Paul said in Galatians 6:17, “Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear branded on my body the marks of Jesus.” The word Paul used is an interesting one, “stigma,” by which he may have been suggesting what apparently was a custom of the day that a slave was often branded by his master in some way, much as the cowboys branded cattle. In English, the word stigma simply means a mark of disgrace.    What did Paul mean by this expression, and what relevance does it have for us? There is little doubt that if we had been there looking at a man who had been chained in dungeons for long hours, with a face wrinkled with the care he had for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28), with the disfigured body caused by the stoning at Lystra, the scars on his back from the lashes he had received (2 Corinthians 11:24-25), and the marks left on his wrists as he was chained for the hope of Israel (Acts 20:28), we would understand more clearly what he meant. Could one question the sincerity, integrity and devotion of such a one, or doubt that he belonged to Jesus?     As an interesting sidelight of my main point, let us note that these are also proofs of the reality and truthfulness of the message of the risen Lord. Paul did not merely say, “Look at what I have borne for my belief in Jesus!” He said, “I know Him in whom I …

Many of us have preached many sermons on such subjects as “The Ark as a Type of the Church.” We need to realize that although we can properly use the ark to illustrate many things about the church, the fact that Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21, “The like figure (antitupon) whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” does not mean that we can properly say the Bible sets forth the ark as a type of the church, but only that their salvation by water was a type of our salvation by water. The denominational quibble that it could not be a type of salvation by baptism because they were saved from the water by the ark, not saved by the water, and that they were not even touched by the water has no relevance for two reasons. First, when the Bible says a thing is a type or antitype it is, whether or not you can reason or quibble yourself around it. Second, the water saved them from the ungodly world as it washed that sinful world away. That is the type and antitype, not that the ark saved them from the flood of water. Therefore, Peter is not talking about the ark as a type of the church, but their salvation by water as a type of our salvation by water. This is not a matter of guessing or trying to find some new hermeneutic principle by which to prove a preconceived doctrine. It is a matter of …

Almost every person who wants to emphasize the need for study of the Bible quotes 2 Timothy 2:15, which says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV). It is somewhat ironic that a proper exegesis of the verse that is almost universally used to teach that a person needs to study or meditate on God’s Word does not mean that at all, and its use to show that a person needs to study does show that we need to study, in spite of the fact that the verse in the original text does not mean that!     The word translated “study” is from the Greek “spoudazo” and is properly translated in the ASV as “give diligence.” Most persons assume, apparently, that if a person studies or meditates properly on God’s Word, he will be approved of God, for he can now rightly divide the Word of God. The first time I remember hearing about that was about 65 years ago; the preacher indicated that it meant that you should know the difference in the Old and New Testaments and thus rightly divide the Word.    That exegesis of the passage does very little harm to truth, for it is true that without studying, or meditating on God’s Word, you will not be approved of God. Probably you would not be able to realize the difference between the use or value of the Old and New Testaments. However, the …

If we raise the wrong questions, we probably will get the wrong answers. We need to be discriminating in the questions we raise, and the answers we get or give. For example, the question, “Does God promise salvation to those who have failed to obey His will?” and the question, “Will God save any person who has failed to obey His will?” are two different questions, regardless of the fact that many brethren think they are the same. Even those persons who think the questions are perfectly clear and the answers should be just as clear and dogmatic may want to proceed a little further. Have you ever failed to obey His will? The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and 1 John 1:10 says, “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar.” Therefore, regardless of how you answer the question, you have failed to obey His will. Most who read this would perhaps say, “We all know that, but we still have to obey His will that relates to forgiveness of sins in order to be saved.” Many would now teach that it does not really matter, for God’s grace will save everyone (or practically everyone) regardless of what he does. I am sorry for that group, but am not particularly addressing their false doctrine today.     Today, I am simply trying to make one point: God promises to grant remission of sins only to those who …

The growing interest in the Women’s Liberation Movement and the increasing lack of concern for the God-given standards of morality has led me to conclude that an article on the text of 1 Timothy 2:9-12 might be in order.     The attitude of most religious groups toward this and all other Bible subjects is well expressed in the comment of The Interpreter’s Bible, pp. 406-407 on this passage. It says, “Obviously, the disposition of this epistle — does not accord with Jesus’ attitude of complete respect and chivalry toward women.” “It does not meet the needs of the world which could not afford to be without the special gifts which women bring to the leadership of the church. Here is a case where an early Christian’s understanding of the will of God needs to be corrected by further light which God has caused to break forth from his Holy Word.”     In other words, Paul did not know what he was talking about. He disagreed with Jesus and needs some modern theologian to correct him! This is typical of the thinking that permeates the whole of the most comprehensive and scholarly commentaries of the Protestant world. The results of that sort of thinking from most of the leaders of Protestant thought are seen in every facet of modern life today. It has permeated every segment of society and has been imbibed by many members of the Lord’s church, especially those preachers who are proud of the degrees they have received in those theological …

Often we hear the expression, “I don’t have time” when a person is offering an excuse for not doing what he knows he should be doing. We may reply, “You have all the time anyone has.”     Occasionally, when I am in a home Bible study with a person who seems convinced of the Truth, but is not ready to obey the Gospel, he will say, “Give me a little time.” We may reply, “I cannot give you any time. You have all the time there is.”     Those answers may be correct and good, but whatever answer we give may not be as good as it might be if we do not understand that both in Greek and English the term “time” may have at least two different meanings. The Greek language is more precise than English, for it uses different words for different meanings. For example, in Hebrews 5:12 we find, “For when by reason of the time (chronos) ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food.” The word “chronos” refers to a period, whether long or short, in which a series of events may take place. It may thus refer to a particular date for an occurrence, whether past, present or future, as in Acts 7:17, “But as the time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto …

Shakespeare had Hamlet say, “To be or not to be.” He was talking about whether he should commit suicide or, as he put it, “shuffle off this mortal coil,” or “his quietus make with a bare bodkin.” When we look in the Bible we find many expressions that have to do with what we should be or not be. They are not talking about suicide, but about what we should be or not be in life. We think it appropriate to examine some of them in more detail. If we had space for a small book, we might examine those in the Old Testament, for there are many powerful and profitable admonitions, such as Joshua 1:6, “Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.” Many of them would apply to us as well as to them. We need strength and courage for our fight just as they did, but we shall confine our examination and remarks to just a few in the New Testament.     Matthew 5:12 says, “Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” He is specifically talking about the times when they were to be persecuted, but the admonition applies to us at all times. Whatever circumstance in life confronts us, if we are living as Christ would have us live, we should be exceeding glad. …

Almost every person who claims membership in the church, whether the most liberal in doctrine, or the most conservative, apparently wants the church to be a triumphant, dynamic church. One group seems to want it to be victorious by having it change in both message and method to suit the changing social conditions of the age. Some may think it can be victorious by going on in the usual humdrum, lackadaisical way it is going in most localities, opposed to any change. Many of us who are adamantly opposed to what is sometimes called the “change agents” in the church are not opposed to any change that will bring us closer to the pattern approved in the New Testament when the church grew the most rapidly. In fact, we urge all persons to examine themselves and make whatever changes are necessary to get closer to that pattern. Let us at this time examine a few of the marks of the church as pictured in the first few chapters of Acts that made it a triumphant, dynamic church. If we want to make changes, let us make them in that direction instead of assuming that the kind of significant changes that should be made is to snap the fingers, clap the hands or wiggle the hips to show more spirituality or involvement in the worship.     Besides the simplicity, boldness, earnestness, purity of life and doctrine and unity with which they proclaimed the message, there are at least three qualities first …

Most of us are probably aware that this phrase, “unity in diversity,” has been taken by denominational preachers in past years and by liberals connected with the church in recent years to teach the idea that as long as we are united in a common belief that Jesus is the Son of God (even if we are not willing to submit to his authority in all things), we may have diversity in everything else. We may have any church names or affiliations we choose (join the church of your choice), teach any kind of diverse and contradictory doctrines, worship God any way we choose (since everything one does is supposed to be worship), and practice almost anything we wish in the name of religion and it is satisfactory, for we have “unity in diversity.”     Surely, these and all related ideas are abhorrent to any person who really loves the Lord and wants to glorify him and surrender to his authority in all things. Many of the brethren for whom I have the most respect have pointed out the error of this concept very forcibly.     However, I want us to consider another aspect of the problem in a different way. Although it is true that when we use a phrase that has been made popular and perverted by false teachers, we need to be doubly careful that we are not misunderstood, we also need to be aware that we should not be “taken hostage” by false teachers so that …

I still remember something of the joy I experienced many years ago when I read 1 John 1:7 in the Greek text. It says, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” The thing that thrilled me was the awareness that “cleanseth” is from the Greek “katharizei” which is present, active, indicative. Translated literally, it might read, “keeps on constantly cleansing us from all sin.”   Since then I have read a few articles by those who claim to be preachers of the Gospel who apparently think they have discovered in that verse something similar to “irresistible grace.” They write as if we can “continue in sin that grace may abound” because the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing. I emphatically deny that. I also want to point out two related dangers of which we need to be aware.     First, those who have a smattering of Greek may assume many things as a result of some little rule they think they have learned. It may be that the thing they think they have learned has some exceptions covered by another rule that they have not learned. What they are assuming to be true may be false, for it is one of those exceptions to the general rule. Second, even those who are Greek scholars and know far more about both the rules and exceptions than most of us will …

I heard of a man who moved from Tennessee to Virginia when he was very young. He attended church services regularly, and was asked to read a passage on one occasion. He read the story in Matthew 25, which starts like this, “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise and five were foolish.”    With a look of amazement, he said, “If I had not read it with my own eyes I would not have believed it. It says there were five foolish Virginians, and no matter how hard it is to believe, we have to take what the Bible says.”     Paul once mentioned some who had “a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). That fellow in Virginia might be “likened unto them.” However, at least his attitude was good. Even if one does not understand what the Bible says, it is good to have a basic faith that is willing to take whatever it says. That, of course, has led to many misunderstandings, but it is far better for a man to have faith in what he understands about the Bible, even if he misunderstands it, than for one to not even believe what he thinks the Bible says. The first one can be taught, and will do better when he learns better. The second one may be taught, but if he did not do what he thought the Bible taught …

“The water’s warm. The clothing is ready. Everything is prepared for you to obey the Gospel.” Years ago sometimes I said something like that during the invitation in a Gospel meeting. I began to reconsider when, on making such a statement, I discovered the water was bitterly cold, and they had not prepared any clothing, for they expected no baptisms, and rarely had one.     A few years later, I began to reconsider it from two other standpoints. First, when we say, “everything is prepared” and we almost always think of physical things, what does this reveal (or at least suggest) about our thinking? Is it not very similar to what we often hear when an announcement is made about our favorite habit of meeting and eating? In New Testament times, the emphasis was on praying and fasting. In our day, it seems to be on preaching and eating. Therefore, after we have had our experiences (whatever they are) in the “main auditorium,” we say, “Now let us go have fellowship in the basement (or room 101 or the fellowship hall).” One might think we misunderstood or disagreed with Paul in Romans 14:17, “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”     Those who have seen me in the “chow line” (usually close to the front, for I try to be a leader) know that I am not averse to eating and drinking—even in the “fellowship hall.” However, I am concerned that a …

Jesus said, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Many of our readers may know that in that verse there are two words translated “will,” and therein lies some very important lessons.     When Jesus said, “Father, if thou be willing,” He used the Greek word “boulomai.” When He spoke of His own will, He used the word “thelema.” This does not mean that God’s will is always “boulomai” and man’s will is “thelema,” but it means that each of us—God and man—may have a fixed and determined purpose (boulomai) and a wish or desire (thelema), and they may differ.     A look at some related words and the way they are translated may be of some value. The word “boule” is translated ten times “counsel,” once “will.” The word “boulema” is translated “purpose” once, “will” once. The word “boulomai” is translated “be disposed” once, “be minded” twice, “be willing” once, “intend” twice, “list” once, “will” 26 times, “would” 11 times. The word “thelema” is translated “desire” once, “pleasure” once, and “will” 62 times. The related word, “thelo” is translated at least 16 different ways, but “desire” 13 times, “will” 98 times, and “would” 70 times.     When one checks all the uses of the terms, one discovers that both God and man may have certain fixed purposes. For example, it is not God’s fixed purpose (boulomai) that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), so Jesus was …