Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

(It was April 1972. We had just emerged from the turbulent sixties and were wallowing in the backwash. The drug culture, sexual liberation of women, acceptance of homosexual relationships as an approved “lifestyle for consenting adults, “fascination with Eastern religions and the occult, and the abandonment of the so-called “organized church ” for newborn cults featuring experiential and emotionally motivated religious philosophies and practices were in their ascendency. I was then preaching for the Pruett and Lobit congregation in Baytown, Texas. The following article was written for and published in the church bulletin. Sixteen years have passed and many of the movements mentioned above have become well entrenched in American thought and life, not only among the young, but also among persons of all ages, classes, and races.

Their poison fruits are everywhere manifest to the point of national and international problems. I am, therefore, submitting this article for publication in the Guardian of Truth believing it to be relevant to the current scene and deserving of wider circulation. It has been necessary for me to do some editing in the reprint.)

The Problem Identified

“It is not new that all young people are searching and seeking for self identity,” Dr. Robert Lifton, Yale University specialist in psycho history, is quoted by the Associated Press as saying before a meeting of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Dr. Lifton is reported to have said this while speaking concerning “problems of Jewish youths who shift rapidly from one religious form to another without permanent commitment to any one pattern” (Baytown Sun, Wednesday, March 29, 1972). The article from which this is quoted dealt with the identification of young people with the “Jesus People” movement. Dr. Lifton further said, “After being immersed in the drug culture, a young person may turn to the Jesus movement, absorbing what he wants, and then move on to Hassidic Judaism or some other religious form. . . . It is the speed of the change that is new.”

Churches of Christ Are Affected

I am not a philosopher, nor am I a specialist in psycho-history, hence special interest also are those young people who have been reared by parents who are Christians, hence I am not interested in imposing some theory to explain the instability, restlessness, mania for change, smoldering anger, rebellious anarchy, and moral permissiveness of multitudes of young people of our time. I am deeply interested in all young people, but more particularly concerned about young Christians. Of special interest also are those young people who have been reared by parents who are Christians, hence who have, throughout their lives, attended the services of New Testament churches.

A person would have to be blind, deaf, and irrational to be unaware of the frightening and saddening fact that many such young people are caught up in the psychological phenomenon popularly known as “The Now Generation.” I am not naive. Neither should other preachers, elders, and parents be naive about the present state of “tour” young people. We do have a problem. It is real and its extent unknown, but it is probably greater than we suppose, hence imminently threatening. Let us particularize. The following questions, however, are objective, not personal; that is, they do not and did not have specific reference to the young people of the church which I served as preacher at the time these things were written.

Do we have young people who are experimenting with drugs? Yes, we do! Do we have young people who are actively engaged in pre-marital sex? Yes, we do! Do we have young people who subject their minds to a steady diet of pornographic literature and films? Yes, we do! Do we have young people who engage in sex-stimulating dancing and heavy petting? Yes, we do! Do we have young people who are addicted to alcoholic beverages? Yes, we do! Do we have young people, who, without intelligent or justified cause, superciliously sneer at “organized religion, Church of Christ doctrine, and traditional practice”? Yes, we do! Do we have young people who are experimenting with the occult, glossalalia, and “sensitivity meetings” as a substitute for structured worship? Yes, we do! Need we say more about the reality of our problem?

Is This Really A Search For Self-Identity?

These things are styled, as does Dr. Lifton, “A search for self-identity.” Is this correct? May we “plain (?) and tacitly excuse this situation on this basis? May the Lord forgive us for such arrant hypocrisy! Young people, you profess to be a generation which approaches the problem of living with absolute and brutal “honesty.” If this is so, face up to all of this for what it is. Using your own terminology, the “search for self-identity” explanation and excuse is at best a miserable, hypocritical, cowardly, “cop-out!”

A person does not institute a search for “self-identity” in the stinking cesspools of fleshly iniquity, in the subjective experiences of humanly conceived and emotionally motivated religious philosophy, or in the ignorant superstitions of the occult. An individual plunges himself into this effluence of moral and spiritual filth for one reason; namely, the gratification and exaltation of self. In its moral aspects, it is to gratify fleshly passions. In its spiritual aspects it is to satisfy the ego. It is a miserable acquiescence to the hedonistic philosophy that man is no more than a glorified beast, howbeit a sort of “King of the Beasts” with the unlimited privilege of self-indulgence and fleshly gratification.

To picture such as a noble quest for “self-identity” (the “Holy Grail” of atheistic existentialism and humanism) is to indulge ourselves with palpable duplicity and selfdeception. Instead of a quest for self-identity, it is a gross repudiation of our essential nature as spiritual beings bearing the image of the Creator, clothed in mortal bodies that are subject to the rulership of the “inner man” (2 Cor. 4:16-18). Therefore, it is animalistic and materialistic to the core and a despicable insult to human dignity.

Furthermore, to resort to the superstitions of the occult and the vagaries of the charismatic sects to verify the existence of God and the reality of his concern for the individual person, by sense perception, in a “search for selfidentity,” is consummate folly. The repudiation of a rational faith on the basis of credible evidence for the illusions and fantasies of highly charged emotional experiences, selfinterpreted by those experiencing them as a penetration of the transcendent realm, is a capitulation to materialism and unbelief. While this approach may not be as morally debasing as the hedonistic or existential approach, it is a repudiation of reality and a discovery of one’s so-called “identity” in the realm of fantasy. Ultimately speaking, one is little better than the other.

We plead with persons young and old who have been exposed to the elevating influence of New Testament Christianity, do not be “taken in ” by this so-called “search for selfidentity. ” The book of Ecclesiastes is the record of the search of a person for the answer to the meaning of life. This might be called “a search for self-identity. ” He found it not in realms material but in the realm of the spiritual. He concluded: “Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole of man” (Eccl. 12:13,14). The Prodigal Son of our Lord’s parable sought “self-identity” in the unrestricted gratification of his fleshly appetites, and “came to himself” in the penury, hunger, and shame of the Gentile’s hogpen. In his depraved extremity, he finally learned by demonstration that true self-identity could be found only in amenability to the benevolent and fulfilling restrictions of his father’s house (Lk. 15:11-24). Infinite wisdom and immeasureable Divine love have provided the perfect realm for the discovery and development of “self.” It is the realm of grace appropriated by an obedient faith based upon and emanating from the revealed will and word of God. Why seek elsewhere?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 577, 599
October 6, 1988

By Ron Halbrook

The psalmist said, “I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” God’s Word equipped him to overcome every enemy of truth and righteousness (Psa. 119:98,128). Ever since sin and error entered the world, lovers of God and truth have met the enemy in public debate and controversy. Elijah confronted the priests of Baal and defeated them as each contended for his cause (1 Kgs. 18). Ezekiel was not content to ignore the theory of inherited sin but debated against it and destroyed it (Ezek. 18).

God gave his faithful prophets all the words of truth needed to refute every false way in honorable controversy. “The Lord hath a controversy with the nations.” Therefore, he gave Jeremiah “all these words” to do battle – “to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy” (25:30-31; 1:10). Hoses proclaimed the “controversy” of God against those who professed to teach his law but who actually promoted error and participated in sin (4:1-7; 12:1-2). Micah announced “the Lord’s controversy” against his people and challenged them to answer his arguments if they could: “Arise, contend thou before the mountains” (6:1-2). John debated the meaning of his baptism with the leading religious leaders of the day (Matt. 3:1-12; Lk. 7:30).

Jesus Christ debated often on such subjects as:

1. The appearance of God’s kingdom (Matt. 12:22-30).

2. Proper authority in religion (21:23-27).

3. Duties to God and civil rulers (22:15-22).

4. Man’s immortal spirit and bodily resurrection (vv. 23-33).

5. The need to obey all of God’s word (vv. 34-40).

6. The human and divine nature of the Messiah (vv. 35-46).

Peter contended over the meaning of miracles several times (Acts 2:6-14; 11:1-4; 15:7-11). The preaching of Paul involved one debate after another. “Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him” (Acts 17:17). Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and other faithful men faced false teachers on the issue of what we must do to be saved. There was “no small dissension and disputation with them” and “much disputing” (Acts 15). All Christians are urged by God to debate and to defend the truth of the gospel, both publicly and privately as we have the opportunity and ability (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3).

Should preachers debate? Only those who have the true power of the gospel should! The cause of truth is greatly advanced by it. False teachers should avoid debate as much as possible and make as many excuses as possible for not debating. Their cause has everything to fear from open controversy where people hear both sides of the issue.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, p. 561
September 15, 1988

By David A. Padfield

Who among us has not pondered the great question, “Will I recognize my friends in heaven?” While the Bible does not directly ask this question, the human heart does. In death’s dark hour, can I comfort the relatives of those who “died in the Lord” with the hope of a future reunion in heaven? Or, when the undertaker closes the casket, is this truly the hour of final separation? It appears as though the Scriptures assume we will know and recognize one another in heaven.

The great patriarch Abraham died at the age of 175. Moses records his death with these words: “Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah. . . ” (Gen. 25:8-9a). Notice the sequence: he died, was gathered to his people and then his body was buried in the cave of Machpelah. Though the tomb was new, somehow Abraham was now with his people.

This phrase, “gathered to his people,” is found recorded at the death of many Old Testament worthies, such as:

– Ishmael (Gen. 25:17)

– Isaac (Gen. 35:29)

– Jacob (Gen. 49:33)

– Aaron (Num. 20:24)

– Moses (Deut. 33:50)

– Josiah (2 Kgs. 22:8)

The destiny of Moses is further described in Deuteronomy 31:16 when God says, “Behold, you will rest with your fathers.” This could not possibly refer to his physical body, for it was buried “in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor” (Deut. 34:6).

Not only do we read of individuals being “gathered” to their people, but after the death of Joshua we find an entire “generation had been gathered to their fathers” (Judg. 2:10).

But what does it mean to be gathered to our people? “Gathered” (Hb. acaph) is defined as “to be collected, gathered together . . . used of entering into Hades, where the Hebrews regarded their ancestors as being gathered together. This gathering to one’s fathers, or one’s people is distinguished both from death and burial” (Gesenius’ Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon, p. 626). William Wilson commented, “To be gathered to his fathers, is a peculiar phrase deserving notice; it is distinguished from death which precedes, and from burial of the body which follows: Gen. xxv. 8; xxxv. 29; 2 Kings xxii. 20. It seems to denote the being received by his own people, or among them. We read in the N.T. of being received into Abraham’s bosom, or of sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, as at a feast; so that to be gathered to his own people, is to be with them in joy or torment in Hades” (Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, p. 182).

Abraham has been “gathered to his people” until that day when his dust shall live again at the sound of the last trumpet, and all the buried dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man. When Isaac and Ishmael were “gathered to their people,” did they recognize their own father, Abraham? It would be foolish to deny they did.

It was a source of comfort when the prophetess Huldah told Josiah he would be “gathered to his fathers” (2 Kgs. 22:20). But what comfort would there be if he could not recognize his “fathers”? Was he to dwell in eternity, among his own family, as a total stranger?

When we speak of future recognition, some skeptic will usually ask, “Would you be happy if you were in heaven knowing some of your friends were not there?” Instead of helping our problem, this question increases it. If I can not recognize any of my loved ones in heaven, then I would be forever uncertain if any of them made it there! I would have to worry about all of them. Furthermore, this question assumes that I would want to overlook the manner of life these people led while alive. If they are lost, it will be because they did not desire heaven enough to quit the practice of sin. Yes, we will be saddened by the loss of some, but I always throughout this is why “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4).

Another objection sometimes raised is found in Matthew 22:30. There, Jesus tells us that in the resurrection we will neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but be like the angels of heaven. But this passage proves our point. The angels of heaven certainly know and recognize each other. We will not have a physical marriage there, for we will be married to the Lamb of God (Rev. 19:7).

The first child from the union of David and Bathsheba died after a week of suffering (2 Sam. 12:15-23). Grief stricken David, with his child yet unburied, said, “Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” What comfort could David have of being with his child again if he could not distinguish his child from mine?

After the final judgment I fully expect to “see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:28). I shall see them in the same way I shall see Jesus (1 John 3:2) and his Father (Rev. 22:4). The same Greek word (optomai) is used in all three verses.

Congregations often sing the beautiful song, “Shall We Gather At The River?” In it, we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to meet by the river of life (Rev. 22:1) when our journey here is completed.

Knowing we shall recognize one another in heaven, let us labor diligently to increase our acquaintances there. And as another song suggests,

“If we never meet again this side of heaven,

As we struggle through this world and its strife,

There’s another meeting place somewhere in heaven,

By the side of the river of life.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 580, 597
October 6, 1988

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Please explain Exodus 20:1, 34:7,- Numbers 14:18 and Deuteronomy 5:9, 10 in which is found the clause: “visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon their children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation. . . . ” Do you understand it to mean that characteristics of my great great grandparents are passed on to me, but my little boy will not have them? What is the teaching, if it is not that?

Reply: The word “visiting” in the clause found in the above verses is a participle, translated from a primary root Hebrew word paqad, which means “to visit (with friendly or hostile intent)” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p. 96). The word sometimes refers to the bestowing of God’s blessings (Gen. 50:24; Ruth 1:6; Jer. 29:10; etc.). In the verses of our inquiry, however, the word “visiting” refers to punishing. In this sense the word means: “to go to any one, in a hostile sense, to fall upon, to attack . . . chiefly used of God chastening the wicked” (Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the 0. T., Samuel P. Tregelles, p. 686). The Hebrew word paqad is so used in other passages in the Old Testament (see Ex. 32:34; Psa. 89:32; Isa. 23:17; Jer. 14:10; Lam. 4:22; Hos. 8:13; etc.).

The clause, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation” does not teach hereditary traits (characteristics), nor does it teach hereditary depravity. There was a proverb in Israel: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Jer. 31:29, 30; Ezek. 18:2-4). The Israelites had misused this proverb by applying it to the spiritual relationship, that the sins of the parents were transmitted to the children. While it is true that sometimes children suffer the consequences of sins committed by their ancestors, each individual is responsible for his own sins. This truth was stated in the law of Moses, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sins” (Deut. 24:16). This is confirmed in the verses following the proverb cited above. In the Jeremiah text, the proverb is followed by the words, “But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge” (Jer. 31:30). The misapplication of the proverb is also corrected and the truth stated following the proverb in the Ezekiel passage. “As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:3, 4). Also, we should observe that infants are not accountable for sin. Sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). Infants have not transgressed the law, thus they are not sinners. Only the accountable who commit sin are guilty of sin. So, the children of the third and fourth generations who were to be punished by Jehovah were accountable offspring.

We should observe at this point that while children (including infants) may suffer consequences of sin, although not guilty of sin, all affliction is not necessarily due to sin. When Jesus saw a man blind from his birth, his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents” (Jn. 9:1-3).

Punishment was to be inflicted upon the third and fourth generations. The background for this pronouncement is based upon the idolatrous practice of the fathers. God does not tolerate idolatry. He declared in the second command of the decalogue, “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them” (Ex. 20:4, 5). Then follows the clause: “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generations of them that hate me.” The iniquity of the fathers was idolatry. Since God does not punish children for their fathers’ sins, the meaning of the clause is that God punishes the children who perpetuate the sins of their fathers. The punishment is restricted to the children who would continue in the sins of their fathers. The fathers would live to see the punishment of those of their children who would continue to commit sin. We are not to suppose that the punishment was only to extend through the fourth generation. The punishment would continue indefinitely, just as long as the children continued to sin. Men can live long enough to see their great great grandchildren. The fathers themselves would be punished, in part at least, by witnessing the punishment upon their offspring for continuing in the sin which they themselves had committed.

Although the context of the pronouncement is the sin of idolatry, the general principle holds true of whatever iniquities would be committed. The children would be punished for whatever sins they continued to commit. This idea is expressed in the Aramaic Version. Exodus 20:5 reads: “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the transgresiing children, unto the third and fourth generation, of those who hate me, when the children follow the iniquities of their fathers.” Interestingly also is the wording of this verse in the Targum Onkelos, the official version of Babylonian Jews on the Pentateuch. It was produced in the second or third century A.D. and authoritative no later than the fourth century A.D. It harmonizes with the Hebrew text of the verse until the last part where it inserts the phrase, “as long as the sons continue to sin after their fathers.” At least, this was the understanding of the verse by many of the Jews in the early centuries

The verse following should also be considered: “and showing loving-kindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:6). Two words are contrasted: hate and love. God punishes the disobedient and he blesses the obedient. We do not believe, as some do, that this interpretation reduces the verses to a mere truism, namely that the guilty sons would be punished as well as the guilty fathers (see S. Clarke, The Bible Commentary, F. C. Cook, editor, Vol. 1, p. 332). That God only punished the descendants of fathers who continued in the wickedness of their fathers is illustrated by some Bible examples. Manasseh, for instance, was an evil king and God pronounced a sentence of destruction upon Jerusalem because of his sins (2 Kgs. 21:10-15). Please note, however, that Manasseh had also made Judah sin with his idols (vv. 11, also 22:16, 17). Judah was punished because she also sinned. But Manasseh’s grandson, Josiah, was a good king and he was not punished (2 Kgs. 22:18-20). Jehu was also a sinful king (2 Kgs. 10:29) and his great grandson (third generation) was slain because “he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, as his fathers had done” (2 Kgs. 15:9).

A prominent lesson in this study is the two-sided nature of God. He is love (1 Jn. 4:8), and has no pleasure in his punitive actions. He desires that all men be saved (Ezek. 18:23; 1 Tim. 2:3; 2 Pet. 3:9; etc.) While we recognize that he punishes evildoers, let us ever be conscious of his love, grace and mercy. As we in America enjoy the rich heritage left to us by our forefathers who blazed the trails, sacrificed, toiled, fought, bled and died, may we also be mindful of the multitude of God’s rich spiritual blessings which he has bestowed upon us through the death of his dear precious Son, Jesus. May we think of the hope of eternal life afforded us through the shedding of Christ’s blood and our obedience of his will. Truly God has poured out a multitude of blessings upon the thousands who love him and keep his commandments. To love God is to keep his commandments (1 Jn. 5:3). He punishes those who hate him (Heb. 12:29). He shows loving kindness to the thousands who love him. “Behold then the goodness and the severity of God” (Rom. 11:22).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 581-582
October 6, 1988