Preaching is delivery of God’s Word in segments, or a bit at a time, even though each delivery should be as complete as required to relate God’s Word and understanding of it for the subject, and for those wanting salvation. Paul warned, “…for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10). And he further stated, “But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). Today, the revelation of Jesus Christ is the New Testament, and the whole Bible. Is there any better example for preachers today than Paul? If we say, “Yes, Jesus,” then listen to Jesus, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak” (John 12:48-50). Thus, it is that all church leaders, and the preacher, should follow the conduct of Paul and Jesus, in word and deed. Preaching can thus be defined as delivering the Word of God. Many churches today …

When people begin to debate the existence of the absolutely pure, holy, true and living God, emotions often overtake reason and prejudice begins to speak in the name of reason. Men on both sides of the issue regarding the existence of God may be prone to do this and it usually signals frustration, or that one has felt the weakness of his own arguments. Some of these biased assertions have stood for years as supposed arguments against the existence of God. We desire to examine a few of these today It has often been asserted that if God is a necessary Being, then the world is too. This affirmation assumes that a necessary being must do all that it does necessarily. However, our definition is that he must be all that he is. All that is in the nature of God is necessary, but anything that he does extends beyond his nature and is done by his freewill. We illustrate in this way: the living human being must live, however whether he propagates and brings forth after his own kind is a matter of exercising his freewill. By the same token, it was not necessary for God to create. His love may have given him the desire to do so, but it did not demand that he do so. So, his acts of creation were acts of his own freewill. God must be as he is, but he can do what he pleases so long as it does not contradict his nature. He “pleased” …

If there is no God in the universe in which we live, then it must be true that anything goes! Right? Without God and his communication to man, morality is completely arbitrary, is it not? One need not be a believer in God to recognize that this is true. However, there are few, if any people who claim that there is no God who want it to be this way. After all the laws of morality that are extant in the land are the only things that keep them from being overwhelmed by those of superior strength or intellect. If there is no God, no person should either be sought or prosecuted for the murder of an atheist, or anyone else, because if there is no God there is no power on earth who can by any means, arbitrary or otherwise, say that it is wrong, that is, a crime for any person to have been murdered. However, we have never seen a person whose religious belief is that there is no God who would agree to what we have just said. They all, for some strange reason, wish to take the position that there is a need for rules and regulations to govern the societies in which we live. But we must ask, “Why?” There is never a satisfactory answer given to the question except that it is necessary to have laws of morality in order for society to live in an orderly way. If, however, there is no …

Has there ever been a time when the Lord’s teaching on covetousness is more needed than today? Before you finish reading this article some wealthy financier will count his profits from illegal or ill-gotten gain, some young woman will sell her body for a few dollars and some preacher will have decided to sell his soul and the souls of his hearers for a paycheck. The tenth commandment of the Decalogue states, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” (Exodus 20:17). The previous nine commandments deal with outward actions. The tenth deals with the inward thoughts. Covetousness is a sin of the heart. Covetousness is from the Greek word pleonexia, meaning, “to fix the desire upon…whether things good or bad; hence, to long for, lust after, covet” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [1966], Volume 1, p. 266). In ancient Greek culture it was a common word basically meaning “arrogant greediness.” In sacred history it was the first sin in the Garden of Eden with Adam; it was the first sin of Israelite occupied Canaan with Achan; it was the first in the Jerusalem church with Ananias, and it crept by stealth into the circle of Jesus’ own disciples with Judas Iscariot. Covetousness is the common, but “respectable” sin of our age. It is common, but rare indeed is the person who will ever admit to …

Though there were “twelve tribes of Israel” (Genesis 49:28), under the law of Moses all priests were to be of the tribe of Levi, and of one family in that tribe: “Aaron and his sons” (Exodus 29:4-9). Furthermore, we read that the Aaronic priesthood was to be “everlasting” and “perpetual” (Exodus 29:9; 40:15, KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB), and that a “stranger that comes near shall be put to death” (Numbers 3:10; 18:7). But we also read that a “stranger,” Jesus, of the tribe of “Judah” (Micah 5:2; Isaiah 11:1; Matthew 2:6; Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5) God has made “a priest forever” (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:21), of “which tribe Moses said nothing concerning priests” (Hebrews 7:14). How could the priesthood be exclusively “Levitical” (Hebrews 7:11), only be of “Aaron and his sons” (Exodus 29-4-9), and yet Jesus “of the tribe of Judah” (Hebrews 7:14) become “a priest forever” (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:21)? Does the Bible have a contradiction? The explanation lies in mistranslations of the Hebrew word olam. Its usual meaning is “everlasting,” as of God’s existence (Psalm 90:2; 93:2), and as of Jesus’ existence, “whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting,” and who is “the same, yesterday, and for ever” (Micah 5:2; Hebrews 13:8). But the Hebrew verb from which olam is derived only means “everlasting” in certain contexts, as noted above about God and Jesus. Its lexical meaning is “hide, conceal” (Gesenius, p. 633), and so points to a “hidden time” (Gesenius, p. 612), “unlimited but not …

After Jesus had received “all authority in heaven and on the earth” (Matthew 28:18), “all things written about” him “in Moses’ law and the prophets and in the psalms” had not been “fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). It had been predicted that “the scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until the Peacemaker comes, and him the peoples will obey” (Genesis 49:10). Jesus “descended from Judah” (Hebrews 7:14), but while he was on the earth he refused a king’s “scepter” (“an ensign of sovereignty,” Webster). After he had miraculously fed “about five thousand men, besides the women and children” (Matthew 14:21), those people “were about to come and take him by force, to make him king,” he “went into a mountain alone” (John 6:15). He knew the Scripture that foretold he would have a king’s “scepter,” but he also knew that the same Scripture stated he would be a “Peacemaker,” and another Scripture said that he would be a “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). He would be a king without a physical sword. His sword would be “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17), the “God-breathed” (theopneustos, 2 Timothy 3:16) Scripture with the power to give to everyone who “trusts in” him “perfect peace” (Isaiah 26:3). Jesus assured Governor Pilate that “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The Scripture foretelling that Jesus would be a king (Genesis 49:10) was not fulfilled while he was on the earth. …

Growing (2 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 4:14-15; Luke 22:31-32) as a Christian is hard (2 Timothy 2:6). Getting from “where I am,” to “where I need to be” often means venturing into uncertain and unfamiliar territory (Hebrews 11:8; 1 Peter 1:6). Dennis Conner in his book, Managing at the Speed of Change, illustrates this truth principle: At nine-thirty on a July evening in 1988, a disastrous explosion and fire occurred on an old-drilling platform in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. One hundred and sixty-six crew members and two rescuers lost their lives in the worst catastrophe in the twenty-five-year history of North Sea oil exploration. One of the sixty-three crew members who survived was a superintendent on the rig, Andy Mochan. From his hospital bed, he told of being awakened by the explosion and alarms. He said that he ran from his quarters to the platform edge and jumped fifteen stories from the platform to the water. Because of the water’s temperature, he knew that he could live a maximum of only twenty minutes if he were not rescued. Also, oil had surfaced and ignited. Yet Andy jumped 150 feet in the middle of the night into an ocean of burning oil and debris. When asked why he took that potentially fatal leap, he did not hesitate. He said, “It was either jump or fry.” He chose possible death over certain death. Consider this: * He didn’t jump because he felt confident that he would survive. * He didn’t jump …

“Take no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” (Matthew 6:34). To me one of the most interesting phrases used by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount is found at the end of this verse: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” What does it mean? To begin to understand it we have to consider the context. 1. Jesus is teaching the fact that God will take care of us, and he uses several examples of that: the flower, the birds, the hair on our heads, etc. 2. Jesus is instructing us not to worry. Anxiety over what we will eat or where we will live or what we will wear is what he is dealing with. The old saying is appropriate: “Don’t Worry. Don’t worry about what you can change, change it. Don’t worry about what you cannot change, for you have no control over it.” Worry causes ulcers, sleepless nights, untold and often unnecessary distress, and can lead to depleted faith as well. 3. Jesus tells us to seek God and his kingdom above all else, and then we truly do not have to worry. So, what does the phrase “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” mean? I believe that it means: 1. We have enough to deal with today. We have the toils and troubles, as well as joys and blessings, that the day may bring upon …

“No one is perfect,” the saying goes, and that saying is true. James reminded us of this when he wrote, “For we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). However, there is a world of difference between those who stumble, realize it, seek forgiveness and try to do better, and those who are oblivious to it. One of Satan’s greatest tools is that of self-deception, where one no longer reviews the matters of one’s heart. When the Hebrew writer warned of being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), it applies as much to refusing to honestly examine oneself, as it does to lying, stealing, immorality or any other “obvious” sin that one may see in another. It is amazing the lengths to which one will go to justify oneself, when the heart gets hardened by sin and honesty with oneself is abandoned. An action that is condemned in others is quite alright when practiced by oneself. Some of the wildest reasons for forsaking the assembly are offered, that surely if that person heard someone else say, would be immediately rejected. The motives one offers for not being involved in the work of service, which sound so logical to oneself in the context of the church, are obviously rejected as unfit to be offered to one’s employer. The logic behind selfish behavior, which makes one unconscious of how inappropriate it is when done by oneself, is disdained when heard from others. It is all too common to practice things …

The numbers that are drifting, expecting by blind chance to find heaven’s shore, is staggering. They are as endangered children in a small boat wandering aimlessly upon the dark sea. “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away from them” (Hebrews 2:1 ASV). When we examine the life of Jesus, we see one whose mind was filled with purpose and determination to work tirelessly accomplishing the will of our Holy Father in heaven. Unlike Jesus, some have not accepted that Christianity is a selfless, self-giving way of life. Examining the ministry of the apostles, we often see them on the move traveling to various regions carrying the Gospel of Jesus to those who had drifted away from God through sin. The apostles were busy making a difference in the kingdom. They did not wait on tables and thus drift from their function, but rather gave themselves “continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). The elders of the early church had a significant God-given role to fill in shepherding the flock within their midst. Paul pens: “…If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work (1 Timothy 3:1). The work of elders is spiritual and extends light years beyond counting the Sunday morning contribution. However, some elders have drifted away from their God-given function as it seems that is nearly all they are interested in. Brethren, if it is …

There is the tendency among many people to equate morality with being a Christian. While it is true that every devout Christian is a good moral person, it does not follow that every good moral person is a Christian. The moralist, separate and apart from Christ, is a sinner. The apostle Paul, quoting an Old Testament passage, stated that “There is none righteous, no not one.” He further declared, “for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:10, 23). It isn’t that a man is born a sinner; he simply becomes one through violating the commands of God (1 John 3:4). The moralist may be known for his sweet disposition, his kind words, his charitable deeds, his good citizenship and his participation in community affairs. But, if he has never obeyed the Gospel of Christ he is in a lost condition. When a person as previously described passes from this life, his peers are apt to say, “Well, he was not a member of any church, but he certainly was a good man, worthy of salvation.” The basic difference between a moralist who is not a Christian and a Christian who is morally clean is found in their relationship with God. The moralist exclaims that he deserves to be saved upon his own meritorious goodness. This attitude was found in the Pharisees “who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others”; and, is found in the words of a self-righteous individual as recorded …

Recently, while reading in some “Restoration” literature, we found an article by one of the pioneers of the Restoration Movement raising some questions about the meaning of the expression in Revelation 3:14 which refers to “the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” This person took the position that “the beginning of the creation” taught that Christ was created in the beginning–that he was not co-existent with God, but was the first of God’s created beings. Although we are sure there must have been an adequate response to that position, we did not see it, and have no recollection of seeing anything written about it in recent months. The following study may be helpful to those who are faced with the problem of making some sort of exegesis of the passage, and relating it to the nature of Christ. In our judgment, one of the best ways to begin a study of any passage is to determine the possible meanings of the separate words that make up that passage. The word “arche,” translated “beginning,” seems a logical place to start. The word is used 56 times in the New Testament, and a number of times in the Septuagint. The basic meaning of the word is “a beginning,” and the word is so translated 40 times in the KJV. When the phrase is “in the beginning,” “from the beginning,” “at the beginning,” it is evident that the expression refers to a temporal beginning–it relates to time itself. …