Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Everyone is agreed that there needs to be a balanced diet of preaching. We must preach positively every promise of God and emphasize every moral attribute that needs to be developed in man’s character. A gospel preacher should be equally concerned to preach against every sin and false doctrine that assaults the Lord’s people and his church. He should make specific application of divine principles to current practices to leave no one in doubt about what God’s word says on that subject. I believe that Guardian of Truth should be a balanced journal and have worked diligently as its editor for 18 years to be sure that it is and remains balanced.

Am I Balanced?

Every man who occupies the pulpit and teaches a Bible class needs to conduct a good self-examination on a regular basis to see whether or not he is balanced in his pulpit work, bulletin articles, Bible classes, articles contributed to journals such as Guardian of Truth, etc. to be sure that he does not become obsessed with any one particular issue. Sometimes the charge is made that the editor and Guardian of Truth are obsessed with the divorce and remarriage issue.

I am perfectly willing to lay my work before brethren to ascertain whether or not that is so. The pulpit work that I do is really not available for our critics to judge. They are not present at the local congregation where I preach so they are unqualified to condemn or approve. I might also admit that I am not present where they preach, so the only thing any of us can judge is the written works of each other. Turning to my writings to see whether or not I am balanced, I list these published works:

A Commentary on First Corinthians

A Commentary on Galatians

We Gather Together (A Study of Worship)

Workbooks in the Bible Textbook Series: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Luke (several other books in these series are in the works  Deuteronomy through Esther)

Several tracts on a variety of subjects

In addition to these, I have edited a revision of Walking With God (Pre-school through Primary) and am working on a similar revision of Truth in Life (Pre-school through Primary). In addition to these works which I have personally written, I have been deeply involved in editing the Truth Commentary series.

A review of my editorials for 1994 shows the following list of topics discussed:

The Work Ethic Pray For the Sick

The Gospel in Secular America continued on page 754

continued from pag” 738

Balanced Preaching .. .

Jesus’ Attitude Toward His Enemies For Our Sports Fans

The Wrath of God Is Revealed From Heaven (1-4)

The Value of a Preacher Training Program

Just One Daughter

Dr. Kevorkian and Job

Playing Possum

The Bible Basis For Unity (1-2) Feminist Issues and the Church

The Restoration Plea: An Appeal for Bible Unity Fundamental Axioms for Unity My Heart Is Enlarged

The Grace of Giving

A fair reading of those titles and articles should confirm that there has been a wide variety of subjects discussed in the editorial slot for 1994.

The next time you hear someone say that the editor of Guardian of Truth or the magazine itself is unbalanced, investigate for yourself whether or not the charge is true. I am perfectly willing to place Guardian of Truth side-by-side with any other journal published among us to see whether or not it is balanced. I am willing to compare my work and that of our staff writers with that of any of the editors and their staff among us with reference to balance.

What Is Hiding

Behind the Criticism?

The charge that Guardian of Truth is not balanced is usually generated by those who do not like something published reviewing and exposing the false doctrines on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, false plans of unity (such as loose teaching on Romans 14 as applied to moral and doctrinal error), women in the business meetings, and other troublesome issues among us.

Being balanced is a two-edged sword. What is required of Guardian of Truth and its staff writers needs to be applied equally to others. Can a preacher, editor, staff writer, or paper truthfully be balanced when it never exposes the false teachings and teachers of our day? Examine some of those condemning Guardian of Truth as unbalanced by asking: (a) When was the last time I read an article in this journal or read an article from this man that called attention to the loose doctrine on fellowship which places the divorce and remarriage issue in the category of Romans 14? (b) When was the last time I read an article in this journal that exposed the false teachings of such books on divorce and remarriage as those of Olan Hicks, Homer Hailey, and Jerry Bassett? (c) When was the last time I read a review of the A.D. 70 doctrine in this journal? (d) When was the last time I saw an article in this journal that exposed the fallacy of the “preach Jesus and let everyone alone” approach to preaching? (e) When was the last time I read a review of the errors in the “preach Christ not the church” approach to preaching? (f) When was the last time I read an article from them contrasting the Lord’s church (revealed religion) with the denominations of men (unrevealed religion)? If you have not read any material on these subjects in recent months (or years), or, if virtually every-thing you read in reference to such subjects is complaint and criticism about those who openly oppose those errors, perhaps the journal you are reading is the one that is not balanced!

Sometimes what is hiding behind the criticism of “not balanced” is a loose view of some subject that has been re-viewed in Guardian of Truth. What is desired is not balanced preaching, but preaching that never exposes some subjects, such as loose views on divorce and remarriage, or placing moral and doctrinal error in the realm of Romans 14. When even one article appears ex-posing these loose doctrines, that is too much. Sometimes what is hiding behind the criticism that Guardian of Truth is not balanced is a loose position on these or some other issues.

If a journal published approximately 300 articles a year, how many would be too many on loose views about divorce and remarriage or loose views about fellowship with moral and doctrinal error? Look at our index under these subjects and see how we did. We have been balanced. This is also a good time to look at the index of other journals to see if they have been balanced. Were there any articles published in those journals that exposed loose views on divorce and remarriage, unity-in-diversity with moral and doctrinal error, and other current problems among us?

Conclusion

The next time you read an article by this editor or some other writer among us reviewing false doctrine being promulgated, remember that Guardian of Truth is presenting a balanced diet of materials on a wide range of subjects. We are publishing a journal that contains both positive and negative material in balanced proportions. Treat the material as you would want any of us to treat yours. When you see an article reviewing error, consider the author as a balanced man who has seen a danger that he feels con-science bound to warn others about. Read it with the understanding that this good, honest and sincere brother deserves the same hearing you want for yourself.

When you hear someone criticizing Guardian of Truth as being out of balance, ask yourself how balanced the critic has been. Has he ever publicly reviewed (either in a journal, a bulletin, or his sermons) the false teachings of those who are a threat to God’s people? Or is the critic able to mingle among the false teachers without ever exposing their false doctrines and practices? Does he hold meetings year after year in congregations known to be taking a false position on some issue, such as divorce and remarriage, without publicly exposing the doctrine? Perhaps the reason he thinks others are out of balance is his judgment is skewed by the angle to which he is leaning.

If he thinks that the editor or writer did a poor job in exposing the pernicious doctrine under review, encourage him to write his own article reviewing the same error and submit it for publication. If he can answer the false doctrines and false teachers of our day in a better manner than the author did in the article that was published, we will be delighted to publish his material. And, I can assure you,that I will add my hearty “amen” to his work. You won’t find me on the sideline taking pot shots at him for doing the work, because I know how it feels to be hit by pot shots.

May we all strive to conduct and measure our work by the New Testament standard of preaching and not by the passing whims and fancies of the age in which we live.

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim. 4:2-3).

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:13).

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).

When we do our best, we can still expect some criticism. We should not be overly sensitive about it, and we can even try to learn from constructive criticism, but then we must also press on and “preach the word.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 2
December 15, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

(This concludes a two-part study of C. Leonard Allen’s The Cruciform Church.Faulty reasoning (non-sequiturs) by the author presents a warped view of the gospel and the church of Christ. If this is representative of the thinking among liberal brethren, there is little wonder as to the source of a “new hermeneutic” and its effect upon churches who adopt it.)

Non Sequitur: Doctrine Idolatry

I am sure that there are some folks somewhere who elevate doctrine to idolatry and who worship the Bible, considering it a talisman to ward off evil spirits. But I must confess that I have not heard such teaching among my brethren. Leonard Allen claims to have heard it a lot.

This non sequitur states that “Even the Bible itself or our own religious tradition can become idols” (p. 88). “It becomes an idol when our faith becomes focused on Scripture rather than in the God Scripture reveals to us.” He feels compell0d to remind us that “Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ” (p. 89). This knowledge is too much! We are awed by such pearls of wisdom. Actually, such smugness of religious superiority does little to commend him. It does not follow that an obedience of doctrine dethrones Jesus (1 John 5:3). It does not follow that a faithful compliance with Scripture elevates it to “doctrine-idolatry” (p. 89). Must it be “either/or” with regard to Christ and Scripture? Can it not (must it not) be “both/and” Christ and his message?

It is not true that since God does “impossibilities” (wonders, miracles), we cannot read the Bible with our “analytic-technical” mindset and grasp what God is doing. The God who does “impossibilities” is the God who has spoken to us in an accommodative way (human language) and requires obedience (Matt. 7:21).

Non Sequitur: The Displaced Cross

According to brother Allen, no other subject comes anywhere near the importance of this one. His charge: “First, as we shall see, `the word of the cross’ has beensignificantly displaced in the history of Churches of Christ. Throughout the four generations since Stone and Campbell we have tended to push the cross into the background and thus to proclaim an anemic and distorted gospel” (p. 113).

That this is a faulty premise (before we look at the unwarranted conclusions) can be seen from Allen’s definition of the “word of the cross.” Falling into the same error as C. H. Dodd (seen in Allen’s bibliography), Carl Ketcherside and others before him, Allen limits “the word of the cross” or the “gospel” to something vaguely defined as the “core message” or “apostolic kerygma” that somehow “underlies the New Testament writings” (p. 114). Whether or not Allen knows it, Dodd is a modernist, denying the inspiration of Scripture. Yet Dodd is cited by many as an authority on this disputed “core gospel.” While some demand five or more facts in this core gospel, Ketcherside required seven: birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and coronation of Jesus. No doctrines or commands are included in this gospel. Dodd claimed to have identified passages that taught this “core gospel” before redactors polluted the gospel with doctrinal demands. Dodd’s (and Ketcherside’s) theology was “faith only” (baptism is a command and not a part of the gospel) with salvation being secured by the acceptance of this “gospel” for justification. After one is saved, he may or may not accept some “doctrines” for sanctification but no doctrinal flaw would interfere with justification or limit fellowship with those who accepted the deity of Christ based on the core gospel.

Allen’s premise is that the “gospel” is limited, by definition, to the facts of Jesus’ atoning work; preaching the “word of the cross” is specific to those alone. Preaching from the epistles would not be preaching the “gospel.” Allen’s unwarranted conclusion, based on this faulty premise of “gospel,” is that many of us have displaced the “word of the cross.” If one allows his egregious definition, he is right. But Peter, Paul and James would also be guilty, and that suggests the fault lies with Allen’s definitions and not our preaching.

“Allen, like Don Quixote, tilts at windmills, because he doesn’t understand true gospel preaching. To him, preaching about baptism, the church, the Lord’s Supper, marriage and divorce, or any doctrinal matter (including, conceivably, the deity of Christ as doctrine) is not preaching `the cross.’

Allen, like Don Quixote, tilts at windmills, because he doesn’t understand true gospel preaching. To him, preaching about baptism, the church, the Lord’s supper, marriage and divorce, or any doctrinal matter (including, conceivably, the deity of Christ as doctrine) is not preaching “the cross.” Therefore he flays about like one possessed, decrying the lack of cross-centered preaching.

No one who is a Bible believer would argue about the necessity of putting Christ as both center and circumference of our faith and practice. Bring out all the superlatives and they fail to do justice to God’s love in Christ on Calvary. But Allen has no corner on the market in appreciating the Savior. We, too, understand atonement, justification, sacrifice and propitiation. He chastises with-out reason for a perceived displacement of Christ’s passion on the cross when the fault lies with his imperfect working hypothesis of the “word of the cross.”

This ill-conceived notion, however absurd, is illustrated when Allen applies his theory to the giants of the Restoration period (Campbell, Stone, Brents, Lard, etc.). They were not “cross centered” in their writing and preaching, we are told. Ignoring the fact that preaching the “word of the cross” includes “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) by testifying “to the gospel of the grace of God” (v. 24), Allen tilted at Campbell’s The Millennial Harbinger and Brents’ The Gospel Plan of Salvation as being “preoccupied with form, structure, and the setting in order of what was lacking” (p. 117), thus displacing the “word of the cross.” Brother Allen gives little weight to the fact that sectarians of that period readily agreed with Campbell and others as to the atoning work of Jesus and the central place he occupied in their faith. He seems oblivious to the fact that there were volumes of things keeping sectarians in spiritual bondage that needed to be addressed. It might be comfortable for Allen to sit in his ivory tower at Abilenein 1990 and second guess the pioneers as they fought daily battles for truth in 1840. But those stalwart men waged battles with the sword of the Spirit and did not tilt at windmills. It is ungracious, at this late date, with Calvin-ism (the error they opposed) on the rise, for anyone to promote fellowship with the very people Campbell and others fought. Much less is it gracious for those in non-institutional churches (sound preachers) today to parrot these unfounded charges against Campbell and Brents, using the same faulty definitions of gospel and doctrine as they relate to the word of the cross. The only thing “distorted and anemic” in this context is the fact that some will not preach the word of the cross in the biblical sense, being “ashamed” (Rom. 1:16) of the full proclamation as too negative, too legalistic, too unloving. Allen should not be too lonely in his ivory tower or tilting at windmills.

Non Sequitur: Covenant or Contract

In no other place of his book does Allen reveal his ignorance of the Bible more than when he contrasts covenant (gospel) and contract (doctrine). He charged that under Campbell (and others) “the gospel of grace became a gospel of duty, law, and perfect obedience. Covenant, we might say became contract. . . Consider the difference between covenant and contract. Though similar in some ways, they differ radically in spirit. A contract defines a precise set of relationships and obligations, and if these are correctly observed then the contractual obligations are fully discharged and the benefits fully received.

“But covenant in the biblical sense is far different” (p. 122).

Further, “God’s covenant with people, unlike a contract, always arises out of grace…. Contracts contain little room for slippage. . . God’s covenants, in contrast, always begin with an act of grace . . . because they are rooted in love and trust they contain elements of spontaneous giving and forgiving” (pp. 122, 123). It is difficult to know where to begin to correct such monstrous error.

True, the Law of Moses was a contract that required perfect obedience to merit salvation (Gal. 3:100, but faithful obedience was never condemned (cf: life of Abraham, Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:1 ff; etc.). The Law of Moses was also a covenant (Deut. 29:1; Jer. 31:31f; Heb. 8:8; 10:16; Exod. 24:3-10) that was a gift of God’s grace. On the other hand, the gospel of Christ is a law (Rom. 8:1-3; James 1:25), defining “a precise set of relationships and obligations” (Matt. 7:21; 2 John 9-11; 1 John 5:3).

We are under law today. It is no less law because it incorporates grace and forgiveness (Rom. 8:1-3). It is different from the Law of Moses in that it does not require perfection (provision for forgiveness implies sin, 1 John 1). Grace and law justification are mutually exclusive; but grace and obedience to the Law of Christ (gospel and doctrine) are inclusive of each other.

Brother Allen betrays his lack of knowledge even further by quoting from K. C. Moser (The Way of Salvation). Moser advocated Calvinism regarding the imputation of righteousness, the very thing Campbell, Stone, Brents and others were fighting to destroy. By quoting from Moser and his Calvinism (p. 123), Allen manifests ignorance as to the necessity of the Restoration battles and intimates his own Calvinist leanings. Had Leonard Allen lived during the Restoration era, he would, no doubt, have been on the opposite side from Campbell and those who were studying themselves out of Calvinistic error.

Non Sequitur: Spirit of the Age

By this time we should know that it is impossible to defeat the secularization of the world without the full message of the New Testament. The good news about Jesus’ deity, alone, will not suffice. It is impossible for one to be converted to Christ and to be motivated to godlyliving and self-denial without a knowledge of the “whole counsel.” When Paul wrote to Timothy, he spoke of doctrine which is “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:8-11). The doctrines of this gospel included the truth about the lawless and insubordinate, unholy and profane, murderers, fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, etc. While some might be too timid to preach like Paul, you can be sure that he preached the gospel. When Paul stood before Felix and spoke concerning “the faith in Christ,” he “reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come” (Acts 24:24-25). That is gospel preaching, “word of the cross” preaching, “core gospel” preaching and “doctrinal” preaching, one and the same. Gospel and doctrine are mutually inclusive; they are equally related to the sinner’s salvation and the saint’s edification.

Conclusion

This is not an exhaustive review of the errors made by brother Allen in The Cruciform Church. Such a review would require a line-by-line examination. What has been listed is supplied as a warning that faithful preachers should not be put on the defensive by charges that we are guilty of not preaching enough about the cross of Christ. Some conservative preachers are already parroting this line, inadvertently lending credence to this foolishness. Dangerous consequences are sure to follow when we incorporate unscriptural language in our writing and preaching. It is misleading, to say the least; divisive, at the worst. If we don’t want to be identified with these men and go where they are going, let’s don’t be guilty of duplicating their material. Likewise, it is a warning against falling prey to yet another fallacious distinction between gospel/doctrine, this one called cross/doctrine. Compromisers will never be comfortable under the scrutiny of the whole counsel of God. Let us not give them the edge by defining biblical terminology so as to bring doctrinal preaching into disfavor.

Those who love unity in diversity and who want to broaden the borders of fellowship with error will love this book. It has an air of scholarship and religiosity that will provide just the right touch. We urge all who read it to read carefully, with a Bible at their side “for we are not ignorant of the Devil’s devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 6-8
December 15, 1994

By Earl Kimbrough

For to this you were called, be-cause Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should walk in his steps: Who committed no sin, Nor was guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:21,22).

The word here used for “ex-ample” comes from Greek elementary education. It describes the way Greek boys learned to write. The exercise tablet was usually a shallow box filled with soft wax. A student wrote with a sharp stylus that was flat on the opposite end for erasing so the wax could be repeatedly used. The writing master prepared the student’s tablet by writing a line at the top to be reproduced by the student and by drawing parallel lines to keep the student’s work straight. The master’s line at the top was the “pattern” the boy must copy in his own hand in learning to write. Mature skill in handwriting required practice. Peter’s words show that Jesus’ suffering is not only redemptive. It is also an example that even slaves could imitate in suffering unjust treatment. Jesus as our example suggests four simple facts.

1. Jesus left us the perfect example. He is the perfect “writing copy” we must strive to reproduce in our own life. His sinless perfection is apparent from the couplet quoted from Isaiah 53:9  “Who committed no sin, Nor was guile found in his mouth.” While Peter refers especially to Jesus’ perfect example of patience in suffering, Isaiah spoke prophetically of the Lord’s absolute freedom from sin, as other writers and the history of Jesus’ life show. No other human ever lived without sin. Even the most righteous men are examples to others only as they follow Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1). Jesus lived above sin be-cause he had perfect self-control and because he had a perfect consciousness of God, being fully committed to him in all things.

The figure changes in the second clause (“that you should follow his steps”) to that of a guide. Jesus leads by his footprints. He is the perfectexample in all that he did and for all we must do in the service of God. He is perfect because “in him there is no sin” (1 Jn. 3:5) and he is our example because he commands us to follow him (Matt. 16:24).

2. Jesus is our example of right conduct. Walking in his steps does not mean that we do so perfectly. We achieve perfection only by the grace and mercy of God through submission to his will (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 3:21-26). Nor does it mean that we imitate Jesus in the things he did by virtue of his divine nature, as in receiving the homage of men. Moreover, following him does not require us to do all he did in the service of God. He lived as a Jew under the law of Moses, but we are free from the law (Rom. 7:4). Therefore, we cannot follow him in observing the precepts of Moses. “Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing . . . (and) you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:1-4). How, then, do we follow the example of Jesus?

(a) We imitate his manner of life. This is seen in the specific example Peter gives. We do not suffer on the cross and we cannot die for the sins of others. But following his manner of suffering unjustly for doing right, we catch his spirit and return love for hate. In his relation to God, Jesus put him first and served him faithfully. In his relation to men, he fulfilled every moral precept of the law perfectly. He was loving, compassionate, and merciful. He was gentle, patient, and kind. He was humble, forgiving, and submissive to his Father’s will. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus Christ” (Phil. 2:5). “Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:29).

(b) We follow Jesus in living by his word. Peter connects the example of Jesus to his role as “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25). The figurative use of “Shepherd” includes the idea of a teacher. “He will feed his flock like a shepherd” (Isa. 40:11). Jesus is not only our perfect example, he is also our perfect instructor. His teaching can no more be separated from his life than his example. We follow him in both. The latter refers to the teaching he left us in the New Testament (Matt. 19:28; Heb. 2:1-4).

3. Jesus intended for us to walk by his example. “For to this were you called . . . that you should walk in his steps.” Christians are called to God’s service through the gospel for the purpose of imitating Jesus in their lives. Those who think Christianity consists of anything less than imitating his teaching and example have missed the point. Sinners must understand this when they become Christians. “There-fore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). And Christians must never forget this commitment: “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).

4. Jesus’ example is more than a perfect pattern. Following him brings the blessings that make us perfect in him. It is in following him that we receive the benefits of his death. “… who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes we were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). We are saved from the power and punishment of sin when we obey the gospel (Mk. 16:15,16). Our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ when we are baptized into spiritual union with him (Acts 22:16; Rom. 5:9; 6:3,4). It is at this point that we are freed from the dominion of sin. And the hope of being free from the eternal punishment that awaits the unrighteous is a great motivation for us to live “soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Tit. 3:11,14). Jesus not only died to free us from the dominion of sin, but that we might “live for righteousness.”

There is another blessing provided by the perfect ex-ample of Christ. “For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25). The title “Shepherd” seems to identify Jesus with Ezekiel’s prophecy: “I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them  my servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd” (Ezek. 34:23). Jesus remains the perfect teacher and example for his people, providing them all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 2:1-4). “Overseer” is apparently used here in reference to Jesus’ protective oversight of those who walk in his steps. Following the perfect example of Jesus gives us assurance of eternal life. “Footprints of Jesus, That make the pathway glow; We will follow the steps of Jesus, Where’er they go.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 1
December 1, 1994

By Irvin Himmel

“Friend” is a term of endearment. It denotes that one is loved, dear, or trusted. It applies to one who associates familiarly as a companion.

Friendship Demonstrated

Jesus’ ministry on earth was a mission of friendship toward sinful humanity. His conduct as a friend was in striking contrast to the behavior of the religious leaders among the Jews.

1. He was a friend of social outcasts. The publicans collected taxes for the Roman government. Anyone who represented the Romans was despised and hated by most of the Jewish nation. On top of that, many of the publicans had the reputation of being extortionists. “The tax-gather, if a Jew, was a renegade in the eyes of his patriotic fellows. He paid a fixed sum for the taxes, and received for himself what he could over and above that amount. The ancient and widespread custom of arbitrariness was in the system” (International Bible Encyclopedia). The publicans were regarded as outcasts.

Jesus saw Matthew, a publican, seated at the receipt of custom, and said to him, “Follow me.” Later in Matthew’s house, Jesus and his disciples ate with many publicans and sinners. “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” asked the arrogant Pharisees. Jesus explained his association with these social outcasts by comparing his work to that of a doctor. “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick . . . I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matt. 9:9-13).

At Jericho, Jesus visited the house of the chief of the publicans, a little man named Zaccheus. That visit brought a blessing to Zaccheus. The friendship of Jesus was explained by the Master in these words: “For the Son of man is come to seek and save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:1-10).

2. He was a friend to the bereaved. Lazarus had been dead four days when Jesus and the disciples approached Bethany. Martha went out to meet the Lord. She remarked, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” Jesus assured her that Lazarus would rise again. She acknowledged that he would rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus explained, “I am the resurrection and the life.” Martha went her way and called her sister Mary secretly. Mary quickly went out to meet the Master. Many of the mourners followed her.

Jesus had deep feeling for Mary and Martha in their loss. The sadness of these two sisters and the weeping of others who had come to share their grief touched the heart of the Son of man. He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. He asked, “Where have ye laid him?” They said, “Come and see.” John reports tersely, “Jesus wept.” Then said the Jews, “Behold how he loved him!” (Jn. 11:17-36)

3. He was a friend of sinners. At the house of Simon a Pharisee, Jesus was approached by a sinful woman. She brought an alabaster box of ointment, stood at his feet behind him weeping, washing his feet with tears, wiping them with the hairs of her head, and kissing his feet, and anointing them with the ointment. Simon witnessed this and said in his heart, “This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for he is a sinner.” Jesus spoke to Simon and illustrated the sinful woman’s situation. He rebuked Simon for his own lack of hospitality and common courtesy. He demonstrated that he was a friend of sinners by saying to the woman, “Thy sins be forgiven thee” (Lk. 7:36-50).

On another occasion, the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman which they said they had caught in the act of adultery. The law said that such a person should be stoned. They desired to tempt and accuse Jesus by asking, “What sayest thou?” He replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” One by one they left the scene. When Jesus and the woman were left alone, he asked her, “Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She replied, “No man, Lord.” He said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” On. 8:1-11).

Some of the Master’s critics distorted his friendship toward publicans and sinners. They had found fault with John the Baptist because he came neither eating nor drinking, insisting that he had a demon, and when Jesus came both eating and drinking, they said, “Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” (Matt. 11:18,19). Jesus was not a friend of sinners in the sense of being a chum, buddy, pall, crony, or participant in their wickedness. In a much higher sense he was a real friend of sinners. Had he been a partaker in their sins, that higher friendship would not have been possible.

4. He was a friend of the disciples. When they needed rebuke, Jesus rebuked them. When certain Samaritans acted in a hostile manner, James and John wanted to command fire to come down and consume them. Jesus rebuked those two disciples for the spirit which they displayed, reminding them, “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Lk. 9:51-56).

When the disciples were frightened, Jesus calmed them. A violent storm on the Sea of Galilee covered with water the boat in which Jesus and the disciples were passengers. In excitement they awakened him, crying, “Lord, save us: we perish.” He replied, “Why are ye fearful, 0 ye of little faith?” He rebuked the winds and the sea; a hush settled on the sea. They marvelled! (Matt. 8:23-27)

When they were troubled and confused, Jesus said to the disciples, “Let not your heart be troubled…” (Jn. 14:1). Jesus loved his disciples in spite of their slowness to learn, their failings, and their lack of faith.

Our Friend Today

The friendship of Jesus is just as real and meaningful today as it was during his earthly ministry. His is an abiding friendship. Unlike a friend who abandons us when we need him most, we can count on our Lord to stand by us.

1. He is a friend who sympathizes. He understands our problems, our pressures, our predicaments, and our plight. Remember that in all points he was tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). His life in the flesh, his sufferings, his hunger and thirst, and his painful death qualify him to be our most sympathetic friend.

2. He is a friend who helps. He is our high priest. “Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:1,2).

3. He is a friend who restrains. Much of the teaching of Jesus is designed to control, check, bridle, and regulate. If his words seem too sharp and piercing, his commands too hard, remember the proverb which says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:6).

Friendship Is Reciprocal

Jesus is our friend, the dearest friend we shall ever have. He wants us to be his friends. He put it like this in John 15:14, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” Because he is our self-sacrificing and loving friend, we show our friendship toward him by faithfully obeying his commands. We are not his friends if we rebel against him, go beyond his word, live in a worldly manner, or disregard his authority as the Christ, the Son of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII No.23, p. 6-7
December 1, 1994