Truth Magazine

By Harold Fite

In the Houston Chronicle, Saturday, May 23, 1997, under the heading, “Roman Catholics Reassess Biblical Portrayal of Christ,” Julia Duin wrote of the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to absolve the Jews of responsibility in the death of Christ.

To believe that the Jews crucified Christ is to be accused by them of anti-Semitism. The Catholics are feeling the pressure, and for the past several years have been withdrawing statements from Catholic textbooks that could be construed as anti-Semitic.

Judith Muffs, associate director for interfaith affairs of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in New York, said, “The major problem is when the biblical text says ‘the Jews,’ here’s one Jew writing about two or three Jews, yet the text says ‘the Jews.’ Almost the whole cast of characters (in the New Testament) were Jews.”

Dr. Elias Mallon, a Catholic scholar from New York said, “The early Christians altered the Gospels to fit in with the political situation of the times.” Also, “the Gospel writers,” he said, “were presenting theology, not chronology.” He amplifies this by saying, “when you talk about the truth of Jesus, you’re not talking about a historical truth, you’re talking about a theological truth. ” He continued by saying, “The words more reflect the situation of where the church lived rather than what actually happened. ” He was quick to add, however, that “It’s not like (the Gospels) are false or an absolute lit, but people weren’t concerned with historical accuracy until the Enlightenment (an 18th century philosophical movement based on rationalism) . . . people back there didn’t write history like we do in the 20th century. They treated details differently than we do.”

It is the opinion of Dr. Mallon that “John was affected by early Christians who were having problems with the Roman authorities and were more inclined to use the Jews as a scapegoat rather than the Romans.”

Let it be understood that I do not believe the modern day Jew can be blamed for what his forefathers did, anymore than I could be charged with the abuse of the American Indian, or be guilty of practicing slavery, even though I have lived in the south all of my life where slavery was practiced. “The son does not bear the iniquity of the father.” Nor do I mean to imply that every single Jew who lived in the time of Christ bore a responsibility for the murder of Jesus (not the apostles, the man born blind – John 9:38, etc.), but the death of Christ certainly involved more than “two or three.” The Jewish nation as a whole rejected Christ and consented to his death.

This doesn’t mean that the Jews administered the death penalty. They didn’t have this authority under Roman rule (John 18:31). But they desired his death, and pressured the Roman authorities to kill him.

Note the attitude of the Jews toward Jesus which finally culminated in his death: they accused him of being seditious, a blasphemer, wine-bibber, gluttonous, of violating the sabbath, and other false charges. They were always trying to catch something out of his mouth that they could use against him. Judas received thirty pieces of silver from them to deliver him into their hands. When Pilate said to them, “take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law,” their intent is clearly seen when they responded, “it is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” They wanted Jesus dead!

They pressured Pilate to enact the death penalty (read John 18, 19). From hearts of hatred they shouted, “Crucify him, crucify him! Away with him, away with him, crucify himl” And they told Pilate, “If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’s friend.” They even allowed a murderer to be freed in order to crucify the Christ. The Jews got their way. Jesus was crucified.

Now who killed Jesus? When Peter spoke in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), he addressed his audience as “ye men of Judea, and all that dwell in Jerusalem” (v. 14). He later referred to those assembled as “Israel,” and charged them with crucifying and slaying Christ by the hand of lawless men (vv. 23, 24). He called upon them to repent of this terrible sin (v. 38), and about three thousand did (v. 41).

Later, Peter and John stood in the porch that was called Solomon’s and directed their words to “men of Israel” and charged them with having “killed the P~ince of Life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are all witnesses” (Acts 3:13-15). Peter said you killed him. We are witnesses.

Stephen charged the Jews with betraying and murdering the Christ, and also killing those who spoke of his coming (Acts 7:43-51). What was the reaction of the Jews to these charges? They killed Stephen!

The Word of God leaves no question as to who crucified the Christ. The Scriptures are replete with this cowardly deed. For one to reject this fact of history, he would have to reject God’s word as being a fabrication. This is exactly what Mr. Mallon has done that he might curry favor with the Jews. He accuses the Gospel writers as being less than honest in their writings, “having altered the Gospels to fit in with the political situation of the time . . . reflecting the situation of where the church lived rather than what actually happened.”

I must remind Mr. Mallon that “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:20, 21).

Paul said he and the apostles didn’t speak “in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:13).

The Gospel writers did not speak of things which originated in their own minds, but that which was given them through the Spirit. They were inspired men and they faithfully discharged their duties as ambassadors of Christ. They spoke the truth!

I have a few relatives who have conducted themselves in such a way as to have brought shame on the family name. The conduct of some Americans have been an embarrassment to the nation, but I can’t say these things never happened.

The Jews killed Christ. It is a fact of history. There were witnesses; God said it. I believe it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 17, pp. 522-523
September 3, 1987

By Larry Ray Hafley

That there is a great and grave need for soundness in doctrine, cannot be confuted. False teachers and false doctrines have to be met (2 Pet. 2: 1; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; Tit. 1:9-13; 2:15). However, disciples of Christ must maintain personal as well as doctrinal purity. Consider the book of James. One may use James 2:14-26 to show that salvation is “not by faith only,” but unless he is also steadfast, patient (1:10; 5:10), prayerful (1:5; 7:13), penitent (5:16), swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath (1:19), obedient (1:22-25; 2:10,11), impartial in love (2:1-9), pure in speech and life (3:1-18; 4:4,8; 1:26), humble (4:6, 10), and kind to others (1:27; 5:6), his arguments are sounding brass, tinkling cymbals and vain jangling. “These ought ye to have done, and not leave the other undone.”

If the watching world does not see our good works, they will not, despite our unanswerable arguments, glorify God (Matt. 5:16). As one can win a battle and lose the war, so he can win an argument and lose a soul. We see Stephen as a great debater (Acts 6:10). We exult in his withering speech against the Jews (Acts 7). That is fine, but do we see him as a humble, faithful helper of indigent, neglected widows? We see the fearless, peerless Paul in numerous debates in Athens, Corinth, Damascus, Jerusalem, Thessalonica and Rome. That is great, but do we also see him sweating as he makes tents, laboring night and day? We hear his ringing, stinging words of sharp reproof and rebuke, but do we also hear his sweet and gentle words of love and thanks for Epaphroditus and Onesiphorus (Phil. 2:25-30; 2 Tim. 1:16-18)? We recall Paul’s labors for Christ in meeting false teachers, and well we should, but do we also see him picking up sticks for a fire on a damp, cold day (Acts 28:2,3)? He was the hero of the hour and could have sat back, perhaps, and enjoyed his acclaim, but he was not too good to gather fire wood as others had.

There is truth in the old adage, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Though the statement, “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth” (1 Cor. 8:1), has been misused by false teachers as a cover for their doctrines while they exude a mushy, shallow, sensual “love,” it is still a truth – see the context. Let all saints be wary of a cold, pompous, arrogant attitude -speak the truth in love; “in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:25).

The truth of the Spirit cannot avail where the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance) has not prevailed.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 17, p. 519
September 3, 1987

By Don R. Hastings

The above title was taken from the Bradenton Herald sometime ago. Under this headline were two editorials which greatly disturbed me. Like Jeremiah, I weep over the ungodliness found in our nation. We are being saturated with philosophies which produce moral decay. What does the future hold in store for our children? It is frightening to consider.

One editorial was entitled, “Teach values, not sexuality,” by James Kilpatrick. This editorial was taken from Universal Press Syndicate. I will copy part of it.

“What has become of the old values in American life today? In a mid-November report that deserves a wider reading than it has received, a White House study group looked at traditional values and found them in sorry shape.

“Somewhere along the way, in the ‘me first’ generation of the 1960’s and 1970’s, old concepts of virtue and right conduct took a beating. The study group’s primary concern was the value of family, the core unit of father and mother, caring for their children and guiding them toward constructive adulthood. . .

“Marriage bonds once were generally regarded as just that – as bonds that could not easily be broken. Then the idea of ‘no-fault divorce’ swept through the states, and ‘not surprisingly, the divorce rate skyrocketed.’ Recent years have seen one divorce for every two marriages.

“Until recently, a stigma attached to births out of wedlock. There was nothing fashionable, nothing chic, nothing to be lightly condoned in bastardy. In the past 20 years, illegitimate births, as a percentage of all births, have increased by more than 450 percent. In this period, the rate of illegitimacy has increased among whites from 1.7 to 10 percent, among non-whites from 16.8 to 48.5 percent.

“Teenage pregnancies have contributed heavily to this appalling social problem. Welfare rolls continue to expand with the progeny of children who give birth to children. These mothers, most of them dropouts from school, are ill prepared for the responsibilities of rearing a child.

“In the view of the study group, much of the ‘value-free’ sex education offered in public schools has proved useless. The distribution of contraceptives has been counterproductive.”

I tried to convince some teachers in elementary school that, if they taught explicitly the reproductive system to their students, they would be demoralizing their students. You do not get the same emotional response from a child when teaching how the digestive system works as you do in teaching how the reproductive system works.

These teachers were handed a syllabus entitled, “Planning Stages For Sex Education In The Elementary School.” In this syllabus there is this statement, “Children become de-sensitized quickly and become very comfortable discussing the subject matter in a few days.” Does this quotation frighten you? It terrifies me! I don’t want my children to become insensitive when talking about their reproductive system. I want them to have a sense of modesty. I want them to have a sense of shame deeply rooted within them, so that, they will not think, talk, act, or dress in a shameful manner!

One of the major things wrong with America is that we have become de-sensitized. We cannot blush. Jeremiah wrote, “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed, Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; In the time of their punishment they shall be cast down, says the Lord” (8:12, NKJV). There is not any sexual subject that is too sensitive for discussion on television, movies, magazines, records, etc. The more sensitive the subject matter, the more people want to talk about it. When these subjects are discussed, perversion is glorified as good and godliness is condemned as evil (Isa. 5:20). Americans are so happy that sexual topics have been brought out of the closet and discussed openly. However, this candid dialogue does not warn against sinful conduct and promote righteousness. It produces the opposite effect.

The other editorial was written by Charles Krauthammer and taken from the Washington Post Syndicate. I will copy part of what he wrote.

“The latest outrage of American life: the pill goes to school. There are now 72 ‘comprehensive health clinics’ in or near the nation’s public high schools. Very comprehensive. More than a quarter dispense and more than half prescribe birth-control devices. When the New York City Board of Education found out that two of its clinics were in the dispensing business, it ordered them to cease and desist.

“Secretary of Education William Bennett has waxed eloquent on the subject. He is surely right that birth control in the schools only legitimates sexual activity and represents an ‘abdication of moral authority.’ Clinics are not only an admission by adults that they cannot control teenage sexuality, but also tacit consent, despite the ‘just say no’ rhetoric. . .

“Time to face facts. Yes, birth-control clinics are a kind of surrender. But at Little Big Hom, surrender is the only sound strategy. Sex oozes from every pore of the culture and there’s not a kid in the world who can avoid it. To shut down school birth-control clinics in order to imply the contrary is a high-minded but very costly exercise in message sending. Costly because the message from the general culture will prevail anyway, and sex without contraception means babies.

“The sex battle is lost. The front-line issue is pregnancy. Some situations are too far gone to be reversed. They can only be contained. Containment here means trying at least to prevent some of the personal agony and social pathology that invariably issue from teen-age pregnancy. . . .

“I am no more pleased than that next parent to think that in ten years’ time my child’s path to math class will be adorn ed with a tasteful display of condoms in the school’s clinic window. But by then it will be old hat.”

Has the sex battle been lost? Should we agree to tell our children that it’s fine to engage in a sexual relationship, but just don’t get pregnant? I am not throwing in the towel! Christians, who surrender, have surrendered to the devil. Lift up your voice and cry out against moral pollution. I ‘Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong” (1 Cor. 16:14). Let us proclaim to our children and the world that sexual relationships outside the marriage relationship are wrong! “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).

Tell them abortion is wrong! Homosexuality is wrong! Fornication is wrong! Watching sexually stimulating television programs and movies is wrong I Lusting after men and women is wrong! These things, and many other things of like nature, are wrong because God said they were wrong (1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Matt. 5:27,28; Eph. 5:5)!

Will your voice of protest be heard or will you be silent? Your standing for the right may not change society, but it will save your soul and maybe the souls of others.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 17, pp. 515-516
September 3, 1987

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Explain Luke 18:7,8. In what matters will God avenge His elect on earth?

Reply: The parable of the unrighteous judge, as set forth in Luke 18:1-8, deserves a careful study. The purpose of the parable is given by Jesus at the outset – “to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint” (v. 1). “There was in a city a judge, who feared not God, and regarded not man” (v. 2). He was irreverent and heartless. A widow came to him to avenge her of her adversary. This godless and hardened judge was not disposed to grant the request of this importunate widow, but finally he avenged her “lest she wear me out by her continual coming” (v. 5). He did not give her justice because it was right, but because he did not want to be bothered by her. The lesson is obvious. If this judge, who was without feeling, was willing to grant the request of the widow; how much more would the righteous and compassionate judge avenge his elect (his children) who cry to him day and night? The force of the parable is the contrast between the unrighteous judge and the righteous judge.

The widow who came to the judge wanted to be avenged of her adversary. This was her opponent, one who no doubt oppressed her. Literally, the Greek word anddikos translated “adversary,” means “an opponent in a suit at law.” She was asking to be avenged or vindicated. She was wanting judgment from mistreatment.

The “elect” are those who are children of God as a result of their obedience to the gospel (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; etc.). Our question relates to those matters of which God will avenge his elect on earth. In a more general sense than an adversary in a lawsuit, our adversaries are those who persecute us “for righteousness sake” (Matt. 5:10). The matters, therefore, on which God will avenge his elect are the wrongs done them by their enemies.

When the fifth seal was opened in the book of Revelation, John wrote: “I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy and true dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” (Rev. 6:9,10) John saw “souls” beneath the altar – those who had given up their lives for Christ, and they are asking for vengeance. They asked, “How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” When would they be avenged?

Some of the psalms are imprecatory in nature, and are referred to as such, because the psalmist invoked vengeance upon his enemies. In the 58th psalm, verses 10 and 11, David declares: “The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked; So that men shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.” Another example of an imprecatory psalm is the 59th, verses 11-13. Here David says in regard to his enemies, “Scatter them by thy power, and bring them down, O Lord our shield. For the sin of their mouth, and the words of their lips, Let them even be taken in their pride, And for cursing and lying which they speak. Consume them in wrath, consume them, so they be no more: And let them know that God ruleth in Jacob.” Petitions to God for the defeat of the wicked are thus to be found in both the Old and New Testaments.

Two things should be considered. First, vengeance belongs to God, not man. This is with respect to those who wrong us personally. Capital punishment for crime is not considered here. Paul wrote: “Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). This passage, taken from Deuteronomy 32:35, teaches that we are not to take matters in our own hands. Even when crimes are committed against the State, men are not to take the law into their own hands. In Romans 13, Paul states that civil government is “a minister of God, an avenger of wrath to him that doeth evil” (v. 4). So, the punishment of the evil doer is God’s prerogative. Second, God will avenge his elect in his own time. When the wicked apparently prosper and the evil doer seems to be succeeding it is not easy to be patient; and, like the souls beneath the altar in Revelation 6:9, 10, we cry out: “How long . . . dost thou not judge and avenge. . . ?”

God said that He would avenge his elect “speedily” (Lk. 18:8). To us, and those in the Bible who asked for vengeance, it seems slow. But we need to understand that God delays his punishments because he is longsuffering and wishes to save as many as possible (2 Pet. 3:9). Also, we must remember that what seems long to us in time is short to God. It is “speedy” to him because he does not count time as man does. “But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” We can be assured that God will avenge his “elect” when he is ready. And, when it is the proper time he will move quickly.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 17, p. 517
September 3, 1987