Truth Magazine

By Ken McLemore

Excuse me while I address an issue that preachers aren’t supposed to address because politicians have labelled it as part of a broader political question.

The moral standards of our society are being defined in the will of the majority, and automatically makes “right” whatever is the will of the majority. That idea is being used to define life and death issues, as reflected in the present health care debate, evidenced by the following point:

“The Clintons’ true goal is the most ambitious of all, a change in the culture of dying. `That’s why Hillary’s talking up living wills and advance directives,’ says an Administration official, `She hopes to spur others to get COMFORTABLE WITH PULLING THE PLUG”‘ (“Pulling the Plug,” Time, Oct. 4, 1993, p.36; emphasis mine, KDM).

Death as a matter of social “choice” rather than moral concern has evolved from the abortion de-bate to its logical consequence in “pulling the plug” as a socio-economic “choice” rather than a moral concern. What is the difference between the “medically-assisted” death of an unborn baby and that of a terminally ill, but not brain dead,adult? Nothing: both are dead. The acceptance of both based upon the fallacy of “choice” is only the first logical consequence in the equation which has planned euthanasia as its ultimate consequence. Whatever can be “chosen” today can be planned for you tomorrow. What began in the minds of many as a social “choice” never has been anything but playing God. If that is not the case, then why all the moral outrage by supporters of “assisted suicide” over the tactics of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, as expressed by columnist Ellen Goodman:

“I regard him too as the failure story of the legal system. If a patient cannot call on a family doctor, he or she must depend on the `kindness’ of strangers. If we don’t wrestle down a reasonable law, people will go to outlaws,” (“Dr. Death should become obsolete,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Nov. 15, 1993, p. 6B)

The problem with the premise of both abortion and “assisted suicide” is the same problem with the premise of “pulling the plug,” that once society rationalizes the morality of the end it seeks to accomplish, the morality of the means to effect that end becomes irrelevant. Regardless of which practice society “chooses” to make legal, somebody innocent of any moral wrong is just as dead. The logical consequence of Ms. Goodman’s point is that she is not outraged so much by “assisted death” as she is outraged by sloppy “assisted death.” She is comfort-able with “pulling the plug.”

The argument for “a change in the culture of dying” seeks to make what one might call the “greater good” the standard for life and death, and demands that the individual be given the right to authorize his/her death for the sake of making life cheaper for the rest of us. The “greater good” is a dollars and cents approach that leaves God out of the point altogether, and that is its contradiction. Society cannot excuse itself from moral accountability to God when government encourages society to “get comfortable with pulling the plug” (Rom. 13:3-4).

“Pulling the plug” is not a moral right even if it becomes a civil right. “Pulling the plug” as a right relies upon two false assumptions: First, it assumes that there are no moral absolutes; and, secondly, it assumes that moral standards may be defined by the majority will. “Choice” as the standard of authority in a society takes the place of moral absolutes when that society accepts the notion that nothing is absolute. For instance, in education, outcome is now considered more important than understanding or achievement, therefore, the student who thinks 2+2=5 is not wrong; he/she is merely “in process” of learning. He/she has “chosen” to arrive at his/ her conclusion despite objective evidence to the contrary, and is not considered “wrong” in that conclusion, but merely on a different learning path to the same objective. (Consider that when the same student mows your yard for 2 hours at $2 per hour and asks for $5.00.) When nothing is wrong for the situation in which it exists, neither euthanasia nor murder is precluded, objective evidence aside. The moral vacuum in which the new concept of “pulling the plug” operates shows an open disdain for the right of God as creator. The design of creation argues for the existence of a creator, and it also gives the designer the argument in Psalms 24:1, when he writes, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” God declared the same point by the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18:4, saying, “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” When man recognizes the right of the creator to his creation, he is compelled to recognize the authority of the creator’s will. Consequently, in order to become “comfort-able with pulling the plug,” society has to first be convinced to “pull the plug” on God.

Religious denominationalism cannot stem the tide of the new “culture of dying” or any of the other assaults upon morality by the “choice” driven society because religious denominationalism is itself based upon an argument of “choice.” Religious denominationalism argues that gospel truth is denominational rather than absolute, and any voice to the contrary is deemed to be “bigoted.” But, God’s voice is as absolute as is God (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23; Luke 6:46; John 17:17; Eph. 4:4-6; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9). There are as many truths as there are gods, and there is only one God (Isa. 44:6-8). God has declared his right as creator and his will for his creation, the standard by which God will judge (2 Cor. 5:10; John 5:26-30).

“Choice” is becoming the norm, the rule, the god that its secularist priests and priestesses worship at the altars of abortion, “assisted suicide,” and “pulling the plug.” God’s judgment of them will be just; but, in the mean time, they must be opposed (2 Cor. 10:4-6). And, man cannot oppose them if man has already agreed that divine truth is a matter of “choice” (Jer. 16:10-13; 17:5-8; Isa. 55:8-11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 1
March 17, 1994

By Mike Willis

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

We frequently hear sermons that emphasize the love and mercy of God, but today rarely do we hear anything about God’s wrath. Modem denominationalism has either totally eliminated the doctrine of hell from its theology or hidden it in some remote corner. Several books, including one by Edward Fudge (The Fire That Consumes), have been published in recent years that take the position that the punishment of hell is annihilation, not endless torment. In a recent ad in the church news section of our local paper, a denomination advertised that it did not preach sermons on hell fire and brimstone. These things point us to the sad truth that some men want to hear nothing about the wrath of God. Nevertheless, Paul spoke about the wrath of God being revealed from heaven and we need to study what he says about it.

The Wrath of God

The Scriptures repeatedly speak about the wrath of God in such passages as the following:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).

For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience (Col. 3:6).

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb (Rev. 14:10).

And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God (Rev. 14:19).

See also Revelation 15:1,7;16:1 or consult any concordance and look under entries about the wrath of God. We cannot faithfully proclaim the totality of God’s revelation without speaking about his wrath.

God’s Wrath Is Revealed

Not only does the Bible teach that wrath is a part of God’s nature, it also tells us that God’s wrath has been revealed from heaven against ungodliness and unrighteousness in men. Here are a number of ways that it has been revealed:

1. In the doctrine of Hell. The Lord Jesus spoke more about hell than any other person in the New Testament. He told us about a place of eternal torment (see Luke 16:19-31; Mark 9:43-48). Hell is a place of the righteous retribution of divine justice against wickedness (Rom. 2:8-9; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). It is a place of everlasting separation from the presence of God (see Luke 16:19-31). Surely, we can see the wrath of God revealed from heaven in the Bible doctrine of Hell.

2. In God’s moral government of the world. The Bible records the Lord’s dealing with men through the centuries. The basis of his moral government of the world is concisely stated in Proverbs 14:34  “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). The prophet Jeremiah expressed it more completely in the following passage:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (Jer. 18:7-10).

The execution of God’s moral government of the world is witnessed in the flood (Gen. 6-8), the destruction of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19), the sending of Israel into Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17:13-18) and Judah into Babylonian captivity, and the destruction of Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans in A.D. 70 (Matt. 21:33-43). All of these examples of God’s destruction of cities and nations display God’s wrath against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

3. In the consequences and temporal results of sin. God’s wrath against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men is also seen in sin’s consequences. In the context of Romans 1, God’s wrath is specifically shown in his “giving them up” (Rom. 1:24,28). In these verses, the Lord’s “giving them up” was an abandonment of man to follow his sin to its ultimate conclusion  to receive the pain and suffering that sin produces. This age old principle is witnessed in the Proverbs  “the way of transgressors is hard” (13:15). God manifested his wrath toward ungodliness and unrighteousness by hedging in the way of sin with thorns and thistles.

Conclusion

We do men a grave injustice when we so emphasize the love and mercy of God that we neglect to preach about the wrath of God. Just as certainly as the Bible reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ, it also reveals the wrath of God.continued from cover

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 2
March 17, 1994

By Milburn Cockrell, Editor The Berea Baptist Banner

I continue to be elated at the progress we are making in this debate. Mr. Donahue has not denied thus far that before Mark 16:16 people were saved by repentance and faith, as the Bible teaches and Baptists believe. He did mention “preparatory teaching,” but none of the verses he cited was any to which I had referred. In his second speech he also conceded that an erring Christian who loses his salvation regains it by repentance and faith. Thus to a very large degree he has come around to my position. But as to the initial salvation experience from Mark 16:16 to now he continues to hold to his “be dipped or damned” theory, a theory not taught in the Bible, but in The Christian System written by Alexander Campbell. I commend him for the concessions he has thus made. His honesty is commend-able.

He complains that I did not respond to his arguments, but I did. He failed to try to explain any of my verses, save Luke 7:48,50. He only went off on synecdoches. He did not respond to my proof texts because he knows the verses I cited plainly teach salvation at the point of faith. He says he agrees with me that faith saves, but then he says the believer is still a child of the Devil! Any person knows a child of the Devil is not saved! In his last speech he failed to tell us more about the grotesque creature who is still a Christian but “separated from God” and “fallen from grace.” He did not say a word about Papa Campbell’s words on Acts 22:16, nor a word about 1 Corinthians 1:14-17; 4:15. He did not examine any of the verses in my arguments 8 to 14 in his last speech. “Physician, heal thyself ” (Luke 4:23). Maybe I should call him Mr. Dodge instead of Mr. Donahue.

He is hung up on a synecdoche. He tries to make me say repentance and faith are not necessary to salvation, yet he knows that I do not believe such foolishness. His synecdoche argument is essentially this: If something is mentioned after something elsesuch as baptism after faith  then it proves that whatever is said to happen cannot occur until the last thing mentioned. This is his rule, not mine. But let me use his rule on his own arguments about baptismal regeneration. In Matthew 10:22 Christ said: “But he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” Here salvation is said to come after perseverance to the end of natural life. Endurance comes after baptism. Hence, according to Mr. Donahue’s rule, a man is saved at death, a very long time after his baptism. His logic has now proved that a man is not saved at the point of baptism. Remember that he said: “…because salvation is predicated upon a condition doesn’t mean salvation happens at the point of that condition being met.”

In truth Mr. Donahue does not believe that a man is saved at the point of baptism. He believes that he may be saved, provided he can outrun the Devil from the creek to Heaven. He believes that a man can be saved by baptismal regeneration, then go and join a Baptist church, and end up in Hell. If he joined a Catholic or Protestant church, which teaches baptismal regeneration, he can still get to Heaven second class. In his view there is hope for all Christendom, except the Baptists!

I continue to be amazed at his proof of baptismal regeneration in the O.T. He believes that the flood waters saved Noah. The Bible teaches that the ark saved Noah and the waters of the flood destroyed the ungodly. Then he goes off on the walls of Jericho that fell down after the Israelites marched around the city seven days. Mr. Donahue, they fell down by faith, not baptism. Nobody was baptized at Jericho. Most of the people in the city were not saved. They perished in the battle. My friend tries to get his doctrine from inferences about the flood, the walls of Jericho, and some statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1. He seems to be hard pressed for plain scriptures.

Upward of 100 verses in the New Testament condition salvation on faith in Jesus Christ. 1 John 5:1 says: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Notice that it said the believer “is” (not going to be) born of God. Mr. Donahue does not believe this verse. He thinks the believer is still a child of the Devil. According to him, a person can repent, believe, hear, confess, but these things are not sufficient. Such a person is still a child of the Devil. Mr. Donahue ignores the many verses which say that faith causes a person to be saved  the person is saved the moment he believes. He goes to about six verses (Mk. 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21) and in these he thinks the word “saved” means what it says. He believes that in more than 100 verses “saved” does not mean “saved,” but in the six he cites “saved” means “saved”! Such reasoning is about as logical as putting a screen door in a submarine!

He ignores my verses, but I will consider his, such as Mark 16:16. The verse teaches that men are damned for want of faith, not baptism. Belief is the key here, not baptism. I might also say: “He that believeth and takes the Lord’s supper shall be saved.” We might add any duty required of a Christian. Unbelief is the cause of condemnation (John 3:18). When a person ceases to be an unbeliever, he is not condemned.

1 Peter 3:21. He ignores the word “figure.” Baptism is a figure or picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the means of our salvation. Mr. Donahue does not know the difference between a picture and the real thing.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13. There is nothing in the words of Paul here about salvation. Paul did not baptize in his own name; he baptized in the name of Christ. Note that verse 14 says: “I thank God that! baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.” Mr. Donahue would never had said such, for he would be thanking God that he saved so few.

Acts 2:38. “For the remission of sins” means “with reference to the remission of sins already obtained” one is baptized. The Greek eis does not mean “in order to.” In Matthew 12:41: “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas,” not in order to obtain his preaching.

Look carefully at Mr. Donahue’s statement: “Anybody not baptized `for the remission of sins’ will be lost.” This is the same thing that the pope of Rome believes. Pope Paul said on February 6, 1974, to a general audience: “The real birthday of a Christian is the day of his baptism” (1975 Catholic Almanac 62).

For the first 4,000 years of human history baptismal regeneration was not known among the fellowship of God’s children. The error originated among the Devil worshippers of Chaldea many centuries before Christ. Alexander Hislop relates of the priests of Babylon: “They led their votaries to believe that, if they only passed through the baptismal waters, and the penances therewith connected, that of itself would make them. . . twice born or regenerate. . . and give them the new birth” (The Two Babylons 137). This idea passed through false Judaism into the church at Pergamos and finally into the Mother of Harlots, the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Donahue and his people got this dogma from one of the daughters of the Whore. It came from the Presbyterians by means of Alexander Campbell into the Restoration Movement.

I charge this hoary, old, bewhiskered patriarch (baptismal regeneration) with being not a patriarch of Scripture at all, but just an ignoble old Chaldean vagabond. I charge baptismal regeneration with being the most destructive heresy that ever raised its Hydra-head out of the pit of Hell. It was not planned in the councils of God from eternity. It was instigated in the councils of Hell, the Devil being the father thereof, and the Whore by Babylon the Great being the mother thereof. This accursed lie has dragged millions down to Hell by deceiving them as to the new birth.

Thank you, Mr. Donahue, for answering my third question in my last speech so as to show that Baptists are different from Catholics and Protestants. As I have just pointed out, Mr. Donahue and his people are like Catholics, Protestants, and pagans, for they all believe in human works for salvation. We believe in salvation by free grace  even repentance and faith are gifts of God’s grace. Grace, the free grace of God, does all the work of salvation. It works in the sinner all his good will and all his good works, so that the sinner shall go at last into the divine presence as a poor, helpless beggar, saved by grace from first to last, and be prepared to give God all the glory of his salvation.

Evils of Baptismal Regeneration

1. It makes the preacher who baptizes a person his savior. If Mr. Donahue’s position is correct, Jesus Christ never saved one soul. John 4:2 says: “Jesus baptized not, but his disciples.”

2. The “be dipped or damned” idea is out of character with the spiritual religion which Christ came to teach. If salvation was in ceremony, then the ordinances of Judaism were just as good. 1 Peter 3:21 declares that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh.

3. Some persons received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48). The receiving of the Spirit presupposes regeneration and furnishes evidence of it. Hence they were said to justify baptism.

4. Baptism is described by Peter as “the answer of a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21), but a good conscience is the fruit of regeneration (Heb. 9:14) and is joined to faith (1 Tim. 1:5,19; 3:9).

5. In the First Epistle of John he uses the word “begat” one time and “begotten” three times, yet he never mentions baptism in the whole book! This is strange if a person is regenerated by baptism as Mr. Donahue says. Unlike him, John saw no connection between baptism and regeneration.

6. Is a man led to baptism by the Spirit of God, or the spirit of the Devil? If he is led by the devil, we must praise the Devil for his work of evangelism. If he is led by the Spirit of God, then he is saved before baptism, for “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

Answers to Mr. Donahue’s Questions

1. Repentance and faith occur very much at the same time, and so salvation may be predicated upon either. There is a time lapse between faith and baptism.

2. The answer to his second question is “No!”

3. No. The grammar is plain, for it shows the baptized ones in verse 27 were the ones already saved by faith. The antecedent of the personal pronoun “you” in verse 27 is “the children of God” in verse 26.

Mr. Donahue, give up the dogma of baptismal regeneration which is from Babylon and Rome. Trust in a whole Christ for the whole of your salvation.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 24-25
March 3, 1994

By Jimmy Tuten

“The Wicked Husbandmen” is the name given to a parable that is recorded in Matthew 21:33-44. The key to understanding it is found in verses 45-46, “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.” The wicked populace of Jesus’ day had already rejected the teaching of John the baptizer. Their past actions are exposed in the Lord’s previous parable (vv. 28-32). In this one Jesus makes known the present and future actions of these people relative to their plan to kill Jesus (vv. 37-39).

The “householder” is God; the “vineyard is the nation of Israel; the “husbandmen” are the Jewish leaders; the “servants” are the prophets who have been sent to the nation of Israel, and the “Son” is Christ. While the interpretation of the parable is not our main concern in this writing, the practical application of it to our day is of great importance. What relevancy does the parable have for the people of God in the 1990s?

The Grace of God

The people of God in the Old Testament had previously been compared to a vineyard (Ps. 80; Isa. 5:1,7). A great deal has been said about the measures taken for their separation and protection (Matt. 21:33; Isa. 5:2,5). In the preparation of the vineyard there were three areas clearly marked out: (1) A householder planted a vineyard and furnished it with all appliances needful for the intended production. A hedge is placed around it to keep wild animals out, a vat is dug out of the rock in which to press out the juice of the grape and a tower is erected for the watchmen to prevent intrusion. The tower also served as a storage place and a point of protection for the workmen. (2) The vineyard is planted, fenced, guarded, tilled and furnished. It is then handed over to the husbandmen. (3) Having commissioned and installed the husbandman, the owner goes into another country. Clearly then, the vine-yard was the area of God’s gracious privilege, the realm of service of all. Specifically, the Jews had become the husbandmen 1500 years previously. God made wise provision for them and guided them in the production of fruit unto him. What more could he have done for his people?

Is God’s grace any different today? “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men” (Tit. 2:11). The motivation for this gift of grace was the “the kindness and love of God our Savior” (Tit. 3: 4), “by grace ye are saved” (Eph. 2:5). In addition to this there is gracious condition in which men may stand (Rom. 5:1-2). God’s people are admonished to “stand” in the “true grace of God” (1 Pet. 5:12). God has bestowed graceupon men of our age.

Freedom of Action

Just as the landowner made the needed provision for the vineyard and left its care to the vine growers, so God gave Israel the law (Rom. 3:1-2). On this hinged two great commandments:love God with all thy heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourselves (Matt. 5:43-44). They were given the freedom of will to serve him and to produce fruit. There was no compulsion on God’s part except that of love and gratitude (1 Jn. 4:10-11,19).

There is a divine and human side of salvation (Eph. 2:8). God is the provider and man responds in obedience (Heb. 5:8-9). Since man’s response is in the form of obedience to the conditions of God’s grace, his salvation is not based on works of merit (Tit. 3:4-7). However, man must “work out” his own salvation (Phil. 2:12), yet so as not to boast of having earned anything (Tit. 2:11-12). Just as the Jews were responsible for their service to God, so it is with his people today. Jude says, “keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 20-21). “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:62). Our attitude should be that of a willingness to serve, yet, “.. . when ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Lk. 17:10).

Reponsibility

Though the owner of the vineyard was absent as far as conspicuous oversight and retribution were concerned, there was nonetheless the responsibility of fulfilling the owner’s expectations of finding fruit (Matt. 21:34; Isa. 5:2-4). The idea of leasing (“let it out”) was common in Bible times. But with this leasing there was the entrustment and commitment to the charge of paying a portion to the owner. Those in charge had a responsiiblity that had to be fulfilled. In God’s purpose for redemption this involved the responsibility to propagate the kingdom of God. Since the responsibility of the Jews was rejected by them, the charge was taken from them and given to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43-44).

God’s people today have the obligation to fearfully reverence God and keep his commandments (Eccl. 12:13-14). We are expected to spread the borders of the kingdom (Matt. 28), produce fruit thereof (Gal. 5:22-23) and prove what is acceptable to God (Eph. 5:9-10). God will bring all men into account in the day of judgment (2 Cor. 5:10-11). “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be bad” (Eccl. 12:14).

The refusal of those in charge of the vineyard to pay their dues is manifested by subsequent ill-treatment in various ways. They go to extreme lengths several times over to reject those commissioned to ask for the fruits due the owner. These servants were beaten and killed by the vine growers (Matt. 21:35). Other servants that were sent were treated the same way (v. 36). The longsuffering and merciful vineyard owner then sent his son, thinking they would respect him (v. 37). But these vineyard laborers, with their robber-like conspiracy, plotted against the son and heir of the vineyard in order that they might become the owners (v. 38). Thus the murderous sequel took place when the son of the owner was sent with the belief that his action would encourage a proper response. They cast him out of the vineyard and killed him (v. 39). The slain servants represent the prophets who had pleaded for obedient trust in God and for fruits thereof of due him. From Matthew 23:37 it can seen that there was uniform hositlity to the prophets. This display in-creased with indulgence. The more God pleaded with them, the more self-conscious and bitter becomes their hatred. As the antagonism increased so was the beseeching appeal on the part of God. The continuous rebellion on the part of the nation of Jews caused them to stand with frowning hatred before the Son of God as he spoke. This treatment of Jesus was the living em-bodied of the spirit which had animated their forefathers. The fountain of wisdom and love was poured out for all mankind, but it was a fatal issue for them (Matt. 21:37-39). No more patience would be accorded them. The cup of guilt was filled to the brim. They would be cast forth and punished! The rebellious Jews had dashed themelves to pieces on the stone sent with irresistible impetus from the throne of God as a final interposition in their favor (“but last of all . . .” cf. I Pet. 2:4,6-8). The acceptance or rejection of Christ is the determining fctor in human history. They chose to crucify the Son of God, who after his resurrection was made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). The fear of the loss of ruling power became the motivating force among the Chief Priests and Pharisees. But they lost their control over the Law and the conduct of the people when the kingdom was taken exclusively from them and given to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:45-46; Acts 13:46-49; 15:13-18).

The Punishment of the Jewish Nation

There were three aspects of the punishment inflicted upon the Jews: (1) The first was national, in that the kingdom of God was taken from them and given to another nation which would bring proper fruit. Because the Jews had rejected God’s mercy they would be “broken in pieces.” There would be scattered like chaff, that is, the nation would go into dispersion. This new nation included

Jews and Gentiles alike and it was not of this world. This nation is made of all the nations saved. It is the church, the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13). It does not have earthly origin. Since it is not the same nature as the Jewish nation according to the flesh, it does not have similar functions to that of civil government On. 18:36; 2 Cor. 13:3-5; 1 Pet. 2:9). It is spiritual in nature.

Just as the wicked (represented by the Jewish nation) are destroyed in the parable, so the Jewish nation (fleshly Israel) was brought to an inglorious end. The last remnant thereof was rejected. They lost their privileges and were broken. The prophecies of the destruction, which began to be executed at the cross of Jesus, took place under the leadership of Titus in 70 A.D. (2) When the fall of Jerusalem took place under the leadership of Titus in 70 A.D., the second aspect of the threefold punishment. Such is the punishment of anyone who stumbles over the Stone and who doubt the truth of Jesus being the Son of God. To these the “living Stone” becomes a rock of offense (1 Pet. 2:4,8). Though these are lost in sin, some of them later believed to the saving of their souls (Acts 2:36-41). (3) The third punishment has to do with the fact that he upon whom the stones falls will be ground to dust and blown as chaff in the wind. This applied to the Chief Priests, Pharisees and Sadducees who had the Lord cruficied and who continued in their rebellion. When Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. some of them died and some were sold in slavery. This was their punishment for their hardened, impenitent conduct in rejecting salvation. “Grind them” is an expression of terrible vengeance and destruction that left national Israel without hope of recovery (Dan. 2:34-35,44-45). Christ in his humility is the stone against which wicked men fall. Christ in his glory and exaltation is the stone which falls on them. The cross of Christ thereafter became unto the Jews a stumblingblock and to the Gentiles foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23).

Conclusion

Those who oppose Christ today are slain and buried by what should be their joy. Their dwelling and refuge becomes their tomb. God’s great purpose of redemption for those who believe and destruction in an eternal hell for unbelievers will continue to be fulfilled. So if one attempts to work out by his own means an eternal success with the Lord, his action would be as foolish as standing in the path of avalanche of stone in order to stem it. “How shall we escape is we neglect so great a salvation?” (Heb. 2:3) “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 8-9
March 17, 1994