Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

Have you heard all of the talk about “change” and “new ideas” lately? About the only thing old-fashioned our society seems to hold in high esteem is a hamburger! Is a change or “new idea” always for the better? Many folks seem enthralled with “change” and “new ideas” just for the sake of something different.

Is it any wonder that some want “change” and “new ideas” in religion? If a person wants to hear a certain thing taught, somewhere he will find it taught the way he wants (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1-5). There are churches which teach that homosexual practices, premarital sex, and polygamy are permissible. One church even espouses atheism!

The modem assortment of denominations proves one thing many churches change God’s message to meet the new ideas of people. It may be justified as a “different interpretation” or a “translation of the same message into modem concepts,” but honesty demands we admit the bottom line  the message of God has been changed.

How does God view this altering of his will to fit human desires? The Bible is very plain on the subject, so let’s listen to God speak in clear terms regarding his view of man changing his message.

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). That is not hard to understand, is it?

“Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32). Those are the words of God recorded for man by God’s prophet, Moses.

“Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:6). When we change God’s message, it has serious consequences on us. God’s Word remains true, but we become liars  misrepresenting his truth.

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). If neither angels nor apostles have the right to change God’s will, we surely do not.

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11).

The “doctrine” or teaching which has Christ as its source was given to and preached by the apostles (Jn. 14:24-26; 16:12-15; 17:8,14,18). John, an apostle, says that the one who fails to limit his teaching to that message does not have God or Christ and is guilty of “evil deeds.” He also warns others not to follow the evil teaching.

“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19).

God’s statements are plain. His message is not to be changed either by adding to or subtracting from its content! One thing added is one thing too many. One thing subtracted is one thing too few. Any idea newer than the word of God is too new.

Our problem of division in the religious world is not God’s fault. It is the fault of men who have added and subtracted from the Bible to suit their desires rather than God’s. We must set aside the creeds and doctrines of men for the unadulterated message of God if true unity is ever to exist. That unity is our desire in this and every other message of truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 12
July 21, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

The Bible warns of “deceitful workers” who transform themselves “as the ministers of righteousness.” “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). The Bible warns against “false teachers” who will deny “the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). Paul named Hymenaeus and Philetus as examples of men who erred from the truth, taught destructive heresies, and thus overthrew the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-18). A modern minister of Satan who transforms himself as an angel of light is John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal “bishop” of Newark, New Jersey. Spong wrote a book entitled Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture. It first appeared in 1991, was published in a paperback edition in 1992, and has been acclaimed as a national best seller.

Spong decries the biblical illiteracy characteristic of mainstream denominations with their modernistic teaching, but he regards as the greater danger biblical literalism, i.e. taking the Bible to be literally true. Modern man simply cannot believe the Bible as it is written, according to Spong. Therefore, he professes to map out middle ground between modernistic biblical illiteracy and traditional biblical literalism in order to rescue the Bible. The abuses and extremes of some Bible believers are used as a pretext for Spong’s rescue effort. He proposes to look beneath the literal teaching of Scripture in an effort to find some sort of truth relevant to the present moment of time, and yet he freely confesses that his efforts will be cast aside by the next generation. Some rescue! He only reasserts modern-ism.

The Gospel of Unbelief and Uncertainty

In the name of rescuing the gospel message, Spong simply creates “another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” Paul continued a warning against such teachers in the following words,

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

Spong’s gospel is an utter and arrogant denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the name of rescuing the Bible, Spong does not hesitate to repeatedly bash the gospel account of Jesus Christ. For instance, to make the recorded teaching of Jesus appear hypocritical, Spong charges that Jesus contradicted his own prohibition against calling men fools when he addressed certain men in his preaching as hypocrites, blind guides, and fools (Rescuing, p. 21). This fails to distinguish between the careless words of anger and hatred forbidden in Matthew 5:22, on the one hand, and the accurate and documented description of ungodly attitudes given in the preaching of chapter 23, on the other hand. The carnal-minded Spong puts the value of pigs and trees above the value of human souls when he condemns Jesus for performing miracles which destroyed pigs and trees in an effort to teach the truth and save the souls of men (p. 21).

Since Spong cannot bring himself to accept the teaching of Jesus on the doctrine of hell, we are left with the possibility that either Jesus was “mistaken” or that “the interpretation of Jesus given in these passages” is “untrustworthy” (p. 21). The fact is that the contemporaries and eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ repeatedly affirmed that he taught the doctrine of hell, and “Bishop” Spong simply does not believe what Jesus taught! Spong charges Jesus with “anti-semitism” for condemning “those who do not accept Jesus’ Messiah ship” (p. 22). Thus, Spong does not believe that faith in Christ is essential for salvation, if he even believes in any such thing as eternal salvation. Of course, Jesus addressed the case of unbelievers such as Spong, when he said, “For if you believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). Spong is not rescuing the Bible, but is attempting to rescue himself from the condemnation which Jesus pronounced upon unbelief.

Spong asks, “Is there a truth beyond biblical literalism to which my life can be dedicated?” (p. 24) The answer is “not yet clear” but we must pursue the question “until either there is nothing left or a wondrous new meaning begins to dawn.” In other words, the errant “bishop” destroys faith in Christ and the Bible but has no positive, certain, or enduring truth to affirm as the basis of a new faith. Satan also questioned God’s Word in the beginning and promised “a wondrous new beginning” to life (Gen. 3:5). Such promises have always led people further and further away from God, with disastrous rather than wondrous results.

Spong debunks the Bible accounts of creation and the flood, and says the Bible must be reinterpreted. By what rule or standard? “We must think about God in the light of our perceptions of divinity.” We will “find meaning and divinity” not “in an external God” but “in the very depths of our humanity. . . . We discover transcending spirit within ourselves” (p. 33). We must realize “that God might not be separate from us but rather deep within us. The sense of God as the sum of all that is, plus something more, grows in acceptability. When theologians are pressed, however, to define that something more, the inadequacy of language becomes gallingly apparent” (p. 33). We must separate “the truth” from “the myths” of Scripture, but, “it is not easy” (p.34).

This makes man his own god while admitting that such a god has no certain or enduring message to offer to himself or to others. Rather than rescuing the Bible, Spong is reverting to idolatry like all before him “who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rom. 1:25). He is repeating the failed experiment of the ancients, in which “the world by wisdom knew not God” (1 Cor. 1:21).

New Testament Truth a Straight Jacket

According to Spong, we face “the task of reformulating the Christ story for our day, if, indeed, it can be reformulated.” The first step is to dismiss “the corpse of traditional religion” with its “biblical narrative” (p36). As to the New Testament writers, “We do not make their understanding of truth a straight jacket into which our minds must be placed” (p. 231). Regarding the New Testament message as a straight jacket, Spong explicitly says that he is offended by such passages as Galatians 1:8-9. This so-called bishop is telling us to reject the biblical narrative while admitting he has nothing to put in its place and does not know whether the Bible story ever can be properly “reformulated.” His work is the destruction of faith in the Bible and the God of Scripture. Therefore, at best, he says the Bible is not right and he does not know what is right, but he merely offers a few possible tidbits of reformulation of something which it may be impossible to reformulate.

As the book continues to unfold, it continues its attack on the Bible, the Bible writers, the Bible narrative, and Bible teaching. Spong’ s earlier claim to give the Bible and life “a wondrous new meaning” is betrayed by repeated admissions that his reformulations are sketchy and uncertain:

There is at least the possibility (p. 87).

This is speculative, however, and we can get no closer than this (p. 87).

It remains for us to determine how this ancient book with its antiquated assumptions can feed and sustain us today (p. 90).

The sacred scriptures . . . can never finally capture eternal truth (p. 169).

We mortals live with our subjective truth in the constant anxiety of relativity (p. 169).

I live in the midst of religious uncertainty and insecurity (p. 170).

Christ has been and still is many things to many people. All of them are Christ and none of them is Christ (p. 230).

Spong earlier argued that when we leave biblical literal-ism, “either there is nothing left or a wondrous new meaning begins to dawn,” and it is obvious from Spong’s best efforts that the real result is “there is nothing left!” (p. 24)

Spong quotes the writings of Paul on a wide range of subjects, then concludes, “But these words make no claim to be the words of God” (pp. 91-92). As an example of Paul’s teaching which does not claim to be the Word of God, Spong cited 1 Corinthians 14:35 which forbids a woman to lead the public, mixed assembly of the church. In making this assertion, Spong conveniently forgot that Paul immediately reminded the Corinthians that his teaching was “the word of God” and “that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:36-37).

This deceitful worker also conveniently forgot to mention the following passages:

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13).

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

But Spong is sure that Paul is wrong and that “he did not write the word of God. He wrote the words of Paul, a particular, limited, frail human being” (p. 105). Spong could not make it any clearer that he simply does not believe the Bible even though he claims to be rescuing it.

Reformulate the Gospel to Escape Bible Morality

Spong wants to rescue (read: reject and reformulate) the Bible specifically because the Bible condemns sin, immorality, and unbelief of God’s Word, while Spong wants the gospel message and the church to embrace such things. He begins page 1 of his recent book by referring to his earlier book entitled Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality (1988) in the following words,

In that book I was led to question traditional religious attitudes and traditional religious definitions on a wide variety of sexual issues, from homosexuality to premarital living arrangements. There was an immediate outcry from conservative religious circles in defense of some-thing they called biblical morality (Rescuing, p. 1).

This, he said, led to the writing of Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism.

To rescue himself from the condemnation of Scripture, Spong reformulates Paul as a homosexual. Spong charges that Paul seemed to be “consumed with a [sexual] passion he could not control” and Spong attempts to prove “the hypothesis,” the “theory,” and “the possibility that Paul was a homosexual person” (pp. 115-117). Whether Paul practiced homosexuality or not, he found acceptance with Jesus and this is the real meaning of the gospel Paul preached which must be discovered beneath the literal preaching of Paul, says Spong.

Spong denies that Paul affirmed historical facts and events as the foundation of all gospel preaching. Paul never preached the literal resurrection or deity of Christ but preached that God in some sense took Jesus to heaven “as a way of saying God is like what Jesus did” in accepting all men. Paul never preached that Jesus literally appeared as the resurrected Lord, but Jesus “appeared” in the sense that God accepted Paul. Jesus has been appearing ever since to a wider and wider audience, building an “inclusive community” in which all men are accepted regardless of their condition (pp. 123-125).

Contrary to Spong, Paul forcefully affirmed the literal resurrection of Christ as the basis for the future resurrection of all mankind in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul argued that faithful brethren of Christ must exclude rather than include those who reject such teaching:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor. 15:12)

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame (1 Cor. 15:33, 34).

Paul warned against such teachers as Spong as evil companions who corrupt godly living, and he taught that those who follow such teachers sin in doing so. Spong’s defense of homosexuality and premarital living arrangements is a perfect illustration of why Paul warned us against men who deny the literal truth of gospel preaching.

Spong’s Eternal Truth: Man Is God!

Spong says the real underlying message of the New Testament writers (when separated from their errors, blunders, exaggerations, myths, etc.) is that “religious traditions must be made inclusive. A universal community in Christ must be built” (p. 165). This community is not limited to those who believe in Jesus as the only Savior, those who accept Bible teaching, or those who practice one lifestyle or another, but includes “Protestant and Catholic,” “gay and straight,” “Moslem, Buddhist, and Hindu” (p. 165; cf. p. 184). Spong argues that all truth is relative and that man cannot know final, eternal, exclusive truth (p. 169). Yet he then treats his postulate of an inclusive, universal community as the final truth of Scripture. Notice how absolute, eternal, and exclusive he makes that “truth.” Rather than trying to convert people to any one belief, Spong says, “The time has come, in my opinion, to look at the truth that lies beneath the words of every great world religion, to respect that truth, to learn from that truth” (p. 171). Is Spong trying to convert us all to that one belief?

It is emphatically not necessary to believe the literal claims that Jesus is God as recorded by John, “because the Jesus of history did not say them” (p. 206). As to the “I Am” sayings of Jesus, which literally are claims to deity, we today are to worship the “I Am” by “having the courage to be the self God created each of us to be.” “The Christian is the one called so deeply into life, into love, and into being that he or she can say with a Christ-like integrity, I AM!” (p. 207) In other words, the final message which Spong would use to replace the Bible message is this: The universal community is all mankind proclaiming, “I AM!” Spong’s final message is that men who disobey God and reject his written word “shall not surely die,” but rather “shall be as gods” experiencing a wondrous new meaning in life. Where have we heard that message before?

Spong Wrong But Not Alone

Spong is wrong but not alone. The ministers of Satan are becoming bolder in their attacks against Christ and the Bible. A recent Time Magazine article reports that the “Bah, Humbug! approach to the Scriptures” was once more limited to “seminaries and elite universities,” but that such studies are now “coming out of the closet” into public domain (“Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple,” Time Magazine, 10 January 1994, pp. 38-39). Three new books are cited as examples, all of them sharing with Spong the denial of the virgin birth of Christ, his miracles, his atoning death, and his resurrection. We shall briefly mention these three books which are full of bizarre and brazen blasphemy.

John D. Crossan wrote Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography claiming that the deity of Christ is a myth. The account of his birth is said to be imaginary, and he performed no miracles but may have used trance-like therapies on people. After his crucifixion Jesus was probably buried in a shallow grave and eaten by wild dogs. Burton Mack’s The Lost Gospel asserts that there is no certain record of the life and teaching of Christ; the gospel narratives are not historical accounts but are “imaginative creations.” The Five Gospels is another recent book, produced by seventy-four biblical scholars who belong to the Jesus Seminar (a group which meets twice a year to debate and to vote on the authenticity of the recorded sayings of Jesus). Time Magazine calls The Five Gospels a “breezy new colloquial translation,” including the four traditional gospel accounts plus the so-called “Gospel of Thomas.” All the sayings of Jesus are color-coded to indicate the degree of certainty about how authentic they are, but “precisely 82% of Jesus’ words are judged inauthentic.”

Time to Rise Up

It is time for the people of God to rise up as a mighty army and to go everywhere preaching the Word of truth. “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived,” but we must continue to hold high the blood-stained banner of Christ (2 Tim. 3:13). The gospel of Christ is still “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Let us preach the literal truth of all the facts, all the commands, and all the promises of the gospel of Christ without fear or favor toward any man. True gospel preaching includes “all the counsel of God,” including Bible principles of morality, the terms of pardon, the pattern for the one true church, and anything else “concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:24-27; 8:12). The harder Satan fights against the truth, the harder the people of God must fight for it. The gospel does not need to be reformulated, it needs to be preached, obeyed, lived, proclaimed, and defended!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 8-11
July 21, 1994

By Roy E. Cogdill (1907-85)

(Introduction: Roy E. Cogdill wrote a series of five articles on “Christian Journalism” which appeared on the front page of the Gospel Guardian 27:19-23 [1 Oct. – 1 Dec. 1975]. Those articles are slightly edited here and I have put them into a new format with subheadings which match the simple numbering of the original articles [No. 1, No. 2, etc.]. What he said twenty years ago can help both writers and readers today. Thanks to sister Deena Ladd of Conway, AR for submitting this material with the suggestion that it be reprinted. Her comments reflect the good which can be accomplished through the written word:

Written a decade before his death, these articles reflect the wisdom of one who was a veteran of many controversial exchanges, written and oral. The perceptions of his legally trained mind offer valuable insights for those who seek faithfully to teach the truth through the printed page.

Brother Cogdill was a gentleman in every respect, yet forthright in his actions. This series reflects that. It bears repeating for our generation and those yet to come.

To those sentiments, I add a hearty, “Amen!”  Ron Halbrook, 654 Gray Street, West Columbia, Texas 77486)

No. 1: The Power of the Written Word

Written words are a method of teaching. When teaching the truth of God is the objective of the writer, the effort is as praiseworthy as when a teacher teaches a Bible class or a preacher delivers a sermon to an assembly of people. Papers have been published periodically for centuries to espouse, propagate or promote one message or cause or another, and to deny the effectiveness of the printed page in disseminating a knowledge of the truth is fool hardy.

Solomon said, “Of the making of books there is no end.” Certainly this is true and the end has not yet been reached. They are an effective method of teaching. Not very many accomplished men in any field of endeavor can be found without large libraries where they are able to further their knowledge in general or to pursue their education in their chosen profession effectively.

Preachers have always gathered libraries around them to verify the certainty of the truths with which they deal and to enlarge their knowledge and acquaintance with related information which they have learned from the teaching they have received orally in school, by listening to other teachers and preachers or gleaned directly from the Word of God.

Of course, nothing written or heard should be accepted as truth until it has been verified by a study of the Word of God itself. We cannot, however, sensibly deny the effectiveness of writing as a means of communicating the truth to others.

The reason papers are published is the same as the reason for writing books. God in his infinite wisdom directed and caused the inspired men of the Bible to record (write) what they preached and through his providence has preserved his written revelation that we might study it for ourselves and from it learn what had directly been revealed to others. As long as a true printed copy of any truth taught is preserved it will continue to faithfully teach its message to those who read and study it.

This writer has long been using the printed page to teach those whom he could not otherwise reach. In 1938 while still a young preacher I prepared a series of lessons for a class of adult young people. These have been published through more than 20 editions of ten thousand copies each (in nearly all of them) and upon hundreds of occasions I have had testimony born to me by someone whom I met for the first time that that little book, The New Testament Church, had been of invaluable help to them in learning the truth. Thousands have been reached through its pages that I have never seen and will never see in this life. Through it I have been teaching and preaching the truth to others in many lands ever since the publication of the first edition. The good I know it has done shall be a thing for which I am eternally grateful. It has been a source of increasing the good I have done to many people in a number of nations who speak languages I cannot speak for it has been translated into Japanese for many years, and is also in Italian, Spanish, a Nigerian dialect and is presently being translated into other languages.

For years much hard work and money were poured into publishing and printing the truth in the Gospel Guardian. At one time it went gratis to every young preacher in any school maintained by preachers  more than four thousand of them.

Again I have on hundreds of occasions had people express their gratitude for the help they had found and the truth they had learned through its pages. It is the height of folly for any person capable of thinking enough to know his way home to deny that the printed page is an effective way of teaching. The only limitation to the amount of truth that can be spread through the medium of writing is the number who read what is written and the truth that is faithfully taught.

Of course, we need to remember that our responsibility in the use of any medium is to teach the truth, and “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

A man who does not read, support, and distribute “gospel papers” robs himself and others of precious information that could be gleaned from the printed pages of periodicals published by brethren in an effort to propagate the truth. Sometimes I have heard some church member remark that because something had appeared in some religious paper that he did not like, he just canceled his subscription to all of the religious papers. That is contrariness gone to seed. Has he thrown away all of his books that had something in them he did not agree with? If so, he doesn’t have much library left. Has he refused to read the daily papers that came to his home and refused to listen to the news because it is bad? That sort of attitude is born of a lack of good common sense and is equivalent to breaking the mirror instead of washing one’s face.

Only inspired writers made no mistakes and were not subject to criticism, so it is a good idea not to set in our minds too high a standard for human beings. The probability is that the upset critic could not have done as well or any better at least if he had written the article, and the fact is that those doing the criticizing usually do nothing at all about teaching the truth, correcting error or condemning sin, but most of them think they would have done a better job and used much better judgment.

Much of the impatience and uncharitable criticism of others forks back to the days of “anti-uninspired literature” attitudes and is a first cousin to the fellow who thought that his oral comments would be much more enlightening than anything a real scholar might write.

Uninspired comments made orally are no different from that which is written to teach and when a distinction is made it is without a difference. When a man writes down what he believes the Bible teaches, it is teaching in exactly the same way that it is done by oral comments. Both are subject to the same responsibility and must meet the same requirements. He is teaching both times. Paul said that men could learn that which was revealed to him by reading that which he wrote (Eph. 3:1-4).

Brother, if you do not like the way it is being done, get busy and demonstrate how it should be done and until you do, we won’t know whether your ideas are so superior and whether you know so much about it or not.

[A paragraph is omitted which says more articles are coming.]

No. 2: Positive, Simple, Plain Truth

A comparison between teaching or preaching orally and by the written word will reveal that they carry the same responsibilities and obligations largely.

Whatever the medium of teaching may be, the obligation in every instance is to teach the truth. In oral teaching or preaching the one who engages in such work must recognize that God will hold that person responsible for teaching truth. When one teaches so irresponsibly as to mislead or leave the wrong impression about truth he becomes accountable unto God for the error that is taught. The same thing is true in what we write. In fact, the responsibility is even greater for writing will have a larger audience unless it is private and personal. Moreover teaching done in writing in all probability will endure even for generations and if in error will be responsible for much more evil being wrought.

These reasons emphasize the importance of one being careful and sure that what he says or writes is the absolute truth and is so presented that there is no reasonable probability that the wrong impression will be made. James says, “Be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1).

Paul wrote the Galatians, “But though we, or an angel, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9). We had better be careful then about what we teach and how we teach it.

It has been characteristic of many to be so vague, indefinite, and either ambiguous or duplicitous that when people draw an inference that is wrong, the writer or teacher can claim they have been misunderstood. Being misunderstood for the above reasons is inexcusable. If we cannot be plain, simple and forthright so it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to misunderstand what we mean, then we should be quiet until we learn how to so express ourselves as to prevent anyone misunderstanding what we say. It is peculiar that this difficulty to make one’s self understood is characteristic so many times of those who are ordinarily identified with positive error at one point or another.

When a man is so vague and indefinite that what he says or writes cannot be easily understood, enough harm will likely result, but if he is devious and designing in an effort to suggest error without identifying it, that is completely wrong and can be nothing less than deceit in so handling the Word of God.

Make the truth you are trying to teach so positive, simple, and plain that it cannot be misunderstood and you will fulfill your responsibility and be a blessing to others. Remember that nothing is so important as that what you teach others is the truth (Jn. 8:32; Prov. 23:23).

Upon one occasion before a large audience I heard a preacher, whose sympathies lay with premillennialism and those who taught it, say, “There is something more important than preaching the truth; that something is to preach the truth in love.” The statement was made at a special service in a meeting I was conducting in Canada. When it was made, I arose from my seat and went to the platform and asked to make a statement. I quoted the statement and denied it, and quoted Paul’s statement in Philippians 1:15-17, “Some indeed preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the Gospel. Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached: and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” That settles one thing; whatever your attitude, your greatest obligation is to faithfully, uncompromisingly preach, teach, and write the truth (Jude 3). G

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 6-7
July 21, 1994

By Tim Mize

When we remember the cross, we remember our sacrifice. The death of Christ is our perfect sin offering (Heb. 9:26). His blood is the blood of the new covenant, the sacrifice that ratified it (Matt. 26:28). But we see in the cross not just our offering for sin and the sacrifice of our covenant. We see also there our passover lamb. “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).

Once a year, at springtime, Israel used to keep the passover. Each family would take a lamb and sacrifice it to God. They would then gather around and eat the lamb along with bitter herbs and unleavened bread.

The first passover was eaten in Egypt. Before God sent the last plague on the Egyptians, he told Israel to eat this passover lamb and to smear its blood on their doorposts. Where God saw the blood, he would “pass over” that house, and not strike it with the plague. And so, the lamb and the feast was called “passover.” Year by year they kept the feast in remembrance of their deliverance.

Our passover, however, is no lamb from the flock. As Paul said, our lamb has already been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7). Christ is the lamb that was slain.

It was no accident, but by God’s holy plan, that Jesus was slain at the passover (see Jn. 13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14). During the very season when Israel offered its passover lambs, the true lamb of God was offered. We can see, then, why John the Baptist said of Christ, “Behold, the lamb of God!” (Jn 1:29,36; see also Rev. 5:9)

It was no accident, either, the occasion when the Lord gave us his supper. It was as he ate the passover that he did so. Even as the lamb lay spread on the table, Jesus our lamb instituted this feast. The connection is obvious. Christ is now our passover lamb, and the supper, in a manner of speaking, is our passover meal.

We eat this supper, therefore, in the faith that our lamb has been slain, and the blood applied. When the great judgment comes on the world, God will see the blood, and he will pass over us (Exod. 12:13). This we believe, and for this we are thankful.

We eat this supper, as did Israel its passover, looking back to our salvation. God has carried us out of Egypt. In baptism we crossed the Red Sea (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-2). He has freed us and made us his own. We eat, then, remembering our salvation, and anticipating eagerly what lies in store ahead (1 Cor. 11:26).

Our passover lamb has been offered already. It only remains for us to eat the meal and “keep the feast” (1 Cor. 5:8). But as we do so, let there be no leaven in our houses (Exod. 12:19). As befits those who eat this unleavened bread, let us remove any leaven of sin that is in us. Repent, and pray God’s forgiveness. Our passover is not completed nor does it benefit unless “the leaven of malice and wickedness” be cast out (1 Cor. 5:8).

Furthermore, we should go forth from the table and keep the feast with the whole of our lives. Moment by moment, we must cast out the defiling leaven wherever we find it. The lamb has been offered, and the blood is on the post, but if we would be passed over then the leaven must go.

Let us think on these things as we eat the Lord’s supper. G

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 5
July 21, 1994