NIGEL PATTERSON

Some people have argued that Christadelphians make too much of doctrine at the expense of other issues which are essential to our life in the Lord Jesus. I understand what they are saying, but I am not convinced; you cannot be too careful about the foundations—ask any builder.

After all, doctrine is where it all started; whether through Sunday School, or Sunday evening Bible talks, or a campaign, or a special effort, we all have heard the Word preached. Biblical teaching was made known and we accepted those statements as truth. We have become convinced that there is a God, and that He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible, and that what He says in it is final; so we had better read it with care. Our Lord once said, “Thy word is truth” (Jno. 17:17), and our attitude to doctrine is to be measured by our attitude to this book.

When people, therefore, would preach a message that runs counter to the Scriptures, we will withstand it—not merely because we do not agree; not merely because it is not our message; but because it does not match what God has clearly made known in His Word. In some ways we would do better to talk less about our doctrine and more about God’s truth.

After his resurrection our Lord took his disciples back to their Scriptures to show how they foretold his suffering, and Luke 24:45 records: “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures”. They were his sole source of reference. The point is further emphasised when he commissioned the disciples for their work of witnessing to the nations (Mt. 28:19,20): “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . .”.

They faithfully did as they had been told, for Acts 2:42 records of those three thousand who were baptized at Pentecost that “they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine”. The Apostle Paul was no different. After preaching in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia he urged his audience “to continue in the grace of God” until they met on the following Sabbath (Acts 13:43). His listeners were Jews and proselytes, and Paul’s advice would appear to suggest that these people already knew of the “grace of God” on the basis of Old Testament teaching, and were now being urged to continue in that basic attitude by believing in Jesus (cp. vv. 23,33) as the one through whom God’s promises would be fulfilled according to the apostolic teaching.

Nothing changes once the ecclesias are established, for we notice that when Paul and Barnabas returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch they urged the new disciples “to continue in the faith” (Acts 14:22).

Elsewhere in the New Testament we see similar expressions, indicating a recognisable body of teaching, a cluster of central beliefs which had been taught by the apostles, both verbally and in subsequent letters; for example, “the traditions” (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6), “the deposit” (1 Tim. 6:20, RV mg.), “the teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13,16, RV), “the truth” (2 Thess. 2:12).

Not long after Paul’s visit to the cities of Galatia it was necessary for him to write a letter to the ecclesias there to counter the message of the Judaisers, who insisted that to be sure of salvation some adherence to the Law of Moses and circumcision was necessary. Some felt that this was harmless enough, but Paul would have none of it. To him this was a ‘Jesus-plus’ gospel. They had failed to appreciate that the moment you add anything—no matter how small—to the teaching of Jesus, you immediately take something away from him and the effectiveness of his sacrifice. Do not tell Paul that doctrine does not matter; there is one message of truth. He makes his point very forcibly in Galatians 1:7-9,11,12: “. . . there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed . . . 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”.

The battle against false doctrine was never-ending, so we read of Paul’s encouragement to Timothy in later years in his first letter: “I besought thee . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine . . .”(1:3); “If thou put the brethren in mind of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast followed . . .”(4:6,RV); “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (4:16); “If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is puffed up, knowing nothing . . . “ (6:3,4, RV).

And later in his last writing known to us, 2 Timothy: “thou didst follow my teaching . . .” (3:10, RV); “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine . . . and they shall turn away their ears from the truth . . .” (4:3,4).

So do not say that doctrine does not count; it did then and it does now. Paul actually details one particular instance (2 Tim. 2:18) concerning two brethren, Hymenaeus and Philetus, “who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some”. Questions about the resurrection, general or specific, are not uncommon today. Does it really matter whether the resurrection of Jesus was literal or not? Is it not enough to believe that men and women can find new life in Jesus Christ? How then shall we understand Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 1:10, where he speaks of Jesus Christ having “abolished death, and . . . brought life and immortality to light through the gospel”? How else shall Abraham, Isaac and Jacob inherit the land? How else shall we understand why every major speech in the Acts has the resurrection of Jesus Christ at its centre? How else shall we understand Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15 if Jesus did not physically rise from the dead? Every aspect of God’s plan of salvation comes crashing to the ground if it is not true! It does matter what we believe!

Doctrine is a means to an end; there is little point in holding onto the distinctiveness of our doctrines for distinctiveness’ sake. A consideration of Hebrews 5:12-14 and 1 Peter 2:2-5 helps us to see doctrine as the milk of the Word; the meat is the Word made flesh, it is the man from Nazareth, who claimed to be the bread of life (and whose own meat was to do the will of the Father). There is value in reviewing the statements of our faith and refreshing our minds of the texts that demonstrate their validity, but the question must then be posed, So what? What difference does it make to my life that each of those statements is true? What is the point of having a Statement of Faith if it does not generate a Christlike life? What is the point of distinctive doctrines if we do not become distinctive people? In Jesus’s day, many made much of their physical descent from Abraham; it was all that mattered; they claimed themselves to be his children. Jesus declared their position to be null and void, since, whilst no one would deny the truth of their physical descent from Abraham, in every other particular they failed to measure up to the spiritual nature of this man of faith. So for ourselves, if the Statement of Faith, and what it stands for, does not bring us nearer to our Master, it is valueless.

All Biblical truth centres on a man. In the final analysis our statement of faith is a person—the man from Nazareth, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ—and any hope that we have on the basis of apostolic teaching finally rests on him.

Paul once wrote to Timothy: “continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:14-17). See the progression: he begins with doctrine and ends with good work. The pattern is clear for Timothy and ourselves to follow.

Do not tell me doctrine does not count; it is my salvation you are talking about!

1. J. C. Ryle.

The story of Ruth has all the ingredients that many modern authors strive to put into their stories to make them best sellers. Looked at in human terms it is a classic romance. Our heroine is widowed at an early age, refuses to abandon her mother-in-law (who has also been widowed), struggles against poverty, and agrees to emigrate. In her new country she is found working at manual tasks to support herself and her mother-in-law, ultimately finds a rich husband, marries and has a child, and her great-grandson becomes a famous king.

Tragedy, hardship, a happy ending. What more could we want? But the story of Ruth is not in our Bible just because it is a heart-warming love story that makes us feel good when we have reached the end. God has caused it to be recorded because it contains important principles to help those who would be disciples of Christ. These principles are illustrated through events in everyday life which we can associate with and identify with.

We know from the record that the story starts during the time of Judges (1:1), not a time of notable faithfulness on the part of the nation of Israel. Many of the difficulties they experienced, such as famine and oppression, came as judgements from God because they worshipped false gods, got caught up in the materialism of the age and lost their sense of separateness.

Elimelech is a married man with two sons, fairly well off, who leaves his inheritance in the land of Israel and goes to Moab to escape the famine. It appears they only go on a temporary basis (1:1; sojourners = guests, not native dwellers), but they stay longer than originally expected (1:2; continued = become accomplished, committed) and Elimelech dies before he can return. His two sons marry women from Moab and they die prematurely. So Naomi, the wife of Elimelech, is left in a foreign country with her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah.

She decides to return home. The famine has ended and she sees this as a blessing from God (1:6). Her trials in life are also seen as God’s hand at work in her life (1:13,20,21). She is a woman who believes in God and in His direct concern with His people. She is a woman of faith. Naomi must have communicated her belief and her trust in God to Ruth. Ruth is able to see the distinction between what life in Moab offers and what life with Naomi and the God of Israel offers (1:16,17). Ruth makes a commitment, a total commitment, and seeks to join her life in every aspect with that of Naomi. She wants to belong, to share, to be involved. The Bible describes her attitude as “stedfastly minded” (1:18). Steadfastly means courageous or strong. She made her choice and nothing was going to put her off.

Having left rich, Naomi returns poor and with only Ruth to support her. She may still have had the land of her dead husband, but it is likely that it had been sold, since Boaz purchases it back (4:3). Because Naomi has no husband or sons it is Ruth that goes to glean in the fields of others to get enough food to support them both. The principle of gleaning was well established in the law (Lev. 19:9,10; Deut. 24:19), and the fact that Ruth was able to do this shows that the practice was being carried out and that Boaz was a faithful man.

Ruth was willing to do this work (2:2), labouring long and hard to carry out the task to the best of her ability (2:7,17), working a full day. She had come to put her trust in God: “the LORD God of Israel, under Whose wings thou art come to trust” (2:12) is how Boaz speaks of her decision and actions. Yet this did not give her an easy life or instant answers. Although Boaz instructed his workers to be generous in what they left, Ruth still had to work in the fields through the long, hot days for some considerable time—through both the barley and wheat harvests (2:23). It appears that Ruth was still a fairly young woman and was attractive. Boaz instructs his young men not to molest her or to cause her to blush (2:15—”reproach her not” means cause her not to blush; 2:9). She could have sought young men, rich or poor, says Boaz (3:10), but instead she was led by her love for Naomi and her commitment to do that which was right according to the law. Being a Moabitess she could have said that the law was no concern of hers, but having started her new life she was wholehearted.

It was undoubtedly the hand of God, through the angels, that brought her to the fields of Boaz (2:3). Ruth was diligent in obeying the law which God had set before His people, as she was instructed by Naomi. Although her husband was dead, she sought, by God’s ways, to continue the family line—to raise up the name once more, to ensure that the name was not cut off (4:10). God blessed her faithfulness; she became part of the ‘royal line’ leading to Christ. The lesson is there for us all: if we do not want to be cut off, but want to be part of Christ’s family, we must make the decision to separate ourselves from the world and to be faithful in God’s ways. It is not easy, it requires a lot of self-sacrifice, but, as Ruth shows us, God rewards the faithful now and in eternity.

Finally, her humility and modesty are characteristics which we would do well in this age to reflect on in our own lives (2:10; 3:11,14).

TREVOR MAHER