Truth Magazine

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

By Robert F. Turner

The resurrection of Jesus is, of course, absolutely essential to the true meaning of Christianity. Without it Jesus was a teacher of great insight and ability, but self-deceived, and a deceiver. Without it Christianity becomes but another human philosophy, totally of this world. As Paul put it, “then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain” (1 Cor. 15:14), and having only a this life hope “we are of all men most pitiable” (v. 19). Jesus Christ “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). (Phillips says, “patently marked out as the Son of God by the power of the Spirit of holiness which raised Him to life again from the dead.”) Cancel the resurrection, and you cancel the power that gives Christianity its life. Proofs therefore are tremendously important.

The Scriptures, as historic literature from the first century, record many proofs of the resurrection. His enemies knew very well His promise to rise again after three days and used every means at their disposal to make the sepulchee sure, lest “the last error be worse than the first” (Matt. 27:26f). Yet, at the appointed time the tomb was empty. The apostles and early disciples displayed incredible faith – even unto death -for what? A ruse they themselves had worked? But we do not plan to discuss such proofs in this study. Instead, we beg your attention to two proofs offered by the Apostle Peter, on the first Pentecost following the resurrection. One rested upon the testimony of believing witnesses; and the second, upon the experience of enemies who heard the witnesses. The first, His enemies were asked to believe; the second, they could prove to themselves by their own logic and experience.

Prophecies from Isaiah and Daniel had pointed to the “rule” of a coming Messiah. (The “anointed one” was Messiah to the Hebrews, Christ to the Greeks.) The “mountain” of Jehovah’s house would be established (Isa. 2), and the “sovereignty” and “dominion” of this government would be exercised by a descendant of David (Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Isa. 9:7). Peter must prove the crucified Jesus to be “Lord and Christ.” Obviously, both of these hinge on proof of the resurrection, and Luke records the marvelous way the Apostle blends these two purposes (Acts 2). Get your Bible, and follow with me.

When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Apostles, a multitude of Jews were attracted and were amazed and marveled at what they heard (v. 7f). But others mocked, saying these men were drunk. Their rash charge set the stage for Peter’s introduction. He declared “this is that” manifestation of the Spirit which Joel said would mark the “last days” (final dispensation) in which the remnant of the Jews, and “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:28f). He thus gave those who marveled at the demonstration of power something to consider, but with Jesus still dead this could be dismissed as a groundless boast. So Peter offers his first proof of the resurrection: the testimony of witnesses who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Peter said God had raised Him up (v. 24) and established His testimony by other witnesses (v. 32; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-8). And His testimony was strengthened by the fact that this Jesus was “a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know” (v. 22, all Scripture emphasis mine).

Peter then reasoned with the Jews from Psalms 16:8f, a Scripture they considered Messianic. “David saith concerning him. . . ” (i.e., Jesus), “I beheld the Lord. . . ” (Acts 2:25). Furthermore, the “Holy One” would not see corruption (v. 27). And finally, “Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ . . . … On the strength of Peter’s first proof, the testimony of witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus, he has reasoned that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord, Holy One, and Christ; and that He now occupies the throne of David. Unless we are extremely well versed in Hebrew thought and their obsession with prophecies about a Messiah, we can scarce appreciate the force of Peter’s argument. The Holy Spirit was guiding him to reach these Jews with their own brand of logic and with Scriptures they all held in a proper understanding of his next statement. “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear” (Acts 2:33). “Being exalted” and “having received” are both singular and masculine, and must refer to Christ. It was Jesus who had been exalted, and it was Jesus who had received “the promise of the Holy Spirit.” The big question is, had Jesus been promised the Spirit; or, does this refer to something the Spirit had promised to Jesus?

Robertson says, “In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view.” We must therefore allow the context to answer our question. If “promise of Holy Spirit” refers to the Spirit Himself, we have the problem of deity being given to deity, of whom it has already been implied that He had the Spirit without measure (Jn. 3:34). Isaiah wrote of “the Spirit of Jehovah” resting upon a branch out of Jesse (11:2), upon the “chosen servant” (42:1), and the “anointed” (61:1). However these passages point to the Lord’s show of divine power (Matt. 12:17f; Lk. 4:17f), and of divine approval during His personal ministry (Matt. 3:16-17). 1 am persuaded this passage refers to something the Holy Spirit promised relative to kingship; something closely suited to the argument and proof Peter is offering.

During the Lord’s personal ministry He had spoken of a time when “living waters” would flow from His disciples; and John explains this referred to the Spirit which “was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:38-39). An outpouring, such as that on Pentecost, awaited the glorification of the Son of God. When Jesus promised the Spirit to His disciples He not only stressed the necessity for His going away; He also explained that He would occupy a new and different heavenly office (Jn. 16:7). Note, “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name, ask and ye shall receive. . . ” (v. 24). “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” (14:16). “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (v. 26). His glorification and Lordship is here clearly indicated.

Now, how are these things “the promise of the Holy Spirit”? The immediate context quotes David as saying, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet” (vv. 34-35; Psa. 110:1). Jesus had cited this same Psalm (Matt. 22:43) saying, “How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying. . . . ” Mark’s account of this reads, “David himself said by the Holy Ghost. . . ” (12:36, KJ). Clearly, the Holy Spirit had foretold (promised) that the Son of God would be glorified, seated upon David’s throne. This exaltation would be given Him by the Father (Dan. 7:13-14). Then, and only then, would the glorified Son “pray the Father” that the Spirit be given the disciples “in my name.” But none of this could occur until Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Peter’s second proof of the resurrection called upon his audience to accept the logical conclusion of their own seeing and hearing. It ran something like this: You have seen and heard proof that the Holy Spirit is poured out from heaven; and you are amazed and marvel at this fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. But these “last day” wonders could not occur until the Messiah is exalted, and the Holy Spirit’s promise of kingship is realized. The promise of kingship was to one who would not be left in the place of the dead, and whose body would not see corruption. The conclusion is inescapable: We are witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (v. 32); and you are witnesses to something that could only occur after Jesus had been resurrected, exalted, and made King on David’s throne (v. 33).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 367-368
June 19, 1986