Truth Magazine

By Robert C. Welch

Change from wrong to right is necessary. When a person insists upon the importance of never changing, his consistency is the kind Emerson spoke of as the hobgoblin of little minds. But I should be certain that I am in the wrong before I change. And I need to be sure that I am in the right and not changing to wrong. According to some people, even some of my brethren, alas even some of my preaching brethren, I have been in the wrong in some of my actions and teaching. These are the things about which I ask the question, must I change?

Must I change the wording of my marriage ceremony? I have been in the habit of having couples who are not Christians to pledge that they will live together after God’s ordinance so long as they both shall live. But some of my brethren are telling me that God’s ordinance of marriage does not apply to those who are not Christians. They are telling me that it does not matter if aliens to the kingdom of Christ divorce for any cause and marry other people. They reason that the laws of God apply only to Christians. If their argument is correct then I must leave God out of the ceremony and merely pronounce them husband and wife according to the law of the state. But who can believe it? That divorce and remarriage is violation of God’s law, just the same as murderers and liars, and all will be found in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8) unless they repent (2 Pet. 3:9). 1 do not plan on changing.

Must I change my preaching on the necessity of repentance? For fifty-five years I have been preaching that children of God who sin must repent of their sins in order to be forgiven and be in fellowship with God. But in these days I am being told by some of my brethren that so long as my general spiritual demeanor and health is good, that these few and incidental sins are taken care of by the Lord. Thus they would have me change my preaching, assuring the hearers that they do not need to be concerned about those inadvertent lies, lascivious looks, words and acts, occasional social drinks, innocent (?) dances or provocative poses and dress. They will be assured that the Lord will cover these “little” sins so long as they worship regularly. Oh, I can almost hear them shout that that is not what they mean. But that is what the hearers, who want to do these things anyhow, will get from such teaching. And all along I have been teaching that the Lord makes no distinction between sins, that his word insists that sin be repented of in order to forgiveness. No, until I am shown otherwise from the Scriptures I am not planning on changing my teaching, to please the compromisers.

Must I change my view and teaching that the Scriptures are inerrant, and that they are written for our time as well as the first century. A lot of people and some brethren are deciding that some things were written only for that time, though it is not so stated and the context does not so teach. Paul gave some teaching and spiritual advice about what to do in “the present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). So I know that this does not directly apply to these days even though the principles involved may have application. He wrote concerning the use of spiritual gifts, but elsewhere points out that such gifts would not last (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Therefore I understand that such specific instruction does not apply to me. But I am not to conclude that the Bible is an outdated set of words to be taken or left at my own whim. My faith in God and his word as the incorruptible and eternal word (1 Pet. 1:23-25) is such that pratings of skeptics will not cause me to change my teaching on the matter.

Must I change my thinking and teaching on the matter of fellowship with immoral people and teachers of false doctrine, or those whose practices are in addition to and contradictory to the teaching’of the New Testament? For fiftyfive years I have been preaching that the church (including each member) is not to have fellowship with such. But there are those who suggest that just so long as I do not do these things then I can worship with, work with, and have social concourse with those who do them. It appears that they would insist that if they had an idol in their worship, that so long as I did not worship the idol I could go right along. The Bible teaches that I am not to so endorse sin and error (2 John 9-11). No, I am not considering changing my thinking, teaching and practice in this matter. “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 65, 87
February 2, 1989

By Mike Willis

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith (Hab. 2:4).

The prophet Habakkuk prophesied some 40-50 years before the Babylonians invaded and destroyed Judah. He faced difficult circumstances. The wicked were trampling the righteous under their feet and God seemed deaf to their cries. The message of the book of Habakkuk may be summarized in the statement, “the just shall live by faith.” This was a message of comfort to a troubled remnant. It is a message of such profound importance that it is quoted in three different places in the New Testament (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). We will do well to meditate on its teachings.

The Historical Situation

The prophet was distressed by the wicked’s conduct and God’s not immediately responding to punish them. “O Lord, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! Even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!” (1:2) Because God did not act, the wicked became more brazened in ungodliness.

God responded to Habakkuk’s plea by announcing the following: “Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you” (1:5). He then proceeded to tell Habakkuk of his intention of bringing the Chaldean nation to destroy Judah because of its sin.

Rather than settling the matter for Habakkuk, this announcement created greater conflict for the prophet. Despite the wickedness which he saw in Judah, he knew that Babylon was more wicked than his mother country. He asked, how can God hold his tongue “when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he” (1:13)?

The prophet awaited God’s response. The Lord commanded him to write his vision on tablets for others to read when the prophesied destruction of Judah came. He then revealed his word, “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith” (2:4).

What Did This Mean?

The word “just” (from tsaddiq) means “just, righteous in conduct and character toward God.” The word “faith” (from emunah) means “firmness, steadfastness, fidelity; faithfulness.” The text is, therefore, saying that the man who will maintain his faithfulness will live (not only survive the calamity, but also maintain his relationship with God, not being separated from God by his sin,[dead in sin]). The prophet responded to this message of hope saying,

When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble: when he cometh up unto the people, he will invade them with his troops. Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places (3:16-19).

Here is the mountain top of faith. Homer Hailey described Habakkuk’s attitude as follows:

In this verse the prophet includes all means or resources of food and declares that though all fail, he will trust in Jehovah . . The prophet has enumerated every avenue of food peculiar to the Jews; and though all be taken away by the invader, he will continue to put his trust in Jehovah and to joy in Him. Here the peak of faith is reached; here is the faith by which men live. “Jehovah, the Lord, is my strength”; upon this he had learned to depend. The “I Am That I Am” will not fail or forsake him…. Faith is now victorious. The prophet’s questions have been answered and he himself has come through his perplexities a complete conqueror. The faith by which he came through victorious is the faith by which all will triumph (A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, pp. 295-296).

The faith which won the victory for Habakkuk is the faith which has sustained man through his troubles in every age of life. Job relied on such faith when he spoke in the midst of his troubles, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15). He did not know why he was suffering, but he had confidence in the God he worshipped and served.

The New Testament Application

We turn to look at the three places where this passage is quoted in the New Testament: Romans 1: 17; Galatians 3:11; and Hebrews 10:38. The first two may be considered together. In both Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, Paul quoted Habakkuk 2:4 to show that man is justified before God, not on the basis of perfect law keeping, but on the basis of faith. The faith of these passages can only be understood when it takes the rich depth of meaning that is in Habakkuk 2:4. The “faith” of the Protestant dogma of “faith only” (in which a man is saved the moment he accepts Jesus as his personal Savior and in which he cannot fall from grace, resulting in no emphasis on faithful living to stay saved) does not grasp the meaning of either Paul or Habakkuk.

The passage in Hebrews 10:38 has virtually the same context as does Habakkuk. The Christians of Hebrews 10 were witnessing the destruction of the Jewish state and suffering persecution from their own Jewish brethren. The writer exhorted,

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:35-39).

The faith which saves and sustains man is a faith with implicit trust in God that results in persistent obedience to his will, regardless of whether or not one can perceive God’s full intentions at the time of obedience.

Lessons From The Text

1. Don’t allow circumstances to cause us to quit persevering in faithfulness to the Lord. The prophet’s resolve was to trust in the Lord in spite of the adverse circumstances through which he must suffer. Like the prophet, we need a faithfulness to God which will maintain its obedience regardless of what faces us. We need to obey God when our brethren encourage us and when they discourage us; to obey God when multitudes are obeying the gospel and when multitudes persecute us; to obey God in poverty and in wealth, in sickness and in health.

2. God’s purpose is not clearly understood by looking at today’s circumstances. The Lord’s purpose for Israel in the Babylonian captivity was corrective discipline (1:12). Viewing the situation centuries later, a person can see that God’s chastening of Judah resulted in her survival as a nation and people; in contrast, the Babylonian nation was utterly destroyed with no surviving remnant. Jehovah’s disciplining of Judah was an act of his mercy and grace. But, those who lived through the period could not perceive this.

Living in a brief moment of time between two vast eternities, man is incapable of comprehending God’s purposes and plans. He looks at the skirmish; the Lord sees the war. He sees the tree; God sees the forest. Recognizing the limitations on my insight and knowledge should keep me from murmuring against my God. Humbly I should submit to his providential government of the world in full reliance that he knows better than me what is best for mankind.

3. God can use the wicked to accomplish his good purposes. God’s use of the wicked Babylonians shows that God can bring good out of the conduct of wicked men. The wickedness of those who crucified Jesus was used by God to accomplish his purpose of redemption.

4. The knowledge of God’s glory will cover the, earth. In Habakkuk 2:14, the prophet foretold, “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” The passage does not say, “‘For the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord,” but “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.” The actions of God would cause men to know the glory of the Lord. When the Lord rose up to destroy that wicked Chaldean nation, the knowledge of the Lord’s glory filled the earth.

The knowledge of the Lord’s glory has filled the earth in what he has done through his Son, Jesus Christ. His glorious grace, marvelous mercy, and kingly kindness have become known to man through his sending of Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

5. Man should show reverence for God. As the second chapter of the book came to a close, Habakkuk contrasted the deaf and dumb idols with Jehovah. “Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him”(2:19-20).

Our God is a living God! He is not the figment of man’s imagination, myth, or a leftover remnant from an obsolete society. He lives and reigns over his creation! That being so, man should show him reverence: “let all the earth keep silence before him.”

Our assemblies for worship should attest that we hold God in reverence. We come together, not to exalt a preacher or song leader, but to praise God. Our conduct in the assembly should be one of reverence, not characterized by acts of sacrilege.

Conclusion

May we humbly bow in reverence before our God and humbly accept the circumstances in which we live, maintaining our faithfulness to him through them all. May we draw assurance of our ultimate victory from the statement of the prophet Habakkuk: “The just shall live by faith.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 66, 86-87
February 2, 1989

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Earl Irvin West, in Volume 2 of his The Search For The Ancient Order (p. 250), introduces a chapter called “Prophets of Liberalism,” with an astute observation about what he calls “seeds of liberalism”:

Whether in the halcyon days of the restoration there could be found the seeds of the later liberalism that swept the brotherhood, may be doubted. Certainly, however, it can never be questioned that these seeds are discovered buried deep in human nature. There are always those who believe they sense something in the “spirit” of a thing contrary to what may be found in its “letter,” or, who, reacting against what they consider a radical extreme of isolationism devote their energies to popularizing a movement. The restoration period came to know these individuals following the war between the states. The church appeared to them to be too narrow and restricted, and their ambition therefore was to lift the brotherhood to a “dignified church” in a world of denominationalism, commanding at least some respect from these religious bodies.

I believe West correctly assesses the beginnings of liberalism. It is thinking that interpreting and/or applying law to the “letter” is unnecessarily restrictive, exclusive, or even harsh. So, the liberal thinker turns to something called the “spirit of the law” to relax the restrictions and harshness imposed by the “letter.” He may freely admit that the actual wording of the sacred text, strictly applied, would demand a certain thing. However, he appeals to a higher (?) court called “the spirit of the law” for a broader application than the actual wording would permit. Having dismissed the objective “letter,” in favor of the more subjective “spirit,” he can now freely adjust to the situation at hand. In reality, his so called “spirit of the law” is nothing more than his subjective view of what the law should be.

If God’s word does not mean exactly what it says; and if we do not need to follow it exactly, then we are free to believe and do as we jolly well please, which is what a true liberal does, convincing himself that he is justified because he is within the flexible boundaries of the “spirit of the law” – which boundaries he and his liberal cohorts define and redefine as the situation warrants.

It is not unusual for these, “Prophets of Liberalism” to appeal to the Lord and his word to defend their stance. They see our Lord as one more interested in the “spirit” while the Pharisees insisted on the “letter.” They are not at all bashful about comparing modern day “conservatives,” who insist on doing exactly what the text says on every subject, to the Pharisees.

To me, it is the height of absurdity to suggest, as I recently heard one preacher do, that the Pharisees were the “conservative church” of that day who really wanted to do just what the law said. They were no such thing. They demanded that others do exactly what their traditions said, while they themselves would not take their own medicine (cf. Matt. 23:4). Where is the passage where Jesus ever criticized a Pharisee for being hung up on “the letter of the law”? He criticized their hypocrisy, their inconsistency (Matt. 23) and their making void the commandment of God by their tradition (Matt. 15:1-7), but never their strict application of the law itself.

Jesus’ rejection of the Pharisees’ sabbath traditions is freely used to illustrate Jesus’ rejection of the “letter” in favor of the “spirit.” The truth is that the “letter” of the Old Testament did not forbid the kind of things that Jesus and his apostles did on the sabbath. It was the “traditions of the elders” (which were often inconsistently and hypocritically applied) that forbade such things.

Jesus expresses his attitude toward keeping the law to his disciples in the Sermon On The Mount. He not only insisted on personally fulfilling the law down to the smallest letter (jot) and the smallest marking (tittle) (Matt. 5:18), he warned his disciples that by breaking the “least of these commandments” and teaching men so, they would forfeit their entrance into the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:19).

The Bible really says nothing about obeying either the “spirit of law” or “letter of law.” It simply speaks of obedience. Some think they have found a distinction between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” in 2 Corinthians 3. However, a close look at the chapter should make it clear that two laws are being contrasted rather than two methods of interpreting and/or applying law. Notice verses 6, 7 and 8:

Who also made us sufficient ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives fife. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?

The contrast is between the two Testaments – the Old (v. 14) which was written on stones (the letter) and the New written by the Spirit on the hearts of the apostles. The Old Testament (letter) was ushered in by the letters written and engraved on tablets of stone. The New Testament (spirit) was ushered in by the outpouring of the Spirit, engraving the New Testament on the apostles’ hearts.

The “ministry of the new covenant” (v. 6) or “ministry of the Spirit” (v. 8) or “ministry of righteousness” (v. 9) is contrasted to “the ministry of death” (v. 7) or “ministry of condemnation” (v. 9) or “Old Testament” (v. 14). “The letter” that kills is the same as the “ministry of death” (vv. 6-17), while “the spirit” that gives life is the game as “ministry of the new covenant (testament).”

The rest of 2 Corinthians 3 is given to a contrast between the two covenants or testaments. The contrast is not between two methods or manners of interpreting and/or applying either testament, but a contrast between the two testaments themselves.

The Jew under the old system had to obey its requirements – those that applied both to his outward and inward conduct. The Pharisee often meticulously, to “the letter,” if you please, applied those commands that affected outward conduct without doing the same with those commands that governed his inward conduct. Jesus said that he did what he should have done with the former without leaving the latter undone. We, under the new system, must”‘observe all things” commanded (Matt. 28:18), down to the last letter (cf. Matt. 5:19), that apply to both our inward and outward behavior.

That there are times when we will “miss the mark” (a meaning of the word translated “sin”) and have to ask forgiveness, is admitted by all. We may even at times have to be patient and gentle with others who miss the mark. But that is a far cry from blurring the mark by invoking something called “the spirit of the law” that assumes that we have the liberty to loosely apply what the Book actually says.

Again, I maintain that the idea of “the spirit of the law” is not only not found the New Testament, it is nothing more than a device to set aside what the Bible really says in favor of each man subjectively deciding what the law should say.

The liberal mind may even convince himself he has as much respect for God’s law as anyone, but it is just that he emphasizes the “spirit” rather than the “letter.” But, the New Testament is given in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12, 13). We are to live by “every word of God” (Luke 4:4). If we are not to live by the very wording of the Bible, the “letter of the law,” if you please, then why not just toss the whole thing aside? Then we could decide, from scratch, for ourselves what God’s will should be, without having’to search through the “letter of the law” and then dismissing what we find in favor of the “spirit of the law” as we see it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 67-68
February 2, 1989

By Randy Reynolds

Is Jesus An Angel?

In the mind of a Christian, such a question as this is utterly ridiculous, and without any foundation whatsoever. But to some in the world of religion, it is accepted and proclaimed as though it were true. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses actually believe and teach that Jesus is the first angel that God created. As a matter of fact, they say that Jesus is really Michael, the archangel.

Is this belief or teaching something that is a new doctrine? Did it originate with the Jehovah Witness group? Apparently the answer to both of those questions would have to be no. There seems to be something more than a strong similarity between this denial of Jesus as Deity and what those who believed in Gnosticism concluded many years prior to the Watchtower Society.

As a quick reference to Gnosticism, this writer chose to consider what the College Press Bible Study Textbook Series has to say on Gnosticism in the commentary on Colossians, (pp. 123, 124). The following is a quote taken from that source concerning Gnosticism: “Between God and man there was supposedly a long series of intermediary beings, which were called aeons. Those intermediary beings become less and less spiritual, and more and more material the farther they got from Christ. Christ Jesus was supposedly one of these aeons, a high one evidently. The lowest aeon, called the demiurge was the creator of the earth and material things.”

Let’s examine this question or concern from the Bible to rind out what the truth is. And this should help each one of us to be better prepared when someone comes knocking at our door teaching a doctrine that is not according to the one that was taught by the apostles and other inspired men.

“His Goings Forth Are From Long Ago”

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel, His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Mic. 5:2). There can be little doubt, that this is a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, especially when we clearly see its fulfillment in Matthew 2:6.

The point that can be established from this writing is this. The prophet Micah says concerning Jesus, that He is “from

the days of eternity.” The Psalmist said the very same thing about Jehovah, using the identical Hebrew word in Psalms 41:13. Simply stated, whatever Jehovah is to eternity or to everlasting, the Son is equal. Thus the Son cannot be created, unless the Father is created. It is a known fact that Jesus was not created because Paul said, “. . . all things have been created by Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16). If Paul’s words are accurate (and they are) Jesus would have to be responsible for having created himself. Also see John 1:1-3.

“The Alpha And The Omega”

“Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him, Even so. Amen. I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:7-8). “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17-18).

There are at least a couple of points that can be established from these verses written by the apostle John. First, who is it that verse 7 speaks of? Can there by any doubt? Luke records for us that two angels sent from God told Jesus’ apostles that this same Jesus “will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9-11). Second, who does the description fit? Who was it that was pierced and was dead? With all due respect, you don’t have to have the aid of a red-lettered edition to know assuredly that it is Jesus. Hence, it must be accepted that Jesus says concerning himself that he is, “the first and the last, the Almighty.”

Thus the conclusion drawn by Thomas after touching the nail scarred hand and the sword pierced side of the resurrected Lord is absolutely correct. “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God'” (Jn. 20:27-28).

Additional evidence which clearly points to the surety of Jesus’ “Deity” comes from the apostle John’s attempt to worship an angel. John says that the angel told him, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book; Worship God” (cf. Rev. 22:8-9).

These two verses in the Revelation letter and the admonition not to worship an angel, but rather that worship belongs only to God, takes an added significance when considering what the Hebrew writer recorded in Hebrews 1:5-6. “For to which of the angels did He ever say, Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee? And again, I will be the Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me? And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, and let all the angels of God worship Him.” The Hebrew writer affirms for us that, God never did give such a distinction to an angel, and the angels apparently understood this, that’s why they rejected worship. Not only does God demand the angels to worship his Son, but we also see in the New Testament where Jesus rightfully accepted the worship of man (cf. Matt. 2: 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 20:9; Jn. 9:38).

Conclusion

The only conclusion that could possibly be reached by any and all honest Bible students is that the Son and the Father are both “Deity” (cf. Phil. 2:6-7). Jehovah is “self-existent,” “immutable,” “eternal,” the “Almighty,” “absolute holiness,” “righteous,” “merciful,” “loving,” “infinite in knowledge and wisdom,” etc. Whatever Divine attributes Jehovah possesses, Christ also possesses.

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Other Bible verses could be considered (John 8:58; Ex. 3:14; Isa. 8:13-14; 1 Pet. 2:8; Isa. 42:8; 48:11; Jn. 17:5; Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8; Jn. 5:18-23; 14:23; 16:15; 17:8-11; Col. 1:19).

Footnotes

(Note: No corresponding number in body of original documentation.) The 1985 Kingdom Interlinear version reveals that the Greek literally says Jesus is “the God” (ho theos).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 46, 54
January 19, 1989