to think or suppose, because in this mental act the mind is lead to a conclusion. See Acts xxvi:2; Phil. ii:3-6; et al. But the present participle of this verb came to be used in the sense of ruler, because a ruler is one who leads, sometimes, indeed, it means a leader in the sense of a chief man, as when Silas and Judas are called “chief men among the brethren.” Acts xv:22. When the idea of ruling is expressed by it, the fact is indicated in the context: e.g., Pharaoh made Joseph “ruler (heegoumenon) over Egypt,” (Acts vi:10), where the expression “over Egypt” indicates the relation of authority. So, in the second of the three examples under discussion, the terms obey and submit yourselves show that the relation of authority is expressed, and that the rendering of the participle should be rulers, or “them who have ruled.”
Another duty of the eldership, distinct from the preceding, is that of teaching. By a mistake already mentioned, this duty has been supposed by many to be the chief work indicated by the term pastor or shepherd; but in the only place where the latter term occurs in the common version in its appropriated sense pastors are distinguished from teachers. “He gave some, apostles and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers.” The distinction here evidently made between pastors and teachers, does not imply that they are always different persons, for as one person might be both a prophet and an evangelist, so, for the same reason, he might be both a pastor and a teacher. But the distinction made shows that one might be a teacher and not a pastor. From other passages, however, we know that all pastors or shepherds, in addition to what is implied in this title, are also teachers. In the statement of their qualifications, Paul says that they must be “apt to teach,” 1 Ti. iii:2; and that they should be “able, by sound teaching, both to exhort and to convict the gainsayers;” Ti. i:9. That they should be able to teach, necessarily implies the duty of teaching.
How to be Examples
Having pointed out, and stated in general terms, the duties of the office, we now inquire as to the manner in which these duties are performed. We will be led by this inquiry to consider more in detail the duties themselves, seeing that an essential part of every duty is the prescribed method of performing it.
Having collected together, and placed in a single group before me, all the Scripture specifications on this subject, I feel constrained to recognize as first of them all, the requirement that elders shall be examples to those over whom they are called to preside. It is not only required of them that they be examples, but being examples is as an essential element in the manner of executing their official duties. Peter exhorts Elders in these words: “Be shepherds to the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.” “Being examples to the flock” is one of the specifications of the manner of taking the oversight. The Apostle Paul indicates the same though, when, in the beginning of his admonitions to the Ephesian Elders, the charge, “Take heed to yourselves” is made to precede the charge, “Take heed to all the flock.” Acts xx: 28. He also holds the Elders up to the brethren as an example to be imitated, when he says, “Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their behavior.” Heb. xiii. 7. Here faith is considered as to its practical working in the behavior and the Greek word rendered follow, means, more strictly, imitate. The disciples are required to imitate in behavior the faith of those who rule over them; and thus, indirectly, but most forcibly, these rulers are admonished that their example must be worthy of imitation. It is assumed, indeed, as a fact, the evidence of which should never be in doubt, that an example is actually presented in the lives of the Elders.
Jesus teaches the same idea under the figure of a shepherd and his flock. He says of the shepherd, “When he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him.” (John x: 4.) There is no driving, but constant leading. A Judean shepherd going before his flock and calling them with a voice which they know and always follow, is an inimitably beautiful picture of the chief Shepherd himself, and of all the under shepherds, leading their flocks toward the gates of heaven. That voice never directed to a path which the shepherd himself did not tread; and even if it did the sheep would take no heed to it but ever followed the footsteps of the shepherd. How fearfully important that those footsteps should never vary from the strait and narrow way!
These admonitions are expressed in general terms, and cover all the duties of a Christian life. To be examples to the flock, to go before and call the flock to follow after, is a present model not of one but of every virtue. To be worthy of imitation in faith and behavior, is to be free from habits that should be avoided. Shall we be content with the statement of these generalities, or shall we enter into details? Perhaps the Elder who reads this will think that the demands made upon him are sufficiently exacting even in these general terms; but at the risk of exciting his fears, and the further risk of some repetition hereafter, we venture to specify some of the items of behavior which constitute this example.
We revert again to Paul’s conversation with the Ephesian Elders, and find him committing to them the following charge: “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, you yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Acts xx: 33-35. Thus the Elders are required, in addition to their labors for the church, to imitate Paul’s example, and, by diligent attention to business, help to support the weak, and to exemplify the blessedness of giving. The importance of this is clearly seen in the fact, that Elders must teach the brethren to practice liberality, and must see to the enforcement of the law of God upon the covetous; neither of which is practicable unless they themselves set an example of liberality. For this reason also, in the directions to both Timothy and Titus, Paul prescribed that Elders shall not be “greedy of filthy lucre;” and Peter directs that they shall take the oversight “not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.” They are to keep themselves free from the appearance of sordid motives in their official action, as well as in their secular business. This forbids doing any official duty with a view to promoting business enterprises and equally forbids neglect of duty when the performance of it would involve pecuniary loss. An Elder whose secular business depends upon popular favor is tempted in both these directions. He must keep himself pure and above suspicion.
In the second place, the Elder is required to maintain a blameless reputation; 1 Tim. iii:2; Ti. i:7. This includes a great deal. He must not be “self-willed”; for this excites self-will in those with whom he must deal, and causes them to speak evil of him, He must not be “soon angry,” for the same reason. And for the additional reason that the moment he becomes angry he loses all his moral power over those whom he is seeking to influence. He must not be “given to wine,” for it is disreputable, and will render him powerless in his efforts to control the intemperate. If the Elder drinks a little, his words will be like the idle winds to those who drink much. He must be “a lover of good men,” for he will be judged by the company he keeps. He must be “sober”, lest his levity should deprive him of weight; “just,” lest he be suspected of dishonesty and partiality; “holy,” lest his exhortations to holiness appear to be the cant of a hypocrite. All these specifications, and more, are made by the apostles, and the Elder must not content himself a moment without the possession of them all.
If any Elder who reads this, after searching carefully into his own life, finds that he is not, in some good degree, setting the example herein described, let him at once either resign his position or amend his ways. It is a fearful thing to be placed in a position the very nature of which proclaims one an example to the church of God, if the example actually exhibited is not a good one. O that the great Shepherd and Overseer of all may guide the under shepherds, and help them to go before their flocks in the unerring pathway of truth and holiness.
Converting the Lost: Advice from Past Preachers
by Kerry Duke
by Kerry Duke
What is the hardest part about converting people?
But, what have you got to do in order to save men? Well, you have got to make them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. These are two very great undertakings. Which is the greater? There is a very common mistake among preachers in thinking that the great task is to inspire men with faith. But it is easy for men to believe in this country. It is very difficult for a young man or a young woman growing up in this country to become an unbeliever. A good many try it. A good many young men and women try to shake off all the impression that the gospel has made on their minds and hearts. And they think sometimes that they have accomplished it. But let some disease seize you, death come near, and the grave seem to yawn, what will that infidelity do? In nine cases out of ten it passes away. It is not very difficult for them now to believe. But how about repentance? To bring men to repentance as written in the gospel is the great task at which the Savior himself made a comparative failure. We are told that he upbraided the cities because they repented not and showed that it would be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah because Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented if they had the chance of these cities... many a time have I wished and prayed above all other things that I asked for the power to bring men to repentance. I felt that was my greatest weakness, my greatest failure. I could interest men generally. I never had much trouble in that way. I could see that men were paying attention to what I was saying. I often had my eye upon some individual in the audience whom I was trying and praying to bring to repentance, but all in vain.
J. W. McGarvey
Chapel Talks, pp. 22-23.
Should we appeal to a man’s feelings as well as his reason?
Let him who sets out to preach, early learn this lesson, that man has a heart as well as a head. Logic is for this, love and sympathy for that. The one requires large culture in the hearer, the other large honesty in the speaker. The one cannot be misguided, the other should not. Logic merely cracks nuts; but love and sympathy unseal fountains of kindness; and few men, after all, are so lost as to be wholly devoid of the latter. In preaching I have always found it both safe and profitable to trust largely to the spiritual and better instincts of the human family. With them all are richly endowed, and, no doubt, for wise and gracious ends.
Moses E. Lard
Lard’s Quarterly, September, 1863, p. 24.
How would you advise preachers to deal with those in denominational error? (Brother Lard relates an experience in Richfield, Missouri in the summer of 1853.)
The religious element of the audience was chiefly Methodist and Baptist. They were a plain, honest, unlettered people. Their prejudices I knew to be many and strong; and, believing them to be sincerely held, I determined to treat them tenderly. This course I have always found best with these parties. They are deep in error, I verily believe, but this cannot be corrected by harshness. Let them be dealt with faithfully and firmly, but gently and in a good spirit. We, ourselves, do not like to be treated harshly. Let us remember this in dealing with others.
Moses E. Lard
Lard’s Quarterly, September, 1863, p. 26.
Which person is more likely to be an earnest worker in the church: a man who takes a long time to decide to become a Christian, or a man who obeys the gospel soon after he understands it?
Those who hesitate and wait and deliberate and ponder the subject long and coolly, who count the cost, as it is called, well, before acting, we generally think will be most faithful and attentive as Christians and will be most likely to persevere unto the end. I used to think so. A study of these matters for forty years has wholly changed my mind on the subject. The man who is slow to move in becoming a Christian, as a rule, will be slow to move in the performance of duties after he has become a Christian. A man that hesitates and doubts and finds it difficult to gain his consent to become a Christian, as a rule, will find the same doubt and hesitancy and trouble in obeying the requirements of the Master, after he becomes a Christian. The Lord’s time for obedience is, the first time a man hears, understands and believes the truth; he should then without hesitancy obey the truth. The man who obeys promptly and earnestly when the truth is first presented to him, as a rule, is the man that will promptly discharge every Christian duty through life.
David Lipscomb
The Life and Sermons of Jesse L. Sewell, p. 48.
Our Loose Society
by Malcolm L. Hill
by Malcolm L. Hill
We are living in a world that seems to have no limitations. Folks live together out of wedlock. They get married as many times as they wish. They drink and dope it up. The family is torn to pieces and the children do not know where to go and how to do. Dishonesty is rampant in the land and people in general have no respect for God and the Bible. Our leaders are more interested in a job than they are right and wrong. The people in this nation have murdered 55 million little babies and on and on the list goes.
The sad thing about this matter is that this loose living has found its way into the church. One can talk about right and wrong to members of the church and it does not seem to register. Many church members are looking for a preacher that stands for nothing and falls for everything. Some remind us of a science teacher looking for a job. He was asked how he taught about the world. They asked him if he taught the world was round or flat. He said, “How do you want it taught?” People today do not care about the facts of God’s eternal word. Sad, sad indeed.
Jesus Died of a Broken Heart
by J. L. Hines
by J. L. Hines
“Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my food; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalm 69:20-21). This is a prophecy concerning my Lord.
John, in giving a word picture of the crucifixion scene, informs us that, because of the Sabbath drawing one, the soldiers should break the legs of those hanging on the crosses. They broke the legs of the malefactors, but when they came to Jesus, they found that he was dead already, so they break not his legs; “howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water” (John 19:31-34).
Yes, Jesus died of a broken heart. There was none to pity, none to comfort. One whom he had chosen betrayed him, another denied him, all were scattered from him, and even in his anguish He cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34), and in His dying hour He was given vinegar to drink. He died of a broken heart for sinners like me.
Gospel preachers, because of “anxiety for all the churches” (II Cor. 11:28), go to an untimely death. The preacher is burdened with problems of many, all of which are to be kept concealed within his own heart; but when his own heart is bursting because of grief, many times brought on by “false brethren,” he has no one in whom he can confide, no one to pity, sympathize, comfort; so in his loneliness and sorrow, in secret he tells it to God. His prayers are answered, but just as his Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane, thus it must be, in the shadows he dies with a broken heart.
When the gospel preacher says, “I am tired,” don’t laugh; don’t reproach, for his days may be few.
The preacher’s funeral
He wrestled with the problems of thousands, prayed, wept, and sympathized; he baptized hundreds, married scores, and buried many of your loved ones; but when his tongue is silenced in death, we may not even send a flower or message of condolence—yea, even few people take time out to attend the funeral. As one who has been preaching for almost twoscore years, my advice to preacher is: preach the word and in nothing be anxious (II Tim. 4:2; Phil. 4:8).
"That Same Jesus"
by John Harris
by John Harris
In Acts 2:36 Peter said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ.” From the evidence that Peter produced the Jews were made to know that this same Jesus did God raise from the dead and made him both Lord and Christ. And like Peter, all true men of God must preach that the same Jesus the Jews crucified has been raised from the dead. The same Jesus, not another Jesus, but the one they had known and had crucified. This proves that God cannot lie. He didn’t use trickery, but by his power produced the same Jesus from the grave that had been buried in the grave. No wonder the writer of the Hebrew letter says that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
The only hope for the salvation of lost souls today is the preaching and accepting that same Jesus that had been crucified and raised from the grave. That same Jesus was preached by Paul, Stephen, Philip and all the apostles and early evangelists. Paul said, “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (I Cor. 2:2). Stephen said, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before the coming of the Just one; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7:52). And as they stone him, he was able to see him. He looked up into heaven, and saw the glory of God and that same Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55). Philip also preached the same Jesus. “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them” (Acts 8:5).
By preaching the same Jesus men were added to the body of Christ, the church. Paul said, “That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph. 3:6). There are no two ways to get men into the body of Christ. We must preach the one gospel of this same Jesus Christ as did the apostles. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). The one gospel is for every man on the face of the earth. Paul declared that there is not another gospel and that the curse of heaven will rest on the man or angel that preaches another gospel. Therefore men will have to be satisfied with the same gospel preached by the apostles, obey it that they might be added to the same body, which is the church of Christ (Col. 1:24).
If all preachers would preach Jesus as did the apostles, what would be the results? It would mean that all men would believe in that same Jesus, obey that same gospel and be members of the same body, the church of the Lord. Churches built by men would cease to exist, and true churches of Christ would be found in every city. Christ would be preached the door of the sheepfold (John 10:9), the way of salvation (John 14:6), and every church would follow the divine pattern in worship (John 4:24). Father Divine and the Pope of Rome would no longer be worshiped and men would pray to God and not Mary. May the day soon come when all men will preach only the truth, as did the holy men of God in the long ago.