Truth Magazine

By Jerry Crolius

The National Center for Health Statistics says there were nearly 2.4 million weddings in 1988. Some 10.7 percent of these marriages were divorced men marrying never-married women, and 10.9 percent were marriages of divorced women to never-married men. (There were no figures reported in the article about how many marriages united a divorced man with a divorced woman, but it is safe to say that in at least 30 percent of today’s new marriages, one or both spouses have been previously married and divorced.) “Everything is changing,” says Beverly Sitnick, bridal manager at the Claire Dratch women’s specialty store in Bethesda, MD. “I’m noticing so many combinations of divorced and single people. “

Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at John Hopkins University who studies divorce and remarriage in the USA, made these comments when the statistics were released: “If this says anything, it says divorce is becoming more acceptable and less of a barrier to getting remarried. There isn’t much difference between being divorced and single when you’re marrying a spouse.

From our society’s viewpoint, then, divorce and remarriage is acceptable. This phenomenon is greatly affecting the Lord’s church, and it is likely we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Brethren, we had better accept the Lord’s teaching about divorce and remarriage and contend for it earnestly if we are to remain faithful Christians and faithful churches in the future.

Jesus made his teaching on the sanctity of marriage very clear. All the fuss in the Lord’s church over divorce and remarriage is rooted in our unwillingness to submit to the Lord’s plain teaching. Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication (sexual unfaithfulness, JC, and marries another woman commits adultery.” In Matthew 5:32, Jesus said, “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Jesus added that the woman “who divorces her husband and marries another is committing adultery” (Mk. 10:12). Is this so difficult to understand?

The Lord does not condone divorce, he does not allow divorce, and he does not allow divorced people the right to remarry. The only exception to this law is when one spouse divorces the other for sexual unfaithfulness, in which case only the “innocent” spouse may remarry without committing adultery. Jesus spoke this doctrine plainly and to the point.

What is the problem, then, in the Lord’s church? Many in the church do not want to accept Jesus’ plain teaching. Jesus spoke to the point of issue at hand. He stated his law simply and clearly. But many have made Jesus’ plain statement into one full of confusion and doubt, creating “loopholes” (under the banner of compassion) for divorced persons to drive sin through.

A strict doctrine will cost too much, people say. Too many people who divorced at a young age will have too high a price to pay, they say. Too many people who have been wrongly divorced by their spouses will suffer for a lifetime, they say. Too many divorced people will never become Christians because of this law, they say. Too many Christians with children and happy homes will discover that they are living in adultery and will have to change their relationship; or they will find a different church that allows them to continue in adultery; or they will stop attending anywhere, they say. It will tear up the church, they say. It will tear up families, they say. It will tear up children, they say. Sadly, many of these statements are true. But I suppose the disciples had similar things in mind when, in obvious discouragement, they answer the Lord, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10). Things haven’t changed that much after all, have they?

What would the Lord say in response to us in his church today? Probably the same thing he said in response to the disciples, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given” (Matt. 19:11). Essentially, Jesus said, “My statement (law) is plain. There are those who will accept it and there are those who will reject it.” Those to whom it has not “been given” are not able to accept it. Only the ones to whom it has “been given” are able to “accept it.” Jesus said there are haves and have nots. The haves will understand, receive and submit to his teachings on marriage. The have nots will not understand, receive or submit to his teachings.

But who are the haves and who are the have nots? Let Paul answer in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But an unspiritual man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually examined.” Those to whom it has “been given” are spiritually-minded people, i.e., they base their judgments on God’s revealed will through the Spirit, and are therefore able to understand and willing to accept God’s teachings. Unspiritually-minded people base their judgments on their own observations, desires, and opinions, and are therefore unable to understand and unwilling to accept the teachings of God as revealed by the Spirit. This is just what is happening in the Lord’s church on the issue of divorce and remarriage.

Those who advocate loose doctrines on divorce and remarriage are not able to understand Jesus’ clear teaching because they are unwilling to accept it. They base their understanding first on human thinking and desires rather than the revealed things of God’s Spirit (i.e., they are unspiritual on this subject).

Where in all these doctrines are the plain statements of Jesus? They are buried under the rationalizations and emotions of minds who do not want to accept the serious consequences of Christ’s law on divorce and remarriage. Man is going to find a way out of the difficult consequences of sin, whether or not God has granted him one. Man has been doing so since the Garden of Eden. (I remember a debate on baptism where the gospel preacher in his final statement quoted over and over Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27 until he finally said, “I don’t know what else to do. It’s so plain. Why add to or take anything away from it? ” Yet the Baptist preacher was unable to understand it. See the point?)

Notice that contained within all the intricate doctrines of men on divorce and remarriage are complex human reasonings, improperly re-defined words, out-of-context forced interpretations, and strong appeals to emotion, all of which combine into “rational” escapes from what Jesus plainly spoke. “He didn’t mean what he said,” is the core of these doctrines. “He was only talking to the Jews, not to us,” some rationalize. “He was only making a law for those who would already be Christians, not for people outside of his kingdom,” others reckon in sincere hope for the many. “In 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul adds another exception for remarriage to Jesus’ teaching,” others say with sympathy for those divorced by unbelieving spouses. “Already divorced people can ‘mentally divorce’ and remarry if their ex-spouse commits fornication at some time in the future,” many scribes tell us. “If people get baptized they can stay in their adulterous marriages because God has forgiven them.” And on and on. Loophole after loophole. We are guilty of the very sins Jesus condemned the Pharisees for in their doctrines on divorce.

Jesus had another thing to say in response to the disciples’ difficulty with his plain teaching. He said, “For there are eunuchs (those who remain celibate) who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it” (Matt. 19:12). Jesus said there are some people who will stay celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Singles may choose never to marry, perhaps even for reasons Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35. Or unscripturally divorced people may submit to Christ’s law on remarriage and stay celibate because they are under Christ’s rule and want to please him above all things. They will control their sexual desires for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. They will accept the consequences of their (or their ex-spouse’s) sin of unlawful divorce, and not try to find a way out of Christ’s plainly taught law. Will spiritually-minded brethren sympathize with them? Certainly. Will they help them? Definitely. Will they compromise Christ’s law for them? Absolutely not.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage is clear. He intended it to be so. The disciples understood the consequences of it. They knew it was a strict law. The ones who are able to accept it, let them accept it. And if we want ourselves and our children to go to heaven, let us contend earnestly for it. The Lord’s church faces threatening times.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, pp. 462-463
August 6, 1992

By Robert F. Turner

A genuine “local church” has its beginning in the determination of individuals to put Christ absolutely first in their lives. Each one must make this decision, without regard to what anyone else may do. Service to the Lord according to one’s knowledge of the truth, must have precedence to all else. One may have just learned of Christ, and submitted to him in baptism. Another, having learned the truth more perfectly, may have left a denomination or maybe a “church” that is unfaithful in doctrine and practice. But in each case the individual must have acted in keeping with conscience toward God, not for social or business purposes, or peer pressure.

Now, these individuals are brought together by their common faith, and determination to serve God as a “team.” Instructions and examples in the New Testament lead them to this decision (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 1:2). The local church is a distinct entity: not a saint (1 Tim. 5:16), and not simply a plurality of saints (Matt. 18:17). It is a company (Acts 15:22), formed by mutual agreement of its members (9:26-28), who function as one in specific activities (1 Cor. 5:4; 16:3; Phil. 4:15). From these and many like Scriptures we conclude that members of a local church enter into covenant relationship with one another.

Many brethren of our day may not think of local membership in this way; and that failure may account for “congregation hopping” over trivial likes and dislikes – refusing to recognize our responsibility to the Lord and to fellow saints in the local church. Unless one has had an active part in planning and forming a new local church, the whole idea of “covenant relationship” may seem strange – and few indeed may think of putting this “covenant” into written form. But it has been done, both by our earlier brethren and by others who claim to practice congregational independence.

Recently an elderly member of the Oaks-West church asked me to see that a church “Record Book” passed to her father be repaired and made available to the community it touched. The tattered and time stained leaves of the book revealed the beginning of a Missionary Baptist Church, in Burnet County, Texas, “May the 29th, A.D. 1869.” I am not saying such written “covenants” are necessary, nor am I offering this as an example for present use. For one thing, they begin by “adopting the Articles of Faith as held by the Austin Baptist Association.” I could not endorse that even if it read, “as held by a majority of the Churches of Christ in Texas.” But I believe all of us can profit by considering the spirit of the “covenant relationship” so apparent in what follows.

So we do now solemnly covenant with each other (as God shall enable us) to walk together in brotherly love –

That we will exercise a Christian care and watchfulness over each other, and faithfully warn, rebuke and admonish our brethren as the case may require –

That we will not forsake the assembling of ourselves together nor omit the great duty of prayer both for ourselves and others –

That we will participate in each other’s joys and endeavor with tenderness and sympathy to bear each other’s burdens and sorrows –

That (we) will seek Divine aid to enable us to walk circumspectly and watchfully in the work, denying ungodliness and every worldly lust –

That we will strive together for the support of a faithful and evangelical Ministry among us and to spread the gospel abroad –

That we will through life, amidst evil report and good report, seek to live to the glory of him who hath called us out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Brethren, whether we rewrite it with Scripture citations, or simply read the Scriptures and determine to work together under their principles – a better grasp of adherence to our “covenant relationship” with local church members could do much to eliminate church fusses, and put us to work for the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, p. 453
August 6, 1992

By Tom M. Roberts

Beggars are an uncommon sight in America. Though it is true that we have problems with the homeless, unemployed and poor in our nation, there are the safety nets of food stamps, shelters, welfare support and multitudes of charitable and religious organizations that operate twenty-four hours a day and three hundred sixty-five days of the year. Many countries of the world today have a different attitude and less concern for the poor, permitting beggars to roam the streets and scavenge a living as best they can. Some religions, such as Hinduism, even incorporate “karma” into their justification for a lack of charity, advocating that one’s position in life is the just payment for evil deeds in a past life. Thus, one who is poor and needy is getting “justice” for past sins and society should not interfere. These poor are simply ignored and left to their destiny. I suppose it is better to be needy in America than in a Hindu state, if one must be needy at all.

Not all beggars are welfare cheats and deadbeats. There are times when world events trigger calamities such as wars, refugees and famine. Nature on the rampage has been known to destroy homes, crops and the necessary amenities so that disease and pestilence spring up and affect millions. Dramatic social changes (revolutions, programs, etc.) often force many into destitution. Many of us have been so protected by insurance, retirement plans, savings, governmental programs such as disaster relief or by civic orders such as the Red Cross that we can scarce imagine the total devastation others have experienced. However, take away these benefits and we might learn first hand what many in the world today know about being in need. Imagine, if you can, that you have no job, no food in the house for today’s meal, no bank account, no retirement funds, no government help, no welfare protection, your home is taken from you and your family has absolutely nothing between them and starvation. I know that such thinking is foreign to our affluent way of life, but try to put yourself in that desperate situation and then ask, “What do I do now?” We might learn what it means to be in need beyond our control.

We might even learn what it meant to be a Christian in the first century.

It Is Better to Give Than to Receive

Early Christians lived in a world far different from ours. Lots of people, in and out of the church, suffered on a daily basis without any “safety nets” between them and poverty. But Christians were especially susceptible to deprivation since discipleship took away any last vestiges of help due to the alienation from family and nation. One of the worst financial decisions to be made by anyone could be that of becoming a Christian. Yet it is from this crucible of suffering that Luke draws one of the greatest themes of the Book of Acts: benevolence. New Testament Christianity forever becomes our model of a people who took care of its own, who breathed life into the teaching of Jesus that “it is better to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

There are at least three occasions when the early church had opportunity to test their resolve concerning needy brethren. On each of these events, without government assistance or without institutional oversight, faith passed the tests and forever set the standard (above and beyond contemporary social practices) with which we measure ourselves today.

Church to Needy Members

It has been conjectured that many Jews from foreign nations (Acts 2:9-11) who obeyed the gospel stayed beyond their planned expectations due to the extraordinary events on Pentecost and fell into need. Without jobs and income, their funds would have been soon exhausted. Regardless, it is true that needy saints existed in the days immediately following the establishment of the church. From the beginning, Christians helped Christians. We are told by Luke that “all that believed were together and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need” (2:44-45). Beyond individual participation, the whole church was involved, for we are told later (4:32ff) that “the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common . . . for neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.”

It was during these same days that some of the widows were overlooked in the “daily ministration.” Grecian (or foreign born) Jewish Christians were being neglected while Hebrews (local residents) were cared for. The solution by the apostles was that servants of the church (later identified as deacons: 1 Tim. 3:8) were appointed to administer the funds of the church (corporate action, if you will). Note that it was the “business” (v. 3) of the church to administer these funds through its own workers and not the work of some institutional “widows’ home.” There are benefits to benevolence beyond the immediate physical relief that comes through sharing and fellowship. This cannot be experienced by proxy benevolence through institutional businesses. Luke’s account clearly emphasized the “giving and receiving” aspect of benevolence.

Church to Needy Churches

Not many years later (circa 45 A.D.), there was a severe famine in Judea. We are told by Luke that it was in the days of Claudius (who reigned from 41-54 A.D.). Historians note that there were four such “dearths” throughout the world during his tenure, but that one was especially severe in Judea and it is recorded in Acts 11:27-30. In this instance, we are told that benevolence not only “begins at home” (as in the earlier accounts in Jerusalem) but spreads its considerations to bret ren who are strangers in other cities. Brethren at Antioch were told by prophets (including Agabus) that such a famine would occur and “the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.”

Here is God’s welfare plan: brethren helping brethren. When a common faith and love is shared, hearts are touched at the plight of suffering disciples. There is no need to wait for the government to act, for institutional organizations to “grease the machinery,” for inter-congregational aggregates to be formed. The church at Antioch sent the relief (whether food, money, etc.) by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (thus, congregational action). The relief was sent to the elders of the needy churches. No mention is made of “elders over all Judea,” nor is it implied that the Jerusalem elders oversaw the distribution to all the churches (a diocesan concept). Harmonizing Acts 11 with all that the Bible teaches about congregational independence tells us that the elders under consideration were the elders in every needy church who received the funds from Barnabas and Saul and made distribution in each church according to their wisdom. The simplicity of Luke’s account impresses us with the ability each church has to act on its own to have fellowship with needy brethren.

Churches to a Needy Church

Not to be confused with the events of Acts 11, Luke recorded the third occasion for benevolence years later in Acts 24:17 where Paul defended himself before Felix, the governor. Tertullus charged Paul with sedition by labeling him “a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world” (v. 5). By contrast, and to show the innocency of his mission, Paul replied that he had come “to bring alms to my nation” (v. 17).

This passing reference by Paul is all that is stated by Luke regarding the events also recorded in 1 Corinthians 16, 2 Corinthians 8-9, Romans 15:25-28. However, it was a major undertaking, involving churches in Achaia, Galatia and Macedonia. The “nation” for whom the benevolent relief was intended is identified as “saints” in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:13; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1). We are not told how much money was contributed, but care was exercised to respect congregational autonomy in the selection of the messengers (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23). Again, it is impressive that the church, without denominational hierarchy or intercongregational supervision could act in such a way to fulfill the need of the hour, doing so from an altruistic, selfless motive because their hearts were touched by the plight of suffering brethren.

One additional consideration that needs to be underscored is the fact that this benevolence went from (for the most part) Gentile churches to a Jewish church. An earlier article in this series emphasized the integration of Gentiles into a previously Jewish church. A great controversy ensued because Judaizing teachers did not want Gentiles to be allowed membership. Now, after this has been settled, we see how deeply ingrained brotherhood had become when Gentiles returned carnal things for the spiritual truth they had received. As Paul stated it: “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things” (Rom. 15:27). This added dimension of benevolence shows that true love and concern cross the borders of race and nationality when we give ourselves to the Lord. Disciples in Macedonia in “deep poverty” (2 Cor. 8:2) gave even “beyond their power” and were noted for the “riches of their liberality.” Such is the power that constrains Christians when fellow Christians are in need.

Modern events have proven that the benevolent spirit still exists among brethren around the world. American brethren have helped other Christians from the Philippines to Mexico, from Europe to Africa. Reading the Acts gives us renewed incentives to be tenderhearted in our generation. As we abound in “faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and all earnestness. . . let us abound in this grace also” (2 Cor. 8:7).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 14, pp. 428-429
July 16, 1992

By Dennis Abernathy

“When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” was written by Isaac Watts in 1707 and first appeared in Hymns and Spiritual Songs. Its original title was “Crucifixion to the World by the Cross of Christ.”

Isaac Watts was born on July 17, 1674, in Southhampton, England and was the eldest of nine children. He was a very bright young man. He learned Latin at the age of five, Greek at nine, French at eleven, and Hebrew at thirteen. He began to write verses of good quality when he was very young.

Isaac Watts is frequently referred to as the father of English hymnody. He almost single handedly changed the congregational singing habits of English-speaking churches. One of Watts’ concerns was the deplorable state to which congregational singing had degenerated. The singing consisted of slow, ponderous Psalms, where each line was first read by an appointed deacon and then the congregation would sing it.

Watts once wrote: “The singing of God’s praise is the part of worship most closely related to heaven, but its performance among us is the worst on earth.” Sensing young Watts’ displeasure, his father exclaimed in so many words: “Why don’t you give us something better young man!” Before the evening service began Isaac had written his first hymn. It was well received by the congregation, and he then wrote a new hymn every Sunday for two years.

Watts believed that the New Testament church should sing praise to God in the “language of the New Testament.” Because of his bold departure from the traditional Psalms, Isaac Watts was often considered as a radical of his day. It has been said, “To Watts more than to any other man is due the triumph of the hymn in English worship. All later hymn writers, even when they excel him, are his debtors.”

Isaac Watts died in 1748 at the age of 75. On his monument appears this line, which is really a tribute to his greatness:

“Ages unborn will make his songs the joy and labor of their tongues.”

I. From the first verse we learn that it was on the cross that the “Prince of glory died.”

“When I survey the wondrous cross,

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.”

1. We need to “Survey” the Cross! “Survey” is defined as “to examine with reference to value; to view with a scrutinizing eye; inspect.” The majority of people never survey the cross. It holds no value to them and hence, it is not the “wondrous cross”! Before you can become a servant of the Lord, you must “survey” the cross. You must see and understand and appreciate its value to your life.

Without the cross there would be no reconciliation (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20). Therefore, we are to “glory” in the cross (Gal. 6:14). The cross is the last thing most would want to glory in. After all, it was “to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). In reality though, the cross exposes what a desperate state we really are in. It exposes how utterly bankrupt we must be to make such suffering necessary.

2. On Which the “Prince of Glory Died. ” Christ is the Prince of glory. He is a Prince in every way. He is the “Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31). He is “the Prince of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5).

“Prince” in the above passages means: “author, prince or leader, and ruler.” Hence, Christ is our Leader who brought us peace (Isa. 9:6). The Jews killed the author of Life (Acts 3:15). He is Prince (author) and Savior – author of salvation (Heb. 5:8-9). He is the Ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev. 1:5). The poet catches this wonderful truth in the poem entitled: “The Cross”

None ever came as far as He,

None ever bore such agony,

None ever gave as liberally,

As Christ who died for me!

No love so great has e’er been known,

No grace so vast was ever shown,

No blood for sin could e’er atone,

But Christ’s who died for me!

3. My richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride. The cross reveals the folly of human pride. It teaches us to say: “I never knew myself a sinner, nor recognized Christ as my Savior,

“Until upon the cross I saw

My God who died to meet the law

That I had broken, then I say

My sin, and then my Savior.”

We will never be able to see on that old rugged cross “the wonderful glories of God’s great love” until we first see “our own unworthiness” and “pour contempt on all our pride.” Listen to the apostle Paul:

But whatever former things I had that might have been gains to me, I have come to consider as (one combined) loss for Christ’s sake. Yes, furthermore I count everything as loss compared to possession of the priceless privilege – the overwhelming preciousness, the surpassing worth and supreme advantage – of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, and of progressively becoming more deeply and intimately acquainted with Him, or perceiving and recognizing and understanding Him more clearly and fully. For His sake I have lost everything and consider it all to be mere rubbish (refuse, dregs) in order that I may win (gain) Christ, the Anointed One (Phil. 3:7-8, The Amplified Bible).

These former things that could have been counted as gains for Paul consisted of his honors in the Jewish religion. All of these things he counted loss – instead of service to be recorded and worthy of honors, they were rather sins and crimes condemned, and sorrowed for through life. Can we learn this great lesson. All gains out of Christ are losses for Christ! Nothing compares to a life lived in Christ Jesus. For Christ’s sake Paul did lose everything . . . that is the total of his old life’s values. His own family probably regarded him as a disgrace to Judaism. His fellow Pharisees considered him a traitor to the cause. The Jews in general thought of him as a renegade. Oh, yes, he paid the price, but it was well worth it. He lost the Jewish world (the old life with its values) in order to gain Christ Jesus, Lord of all. So did He – and so must we!

II. Verse two teaches us that we should boast or glory only in Christ’s death.

“Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,

Save in the death of Christ my Lord;

All the vain things that charm me most,

I sacrifice them to His blood.”

People boast in many things. More often than not it is in the wrong things and to our own shame.

1. The Jews boasted in the Law and in their relationship to God (Rom. 2:17,23). They were proud of their relation to the true God, but they were woefully lacking in their adherence to his will.

I hope their condition doesn’t describe many of us today! We say that we have the truth as distinguished from human creeds and doctrines of men. We boast of being in the one body as distinguished from human denominations. And yet, do we often fail to display in our lives the spirit and conduct that should be forthcoming from such a relationship. We must understand that it is not enough to profess respect for God’s word. We must keep it. If we violate God’s word we dishonor God. God is honored when we live in keeping with our profession.

2. Some boast of their great wealth. The Psalmist speaks of “those who trust in their wealth and boast of their great riches” (Psa. 49:6).

3. Some boast in their own works (Eph. 2:8-9). We are not saved by works of our own merit, that we may boast or glory in what we have done. We are saved by works in the sense of doing the works God has appointed. Even here, the merit is not in the work, but it proves our faith in doing what God commands of us. In this sense we are saved by faith and works. No works, no faith! (See Jas. 2:17-81.)

4. We should boast or glory in the Lord and his sacrifice (Rom. 5:6-10). I like the way the New International Version translates those verses. The apostle Paul said: “Therefore as it is written, let him who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31).

I must be willing to sacrifice all for the Lord. It is really sacrifice when we are willing to give up the things which “charm us most.” What are you willing to give in exchange for your soul (Matt. 16:26)? This is a very poignant question when we realize that Christ sacrificed so much for us. This is beautifully captured in the poem entitled:

He Became Sin for Us

“O the mystery of His Mercy!

Unguessed depths of matchless grace,

Christ became that which He hated,

While God turned away His face.

Turned in wrath from His Beloved,

Hanging there upon the tree,

Strangely changed, and strangely bearing

All the sins of you and me.

Angels dared not look upon him,

But averted striken eyes,

Seeing, not the Lord of glory,

But a bleeding sacrifice.

Through the circling, endless ages,

Such a sight had never been;

He, the spotless Lamb of heaven,

Christ the Lord, becoming sin

How we ought to thank the Lord every day we live for taking the punishment for our sins that we might not have to take it. What a blessed sin offering.

III. From verse three we learn of our Lord’s suffering and love.

“See, from his head, His hands, His feet,

Sorrow and love flow mingled down;

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

Or thorns compose so rich a crown.”

And, my O my, how our blessed Lord did suffer! Matthew records the following:

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things

(Matt. 16:21).

Have you ever really considered what was really included in the “many things”? (Read Psa. 22:8,14-22; Isa. 53.) All of this is horribly unfolded as we read the gospels. He was forsaken of the Father. He was scorned, despised and rejected. He was mocked and taunted and they hurled insults at him. They would shake their heads at him, spit in his face, slap him, hit him with their fists, and flog him. Finally they killed him in the most excruciating way known to man!

Our Lord was truly “familiar with sufferings” and esteemed not. The most precious One to ever walk this earth was pierced, crushed, afflicted and led as a “lamb to slaughter.” He was truly “the man of sorrows.”

But praise be to God, when the blood flowed from those royal arteries, it was sorrow and love mingled and they met as they ran down and dripped to the ground below. Please notice why Jesus suffered. It was because he loved us so much! Because of his great love he “died for our transgressions,” “took our infirmities,” “carried our sorrows,” “was crushed for our iniqiuties,” and “his wounds brought us peace and healing.” He bore our sins in his body on the tree, he was sacrificed for our transgressions. This thought is captured well in the beautiful song: “Hallelujah! What a Savior”

“Man of sorrows, what a name, For the Son of God who came.

Ruined sinners to reclaim! Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Bearing shame and scoffing rude, In my place condemned He stood,

Sealed my pardon with His blood! Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Guilty, vile and helpless we, Spotless Lamb of God was He,

Full atonement! Can it be? Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Lifted up was He to die, It is finished was His cry,

Now in heaven exalted high, Hallelujah! What a Savior!

When He comes our glorious King, All His ransomed home to bring,

Then anew this song we’ll sing, Hallelujah! What a Savior!

They put on his head a rough, sharp crown of thorns the pain racked his head and the rivelets of blood tricked down his face – but thanks be to God that He now wears a glorious crown as King of kings and reigns over his kingdom at the Father’s right hand (see Phil. 2:5,11, New International Version).

‘Twas for You

Be still, and know that I am God.

Where you now tred, I too have trod —

I know your griefs — I have a part,

I know the anguish of your heart.

Did I not walk the toilsome road,

A wanderer, without abode?

Did I not stand in Pilate’s hall,

Though innocent, hear judgment fall?

Did I not hang on yonders tree

At Golgotha, to die for thee?

Was I not spat upon, slapped my face,

Before Pilate did the mob not make their case?

Did they not scorn, mock, reject, with great ado,

Oppress, afflict, and crush, all for you?

Ah, yes, my friend, I’ve journed far,

To break the might of death’s cold bar

‘Twas all for you I paid the price,

For you I made such sacrifice,

But ’twas for you I suffered and bled,

With a crown of thorns upon my head,

Man of sorrows, acquainted with grief,

In my suffering, love and sorrow did twain meet!

IV. The last verse teaches that Christ’s sacrifice demands my all.

“Were the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

Demands my soul, my life, my all.”

Peter said, “Behold, we have left (forsaken) all and followed thee” (Matt. 19:27). The Lord said, “So, likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:33). Paul said he had suffered the loss of all things for Christ (Phil. 3:7-8). God demands our all! Are you willing to give it? This begins with the giving of myself to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5).

It is evident that many do not appreciate God’s great love for they do not reciprocate with their lives. Rather than give all, most give none or very little! Many are glad that Christ gave his all, but they want to give very little! They do not want to even give of their time to come worship. My, my, but how they appreciate his love, so amazing, so divine. How ungrateful can we be? Remember, love gives! “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” (Jn. 3:16). Do you love the Lord? Are you a Christian? Will you give yourself in obedience to his will?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 14, pp. 436-438
July 16, 1992