Truth Magazine

By Luther W. Martin

The institution of the Lord’s supper, the memorial sacrifice of Christ’ body and blood, which is kept by Christians each first day of the week, is recorded in Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, and Luke 22:19-20.

Some years later, the history recorded by Luke in Acts 20:6-7 authenticates the practice of the disciples in partaking of the supper of the Lord on the first day of the week. Paul, accompanied by Luke, arrived at Troas, and waited seven days for the arrival of the first day of the week, upon which day they assembled with the disciples at Troas and participated with them in “breaking bread.” Still later, the Apostle Paul provided an inspired record of Christ’s having instituted the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Expressions such as “My body” and “My blood of the new covenant” were quoted from the lips of Christ by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Each of these three witnesses quote Christ as no longer participating in the Passover feast, until it would be “fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then Paul’s testimony places the Lord’s table in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 10:21), thereby confirming the Lord’s kingdom and the Lord’s church as being one and the same.

The foregoing passages of Scripture provide the inspired authorization for the subsequent observance and practice of the Lord’s people, which prevailed for many centuries. Now, in the 20th century, there are yet congregations of Christian’s who gather together and worship each Lord’s day, after the New Testament order.

Unfortunately, over the centuries, men have presumptuously taken the Lord’s authority into their own hands, and have introduced changes in the observance of the Lord’s supper. Let us consider some of the innovations.

The Bread and the Fruit of the Vine

The unleavened bread, as used in the Passover observance, became the bread that served as a memorial of Christ’s body, “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). Also the “fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:18), was the scarlet liquid used in symbolizing Christ’s blood. Thus, inspiration authorized two substances in memorializing Christ’s sacrifice.

The “Eastern church” continued to observe the Lord’s supper by using the two substances in its Eucharist. Eucharist is an anglicized Greek word, eucharisteo, which means “to thank, or to be thankful.” It is used in Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, Luke 22:17,19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, as well as in other passages. Early in its history, the Eastern church resorted to leavened bread in its observance. For a time in the East, a spoon was used in taking the fruit of the vine, thereby rendering it unnecessary for the faithful to even touch the container(s). Some assemblies had a container for the priest, and another for the communicants. Later, the wafer or bit of bread was dipped into the wine, and thus both the bread and the fruit of the vine were taken by the communicant simultaneously. This was called “intinction.”

The Western Congregations Influenced by Rome

Even the congregations known as the “Western church” continued for many centuries to use the two substances (they termed it “two species”) when they observed the Eucharist in their place of worship. However, one of the earliest departures from the New Testament pattern for the Lord’s supper occurred when they determined to carry the bread and fruit of the vine to some Christian who was sick or in prison (see Worship, Vol. XXXVII, No. 8, August-September 1963, p. 527). Frequently the liquid was spilled, and so they began to take only the bread to the communicant on his sickbed. They further rationalized that the bread (the body), had the blood in it, anyway, so why not with regularity, just use the bread in observance.

The church in the West, introduced the use of a gold or silver tube (like a drinking straw), and called a fistula, through which the wine was sipped. The Pope still makes use of the fistula, in taking the fruit of the vine.

In the 11th and 12th centuries, the Roman church condemned the practice of “intinction.” This dipping of the “Host,” the wafer of bread into the wine, contributed to the ultimate omission of the use of the fruit of the vine, as a separate symbol of Christ’s blood. Partaking of the Lord’s supper was so poorly practiced in the early 13th century, that the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had to command its annual reception. This meant that about twice per year, there would be droves of communicants (not through faith in Christ, but in obedience to the decree!), while the rest of the year, there were almost none. Consequently, at these congested times, the priests were only too happy to have their task simplified by the distribution of the bread only, without having to also distribute the wine. Coincidentally, it was about a century earlier (1088), that Beregarius of Tours gave the Western church substantial opposition to the subject of Transubstantiation, wherein “the entire substance of the bread and the wine is (supposedly – lwm) changed into the Body and Blood of Christ” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary, p. 345, published by the Gilmary Society, 1941). Opposition to Transubstantiation would again arise with the beginning of the Reformation. Due to the attacks of John Huss, the matter of Communion under one species, had to be addressed by the Council of Constance (1415).

Later, the Council of Trent (1546-1564) defined Transubstantiation (sess. Xiii, can. 2, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 499, edited by Donald Attwater, published by the Macmillan Co., 1952). With such a definition, it was no longer required that the Catholic communicant partake of two 6ispecies” in observing the Eucharist. The chalice or cup was denied to the “laity” but the members of the hierarchy who served at the altar continue to partake of both “species.” The doctrine that “the whole Christ is present under either species” is called “concomitance” (see Worship, December, 1062, Vol. XXXVII, No. 1, p. 52).

The decree which forbade Communion under the two species was passed by a vote of 87 “for” and 79 “against.” The ballots of these 87 men do not invalidate the instructions of Christ or Paul; or, the example of the Christians at Troas!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 364-365
June 18, 1992

By Ron Halbrook

Genesis 1-3 provides the basis for our study on man’s nature and the sin problem. His positive makeup and constitution can be better focused and understood when contrasted with false theories which have arisen. Any concept of man’s nature has a bearing on the problem of sin.

Man’s Spirit

1. Man is a spirit, contrary to materialism. The first thing the Bible records about man is God’s statement, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26-28). “Male” and “female” are two images of flesh but the body is only the clothing or drapery worn by the inner man. The inner person both male and female reflects the same image of God. God is a spirit without man’s body of flesh and blood (Jn. 4:24). The fleshly form of man cannot reflect the image of God (Rom. 1:23). God’s image is found in the inner man or the spirit, “for a spirit hath not flesh and bones” (Lk. 24:39). Four hundred years after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead, God as a spirit still lived and these men as spirits still lived (Exod. 3:6; Matt. 22:29-32). That fact is what makes the resurrection possible. God’s image is reflected in man as a spirit-being who has intelligence, will power, and a moral capacity.

Materialism is the view that man is a body without the inner man of the spirit. This theory is held by atheists, evolutionists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Worldwide or Seventh Day Church of God started by Herbert W. Armstrong and others. Some of these deny the spirit but affirm the resurrection. Jesus taught that the spirit is essential to the doctrine of the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-32). No spirit, no resurrection (Acts 23:8). If there is no resurrection, the sin problem is meaningless because both the wicked and the righteous will have the same end – annihilation! “Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:18-19,32).

Man’s Body

2. Man has a body of flesh and blood, contrary to “Christian Science. ” “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). After sin entered the world, God ordained that the body “return unto the ground; . . . for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (3:19). God gave man both plants and animals for food but forbad blood because “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Gen. 9:3-4; Lev. 17:11). The natural or earthly man is flesh and blood, but God has no such body (1 Cor. 15:44,48,50; Matt. 16:17). This body of man appears to sleep in death as it returns to dust, but the spirit or soul remains very much alive in the hadean world (1 Cor. 15:18; Matt. 10:28; 22:32).

The Christian Scientist cult started by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879 embraces philosophical idealism which dismisses the real world as an illusion. The dust of the ground, man’s body of flesh and blood, and death are all said to be illusions. If such teaching were true, the deeds of the body would be mere phantoms of an illusion. Sin could not be real. How then could each of us be called to give account at the judgment for “the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10)?

Man’s Creation

3. Man exists by the creation of God, not by the chance evolution of the species. After God had created all other things in five days, on the sixth day he created man and woman. The man was created directly from the dust of the ground and the woman from the rib of Adam (Gen. 1:26-31; 2:7,18-23). God made all forms of life including man capable of reproducing, each “after his kind” (1:11-12,21-25,28). God completed his work of creation and ceased or “rested the seventh day” (2:1-3; Exod. 20:11). Jesus taught that a proper understanding of God as the Creator of all things “at the beginning” is fundamental to proper human conduct (Matt. 19:3-6).

According to the general theory of evolution, life came by chance from non-life, animals from plants, and man from animals. Man is considered a high order of animal life. If man is nothing but an animal, he may be expected to act like an animal. The result is a philosophy of self before others barnyard morality, and of might makes right in the survival of the fittest. Every man becomes a law unto himself. “Right” and “wrong” in an absolute sense are replaced by evolving concepts which are always relative and which result in radically different but equally valid “life styles.” The godless chaos of such living is pictured in Romans 1:18-32 and in today’s newspaper.

Man’s Place

4. Man can know his place in the world and utilize the creation around him for his good, contrary to such Eastern religions as Hindu and Buddhism. God ordained man to exercise “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth” (Gen. 1:26-28). Understanding God’s order in the universe is essential to man’s finding his proper place in that order and to his properly utilizing the creation. We must distinguish God from ourselves and from the rest of his creation. We must distinguish ourselves from God and the rest of his creation.

Hinduism has some 330 million gods and Buddhism has no personal God at all, but both tend toward pantheism. They do not clearly distinguish an ultimate Being from the ordinary existence of all things. God is not a personal Being separate from the universe but is something of a force or “ground of being” shared in the nature of all the universe. The line between the Creator and the creation is blurred. All things are “God” and “God” is all things.

Blending and blurring divinity, man, and the universe breaks the mainspring of human activity. Rather than striving to subdue the creation so as to harvest the blessings ordained by God, man feels that such action challenges and disturbs the divine essense found in all things around him. It is not appropriate to kill the sacred cow or to disturb the insects which gather on its manure. By not subduing the creation, man denies himself food and health. Man tries to blend and balance the divinity within him and within all nature by leaving things as they are. With some variation in the route taken, that is the conclusion reached by many of the world’s religions.

In the Hindu scriptures (Vedas and Upanishads), man’s inner self and the divine are held to be identical. When man becomes divine, the idea of sin quickly becomes nebulous. All actions of man become manifestations of divinity in some manner. Sin becomes the break of some code, or represents the struggle of man toward higher and purer levels of divinity, but there is no consciousness of rebellion against God as a person distinct from the created order. That basic flow appears in many world religions. Just as there is no absolute God distinguished from man or the universe, there is no absolute right or wrong to be distinguished in the deeds of man. The denial of man’s nature and of his proper place in the world leads to much confusion, much sin, and much sorrow. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22).

Man’s Responsibility

5. Man is responsible to God, contrary to all concepts of fate or determinism. Because man bears the image of God, he has a mind with which to learn and understand the will of God. God as an intelligent being communicates with man as an intelligent being through the medium of words.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou catest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. 2:16-17).

Man in God’s image has a moral capacity, a will power, and a conscience which equip him to choose to do right or wrong. God appeals to man to do right and announces the penalty for wrong. Satan appeals for man to do wrong and denies the penalty. Neither God nor Satan chooses for man. Both God and Satan recognize that man is a creature of choice (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:1-5). God votes for man to do right, Satan votes against it, but man casts the deciding vote. It is the whole duty of man to fear God and keep his commandments. When man chooses to act contrary to God’s revealed word, he sins and must answer to God for it. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eccl. 12:13-14; 1 Jn. 3:4; Ezek. 18:4).

Various concepts of fate or determinism excuse man from answering to God for his sins. Fate says there is some inescapable law or force which compels man to act as he does. Some ancient religions taught that the gods along with man and all the universe are subject to the rule of fate. Fate is set by the stars in astrology. The theory of reincarnation explains some actions of man as the result of previous lives. Thus a person may unconsciously relive or re-enact certain events. Matter and flesh are inherently evil according to several ancient philosophies including gnosticism. Therefore man is compelled to sin by the flesh in which he lives. His soul is free from the taint of sin no matter what the flesh does so long as he holds the secret of true knowledge and light in his soul. 2 Peter, 1-2 John, and Jude repudiate such notions.

During the third century A.D., the concept was forming that man inherits Adam’s “original sin” or inherits from Adam a “fallen nature” predisposed to sin. The North African “bishop” Augustine (354-430) organized these theories into a system which said that Adam was created with a will having the freedom to choose right or wrong. His will was corrupted and its freedom lost when he sinned. All men inherit this corrupted or fallen nature which predisposes him to commit sin. Augustine rationalized that all mankind was in the loins of Adam when he sinned, thus making it right for God to impute to all men Adam’s sin, Adam’s corrupt nature, their own depravity, and their own sins.

In other words, man does not become a sinner because he sins, he sins because he is born a sinner. Since the time of Adam, man must sin because he is man. He has to sin because it is his inherent nature to sin. These same concepts were passed down in Roman Catholicism to the age of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and John Knox all embraced this basic theory of man’s nature. It has been passed down in the creeds of most denominations. It is deeply embedded in Calvinism but is not unique to that theological system.

Modern man tries to escape the problem of sin by declaring that man’s actions are predetermined by his environment. The individual is not to blame for wrongdoing. It is all the fault of society, or the family, or the government, or the economic system, or the church, or our genetic inheritance. Such explanations have been given for every sin from shoplifting to murder and from alcoholism to homosexuality.

All such theories are false. They undercut man’s responsibility and accountability to God for sin. As the consequence of Adam’s sin, Adam was driven from the tree which perpetuated physical life in the Garden. Thus all mankind suffers physical death. But the moral and spiritual nature of man is unchanged. The Bible tells about death falling upon man just as God had warned, but where does it say that the inherent nature of the inner man has been altered or changed in any degree?

Ezekiel 18 shows that men have the same freedom to choose right or wrong which Adam himself had. We are not born with the sin of Adam or any other ancestor upon us (v. 20). When a man chooses right, he can later fall away from it and do wrong. When a man chooses wrong, he can later fall away from it and do right (vv. 26-27). Men can rise above an environment of wickedness to seek and find righteousness with God (vv. 14-18). We are not mere victims of circumstance, of environment, of inheritance, of reincarnated lives, of the stars, of Adam’s sin, or of fate. We must face the facts that we are sinners, we sin by choice, and we are responsible to God for it. Men sin because they choose to, not because they have to.

Man’s Work

6. Man is a creature of work, contrary to the idea that “the world owes me a living and a life of ease. ” Even before sin entered the world, God put Adam into the Garden to dress it and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Adam and Eve erred when they took their minds off the good work God had given them to do and listened to the lies of Satan. After sin entered, the difficulty of Eve’s labor in bearing children was greatly increased, as was the difficulty of Adam’s labor in cultivating the ground (3:16-19). Life is a struggle. The struggle of life teaches us self-discipline. We are put into this world not to serve and please ourselves, but to serve and glorify God, and to serve and bless our fellow man.

If we give proper attention to the work God gave us to do, sin is defeated (Matt. 22:37-40). Part of life’s labor is to fight and to resist sin (Jas. 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:8-9). Any theory which says we are incapable of this God-given work is false. We fail in this work by freely choosing to sin. Prosperity opens the door to ease, to constant entertainment, to an idle and wandering mind, to inactivity – and to the temptations of Satan (Deut. 32:15; Amos 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 6:9). But God opens a door to escape every temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). We choose which door to take. We need to trust in God at all times, fill our hearts with things that are good and uplifting, and be busy in the work God has given us to do (Phil. 4:69).

Man’s Mate

7. Man is suited to one mate for life, contrary to the advocates of license, hedonism, and immorality. Jesus reminds us that when God made one man for one woman “at the beginning,” God established the proper order for all mankind “from the beginning” until now. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:3-9). It is against God’s established order, “against nature,” for men to have sexual relations with men or women with women. That order is also violated when a person has a living mate and yet marries another. This is adultery and an abomination in God’s sight (Rom. 1:26-27; 7:2-3). If and only if a person puts away his mate for fornication, he may marry another and not commit adultery (Matt. 19:9).

Those who advocate any other order confuse love with lust, liberty with license, passing pleasure with perpetual profit, and God’s grace with gross perversion. To pursue such a course is not true freedom but is abject slavery to sin and a dreadful curse on mankind (2 Pet. 2:19). This sin breaks down man’s resistance to sin generally and weakens him in the face of many foolish and hurtful lusts. God’s way in the family blesses men and women in many ways and lays the foundation for warding off many dangers.

Man’s Conscious Identity

8. Man’s personal identity and conscious existence is a blessing, not a curse, contrary to the claims of such Eastern religions as Hindu and Buddhism. God has personal identity and conscious existence, and man “in the image of God” has that same nature (Gen. 1:27). Adam knew he was Adam and not Eve, Cain, Abel, or Seth. Eve knew she was Eve and not someone else. God as an intelligent, self-conscious, and distinct person addressed man as an intelligent, selfconscious, and distinct person. God blessed Adam and Eve by explaining to them their duties and privileges (Gen. 1:28; 2:15-17). There is to be a bodily resurrection and final accounting by each person for the use made of all God’s blessings and commands (Jn. 5:28-29; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Some world religions admit man has a personal consciousness and identity but claim this is a curse to be overcome. His goal in life is to submerge that personal sense into the conception that he is only a part of the great divine whole. Through a process of meditation and extreme selfdenial (which may include leaving one’s family to wander as a monk), and through the process of many reincarnations, man’s ultimate destiny is to escape existence in a body. He thereby loses all personal sense of individual identity and becomes submerged into the great divine whole.

Such teaching denies to man many of the blessings, privileges, and duties God ordained (1 Cor. 7:3-5; Eph. 5:25; 1 Tim, 4:3-4). This effort to escapepersonal identity destroys the sense of a personal responsibility with eternal consequences. The result is sin against self, against God, against one’s mate, against one’s children, against one’s parents, and against his fellowman in many ways.

Man’s Fellowship With God

9. Man is capable offellowship with God but sin breaks thatfellowship, contrary to all claims that one can be right with God while sinning. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they knew the love, joy, and peace of communion with God. When they sinned, they died spiritually as God had warned. They were separated from God by their sin. They knew shame and dread at the approach of God and “hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden” (Gen. 2:17; 3:6-8). To underscore his anger against sin for all time, God cast them out of the Garden and from the tree of life, thus bringing the consequence of physical death upon all mankind (3:22-24). Adam and Eve had committed only one sin, but God is too holy and too pure to abide in fellowship with even one sin. When we commit even one sin, we stand guilty before God as a lawbreaker and a sinner (Jas. 2:10).

Modernism teaches that all men are accepted by God in spite of their sins on the basis of “the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.” Catholicism teaches that venial (or lesser) sins do not separate man from God. Denominational theories of man’s inherited sinful nature say that we all sin all of the time and cannot help it. These theories propose that we can be in fellowship with God on one basis or another while we continue sinning by human nature. From time to time, some brethren are influenced by such theories. We must remember that Satan is the father of the idea that we can sin and “not surely die” (Gen. 3:4).

Man’s Pardon From Sin

10. Man can beforgiven and restored to fellowship with God only through God’s own mercifulprovision of a Savior, which must be accepted by man upon conditions, contrary to every theory of unconditional pardon. God promised to defeat Satan by providing sinners with a Savior. God said to Satan, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). Jesus Christ is the seed of woman who received a minor blow when Satan led men to cruficy the Son of God, but he in turn delivered Satan a fatal blow by rising from the dead.

God’s provision of a perfect sacrifice for man’s sin was foreshadowed by rivers of blood from animal sacrifices flowing toward the cross of Christ. The death of Christ, and that alone, is the sufficient and perfect sacrifice for our sins (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 10:1; Matt. 26:28). In the death of Christ, the lawful demand of justice for sin to be punished was met and, at the same time, God unconditionally provided the basis for the forgiveness of the sins of all men. In the cross, perfect justice and perfect love meet.

God does not force his forgiveness and fellowship on anyone. Therefore, man’s acceptance of God’s grace is conditional. Man must choose to receive it. That forgiveness has been available to all men throughout history on the basis of geunine faith in the Savior. Before Christ came, men exercised their faith in him as the Savior to come. Today we must act upon our faith in him as the Savior who came. We must repent of our sins, confess him as God’s Son, and be immersed in water (Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:10; Gal. 3:26-27). In baptism we receive the remission of our sins through the death of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-4). After we enter the family, church or kingdom of God, but we stumble again and fall into sin, the blood of Christ is again applied to our need as we repent and pray forgiveness from God (Acts 8:24; 1 Jn. 1:7-2:2).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 368-371
June 18, 1992

By Andy Alexander

How many times do those of us who know God’s will concerning the use of our tongue feel like saying, “O, that tongue of mine has gotten me into trouble again”? God created us with a tongue and this tongue can and should be used as God intended.

God has repeatedly warned us about the improper use of our tongue. Cursing, lying, backbiting, gossip, murmuring, vain questioning, and meddling in other’s affairs are all mentioned as sins that can be committed with the tongue (Rom. 1:29-30; 1 Tim. 5:13; 2 Tim. 2:16,23; Eph. 4:25; 5:4; 1 Thess. 4:11). No child of God would argue that these are not serious sins.

We know that any sin in the sight of God is grievous and can cause us to lose our eternal reward, yet sometimes we fail to bridle our tongue and it runs loose like a cat with its tail on fire in a barn full of dry hay (1 Jn. 1:7-9). After the fire has been brought under control and finally extinguished, the damage report is made. Seldom, if ever, can things all be put back like they once were.

So it is with the tongue. When we break a promise and tell something we have been asked not to repeat, a trust is broken. It may take years to build that trust back and it is possible that it will never be as strong as it once was. If we lie and that lie is discovered (most eventually are), it, too, may take years to repair the damage.

Meddling in other’s affairs can also create hard feelings. Some people are more private than others and they do not go around telling everything that’s on their mind. We should respect each other’s privacy. If they have something occurring in their life that they want us to be aware of, they can tell us. Our Lord would not have told us “to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business” if it were not for our own good (1 Thess. 4:11).

There are times when we as brethren should go and talk to another brother or sister about problems they may have. Perhaps sin is involved and a call to repentance is necessary (Gal. 6:1). We must make sure that we take the steps given by our Lord and not veer to the right or left and discuss it with those who have no business knowing of the incident. Gossip can lead to resentment and cause one or more to lose their soul for eternity.

Our tongue must be constantly guarded (Jas. 3:2-12; 1:26). Any occasion when we gather with others can turn into a fertile field where gossip can germinate and grow. After the worship services; after the ladies Bible class; work days; before, during, and after business meetings; and common meals shared together are just a few of these occasions. Let us use these times for the production of valuable fruit such as blessing, encouraging, and exhorting one another – not a place for weeds of gossip, backbiting, and slandering to take root and grow.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, p. 367
June 18, 1992

By Johnie Edwards

Jesus was an unusual person. He was God-Man, that is he was both human and divine. John said of Jesus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:1,14). Although Jesus was the Son of God, there are some things he never had:

Jesus Never Had an Earthly Home

Can you imagine a person not having a home? There is not a sweeter word than the word home, It is a good feeling when one has been away to be able to go home. Often it is said of Jesus, “And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when evening was come, he was there alone” (Matt. 14:23). Jesus himself said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20).

Some who have good homes do not appreciate them soon enough.

No Earthly Father

A boy needs an earthly father. It is sad today that many of our young people are being reared without an earthly father. Child correction is the primary responsibility of the father (Eph. 6:4).

Jesus had no real earthly father. He was born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14).

Jesus Never Had a Long Life

The lives of a lot of people are wiped out at an early age. The average life span of men is about 72 years now. Jesus only lived to be about 33 1/2 years old. The Bible refers to him being “about thirty years of age” (Lk. 3:23). Although Jesus lived a short earth life, he lived a full and busy life. He said, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (Jn. 17:4). Jesus did more in his short life than most ever think about doing. “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (Jn. 21:25). A short, but full and busy life.

No Sin in His Life

Jesus never had any sin in his life. He lived a life of sinless perfection. The Hebrew writer said of Jesus, “For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). The apostle Peter said, he “did no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22). Paul told the Corinthians that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). Can you imagine a man living on this earth and never, not once, doing anything sinful?

Jesus Never Had Any Desire to Get Even

Many today carry around a grudge, just waiting for the right moment to get even with others. Not Jesus. Peter said, “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again” (1 Pet. 2:23). It is written in Isaiah that, “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7). We would do well to follow his example.

Never Had Any Other Disposition Than to Obey

“Thy will be done” (Matt. 26:42) was the Lord’s disposition toward his Father! “I come to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:9) was his purpose in life, even to the point of being “obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8). We need to be like him in our attitude of obedience.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, p. 372
June 18, 1992