Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Enlarged hearts, broader love and wider, extended fellowship is the order of the day. And who is opposed to hearts filled with love and open to communion with God? Certainly no one who loves God and men can be against such things. However, there is a cry today that says the church of the Lord is too narrow, too restrictive, and that it preaches a gospel of limitation and exclusion. We are driving honest souls away with our set approach and pat replies. What we need is “more loving acceptance” of others and less emphasis on our particular, traditional ways of doing things.

In this vein, we hear liberal men as they seek to enlarge and expand the borders of God’s kingdom. With nothing but a beaming smile, a “come as you are” wink and a waving gesture, they would annex alien areas into the confines of the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Is the answer to spiritual division and false religion to take down the barriers of truth and grant people citizenship in the kingdom of heaven by simple decree? If so, I am for it. But before we make human hunches into divine decrees we must examine the rightfulness of our cause and course. Before we alter and change the wisdom of God for the wit, will and wishes of men, we must consider the precedent of the word of God.

The Proposals

In order to teach and reach more souls for the Lord, we are advised to loosen and soften our stance and status “in the present truth.”

For example, (1) do not quibble and quarrel over pianos and organs in worship; (2) relax restrictions against Easter, Christmas and other “holy” days; (3) do not be so sure that taking the Lord’s supper is bound upon the first day of the week; (4) our ironclad, unyielding insistence on the form and purpose of baptism must give way to a sincere believer who has been sprinkled or immersed into a denomination; (5) rigid construction as to the form of local church government must be eased in light of the changing world situation which demands some kind of organizational structure to reach the teeming billions with the gospel; (6) women’s role must be expanded to fit an enlightened society; present concepts of women in the church are the cultural residue of an ancient past which traditionally treated women as second class citizens; (7) man’s needs are societal as well as spiritual; hence, the church must adapt and present itself as a caring community committed to meeting the “felt needs of the whole man” in projects ranging from “Day Care” schools to environmental concerns (save the whales, endangered species, fund AIDS crisis centers, etc.); (8) negative, condemning remarks about hell and eternal punishment must be eliminated and replaced by positive appeals designed to soothe the sorrows and burdens of men; (9) “empty stomachs must be filled before souls can be fed”; “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care” (Translation: de-emphasize gospel preaching; meet social, secular needs).

The Response

(1) If these men had been around in Noah’s day, only the crops would have been washed away. Surely, a loving group, a caring community, could have built several auxiliary arks which would have saved those whom old narrowminded Noah excluded. Did the love of God only save eight souls by water? Did a flood actually come and take them all away? Who can believe it?

(2) Was God so exclusive that he rejected Hagar’s issue, Ishmael, from the promised seed? Was Jacob preferred over Esau in the unfolding scheme of redemption? Was Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai the seat and source of his law and not Samaria or Mt. Gerizim?

(3) Were Nadab and Abihu consumed with fire for offering “strange (foreign) fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not”? After all, fire is fire. What difference did it make? It is not like they were burning incense unto Baal. So, if their hearts were right, and if they were truly sincere. . . . (Let it be noted, for the record, they still were burned up.)

(4) Naaman considered the “rivers of Damascus,” Abana and Pharpar, better than all the waters of Israel, but if he had dipped 700 times in them rather than 7 times in the river Jordan, he would have remained a leper.

(5) David and all the people sought to please God in moving the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 13:2-4), but when they acted contrary to God’s law, when they “sought him not after the due order,” they were smitten (1 Chron. 15:13). Where were those broadened borders of brotherhood? Ask Korah, Dathan and Abiram. what they think of attempts to rearrange God’s order and due process (Num. 13-17).

(6) A brass snake on a pole is a pretty exclusivistic, narrow way to cure snake bite, but long, loud prayers from sincere hearts did not save anyone who refused to look and live (Num. 21:4-9). Surely, if some of our modern spiritual snake doctors had been there, they could have saved a few more folks by praying or simply holding up a garden hose wrapped around a stick and saying, “Look on this and you’ll live just the same as if you really go to all the trouble to look on Moses’ serpent of brass.” Reckon it would have worked? Nope, not then, and not now, either.

(7) Imagine telling a blind man to feel and find his way down to the pool of Siloam (Jn. 9). What a waste! But who thinks he would have come “seeing”if he had not gone and done precisely what the Lord said for him to do? Not me.

The Gospel of Exclusion

When the Spirit says repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins,” what right do we have to say, “But you can do otherwise and be saved just as well”? Remember Naaman’s washing in Jordan and Moses’ serpent of brass before you answer.

May we add pianos and organs to singing when God would not allow a different fire or another way of transporting the ark of the covenant (1 Cor. 10:6,11)? Can we devise and develop extra-ecclesiastical governmental structures when God destroyed those who forsook his order (Nam. 13-17)? May we sail additional works and agencies along with the ship of Zion when nothing but the ark floated in !he days of Noah? I have a sinking feeling that we may not.

Actually and factually the gospel system is one of inclusion and exclusion. It includes “whosoever will” and excludes whosoever will not. There is one God and only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). There is no way unto God except through Jesus the Christ (Jn. 14:6). There is no other name, power or authority by which one can be saved (Acts 4:12). There is only one foundation, and only one supreme, sublime head of the one, true church, and there is no other (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 1:22,23).

The faith says salvation by works of the law are excluded. It says idols are nothing in the world, that there are not gods made with hands. The delusions of ancient Athens and Ephesus were counted as base superstitions and as the pretensions of men, unable to save, bless or benefit man. Jews of the flesh are not Jews, not the Israel of God (Rom. 2:28,29). Those born of the flesh are lost until they be born from above, of water and of the Spirit. This is exclusion with a vengeance.

All spiritual blessings, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ and no where else (Eph. 1:3; Col. 2:3). Neither principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come can aid the man who will not kneel in simple trusting faith at the feet of King Jesus, for in him and in him alone dwelleth the fulness, the completeness, the perfection of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9, 10). Therefore, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).

The Son of God made one question the central issue regarding the baptism of John (Matt. 21:23-32). The Jewish leaders rejected it, but Jesus said one fact made it mandatory, essential, and that fact was – was it from heaven, or was it from man? If from heaven, it must be obeyed; if from man, it could be ignored. It was “from heaven,” authorized. To refuse it was to reject the counsel and purpose of God. To accept it and be baptized was to be justified of God (Lk. 7:29,30). That is an exclusionary message.

Now, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, is it from heaven or of men? If it is from heaven and rejected by men, do they not reject God’s purpose? If not, why not? The washings of the Pharisees were not accepted by God (Mk. 7). They were excluded. The baptism of John was approved of God. Likewise, the baptisms of the denominations are human traditions, from men, which make void the word of God. Dare we accept them, sanctify them and give them equality with the “one baptism” of the gospel? No more than we can unite the Pharisees’ baptisms with the baptism of John, no more one than the other. Call that exclusionary if you must, but it is the truth.

The seven ones of Ephesians 4 (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God) may not be expanded, multiplied or modified. If we are at liberty to make one body mean hundreds of denominations, are we free to make one Lord and one God into “gods many and lords many” (1 Cor. 8:5,6)? If the one faith can be expanded into the Catholic faith and Protestant faiths, can one Lord include lords other than Jesus?

If so, is the Book of Mormon truly “another revelation of Jesus Christ” as the Mormons claim? Would our brethren who detest and protest our “exclusionary” gospel deny the Mormons their delusionary doctrines? And what of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation and of the extra books of the Catholic Bible? Are they to be included, or do our inclusionary brethren have a mean exclusionary streak in them that would deny credibility to these works?

Finally, is this article to be accepted by our broad minded brethren, or is it to be excluded? Would that not be ironic? Imagine those who decry exclusionary teaching having to exclude the views expressed here! Now where is their “loving acceptance” of teaching with which they disagree? Is it wide enough to include this material? Just who is excluding whom?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 456-457
August 1, 1991

By Donald R. Wilson

In the beginning, because it was not good for man to be alone, God took from the side of Adam his own flesh and bone to make for him a helper suitable for him. Then, as Moses wrote, “For this cause a man shall leave (abandon, forsake) his father and his mother, and shall cleave (be joined, bonded, cemented) to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:18-24).

Malachi later wrote that marriage is basically a covenant relationship witnessed by God. A covenant is more than a simple contract; a covenant is based upon solemn promises (vows) of loyalty and faithfulness. This covenant relationship is designed and governed by God, who declares the terms, responsibilities, and conditions. The sexual union of husband and wife affirms and perpetuates the bond of the “one flesh” covenant. That is why adultery is so destructive; it is dealing treacherously with the wife of thy covenant (Mal. 2:14-16).

“Whereas fornication is a general term for all illicit sexual intercourse, adultery is used specifically of unlawful sexual conduct in violation of the marriage covenant . . . In literal adultery, it is the marriage covenant which is violated” (Mike Wilson, Is It Lawful?, Chap. 15, “The Meaning of Adultery”). Every Bible lexicon I have checked agrees that adultery is the sexual sin that involves the spouse of someone.

Jesus taught, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery against her” (Mk. 10:11-12). Adultery is dealing treacherously with the wife of thy covenant. “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living . . . . So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress” (Rom. 7:2-3). Joining herself to another man while she still has a living husband is adultery because it is a violation of their marriage covenant; it is dealing treacherously with the husband of thy covenant. If a woman should put away her living husband for the cause of fornication, then she would not be an adulteress if she married another man. Her “first husband” is still living, but they no longer have a covenant relationship; he is no longer her husband before God. What appears to be an absolute statement in Romans 7:2,3 is not intended to be absolute.

Another illustration of an apparently absolute statement is this: “Every one who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity (fornication), makes her commit adultery.” Absolutely? In every case? No matter what she does or doesn’t do? Or consider the last part of the same verse (Matt. 5:32), “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Absolutely? In every case? What if her own husband married her again; against whom are they committing adultery? (See 1 Cor. 7:10-11.) Or what if she is the one getting the divorce for the cause of fornication? (She is still a “divorced woman.”) Or what if her husband died before she remarried, against whom would she be committing adultery? (I repeat, she is still “a divorced woman.”) Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery if either of them, before God, has a marriage covenant with another living spouse.

The Pharisees who confronted Jesus with the question of “rights” to put away their spouses were misusing the Scriptures; Deuteronomy 24:14 is not affirming rights to put away your spouse. Deuteronomy 24 is “case law “: when and if this and that happened, then the result is such and so. We are making the same kind of error when we make Jesus’ teachings deal primarily with “who has the right to remarry?” Jesus is primarily teaching the only cause for putting away your spouse and marrying another is if your mate is guilty of fornication (Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12). Jesus does not specifically state who may remarry! Only by implication, by our own human reasoning, do we conclude that “the innocent party has the right to remarry. ” Jesus’ actual statement is another example of case law: whoever does what I am describing to you is committing adultery (unlawful sexual conduct in violation of the marriage covenant).

1 Corinthians 7:27-28 deals specifically with who has the right to marry without sin. “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released (loosed, unbound, untied, divorced). Are you released from a wife (loosed, unbound, untied, divorced)? Do not seek a wife. But if you should marry, you have not sinned.” Are you bound in a marriage covenant with a spouse already? If not, you may marry without committing sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 464
August 1, 1991

By Andy Alexander

Just take a tiny little step away from God is the message that Satan has for the child of God. Satan knows that a Christian is not likely to take a large step away from God and so his endeavor is to get us to move just slightly in his direction. Once he gets us to loosen our feet and shift them in his direction then the next step is much easier and generally a larger step than the last.

This small step to larger step can be seen in the church of our Lord today. In the early fifties had Satan tried to get the children of God to accept women elders and preachers, his plea would have been flatly rejected. If he had tried to get brethren to build recreation centers or gyms, sponsor ball teams, or have banquets where admission is charged, all of these most likely would have been rejected. Yet by working gradually and by getting brethren to accept small departures from God’s word, he has been successful in moving the people of God a long way from God. The steps these erring brethren are taking in the nineties seem much larger than the steps taken in the fifties. From an orphan home to a sponsoring church arrangement seems small when compared with steps to women elders and instrumental music.

These small steps must not be taken. We must study God’s will and strictly adhere to every principle that God has revealed (Matt. 4:4; 2 Jn. 9). God’s word is complete and all that we need to be pleasing to God is contained within its pages (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Heaven will be filled with souls who were happy to follow God’s will on this earth and those who are not content to obey God in this realm will not have heaven as their home (2 Thess. 1:8-9).

We must have authority for all that we do in religion and we must firmly ground ourselves as well as our children in the faith of our Lord (Gal. 3:17). A “thus saith the Lord” must be a way of life for the child of God and this trust in God must be passed on to future generations (2 Tim. 2:2). The first step away from the will of God must be opposed by faithful Christians. Paul did not overlook the sin that Peter committed in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). Had those Judaizing teachers been left unopposed, no one knows how much harm could have been brought to the church in Antioch. Not only could Peter and others have lost their souls for committing sin, but many others would probably followed in their footsteps.

Jesus came to do the will of his Father and we are to follow in his steps (John 6:38). Let us watch our steps and be careful always to have a “thus saith the lord” for all that we do.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 452
August 1, 1991

By Robert Wayne La Coste

It would appear from the outset that Jacob and Esau were destined to have problems between them. The Scriptures reveal that even while in their mother’s womb, “the children struggled together within her” (Gen. 25:22).

Parental partiality didn’t seem to help their relationship either. The Genesis account continues. “And Isaac loved Esau . . . but Rebekah loved Jacob” (Gen. 25:28).

From their youth up they simply did not treat each other as brothers. Esau was a flippant personality that took important items for granted. For a small portion of food, he sold his birthright. Jacob, taking obvious advantage of his brother’s hunger, bought a valuable commodity for a little of nothing.

Finally, to add insult to injury, Jacob lied to his own father, telling the aged and infirmed Isaac that he was Esau, so as to receive his blessing before he died. In receiving such a blessing, Jacob was in essence made Lord over Esau in all things. The elder would be subject to the younger. The behavior of both sons, particularly to each other as brothers is without excuse. While it is evident that God’s decision was to choose Jacob over Esau (“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” – Rom. 9:13), let no one think that God condones the chicanery of any man.

Many years passed between these events and the time that Esau and Jacob would see each other again. It seems almost like poetic justice that, in view of how Jacob had treated his brother he similarly should be treated by his fatherin-law, Laban. His love for Rachel constrained him however, and she finally became his wife after additional years of service to Laban.

God blessed Jacob with many children and many possessions. He became a wealthy man with many flocks and herds (Gen. 32:5). He eventually departed from Laban and took his family and all his possessions nigh unto the land of Seir, the land of his brother Esau. He sent messengers unto Esau that he might “find grace in his sight.” The messengers returned telling Jacob that Esau was coming out to meet him with 400 men! Upon hearing of this, Jacob was greatly distressed. He was so afraid he made plans to divide his people, lest they all be smitten when his brother came (Gen. 32:1-8). Is it not all together possible Jacob was afraid because of what had happened in the past? He knew what he had done to his brother. He knew of Esau’s hatred for him and he knew he and his family would surely be at Esau’s mercy.

Jacob’s fear compelled him to pray to God to be delivered from the hand of Esau (Gen. 32:9-12). He could only wait for what appeared to be impending doom!

Upon the appearance of Esau, Jacob divided his family as he had purposed to do (Gen. 33:1-2). He bowed seven times as he approached the man who would surely be his executioner. Would Esau thrust him through with the sword? Would he capture Jacob and make him watch his wives and children tortured and killed for the horrible things early in life he had done to him? Would Esau make Jacob’s family watch as Esau tortured Jacob before them? The Scripture then reads that “Esau ran to meet him.” Perhaps he was running in great haste to take his revenge. Finally at last he would have retribution. But no, something else is about to happen! Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him: and they wept.”

What? How can this be happening after all the bad deeds, hatred and years that had come between them? How? Let’s make some appropriate observations and in these observations, dear reader, let us make our teaching relevant!

Isaac and Rebekah like all parents had their faults, but they were righteous people. Even righteous people make mistakes. It’s just that mistakes with the righteous are the exception and not the rule and when one looks at the lives of these two parents, such lives are evident. Therefore, even their children are not always going to be what they should be.

Sometimes similar actions exist with all the same feelings, and emotions that divide brethren of the Lord. Brethren, perhaps not even intentionally, will take advantage of brethren, lie, cheat or in some other way hurt them. It’s wrong and it’s sinful. However, have not both come from the same spiritual parentage? Have they not both become brother or sisters in the same way? All Christians who indeed are such, became such by being “born again of the water and of the spirit” (Jn. 3:5). Paul put it this way, “For ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27). Yes, by faith in Christ Jesus, we who were baptized into Christ became God’s children and consequently brethren.

In being properly taught the things of God, is there doubt they were taught the importance of family and brotherly kindness? What about the virtues of humility and selflessness? Though Jacob and Esau may have often forgotten at times these matters, they came back to them and as might be expected, to one another!

Brethren, we must do likewise. We must come together on the truth of God; that must forevermore also be our foundation! When there are barriers between God’s people, pray tell, who put them there? Surely the Father has not. We put them there and we must do all we can to take them away! I for one, have been greatly encouraged by the recent meetings of brethren both in Nashville and Dallas in an effort to do this very thing. It is my prayer that such meetings will continue. Of course, though I’m an optimist, I’m also a realist. There may never be the unity existent among brethren that once was existent, but at least we can try, yea we must try! If we do not at least try, then we have failed the Lord in one of the most serious of commandments ‘ “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Speaking of trying, how about the local church when problems arise? Should we not like Esau and Jacob at least try to reconcile our differences? I seriously doubt that our wounds could ever be greater than the ones Esau and Jacob inflicted on each other and yet they were still brothers. No power on earth could change that fact. It’s as though this fact helped them find a way. There was a day that finally came and a common ground of mutual understanding that finally was made manifest. No, it didn’t happen overnight, but Jacob and Esau found a way. It’s as though their brotherly tie surmounted and surpassed all obstacles! As they made their approach toward each other and as they finally laid eyes on each other and then embraced as brethren, the past seemed to vanish as though it had never happened. Even if Esau had vindictive plans in route to Jacob, even if his temper burned within him, it all melted at the sight of his brother Jacob.

Brethren, we can not live and dwell upon the past. It will make us bitter and cold to those we should love the most and finally we will quit serving the Lord all together, because after all, “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (1 Jn. 4:20)

It Does Take Two

Like man’s reconciliation to God, it takes action on the part of both parties. Of course, God stands ready at all times to have fellowship with man. God has shared the terms of reconciliation to man, thus showing his willingness to be one with him, but man must accept the terms of reconciliation by way of obedience.

If one brother wants to be reconciled and yet the other will not, then they will never be reconciled. Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, he ran to meet his father, and in turn his father met him on the road home. Surely, this must be our attitude. Brethren, we must be willing to meet each other half way and then go all the way with each other home! Home to the Lord. Home to the truth. Home, the most precious of places.

The story of Jacob and Esau like so many others of the past have been preserved by God “for our learning and admonition” (1 Cor. 10:11). What shall we learn brethren? More importantly, what shall we do with our differences? One day we must stand before the great judge of all the earth. What a difference in judgment there will be of those who at least tried to be a brother in God’s family!

The best way to be a proper brother or sister is to strive to be God’s son or daughter. When God is first and when his word is first in my heart and yours, then you and I will always, somehow, find a way!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 460-461
August 1, 1991