Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

A sign in my study reads: “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” It is a reminder that our words can become so tangled they become nonsense or proclaim a message we had no intention of declaring. “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” Clarity of understanding must precede clear expression, and sometimes garbled sentences indicate the writer has not thought through what he would say. But we also must reckon with local or provincial dialects which say one thing to people from my part of the country, and a different thing to people elsewhere. We must realize that a word we use in its standard dictionary sense may have a special connotation to the reader and send his mind down a path we did not intend to travel. Semantics, the science of meaning, should be especially considered by all who would express God’s word to others.

Most of us are familiar with doctrinal conflicts which seem to be little more than different uses of terms. It is sad indeed when brethren are separated by semantics – often compounded by pride that insists on one’s own way of saying things, and by refusal to put the better interpretation on a brother’s words (1 Cor. 13:4-6). But a teacher also has an obligation to his intended hearer and reader, to consider the possible interpretations and be as unambiguous as possible. Our way of saying things is related to our way of thinking (“of the abundance of the heart. . . “, Lk. 6:45). If we do not mean what our words convey, we should not mind changing the words.

In my early preaching days, whether right or wrong, “missionary” had a denominational connotation and was rarely used except with the quotes. A friend warned me that by continued use of the word we would eventually drop the quotes. This principle applies to saying many other things. Since thinking precedes the wording, we may finally get around to expressing concepts that have been buried in the subconscious. This is all the more reason to re-examne both thinking and wording. If we do not really believe what we are saying, change it.

I am persuaded many of us are saying things about the church that leave wrong impressions. Those who are “in Christ” make up the church, but the church does not procure the spiritual blessings which are “in Christ.” Christ is the Savior, the church is the results. “In Christ” and “in the church” may refer to the same realm, but are identical only in this limited sense and special context. Christ died for us, and we must so trust him as to be converted to Christ, The emphasis belongs here, on the means of procurement and not on some term that designates the results. Yet we frequently read or hear “redemption, reconciliation, inheritance, salvation, and all spiritual blessings” are “in the church.” Little wonder many conclude some institution is the saving power. Semantics? With some this is surely so. But there are thousands, yea millions, who are taught that the church is actually the means of salvation.

Take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. III, p. 752): “. . only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ.” Truth is, only by participating in the redemption wrought by Christ can we be a part of the church. Again, “Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to the family of the second Adam. . . . ” We would say, all those who have become children of God are collected in the term “church.” And again, “and alone can engraft us into the true Vine.” We believe obedience to the gospel engrafts us into the true Vine, making us a part of his church.

Are we saying the same thing with different word arrangements? I think not. “Church” is a collective noun, used to designate those saved by the blood of Christ. We are saved by coming to Christ, and all who have been saved are collected in such terms as “flock” or “church” (Acts 20:28). We should state the case so as to keep the Savior foremost, and leave the church where God’s word puts it: the result of that salvation. It is as the product of Christ’s sacrifice the church exists, and receives the love, honor and attention so justly given in the Scriptures. There is no evidence an institution was established to be the saving power. Institutional religion has its basis in a concept that is far more than mere wording. This concept is clearly stated in a Roman Catholic summary: “From all this there is but one conclusion: Union with the Church is not merely one out of various means by which salvation may be obtained; it is the only means.” The “means” of salvation, please note. They have put the cart before the horse, and that is more than semantics.

It is also important to note that in the above we are using “church” in its universal sense, designating all the saved either collectively or distributively. The Scriptures also use “church” in a limited sense: the saints who have agreed to work and worship as a team, or what we often call a “local church” (Phil. 4:15; 1 Tim. 5:16; Matt. 18:17). While the universal church consists of those whom God knows to be his own (2 Tim. 2:19), the local church fellowship depends upon man’s judgment which is often faulty. Ideally we are to receive only those who are truly saints, but we may unknowingly or otherwise do differently (1 Cor. 5:1-2). The local church roll can not, therefore, be considered identical with God’s “roll” of his own. We should not speak or write in such a way as to leave the impression that our local fellowship is the standard of acceptability with God (2 Cor. 10:12-13).

Will this article be clearly understood? Who knows? One should try to write carefully and clearly, but people read with their background and preconceptions. Stirring thought and reconsideration of traditional subject matter may be costly, but resting on human traditions is more costly. All of us must remain open to continued Bible study, and the re-examination of how we present our conclusions to others. May God help us to “say the Word” carefully.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 103
February 18, 1988

By Garreth L. Clair

Perhaps one of the most interesting facets about the church of Christ is the God of heaven’s use of prophecy to foretell its coming, its nature, etc. In this phase of our study we want to deal with prophecy as it relates to the church of Christ, and in particular Old Testament prophecy. In this lesson we also want to establish that the church we read about in the New Testament did not exist during the days of the Old Testament prophets. Please notice the following facts in this regard:

Isaiah the prophet foretold the establishment of the church of Christ in his age (2:2-4). “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains. And shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow to it. Many people shall come and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the lord, To the house of the God of Jacob, He will teach us his ways, and we shall walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, And shall rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore” (NKJV). The prophet Micah also uttered the same prophecy in his time (Mic. 4:1-5).

Please observe the following facts about these two prophecies:

1. The word “mountain” is to be understood in the sense of government; and this government of the Lord’s House, his church, is to be exalted above all other institutions.

2. The Lord’s House is “the church of the living God,” the church that Jesus built (1 Tim. 3:15).

3. All nations shall have an opportunity to be a part of the coming kingdom both Jews and Gentiles (“all nations shall flow to it”).

4. That the church is to be established in the last days, the closing days of the Mosaic dispensation, the last dispensation of time, the days of Messiah (Heb. 1:1,2; Acts 2:16,17).

5. The place for the beginning of the Lord’s House (church) was Zion or Jerusalem, “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. ” In connection with this prediction see Luke 24:47 and also Acts 2:1-4.

6. From verse 4 of the context we learn who is to be the “judge” or “ruler” in that coming kingdom. “And He will judge between the nations, and shall rebuke many people. ” It is the same “he” of verse 3, “and He will teach us of his ways, And we shall walk in His paths.”

7. In verse 4 we are told of the peaceful nature of those who become citizens of the kingdom, “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. ” This indicates the peaceful spirit of the men and women who make up the kingdom, its citizens (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:18).

Daniel also prophesied about the church of Christ in his age. Perhaps the best and most noted prophecy by Daniel concerning the church deals with the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:31-35). Read the passage and then please notice the following facts about the passage;

1. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream in which he saw a great image with a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, and legs of iron and feet of part iron and clay.

2. He saw a stone, cut out without hands, strike the image upon its feet and destroy it; the stone went on to become a great mountain filling the earth.

3. The king was troubled about the dream, but was unable to recall it.

It was at this point that Daniel came upon the scene, the prophet was able to interpret the dream for the King.

Please notice the following facts in the interpretation by Daniel:

1. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that he, as king of Babylon, was the head of gold and after him would arise another kingdom inferior to his kingdom (cf. v. 39). Then a third kingdom would arise followed by a fourth (cf. v. 40).

2. Since the stone was to strike the image in his feet, and since the feet represent the fourth kingdom, it follows that the kingdom of God was to be set up during the existence of the fourth kingdom. Please observe verse 44 in this connection, “And in the days of1hese kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, WYch shall never be destroyed” (Dan. 2:44).

It is not too difficult to identify the kingdoms in the prophecy because we have a definite starting point, please observe the following facts in this regard:

1. Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar, king, app. 600 B.C. The kingdom fell about 536 B.C. “Represented by the head of gold.”

2. Medo-Persia: Established by Cyrus, king of Persia, and Darius, king of Media, fell about 330 B.C. “Represented by the breast and arms of silver.”

3. Macedonia (Greek Empire): Established by Alexander the Great. Divided among his generals about 323 B.C. “Represented by the belly and thighs of brass.”

4. Roman Empire: Established as a world empire by Octavius Caesar about 30 B.C. “Represented by legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay.”

“In the days of these kings, ” therefore refers to a time when Rome ruled the world, “And smote the image upon itsfeet” signifies that the event would definitely occur during the reign of the fourth kigndom (i.e., Rome).

The New Testament begins its story while Caesar still ruled the world. “In those days came John the Baptist” (Matt. 3:1,2). In what days? “In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Luke 3:1,2).

Summing up the prophecy of Daniel we notice the following five facts about the kingdom he foretold would come in the future:

1. It was to be established during the Roman Empire. And in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar John came saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Luke 3:1-6; Matt. 3:1-3).

2. This kingdom is to be established by the Lord. There is a sense in which all earthly kingdoms never were. This kingdom (the church) was established by the Lord and is governed by him alone (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:20-23).

3. The kingdom to be set up by the God of heaven wa~ to supplant all other kingdoms in that it is to become the last and final world power. According to Daniel’s prophecy there will never be another earthly kingdom with world-wide dominion; that distinction indeed belongs to the kingdom of God.

4. This kingdom will never be destroyed. The kingdom Jesus built (i.e., his church), is to continue to the end of the world. Jesus is king in his kingdom now, Head of his Church now, and will reign until the last enemy (i.e. death) is overthrown (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Heb. 12:28).

5. The kingdom described by Daniel was to have a small beginning and later fill all the earth. Jesus spoke of his Kingdom as having a small beginning like the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31,32); he also refers to it as leaven in Matthew 13:33.

Finally, Isaiah prophecied that the Lord’s House or his Kingdom would begin in the last days and the law would go forth from the city of Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-4; Lk. 24:47). The Law went forth on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:1-38). This was the beginning of the Lord’s Church, the establishment of Messiah’s Kingdom, in the days of the Roman Kings as prophecied by Daniel (Acts 2:1-4; 11:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, pp. 99-100
February 18, 1988

By Wayne S. Walker

The Old Testament is filled with examples for our learning. Some of these examples illustrate positive precepts that God expects us to imitate. Others contain negative admonitions of behavior that God wants us to avoid. The experience of Cain falls into the latter category. The story of Cain and Abel, the first two sons of Adam and Eve, is found in Genesis 4:3-8. Cain became a tiller of the ground and Abel became a keeper of sheep. Evidently, God commanded them to bring an offering. Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, while Cain brought of toe fruit of the ground. It is here that the trouble begins.

I We may learn about obedience. “And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering.” Why? To answer this, we need to see the importance of faith to obedience. Abel offered by faith (Heb. 11:4). We know that faith comes only by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10: 17). Thus, the Lord must have specified what kind of offering he desired. Abel followed the Lord’s instructions, acting by faith, and was blessed. Cain acted out of rejection of and rebellion to God’s wishes. 1 John 3:12 tells us that Cain’s works were evil while his brother’s were righteous.

The lesson for us is that we also must “walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7). This, of course, applies to everything that we do, but it should be applied especially to the realm of religion. To do so, we must strive to please God, not ourselves or. other men (Gal. 1:10). Furthermore, we must accept God’s word as final authority and do nothing outside what is revealed. (2 Jn. 9). The same kinds of arguments that are made to justify instrumental music in worship today could have been used by Cain to justify his vegetable offering. So far as we know, God did not say “not to.” But he did ‘specify what he wanted. Therefore, he rejected Cain’s substitute.

II. We can learn about anger. When Cain did wrong and displeased God, he became upset. Actually, it was God who had the tight to be angry with Cain’s disobedience. But we are told, “And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?'” Cain directed his anger towards righteous Abel. It has always been quite common for those who have turned away from God to be angry with those who are following God. Paul asked those among the Galatians who had .been bewitched by a different gospel, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). Cain’s anger turned i4to jealousy and envy which then became hatred and malice.

What we need to learn is to be careful of anger. Yes, there are times when righteous anger is in order. However, even in these situations we must understand that we should “be angry, and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath” (Eph. 4:26). Rather, we must work to control our anger, “For the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jas. 1:19-20). Moreover, we must not allow our anger to become envying, which is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:21). Nor should we ever allow anger to linger until it turns to malice harbored in our hearts (Eph. 4:31). Cain could have used his anger constructively to motivate him to do better. Rather, he let it lead him down the wrong path.

III. We may learn about sin. God described sin to Cain as not doing well. “And if you do not do well. . . .” It is a transgression of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4), an act of unrighteousness (1 Jn. 5:17). In addition, sin is enslaving, H.C. Leupold translated v. 7, “And if thou dost not do right, then at the door there is sin, a crouching beast, striving to get at thee, but thou shouldst rule over it.” This statement reminds us that the author of sin, Satan, goes about as a roaring lion, seeking victims to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Therefore, when we yield ourselves to Satan’s temptations, we become servants of sin (Rom. 6:12-18).

However, this account teaches us that we can “rule over it,” that we can overcome sin by faith (1 Jn. 5:4). In order to do this, we must come to control the lust within us that permits us to be tempted (2 Tim. 2:22; Tit. 2:12; 1 Pet. 2:11). We must also strive to avoid opportunities where we will be tempted to sin (Jas. 1:13-16). And we must also learn, when we are faced with temptations, to resist the devil by saying, “No” (Jas. 4:7). In addition, we must look to God’s word for strength (Psa. 119:11). This is what Jesus did when he was tempted (Matt. 4). We do not have to sin in the manner that Cain did. Rather, we can follow the example of our Savior and conquer Satan.

Conclusion

Let us remember that sin Is progressive. Cain began with a seemingly innocent act of disobedience. This led to anger, jealousy, and hatred, which eventually culminated in the sin of murder. While sin in our lives may not result in so drastic an act, each of us is faced with two choices. Either he can go the way of Cain, living a life of disobedience and sin. Or he may follow the example of Abel in his faith and obedience. It is the little decisions that we make along the way start us on one road or the other. Therefore, we need to be careful of even these “little things.” And when we do sin, we need to be grateful that God has made it possible for us to have forgiveness and to avail ourselves of that privilege before we become hardened in our sin. If we do this, we will benefit from the experience of Cain.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 106
February 18, 1988

By Lewis Willis

Educators have subjected the youth of America to a ghastly experiment. About 1960, 5.3 percent of the births in this country were illegitimate. Armed with this statistic, sociologists, doctors and educators sought to address the problem. The “door of opportunity” which opened to them was the introduction into the curriculum of the public schools of courses in “Sex Education.” This development was fought courageously by parents and religious leaders, but their opposition was ignored. Off the schools went to solve this great problem of illegitimacy.

The rationale used to defend the practice of teaching “Sex Education” was that parents are not teaching their children “the facts of life.” Chrissy France, of Planned Parenthood of Akron, recently said, “Parents often hesitate to talk to their kids because they feel that will encourage them to have sex” (Akron Beacon Journal, 10-15-87). Surveys show that only 10 to 20 percent of parents talk with their children about sex. “The facts of life” are picked up, they reasoned, from friends in the street, television, books and magazines, rather than from parents. Their solution was to begin sex training in the schools. According to the article referred to, in Akron, all students get their first dose of sex education in the fifth grade. And, guess what, the parents were right after all. More exposure to sex has encouraged children to have sex. In fact, the article states that “national studies have shown that about 50 percent of high school students are sexually active. I jus is true in spite of the scare of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

We now have had about 25 years in which to gather data on this experiment. It is evident that it has failed miserably! The figures which are now available should send shock waves through every American’s mind. An Associated Press article out of New York, written by George W. Cornell, reports the latest figures on what sex education has done for us (Akron Beacon Journal, 10-10-87). In 1940, 3.5 percent of births were to unwed women. In 1960, the proportion of such births was only 5.3 percent. We then began to see the influence of sex education and the attendant moral decline in our nation. By 1980, unwed births had climbed to 18.4 percent of the total. By 1985, which is the latest count available, 22 percent of the total births in the U.S. were to unwed mothers. “The unwed births, coupled with the current 1.5 million abortions annually, mostly for the unmarried, raises the porportion of unwed pregnancies to about half of the total” of births in the U.S. Jesus said, ” . . . by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). Nationally, we are drowning in the ungodly fruits of our educators’ experiment! One wonders if it is possible to raise a loud enough opposition to the practice to enable us to go back to “the good ole days” of the 40s and 50s.

In case you are wondering what the response of “organized religion” has been to this tragedy, I am afraid I have bad news to share with you. Generally speaking, the response of religion, according to Mr. Cornell, is to attempt to take the “stigma” out of this sad situation. The reasoning given is that “there are now so many such children” that we need to use a form of reference to the situation that removes the embarrassment that formerly was associated with this sin. In the Scriptures, and in early literature, “bastards” was the term used to refer to children born out of wedlock (Heb. 12:8). However, “itching ears” sought teachers who would tone down their “rehetoric,” even if it resulted in being “turned bad as it used to unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). These children began to be referred to as “illegitimate.” This still was not good enough. The Associated Press informs us that the “church community” now refers to the child a “child of a single parent.” Mother and child are known as a “singleparent family.” As the statistics indicate, man’s modified terminology has come as illegitimate births have soared. Man’s nice, sweet language has not only gotten better than the Lord’s, it has left the impression with many that fornication is not as be considered.

I was just thinkin, if we keep going the direction we are going as a nation, within a few generations we will convince ourselves that we have thought and taught sin out of existence. We, in the Lord’s church, must not get too smug about this situation. Across the nation there are few churches that have not had one or more young Christian boys and girls fall victim to the temptation to commit fornication. For the young mother and her child, there is no adequate solution to the problem. Brethren, we must continue and intensify our teaching and preaching on the sin of fornication, filling the hearts of our youth with the fear of God while warning that those who “do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Forgiveness is possible, but it does not remove the scars and consequences that fornication brings. Parents have every right to expect the church to help them fight the battle against fornication! Let us not disappoint them.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 102
February 18, 1988