Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The sixth chapter of John relates the account of Jesus’ miracle of feeding over 5000 from five loaves and two fish. The purpose of this miracle was to demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God (Jn. 20:30,31; 6:27). The miracle was especially relevant to the text of the sermon which was delivered to the Jews the following day. Jesus declared Himself to be the “Bread of Life.” What better proof could be provided to demonstrate that He was the bread of life than to provide bread to feed the multitude?

There are a number of lessons from John 6 which emphasize several truths regarding Jesus from which we can profit.

The Bread Of Life Is Satisfying

In John 6:35, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (cf. His statement regarding the water of life in Jn. 4:14). This statement affirms that the gospel of Jesus Christ satisfies man’s spiritual need.

Many people are constantly searching for something to fill the void in their lives. They go from aerobics to cake decorating, from crafts to painting, from yoga to karate, from movies to music. Others go from football to basketball, from baseball to boxing, from fishing to hunting. They are constantly searching for something which is gratifying and satisfying. Their entire life is spent chasing rainbows which never can be caught and which would not be satisfying if they could be caught.

Jesus emphasized that the gospel is satisfying and fulfilling. If one eats the bread of life, he will never hunger or thirst again. The bread of life fills our spiritual needs; there is nothing else needed to quench our spiritual hunger and thirst. There is no need for us to be looking elsewhere for additional “bread.” Jesus can fill our every need.

The Bread Of Life Gives Eternal Life

The bread of life is different from ordinary bread. Ordinary food sustains our physical bodies for short periods of time. As the Jews pressed Jesus to perform another miracle to feed them, they alluded to the manna with which God had fed His people during the wilderness wandering. Jesus contrasted the bread which He provides with the manna. He said, “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever . . . . Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn. 6:49-51,54).

Whereas temporal food sustains our bodies for short durations, the bread of life gives us eternal life. Though our bodies will die, Jesus will raise us up in the last day to a glorious resurrection. We who partake of the bread of life shall live forever with Him.

The Bread of Life Brings Fellowship With God

Jesus said, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:56). Jesus did not teach that He would personally come inside the body of the believer or that the believer would personally dwell inside of Him. He did not say that a “representative indwelling” would occur (i.e. Jesus would dwell in us through the Holy Spirit). The word “dwell” (Greek: meno) means “not to depart, not to leave, to continue to be present … to maintain unbroken fellowship with one” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 399).

The gospel of Jesus Christ brings us into fellowship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. When one is obedient to the gospel, he is “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3; Rom. 6:14). He is in communion with the Holy Ghost (2 Cor. 13:14). In the Great Commission, Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in (Greek: eis, into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:18). When one is baptized, he is brought into communion or fellowship with the Godhead. In one of his epistles, John wrote, “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:3).

The Bread Of Life Comes Through Christ

Jesus declared Himself to be the bread of life (Jn. 6:35,48). He stated that He gives us the bread of life. “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you . . . ” (6:27). The words which Jesus spoke to us “are spirit, and they are life” (6:63).

The gospel of Jesus Christ reveals to us the grace of God which was manifested in order that our sins might be forgiven. It tells us how Jesus gave His precious blood that you and I might have life. It reveals the conditions which man must meet in order to receive forgiveness of sins. It instructs us how to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world. It promises the eternal home which God has prepared for those that love Him. Indeed, the revelation which God has given us through Jesus Christ provides everything necessary to life and godliness.

There is no “bread of life” in other sources of “revelation. ” The Book of Mormon, Science and Health With Key To The Scriptures, The Koran, The Rig-Vedas, The Bhagavad Gita and other so-called “revelations” contain spiritual garbage, not the Bread of Life.

Conclusion

Jesus admonished, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life. . . ” (Jn. 6:27). He warned of the danger of neglecting the bread of life while spending one’s life working for the physical necessities and luxuries of life. Elsewhere He said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).

Most Americans are wasting their lives chasing after the temporal needs of life and neglecting the bread of life which comes from Jesus Christ, which gives us eternal life, which brings us into the fellowship of Christ, and which satisfies our every spiritual need. Eat of this bread that you may live.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 10, pp. 290, 311
May 17, 1984

By Irven Lee

There are many people who do not agree with you on some of the questions that are discussed today. This is true no matter who you are or what views you hold. In the first place, there are very many questions about which there are differing judgments.

Are all those who question some of your views fanatics and trouble makers? Are they at least second rate citizens, if not fools? It may be that some of these who do not agree with you are very devout gospel preachers who have worked unselfishly and successfully in building up worthy churches. They may not have been involved in as many serious conflicts where they preach as you have in your work. Even with these facts in mind, would you still advise people not to attend where they preach, even if attending where you preach would require more driving?

We are not writing about the plan of salvation, the work or organization of the church, the deity of Christ, or the inspiration of the word. This article refers to many questions that involve the individual Christian and not the whole congregation as a collectively. Some of the questions have been around for a long time, and some have been asked, it seems, first in the last few years. The apostles died several hundred years too early to get in on some of these questions.

You are right, of course on all these ideas, but some near you are not. Do you associate with these people who sincerely think they are right on some problems that are being tossed about but, according to your judgment, are wrong? Remember, we are not talking about how to become a Christian, how to worship, or how to carry on the work of the -church. This article is about things that you call foolish questions. Some of the questions may be foolish. Who is to judge?

We are talking about weaker and stronger brethren who will give an account to God for their own deeds (Rom. 14). We are not talking of the factious people who should be marked, avoided, and rejected (Rom. 16:17,18; Tit. 3:9-11). This latter group are grievous wolves who draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:29; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). These people will be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

This article is about people who may have more patience, humility, or Bible knowledge than you have. They may work with more zeal and success in converting sinners to Christ than you do. This may sound a little blunt, but you need some one to talk to you frankly. The church is suffering from men like you who are so right on everything and could not be wrong.

If this offends you, do not raise your hand or speak up because I have not called your name or mentioned the community where you live. Even your correct views have not been identified. If you do not turn red or speak up, people may not recognize you. You will have time to repent and develop the mind of Christ before they even think about you being the guilty one under discussion (Phil. 2:1-11). You wear many names, but your real name is Legion because there are many of you. We are telling you that you condemn in others the very spirit which is in you. Examine yourself.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, p. 276
May 3, 1984

By Larry Ray Hafley

Noting and quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34, the Hebrew writer (we will assume it was the apostle Paul) said:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:8-13).

Some are confused by Paul’s statement that the old covenant was “ready to vanish away.” They think it refers to Paul’s day. They believe this indicates that the first covenant had not vanished away when Paul wrote, but that it was then “ready to vanish away.” However, the moment God mentioned “a new covenant,” at that instant He made the first covenant old and “ready to vanish away.” Hence, the first covenant was “old” in the days of Jeremiah, not in the time of Paul. It was “ready to vanish away,” not in the days of the apostle, but in the days of Jeremiah.

What Covenant?

What was the covenant that was to be done away? It was the one God made when He took the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. That covenant included the ten commandments. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone” (Deut. 4:13). Moses said, “The Lord our God made a covenant with us (Israel) in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deut. 5:2,3). “When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water: And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deut. 9:9, 10). “And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments” (Ex. 34:27,28).

That covenant was old in Jeremiah, and it vanished away in Jesus.

What Superseded It?

The “second” or “new covenant” was different in kind and in character.

First, it was made with spiritual Israel. To physical, fleshly Israel, Jesus said, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’ (Matt. 21:43). Essentially, a kingdom cannot be separated from its constitution. It derives its nature, its character, from its covenant. This new covenant is the constitution of the kingdom of God. The kingdom is the “holy nation;” it is that “spiritual house” which offers up dispiritual (not material, animal) sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5-9).

Second, its laws are enshrined “into their mind” and “written in their hearts. ” This contrasts with laws inscribed upon tables of stone. Fundamentally, though, it describes the difference between the birth of the flesh and the birth of the spirit. God was the God of Israel after the flesh, and they were His people. Now, unto those who have the law put into their minds and into their hearts, God is their God and they are His people, not of or in the flesh, but of and in the spirit. “For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit” (Rom. 2:28,29).

Hebrews 8:11 adds to this point, “And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” Under the first covenant, the children of God had to be taught to “know the Lord.” They were physically born into the kingdom of Israel, and as they matured they had to be instructed of this fact, i.e., “know the Lord.” But it is not so under the second covenant. Why not? Because one cannot be born in the spiritual house until he has been taught to know the Lord. Jesus said, “It is written in the prophets. And they shall be all taught of God” (Jn. 6:45). Where was it written? It was written in our text, in Jeremiah 31:33,34, and Hebrews 8:10,11. “Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father,, cometh unto me.” The baby in fleshly Israel was a child of God at birth. As he grew, he was taught to know the Lord. The “newborn babe” in Christ has the law, the gospel, impressed and implanted in his heart and mind. Thus, he has learned of the Father and has come unto Christ.

For this cause, Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel” (Mk. 16:15), and “Go ye therefore and teach” (Matt. 28:19). For this reason, Jesus spoke of “them which shall believe on me through their word” (Jn. 17:20).

Third, it provides the promised forgiveness. The blood that gushed from the altars of Abel and Abraham, the blood that cascaded down the sorrowing slopes of Sinai unto the last lamb of the last temple service, amplified the fact “that the blood of bulls and of goats (could not) take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). Rivers of blood flowed from the mount of Moses to the preaching of John, but a full, free, final sacrifice had not been made. When our Lord hung His head on the cross of Calvary, when He uttered, “It is finished,” the dying stopped, the blood was dried up on the altars of men. And then God could declare, “Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us . . . . And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:12,15). “Now where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18).

The dying lambs bleat and bleed no more. The suffering Savior poured out His soul unto death. Amid the angelic armies and heavenly hosts, He sits with the scepter of victory, crowned with glory and honor. The binding bars of hades are bent and broken as the “everlasting doors” are opened to receive the “King of glory.” At God’s right hand, He reigns and rules in unlimited dominion with “angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1 Pet. 3:22).

“Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28,29).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 10, pp. 289, 312
May 17, 1984

By Mike Willis

The distinctive roles for men and women are God ordained. That does not mean that either man or woman is superior to the other. Rather, it recognizes God’s order for society. Peace and harmony result when that order is recognized and accepted; disorder and chaos occur when God’s order for society is rejected.

God’s order in the home is that man is the head of the house (Eph. 5:23). Woman is to be subject to the husband. This does not mean that she can never make any decisions. She is to “guide the house” (1 Tim. 5:14). The word oikodespoteo means “to rule a household, manage family affairs” (Thayer, p. 439). My wife does not need my approval for every dress, pair of shoes, box of cereal, etc. that she buys. She has sense enough and biblical auth rit to “,guide the house.” She must, however, submit to the authority of her husband.

The virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 engaged in several business activities. “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard” (31:16). “She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant” (31:24). She was engaged in business activities and, therefore, not totally confined to work at home. Some of us have preached that it was sinful for a woman to work outside the home, a conclusion which cannot be supported from God’s word, a conclusion with which we have not followed through (we made no effort to discipline those women who committed this “sin”), a conclusion which was inconsistently applied (“it is alright to work outside the home [to sin] under some circumstances”) and a conclusion which publicly embarrassed many Godfearing and conscientious women who worked outside the home and managed their homes as well. We might advise someone regarding the judgment of whether or not to work outside the home, but we should not bind our judgments as divine law.

The sphere of woman’s public activity in the church has been limited by God’s divine revelation. Paul revealed God’s will when he wrote, “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). This passage prohibits woman from holding a role which places her over a man. She has no God-given authority to fill positions of leadership over men in the church. She cannot teach a class of men, preach to a mixed assembly of men and women, or otherwise teach or usurp authority over a man.

Trouble Among The Denominations

For many years, modernist denominations have denied the inspiration of the Bible. They have not hesitated to challenge Paul’s inspired words by saying that he was a male Chauvinist. The leaders of some women’s liberation movements have not hesitated to criticize and, condemn God’s holy word in its teaching regarding the role of women.

The consequence has been that women preachers have become rather commonplace in denominations. However, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” According to statistics, there will be more women preachers in the future.

Speculation aside, the startling facts speak for themselves:

– In 1972, seminaries enrolled 3,358 women, 10.2 percent of their students. In 1983, the number jumped to 13,451, or 24.4 percent.

– In the United Church of Christ, about 50 percent of seminary graduates are women. At United Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal schools, the figure is about 30 percent. (Women constituted 85 percent of the entering class at Episcopal Divinity School at Cambridge, Mass.)

– Enrollment of women is extraordinarily high at the prestigious interdenominational seminaries or divinity schools. At Union Theological Seminary in New York, half the students studying for the master of divinity degree (leading to ordination) are women. At Harvard Divinity School, 44 percent of the 416 students in all degree programs are women. Yale Divinity School has an enrollment of 411, including 190 women. And at the University of Chicago Divinity School, the student body of 271 includes 94 women (Mobile Press, 5 March 1984, p. 15-A).

In his article “Battle of the Sexes MoAng To The Clergy,” Roy Larson quoted one who observed, “The ministry may be going through a sex-change operation.”

Even traditionally conservative denominations have been hit. The Illinois Baptist State Association, a group of the Southern Baptists, seated a church in its association with a woman pastor despite objections from pastors in the denomination. “Approximately 25 women have been ordained and are serving as associate pastors or in other staff ministry positions in South Carolina, but none serve as senior ministers according to the Baptist Courier, news journal of the South Carolina Baptist Convention” (Sword of the Lord, 10 February 1984, p. 2).

Pentecostal churches have had women preachers for many years. The Christian Scientist have always been open to women in leading roles in the church ever since it was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

Trouble Brewing Among The Liberal Brethren?

Knowing the current thinking among denominationalism with reference to the role of women in the church, I do not think that I am over reacting to reach the conclusion that some of our liberal brethren are laying the ground work for women preachers among them. Mission Journal, an extremely liberal publication among the brethren who believe in church support of human institutions, church sponsored recreation, and the sponsoring church form of church organization, has had a woman to serve as its editor for several months. Robert M. Randolph, president of the board of Mission, wrote an article entitled “What Is Ahead For Mission?” in which he paved the way for more active roles for women in the church. He wrote,

Finally, the future church will be one where men and women, share more in the formal life of the body. In truth women have always played a significant role in the life of the church. The biblical record is clear and our own history is replete with stories of churches held together by faithful strong women who were willing to step back and allow men to exercise formal leadership, honoring in so doing the mores of contemporary society and a time-hallowed understanding of the role of men and women in the church. But society is in the midst of a major convulsion in the realm of relationships between the sexes. The church will both reflect and shape this revolution; it must. Women who work side by side with men in the major corporations of our nation, making decisions, and shaping policy, as well as women who stay home to make their families their carters for a time will find it understandably difficult to step backward on Sunday. At the same time the world is changing, so is our understanding of the biblical view of male and female. The message of Scripture does not change, but the glasses through which we view Scriptures do change; and as we look anew at the Word, we win learn, grow and change.

Urban churches will be the first to feel the effects of the new possibilities open to women. This really will renew a potential for division in our fellowship along socio-economic lines, not unlike the tension produced in other days by other issues (February 1984, p. 4).

This quotation displays several things about the convictions of brother Randolph. (1) He believes that the conviction that women should not be in leadership roles in the formal activity of the church is based on society’s mores, not divine revelation. (2) He believes that this will change. (3) He believes the change has the potential of dividing the church. He seems prepared to accept the change in the role of women in the church.

Conclusion

The writers of Mission Journal reflect the far left among our liberal brethren and should not be understood as representing the mainstream of thought among them. Nevertheless, we would be naive not to recognize the influence which the women’s liberation movement has had in our country and in denominational churches. It is also a potential threat to the body of Christ.

God-fearing women will respect the divine restrictions God has imposed upon her, recognizing that she cannot serve as an elder or deacon (both offices are limited to men who are the “husband of one wife”). She cannot teach in a position that is “over a man.”

That is not to imply that women should sit back and do nothing. There are many areas of service in which they can and should be involved and active. Those women who have served the Lord in the sphere which God regulated should be honored and praised for their service to God.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, pp. 258, 275
May 3, 1984