Nahum
Ronald D. Gilbert

In the book of Jonah God sent Jonah to Ninevah with a divine message: "And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4). The message was heeded and the people repented. "So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them" (Jonah 3:5). The New Testament gives insights concerning these events. "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here" (Matt. 12:41).

Nineveh was the capital city of Assyria. For background information on Nineveh one can read from the book of Genesis: "Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city" (Gen. 10:11-12).

The repentance of the people of Nineveh seemed to be short-lived. The events in the book of Nahum happen about 100 years after the book of Jonah. There are several prophecies concerning Nineveh. "And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness. And flocks shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations: both the cormorant and the bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it, their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he shall uncover the cedar work" (Zeph. 2:13-14). The book of Nahum opens by pronouncing judgment on Nineveh: "The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite. God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth, the Lord revengeth, and is furious, the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies" (Nah. 1:1-2).

Nahum's message is one of doom. In the book of Jonah we see a loving God who forgives and gave the people another chance. In the book of Nahum we see the same God but a different side of Him. One key verse in this book seems to be found in the first chapter. "Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him" (Nah. 1:6). The prophet also shows the true condition of the people of Nineveh. "Woe to the bloody city! it is all full of lies and robbery, the prey departeth not" (Nah. 3:1). Nineveh could not stand because God was against her. "Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame" (Nah. 3:5). God is and has always been against the wicked (Ps. 34:16; I Pet. 3:12).

The God of the Bible is not a one-attribute God. Love is a part of His nature but there are other attributes that are seen concerning God in the Bible. "To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste" (Deut. 32:35). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31). "For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29). Sinful men and nations must honor God or perish. "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4).

Many in the denominational world and some cults talk as if the God of the Bible could not punish men eternally and still be a god of love. In the January 1992 issue of The Plain Truth, Joseph W. Tkach, who serves as editor, wrote an article entitled "Is There A Hell Fire?" and he made these observations:

The surprising, and comforting, fact is that a hell of eternal conscious torment of human beings is not found in Scripture. . .But those who take the Bible for what it says find an entirely different view. . . Why, they ask, would the loving and merciful Father revealed in Jesus Christ; who taught his disciples to love even their enemies, take the most gruesome revenge on his enemies by torturing them horribly for all eternity? "The wages of sin is death," they point out, not eternal hell fire (Romans 6:23).

F. LaGard Smith has taught this same false view in 1988 and he is still used and considered to be a faithful gospel preacher by many. Consider Smith's statements made at the 1988 Pepperdine University Lectures ("A Christian Response to the New Age Movement," Part 3) as quoted by Gary Workman:

I also wonder if you feel as uncomfortable as I do in our traditional view of hell. Do you readily accept the traditional view of hell that says God sort of dangles you over the fires that burn day and night?. . . is that what hell is all about? Haven't you struggled with the idea of how there can be a loving God and anywhere in his presence permit that to exist? Doesn't it seem like cruel and unusual punishment?

I'm going to put something on you that's not traditional . . . We always use that great passage from Ezekiel—"The soul that sins, it will die" . . . But look what it's saying. That soul—not the body—because every body dies. That soul will die. The soul will die! Jesus said, "Don't fear him who can simply destroy the body, but fear the one who can destroy both body [package] and soul [spirit=self] in hell!" Destroy it. Not punish it. Not dangle it. Not torture it. Destroy it. Because Jesus said in another context, "for that will be the second death." The second death. What is the first death? The body. Gotta be. What would be the second death? The soul. Gotta be, I think. Punishment? Yes, it's not destruction at the end of this life, because everybody's going to die. Something happens beyond that. If when we die we live on, somethings gonna happen after the point of death in this life. But will it be punishment for eternity? Endless punishment? I don't know. the second death. Destroying the soul. . ."¹

Perhaps brother Smith has been reading from The Plain Truth or some other denominational works to get his denominational views on eternal punishment.

The people of Nineveh could doubt or deny God's judgment. That would not stop God from doing what He said He would do. F. LaGard Smith and others can doubt or deny that God will punish men for disobedience in an eternal hell if they choose. This, however, will not set aside the judgment of God on that day. "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (II Thess. 1:7-9).

There are other great lessons that one can learn from the book of Nahum. From Nahum one learns that riches offer no security before God. In the book of Nahum one can also see God's unchanging law of sowing and reaping. One can also see that violence hardens men and nations. The very last verse in the book sums up the situation very well: "There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually? (Nah. 3:19).

¹Gary Workman, "The Second Coming: Will the Wicked Be Eternally Punished or Annihilated?" in Christ in You, the Hope of Glory, Freed-Hardeman University 1993 Lectures (Nashville: Williams Publishing Company, 1993) pp. 362, 364.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

It has become quite popular in some cases for congregations to cut off their church bulletin to some even though such is not requested. Now those church bulletins and advertisements that we no longer receive are given to liberalism and modernism. However, those that still teach the truth come right on. Wonder why? Do you have the answer to this? I believe I do.

Does Christianity have anything to hide? The Bible says: "For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). God's ways and purposes are to be declared to all nations (Matt. 28:19). We are to tell the truth to the whole world (Mark 16:15). Now when congregations would hide their gospel meetings, special events, youth doings, and those to speak on them there is something wrong. The denominational people do not send us but little, if any, advertising. This has always been true in my work as a gospel preacher. The reason I do not get anything from them is because they know I do not agree with them and I have the Bible to support me in my stand. Some of the liberals have cut me off from receiving their materials because they know I do not agree with them and have the Bible to support me in this. They further know that we will expose them in their unscriptural doings and they are as afraid of the Bible as one would be of a rattlesnake. But such churches want to be known as churches of Christ, while at the same time they want to take the parts of the Bible they like and reject the parts of the Bible they do not like. Such is hypocritical, to say the least, and downright sinful.

I could not live with myself if I wrote something I was ashamed of or if I taught something I was afraid for others to read. Do you think Jesus would do a thing like this? Do you believe the apostles were men of such disposition? In most cases the preacher Pastor cuts people off from receiving the church bulletin and church advertisements. In far too many cases the elders do not care enough to know about things like this. Many elders get their orders from their preacher Pastor.

Tennessee Bible College and the Northeast church of Christ (where I have preached for more than 20 years) send out hundreds of brochures and teaching materials each week. Some of those receiving our materials do not agree with us; in fact, they oppose the Northeast congregation and the work of Tennessee Bible College. These opposers have not one single verse of Bible to sustain them in their opposition. They are as guilty as the "antis" (actually they are liberal "antis") in demanding that everyone conform to their unwritten creeds and laws of men. Some have suggested that we cut the opposers off and discontinue sending them any advertisements and materials. This I refuse to do. I do not believe it to be Christ-like, nor do I believe it to be gentlemanly. We send our materials "in season and out of season," when people agree with us and then they disagree with us (II Tim. 4:1-3).

It used to be that our preachers and members of the church were strong for the Lord. They would debate their cause and argue their position. Generally speaking it is a fact that members of the church and preachers in the church do not have much spine for God and His Word these days. They do not know and they do not care to know. They condemn the innocent and uphold the wicked. Many of the preachers in the body of Christ are nothing more than hirelings. They spend their time watching TV, drinking coffee, golfing, reading the newspaper, trying to determine which way is popular, and trying to please half-converted church members. Oh yes, they do their Pastoral work of visiting and they do as little of this as they can. These preachers are cowards, indeed dastardly cowards when it come to defending their practices. Silk stocking sissies they are with a small thimble full of strength and courage. They are very pious in looks and appear to be very humble in speech. They are very soft and light when in the presence of others, but become a torrent and a tornado when crossed in private discussion or on the telephone. It is this kind that wants to be taken off the mailing list and will remove you from their mailing list.

Why do these liberals want to be removed from the mailing list of the righteous? Because they are wrong and they know they are wrong. Because what conscience they have left smites them when they are faced with the truth which they refuse to preach and practice. Because this is the nearest nothing they can do to register a complaint and get by with it. It doesn't take much courage to write a note saying "take me off your mailing list." Evidently they get some joy by asking to be removed from the mailing list. They think it aggravates the other party. By asking to be removed from the mailing list they can tell their fellow backsliders what they have done and it gives them something to talk and brag about. They get some sort of satisfaction, you see, in asking to be removed form the mailing list.

Someone will perhaps say, "Brother Hill is upset because many have asked to be removed from his mailing list." Well, if you conclude this you are wrong again. We have had very few to ask to be removed from the mailing lists for our publications. Such is the exception and not the general rule. More and more people from all over the nation and around the world are sending for our materials. When you lose those who ask to be removed from your mailing list, you haven't lost much. If they have judged themselves unworthy of the truth, then they are nothing more than an empty body. We do not want anyone to receive our materials if they do not wish to do so.

Amos
Glenn B. Ramsey

Amos, a native of Judah, came from Tekoa (Amos 1:1). This village was situated about ten miles south of Jerusalem. This is the same region where John the Baptist may have grown to manhood about eight centuries later. It is thought that Amos may have known Johnah, Elisha, and Joel. Hosea was a co-worker with Amos. Hosea was younger and continued his work after Amos was gone. Just as Amos was closing his work, Isaiah and Micah were beginning their work of prophecy.¹

When questioned about his credentials, Amos claimed to be only a herdsman and tender of sycamore fruit (Amos 7:14). Yet he claimed the right to speak by saying, "And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel" (Amos 7:15). Evidently, Amos prophesied about 750 B.C. His effort was put forth after Israel had rejected the work of Elijah, Elisha, and Jonah.

The theme of Amos' message was that Israel had rejected the one true God to worship and serve false gods. Amos warned of captivity to Israel and surrounding nations. Within 50 years captivity came to Israel and her neighbors.

The "earthquake" (Amos 1:1) must have been very severe because it was remembered for 200 years (Zech. 14:5) and was likened to a judgment day. The city of Samaria was the capital of the Northern Kingdom (Israel). It was a beautiful city that heartless oppression of the poor had built. In chapter three Amos spoke from Bethel, the religious center of Israel. It was located 12 miles north of Jerusalem. It was the place where Jeroboam set up a golden calf (I Kings 12:25-33). This calf worship was still present in Hosea's day (Hosea 13:2). Amos came to the very focal point of this degenerate and idolatrous people to warn them a final time.

The imagery of Amos' prophecy is shockingly beautiful. He likens the women of Samaria unto the "cows of Bashan." They were like fatted (pampered) animals awaiting the slaughter! It is said that within a few years the Assyrians literally led their captives with hooks through their lips (much like one may lead cattle).²

In chapter six, Amos contrasts again the self-possessed feelings of ease, security and independence of Israel. This resulted in total disregard for the warnings that they should repent. Though there was terrible suffering on the horizon of their existence, they were oblivious to it. In chapter seven there are three visions of destruction described: (1) the locusts represented a destruction of the land; (2) the fire represented a coming destruction; (3) the plum-line represented the measured destruction of the city. Though God had relented in His destruction of Israel twice, He would not relent again. Their case was without hope. Much like those in the days of Noah, these only became worse and worse. Destruction would occur.

The end of Amos' prophecy had a happier prospect. About 30 years after Amos' prophecy, the kingdom of Israel had ceased according to the prediction of Amos 9:1-8. Nevertheless, the restored throne of David (9:9-15) portended more radiant days ahead for God's people. Although the ten tribes of the northern kingdom had for about 200 years declined to return to the fold of God, there would be a time when the despised kingdom of David would rise again. It would rule not only over one nation but over all kingdoms. This was a prediction of the Kingdom of Christ (His church) which would come when the time was right.

Again Jehovah showed His longsuffering toward the people. Just so, today, Christians should profit by the example of Israel in the days of Amos. Unless so many of God's people, who are now apostate, heed the warning of His sacred Word and turn in repentance to worship and serve Him according to the old paths, the enemy will capture the apostate kingdom! May God help us to faithfully warn those who have left the way of truth. May God help us to take heed unto oursleves "lest we also fall."

¹Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, 24th Edition, p. 358.
²Op. Cit., p. 359.

Jonah—The Reluctant Preacher
David S. Hill

There are many lessons that people in the 20th (soon to be 21st) century can learn from the little book of Jonah. Paul the inspired apostle wrote that the Old Testament was "written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope," (Rom. 15:4). Though the book was written around 780-750 B.C., it reveals emphatically the power of the preached Word of God. Jonah was a preacher (3:2) and is charged to cry out (1:2) or carry the message of God with urgency. His charge reminds the Bible student of another who was prophesied to be "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" (Isa. 40:3) and reported to be at work (Matt. 3:3) as foretold. But Jonah was not the preacher that John the Baptizer was for Jonah was reluctant to do what the Lord told him to do. Moreover, when he did do what God charged him to do, Jonah found occasion to complain. With these observations there are still many lessons to be learned from this book and this reluctant preacher.

The book opens with God's charge to Jonah to go down to Nineveh and "cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before me" (1:2). But surely the Lord God Almighty could see the error in this charge to Jonah. The command is just too negative! Jonah didn't need to cry out against these people—that might hurt their self-esteem. Yes, the command is negative and condemning, but the all-knowing, all-powerful God Almighty knew what the people needed. Now, what clear lesson can one get from the first two verses of the book? That sometimes the most effective preaching goes against the wickedness of mankind and may not initially please the sinner, but it pleases God. God deals with man on His (God's) own righteous terms.

Next, the reluctance of Jonah to go into this very stressful, demanding situation can be seen. And this is so important because no gospel preacher can enjoy rebuking individuals in sin. It is simply not pleasant, but it is commanded (II Tim. 3:16). How sad it is today to hear men, even fellow preachers, suggest that individuals standing for the truth get some kind of joy or promotion out of having to "cry out against" false teachers, false practices and all other sinful activities. Jonah obviously didn't like it and thought he could hide from God. He soon found out what David observed years before—that no man can hide from God (Ps. 139:7-12). This task of preaching against the practices of Nineveh was so unpleasant that Jonah was willing to risk everything to try and run.

Many have grown up with the Bible account of Jonah. It has captured the imagination of many a boy and brought fear in both boy and girl as they envisioned Jonah being tossed overboard and swallowed by the "great fish" (1:17). I have heard preachers and Bible teachers discuss what was miraculous and what was not about this great Bible event. Please don't receive this observation as one trying to be overly critical, but what one of us can clearly proclaim what was and was not miraculous about the happenings to Jonah after he left the ship? Perhaps it all was miraculous. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen. 18:14). It certainly is not the natural process for a great fish to swallow a man whole, and it is not in the common rule of nature that a man spend three days and three nights in the "whale's belly" (Matt. 12:40). The Bible clearly states that "the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah" (1:17). If God prepared the fish, then that's the way it is. Who am I to question or justify the actions of God?

Please notice what it took for Jonah's deliverance. Jonah had to repent and pray (2:1-9). Once, while reading with my daughter from a new book about Jonah, she got very excited and proclaimed "that's wrong, the book is wrong." I asked her what was so wrong, and she said, "the book says nothing about Jonah praying to God; that's the most important part of the story." Jesus quoted form the psalmist in Matthew 21:16 and said, "Yes, and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise'?" She was right about the book we were reading and I believe she was right about Jonah. For had he not repented and prayed to God for forgiveness he would have gone down to destruction. How many times through the mouths and writings of the prophets did God beg the children of Israel to repent and pray and return unto Him? If Judah would have repented and prayed to God, they would have been spared their great destruction (Jer. 25). What is required of the child of God today who wanders away from God? The very same thing required of Israel, Jonah and Nineveh (Acts 8:22).

When Jonah was delivered from the belly of the whale on to "dry land," God again charged him with what many have identified as the key verse of the book: "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you" (3:2). No preacher has the right to do any more or any less but to preach the Word of God. The power is not in man but in God's Word (Rom. 1:16). When Jonah did what God said, the people "believed God" and repented (3:5). Notice, the people believed God. Jonah obviously didn't spend time telling them in his sermon about all of the great things he (Jonah) had done. Neither did he overwhelm them with his great education, nor his mastery of the languages. Perhaps he didn't even mention one debate which he had been in and won. Jonah preached the word of God and the people "believed God." That's a successful preacher and successful preaching!

But it all just went too smoothly. Jonah seemed to think that he was going to be a witness of the great destruction by God (3:10), and he went to God in anger over the events that had transpired. In that prayer Jonah revealed eternal truth that everyone who has ever lived on the earth or ever shall live on the earth should appreciate. God is "slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, one who relents from doing harm"(4:2). A statement acknowledged by Nahum just before the destruction of Nineveh approximately 135 years later in Nahum 1:3 is: "The Lord is slow to anger." How thankful everyone should be for God's longsuffering, for all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Even Jonah on this very occasion should have given thanks to God but he was so disturbed that he said, "it is better for me to die than live!" (4:3). The Lord prepared a "gourd" (4:6), a plant to grow and provide shade for Jonah. The next day He destroyed it by a worm and again Jonah wished to die (4:8). But rather than granting Jonah's request, our longsuffering God used the gourd as a valuable illustration of who is in control. Job said it this way: "...the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). God showed Jonah that he had nothing to do with the plant that gave him comfort, nor did Jonah have anything to do with the rising and possible fall of the great city Nineveh. It was God's longsuffering and lovingkindness that had spared both the city of Nineveh and the reluctant preacher Jonah.

Brother Johnny Ramsey observed in his Bible survey presented at TBC in 1993 that "even a reluctant prophet doing God's bidding can be successful." If a reluctant prophet and preacher can be successful, what are the bounds or limits to one who will give his whole heart and life to God and "preach" the "preaching" that God bids us to preach? Let all give thanks to God for "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Pet. 3:9).

Obadiah
Dan Jones

The book of Obadiah is brief (it is the only Old Testament book that contains just one chapter); its message is clear and unmistakable (the destruction of Edom); its language is precise and pointed. The prophet does not mince words; instead, he shells the corn and shows the cob.

Nothing is known about the author except that he was a prophet of God and that his name means "servant or worshipper of Jehovah." Even the book itself gives no clue to his personal history. Several who wore the name Obadiah are mentioned in the Old Testament but none can be accurately identified as the penman of this prophecy.

The date of Obadiah's work has been variously ascribed to periods ranging from 926 to 400 B.C. The book describes a time when Judah was attacked and Edom sided with the enemy, gloating over the defeat of Jehovah's people. The two most likely dates appear to be 845 B.C. when Judah was attacked by the Philistines and Arabians, and 586 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem, destroying the city and burning the temple.

The purpose of the book is extremely simple yet profound and exciting. It predicts both the downfall of Edom (the descendants of Esau) and the exaltation God had in store for Israel (the descendants of Jacob). Verses 17-20 are especially significant because of their Messianic overtones and references to the establishing of the Lord's Kingdom.

The prophet wastes no time in getting to the crux of the matter. "Thus saith the Lord God concerning Edom" is the second sentence of the book. He immediately proceeds to detail her destruction. She had been made small and was despised by the nations. Her high rock fortresses, in which she took immense pride, would provide no protection against God's determination to cast her down. Nothing would be left, not even the "grapes of gleaning," and her hidden treasures would be discovered. Former allies would turn against Edom and assist her enemies. The slaughter would be complete including both her wise men and her mighty men.

It was Edom's attitude toward Judah's trouble that brought about her own downfall. Edom had stood "on the other side" and had been "as one of them" (the enemy) when Judah was taken captive and Jerusalem destroyed. Edom rejoiced to see them afflicted and suffer such calamity. Verses 13 and 14 even indicate that they joined in by taking of the spoils and blocking the path of those who tried to escape. Obadiah thus concludes that "the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen" and that Edom would reap as she had sown.

In Zion, however, there would be deliverance. Judah would return from captivity but Edom would be devoured and "there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the Lord hath spoken it" (Obad. 18). The Edomites would cease to exist, but Israel would not be forgotten. God would remember the promise to Abraham that in his seed all nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:16, 19) and through Israel the Lord's spiritual Kingdom would ultimately come to pass (Isa. 2:1-2).

The attitude and action of Edom toward Israel is being practiced today by some in the church. These stand "on the other side," ridiculing and opposing those who stand for the Truth while giving aid and comfort to the enemy (false teachers). They proudly boast of their faithfulness and soundness, haughtily daring anyone to challenge them, yet extend fellowship to false teachers and compromisers. They appear with known liberals on various programs and lectureships, never daring to speak plainly against those who seek to destroy the purity of God's Word and the Lord's church (their willingness to remain silent is why they are invited again and again to appear on these liberal programs).

When their evil practices are documented and exposed, they steadfastly refuse to respond to the real issues, choosing rather to retreat into the safety and solitude of their private "fortresses" and from there take their "potshots" at those who simply call for purity of both doctrine and practice. They reserve themselves the right to call the names of certain liberals and certain others who fellowship liberals, but if their own teaching or that of their close friends and allies becomes suspect, and/or if they or their friends are fellowshipping liberals, that is not to be mentioned. They are allowed to criticize others for inconsistent teaching and practice, but no one is allowed to criticize them when they do exactly the same thing. When they are criticized they often resort to character assassination and the impugning and maligning of motives. Indeed, how unequal are the legs of the lame!

We need to remember what God through Obadiah promised to do to Edom for opposing His people. We need to remember what the New Testament says about fellowshipping, endorsing, condoning or supporting ANYONE who walks contrary to the will of God (Eph. 5:11; II John 9-11). No one (friend, relative, preacher, editor, college president, etc.) is above being withstood (Gal. 2:11) and being marked and identified, when and if necessary, for false teaching and practice (Rom. 16:17-18; II Thess. 3:6).

Humility is still a characteristic of the righteous (Luke 18:14; James 4:6, 10; I Pet. 5:5-6). Pride and arrogance are still condemned (Prov. 6:16-19; 16:18). Opposing God and His Word is the action of the proud. Note what God said to Edom about their pride and how it is so applicable in principle to those today who do not wish or intend to be questioned about their ungodly activities:

The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord (Obad. 3-4).

Let us have the courage and the humility to stand boldly for the Truth, upholding rather than condemning those who do likewise and opposing rather than supporting all who do otherwise.

Preacher with Dirty Hands
Kerry Duke

Some consider manual labor beneath their dignity, especially if it would get them dirty. Moses spoke of a type of woman so delicate and tender that she would not step on the ground (Deut. 28:56-57). She would quickly come down from her high-class image, however, when she became a cannibal because of the war Moses foretells. Snobbish people have always considered themselves above the toils and reproaches of the common man. For this type of person, dirty hands are unthinkable, being the mark of a common laborer, not a distinguished citizen.

Preachers should be respectable and dignified—these are admirable qualities which naturally flow from a God-fearing life. Paul told Titus to show gravity in his doctrine (Titus 2:7). This word indicates the dignity and respectability that ought to accompany the preaching of the gospel. A gospel preacher should have fun, but when he teachers God's Word he should not act like a circus clown. He should not exude a feigned holiness with a stained-glass voice or insincere friendliness, but he should be genuinely respectable.

The Bible charges preachers with unpleasant and unpopular tasks. Preachers must reprove and rebuke (II Tim. 4:2; Titus 2:15). Often those who need rebuking are high-class citizens such as government officials (Luke 3:19) and wealthy men (James 5:1-6). Preachers must contend for the faith (Jude 3) and note false teachers and avoid them (Rom. 16:17). They are not to be partial (I Tim. 5:21) and they are not to skirt passages which might offend some (Acts 20:27). Preachers are to proclaim the whole truth consistently without respect of persons.

Some preachers, justifying themselves with a distorted idea of dignity, refuse to dirty their hands with such common and menial tasks. They regard them as beneath the image they wish to convey. This hypocrisy is evident in their preaching. They seek to maintain an image of an eloquent, dynamic communicator more than anything else. They want to be sound in the faith, but when a situation forces them to choose between being regarded as sound in the gospel and impressive in the pulpit, they choose the latter. They are careful to avoid plain preaching that disturbs people. After all, style and delivery are more important to them. Good taste and tact take precedence over truth and duty. Even when they address sin from the pulpit, their speech is so padded with eloquence and humor that their "condemnation" of sin never pricks the hearts of sinners. They are general and not specific about sin. After all, what orator woould stoop to being plain about the sin of social drinking, mixed swimming, or profanity? What trained public speaker in this civilized age would show anger over sin and warn his audience about hell fire and brimstone? As Charles Spurgeon mentioned, one preacher in his time warned his congregation "If you do not love the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be sent to that place which it is not polite to mention" (Spurgeon's Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 309). I once received a similar lesson in pulpit taste while preaching for a congregation that hosted a monthly singing. On this Sunday a number of liberals and unfaithful members came, and several of them took a number and led a song. I was to give the invitation at the end of the service. I took the opportunity to talk about compromise and called on those who were guilty to repent. Those who led singing included one man who was living in adultery, another who was a Pepperdine participant and a Jubilee supporter, and another who had participated in liberal programs in the area. I called no names, but apparently people had no trouble understanding who or what I was addressing. One of the elders later told me that what I did was in "poor taste"!

These preachers also harbor the mistaken idea that a truly dignified person does not argue with people. Arguments expose our ignorance; we sometimes have to concede that we do not know the answer to an objection or that we are wrong. Preachers who try to be dignified at all costs do not want such exposure. Also, arguing with people is usually not a comfortable situation. Weaknesses are revealed, tempers flare, and tact often disappears. Arguments can get ugly. While preachers and Christians in general should not be unchristian in disputes and while they should shun unprofitable arguments (Matt. 7:6; Titus 3:9), they should never under the guise of pretended dignity dismiss the obligation to earnestly contend for the faith. But these preachers are too straight-laced to argue, even though the prophets, the disciples, and Jesus often did so. When someone confronts them about an inconsistency, they respond with a humorous story. They allow false doctrine to be aired publicly by students in the Bible classes they teach and then try to smooth the situation over in politician-like fashion. They are somehow above disputing and walk away from a disagreement with suave composure and a diplomatic smile.

These preachers are especially diligent to guard this image in gospel meetings and at lectureships. Whether they speak publicly or not, they appear at these programs in typical urbane style. When they come to listen, they poise themselves with the right people at opportune times, always engaging in their usual conversations with preacher small talk and generalities. But if a speaker has taught falsely or is a hypocrite, they would not dream of confronting him. They leave that dirty work to someone else. When on the other hand they speak at such gatherings, they walk a tightrope to show themselves to be the epitome of balance. Their idea of balance, of course, is to avoid falling into the displeasure of those on either side of an issue. Above all, they want to look good in front of other preachers, and they certainly want the respect of their fellow-laborers. This desire outweighs the fact that some of these preachers are leading churches astray or are helping those who are. Disagreeing with these inconsistencies in a lectureship might cause them to be viewed as troublemakers, so these problems are politely swept under a political rug. Of course, these preachers voice strong opposition to errors and inconsistencies of those outside of the group. Thus, they appear on programs with liberal preachers, consistently refuse to publicly oppose the error of these men, and later provide a well-rehearsed excuse to anyone who questions their activities. Under the mask of balance and dignity, they compromise the truth of God and refuse to get their hands dirty.

This earthly idea of dignity is even worse when such preachers consider themselves or are considered to be Bible scholars. While the preachers we have thus far described aim for eloquence and style as means of obtaining a distinguished, pious image, these preacher-scholars aim at intellectualism. Above all else, they want people who listen to them or who read their writings to be impressed with their knowledge. These preachers craft articles and lectures to fit the image of a distinguished scholar. They place heavy emphasis on big words, even when the point made with those words is quite simple or even shallow. In controversy, they guard against plainness of speech, since this might appear dogmatic and offensive. Disagreements over heaven-and-hell issues are reduced to academic disputes; serious questions are given elaborate but empty responses. These preacher-scholars produce long dissertations on sin and false doctrine but fail to make application to those guilty of such. After all, they are scholars, and making such bold and unpopular applications, especially to well-known preachers, is not in keeping with their image of a scholar. A Bible scholar is a respected expert, so they must avoid damaging that image by rebuking people with plain speech. They must simply present the results of their research without getting their hands dirty.

Jesus was not afraid to get His hands dirty, yet no one has possessed the genuine dignity He did. When He overturned the moneychangers' tables (John 2:13-16), did He lose His dignity? Was He undignified in calling the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, fools, and vipers (Matt. 23:13-33)? Did He lose His dignity when He argued with Jews who made attacks on His character (John 8:30-59)? Did He act in poor taste when He rebuked the Pharisee who treated Him to dinner and when He rebuked other guests (Luke 11:37-54)?

Paul was not afraid to get his hands dirty. He did not fear losing a dignified image by confronting Peter publicly (Gal. 2:11-14). He did not avoid controversy with the Judaizing teachers by using tact and diplomacy (Acts 15:1-2). And if he had wanted to appear distinguished to men, he would have remained in the Jewish religion (Gal. 1:10, 13-14; Phil. 3:4-7).

Eloquence is good if it is used to the glory of God. Apollos was an eloquent speaker, but his style of delivery was secondary to the message and the needs of his audience (Acts 18:24-28). Brilliance is also good if it is used to the glory of God; Paul is certainly a good example of its right usage. But when these lowly human qualities are used to obtain glorified earthly dignity, they are vain instruments of pride. Genuine dignity is good, but forced and pretenede dignity is disgusting. To an even casually perceptive person, its insincerity is obvious. This facade is even worse when it becomes an excuse to compromise the truth. There is always in a worldly sense a dignified way to compromise the gospel, but there is never a godly way or time to do so.

Preachers, be respectable, but only in the sense the Bible describes. Remember, "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15). Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty.

Responding Again to Alan Highers
Holger Neubauer

On July 9, 1978 I was baptized into Christ unto the remission of my sins and became a member of the church bought by Christ. In obeying Christ I left behind the false doctrines that I had been taught from my youth in the Jehovah's Witness denomination. I left the cultic idea that all truth was handed down by an "enlightened few" in the Watchtower and Tract Society (John 7:17). I forsook the doctrine that said eternal punishment was founded only in the imagination of cruel Christendom (Luke 12:5). I rejected the doctrine that states baptism does not wash away sins (Acts 22:16). I forsook the idea of only 144,000 going to heaven (Matt. 25:46). A few years later I was able to baptize my mother into Christ as she finally was able to see the false doctrines of the Witnesses. Later my father and brother were also baptized into Christ. I also learned to hate the false doctrines of the Witnesses and other denominations that are damning the souls of countless millions. I know now that the Bible and only the Bible is the final and authoritative guide for all of mankind. I know the adage "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where it is silent" is tested and true (Col. 3:17; I Pet. 4:11).

While still a new convert and attending a church in Michigan, I remember one brother trying to remove the elders by affirming that they had no authority in matters of option. This teaching was viewed as a serious sin. The unrepentant brother was forthrightly withdrawn from. I also recall that a brother who was divorced unscripturally, contemplating another marriage, was counseled that he had no right to another mate. I remember the church standing strongly for the truth and withdrawing from those who were disorderly. That was in the early 1980s. When training at Tennessee Bible College to preach the gospel, I started to hear of brethren that taught some of the doctrines that I left behind. I learned of brethren who taught that instrumental music in worship was a matter of option and that the Lord's Supper need not be taken every first day of the week. I learned that James Bales had taught falsely on the marriage-divorce-remarriage issue. As a few years passed, I also learned that F. LaGard Smith and Edward Fudge denied eternal punishment. I learned that Jack Lewis denied the authority of elders. I learned also that many of the schools were not holding to the Truth. To my horror, the church was becoming what I left behind. Had I met these politically correct and doctrinally in error preachers while still a Witness I would likely have stayed with them.

This is why I have spoken to scores of preachers about false doctrine. This is why I have been sounding the warning against denominational doctrines in the Lord's church. This is why I wrote Alan Highers about his use of Jack P. Lewis. Brother Lewis is a false teacher who would destroy Bible truth about the eldership and marriage-divorce-and-remarriage. This is why I wrote to brother Highers about Cecil May who has tuaght that he would baptize couples living in adultery if the couples had a good attitude. This is why I wrote to brother Highers about Basil Overton who is on the faculty at International Bible College. The false teachers that are invited year after year to I.B.C. are too numerous for me to give an exhaustive list. This year Jeff Walling and Larry West were given space at I.B.C. to promote their Crossview exhibit which is a work of the Whites Ferry Road Church in West Monroe, Louisiana. Brother Roy Lanier, Jr. continues to write with Larry West in the Latin Crier and Bob Brown of the North Atlanta church of Christ. Is this radicalism? Is this extreme? Then so be it. The very doctrines brother Highers says are inconsequential are indeed not so.

Would brother Highers be so kind to explain to the brotherhood why he bothers to write about the matter of marriage-divorce-remarriage if it doesn't make any real difference anyway? Brother Highers is caught in hopeless inconsistency because he actually believes many of the things the Spiritual Sword addresses are simply matters that are inconsequential. We would ask our dear brother then to mark the issues which are matters of fellowship and not matters of fellowship so we may know what issues are really consequential. And was not then the Spiritual Sword being exceedingly divisive by leaving the impression tha the issue of marriage-divorce-remarriage was a great matter of concern, but in reality it is but an issue of inconsequential disagreement?

I have challenged brother Highers to meet me in public discussion on these issues. Since he has publicly cited me three times, he no doubt views me as a great threat to the Lord's church. Let him meet me in public discussion and he then can put this unknown, untried and untested preacher to final rest.