Truth Magazine

By Thomas C. Hickey

The October, 1978, issue of Reader’s Digest carries an article by Ernest O. Hauser dealing with the fourteen apocryphal books which are usually bound together with the inspired writings in Catholic editions, some Masonic editions and a few “Protestant” editions of the word of God. Although the article is informative and interesting it must be regarded as undocumented since it consists primarily of summary statements by the author. Occasional statements enclosed in quotation marks are never credited to a source.

While Hauser represents the viewpoints of different groups, he never quite gets around to clearly representing his own views of the apocrypha. The article seems calculated to recommend the study or the apocryphal books to “Protestants” along with the Bible, but several questions arise:

1. Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

2. Are we being encouraged to consider the apocryphal books as being inspired of God in the same sense as the books of the Bible?

3. Or are the apocryphal books merely being recommended as exciting religious source books in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

4. Does the author have a very limited conception of the inspiration of the scriptures, and is he merely recommending that the apocryphal books be received as “inspired” in this very limited way?

Hauser does state correctly that “the books of the Apocrypha were not part of the Hebrew Old Testament, which consisted of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.” He further said that when the sacred scripture was translated into Greek (I suppose he is referring to the Septuagint Translation, made about 280 B.C. – TH) that several added works found their way into its text. By this I presume that he is referring to the fact that when the Greeks had the Hebrew scriptures translated for the library at Alexandria, Egypt, they did also have the Old Testament apocryphal books translated, and these were sometimes circulated along with the books of the Hebrew scriptures. It should be remembered that the Greeks were not interested in the Hebrew scriptures because they conceived of them as the word of God necessarily, but because they viewed them as being important Hebrew literary traditions.

In all of Hauser’s article the thing which troubles me most is his final statement; “Thus Protestants the world over are able to enjoy as an extra treat the wisdom and inspiration of the Apocrypha.” This statement troubles me for three reasons: first, I do not know what he means by “inspiration”; secondly, most people have little or no knowledge of the apocryphal writings; and thirdly, I fear that the average reader will take this as a claim that the apocryphal writings should be received on a par with the word of God!

1. What is meant by the word “inspiration”?

2. Is the Old Testament apocrypha inspired?

What Is Inspiration?

There are three commonly held views of inspiration:

1. Some hold that inspiration is nothing more than a flash of insight of purely naturalistic origins. Accordingly these people view an artist as “inspired” to produce a great painting. In actuality such a person may be talented and imaginative, but he is not inspired in the scriptural sense of the term!

2. Others hold that biblical inspiration involves God in some nebulous way implanting ideas or thoughts in the minds of prophets and apostles who in turn expressed those ideas however they chose from their own experience and background. This idea, sometimes called thought inspiration, could not be relied upon to produce an error free revelation since its quality would obviously be limited by the personal initiative and reliability of the men involved. As one might naturally expect, those who argue for the thought inspiration of the Bible often place a low estimate on the value and authority of its writings.

3. The Bible itself claims to have been produced by a process which is often called verbal and plenary inspiration. By definition, inspiration means “God-breathed” as translated from the Greek term theospneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16. Verbal means that the very words are each inspired as they were given by the Holy Spirit through the various apostles, prophets, etc. Plenary means that the whole thing is inspired and authoritative so that certain parts should not be thought of as mythological or imaginative.

The defense of the concept of verbal and plenary inspiration might justifiably exhaust many volumes, but a few reasons are outlined here:

1. Paul taught that the scriptures were breathed out by God, that is, spoken by Him (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

2. Scripture did not come by the will of the men who wrote it, but they wrote as they were moved to do so by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

3. The very words of scripture were given by the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:13).

4. The function of prophets primarily involved vocalizing God’s will (Ex. 3:13-15; 4:1-16; 6:28 thru 7:1).

5. Declarations of religious responsibility were prohibited except to the extent that they were oracles from God (1 Pet. 4:11).

6. The Old Testament contains some 2,600 claims for inspiration.

7. Although not as prolific in making such claims for inspiration as the Old Testament is, the New Testament makes several dozen such claims.

8. Finally, we observe that Jesus (who claimed to be the Son of God) stressed that a receiving of the words of the apostolic messengers was tantamount to a receiving of Himself and of God the Father (Matt. 10:40; John 12:48; 13:20).

Is The Old Testament Apocrypha Inspired?

While there are some who argue for accepting the apocrypha as inspired, there are also others who only argue for the acceptance of the apocryphal books on a par with the scriptures. These are not the same as, in the latter case, their attitude toward the scriptures may be quite low. Still others, including myself, argue that the apocryphal books have some value from a historical perspective because they provide insight into Jewish history, culture, literary traditions and religious background of the biblical and immediate post-biblical era. But I deny that the apocryphal works are inspired or that they should be regarded on a par with scripture!

I now offer a few reasons for rejecting the apocryphal books as being inspired:

1. The fourteen Old Testament apocryphal books under consideration never make any claim to being inspired! If the authors themselves did not claim inspiration, why should we? The author of the Maccabees makes it very clear that there were no prophets or inspired men alive in his day, and that there had not been any for some time (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41)!

2. The Hebrews did not accept the apocrypha as part of the scriptures. Josephus listed the books of the Old Testament without making any allowance for the apocrypha.

3. There are some 280 direct quotations of the Old Testament in the new having been taken from some 28 of the 39 books of the Old Testament, but there is not one clear quotation from the apocryphal books.

4. According to Westcott and Hort, Paul himself quoted 192 times from 25 of the Old Testament books. But not once is there a clear quotation from the apocryphal books in Paul’s writings. Hauser’s article claims that echoes of the book Wisdom are found in Paul’s letter to the Romans, but he failed to cite these “echoes” or to give references.

5. Philo and Josephus, early Jewish writers, rejected the apocrypha. So did Origen and Jerome, early Christian writers. So did the council at Jamnia (90 A.D.). Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate widely used by the Roman Catholic Church, branded the works as apocryphal or spurious and denied their admission into the translation of the scriptures.

6. While Hauser alluded to the Catholic affirmation of the sanctity of the apocryphal books which was given at the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, he failed to mention that they did not approve 1 and 2 Esdras or the Prayer of Manasseh. Furthermore, Roman Catholic approval of the apocryphal works at such a late date could hardly be considered unbiased since a number of cardinal church doctrines such as purgatory and prayer for the dead have absolutely no biblical support and just rest solely on the feeble support of obsecure apocryphal texts such as 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

7. The widespread uncertainty and lack of support for the apocryphal books which has generally characterized them as contrasted with the widespread acceptance cf the biblical books make the two different as day and night.

In conclusion, may I suggest that the historic worth of the apocryphal books may elevate them somewhat above the pseudepigrapha, but they fall far short of the mark of even being worthy of comparison with the books and letters which make up the Bible!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 455-457
July 19, 1979

By Keith Sharp

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, , but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Neither shalt thou swear by the head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:33-37).

The problem of oaths is a perplexing one. It is a subject concerning which great extremes are both practiced and taught. All around us many of our friends, including, tragically, even little children, engage in the most frivolous and profane swearing imaginable. Opposite them are many, both of Christians and sectarians, who hold the position that it is wrong to utter an oath for any reason, even in a solemn legal or religious setting. What did Jesus teach concerning the use of oaths?

In order to comprehend the doctrine of the Master, we must understand the words he used. Three terms in Matt. 5:33-37 are of particular importance: “forswear,” “oaths,” and “swear.” To “forswear “oneself is “to swear falsely, to undo one’s swearing” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, II, 126). An “oath” is

An appeal to God in attestation of the truth of a statement or of the binding character of a promise . . . . Sometimes the appeal was to the sovereign or other sacred object (John D. Davis, Davis Dictionary of the Bible, p. 570).

To “swear” is to affirm, promise, threaten, with an oath . . . to call a person or thing as witness, to invoke (J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 444).

Thus, when some crude boor exclaims “By. . ., I’m going to bash your head in!”, he has sworn or used an oath, in this case a frivolous one; thus, he is guilty of profanity, having made the name of God common. If he fails to “bash” in the head of the object of his wrath, he has forsworn himself, having failed to consummate the threat he made under oath. However, when one solemnly swears under oath in a court of law to tell the truth, he is still swearing, although he would not be guilty of profanity. The fact that he might use the term “affirm” as a substitute for the word “swear” does not alter the fact that he has sworn, since he affirmed under oath. If one were to affirm:

For God is my witness . . . that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers,

he would have uttered a solemn, religious oath.

Furthermore, to understand the law of the Lord relative to oaths, one must be familiar with the Old Testament law concerning oaths and the Jewish tradition about swearing. This is because, although the statement Christ references in verse 33 is nowhere found in the Old Testament, is a fair summary of the law of Moses pertaining to oaths (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21-23). Also, in verses 34-36, Jesus made reference to the Jewish tradition about swearing.

Moses demanded that, in swearing, people should use the name of God rather than those of idols (Deut. 6:13-15). In swearing, they should be truthful and perform what they had sworn to do (Lev. 19:12; Num. 30;2; Deut. 23:21-23). This ordinance emphasized the importance of truthfulness and the fact that the Lord was the only true God.

Two Jewish traditions had grown up with the backing of tradition.

The first was what might be called frivolous swearing, taking an oath where no oath was necessary or proper. It had become far too common a custom to introduce a statement by saying, ‘By thy life,’ or, ‘By my head,’ or, ‘May I never see the comfort of Israel if . . . .’

The second Jewish custom was in some ways even worse than that; it might be called evasive swearing. The Jews divided oaths into two classes, those which were absolutely binding and those which were not. Any oath which contained the name of God was absolutely binding; any oath which succeeded in evading the name of God was not held to be binding. The result was that if a man swore by the name of God in any form, he would rigidly keep that oath; but if he swore by heaven, or by earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his head, he felt quite free to break that oath. The result was that evasion had been brought to a fine art (William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1, 156-157). (cf. Matthew 23:16-17)

The reference of the Master in verse 33 indicates he dealt with the law of Moses itself and the abuse not specifically condemned by the law, i.e., frivolous swearing. The mention of kinds of swearing in verses 34-36 demonstrates Christ also taught about evasive swearing. Thus, he dealt both with Moses’ law and Jewish tradition.

Does the Lord, in this sweeping prohibition, condemn even judicial oaths in a court of law and oaths taken under solemn religious situations? I do not believe so, and I believe the following considerations will substantiate this position. God himself has sworn by himself (Heb. 3:11, 18; 6:13; 7:21). It is our highest goal to be like God (2 Peter 1:4), for His character is moral perfection (Matt. 5:48). Also, Jesus Christ Himself, the very propounder of this law concerning oaths, took a solemn judicial oath when he testified before the Jewish council (Matt. 26:63-64; “Adjure” means “to demand testimony under oath” Thayer, p. 453). Certainly Christ is our example of conduct (1 Peter 2:21; Luke 6:40) as the revelation in His own person of the Father, so far as His character is concerned (John 14:7-11). The angel of God who appeared to John made a solemn religious oath (Rev. 10:5-6). The apostle Paul made several oaths of a serious, spiritual nature (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8), and He is our example of conduct (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thess. 3:7, 9).

To understand the Lord’s prohibition, we must realize its context. For example, in 2 Cor. 5:18 Paul declared, “All things are of God.” Does this mean everything imaginable, including sin, emanates from God? No! The context is of the plan of human redemption, and the apostle was simply affirming that the entirety of that scheme of salvation originated with God.

Even so, “swear not at all” is limited by the context. Swearing is absolutely prohibited under the conditions described in the context. The Old Testament allowed frivolous swearing (verse 33), so long as God’s name was used and the oaths was kept. Jewish tradition approved evasive swearing (verses 34-36), as long as the Lord’s name was not employed. Thus, the Lord condemned frivilous oaths and evasive oaths, but he did not forbid solemn and truthful judicial oaths or religious oaths.

Two great principles stand behind the Master’s doctrine here. The Christian must maintain a high and solemn regard for truth and never use any excuse to lie (Eph. 4:25). Futhermore, he must hold the name of God in the most profound reverence and never use it lightly, thus profaning that high and holy name (Heb. 12:28-29; Rev. 4:8, 11).

Each of these principles should be deeply rooted in the heart of every Christian and bear acceptable fruit in his life. In cultivating the beautiful fruit of honesty and reverence toward God in our speech, we will eradicate the weeds of profanity (frivolous swearing), conversational oaths and lies.

Why did the Lord thus prohibit swearing? The Master gives two reasons. All oaths, ultimately, involve God and are, therefore, just as binding as one in which God’s name is specifically mentioned (verses 34-36). The four categories Jesus mentioned encompass anything a Jew would call to witness. They include the spiritual, natural, national and personal spheres. An oath by heaven involved God because it is His throne (cf. Matthew 23:22). An oath by the earth involved the Father because it is His footstool (cf. Isa. 66:1). An oath by Jerusalem involved God, since it was in a special way His own city (cf. Psalm 48). Even an oath by one’s own head involved God. To swear by one’s own head is to swear by one’s life. Our lives and even their conditions, including the aging process (black or white hair), is in God’s hands. No matter by what one swears God is involved. To swear frivolously by anything is to profane God. To swear falsely by anything is to lie against God.

Another reason we should not so swear is that such swearing “cometh of evil” (verse 37; “is of the evil one” -American Standard Version; cf. James 5:12). Satan is the father of lies and liars (Gen. 3:1-4; John 8:44; Acts 5:3), and to swear falsely is to follow Satan. Furthermore, when the devil denied God’s word and accused the Lord of bad motives (Gen. 3:4-5), he became the first to profane God. Thus, those who use profanity are following Satan.

What does profane and false swearing do for any one? It does not cause them to be any more believed. One who would violate the law of the Lord concerning oaths would also transgress his commands pertaining to lies. It does not cause a person to be any more highly thought of. Even people of the world generally agree that swearing is boorish and ill-mannered. Profane and false swearing never helped any one, but only causes further trouble and disgust. It seems that, upon all the hooks with which Satan catches men to their destruction, he has placed a bait, except the hook of false and profane swearing. Swearing is the empty hook with which Satan catches men. Only a fool is so caught!

The solution of this problem lies in the heart. Truth and reverence for God should be so firmly enthroned in the heart that they reign supreme in our daily conversations. One with such an attitude will be so truthful that people will accept his simple “yes” or “no” as better than a signed bond or a thousand oaths. Of him it will be said, “His word is his bond.” His proven character will be the strongest possible affirmation of the verity of his words.

Just speak the truth always and shun profane and false swearing. Anything other than this is of Satan.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 453-455
July 19, 1979

By Mike Willis

In our previous articles, we have shown (1) man’s need of salvation because of the sins which he has committed which left him dead in trespasses and sins, (2) God’s grace in sending His Son Jesus to die for our sins, and (3) grace to be conditional and that conditions do not nullify grace. We are now prepared to consider faith as a condition for receiving grace.

How Faith Comes

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast (2:8-9).

Calvinists who expound this passage teach that faith is the gift of God. They deny that faith is able to be produced by the preaching of God’s word, stating instead that it is given to the elect as a free gift of God. They argue that the manifestation of faith is evidence of regeneration rather than the condition for receiving regeneration. In order to support this doctrine, they generally appeal to this passage: “for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” In their exegesis, they make faith the antecedent of the pronoun that.

That might sound good to a person who is simply studying the English text but it will not stand up to the person who is studying the Greek text. A simple rule of sentence structure in Greek ‘is that the pronoun must agree with its antecedent in number, gender and case. This poses a problem for those who would hold that “faith” is the antecedent of the pronoun “that.” Faith (pistis) is a feminine noun; that (touto) is a neuter pronoun. Hence, the text makes it absolutely impossible for this verse to be saying that “faith is the gift of God.” Rather, the pronoun refers to salvation; it is not earned by man but is given to man (conditionally) as a gift of God.

Having noticed how faith does not come, let us now see how faith does come.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye might have life through his name (Jn. 20:30-31).

How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For, Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:14-17).

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mk. 16:15-16).

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word (Jn. 17:20).

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the world of the gospel, and believe (Acts 15:7).

And it came to pass in Iconium that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed (Acts 14:1).

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women (Acts 8:12).

These verses show the connection between the gospel and faith. The gospel is used to produce faith. When men read, they can believe. The order of faith is simple: fact, testimony, and belief. The human mind hears the facts through someone’s testimony; he then examines them to ascertain whether the testimony is sufficient to establish the fact that has been related. If it is, he believes; if it is not, he disbelieves. Consequently, we read, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness . . .” (Rom. 10:9). The act of believing is an activity of man.

Hence, faith comes by the hearing of the word of God. It is not something given irresistibly by God but is something which man wills or does not will to do.

By Faith: Man’s Part

The usage of the word “faith” in Eph. 2:8-9 is not that which “faith only” preachers imagine. Paul stated, “By grace are ye saved through faith.” Just as “grace” is used to include all of God’s activities in the salvation of man, “faith” is used to include all of man’s activities in obtaining God’s free gift. “Grace,” therefore, includes the eternal plan of God to send His Son, the incarnation of Jesus, the life of Jesus, the atonement on Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, and the coronation of the sinless Son of God; it also includes the sending of the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in all truth in revealing to man the gospel.

Faith includes the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, this aspect of faith was described as follows:

b. As to obey. The fact that “to believe” is “to obey,” as in the OP . . ., is particularly emphasized in Heb. 11. Here the pisteuein (to believe -mw) of OT characters has in some instances the more or less explicit sense of obedience. How naturally pisteuein includes obeying may be seen from the use of peithesthai (to obey mw) rather then pisteuein for receiving the Christian message . . . . Unbelief can be denoted not merely be apistein but also by apeithein . . . . Paul is particular stresses the element of obedience in faith. For him pistis (faith – mw) is indeed hupaloe (obedience – mw), as comparison of R. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 with R. 15:18; 16:19, or 2 Cor. 10:5f. with 10:15, shows. Faith is for Paul hupakouein to euaggelio (to obey the gospel), R. 10:16. To refuse to believe is not to obey the righteousness which the Gospel offers for faith (Vol. VI, pp. 205-206).

Notice that this work has perceived exactly what we have been stating in debates for years. Faith is used in such a way as to include obedience. Here are some passages which show that faith is used in this comprehensive sense:

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him (Jn. 3:36 — NASB).

And it came about that in lconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a great multitude believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. But the Jews who disbelieved (the marginal reading is disobeyed; it more accurately translated apeithesantes than does disbelieved) stirred up the minds of the Gentiles, and embittered them against the brethren (Acts 14:1-2).

Hence, salvation through faith is not a thirty-second cousin to salvation by “faith only.” Rather, the faith here intended is the firm persuasion to devote one’s life in obedience to the Lord.

Faith And Baptism

That the Ephesians were buried with Christ in baptism in order to receive their salvation is evident from two sources (1) an examination of the text in Eph. 2:10 and (2) a study of Acts 19:1-5 in which their conversion is recorded. First of all, let us notice what this text states:

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved;), and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (2:5-6).

Notice that this passage speaks of one who was dead in sin but raised up with Christ. Surely anyone familiar with the book of Romans can see the similarities in this passage and Romans 6:3-4. There Paul wrote, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in-the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom. 6:3-6).

Notice that in both places, the man that is dead in sin is buried and raised up to walk in newness of life (in Ephesians, it is “quicken,” to make alive). This occurs in baptism, according to Rom. 6:3-4. It is in baptism that we are united with Christ in death; it is in baptism that we are united with him in the resurrection.

This understanding of Eph. 2:5-6 harmonizes perfectly with Acts 19:1-5. There, Luke records the conversion of the disciples of John the Baptist to Christ. He taught them about the Christ and baptized them into Christ (v. 5). Hence, we see that salvation by grace through faith includes baptism. This should not surprise us. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . .” (Mk. 16:16). Saved by what means? Saved by works? Obviously not! Jesus did not teach that anyone could be saved by works. Rather, He is teaching that the man who believes the gospel and is baptized shall be saved by grace!

Conclusion

Salvation by grace through faith is conditional salvation. Faith is not something irresistibly given to man by God. Rather, it is the response of man to the testimony about facts. It is used in this verse in a comprehensive sense, in the same way as grace is used, to designate all that man must do to obtain God’s grace. By summary fashion, we simply state that man is saved by grace through faith when he believes the gospel of Jesus Christ, resolves in his heart to turn from a life of sin and submit to the Lord’s commandments (repentance), confesses his faith before men, and is buried with Christ in baptism for the remission of his sins. Next week, we shall conclude this series of articles by demonstrating that salvation by grace through faith demands that one walk in the commandments of God.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 451-453
July 19, 1979

By Pat Higgins

The popular concept of freedom is to be able to do as one pleases, with no responsibilities, no restraints, no rules. The “hippies,” the “flower people” and others of that era practiced their version of freedom. The youth of our nation are even now being caught up in a quest for freedom that has left very few families untroubled. They want to answer to no one, have no supervision of any kind, and be accountable to no higher authority than themselves.

This “freedom binge” has affected all areas. There are those who picket for freedom to go naked on the beaches; those who insist on (and gain) the freedom to print and distribute pornographic materials; those who demand freedom of speech even in the media, no matter how vulgar and distasteful they may become. And on and on it goes!

Is this really being “free”? Of course not. One person cannot rightly have freedom at the expense of another. In a free society the privileges of liberty are extended equally to all. So how is a man free? Strictly speaking, he is free only so long as he is obedient! Consider this: a citizen of the United States can enjoy his freedom only so long as he obeys the laws of the land. In what way, then, is he free if he must be obedient? He is free from punishment, from imprisonment, from unjust treatment. He is not free to do as he pleases, with no concern for those round about him. He has liberty only within the limitations of the law. Compliance within those limitations qualifies him to partake of privileges enjoyed only by a law-abiding citizen, such as the right to vote, the right to pursue a career of his choosing, etc. Freedom is conditional.

Likewise, spiritually, we have freedom through the gospel of Christ. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). This is not freedom to do as we please under the guise of religion, for Paul said, “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak” (1 Cor. 8:9). He further states “. . . use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13). Peter tells us not to use our ” . . . liberty for a cloak of maliciousness” (1 Pet. 2:16).

In what way does the truth of the gospel make a man free? Through obedience to the perfect law of liberty, man gained freedom from the bondage of the Law of Moses (Gal. 5:1; Rom. 8:2); from the displeasure of God by way of right living (Rom. 2:6-11); from sin and the condemnation thereof (Rom. 6:18, 22, 23). A faithful child of God is free from anxiety (Mt. 6:33, 34); from the cares of this world (Phil. 4:6, 7; 2 Cor. 4:16-18); from fear of what any man can do to him (Mt. 10:28; Rom. 8:31).

Spiritual freedom, this perfect law of liberty, does not give one the right to set up his own system of worship (Rom. 10:1-3; Mt. 15:9, 10), or to reject the inspired word of God, either by adding to or taking from (Rev. 22:18, 19; Jn. 12:48). A man has liberty only within the set limitations of the law of God as revealed in the New Testament (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 1 Jn. 9-11). Compliance within these limitations permits one to partake of certain blessings that only the-obedient can enjoy. He is free to be called a child of God, ‘a joint-heir with Christ (Rom. 8:14-16); he has freedom to approach the Father in prayer (Phil. 4:6); he is, free to enjoy all spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph. 1:1-3).

A faithful Christian, a citizen, in the kingdom of God, is free from the threat of eternal punishment (2 Thess. 1:7-9) and free to enjoy an abundance of blessings on this earth and the promise of ever being with the Lord in heaven (Mk. 10:28-30; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, p. 450
July 19, 1979