Truth Magazine

By Robert Jackson

(Editor’s Note: The following material was originally presented as a series of radio lessons last year during a meeting at the Twin Oaks Church of Christ in Huntington, Tenn., and copied by the elders. It has been edited and adapted for publication.)

We would like to encourage you to get a Bible so that you might study the Bible with an open mind and free of any prejudice, and examine everything that is said by the revelation of Christ. It is our purpose to speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent in order that we might be found acceptable in the eyes of Jehovah. As suggested by the title, we are going to have a series of lessons dealing with the issues that divide us.

First of all, let me say that division is indeed a shame. It never was in the mind of God, and God did not intend for such to be. All you need to do is to read the New Testament and you will find that Jesus Christ, His purpose and His goal was that people might be one. This was the scheme of redemption that was in the mind of God from the very beginning of time. And so then Jesus Christ died upon the cross and purchased His church in order that all men might be one in Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile, black or white, bond or free, rich or poor.

But yet at the same time, we need to recognize that upon certain occasions that division is right, and that Jesus Christ said that He brought division. This might sound strange to some people because they labor under the impression that the Son of the living God was so meek and so lowly that He did not intend to divide anyone over anything, but this is not true. When you read the revelation of Christ and you read about the life of the Lord Jesus and you listen carefully to His words, you will find that He emphasized that under certain conditions that division must come. If you have your Bible, turn to Matthew 10, beginning in verse 34-“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” In the words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ, you can readily see that the Son of God said, “I came not to bring peace upon this earth,” and yet it is also stated in the Bible that He is the “Prince of Peace.” But now what Christ is saying here is that under certain conditions, there will be division-that whenever people go astray, leave that which He has committed unto them, then there will be division.

Whenever there are people who are willing to follow after the doctrines of men rather than following after the teaching of Christ, then Jesus said division will come. And, he said, “Think not that I have come to bring peace.” but “I have brought a sword,” and there will even be division. There will even be division among families. He said that “a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Whenever there is a man who loves his mother and father more than he does Christ, then something is wrong. But if a man will love the Lord first, he will obey the gospel; and many times this will bring division even within the family rank.

So, we can see that upon certain occasions that division is wrong and sinful, that God intends for all of us to be o, e, that Christ died upon the cross for unity, that He prayed for unity, and therefore condemned division. Yet at the same time, the Son of God said to remember that “I have brought a sword,” and that under certain conditions there will be division.

Now then, as we think about division and the issues that divide us today in the Churches of Christ, we need to be concerned about authority. I think one of the major principles that we fail to understand is the authority in religion, and as a result of not understanding authority, we find something that divides us today.

When we talk about authority in religion, we need to remember that first of all, Christ has all of the authority. In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus said, “All authority has been given unto me, both in Heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Now, in the verse that we have just quoted, we observed that Christ said, “All authority hath been given unto me.” Now note that He said, “both in Heaven and in earth.”

Sometimes we find people saying that Christ has all of the authority in Heaven, but then someone else has the authority on earth and as a result of that, we have one in the Vatican City who makes the claim that he has the authority to speak for the church upon the earth. Again that is a misunderstanding of authority. Jesus said, “All authority hath been given unto me both in Heaven and in earth,” so we need to recognize in the very beginning of our study that Jesus Christ has all of the authority-not your mother or your father, not your preacher, not your church, not anyone in the Vatican City; but we need to understand and put it down first in our mind that Jesus Christ is the Master, that He is the Son of God, that He is the head of the church, that He is the one that has all of the authority “both in Heaven and in earth;” and in order to carry out the commandments of God we must respect the authority of Jesus Christ.

Well, a lot of people say, “Preacher, I tell you one thing: I believe that Jesus Christ has all of the authority. I believe that He is the Son of the living God.” And then they turn right around and deny the commandments of Jesus. Remember what the Lord said in Luke 6:46, “Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I command you to do.” Now, my beloved friend, listen to me. If you call Jesus Lord, that means you respect Him as the Master and the Authority. If you respect Him as the Master and the One with authority, then you would be willing to obey every command. You would not quibble and argue about what the Lord says. Whatever Jesus tells’ you to do, you would be willing to do it. For an example, in Mark 16:15-16, the Lord says, “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.” Now, if you respect Jesus as one with all authority, and as the Lord, then you would be willing to believe and to be baptized. You would not argue about it, you would not quibble about it, you would just simply say, “Lord, you speak and I’ll obey.”

Now one thing that divides us in religion is the fact that people fail to recognize Christ as the One with all authority in religion. But then again, we need to recognize that by Christ having the authority, we must recognize His word as the authority. Christ is now in Heaven, but we have His word upon earth; so then we must abide by the word of Christ. To emphasize this, Jesus said in John 12:48-“Whosoever rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the same which I have spoken shall judge him in that day.” There we can plainly see that the word of God is the authority in religion, that Jesus said that when you reject my word that you reject me. So then, when we talk about authority, we talk about the Bible, we talk about the word of God.

But today people misunderstand the Bible. They misuse the word of God, and as a result of it, there is divisioneven among the ranks of the people of God, and such ought not to be so. First of all, people fail to rightly divide and handle aright the word of God.

Now it is true that the Bible is the authority, but we need to recognize that the Bible is divided into what we call two major divisions: The Old Testament and The New Testament. Sometimes people say, “Oh, you people in the Church of Christ, you do not believe the Old Testament is the word of God.” That, my friend, is not so! We believe that it is the word of God. We believe exactly what the apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 1:21, when he said the men of old were moved by the Holy Spirit of God as they spake. We believe that everything they said is infallibly so-but it is not binding upon us today. In Galatians, chapter 3, Paul said that we lived under the schoolmaster-the schoolmaster being the Old Law-but he said we are no longer under the schoolmaster. We are no longer under that law, as he said in Colossians 2:14 because He nailed it to the cross. So then, there are some people today who go back to the Old Testament for their authority, and as a result of it, there is division among us today, and such ought not to be so.

But today in the Churches of Christ there is division in our number because people fail to understand how to establish divine authority. Now we have the Bible, but how do you establish divine authority? Well, if I understand the teaching of God’s word correctly, we establish divine authority in at least three ways: First of all, by direct command; secondly, by necessary inference; and thirdly, by a divine approved example. Now this can be proven by many places in the word of God, but in simple language, open your Bible to I Corinthians, chapter 11.

In 1 Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul is giving the command of the Lord’s supper. He said, “As I received of the Lord, so do ye.” In verse 24, he said, “Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me.” Now if you have your Bible, note that he said, “This do ye.” Now when you have got a “this do ye,” you have a direct command. So when you find in the Bible where the Lord says, “This do ye,” this means you must do it. This is the authority.

But then secondly, we need to observe that there was a divine approved example-that they had the Lord’s supper upon the first day of the week. In Acts 20:7, “the disciples came together upon the first day of the week.” So there we have disciples coming together by apostolic authority upon the first day of the week. Now when someone asks me the question, “Where is your authority for the Lord’s Supper?”, the Lord said, “This do ye.” “Where is your authority for the Lord’s day?” Why we have the authority by divine approved example where they came together upon the first day of the week.

Then we have the necessary inference: upon the first day of every week. But somebody will say, “Preacher, the Bible does not say to eat the Lord’s Supper every first day of every week.” But this, my friend, is where you misunderstand it! It is necessarily inferred that every time there is a first day of the week that the disciples of Christ are to eat the Lord’s Supper. Under the Old Law, when God gave the commandments in the book of Exodus, he said to “Remember the Sabbath Day.” Now, show me where the Lord said to remember every sabbath! But, I tell you one thing, my beloved friends, the Jews understood that every time there was a Sabbath day, that they were to observe the Sabbath. Now then today, we understand that every time there is a first day of the week that God’s people are to observe the Lord’s Supper.

And so then, we have the direct command, a necessary inference and approved example. And this comes under a generic command and also a specific command. This is the way that you establish divine authority, and as a result of people not doing this, there is division among our ranks, and for this we are sorry.

Truth Magazine XXI: 13, pp. 200-201
March 31, 1977

By Cecil Willis

I think that it is imperative that we discuss two terms “miraculous” and “divine” that appear in the title of this article. This might eliminate some of the confusion around this subject. I believe that all dealing is divine. God has established the laws of nature by which the healing process is effected. But I am endeavoring to prove that miraculous divine healing ceased with the death of the last person on whom the apostles bestowed the power to work miracles. So when I say that miraculous divine healing is no longer being performed, I am not denying that God directs healing today. For example, I maintain that not a man living can instantly cure even the smallest cut that might be administered to my hand. Yet, through God’s law, this small incision will soon be cured, but not instantaneously. Will a single preacher maintain that he can cure a one-inch, one-half-inch, or one-quarter-inch cut on my hand? He certainly will not, and if he maintains that he can, we will put him to the test.

These people would likely attempt to discharge themselves of any responsibility to heal a person, such as myself, by declaring that he is a non-believer. Is it not strange that every time a preacher fails to heal a person, he blames it on the person he is trying to heal? I want you carefully to notice a principle in regard to healing that is plainly revealed in the Bible: one’s power to heal is not dependent upon the faith of the person being healed. The fake-healers would like to make people believe that every time they fail to heal a person it is the fault of the person seeking the healing. But that is not the trouble at all. It is because of a lack of divine power on the part of the preacher. Jesus healed a man sick of palsy upon the basis of the faith of those who brought the sick man. Nothing is said of the ill man’s faith. In Mark 2 we read, “And they came, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto Him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay. And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son thy sins are forgiven” (vs. 3-5). The multitude began to blaspheme because He had forgiven the man, and to show that the Son of Man had power on earth to forgive sins, in verse 9, He said, “Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk.” The man was healed on the faith of those who brought him. Let me make this suggestion: let any man who thinks that he has the miraculous power to heal, choose out four of his most faithful brethren, and let them deliver me unto them, and still he would not be able to heal instantly even a very minute cut.

Again in Acts 3, we find Peter and John going up to the temple. As they started to enter the temple, a lame man asked to receive a gift of them. Peter told the man to look on him. The Scriptures state that the man looked, expecting to receive something. Is this a manifestation of his faith in Peter’s power to heal? Certainly not! The man expected some monetary gift. But Peter said unto him, “Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I unto thee. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, walk” (v. 6). Here is another man healed with nothing said of his faith. Or we might inquire into the case of Lazarus (Jn. 11). Was his resurrection dependent upon his faith? Faith healers should cease grumbling about the lack of faith on the part of their subjects and admit that they lack the power. That is very definitely the source of the trouble.

There was one outstanding man who traveled all over the nation in a healing campaign. He had a tent that would seat 10,000 people. Out in Lubbock, Texas, while in a healing campaign, a cyclone hit the tent. What was the result? Sixty people were sent to the hospital for treatment! One of his ardent followers suggested that I meet the man in public discussion in Indianapolis. Knowing what would be his response, I hesitated to waste time in writing him. But when his follower insisted, I wrote. He replied to the offer by sending me an envelope for a contribution to his work and said “Brother, pray for me.” None of the faith-healers can do any better in sustaining their claims to miraculous power.

If these fellows have the power to work miracles, and cannot perform one on a person like myself, because of my unbelief in their power, at least they should be able to perform another kind of miracle on such a person. In Acts 5, by the power of the Holy Spirit, those who rejected Peter’s words were struck dead. Have any of these fellows killed any unbelievers miraculously? No, nor will they. In Acts 13, in the city of Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, a sorcerer by the name of Elymas sought to turn aside from Paul some of his hearers. So Paul struck him blind for a season. Can one of these so-called miracle-workers miraculously strike an unbeliever blind? God knows my heart, and I do not want to give the wrong impression, but if these fellows can work miracles, then I am wrong in my preaching. If they cannot work a miracle on me because of my unbelief in their power, then perhaps they should strike me blind to make me believe. I had rather be blind and saved, than to have my sight and be lost. But I am not afraid of any miraculous power that they might have, for they have no such power. No person has had that power since the death of the last person on whom the apostles of Christ bestowed the power to work miracles.

Sometimes those pseudo-miracle-workers declare that when one denies that God is still working miracles he necessarily denies that God has the power to work a miracle. But that is not so at all. There is not a person living who believes any more strongly that God has the power to work miracles than me. It is not a question of power, but it is a question of fact. It is not what God can do, but what God is doing.

The Bible teaches that God created the first man and woman. But what man is there that would declare that for a person to deny that God is still miraculously creating men and women is to doubt the power of God. The simple truth of the matter is that God’s purpose in creating Adam and Eve was fulfilled, and children are born today by the laws of procreation, rather than by the means of miraculous creation. But while I believe this to be the truth, I do not for one moment doubt that God would be able to create a person today should He desire to do so.

Or again, one can read in the Old Testament (Num. 11) that God miraculously supplied manna as food for the children of Israel while they were in the wilderness. But I know of no one today who sits down to the table and patiently waits for God to rain down the manna from above. Am I to say that everybody who does not believe that God is miraculously feeding people today doubts that God has the power to feed us by a miracle? That would be absurd.

So when one denies that Good is yet performing miracles through men, he is not impugning the power of God to say the least. It is simply an unequivocal statement that today He is not working miracles through men. God’s purpose in working miracles was perfected; hence there is no longer a need for miracles today.

I would like to have you read a statement from the book of James that is often used to teach that miracles of healing are yet being done. James says: “Is any among you sick? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him” (Jas. 5:14, 15).

In the first place, it might be well for us to observe that James says for those who are sick to call for `the elders of the church. James did not say to call some miracle-working preacher. The elders, or the leaders of the church, were given the power to heal people. I am not sure that James in this passage refers to miraculous healing altogether. Historians tell us that oil was quite often used as a medicinal treatment. In Luke 10:34, we find that the good Samaritan poured oil and wine on the injuries of the man way-layed by the robbers. I have never heard anyone declare that this Samaritan was performing a miracle on this poor man when he poured oil on his wounds. But even if one grants that James is speaking of miraculous healing in this passage, the people of today who pretend to use this passage as their authority fail. at one point. They call for a preacher instead of an elder. They apply the name “pastor” to a preacher. A pastor in the Bible is one who is one of several elders in a local congregation. You find the qualifications of the elder stated in 1 Tim. 3, and in Tit. 1. If one does not meet the qualifications of an elder as stated in these two passages, then he is not the one that James says that one should call for aid. The preachers who use this passage might possibly misapply it so as to make it teach that elders can work miracles, while even this is not its teaching, but you need to find a passage that say that preachers today can work miracles. A man may wear the name of “pastor”, which is but another name for an elder, but who does not have the qualifications.

Notice again, in the passage, that James says that “the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick.” James does not seem to indicate that every time that one of the faith-healers fails in performing. a miracle it is the fault of the patient. He says that it is the fault of the prayer. It lacks faith.

The same truth is taught in this passage that is declared in many others. Certain individuals were given the power to work miracles until the revelation of God was completed, in order that their word might be confirmed. Elders in the Lord’s church were given this power. But one does not find this miracle-working power. perpetuated until the present generation. I want to propound a question to which I would like an answer. It is issued directly at those who claim the power to work miracles. “Jesus had the Spirit without measure; the apostles had the signs of the apostolic office; the disciples of the New Testament day received their gifts by the laying on of apostolic hands; since none of these apply to you, where and how did you get your power to heal? If in answer to prayer or however you may say, give us a Bible example to prove it” (Cogdill, Miraculous Divine Healing, p.37).

A group of members of the body of Christ have offered $1000 in the past to some of the nation’s outstanding men who were claiming to be able to work miracles. The only demand of the offer was that two reputable physicians examine the patient and state that this person had an incurable disease. Then they were to let the patient attend a healing meeting, be healed and immediately they were to get a signed statement from the same two physicians that such a person was now completely free from such disease. The reward was never collected. A national magazine, Time, carried an article about this offer and the fact that the healers left town without claiming the reward. These fake-healers said that they were too interested in saving souls to be concerned with money, yet most of these gracious healers spend thirty or forty minutes nightly in an unsurpassed plea for money.

Try to find one person that has instantly been cured of a disease that one can test with the empirical senses that God gave us. Healing is being done-but not miraculous healing.

Truth Magazine XXI: 13, pp. 198-199
March 31, 1977

By Mike Willis

Practically everyone of us has encountered the Jehovah’s Witnesses at one pointy in our life. Generally, our discussion with them centers around such doctrines as hell and the immortality of the soul. However, a more fundamental error propagated by the Witnesses is their doctrine of Christ. They teach that Jesus is not Jehovah God. Instead, Jesus is the first person created by Jehovah and that He possesses divine characteristics (hence, He can be described as “a god”). They even identify Jesus as the archangel Michael of the Old Testament. To show that I am not misrepresenting the Witnesses, I cite the following quotations from their writings:

“But at the beginning of all creation Jesus was God’s creation, a creature produced by God.”(1)

“Did you know that Jesus had a glorious existence long before He was born as a human here on earth? The Bible informs us that he is God’s `firstborn’ Son. This means that he was created before the other sons of God’s family. He is also God’s ‘only. begotten’ Son, in that he is the only one directly created by Jehovah God; all other things came into existence through him as God’s Chief Agent.”(2)

“Searching the Scriptures carefully to note just what they do say, and what they do not say, respecting our Lord Jesus, we find their testimony very explicit, harmonious and satisfactory …. At that time, as well as subsequently, he was properly known as `a god’-a mighty one. As chief of the angels and next to the Father, he was known as the archangel (highest angel or messenger, whose name, Michael, signifies `Who as God,” or God’s representative.”(3)

Notice that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine of Christ teaches that Jesus was a created being; there was a time when Jesus never existed, according to their writings. Obviously, this doctrine constitutes a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the incarnation.

Positive Evidences of the Deity of Christ

Throughout the Scriptures, the deity of Christ is presented; He is represented to be God and not “a god.” This is evidenced in the following ways:

1. The Titles Applied To Christ. A number of titles elsewhere ascribed only to God are ascribed to Jesus. Here is a partial listing of them:

a. Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and the End. These titles are given to Jehovah in Rev. 1:8 and Isa. 44:6; they are applied to Jesus in Rev. 22:13. To ascribe to Jesus what is applied only to God is blasphemous unless Jesus is God. Furthermore, Jesus cannot properly be described as the “Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” if anything existed before Him. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine of Jesus is true, He should have been described as the Beta and the Omega, the second and the last since, they say, Jehovah existed before Jesus.

b. Lord of Glory. In 1 Cor. 2:8, Paul applied this title to Jesus Christ. The title was frequently used in the Old Testament to refer to Jehovah. “This expression (The Lord of Glory-mw) is not to be taken as equivalent to `glorious Lord,’ but, as in the analogous expression, `Father of glory’ (Eph. 1:17); `The God of glory’ (Acts vii.2), `The Lord is the possessor of glory.’ The genitive case used here in the Greek is the genitive of possession. `Lord of glory’ is a title of Divinity. It means possessor of Divine excellence. `Who is the King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory’ (Psa. xxiv. 10; Acts vii.2; Jas. ii.l; Eph. i.17). The person crucified, therefore, was a Divine person.”(4)

c. Lord. One of the most frequent titles ascribed to Jesus is the title “Lord” (kurios). Kurios can be used to refer to the master in a master-slave relationship. However, it is also used as the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word adonai which was used in the place of Jehovah (YHVH) by Jews who feared that they might blaspheme by mispronouncing the divine name. The LXX version, which is frequently quoted in the New Testament, consistently used kurios to refer to Jehovah. The manner in which kurios is applied to Christ (Mt. 3:3; Rom. 10:13; Jn. 20:28) makes it obvious that they understood Jesus to be Jehovah.

2. The Designation Of Jesus As God. Throughout the Scriptures, the inspired writers refer to Jesus as God; hence, that Jesus was God is obvious from the following evidences:

a. Mt. 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means God with us.” This verse ascribes to Jesus a name which means “God with us.” If Jesus was not God, then this description of Jesus was totally inaccurate.

b. Jn. 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The New World Translation, which was translated and published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to confirm their unique doctrines, varies from this translation by calling the Word “a god.” It says, “In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The reason why this translation is given is because the definite article does not appear before Theos (God).

The rule that Theos without the article should be translated “a god” and Theos with the article should be translated “God” is inaccurate and not even seriously followed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Theos without the article appears in Mt. 5:9; 6:24; Lk. 1:35, 78; Jn. 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Rom. 1:7, 17-18; 1 Cor. 1:30; 15:10; Phil. 2:6, 11, 13; Tit. 1:1; etc. but the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate the word “God” in these places because it obviously refers to the Father. Even in Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18, Theos appears without the article yet Jehovah’s Witnesses will not follow their rule and translate it “a god” in those verses since it refers to the Father in those contexts. Hence, their rule must be rejected because it is arbitrarily applied on the basis of their preconceived dogmas and it will not stand the test of Greek Scholarship.

Actually, the giving of rules for the definite article is extremely difficult. Arndt and Gingrich wrote,

“Since the treatment of the inclusion and omission of the art. belongs to the field of grammar, the lexicon can limit itself to exhibiting the main features of its usage. It is difficult to set hard and fast rules for the employment of the art., since the writer’s feeling for style had special freedom of play in this area . . . .”(5)

The writing of rules for usage of the definite article should be approached with excessive caution. Nevertheless, some rules have been formulated. Bruce M. Metzger wrote as follow regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ treatment of Jn. 1:1:

“As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, and the Word was God.” Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, `A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb . . . . The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article (before Theos) does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands It, The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches Its climax in the confession of Thomas (1n. 20:28, `My Lord and my God’).'”(6)

Furthermore, A.T. Robertson, the noted Greek grammarian, emphasized that the absence of the article was necessary to the proper doctrine of Christ. He wrote,

“By exact and careful language John denied Sabellfanism (an ancient heresy very similar to that of the Jesus-only Pentecostals-mw) by not saying ho Theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) lust as in Jn. 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean `God is spirit,’ not `spirit Is God.'”(7)

Hence, Jn. 1:1 stands as an affirmative of the deity of Christ; the Word was God.

c. Heb. 1:8 – “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever . . . . .”

d. Tit. 2:13 – ” . . . looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Cf. the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ mutilation of this passage). Again, Metzger wrote,

“In still another crucial verse the New World Translation has garbled the meaning of the original so as to avoid referring to Jesus Christ as God. In Titus 2:13 it reads, `We wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus: This rendering, by separating `the great God’ from `our Savior Christ Jesus; overlooks a principle of Greek grammar which was detected and formulated in a rule by Granville Sharp in 1798. This rule, in brief, is that when the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not, repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun. This verse in Titus, therefore, must be translated, as in fact the Revised Standard Version (1952) renders It, `Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.'”(8)

Cf. 2 Pet. 1:1 and Rom. 9:5 for comparable statements about Christ.

e. Jn. 20:28. In this verse is recorded the expression of Thomas when He saw the risen Lord; he said, “My Lord and my God.” Here, Thomas expressly called Jesus God and Jesus did not correct him.

f. Jn. 10:33 records that the early Jews understood what the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not, namely, that Jesus made Himself out to be God.

g. Isa. 9:6. When the prophet foretold the coming of the Messiah, he described Him as “Mighty God.” In the background of Jewish monotheism, this description of the Messiah can only mean that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

3. Jesus Accepted Worship. At the time when Satan tempted Jesus, He said, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only” (Mt. 4:10). Neither man (Acts 10:26) nor angel (Rev. 22:8-9) is worthy of worship. Yet, Jesus accepted worship from men without correcting them (Mt. 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Jn. 9:35, 38). Jesus was either God or most hypocritical.

4. Prayer Was Offered To Jesus. In Acts 7:59, Stephen prayed to Jesus, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Notice also that Ecc. 12:7 relates that man’s spirit returns to God at death. Hence, Stephen prayed to Jesus and asked Him to receive his spirit. Both of these acts are blasphemous unless Jesus is God.

(To be continued.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 13, pp. 195-197
March 31, 1977

 

By Luther Blackmon

Let’s take a fellow who has been taught, and understands his duty to God. He knows that if he is ever to be saved, he must obey the Gospel. But there are some things that stand in the way, right now. Perhaps his job requires that he entertain, and be entertained by certain “big-wigs” in the business world. Most of them drink. So he is expected to be a social drinker and to keep liquor in his home. He must also attend other social functions that are off-limits to Christians. He must keep his job at all costs, he thinks, because of his obligations to his family, so he decides to put off obedience to the Gospel until a convenient season. Like Felix (Acts 24), his convenient season will likely never come. There is no such thing as a convenient season to break with the devil. That’s like trying to find a convenient season to have an eye gouged out or your right arm taken off (Mk. 9:43-47). The truth of the matter is that this fellow’s associates would likely think more of him, and certainly his employer should, if he had enough backbone to just say “NO” to such social obligation (?) as drinking and gambling.

Another fellow is in business for himself. He runs a filling station or a grocery store. He says that his business demands his presence seven days a week, right now, that is. But bye and bye, things will improve and then he can leave the business in the hands of others on the Lord’s day. Then he is going to obey the Gospel, or be restored to duty, whichever his case may demand.

I seriously doubt that such persons as these are aware of the implications of their attitude. In effect, they are saying, “I know I am doing wrong, but I am more concerned with material things just now. However, when my circumstances improve, I am going to do my duty to God.” What I am getting at is this: Each one of these persons, whether alien or erring Christian, knows very well, if he knows the truth, that before he (or she) can get right with God he must repent. The alien who believes in Christ Jesus must repent and be baptized; the erring Christian must repent and pray (Acts 2:38; 8:22). Repentance must be preceded by godly sorrow. That means that one must be deeply and painfully sorry that he has sinned. Repentance isn’t just a word. It is a change of will or determination that one experiences when he is honestly and sincerely convicted by the Word of God, and feels a deep sense of shame and remorse at the knowledge that he has sinned against the God who made him and died for him! Tell me please, how a man or woman can live for years in determined rebellion against God’s laws, saying all the while, “When I get ready, when it pleases me to change, when things can be arranged for my convenience, then, I am going to decide to feel sorry and remorse for what I am now determined to continue doing”??? That’s about the same as a young man’s saying,”I need a cools now, but I can’t afford to become emotionally involved. So I am going to marry today, and ten years from today I’m going to fall in love with my wife.” Repentance, ,like love, cannot be turned on or off like a faucet. The fellow who thinks that he can “use” his wife as a cook and housekeeper for ten years and then fall in love with her, will likely find himself alone long before the ten years have expired. And the person who thinks he can live in sin ten years and then “decide” to repent, may find himself unable to repent.

Truth Magazine XXI: 13, p. 194
March 31, 1977