Truth Magazine

By Don Willis

“. . . I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness” (Psa. 17:12). John Balquy said, “Contentment is the pearl of great price, and whoever procures it at the expense of ten thousand desires makes a wise and a happy purchase.” And Socrates remarked, “Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty.” Plautus concluded, “If you are content, you have enough to live comfortably.”

David found contentment in beholding God’s face in righteousness. Sin produces misery! One who does not stand before God in righteousness feigns happiness and contentment, but inwardly longs for God-acceptability. Moses cautioned people, “. . . be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23). One realizes that sin cannot be hidden from God. We are naked and open before Him. We cannot hide our wickedness; therefore, misery results.

Men seek satisfaction in differing ways: (1) In worldly pleasure. There are some “men which have their portion in this life. . . ” (Psa. 17:14). Moses chose to suffer affliction with God’s people rather than “enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb. 11:25).

Others seek satisfaction (2) in riches. Solomon was a very rich man. He taught, “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase. . . ” (Eccl. 5:10). He further reflected, “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold” (Prov. 22:1). Solomon said, “Give me neither poverty nor riches . . . lest I be full, and deny thee” (Prov. 30:8-9). Riches will not ensure satisfaction!

Some think they find satisfaction (3) in power. It is difficult to understand that God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble (Jas. 4:6). Man still cannot direct his own steps (Jer. 10:23); cannot add one cubit to his stature (Mt. 6:27); and is dependent upon God for every blessing (Jas. 1:17). Who brings the new day? Who makes it rain? Who adds days to our number? These are areas outside man’s capability. God is that great fountain from whence all blessings flow!

Some seek satisfaction (4) in knowledge. There is no end of making books, for the knowledge is ever expanding! Mankind is beginning to understand some of the wonderful laws that God placed in existence at the creation. Knowledge that does not lead one to acknowledge and subject himself to the Almighty God is misdirected knowledge. Paul spoke of the “oppositions of science (gnosis) falsely so called” (1 Tim. 6:20). Some feign all knowing ability and cannot answer the simple question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” God is all powerful! We need Him!

David said, “I will behold thy face in righteousness.” He attempted to live as God would have him live. Righteousness exalteth a nation! Sin is a reproach to any people (Prov. 14:34). Walking with God causes one to begin to reflect God’s righteousness within his life (2 Cor. 3:18).

Thus, David could say, “I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.” He could anticipate that happy, contented, satisfied emotion because he walked in righteousness. Happiness is the result of character, not things! The superlative teachings of the beatitudes manifest this great and eternal truth. Seek to be what God created us to be, a creature in His own likeness! Then, satisfaction will come to mankind!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, p. 661
November 7, 1985

By Dan Walters

There is a relatively new doctrine making the rounds among our brethren. Its advocates call it “realized eschatology;” others have dubbed it “the A.D. 70 Doctrine.” The paper which promotes this doctrine is Studies in Bible Prophecy, put out by Charles Geiser in Ashtabula, Ohio. It is my understanding that the doctrine was first taught by Max King of Warren, Ohio. If I were to summarize the doctrine in my own words, someone would be sure to accuse me of exaggerating. So I quote from Geiser: “The holy Scriptures teach that the second coming of Christ, including the establishment of the eternal kingdom, the day of judgment, the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead, occurred with the fall of Judaism in 70 A.D.”

That sounds so ridiculous to most of us that it might be thought foolish to even take notice of it. But that was Alexander Campbell’s reaction to Mormonism, and we see today how many people have been deceived by it. There is another reason why this doctrine ought to be dealt with carefully-that is because of the grain of truth it contains. In reacting to extreme doctrines we may dismiss some truth just because it is included in the false doctrine.

Almost every false doctrine is based on some truth which is then carried to an extreme. That is why one who is well grounded in the faith can often profit by reading the works of those who, considered on the whole, are false teachers. The truth that is found at the kernel of the extreme position is no less true because it has been enlarged with disregard of other truths and because many Scriptures have been perverted in order to accommodate the false theory.

The truth at the heart of “realized eschatology” is that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is a very significant event in New Testament teaching, and that many Scriptures which are commonly believed to refer to future events actually apply to that destruction. For instance, the 24th chapter of Matthew is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, though advocates of the 1000 year reign want to apply it to a future period. The “day approaching” in Hebrews 10:25 is most likely the destruction of Jerusalem. The miseries of the rich men in James 5 are probably connected with that great event. The “coming” of Christ in Revelation 1:7 and 22:7 is mostly likely spiritual and in reference to Christ’s coming in vengeance upon the Jewish state and later upon the Roman Empire. It is my opinion that the punishments of Revelation 6,8, and 9 were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the “mystery of God” that was “finished” (Rev. 10:7) was the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the end of the Jewish nation. There are other Scriptures which clearly apply to this event, and there are still others which may or may not apply.

The term “realized eschatology” simply means that the prophecies concerning the last things (the resurrection, the judgment, etc.) have already been realized, or fulfilled. And according to this doctrine they were all fulfilled in A.D. 70. Now it is one thing to say that a prophecy in a book of symbols such as Revelation is not to be taken literally. The context justifies this conclusion. It is another thing to say that the plain teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 concerning the resurrection is figurative, or symbolic. The context makes it clear that the resurrection of our bodies will be just as literal as the resurrection of Christ’s body. In 2 Timothy 2:17,18 we read of Hymenaeus and Philetus who were teaching “that the resurrection is past already” and had overthrown “the faith of some.” I have often wondered what sort of a complex theory they had cooked up to justify such a conclusion. Remember that they were making their claim before the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is no wonder that when some Christians believed their teaching it led to the overthrow of their faith. It will do the same today. Paul taught that if there is no resurrection, our “faith is vain” (1 Cor. 15:14).

If the end of the world has already come to pass in the destruction of Judaism, then there will be no end to this physical world, and the church will exist for all eternity on this earth. If there is to be no end to this present order, such news will no doubt bring rejoicing among Satan and his angels. They may continue to remain free and to tempt man for all eternity, thus cheating the sentence of consignment to the lake of fire. If this doctrine be true, the last enemy (death) will never be destroyed and Christ will never “put down all rule and all authority and power.” “All things” will never be “put under his feet,” or “subdued unto him” (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Christ will never win the final victory.

If the Lord has already come, and will never come again, then why do we still take the Lord’s Supper? “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). According to the doctrine under consideration, the Lord’s Supper should have ceased in A.D. 70. Yet those who believe this doctrine, for some reason, continue to take the supper. If the Lord has already come for the last time, then we have no hope of going to live with Him in His Father’s house. John 14:3 says, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” If Christ received some unto Himself in A.D. 70, then these are the only ones promised such a home with God.

Notice that this false system of doctrine ignores the fact that certain words can be literal in one passage and spiritual, or figurative, in another. The coming of Jesus in Acts 1:11 is literal; that in Matthew 24:30 is figurative. The context is the determining factor in both cases. The resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 is literal; that in Revelation 20:5 is figurative. Again, the context provides the answer. Just because the “end of all things” in 1 Peter 4:7 applies to A.D. 70 (see verse 12), does not mean that “the end” in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and other Scriptures does not literally apply to the end of time and of this earth. Never ignore the context.

Although the evil of false teaching is not mitigated thereby, there is a blessing that comes to faithful Bible students in the study and refutation of such doctrine. We never fail to learn more truth and to have a deeper understanding of God’s Word than when we search the Scriptures to see whether a certain teaching is so. See Acts 17:11.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 659, 664
November 7, 1985

By Jon Quinn

Jesus urged to “Remember Lot’s Wife ” (Lk. 17:32). The lessons associated with her are many, but I’d like to approach the account from what may be rather unusual. Though Lot’s family lived some nineteen centuries before Christ, those who desired to have godly families then faced trials and problems similar to those which we face today.

We must also consider another family that was contemporary with Lot’s family. Abraham and Sarah’s faith was seen in every aspect of their lives, including their home. Like Lot, Abraham was not perfect as husband or father, but unlike Lot, he was successful as head of his household. Furthermore, at least for a time, Lot and his wife were a part of Abraham’s household.

Abraham’s Character and Family

Both Abraham and Sarah were faithful people of God. Their lives centered around the Lord’s will. They would no doubt have been extremely puzzled by the modern day doctrine of justification by faith alone, not to mention shocked that people would use them as examples of this false doctrine! Not by faith alone, but “by faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance” (Heb. 11:8, 9). By faith Abraham and Sarah relied on God’s promise that they would have a child even at a very late time in their lives (Heb. 11:11,12; Rom. 4:19,20). By faith Abraham was later willing to offer up his son that God had given in fulfillment of His promise thinking that God would raise him back up from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). The Bible sums up Abraham’s life by affirming that “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). What does all this mean as far as Abraham’s family is concerned? God said, “For I have chosen Abraham), in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice. . . ” (Gen. 18:19).

Shortly before leaving his home, Abraham’s brother Haran had died. Lot, Haran’s son and Abraham’s nephew, joined Abraham as he left Ur for Caanan (Gen. 11:27-12:5). Both Abraham and Lot enjoyed much wealth and prosperity. The inability of the land to support the herds and flocks of both Abraham and Lot led to friction between their respective herdsmen. Abraham did not want anything to come between his nephew and him so he offered Lot the choice: if you go “left, then I will go to the right, or if to the right, then I will go left” (Gen. 13:1-9). Lot chose the valley of the Jordan because he felt his flocks would be better off there. At least at this point it appears that he gave little thought to the extreme wickedness of the cities located in the area so he “moved his tents as far as Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord” (Gen. 13:10-13).

Decision and Consequence

Sometimes we do not see all the results of decisions we make, good or bad, until years later. Some years pass until finally the Lord’s patience with Sodom runs out. The account of the Lord’s judgment against Sodom is related in the nineteenth chapter of Genesis. Lot is warned to get his people out of the city (v. 12). When he tries to warn his sons-in-law, they react by taking the whole idea of God’s judgment as a very funny joke (v. 14). Only Lot, his wife and two daughters leave the doomed city with the instruction not to look back (vv. 15-17). Lot’s wife succumbs to the temptation to look back at the ongoing destruction taking place and perishes (vv. 23-26). Later, Lot’s two daughters prove themselves, by their immoral behavior, to have been horribly and adversely affected by their years in Sodom (vv. 31-38).

Applications for 20th Century Families

The mocking of Lot’s sons-in-law is little different from the attitudes expressed by many today. If you want to give somebody a good laugh, go talk to porno shop patrons about God’s judgment. But as with Sodom, the mocking will one day be silenced forevermore.

Lot’s choice on where to live was motivated more by what was physically best for his animals than what was spiritually best for his family. Again, people today are making the same kind of unwise trade off and the tragic thing is that many will not see the bitter end results until years later when family members fall away or never come to the Lord to begin with.

Simply refraining from wickedness ourselves as parents is not enough! We must equip our children to live godly lives regardless of the environment they find themselves in. Lot never partook in the unrighteousness of his neighbors; in fact it sickened him to see the way they acted (2 Pet. 2:6-9). But this was not enough for his family.

We live in an environment that seems to be becoming increasingly like that of Sodom. We cannot avoid it completely. We must work in it, go to school in it and live in it. Does it not make sense to insure that our homes remain an oasis of relief from the world to which we can go and relax? How foolish to destroy this oasis by inviting the world to “come on in” through television programs, music, literature or our own worldly ways!

Finally, we learn about unselfishness. Abraham certainly showed his selfless attitude toward Lot by offering him first choice of where to live. Sometimes, it is easier to show consideration toward those with whom we work than it is toward members of our own families. I suppose it is easy to take husband or wife or parents or children for granted because of the closeness of the relationships. Certainly, we ought to treat our family members with respect, dignity and consideration.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, pp. 673, 695
November 21, 1985

By Keith Pruitt

Recently there has been a recurrence of the arguments pro and con as they relate to pornography. While some contend that pornography is undefinable, one who is capable of moral judgments can easily distinguish those magazines given to pornography from an art journal or Newsweek.

A connection between secular humanism and pornography may have gone without much comment by most had it not been for an article published recently in The Humanist, an official publication of the American Humanist Association. The July/August 1985 issue entitled “Pornography, a humanist issue,” attempted to shift the scene of attack from Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, et al to the Bible itself. The attempt was nauseating! A quote or two follows from Sol Gordon.

“I can tell you that the real issue is reproductive freedom, social justice, and sex education. Pornography is not a cause of anything. . . . The Bible is one of the most. . . pornographic things we have. . .”

In the symposium discussed in the aforementioned article, speaker after speaker warned against joining forces with right wing religionists in opposing pornography. But I can see why they would wish to avoid a discussion of pornography. The whole system of humanism is built around personal morality. Their beliefs would seem to dictate the response, “Man should be free to do as he pleases as long as no one else is hurt.”

But the attack upon the Bible is merely an attempt by ignorant men and women to focus contempt for the Bible. They know that good moral people are tired of having the filth sold in every gas station, convenient store and book dealership in the nation. Many have taken pornography off the shelves because of the pressure brought to bear by concerned citizens. Universities and even countries (see National Federation For Decency Journal, September, 1985 for further details) have banned the distribution of the smut.

But the battle rages. Seven-Eleven stores in many parts of the country as well as numerous bookstores continue to gross millions of dollars in profit every year from the sale of pornography. “Kiddy porn,” as it is called, is growing beyond imagination. The lucrative video market is now involved as one can go into many video stores and rent or buy x-rated movies.

One might well wonder how Gordon connects the Bible with rape and other sexual perversions. His reasoning runs like this. The Bible says sex is confined to marriage. But men get lonely so they rape, etc., to fulfill their physical needs. Thus it is the restraint that is the cause. They so wickedly err. It is the inability to control passions that is the problem. The law of the country also opposes rape. Should the criminal code be found at fault because of its violation? Surely not!

Mr. Gordon, who is one of the chief humanists in the country, should show where the Bible is in any way similar to the pornography of Playgirl, et al.

The allegation falls without proof. In what way is the Bible, or any one of its sixty-six books, similar to the vulgar pictures of Playboy? They have raised the issue; they must prove it.

Pornography is a result of humanistic philosophy just as righteousness comes from following the Scriptures. The humanist system of situation ethics promotes every sexual perversion imaginable. It must by definition. And equally so the Bible must oppose every false and ungodly way (Psa. 119:104). Humanism’s tenet of situation ethics is wrong. God’s word is truth (John 17:17). The morality, or immorality, humanism advocates is a denunciation of God’s true way. Paul plainly points out the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21. Those who practice these stand condemned before the great King. We appeal for all to leave service to Satan and return unto God.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, p. 680
November 21, 1985