Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

The question of our subject title was asked by Pontius Pilate at the trial of Jesus. The question, in its context is found in John 18:33-38. To appreciate the setting in which the question was asked by Pilate, we observe that one of the accusations that the Jews brought against Jesus at His trial was that He claimed to be a king (Luke 23:2). They hoped thereby to make it appear that Jesus was thus a rival of Caesar (John 19:12) and, therefore, in rebellion to the Roman empire of which Pilate was the representative. This, they hoped, would persuade Pilate to call for the death penalty.

It is obvious, however, that Pilate recognized from Jesus’ declaration, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), that whatever manner of kingdom it was, and whatever the character of Jesus’ kingly rule, neither posed any threat to the sovereignty of Rome.

But there was a point which must have been somewhat of a mystery to Pilate. His earthbound conception of any kingdom would conceive of its rise only through the exercise of military power. Thus, when Jesus forbade His followers to fight in His defense, and stated that His kingdom was founded on truth, and its citizens composed of them that hear and believe the truth, it would all be a mystery to his carnal mind. It was in that context that he asked the question that constitutes our subject, What is truth?

The Importance Of The Question

Whether the question was asked by Pilate in scorn (as it probably was), or whether it was asked in sincerity prompted by a desire to learn more about the kingdom of Christ .and the principles on which it was founded (a remote possibility), the fact remains that it is one of the most thought-provoking and challenging of questions that has ever been raised. When we consider the issues that are involved there is probably no greater question.

We recognize the importance of truth, even as it relates to the matters of this life. In the various branches of science there is nothing more challenging to the minds of men than their quest for truth. It is because of the search for truth that men have learned much about the laws of nature. It is the never-ending quest for truth that has made possible many of the modern inventions that help to make life more pleasant. In the field of medical science and surgery, it is the search for truth that has led to the discovery of new antibiotics that make us immune to some diseases, and new medicines that cure us of what were once terminal diseases, and new techniques of surgery such as organ transplants, all of which give us a life expectancy of several more years than that of our grandparents.

But it is the search for the truth of which Jesus spoke and concerning which Pilate inquired that is the most important of all. It is concerned not with truth in the natural realm, but truth in the spiritual realm. It concerns not just a body that some day will die but it is concerned with the soul of man which is eternal. Therefore, what our attitude is toward the question asked by Pilate, and the answer we find to that question, will determine where we will spend eternity.

Its Relationship To Current Religious Attitudes

The question, “What is truth?” is especially important today when viewed against the background of current attitudes toward religion in general. We are living in an age of what people like to think of as tolerance. People like to be considered as broad minded. The so-called new morality of today is based on a concept of situation ethics. In other words, the new moralist does not classify things as being right or wrong according to a strict standard of morality, but only as they relate to the present situation. So the man today who is so dogmatic as to say that something is unquestionably wrong, or who questions the religious beliefs of another is not popular. Instead, a common sentiment prevails and is being echoed from many pulpits that it does not make any difference what one believes as long as he or she is sincere in that belief. Thus, they make sincerity and not truth the test of doctrine.

Because of this lack of conviction regarding the importance of truth, the religious world has undergone a radical change in its attitude toward controversy and the discussion of religious differences. Where today are the Luther’s, the Huss’s and the Knox’s-men who held strong convictions for which they were willing to die rather than to compromise? What has become of militant spirits of yesteryear who prompted religious leaders to engage in the great religious debates in which they sought to defend and promote their religious beliefs. Sometimes men debated one another when it is obvious that both were wrong. But at least they recognized something that many have lost sight of today and that is, that two conflicting doctrines cannot both be right.

But it seems that those days are past and in the place of militancy there has grown up a spirit of compromise; conviction has been replaced by indifference, and characterized by the sickly attitude that it does not make any difference what one believes. To such people it seems to make no difference that, when pressed to its logical conclusion, the doctrine preached by the people who call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses makes Jesus Christ nothing more than a glorified animal. In fact, about the only thing wrong in the estimation of many today, is to question what some one else believes. That, they tell us, is being narrow-minded. And that is anathema to the thinking (or should I say, lack of thinking?) that characterizes this broad minded age.

Truth: The Only Solution To Division

That the religious world is sadly divided today is a fact that is obvious to all. There has, in recent years, been some efforts made toward union of churches. In Canada, there is a movement under active consideration to unite the two largest of the Protestant denominations-the United Church of Canada and the Church of England. Also, there have been some overtures made by the Roman Catholic church toward uniting all churches under one head. Of course there is no doubt but that Rome expects to be that head.

As desirable as unity may be, however, I believe that all such efforts as the above are doomed to failure since they ignore the causes of division. Those causes exist in the multiplicity of differing and contradicting creeds. No doctor can be successful in treating a disease as long as unsanitary conditions that are the cause of the disease are allowed to persist. Fractions cannot be added, multiplied, subtracted, or divided without the use of a common denominator. So neither can the religious world be untied unless it first eliminates the dividing creeds and agrees to accept a common faith. There can be no unity in diversity. Even some of my brethren need to learn that.

The common faith on which all must unite is truth. Jesus prayed that all His followers might be one as He and the Father are one. But it is a unity that will be attained only by believing the word preached by the apostles (John 17:20, 21). Paul’s plea for unity in the church at Corinth was based on their speaking the same thing and being joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).

Thus, if there is going to be any hope of emergence from the babble of confusion in which the religious world is enmeshed today, the first step will require a change in attitude toward the truth. It will require that men place a higher value on truth than what they obviously do. The words of Solomon are very much in order here “Buy the truth, and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23)-which means nothing more nor less than this: that we should seek to learn the truth regardless of the cost. After having found it, we will not part with it regardless of the price that is offered.

The Importance Of Truth

The apathy toward truth that is so prevalent today is inexcusable. God has not left us without witness as to the importance of knowing, believing, and obeying the truth. Consider the following observations:

1. Jesus taught that the practice of sin makes us a bond-servant of sin (John 8:34). Freedom from such bond service is man’s greatest need. Happily, there is a means provided. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). But if it takes the truth to make us free, it is certain that error will not bring us freedom.

2. Man is lost because of sin. He needs to be saved. Paul tells us that we are saved by belief of the truth (2 Thess. 2:13). Obviously, Paul did not subscribe to the idea that it does not make any difference what one believes. If it takes belief of the truth to save, it is obvious that belief of error cannot save.

3. Sin defiles man (Mark 7:20-23). He needs to be cleansed and purified from such defilement. Peter said, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth. . .” (1 Peter 1:22). If it takes obedience to the truth to purify us from sin, then it is certain that obedience to error will not bring about such the desired end.

Truth Magazine XXII: 46, pp. 742-743
November 23, 1978

By Donald P. Ames

One of the problems in dealing with statistics is that someone else will always come along and seek to show they can produce even greater statistics than those you may have produced. But, so often it is easy to look at the vast numbers of people in foreign countries without the benefit of the gospel and become alarmed at their lack of -opportunity. We immediately start sending $25 per month to some preacher overseas, and begin telling ourselves what a great part we are having in carrying the gospel “to the lost.”

Now lest any misunderstand, I am not condemning the work done in other countries, nor am I trying to discourage any interested in such. Certainly the Lord Himself can bear witness to my interest in the work overseas, and such opportunities should not be passed up while people are so eagerly hungering and thirsting for the precious word of God in those countries.

But, are we really being realistic in some of our attitudes? Are only those overseas lost in the darkness of sin? Are they the only ones who have not had the chance to hear the gospel of Christ? The following statistics may come as a real shock to many, especially some of our brethren in the South (where you can drive through a mud hole and find a “Church of Christ”). It should make us all pause and ask what are we really doing to carry the gospel to the lost and to help the cause of Christ spread.

In the northwestern part of Indiana there are nine faithful congregations, or ten if you also include the city of South Bend. These congregations average about 100 per congregation, and serve a total population within those towns of 490,967 people, or in other words, there is one in attendance at church for every 491 people not at services in the Lord’s church-1,000 to 491,000! To further add to our concern for the lost is the fact these ten churches serve 898,841 people in just four counties, while included in this same area are seven other counties without even one congregation, and which have 216,015 people (Newton, Benton, White, Pulaski, Stark, LaPorte and Marshall). The figures are now 1,000 to 1,114,856. This should cause all of us interested in those lost to be greatly concerned.

But let’s break this down even further. St. Joseph county has 245,045 people and only one church (South Bend); Jasper county has 20,429 people and only one church (DeMotte-which does not even have their own building yet); Porter county has 98,114 people and only one church (Portage); and Lake county has 546,253 people and only seven churches.

Hammond is served by two congregations, yet covers over 107,709 people. South Bend has only one faithful congregation to serve 125,580 people. Gary has only one faithful congregation serving its 175,415 people. The following towns also only have 1 congregation each: Highland-24,947 people; Hobart-21,485; Portage-19,127; Griffith- 18,168; Lowell-3,839 and DeMotte-1,697.

Other towns of significant size that do not even have a .sound congregation at all (and most likely not even a liberal one either!) include: East Chicago 46,982; Michigan City-39,369; Mishawaka-35,517; LaPorte-22,140; Valporaiso-20,020; Logansport19,255; Merrillville-15,918; Munster-16,514; Crown Point-10,931; and Lake Station (formerly East Gary)-9,858.

Lowell and DeMotte serve as the southern edge of the towns served; while Gary, Portage and Hobart compose the eastern edge (and South Bend is an isolated island). The next congregation to the south is in West Lafayette. Now get out your maps and see the area left uncovered in this vast area-towns and cities without a church even in them-lost and without the opportunity to act yet!

Of course the field is hard and the work is slow. Indifference is deeply entrenched. There also comes the time when churches must pause, regroup and grow to become stronger and self-supporting. But the work must go on, and too often the desire is there, but the opportunity to use it cannot be taken advantage of. Any Christians looking for a challenge, to work, and to help others carry the gospel to the lost do not have to just go overseas. Why not look over northwestern Indiana. Indeed, they do need your help too.

(Now if anyone is so disposed as to see if they cannot produce even larger statistics than these, my comment is: “Go to it!” Maybe we need to get knocked out of our complacency, and maybe this will do us all some good).

Truth Magazine XXII: 46, p. 738
November 23, 1978

By William V. Beasley

As John draws the epistle of First John to a close he tells us why it was written: “These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13). People today, as in the first century, are interested in knowing their spiritual condition. Thus, a study of this epistle is in order to “know.”

Basis Of Our Faith (1 John 1:1-4)

The epistle of First John begins, as does the fourth gospel, with a statement of the deity of Jesus Christ. Both look back to “the beginning,” and both speak of the divinity of Him whom we through faith accept as our Savior. John speaks of the basis of our faith as something which he knew by his physical senses (saw, heard, touched-1 John 1:1, 3). Our faith is based on the testimony of eye, ear and hand witnesses. Jesus, after His resurrection, told the disciples “see” and “handle” (Luke 24:39) that they might know. Like Peter, John could have said, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables. . .” (see 2 Pet. 1:16-21).

It is possible for our physical senses to deceive us; courts prefer more than one witness. When numerous witnesses respond telling of physical senses (see, hear, handle; or as in the case of Matt. 14:16ff all five senses involved) we are forced to believe. When we see men, the apostles and many others, whose whole lives were changed by what they saw, heard and handled and their testimonies agree, we must accept it or, as N. T. Caton says, “admit the chief of absurdities, viz.: an effect without a cause” (A Commentary and an Exposition of the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, p. 142). The apostles did not deliver ought by hearsay, human tradition or conjecture.

Through the testimony of the eye, ear and hand witnesses we have fellowship with the apostles (witnesses), the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3b). Such fellowship (which includes our forgiveness, adoption as children of God, promises of eternal life, etc.) is the completeness of joy (1 John 1:4).

Basis Of Our Fellowship (1 John 1:5-10)

The message from Jesus is that “God is light. . .” (1 John 1:5), i.e., God is the source of all light (physical and spiritual). There is no mixture of light and darkness with God. The Devil and his angles are spoken of as darkness (Eph. 6:12; Luke 22:53; Col. 1:13) and those who obey God are “saints in light” (Col. 1:12).

Fellowship with God is based on walking in light (Psa. 119:105; John 1:4-9; 8:12). It is a lie (1 John 1:6) to claim fellowship with God while walking in darkness, but if we walk in the light we are cleansed by the blood of Jesus. This is not a one time shot (baptism) but is continuous action-we must continue walking in the light of God’s word.

The one claiming sinlessness is deceived (1 John 1:8). Some people see in this the same idea as in 1 John 1:10, but it would seem that the present tense indicates more. We can receive forgiveness and for a while live above sin. Experience tells us that we will stumble and need forgiveness again. If “the truth is not in us” the blood of Jesus does not cleanse us. In verse 9, we find our belief about verse 8 strengthened. One translation reads, “If we keep confessing our sins. . .” (The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude, R. C. H. Lenski, p. 392). We are commanded to “confess our sins” (1 John 1:9). This means far more than to say, “I have sinned.” We must confess, even to God, our specific sins: “I have lied, stolen, lusted, etc.” To claim sinless perfection is to call God a liar (1 John 1:10). Sin is a common denominator of all responsible (age of responsibility) individuals (Rom. 6:23).

Conclusion

Can you, from our study thus far, ” know that ye have eternal life?” If you cannot know that you do have eternal life, it may be a strong indication that you do not have eternal lite. Is your faith based on the eye, ear and hand witness of the apostles? Are you walking “in the light” of God’s word? Do you “keep confessing” you sins? If not, you know concerning salvation, but it is not to “know that you have eternal life,” but that you do not have it.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 730-731
November 16, 1978

By Bobby Graham

In response to a reply to my article by Bill McMilleon, Brother Willis has requested that I provide my own reply. I do so without any acquaintance with the respondent or hard feelings toward him.

In that the members of the Revision Committee were extremely modernistic, denying the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Jesus, and other matters (including the virgin birth of the Christ), I still affirm that their production, which omits italics where they have inserted words of their own, has served as a vehicle for modernism. This does not mean that each person using the RSV has fallen prey to the liberal influence of the men, but that their work would undermine basic Bible doctrines such as those mentioned. Furthermore, my article did not state that the RSV denied the deity of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures, as the respondent charged: it said that “the translators were extremely modernistic, denying the inspiration of the Bible and the deity of Christ.” Such was stated to provide information on the revisers to show how they could so mishandle the sacred text. I know that passages on both doctrines can be cited, and that they will teach both Christ’s deity and the Scripture’s inspiration. Such was not the point of the original article. Some who use the ASV or the KJV have not accepted the basic doctrines presented in them and have espoused modernistic ideas in spite of them, but who would really deny that the RSV, with the faults already noted, is not more risky? For more information on the absence of italics in the RSV, as well as its substitution of a noun for a pronoun quite often, its free renderings, and its omissions, the reader is referred to Oswald T. Allis’ Review or New Translation?, where such matters are explored more fully than this article could do.

In reference to the respondent’s taking exception to the RSV’s lack of italics, note that his comments concerning “thee” and “thou” do not begin to get to the issue. His reference to newer manuscripts since 1611 is correct, but it does not justify the omission of italics. The material in the pages of Allis’ book (published in 1948 just after the completion of the RSV) will show the mishandling that occurred through the omission of the italics. He notes in his book that italics would not suffice in some of the free renderings. The reader has the right to know what the Lord said, not what the revisers thought He meant; but the reader is deprived of such information in some passages through the failure to use italics.

The respondent asked whether I agree with the doctrine of the translators of the KJV? I am certain that I do not on some matters, but I do on the matter of inspiration, deity of Christ,- and those affecting the manner in which they handled the texts available to them. More and better manuscripts have admittedly been found and used for the ASV, but the modernistic bias of the RSV’s revisers prevented their work from being done as well as it could have been done.

I understand that the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 could be “young woman” in some instances. Such is not possible in this passage, however, in that (1) the prophesied event’s being a sign rests on the virginity of the woman involved and (2) the Greek word in Matthew 1:23 eternally settles the matter-it is virgin! One passage hardly ever presents the full truth on a subject, but one passage dealing with this subject can surely reflect the bias of the revisers, especially when they did not treat the Hebrew almah in its other Old Testament occurrences. What about Luke 1:34, which definitely leaves the wrong impression?

While the word in Matthew 5:17 does have the meaning of abolish or annul, Jesus obviously meant more here. The coming mentioned in the verse refers not to the specific act of coming as fulfilling the Law and the prophets, but making it possible for such to be done: “I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.” It is true that Jesus was born, lived, and died under the Law, just as it is true that he came to abolish it through fulfillment (meeting every demand, obeying every precept, and bringing each prophecy to pass). He did not come to set aside the Law or to disregard it, hence to manifest a destructive attitude toward it; but He did come to abolish it, just as he appeared to put away sin by his sacrifice (Heb. 9:26). Did His appearance put away sin? No, but He appeared to put away sin! According to Ephesians 2:15 and 2 Corinthians 3:13, He did abolish the Law!

The instances of the RSV and the principles followed by the revisers cited in this article show it to be a dangerous translation, even though it has some good passages and some usefulness. The purpose of the original article was to point out some of its failings, not to uphold every verse of the KJV or the ASV.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 729-730
November 16, 1978