Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

“Good understanding giveth favor: but the way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15). Temporal hardships may continue long after the transgression has been for-given. Sin always has spiritual consequences such as separating us from God and making us slaves to Satan, but some sins also have consequences which are temporal, earthly, or physical. These unintended results may fall on many people in addition to the sinner himself. Adam’s sin not only separated him from God spiritually, but also brought the pall of physical death down upon himself, his immediate family, and all the human family until the end of time (Gen. 3:19; Heb. 9:27). God offers all men forgiveness of sins, and yet all men must die physically whether they accept or reject God’s offer. When God forgives our sins and restores us to a right spiritual relation-ship with himself, this does not remove the temporal consequences of certain sins.

For instance, the converted murderer cannot claim that since God has forgiven him, he is now exempt from the death penalty. Paul said, “If I… have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die” (Acts 25:11). Further-more, the sin of murder affects and afflicts many people beyond the immediate murder victim, and these results cannot be removed. The convicted thief who repents of his sin must still pay the penalty required by civil law as the “due reward” of his deeds (Lk. 23:40-43). Even after he repents, many people may continue to suffer from both his stealing and the penalty he must pay. When the prodigal son returned in genuine penitence to his father’s house, and was forgiven and received, he still could not recover the money wasted in such sinful conduct as gambling (Lk. 15:13).

The violation of God’s law on marriage, divorce, and remarriage may result in pains and sorrows which cannot be removed even when the sin is forgiven. The Jews who married foreign wives contrary to the law of Moses could be forgiven but faced the temporal consequence of separation from their wives (Ezra 10:11). Herod could have been forgiven for marrying his brother’s wife but he could not have kept her (Mk. 6:17-18). When a man who has been living in adultery is converted to Christ, all of his past sins are forgiven, but baptism does not sanctify his adulterous marriage and he faces the difficult temporal consequence of having to end his adulterous relationship (Matt. 19:9; Acts 26:20). The hardships which follow fall upon an ever-widening circle of children, relatives, and other loved ones.

Cain and David

Cain was not forgiven for his sin; David was forgiven; yet, both men faced temporal consequences of their sins from which there was no escape. Consider the case of Cain. God legislated the death penalty for murder after the time of Cain, but does this mean that Cain escaped the temporal consequences of his sin (Gen. 9:6)? In Cain’s case, God executed a penalty approaching death if not worse than death, a sort of living death. God said that the earth would not yield its bounty to Cain and that he would suffer the desperate life of “a fugitive and a vagabond.” “And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear” (Gen. 4:9-15). Cain was to be driven from pillar to post, under the constant threat of death, doomed to an empty life of misery and despair! Men living under such a sentence often invite or welcome death in their reckless despair, either by conduct or by conscious decision, hoping that death will be release from their suffering. Imagine their consternation in finding at death they have stepped from one horrible world of torment to another more horrible still! “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked” (Isa. 57:21).

Consider the case of David in 2 Samuel 11-12. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then was driven to cover his sin by causing Uriah’s death in a military operation. After David’s forgiveness and restoration to a right relationship with God, he remained married to Bathsheba and was not put to death. Does this mean that he escaped the temporal consequences of his sin? As to the marriage, Uriah was dead when David married Bathsheba. Therefore, the marriage of David and Bathsheba was not an adulterous union (Rom. 7:2-3). Why was David not executed for his role in Uriah’ s death? Perhaps there were difficulties in administering the law in this case because David himself was the head of the civil government and because of the difficulty of producing witnesses who could and would testify against him and be the first to act in executing the death penalty (Deut. 17:6-7; 19:5). The woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11 similarly was not stoned because it was not possible to produce competent witnesses. Furthermore, God himself issued a special dispensation of clemency through Nathan the prophet, saying explicitly to David, “Thou shalt not die” (2 Sam. 12:9-14).

Does this mean that David “got away with murder”? No, not at all. The temporal consequences of David’s sins were terrible indeed! Because of David’s role in the death of Uriah, the child conceived in adultery died, a punishment worse than death for David. Furthermore, David’s conduct weakened his moral leadership over the nation so that he henceforth struggled to protect the throne and unite the nation. Perhaps worst of all, he lived to see the disintegration of his family through immoralities, insurrections, and deaths. These consequences were virtually a living death, a death penalty carried out over and over, giving rise to heart-rending cries recorded in the Psalms. It is a tribute to David’s faith that he accepted and endured these consequences without a single word of complaint against the justice of God.

The Moral Government of the Universe

There is much about the moral government of the universe by God which we do not understand, but we know that his administration of this government is wise, just, compassionate, for our good, and ultimately for the fulfilling of his own holy purposes. With Job we stand in awe of God’s government of the universe, and we are ashamed to think that we have ever questioned it in any way.

“Then Job answered the Lord, and said, Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further” (Job 40:3-5). God is not responsible to justify all of His ways to man.

We may wonder what there is in the righteous and holy character of God that caused him to not give the murderer the right to live (Gen. 9:6; Isa. 6:3; Rom. 13:4). We may wonder why God did not give the divorced fornicator the right to many a new mate, or give the adulterer the right to continue in his adulterous marriage (Gen. 2:24; Isa. 6:3; Matt. 19:4-9). In other words, why are such temporal consequences of sin necessary to the moral government of the universe? There are sufficient reasons known to God, and he is no more obligated to satisfy our curiosity about such matters than he was to answer the probing of Job.

This much we can know about such matters. Divine law established a moral order and justice in the universe to which man ultimately must submit, either willingly or unwillingly, and all of God’s laws and ordinances sustain this moral order somehow. We can understand that God restrains evil by making it impossible for the murderer to murder again when he is executed, and God restrains evil also by providing this means of warning others against the evil. God restrains the evil of sexual immorality by every phase and particular of his law on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and the temporal consequences of breaking that law serve as a warning to others not to break it. We can understand that God’s laws on murder and fornication are designed to protect the good, and that the temporal consequences of breaking these laws remind us that one victim is enough. God has so designed all of his laws in these matters so as to reinforce the message that he intends for these sins to stop.

The Ruler of the universe is all-wise and all-powerful, and it is he who has ordained the temporal consequences of sin. This ordinance is revealed in Scripture and reflected in life, if we only have the eyes to see it. We destroy ourselves by questioning and re-belling against any part of God’s government over life. Our transgressions bring many hardships, some of which we suffer even after our sins are forgiven. Even after we are forgiven and restored to a right relationship with God, we may face the temporal consequences of abusing alcohol and other drugs, marital infidelity and a broken home, incest, homosexuality, disrespect toward husband or wife, failing to discipline children, stealing, lying, cheating, an acid tongue, and other sins. Though the consequence is not always physical death, it may be a living death as we see the innocent suffer physically, emotionally, economically, psychologically, and in other ways because of our sins.

It is an act of faith in God to endure these consequences with-out complaining about his government of the universe. If we truly live by faith in him, such suffering will draw us closer to him, as happened in the case of David. The Psalms provide wonderful balm for these wounds which we have inflicted upon ourselves and others. If we live by true faith in God, we will tell others of his justice and mercy even as we suffer earthly consequences from our sins, and we will point to these consequences as a means of warning others not to make the mistakes we have made. Even while suffering the consequences of his sins, David expressed his trust in the mercy and grace of God, and declared that all the judgments of God are just and true.

Have mercy upon me, 0 God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest (Psa. 51:1-4).

“If we live by true faith in God, , We will tell others of his justice and mercy even as we suffer earthly consequences from our sins, and we will point to these consequences as a means of warning others not to make the mistake we have made. Even while suffering the consequences of his sins, David expressed his trust in the mercy and grace of God, and declared that all the judgments of God are just and true.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 14-15
September 16, 1993

By Norman Midgette

There are those today who would like for you to think that the events recorded in Genesis 19 are fiction not fact. The record shows that these cities were cremated by God overnight with fire and brimstone because of their wickedness, including homosexuality. The sodomites and lesbians today, who want religious respectability and church membership, try to claim this story is fiction not fact. It is their claim that their lifestyle is not an abomination to God but is acceptable to him. After all, this story is buried far back in the book of Genesis and has questionable authenticity. This is what they would have you believe.

If this story if fiction, Moses did not know about it just before his death. He said God overthrew those cities with brimstone and burning in his anger and wrath (Deut. 29:23). Neither did Isaiah believe it was fiction. He referred to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah three times and speaking of the brazenness of their sin said, “they hide it not” (Isa. 3:9; see also 1:9, 10, 13:19). Jeremiah also referred to this event three times, likening the wickedness of Israel and Judah to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jer. 23:14; see also 40:18, 50:40). In Lamentations 4:6 he speaks of Sodom again. Ezekiel elaborated on Sodoms sin and destruction in 10 verses of Ezekiel 16 and there is no hint of him believing it is fiction not fact. He says they committed, “abomination” before God and he, “took them away” (16:50). And the prophet Amos records Jehovah as saying, “I have overthrown cities among you as when I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah” (Amos 4:11). Then finally Old Testament testimony comes from Zephaniah who affirms, “Therefore, as I live saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, a possession of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation” (Zeph. 2:9)

The first three books of the New Testament record Jesus talking about Sodom and Gomorrah as fact not fiction and saying in Luke 17:29,”but in day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.” Peter said, God, “turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemning them with an overthrow” (2 Pet. 2:6). And, Jude writes with this devastating conclusion: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal life” (June 7). The last biblical reference to Sodom is in Revelation 11:8.

From Genesis to Revelation God affirms this story of the homosexual character and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as fact. No religious respectability can be given this sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 4
October 7, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

More and more we are hearing that “we need to major in the gospels and minor in the epistles.” What is that all about? What it is about is the so-called “new hermeneutic.” It places greater importance on what Jesus said and did than on what the apostles said and did. It is a part of the scheme to rid ourselves of the restraining influences of finding a direct statement, approved apostolic ex-ample or necessary inference to authorize our teaching and practice.

We have some among us who are terrorized by the ghost of tradition. Never mind that traditions are sometimes approved and other times condemned. Paul wrote, “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:17). He also said, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). The church at Thessalonica was charged to “withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). So, all traditions are not to be rejected.

The Source of Apostolic Teaching

Those who worry about putting too much emphasis on the epistles need to be reminded of the source of the message in the epistles. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth, bringing to their remembrance what Jesus had taught them, and revealing to them truth which Jesus had not expressed while with them in person. Read John 16:7-14. Paul said, “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches” and then added, “But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:13,16). “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. 14:37).

Now, if the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit, had the mind of Christ, and what they wrote were the words of Christ, how say some among us that we need to minor in the epistles?

New Testament congregations which received and obeyed apostolic instruction in the epistles were following the will of Christ. That is why Jude wrote, “But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17). Those words were a pattern to shape our thinking and practice.

A “Better” Way?

Some of those who are weary of precept, approved apostolic example and necessary inference, tell us that this is not all bad but they have found a “better way,” that in addition to these means of establishing divine authority, we may add the three “P’s”  principle, purpose and perception. Older brethren will recall the time when E.R. Harper was trying to find divine authority for the Herald of Truth sponsoring church arrangement and came up with “principle eternal.” He had no precept, no approved apostolic example and no necessary inference from the word of God, so he found it in “principle eternal.” But how do we know what principle to follow except in terms of what the word of God actually says? How do we know what purpose is to be served apart from divine instruction? How do we know what perception or perspective was present except from what is said in the text?

It is being argued that the only pattern for us is what we think Jesus would do. That is a subjective approach to religion. We “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Faith rests upon solid evidence, not subjective feelings and perceptions. The truth of the matter is that Jesus taught by the use of commands and precepts. What do you make of the Great Commission if that is not so? He “left us an example that we should follow in his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). He also drew necessary conclusions (Matt. 22:23-33) or left it so that his hearers would do so.

There seems to be a terrible dread among some (especially some younger men) that they will do something which brethren have done before and therefore will fall into some theological rut from which they will not be able to extricate themselves. So they tinker with the order of the worship until it borders on disorder. They fear that worship will not be exciting enough. But exciting to whom? To us, or to our God? They must deliver us from boredom. But who is bored? Are we bored, or is God? Certainly worship ought to be offered from the whole heart. We ought not to go through empty rituals. But God has ordained certain acts of worship and who am Ito say that he is bored when his children perform these acts in harmony with what God himself instructed us to do?

These are dangerous times. The only safe guide to see us through these times is the inerrant, eternal word of God. It is a perfect guide. Our eternal destiny is too important to entrust to the shifting sands of human opinion and subjective religion. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psa. 11:3) Let’s hear what Jesus said in the gospels but let’s not minimize what he said in the epistles through Holy Spirit-guided apostles. That is also a part of the word that will judge us in the last day (Jn. 12:48-49).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 3-4
October 7, 1993

By Bobby L. Graham

(Editors’ Note: The Florence Times (June 27, 1993] carried the following article about this march for freedom.)

Both in ancient times and in modem times young people have sometimes taken bold stands for right and truth on matters that were not popular with all of their peers. Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the food and drink regimen prescribed by the Babylonian king for the young men in training for places of leadership. The Bible’s emphasis on his purpose of heart is crucial in the understanding of this matter of conviction. Once one has learned what truth demands and God de-sires, he must act on that conviction. Doing so often requires courage, giving rise to the expression “the courage of his conviction.”

The young preacher Timothy had been taught and trained by a mother and a grandmother who understood their role. The result was a young man who became a Christian during Paul’s first missionary trip and a travel companion and helper in the gospel on the second such trip of the apostle. In a pagan society filled with the worship of idols and associated immorality of that society, it was not easy for Timothy to take his bold stand for Jesus Christ. His mixed religious background (father a Greek and mother a Jew) likewise did not make his turning to Christ easy. He became convicted by truth and then acted on it out of courage.

In the last few weeks two young men in the Florence area, Drew Jamieson and Steve Graham, Jr., took a stand that could have been unpopular and undoubtedly is in many instances. They chose to speak up for God and his gracious blessing in the lives of all and to pray during a graduation ceremony at a public high school. For their action they were criticized by some but praised by most. It was conviction and the courage of their conviction that worked to produce their stand. Later events related to this situation included a march for such freedom in Florence. It is gratifying to know of young people today who will take such stands.

Are you one who has convictions, strong beliefs based on the truth set forth in the Bible? Do you act out of conviction or out of convenience? To do the first is to please God, but to do the latter is to please self. Why not learn from the examples of young people who lived long ago and some who live now what it means to be courageous. Their examples surely inspire us to do what we should do.

In what police referred to as the city’s largest gathering of its kind in decades, several thousand people sang, prayed and carried signs with biblical references at a religious free speech march and rally in Florence, Alabama.

3000 Attend Prayer Rally, March – Florence police estimated the march crowd at 3,000 and said it was the largest single gathering they had seen in 20 years.

The march was held in sup-port of two former Bradshaw High School students, Drew Jamieson and Steve Graham, Jr., who violated school officials’ orders by saying a prayer and making religious references at their graduation ceremony June 3.

Jamieson, a youth minister at a local church, led the audience in prayer after a speech he made to his graduating class. Graham changed the graduation speech he was supposed to give and had supplied to Bradshaw officials. In his altered speech he made several religious references.

The prayer has prompted the threat of a lawsuit by the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union and a statement by school system officials that student involvement in graduation activities may be limited in the future.

Marchers sang songs such as “Lord, I Need Thee,” as they marched and several carried signs that said things such as “We believe in prayer,” “In God we trust,” and “Our nation needs to return to honor and respect for God.”

Graham said some Bradshaw officials supported the students’ desire to say a prayer at their graduation, but were bound by the law to put aside their personal beliefs. He called on those attending the rally to fight to change the laws.

“So let us come together to place blame not at the local level or on men who are but helpless pawns in this struggle, who are unable to take any other course due to rulings by the courts, each seemingly in an effort to outdo the other and take the prohibitions against religious speech to more outlandish limits.

“Let us not blame them, but let us take our fight and our cause to our homes, back to our communities, and finally into the halls of justice, where basic and important changes can be made.”

Some of those in attendance said they saw the march and rally as an opportunity to express their religious beliefs openly and proudly.

“I feel like this is a golden opportunity to get out and stand up for Jesus,” said John McDaniel of Florence. “Two thousand years ago he died for us. I believe I can walk a few blocks for him. In the past we have been too apathetic. I think this will get a lot more people to stand up.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 1
October 7, 1993