Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

The mother has a special place of responsibility in the home. Aged women are to teach “the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discrete, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4, 5). This one passage does a wonderful job of outlining the role of the mother in the home.

Let us think of that mature woman who still has a responsibility to her daughters even though they may also be homemakers. The training should have started early while the daughters were young, but the teaching may continue because there are many important lessons that need to be deeply implanted in these young women. One way the older women may teach the young is by their own example of chastity, modesty, and good judgment in clothing, and in behavior. If there were more mothers with strong convictions, there would be more daughters with strong characters.

Who will turn our immoral and unchaste generation back to purity and sobriety? It is very evident that comparatively few older women have been training the young women in the way they should go. Divorce, unfaithfulness to the marriage partner, drunkenness, and a complete lack of spirituality have come to many young women in America. Such people are in no position to be the mothers of the next generation. Many do not want children because they are so in love with money and with worldliness. Are there those who can get to these young women with the Bible to instill the principles their mothers should have taught them? It will not be easy. Most of the ungodly will continue to sow to the flesh and to reap of the same (Gal. 6:7, 8).

To “guide the house” as a “keeper at home” is a special assignment to young women (1 Tim. 5:14). Eunice and Lois must have done their work well at home because Timothy was given the “unfeigned faith” and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures that helped make him the great servant of the Lord that he was (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14, 15; Phil. 2:19-23). Is there a more important and satisfying work than guiding and training such excellent people to be the salt of the earth? The work of a good mother is so important that nothing should hinder or turn her aside from this glorious task.

It may seem to some that young mothers will naturally love their children, but very many young children are at home by themselves in summer. Some mothers forsake their husbands and children to live with companions to whom they have no legal right. The Lord knows that young women need to be taught to love their children, and to have a proper discretion and soberness of mind to be guides for these children. Mothers and fathers are accountable to God for what they make of their homes. It would be impossible to over emphasize the importance of the role of the father and of the mother in the home. The failures that are made in this realm could hardly be more evident. Worthy and successful parents are blessed, and they deserve our congratulations.

Many children are now growing up in the homes where there is only one parent. In some cases they are with one parent a while and then with the other. It is next to impossible for a good man alone to give his children all they need in the way of guidance and training. If the mother still sleeps at home but is hardly with the child this is only one degree better than her being gone into another state. She who bears children should guide the house. Money cannot replace a mother’s love, example, and companionship. Are there not many women in the labor market in the very period of life when they are so much needed at home?

The word mother was once considered to be a word with very great significance. As more women began using vulgar and blasphemous language, drinking alcohol, forsaking the home in search of money and notoriety, and becoming immodest and immoral, the special respect for women in general was lost. There are still some of the very best mothers, and their children love and honor them. We should all thank God for these virtuous women because it is the influence of His word that causes them to be so worthy of respect.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, p. 38
January 20, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Did you ever hear of the doctrine that Christ came “in his glory” to judge men of “all nations” (Matt. 25) when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70? It is also said that this was “the resurrection. ” Also, that while our spirits will somehow live beyond the grave, Jesus will not come back to raise our bodies and destroy the earth because all of the passages on that subject have “already been fulfilled in A.D. 70. “Does not such teaching destroy the “one hope” of Ephesians 4? Please comment.

Reply: This doctrine is new to me. Paul was familiar with a doctrine in his day that was taught by Hymenaeus and Philetus. They said that “the resurrection is past already” (2 Tim. 2:17, 18) so at least the two doctrines share one thing in common: they both deny a future resurrection. The claim that Christ’s judgment in Matthew 25 took place at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is false for several reasons.

In the first place, the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matt. 24:30, 31) was figurative. This is clearly seen when we examine the context. The disciples had asked in verse 3 of the chapter, “When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world (the consummation of the age)?” Jesus proceeded to give them signs whereby they would know when these things would occur – the destruction of the temple, the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish nation. Parallel passages are Mark 13 and Luke 21. That the coming of Christ and the signs following that tribulation (Matt. 24:17-31) were figurative can be easily understood when we consider the description after Babylon’s fall. “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine …. Therefore I will make the heavens to tremble, and the earth shall be shaken out of its place, in the wrath of Jehovah of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger” (Isa. 13:10-13). Notice that this is referred to as the coming of Jehovah (vv. 6, 9). Jehovah came and visited His wrath. The language is figurative and is almost an exact parallel to the description given in Matthew 24:29-31. Jehovah came when Babylon was destroyed (B.C. 539), and Christ came when Jerusalem was destroyed (A.D. 70). The language employed in both instances was figurative, the fate of each being described by a coming of Jehovah and a coming of Christ.

The future coming of Christ is literal and is not to be confused with His visitation which took place in A.D. 70. We note some things that will occur when Jesus comes again.

Christ will raise the righteous on the last day (Jn. 6:44), the event described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with a voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” That this will be a bodily resurrection is seen in 1 Corinthians where Paul states that the body is sown in corruption but raised in incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality (vv. 42-54). There is no evidence from the Scriptures or history that the bodies of the saints were raised at the destruction of Jerusalem. This did not occur then, but will occur when Jesus comes again.

The wicked will be raised at the coming of Christ (Jn. 5:28, 29). The resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked will take place at the same time. Premillennialists would do well to observe that there will be no intervening period of even one day between the two classes, much less one thousand years. Both classes will hear His voice and will come forth from the tombs. This will take place at the second coming of Christ. It did not take place when Jerusalem fell. Those who believe that the resurrection took place when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70 would also do well to observe. Jesus said that the resurrection would take place on the last day. Over nineteen hundred years have passed since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. That event was not the last day.

The future coming of Christ is when He will come “in his glory” to judge men of “all nations” (Matt. 25:31, 32). This did not take place when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70. Should it be argued that this would be the judgment of only the people living at that time, we need only to turn to the Scriptures. They teach that others will be present at this judgement. The men of Ninevah (B.C. 850) will be there (Matt. 12:41). Jesus said that the men of Ninevah would stand up with this generation (the one in the time of Jesus) and would condemn it. The queen of the south (B.C. 1000) would rise up with this generation (v. 42). Tyre and Sidon (B.C. 330) will be present at the judgment (Matt. 11:21, 22). Sodom (B.C. 1900) will be at the judgment scene (Matt. 11:24). The nations here mentioned, along with the generation at the time of Christ, will be at the judgment. Those nations listed in the foregoing passages did not make their appearance when Jerusalem was destroyed. Matthew 25:32 says that all the nations will appear at the judgment. Since all nations did not appear at the judgement when Jerusalem was destroyed, Matthew 25:31, 32 cannot refer to that time. It has to be in the future.

The heavens and the earth are to be destroyed when Jesus comes again. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet. 3:10). The earth will be “burned up.” The Greek word for “burned up” is katakaestai (second future passive of the compound verb katakaio) which means “to burn up, consume with fire” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 215). This cannot be interpreted figuratively because the word “earth” (Gr. ge) simply means “the earth, soil, land” (Souter, Lexicon to the Greek N. T., p. 55). It is in contrast to heaven (see Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon, p. 156). The catastrophe described in 2 Peter 3:12 did not take place when Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70.

When the Scriptures are examined it is obvious that all references to the resurrection and the coming of Christ were nit fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The events described in Matthew 24:27-30, with reference to the coming of the Son of man, etc., were figurative as has been shown; whereas, the events which will transpire at the future coming of Christ will be literal. The Bible clearly teaches that several things will take place when Jesus comes again that did not take place when Jerusalem fell to the Romans. The application of eschatological events to the past is contrary to the word of God and is, therefore, a false doctrine. Even if we grant that all the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 70 (which is doubtful), the fact remains that the references which are made to a future resurrection and coming of Christ in no way tie in with the historical events of Matthew 24 and its parallel passages. Indeed this doctrine does destroy the Christian’s one hope of a future resurrection and the expectation that Jesus is coming again (Eph. 4:4). It is a serious denial of Bible teaching concerning the future resurrection and the advent of Christ. Those who espouse such teaching should seriously reconsider this position in light of what the word of God teaches on these matters. All of us would do well to heed the admonition: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

Addena

It has just come to my attention that the doctrine dealt with above emerged in the Ohio Valley early in the 1970’s and was chiefly developed by Max R. King of Warren, Ohio. The manual of this movement has been a volume entitled The Spirit of Prophecy by Max R. King. For a detailed and further refutation of this error, our readers are referred to a book, Studies in Biblical Eschatology by Terry Varner. The book is a paperback, contains five chapters and a bibliography and sells for $4.50. It can be obtained from Guardian of Truth Bookstore, Box 88, Fairmount, Indiana 46928.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, pp. 36-37
January 20, 1983

By Mike Willis

One of the characteristics of our ungodly age is its corrupt speech. Those who, unlike preachers, are forced to enter the secular work force of America are forced to live and work with people who take the name of the Lord in vain, curse man and God, and otherwise use filthy speech. One of the privileges which I enjoy as a preacher is being somewhat isolated from the temptations to use filthy speech. Inasmuch as so many around us use filthy speech, we need to be reminded of what the Scriptures teach regarding the use of one’s tongue. The psalmist said, “Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile” (Psa. 34:14). Again he wrote, “I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue: I will keep my mouth with a bridle, while the wicked is before me” (Psa. 39:1).

Taking The Lord’s Name In Vain

One of the many sins which is practiced today with the tongue is taking the Lord’s name in vain. One of the Ten Commandments was this: “Thou shaft not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7). Men show disrespect for the Lord’s holy name when they use it in a profane manner. They use His name to curse men. They use it as a form of exclamatory speech. They use it to express their anger. They use it in a light manner. We need to remember that “holy and reverend is his name” (Psa. 111:9). God will not hold men guiltless who so abuse His name today.

Corrupt Speech

Paul wrote, “Let no corrupt communications proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29). The word corrupt, from sapros, means “rank, foul, putrid, rotten, worthless, disgusting.” It reminds us of the rotting which occurs in spoiled food. Some men’s mouths are garbage cans.

As Paul continued to describe sinful forms of speech, he condemned “filthiness,” “foolish talking,” and “jesting.” The different kinds of filthy speech condemned here are as follows: (1) Filthiness (aischrotes): shameful, filthy or obscene speech; (2) Foolish talking (morologia): this is the talk of fools, men who have no respect for God (Psa. 10:7 – “his mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity”); (3) Jesting (eutrapelia): coarse jesting. This last word implies “the dexterity of turning a discourse to wit or humor; and lastly deceptive speech, so formed that the speaker easily contrives to wriggle out of its meaning or engagements (Eadie)” (Fritz Rienecker, A Linguistic Key To the Greek New Testament, Vol. II, p. 190).

At one time or another most of us have been forced to be around someone who has the kind of speech described by Paul. In the course of a conversation, they will twist someone’s words around to make something filthy or dirty out of what was intended to have no such reference or meaning in the beginning. With them, every innocent phrase can be made into something dirty. The humorous stories which they tell for entertainment and amusement generally are filthy. Their jokes are vulgar and dirty. Their jokes are shameful and obscene speech.

Paul also mentioned that some things were so shameful that Christians should not talk about them. He said, “For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret” (Eph. 5:12). Our society does not consider anything too shameful to speak about. The television talk shows use topics related to the most intimate relationships between a man and woman as entertaining conversation to be aired into millions of homes. There is nothing so intimate but that one of the television talk hosts is willing to conduct a program on it. Homosexuals, prostitutes, and other sexual perverts are invited to be present on the program and talk in intimate detail regarding their sexual conduct. If there was ever a nation who had lost the ability to blush, America would have to be it. We are like Israel, whom Jeremiah described saying, “. . . they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush” (6:15).

Wrath and Anger

Man frequently vents his anger through his speech. Paul described this kind of sinful speech as follows, “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice” (Eph. 4:31). One of the kinds of anger which Paul described is thumos, that violent form of anger which explodes and then subsides, forgetting what harm it has inflicted on others in its expression. Most of us have seen men of uncontrolled spirits whose anger burned like wild fire in sage brush, burning furiously and hotly, and then quickly subsiding. In their anger they were guilty of clamor (krauge), shouting.

Sometimes men persuade themselves that their anger is uncontrollable. They say, “When I get mad, I just can’t stop shouting.” They know better than that; this is simply an excuse to prevent taking responsibility for the abusive speech which they use on others. Such people can be in the middle of ranting and raving speech directed toward others – in the middle of the kind of anger which they say that they cannot control – when the phone rings or someone knocks on the door. What happens to this uncontrollable rage then? With the gentleness of a lamb and mildness of Casper the friendly ghost, they answer the phone with a polite “Hello.” Christians who are guilty of abusive speech of this nature need to repent of their sin. They need to realize that such sins separate men from God and cause them to go to Hell. They need to manifest, not simply sorrow for their sin and the pain which it has inflicted on others, but godly sorrow which worketh repentance (2 Cor. 7:10).

Tattlers and Busybodies

In 1 Timothy 5:13, Paul condemned another sin of the tongue. In advising the younger widows to marry, Paul commanded the church not to enroll them on their permanent roll for support lest these women become idle and guilty of sinful speech. He wrote, “But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not” (1 Tim. 5:11-13). With the invention of the modern telephone, it has become a lot easier for idle women to wander from house to house and speak things which they ought not to speak. Many churches constantly have trouble among their membership because of women who are tattlers and busybodies, telling things which they ought not to tell and nosing into other people’s business. Some women know the intimate affairs of many households in the local church and go about telling their closest friends the choicest tidbits which they have most recently gathered.

Being tattlers and busybodies is not a sin on which women hold franchises.

Being tattlers and busybodies is not a sin on which women hold franchises. My wife reminds me that preachers sometimes are tempted in this direction as well. Gossip and rumor mongering should not characterize men who are striving to be men of God. Preachers luncheons should not be sessions in which the latest rumors which circulate,, among the brethren are aired.

Conclusion

The kind of speech which should characterize Christians is that which is with grace; it is edifying, giving grace to those who hear it. The tongue can be used to offer praise to God in song and in prayer. It can be used to proclaim the story of the gospel of God’s grace. With a soft word, it can turn away wrath (Prov. 15:1). A good word can make those with a heavy heart glad (Prov. 12:25).

Why would one who is professing to be a Christian and who participates in the public service of God’s worship want to use his tongue for sinful purposes, such as taking the name of the Lord in vain, coarse jesting, clamour, gossip and backbiting? We need to join with David of old in obeying the command to “keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile” (Psa. 34:14). “I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue: I will keep my mouth with a bridle, while the wicked is before me” (Psa. 39:1).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, pp. 34-36
January 20, 1983

By Weldon E. Warnock

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . .” (Heb. 1:1-2). This is one of the great passages of the Bible. It is used often in gospel sermons.

As one observes this Scripture closely, he will notice that several false doctrines are repudiated and invalidated.

Atheism Repudiated

We notice, first of all, that the passage affirms the existence of God and repudiates atheism, which is the belief that there is no Supreme Being. Atheists believe that all things are the product of matter, working by chance. The Bible maintains that there is a God who is an intelligent, Eternal, Supreme Being and He is the cause for life and matter.

The first Scripture in the Bible states, “In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The authors of the Bible make very little effort to offer evidence for God’s existence. They state it as a fact. Really, the existence of God is so obvious that no evidence is needed to be offered. Only a fool will say there is no God (Psa. 14:1). David wrote, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psa. 10:1). Along the same line, Paul wrote, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead . . .” (Rom. 1:20).

Deism Repudiated

Deism is the theory that God created the earth and then separated Himself completely from it. This theory denies any divine intervention in the universe. In other words, the theory does not allow any miracles or any revelation from God to man.

Our text, however, affirms that God has revealed Himself to man at sundry times and in divers manners. This He did by dreams, visions, symbols, audible voices, prophets, Urim and Thummim, and, of course, today through His Son. Without any divine revelation to guide man through life; he would be as a ship without a rudder. Man would have no idea of his origin, his purpose in life or his destiny. Life would be full of gloom and despair.

Modernism Repudiated

One of the fruits of modernism is the rejection of the inspiration of the Bible or parts of the Bible. Some modernists claim that the Bible is inspired, except a few accounts, such as Balaam’s donkey speaking or the fish swallowing Jonah. Modernism is hard to pinpoint as it shows itself in so many forms. However, many modernists, if not most modernists, claim the Bible is a product of human wisdom; it is to be considered on a par with any other book.

The text under consideration states that God spoke by or through the prophets and His Son, Jesus. The Bible thus asserts divine guidance in its message.

Peter wrote, “Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). “Private interpretation” in this passage simply means that the prophets did not use their private judgment or understanding in writing the Scriptures. Rather, they wrote under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the New Testament, Paul wrote, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh in you also that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13; cf. 1 Cor. 2:13).

The Bible, therefore, emphatically -claims to be inspired and offers too much evidence of its inspiration to consider seriously the assumptions of unbelievers. Many other Scriptures could be offered to supplement Hebrews 1:1-2, but the preceding ones will suffice for now.

Premillennialism Repudiated

Hebrews 1:2 states, “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . .” Premillennialists declare that we are not living in the last days, but that Jesus is going to return for a thousand-year reign on earth and that period of time will constitute the last days. It seems that they need to take another little peek at the passage in Hebrews.

Isaiah wrote that the church was to be established in the last days. “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains . . .” (Isa. 2:2). The church (Lord’s house, 1 Tim. 3:15) has been established for almost 2000 years (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47). Therefore, we have been in the last days of almost two millenniums.

Peter stated the pouring out of the Spirit upon the apostles on Pentecost took place in the last days. “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh. . .” (Acts 2:16-17). Hence, we are in the last days.

Jesus taught that the judgment is going to be on the last day (John 12:48). This is the last day of the last days. The judgment is to be at Christ’s return. “When the Son of man shall come in his glory . . . . then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory” (Matt. 25:31). “When” and “then” are adverbs of time and they tell us exactly the time of judgment. When He comes, Then shall He sit upon the throne. The throne is the judgment throne according to the verses following Matthew 25:31.

Premillennialism, therefore, falls along with the other theories because it has no scriptural basis to substantiate itself.

Judaism Repudiated

Judaism claims that the Son of God or the Messiah never made His appearance on this earth. The Jews believe that Jesus lived, but that He was only a philosopher, a teacher, a reformer.

The text teaches that God speaks through His Son. His Son was Jesus, which overwhelming evidence shows. There are scores of prophecies in the Old Testament that have their specific fulfillment in Jesus and show conclusively that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and not only did fulfilled prophecies verify His claim, but also His perfect life, His miracles and His resurrection prove His claim beyond a shadow of a doubt to honest people.

The only hope the Jew has is his acceptance of Christ through the gospel (John 8:24; Rom. 1:16). Jesus made His sacrifice and atonement once and for all (Heb. 10:10, 12). There remaineth no sacrifice for sins (Heb. 10:26).

God is speaking through His Son, and He says, “Hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5). “If any man have an ear, let him hear” (Rev. 13:9).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, pp. 33, 56
January 20, 1983