Truth Magazine

By Tim Mize

Mirror in the Cross

As Christians, we look to the cross of Christ as our “sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour” (Eph. 5:2). Israel of old also offered sacrifices for “a sweet smelling savour to the Lord” (in other words, to honor and please him; see Lev. 1:9; 2:2; 3:5; 4:31; etc.). Our altar, though, is not of stone or earth. Our altar is the cross of Calvary, and our sacrifice is Christ.

Different kinds of sacrifices were offered of old as a “sweet smelling savour,” such as whole burnt offerings, peace offerings, and sin offerings. Which kind, then, is our sacrifice? It is right to say that Christ is all of them to us. He is the one, perfect “sweet smelling savour” from us to God.

But thus he is only if offered rightly. Just as Israel offered theirs only if seasoned with salt, cereal, and wine (Lev. 2:12-13; Num. 15:1-5), we must offer ours seasoned with the offering of our bodies, of our praises, and of good works (Rom 12:1; Heb. 13:14-15). Only then are we assured of God’s favor.

The cross, however, can be rightly viewed too as a particular kind of offering. For example, Christ is said to be our passover sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7) and also the sacrifice that ratified our covenant with God (Matt. 26:28; cf. Exod. 24:8). Most of all, though, Christ is said to be our sin offering. He came “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself ” (Heb. 9:26).

Here we see the goodness of God. What do we have from ourselves that can take away sin? We have nothing. Happily for us, though, the Lord has provided an offering (cf. Gen. 22:8). By his incomprehensible love, we have a sacrifice to bring to him that perfectly cleanses from sin (Matt. 26:28; 1 Jn. 1:7).

Someone might say, “But why would such a thing be necessary? Why couldn’t God just forgive us in his heart without all this violent sacrificing?” We have to under-stand that God is not a man, as if he could forgive like humans forgive. He is the sovereign, holy Lord of the universe. As such, he must maintain not only the natural order, but also the moral order in his creation. The holy God, therefore, cannot allow any sin to go unpunished, not even the sins of his own children.

This is why he gave us Christ. When Jesus died, he did so as the representative of God’s people, with all their sins upon him. In other words, he died in their place, taking their punishment. “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: . . . the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:5-6). In the cross, all of the sins of God’s children were sufficiently punished, and even more so. It is now as the prophet said: “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins” (Isa. 40:2).

The cross was enough to atone for, not only God’s people, but even the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2; Jn. 1:29). All humanity that has ever lived or ever shall could come and let this be their offering for sin. Now, consider this: If this sacrifice is sufficient to atone for all the sins of the world, surely it is more than so for us, the little flock of God.

As we eat the Lord’s supper, these are the things we affirm and believe. We acknowledge and trust in the cross as our offering for sin. We declare this faith, that “if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with the other, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 5
August 18, 1994

By Irvin Himmel

“As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place” (Prov. 27:8).

A bird may have a valid reason for leaving her nest. If a cat climbs up to the nest and threatens to catch the mother bird, or if the nest is destroyed, she is forced to leave. In prophesying the downfall of Moab, Isaiah compared the daughters of Moab to “a wandering bird cast out of the nest” (Isa. 16:2).

A bird may leave the nest after the young are able to fly and it is time to migrate. When I lived in Florida, purple martins arrived in mid-February every year to nest in houses in the back yard; in July they would depart. While raising her young, a mother bird frequently leaves the nest to bring food to her little ones.

The proverb refers to the mother bird which wanders from her nest, deserting her eggs or nestlings. When she strays from her accustomed feeding area and familiar surroundings, she exposes herself to great danger.

Like the bird which wanders from her nest, some people wander from their place.

How One May Wander From His Place

1. By leaving home. Some young people run away from home when they are too immature to make their way in life. They are like a young bird that jumps from the nest before having the strength to fly. It is not uncommon for a husband to abandon his family, or for a wife to desert her husband.

2. By leaving the work for which one is suited. It is not wrong to change jobs, but many times people leave the work for which they are best equipped and get into something for which they are ill-prepared.

3. By forsaking duty. Every person has his place to fill  in the church, in the home, in the community, and in his line of employment. A lot of problems arise because people wander from their place of duty.

4. By departing from God. Every Christian’s place is a position of fidelity to God. Some stray from that place. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12).

Why Some Become Wanderers

1. A spirit of unrest. “There are many that do not know when they are well off, but are uneasy with their present condition, and given to change. God, in his providence, has appointed them a place fit for them and has made it comfortable to them; but they affect unsettledness; they love to wander. . .” (M. Henry).

2. Greener pastures elsewhere. Cows sometimes tear down a fence to get to the grass on the other side because it looks greener. Many people suppose that they can find a better job, improved economic conditions, or a more desirable neighborhood just by moving to another location. They rove around constantly in search of those greener pastures.

3. Instability. Much wandering about is caused by unwillingness to stay on a fixed course. In some instances, a person goes from job to job because he really does not want to work. The problem may be that one cannot make up his mind and stick with a decision. Many people are fickle, vacillating, given to change more than to steady application of themselves.

Consequences of Wandering 1. Poverty. Every now and then someone calls up wanting financial assistance from the church. Usually, he is from some place hundreds of miles distant. He is roving about and has come to poverty. If he had a job back home, he left it before he had something else lined up. Now he is stranded.

4. Misery. Young people often leave home in quest of “freedom.” They land in some big city like New York or Chicago or Los Angeles. Soon they are broke and in a wretched state. Drugs, prostitution, and crime offer what seems to be a way of survival in the city jungle. Oh, that they had not wandered from their place!

5. Loss of congenial companionship. People who wander away into strange places usually find themselves surrounded by others who have no pity on them. Remember the prodigal son in the far country? Like that young man, they are strangers among strangers.

6. Idleness. Wanderers frequently idle their time away roaming here and there. Many become vagrants and vagabonds.

.. They, who are never easy at home, in their own families, and employments, will never prosper, or be happy any where… There may be cases, in which it is a man’s duty, and prudence to change his situation, or employment; but then he will do it upon good grounds, and with deliberation. Every man hath calls from home; but a prudent man will be glad to return, when the end of his absence is affected” (T. Scott).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 1
August 18, 1994

By Gary N. Patton

We live in an age of “free love,” an open acceptance of adulterous relationships and the sin of fornication accepted as just a fact of life that “everybody” participates in and should not question. The vast majority of movies, T.V. shows and reading material published in great numbers today depict what the Bible calls “sin” as being the socially accepted way of life. Parents are encouraged by humanistically influenced counselors to let their children “explore” their friends’ bodies. Many counselors have been known to advise clients to have an “affair” as an answer to marital problems. With such thinking and advice glorified on a daily basis, no wonder marriage is seldom considered an “until death” commitment, but rather just a “temporary” relationship that one can discard when there are problems. Is it any wonder authorities tell us that the majority of marriages end in divorce?

Because of the lack of respect for the marriage bond, many begin to reason, why marry? If most people do not think it is wrong to commit fornication, then we see why many live and cohabit together rather than marry. God’s plan for sexual relations has always been approved only in the marriage (husband and wife) relationship. When-ever sexual relations are engaged in outside of marriage, God’s law has been violated. His plan has always been one of total commitment to him and each other, of purity, love and trust. Such passages as Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 19:3-9; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5:22-33 clearly teach this plan.

When faced with the facts, even those in the world agree that a commitment to God and his word can help keep one pure until marriage, thus laying a solid foundation for a successful marriage. If the world’s thinking is followed, failure is more often the result.

“Cohabitation” is a word the world likes to use to describe sexual relations. Though it can be rightfully used to refer to relations in the marriage relationship, much of the time when this word is used in the media, it is used instead of the words “fornication” or “adultery.” This is done not to sound judgmental toward one’s sexual actions outside the marriage relationship, but God’s word does not hide the terribleness of such action.

In trying to find things that bring about divorce in marriages, sociologists have made an interesting find in their research of cohabiting before marriage. In a recent project conducted two years ago, The National Institute For Healthcare Research in Washington, D.C. and Austin, Texas, released the following observations:

Making a lasting marriage commitment and avoiding the pitfalls of cohabitation is strongly associated with the degree of a person’s religious commitment …. Since cohabiting couples have a greater tendency to divorce if they eventually marry, researchers at the University of Michigan, the University of Chicago, and the University of Toledo investigated what factors help predict who is more likely to cohabit.

They found the cohabitation rate is seven times higher among persons who seldom or never attend religious services compared to persons who frequently attend. Religious commitment reduces cohabitation among both young men and young women, but the effect was found to be stronger among young women. The level of religious commitment was also a key. Women who attended religious services regularly were only one-third as likely to cohabit as those who attended church services less than once a month.

The religious commitment of parents was also found to be significant in determining whether an adult child will cohabit. If the mother frequently attended religious services, both sons and daughters were only 50 percent as likely to cohabit as adult children whose mothers were not actively religious.

The researchers noted that the tendency to cohabit increased in the early seventies, just at the time that religious commitment in young people began to decline. The higher divorce rate of the last 20 years is also consistent with the increased tendency of married couples who initially cohabited to divorce (Arland Thornton, William G. Axinn, Daniel H. Hill, “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation and Marriage,” American Journal of Sociology 98, 1992).

If we call and teach that fornication and adultery is sin, as God does in his word, then we will want to please him by abstaining from that which he condemns. We will strive to keep ourselves pure before marriage and committed to one another in marriage. If we want our children to avoid fornication then we must do every-thing we can to instill in their lives a desire to love and obey God. Remember we teach both by our words and by our actions. Do not be afraid to tell them that cohabiting outside of the marriage relationship is sin and that it can destroy that which God designed to be beautiful in our lives.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 15, p. 14
August 4, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

The number of reported child abuse cases in the USA rose 8% between 1991 and 1992, the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse reported Tuesday.

An estimated 2.9 million children were reported to child protective service agencies in 1992, says Deborah Daro  about 213,000 more than in 1991. Numbers have been rising for the last two years.

… Increasing abuse statistics don’t simply reflect improving reporting methods, Daro says. The country `truly has additional children at risk. The public is reporting things they have not seen before.

… Eighty-four percent of fatalities are among children under 5; 43% under one year (USA Today, April 7, 1993, p. D 1).

Did we get cheated, or what? I thought abortion, nearly a million and a half per year, was supposed to take care of the problem of child abuse. I thought we were told that child abuse occurred because so many unwanted babies were being born. I thought we were told that if we could simply abort the unwanted ones we would lessen the problem of child abuse. That is what we were told. What is the result? According to the liberals, abuse is expanding. It is even worse, according to them, than before. What has happened to the abortionists’ argument?

The fact is that when you kill an unborn baby (Excuse me. I just had a momentary lapse in my sensitivity training. I should have said, “When you excise a mass of fetal material.” Saying that is less offensive to those who want to kill babies), you lessen respect for life, for babies, for children in general. So, why be surprised when the child abuse statistics sky rocket?

It is the same regarding capital punishment. When you contend against it, you are made to appear as one who is respectful of life. The opposite is true. You cheapen the value of life when you refuse to acknowledge that a murderer, one who has taken a life, has forfeited his right to live (Gen. 9:6). Some women, because of their “animal rights” philosophy, will not wear a fur coat lest a fox or a mink should die. That same woman, however, will go and have her unborn baby’s body suctioned or cut out of her body while she lights a candle for a murderer who is to be executed. Hey, lady, what if that murderer wore rabbit fur-lined gloves when he committed his crime? Can we execute him for causing a rabbit to die even if we cannot do so for his killing of a human being? It makes me so upset that I feel like eating a big steak, even though it may cause me to loosen my leather belt another notch to do so, not to mention the fact that I will have to take out my cowhide wallet to pay for it.

I am afraid to ask, but if it is proper to kill a four-month old fetus in order to prevent its abuse, could we kill a four day old baby to prevent it from being abused by unworthy parents?

Bigots Have Gone Too Far

Under the above heading, a letter to the editor appeared in the “Houston Chronicle,” April 8, 1993, p. 29A.

Bigots have gone too far. These hate-filled people are obviously unaware of the great level of self-respect gay men and lesbians have, particularly in the face of a society that works so hard to dehumanize them.

It is unfortunate that so many people cannot maintain self-respect through their own merits. Rather, they must maintain a sense of self-worth by arbitrarily defining as inferior those with characteristics different from their own.

Let us transfer the words above to pedophiles (those who crave fornication with children) and to “exhibitionists,” or “flashers” (those who achieve pleasure by exposing their bodies to others). If the writer of the letter cited above is opposed to pedophilia, child pornography and to those who expose themselves (I realize that is a big “if”), how would he answer his letter? Suppose we said of him and his opposition to sexual abusers of children:

Bigots have gone too far. These hate-filled people are obviously unaware of the great level of self-respect pedophiles, child-porno addicts and “flashers” have, particularly in the face of a society that works so hard to dehumanize them.

It is unfortunate that so many people cannot maintain self-respect through their own merits. Rather, they must maintain a sense of self-worth by arbitrarily defining as inferior those with characteristics different from their own.

It would be interesting for the letter writer to give an answer to his own words, would it not?

Anyone who disagrees with his judgment is a “bigot.” Anyone who does not hold to his views of immorality is “hate-filled.” Is the letter writer a “hate-filled” “bigot” who is “unaware of the great level of self-respect godly men and women have, particularly in the face of a society that works so hard to debauch them? It is unfortunate that so many people (like our letter writer) cannot maintain self-respect through their own merits. Rather, they must maintain a sense of self-worth by arbitrarily defining as inferior those with moral standards different from their own.

I am sure that homosexuals have a sense of self-respect and self-worth. I am sure that pedophiles, child pornography publishers and exhibitionist flashers who expose themselves to children on the school yard also have a high degree of self-respect and self-worth. Their “glory is in their shame” (Phil. 3:19). No one defines them as inferior or as sub-human. No one hates them. Their lusts and passions are sins. Their feelings about themselves, i.e., their self-worth or self-respect, are not the issue. One does not hate them because he opposes their immoral deeds. One does not seek to dehumanize a pedophile when he challenges his conduct (Eph. 5:11).

Perhaps our letter writer does. I do not know about him, and I cannot speak for him. I would appreciate it if he would not presume to speak for me. Maybe, though, he cannot help it. Maybe he was born to so judge people. Maybe he did not seek to be a “hate-filled” “bigot” when it comes to those who disagree with his beliefs and opinions; maybe he was just “born that way.” (That is the reason homosexuals tell us that they are the way they are. They cannot help it. They were “born that way.”) Surely, he has a great level of self-respect and self-worth despite the fact that he must arbitrarily define as inferior those with moral standards different from his own.

What of those of us whom he labels as “hate filled” “bigots”? Did it ever occur to our letter writer that perhaps we, to, are “born” to be “hate filled” “bigots”? What if we seek to excuse our alleged hatred and bigotry with the plea that we cannot help it; we were born this way? Would that be sufficient justification? No, it would not. It is a moral choice. And, so, is morality and homosexuality. They are moral choices. We have made ours. They have made theirs. We will not be silenced into acceptance of their sins. Their attempts to belittle and humiliate us with their disparaging, pseudo-sophisticated terminology will not work. We shall continue to oppose and expose their immorality and to show the absolute foolishness of their lame and vain attempts to justify themselves in their sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 22-23
July 21, 1994