Truth Magazine

By John T. Lewis

We hear a great deal these days about balancing the budget. Whenever a government, city, county, or nation cannot balance its budget it is headed for chaos and disintegration. But I am not writing about balancing the budget in governmental affairs; but the great need of a balanced diet in the pulpits and the religious journals of our country.

Paul said to the church at Corinth: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. 1 fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able; for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of men?” (1 Cor. 3:1-4) Again Paul speaking of the priesthood of Christ, says: “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil” (Heb. 5:11-14). If Paul were living today he could not describe the present day conditions of the church better than he did in the above quotations from his inspired pen. This unfortunate condition exists today not in one congregation; everywhere the church is being submerged by a tidal wave of sentimental, stand-for-nothingism.

If a gospel preacher goes to a place today and thunders away against the present day evils which are stopping the flow of spirituality and opening the flood gates of sensuality and infidelity, the chances are he will be accused of making personal issues, and be invited to leave town, without pay for his services. Or if an editor should permit a few articles dealing directly with the present day issues he will be swamped with letters telling him how he will have to run the paper or to stop it. These conditions are to a great ex-tent controlling the spiritual food or diet that is going out from our pulpits, and through our religious papers of to-day. What would you think of firemen on their way to a fire who would stop to listen to ever peanut on the way telling them how to fight the fire? Or what would you think of a fire chief that would stop fighting a fire to tell the curious crowd around, about the thousands of pretty buildings that were not on fire, and finally draw off his men because they were attracting too much attention to the fire? The chief of a fire department never calls his men away from a fire as long as he thinks there is a possiblity of a spark rekindling the blaze. That is my idea of fighting sin, and every departure from God’s truth. The popular ideas of preaching and religious journalism today would never rekindle the fires of Smithfield; but rather lead the church back to where it was during the “dark ages”  shrouded in Catholicism with human opinion as the standard of authority in all matters of religion.

If the present attitude toward religious papers, that con-tend for New Testament teaching and practice, is carried to its logical conclusion it would drive the Bible out of our homes. It is a common thing to hear church members say: “We quit taking the  because it was always fighting.” Now let us apply this theory to the New Testament. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). Of course you would not want to hand this to your religious neighbors. It is not the spirit of Christ (?). You know we believe in “preaching the gospel in love.” “Woe unto you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matt. 23:27-28). Who would want to hand this kind of literature to the hypocrites in the church today? Just such teaching would drive them away from the church! “Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrine the precepts of man” (Matt. 15:7-9). What right have we to talk about other people’s worship? So it would never do to hand the gospel according to Matthew to vain worshippers, hypocrites and false teachers.

“The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven.” Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would you also go away?” (Jn. 6:41-67) Preaching that would cause people of the world to murmur, and even drive “many disciples” away from the Lord, would certainly be out of harmony with the spirit of the age. Therefore if Jesus Christ were on earth today, in person, he would find many of the pulpits closed against him, and if he were publishing a religious paper it would not be allowed to come into many Christian (?) homes. You know the churches to-day believe in having “the spirit of Christ,” and in “preaching the gospel in love.” Any casual observer knows that “the spirit of Christ” today is quite different from what it was in the apostolic age. “But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him, and said, 0 full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:9-10) It does not make any difference if the Bible does say Paul was “filled with the Holy Spirit,” any carnal minded Christian can tell you that he was not “preaching the gospel in love.” So if Paul were on earth today you certainly would not want him to hold your meeting because he would run all the Elymases away and that would be too bad.

Paul labored eighteen months at Corinth, on his second missionary journey, and he planted the church there. Soon after Paul left Corinth false teachers got into the church, and turned the people against Paul and his teaching. They became guilty of almost every sin that has ever been catalog-ed. Paul wrote them a letter, mentioned, and condemned their sins in the most withering terms. Thus he spread the whole disgraceful matter to the world. Brethren, do you think I Corinthians should be deleted from the New Testament? You know we ought not to let the world know any-thing about the factions, parties, and fornicators that are in the church today and any religious paper that would publish and condemn such things is not fit to hand to our neighbors or to go into Christian (?) homes!

A balanced diet therefore is not only to preach God’s love to the world; but also his wrath and condemnation against sin and sinners, in the church and out. (Reprinted from tl Gospel Guardian, October 1935, pp. 8-9.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 12-13
June 17, 1993

By Jady W. Copeland

For several reasons, God arranged for his people to meet for worship, teaching, exhortation and fellowship in the spiritual work of God. We are to meet to remember the death of Christ for our sins (Acts 20:7). While Luke says the purpose of meeting on that occasion was to “break bread” Paul also preached. It seems probable to this writer that he tarried several days in order to meet with the brethren at Troas, perhaps at the expense of some valuable time, since he “was hastening, if it were possible” to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16). The Hebrew writer gives another reason for meeting when he writes, “and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together” (Heb. 10:24-25). Meeting for worship, encouragement, edification and honoring God builds us up in the faith. Indeed we need each other.

But in order to meet, two things are necessary: (I) a place and (2) a time. Our study deals with the use of the Lord’s money in providing a place for Christians to meet.

It is not accidental, nor is it insignificant that there is not a passage in the New Testament that mentions God’s people owning a place of meeting. This is not to say that I believe it sinful for congregations to own buildings in which to worship. I am saying that since we know of no churches owning meeting houses, that emphasis in the New Testament was not placed on material buildings in which to worship. Emphasis was on worshipping God, and I am afraid that in our time too much emphasis has been placed on expensive buildings and that money has been unwisely used (if not actually sinful) in providing places of worship.

To illustrate what I am talking about, often elaborate buildings, fixtures, and expensive real estate have been bought when less expensive buildings on less expensive lots could have been utilized to serve the same need for brethren. What makes this even more questionable is that often these same churches will turn down appeals from brethren who need sup-port to go preach with the excuse that they “have no money.” And they don’t because they have spent too much on huge buildings, expensive fixtures, over-stuffed pews, stained-glass windows, etc. to make them “more comfortable” while turning a deaf ear to brethren begging for support to preach the gospel to nations that have never heard a gospel sermon. Brethren, think.

In the New Testament people met in “upper” rooms (whether rented, borrowed or what, we don’t know), people’s homes (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16-3-5; Col. 4:15, etc.) and other places. The emphasis is on spiritual worship and preaching the gospel, not on the meeting places. Perhaps in our society and economy it is wise to build buildings in which to worship. But is it wise to spend more than necessary when the need for preaching the gospel is so great? I am fully aware that the amount we spend for buildings is a relative matter. I also realize that there is something to be said for a commodious building and one of which brethren are not ashamed when visitors come. But the person who is honestly seeking truth will not be so much attracted to the building as he is with the simple preaching of Christ and him crucified.

Meeting houses are expedients. W.E. Vine defines expedient like this: “(b) intransitively, to be an ad-vantage, profitable, expedient (not merely ‘convenient’) … ” (V. 2, p. 62). Buildings are profitable and definitely have an advantage in our world. But we all agree that owning one is not always necessary.

Some Things To Think About

It seems that some have the idea that a group must have a building before they have a church. The way some churches have done is to save up money for years in “hopes of someday starting a church.” Brethren don’t we have the “cart before the horse”? There is no need for a house if there is no church, and in my judgment the brethren who start meeting in a different place from the “old church” should build their own building when they are able to do so.

In fact I have known of some churches that couldn’t afford a building and really didn’t need one because of the lack of money and the peculiar situation.

In years passed brethren thought the building should be on a main artery through town so it “is easily visible.” Perhaps this had some merit, but largely those days are gone. Good churches aren’t “built” with fancy meeting houses. They are built by gospel preaching, dedicated people and scriptural work.

Another thing we need to consider. I think there is a connection between large, expensive buildings and the lack of true dedication to truth and spirituality. The reason I say this is that it seems when some people have moved from places where the “church is strong” (meaning there are many “churches of Christ”) and they have large buildings to a city where there is a small church with a very modest building, they don’t seem to be as dedicated as they thought they were. Are they ashamed of the building? Were they “going to church” in the former city because of the building, or the prestige that the church had in the community? Makes one wonder.

This is not to say that all who meet in large buildings are not spiritually minded and strong. Surely some are, but I’m afraid that some are so attracted to the material things of the world, that even in religion they put too much emphasis on the material things and too little on the spiritual.

For what is the building to be used? We have two extremes in this area  an area where there is admittedly some “gray” areas. Obviously it is to be used for worship and teaching. Otherwise the money that was used was wasted. It can easily be abused by using it for non-spiritual purposes such as entertainment, recreation and pleasure. The Lord’s money is to be used (as we noted in a previous article) for two things: preaching the gospel and limited benevolent work. Since we have to have a place to work and worship, the building is an expedient. To use it for other purposes would be a mis-use of it.

Yet do we often go to extremes in the other direction? Is it sinful to talk about non-spiritual things immediately after the services are over  in the building? I doubt it. There is, in my Judgment, a vast difference in a friendly conversation in the building about what you did last night (even if it was going to a ball game) and building that building (or even a part of it, such as a basketball court in the “recreation room”) and using the Lord’s money for playing games. Let us keep in mind the purpose for which the building was built. Let us keep in mind what the Lord’s money is to be used for. And let us use some common sense and the principles of God’s word in making such decisions.

That’s the reason we prefaced this series of articles with the purpose of Christ’s coming to earth, and our purpose as his children in his plan to save the world.

And let us keep in mind the purpose for which meeting houses are built and that they are merely expedients in our work for the Lord. To meet for worship is necessary (Acts 20:7). To teach and spread the gospel is necessary. The expedients (such as the places and the methods) are optional and we need to keep in mind the difference. Let us not let the desire for big buildings and fancy fixtures take precedence over the goal set before us, and what our real purpose is in this world.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 20-21
June 17, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

Paul assured Timothy that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:12-13). Notice that there is a connection between the increase of wickedness in evil men and the persecution of the godly.

In the face of it all the Christian cannot give in to the notion that says, “if you cant whip them, join them.” Paul instructed Timothy to “continue thou in the things thou hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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. 3:14-17). As evil men worsen, as society becomes more ungodly, the Christian must adhere closely to the God-breathed Scriptures which will help us meet every contingency. They are relevant to human need in good times and bad.

Peter, who himself had weakened and denied the Lord in the face of a hostile courtyard crowd, later, in his maturity as a veteran in the Lords service, said some things to help us all in difficult times for the righteous. 1 Peter 4 deals with the servant of God in bad times. Look at verse 3. (Go ahead, get your Bible.) They had already lived long enough in ungodliness. That belonged to the past. In verse 4 he instructs them as to how their former companions may regard them. They are “strange” to these people. Verse 5 points to the judgment to which all, the good and the evil, must come. Verses 6-11 urge the saints to cling to the hope of deliverance from the Lord, to remain sober and watchful, to show their love for each other, using hospitality and ministering to one another. Christians always need each other, but especially in times of stress from a corrupt society. Through it all there is to be a faithful devotion to “the oracles of God” (v. 11) as they glorified God in using the abilities which he gave them.

Verse 12 admonishes them not to be surprised at trials. It is not really unusual for the godly to be persecuted by the ungodly. Verses 13 and 14 show that suffering identifies us with our Lord who suffered so much for us. He is now glorified and glory awaits us.

Verse 15 urges the righteous not to join in the evil of the age and suffer for wrong doing. But, in verse 16, if suffering comes from doing right, there is no shame in it. God is glorified. Verses 17-19 point to final judgment when both the righteous and the ungodly shall give account. If the righteous are to be saved through their suffering, what shall be the end of those who are described as “ungodly” and “sinner(s)”? Let the godly sufferer entrust his soul to his Creator.

The Days Are Evil

For many years subtle changes have taken place in American culture. Now the changes are blatant and occurring with such rapidity and in such magnitude that many are baffled. In a nation where marriage was once held in honor, disdain for this holy estate is abundantly evident. Laws have encouraged sin in this regard. From Social Security payments which penalize the married, to aid for dependent children so structured as to discourage marriage, to proposed tax laws which place a much heavier tax burden on a married couple than it would on two single people just living together. The message being sent from the government is that the married will be penalized. This constitutes discrimination against those who honor Gods marriage law.

Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, nearly 30 million unborn children have been killed legally in their mothers womb. The “Freedom of Choice Act” now before Congress would end waiting periods, parental consent, “in-formed consent” for women about to have abortions and would overturn every abortion law in every state in the nation. If you destroy the egg of an eagle, the fine is $5,000. But under the proposed new law a baby can be aborted up to five minutes before birth and even kept alive long enough to “harvest” body parts.

The penchant for “political correctness” has so saturated the great educational institutions of the nation that genuine freedom of information is outlawed. Under the guise of “multi-culturalism” the agenda of radical feminists, socialists, environmentalists, and homosexuals has been advocated to the exclusion of alternate views, and especially those that have anything to do with biblically-based morals. For example, the University of Michigan has a “student guide to proper behavior” which lumps racist threats with “failing to invite someone to a party because shes a lesbian.” At Pennsylvania State University 10,000 incoming freshman in 1990 were advised that they might be assigned a homosexual room mate, and if so, they would not be allowed to object. Whatever happened to “free speech”? Many state universities have become breeding grounds for beer bashes, alcoholism, drug abuse, unwanted pregnancies and abortions and sexually transmitted diseases. All the while God, the Bible and godly behavior are ridiculed and professing Bible believers are treated as objects of pity for their ignorance. Many godly parents have come to look upon public schools as public enemy number one when it comes to the faith and morals of their children. Many are opting for private schools (at great financial sacrifice) or home schooling to educate their young without making infidels and moral reprobates out of them.

The entertainment and news media have long held nearly anything in the name of Christianity up to scorn. Pat Oliphant, a cartoonist, recently depicted “fundamental Christians” as rats dragging a Republican elephant into a mission with a “Jesus Saves” sign above the door. What other minority group could be so publicly ridiculed without creating a firestorm of protest that would rattle the windows in the Oval Office and reverberate in the halls of Congress?

In some areas zoning requirements and environmental restrictions ranging from “wetlands” to “potential habitats” for certain types of birds have made it so expensive, and in some cases impossible, for churches to build new and needed houses for worship.

Christians in business are subject to legal reprisals for refusing to hire, or for dismissing a homosexual employee. The moral and religious convictions of the employer do not count.

On ABCs “20/20” Hugh Downs likened those who stress family values to the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, to Adolf Hitler and his emphasis on motherhood, and the Hezbollah. He said, “As warriors, fanatics censor the thoughts of others and love to burn books. In the modern United States, new proponents of family values continue this tradition of fear and intolerance.” There was a time when you could announce that you were to preach on the family and you could pack the house. But now, teaching the values about family which the Bible presents, is not “politically correct” for it runs into the feminist agenda, opposes the libertine morals of the day, teaches that marriage is for life, that children are to be obedient to parents and that the word of God is the last word in determining decisions which have to do with all of family life. Right now, a Christian in the state of Florida who lays a hand on a child who misbehaves in a public place (including a church service) is subject to having that child taken away from the parent under the guise of protecting the child from “child abuse.”

Christians, we are now a despised minority. We need to help and encourage each other. It is not time to reduce the amount of gospel preaching we do, rather, we must increase it. We must work hard to save our own. Sometimes I hear it said that in our meetings we are just talking to ourselves. That is not true, but if so, do we not need to exhort one another to be faithful in the midst of these trying times? When the world is growing darker that only enhances the brightness of divine light reflected in the lives of our Lords people. This is no time to hide your light under a bushel. It is not the time to let your salt lose its savor. But it is time to say with the Hebrew writer, “So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:6)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 3-4
July 15, 1993

By Walton Weaver

When Satan told Jesus he would give him “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,” if he would fall down and worship him, it is implied that he had such power and control over these kingdoms and their glory, to deliver them into his hands. What is implied in Matthew 4:9 is expressly asserted by him in Luke 4:6: “All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomever 1 will I give it.” Whether Satan actually possessed the power and authority he claims for himself in these passages has been a much debated subject.

Since God himself is the Almighty, and the Bible does not teach dualism (that the world is under the control of two equal forces of good and evil, God and Satan), Satan could have no power except what has been committed to him. Whatever power he had was his only because it had been “delivered” to him. The extent of his rule is clearly indicated when he is called “the prince of this world” On. 12:31), and “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2). In 2 Corinthians 4:4 he is called “the god of this world.” John says that “the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 Jn. 5:19), and Revelation 12:9 attributes this to the fact that “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, . . . deceiveth the whole world.” That Satan does not, however, have equal power with God is affirmed when of Christ it is said that “one stronger than he” had come to “assail and overcome him” (Lk. 11:22).

A Closer Look

We will take a more careful look at those passages just cited which describe Satan’s power in the world.

1. The Prince of this world (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 15:10). The word “prince” in the Bible is not used just to refer to the heir of a king. It is also used as a title of a person with significant royal, military, or other authority (see Num. 22:15). The term was chosen by the KJV translators to translate more specific foreign titles (Dan. 1:3; 3:2; “nobles” and “satraps,” NASB). At other times the word is used to identify a high ranking angel in the spiritual realm. Daniel 10:13, for example, names “Michael, one of the chief princes,” and the reference seems clearly to be a high ranking angel. As a high ranking angel, Michael is also called “the prince of Israel” (Dan. 10:21) and the “great prince” (Dan. 12:1). In Matthew 12:24 Beelzebub is called “the prince of the devils” (better “demons,” and evidently a reference to angels who had fallen from their high estate). In this last passage, and in John 12:31, later versions like the RSV, NIV, NKJV and the NASB translate the word “ruler,” but the KJV and the ASV have the word “prince.”

The “world” over which Satan rules is mankind in alienation from God. While the world appears to be Satan’s empire, or his sphere of operation, as a matter of fact, what he produces in the world (sin and death) becomes his empire. The “world” in this ethical sense is laden in sin and in need of salvation. In this realm men “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19; cf. 1 John 2:15-17). Where sin reigns, spiritual death also reigns, for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

2. The Prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2). The only difference in this passage and the one just considered is that the terms “the world” are replaced by the terms “the power of the air” (i.e., “the air” the atmosphere around the earth). Why this particular mention of “the air” as the place where Satan is cannot be known for certain. It may mean no more than that the air is the place where Satan dwells as the chief ruler, or prince, of the demons, or evil spirits. It probably means that the air is the place where such spirits live, and Satan is the prince of all such spirits who have the air as their place of abode. The Jews of Paul’s day believed that the air was Satan’s sphere of dominion, and Paul evidently teaches it as a matter of fact in this statement.

The word “power” means rule or dominion. Paul’s point is that Satan is the “ruler” (RSV, NKJV, NIV) of all evil forces who reside in the atmosphere around the earth. Other passages show that he, and all other wicked spirits under his authority, do their work in the world, but in this passage Paul affirms that they have the air or atmosphere around the earth as their place of abode. Even Christians do not struggle “against flesh and blood,” Paul says, “but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12). “Darkness” is representative of the realm in which these evil forces rule; their dominion is in the area of ignorance, superstition, and sin. In this sense they rule over this dark world. Their actual sphere of operation is identified in this passage as “in high places” (same as 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:18, “in heavenly places”). Perhaps here it means the unseen realm in the world, including both good and evil forces. The phrase does not appear to be equivalent to “the air” in Ephesians 2:2. It does not have this meaning in any of the other places where it is used in the book of Ephesians.

3.The God of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). Only here in the New Testament is Satan called a “god.” All attempts to apply the term in this passage to the only true God rather than Satan have proved unsuccessful and are unnecessary. The word is a fitting description of Satan when it is used as Paulmeans for it to be understood. A similar use of the word appears in Philippians where Paul says of certain Judaizers, “whose god is their belly” (3:19). Like Romans 16:18, “for they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly,” the term “belly” in this passage is used to describe the desires of the flesh. To serve one’s belly is to make one’s fleshly desires one’s “god,” or the principle thing with him. In this same way, when those in the world give themselves to serve Satan, or he becomes the principle thing in their lives, he becomes their god. The “world” in this passage is humanity who has given itself to serve Satan. In this sense Satan is “the god of this world.”

4. The Deceiver of the whole world (Rev. 12:7). The whole world has plunged into sin because all those who are in the world have been “deceived” by “the great dragon, . . . the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan.” The latter two terms tell us that this great “deceiver” is man’s accuser or slanderer (= the Devil), and man’s arch adversary, the one who stands as our opponent and antagonist (_ Satan). The two terms describe his true character. As the “deceiver of the whole world” it should be remembered that … it was by deception that the world of mankind was plunged into sin (1 Tim. 2:14), and by which he has continued since to control men (12:9; 20:3, 8, 10). It is by deception that false religion, symbolized by the beast out of the earth, also gains adherents (13:14; 19:20); and it is by deception that worldliness, signified by the harlot, the great city, seduces her victims (18:23). Expose and remove the deception of sin and its power is nullified (Homer Hailey).

Temptation No. 1: What would be Jesus’ personal lot during the period of his ministry? Would he avoid personal suffering through the use of his special power as the Son of God? Why should he as the Son of God have to suffer hunger as other men do? Could he not avoid such suffering through the use of his own power as God’s Son? Satan knew that he could have done so, and this was the nature of the first temptation. Jesus’ response was that bread was important, but bread alone was not the important thing. He would not use his divine power to satisfy his own personal needs in order to avoid suffering.

Temptation No. 2: Would Jesus use spectacular display of himself and his power in order to get a following? Surely high acclaim would have been given him by the crowds below if only he would cast himself down from the highest point of the temple and trust God to bring him safely to the ground below. If he would leap from the wall, God would charge the angels to bear him up. Such a display would no doubt appeal to the Messianic aspirations of the crowds. They would likely hail him as “he that should come.” But, again, Jesus knew this was the easy way, and a way that would only be chosen by one who was determined to avoid the way of suffering. To do what Satan suggested would presume upon God’s favor by putting him to a test to see if he would keep his word. He refused to tempt God in this way. His spiritual ends were not to be accomplished by unspiritual means.

Temptation No. 3: Would Jesus attempt to accomplish his mission through political power? This was the kind of Messiah the people had expected and wanted. As Jesus looked out from the high mountain where he had been taken, he must have looked past the landscape to the political kingdoms of the world and envisioned them at his feet. At least this was what Satan intended for him to do. He offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” Jesus successfully resisted the temptation by rejecting the devil’s methods to accomplish his mission. He would not attempt to avoid the way of suffering for selfish and ambitious reasons, i.e., love of power and a desire to rule politically over others. He saw that surrender to Satan in this way would mean a divided loyalty, and he could not accomplish his true mission except through complete trust in God and service to him. This could be accomplished only through suffering.

In the third temptation Satan was not offering Jesus a way to accomplish his true mission. He was attempting to turn Jesus away from that accomplishment through worldly ambition. Jesus could not have saved the souls of men by establishing a worldly kingdom. Satan did not take him to that high mountain to show him the souls of men which he had come to save, but to show him “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” As Luke 4:6 shows, it was the “power” and “glory” of these worldly kingdoms that Satan offered to Jesus. From that high mountain Jesus saw beautiful lands, towns, cities, and mountains, in addition to all the peoples of these kingdoms, and the temptation was to have the authority to rule over all that was included in these “kingdoms of the world,” and the “glory” that would accompany this vast political power and all the possessions that would come with it.

2. Could Satan Have Delivered On His Offer To Jesus? Was there an attempt at deception involved here? Did Satan really have the power he claimed for himself when he said, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish” (Lk. 4:6, NASB)? What is the likely answer to this question?

J.W. McGarvey thought that “Satan’s promise to give Jesus the kingdom, when considered in connection with the capacities of Jesus himself, involves no very arrogant assumption of power.” Even though “the whole world lieth in wickedness,” it is not because Satan exercises in any sense absolute sway over the world. He could not give the domain and glory of the world to whomever he chose, and yet this is presumed in his offer to Jesus. Whatever ground he has gained in the world is not his by right. J.S. Lamar is quite right when he says that Satan’s “suggestion means . . . that they [the kingdoms of the world, ww] have been rightly delivered to him, i. e., by Him who alone possesses all things, and this is false.” His claim that the earth (all the kingdoms in the world, and their glory) had been delivered to him was, however, partially true. This is the meaning of those passages we have already considered. His claim that he could give it to whom he willed, however, was false. His lordship is limited in power and duration. This means that had Jesus met Satan’s demands he would have conceded that he did in fact own “all this” (power over the kingdoms and the glory that belongs to them) by right, and this simply was not the case. There is no doubt that Satan’s power is great, but there is a greater power, and Satan’s days were numbered. So it was with half-truth and half-falsehood, and using the Messianic hopes of Jesus’ own people whom he had come to save, that Satan assaulted the integrity of Jesus in the hope of saving himself and his “domain of darkness” (Col. 1:13, NASB).

Satan, in other words, was inviting Jesus to join forces with him. He offered him authority over the world. In making this offer was he not hoping to retain authority for himself in the rest of the universe? He saw his own power being challenged, and his offer to Jesus in this particular temptation appears to have been an attempt to compromise so as not to lose his entire domain. A part dominion was better than nothing. McGarvey concedes that there was a way Jesus could have become cohort with Satan and gained the prize offered to him. But for this to happen it would take more than Jesus simply surrendering and coming under the power and dominion of Satan. He says that “it is quite certain that if he had consented, and had not by this con-sent lost the power and wisdom which belonged to him, he could have attained in a short time to universal dominion” (emphasis mine, ww). Whatever success he would have had in this way would have been due, not to Satan’s power alone, but to Jesus’ own power and wisdom as well. The fact of the matter is, in spite of his bold claim, Satan did not exercise absolute sway over the whole world so that he could give a major part of his dominion away at his choosing.

Wherein Lay The Temptation?

What then was the nature and the force of the temptation brought against our Lord here? For one thing, he was tempted to concede that Satan exercised absolute lordship in the universe. Had Jesus given in to worship and serve him he would have been saying by his action that God did not occupy the position of total Lordship in the universe. John P. Lange correctly observes, “The point of the temptation lay in the boldness of the design  Satan spreading out all at once a rushing picture of absolute sway over the world and of its glory, and then offering all this to the lowly and rejected Son of David, who of right could claim all the nations of the world as His inheritance, and the utmost ends of the world as his possession.”

Another aspect of this temptation would have been the attempt on Satan’s part to influence Jesus to establish the kingdom of Jewish expectation by outward power and pomp. This was the very role the Jews had expected their coming Messiah to fill. The desire Satan hoped to excite was that of worldly ambition. If he could but divert Jesus’ attention away from his mission in the world, which was to seek and to save the lost, his own mission would have been accomplished, and he could at least have saved a part of the universe for himself to exercise lordship over. But Jesus could not have established the true kingdom of God on earth had he given in to Satan’s conditions. He would only have become ruler of the kingdoms of the world. Like the other temptations that had gone before, the attempt here was to turn Jesus away from the accomplishment of his true mission in the world.

But Jesus, in his resolve to accomplish his mission and to do the Father’s will, stood firm. For the third time he made a direct appeal to the word of God: “Then Jesus said unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord they God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). By using the term “Satan” Jesus exposed his true character and showed him to be the adversary that he was. By telling him to get out of his sight he showed both his great enmity toward him, and all the evil that he represents in the world, as well as his resolve to withstand his appeal. The rebellion was put down. The strong man was being cast out. God still reigns in the universe, and Jesus surely would destroy “every rule and every authority and power” set against God (1 Cor. 15:24).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 22-24
June 17, 1993