Truth Magazine

By Homer Hailey

(Ed. Note: The following article is taken from a former tract by Bro. Hailey.)

Many questions, important and perplexing, arise to confront us each day; but there is no question of such vital importance as that of Pilate when he asked, “What shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?” Now it is altogether possible that you have been putting off making a definite answer to that question, but as you put it off into the future somewhere, you are simply saying, “Away with him, away with him.” The church of Christ is anxious to help you in every possible way to answer that question now–not tomorrow, but today: for upon your answer to the question depends your eternal destiny. In order to answer any question intelligently, one must take time to reflect upon it, consider it, and weigh carefully all points involved.

Let us look for a few moments at this question of Pilate, “What shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?” The question was asked by the governor as Jesus stood before him, the day the Saviour was put to death. Looking at the events which led up to the question: We find Jesus had eaten the last passover with His disciples, after which He instituted His own memorial feast, the Lord’s supper. From thence He went to the garden of Gethsemane, where, in prayer, He poured out His soul unto the Father, at which time He was strengthened by an angel for the ordeal before Him. From there He was: taken to Annas and Caiphas by the mob who came for him; and from thence to the Sanhedrin, where He was condemned to die.

From these groups Jesus was taken to Pilate who, finding no fault in Him, sent Him to Herod. Before Herod He spoke not, nor answered him a word. Herod mocked Him and sent Him back to Pilate. Before Pilate for the second time, He was further humiliated by being mocked, crowned with a crown of thorns, scourged and delivered up to be put to death. It was while He was before him that Pilate asked the question of our study, “What shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?” Pilate had offered to release unto them whom they would; they had asked for Barabas, a murderer and insurrectionist, to be granted them. This brought forth Pilate’s question; since they had asked for Barabas, now what should he do with Jesus?

 

What the Question Involves

 

Consider first, the inclusiveness of the question:

1. It involves one’s disposition of God, for the two, God and Christ, are inseparable. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30); and He taught the disciples, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also” (John 14: 9,10). And He said, as He sent out the apostles, “He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (John 14:20). But more, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16). Therefore, when one rejects Jesus Christ, he rejects God who sent Him.

2. The question includes one’s disposal of the word and message of Jesus, for neither can these two be separated. There are some today who would accept Jesus but reject His word by refusing obedience to it. But the Holy Spirit declares, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14); and Jesus said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

3. The question would also include one’s attitude toward the church, for it is His body; Christ and the church are one, taught Paul in Eph. 5:30-33. In the verses just prior to these the apostle discussed the relation of the wife to her husband, using the relation of the church to Christ by way of illustration He then said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church.” Hence, in accepting Jesus as Christ one thereby becomes a child of God. He pledges himself to abide BY and IN the word of Christ, and becomes “one” with Christ as a member of His body, the church. One’s disposal of God, the word of God, and the church of God are all determined by his answer to the question, “What shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ? “

 

Who Is Involved in Question

 

Next, we ask, just who were involved by the question asked by Pilate, and what were the issues raised?

1. The Roman government was involved, for Pilate acted as the representative of that institution. The question involving the government would be one of justice, on the one hand or the whims of the people on the other.

The judgement was “innocent,” but the verdict was “Crucify him!”

2. The Jewish religionists were likewise involved by the question: the issue with them being “traditions” on the one hand, or “truth” on the other. Their own desires and interpretations of what God should do for them, or God’s provision for them in His Son Jesus Christ according to His wisdom, was the issue.

3. As respected the mob, it was a matter of accepting their benefactor and teacher who had so tenderly ministered unto them and taught them, or asking for and upholding a robber and a murderer.

4. But with Pilate himself, as an individual, what was involved? With him the issue was the conviction of his conscience on the one hand, which was the innocence of Jesus, or the favor and popularity of the masses on the other. These were the interested parties in Pilate’s day, and the issues raised with each by the question to parallel groups today:

1. The government of this day, as the governments in Pilate’s day, must decide on the question, “What shall they do with Jesus, who is called Christ?” The issue squarely put is, Shall the principles of honesty, integrity, justice, fairness to all as taught by Jesus Christ be respected by governments7 Shall governments exist for the protection of the right and punishment of the wicked, or shall corruption, greed, lust, deceit, bribery, and kindred wickednesses dominate? Shall justice reign or shall violence and weakness, in the words of our text, What shall governments of today do with Jesus?

2. The question confronts and involves the religionists today as it did in Pilate’s time. Today the religionist issue is definitely fixed: it is either Christ or infidelity, the New Testament or modernism, righteousness of God as revealed in Christ or the traditions, errors and wisdom of men. Shall every man do that which is right in his own eyes, or shall Jesus Christ and the New Testament be the standard of authority? These are the issues involved in the question as it confronts the religionists today; what shall religion do with Jesus who is called Christ? This calls for a definite and uncompromising answer. Shall Jesus Christ be crucified today on a cross of tradition and prejudice or on a cross of modern religious philosophy; or shall men accept and follow Him as the Christ who possesses all authority in heaven and on earth?

3. As then, so today, the masses are involved by the question. With them it is Christ or Satan, the Sermon on the Mount or the gratification of the flesh as the chief aim in life. In social circles, in politics, in disputes between capital and labor the question of peace and righteousness must be decided by an answer to the question, “What shall we do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

4. Finally, the individual is no less involved than was Pilate, it is not someone else, but it is you and me, “What shall I do with Jesus?” The issue is salvation or damnation, individual and personal obedience and service or rejection of Him and the principles He taught. No man can straddle the fence; each is on one side or the other. Jesus said, ‘He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth” (Matt. 12:30). Here we have the issue as it presents itself today, clear and definite.

 

What Is Safe Verdict

 

Let us now look at the verdict rendered by all, and the consequences, which came to all. The clamor of the mob was, “Crucify him, crucify him.” Pilate’s disposal of Him was to wash his hands of the affair, which of course he couldn’t do after which he scourged Him and delivered Him to be put to death. The verdict of the Jewish religionists was, “His blood be upon-us, and upon our children.” While the verdict of Judas was, “I have betrayed innocent blood,” and that of the centurion, “Surely this was the Son of God.”

The voice of the mob, urged on by the religious leaders of the day, prevailed. So scourged, mocked, and crowned with thorns, Jesus was led away as a lamb to the slaughter to die for the sins of the world. As for the consequences, disaster came to all:

1. The Roman government fell, a victim of its own lusts and corruption. When it reversed the verdict from “innocent” to “crucify him,” simply to gratify the whims of the governed, it sealed its doom. No nation governed by such policies can permanently endure. Can we look for anything different among governments today? When hard and fast principles of right are rejected for the whims of the governed, can a nation abide? To me this appears to be worth thinking about, and that seriously, in our own day.

2. Within a few years the Jewish religion passed into a memory. With the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A. D., the Jews were scattered, the Temple destroyed, and the individual identity of the Jews as to tribes vanished. The nation fell, a victim of its own prejudices.

3. What happened to the mob? They were slain in their beloved city by the same Roman government whose favor they courted, until the streets literally ran with the blood of the slain. They perished as a nation never to be revived. God’s law of punishment for murder was death: it had always been so. The Jews committed the national crime of murder when they crucified Jesus, and invited the penalty of death upon themselves when they said, “His blood be on us and on our children,” They died as a nation for a national crime.

4. And what of Pilate? According to history he was banished to Gaul where he met death by his own sword. The one who rejects Jesus Christ, who cries, “away with him,” “crucify him,” or washes his hands of Him, must pay, the price and the penalty of spiritual decay, till finally in hell he is shut off forever from the presence of God and all that is right and good.

Friend, the question is not dead, but it is the question of the hour, the question of the age. Pilate is dead, but “pilatism,” the disposition to wash one’s hands and say “free,” continues. The religionists of that day are dead, but prejudice and traditions continue. The mob is dead, but ignorance abides with us. The question is yours; what shall your answer be? Your eternal destiny, and our national and universal future depends upon your answer, and of your neighbor and mine to the question, “What shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?” We beseech you to think seriously, and instead of your answer being with that of the enemies of Christ join Paul in asking, “Lord, what wilt thou have me do,” or the man who cried, “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.”

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 16-18
January 1962

By Melvin Curry

In the last article the issue of Holy Ghost baptism and the continuation of miracles was discussed. The last two nights of the debate involved the question of the number of persons in the Godhead.

 

Persons in the Godhead

 

The Third Night — Mr. Childress had the first affirmative speech dealing with the Godhead question. He affirmed the following proposition:

The Scriptures teach that there is only one person in the Godhead and baptism is to be administered only in the name of Jesus Christ.

His speech was completely disorganized and he made no attempt to define the terms of the proposition. He quoted numerous passages that teach the oneness of deity, especially from the Old Testament, and made an emotional effort to exalt the name of Jesus in the baptismal formula.

Brother Belue’s first negative speech was interrupted several times because of a faulty public address system. Even though he lost much of his effectiveness as a result of this fact, he did a masterful job in tying Mr. Childress in knots.

The United Pentecostal Church is represented by its debaters as teaching that the word person means “a human bodily form.” It holds true, therefore, that God is not a person, He only has a person. God’s person is Jesus Christ.

Through a set of calculated questions, brother Belue was able to commit Mr. Childress to this same position. Then he committed himself to the task of debating the proposition on the basis of Mr. Childress’ own definition of the term “person.” In fact, by doing this in his second negative speech, he so bewildered Mr. Childress that he was completely at a loss to defend the proposition that he signed to affirm.

His proposition affirmed that “there is only one person in the Godhead.” But his own definition of terms denied that God is a person at all. He at one time had a person, but not now. Jesus Christ was the “human bodily form” of God manifested in the flesh. So if the God of heaven is a human bodily form, He cannot be a “Spirit,” because “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39). He saw his dilemma! Either he must affirm that there is more than one person in the Godhead, in order to keep God from being a flesh-and-bone-Spirit, or he must deny that there is a person in the Godhead. But to do this would be to forfeit his own proposition. Even Mr. Welch, who moderated for him the last two nights, was not able to get him out of this tight spot throughout the rest of the debate.

The Fourth Night — Since brother Belue had accepted the definition of “person” proposed by Mr. Childress the night before, his opponent was obligated to accept his definition the last night, or else contend with the flesh-and-bone-Spirit he had created by his own specious reasoning. Whereupon, brother Belue defined the word as “an intelligent, rational being.” Then he proceeded to prove that there are three “intelligent, rational beings” in the Godhead.

He clearly defined all the terms of the following proposition carefully:

The Scriptures teach that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, and baptism according to the wording of Matt. 28:19 is scriptural.

Having committed Mr. Childress on the meaning of the term “person,” the first half of the proposition was much easier to establish. And it stands to reason that all he had to do in order to prove the last half of the proposition was simply to quote Matthew 28:19. If baptism according to the wording of Matthew 28: 19 isn’t scriptural, then nothing is!

 

A Scriptural Defense

 

Brother Belue’s affirmative speech was well outlined and easily understood. The arguments were three in number and followed one upon another logically. First, he proved by the use of a chart that there are three in the Godhead. The chart had twenty scriptural references on it, including Matthew 3:13-17; 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 3:34; 14:26; 20:21, 22, etc. All of them mentioning the three persons of the Godhead in the same context.

Second, he demonstrated that these three are persons. The Father is a person: He has a will (Mt. 7:21), a voice (Ex. 19:19; Mt. 3:17), and a business (Lk. 2:49); He reveals (Mt. 16: 17), sees (Mt. 6:6), hears (Jn. 11:41; 9:31), appoints (Lk. 22:29), and works (Jn. 5:17); He teaches (Jn. 8: 28), forgives (Mk. 11: 25), knows (Mk. 13:32), gave authority to His Son (Jn. 5: 27); and His person is well attested by Scripture (Job 13:8; Heb. 1:3).

Jesus Christ is a person: He has a mind (1 Cor. 2: 16), knowledge (Jn. 10:4), and all authority (Mt. 28:18); He is God’s Son (I Jn. 4:15), our mediator (I Tim. 2:5), and head of the church (Eph. 5:23); He is eternal (Heb. 13:8); He came from heaven) (Jn. 6:38); He assisted God in creation (Eph. 3:9); He reveals (I,k. 10:22), appoints (Lk.22:29), works (Jn. 5:17), and bears witness (Jn. 1: 18).

The Holy Spirit also is a person: He has a mind (Rom. 8:27), a will (I Cor. 12:11), and knowledge (I Cor. 2:10, 11); He speaks (I Tim. 4:1), bears witness (Rom. 8:16), teaches (Jn. 14:26), testifies (Jn. 15:26), guides (Jn 16:13), commands and restrains (Acts 16:6, 7); He appoints (Acts 20:28), reproves (Jn. 16:7, 8), intercedes (Rom. 8:26), and invites (Rev. 22:17); He can be lied to (Acts 5:3), resisted (Acts 7: 51), quenched (I Thess. 5:19), done despite to (Heb. 10:29), vexed (Isa. 63:10), and grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He is eternal (Heb. 9:14).

Third, since there are three in the Godhead, and since these three are persons, then it follows that they must be separate and distinct from one another. This can be illustrated by a study of the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is not God the Father: (1) No man has seen God at anytime (I Jn. 4:12; Jn. 1:18; Ex. 33:20). Men have seen Jesus Christ (Jn. 1: 14). Jesus Christ, therefore, must be distinct from the Father.

(2) God knew the day and hour of Christ’s second coming (Mk. 13:32). Jesus Christ did not know that day and hour (Mk. 13:15 32). Jesus Christ, therefore, must not be God the Father.

(3) God (Spirit) has not flesh and bones (Jn. 4:24). Jesus had flesh and bones (Lk. 24:39). Jesus Christ, therefore, is not God the Father.

Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit. (1) Those of the world cannot see a spirit (Jn. 14:17).

Those of the world could see Jesus (Jn. 14:19). Jesus Christ, therefore, is not the Spirit.

(2) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven (Mt. 12:31, 32). Blasphemy against Christ can be forgiven. Jesus Christ, therefore, is not the Spirit.

(3) The Spirit hath not flesh and bones (Lk. 24:39). Jesus Christ had flesh and bones. Jesus Christ, therefore, is not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He is one of the three persons in the Godhead (Col. 2 :9).

The overwhelming evidence presented by this positive presentation of truth could not be gainsaid by Mr. Childress. The proposition was sustained beyond any question of a doubt.

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 14-16
January 1962

By Richard A. Kruse

It is important to consider the love of God for man It is important to consider the love of man for God. But it is also important to consider the love man should have for man.

Many fine things are said in the Bible about love. It is called the first commandment (Matt. 22:36-40); it is called the second commandment; it is the great commandment; it is the last commandment (1 Tim. 1:5). All the law is fulfilled in this commandment (Gal. 5:14). It sums up all the commandments (Rom. 13:8-10). He that practices it fulfills the law. It is the royal law (Jas. 2:8): God said above all things be fervent in love (1 Pet. 4:8) . It is the last of the Christian graces (2 Pet. 1: 7) . It is the first of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It not only covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8), but it also covers all sins (Prov. 10:12). It is greater than faith or hope (1 Cor. 13:13).

God is called love (1 John 4:8,16). If God is love then the amount of love that one has in him is the measure of God that is in him. Too many have more of the devil in them than they have of God. Love must be without hypocrisy ( Rom. 12 :9) . In love of the brethren, be tenderly affectionate one towards another (Rom. 12:10). Love worketh no ill to his neighbor (Rom. 13:10). Because of love one would not eat meat if thereby his brother is grieved (Rom. 14: 15). Knowledge puffeth up but love edifies (1 Cor. 8: 1). Let all that you do be done in love (1 Cor. 16:14).

We should confirm our love to the weak and fallen (2 Cor. 2:8) . Through love we are to be servants one to another (Gal. 5: 13) . Love caused Jacob to work seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him as but a few days (Gen. 29:20). It makes the unpleasant sweet and the dread easy. It changes one’s outlook on life and makes one like the Master who prayed in death for His murderers (Lk. 23:34). It caused Stephen to pray for those who stoned him to death (Acts. 7:60).

We are to follow after love (1 Cor. 14:1). We are to walk in love (Eph. 5:2). We are to bear one another in love (Eph. 4: 12); Speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Thus the body edifies itself in love (Eph. 4:16). No wonder that God will see to it that love never faileth (1 Cor. 13:8).

Jesus says that we should love one another, even as He loved us (John 13:34; 15: 12). How much did Christ love us? Did you know that the Bible not only says that Christ laid down His life for us, but that we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16)? Is that too hard for us to practice? Then it is too hard for us to be Christians. Love your neighbor as yourself is the second commandment. That leaves no room for less love for our brethren, all the brethren–even the ones we disagree with or ones of a different race. How far from the Bible many are, and yet they wonder if they will go to heaven (Rev. 22: 14-15).

“Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?” (Lk.5:56). Love will cause us to obey God. It will eliminate gossip, lies, slander and division. Love will cause us to preach the message of love to save the souls of the lost (John 3:16; Rom. 6:3-6; 1 Cor. 15: 1-4).

Truth Magazine VI: 3, p.060
December 1961

By F. Maurice Ethridge

When Paul said for women to “adorn themselves in modest apparel,” he surely did not imply that there is only one way for women to dress. Women today, obviously do not dress as women dressed fifty years ago, and women do not dress as they did in Paul’s day. Customs are constantly changing. Today, they seem to be changing faster than ever, because of an alert psychology employed by the garment industries. But, the point is that there is change in custom of dress. People simply do not adorn themselves the same in different ages and in different cultures.

Furthermore, they look back at the clothes people wore in other ages and say, “my, how foolish they look; why did they ever wear that thing?” Or, they might say, “How immodest people used to dress.” If the women of Paul’s day could see the women of today they might think that they were very immodest, or we might think the same thing of them. So, when the styles of clothes change, the judgment of their value also changes. What is “immodest” in one generation may be “modest” in another, and vice versa. And we may say the same thing of different cultures of the world today. What is “modest” in the U.S. may be “immodest” in India. Therefore, two women may be considered modestly dressed in their own cultures and yet each would think that the other is immodestly dressed. Now, the odd thing about all this is that both would be obeying Paul’s command to adorn themselves in “modest apparel.”

The real problem here is this, “Does Custom Define Morals?” Or, we may say it another way, “Is the Christian Moral Standard Relative to the Environment of the Individual Christian?” What would be your answer to that question? One’s cultural environment does come into consideration of what is right and what is wrong for each individual. Probably no one today would say that a woman who wears make-up is “immodest.” Yet, such a woman would have been kicked out of almost any church seventy years ago. Well, which one is right? Neither is right and neither is wrong, depending on the definition of the culture. For example, the covering of the head of the woman in 1 Cor. 11. They would consider the modern woman very immodest, but we do not think they are immodest just because they do not have a veil over their heads.

So, we may say that Custom Does Define Morals–But only to a very limited degree. The Eskimos used to put their old people on icebergs and let them drift out into the warm sea. The fathers are customarily murdered by their oldest son in a native sub-culture of India. This is the custom. The father expects it, the mother expects it, and everybody expects it. The oldest son has sinned if he fails to carry out this custom. If he should become a Christian, could he do this? Customs define morals, but only to a very limited degree.

The limitation is the law of liberty, the New Testament. It commands us not to murder not to commit adultery, not to steal, etc. In some cultures, however, it is customary to do these things. But the Bible says that we are “immoral” if we do them. When there is a conflict between the custom and the Bible, the custom is always wrong. Sometimes SIN IS THE CUSTOM.

It has become a custom today, for women and girls to wear shorts and other articles of clothing, which are designed to give almost full view to every shape and contour of the female form. Fifty years ago it would have been “immodest”, but in our time “its all right.” The standards of modesty are defined by the culture, BUT ONLY TO A VERY LIMITED DEGREE. Are shorts, etc. modest?

Some people may point to some of the tribes of Africa, South America, or the South Pacific, and say, “They wear much less and nobody thinks anything about it.” Native women are only half-dressed by our standards but their cultural environment says that they are modestly dressed. No one in their village may think that they are immodest, because they wear nothing above the waist, but they would be immodest if they should paint their toenails. Does this mean that a grass skirt can be “modest apparel” for some people. We may go a little farther with this logic and say that modest apparel for some may be no apparel at all.

This ought to show that there is a limit to the cultural determination of morals. But, where is that limit? SIN. When you find the dress customarily scanty you also find their morals customarily scanty. You find many forms of plural marriages, as well as customary pre-marital and extra-marital relations. SIN COMES TO BE THE CUSTOM. So “short shorts”, bikinis, etc. are becoming the custom; so is fornication. The only way to check this tendency is by the public records on divorce, rape, illegitimacy, prostitution, etc. How much adultery is not recorded? How many “shot-gun” weddings are there? In our modern American culture, sexual promiscuity is becoming more customary. THERE IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS TREND AND THE WAY WOMEN DRESS TODAY.

Jesus said, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Everywhere we look today, man sees the partially dressed female. Most females want most males to see what they have to show off, and their shorts, etc. are a big help. In the summer-time men may revel in a free burlesque just by going to the lake. Next summer most men will commit adultery (at least in their hearts), thanks to the omnipresent temptation presented by the young American female. Those who do not are either Christians, blind, or to old. Few will be able to resist the temptation, and few women will give them much help. These sweet, innocent little teen-age girls in “short-shorts,” are contributing a major part to the destruction of the morals of our country and the Church in America, because they are helping to lower our standards of morality. If the trend of less and less on more and more continues, we will reach a point when there is nothing on everything. What kind of moral standard will we have fifty years from now? Will sin become the custom? Parents, and young women, this question is yours. You and your children will determine the moral standards of our country and the Church of tomorrow.

Custom defines morals to a limited degree, and that degree is sin. Shorts, etc. are becoming customary, and so is sin. These two things are related.

(Via The Defender; St. Louis, Mo.)

Truth Magazine VI: 3, pp. 4-6
December 1961