Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

A casual glance at Luke 15 will suffice. You know the text and are familiar with the Lord’s narrative concerning the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son. These well known stories cannot be understood properly unless one knows what precipitated and prompted the Lord’s parables. “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (vv. 1,2). It was in response to these chiding, challenging remarks that the Son of God uttered His reply.

The insinuation and implication of the Pharisees and scribes is that Jesus receives and eats with the hated publicans and sinners because He is one of them, i.e., He, too, is a sinner (cf. Matt. 11:19; Lk. 5:27-32; 19:7). This public affirmation and accusation cannot be summarily dismissed and dispelled with a shrug of the shoulders. No, for it strikes at a vital area and aspect of our Lord’s mission and ministry. All of His mighty miracles and wondrous words will be rejected by the mere murmur, “He, too, is a sinner.” The people will give Him no hearing if the charge is accepted as truth; therefore, it must be met with force and fervor.

The indictment is analogous to that of Matthew 12:22-24. The people saw Jesus’ miracles of healing, and, in amazement, began to ask, “Is not this the son of David?” In other words, “Is tins the King of promise and prophecy?” Of course, the Jewish leaders could neither refute the Lord’s work nor reprove His word, so they chose the easy path of reviling, saying, in effect, “Oh, yes, He performs mighty miracles, but do not be alarmed. After all, He is in league with the devil.” The effect of that charge is to discredit and destroy the efforts of the Savior. For now, no matter how many marvelous miracles He manages to do, the people can say, “Impressive, indeed, but He is of the devil; so, we need not listen to Him. ” It is the same in Luke 15. If the masses are led to believe that Jesus is a sinner because He associates and affiliates with them (“Birds of a feather flock together,” you know), then His work is aborted and abolished. Thus, Jesus, as He did in Matthew 12 (see McGarvey’s commentary) is impelled and compelled to answer. The lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son are His defense, and to them we turn our attention.

Three Separate Items Lost

Observe the difference between the things of our text: a sheep, a coin, a son. One is an animal; one is an object; one is a human being. One is motivated, perhaps, via sheer animal impulse, instinct; one is lost as an inanimate object; one chooses to leave of his own free will. The sheep may fear, but be unable to return; the coin is insensible to feeling of being lost or found; the son can, if he elects to, remember, repent and return. Yes, numerous differences can be seen in these three, yet they all had some things in common — all were lost; the return of each was fervently desired; all were received with rejoicing!

To be lost is a horrible thing. A child can be lost in a large store. One can be lost on a strange highway. One can be lost in an algebra class. Every person of age has felt the knifing terror and gnawing horror of being lost or of having lost something of great value. Terrible even to recall, is it not? Still, there is nothing worse than being “lost,” separated and alienated from the life of God!

One may become lost, ignorantly and unknowingly, as the sheep probably was. Peter recognized this truth when he said, concerning the Jews’ crucifixion of Jesus, “through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17). On the cross, Jesus’ petition emphasized a similar theme and thread of thought. “Father forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). Sadly, though, many choose to follow lust and be lost, as did the younger son of Luke 15. In the Old Testament, God called His people, begging them to stand, see and ask for the old paths that they might find rest for their souls, “But they said, “We will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:16; cf. Isa. 30:9-11). It is a recurring refrain in human history.

God Calls, Man Answers

Jesus came “to seek . . . that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). Our study reveals the ardent search of God. The shepherd sought the lost sheep, and was determined to do so “until he (found) it. ‘I He was not going to quit looking “until” he rescued the lost sheep. The woman anxiously searched for her lost coin. She lit a candle for light to see in every dark crevice and cranny. She swept the house, “every inch of it,” as we might say. Truly, she sought “diligently.” We shall have more to say presently about the father’s keen interest in his son’s return, but this establishes the fact that God seeks those that are lost with love, grace and vigor.

However, man, too, must seek God. Man must answer the call of God. Man must “seek the Lord” (Acts 17:27). To the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Jesus comes, stands at the door and knocks. But He does not open the door. The lost must hear His voice and the lost must open the door, and the Lord “will come in to him” (Rev. 3:20). The Lord seeks, but the lost must “diligently seek” (Acts 17:27; Heb. 11:6; Rom. 2:7), “strive” (Lk. 13:24 – [“strive” is our word for “agony”]), “come” (Heb. 11:6; Jn. 6:37; Matt. 11:28; Rev. 22:17), “hear . . . and open” (Rev. 3:20), “believe” (Heb. 11:6), “receive” (Jn. 1:11), and desire to accept (Jn. 5:40; Lk. 13:34).

The Lord did not say that the lost could not hear and receive Him. He said they would not (Jn. 5:40; Lk. 13:34). Even the spiritually dead man can hear, “and they that hear shall live” (Jn. 5:25). Some, to be sure, do not seek after God (Rom. 3:11) and “cannot hear (Jesus’) word” (Jn. 8:43), but that is because they have made themselves deaf and not because they were born in that condition (Matt. 13:15; cf. Jer. 17:23; 19:15; Zech. 7:11-13).

“Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar”

The description of the wandering, squandering son is one of the tenderest, most touching love stories of the Bible. We are introduced to him as the youngest of two sons of a wealthy plantation owner. That he was wealthy we may fairly deduce from the (1) “portion of goods” (v. 12); (2) “gathered all together” (v. 13 – seems to indicate a great sum); (3) “wasted his substance” (v. 13 – Why the reference to his substance being wasted if it was negligible?); (4) “many hired servants,” “one (implies others) of the servants” (vv. 17,26); (5) “devoured thy living,” (v. 30 – This charge of the elder brother would lose its force if it did not contemplate a large share); (6) festive provisions (fatted calf, ring, robe, shoes, music, dancing, vv. 22-25); (7) “all that I have is thine” (v. 31 – This would be shallow consolation to the elder brother if it did not involve a vast value).

The younger son secured his inheritance, traveled to a far away land and “wasted his substance with riotous living, ” which included immorality with harlots (v. 30). It happened to him as the word of God said it would. “He that keepeth company with harlots spendeth his substance” (Prov. 29:3). “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

We are not told explicitly how long the man was gone, but it must have been many months, if not a year or more. Several factors lead to this conclusion. First, he went into a “far country.” Modes of travel were slow in that era, so it took several weeks to go to a far country. Second, he spent a fortune. As previously reasoned, we may surmise that the young man was wealthy. One may “fool away” a significant amount of money in a short time, but we may safely assume that he did not come to abject poverty over night. Third, “A mighty famine” arose in that land to which he had gone. A famine or an economic depression may arise almost immediately, but they often involve many seasons or months in their development. Fourth, when he had “blown” all his resources, he looked for a job, One can find work in a day, but it is unlikely that our character did so. (A) He as an alien, a foreigner, the last to be hired in any region. (B) There was a famine; work was scarce. (C) He sought work, we may imagine, at several levels before he stooped to feed swine. That was the last place one would seek employment. This search for employment, therefore, took time. (D) The young man had to walk home from a far country. He had no means to pay fare. It took a long time to walk back from whence he came. Thus, we conclude, and trust that you concur, that the young man was gone from home for a long period of time.

The younger son’s descent into debasing debauchery is not less sorrowful despite the fact that it was of his own making. It is correctly said that one must hit bottom before he looks up. And, oh, how deep was the bottom of the pit into which our young son had fallen! He had recklessly, riotously and wantonly wasted his goods. He had reached the proverbial “bottom of the barrel.” He had tried every avenue, seeking to climb out, but he had been reduced to the lowest common denominator. Poor Lazarus himself was not a more helpless, hapless, hopeless, hungry beggar than our young man, “and no man gave unto him.”

But, then, the road to recovery was paved before him. (1) He reflected – “He came to himself.” No lost person can be found who does not admit to himself the futility of his position and condition before God. (2) He remembered the bountiful provisions of hearth and home. “How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!” (3) He resolved, he purposed, “I will arise and go to my father.” (4) He repented. .I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight.” (5) He regretted his actions. “I am no more worthy to be called thy son.” (6) He returned. “He arose and came to his father.” (7) He was restored, received, reunited. “Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him.” (8.) He rejoiced “And they began to be merry.”

Our emotions are not all directed toward the young man. We must pity his father, grieve with him and for him, before

we rejoice with him. It had been a hard time for him, too. His heart was torn with fear and anxiety for his boy. “But how did he know what was happening to his son?” you may object. “There was no communication; he had not heard of his son’s pitiful plight and predicament.” Oh, yes, but he had heard! He knew as every loving father knows. He knew the tendencies of his son. He knew whether or not the young man was frugal or wasteful. He feared that what happened would happen. Even the elder brother knew, for without a word of information, he knew intuitively and instinctively that his brother had “devoured thy living with harlots.” He knew by a life time of observation and experience. Ask any devoted parent.

Further, as noted earlier, the father was evidently a man of considerable wealth. It is reasonable to surmise and conjecture that, as a rich land owner with crops and flocks, he had economic intercourse with traders, shippers and wholesalers of other regions. As such, he would doubtless learn of financial conditions in other climes. Surely, he knew of the tragic, “mighty famine” that had arisen to ravage that “far country.” Assuming he knew where his boy went, as he certainly must have inquired of him the day he left, his heart sunk within him when he heard of the famine, because he has a son in that land, a son who is given to being wasteful. So, the poor father dreaded, fretted and feared the worst.

All of the above is further corroborated and confirmed by the statement, “But when he (the son) was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.” First, it was not an accident that his father saw him when he was yet a great way off. He had been watching, hoping for his return. Perhaps from the porch of the old home place, he had spent many lonesome, tearful hours scanning the horizon for the outline form of his returning son. Alas, there he was! Secondly, how did he know or recognize him when he was “yet a great way off”? Again, like every loving mother or father, he knew his child. Let a dozen or more young men come toward me, and I can tell you which one is mine while he is still “a great way off.” I know how his hand moves at his side when he walks. I recognize the shape of his body, the form of his walk, and so it was with this anxious father. Thirdly, he “had compassion.” Before the boy could pour out his remorse, regret and repentance, the father “had compassion.” Why the compassion if he had not anticipated the need for it? The compassion vindicates and validates our conjectures.

To think of this tender return brings tears to the heart if not to the eyes. Well had the shepherd and the woman said, “rejoice with me,” after they had found that which was lost! “There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” The scribes and Pharisees would not rejoice at the Lord’s receiving, reclaiming and redeeming of the publicans and harlots. They had rather smirk and cast unfounded aspersions which were deftly designed to assassinate Jesus’ character. The elder brother exactly represented them in this regard. The use of the brother’s reaction was a jab at the Pharisees and scribes. It placed them in a bad light.

The elder brother “would not go in.” He referred to his brother as “this thy son” (v. 30), not as his brother (note the father’s gentle correction, “this thy brother,” v. 32). He was jealous, bitter, accusing, rather than “merry,” “glad” and rejoicing. This lesson must not be lost and wasted on us today. Paul instructed the Corinthians to forgive, comfort and confirm their love toward a penitent person, “lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:7).

But we are ahead of our story. When the younger son returned, his father said: (1) “Bring forth the best robe” – not just any robe, but the best. The young man was in tatters and rags as his circumstances would imply. (2) “Put a ring on his hand.” A robe we can understand, but why a ring? Rings were frequently used as family insignias. They showed that one was of and in the family. The young man said he was “no more worthy to be called thy son,” hence, the ring was the token to show that he was not a servant, but a son, fully forgiven, accepted, restored. But what happened to such a family ring he may have possessed before he left home? We are not told, but if he had one, it may have been lost, stolen or pawned to keep himself from starving or to pay debts he incurred with his riotous living. (3) Put “shoes on his feet.” The young son was, no doubt, barefooted. He had walked many miles and any shoes or sandals he had owned before were long since worn away. (4) “And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat and be merry.” The son was emaciated, destitute. Remember, he had desired to eat swine’s food, he was perishing with hunger, “and no man gave unto him.” Also, the father’s fears, worries and concerns for his son had likely stifled his appetite during those weary, dreary months. His longing and pining for his boy had made him sad, distressed. So, he said, “Let us eat, and be merry.”

How thankful we are to revel and regale with them during this happy time, “For this my son (not “my prodigal son;” not, “my servant,” but “this my son”) was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.”

And just here we shall leave them. It is their private moment, their family time to savor, to be renewed, to be refreshed, to close up their wounds of worry and pain. We shall quietly steal away and bask from afar in the sublime joy of their sweetest hour.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 363-364, 374
June 19, 1986

By Ron Halbrook

On the eve of His crucifixion, our Lord prayed with power and pathos:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me (Jn. 17:17-21).

Jesus was set apart from all mankind to do the Father’s will in a unique sense. Also, the disciples of Jesus were set apart unto the service of God through the truth of the word of God. Jesus prayed “for them also which shall believe on me through their word’ I that they all might be united as are the Father and the Son, “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” The word of truth saves, sanctifies, and unites people in Christ! Departure from that word is sin — it brings division, condemnation, and the need for restoration.

The twin themes of “restoration and “unity” with their counterparts sin and division are emphasized all through Bible history. Restoration means return to an original state or standard. Unity is oneness of relationship. Man’s departure from an established standard or state separates him from the one who set the standard and from all who maintain that standard. Such departures destroy unity and create division. But when anyone forsakes all other standards and starts to return to the original, that is restoration. The result is unity with the one who set the standard and with all who maintain it.

The restoration plea is based on the fact that whenever God reveals a standard of truth to guide men, men turn aside from it and must be called back to it. Sin separates man from God and from all who serve God in truth. Each individual passes from a state of innocence to guilt when he first sins (Gen. 3; Rom. 7:9; 1 Jn. 3:4). God’s call for man to be restored to Himself and to divine truth is seen in the blood of Christ which was shed to redeem man from sin (Isa. 53; Tit. 2:11-14; 3:15). But even after initially returning to God, a person may stray away from God and be called back again. This process may be seen in the lives of David and of Simon the sorcerer (Psa. 32:1-5; Acts 8:13-24).

Unity with God and His people through the restoration of respect for divine truth has been the plea of the faithful in every age. Once in history, the purposes and desires of every living person were only evil every day. Noah and his family, eight souls, were the only exceptions. As “a preacher of righteousness,” Noah pled for a restoration of respect for truth and right (2 Pet. 2:5). Later, the Gentiles as a whole cast God off and turned from truth to wickedness of all sorts (Rom. 1:18-32). The Gentiles needed to return to the truth and the living God recognized by their forefathers after the Flood.

The Jews became God’s chosen people beginning with Abraham in 1800 B.C. (Gen. 12:1-3). But by the late 600s B.C., they were about to go into captivity for their sins and the prophet Jeremiah pled for a restoration of “the old paths. . . . But they said, We will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:16). The prophets Ezra and Nehemiah led the Jews back from Babylon and restored the true worship at Jerusalem. After a time, the Jews became complacent. Malachi warned them to “remember ye the law of Moses” and to watch for the coming of one like Elijah who would restore or reconcile the people to God (Mal. 4:46; Matt. 17:11; Lk. 1:17). John the forerunner of Christ made that restoration plea as prophesied (Matt. 3:1-12).

Christ came to restore to the world a proper respect for God and for His Word, and a proper relationship to God. For this great work He prayed in John 17. Beginning in Acts 2, the blessings of His message have been sent into all the world. But after the apostles of Christ died, many who professed to follow Him departed from His word into many kinds of sin and division (2 Thess. 2). That condition persists today with several forms of Catholicism, Protestant denominations, and other assorted factions, fragments, cults, sects, splits, and splinters, all claiming to follow Christ. This is not what He prayed for -He prayed against it! He said it would hinder the spread of the gospel – and it does. Religious division helps the Devil to spread doubt, confusion, and despair regarding the truth of the gospel of Christ.

The answer to the despair of sinners and the sin of division is unity through restoration. Is it really possible today? Yes, if we will learn and apply three simple lessons. Unity through restoration: (1) requires respect for divine revelation; (2) leaves room for liberty within the realm of truth; and, (3) is based on true love.

Respect For Revelation

Jesus said that men are saved, sanctified, and united through the power of divine truth, not by the opinions, traditions, and philosophies of men. We must have a strong determination to obey God’s Word – to recognize it as God’s – not to add anything to it or subtract anything from it (Deut. 4:1-2; 29:29; Rev. 22:18-19).

The apostles of Christ preached and wrote by divine inspiration. Throughout the book of Acts, we find them preaching that Jesus died, was buried, arose from the tomb, and ascended to rule as King at the Father’s right hand on David’s throne (Acts 2:29-36). All who believed this message were united by it. The modern play “Jesus Christ, Superstar” left Jesus in the grave. If some in Acts 2 had embraced such a theory while claiming to follow Christ, there would have been division. Modernists have called the resurrection a myth, fable, or figure of speech. That separates them from Peter who preached that Jesus came out of the grave in the same sense that David stayed in it! Many millennial theories deny that Christ is ruling now as King on David’s throne more division. The solution? Restore respect for what the Bible says!

The people who believed Peter’s preaching cried out, “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” (Acts 2:38). Suppose some had responded, “We will repent for remission of sins, but baptism is not essential to salvation – we can do that part later.” They would have been divided from those who “gladly received his word” and were baptized “the same day” (v. 41). This baptism was an immersion in water (8:38). It was preached to the Gentiles in Acts 10:4748. Supposed they had answered, “That was for the Jews, not for us. ” This would have divided Jew and Gentile. Instead, the Gentiles also gladly “received the word” (11: 1).

Paul found twelve disciples at Ephesus who had received John’s baptism and did not know Christ had already come. Hearing the good news, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:1-5). Can we imagine these answers to the apostle’s preaching? “John’s baptism is enough – we don’t need another.” “If we must be baptized again, why not just sprinkle or pour a little water on us – that’s just as good.” “We’ve decided that baptism is a purely symbolic idea, not a literal action. It’s not needed.” If some had followed the apostle’s word and others had followed their own opinions, what would have been the result? In that case, how could they have united?

The importance of divine revelation is emphasized in Ephesians 3:3-5 and the result in 4:4-6: One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Unity! We can illustrate this with 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Imagine several opinions being expressed such as, “I don’t think singing is important – it’s a waste of time – we don’t need it.” “We don’t all need to sing. It is more entertaining to have a trained choir and special singing groups.” “I love harps, drums, and trumpets. Let’s use them in worship. ” To act upon such human theories and opinions, likes and dislikes, would divide the church. Divine revelation unites it.

When Paul heard of factions forming around the names of favorite preachers at Corinth, he pled “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” How? They had to recognize that Christ is not divided, that men did not die for us, and that we were not baptized in the name of some man. They could unite by wearing the name of the One who died for them and by whose authority they had been saved (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Divine revelation unites. The religious world is divided by denominational structures and by human organizations such as colleges, clinics, and camps vying for the allegiance and money of churches. God’s simple plan for the local church is all-sufficient – and is our only hope for unity (Phil. 1:1). When churches get into political work, secular education, and entertainment, the results are fusses, factions, and fragments. The early church was united around the great work of sounding out the word of the Lord (1 Thess. 1:8).

We will never have unity with God and each other with some of us following The Book of Mormon, others the Science and Health of Mary Baker Eddy, some the edicts of the Watch Tower Tract and Bible Society, some the “prophecies” of Ellen G. White, and still others the diverse creeds and councils of men. True unity can be attained by the restoration of respect for divine revelation – God’s Word!

Liberty Within Truth

Unity through restoration leaves room for liberty within the realm of truth. To preach and practice things outside the doctrine of Christ is a pseudo-progress which destroys fellowship with God and faithful saints (2 Jn. 9-11). Liberty is not the license to do as we please, to set aside God’s will for our own. True liberty comes from learning and doing God’s will – “the perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). Thus we are freed from sin, including the errors of religious division.

Liberty within truth provides for expediency. Within the total realm of lawful things, many details of expediency are left to human judgment as needs and circumstances change (1 Cor. 6:12). For instance, it is lawful to marry and for a preacher to be supported by the church where he labors, but whether we use these liberties depends upon the circumstances of each case (1 Cor. 9:4-5,14). Shall we baptize people in running water or in a pool of water? So long as we do nothing but baptize and use nothing but water, when we do either we abide within the realm of truth.

How many songs shall we sing – who will lead – shall we use an invitation song – shall we sing in a uniform chant or in mixed harmony – with or without books – with or without shaped notes? So long as we do nothing but sing and the songs offer worship and edification, all such questions fall under expediency. Someone says, “Yes, like instrumental music.” No, that adds to singing another action (playing) and adds to vocal music another kind (instrumental) – both unauthorized by the doctrine of Christ. If it were authorized, the questions of expediency would be, “How many instruments and what kind – who will play them what style of music?” It is the same difference between expediency in serving the Lord’s supper (size, shape, and number of containers used) and unauthorized additions to the elements specified by the Lord (unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, not hamburger and milk shake).

There is room for liberty of personal conscience within the realm of truth. One may eat meats and another only herbs by conscience, while respecting one another and worshiping together (Rom. 14:1-3; 15:6-7). One person worships wearing a certain style, mode, or garment of clothing and the other person another – each having made a conscientious decision while striving to please God in all things. This woman reads a verse when asked by the class teacher but that woman declines – no one divides the church over it. We must not violate our conscience in such matters nor bind it on everyone else as though no one can worship God until they see all things as we do. If we fail to recognize this principle, we will split the church, then split the splinters, and thus hinder the prayer of Christ.

Based on Love

The plea for unity through restoration is based upon genuine love. First in John 17 we see the great love of Jesus Himself. His love for God is shown in His coming to earth and sanctifying Himself to do the Father’s will. Because of His love for truth and right, He taught God’s Word to His disciples. He respected the power of truth to create faith in the gospel and wanted it preached throughout the world. His prayer for unity shows His love for the people of God. He guided the apostles to labor for that unity. In all of this, we see the love of Jesus for the lost. His prayer and His plea was “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” He was about to die for sinners and expected His followers to make every possible effort to save as many as possible. Jesus well knew that religious division confuses the lost and hinders them from obeying the gospel.

Can we learn the sacrificial love of Christ in our own lives? Loving God, truth, our brethren, and the lost ‘will cause us to make sacrifices. We must lay aside our own will, opinions, emotions, wishes, doctrines, philosophies, and traditions which may hinder the fulfillment of our Lord’s prayer. Let us lay aside stubbornness, rise above personality clashes, and overlook petty slights and judgmental differences in order to advance the cause of Christ. Unity through restoration is possible only on the basis of such sacrificial love!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 348-350
June 5, 1986

By Weldon E. Warnock

Morality involves behavior — behavior that conforms to a standard of what is right and wrong. The standard is the Bible. Behavior is not determined by how we feel or by what we think, or by what is popular, but rather behavior is to be regulated by the Word of God.

The norm for the Christian is God Himself. Peter wrote, “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (conduct); Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:15-16). John stated, “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3). Since God is unchangeable and absolute, then our moral standard is unchangeable and absolute.

What a contrast between the biblical standard and the liberal and modernistic theologians of our era. Ernest Harrison, Anglican, declared, “The New Moralist does not accept at all the notion that there are moral standards which are revealed by God.” Joseph Fletcher, Episcopalian, said, “. . . anything and everything is right or wrong, according to the situation.” Emil Brunner, Swiss Reform, assqrted that there are no intrinsic values.

Unfortunately, the people of God have absorbed some of this loose thinking in one form or another till there is hardly any difference in the manner of living between many members of the church and those “decent” people in the world. Francis Breisch stated as much when he said of “evangelicals” (he would put us in this category) that they tend to be identical with the activities of any other “respectable” members of the community. He said, “They often patronize the same amusements, read the same magazines and books, engage in the same recreations, talk about the same subjects, and listen to the same music. There is little, if anything in their system of values that differs from that of non-evangelicals” (Facing Today’s Problems, p. 123).

One brother said, “The ancient landmarks of Christian living have been removed. They have been set back to take in nearly everything.” Truer words were never spoken. Reasons for this retreat are because elders have lost their courage and conviction to keep the church pure and preachers are more interested in keeping their jobs and their popularity than they are concerned about the moral integrity of the church of our Lord. Let us stand, brethren, for holy living! This is no time for compromise and “soft-peddling.”

The Landmarks of Morality

The landmarks of morality have been set back in many areas. The urgent need is to put them back where God placed them; to restore them to their rightful positions. Areas where there is a need of restoration are:

1. Modest apparel. Christians are to dress in becoming apparel that reflects holiness of life. Paul wrote, “. . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety.” “Shamefacedness” means “a sense of shame” and “sobriety” indicates “propriety; good sense.” When children of God engage in mixed-swimming, parade around in mini-dresses, see-through blouses, tight-fitting skirts and pants, and short-shorts, they have neither shame nor good sense. To dress in such a fashion so as to excite lust in the opposite sex is wrong. Godly, conscientious people do not dress in this manner (cf. 1 Pet. 3:14; Prov. 7:10).

2. Dancing. There are many evils of the modern dance, especially disco dancing. It kills a Christian’s influence, destroys his spirituality, places one in a vile and degrading atmosphere where there is profanity, drugs and alcohol, involves one in lasciviousness, and leads to fornication. Many “good girls” who became unwed mothers trace their downfall to the dance hall. The Bible teaches that lasciviousness and reveling will damn our souls (Gal. 5:19-21).

3. Salacious literature. Some Christian (?) homes receive regularly salacious (lustful) literature. They either buy it at the newsstand or subscribe to it via movie and sex magazines, sordid love stories, filthy detectives or true confessions. They are openly exposing themselves to temptation, sin and spiritual death.

The apostle Paul wrote, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true . . . honest . . . just . . . pure . . . lovely, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). One cannot read suggestive and vulgar literature and think on these virtuous qualities named by Paul. To live right, we must think right and to think right, we must read right. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23:7). We need in our homes wholesome literature and not the filthy sluice of slime from degenerate men.

4. Movies and television. A great number of movies are obscene, licentious, godless, blasphemous and degrading. They have been classified as G, PG, R and X in order for the movie-goers to exercise discrimination. But sometimes you cannot depend on the ratings, especially the PG’s, as they may be right on the border line of an R rating.

Movies are now being “piped” into homes on the HBO, Cinemax and Playboy Channel networks that are as rancid and raunchy as any shown at the public theaters. There is little, if any, censure in many cases. Children are left free to watch whatever they want. Television in general is becoming more coarse and more brazen. Whether it be movies or television, Christians must be selective and watch those things in harmony with moral principles.

5. Social drinking and drugs. The abuse of alcohol is one of the most prevalent sins in America. Most people consume alcohol in various measures. Alcoholism (drunkenness) is one of our major social problems. Most Catholics, Protestants and Jews drink alcoholic beverages. But Christians must abstain from this moral blight that is so widespread. However, more and more are seeing nothing wrong with it in moderation.

But we need to consider that social drinking ruins our influence, harms the body, dulls our judgment, runs the risk of alcohol addiction, and finally, is contrary to the Bible. The Bible condemns both drunkenness and social drinking (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-32; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Pet. 3:3-4).

Drug abuse (narcotics, stimulants, depressants and hallucinogens) is also widespread, affecting all levels of society the young, old, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, religious and non-religious. From a Christian point of view there are many reasons why a child of God should not experiment with drugs. Among those reasons are illegality of the practice (Rom. 13), health of the body and mind which are to be used for God’s glory ( Cor. 6:19-20), influence (Mt. 5:16; Phil. 2:15) and a work of the flesh (drugs were used in connection with sorcery, Gal. 5:19-21). A Christian should be satisfied with his life in Christ rather than seeking a “high” from drug abuse (cf. Gal. 2:20).

6. Marriage fidelity. Extra-marital affairs (adultery), wife-swapping and divorce and remarriage have become common occurrences. There is an epidemic of marriage infidelity in the church, even among preachers, elders, deacons and Bible teachers. The divine injunction to “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18) is completely ignored.

God’s standard on the permanency of marriage has been lowered and accommodations have been made to fellowship those who have abandoned their mates by divorce and are living in adultery. The church is being filled with adulterous members.

The law of God on marriage for both saint and sinner is “till death do us part” (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39), with only one exception – fornication (Mt. 5:32; 19:9). Hebrews 13:4 needs to be shouted from the housetop, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

7. Modern music. There is nothing wrong with music per se. All of us enjoy listening to music of some kind. However, much of today’s music has become a channel for selling this generation on drugs, rebellion, illicit sex, vulgar language and antiChristian philosophy. This is true with much (not all) “rock ‘n’ roll” music and some of the country songs.

Some of the Top Hits in the past have been, “Let’s Make a Baby,” “Do Something Freaky,” “Afternoon Delight,” “Share the Night Together,” “Hot Child in the City,” “I Had Her Almost Persuaded,” “Behind Closed Doors,” and others

that are too explicit to mention. With songs like these it is no wonder we are undergoing such a sexual revolution wherein virginity has become old-fashion.

Andrew Fletcher, back in the 17th century, penned the famous line, “Give me the making of the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” The point is that our music probably influences us more than our laws. Teen-agers say they can listen to all of today’s music without being affected, but it is just not so. Somewhere it will show up in their lives.

Christians must develop a new mind and they cannot do this by listening to “gutter” music. Paul said, “And be renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Eph. 4:23). A person who is regenerated, renewed and reformed will be discerning as to what he listens to in the way of music. Parents need to be observant and constructive as to the kind of records their children buy and the songs they hear.

Several other things could be enumerated that endanger the children of God but space does not permit. What is imperative among all of us is that we return to or hold on to the principles of righteousness that God has clearly laid down in His Word. Those things are as follows:

Principles of Moral Conduct

1. Love not the world. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I1Jn. 2:15; cf. Jas. 1:27; 4:4).

2. Be not conformed to the world. “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. . . ” (Rom. 12:2). I like Phillip’s translation of this text. “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold, but let God mold your minds from within. . .”

3. Have no fellowship. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Not only must we not participate in the works of darkness, but we must reprove, express disapproval, condemn, expose and refute. God calls on us here to be militant toward sin.

4. Abstain from all evil. “Abstain from all appearance (every form) of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22; cf. 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:11). “Abstain” means to “hold off from.”

5. Flee from all evil. “Flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22; cf. 1 Tim. 6:11; 1 Cor. 6:18). We need to run from sin and not wait around the corner or leave a forwarding address.

6. Put off the old man. “That ye put off concerning the former conversation (behavior) the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts. . . . And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:22,24).

7. Mortify the flesh. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5; cf. Rom. 6).

8. Deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. “Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Tit. 2:12).

Conclusion

In conclusion, may we all awake to Paul’s clarion call, “Awake to righteousness, and sin not” (I Cor. 15:34). May Jesus rind us without spot and blameless when He comes (2 Pet. 3:14). Let us sing the old song with all fervor and sincerity, “Purer in heart, O God, Help me to be. . . . “

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 346-347, 353
June 5, 1986

By Frank Jamerson

Several years ago a visitor who believed in sprinkling asked me: “Why don’t you ever quote any of the passages that favor sprinkling?” I had to confess that I did not know any such passages!

The English words sprinkle, pour and immerse have different meanings, just as the Greek words from which they are translated. Let us look at each of these words and see if sprinkle or pour mean “baptize.”

“Sprinkle” is generally translated from the word rhantizo. It is found in several passages in the New Testament, but it is never translated “baptize” because it means “to sprinkle.” “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh. . . ” (Heb. 9:13). Moses took “the blood of the calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. . . . Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood” (Heb. 9:19,21). There is another word, proschusis which is translated “sprinkling” in Hebrews 11:28. If the writer had meant “baptize” in these passages, he would have used a different Greek word.

There are five different Greek words that are translated “pour.” In John 13:5, we read that Jesus “poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet.” In John 2:15, Jesus “poured out the changers’ money.” Other passages use the word “pour” but none of them mean “baptize.” The conclusion must follow that to pour does not mean to baptize.

The word baptizo is transliterated (the Greek letters transferred into English letters) by the word “baptize.” W.E. Vine defines it as “immersion, submersion and emergence. ” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon says: “to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge.” It is found many times in the New Testament, but is never translated by the words “sprinkle” or “pour.” If the writers had intended to say “sprinkle” or “pour” they would not have used the word “baptizo,” because it means to immerse.

The context of the word baptizo also shows the meaning of it. When John the baptist was sent to baptize, we find him “baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because they was much water there” (Jn. 3:23). When John baptized Jesus, Mark says: “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him” (Mk. 1:10,11). John’s baptism was obviously immersion. When Philip baptized the Ethiopian, the context clearly indicates the action of baptism. They “came unto a certain water,” then “went down into the water” and he was baptized and “came up out of the water” (Acts 8:36-39). Twice the New Testament plainly calls baptism a “burial” (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

Why then, do people practice sprinkling? It originated as d4clinic baptism.” Those thought to be too sick to be immersed were sprinkled instead. Gradually it grew in popularity, for it was much easier, and after all, if it would be acceptable for a sick man, why not for a well man?

The woman mentioned at the beginning of this article had in mind the passages that speak of baptizing “with water” (see Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:26; Acts 1:5; 11:16). She was assuming that “with water” means something other than immersion. The fact is that the Greek word en (translated “with” or “in”) usually refers to “location” (called “locative” in the Greek). Even if it were used in the sense of “instrumental” (the object used), it would still not prove sprinkling. We are immersed “in” water.

The meaning of the word, the context of the word and religious leaders who believed in sprinkling all testify that the word “baptize” means immerse. It is only immersion that is a “likeness” of Christ’s burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3,4). Sprinkling is a convenient substitute that originated in the mind of men, not from a careful study of God’s word.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 361, 376
June 19, 1986