Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Most of you remember that Senator Joseph Biden recently withdrew from the presidential race because of plagiarism. Biden, without attribution, quoted Kinnock of Great Britain, John and Robert Kennedy, and Hubert Humphrey. He used their material as his own. He also made exaggerated and inflated claims of his scholastic, academic record. He gave testimony that could be refuted, and it was. The media and his detractors checked his words and found them to be untrue.

The New Testament abounds with refutable testimony. It cites known historical characters and specific dates (Lk. 3:1; Acts 24:27). It notices famines and current economic conditions which are historically attested (Acts 11:27; 2 Cor. 8). The Bible contains endless numbers of facts and figures which could have been, should have been and would have been refuted if they were false.

In the competitive world of politics, Senator Biden could not escape scrutiny. The apostle Paul was in a parallel position in the combative world of religion. His enemies hounded him from town to town (Acts 14:19; 17:13). Just as spies were sent to catch Jesus in error and “entangle him in his talk” (Matt. 22:15; Mk. 12:13; Lk. 20:20), so Paul was watched. As Stephen’s utterances were examined for error (Acts 6:9-14), so were Paul’s. If, therefore, Paul’s preaching could have been refuted, it surely and certainly would have been.

It is important to note that Paul’s testimony was open and subject to refutation. As he said, “This thing was not done in a comer” (Acts 26:26). Below are a few samples and examples of refutable testimony.

(1) Paul said that his preaching was based on the Old Testament (Acts 24:14; 26:22; cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12). The apostle stressed this in various situations in public orations (Acts 13:27; 17:2,3; 28:23). This was refutable testimony. It could be checked, studied, investigated. His peers, his contemporaries, poured over his words (Acts 17:11). Jewish scribes and scholars had hundreds of Scriptures which they would have used if they could have discovered a single discrepancy that did not fit the deeds and doctrine of the Lord. That they did not do so signifies and testifies to the veracity and integrity of apostolic preaching. Oh, think how intensely Paul’s opponents desired to disprove his allegations!

(2) Paul said living witnesses saw Jesus alive after his death (Acts 13:31; 1 Cor. 15:6). The resurrection of Christ is the hinge on which the door of faith hangs (1 Cor. 15:12-19). It is the keystone, the cornerstone, the fundamental foundation fact of the gospel. With the enemies of our Lord seeking a crack in the stone of revelation, trying to find a rip in the fabric of faith, they would have seized upon this testimony if they could have. Biden’s statements were tested and researched by his hearers, and so were Paul’s. If they could have disproved the claim of living witnesses, the gospel story would have become another blip in the history of ignorance and superstition.

(3)Paul referred to his past, his background. He named his professor, spoke of his accomplishments and said it was all documented by his former friends and present enemies (Acts 22:3-5; 26:4,5; Gal. 1:13,14; Phil. 3:4-6). Again, this was subject to review. Senator Biden claimed that he received three college degrees, that he had a full scholarship, that he finished in the top of his class. None of these items were true. They were dissected and Biden was discredited. So, Paul’s foes pounced on his every word. If they could have found that Paul had lied, his gospel would have been denied. But they could not, and it was not.

Conclusion: The point is that the record God has given us of his Son is verifiable and reliable (I Jn. 5:6-13). It is not merely a mass of pious platitudes and “cunningly devised fables” that cannot be observed and tested. The apostles welcomed and encouraged informed dissenters and unbelievers to consider its content and substance (Acts 13:43; 17:2,3,11; 19:8; 22: 1; 26:2,3; 28:23,30,3 1). We, too, may do so today “with all confidence” and “with all authority” (Acts 28:31; Tit. 2:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, pp. 675, 687
November 19, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

Jesus asked his opponents in debate, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The authority behind John’s baptism was divine, not human. The works and words of Jesus himself were also from heaven and not of men (Matt. 21:23-27). The religious leaders who opposed him had only human, and not divine authority for their peculiar doctrines and practices. All religious practices and observances today must submit to the test Jesus required – is it “from heaven, or of men?” Let’s examine the Lord’s Supper and Christmas in connection with that important question.

Lord’s Supper	Christmas
Authorized & Commanded by Christ (Matt. 26:26-29)	Not Authorized or Commanded by Christ – But “Of Men”
Two Elements Specified for Use in Observance – Unleavened Bread & Grape Juice (Matt. 26:26-28)	Nothing Revealed or Specified for Use in Observance – All Such Is “Of Men”
Meaning of Observance Often Explained in Scripture (Matt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-21; 11:17-34)	No Observance Appointed or Explained in Scripture – Came Later With Mixture of Pagan Religion & Traditions “Of Men”
Time Revealed: First Day of Each Week (Acts 20:7)	No Time Revealed – Set by Men
Observed by All Christians in Apostolic Age (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23)	Observed by No Christian in Apostolic Age – Originated in Apostasy of Later Times
Observed by Christians as Reminder of Our Separation from Sin (1 Cor. 10:16-21)	Observed by All Kinds of People, No Matter How Sinful Their Lives
Not Associated With Appeal to Fleshly Appetite, Carnality, or Excesses of Any King (1 Cor. 11:17-34)	Associated With Appeal of Fleshly Appetites, Carnality & Excesses of Every Kind (Drinking, Dancing, Revelry, etc.)
Part of “The Doctrine of Christ” – Unites Us With God (2 Jn. 9)	NO Part of “The Doctrine of Christ” – Sinful, Makes Our Worship Vain, & Separates Us From God (Matt. 7:21-23; 15:8-9; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-19)
Its Practice Produces Religious Unity Based on Truth (Jn. 17:17-21)	Its Practice Produces Religious Division Since Commanded “Of Men”
Ordained by Christ to Continue in His Kingdom Until End of Time (Matt. 26:29; 1 Cor. 11:26)	Not Ordained by Christ to Even Begin – Exists as Digression, Apostasy & Rebellion Against Bible Pattern – “Of Men”
Revealed “From Heaven” By God, Preserved in Scripture!	No Divine Revelation; Origin In Apostasy, Human Tradition, & Compromise With Pagan Idolatry – “Of Men”!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, p. 681
November 19, 1987

By Jimmy Tuten

One should enter vigorously into the life of the community. “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Rom. 13:7). The Christian cannot be insensible to the movements of the world. His duties are not sufficiently recognized by keeping aloof from public life and duties even though there are political corruptions. Religion should penetrate and sanctify the world with a perpetual transformation. “Whether ye eat or drink, whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” Failure to help deal with the problems of mankind is to cast off allegiance to God. Leaders of human society represent the authority of God on earth. But this does not mean that he gives assent to each judicial function, or places each ruler in office. It means that it behooves the Christian to think, speak and vote as a citizen deems best to promote the interests of the state. Indifference to evils which he can remedy, carelessness respecting the general welfare – this is a crime.

First of all, every Christian should resolve to try to bear his fair share of the load and to discharge his responsibilities in every relationship of life. “Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men” (Rom. 12:17). One does not fulfill this admonition by simply refraining from dishonesty, immorality, and general unrighteousness. There is an obligation of positive participation, or affirmative action, of constructive conduct, which he ought not to shirk. One cannot help but think of the priest and the Levite who did not have time to help the wounded man beside the road. The isolationist idea of Christianity has a very strong tendency to produce a monastic life style. This is not the kind of life Jesus wanted his followers to live (Lk. 10:29-37).

Secondly, Christians should get involved in the community because of the desire to make everything of which he is a part better. A Christian in the community ought to use his energies to make the town a better place for his having been a resident. He should use his influence for better government by striving to be a part of the solution without becoming a part of the problem. Social virtue in the lives of many has come to be excluded from Christian ethics. Who is the most wicked: the adulterer, or the politician who takes bribes? Yes, the Christian runs the risk of becoming entangled in the very problems he seeks to help solve (Rom. 12:2). But if what we preach and believe cannot stand the test it is time we re-examined our position (2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4). This reminds us of a statement of the late Harry Truman, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

In the third place, one should seek activity in world affairs in order to take his place with his fellow man so he can have an influence for good (1 Cor. 9:19-22). Having the opportunity to express one’s views to governmental offices at various levels will enable us to influence people by involvement as a candidate for office, or jury duty, or whatever is the fulfillment of obligations. The Christian cannot stand on the sidelines.

It is hard to conceive of any problem in this world in which the Christian influence could not properly and profitably be exerted. One should not be neutral on issues, though he may not be aligned with either of the existing political parties. If the Christian considers two opposing views a plague, then let him offer a third alternative, or else refrain from criticizing those who are active in dealing with moral and political issues. The Bible teaches the right of each Christian to have an active voice on moral issues. Smug complacency and unconcern border on sin. “If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses?” (Jer. 12:5) We have a harder fight with a shorter stick than we would have had if Christians through the years had taken a greater interest in the moral issues that face the public. All the forces of evil, whether it be Humanism, or whatever, began as a small force. They are growing and will gain momentum because they are dedicated to their cause. That’s the reason we so often lose. We aren’t! But I hope we will become more dedicated to the cause of Christ and to the cause of good politics and sound economics. A healthy social, economic, and political order will help to provide a better milieu for the growth and development of Christianity. “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Tit. 3:1).

Christ’s Spirit taketh breath again
Within the lives of holy men.
Each changing age beholds afresh
Its word of God in human flesh,
Amid the need of earth, whose ear
Pure wisdom maketh quick to hear,
Who knows the founts of good and ill,

And live in the eternal will,
Sharing themselves and all their good
In universal brotherhood;
In whose sweet lives we still may see
The One who walked in Galilee,
And preaching through the human page
Christ’s living gospel to our age.

(W. C. Braithwaite)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, p. 685
November 19, 1987

By R.W. Fritz

Luke records the thought that “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God” (Lk. 7:30). We observe, however, that not all Pharisees were hostile against Jesus. Nicodemus sought Jesus out and other Pharisees invited Jesus to dine (Jn. 7:44-52; Lk. 11:37; 14:1). Others besides these were privileged to eat with Jesus too (Mt. 9:9-11; Mk. 2:14-15).

Mary, Jesus and the Prophetic Office

Public opinion was that Jesus was a prophet, as we see in the miracle of the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (Lk. 7:16). It seems that Simon sought to disprove public opinion by inviting Jesus into his house (Lk. 7:36). Here he would have the opportunity to try, test, prove, pass judgment upon and possibly entrap Jesus, which the Pharisees often tried to do (Lk. 11:53-54; 20:20). He reasoned that if Jesus were a prophet he would have known about the woman who touched him (Lk. 7:39).

This woman was unclean in the sight of the Pharisee. The Pharisee reasoned that Jesus should not have allowed this woman in his presence, and certainly would not allow her to touch him if he were really a prophet.

Some think this sinful woman was Mary Magdalene, others Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus (Lk. 10:3842). Part of the reason is the similarity in some points in two cases in which a man named Simon is the host at a meal to which Jesus was invited and at which Jesus was anointed by a woman named Mary (Mt. 26:6-7; Mk. 143; Jn. 12:3).

The Pharisees knew that prophecy was a part of the Messianic office (Isa. 11:2-4; 1 Kgs. 14:6; 2 Kgs. 1:1-3; 5:26; Jn. 2:25). If Jesus was a prophet, he would know she was a deeply sinful woman and would not allow what was transpiring.

Jesus Answers Simon With A Parable (Lk. 7:40-43)

The parable itself shows two debtors who could not pay the lender the amount owed him (Lk. 7:41-42). Both were relieved (forgiven) of their debt. One was more thankful and, as Jesus illustrated, loved him more as a result of greater forgiveness. This represented the sinful woman, pointing up that she loved Jesus more than the Pharisee did. This, of course, Simon already knew. But more so, it showed that Jesus knew his heart. Jesus had gotten right into his mind! He was a prophet! Jesus is a prophet!

Notice another obvious difference between The Pharisee and the woman: The sinful woman used the opportunities to seek forgiveness and salvation. Foolishly, Simon was missing his opportunity to have such sweet fellowship with Jesus and to learn of and to know Jesus. Jesus was receiving worship from this woman while the Pharisee looked on in disgust, doubt and disdain. In his rejection of Jesus, Simon refused the fellowship and oneness with Jesus which this woman Simon considered so bad, fully enjoyed.

Simon’s answer to Jesus’ question (Lk. 7:43) was more than just an answer; it was an indictment, a judgment against himself, just as David made in his confrontation with Nathan (2 Sam. 12:1-7). It is obvious that Jesus is not concerned with the past of this penitent one, but the present. What is the woman right now? However, he seriously scrutinizes both the past and the present of the one who self-righteously sees sin in others yet does not consider his own shortcomings and sins and refuses to repent of sin and seek forgiveness.

Jesus now turns all eyes on the woman as he teaches Simon (Lk. 7:44-48). See the contrast (Lk. 7:44-46):

You gave me no water – She gave me tears.

You gave me no kiss — She gives me tender affection.

You gave me no oil – She gives me intimate honor.

Simon failed, the woman passed. The woman had many sins, but now they are forgiven while Simon’s sins are retained (Lk. 7:47-48). Now who is the sinner?

Christ’s Concern For Sin and Sinners

Christ’s words indicate his willingness to save. His forgiveness is most ample. It is able to cover the sins of the entire past life of each person and the sins of the whole world (Jn. 1:29).

The woman’s actions showed studied consciousness of her need. It showed belief in Jesus and love for Jesus and her love motivated what she did about Jesus and to Jesus.

Let me say again and emphasize this – Jesus is not concerned with the repentant person’s past, but with the present. However, he seriously scrutinizes both the past and present of the one who refuses to repent and turn from sins to seek forgiveness.

Reasoning of the Guests

The guests at this gathering were quite taken back when Jesus said to the sinful woman, “Thy sins are forgiven” (Lk. 7:48). They questioned within themselves, “Who is this that forgiveth sins also?” (Lk. 7:49) They are perplexed, knowing that the Pharisees rejected the ability Jesus had in the spiritual realm. And yet, look at his forthright boldness in declaring this woman’s sins forgiven! On one hand there were the leaders of the Jews who were rejecting Jesus the press of the leadership. On the other hand, proof that could not be refuted – the actual miracles of Jesus over against the puny jabs of his enemies. “Who is this that forgiveth sins also?” Not only does this man perform miracles, but he also forgives sins! No one but God can forgive sins (LK. 5:21). Who and what does this make Jesus? Is not Jesus then a prophet and God?

Who Is This Jesus?

Who do you think Jesus is? Presumptuous? The Pharisees certainly thought he was. There is no sure word of comfort to these. But he speaks words of sweet joy and comfort to this woman (Lk. 7:50). As the religious Pharisees saw the situation, she was the least likely to succeed. Yet right here before the eyes of all, Jesus had forgiven this woman’s sins. Jesus can forgive your sins too if you are not yet a child of God or if you are a Christian who has sinned. He was able and willing then and he is able and willing now.

What Have You Done?

It matters little what you have been in time past. What matters is what you are now. Jesus told that dear woman many years ago, “Thy faith hath saved thee: go in peace” (Lk. 7:50). Many a time Jesus has told someone that his father had saved or made him whole (Mt. 9:22; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 18:42). Likewise, Peter the apostle told the people of his day, “. . whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43Y. Then in verse 48 “he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. ” What would this do for them? Let Peter tell us. In Acts 2 some believing Jews asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter answered, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37-38). What Peter told those believers to do for remission of sins and to be saved coincides with what Jesus said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Do you want your past sins forgiven? Do you want to be saved? Then do as Jesus and the apostles told those others of our dispensation to do.

What About The Erring Child of God?

Are you one who has been baptized, but who has sinned and now you want forgiveness? Peter tells us how to receive this blessing from God. He told one who sinned after his conversion, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thing heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22, 12-13). He would say the same to you, today. Will you do what Jesus asks of you? Are you like the Pharisee who just looked on in disbelief while Christ saved those around him? Do you choose to go to hell rather than receive the blessing from Jesus? Don’t hold back like the Pharisee did. Be like the sweet sister who “stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment” (Lk. 7:38). Yes, be like this woman and know that Jesus says to such people, “Thy sins are forgiven. . . Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace” (Lk. 7:38,40).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, pp. 683-684
November 19, 1987