Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

In Luke 7:18-35 and the parallel account, Matthew 11:2-19, we read of the disciples of John coming to Jesus asking him if he was the coming one. Jesus worked miracles in their presence and told them to go tell John what they had seen. When the two disciples left, Jesus spoke to the multitudes about John. He asked them what they were expecting in John. Were they looking for a reed shaken in the wind, a man dressed in a king’s garment or a prophet? The Lord rebukes the multitude for not accepting the teaching of John and shows that this forerunner accomplished what God wanted from him.

Let’s look at some practical lessons that we learn from this text.

God Supplies Evidence For Our Conclusions

When the disciples of John asked Jesus if he was the Coming One or if they should look for another, he did not just say “yes.” Rather, he gave them evidence to draw their own conclusion. At that “very hour” he worked miracles and told the messengers to go tell John what they had seen and heard (vv. 21- 22).

Jesus did this on other occasions. When the Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” he gave the reasons for it being unlawful rather than saying “No” (Matt. 19:3-6).

I can think of at least three things that are accomplished when God gives us the evidence instead of just telling us the fact. (1) It encourages study and thought rather than just memorizing a list of dos and don’ts. (2) It test the honesty and faith of man. (3) It helps us see why certain things are true or wrong, etc. as well as the fact.

There are a number of questions or topics about which we may wonder why God didn’t just say “Thou shall not…” or “. . . is a sin.” We may wonder why God didn’t just say “Dancing is a sin,” “Gambling is wrong,” “Thou shall not have instrumental music in worship” or “The Lord’s supper must be observed every first day of the week.” While God did not make these points in these words, he said the same and more. He gave us the evidence to draw the correct conclusions.

Man Can Stumble Over The Truth

As Jesus sent John’s disciples back to him he said, “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me” (v. 23). The word “offended” means “caused to stumble” (NKJV footnote). Like a rock in a path, the thing one ought to watch for and be aware of is what he falls over.

The statement of Jesus (v. 23) is in the context of Jesus giving evidence that he is the promised one of the Old Testament. He warns that men can stumble over the evidence he gives. Likewise men could and did stumble over John and his work (vv. 24- 35).

The point is that those who rejected John and Jesus not only did not get the message, but it becomes an occasion for their stumbling (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23; I Pet. 2:8).

Men today stumble over the truth in different ways: (1) Through ignorance (Rom. 10:3). It is possible to have a surface knowledge of the basics but fail to dig into and apply the depths of the word. Thus, it is easy to stumble over what we do not know. (2) Because the word doesn’t fit our own ideas. John didn’t seem to fit the concept that the multitudes had of what he ought to be (v. 25). Neither did Jesus fit in the concept of what people thought he should be (cf. John 12:34). In both cases the people stumbled. (3) Through disobedience (1 Pet. 2:8-9).

The Greatness of the Least in the Kingdom

John the Baptist was great (vv. 26-28). He was a prophet. But, more than that, he was a prophesied one (Isa. 40:3). He was the forerunner for Christ. Jesus said, “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist” (v. 28).

As great as John was, “he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he,” Jesus said (v. 28). These are in the kingdom. John never was. They have access to greater blessings. They are viewed as important by the Lord.

A Failure To Obey God Is A Rejection of God

Some of John’s hearers accepted his message and responded by being baptized (v. 29). Others rejected John and his message and were not baptized (v. 30). The text says they “rejected the counsel of God … not having been baptized by him” (v. 30).

To reject and refuse to obey the message that John preached was to reject God himself. Jesus told his apostles that a rejection of them was a rejection of him (Lk. 10:16).

Men today reject the counsel of God by not doing what God says. When men are not baptized, do not worship regularly, are not forgiving, do not practice self-control, or are not humble, they reject God himself.

Some Men Can’t Be Pleased

Neither John nor Jesus pleased the Jews. Jesus compared them to children playing in the marketplace who couldn’t please one another (vv. 31-32). Some of the children would play a flute and others would respond by dancing if they wanted to play. Some would mourn and others would respond by weeping. Jesus said these Jews were like the children who would not respond. The flute was played and you did not dance. We mourned and you did not weep. You can’t be pleased!

John did not come eating and drinking and they said he had a demon. Jesus came eating and drinking and they said he was a winebibber and a glutton (vv. 33-34). What did they want? Many of them rejected the testimony of John. So, when Jesus came he worked miracles. But, that wasn’t good enough, they wanted more (Matt. 12:38). Jesus could heal the sick. But, for them, it was on the wrong day (John 5).

Men and women are a lot like that today. We grumble and murmur because we can’t be pleased. If there is a problem in the local church and it is not dealt with, someone will complain that nothing is being done. The same one is apt to gripe when it is dealt with saying that it was handled the wrong way. There are those who look for faults in every move. If one misses services and no one calls, they fuss about how no one cares. If someone does call, they are just being nosey.

Why can’t people be pleased? For the Jews it was prejudice. That sometimes enters the picture today. It is easy to determine that whatever is said or done we are going to find some fault with it.

The Vindication Of God’s Wisdom

The way God worked through John and Jesus did not fit the thinking of the Jews. To their thinking how could a man dressed in camel’s hair be the forerunner for the Messiah? Furthermore, how could one born in a manger be the savior of the world?

Yet, God’s way worked. Even the publicans were baptized with the baptism of John (v. 29). The evidence that God’s way worked is the fruit that is born (v. 35). Thus, “wisdom is justified by all her children” (v. 35). God’s wisdom is vindicated.

We must realize that God’s thinking is different than ours. God’s way are higher than ours (Isa. 55:9-10). Thus, there will be some things in God’s plan that we may not see the wisdom in. Yet, God’s wisdom will be vindicated. We may not see the wisdom in church discipline (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3), spanking children (Prov. 23:13; 22:15), adulterers separating (Col. 3:5-7; Acts 2:38) or how the simple preaching of the truth can change the worst sinner (1 Tim. 1:15). But, we must recognize that there is wisdom in God’s way. In time, we will see that wisdom vindicated.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 18-19
November 3, 1994

By Tim P. Stevens

Since the beginning of time, there has always been conflict among people Evidence of this is found in the early chapters of the first book of the Bible. We can read of conflict in our world’s history, of nations at war with one another. We have learned that our own country was once divided and involved in one of the most hitter and bloodiest conflicts ever  the American Civil War. And even today, the news media keep us informed of the continuation of conflict in; our world, our nation, our states and out cities.

Unfortunately, the conflicts among men carried over into the Lord’s church, his kingdom. During the first century, John wrote “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God” (3 Jn. 9-1 1). Conflict in the church continues even today as some brethren “battle it out” for various reasons. Some of t se reasons may be unknown to some, but according to the Scriptures. God is fully aware of what’s going on, especially within his family. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3). “And there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give ac-count” (Heb. 4:13).

Most people dislike conflict and try to avoid it if possible. That’s good! However, there are times when we have no other choice but to face conflict “head-on,” especially when the doctrine of God is perverted. After all, Christians are taught to be aware and note those who teach falsely, who walk disorderly and “those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine” (Matt. 7:15; 2 Thess. 3:6; Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17). But this is not an attempt to address the division that develops over doctrinal differences. There’s another aspect to consider and that is when differing and conflicting personalities among God’s people result in division and bitterness. Many are failing to realize that when this is allowed to happen, there is a total disregard for God’s instructions concerning love and unity among his children. His word tells us, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, running down on the beard, the beard of Aaron, running down on the edge of his garments. It is like the dew of Hermon, descending upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessinglife forevermore” (Psa. 133).

People are going to differ in their views and opinions, and people are going to differ in their personalities and dispositions as well. That will never change as long as man exists on this earth! Unfortunately, much of the division among brethren over the past 25 years is attributed to personality clashes. Some churches have begun in various parts of the country as a result of people not willing to work through their personality differences. What a disturbing message we, as Christians, send out to a lost and dying world when we allow such behavior to divide us! Could it be that those who choose to divide themselves for such a reason are as much a part of a lost and dying world? God’s word reveals, “If someone says, `I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar…” (1 Jn. 4:20). Liars are mentioned with the lost and wicked of this world in Revelation 21:8, “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

A differing personality, in and of itself, does not make for a “bad” per-son! Webster defines the word “personality,” “The distinctive qualities and traits of an individual.” Our family of five consists of five individuals with five different and unique personalities. We don’t always see “eye-to-eye.” At times, our various personalities conflict with one an-other, but we don’t “quit one another” or go off in a “huff ” never to be seen or heard from again. To keep our family together, we have to work through those differences. The same is true among God’s family here on earth. Though we have varying personalities in the church, that doesn’t make for “bad” people. It does, how-ever, if we elect to divide ourselves without ever attempting to resolve our differences.

It’s startling to see a person go to such great lengths to maintain his relationships with the various personalities of worldly people in the work place, and then makes little or no attempt toward preserving his relationship with a brother or sister in the Lord just because their personalities differ. He knows that if he wants to retain his employment, he must work at his relations with others! This same person may realize that his personality clashes with that of his wife and will seek counseling from someone in the world ($$) to improve his relationship with his wife. Again, he knows he must if he has hopes of keeping his marriage together. This needs to be the same attitude when it comes to God’s family! But few, very few, will display the same attitude. It just goes to show that many are more concerned with placing their earthly relationships “high and above” the most important and wonderful relationship ever made possible  that of being in God’s family, the church. It certainly indicates where one has placed his priorities. Jesus said, “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33).

Why do differing personalities di-vide brethren? This writer believes that pride in one’s heart is one of the main reasons for the disunion among saints and until that one “swallows his pride,” the separation will continue. Those described in the Bible who had a problem with pride were always brought down (Dan. 5:18-22; Acts 12:20-23). Pride is “arrogance, egotism, haughtiness, disdain, vain-glory, vanity, conceit.” Someone has said, “It is an absorbing sense of one’s own greatness.” From the book of Proverbs, we find that pride leads to contention (13:10), strife (28:25), wrath (21:24), and sinful speech (14:3). When we consider the fruits of pride, we can understand why God considers it an abomination. “Every-one who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; though they join forces, none will go unpunished” (Prov. 16:5). Pride is hated by God! A proud look is included in the list of seven things which are an abomination to God (Prov. 6:16,17). Pride is sin! “A haughty look, a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked are sin” (Prov. 21:4). Pride “is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 Jn. 2:15-17).

There’s no question about it, God’s word tells us that we must live at peace among brethren if we intend to see the Lord and be in heaven some-day. The Bible says, “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peace-ably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). “Pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). This “all men” includes brothers and sisters in the Lord. This “all men” includes you and me!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 14-15
November 3, 1994

By Randy Sexton

The cover story of the March 14, 1994, Time magazine which carried the above title, says that “humanity’s ancestors left Africa almost a million years earlier than thought, and that modem people may have evolved in many parts of the world all at once.” Can you blame one for saying, “Here we go again?” The ever changing story of the speculations about the searchings for ancestors of man does it again! And what’s a million years among friends! Can you imagine the hue and cry that would be heard if creationists changed their story every few years like the proponents of evolution do!

The Time magazine article goes on to say, “despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate. Now it appears to be happening once again. Findings announced in the past two weeks are rattling the foundations of anthropology and raising some startling possibilities Humanity’s ancestors may have de-parted Africa  the-cradle of mankind  eons earlier than scientists have assumed. Humans may have evolved not just in a single place but in many places around the world. And our own species, Homo sapiens, may be much older than anyone had suspected. If even portions of these claims prove to be true, they will force a major rewrite of the book of human evolution” (emphasis mine-RS).

But this is not the first time the “evolution story” has had to change. William R. Fix in his book, The Bone Peddlers (p. xi), gives a chronology of the proposed ancestors of man and the accounting of the recanting that was done in each case. Neanderthal man first proposed in 1856 as one of the “missing links” was abandoned as an ancestral species by many anthropologies in the 1960s and 1970s. Typical of the bias of so called “scientists” when it comes to evolutionary concoctions is the following admission found in the book The Neanderthals, which is part of the Time-Life series, The Emergence of Man (1973), p. 7. “To most people, Neanderthal man is anything but human  a grunting, shuffling beast rather than an intelligent being. But recently, a true picture of him has taken place, and a different picture it is from the one commonly held. Within less than a generation of our own lifetime, this ancient man has been lifted from the misconceptions of nearly a century to deserved inclusion with the ranks of humanity.” On pages 24 and 25 of this same book, pictures are found showing how an artist can take the same Neanderthal skull and put the face of an ape or that of a man on the skull. The pictures are titled, “How Different Faces Fit a Single Skull.” This is a frank admission that many reconstructions of skeletons come out the way they do because of the prejudices and assumptions of those who are reconstructing and arranging them (from material on “Fossil Men” compiled by John Clark and presented at Hickman Mills Church of Christ, October 1993).

Homo erectus (Java man, Peking man) first proposed in 1891 as a “missing link” was made highly questionable by the discovery in 1972 by Richard Leakey of the famous skull 1470. Piltdown man first proposed in 1912 was exposed in 1953 as a hoax. Hesperopithecus first proposed in 1922 was found in 1927 to have been an extinct pig. Australopithecus africanus first proposed in 1924 was disqualified by the discovery of skull 1470 in 1972. Australopithecus robust us first proposed in 1938 was disqualified by discovery of Homo habilis in the 1960s. Gigantopithecus first proposed in 1946 was dropped by most anthropologists as too improbable by 1950. Zinjanthropus first proposed in 1959 was displaced by Leakey’s discovery of Homo habilis in the 1960s. Homo habilis first proposed in 1960, ancestral status still remains indeterminate. Ramapithecus first proposed in 1964 was found in 1979 to be the ancestor of Organgutan. Lothagam man first proposed in 1967 was disqualified by new measurement in 1977. Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” first proposed in 1979 has been beset by man’s problems and mounting controversy since the early 1980s.

Not much seems to have changed in the area of evoluntary speculation since 1989 when the following words were penned. “For years, scenes from the daily life of our ancient ancestors have been rendered with a dab of science and a bucketful of speculation. Based as much on wishful thinking or intellectual fashion as the scanty fossil evidence left by our ancestors. . .” (U.S. News, Feb. 27, 1989). The theories of men can change daily but the Lord “is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). One day perhaps man, in all his wisdom, will find the answer God gave a long time ago about how man began. “In the Beginning, God…”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 13
November 3, 1994

By Olen Holderby

Many readers of the GOT will recognize that this passage has often been attacked by critics of Bible accuracy. Just recently such a critic, attacking one of my articles in the local newspaper, said, “There was never a worldwide census under Augustus Caesar”; and, he further argues that Cyrenius (Quirinus) was not governor at the time Jesus was born.

If the critics are correct, Luke would be in error. How-ever the critics, in their haste to condemn the Bible record, often become careless in presenting the facts. In view of this, I would like to share some observations and information, in defense of Luke 2:1-2.

It seems wise to this writer to permit both subjects  the census and the rule of Cyrenius, to blend together in our comments. In this case, at least, they appear to be interdependent. Let us begin.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE, Eerdman’s, 1988) has a lengthy article of Cyrenius. That article closes by saying, “Several plausible possibilities exist for explaining the evidence without the assumption that Luke erred.” Indeed, so, but what are those “plausible possibilities”?

First, let us remember that the Bible claims to be from God. “All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). If this be true, Luke 2, cannot be in error. If the Holy Spirit gave the words of this book (1 Cor. 2:13), who is man (any man) to say that these things did not occur?

Do we not remember how the critics argued that the Hittites of the Genesis record never existed? The critics had a “hey-day” here until the “evidence of the spade” verified the Bible record. Just because a particular event has not been noted by secular historians offers no intelligent argument that it did not occur. Why should anyone judge the Bible on the basis of what has not yet been found by modern man? The desire to destroy the influence of the Bible appears to be the father of such ideas.

Next we notice the meaning of the Greek word hegemon(euo). This word, according to W.E. Vine, is used of “rulers generally”; and can refer to several types of administrative command: governor, princes, proconsul, procurators, etc. This is true even though some such words are, originally, derived from another Greek word.

Keeping this last fact in mind, let us go back to the ISBE article, “More plausibly, Quirinus may have held some type of `extraordinary command’ during the term of Saturninus.” This would place Quirinus (Cyrenius) in some position of “administrative command”; thus, the use of the word “governor” in referring to him. This is one of those “plausible possibilities.”

Another “plausible possibility” as given in that same article, says, “The Lapis Tihurtinus (CIL. XIV, 3613) speaks of the person (unspecified, due to the fragmentary nature of the inscription) who had earlier been proconsul of Cyrene (in North Africa) and Crete, and who had later effectively put down the Homonadensians, finally to be rewarded by receiving `again’ (Lat. iterum) the legateship of Syria and Phoenicia.” Please notice that word “again.” Whomever is under consideration had it once; and, now gets it “again.” In his commentary on Luke, J.S. Lamar says, “It is now ascertained that Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria; first, three years before and down to the birth of Christ. . . The proof of this is quite satisfactory, though too long to be introduced here. The curious reader may consult Dr. Schaff’s note in Van Oosterzee.” This commentator thinks the evidence is so strong, in favor of Cyrenius having ruled Syria twice, that he does not think it necessary to quote it.

Perhaps the taxing (census or enrollment) needs some attention at this point. Going back, once again, to the ISBE article, we read, “The Lapis Venetus (CIL. III, 6687) describes a census ordered by Quirinius of the Syrian city of Apamea. Some evidence suggests a date of 1056 B.C. for this inscription, although many take it to refer to the A.D. 6 census.” One more quote from this article, “The only full treatment of this period is provided by Josephus, who focused primarily on events dealing with the Herodian family. That Josephus would fail to mention a census less directly related to the Herods than the one of A.D. 6 is not at all implausible. And since Luke’s historical integrity has been repeatedly vindicated in numerous places, it is fairer to give Luke the benefit of the doubt here.”

Commenting on Luke 2, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown (Zondervan, 1967) offer this thought, “That there was a taxing, however, of the whole Roman Empire under Augustus, is now admitted by all; and candid critics, even of skeptical tendency, are ready to allow that there is not likely to be any real inaccuracy in the statement of our Evangelist.” These same authors observe the possibility of there having been a taxing ordered about the time of our Lord’s birth; but, not carried out until the rule of Quirinus (at a later time)  another of those “plausible possibilities.”

B.W. Johnson supports this last mentioned solution when he offers one way of removing this apparent difficulty. “Augustus Caesar, incensed at Herod, ordered an enrollment for taxation of the Jews the year of the birth of Jesus. It was carried out in all probability by Cyrenius. The intercession of Herod’s minister, Nicolas, averted the displeasure of Augustus, and the taxation did not take place until Cyrenius was governor of Syria, after Archelaus, son of Herod, was deposed. These facts we learn from Josephus, and they removed the apparent discrepancy” (The People’s New Testament, Gospel Advocate Co., 1987).

However, B.W. Johnson offers support for the “two-term” idea when he says, “A. W. Zumpt, of Berlin, following by Alford and Schaff, make it highly probable that Cyrenius was governor of Syria twice, the first time from B.C. 4 to B.C. 1. I have not space for the argument which seems conclusive. But in B.C. 4 Jesus was born. Ancient writers, Christian as well as pagan opposers, state that Jesus was born while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.”

Christianity obviously had some enemies during its earlier years. Does it not seem strange that not one early opponent of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, is known to have called in question the accuracy of Luke’s statement? From all indications Luke wrote for men of education. How can any thinking person assert that Luke would expose himself to the risk of detection by asserting something as fact that could easily be shown to be untrue? “Justin Martyr confidently appeals to Roman registers as confirming Luke’s statement that our Lord was born under Quirinus.”

Albert Barnes, the noted Bible commentator, quotes a Dr. Lardner as saying, “This was the first census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.” It is pointed out that this census was taken by him, but not necessarily when he was governor. Mr. Barnes used an illustration, “General Washington saved Braddock’s army.” Washington did not save Braddock’s army while he was a general, but before he was a general. To speak of this event after he became a General, it would appear to be proper to say, “General Washington saved Braddock’s army.” As we might say, “To President Clinton was born a daughter.” This does not suggest that this daughter was born to him while he was president. Why, then, is it so difficult for the critics to understand the taking of the census by Governor Cyrenius? Mr. Barnes’ point is well taken!

With the availability of all these “plausible possibilities” modern critics have to stick their combined needs in the sand to continue to question the accuracy of Luke 2:1-2.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 7-8
November 3, 1994