Truth Magazine

By Allen S. Dvorak

It was early in the morning and the sun was just coming over the horizon; dawn was breaking with all of her quiet grace. The temperature had dropped enough the night before that the grass was covered with tiny beads of moisture. Peering out of the glass patio doors in the dining room, I saw something in my back yard that I would like to share with you.

In the sunlight I could see that the entire yard (I mean all of it!) was covered with spiders’ webs. Their white strands appeared to form a large, complete net over the whole back yard. Evidently the webs had caught some of the moisture in the air and they sparkled, first here and then there, as the sun was reflected in these drops of moisture. It was breathtakingly beautiful.

As I stood at the patio doors, wondering at the simple beauty of the sight, it dawned on me (no pun intended) that, despite the beauty of the whole scene, there was a sinister element to the picture. I had been looking from the viewpoint of a human who could destroy any spider’s web with the most casual movement of my limbs. But those webs had not been spun for me – they were created in anticipation of catching some of the numerous small insects which venture out at night and the early morning hours. From a “bug’s eye view,” these webs, regardless of how beautiful they might be to the human eye, represented a danger which could very easily be a fatal one.

A spider is a predator – a very cleaver one too! He carefully prepares a trap and waits for his prey to become ensnared in the extremely strong, sticky strands of his web. His victims come to him; he does not have to pursue them. When they have fatigued themselves by their struggle to escape the web which holds them, he quietly kills and devours them. As I thought about this web further, it occurred to me that Satan is quite similar to the spider!

(1) Like the spider, Satan is also a predator – he preys on human beings. The apostle Peter indicated that Satan is a predator when he likened him to a roaring lion, one of the most fear-inspiring predators on this earth. The Devil is our adversary and his object is to “devour us,” to destroy us in an eternal hell. It is for that very reason that Peter also counseled his readers to be vigilant – watchful of the danger that Satan presents (1 Pet. 5:8).

(2) Satan lays his snares in much the same fashion as the spider. When the spider spins his web, he frequently places it in such a way as to intercept the natural path of his prey. Of course, his presence is a warning, so he hides himself or lurks near the edge of the web where he is less evident. Satan has studied his prey and knows the weaknesses common to men. He knows how to lay his snares so that they will be encountered by men. And, like the spider, he doesn’t advertise his presence so that his victims often do not suspect his work in their demise. Only after they have been enslaved by the sin which was so tempting do they come to realize whose purpose the trap serves. Edward M. Bounds wrote, “The devil’s great device, his masterpiece of temptation is to destroy faith in his own existence.”(1)

Paul described covetousness (greed) as a snare, indicating that it led to destruction (1 Tim. 6:9- 10). Satan is a schemer -the traps he uses look so innocent and inviting that he fools many men into thinking that they are harmless. The anticipation of pleasure has invited men to drink alcohol, take drugs, steal, commit fornication, etc. — all snares used by Satan. Just like the spider, Satan cannot force his prey into the web of sin, but his victims commit themselves to the traps of sin (James 1:13-15).

(3) Neither Satan nor the spider are benefitted by light. It was the rising sun which revealed the webs of the spiders to me. The spider thrives on anonymity. He wishes his web to be invisible to his prey and so darkness is his ultimate friend. Satan also loves darkness. He wishes for men to be ignorant of his machinations so that he may take them captive at his will. If he appears as wholesome, it is a disguise (2 Cor. 11: 14-15). Fortunately, the light of God’s word exposes the wiles of Satan for what they are and the careful student of the Bible may discern and avoid the snares of Satan.

One significant difference between these two predators is that when a fly gets entangled in the web of the spider, he usually does not escape. For the man who has been entangled in Satan’s web of sin, God offers a way of escape. It is frequently difficult once the strands of worldliness have tightened around a man, but in Christ there is freedom! Beware of our spiritual predator!

Endnotes

1. Edward M. Bounds, Satan, His Personality, Power and Overthrow (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 112. Quoted by Lynn Walker, Supernatural Power and the Occult (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, n.d.), p. 17.

Guardian of Truth XXX; 10, p. 308
May 15, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In Judges 11:29-40, did Jephthah offer his daughter as a burnt offering? Or, was she devoted to God in some other way?

Reply: The setting for Jephthah’s vow was during the period of the judges. The Ammonites made war against Israel and the elders of Gilead came to Jephthah, asking him to be their leader in this struggle (Judg. 11:6). He became not only a military leader but also a judge (Judg. 12:7), this dual role having also been true of Deborah and Gideon. Before fighting the Ammonites, Jephthah made a vow to Jehovah. Our attention is given to this vow, found in Judges 11:30,31: “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Jehovah, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatsoever (or whosoever, footnote in ASV) cometh forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return to peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Jehovah’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. “

This passage is very controversial. Bible expositors widely disagree as to how Jephthah fulfilled his vow. There are two general positions taken. Some believe that Jephthah actually killed his daughter and offered her up as a burnt offering, while others believe that she was devoted to perpetual virginity and service to God. A good case can be made for either position, but it seems to this writer that the evidence is weightier for the latter view. A few considerations are hereby presented, which to this scribe, support the idea that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to the service of God.

Some assert that Jephthah made a rash vow, even though he was knowledgeable of God’s law which prohibited human sacrifice. But it can hardly be said that Jephthah was a rash and thoughtless leader. Earlier he had tried to reason with the Ammonites, rather than going to war with them. From this, it was more in the character and disposition of Jephthah to reflect carefully. Considering that there was even a strong possibility that his own daughter (his only child, v. 34) would be the one to meet him when he returned from battle, would not be compatible with a rash vow.

Others contend that Jephthah lived in a heathen land where human sacrifices existed, and being ignorant of God’s law, was influenced by this wicked environment to offer up his daughter as a burnt offering. To the contrary, there is no evidence that Jephthah was destitute of God’s law. On the other hand, he looked to Jehovah to deliver the Ammonites into his hand (v. 9), making a treaty with the elders of Gilead “before Jehovah” (vv. 9,10). Does it seem reasonable that a man so dedicated and dependent upon God would offer up his daughter as a bloody human sacrifice? And, are we to suppose that Jehovah would select a man to the responsible position of a great leader who would engage in the worship of Moloch, in which the people offered their children as human sacrifices? Even before he made his vow, it was said of him, “Then the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Jephthah. . .” (v. 29). This would hardly be said of one who would offer up his child as a human sacrifice. The evidence points to Jephthah as a Godfearing man.

Human sacrifice was sternly and repeatedly condemned by the law of God (see Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31; 18: 10). In the history of Israel, before the wicked reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Kgs. 16:3; 21:6), there is no record of human sacrifices – not even by those who committed the sin of worshiping Baal.

Jephthah is listed with the heroes of faith (Heb. 11:32). Had he slaughtered his own child, a detestable act in the eyes of God, can we conceive of him being approved in Hebrews 11 as one of the great heroes of faith?

The Hebrew text itself does not necessitate a literal human sacrifice. Several scholars say that the correct translation of our text is: “It shall surely be the Lord’s or I will offer it up to him as a burnt offering.” The Hebrew term used to express Jephthah’s vow is nedir, which means “a consecration” and not cherem which means “destruction.” Adam Clarke states that the translation of the most accurate Hebrew scholars is: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt offering; that is, “If it be a thing fit for a burnt offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him” (Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 2, p. 151).

Those who believe that Jephthah had a human sacrifice in mind when he uttered his vow, observe that one of the household would be expected to come forth, not an animal (see Albert Barnes and others). However, Keil and Delitzsch make this significant comment: “The father fulfilled his vow upon her, and she knew no man; i.e., he fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord, as a spiritual burnt offering, in a lifelong chastity” (Biblical Commentary on The Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, p. 393).

Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew not man” (v. 39). These words presuppose that Jephthah offered his daughter to Jehovah. That he actually slew her and offered her up as a burnt offering is incompatible with his character, and would be diametrically opposed to the law of God; such an act would have been subject to God’s punishment.

Before performing his vow, Jephthah sent his daughter away for two months: “and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains” (v. 38). As Keil and Delitzsch put it: “To mourn one’s virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die as a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin” (Ibid., p. 392). She could never be a mother. The expression, “she knew no man” (v. 39) would have been a pointless remark had she been put to death.

Leviticus 27 is devoted to vows. Verses 1-8 concerns persons, verses 9-13 animals, verses 14,15 houses, and verses 16-25 land. Leon Wood, in his excellent book Distressing Days of the Judges, makes it clear what was to be done by a person or thing set apart for God by a vow. Concerning persons (vv. 1-8) he comments: “When a person vowed himself, or someone else, to God, that person came to be ‘for the Lord’ in the sense that an ‘estimation’ or evaluation was placed upon him by the priest. ” He further remarks: “A man so devoting himself, could not become a sacrifice like an animal, because human sacrifices would not be permitted, nor could he be normally used in service because the priests and Levites were assigned to do this; nor could he be sold like a house or animal. The alternative was that he be valued in terms of money and then pay that amount to help in the Tabernacle service. One exception to this existed regarding a woman, in the light of Exodus 38:8 and I Samuel 2:20, as noted; namely that she could be devoted for Tabernacle service since she was a woman and could do things there which only a woman could do better than men” (p. 293). Women “assembled” at the tabernacle (Ex. 38:8), and the Hebrew word translated “assembled” actually means “served” (root, Isabal. Should it be questioned that the women who served in this capacity were virgins, though it is not directly stated in the law, there is a point for consideration. The “daughters of Shiloh,” who were captured as wives for the Benjamites (Judg. 21:19-23), were at Shiloh where the tabernacle was located. They may have been servants at the tabernacle. If they were, this is evidence that they were virgins because they were taken as wives for the Benjamites.

Keil and Delitzsch propose that “if Jephthah, therefore vowed that he would offer a human sacrifice to Jehovah, he must have either have uttered his vow without any reflection, or else have been thoroughly depraved in a moral and religious sense. But what we know of this brave hero by no means warrants any such assumptions” (Ibid., p. 389).

If any contribution has been made to the study of this very controversial subject, our time taken for this research has been rewarded.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 293-294
May 15, 1986

By Mike Willis

Abraham is described as the “father of all them that believe” (Rom. 4:11). Paul admonished all men to “walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Rom. 4:12). Let us examine the nature of the faith of Abraham.

A Faith Of Trusting Obedience

The Lord called Abraham to leave his kindred saying, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee” (Gen. 12:1). The Scriptures record, “So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him” (Gen. 12:4).

In a concise narrative, his personal sacrifice might be overlooked. Abraham left his family, friends, any business opportunities, etc. in order to obey the Lord. He did not put off into the indefinite future his obedience, as some do who say, “One of these days, I am going to start back to church.” Rather, he immediately obeyed the Lord at great personal sacrifice.

Abraham was no young man when the Lord called him. He was seventy-five years old. When in my twenties, we made a move from Florida to Indiana to preach the gospel. We loaded everything we owned in the back seat of a Volkswagen and set out to do the Lord’s will. As I grow older, I find the moves harder to make. I cannot imagine pulling up all of my roots and moving when I am seventy-five, not even to retire in Florida, much less to move to a foreign country to obey the will of God.

Furthermore, Abraham’s obedience was based on his trust in God’s promise. The Lord said to go to a “land that I will shew thee.” If Abraham had looked on a map to find that land, where would he have looked? He obeyed the Lord by going out, although he did not even know where he was going. His traveling would be different than our travels in America. As we move from state to state, we are protected by the laws of our land. One who moved from one country to another in Abraham’s day was a vulnerable stranger. His move would be comparable to one of us moving to a Muslim society. Yet, Abraham had enough trusting faith in the Lord’s promise to go.

A Faith Which Worshiped

When some people move, they leave their faith behind. As they move from one city to another, they seemingly forget to take their faith with them. Members of the body of Christ who worship the Lord regularly in one area move into another area and never begin to attend worship.

Abraham was not that way. Wherever he moved, he worshiped. He built altars at Bethel (Gen. 12:8) and Hebron (Gen. 13:18); he paid tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20). Indeed, Abraham was a man who worshiped the Lord wherever he went.

A Faith Which Put The Needs Of Others First

Abraham was not a selfish man who thought only of his own needs. When conflict developed between his herdsmen and those of Lot, he said, “Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; and if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left” (Gen. 13:8-9). When Lot chose the better land, Abraham did not become bitter and resentful.

A Faith Which Laid Down His Life For Others ,

Rather than becoming bitter toward his nephew, Abraham continued to love him. When the northern kings invaded the south, plundering the region and taking many captive as slaves, Lot was among those enslaved. Abraham could have said, “Now there is plenty of room for me to expand my operations without Lot getting in the way.” Instead, Abraham risked life and limb to save his nephew, Gathering 318 trained servants, he led a night raid against the invading kings and rescued his nephew Lot. Jesus said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13). “. . . and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:16). Abraham was willing to lay down his life for his brethren.

A Faith Which Practiced Hospitality

More and more Christians are neglecting the practice of hospitality. In some congregations of more than 100 members, churches have trouble filling the meal list for a visiting preacher who is in town for a seven-day gospel meeting. Strangers visit the services and are not made welcome because the membership makes no effort to invite them into their homes. Abraham was so different from this.

Abraham “sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lift up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant” (Gen. 18:1-5). The example of Abraham is cited for our emulation. “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (Heb. 13:2).

Congregations began to have so-called “fellowship dinners” partly because brethren saw the need for members to be together. What individuals would not do on their own, congregations sought to accomplish with “fellowship halls,” but one wrong cannot be righted by another wrong. Do we have the hospitality of Abraham?

A Persistent Faith

Abraham’s faith did not wane through the years. When God called him, he was seventy-five years old (Gen. 12:4). When Isaac, the promised son, was born, Abraham was one hundred years old (Gen. 21:5). He had looked to the gift and the Giver for twenty-five years. Many who are baptized give up or give out long before twenty-five years have passed. Abraham, by contrast, persevered in his faithfulness to God.

A Faith Which Put God Above Everything Else

We have already seen how Abraham loved God enough to leave his father’s house, his kindred, his friends, and his stable home. We have noticed that his faith caused him to put Lot’s needs above his own. His faith caused him to give up his association with Ishmael. (Though Sarah was jealous of Ishmael and asked that he be cast out, Abraham did not act until God revealed His will in the matter. Then Abraham reluctantly sent Ishmael away [Gen. 21:9-12]. This must have been a heart-rending experience.)

In his later years, Abraham showed that his love for God excelled his love for the son of promise. God told Abraham to offer Isaac in sacrifice to Him on an altar. By faith Abraham went to Mount Moriah and proceeded to obey God. The Lord intervened, preventing Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. He said, “. . . for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me” (Gen. 22:12).

Abraham demonstrated obedience to what Jesus described as the greatest commandment – “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37).

A Faith Which Hoped

When the Lord appeared to Abraham, He promised him a land (Gen. 12:7). Later the Lord explained His promise:

Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their’s, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age (Gen. 15:13-15).

In these words, the Lord explained to Abraham that the land which had been promised to him would not be given in his lifetime. He wandered about in the land of promise as a stranger and sojourner. “And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on. . . ” (Acts 7:5). When his wife died, he had to purchase a place to bury her. Even then he manifested faith in the promise of God, for he did not take his wife to the home grave plot in Ur to bury her; instead, he buried her in the promised land.

Abraham never ceased to have faith in the promise of God, although he knew he would never see the promise fulfilled during his lifetime.

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. . . . These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city (Heb. 11:9-10,13-16).

Conclusion

May the Lord give us strength to walk in the steps of the faithful Abraham. May he protect us from the temptations of youth, give us the wisdom to devote the strength of our manhood to His service, and walk with us to our graves with the hope of the promise of Heaven to sustain us.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 290, 309-310
May 15, 1986

By Dee Bowman

In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s a tremendous upheaval ripped the Lord’s church asunder. Brethren who were determined to introduce innovations into the work and organization of the church quarantined those who were wont to have a “thus saith the Lord” for all that is done by the church. Sides were drawn, labels applied, charges made. A full scale civil war ensued. Families were divided, friends estranged, and in many areas churches were left in rubble and ruin.

I have no doubt that most of these introductions were motivated of conscience and were done out of concern for the progress and growth of the Lord’s church.

Such deviations from the divine pattern came slowly. Benevolent societies, like orphan homes, homes for the aged, and later, homes for unwed mothers were introduced as a part of the work of the church. Later, the “whole person” concept was promoted and the churches began projects to provide for their members not only spiritual nourishment, but social refreshments as well. “Family Life Centers” sprang up, especially in the ’60’s and ’70’s, equipped with gymnasiums, exercise rooms, banquet halls, completely fitted kitchens designed to care for the “outer man” in the same way that the auditorium was to care for the “inner man.”

Those who opposed such arrangements were branded as “anti,” or “binding brethren” and told that they could either accept these philosophies or make arrangements to worship elsewhere. The social gospel concept became the rage. Large mergers were made, mergers where several smaller churches banded together to form huge churches, ones with the financial wherewithal to construct huge edifices and finance large and impressive programs of various sorts.

A strange vernacular followed the trend. Because of the financial strength to do so, large “staffs” began to be assembled, headed by a “board of elders,” and supervised by a “Pulpit Minister.” The “Minister of Education” was responsible for the highly efficient Sunday School Pro gram, one which included special classes for singles, cven divorced persons. “Bus Ministries” sprang up all over and they were guided by “Bus Ministers,” who concocted sometimes outlandish publicity schemes in order to induce neighborhood kids to ride the bus. Finding the children mostly unmanageable, some churches resorted to “Children’s Church,” where the youngsters themselves were taken to the basement and allowed to conduct their own services, in some cases even electing their own elders and deacons. Such things as “Youth Ministries” have gained reputation over the past several years and it is not now uncommon for churches to have their own choirs, and entertainment groups, comprised mostly of young people and some of which make annual tours as a part of their “Music Ministry.”

Lately strange cries are coming from the men who were the leading lights in the movement in the early days. “Liberals are among us!” they say. And they are! But it seems strange to me that these men cannot see that they are reaping what they have sown. Let me illustrate.

There are nine instances in the New Testament where the Lord’s church did benevolent work. In all nine of the instances, the benevolence was extended to needy saints. When I call that a pattern some of my friends in the more liberal churches say I am binding where the New Testament does not bind. But now that same argument is being made by their own “liberals.” There are also nine instances in the New Testament where music is referred to, and in all nine of these cases, the music specified is singing. The same brethren who reject the passages regarding benevolence as being a binding pattern are having trouble making their “liberals” understand that the nine cases regarding music necessarily limit the kind of music to singing. Their “liberals” don’t think they ought to bind those passages. It sounds very much like a case of reaping what has been sown.

A recent bulletin from the Burke Road Church of Christ in Pasadena is reported to have said that they did use instrumental music “but not in our regularly scheduled Sunday morning, evening and Wednesday night . . . because we do not want to offend the few who have a problem with this kind of praise” (quoted by Contending For The Faith, Ira Y. Rice, editor).

The only way to stop the on rush of liberalism, no matter whose “liberals” they are, is to return to the old paths, to ask for a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we do. Other wise, there is no end to the spread of this disease. (Reprinted from The Southside Reminder.)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 290, 310
May 15, 1986