Truth Magazine

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

By Bill Hall

Hezekiah, king of Judah, had just received a letter from the king of Assyria, saying, “Give up; don’t rely upon your God; look at the other nations that have relied upon their gods; surrender.” No nation was ever more hopeless than was Judah in the face of the on-marching Assyrians. Weak and demoralized, Judah could not hope to muster even the least resistance to an Assyrian army that had devastated every nation lying in its path.

Hezekiah, having received the letter, went into the house of the Lord, spread the letter before the Lord, and prayed: “Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear: open, Lord, thine eyes, and see: and hear the words of Sennacherib. . . . Now therefore, O Lord our God . . . . save thou us out of his hand, that all the kings of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only” (2 Kgs. 19:14-19).

We admire Hezekiah’s faith. (1) He believed in God. Hezekiah was no atheist, for atheists do not pray. (2) He believed in a (the) living God, One who could see and hear and know. (3). He believed in a concerned God, One who, seeing the hopeless plight of Judah, would care. (4) He believed in a listening God, not one who might be asleep, or talking, or on a journey, or pursuing, but One whose “eyes are over the righteous and ears are open to their prayers.” (5) He believed in a responsive God, One who, having heard, would act in response to his request. (6) He believed in an almighty God, One who was able to do what needed to be done to save the nation from the Assyrians and to know that He alone is the true and living God.

But faith without works is dead. Suppose for a moment that Hezekiah had believed in that kind of God, but had failed to pray. What a tragedy! But Hezekiah did pray, and in response to his prayer God struck 185,000 of the Assyrian army with death, and the armies of Assyria never again came against the nation of Judah.

We believe in the same God that Hezekiah believed in, but we need to put that faith to work, learning to overcome our anxieties through prayer. “In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6,7). Peace through prayer, and freedom from anxieties! Freedom from anxieties because through prayer we cast our burdens upon the One who knows what is best and is infinitely able and willing to do what is best! And this is available to every Christian who prays in faith.

There is an attitude of heart, however, that must accompany our prayers if we are to find peace through prayer. It is that attitude expressed by Eli in 1 Samuel 3:18: “It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.” We can never find peace through prayer as long as we are determined to have our own way. But when we finally reach the point when we are willing to lay aside our own wills and can genuinely say, “Have thine own way, Lord, have thine own way,” our anxieties can vanish. The path to peace, then, is this: a problem arises, bringing with it anxiety; we pray, turning that problem over to the Lord; we trust Him, believing that He will indeed answer our prayer in keeping with what He knows is the very best; we surrender our wills to His will; and we find peace. This is what Hezekiah did. This is what we must do.

But where is such faith to be found? “Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, p. 651
November 7, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: What does “foolishness” mean in Mark 7:22? What would be some important applications of this?

Reply: The word “foolishness” is from the New Testament Greek noun aphrosunee and it is defined as “foolishness, lack of sense, folly, thoughtlessness; recklessness,” etc. (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 127, and Thayer, P. 90). Paul applies the word three times to himself (2 Cor. 11:1, 17, 21). While foolishness is the opposite of soundness of mind and involves all forms of moral senselessness, it is not so applied in Paul’s case. He applied the word to himself because he was forced into an argument with the Judaizers. This was distasteful to him and unnecessary. Thus he described it as foolishness, and asked the Corinthian brethren to bear with him. Paul’s self-praise was not to his liking, but he resorted to it only as a vindication of the truth. He was showing that his claims were stronger than those of his enemies — the Judaizers. Actually, Paul gloried in the Lord (Gal. 6:14).

Foolishness is folly in the absence of the fear of God. The psalmist declared: “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14: 1). All sin is actually folly; it is the lack of moral sense. The term “foolishness” probably sums up the sins which Jesus said proceed from the heart (Mk. 7:20-23). They are all foolishness. In the context of this passage, foolishness is more moral than intellectual. The pernicious sins of the Gentile world, as described by Paul, present a case in point (Rom. 1:21, 28, 31).

That all wickedness is folly is clearly seen in the words by the Ecclesiastes author. “I turned about and my heart was set to know to search out, and to seek wisdom and the reason of things, and to know that wickedness is folly, and that foolishness is madness” (Eccl. 7:25). The fool is described in Isaiah 32:6: “For the fool will speak folly, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice profaneness, and to utter error against Jehovah, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.”

One of the Hebrew words translated “fool” in the Old Testament is nabal. The man with that name played the part, as is seen by his churlishness (1 Sam. 25, esp. v. 25). He was insensitive to human needs and was spiritually blind. The fool’s selfish philosophy is demonstrated by the rich man in Luke 12:16-21.

The fool is often contrasted with the wise man in the Bible. For example, “The wise shall inherit glory; but shame shall be the promotion of fools” (Prov. 3:35). Again, “The wise in heart will receive commandments; but a prating fool shall fall” (Prov. 10:8). Jesus contrasted the two builders in Matthew 7:24-27. The wise man is compared to the man who built his house upon the rock because he heard and obeyed the words of Jesus. But the man who only heard the words of Jesus, but did not obey them, is compared to the man who built his house upon the sand.

What is wisdom to man is often foolishness to God; and vice versa, what is God’s wisdom is often foolishness to man. The command to Naaman to dip seven times in the river Jordan to be cured of leprosy was foolishness to him (2 Kgs. 5:11,12). He thought the Damascus rivers (Abanah and Pharper) were better than all the waters of Israel. He questioned God’s authority, so he was foolish. He became wise when he humbled himself and obeyed God. To some, gospel preaching is foolishness. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: “For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18; see also vv. 21, 23, 25).

God’s own people sometimes act foolishly. To the Galatians, who had been led astray by Judaizers, Paul asked, “0 foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth and crucified?” (Gal. 3:1) Then he asked in verse 3, “Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?”

Wisdom is the opposite of foolishness, and is “pressed by a fear of the Lord and a turning away from all that is evil. It is summed up well by Job. “And unto man, he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom: and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28:28).

There are many practical applications to be made. Foolishness is characterized by the man who denies God’s reality and lives in ignorance of Him. The one who carelessly and recklessly pursues a path of sin is foolish-it is the carefree philosophy of “do your own thing.” It is foolishness to live for the gratification of the flesh-to live by the epicurean philosophy: “eat today and be merry, for tomorrow you may die.” Those who live only to themselves and are totally indifferent to the needs of others are selfish, thus foolish. To disregard and disrespect divine authority is foolishness and is the basis of all false doctrines. To be carried away by every wind of doctrine that blows, without investigating the Scriptures, is foolishness (1 Jn. 4:1). To live only for this life, without any preparation for the future life, is foolishness (Matt. 6:19-21). To never look at, much less read and study the Bible, is foolishness. These are but a few of some important applications of foolishness. The list is ad infinitum.

Christians should scrupulously avoid foolishness. “Wherefore be ye not foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, p. 645
November 7, 1985