Truth Magazine

By Jim McDonald

Paul instructed Timothy, “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Approval of God requires “handling aright” God’s word and to do that one must make a clear distinction between the Old and the New Testament. The Old Testament has a useful purpose today but that function is not to provide authority for religious practices (Rom. 15:4). It is presented in contrast to the New Testament which contains the words of Christ. God spake in times past “unto the fathers through the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners” but now he “hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his son,” whom all men are commanded both to hear and obey (Heb. 1:1; Matt. 17:5; Acts 3:22, 23).

The Hebrew letter emphasizes that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and sharply contrasts Christ in that priesthood with the priesthood of Levi and Aaron. Five times Christ is declared to be a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” a prophecy uttered by David (Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21; Psa.110:4). The promise of another priesthood suggests several consequences, not the least of which meant a change of law. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of law” (Heb. 7:18. Having first made this statement, the Hebrew writer expanded upon it explaining, “For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:13, 14). Christ, as our high priest, offered himself as a perfect offering for sin which, when once provided, satisfied forever the need for a sacrifice for sins (Heb. 9:23-28).

Hebrews teaches that the priesthood of Aaron was inadequate because its sacrifices could not ensure permanent removal of sin (“it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” Heb. 10:4). The writer then wrote: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, ‘Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare for me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure; then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.’ Saying above, Sacrifices and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:5-10). The mission of Jesus was to do the will of God, a truth not only prophesied by David but expressed many times by the Lord him-self (Ps. 40:6-8; John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; Luke 22:42). God’s will was to pro-vide permanent, lasting pardon for sinners by the Son offering his own life for the sinner (John 3:16; 10:15; Matt. 26:28). To this end a body was pre-pared for Christ that he might be able to do that (Heb. 10:5, 10).

Having affirmed that he came to do thy will, it is next said: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (Heb. 10:9). Since Jesus came to do the Father’s will “and to take away the first that he may establish the second,” it is obvious that it was the Father’s will that the first be removed (taken away) and the second established. The writer speaks of something that is “first” that is taken away so that a “second” might be established. To what does he refer? Verse 10 tells us: “by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all” (Heb. 10:10) There is an undeniable link between “second” and “will.” “Second” refers to God’s will to give lasting, permanent forgiveness to sinners, which will is set forth and expressed in his New Testament. If the “second” will has reference to the New Testament (and it does), the “first” has reference to the Old Testament. The statement, “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second,” is the Holy Spirit’s declaration that the Old Law has been removed, replaced by the New, an accomplishment other prophets pointed to.

Jeremiah said: “Behold, the day cometh saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with them in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt” (Jer. 31:31). Sinners can be sanctified (set apart from their sins) only through the provisions of Christ’s New Testament.

The Hebrew letter uses four words to describe these two covenants: “covenant,” “testament,” “will,” and “law.” These are contrasted by “old-new,” “first-second” (Heb. 8:8; 9:16; 10:9, 16). There is an “old” and a “new” covenant, a “first” and a “second” will (Heb. 8:8, 13; 10:9). By way of clarification let it be understood that the word “covenant” does not mean “law,” but both words are used to describe the nature of God’s revelation to man. The word “covenant” has reference to an agreement between two parties. Still, one must bear in mind that technically a “covenant” today is an agreement between two equal parties, which is not true of any covenant between God and man. In ancient times, it was common for a superior party to deliver his commandments to be obeyed by an inferior party, in the form of a covenant (Josh. 23:16; Ezek. 17:13-14). The technical name for this document in history was a “suzerainty covenant,” referring to the power of a sovereign lord. This is the kind of covenant God made with his people. God handed down his promises; man benefits from that covenant by complying with the terms of God’s covenant ex-pressed as his law.

In Exodus 34 a summarization is given of the law revealed to and by Moses, and verse 27 reads, “And Jehovah said unto Moses, write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant (my emphasis, jump) with thee and with Israel.” The Old Law expressed God’s covenant with Israel and agreeing with this Paul wrote: “Tell me, ye that de-sire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?” In his allegory of Abraham’s wives he wrote: “These women are two covenants one from Mount Sinai bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar” (Gal. 4:21, 24). The Holy Spirit calls the “law” given at Mt. Sinai a “covenant.” “Speaking as the oracles of God” al-lows us to call that “law” a “covenant” (1 Pet. 4:11).

The word “testament” is found in Hebrews 9:15-17. “And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth.” The word “testament” and the word “covenant” of verses 15 and 16 are from an identical Greek word (diatheke). Still the statement, “a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth” is not true of the usual idea of parties in a covenant, but is true where a will (testament) has been made and left. Therefore, translating the word “testament” in Hebrews 9:16, 17 was the proper translation. The same word diatheke was used by the Greeks to define what we would call a “covenant” and what we would call a “will or testament.” It is appropriate that the word should be “testament” instead of “covenant” in Hebrews 9:16, 17, for that is the exact point the writer makes: Christ’s will became valid after his death (blood) had validated it. The preceding verse reads, “. . .they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). An “inheritance” is the result of a “testament” or “will.”

There is no truth more clearly taught than that when Jesus died on the cross he took away the Old Law and dedicated a new covenant. Just as the covenant God made with Israel was expressed in the law Moses gave, so also the covenant Christ has made is expressed in the words of the New Testament. Just as the first covenant was dedicated by blood, so the second is dedicated by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:15-20; Luke 22:20). Just as Israel was sanctified by the first covenant, so spiritual Israel is sanctified by the second (Heb. 10:10).

Consider these statements, “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second”; “that which is old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanished away”; he “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandment contained in ordinances; and, “he blotted out the bond written in ordinances”; which was contrary to us and he hath taketh it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Heb. 10:9; 8:13; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). Get a dictionary and look up these words “taketh away,” “vanishing away,” “abolish,” “blot out.” Now, consider what it was that was “taken away” that “vanished away” and that “was abolished and blotted out.” It was the law of Moses  the entire system, priesthood sacrifice, tabernacle and every ordinance of it including the Ten Commandments.

Galatians 4:21-31

Galatians 4:21-31 reads: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh but the son by the free woman is born through promise. Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants: one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother… Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall nor inherit with the son of the free woman. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman.” In this text is an allegory (“the veiled presentation, in a figurative story, of a meaning metaphorically implied but not expressly stated,” Webster). In this allegory, the Holy Spirit compared Abraham’s wives and sons to the two covenants.

Hagar, the bondwoman with her son Ishmael is made to stand for the first covenant in its entirety. She is identified with Mt. Sinai, representative of God’s ordinances given there: the Ten Commandments, instructions for the priesthood, the sacrifices, the entire religion which had Jerusalem as its center and whose adherents were physical Jews. Sarah stands for the heavenly Jerusalem, the system revealed by Christ, and those who are part of that system are represented in the allegory as “Isaac.” From the text consider these significant statements that bear upon the allegory.

“The son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the free woman is born through promise” (Gal. 4:23). The writer asserts that Ishmael (the son of the handmaid) was not part of that promise God made to Abraham (“I will make of thee a great nation,” Gen. 12:1, 2). He was the fleshly issue of Abraham but no promise was connected to his birth at all. It was, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” and it was from Isaac that God made the great nation of Abraham that he promised to make of him (Gen. 21:12). The allegorical application of this is that just as Ishmael and his mother stood for the law and the physical Jew, so Isaac and his mother stand for the second covenant and the Christian. As there was no blessing attaching to Ishmael in the first promise, so there is no blessing based upon being a physical Jew in the second promise. The promised blessing is to the Christian which a Jew may become through walking in the steps of faith of Abraham. Thus, Abraham becomes his father in a spiritual sense, the only sense to which there is value (Gal. 3:7).

“Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise” (Gal. 4:28). Isaac was the promised son through whom God would make a great nation; Christians are the result of God’s second promise, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blest.”

“Howbeit, what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman” (Gal. 4:30). Who is the handmaid and her son? Hagar and Ishmael, of course, but in the allegory it is the law given at Sinai and the whole system of Judaism. To “cast out the handmaid and her son” can only mean that the Law has been abolished. In view of this, how can any contend that the Old Law (or covenant as Paul calls it) has not been removed?

There are those who argue that there was a difference between the ceremonial part of the Law and the Ten Commandments and that only the ceremonial part of the Law was removed. The argument as set forth by some is that the Law of Moses (ceremonial law, nailed to cross) and the Law of the Lord (Ten Commandments, still binding) were different. The Holy Spirit made no such distinction. He said the Law of the Lord was the Law of Moses and the Law of Moses was the Law of the Lord (2 Chron. 34:14; Ezra 7:6; Mark 7:10; 2 Chron. 31:3; Neh. 8:1, 13; Luke 2:22-24). Furthermore, the Roman writer said, “Wherefore brethren ye were made dead to the Law through the body of Christ,” and then identified the Law they were dead to as the Law which said, “Thou shalt not covet.” Whatever law it was that said, “Thou shalt nor covet” was the Law they had become dead to. This statement is the tenth of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:17)

When Was the Law Removed?

Let the Scriptures answer. “For where a testament is there must of necessity be the death of him that made it.” “For he is our peace who made both one and brake down the middle wall of partition having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself the two one new man so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross having slain the enmity thereby: “having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us: and he hath taketh it out of the way nailing it to the cross” (Heb. 9:15; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14). Hebrews 9 shows that before a testament is valid there must be the death of the one who made it. The New Testament of Christ was not in force prior to his death but became effective after his death. Ephesians 2:14 identifies the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” as a middle wall that Christ broke down; the Law (the enmity) was abolished in his flesh and it was through the cross that the enmity (Law) was slain (made dead). Colossians 2:14 tells that the bond written against us (the Law and its whole system) was blotted out, nailed to the cross. When Jesus died the veil in the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom; what once was holy is now made common (Matt. 27:51).

Why The Law Was Removed

It was a partition wall between Jew and Greek. God desired that all his people be gathered into one fold. “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and they shall become one flock ,one shepherd” (John 10:16). “Now this he said not of himself but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad” (John 11:51, 52). Jesus accomplished this desire by breaking down the wall (the Law) between Jew and the Gentile, nailing it to the cross (Eph. 2:14-16).

No one could be alive to both laws at the same time, “Or are ye ignorant brethren (for I speak to men who know the law) that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to her husband while he liveth; but if the husband die she is discharged from the law of the husband So then if while the husband liveth she be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die she is free from the law so that she is no adulteress though she be joined to another man Wherefore my brethren ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another even to him who was raised from the dead that we might bring forth fruit unto God” (Rom. 7:1-4) In these verses Paul speaks of “the law of the husband” and “the law.” Moving from the universal truth that law hath dominion over man only while he liveth to the “law of the husband,” Paul shows that the woman who is married to a husband is joined to him as long as he lives. For her to be married to a second husband while the first liveth makes her an adulteress. The wife cannot be alive to two husbands at the same time. Neither could the Jew who was “married to the law” be joined to Christ without be-coming “dead” to the Law.

The first Testament was designed to be removed. It was added because of transgressions and came after God’s covenant to bless all nations through the seed of Abraham had been confirmed (Gal. 3:19, 15-18). It was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ but now that faith is come we now longer are under a schoolmaster (law, Gal. 3:24). When Jesus gave his new law, the old law was removed.

The first Testament could not make alive and was weak and unprofitable. “If there had been a law given which could have made alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law” (Gal. 3:21). “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second (Heb. 8:7). The Hebrew writer further adds, “There is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect)” (Heb. 7:18, 19).

Errors From Failure To Distinguish

Between The Two Covenants

The divisions in our religious world can be traced in large measure to man’s failure to recognize the distinction between the two covenants. Consider five errors which exist in our divided world which have arisen out of not “handling aright the word of truth.”

Commanding to abstain from meats. The law set forth certain restrictions on food that the Jew could eat (Lev. 11:1-12). Among those forbidden meats were the flesh of swine and catfish. Although Seventh Day Adventists make distinction between “ceremonial” and “moral” law and theoretically teach that such restrictions on meats were part of “ceremonial law” removed at the cross, their devotees are urged to abstain from such meats.

Sabbath Keeping. Those who argue that the Ten Commandments were not nailed to the cross argue that the Sabbath is still binding on Christians. These affirm that Christians should keep the Sabbath and ignore the first day of the week despite the fact that the first day is the only day of the week specifically identified with “disciple action.” These argue that the apostles “kept the Sabbath” because they went into Jewish synagogues and taught on that day (Acts 13:14). It apparently has never occurred to such that to fulfill their commission to preach to the Jew would re-quire them to preach on the day of Jewish assembly, the Sabbath. Action peculiar to disciples are never recorded as occurring on that day; rather the day specially identified with disciples in things they did because they were disciples is found exclusively on the first day of the week. On that day disciples came together to break bread and on that day disciples gave of their finances to support the divinely appointed work of the church (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:10. May Christians meet as Christians on other days of the week? Certainly (Acts 2:47). The first day of the week is set in contrast to the Sabbath as the day of special assembly of Christians versus the day of special assembling of Jews. The Sabbath was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14).

Some say the Ten Commandments were not nailed to the cross and that we keep the Sabbath because our “Sabbath is Christ,” we find our rest in him. On the one hand, to invalidate part of the Law invalidates all the Law. We are made dead to the Law which said, “Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). The command, “Thou shalt not covet,” is part of the Ten Commandments. We are made dead to the Ten Commandments, then. On the other hand, if one keeps part of the Law, he is bound to keep the whole Law. Paul wrote: “Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is a debtor to do the whole law” Gal 5:3). If one refrains from adultery because the Ten Commandments forbade it, he is debtor to keep all Ten Commandments including, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy” (Exod. 20:4). James wrote: “Whoso keepeth the whole law and yet offends in one point he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). If a man keeps nine of the Ten Commandments but breaks the fourth (Sabbath), he is become guilty of breaking all the Ten Commandments. How much clearer must the Holy Spirit speak that one might under-stand that if we are under the Ten Commandments, we are obligated to keep the Sabbath, but if we are not bound to keep the Sabbath, we are not bound to keep any of the other nine? The new law incorporates nine of the ten commandments into it, but coveting, lying, stealing, adultery, murder and dishonor of parents are not wrong because prohibited by the Ten Commandments but wrong because prohibited by Christ in his New Covenant.

Instrumental Music. Those who want instrumental music in worship justify it on the grounds that instruments were permitted under the Law and that David used them. David offered animal sacrifices in his worship. Are animal sacrifices appropriate in our worship? David was a polygamist. May man practice polygamy today? If we may use instruments in worship because David did, we may offer animal sacrifices in worship and have a dozen wives because David did these things as well. Since we can only have one wife and cannot offer animal sacrifices although David did, it also follows that we cannot have instrumental music in worship just because David had them.

Marriage and divorce for every cause. The Jews questioned Jesus asking, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause” to which Jesus responded, “Have you never read, that he that made them from the beginning made them male and female and said, `For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”‘ (Matt. 19:3-6). The Pharisee then asked, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and to put her away. He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:7-9).

Under the Law a man could divorce his wife and both of them remarry (Deut. 24:1-4). Some argue that Christ was not giving new instructions relating to marriage in Matthew 19; they say he was only explaining the Law of Moses and that, as under the Law of Moses, a couple could divorce and both remarry; so it can be done today. Christ was not explaining Moses’ law. He was pointing to his new covenant which would return to God’s original law concerning marriage. Originally (“from the beginning”) when God joined a couple together, he said, “What I have joined together let not man put asunder.” Under Moses’ Law, “Moses, for hardness of their hearts, allowed them to put away their wives.” But such is true no more. Christ’s law returns to the original law God gave. Instead of a couple divorcing and both re-marrying as per Moses law, when a couple now divorce only one can remarry (the one whose mate committed fornication), and in the absence of fornication, when a couple divorce and each marries another mate, four people are living in adultery.

Keep the Ten Commandments to be saved. Many say that all man needs to do to be saved is “just keep the Ten Commandments.” The Ten Commandments say nothing about being baptized that one may be saved, about Christians assembling, nor does it say one word about observing the Lord’s Supper (Mark 16:16, Heb. 10:25; Acts 20:7).

Those who teach we are under the Ten Commandments fail to do what Paul charged Timothy to do: “handle aright the word of Truth” (2 Tim 2:15).

Conclusion

The Law has been removed. “Cast out the handmaid and her son for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman” (Gal. 4:30). To accept part of the Law (circumcision, et al) obligates one to keep the whole Law. Yet, if we accept the Law, we have fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4) The Old Testament is not authority for any religious practice. Never forget that while God in times past spake unto the fathers by the prophets in divers portions and in divers manners, yet hath he in the end of these days, spoken unto us through his Son. Of the Son God said, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him” (Matt 17:3). Let all remember that God has warned “that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23).

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 6-10
June 6, 1996

 

HAPPINESS is something we create in our mind,

It’s not something you search for and so seldom find 

It’s just waking up and beginning the day

By counting our blessings and kneeling to pray 

It’s giving up thoughts that breed discontent

And accepting what comes as a “gift heaven-sent” 

It’s giving up wishing for things we have not

And making the best of whatever we’ve got 

It’s knowing that life is determined for us,

And pursuing our tasks without fret, fume, or fuss 

For it’s by completing what God gives us to do

That we find real contentment and happiness, too.

 

HELEN STEINER RICE

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 4
June 6, 1996

By Jarrod Jacobs

In the October 20, 1995 edition of The Tennessean, Ray Waddle reported on a trend among many of the denominational churches in Donelson, Mt. Juliet, Lebanon, and Clarksville, Tennessee. Attributing the idea to Jerry Falwell, area Baptist churches were offering tours of “Judgment Houses” in lieu of haunted houses. Yet, another example of the denominations trying to “sanctify” a holiday.

Some 10,000 youngsters attended last year’s event at the Two Rivers Baptist Church. Each year they try to vary the general theme as to what hell might be like. “This year, the hell room is a place of claustrophobia and darkness” said Phil Wilson, student “pastor.” He went on to say, “We haven’t figured out how to do a lake of fire without burning everybody up.” How unfortunate.

Why Should We Be Concerned

About This Article?

Someone may ask, “What has this to do with me?” Friend, we need to be aware of these things because several denominational bodies think this type of flagrant dramatization is necessary for reaching young people. Philip Herring, the minister of the First Baptist Church in Clarksville, said, “Many kids see this as a presentation of the truth” (emp. mine, JJ). We need to be cautious and concerned about things such as this because once certain brethren see the numbers involved, they will want to “be like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5-20). Unfortunately, we have some among us who will “tickle people’s ears” in order to be popular (2 Tim. 4:3-4). There are brethren crying for a “new” way of teaching and preaching right now! They ridicule what they call “1950s preaching.” In other words, they do not like sermons that call sin sin! They do not like sermons that name false teachers and their doctrine. They would rather children enter into “Judgment Houses” and be “scared” into obedience, than to have them convicted through the pure and simple preaching of the word of God!

Why Would a “Judgment House” Be Wrong?

The reason that this type of thing is wrong is that it appeals to physical enjoyment rather than spiritual truth. The appeal in these “Judgment Houses” is made to emotional-ism and sight tricks. A close study of the New Testament reveals that Jesus spoke more about hell than any other teacher in the New Testament. Yet, He never appealed to emotionalism or sensationalism, rather to a calm and logical study. Jesus taught that hell was a real place where people would spend eternity. He taught it was a place of torment, fire, and punishment (Rev. 14:9-11, 21:8; Matt. 25:46). Jesus knew about theaters, dramatizations, and the like. The plays of Sophocles and Euripides were common in his day. Yet, Jesus chose to appeal to logic, reason and to the soul of man about this terrible place. Why is this not good enough for us?

The Work of the Church

We need to understand that the church is not in the entertaining business. The church is to be working to save souls. It is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). With this in mind, let us not try to get the church engaged in unauthorized activities in the name of “winning” people to Christ. The end does not justify the means (Rom. 3:8)!

Conclusion

If it is true that plays, puppet shows, “Judgment Houses,” and the like will reach so many, why didn’t Jesus and the apostles use this method of “teaching”? Was Jesus not the Master Teacher? Of course he was! Yet, Jesus chose to con-front and convict people of their sin, rather than entertain them (John 8:1-11; Matt. 23:13-39; etc.). Paul and the apostles would have made many more friends, and I am sure would have converted many more if they had simply conducted puppet shows and plays for the kids. Instead, they chose to follow the example of Christ and preach the unadulterated word of God. (Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Cor. 9:16). Knowing this, who are we to think that we have a “better” or “newer” way to teach than Jesus or the apostles? God wants his word preached and taught in its purity and simplicity (2 Tim. 2:2, 4:2). It will not do for anyone to try to change God’s word by going into the entertaining business, or scaring kids into obedience!

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 23
June 6, 1996

By David West

Reflections After Watching A Movie

I’m not big on watching TV and movies, but both my daughters play in the band, and several had recommended “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” a movie about a high school band teacher. I went. In many ways it was a great movie. It takes the viewer though emotional highs and lows, demonstrates the impact a caring involved adult can have on the lives of impressionable young people and shows that the direction we may want to pursue with our lives, may not be the one we finally take, or even ought to take. It also dealt with priorities and some frustrations that often accompany life.

Don’t take this as an recommendation for you to go see the movie. Before you go and spend your time and money, I am warning you that the dialogue contains a half dozen objectionable words.

Jesus made a practice of commenting on the things that went on around him. He used whatever was at hand to teach and illustrate truth and to combat error. Though Christians must continue to live in the world, they must also stay on their guard, critically evaluating what they see and hear lest they be robbed of their prize and taken captive by the vain philosophies of men (Col. 2: 8). We must always be alert to detect Satan’s efforts to sabotage our accurate understanding of life (reality) from God’s viewpoint (2 Cor. 10:4). We must remain alert and sober (1 Thess. 5:4-8).

Several thoughts went through my mind while viewing this movie. Not only would I like to discuss some points that I believe urgently need to be taught, I also want to illustrate how we can develop the habit of analyzing TV, movies, songs, and what we read, so that the Devil will have a much tougher time filling our minds with thoughts which contradict the truths revealed in Scripture. Perhaps we could also use these opportunities to talk with our children after watching a TV program or a movie together (even the “good” ones).

Language

It was milder than is typical in everyday conversation in most schools, workplaces and marketplaces. Yet, because such language is commonplace, it is easy for us to be nonplused by it. When someone tells me that such language doesn’t bother them, I am not relieved to learn of their spiritual strength. I suspect that sin is acting as a narcotic.

I know that if we, as salt, get out of the salt shaker, we will be exposed to sinful behavior, but we must not allow ourselves to be desensitized to the point where hearing such language no longer offends. I’m glad that my reaction to such language is similar to what it is when someone runs their fingernails down the blackboard. May God help me never to resort to such speech (Eph. 4:29; 5:3-4). I also observed that much of the inappropriate language was directed by the teen-aged boy to his father with whom he was angry. He failed to honor his father and treat him with respect (Eph. 6:2, 3). Disrespectful and disobedient behavior toward one’s parents is viewed by God as on a par with murder and adultery (cf. Rom. 1:28-32; 2 Tim. 3:1-5). On the other hand, parents are not to provoke their children to wrath (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).

Homosexuality

I do not think the movie intended to promote homosexuality, but during a visual montage which rolled the clock forward through scenes typical of high school in the late ’60s up to ones in the ’90s, one of the images used to identify the present was two young men holding hands in a romantic walk across campus.

My mind jumped immediately to recent events reported in the news. In the past couple of weeks, TV viewers have been subjected to homosexual marriages on Oprah, Friends, and Roseanne (compare last season’s homosexual marriage on Northern Exposure and a lesbian kiss on Roseanne).

We can develop the habit of analyzing TV, movies, songs, and what we read, so that the Devil will have a much tougher time filling our minds with thoughts which contradict the truths revealed in Scripture. Perhaps we could also use these opportunities to talk with our children after watching a TV program or a movie together (even the “good” ones).

Loving, compassionate, caring homosexuals are regulars on soap operas, situation comedies, and in the movies. I see nothing “entertaining” about it.

The “gays” contend that since we have accepted such in our living rooms, it is now time to legalize it in our courtrooms. It will come as no surprise to anyone with one eye open that the home is under attack from every direction. The very definition of “family” is changing. We are told that family consists of people who live together and love each other.

My little boy watches children’s programming such as Barney & Friends and Hugabug Club on the educational TV channel. Just last week, both shows had songs talking about the vast variety of combinations of people forming families today. They concluded that whatever kind of family each child had, whether Mommy and Daddy live together or far apart, “. . . mine’s just right for me.”

I understand that children need security, the knowledge that they are loved and that if their home is not intact with a married mother and father, it is not their fault. But, to argue that all situations are equally good and whatever kind of family you happen to be a part of is ideal for you, is unbiblical and absurd.

I salute all of those single parents, or grandparents, or foster parents, etc. who are bravely doing their best to make the best of a bad situation. Many seek to provide a safe, nurturing environment for the children in spite of the failings of the adults in their lives (though parents are not always culpable, e.g., when unable to fulfill responsibility due to accident, murder, or disease), but that does not argue that planning it this way from the start is an equally valid choice.

Let me hasten to say that these children’s shows have not yet started including homosexual families in their lists. How-ever, the stage has been set by the redefinition of the family and it is but a short step for it to be a reality. Still it is clear that the home is under assault by the “gay rights” advocates. Recent studies are arguing that things such as homosexuality and uncontrolled anger are not the person’s fault but are the result of genetics. Perhaps genetics help predispose a person to be more vulnerable to one sin more than another, but that does not relieve one of responsibility to overcome temptation or accountability when one doesn’t.

The Bible is clear in its unequivocal condemnation of homosexual behavior. “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with female: it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22). That means it is perverted, disgusting, and sickening. It is included in a list of many disgusting sins (1 Tim. 1:9-10), the practice of which will exclude one from heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10). However, there is hope. One can change. He can quit the behavior and can be forgiven. “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (v. 11).

When the apostle Paul discussed the depravity of the Gentile world which refused to retain the knowledge of God, he described how God dealt with it. They perverted the true nature of God into the image of man and various sorts of animals. Whenever people refuse to maintain an appreciation for the difference between the nature of God and the nature of his creation, he gives them up to vile passions and gross immorality best illustrated by confusion over the true nature of the sexual relationship  men with men and women with women. God views such conduct (along with many other perverted activities as worthy of death (Rom. 1:18-32).

Rejection of Hell and/or Heaven

I detected no hint of any kind of religious belief or practice in Mr. Holland’s speech or actions. He was greatly disturbed by the assassination of John Lennon (song writer and former Beatle). His well-known song “Imagine”  a theme song for secular humanism, Marxism, socialism, communism, and perhaps other anti-God/anti-religion, and anti-government philosophies  was played.

Here are its lyrics: “Imagine there’s no Heaven, It’s easy if you try; No Hell below us, Above us only sky. Imagine all the people, Living for today.

“Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too. Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.

“Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can? No need for greed or hunger, Only brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world.”

Chorus: “You may say I’m a dreamer; But I’m not the only one. I’ll hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will be one.”

A beautiful and catchy melody delivers this popular, yet frightening message. Imagine no Heaven, no Hell, no religion, just living for today! Yes, I would say he’s a dreamer, but the dream is a nightmare.

More people believe in heaven than in hell. Most who believe in heaven believe they are going there regardless of how little thought and preparation they are making for it. Hardly anyone believes he is going to hell. But if the words of Jesus concerning the fact that few would enter the straight gate and the narrow way that leads to life and many will enter the wide gate and broad way leading to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14) and the fact that many are called but few are chosen (Matt. 22:14) mean anything, they must mean that many (most?) will go to hell.

Preaching on hell is becoming increasingly unpopular. Rejection of the concept of torment in hell is becoming increasingly popular, even by those claiming to believe the Bible. Unbelievers reject it; believers ignore it. Just this past week, the newspapers announced that the Anglican churches (Church of England and Episcopal) have decided that hell does not involve conscious torment for eternity. Instead, they have concluded that what hell involves is an-other word for annihilation (following in the footsteps of Jehovah’s Witnesses Seventh-Day Adventists, Armstrongism and other cults?)

Why have they reached this conclusion? Not because of anything they have learned from the Bible but because of the perceived difficulty of reconciling hell with the love of God. To human reasoning it appears that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. This is especially troublesome when we talk about “good” people who never have become Christians (Ghandi? Mother Teresa?) It looks to us almost like capital punishment for a traffic violation. Some believe God is too good to send anyone to hell; others believe man is too good to be sent there.

As a substitute for eternal conscious torment, two alter-native views are often proposed: universalism (which teaches the ultimate salvation of all men) and conditional immortality (which teaches immortality only for the righteous and destruction for the wicked). If the first were true, there would be no urgency in preaching the gospel and begging men to repent. After all, they will be saved anyway.

The second is the position being taken by the Anglicans. The word used in the New Testament for “destroy” does not carry the meaning of annihilate. See Matthew 9:17 where broken wineskins are destroyed (ruined), Luke 15:4 where sheep are destroyed (lost), and John 6:12 where leftover fragments of a meal are saved so that nothing is lost.

The same word “eternal” that is used to describe the nature of God and to describe the duration of heaven is used to describe the duration of hell. “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). Both the righteous and the wicked will exist forever, although in different places (see Dan. 12:2).

Hell is a place of eternal torment. Consider just a few references. “Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matt. 22:13). And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:43, 44). “And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom” (Luke 16:19-31; esp. v. 23).

Two passages in the book of Revelation seem to settle this issue (14:10-11; 20:10). “. . . he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (20:10).

Eternal conscious torment appears clearly taught. No way to deny it. When we make it obligatory for God to save everyone (universalism) or to annihilate the wicked (conditional immortality), we make salvation a matter of justice, not mercy. Yet, the Bible teaches that salvation is the result of God’s mercy.

These theories are not believed so much because the Bible supports them, but because of the difficulty of harmonizing eternal punishment with the justice and love of God. The justice of God requires that everyone receives only what he deserves. Our sins against an eternal God render us eternally guilty and thus unable to pay off even one sin, and our sense of injustice is rooted in our failure to comprehend the seriousness of sin. Have you ever asked someone what he thinks ought to be done to him after he has misbehaved? What is the chance that he is going to propose something as severe as others might propose?

God doesn’t delight in the destruction of the wicked. “Say to them, `As I live!’ declares the Lord God, `I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, 0 house of Israel?”‘ (Ezek. 33:11). He is patient (long suffering), not wanting any to be lost, but all to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9; see Matt.23:37). But, he cannot override our freedom of choice and force us to be with him in heaven when we reject him. If we don’t want him and his will now, what makes us think we would want it then?

We all find comfort in the doctrine of heaven. But, shouldn’t the doctrine of hell be comforting, as well? Look at all the crime, cruelty, and inhumanity that takes place every day in this world. Most of the time the perpetrators go unpunished and justice is thwarted.

But, on Judgment Day, no murderer will go unapprehended or unpunished. No child molester or rapist will escape justice. No one will be able to bribe the Judge or find a slick lawyer to locate a loophole by which to escape. And if our sense of justice conflicts with him, does anyone doubt that he will be unimpressed with our efforts to change his mind?

Did you realize that the eleven references to hell in the Gospels are all from the lips of Jesus. If hell is inconsistent with the kindness and love of Jesus, why is he the main one to talk about it in the New Testament? He spoke more about hell than about heaven. What is the justification for sending Jesus to the cross of Calvary if there is no hell to be rescued from? How great can the grace of God be when we were in no danger to start with? Hell is the foundation upon which the plan of salvation is built.

(b) Imagine there’s no Heaven! I can’t. God has provided a legitimate means of satisfying every desire of man. He has provided food and drink for the thirsty, sleep for the tired, marriage for the sexual desire. Has he left our greatest hunger (to live on forever) without any means of fulfillment? Where is the justice and the reward for those righteous saints of old who sacrificed all, even their lives, for their love of God (Matt. 5:10-12)? Where is that heavenly city to which they were going as strangers and pilgrims (Heb. 11:10-16, 26)? How much better to say with the apostle Paul, “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing. The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (2 Tim. 4:6-7,18).

John Lennon admitted that one might accuse him of being a dreamer. I do. He hoped one day we would join him. Why would anyone want to join him on a meaningless hope-less journey to nowhere (at least according to his view). I’m reminded of the account of Walter Hooper telling C.S. Lewis of an epitaph engraved on a headstone which read, “Here lies an atheist, all dressed up but with nowhere to go.” Lewis replied, “I bet he wishes that were so.”

In a 1973 bulletin, Ray Hawk tried his hand at song writing when he revised the lyrics of “Imagine” to more closely reflect the truth.

“Imagine there’s a Heaven, It’s easy if you try, A Hell below us, Above us the sky. Imagine all the people, Living for God today.

“Imagine there’s a country, If isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, And no false religions too. Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.

“Imagine sharing possessions, I wonder if you can? No need for greed or hunger, We’ll follow God’s plan. Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world.”

Chorus: “You may say I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us, And in Christ we’ll be one.”

Avoiding Adultery

The outcome of one scene was highly unusual and unexpected for a movie script and increasingly unusual in the “real” world. One of Mr. Holland’s talented female pupils falls in love with him and invites him to abandon his wife and son and go to New York with her to pursue her singing career. He is sorely tempted and tried by the proposition, but finally rejects the proposition telling her that it is “for the best.” (Some viewers perhaps felt he was foolish or felt sorrow for him having to remain in his mundane life. This is a real danger. Characters are often presented to us in such a way that we are disappointed and feel sorry for them when they choose to do the right thing. We may even feel sorry for ourselves when we make a similar decision.)

No religious or moral reason was given for his failure to make provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. There was nothing on the order of “How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9). Yet, it was refreshing to see a man refuse to deal treacherously with the wife of his youth or to break up the home he had vowed to pre-serve.

Yet you say, “For what reason?” “Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. `For I hate divorce,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel, `and him who covers his garment with wrong,’ says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously” (Mal. 2:14-16).

A good wife is a man’s reward in this life (Ecc. 9:9). He is to be satisfied with her all the days of his life (Prov. 5:15-21). To that end, he should make a covenant with his eyes not to look lustfully on another woman (Job 31:1) thus committing adultery in his heart (Matt. 5:27-30).

Mr. Holland’s “Opus” was his relationship with and service to others. He thought that composing a musical masterpiece would be the opus highlighting his life’s work. Instead, it turned out to be all the lives he had changed with his care, concern, and patient teaching. This turned my thoughts to a newspaper column I had written the week before. I reproduce it here:

My Obituary

Mark Twain got up one day and read his obituary in the newspaper. He responded to the newspaper with this well-known quip: “Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” But, what if you could not only read your obituary ahead of time, but could actually write it?

John Rau, a former bank executive, who is now dean of the Indiana University School of Business, recently wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal on the tenuous nature of success. William Raspberry’s syndicated column which appeared in the Tampa Tribune this week made reference to it. The point in Rau’s article that most intrigued Raspberry was found in his list of recommendations for relaxing tension and reducing fear of falling from “success” in your career. His suggestion? Write your own obituary. (I remember reading of a similar recommendation in Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.)

Should one decide to undertake this project, how would he begin? First, you may not necessarily want to write it as it would appear if you continued on your present track. Instead, you may want to revise it to read as you would have it read if you were on the track you really wanted.

Second, this is not a call to fantasize or to dream impossible (or at least highly improbable) dreams (like winning a $50 million lottery jackpot and marrying a super-model or movie star, etc.). Nor is it even the more humble aspirations of so many young people who see themselves down the road twenty years with “a nice job, a nice family, a nice house and a nice car,” all the while not studying in school, not training for a trade nor doing anything else to put themselves on track to realistically expect to reach these “goals.” Goals require solid plans for achieving them; otherwise they are merely dreams.

Rau is proposing a serious solution to a serious problem. “If you are like most people, you will tear up your first draft because it will be about your accomplishments, successes and positions in organizations. You’ll realize you want it to be about character, doing useful things, being a good partner, an exceptional friend. Put a copy in your locked desk drawer and another in the secret compartment of your briefcase. Read it every morning, and whenever that trapped feeling hits.”

His point? The only way to have the obituary you really want is to start living the way you want to be remembered. This project is not as theoretical or hypothetical as you might think. We are actually writing it all the time. The issue is: “Will it say what we want it to say, or will it reflect a life of missed opportunities and regrets?” I have accepted the challenge. Here is my obituary by me.

“David West passed away yesterday after a full and happy life. A man of limited talent and resources, he made the most of what he had, unselfish and generous, he loved life and he loved people. Family was a top priority with him. He dearly loved his wife Vickie. His faithfulness and devotion lasted as long as they both lived. His dedication also extended to his children: Jenny, Jessica, and Jonathan. Though both, he and they, knew he was far from perfect, they also knew that he tried to set a good example before them and strived never to give them reason to doubt his love for them or his determination to help them be the best they could be.

“His highest priority and greatest love were reserved for Jesus Christ, his Savior and King. He loved to read, study and teach the Bible. He loved to associate with other Christians. He had compassion for the lonely, the hurting, the outcast, and the poor. He was approachable. Others, regardless of age, education, wealth, race or social status saw him as a friend.

“Always pleasant and optimistic he had a smile for everyone. He looked for the best in others and often refreshed them with words of comfort and encouragement. He worked hard to improve his community and to leave the world a better place for those who would come after him. He will be missed.”

So much for the easy part. Now comes the hard work of making it the truth in the daily arena of life. By the way, how will your obituary read? If you don’t like the way it will read, why not revise it today? It’s not too soon to start.

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 18-22
June 6, 1996