Truth Magazine

By James W. Hester

As a whole, the denominational world accepts the above proposition verbatim. One would be hard pressed indeed to find a preacher among them who did not believe that Israel by some mysterious happenstance shall be saved. As to how this will come about, they differ; some could not tell you if they had to, yet believe that it will happen. And while Israel is heralded as God’s chosen people; they cry out for her restoration, and need of salvation. Multitudes stand in awe of her; she is both loved and feared. All eyes are fixed upon Israel, and all the things she does are viewed with great interest. Her shortcomings are never seen for she can do no wrong. You hear it said that we had better be good to Israel if we want the blessings of God.

But what is the meaning of Romans 11:26, as it is believed by many?

All Israel Shall Be Saved

Adam Clarke: “Shall be brought in the way of salvation by acknowledging the Messiah. . . In what way Christ is to come out of Zion, and what way or by what means He is to turn away transgression from Jacob, we cannot tell.”

Albert Barnes: “That is in this manner; or when the great abundance of the Gentiles shall be converted, then all Israel shall be saved. . . Shall be recovered from their rejection; be restored to the divine favor; become followers of the Messiah, and thus be saved as all other Christians. “

The Catholic Douay [Confraternity] (in footnote): “The Jews remain the people of God’s predilection, and will eventually be converted and saved.”

The Scofield Bible (in footnote): “During the great tribulation a remnant out of Israel will turn to Jesus the Messiah, and will become His witnesses after the removal of the church. Some of these will undergo martyrdom and some will be spared to enter the millennial kingdom.”

Dake’s Annotated Bible (in footnote): “This refers to the whole nation of Israel that will be alive in Palestine when Christ comes. It is at that time that all the rest of Israel will be gathered.

Notes by B. W. Johnson: “After the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, the Jews, as a people, shall be saved. That is of the Jews then living, the greater part shall be converted. The nation shall turn to the Lord.” Now note his comment on verse 28-32, “To this day He has preserved Israel, and yet purposes the salvation of the nation.”

E.M. Zerr: “It means that the Jews as a nation will give up its stand against Christ and acknowledge Him to be the Messiah of the scriptures.”

The Bible Handbook: By Joseph Angus, but revised, by Samuel G. Green, has this to say: “By and by Israel, as a whole, shall be converted to God.”

While we respect scholarship, yet appropriate for this time are the words of I.B. Grubbs in the preface of hiss Exegetical Analysis, of which we quote in part.

There is a sort of idolatrous worship offered at the shrine of scholarship that greatly interferes with mental independence in interpretation and the ready acceptance of conclusions that may be justified by the principles applicable in the case apart from the mere approbation of learned expositors. Exegetes should be consulted as aids and not quoted as authorities whatever may be their learning or the weight of their names. . . The unreasonable reverence for great names and the idolatry offered to learning which is so prevalent must be abandoned.

To this we say, well said and amen.

Other works could have been quoted, but may these few suffice for they seem to represent the thinking of the whole. Please note that all hold to a future event for the salvation of Israel. How do they do this? By the mis-use of some Old Testament Scriptures, many of which point directly to the New Testament age which we are now in. For this study, I request the reader to please open to Romans 11:25-27 and note:

The Bible, A Good Commentary

Looking now in Romans 11:26,27 we see that (1) All Israel shall be saved; (2) Saved in the same way [or manner] in which it was written; (3) The Deliverer shall come out of Zion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob; (4) And in compliance to God’s new covenant their sins would be forgiven. Abridged as the words of Paul are, as it is often also with prophecy, it is necessary to turn to Isaiah 59:20,21 where “it is written,” that Israel shall be saved to learn the condition of her salvation, and when it will take place. We quote from the [KJV]:

And the redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

In considering both the words of Isaiah and Paul, Christ is called both a Redeemer and Deliverer; and so he is. He was to come to Zion; and so he did. “I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies; my house shall be built in it” (Zech. 1:16). Isaiah in speaking of the establishment of the Lord’s house said, “And will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:3). Now let us note unto whom he would return.

In a special way and for salvation would he come unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob. His purpose in coming was to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15; Jn. 1:11, 12; Acts 13:38,39). Peter too, did emphasize conditional salvation for Israel, “Unto you first God, having raised up His son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities” (Acts 3:26). This took place on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Lk. 24:49; Acts 2:37-41). Jesus became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him (Heb. 5:9), as the angel had announced (Mt. 1:21; Lk. 2:11). And, as God would have all men saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4); the Redeemer had come for that purpose, just like the prophet said he would (Isa. 59:20); and like Jesus said must come to pass (Lk. 24:44).

It is astonishing how God can call things that be not as though they were (Rom. 4:17), and look down the stream of time and state volumes in few words, as he did in Isaiah 59:20,21. Note again verse 20: “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.” That some would reject, while others would receive the Redeemer is distinctly implied. Other Scriptures are plain: “Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (Isa. 53:1) Paul used this very Scripture, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom. 10:16). And too, John wrote, “That He [Christ) came unto His own and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” (Jn. 1:11,12). Thus, declaring that salvation came to the Jews on condition. “And ye will not come unto me that ye might have life” (Jn. 5:40). So, the very Scripture that Paul used to prove that “all Israel shall be saved,” proves that they will be saved on condition. Now let us notice verse 21 of Isaiah 59:

As for me this is my covenant with them: God’s part in the scheme of redemption – in turning men from transgression, is revealed in the covenant, “My covenant.” Moses was very plain: “God made a covenant with us in Horeb” (Deut. 5:1-3). This covenant they were to learn, keep, and do. This was a continuing covenant. The Hebrew writer tells us that the Lord did not regard them, “Because they continued not in my covenant” (Heb. 8:9). This is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34, where the prophet says, “For my covenant they brake.” When a covenant is not continued in, or broken, the provisions of that covenant are legally void. So, in finding fault with the first covenant the Lord God promised the second [the new]. And in compliance to its laws we have remission of sins, but the apostate who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing (for by it he was sanctified) and has insulted the Spirit of grace, has only a dreadful expectation of judgment (Heb. 10:29). However, unto the “covenant keeper,” Paul said: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead the Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20,21).

Now, were not the Jews of Paul’s day under the “new and everlasting covenant”? Is not this the covenant of promise spoken of by Isaiah and Jeremiah, in which their sins would be remembered no more? Certainly it is. Then, what is the problem that men have with Romans 11:26, “So all Israel shall be saved as it is written”? Written in Isaiah 59:20,21 and Jeremiah 31:31-34, and a few other places as well. Could it be in the term “all, ” all Israel shall be saved? Note: When God said, “I will make a new covenant, and in that covenant all shall know me” (Jer. 31:31,34), didn’t he mean that all who would continue in his covenant would know, or have a relationship with him, as he says: “I will be to them a God and they shall be my people” (Heb. 8: 10)? And in the prophecy of Isaiah 2:2,3, where it is said of the government of the Lord’s house that all nations shall flow into it, do not we understand that all nations would be invited or accepted in the Lord’s house (Mt. 11:28,29; Rev. 22:17)? And when Jesus said, “And if I be lifted up, from the earth, I will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:32), surely we understand that all men here are the ones who hear and learn (Jn. 6:44,45; Rom. 10:17; Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 28:24), having exercised their own free will. Likewise, “So all Israel shall be saved” as it is written; just like the prophet said, “when they turn from their transgression” (Isa. 59:20) and receive a blessing (Acts 3:26).

Dear reader, all Israel shall be saved, just like all Mexico shall be saved. “For God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34,35). If men only knew what the gospel is for (Rom. 1:16), and understand that now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2); that the promise that God made to Abraham, was not changed by the law of Moses (Gal. 3:16-18); having sealed the promise with an oath which cannot be changed. On this we have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us; which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast (Heb. 6:13-19). The hope of men, both Jews and Gentiles is in the gospel (Rom. 1:16). To the Corinthians Paul had preached the gospel; they had received the gospel; they stood in the gospel; they were saved in the gospel, on condition of their faithfulness (1 Cor. 15:1,2). And to the Colossians Paul wrote, “If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you have heard” (Col. 1:23).

In vain do the premillennialists look for a future age in which salvation will be granted to the Jew; neither can they expect another way or means of salvation for the Jew. This is a perversion of the word. It is dangerous to make a playground of the word of God; to imagine things not there; to have Paul saying things he did not say; that is, that in some future time the “whole” of Israel shall be saved.

A hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in (Rom. 11:25).

First we will note the hardening of Israel; the use God made of it and who was responsible for this hardening.

That God answers every man according to the multitude of his idols, and sends a strong delusion unto all who believe not the truth, is a fact clearly revealed unto man (Ezek. 14:1-9; 2 Thess. 2:10-12). Likewise, it is also equally true that man hardens his own heart by a repeated rejection of his word. A good example is found in the book of Exodus. In dealing with Pharaoh the Lord sent Moses and Aaron unto him with a message, confirmed by miracles, “Let my people go” (Exod. 5:1-2). Pharaoh refused, and it was said that God hardened his heart. In Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies we learn that three Hebrew words are used respecting the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. One implies his strengthening himself against all fear of alarm, stoutly resisting the warnings and motives urged upon him, and the terrors of God’s judgment. Another seems to point to his insensibility and want of conviction, as the same word is applied to the ear when not duly impressed with sounds, or to the eye when it becomes dim. Now, it cannot be imagined that the Lord God made Pharaoh evil for he was already evil. And every act of obedience imposed upon him, and every act of disobedience by him, God used to demonstrate his power, and accomplish his purpose, by heaping honor upon himself. Many were the times that God used bad men to carry out his will. Luke tells us that “Judas by transgression fell and went to his own place” (Acts 1:25). Now, the Lord did not make him evil yet he used him to carry out the inevitable.

The sectarians, as well as a few brethren, have attempted to establish a time for “all Israel being saved,” by crediting Paul with an argument which he did not make. A look into a few translations [mis-translations] will serve in verifying our point (Rom. 11:25).

The Emphasized New Testament (J.B. Rotherham): Until the full measure of the nations shall come in.

The New Testament in Modern Speech (Richard F. Weymouth): Until the great mass of the Gentiles has come in. Now get what is said in v. 26.

The Twentieth Century New Testament.- And then all Israel shall be saved.

The New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips): Once this has happened, all Israel shall be saved.

Others say the same; all affirming that the Jews would be hardened until all the Gentiles are saved, then all the Jews will be saved. Thus establishing a “when” time for the salvation of Israel. But dear reader Paul did not say that. Their translations are very poor commentaries. And, the “well loved” Revised Standard Version being among the sorry lot says: “Until the full number of the Gentiles come in.” To this Albert Barnes agrees, “It doubtless refers to the future spread of the gospel among the nations; to the time when it may be said that the great mass, the abundance of the nations, shall be converted to God. . . . Then he says, all Israel shall be saved.”

What Does The Bible Say?

We must never forget that the Jews are accountable to the same God; must obey the same gospel; be in the same body, and have the same hope. Their rejection of God, his plan to save them, destroys not the faithfulness of God. The decrees of the covenant are still intact (Rom. 3:34). So when Paul spoke of a “hardening in part,” he refers to the same class whom the Lord encountered in Matthew 13:13-17; John 12:39-43, and he himself in Acts 28:24-28, which the prophet did foretell in Isaiah 6. The words of Jesus in the above mentioned gospels, and the writings of Paul in the Roman letter well document the prophecy of Isaiah as belonging to the times of the New Testament. The hardening of the Jews would persist until the cities be wasted without inhabitant and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate (Isa. 6:11). In Daniel 9:26,27; as well as the Lord’s account in Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21, foretell of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of Judaism. This was the “Lord’s doings.” Titus, upon seeing the dead bodies, gave a groan, and spreading his hands to heaven, called God to witness that this was not his doings. We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or machine do towards overthrowing these towers? (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 12, Section 4, and Book 6, Chapter 9, Section 1).

In speaking of the end – the abomination of desolation; when they would see the Roman army surround Jerusalem, the Christians were to flee to the mountains (Pella) for safety. But this he said would not happen until the gospel had been preached in all the world (Matt. 24:14-22; Lk. 21:20-24). From this we learn that the Gentiles would have heard the word of their salvation, and come into the fold; or in the words of Paul, “The fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:25). That dear friend, is exactly what happened. The gospel had been preached universally, and this was the only way the Gentiles could come in (Col. 1:23), and this took place before Jerusalem fell.

More on the hardening of Israel: Where there is a hardening of the heart there is rebellion against God. When Pharaoh hardened his heart against the will of God, he oppressed God’s people. Likewise, when the Jews hardened their hearts in rejection of his word, they oppressed the people of God. Paul quotes David in Psalm 69:9, “The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me” (Rom. 15:3). Now who could convince the hardened Jew that he had ever reproached God, and all the rebellion and rejection of God he blamed the Son of God for? Yet that is what happened. When men do not like the truth of God when it is taught, they will hate the one doing the teaching, and think they are right in doing so. To the hardened Jew the gospel of Christ became a stumbling block (Rom. 11:9; 1 Cor. 1:23), and he continued in that condition, oppressing the church; afflicting God’s children and at last was restrained only by the destruction of Jerusalem; the temple; the end of the Jewish system, as the prophet said (Isa. 6:11,12). Jesus views this as “The days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled (Lk. 21:22).

Until the Fulness of the Gentiles Be Come In: Our beloved brother R.L. Whiteside in his Romans Commentary reminds us that “until” does not tell what will follow the event or events mentioned in the phrase it introduces, or governs. He refers to these examples: Gen. 8:5; 46:43; 1 Sam. 15:35; Jn. 5:17; and Rom. 8:22 (please read). Also, definition three of my large dictionary says, “Up to the time of; up to the time when; up to the time of some (occurrence).” One thing we know for certain, that the Gentiles were coming in – accepting the gospel, while the Jews were rejecting it and this continued to be so before and after the destruction of the Jewish system, and nothing changed other than the termination of the persecution of the Christians by the hardened Jews.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, pp. 338-341
June 2, 1988

By Dick Blackford

Due to its significance the editor of Guardian of Truth asked me to review this debate which occurred in Neosho, Missouri, near Joplin where the first Restoration Summit meeting took place in 1984. The summit was a unity meeting between fifty preachers of the Independent Christian Church (ICC) and fifty preachers from churches of Christ (institutional brethren who oppose instrumental music). Joplin is a stronghold for the Christian Church, being the home of

Ozark Christian College and College Press, a publishing house operated by members of the ICC. The debate took place April 12-15, 1988, between Alan E. Highers of the church of Christ and Given O. Blakely of the ICC. By this writer’s estimate, attendance ranged between 700-900 nightly.

The Propositions

The first two nights brother Highers affirmed, “The use of mechanical instruments of music as an element of Christian worship is without scriptural authority and therefore sinful.” Brother Blakely denied. The last two nights brother Blakely affirmed, “The employment of instruments of music in the singing of praise does not transgress the law of God, is harmonious with the faith of Christ and is inoffensive to God; hence, it is scriptural and in harmony with the word of God.”

Brother Highers denied.

The Basic Argument

Brother Highers emphasized that the issue is whether we abide within the authority of Christ. Colossians 3:17, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Matthew 4:4f were introduced to show that one must have authority for his practices and must not exceed what is written. Thus instrumental music was not authorized in the New Testament and could not be done by faith (Rom. 10:17). Blakely responded that “in the name of Christ” stands for his person or character, into which we are baptized, and that everything we do is to be done out of that relation ship and union with Christ. He said that life, not legality, is the point of Colossians 3. Highers showed from biblical usage (Acts 4:7f) and from Thayer’s definition that to do something “in the name” of another is to do it by that person’s power or authority.

Throughout the debate Blakely argued that the new covenant did not involve authority and that our problem was that we didn’t see God alike. He said Highers’ proposition did not employ proper nomenclature, was not apostolic or godly, and neither his propositions nor questions addressed reality. He repeatedly said there is no liturgy, no such thing as “acts” of worship pre-approved by God, no such thing as corporate worship, and that Highers’ proposition was devised by man’s wisdom, not God’s. He introduced the woman of Mark 14 who anointed the Lord in honor and devotion. His point was that she did this without scriptural authority, yet she was commended. Other Scriptures were used to make the same argument.

Blakely said there was no such thing as authorized worship and charged that such was creed making for no authority was needed. He charged that the “have I done it right?” syndrome is out of harmony with the new covenant and that such a concept comes from the law of Moses, not grace; that it is the person (Christ) not the deed that makes worship acceptable. He said worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to it; there are no regulations, no meticulous routine.

Highers produced several quotes from leading writers of the ICC, including Blakely’s father (Fred), Duane Dunning, Don DeWelt (all of whom were present and supporting Blakely in the debate), as well as Blakely himself, which showed unmistakably that they had taught that worship was prescribed, must be authorized, was corporate, and that there were “acts of worship,” thus regulated. He further showed that what these men taught was the very thing Blakely called “unscriptural and ungodly.” The footnote on Matthew 2:2 (ASV) was cited which indicated that the meaning of the word worship denotes “an act of reverence.” The case of the Pharisees (Matt. 15:9) was used to show that acceptable worship is inseparable from teaching and obeying the truth. Worship “in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24) showed that worship is regulated and that if Blakely’s position was correct then we may burn incense in worship, observe the Lord’s Supper on Monday, use tea and meat in communion, employ rosary beads in prayer, do a holy dance before the Lord, and handle snakes as a token of worship. Highers asked, “Does doctrine affect worship?” Blakely appeared to argue from a subjective viewpoint by saying that we don’t burn incense and offer animals because they “don’t blend with the reality that has been proclaimed by the gospel; they don’t comport with where we are in Christ Jesus.” But he did not say such practices were unauthorized or that it would be wrong to do so.

Highers pointed out that Blakely’s use of the woman’s unauthorized anointing of Jesus (Matt. 14) was an admission that instrumental music was an unauthorized act and conceded the arugments of all Christian Church preachers in the past who affirmed that the instrument was authorized. He showed it was contradictory to cite authority from the Scripture to show that no authority was necessary. Highers said the real significance of Blakely’s argument was that it implied that the woman could have acceptably observed the Sabbath on Monday or monthly, served as a priest, or offered a pig as a sacrifice. He asked, “Does her spontaneous act imply that she could violate the expressed will of God?

On the last two nights Blakely argued that instruments were used in the past (O.T.) with God’s approval and will be used in the future (heaven, Rev. 14) with God’s approval. Highers showed that this proved too much for it would allow incense and other parts of the law to be brought in, plus, if what is done in heaven is authority for what we are to do on earth then it would outlaw marriage (Matt. 22:30). He stressed that Blakely’s proposition used the present tense (“is . . . does. . . “) not the past or the future and that Blakely needed to prove it was acceptable now. Highers pinpointed the basic difference between them by showing that his position was that all actions that were without scriptural authority were sinful, whereas, Blakely’s position was that all actions without scriptural authority were acceptable. He noted that churches of Christ and Christian churches were united in the past but that the introduction of the instrument caused division. Further, that churches of Christ still occupy the same position of the pioneers who rejected the instrument when they said, “Let us speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.”

A chart was introduced by Highers which showed that Christian Church debaters in the past had argued that instrumental music was authorized. He charged that Blakely had broken new ground and had established a new hermeneutic which in effect admits that, (1) we do not have authority, (2) we do not need authority, (3) we will not give authority.

Observations and Implications

1. Borther Highers pointed out that brother Blakely has helped some of our brethren who thought the only difference between churches of Christ and the ICC was the instrument of music.

2. I could not help but recall that some denominations arue that there is no prescribed plan of salvation (no pattern), just a nebulous “acceptance” of Jesus as Savior. The ICC was arguing that there is not pattern for the worship of the church. And some of our institutional brethren argue that there is no pattern for the work of the church. Denominations add sprinkling and pouring to the plan of salvation; Christian churches add an instrument to the worship; institutional brethren add an institution to the work. Of course, God’s pattern for all of these is not found in one verse alone, but is found by taking all the New Testament says about each subject.

The Blakely-Highers Debate is a significant one. It will be available on audio and video tape after May 15, and in book form after August 15. This writer recommends that readers obtain a copy for a more detailed study than can be given in this review.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 353, 375
June 16, 1988

By Johnny Stringer

No one lives a perfectly righteous life; all have been guilty of unrighteousness. How, then, may one be righteous in God’s sight? One theory is that we can be regarded as righteous by being credited with the perfect life of Christ. This theory says that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to the Christian. This was Calvin’s way of sustaining the doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” One may commit some sins after being saved, but those sins will not cause him to be lost, for when God looks at his child, he does not see that person’s sinful life; rather, he sees the perfectly righteous life of Christ.

Some advocates of the “Grace-Unity” movement among our brethren espouse this theory. They believe it applies not to those in high-handed rebellion against God, but to those in error who are sincere in their efforts to do God’s will and to those who commit sins of weakness. Hence, according to these brethren, people can persist in sins regarding the work, worship, and organization of the church, yet be righteous in God’s sight. God imputes the Lord’s righteousness to them; that is, God pretends that his children lived the life Christ lived.

This theory is contrary to biblical teaching about how we are made righteous. God has provided that we can be righteous not by getting credit for the life Christ lived, but by being forgiven of our unrighteousness on the basis of our Lord’s blood (Matt. 26:28). When we are forgiven of our unrighteousness, it is as though we were never guilty of unrighteousness; God regards us as righteous.

In order to be forgiven, we must have the faith to obey certain conditions (Gal. 5:6; Heb. 5:9). Whether one has never become a Christian or is guilty of sins after becoming a Christian, the conditions for forgiveness include repentance (Acts 2:38; 8:22). Hence, one cannot persist impenitently in sin and receive God’s forgiveness.

Paul quoted David’s joyful words expressing the bless dness of being righteous although our works are not perfectly righteous (Rom. 4:6-8). The quotation plainly attributes our righteousness to the fact that our “iniquities are forgiven” (v. 7). The statement of verse 8, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin,” must be understood in the light of verse 7. Hence, the one to whom the Lord does not impute sin is the one whose sins are forgiven.

Because forgiveness is conditioned on obedient faith, Paul stresses that faith is counted to men for righteousness (Rom. 4:3,5). The word rendered “counted” could be translated “imputed.” It was a term used in business to mean “to put to one’s account.” Hence, verse 3 is saying that God put faith on Abraham’s account. Abraham had faith, and God credited his faith to him.

He credited it to him “for righteousness.” The word rendered “for” is eis, the same word used in Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38. It points to a result. Hence, the point is that God’s crediting Abraham with faith resulted in Abraham being righteous. Verse 5 says that if a believer has not performed the work of perfectly keeping God’s law, his faith is credited to him, and as a result, he is righteous. We must understand these statements in light of the fact that forgiveness is conditioned on obedient faith. God took account of Abraham’s faith, and Abraham was forgiven; as a result, he was righteous. When we have the faith to meet God’s conditions for forgiveness, God takes account of our faith and forgives us our sins; as a result, we are righteous, having been forgiven of our unrighteousness.

According to the quotation from David, when this happens, righteousness is imputed to us although our works are not perfectly righteous (v. 6). God puts righteousness on our account, or credits us with righteousness, because, having been forgiven of all unrighteousness, we really are righteous. The word impute does not mean to give one credit for something he does not really have. God imputed faith to Abraham (v. 3) because Abraham really had faith. God imputes sin to those who are unforgiven (v. 8) because they really have sin. The same is true of righteousness. He imputes it to us because we are really righteous through forgiveness. The statement that God imputes righteousness to us, therefore, does not mean that he transfers righteousness from the Lord’s account to ours; it means that he puts on our accounts what which we actually possess: righteousness.

It may be difficult to think of us as actually being righteous even though we have been guilty of unrighteous conduct. Just think of dirty clothes which someone washes until they are clean. Though they were filthy, they are now clean. Similarly, though we were spiritually filthy, if we are washed in the blood of Christ, we are clean; the dirt (sin, unrighteousness) is gone; hence, the Lord credits us with being righteous because we really are righteous.

Inasmuch as we are forgiven of our sins through the blood of Christ, God does not have to pretend that we lived the life Christ lived in order to regard us as righteous. Suppose I get my clothes filthy while Mr. Spotless keeps his clothes perfectly clean. Then suppose someone uses some good detergent, spot remover, and water to cleanse my clothes so that every spot and stain is gone. In order for you to consider my clothes to be clean, do you have to pretend I am wearing Mr. Spotless’ clothes and give me credit for his clean clothes? No! And when I have been cleansed spiritually by the blood of Christ, God does not have to give me credit for Jesus’ clean life in order to consider me clean.

The theory that the only way God can regard us as clean is to give us credit for Jesus’ clean life depreciates the precious blood of Christ, for it denies that the Lord’s blood has the power to make us clean and pure.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 357
June 16, 1988

By R.J. Evans

One of the most common vices practiced by just about every class and rank of people in our society today is the use of profanity. It is tremendously difficult for a Christian to feel comfortable in a situation where God’s name is used profanely. The Word of God teaches that God’s name is holy. “Holy and reverend is His name” (Psa. 111:9). I fear that even many today who are God’s people are guilty of profaning the name of the God of Heaven. They may be doing so without ever realizing it, as we shall observe later on in this article. To profane the name of God is a serious matter. The term “profane” is defined by Webster as follows: “to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt: desecrate, violate; 2: to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use.” Throughout the ages God has always demanded that his name be respected and honored. During the Mosaical period the Israelites were told: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,- for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain ” (Ex. 20.-7). “And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shall thou profane the name of thy God, I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:12). A few examples taken from the New Testament concerning this matter are as follows: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shaft be condemned” (Matt. 12.36-37). “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 3:10).

Have you ever wondered why people curse, swear and talk in a filthy manner? Several years ago in an article entitled, “Why Do You Talk Like That?”, brother William E. Wallace offered five reasons why. They were listed as follows:

1. Those who find it difficult to express themselves will seek to flavor their language with profane and ugly expressions.

2. Some seek to gain attention, at least temporarily, so they curse, swear and utter obscenities.

3. Cursing, swearing and vulgarity are merely bad habits to some, well set in their lives by years of usage. Often they hardly realize what they are saying.

4. Many are depraved in nature, filthy in mind, evil in attitude and express it all in wicked language.

5. Some feel they must use bad language to be accepted and to “fit in” with their companions and friends.

It should cause deep concern when we hear Christians using the Lord’s name in a vain manner in their normal conversations. I have in mind such expressions as “My Lord!,” “Lordy!” “Oh Lord!,” “My God!,” “Jesus Christ!,” etc. And while some would not dare use those expressions, they will substitute euphemisms (mild forms of profanity – substitution of expressions for ones that may offend or suggest something unpleasant) such as Gee, Gosh, Golly, Good Gracious, Goodness Sake, Darn, Dickens, etc. It is interesting to note the words from which the aforementioned terms are derived (according to Funk & Wagnalls and Webster):

Gee – euphemism for Jesus; a minced oath.

Gosh – a minced oath; alternate of God.

Golly – euphemistic substitute for God.

Confound – to damn; used as a mild oath.

Heck – euphemistic of hell.

Darn – euphemism for damn.

Dickens – the devil; a euphemistic expletive.

Goodness – God; goodness knows.

Doggone – a mild oath; to damn; a euphemism; alternate of God damn, or dog on it.

Good Gracious and Goodness Sake – such expressions originally referred to the goodness of God.

It may appear that I am trying to get too technical or “picky” by mentioning the above expressions. However, as Christians we have the responsibility of keeping our speech pure and above reproach. We must guard against using the Lord’s name in a derogatory manner, or possibly shading it with expressions or connotations which tend to lower it from the level of reverence it so rightfully deserves. We are reminded once again, “Holy and reverend is His name.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 359
June 16, 1988