Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten

Near Kentucky Lake a few years back, a thin, elderly man was cautiously pulling his bass boat behind a well-used pickup truck. Suddenly there appeared behind him one of Detroit’s latest with a young driver eager to show its capabilities. The fishing rig was moving too slowly and holding up traffic. So in his frustration the young man zipped around in front of him and brought his car to a halt crosswise in the road. He then jerked the older driver out of the pickup, threw him to the pavement and proceeded to beat him in the face, using the old gentleman’s own wrinkled fists with which to do it. He was sued and in court pleaded self-defense. As strange as it may seem, there is a moral to this story: Satan takes man’s own natural instincts and perverts them, thus bringing his downfall.

The Bible teaches that there are two forces at work in our society: one is the devil and the other the cause of Christ (Eph. 2:1-6). Even man is a dual being made up of an outward man and an inner being (2 Cor. 4:16). Because of his flesh man is a feeding animal and has a natural appetite for bread. The inward part of man is a higher life, the true self and is more than a being dependent upon bread. Because of this man needs more than physical bread to sustain him. He needs the Bread of Life (Jn. 6:33-35). Man can feed his soul on the Bread of Life while his body is fasting (Jn. 6:35,48).

While hunger is not in itself an evil in the sense of being sinful, the satisfying of that perfectly innocent appetite in a manner unworthy of one seeking to please God can result in sin. There is a clear distinction between food which simply supplies bodily hunger and appetite, and the food which nourishes emotion, affection and cultures the conscience and the will. Satan knows full well that the nobler part of man is nourished by faith in the Word of God and that he who feeds the soul will feed the body also (Jn. 6:33). He seeks to subvert this principle with devices of his own. In his cunning craftiness he often bases his force and plants an attack in the form of temptations aimed at the weakness that lurks in the bodily appetite. Man is so gullible and easily deceived into thinking that happiness comes through indulgences of the flesh.

One can see this form of temptation in the case of Jesus (Matt. 4:14). The whole point of the temptation of Christ lay in the suggestion and the solicitation of the satisfying of a perfectly innocent appetite in a manner unworthy of the Son of God. But take note of the fact that Jesus could do what we wouldn’t do. His action reminds us that we have no right always to do the thing for which we may have the resources of abundant might. For example, man says, “I have the right to do what I please with my money,” when in reality it is not what he likes that he can lawfully do with it, but what is right. He has the right only to do what is proper with his money. The same is true in other areas. How much happier the world would be if it thought more of what is ethical and less about what they think is their right.

Satan appeals to the flesh of man, the outer man, while God appeals to the inner man, the spirit (1 Jn. 2:15-17; 2 Cor. 7: 1). While Satan uses perfectly innocent desires through which to destroy man (Eph. 4:14; 2 Cor. 4:2), God appeals to the heart. The reason for this is that when the inner man is nurtured and matured he will control and bring under subjection the outer man so that both his body and soul find acceptance with Jehovah. Look at it: “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord” (2 Cor. 7:1). Therefore, we are to love God with all our heart (Matt. 22:37), we are to believe in our heart (Rom. 10:10), we are to obey from the heart (Rom. 6:17), etc. Everything begins with the heart. When the nation’s people have their hearts right with God, the nation will be at peace. Peace begins in the heart of each of us.

When will man learn the deception of thinking that happiness comes from certain indulgences? When will we ever talk less about things that make us happy and more about obedience to God? True and lasting happiness cannot be had without entertaining God in our hearts. We cheat ourselves when we think we can have it without him. Without God enthroned in our hearts the happiness we think we have found is the same as that found by lowly animals. More succinctly, the pleasures of sin “are but for a season” (Heb. 11:25). “Not on bread alone shall a man live” (Matt. 4:4). Where is the strength of man apart from that supplied by the armor of God to stand in the “evil day” (Eph. 6:11)? Not even human wisdom can bring us into a right relationship with God (1 Cor. 1:19,21). Only the gospel of Christ can do that (Rom. 1:16-17). Because the gospel alone saves and sustains us the nation cannot be holy without it (Rom. 1:16-17). “Blessed are the pure in heart” (Matt. 5:8).

Let us then feed our souls and rest in assurance that the fed soul will put into safe and wise regulation all feedings of the bodily appetite. The food of the spiritual is spiritual, “for to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6). The temptations of man can only be mastered by religious principle. With an “it is written” in our hearts and on our lips we overcome the forces of Satan in whatever form they take. Temptation is possible without sin. Until the will of man consents, sin is not committed (Jas. 1:12-15). Likewise, until men consent to the principle of “not by bread alone,” will discipline exist in our society. Failure to accept this biblical fact can lead only to defeat.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, p. 581
October 1, 1987

By Luther W. Martin

“Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis. Irenaeus is the first church teacher in whom we find any allusion to infant baptism” (Neander’s History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 1, p. 311). (Irenaeus lived 130-200 A.D.)

“There is no proof or hint in the New Testament that the Apostles baptized infants or ordered them to be baptized” (The First Age of Christianity and the Church, J.J.I. Dollinger, p. 325).

“As the Apostle said, children are already holy, if their fathers or mothers are Christians; that is, they are already distinguished from the mass of Heathen and Jews by the mere fact, which alone proclaims God’s will of having a Christian parent. They are already destined for sanctification and capable of it; from their earliest age the Christian profession and life of their family has a sanctifying effect on them; they grow up under the religious influence of a father’s or mother’s prayers and example” (Ibid., p. 326). (J.J.I. Dollinger was a German scholar, a faculty member in a Catholic University, who opposed the dogma of papal infallibility, in 1870.)

“The principle rites in the early Church were Baptism and the Lord’s supper. Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly by immersion. Whether infants were baptized in the Apostolic age, or exactly when the custom arose of administering this rite to them, is a controverted question on which the New Testament writings furnish no direct information” (The Beginnings of Christianity, George P. Fisher, p. 565).

“Irenaeus – who was born about A.D. 130 – implies that infants were baptized in his time. Origen, a child of Christian parents, and born A.D. 155, was baptized in infancy, and regarded infant baptism as an Apostolic institution” (Ibid., pp. 565-566).

“Lord Palmerston was once severely attacked for having said ‘Children are born good.’ But he, in fact, only said what Chrysostom had said before him, and Chrysostom said only what in the Gospels had been already said of the natural state of the unbaptized Galilean children, ‘Of such is the kingdom of Heaven… (Christian Institutions, Arthur P. Stanley, D.D., Dean of Westminster, p. 22).

“In the Apostolic age, and in the three centuries which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in full age, of their own deliberate choice. We find a few cases of the baptism of children; in the third century we find one case of the baptism of infants. Even amongst Christian households the instances of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ephrem of Edessa, Augustine, Ambrose, are decisive proofs that it was not only not obligatory but not usual. All these distinguished personages had Christian parents, and yet were not baptized till they reached maturity. The old liturgical service of Baptism was framed for full-grown converts, and is only by considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants. Gradually the practice of baptizing infants spread, and after the fifth century the whole Christian world, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, Episcopal and Presbyterian (with the single exception of the sect of the Baptists before mentioned), have adopted it. Whereas, in the early ages, Adult Baptism was the rule, and Infant Baptism the exception, in later times Infant Baptism is the rule, and Adult Baptism the exception” (Ibid., pp. 19-20). (Stanley was Dean of Westminster, in the Church of England, a century ago.)

“. . And now what of infants? Before speaking of any conditions relating to their baptism, let us ask this question: is it right to baptize them at all? There is no direct answer to this-question in the Scriptures, but there is no mistaking the directness of the answer supplied from tradition. Origen spoke truly in saying that the church received this custom from the Apostles. Even those who, like Harnack, deny the apostolicity of this custom, are none the less obliged to admit that it was a widespread custom in the time of Tertullian, who was born about the year 160” (The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Edited by George D. Smith, p. 794).

“But immediately after Irenaeus, in the last years of the second century, Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolic institution; for otherwise, he would hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it. We perceive from his argument against infant baptism, that its advocates already appealed to Matt. 19:14, a passage which it would be natural for everyone to apply in this manner. ‘Our Lord rebuked not the little children, but commanded them to be brought to him that he might bless them.’ Tertullian advises, that in consideration of the great importance of the transaction, and of the preparation necessary to be made for it on the part of the recipients, baptism, as a general thing, should rather he delayed than prematurely applied, and he takes this occasion to declare himself particularly opposed to haste in the baptism of children. In answer to the objection drawn from those words of Christ, he replies: – ‘Let them come, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians, when they are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste, to procure the forgiveness of sins for the age of innocence?” (Neander’s History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 1, p. 312).

“Infants are to be baptized very soon after birth, but no definite rule as to time is laid down by canon law. Non-Catholic infants in danger of death may be baptized even against their parents’ wishes” (Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, p. 254).

“The Church has always taught that unbaptized children are excluded from Heaven but has defined nothing as to their positive fate” (Ibid., p. 255).

“Unbaptized children are buried without liturgical rites in a special part of the cemetery” (Ibid., p. 255).

“Babies deceased without baptism. On the fate of these little ones, some doctors expressed themselves too rigorously. Others with too great indulgence. St. Augustine (followed by St. Gregory the Great, St. Anselm, Gregory of Rimini, the torturer of infants, Bossuet, Berti) taught that they are damned, although punished with very light suffering” (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Parente, Piolanti and Garofalo, p. 27).

“Marriage is not the cause of the sin which is transmitted in the natural birth, and atoned for in the new birth; but the voluntary transgression of the first man is the cause of original sin” (Augustine 354-430 A.D., Quoted in The Teachings of the Church Fathers, Edited by John R. Willis, p. 276).

“Let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and where he pleases. For this is what the heresy of Pelagius promises them” (Ibid., Quoting Augustine, p. 278).

418 A.D. – The First Decree Concerning “Original Sin”

Two religious teachers, Pelagius and Coelestius, maintained that “man’s nature was not corrupted by the fall of Adam, and that even where Christianity was not known men might render themselves by the power of their own wills proper subjects of divine grace” (History of the Christian Church, by Dr. Charles Hase, professor of Theology in the University of Jena, p. 122).

These two men were anathematized by the Council of Carthage, Canon 2:

“Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers; wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism ‘unto the remission of sins’ is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema” (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger, p. 45).

“‘If anyone denies that infants newly born from their mother’s wombs are to be baptized,’ even though they be born of baptized parents, Cor says they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration’ for the attainment of life everlasting, whence it follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is understood to be not true, but false: let him be anathema” (Ibid., p. 247).

Conclusions Based Upon the Foregoing Historical Excerpts

1. Baptism was administered only to adults in the New Testament church.

2. Children were held to be innocent and holy in the first age of the church.

3. Infant baptism was neither taught nor exemplified in the New Testament.

4. The first implication of infant baptism was during the life of Irenaeus, who was born about 130 A.D.

5. Origen, born about 155 A.D., asserted that infant baptism was apostolic.

6. A.P. Stanely, Dean of Westminster, an Anglican churchman, concluded that there was a few instances of infant baptism in the 3rd century.

7. A Catholic author, George D. Smith, states that the Scriptures give no direct answer to the question: “Is it right to baptize them (infants) at all?”

8. Notice that the modern Catholic Dictionary (Attwater), asserts that the Church (Roman Catholic) “has always taught” that “unbaptized children are excluded from heaven.”

9. Council of Carthage, 418 A.D. issues a decree on 44original sin”; this was done in anathematizing those teachers who denied “original sin.”

10. Later church councils repeated and strengthened their support of the doctrine of “original sin.”

11. The denominations that directly split from the Roman Catholic Church, nearly all continued the doctrine of “original sin.” This, in turn, produced the practice of infant baptism.

12. Even the Wesleys who started the Methodist Church fostered infant sprinkling and held that infants were born in a state of condemnation; that is, until 1910 A.D., when they modified their position in their Book of Discipline.

Summary and Conclusion

In the early years of the Apostate Church, when they practiced infant baptism, for a time their theologians insisted that it was also necessary for infants to partake of the “Holy Eucharist,” on pain of condemnation.

Also, there were controversies as to the depth or degree of punishment that awaited the unbaptized infant, after death. The subject of “Limbo” has been bandied about by Catholic scholars (?) who suggested that God would not cause “pain” to the unbaptized infant, in the hereafter, but that these infants would be denied the “Beatific Vision”; that is, be denied being in the presence of God.

I am not aware of any equivalent controversies on this subject that plagued the Church of England, Lutherans, Methodists or Presbyterians . . . like were experienced by the Catholic Church. However, none of the posterity of Catholicism developed the idea of “original sin,” and consequent “infant baptism” themselves, they all imitated their ancestry (ponder Revelation 17,18).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 584-586
October 1, 1987

By Harland R. Huntoon

It is Sunday night in early January about ten p.m. Services have long been over and the auditorium is empty except for four women talking softly on the back rows. Two young children sit sleepily a few rows up. Presently, a side door opens and four men come out of a classroom. Goodbyes are said, the building is locked, and the four families get into their respective cars for the drive home. Another “business meeting” of the elders and the preacher has ended.

“How did it go?” the preacher’s wife asks, almost not wanting to get an answer, judging from her husband’s face. Quietly, so the children wouldn’t hear, he tells her the elders “couldn’t” give him a cost-of-living raise this year.

“But they’ve got the money,” she protests, remembering the $40,000 balance of the financial statement in the foyer.

“I know,” her husband replies, “but they may have to pave the parking lot again, and maybe install some more carpet in the building. Maybe next year.”

With that sadly familiar news, the preacher’s wife rides home in silence. Once again he has to plan how to cut back somewhere and see her family do with less, while the people who support her husband enjoy so much more of this world’s goods. But, like her husband, her problem is not one of envy; she doesn’t begrudge those brethren a thing they have. The problem is one of justice and fairness, to support her husband “liberally” like the Bible teaches. And now he has to live and associate with these brethren, and feed and clothe her family on a terribly limited budget, and yet, she still must accept this and other injustices without becoming bitter or cynical and must try to teach her children to love and respect the stingy men who won’t support her husband like they could and should.

While this introduction is, of course, hypothetical, I have no doubt that there isn’t a preacher’s wife alive who hasn’t at some time been in a “such like” case, and some in situations so very, very much worse. In a day when commitment, duty, honesty, and loyalty mean nothing to men and women everywhere, including some of our brethren, it is entirely fitting, and, at least in my case, long overdue, to pay public tribute to the greatest, single blessing of the hard-working, faithful gospel preacher, his hard-working, home-making, penny-pinching, God-honoring wife.

Like the preachers to whom they are married, the preacher’s wife is burdened with many stereotypes. To some brethren, the perfect preacher’s wife is a figment right out of fantasy land: she must always say the right thing, but always be quiet; she must always dress well, but spend less money than the poorest member; she must spend hours visiting the sick and afflicted, but always be at home; she’s been in town only six months, but she must know every street, every store, and especially every member’s name, address, phone number and aches and pains. If Walt Disney were still alive, even he couldn’t fabricate such a character, yet, it seems that some brethren are expecting such a “wonder.” If she tries to live up to their fantasies, the preacher’s wife as well as the brethren will be destined for great disappointment.

It’s a very unique situation. She is a member of the local church with all the rights and privileges thereof, and yet, like her husband, in some churches, she’ll not be considered a part. The attitude most often will show up at social gatherings; she’ll be invited to the baby or wedding shower by her other “sisters,” but she will be treated like a visitor; she’ll always be kept just a little separate. In subtle ways, and sometimes not so subtle, she’ll be reminded that she doesn’t live here, she’s the preacher’s wife and will be moving some time. It’s another lonely hurt she’ll live with through the years, just so her husband can keep on preaching the Gospel of Christ.

It’s a very vulnerable situation. She is the one closest to the man who tells brethren those “hard sayings,” like smoking is sinful, immodesty, gossip, social drinking, cursing, loving money will take them to hell, even if they have been baptized scripturally years ago, and other brethren tolerate their sins in their local church. When brethren openly rebel against his preaching and determine to “move” him, one of the quickest ways to motivate him will be to attack his wife or his children. And usually it’s not that difficult to cast reflection on her either, because she’s so gullible, she’ll always try to give others the benefit of the doubt (she believes her husband’s preaching). So when the gossip starts, she’ll try to rise above it, and, with her husband, she’ll go and talk with the guilty one, only to find herself lied about again, and where there is no or poor leadership, things will deteriorate very fast from there. Preachers can tolerate lots of personal abuse from mean and ignorant brethren, but I’ve not met one who could long stand for the tears on his wife or children’s faces caused by the lying and hateful tongues of brethren who wouldn’t repent of the sins he preached against. Oh, those are terribly unhappy days! Some preachers never recover either, and enter secular work to relieve them and protect their families. Some preacher’s wives have left their husbands and gone to live with their children or by themselves, when their husbands wouldn’t quit preaching. I’ve known two such preachers, and both were strong, faithful, godly men, and they justwouldn’t quit when the going got so nasty, but they lived their last years alone. Some have found it easy to criticize and condemn the preacher’s wife for deserting under such circumstances, and I find it difficult to see how such a separation could be scriptural, but I reach such a point of heartache and despair where such a separation would seem the only way to preserve her sanity.

But, in spite of these and other negative aspects, the vast majority stay; and others will come and take their places as one by one the older ones are called home to rest. They come from all walks of life and every segment of society, each with a different personality; some, vivacious and outgoing; others, quiet and demure, and every shade in between. All drawn to this same station in life by one powerfully, self-sacrificing, common commitment: to support their husbands in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They do it knowing there is no retirement program, no fringe benefits, no certain place to ever call home for their children, and sometimes few friendly faces at worship service. They all begin the same, so zealously, so innocently. Sometimes when I see the naive young ones, I cry a little inside. These women will generally come to know better than most what the word sacrifice really means. As a rule, they will become increasingly defensive and protective of their husbands whom they will see abused and taken advantage of too many times. They will know how comforting it is to have genuinely true friends in Christ, who understand and appreciate their unselfish, difficult labor of love. These brethren will stand out as refreshing oasis in the desert of life, whose company will heal their hurts and strengthen their sickened souls. They will come to thank God every day for a local church whose elders truly love and appreciate her husband for the Truth he preaches, and whose members reach out and offer them love and support. And they will go to their graves still reaching out for others. One of the dearest preachers I know laid his faithful mate to rest several years ago. He gave the preacher who would conduct the funeral the songs she had previously selected. Two seemed quite appropriate to him, but the third puzzled him a bit, until it was sung during the funeral service, and then, suddenly, he knew; it wasn’t a song for her at all; she picked it out for the dedicated gospel preacher she had loved so long and had to leave behind – “God Will Take Care Of You.” Such are the women who share the lives of the preachers of God’s saving grace.

But when we see her Sunday morning, these heartaches and deep scars will rarely show. She will smile so graciously and seek out the visitors to welcome. When you ask her how she’s doing, “things are fine,” will be a common reply. She’s not a whiner; she will put her best foot forward and keep on serving her Lord. For this reason, it is easy for inexperienced and insensitive brethren to imagine that, like the preacher, the preacher’s wife has a “pretty easy life.” He gets paid a week’s wages for two days work, and she just sits around and spends it. Even as I write this overview, I know that some brethren won’t think that I’m talking about their preacher’s wife at all. But after almost twenty years of preaching, and listening to the sad and sinful experiences of dozens of preachers and their wives, I know only too well that the conditions and problems the preacher’s wife faces are both very real and very common.

Yet, like other preacher’s wives, mine, if she knew I was writing this, would be reluctant to have me print it. They don’t want more exposure. If anything, they want less. They dislike the intense scrutiny, the vulnerability, the uncertainty of financial support. They just want to be one of the members, to come and go quietly, and raise their children to be God-fearing, sin-opposing Christians. They want to be looked upon like any other saint as those who are not perfect, and will not please all the brethren all the time, but they will try to serve God ac cording to his will, and most, of them do such a marvelous job. Their graciousness makes self-sacrifice look so natural, and, to them, it is; they have hearts bigger than most, I do believe. So while some may not think this article says much, that is all right; I wrote it primarily for a few whom I know will understand, and with great thankfulness, I hasten to add, I know there are scores of elders, deacons, and members around the country and the world who love preachers and their families and will understand and care as well.

God will bless you dear women who give such a great measure of devotion to the Christ who died for you, by listening to, crying with, moving with, and constantly building up the few men who humbly and proudly preach the pure gospel of the Savior of all mankind. Rest assured that, although we sometimes take you for granted through the pressures of our own duties, you are never forgotten by us, and most especially not by the great God whose glorious heaven your presence will one day adorn. This article, nor ten thousand better, could ever begin to describe how valuable you are to us who preach. And should we live a hundred lifetimes, we could never be more than what we are because of you precious women, who, with pride and fear, faithfully stand beside us year after year, and so honorably bear the stigma of “the preacher’s wife.” (Reprinted from Expository Review, Vol. 3, No. 9, September 1984.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 582-583
October 1, 1987

By Johnny Stringer

Jesus did not want men to think that he was in conflict with the Law of Moses and the Old Testament prophets. In the Sermon on the Mount he corrected that idea and taught men to respect the Law. In fact, he said that whether or not one respected the Law had a bearing on whether he would enter the Lord’s kingdom.

Jesus Came to Fulfill

To understand what Jesus meant when he said that he came to fulfill the Law and the prophets, we must understand the purpose of the Law. The Law was a part of God’s preparation for bringing Christ into the world.

In preparing for the Savior, God built a nation (Israel) from which the Savior would come. He gave that nation a land to live in (Canaan) and a law to live by (the Law of Moses). He worked with Israel for hundreds of years, training, teaching, and disciplining them, so that when the Savior came they would be ready to receive him.

The Law of Moses played a key role in preparing the Israelites for Christ. It was a schoolmaster to lead them to Christ (Gal. 3:24). It kept within their hearts the knowledge of God and a concept of purity and morality. Moreover, it contained rituals and functionaries that symbolized or foreshadowed Christ and his work (Heb. 10:1). Also, it helped make men aware of their sins and their need for a Savior.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the prophets in that he was the one they led to and pointed to. He was the fulfillment of the types, shadows, and prophecies. When he did his work on earth, that to which the Law and prophets had pointed was accomplished; hence, his work constituted the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets.

Not To Destroy

When Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the Law and prophets, he did not mean that the Law of Moses would never cease to be binding. In fact, as a result of his work, the Law of Moses did cease to be binding (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14-16; Rom. 7:1-7; Heb. 7:12; Gal. 3:24-25). Then what did he mean?

Among the definitions Thayer gives for the word rendered “destroy” is “to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught.” Jesus did not come to render the Law and prophets vain (useless) and deprive them of success. To the contrary, his work was the very thing the Law and prophecies pointed to. Jesus was making the point that his work was not in conflict with the Old Testament. Rather, it was in perfect harmony with the Old Testament, being the very thing the Old Testament pointed to.

When Jesus accomplished his work, the Law of Moses was fulfilled. That which it had been designed to lead men to had come. So having served its purpose, it passed away (Gal. 3:25). It was not destroyed in the sense Jesus used the term in our text. Consider the following illustration.

As the Law led to Christ (Gal. 3:24), an engagement leads to a marriage. The marriage is not in conflict with the engagement, but it does bring an end to the engagement. It does not destroy the engagement in the sense that an engagement would be destroyed if it were just broken off and nullified. When the marriage comes the engagement has served its purpose. Its goal has been fulfilled. It is no longer in effect. But people at a wedding do not say that the engagement is being destroyed.

As the engagement ends with the marriage, the Law of Moses ended with the word of Christ. Christ was not in conflict with the Law any more than the marriage is in conflict with the engagement; he did not “destroy” the Law any more than a marriage destroys an engagement.

Significance of Attitude Toward The Law

Until Jesus had completed his work on earth, thereby fulfilling the Law, the Law was to be obeyed (v. 18). Jesus said that those who did not obey it would be called least in the kingdom of heaven, while those who obeyed it would be called great in the kingdom (v. 19).

This was true because an obedient spirit would be required in the kingdom. In fact, a higher degree of righteousness would be required in the kingdom than that which was taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees (v. 20). Those who had a spirit of disobedience, and hence disobeyed the Law of Moses, would not be acceptable in the kingdom, assuming they continued to have that spirit after the kingdom began.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 18, p. 563
September 17, 1987