THE SIN OF JEROBOAM

The magnitude of the sin of Jeroboam is seen in the fact that it is mentioned over twenty times in the inspired record. It was the prime cause of the downfall of Israel (the ten tribes). "Jeroboam drave Israel from following the Lord, and made them sin a great sin. For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them; Until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight... So was Israel carried away out of their land to Assyria . . ." (II Kings 17:21-23)

Jeroboam was obviously a man of tremendous ability, great military valor and astute political insight. He was promised and appointed to the throneof Israel by Jehovah himself. God blessed him with the additional assurance that his "house" would be established in Israel as David's was in Judah (IKings 11:37,38). This meant that his descendants would reign securely in Israel even as the sons of David ruled in Judah. When Rehoboam (successor to his father Solomon as king over Judah and Israel) spoke harshly to Israel at his "inauguration," triggering the revolt and division that left him as king only over Judah, Israel turned to her outstanding and distinguished hero, Jeroboam. Popular withmen and favored of God, few men in all history haveenjoyed the abilities, opportunities, honors andpowersgiven Jeroboam.

But he sinned a great sin. Its root was faithle ne , its spirit disrespect for God, and its action that of religious innovation. Mark that down — the sin of Jeroboam was not one of immorality, but was religious in character. Remember that he came tothe throne through no cleverness of his own, but was truly given his kingship by God. God guaranteed his throne as sure, contingent only upon simple obedience (I Kings 11:38). But Jeroboam reasoned thatwhen the people returned to Jerusalem to worshipthat their hearts would again turn to Rehoboam,and he would lose his throne and his life (I Kings 12:26,27). This demonstrated his astute politicaacumen and cunning, and also his unbelief. He obviously had no faith in God's promise that his throne was sure. He reasoned that if God's laws were obeyedit would be suicidal, and therefore he devised ascheme of his own wisdom. T he plan of Jeroboam is not to be faulted for lack of human wisdom. It was politically sound and accomplished the immediate and practical objectives he had in mind. We could unhesitatingly say, from his viewpoint, that his plan succeeded. He set up places of worship convenientllocated for the deliberate purpose of keeping thpeople away from Jerusalem (I Kings 12:28-32).In the same connection he introduced other substitutes and innovations designed carefully to appeal to the desires and seeming best interests of the people. Let us speak more particularly of the specific acts, innovations and arguments of Jeroboam inanother study, and focus our attention for now on the fact and spir it of his enormous sin. He disobeyed God. And he taught and encouraged Israel to disobey as though religious violations are innocent.

Religious sins need to be seen in perspective. They are real and horrifying, not because of social injury or physical harm resulting (ordinarily neither ofthese are immediate effects), but because they caonly spring from (1) ignorance in areas where one is supposed to be a leader or (2) exhibit utter faithlessness and rebellion. Religious sins committed with piety seem ever so innocent and even meritorious, and gently but surely drive people to sin. They increase faithle ness and subtle self-satisfaction, for they make the will of man equal (or preferable) to the will of God. Mark it that no man ever imposed his own will or substituted his own ideas in the place of or alongside what God hadgiven, until first of all he had lost confidence inGod's way as being best. Or put another way, mannever imposes his own way until he has first lost faith in God. Man wants change because he imagines improvement.

The frequent references to and the terrible consequences of the sin of Jeroboam should be a sobering warning to all religious men. His message that men did not necessarily have to go to Jerusalem was the exact equivalent of saying they did not strictly and technically have to obey God, and his unauthorized imitation of the worship in Jerusalem salvedconsciences and comforted men in their disobedience. In so doing he led a nation into sin and disaster as terrible as any ever suffered because of immoralities. He name lives in infamy and his posterity is cut off from the earth (I Kings 13:34). The "house" that could have been secure on the throne is destroyed, and only a sad lingering "what might havebeen" remains. O Jeroboam, you had it all and threw it away for lack of faith and respect, and for counting religious sins as a small thing. And shall we,gentle reader, have heaven within our reach only to lose it for the same reasons ?

THE BIBLE MEANING OF LOVE

Love is one of the greatest words in the English language and one of the key words in the revelation of God to man. However, there are two things about the use of this word that will determine whether or not it is scripturally used. The first is the objectof love. The Bible tells no man to love without telling him the object of that love. We ar e not to love the world (I John 2:15), but we are to love truth (II Thess. 2:10). The second is the nature of lovethat is pure and right. Unpretended and pure love of the things of God is the only kind acceptable toGod.

In this column in the last issue of Searching theScriptures I made some observations of Carl Ketcherside's use of the term love. I in no way insinuate that Carl is incapable of loving people or that hedoes not in fact love people, especially those whotry to serve God. I do believe, however, that Carl misuses the wor d by assuming that the love of animmersed believer, to say the most for his view, will ignore that person's unscriptural practices anddisobedience to God in both attitude and deed, andallow fellowship with such. This is not Bible love.

WHAT IS BIBLE LOVE?

Several years ago I wrote on the subject of love as it is described in the word of God. At that time I had no thought of Carl Ketcherside or anything inreference to what he teaches or practices. I reprint two articles from Searching The Scriptures on the subject: the first one from June. 1965 and the second from May, 1962. T his would be as objective as I know how to be in discussing this theme in the pr esent setting. I bid you r ead them car efully.

HOW FAR WILL LOVE GO?

Love is one of the greatest words to the humanrace, especially as it concerns man's eternal hopes. Love is the key word to God's provision for man'ssalvation. "For God so loved the world, that he gavehis only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth inhim should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ diedfor us" (Rom. 5:8). "Beloved, let us love one another : for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God" (I John 4:7). "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God . . ." (I John 3:1).

While love is the ver y natur e of God, and this expression of love provided salvation for man, it does not follow, as some seem to think, that love will excuse man in his disobedience and r ebellion against God. Even the love of God (we mean the benefits of His love) is limited by the channels of His word. Noman can expect to benefit from the love of God as it is given thr ough the death of His Son unless that man is willing to appr opr iate that love by obedience to God's word. Nevertheless, millions today havebeen led by denominational doctrines to believe thatthe love of God will save under any and all conditions. The philosophy seems to be: Profess religion; do as you please, and the love of God will save you. Such is the doctrine of the Devil and in no sense the love of God.

Jesus made it clear that love is shown in obedience to his commands. "As the Father hath loved me, sohave I loved you: continue ye in my love" (John 15:19). But how does one continue in his love? T he next verse: "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love .. ." Could it be plainer? We must continue in his love, but to continue in his love is to keep hiscommandments. This means that the benefits of the love of Chr ist abides when we keep his commandments. By the same token, we show our love for Christ by obeying his commandments. "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Now then,when one does not obey the commandments of Christ, he does not love Christ and Christ's love does not abide in him.

One came to Jesus while he lived upon earth andasked what he should do to inherit eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments. He answer ed: "Master, all these have I observed from my youth." T hen Jesus beholding him loved him, and said untohim, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have tr easur e in heaven: and come, take up the cr oss, and f ollow me" (Mark 10:21). Jesus LOVED thisman, but when he went away and would not do as the Lord had directed, Jesus did not follow him andbeg him to r econsider. Even though Jesus loved this man, his love would not bless him in his disobedience. T his is the limit of God's love.

In this age we live under a different covenant from the one Jesus told this man to keep. We ar e not under the law, but the gospel. When those to whom Peter and the apostles preached on Pentecost in Jerusalem asked what to do — and of course they were asking what to do for the remission of sins — Peter did not tell them to keep the law. He told them to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . ." (Acts 2:38).T hose who obeyed this command showed their lovefor the Lord, and, of course, the love of Christ began to abide with them. On the other hand, those whorefused to obey this command indicated that theydid not love the Lord, and the benefits of Christ's love were not theirs.

T his concept of God's love that He will save men in any state r elating to His wor d is nowher e taught in the Bible. It is one of the doctrines of the Devil and its consequences will drive millions more into the eternal destiny of the Devil and his angels. God'slove will save if we will love him. We love him when we obey his will.

THE REAL MEANING OF LOVE

H. E. Phillips

Denominational views are generally known by the subjects that are discussed in pulpits and papers, and the subject of LOVE occupies a top place in nearly all religious groups. I would like to sear ch the scriptures with you on the Bible meaning of love in an effort to see if this subject is any more accurately represented by denominational teachers than many other subjects with which they deal.

Love is one of the key words in the word of God. The fact that God loves man is again and again stressed by ever y inspired man who was used by the Spirit to reveal the will of God. I John 4:7-21 is an example of the importance placed upon love by the wor d of God. Sever al facts ar e given inthese verses which show that love is indispensable to fellowship with God. John says that "God is love" and that 'love is of God". Since God loves us, we are instructed to "love one another". "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." This is the theme of John in this section of his epistle, and he concludes thechapter by saying: "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his br other, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his br other whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we fr om him, That he who loveth God love his brother also" (I John 4:20,21).

The question arises, What does love for my brother require of me? I was recently told that I did not have proper love for my brethren (some of them) because I spoke against their views and teaching on certain subjects. I have been told a number of times that the "Spirit of the Anti gr oup is without love". Now if that be tr ue of me, I am wr ong. No man can please God without love in his heart. No matter howmuch truth and power he has, if he does not have love, he is nothing (I Cor. 13:1-3). But what is the real, scriptural meaning of brotherly love? What does it require in my relationship to my br other ?

Love is an action of the heart. "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto theunfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently" (I Pet. 1:22). It is also an action of life motivated by a heart filled with love. "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth" (I John 3:18). Love, then, is the state of heart or attitude of mind that responds in wor d and deed. It is what we do and say that is prompted by an attitude of heart called love.

In I Corinthians 13 we have a description of the love that is approved by God. It suffers long, is kind, does not envy, is not puffed up, does not behave in an uneven manner, does not seek its own, is not easily pr ovoked, does not think evil, nor rejoice in sin, but does rejoice in truth. Love endures all things. This state of mind and conduct of life may be directed toward the wrong object. Many love, but they love the wrong things. "For men shall be lovers of their own selves . . ." (II Tim. 3:2); "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God . . ." (II Tim. 3:4); "For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world . . ." (II Tim. 4:10); "For the love of money is the root of all evil . . ." (I Tim. 6:10); "But Diotr ephes, who loveth to have the pr eeminence among them . . ." (Ill John 9); "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12.43). We are commanded to love God (Matt. 22:37, the truth (II Thess. 2:10), the brethren (I Pet. 1:22), and our enemies (Matt. 5:44). It may be that one has once loved the right things, but has lost this love. "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matt. 24.12). "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" ( Rev. 2:4).

THE TRUE MEANING OF LOVE

For a long time the denominational world has contendedthat members of the church of Christ do not have love in their hearts, and the proof of it is in the fact that they debate andoppose "other churches". Love to these people means a kind, loving, compromising, soul who will agree with and endorse almost any kind of religious teaching. Now some denominational minded brethren have adopted this same view of love, and they cry that anyone who exposes their weak and unscriptural doctrines lacks true love.

God is love. John the inspired apostle said so. How does God react to sin and disobedience in those who are his children? In the Old Testament "every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward" (Heb. 2:2). In the New Testament "he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wr ong which he hath done: and ther e is no r espect ofpersons" (Col. 3:25). The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), and the death he speaks of is the second death. "And death and hell wer e cast into the lake of fir e. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14,15). God is love, but he deals with sin just as he pr omised. It follows that love is not incompatible with strong dealing with error and sin.

When I was a child I sometimes wondered how my father and mother could say, "Son, this is because I love you," when they applied the r od wher e it would do the most good. If they loved me, why did they have to show it by a thrashing second to none? But by and by I became a man and a father myself. I had to do for my children exactly what was done to me. Then I knew what they meant when they said, "This is because I love you". I know now as you know, love demands correction and chastisement when it is needed to make the person you love better. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scour geth ever y son whom he r eceiveth" (Heb. 12:6).

Many think love requires absolutely no hate for anything. If one hates anything he cannot have the love of God in his heart. The writer of Hebrews quotes God as saying of Christ: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity" (Heb. 1:9). Christ hated iniquity! Christ writes to Ephesus: "Butthis thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6). To the angel of the church in Pergamos Christ said: "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:15). Christ hated the deeds and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, yet he is the embodiment of love. Seven things are listed inProverbs 6:16 that God hates, yet God is love. It follows that true love does not mean that hate cannot exist in the heart of the per son. He must love what he should love and hate what he should hate.

Many think love will not permit discipline. Any sign of exer cising discipline against those who sin is a sign of the lack of love. Paul writes the Corinthians about a man who was living in adultery, and tells them "to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor. 5:5). Because of their "puffed up" state he writes in the last verse of I Cor. 4: "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the Spirit of meekness?" Now, Paul, you should not write that way. Don't you know it is not a sign of love tospeak so harshly to brethren? But in the 13th chapter Paul tells what love is, and says that if he does anything without love it does not profit him anything. Evidently he understood a harmony to exist between discipline— strong discipline— and true love. Remember, Paul wr ote the commandments of the Lord (I Cor. 14:37). We are commanded by the authorityof Christ to deal with false teachers (Rom. 16:17), and withthe unruly and vain talkers (Titus 1:10), and to do i"sharply" (vs. 13). The God of love required this, therefore it must be in harmony with true love to rebuke sin andfalse brethren.

Many think love requires a compromise. False brethren ofPaul's day "privily" came in to spy out the liberty of Christians in or der to bind them again to bondage, but Paul said of them: "to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue wityou" (Gal. 2:4,5). Paul even r ebuked another apostle (Peter) by withstanding "him to the face" because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:11,14). Love for God and the gospel will never permit compromise with anyone. On the other hand, love for God, the gospel and men in sin will call upon us to sound out the wor d "in season and out of season" without compromise at any level

Many will argue that love substitutes for obedience. Howmany have you heard say, "God is love, and He will not send a man to hell for doing a little thing that is wr ong"? They mean by this that God's love is such that He will overlook our failure to obey Him and save us anyway. I believe some brethren think that is the kind of love we should have toward each other. But Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). John said, "And this is love, that we walk after his commandments" (II John 6). Paul said, "Be ye follower s of God, as dear childr en; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour" (Eph. 5:1,2). Real love requires obedience to God; obedience to God requires that we oppose sin and false doctrines where ever they be found (Rom. 16:17; Titus 1:10; Eph. 5:11; II Thess. 3:6).

MAKARIOS, "BLESSED"

The first section of the Sermon on the Mount is often called the "Beatitudes," a term that comes from a Latin word which means "blessing."

Matthew's account of the Beatitudes is recorded in 5:1-12. In these verses Jesus repeatedly pronounces certain people as "blessed." The term "blessed" is translated from the Greek makarios. This Greek word is not a verb in these passages;that is, Jesus is not saying "having been blessed" is so and so. The term makarios is a Greek adjective which has a very long and interesting history anduse. The present article is a brief study of this adjective.

IN CLASSICAL GREEK

The root of the term makarios goes all the waback to Homer. In its earliest use the term was always applied to the gods, and was descriptive of the surpassing bliss of the gods who lived apart from the trials and troubles of humans.

About the time of Ar istotle the term makarios came to be applied to humans. It often described those who were physically rich; hence, the makarios man was able to live above the struggles of the poor man.

There is some indication that makarios sometimes described non-physical characteristics. For example,a knowledgeable man might be a makarios man.

WHAT DID JESUS MEAN?

Who is the "blessed" man of the Beatitudes ? We sometimes say that the term means "happy." It is my judgment that "happy" is not a very meaningful translation. How is the man who mourns (Matt.5:4) a "happy" man?

"FORTUNATE"

If the term "happy" be used in its original sense of "fortunate," etc., it would suffice as a good translation of makarios; but, usually, when we use "happy" we use it in the sense of the emotion of happine , and this is not what Jesus is speaking ofI believe that Jesus is telling us that the man who is in a r ight relationship with God is "blessed"; that is, he is truly a fortunate man; not because he is necessarily physically blessed, but because he has the hope of a continuity of life in eternal happine . -----------------------------o-------------

November, 1972 Dear As we come publication, I helping hand

Reader:
near feel in	the close the need incr easing	of the thirteenth to call upon you the cir culation	year of again of this	continuous to lend media	a of

spreading the word of the Lord.

Some of you have received this paper for several years through the generosity of a friend or relative. Someone was interested in your soul. It is now time that you became interested in your own soul as well as the souls of other s.

The great majority of the population of this country is so cold and apathetic toward spiritual things that almost nothing will reach their hearts. Billions of printed pages of "garbage" for the mind are distributed each year. Doesn't it stand to reason that a healthy and sound mind depends upon sound reading material?

Be a friend and do your brethren and neighbors a favor: send them Searching the Scriptures for one year. The price is $5.00 per year, or three subscriptions for $12.00. Do this today so they will begin receiving the paper January, 1973.

A number of churches are ordering a bundle each month to distribute to those they believe would best benefit from Searching the Scriptures. If the church where you worship is unable to do this, why will you not do so for one year? The prices are listed on the second page. Above all, renew yourself. We want you as a reader of this journal. If you are on the ARP send your renewal in the amount you sent last year.

I thank you so much for every word of encouragement, every act of help, and your prayers for the continuation of this effort. A special thanks to those who have helped so long and continue to do so. May God bless you richly.

BIBLES • COMMENTARIES • REFERENCE BOOKS • TRACTS • LITERATURE • TAPE

NOTE: During the construction of our new auditorium and the remodeling of our former building, my study was in an almost continual state of confusion. For a few weeks it was in storage, and hence, in disuse altogether. During this period some questions for this column were misplaced and lost. Will those who sent questions of late please submit them again? I am now in position to give such prompt attention. — M. E. P.

QUESTION: Is there a local congregation whenthe members, after worship periods, depart to their houses and while they go about their daily duties? I know we belong to the church universal all thetime, with privileges to pray or sing praises to God, but does the church, locally, exist between worship or assembly time? — S. P.

ANSWER: T he answer to the above questions is to be found in a study of the word "church," the different senses in which it is used, and what theBible teaches concerning each.

The word "church" is from the Greek word "Ekklesia," which according to scholars means "the called out; an assembly."

In New Testament times it did not necessarily have religious significance. It was used to identify assemblies of men as well as assemblies of God's people. It is twice applied to the mob in E phesus, once to the proconsular court, and once to the people in the wilderness (Acts 19:32,39,41; 7:38). The context must determine whether reference is made to a church of men or a church of the Lord.

The word "church" is used in the Bible to identify the Lord's people in different senses. It will suffice to answer the above questions to examine three of these uses in this article.

It is used in the universal sense (Matt. 16:18;Eph. 1:22). In this sense it includes all the saved of all the earth. It is a spiritual relationship. It is not joined, but rather the Lord adds to it daily such as should be saved (Acts 2:47). He controls its fellowship, and does so accurately. It has no earthly organization. It has no earthly structure or arrangement by which it can function, and, consequently, has no mission. It is a passive, spiritual relationship in which its members receive and enjoy blessings and privileges.

The word "church" is also used in the local sense (I Cor. 1:2). In this sense we find a tangible arrangement or organizational structure (Phil. 1:1) by which it can function. Furthermore, the sum total of divine revelation reveals a threefold mission, namely, evangelism, benevolence, and edification. The church in this sense controls its own fellowship and is "joined" by mutual agreement on the part of those involved, in harmony with the word of the Lord (Acts 9:26-28). It is a very active relationship involving grave responsibilities, which, in the finalanalysis, are accounted for on an individual basis by those making up its membership.

In this sense, while the organization exists all the time, not ever y act of the individuals is an act of the organization as such. In this sense it is somewhat comparable to civic clubs, e.g., Lions, Kiwanis, Parent Teachers Association, etc. The organization functions through the framework of its organizational structure when its members jointly participate in something that has been duly authorized by it. It also functions through one or more of its members who being duly authorized by the organization act in behalf of the whole.

One of the functions of the local church is to assemble or "come together into one place" (I Cor. 11:20; Acts 14:27; 20:7; Heb. 10:25). T hat thelocal church does exist before, between, and after assemblies, i.e., coming together into one place, is evident from the language used in Acts 14:27:"And when they were come, and had gathered thechurch together, they rehearsed all that God haddone with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." It was the church before it was gathered together, while it was being gathered, and after it had been gathered together. It was the local church all the time.

The word "church" is also used to identify an assembly of saints or an assembly of the local church (I Cor. 11:18; 14:28,34). In this sense the localchurch churches, i.e., the local assembly assembles

— those "called out" and assembled together in a spiritual and local sense assemble or come together into one place. Furthermore, in this sense it is proper to say what would otherwise not be true, namely,"Saints go to church." They go to the assembly which is called "church" in the above Scriptures. Sometimes brethren arbitrarily limit the use of theword church and thereby overlook other scriptural uses and concepts.

Even the very slightest observation of the abovequestion upon the part of one who believes that the Bible is the word of God would prompt him to answer in the affirmative. Yet, many who sincerely believe that they need the Bible indicate by whatthey believe and teach that they r eally do notneed it.

While there are some who believe that the Bible is essential to their understanding of what God requires of them in order to go to heaven, there are many others who apparently recognize their need of the Bible for other reasons. There are some who feel more secure simply because they have a copy of "the old book" around, and that by doing so. they have better touch with what is sacred and holy. To such people the Bible is a special book, a precious bound volume of pages which affords special powers by its very presence, and so actually it is a fetish. In some parts of Scotland the sick were fanned with the leaves of the Bible, and a Bible was placed under the head of a woman after child birth and into the cradle of new-born children (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical. Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 1, p. 810). A copy of the Bible also serves as a convenient file for others who place their objects of devotion in it for safe keeping.

Various usages are made of the Bible, revealing a conglomeration of ideas as to what it is and why it exists. Divination by means of the Bible, known as Bibliomancy, taking passages of scripture at hazard and drawing future things from them is an oldestablished practice. A few examples of Bibliomancy are interesting. "In former times, among the common people in England and Scotland, the Bible was consulted on New Year's day with special formality, each member of the house, before he had partaken of food, walking to it, and placing his finger at random on a verse — that verse declaring his fortune for the next twelve months. The Bible, with a sixpence inserted into the book of Ruth, was placed under the pillows of young people, to give themdreams of matrimonial divination. A Bible and a key were sometimes employed to detect a thief. Asuspected witch was taken to church, and weighedagainst the great church Bible. If she outweighed the Bible she was acquitted, but if the Bible outweighed her, she was condemned" (McClintock andStrong, Vol. 1, p. 810).

Certainly the Bible was never intended to serve as a charm or a means of divination, but if such conceptions be the truth, then there is no real need for the Bible as far as it being the revelation of God's will to man is concerned. The Bible, when understood as to what it actually is and why it truly exists, will not be relegated to a charm or a means of divination. The Bible, in contrast to the uses made of it, as illustrated in the foregoing examples, hasa lofty and divine purpose and ignorant, careless, and flagrant mishandlings of it only serve to cheapen it and impair its good influence.

What is the Bible? When we speak of the Bible in its true and strictest sense, we do not mean amere volume of printed pages, a literal book; butwe mean its contents, its teaching, God's revelation to man. Comprised of sixty-six books, man's redemption is its theme, and like a golden thread it runs from Genesis through Revelation. It is the word of God (John 8:32; 17:17; Ps. 19:7; 119:105; II Tim. 3:16,17; Heb. 4:12, etc.). We believe that it is verbally inspired, that not only did the Holy Spirit reveal the thoughts to the writers but the very words. (See Matt. 10:19 and II Pet. 1:21.) Paul wrote to thechurch at Corinth: "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, butwhich the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words" (I Cor. 2:13). The Bible isGod's final and complete revelation to man (Jude 3); therefore, it should be read, properly divided, andobeyed.(To be continued)

12528 E. Alaska Place

Aurora, Colorado 80010

Fathers who will not provide for their own have,denied the faith and are worse than infidels according to I Tim. 5:8. Young women are encouraged tomarry, bear children, guide the house, and give nooccasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully (I Tim. 5:14). If parents were taught to love their children as they should there would be fewer needy children. A great number (in fact nearly all) of thechildren in orphan homes have parents — at least one parent. Parents should take care of their owneven if it is difficult. A mother should be the best matron under the sun for her children. Let us beginup the scale for the sake of the children who nowlive and for the sake of those yet unborn. We can all agree that this is good and teaching helps. Let aged women teach younger women to love their children, to be discreet, sober and chaste as suggested in Titus 2:3.4. What one sermon does not accomplish, a thousand sermons might. More teaching needs to be done on the home.

Children should be taught to take care of their widowed mothers. I Tim. 5:4 says, "If any widohave children or nephews, let them shew piety ahome, and to requite their parents: for this is goodand acceptable before God." Verse 16 of the samechapter says, "If any man or woman that believethhave widows, let them relieve them, and let not thchurch be charged; that it may relieve them thatare widows indeed." We should first work on the home in this matter of benevolence. Here is where piety begins. Here is the point of special responsibility according to the Lord's plan. The church isthe pillar and ground of the truth. It has responsibilities in the field of benevolence, but it should not be a igned tasks that belong to one group of parents or to another group of children. Work under the hood if the knock is in the motor! Start teachinghome responsibilities, if that is where the troublelies.

Where shall we go next? We need to go to thneighbor's house. What can he do? What should he do? To find the answer to practical questions like this we should turn to the Bible. "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working withhis hands the thing which is good, that he may haveto give to him that needeth" (Eph. 4:28). What is the well man to do? He is to work to provide for himself and for his family, and to have to give tohim that needeth. The more this is done the less pressure there will be on the church to give. Sommight like to take this out of the Bible because theylike the package plan. They would like to drop a bill in the collection basket on Sunday and feel nfurther responsibility. They say that they havnothing left after they give to the church what theythink they should give

They hurry to add that they want the church to get the glory! Where does the Bible say the church should get the glory ? The Lord should get the glory! If the individual Christian does his work, the Lord receives the glory. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). Is this not clear ? "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them . . . but when thou doest alms let not thy left hand know what thy righthand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret, andthy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly" (Matt. 6:1-4). The more blessed reward is to the giver. It would be easy to find adozen places that teach this plainly in our New Testament. Each is to do his own benevolent work, according to the Lord, and the Lord watches and rewards. The same chapter that talks about secret alms says "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth . . . but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where your treasure is there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21). How may I putreasures up there? Is it not by giving unselfishly rather than by laying up for self? Each is to lay uphisown treasures. The Lord keeps individual records.

In Acts 20:33-35 we find this statement, "I have coveted no man's silver or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my nece ities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboringye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is moreblessed to give than to receive." We need to memorize this! Paul showed each Christian that it is rightfor one to provide for the weak. He taught the message of the Lord that the giver is blessed above thereceiver. We receive a hundred fold here and eternal life in the world to come if we comply with the Lord's will. It is the Master's will that a man find an honorable occupation and earn in order to give to him thathath need. Can any doubt it? "To do good and tcommunicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased" (Heb. 13:16). You want to please God, do you not? Here is scriptural advice on how to do it.

"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute ofdaily food, and one of you say unto them, depart inpeace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ygive not those things which are needful to the body;what doth it profit? E ven so faith, if it hath notworks, is dead, being alone" (James 2:14-16). Hedid not say, "Tell it to the church." He taught that you should give to that brother or sister yourself or be classed as being as unprofitable as faith withoutworks. If the church gave, it would have to get its money out of your pocket or from some other individual.

I John 3:17-19 says, "Whoso hath this world's goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compa ion from him, how dwelleththe love of God in him ? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and itruth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him." It is as evident as can be that the man who would keep himself unspotted from the world and have pure and undefiled religion must himself visit the fatherless andthe widows in their afflictions. This will cost him money, but that is one reason for his earning. The Lord will ble . The good Samaritan ministered with his own hands and paid the bill from his own pocket

Any plan that makes it so a congregation of onehundred fifty members can give $15 a month (100 per member) to some heavily endowed society anleave all feeling relieved of any personal responsibility toward those of their acquaintance who maybe in need is an unhappy and unscr iptural plan.

"NO DEAD ISSUE — No. 3"

This is the third and last in a series on the above title. The first, dealt with an article by brother Gus Nichols in the Boles Home News. The second was on the position espoused by brother Ruel Lemmons and appeared in the Firm Foundation. The prominence of the men involved and the recent dates on the articles show they do not consider this a dead issue. It has never been my purpose to feed brethren asteady diet on any one subject. However, I believe when we are goaded into complacency in regard to this subject the devil will once again gain the advantage.

In this third series I plan to point out the difference between brethren Nichols and Lemmons in regard to the orphan home question. These brethren are supposedly on the same side of this issue but it will become apparent they are as far apart as the twopoles. Brother Nichols takes the position that "homes" under a board of directors may take money from the treasury of churches. On the other hand, brother Lemmons takes the position that "homes" under boards have no scriptural right to take money from church treasuries. It is apparent that both ofthese men cannot be right. The odd thing about this is that these brethren will sleep with one another but won't sleep with me. Now, don't mis-understand me, "I ain't hankering to sleep with either!" But these brethren exchange pulpits and act as if no difference exists and yet one can read their articles and see a great chasm between Nichols and Lemmons.

Brother Nichols takes the old Guy N. Wood position that the board is in existence only because of the demands of the state. It is a legal matter. What brother Nichols and his colleagues need to learn is that Bible students have never objected to what the men are called but rather to what they are DOING. You can call them boards or bees and the violation is the same. If this is the benevolent work of the church it is to be done under local elders where the benevolence is needed. However, if it is not the work of the church they have no business giving to it in the first place! I don't object to a group of men being called a board. I object to any group of men usurping the function of the elders. You can call them anything you want. Even if the men over Boles Home were not members of a board it would still be unscr iptur al because they ar e not elder s in a local church. If they were elders the only benevolent work they would be responsible to oversee would be intheir local congregation (See Acts 11:27-30; I Pet. 5:1-2). It is in direct violation of the scriptures for a group of elders to try to oversee a brotherhood benevolent program. This is where brother Lemmons missed the boat. He was correct in condemning theboard but wrong in justifying a brotherhood eldership to oversee general benevolence. This was not done in Bible times.

Now, gentle reader, if you will forgive the use of names let us note the agreements between brethren Nichols, Lemmons and Hogland. First, we all agree that the orphan home has a right to exist as a humanitarian institution. There is not disagreement here. I am not talking about abuses. Second, we agree that an individual could give to such an institution just as he could give to a hospital or the cancer fund. Permit me to make it clear that the individual could not give if the institution takes money from church treasuries!

Now let us consider the disagreements. BrotherNichols believes that a church may give to a homewith a board of directors. Brethren Lemmons and Hogland object. Brother Lemmons objects simply because the home is under a board and not under elders. Hogland objects not only because of the board and what they are doing but because they are trying to do a brotherhood benevolence work. He objects also because they are trying to care for people who are not saints or Christians. In summary, all three brethren agree that individuals could support Boles Home if they would divorce it from the church. It would then be a humanitarian institution like the Red Cross or cancer fund. Brother Lemons thinks the board should be ousted and a local eldership put in its place. This might be a little closer to the truth but that LOCAL ELDERSHIP is out of its place when it oversees any more than the work of the LOCAL congregation. Taking care of children from all over the country who are not saints is not thefunction of the local church. People on the outside are to be cared for by individuals (See Jas 1:27, Gal. 6:10). If it be argued that the individual cannot take care of all the widows and orphans of the world

— may I say neither can the church. I will go one step further and say neither can the United States Government! Does this make it scriptural for thechurch to do it? Nay verily. Gentle reader, we needscripture and not emotionalism for all we do. Think it over.

Page 11

T he question of abortion is a ver y live issue inboth the religious and the political realm in modern America. This problem must be dealt with uponcertain eternal principles. Most Christians will have little difficulty coming to grips with this i ue, ithey free themselves to study the problem objectively.

BIBLE PRINCIPLES ARE INVOLVED

There are at least two Bible principles involved in the abortion question, (1) there is life before birth and (2) that life is human. Let us examine Luke 1:36-44. Note particularly verse 36, "This is the sixth month with her ;" ver se 41, "T he babe leaped in her womb," and verse 44, "The babe leapedin my womb." There are two indications in this passage of scripture that there is human life in the unborn infant, (1) he leaped (movements indicates life) and (2) he was called a "babe" (Greek, brephos). The Greek word, brephos is used in the N.T. to identify a human infant, either born or unborn. See also Luke 2:12, 16; 18:15; Acts 7:19; II T im. 3:15; I Pet. 2:2.) Luke, qualified both by profession (Col. 4:14) and by inspiration used this same word to describe the infants put to death in ancient Egyptunder the command of Pharaoh, "they cast out their young children (Gr. brephos) to the end that themight not live" (Acts 7:10). If the parents of John the baptizer had secured the services of an abortionist during the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy they would have been doing the same thingthat was done by Pharaoh recorded in E xodus l:15ff; they would have been casting out their "babe" (Gr. brephos) to the end that he "might nolive."

The fact that the un-born infant has life is not to be disputed in the face of his movements in the womb. And a Bible-believer could not afford to doubt that where there is life there is a spirit, "For the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). Certainly a fetus may die at birth (or before) but as long as he is alive, the human spirit is within him,for without the spirit, his little body would be lifeless.

In view of the natural laws that God set in order "in the beginning" (see Gen. 1) that all of God's creatures produce "after their kind" it could hardlybe denied that the spirit in the un-born infant is a human spirit. He has a human father and a humanmother; he could be nothing but human himself. All he needs to become a useful member of society is nutrition, oxygen and time.

Other passages of scripture in which these same indications of life before birth include Genesis 25:22 and 38:28-30.

SOME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Some with whom I have discussed the abortion question have been slow to acknowledge the principles that I feel are clearly evident in the abovescriptures. For the benefit of such individuals, I feel it might be helpful for us to consider a few facts from the scientific point of view. For instance, it has been established that:

The heartbeat of the unborn fetus begins between the 18th to 25th day.1 Electrocardiogram recordings can be taken at nine or ten weeks.2 Electric brain waves (electroencephalogram)have been recorded as early as 43 days.3

Actual skeletal movements of the unborn babbegin at six weeks. The mother cannot feel them,however, at that time.4

At nine to ten weeks he squints, swallows, moveshis tongue, and if you stroke his palm will make tight fist. At eleven to twelve weeks, he is suckinghis thumb vigorously.5

By eleven to twelve weeks, he is breathing fluidsteadily and continues so until birth. At birth, hwill breathe air. He does not drown by breathingfluid within his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This does, however,develop the organs of respiration. His stomach secretes gastric juice by eight weeks. Fingernails are present by eleven to twelve weeks; eyelashes by sixteen. All his body systems are present by eighweeks, and are all working by eleven weeks. Electrical waves at six weeks indicate brain function bythat time.6

In fact, there is every indication that there is full human life in the infant before birth. With these facts in mind, let us see what effect abortion has on this life.

FOUR BASIC TYPES OF ABORTION

There are four basic types or methods of inducedabortion, (1) dilatation and curettage (D&C), (2)the suction method, (3) hysterectomy and (4) thesaline solution method.

In D&C the baby is cut into pieces while still in the uterus and scraped out into a basin.

In the suction method a hollow plastic tube attached to a powerful suction apparatus is used totear the baby to pieces and suck the pieces into abottle. "Most careful abortionists won't use these methods (D&C, suction) after the twelfth week."7

The hysterectomy is like a Caesarian section. The mother's abdomen is surgically opened and the babyis lifted out. "This method is used after the 14th to 15th week of development. . . One hundred percent of all babies aborted by hysterectomy are born alive. They must either be then killed or left to die fromlack of attention. One baby in New York that was 'aborted' in this manner refused to die and has been adopted. (U.P.I., Dec. 19, 1970)... One surgeon inour area who used this method removed a tiny babywho breathed, tried to cry, and was moving his arms and legs — so he threw the placenta on top of the baby and smothered him."8

"If a baby is born alive, as in hysterectomy, thendies, he or she may be used as a full deduction on the parent's federal income tax."9

T he saline method involves the use of a largeneedle which is inserted through the abdominal wall of the mother and into the infant's amniotic sac. A concentrated salt solution is injected into the amniotic fluid; the baby swallows it, is poisoned, andusually dies within about an hour. About a day later the mother goes into labor and delivers a dead baby.This method cannot be used much before the 16th week, but can be used any time thereafter.10

ABORTION HAS COST MORE AMERICAN LIVES THAN WAR

According to Dr. Paul Marx, a sociologist at St.John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota, thliberalizing of abortion laws in recent years has cost more American lives in one year than the toll of all the wars in American history.11

Dr. Heather Morris, Canadian obstetrician andgynecologist, speaking in Ontario, Canada voicedthe view that any country accepting abortion has descended into an abyss of cruelty and can no longer be called civilized. "A civilized society is judged ohow it takes care of those who can't take care of themselves," the doctor stated on the campus of McMaster University. Dr. Morris further stated,"Abortion is a situation in which life is killed. Human life starts at conception. A complete, uniquehuman being is the result."12

In the Federal Republic of Germany every year there are from 100,000 to 500,000 interruptions of pregnancy, mostly illegal. More than 100,000 humalives were suppressed last year in England througabortions. Some 3,000 abortions were performed on foreign women in Great Britain.13

WHERE WILL IT ALL END?

Many informed individuals see permi ive abortion laws as the first step toward a society in which euthanasia (mercy-killings) will be socially andlegally acceptable.

Attempts to justify abortion often employ arguments that the aborted babies would have been unwanted, battered children, perhaps deformed or deranged, and eventually candidates for the welfare rolls. It is reasoned that they should be put to deathfor their own benefit, and for the convenience ofsociety.

The next step, after abortion has become socially acceptable, might well be to systematically"put to sleep" the aged, the infirm, the mental patient, the deformed and diseased,... then the unskilled, and who-knows-who might be next

An editorial in the September, 1970 i ue of theofficial journal of the California Medical A ociation stated, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fullydisplaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins with conception (emp. crj) and is continuous whether intro-or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would beludicrous if they were not often put forward undersocially impeccable auspices."

It is time for Christians to lift their voices in this matter and use their influence to restore sanityto the laws of the land concerning the sanctity ohuman life, both before and after birth.

FOOTNOTES

1 James M. Tanner, et al., Growth (Life Science Library,

Time-Life Books, p. 6

2 Ibid

3 J. W. Still, J. Washington Academy of Science, "Vol. 59,

1969, p. 46

4 Hooker, Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior,

Univ. of Kansas Press, 195

5 A. Hellegers, M.D., Fetal Development, 31, Theological

Studies 3, 7, 1970, pg. 26

6 Life Before Birth, Life Magazine reprint, pg. 1

7 Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Willke, Handbook on Abortion, Hiltz

Pub. Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972, page 2

8 Ibid., pg. 2

9 Ibid., pg. 210 Ibid., pg. 211 (EP) dateline, Seattle. Inquirer, June 1972, pg. 112 Christian Crusade Weekly, May 21, 1972, pg.

13 Vatican Radio via Inquir er , June 1972, pg. 14 ----------------o --------------

Herschel E. Patton, 4605 Dyshel Dr. S.W., Huntsville, Ala., 35805 — I have been living in Huntsville,Ala., working with the Jordan Park church since the first of August. Raymond Harville followed me atMt. Pleasant, Tenn. He has been well received and I am sure he will do a fine work with the Locust St. church there. The work at Jordan Park in Huntsville is thrilling and challenging. There have been three baptisms, three restorations, and three to placemembership since my coming. Please announce inSearching the Scriptures that my tract on "The Seriousness of Marriage" is now back in print and I have a good supply on hand. They sell for 100 each or $10.00 per hundred.

W. E. Bowers, 519 Cedar Rock, Pickens, SouthCarolina, 29671 — A congregation of the Lord's people is now meeting in Pickens, South Carolina. Three families presently make up the membership of thPickens church which meets in a rented building at123 E. Main Street, Pickens. This is the only church meeting near Clemson University that stands firm for the truth of God's word. The church would like to hear from students who may be attending Clem-son or plan to in the near future. James Hahn of Scottsville, Kentucky was with the church for meetings in July and October of this year. The Pickens church is interested in finding a man to move intothis area to labor with them in preaching the gospel.Partial support could be provided. If interested write the Pickens church of Christ, P.O. Box 626, Pickens,South Carolina 29671; or phone (803) 878-4203.

DEBATE

J. T. Smith and James Ivy will debate on the subject of predestination and election. The dates are December 11, 12, 14, 15. This debate will take place at the meeting house of the Northeast church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas.

NEW RELIGIOUS JOURNAL

A new religious semi-monthly periodical to be called The Bible Standard. The editors will be Kent Ellis and R. L. (Bob) Craig. This paper will be published twice each month, containing not fewer than 12 pages per i ue. To begin the first of November. Subscription price: $3.00 per year, $5.00 for twoyears, $10.00 for five years. One year subscription or extension free to anyone sending in ten subscriptions. All subscriptions and articles should be sent to Kent Ellis, 3807 Woodmere, Bryan, Texas77801.

Arnold A. Granke, Jr., OSI District 12, APO SanFrancisco 96274 — I am currently assigned at Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philippines, and worshipwith the church in adjacent Angeles City. Brother Castorio F. Gamit, the regular preacher, and I havebeen attempting to gather information concerningthe welfare of faithful brethren during the recenflood. Our information is still incomplete, but insofar as we know, none suffered any serious injury.Some have been rendered needy, however. We know of about 20 souls in nearby Macabebe, Pampanga,about 75 in the vicinity of Subic, Zambales, and approximately 100 scattered about in small towns in