“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” The stately term “beloved” is of frequent employment within Holy Writ. It establishes a beautiful bond of friendship, fellowship and comradeship between writer and readers. Jude was not lukewarm or haphazard in his work for the Lord. He was diligent as a disciple; he exercised himself to the performance of the needed task with becoming promptness. With diligence he had laid plans to write the brethren relative to the common salvation. It is common from the standpoint of being available to Jew and Gentile, bond and free, rich and poor, male and female, wise and ignorant. To Titus, Paul speaks of the common faith (Tit. 1:4). Jude may already have begun his composition dealing with the common salvation. Yet an urgent matter arose that necessitated a literary change of his plans. Hearing of the false teachers that had arisen and were seeking to lead his very readers astray Jude found it necessary to change the content of his inspired document to them. Stern necessity demanded that he write an exhortation designed particularly to encourage their earnest contention for the faith. To do this earnestly called for fervency and diligence on their part. To contend called for a fight, a struggle and a wrestling, all figurative of course, in their heroic efforts to defend the truth and to keep the doctrine of Christ unmixed from any and all shades of error. Jude is not speaking of physical force such as Moslems use or that warring nations do in carnal conflicts. He is speaking of a moral, persuasive force. This must be our stance and posture in preaching, teaching, writing and debating.

The faith is the gospel or the system of saving truth. There is the one faith (Eph. 4:5). There are not many faiths with each one an acceptable approach to God -- almost the whole religious world to the contrary notwithstanding. This faith or gospel has been delivered once and for all to the saints of God. The ASV make it crystal clear that it has been “once for all delivered.” Bengel well says, “No other faith will be given.” (Quoted by Vincent in his Word Studies). Such a decisive declaration but means that there is no place in God’s system for latter day revelations. Saints of God had a completed Bible before the end of the first century. Relative to the fullness and perfection of that revelation there is to be no future addition, subtraction, emendation, substitution, alteration or modification. This is a lesson the whole religious world needs desperately to learn and to learn well!

Robert Taylor, Jr.

Who wrote the Bible? It is here, and at some time in the past was written. Those who deny its divine origin and who charge that it is a product of man, are obligated to explain when, and by whom, and under what conditions it was written. This should be an easy task, for after the field is surveyed it is clear the Bible was written either by (1) good men or good angels; (2) bad men or bad angels; or (3) it is a revelation from God. No other conclusion is possible; there is no other way in which it could have come into existence. Which of these three possible sources accounts for the origin of the Scriptures?

(1) Was it written by good men or good angels? We may at once eliminate good men or good angels as the authors of the Scriptures. Claiming to have been written by men guided by inspiration and speaking the oracles of God, good men or good angels could not, without losing their character as good men, have palmed off a document which is palpably a tissue of falsehoods, if, indeed, it is not of heavenly origin. Certainly, it is not the composition of “good men,” for they neither could, or would, have made a book telling lies, yet claiming a “thus saith the Lord,” when they knew their own invention. We may therefore reasonably conclude the Bible is not a product of good men. Nor may its origin be accounted for on the hypothesis that it was written by “good angels.” The same objections advanced against the possibility that it was written by good men are equally weighty against the theory that it was produced by good angels. The descriptive adjective “good” cannot be used to suggest the character of either men or angels who would palm off a forgery on unsuspecting people! The Bible, therefore, was not written either by “good men,” or “good angels.”

(2) Did “bad men,” or “bad angels” write it? This too, involves an impossibility. Assume that it was thus written; one is forced to the conclusion that wicked men wrote the most exalted and perfect code of morals known to mankind. It requires that one should pass by the compositions of the Wise, the Good and the Great of all past generations, and look to a collection of forgers for what is, admittedly, the earth’s finest piece of literature! Furthermore, it forces one to conclude that wicked men wrote out their own condemnation; it assumes that men in forbidding sin, knew they were the worst of sinners; condemned lying, and knew they were themselves liars; inculcated a mode of living, and to it attached sanctions which condemned themselves before all others. It requires a degree of credulity beyond that of reasonable men to assume that it could have thus been written. Wicked men or devils could not, and would not, have written a book which commands all duty, which forbids all sin and which would therefore condemn their own souls throughout eternity.

(3) It follows, therefore, that the Bible can be accounted for only on the ground that it was written by inspiration. This is, indeed, what it claims for itself: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). The word “inspiration” means, literally, “God-breathed”; the Scriptures therefore are simply the “breath of God.” Having emanated from him, they are as high above human compositions as the heavens are higher than the earth.

Guy N. Woods

We are hearing somewhat about certain “methods of approach” in preaching the gospel, which seems to mean the soft pedal art of “getting it over” to the hearer in such easy style that he does not realize it--sort of anesthetic preaching. The apostles were not trained in that art. On Pentecost Peter’s hearers were “pricked in the heart.” A brilliant young preacher in the Jerusalem church named “Stephen” preached a sermon to the Jews so caustic that they were “cut to the heart,” and they killed him. But it is better to preach one sermon like that and die than live in the praise and plaudits of the modern sort.

But we are softly told that we should preach in love. Paul was the author of the admonition, “speaking the truth in love,” yet to one who was opposed to the truth and sought to turn people from the faith he said: “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10). He was accused of “turning the world upside down,” of being a disturber of the peace, of clashing with other religions, opposing other parties, and unsettling things generally.

Preaching the truth in love does not mean that the preacher ought to sentimentally love all people so well that he will let them die in disobedience and go to hell rather than say anything to nettle their feelings or stir their consciences. Paul charged a certain young preacher to “reprove, rebuke, exhort.” Some preaching heard and heard about these days would make one think Paul had said, “exhort, exhort, exhort!”

The man who loves the truth does not have to try to preach it in love. A young man once asked a veteran preacher how to best prepare himself to preach. The pioneer preacher, known for his plainness in preaching, said: “Get brimful and running over with the word of God, and it will come out.” We add that the methods, the gestures, and the love will take care of themselves.

Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

Have you ever gone through something so bad or dealt with something so painful that it made you ask the question “why is this happening to me?” In John chapter 9 beginning at verse 1 we read of Jesus passing by a man who was blind from his birth. This man had been dealing with this infirmity for his entire life. Maybe at some point in his life the question entered his mind: “why me?” In verse 2 the disciples wanted to know what caused this man to be born blind, so they asked Jesus: “who sinned, this man or his parents?” By asking Jesus this question the disciples were inferring one of two things: either this man sinned in the womb as an unborn baby, or he inherited the sins of his parents (nevertheless sin was the cause of this man’s suffering). The Scriptures prove both of these inferences to be false (see Deuteronomy 1:39 and Ezekiel 18:20). We could say that the disciples were being ignorant or absurd, but before we conclude that thought, let us think about how many of us today (even in the Lord’s Church) still hold fast to this erroneous idea that if someone is suffering then they must have done something wrong. The disciples were guilty of a “Job’s friend” type of theology (see Job - the entire book). They assumed that there was something sinful about the conception of the blind man or the lives of his parents, or that he must have sinned in the womb. One of the main reasons this type of theology is so popular is because oftentimes when we assign blame for our misfortunes, it offers us the false hope that if we are “good enough,” then nothing “bad” should ever happen to us. It is both wrong and extremely dangerous to conclude that every instance of suffering springs immediately from a particular act of sin. While sinning does cause one to suffer (James 1:15 and Romans 6:23), suffering does not always indicate that one has sinned (Luke 13:1-5). I mean just think about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who suffered the horrific death of the cross (1 Peter 3:18), yet He didn’t commit a single sin (1 Peter 2:22 and Hebrews 4:15).

In verse 3 of John chapter 9 Jesus answers their question: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” The word manifest in this verse is the greek word φανερόω (pho-nay-raw-oh), meaning “to reveal, to make visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, or to make known by teaching.” This implies two things: if we allow Him to, God can use our suffering to teach us and to show us who He is and what He is able to do. Has the thought ever occurred to you that God could use our suffering to bring Him glory (1 Peter 4:16)? It is ironic to me that the disciples had full sight but could not clearly see what Jesus was doing while He was here on earth (John 9:4). By healing this blind man (John 9:6-11) Jesus taught the disciples an important lesson: that even in our suffering God can be glorified! Many of us today need to learn and apply this same lesson. The healing of the blind man also teaches us that God can use our suffering to reveal Himself to us. If you have ever lost a job it is easier for you to see how much of a provider God is; if you have ever been critically ill it is easier for you to see how much of a healer God is; and if you have ever lost a loved one it is easier for you to see how much of a comforter God is. Our suffering should help us to see God more clearly.

It is also wrong to conclude that God permits every instance of suffering because He intends to miraculously relieve it. It is also a mistake to conclude that God made this man blind from birth so that Jesus could give him sight. Only God knows why people are born with infirmities and only God can turn those infirmities into something that will bring good to His people and glory to His name (Romans 8:28). The question for us is not why does God allow suffering, but what will we allow Him to do with our suffering? If God is glorified, either by us or in us, then our suffering is not in vain (1 Peter 5:10).

Challenge: The next time you are going through some suffering, instead of asking “Why me?” try asking “How can God be glorified in the midst of my suffering?”

Tobias Hatchett

If one stands for the truth, it is not uncommon, from time to time, to be called a Pharisee. I remember one time when I was working as an engineer being called that for challenging my supervisor for worshipping on Saturday (Christians worship on the first day of the week i.e., Sunday cf. Ac. 2.1; Lev. 23.15-16 with Ac. 2.42; Ac. 20.7; 1 Cor. 16.1-2). I have even been told I was promoting Pharisaic ways with my preaching. When I went back and looked at my outline it was a refutation of “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” which the Pharisees were guilty of (cf. Mt. 15.1-9). Sometimes people will pull out the Pharisee card when the truth hits too close to home and challenges their false beliefs and even emotions. Jesus certainly knew about that. An examination of the Pharisees is in order.

The Pharisees were fault finders. When Jesus forgave the paralytic man of his sins the Pharisees immediately thought that Jesus was blaspheming (Lk. 5.20-21). Clearly Jesus was not, and He proved it by healing the man (Lk. 5.22-26). When Matthew (also known as Levi) invited Jesus to a feast which included a great number of tax collectors, the Pharisees went to fault finding (Lk. 5.29-30). Once again, Jesus handled the situation masterfully (Lk. 5.31-32). Over time, the Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus in His speech but were unsuccessful (Mt. 22.15-22). It will not take long to find faults in others. Oftentimes what we find in others is the very thing that we have the most room to work on with ourselves (cf. Mt. 7.3-5).

The Pharisees were hypocrites. A careful study of Matthew 23 would do well here to see just how hypocritical the Pharisees were. Hypocrisy was the very thing Jesus warned His disciples about regarding the Pharisees (Lk. 12.1). Jesus connected their doctrine with leaven (cf. Mt. 16.6-12). Leaven is typically seen as a corrupting agent in the Scriptures, and this was assuredly the case with the Pharisees (cf. 1 Cor. 5.6-8; Gal. 5.9). It is the epitome of hypocrisy to profess to be a Christian and act like a child of the devil. The Pharisees were responsible for crucifying Jesus Christ (Jn. 11.47-53). We must look in the mirror and see if Jesus is being reflected in our lives (Rm. 8.29).

The Pharisees were prideful. The Pharisees loved to be seen of others as righteous yet inwardly they were anything but (cf. Mt. 23.5-7, 25-28). Their pride was on display in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Lk. 18.9-14). This Pharisee had an “I” problem and needed to follow the prescription of humility from the Great Physician (Lk. 18.14). Humility is so needed today as egos are running rampant yes, even in the church, which is nothing new (cf. 3 Jn. 9-10). Any time we allow our pride to get in the way of doing what God says we are more like the Pharisees than Jesus Christ. “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (Jm. 4.10 NKJV).

If we are honest with ourselves there are times when we find fault with others, act hypocritically, and are prideful. Such attitudes are Pharisaic and should be removed from our lives. To teach and preach God’s Word is never and will never be Pharisaic and we make no apologies for doing so (2 Tim. 4.1-5)!

Trent Thrasher