Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

“But none saith, Where is God, my maker, who giveth songs in night?” (Job 35:10) Here is the only place in the Bible where we have the expression “songs in the night.” Because this is located in the book of Job, we immediately connect the phrase with suffering of some kind; and, so it is. Elihu is the bright young man who appears with Job and Job’s three friends; and he is to give four speeches. Chapters 32,33 relate his first speech, chapter 34 his second, chapter 35 his third, and chapters 36,37 record his fourth. Our text is found in his third speech. What use is to be made of the words “songs in the night”?

To understand this we need a close look at the context. Elihu may not be completely accurate in the things with which he charges Job; but, the points which he makes are valid, both then and now. A few of his charges against Job may be helpful. He believed that Job justified himself rather than God (32:2). He says that Job has declared himself innocent, and accuses God of treating him like an enemy (33:8-11); and, as he closes his first speech, he is pleading with Job to listen (33:31-33). He understands Job to have questioned the justice of God (34:1-9); and, he brings his second speech to a close by declaring that Job had added the sin of “rebellion” to his other sins (34:37).

In his third speech Elihu answers Job’s inquiry into the lack of benefits for righteous conduct. He affirms that God does not answer the pleas of an empty cry; God has not answered Job; thus, Job is guilty of uttering empty and meaningless speeches to God. Elihu says that Job has said that his righteousness was more than God’s; and, that there is no profit in being free of sin (32:2-3). He sees Job as being inconsistent in placing his case in God’s hands (13:18); while, at the same time, claiming that he cannot find God (23:8-9; 34:29). Further, Job was willing to wait for God to clear him; yet, he says that Job felt that God did nothing about sin (24:1-12). Elihu correctly points out that the oppressed often cry out to God just because of God’s strength (35:9); and, not because he is their Maker, not because they owe allegiance to him, not because they seek a right relationship with him, and not because they wish to acquaint themselves with him (35:10). Elihu is arguing that God is to be top priority in one’s thinking; and, that one is to humbly, patiently, and penitently approach him. Further, if the oppressed get no relief, it is their own fault (Jas. 4:3; 1 Jn.3:22). How could a heart that is full of pride (35:12) or a heart that questions the value of serving God expect the Great God to favorably respond (35:3)?

Many may ask: Where is laughter? Where is joy? Where is wealth? Where is my fortune? However, the search should be: Where is God my Maker? Now, back to “Songs in the Night.” When our circumstances appear to be the darkest, when sadness and melancholy encircle us  if we have (and are) properly respecting “our Maker,” his providence and promises are at our disposal. “Songs” of joy can ring out in the very midst of our tribulations (night). As we patiently wait for God, in his own way, he “teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and makes us wiser than the fowls of heaven”(35:11). Must we forget the promise of the Saviour, “. . . he that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matt.10:22)?

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

By Kevin Campbell

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

By now I’m sure that most people have heard of President Clinton’s new policy regarding homosexuals in the military. If you haven’t, it has been labelled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The idea, if you are a homosexual, is not to tell recruiters or other military officials about your homosexuality and they in turn will not ask you about your “sexual orientation.” The result will be that homosexuals will be allowed to serve in the armed forces without a big fuss being raised over the issue. There is a provision that those who openly advocate their homosexuality can be court martialed and expelled from the military.

Understandably, many of the militant advocates in the homosexual community are outraged and upset by Mr. Clinton’s compromise on the issue. He had campaigned for homosexuals to be allowed to serve in the armed forces openly. Due to strong opposition, however, he had to modify his policy, the result being that the homosexual community has felt betrayed. This was not the first, nor will it be the last, time that the President has found himself attempting to straddle a fence and flip-flopping on an issue.

Some in the homosexual crowd however will applaud Clinton’s policy. Now they will be able to serve in the military with all the benefits of other servicemen and maintain their immoral lifestyle at the same time. They won’t want any controversy over the subject and will feel safe holding to their beliefs and practices without others knowing about it. As long as no one asks, they won’t tell and all will be happy, right?! Wrong! Many in the military do not relish the opportunity of sharing close quarters with homosexuals. They also feel betrayed by the administration’s policy and would prefer to have the homosexuals excluded from the service. Such a policy demonstrates the difficulties involved in trying to hide activity or belief that is immoral and ungodly (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-11). We must always remember that the Lord knows our hearts and thoughts and secret actions, all of which we will be held accountable for (Eccl. 2:14; Prov. 5:21; 15:3; Mk. 4:22; Rom. 2:16).

Given Mr. Clinton’s penchant far upholding immoral and ungodly activities (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, etc.), it causes one to wonder and question his stated religious convictions. How can a man who professes to be a Christian be a staunch defender of those who disdain, denounce, and despise biblical values and morals? What would he say to those who might question him regarding his stand?

Biblical Examples of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Even in the Bible we can find examples of some who desired to practice a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Notice the first example in Matthew 21:23-27:

And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things (KJV).

On this occasion, the Jews asked Jesus specifically about the authority he had to be teaching and preaching. Jesus responded with a question of his own that placed the Jews in a difficult circumstance. If they answered the question honestly, they would be at odds with the people, for the people believe in John as a prophet. If they answered falsely, then Jesus would have sprung the response on them, “Why then did ye not believe him?” In essence, they were stuck and could not afford to give an answer. We might say that they developed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regards to the questions that Jesus asked them. Because of their opposition to John and Jesus, they didn’t want to be asked and didn’t want to tell what they believed about the baptism of John.

The same thing occurred in Matthew 22:15-46. After being asked several questions by the different sects of the Jews, Jesus turned the tables and asked them a question that they could not answer (vv. 41-45). It should be noted that Jesus did not refuse their questions but used the opportunity to boldly and directly confront the issues raised. He did not have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but was willing to state for the benefit of the people his convictions on these questions. After having the tables turned though, the Jews decided that they had had enough of this question and answer period and developed a modified form of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (v. 46).

False Teachers and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The examples above simply illustrate what Jesus said in John 3:19-21:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Those who believe the truth and practice it are not afraid to have their deeds and activities examined. The apostles preached the word with great boldness in the book of Acts (4:29,31; 9:29; 14:3). Even when in prison, Paul continued to preach and to teach and thereby caused others to be “much more bold to speak the word without fear” (Phil. 1:14). Some may have thought that the best thing for Paul to do would be to just be quiet and not keep pushing. Maybe things would be easier on him if he would just adopt a quiet, non-combative posture. Surely a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regards to the truth would have lessened his suffering! Paul however, continued to seek opportunities to teach and to preach, even while an “ambassador in bonds” (Eph. 6:19-20; Col. 4:3).

When one is confident of what he believes and is not afraid of being exposed to the rejection of others for his stand, he will adopt an approach like that of Paul’s. False teachers however, and their sympathizers, will learn to evade and dodge questions regarding their beliefs and practices. Like some of the homosexuals in the military, they would prefer that their beliefs, convictions, and actions remain secret. They want to have all of the benefits and blessings of being counted as a faithful brother in Christ while at the same time harboring false and damnable heresies (2 Pet. 2:1). Others who teach and believe the truth will nonetheless aid false teachers by not exposing them for being wolves in sheep’s clothing. Those who aid and abet in such a way are guilty of not following Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5:11: “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose, NKJV) them.”

In January of 1993, I debated a Baptist preacher by the name of Bobby Sparks on the question of the necessity of baptism to salvation. One of the questions that I asked him during that debate is given below:

Which of the following statements gives the correct order of occurrence?

1. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

2. He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized.

Even though Mr. Sparks had answered that very question in a previous debate (he answered “number 2”), this time he refused to answer the question and kept saying night after night that they were “both saying the same thing.” Mr. Sparks learned the value of adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it came to Baptist doctrine. I told him during the debate that if he would ask me the same question, I’d be glad to tell him which one gave the right order (see Mark 16:16). Nevertheless, he never asked and he never told! I’m sure that there are many other examples that could be given but this just helps emphasize that false prophets and Bill Clinton have one thing in common: they both like the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

It should also be pointed out that false teachers are not limited to the denominations. There are those who would profess to be sheep among the Lord’s people but who “inwardly are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). I know personally of a church that asked a man to come work with them only to find out later that he held to doctrines that were false regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. The end result was a church that split, with the majority going off with the false teacher. The reason I use this example is to emphasize the responsibility of the elders of the church to know beforehand what a particular preacher teaches and believes on various subjects. If a church asks a preacher with whom they will have fellowship what his beliefs and convictions are on certain matters and he won’t tell, a red flag should go up. Not only does a church have the right to know what will be taught by a preacher, but they have an obligation to the cause of truth to find out. On what grounds would someone deny a church the right to know what an evangelist believes and teaches when they are considering having fellowship with him in the gospel? The above is not the only example I’ve heard of and I’m sure that there are a number of others examples that could be cited, whether it be a located preacher or a meeting preacher, of churches that found out too late what was being taught.

The Parents of the Blind Man (John 9:18-23)

One final matter to consider is that of those who sympathize with false prophets, or those who are afraid to confront them, although they are not false prophets them-selves. In John 9, we read about a blind man who was healed. When the Jews found out about it, they denied that the man had ever been blind to start with. When his parents were called in to testify, they confirmed that he had been blind from his birth. However, when they were asked how it came that he was now able to see, they said:

But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. (John 9:21).

The truth of the matter is, they did know but were afraid to say. Notice the statement in John 9:22:

These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

In the above example, we can see that the man’s parents believed the truth, but because of their desire to please the other Jews and to avoid being put out of the synagogue, they decided “not to tell.” The problem they had, simply put, is that they were trying to be men-pleasers. Paul posed the question in Galatians 1:10, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” Our confidence is to be in the Lord and his word, not in ourselves or our standing with other men. Sadly, some seem to value the praise of men more than the praise of God and are thus willing to sit silently by while error is promoted and applied (Jn. 12:42-43). Brother Dan Shipley commented on this very problem in an excellent article entitled “Closet Convictions” (Plain Talk, Vol. 17, no.2, p. 3). After quoting the passage in John 12:42-43, he said:

From its beginning, the cause of Christ has suffered because of disciples with closet convictions; the kind of men who know and believe the truth but will not stand up for it. Consider for example, these influential rulers of our text. Potentially, their worth to the cause of their unconfessed Christ was immeasurable; effectively, how-ever, they contributed absolutely nothing. Worse, their influence remained where they did, as must always be the case. What a testimonial to the tremendous swaying power of cowardice and pride:  it keeps them among those who they oppose and puts them in opposition to their own faith and convictions. “But, after all,” they may have reasoned,” we do have our standing in the community to think about. And besides, how could we ever explain to our friends of the synagogue circle about what we really believe? Why, what would they think?”  and so goes people-pleasing religion.

To the above I can only add a hearty “amen”!

As preachers and Christians all of us must realize that we have a grave responsibility to stand up and stand firm. There is no excuse for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of some in the religious world and even some among our own brethren. I have heard reports of some capable and eloquent gospel preachers who go to areas where certain false doctrines are not only taught, but also practiced, yet nothing is said regarding these problems from the pulpit. Are we developing our own “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding controversial issues? Do we have the concept that if “they won’t ask me about these matters, I won’t tell them”? And even if I am asked regarding my convictions, am I willing to state them forthrightly, without fear of losing friendships and acquaintances?

Peter commands that we “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). Are you ashamed and embarrassed to do so? Paul was not (Rom. 1:16). May our attitude be that of the apostle Paul as expressed in 2 Corinthians 5:9: “Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 16-18
July 21, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

Part Three: Spread By Discontent

The popularity of the Unity in Diversity Movement, the New Unity Movement and/or the New Hermeneutic concept so enhanced by the gospel/doctrine (or “word of the cross”) error could not gain a foothold in churches of Christ without a spirit of discontent that is so evident today. Some people absolutely hate doctrine! Their severest criticism is reserved for those who are labeled “brotherhood watchdogs” or “keepers of orthodoxy.” They are tired of “the old paths.” They are not to be bound by rules, regulations, commands, law, or traditions of the past (whether apostolic or not). Faithful obedience is opposed as “salvation by works” and “Pharisaical legalism.” They have yet to learn this truth: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3).

From dissatisfaction with the eldership, to vocal music, “five-finger salvation,” the Lord’s supper on Sunday only, scriptural baptism, congregational autonomy, male leadership, plain preaching, to every aspect that is a distinctive mark of New Testament Christianity, there are those who despise such, call it “doctrine idolatry,” goose-stepping conformity, and are dedicated to change. Like ancient Israel, we have lifted up our eyes to the (denomi)nations around us and envy them for their women preachers, choirs, gymnasiums, ball teams, positive-only preaching, youth churches, institutions, big numbers and community acceptance.

It is anathema to the New Unity Movement of our generation to be separate as God’s people (2 Cor. 6:17), to speak of the one church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23); to preach that anyone is lost without complete gospel obedience (Matt. 28:18-20), to insist on the Lord’s supper only on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), to insist on the “old hermeneutic” of commands, examples and inferences. Though theirs is a magnanimous spirit and love and acceptance to those in sectarian error, the most stringent condemnation is poured out against any brother seeking to “walk in the old paths” (Jer. 6:16).

However, there is a dilemma among those who seek to change the church of Christ into a modern denomination. We have always been a “people of the book.” We have always appealed to “book, chapter and verse” preaching. For centuries, we have blazoned to the sectarians that “we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” The dilemma is that if they boldly denounce this past dependence on the whole gospel as unworkable, they will lose credibility among many who yet repeat this, even as a slogan if nothing else.

Change the Definitions

Consequently, a method has been devised whereby they can yet speak of their love of the “gospel” and change their direction even while boasting of a love for Christ. A New Hermeneutic has been defined that retains all of the platitudes of soundness without impeding progress into denominationalism. Its methodology is quite simple: use the same terminology but just change the meaning! Simple but profound. As Paul warned Timothy, this has “a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5).

A form of godliness? How else could we describe those who claim to love the “gospel” but exclude the “doctrine of Christ (2 John 9); who claim to love and cherish Christ but disparage the epistles; who preach “the word of the cross” so long as it doesn’t condemn error; who love the church of Christ but do not want to exclude the Methodists and Episcopalians or other sectarian bodies; who weep copious tears about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ but who reject the application to scriptural baptism?

Yes, use the words, but change the meaning. This provides a cloak of religiosity under which to hide a departure from the faith. Consequently, false teachers cry long and loud about their love of the “gospel,” “the word of the cross,” “the church of Christ,” “fellowship,” and “brotherhood.” But they don’t mean the same things that the inspired writers meant when they used the same terminology.

And it is working. Sadly, it is working. Those of us who object to this deceitful use of biblical terminology are criticized as “watchdogs,” “keepers of orthodoxy,” and loveless clones of “doctrinal idolatry.” We are charged with being the “troublers of Israel” (1 Kgs. 18:17) for asking for book, chapter and verse as proof text. We are accused of destroying fellowship by exposing those who teach error that will cause souls to be lost.

Even those who stand with us in fellowship are often confused by these false charges and feigned words. Perhaps the best of motives are misled by unwitting acceptance of this New Hermeneutic. Subtle doubts are permitted to arise about those who “cry aloud and spare not.” Perhaps they don’t have as much love as others. Perhaps they love the plan and not the Man. Perhaps they put too much emphasis on doctrinal matters. Perhaps they really do extol the church above Christ. Not only T.W. Brents and Alexander Campbell, but now preachers of our generation (we are told) have forgotten what it is to “preach Christ.” They love controversy more than Christ, doctrine more than grace, a fuss more than fellowship. Sound familiar?

It matters little how much we know our own heart and how much we balance our preaching and writing to include the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It no longer counts that our emphasis is upon the whole truth for the complete man of God, guided by Paul’s counsel to Timothy: “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). No, the rules have been changed. Definitions no longer mean what they did. We have a New Hermeneutic.

Without a doubt, there are doctrines around today that have been bred by infidelity, nurtured by cynicism and spread by discontent. Be very sure that you understand the direction of the “new gospel.” It does not lead to a deeper love of Christ nor does it preach the true gospel of Christ. It is eternally elastic toward error but woefully critical of truth. As Jesus warned, these “gag at a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24). They are capable of sitting and worshipping with Methodists but incapable of telling them that they are lost. They can worship among brethren who are lost and going to hell in adulterous marriages but who refuse to raise the word of warning as a true watchman should (Ezek. 3:17ff). They allow brethren to preach blatant error on divorce and encourage them by using them in publications and gospel meetings while never confronting their sin. If that is love or gospel, please spare me. How much more should we be like Paul who, to men facing the Judgment like ourselves, said, “And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32)? He could do that because he could say: “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). This is gospel preaching. This is “word of the cross” preaching. May it never vanish from the earth!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 3-4
July 21, 1994

By Walton Weaver

There are many ways to evaluate the life of our Lord while he was on earth, but there is none more challenging than to look into his own mind to see how he thought of himself. What did Jesus think, what did he teach about his own relation to the living God while he was yet on earth? Did he know that he was one in nature with him? What does his own estimate of himself in relation to those who had gone before tell us? What do his works say on this question? What does Jesus himself say on these matters?

His Relation To Those Who Had Gone Before

Jesus’ life and ministry on earth was within a certain historical setting. They were connected with what the prophets had foretold and with the message of John the Baptist. Yet, even though this connection is there, one is at once struck by the conscious assurance with which Jesus himself detaches and differentiates himself and his work from those who had gone before. There is yet fulfillment and consummation, and Jesus had come to bring this to pass. All that had gone before was only the breaking of the road, a period of preparation. He had come to bring to completion what had been begun by his predecessors.

With reference to himself Jesus declared, “Behold, a greater than Jonah is here…. Behold, a greater than Solomon is here” (Matt. 12:41,42). He informed the people of his time about these truths concerning himself in order to impress upon their minds these two important facts: (1) If more than Jonah was here and the people of his time repented, then the people of Christ’s generation were under greater obligation to repent than were the Ninevites. (2) If the queen of the south came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear Solomon, and more than Solomon was here, then the people of Christ’s generation were under greater obligation to hear the one of whom this is affirmed.

What may we learn about the work of Jesus from this statement? We may learn that the most exalted figures among prophets and kings are not so great as Jesus. Along this same line Jesus says, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see. For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye hear, and have not heard them” (Lk. 10:23,24). In a similar way, John the Baptist is said to be greater than all the prophets and kings under the Old Covenant, and yet “he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Jesus sets his own work higher, and he does not do so only relatively, but absolutely. His work transcends all that had been done previously by the prophets and kings of all the former generations. He is conscious that his teaching is something wholly incomparable and perfect (see Lk. 4:18ff).

His Relation to Messengers of His Day

What is true of those who had gone before was also true of Jesus’ contemporaries, including the twelve disciples whom he had chosen. John the Baptist and others who were messengers of God. Jesus was no ordinary messenger. It is true that like other messengers he received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), and did much of his work by the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28). But to say this is not to tell the whole story. The rest of the story is what makes him greater than all the others. Others received the Holy Spirit, and did mighty works by the Spirit of God, but there was this major difference: they could not communicate anything from God to man except what was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. They had not come down from heaven, they were “of the earth,” but “he that cometh from above is above all” (John 3:31). In this passage Jesus is contrasted with others like John the Baptist. One “of the earth” speaks from an earthly standpoint and experience. One who “cometh from above” speaks from a heavenly standpoint and experience. He is “above all.” Of the one who is “of the earth.” Alvah Hovey says, “Such a man cannot speak as one from heaven; for he has never been there, and is a stranger to the experience of that higher world. The Evangelist does not here deny his own inspiration, or affirm that his teaching is confined to earthly things; but he confesses that he cannot bear witness of heavenly things, or teach more than is given him by another” (Commentary on the Gospel of John 108).

Our brethren who are contending that Jesus did not know anything except what was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, thus making him no different in this respect than other messengers of God, need to explain this passage. How was Jesus “above all,” as this passage of Scripture affirms, if it is not in the way we have explained it in the preceding paragraph? Even if Jesus received the Holy Spirit “without measure,” as some believe, this does not explain the statement in John 3:31 that Jesus is “above all.” The differences brought up in this verse between Jesus and other messengers is not a difference in degrees of Spirit which one may have. The difference is from whence one comes to bear his testimony. Jesus is “from above,” all others are “of the earth.”

This means that while on earth Jesus had those things that would be required of one who had come down out of heaven to bear direct testimony of heavenly things. He had the same mind he had as God while he was in heaven, and he had a divine will, divine emotions, and divine consciousness. Let those who affirm that Jesus was divine, but that he was without a divine mind, will, emotions and consciousness while on earth, explain how without these divine characteristics he could have borne direct testimony of things he had heard and seen in heaven? Without these qualities how could he recall his experiences while he was in heaven, and thereby bear direct testimony of the Father, as this passage (John 3:31) claims for him? Such testimony would have to arise out of his own personal experience of having been in heaven, having known the Father there, and having heard and seen the things of the Father while he was in heaven. What I have written before on this passage of scripture still holds.

It was because Jesus was “from above” and not “of the earth” (Jn. 3:31) that he could testify of what he had “seen and heard” (Jn. 3:32). What he testified was not simply truth that was “revealed” to him in the same way that truth was revealed to John the Baptist, Peter, or Paul who were just ordinary men chosen by God to be his inspired messengers. These men who were “of the earth” were “sent from God” (see Jn. 1:6), but they were not “from above” so that they could speak what they had “seen and heard” of the Father in the same way that Jesus could. One who “speaks of the earth” is one who “has not looked on truth absolute in the heavenly sphere” (Wescott). All men including even the apostles, were different from Jesus in this respect. The Holy Spirit was not given to Jesus to enable him to “remember” what he had “seen and heard” when he was in heaven, nor was he given to “lead” and “guide” him into all truth, in the same way he was promised to the apostles. Jesus was the truth (Jn. 14:6), and he spoke what he “knew” and what he had “seen” (Jn. 3:11-12; 7:29; 8:55) of the Father in heaven. What is meant by the word “know” in these passages where Jesus says he speaks what he knows of the Father? It means that he had immediate knowledge of heavenly things. He knows because he is from above and is above all (Jesus: God and Man, Or, “Just a Man”? pp. 39-40).

It was Jesus’ origin (he came down out of heaven) and divine nature (he was God manifest in the flesh, John 1:14; 1 Tim. 3:16) that set him apart from all earthly messengers. It is this truth about Jesus that explains the other things that separate Jesus from all other messengers. A good example is what is said of Jesus and the Holy Spirit that is not said of messengers who are “of the earth.” There were some things which Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and all earthly messengers had in common: they were all “sent” by God, and they all “bear witness.” But one important difference should be noted: the Son “sends” the Holy Spirit to the disciples (John 15:26; 16:7), just as the Father does (John 14:26). Surely Jesus was not given the Spirit “without measure” (as some wrongly understand John 3:34) to enable him to send the Holy Spirit to the disciples, was he? The promise of Jesus to send the Spirit to them puts him on an equal with the Father and lifts him above all of the other messengers of God.

His Relation To the O. T. Institutions

The new and absolutely transcendent element in Jesus’ teaching had its ultimate roots in his boundless authority, and in his own person. Comparing him to the Old Testament institutions there was nothing great and holy in the Old Covenant, not even its temple, nor the Sabbath day, and not even its law which was now subject to his will and authority. The Sabbath was an institution of God (Exod. 20:8f; Deut. 5:12,14), yet, Jesus said, “But I say to you, That in this place is one greater than the temple” (Matt. 12:6), and the temple was superior to the Sabbath. Claiming superiority over the temple meant he had authority over the Sabbath as well. But to leave no doubt on the matter, Jesus went on to say that the Son of man was “Lord even of the Sabbath day” (Matt. 12:8). Jesus had full authority to control and regulate the Sabbath day as he saw proper Jesus was also superior to Moses and the law. This superiority over the law was reflected in his manner of teaching, for the people marveled at his teaching, “for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28,29). Instead of quoting from the rabbis of former times, as other teachers were accustomed to do (this, they thought gave authority to their message), Jesus spoke as one who had authority in himself, and the people noted the difference. Also, unlike the prophets of old, Jesus did not appeal to a special divine commission. He acted of his own right. We never hear him say, “Thus says the Lord,” words used by the prophets to indicate that they were speaking by divine commission from Jehovah. He speaks only of his own authority, out of his own knowledge, of his own right: “But I say unto you” (Matt. 5:18,20,22,26,28,32,34,39,44; 6:2,5,15,29; 8:10,11, etc.)

What is the significance of these claims of Jesus to be superior over the two leading institutions of the law (temple and Sabbath), as well as superiority over the law itself? In the mind of the Jews the temple, the Sabbath, and Moses and the law were all inseparably linked with Jehovah God. In them the will of the all-holy God was expressed, and, for this reason, it was hard for them to understand the claim of Jesus to be superior to them, except in the sense that in his inmost being he knew himself to be wholly one with Jehovah. Jesus took his stand exactly where to Jewish minds only one stands, God himself.

His Relation to Miracles Done By Others

Others besides Jesus worked miracles. Even in the Old Testament we have reports of miracles worked by some of the prophets. Elijah and Elisha even restored the dead to life (1 Kgs. 17:19ff; 2 Kgs. 4:32ff; 13:21). Jesus did not work greater miracles than those worked by others in either the Old or New Testament, but the manner in which he worked his miracles in absolute concurrence with the Father (Jn. 5:19f). In raising Lazarus he “lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me” (Jn. 11:41). With the Father’s assent to what he was about to do, “He cried in a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth, and he that was dead came forth.” This, and all the other Jesus’ miracles, were worked as natural operations of his own being. It is not from the Father (though always in absolute concurrence with him) but from himself that the influence proceeded: “I will; Be thou clean (Mk. 1:41); “Ephphata. . . . Be opened” (Mk. 7:34); Talitha cummi … Damsel, I say to thee, arise” (Mk. 5:41); “Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house” (Mk. 2:11).

Someone may ask, “But how is this different from how miracles were worked by others?” The answer is that others did not use the same language Jesus used; language which shows that Jesus saw himself working miracles of his own will and by his own power, and yet in perfect union (being of one nature and one will) with the Father. This disciples worked miracles in Jesus’ name (Lk. 9:49; 10:17; Acts 3:6; 16:18; 19:13); they readily conceded (even if his name was not always pronounced) that the mighty works which they did were by his will and by his power. Not one of them ever thought of himself as in union with the Father in the same sense that Jesus thought of himself in relation to him. They were but disciples and acknowledged Jesus to be their Lord, and they thought only in terms of doing what they did in his name and by his authority and power.

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