Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Not Doomed to Division on Every Point

Many questions have come up through the years on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, which have not resulted in division and will not do so in the future. Such questions persist among brethren equally committed to the principle and the proposition laid down by Jesus (one man for one woman, one exception). A few brethren among us doubt the one exception, but generally do not press the point beyond expressing their personal reservation. Some of these questions are more serious than others, some are more theoretical than practical. There are brethren who have a very strong conscience in regard to one or more such questions.

Occasionally, heated discussions or even debates have occurred over them, but not division. Two preachers may lose confidence in each other over such an issue, or two churches may have strained relations over it, but no formal division exists. Sometimes a change of preachers, or some other person involved in a given case moving out of the area, resolves the friction. If some division does occur in a rare case, it remains localized or focuses on a few individuals, but it is not general. It does not spread because both biblical and practical considerations contain its effect.

What is different in the nature of marriage issues that generate inevitable and widespread division, and issues which do not? Before answering this question, I will mention a few of thepoints over which brethren advocating the same fundamental truths on marriage, divorce, and remarriage have differed without dividing in my 30 years of preaching experience. Most of us would have an opinion on some of these or a conscientious conviction on others, and would feel the need for continuing study on still others. It is well that we not jump to rash conclusions (Phil. 1:10; 4:5).

1. Does a woman have the same right as a man to divorce her husband for fornication? 2. Can the marriage of an underage couple be annulled, and if so, are they free to marry again? 3. If a person who is free to many marries someone who is not, is the first person free to remarry after getting out of that marriage? 4. Would the answer depend on whether he entered the first marriage knowing the other party was not free to marry? 5. Would it matter if he had been intentionally deceived? 6. Would the answer depend on how the person got out of this unauthorized marriage: who initiated the divorce, the legal grounds for it, etc.?

7. Can there ever be a separation, and if so, on what grounds and for how long? 8. Does 1 Corinthians 7:5 cover every angle and aspect of that question, or do other Bible principles apply in some situations? 9. For instance, is a wife defrauding her husband if she does not submit to his drunken demands, violent advances, and perverted desires? 10. Must a wife re-main with a husband who beats her and endangers her life and the lives of the children? 11. If she tries to put herself out of harm’s way by filing for a legal separation or civil divorce, with-out considering herself free from the marriage bond, does she cause his sin if he goes to a prostitute or remarries? (In most states, she cannot get a re-straining order for police protection unless she takes such legal steps.)

12. May the innocent and guilty parties be reconciled by remarriage after a divorce if neither has married another person? 13. If the put-away fornicator marries another person, and then gets out of that marriage, may he remarry his original mate? 14. Can the put-away fornicator remarry after his first mate dies? 15. When a man leaves his wife for an unscriptural reason over her protest so that he can marry an-other person, does his adultery give her the ground to appeal to God to dissolve her marriage bond? 16. In either case, does this meet the criterion for her to marry again or does she remain bound to him for life?

17. When fornication is present, does it matter who initiates the legal proceedings if the innocent party is to have the right to remarry? 18. If the fornicator initiates the civil case, must the innocent party counter sue in or-der to have the right to remarry? 19. If the innocent and guilty parties have separate cases against each other pending in the courts of separate jurisdictions, will her right to remarry hinge upon such factors as which case was initiated first or which is ruled upon first?

20. If a man drives his wife out of the house by abusive conduct such as violence and later commits adultery, may the wife divorce him for fornication and marry again? 21. If he had not permitted her to live with him for some period of time when he finally committed adultery, would her right to remarry depend on who got to the courthouse first?

Any number of other questions involving complicated circumstances may arise which would be answered differently, in whole or in part, by various brethren who are equally committed to the words of Jesus on marriage. For instance, “common law” marriage raises its own set of knotty problems. If anyone thinks he can answer all such questions with finality, I will gladly refer all future inquiries and issues to him. Actually, all of us realize that at times we must point out plainly and clearly what the Bible says, and then let the person involved make a personal application of the principle involved. Teaching a divine principle and allowing people to apply it, and to answer to God for the application, is not the same thing as leaving people to create their own principles and perimeters. Neither does it countenance for a moment any flagrant desertion of Bible passages and principles, which must be openly and forcefully exposed and reproved (Eph. 5:11).

Why Division Does Not Occur

Why will such questions and issues as the 21 points listed above generally not generate inevitable and widespread division? The four earmarks of approaching, unavoidable division are simply not present in the nature of these points.

1. Instead of repudiating and re-placing the fundamental rule, base lines, or perimeters given by Jesus, all parties to the discussion make their appeal directly to the rule of one man for one woman for life, the only exception being that the innocent party can divorce the fornicator and marry another person. One or both of the parties to the discussion may be in some measure inconsistent with the principle to which each appeals, but they share equally a common commitment to a common principle. General division is not likely to occur when brethren share a common playing field of truth and differ only as to whether a given situation constitutes an infraction of the rules shared by all. If some inadvertent infraction does occur, it is not likely to spread and eventual correction is likely because all parties continue to uphold the same standard.

2. None of the parties to such discussions argues that divine silence permits people to do anything. Everyone appeals to positive divine authority in the arguments presented. One or both parties might misunderstand the proper application of a text to a given situation, and sin might or might not occur as a result, depending on the nature of the point involved. In any case, even where sin occurs, there is a strong likelihood that the mistake eventually will be discovered because of the constant emphasis upon testing all things by the standard of positive authority. In the meantime, no destructive repudiation of the basic premise of Bible authority has been introduced. All parties agree that we must have positive authority for what we preach and practice, and that silence prohibits, and their method of argumentation reflects their common commitment to that basic premise.

3. The observation of many years confirms that nothing in the arguments of brethren who differ on these matters is breeding looseness on other moral issues. Brethren on either side of such questions are equally strong in warning about the dangers of such worldly practices as immodest dress, gambling, dancing, and drinking intoxicants. This is because there has been no weakening in commitment to fundamental principles of truth, including unpopular truth contained in the hard sayings of our Lord (John 6:60).

4. Fellowship is rarely a problem in an atmosphere which encourages open study and discussion on any issue in the light of God’s Word. God gives us time to grow in understanding and application of truth and brethren generally forebear with each other in recognition that we are all striving to grow. God will not tolerate the persistent practice of any sin and neither can we (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6). Not all issues involve sin, and even where the potential for sin exists, God’s word has a tremendous power to correct our misconceptions and to lead us away from sin. Any number of questions and issues like the 21 points listed above have not created formal divisions because all parties involved have maintained their willingness to patiently study and discuss such matters from time to time in the light of divine truth (Heb. 5:14; 2 Pet. 3:18).

Sharing a common commitment to truth, common Bible principles on specific subjects, and a common willingness to study differences of understanding in some areas of application, we can maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). In this atmosphere, brethren have been united on the subjects, action, and purpose of baptism. Because we share those Bible principles, differences over where people are baptized (running water or pools) and over what to say when baptizing have not divided us. The Bible has united us on the organization of the church with elders to oversee and deacons to serve. Sharing those principles, we discuss without dividing over some of the finer points of elders’ qualifications (must he have more than one child? what if wife dies after appointment?). We are united by Scripture on the day, the elements, and the meaning of the Lord’s supper, but continue to discuss such things as the time of day and whether it can be provided more than once on the Lord’s Day. By the same token, we can be united on the Bible principles laid down in passages such as Matthew 19:9 while continuing to discuss some difficult points of application without dividing. To bear with such differences does not mean we must tolerate sprinkling, women elders, a Tuesday Lord’s supper, or theories that flagrantly violate the doctrine of Christ on marriage!

This spirit of open study also helps us to recognize areas of application in which we may be off the mark. For in-stance, during the years when brethren were studying the whole complex of issues related to institutionalism and centralization, some brethren who basically were standing for the truth gradually came to recognize inconsistencies between the truth they preached and defended and a few points of application. Some who preached the principles of truth had gone along with the church support of orphanages with-out closely examining the matter, and others had participatedin small-scale sponsoring church arrangements such as the Music Hall Meetings in Houston, Texas. Still others had never carefully considered whether the local church was authorized to help alien sinners, but in time they saw that such was excluded by principles of truth they had always preached. Brethren who were preaching the fundamental principles of truth in some cases realized that they were inconsistent with that truth in some points of application, and they had to change either their preaching or their practice. Those who continued to preach the truth corrected their practice, and those who were determined to justify their practice at all costs changed their preaching and went into apostasy. Those who are truly committed to the fundamentals of truth have nothing to fear from open study. While bearing with each other and examining various points of application, they are able to help one another make corrections in their course from time to time.

Where there are open Bibles and open hearts, wherever people sincerely search the Scriptures daily whether these things are so, when brethren truly believe that truth has nothing to fear from investigation, where both sides of controversial issues can be openly examined, we can and will maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21; Eph. 4:1-3). Brethren must maintain open pulpits where both sides of controversial questions can be heard and examined. Sin and false doctrine do not thrive in such an atmosphere, and are sooner or later choked out or driven out by it.

False teachers want toleration of their teaching without examination of their theories, which makes division inevitable (1 Cor. 11:19; 1 John 2:19). They want “open pulpits” where virtually anything can be advocated without review and reproof. Brethren who have honest differences within the context of a common commitment to test all things by truth do not thwart the process of study and growth by demanding the right to teach certain things with an exemption from examination. Rather than to divide, they draw closer and closer together in the process of study and growth. Such is the power of God’s word working in our lives, as can be seen when Peter faltered and was corrected (Gal. 2:1-14).

We can maintain the unity mandated by God. We must recognize and expose apostate movements which depart from the faith and divide the people of God. Do not be deceived by the ploy that our opposition to the false doctrines and false teachers of apostate movements will doom us to divide over every difference we may have with brethren who are as genuinely committed to upholding the truth as we are.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 16-18
September 5, 1996

By Larry Ray Hafley

Words are vehicles of thought. They are signposts of ideas. The Lord and the Spirit made arguments that turned on the tense of a verb (Matt. 22:32). Words matter (John 21:22, 13). Terms are important (Gal. 3:16). Indeed, they are so significant that one’s eternal destiny may rest upon their proper use (Rom. 3:8; 2 Pet. 3:16). Therefore, “Take heed how ye hear” (Luke 8:18). Also, “Take heed what ye hear” (Mark 4:24). In summary, “Take heed how you hear what you hear.”

The misuse and abuse of words is an ancient error. Isaiah warned, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20). As it was done then, so it is being done today.

Righteousness: Obey God’s Word

God sets the standard, the rule of righteousness. His pattern of purity must be followed in order for one to be regarded or reckoned as righteous. Upon what basis was it determined that Zacharias and Elizabeth were “both righteous before God”? That “they were both righteous before God” was demonstrated by the fact that they were “walking in the commandments and ordinances of God blameless” (Luke 1:6). Since “all (God’s) commandments are righteousness,” those who obey them are “righteous,” while those who do not obey them are unrighteous (Ps. 119:172; Rom. 2:8).

“And it shall be our righteousness , if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us” (Deut. 6:25). Reverse that verse: “And we shall be unrighteous, if we fail to observe all these commandments.” Hence, Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 6:25 define 1 John 3:7: “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” “In every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (Acts 10:35).

Therefore, if one desires to appear righteous, but does not want to obey God’s word, he must find a way to alter or change that word. One way to do this is to redefine the terms. By using the words God used, but by subtilly changing their meaning, one may seem to be doing what God said. He may be declared “righteous before God” in the sight of men.

The Subtle Shift

This process is commonly used to support and sustain denominational, doctrinal deviations. From psallo (“to sing”) to baptizo (“to immerse”), words have been redefined in order to establish a false doctrine. If “singing” includes “playing on a mechanical instrument,” pianos and organs are authorized in worship. If it can be made to appear that baptism is either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, then “sprinkling” is scriptural baptism. Further, to speak in tongues is the ability to speak a foreign language one has never learned “as the Spirit (gives) utterance” (Acts 2:4-11). However, if “tongues” are redefined as ecstatic, emotional outbursts, one may be accredited with the ability to “speak in tongues just like they did in the Bible!” Illustrations of such variations of words abound. Allow one to define the terms of the proposition, and he often can establish the truth of his position. Thus, one could practice sprinkling for baptism, play the organ in worship, and “speak in tongues,” and do it all with the authority of God Al-mighty! Most Christians are familiar with these attempts to redefine righteousness.

Modern Redefinitions Of Righteousness

Drunks and dope addicts are no longer sinners in need of repentance, redemption, recovery, and reception by the righteous. No, they are not “sinners”; they simply have a “disease,” or a “chemical dependency” tendency which they likely “inherited” through no fault of their own. Is homosexuality a heinous, horrible sin? Is it “against nature,” contrary to all standards of decency and morality? No, it is now “an alternative life style,” with no sin or shame to be attached, and if you think otherwise, you are a “mean spirited” bigot. When a young girl has a child out of wedlock, has she sinned, being guilty of the sin of fornication? No, you insensitive, hateful brute; she has simply taken up “single parenting.” When a Hollywood star fathers a child with one of his harem, has he committed fornication, and is he guilty of immorality? No, you Victorian, puritan prude, you; he has simply fathered a “love child.”

You see, folks, if we redefine the terms, anything be-comes acceptable and righteous. There is no shame and condemnation when fornication is given vindication (see Isa. 5:20 cited above). Why have homosexuals felt free to “come out of the closet?” Why are people proudly living together without marriage? It is because there is now no shame attached to those forms of behavior. Homosexuals have not become bold. No, the door was opened to their closet by those who say that “loving, committed couples” may be men with men, or women with women. When the social and spiritual stigma was removed, the immoral felt free to flaunt their depravity as those who count it sport to revel in the day (2 Pet. 2:13). All such sinners used to run and hide like a cockroach when the light is turned on, but they no longer do so. Why? Because they are now more brazen and bold than their predecessors? No, but because righteousness has been redefined, they now feel comfortable to “work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph. 4:19). When the climate is right, one goes outside. Likewise, when the moral climate was “right,” or favorable, men brought their hidden works of darkness outside. They openly glory in their shame because they are not scorned as once they were.

How does God define “family”? “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:5). In part, at least, a family is seen as “father and mother” and children, or as a “man … and his wife.” This is what God ordered and ordained as family. What is “family” today? A “family” today may be two men living together like maggots on a cow pile. They may force you to rent your property to them lest you be sued for “discrimination.” They may even adopt and raise children. They may be given “sick leave” from work to care for their “mate.”

What has occurred? “Family” has been redefined. Hence, two lesbian women’s relationship is now “sanctified,” and they may enjoy the blessings and benefits which have traditionally been reserved for a scriptural “family.” And who are the immoral, hate-filled, narrow minded bigots? They are people like you who would dare oppose this “loving, committed family.” Every man has become a law unto himself (Jud. 21:25). Values are determined, not by a heavenly Father, but by an earthly feeling, by what we want. Still, though, echoing down the corridors of time, there come the ringing words, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Despite man’s cleansing of the outside of the cup and the platter, the searing words of judgment burn in our ears when the wise man saith, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12).

Adultery: Redefining Righteousness

As with baptism and tongues, if we can redefine the term, “adultery,” we can seek to make righteous that which is an abomination in the sight of God. Adultery, some argue, is simply the breaking of a marriage contract. It is not, they say, sexual sin, or unlawful sexual intercourse with the spouse of another. So, one may repent for having broken his initial marriage vows and keep the second or third wife and not be guilty of the sin of adultery. Presto! The marriage to “another” without the cause of fornication is now legitimized and authorized. The participants are as “righteous” as Adam and Eve were in their union. How did these formerly adulterous marriages achieve their righteous connotation and escape a just condemnation? Simple. “Adultery” was simply redefined. It is the same way a Catholic justifies his sprinkling, a Christian Church preacher authorizes his piano, and a Pentecostal verifies his “tongues.” Change the meaning of the terms, and righteousness has been redefined.

Never mind that Jesus said that to look and lust was to commit “adultery” in one’s heart (Matt. 5:28). (Did Jesus mean by “adultery” that one was merely tempted to break a marriage contract, or did he mean that one was contemplating sexual sin?) Forget the woman who was “taken in adultery in the very act” (John 8:3). (Was she caught in the act of breaking a contract, or in sexual sin?) Ignore the expression describing those who have “eyes full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14). (Were they only interested in getting a divorce, or were they intent on sexual sin?) Dismiss the fact that God will judge adulterers, those who have “defiled” the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4). (Will he judge those who have simply broken a marital vow, or will he condemn those who were guilty of sexual sin?)

Redefining Local Church Autonomy

Local church autonomy! How precious is the concept to those who love the truth, and most especially to those who have come through a long and prolonged fight to maintain it. However, one may wrest and twist the principle of “church autonomy” to make it include items that do not belong. When gospel preachers are criticized and forbid-den to preach the whole counsel of God regarding any Bible subject, lest they be guilty of violating local church autonomy, righteousness has been redefined. When gospel preachers refuse to preach the whole counsel of God on any Bible subject, and declare that they will not do so lest they violate local church autonomy, something is rotten up the creek. What has transpired? (1) A truly Biblical doctrine has been wrested and redefined; (2) The Spirit has been quenched (1 Thess. 5:19); (3) The word of God has not been allowed to have “free course” (2 Thess. 3:1); (4) The truth has been hindered (Rom. 1:18); (5) A preacher has sold out to compromise and equivocation (Cf. 2 Cor. 4:2); (6) Righteousness has been redefined, and unholy hearts and hands have profaned the pristine purity of the word of God.

Did David Lipscomb violate local church autonomy when he preached against pianos and organs in worship and demanded that they be refused? Did Roy Cogdill, James W. Adams, James P. Needham, Cecil Willis, W.R. Jones, Carrol Sutton, Connie W. Adams and an unnumbered host of others violate local church autonomy when they crossed the country, preaching and debating against the errors of institutionalism and urged churches not to contribute to “orphan homes”and Herald Of Truth? If so, someone needs to repent and apologize. If not, preaching the truth does not violate local church autonomy.

Consider this: When one says that preaching on certain Bible subjects and insisting that men conform their lives to the truth is a violation of local church autonomy, are they violating the autonomy of local churches who do not agree with their assessment? They meet themselves coming back. They are saying that churches must not put up with preachers who will preach on controversial subjects and demand that men obey the truth. When they do teach, are they not guilty of violating the autonomy of those churches that re-quire that “all truth” be taught and that all submit to it?

Men may plead for local church autonomy in preaching when they have a doctrine they do not want to have examined (John 3:20, 21). So what do they do? They simply redefine the meaning of “local church autonomy.” In this way, they seek to bar you from preaching against an error they secretly harbor, or against the teaching of an erring friend whom they endorse. Whether the issue denied in-volves morals, modesty, Mormons, marriage, or Methodism, it is another case of attempting to redefine righteousness by perverting the concept of local church autonomy. Regard-less of their motives, the result is that truth is hobbled and error is coddled when men hide behind the skirt of “local church autonomy” in order to prevent the preaching of the whole counsel of God.

As in every case cited, whether in or out of the church, men who want to retain their righteous standing, but who also want to accept some form of error, will invariably seek to redefine Bible words. To hold to their error, they must give it a “form of godliness.” They think that by redefining righteousness they are still righteous. They will fool and deceive some who will be carried away with their dissimulation (Gal. 2:14; Col. 2:8). But it is a lie; it is not “the way of righteousness”; it is not “the right way;” it is not “the way of truth,” and they will be damned who love and make a lie (Matt. 15:14; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; Rev. 21:27).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 20-22
September 5, 1996

By Walton Weaver

To say that Jesus Christ came into the world is simply to affirm an historical fact. The manner of his coming is a much more complex subject, but Scripture itself affirms that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and that “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). We accept as fact what Scripture itself affirms about the incarnation of Christ, and make no attempt to address the more complex questions associated with that subject. Our aim is briefly to touch on the question, why? Why did Jesus Christ come into the world? And even on this question we must limit the scope of our inquiry. There are reasons for his coming that are beyond the purpose of this article. Our study will be limited to four reasons which the Bible gives for Christ’s coming into the world. Each of these pertains directly to our salvation.

To Do The Father’s Will

Jesus himself said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). He came to do “the works of Him who sent Me,” and yet he had only a brief time in which to do them  a period described by him as “while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). Though he did many “works” all of which were a part of the Father’s will, there was one work in particular that was to be the ultimate outcome of all of these works. The last week of his life, and in anticipation of his death, he said, “I have finished the work which You have given me to do” (John 17:4). His statement looks back upon his life as brought to a perfect end by the sacrifice of himself which he was about to make. On the cross he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), no doubt meaning that he had accomplished the work he had come into the world to do. God had prepared a body for him that he might offer himself to God in a very special way (Heb. 10:5). This offering of himself upon the cross was the ultimate goal of all that he had come into the world to accomplish.

God did not desire the sacrifices and offerings made under the law, but he prepared a body for Christ that he might come and do the Father’s will “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). To this end, Jesus affirmed, “I have come  In the volume of the book it is written of Me  To do Your will, 0 God” (Heb. 10:7). The Hebrew writer had already said, “who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and was heard because of his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:7-9). Christ was obedient to the Father’s will in every respect. His perfect obedience qualified him to be offered up as a sin offering to God. His resolve to completely do the Father’s will is best illustrated in the length to which he was willing to go in the offering up of himself on the cross for us. Paul makes this point when he says that he “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).

To Reveal The Father

Christ is the only one whose testimony of the Father involved an immediate apprehension of him. He is the only one to have himself observed the Father. The very fact that he “came down from heaven” (John 3:13) enabled him to bear witness to what he had “seen” with his Father (John 5:19; 6:46; 8:38) and what he had “heard” from him (John 8:26, 28, 40; 14:10, 24; 15:15  the same was true of the Holy Spirit, John 16:13). While he was in the world the same relation which he had all along with the Father continued. He continued to be “with” the Father who sent him (John 8:16, NKJV). His judgment was true because he was not alone; it was the Father’s judgment as well as his own because his relation to the Father was such that whatever he said the Father also said. Christ’s judgment was not merely a human judgment; it was a divine judgment because of his unique relation to the Father. His judgment was God’s judgment be-cause he was one with the Father. Is this not but another way of saying that whatever he spoke and whatever he did he spoke and acted as one with the Father because his very nature required that he speak and act as one with him (Heb. 1:3)? This is what he meant when he said that he could of himself do nothing (John 5:19, 30  nor could the Holy Spirit speak “of himself’  John 16:13).

This unique relation with the Father enabled Jesus to perfectly declare the Father unto us. This was another reason for his coming into the world. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Again, the unique relation of the unique Son of God (lit., in the earliest manuscripts, “the only begotten God”) to the Father is what is affirmed. The words “who is in the bosom of the Father” suggest an abiding closeness between the Father and the Son. It is Christ’s intimacy with the Father while he was declaring him that is being described, and yet what is said describes what is permanently true of Christ. Alvah Hovey quotes Luke as pointing out that the “timeless present participle is here used, like the finite present in 1 John 3:3, 7, to express an inherent, permanent relation of the only begotten Son to the Father” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 69). Because of this ever abiding relation to the Father, John says that Christ is the one who has declared him or made him known. What has been declared is what Christ knew by being in the bosom of the Father. Christ had immediate and intuitive knowledge of God (John 8:55). This could be affirmed of no other. Only the Son has such knowledge of the Father (see Matt. 11:27). He alone could say when asked of Philip, “Lord, show us the Father,” that “he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). He was declaring the Father unto us in his every word and action.

To Destroy the Works of the Devil

John says, “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Both Jesus and other writers of our New Testament also had much to say about this same problem and how Jesus’ coming into the world was meant to deal with it. Questions on the origin, nature and consequences of sin, on the one hand, and the nature of God and how he must deal with sin, on the other, are central to the subject of salvation and why Jesus Christ came into the world. These are not new subjects; they are not first introduced in the New Testament. From the very beginning the problem of sin was present. God’s hatred for sin had also been demonstrated again and again throughout the Old Testament period. When John affirms that “the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil,” he is simply announcing what is God’s last effort to overthrow the power sin, and what is more important, what proves to be his triumphant act in accomplishing that fact.

With the lifting up of Christ on the cross a certain judgment would be brought against this world (John 12:31a). The ruler of this world would be cast out (John 12:31b). Jesus would through his lifting up draw all men unto him-self (John 12:32). “That world remained God’s world, even though it had become disintegrated by sin and had tried to organize itself without reference to its Creator, and in con-sequence stood under His judgment. But Jesus lifted on the cross, the supreme expression of the invincible power of divine love, would draw to himself like a magnet all who accepted in faith His victory over sin and evil; and over against all such believers the world and its prince would be impotent” (R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 150). Jesus Christ and the cross is the Christian’s victory over the world. To those who are called the cross is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). Though Christ died in weakness, he is mighty in us (2 Cor. 13:3-4). John assures his readers that they are of God and have overcome those who have the spirit of Antichrist “be-cause He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:3-4). No Old Testament saint ever had such strong incentive to be an overcomer.

To Take Away Sins

Not only did Jesus come to destroy the works of the devil in our lives, but he was also “manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:5). Sin is a transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Sin reaps the wage of death (Rom. 6:23), or separates one from God (Isa. 59:1-2). The sacrifices of the law could not remit sins (Heb. 10:1-4) and bring sinful man back into God’s favor. A better offering was required; yet it must be a blood offering, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). The better offering was the blood of Jesus Christ. We may now be “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28). Christ “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). We were redeemed by the “precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …” (Gal. 3:13); God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Such an offering was necessary in order that God might be just: ” . . . For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:22b-26). All men had broken God’s law. All were lawbreakers. The penalty was spiritual death, eternal separation from God. God had allowed this condition to continue all during the Old Testament period. No provision to take away sins had been provided. The demand of the law for punishment had to be met. God sent his Son to suffer the penalty for our sins. In his death upon the cross the just demands of the law had been met. God is just in saving those who believe. Christ’s sacrifice also made provision for those under the First Covenant (Heb. 9:15). Through the provisions of the New Covenant we have the assurance that “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The testimony of John the Baptist is, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin on the world!” (John 1:29).

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 1
January 4, 1996

By Kim Dobbs

Was I, like Esther, put here “for such a time as this”? A weary heart to comfort? A skinned up knee to kiss?

Should I take the time to stop and speak to them today? Oh, it’s not that important. I’ll do it another day.

Am I the one that God expects to teach my new-found friend?

Or maybe there is someone else that he has planned to send.

Maybe there’s someone I know drowning in despair. Am I the one God’s counting on to show them someone cares?

Is there someone that I know being led astray?

Am I the one to take the time to talk to them today?

A lonely person that I know that simply sits for hours: Am I the one to call or send a card or maybe flowers?

Is there a lonely child I know that needs some special care?

Do you think God has put me here to show some loving care?

Am Ito use my influence to change some moral wrong? Yes, I think God expects me to, so now I must be strong.

I must look for opportunities to heal, to help, to save. And “if for such a time as this,” like Esther, I must be brave.

Guardian of Truth XL: 8 p. 4
April 18, 1996