Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten

Introduction:

1. Definition of “adorn” (Gr. kosmeo): “To arrange, to put in order. To ornament as garnishing tombs (Mt. 23:29), buildings (Lk. 21:5), and one’s person (1 Pet. 3:5). Metaphorically: to adorn the gospel (Tit. 2:10).”

(a) The sentiment is expressed in 1 Peter 2:2; 4:11 where good works and holy lives glorify God. One pleases God when he decorates his life with good works.

2. Ways in which we fail to adorn the gospel:

(a) Trying to make the gospel more meaningful, some dramatize it by adding sound effects, changing one’s appearance so as to appear sensual and earthly, and placing oneself in front of the cross, instead of hiding behind it with sound preaching. In this people are seen too much, when we ought to be seeing Christ. Preachers are not more than actors playing a part.

(b) By calling sound preachers “negative.” The Bible requires that we speak out against sinful practices such as sin, false teachers, backbiters, etc. We adorn the gospel by letting it speak out clearly and loudly.

(c) By failing to live in harmony with the gospel:

(1) One cannot adorn Galatians 6:1, for example, by trying to convert someone while drinking, smoking, sordidness, etc.

(2) The motive of faithful, ready obedience shows how beautiful our rude, coarse lives can be. God desires ornament in our lives, not an outward, pretentious, ostentatious display.

3. Through righteously serving God one honors him in humble service. In this, one’s governing sympathies flow in the channels of eternal right and our activities are ever engaged in endeavors to please the mighty maker of his being.

(a) As meekness and quietness of one’s spirit is an ornament of display, so we are to decorate our lives with good works that adorn the gospel.

(b) Hence, “adorn the doctrine of God.”

(c) Colossians 3:12-14.

Body:

1. Men are often judged by the clothes they wear.

A. Judah thought Tamar was a harlot because of her veil (Gen. 38:14-15).

B. The rich man showed his social status by being clothed in “purple and fine linen” (Lk. 16:10).

C. In mockery people clothed Jesus with a purple robe as a king (Mk. 15:7; Jn. 19:2-5).

D. Since God does not look on the outward appearance, but on the heart, it is incumbent upon the elect of God to be clothed (in a figurative and literal sense) in the right fashion (1 Sam. 16:7). In the Bible characteristics are required in the Christian’s life that are compared to putting on articles to be worn (or, ornaments to adorn the gospel).

1. Isa. 61:10; 1 Pet. 3:1-4; Tit. 2:10; Eph. 6:10-17.

2. In Colossians 3:12-14 Paul is commanding that certain characteristics which befit a Christian be put on. This is in contrast to things that are to be put off (Col. 3:5,8-9).

II. The ornaments that adorn the gospel with which we are to decorate our lives are as follows:

A. Bowels of Mercies. To the Greeks the intestines were regarded as the seat of affections and the more violent passions. The bowels of ancient times would be the heart today (cf. “heart of compassion,” ASV). Mercies have reference to compassion and kindness, i.e., to suffer with one in distress (Rom. 12:15). Jesus is our example in this (Heb. 2:9-18; 5:8-9; 2 Cor. 5:21).

B. Kindness. This ornament carries with it the idea ot gentleness. Macknight renders it “sweetness of disposition.” The Christian’s life is decorated with good manners, rather than rudeness and uncouthness. This does not mean we are to be of a sweet disposition toward false doctrine (Psa. 119:104; Rom. 12:9). Jesus showed kindness on many occasions (Jn. 8:11; Mk. 2:5,11).

C. Humbleness of Mind. Thayer says it means, “having a humble opinion of one’s self; a deep sense of one’s (moral) littleness; modesty, humility, lowliness of mind” (p. 614). This was Paul’s attitude while at Ephesus (Acts 20:18-19). Paul, at times, was considered arrogant. But this was a false reading of his disposition. Cf. Matt. 23:12; Rom. 12:3; Phil. 2:3; Jas. 4:10.

D. Meekness: Meekness must not be confused with passiveness, or be taken to mean that one is spineless and afraid to oppose error. “Meekness is not weakness.”

1. Moses had a strong spirit and a courageous heart; yet was meek (Num. 12:3).

2. Jesus was not weak when he ran the money changers out of the Temple (Jn. 2:13-17), or rebuked the Pharisees (Matt. 23). Yet, he is the best example of meekness (Matt. 11:29).

3. Meekness means “evenness of mind, firmness of mind.” It denotes power under control like that of a wild horse that has been broken to ride or pull a wagon. Webster defines it as “enduring injury with patience and without resentment.”

E. Longsuffering: The verb form means to be of a firm spirit, to be patient and enduring. We must not be weak and lose heart though distress and discouragement may come our way (Rev. 2:10). Even the strong have moments of despair (1 Kings 19:4; Jer. 20:7-9). Matthew 10:24-33 shows Jesus teaching five motives for putting on longsuffering:

1 . We will not suffer more than our Master (vv. 24-25).

2. All will be exposed someday (vv. 26-27).

3. Men must fear God rather than man (v. 28).

4. The value of man in God’s sight (vv. 29-31).

5. Christ will approve the faithful someday (vv. 32-33).

6. We must run with patience the race that is set before us (Heb. 12:1-2).

F. Forbearing and Forgiving: “Forbear” means to bear with. It is easy to forbear those who have a natural kinship to us, but Christians are to bear with all in their inconsistencies and peculiar ways because we have a spiritual kinship (Gal. 3:26-27), which is far greater (Matt. 12:46-50).

1. Forgiveness: We cannot claim to be a child of God without forgiveness (Matt. 6:14-15).

2. Quarrel: Means complaint of accusation, from the Greek, momphe, to find fault, blame, censure and more importantly, occasion of complaint. If someone has given us reason to complain, we are to:

(a) Harbor no malice.

(b) Be ready to do him good.

(c) Be ready to declare that we have forgiven him when he asks for it.

(d) Afterwards we are to treat him kindly as if he had not injured us – as God treats us when he forgives us (Barnes, p. 278).

3. The following reasons show why the forgiveness of sins by Christ is so:

(a) It is procured by his blood of the New Testament (Matt. 26:28).

(b) He is our advocate (1 Jn. 2:1-2).

(c) He has been appointed judge of the world (Acts 17:30-31).

4. We are to forgive in the same manner that Christ forgives us. “. . . and if he repent, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3). One cannot forgive a person who does not repent, no more than God will (Nah. 1:13).

(a) The forgiveness of Christ is complete (Heb. 8:12).

(b) When we forgive, we need to forget. But sadly enough, some bury the hatchet, but leave the handle up in case the opportunity calls for the hatchet to be exhumed. This action befits the conduct of the old man of sin (Col. 3:8-10).

5. The crowning act. “And above all things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness” (Col. 3:14).

Conclusion:

1. Failure to adorn the gospel is to take the easy way out. Adorning the gospel is difficult, but since the gospel is inspired and our only hope, adorn it, we must.

2. How are your ornaments of the gospel?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, pp. 104-105
February 18, 1988

By Randy Reynolds

“But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13). “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea” (Rev. 21:1).

Some have suggested that the earth is due for yet another renovation, such as was the case in the days of Noah when the Great Flood covered the earth. While it is true that the Flood of old did indeed cleanse the world of sin, and even change the order of things, the key to understanding what took place years ago in connection to what will take place, may first be found in the word “perish” (apollumi) that Peter uses in v. 6. According to W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, the word appollumi means, “not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well being.” For examples of this usage, W.E. Vine suggests considering the following verses: Luke 5:37; 15:4,6,24; John 6:27.

What would be the difference in “perish” (apollumi) as is used in v. 6, and the word “destroyed” (NASV), “dissolved” (ASV), which is found in v. 10? The word “dissolved” comes from the Greek word luo which means “to loosen, break, break up, break down,” according to W.E. Vine. Thayer says, “to dissolve something coherent into parts.” Thus, according to v. 5, the earth that was “compacted together” or “put together” in the long ago, in v. 10 will be pulled apart. This line of thinking of course agrees with the words of the Psalmist because he wrote that the heavens and the earth would “perish” (abad; not the same usages as apollumi). According to Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, abad means, “to be lost or gone; to pass away or cease to be” (cf. Psa. 102:25-27). Since the writer is making a contrast, it is clear to understand that even though God will endure (he is eternal), the earth and the heavens will not.

The prophet Isaiah tells us that, “the sky will vanish like smoke, and the earth will wear out like a garment” (Isa. 51:6). “And all the host of heaven will wear away, and the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their hosts will also wither away as a leaf withers from the fig tree” (Isa. 34:4).

The second key to understanding exactly what it is that will take place may be found in the word “new” that both inspired writers used to describe the heavens and the earth according to promise. As a possible explanation consider some thoughts taken from the College Press Bible Study Textbook Series on this epistle of Peter (pp. 200-201): “The word kainos, according to lexicons, is used with respect to form or quality, and means fresh, unused, novel. W.E. Vine tells us that it does not necessarily mean new in time, but new as to form and quality, of a different nature from what is contrasted as old. Had Peter wanted to say that the new heavens and earth were only the old remade or cleansed, he would probably have chosen another Greek word – neos, which also means “new.” Thayer says neos denotes the new primarily in reference to time, the young, recent: kainos denotes the new primarily in reference to quality, the fresh, unworn.” This distinction is confirmed by Vine, for in speaking of neos he says it “may be a reproduction of the old in quality and character . made of kainos used here.”

One final, but very important thought needs to be considered from our main text in 2 Peter 3. In v. 13, the apostle Peter says that it is “according to His promise” that this new heavens and earth are looked for. What is this “promise.” Jesus promised a place in his Father’s house for all who would follow him (cf. Jn. 14:1-6). “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:16-18). (Also consider Rev. 1:7-8; Acts 1:9-11; Isa. 65:17; 66:22.)

Thus the promise is not a promise of this old earth. Rather, it is a promise of Heaven, where Jesus went to be at his Father’s right hand. The apostle Paul affirms that Heaven is where Jesus is now, and that is what we are to be seeking (cf. Col. 3:1-3). That Jerusalem is above Paul says in Galatians 4:26. That eternal home for the righteous, where God is pictured as wiping away every tear from our eyes, removing death, mourning, crying and pain (cf. Rev. 21:4) is our goal, not a renovated earth.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, p. 84
February 4, 1988

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