I'm
surprised that some brethren haven't started a
"movement" in which they affirm their
"freedom" from having to work; a "liberty"
that allows them to do nothing. After all, didn't Christ himself
say, "Work not for the food that perisheth..."?
(Jo. 6:27).
And,
how long will it be until we hear brethren questioning the need to
be baptized and basing their contention upon 1 Cor. 1:17,
"Christ sent me not to baptize..."?
Now
most students would know how to answer anyone who seriously used
these verses to teach such things. The emphasis in these texts
isn't on the phrases after the word "not." Our Lord
didn't teach "work not at all," but rather the need to
be concerned about working for another type of "food"
— "...but for the food which abideth unto eternal
life." Nor did Paul say that baptism is unnecessary. He was
emphasizing his work as an evangelist when he said, "...but
to preach the gospel."
It
is strange, therefore, to hear some brethren affirm their
so-called "freedom" from law and works by citing
"ye are not under law" (Rom. 6:14) and "not
by works" (Tit. 3:5) in order to justify their claim. Why is
it that some so easily see the misinterpretations of Jo. 6:27 and
1 Cor. 1:17 and then so badly misinterpret Paul's statements?
"Not
under law" and "not by works" are not even the
point of emphasis in these verses, much less a denial of law and
works. The statements in both texts which follow the word
"but" are what the writer is