Truth Magazine

By Jeff Asher

But I tell you the truth it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged (Jn. 16:7-11, NASB).

In this text Jesus tells his disciples that it is to their advantage that he go away. Now, this was true for two reasons. The first being, Christ could not complete his redemptive work for us on this earth. He could only do this in his role as our High Priest in heaven. Zechariah tells us the Christ is to be a High Priest on his throne, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon this throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both” (6:12,13). And the second reason, the Holy Spirit was to have a part in the redemptive plan. He could execute his part only if Christ went away to the Father and sent him to speak the things received of the Christ. The Holy Spirit was to have a part in man’s conversion. It is this aspect of the Holy Spirit’s work we propose to discuss. Jesus said the Holy Spirt would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. It would appear that verse 7 plainly teachers the Holy Spirit’s activity in the conversion of sinners. Fortunately, this is not a matter for division among religious people. Everyone accepts this teaching of the Bible. However, there is division among believers over the manner in which the Holy Spirit changes men into saints. Let us, therefore, endeavor throughout the discussion to keep the question clear in our minds.

Two Concepts, Only One True

How then does the Holy Spirit operate in the conversion of the sinner? Does he do so by working directly upon the sinner’s heart or does he operate by the means of an instrument in his employ? Let me use these questions to introduce two differing concepts of the Spirit’s role in conversion. First there is the doctrine of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in converting the sinner. This doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit in some mysterious, unknown way has contact with the sinner’s heart and opens it to the reception of the Word of God. Ben Bogard, champion of this doctrine among the Missionary Baptists in the first half of this century, said in his debate with N.B. Hardeman, “What I shall affirm is that the Holy Spirit is actually present and uses his personal presence in influencing sinners to be saved.” The foundation for this doctrine is the assumption of inherited total depravity, or simply, that all men are born wholly and completely inclined to do evil, incapable of any good, even faith, without the so-called “enabling power” of the Holy Spirit. The second concept teaches the Holy Spirit performs his work in conversion through the instrumentality of the Scriptures which he revealed and confirmed. This is the concept in harmony with Bible principles.

Through the Word, Not Apart From

The operation of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners through the instrumentality of the Word is substantiated by the fact that whatever works are said to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit in conversion are also attributed to the word. It might help to think in terms of a man chopping down a tree. We could correctly attribute the work to the man or to the axe, but not to the man apart from the axe. Likewise, it is incorrect to attribute conversion to the Holy Spirit apart from the word. The following Scriptures should prove the point. We all accept that for one to be converted he must undergo the “new birth.” In John 3:5 we read, “Verily, verily I say unto thee, except one be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” There must be experienced by the believer a birth of the Spirit. The Apostle Peter when addressing the “elect of the Dispersion” said, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently, having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:22-23). The NIV assists our understanding in this passage as we read, “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” Luke helps us more when he identifies the seed of the Parable of the Soils sown in good and honest hearts as “the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). Therefore, the “new birth” is attributed to the Holy Spirit by John, but to the word of God by Peter.

All of us recognize that when one is converted he is saved. Now, Paul wrote Titus the following, “. . . according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (3:5). Here Paul attributes salvation to that renewing wrought by the Holy Spirit. Yet, James instructs us to “receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your soul.” The word which here is spoken of as planted is the gospel. The same gospel preached by Paul in Philippi, Galatia, and Corinth; the gospel which he said he planted and Apollos watered and to which God had given the increase (1 Cor. 3:6). Here again, we have the same action which results in conversion attributed to both the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Finally, consider sanctification. Sanctification simply means “setting apart or consecrating for use.” This setting apart is said to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Paul in writing about those who would not enter the kingdom said of the Corinthians, “and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Our setting apart for useful service unto God is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus prayed that the disciples and those that believed on them through their word be set apart, “sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so didst I send them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth” (Jn. 17:17-18). Jesus said we are sanctified by the truth which is the word of God. Yet, Paul says we are sanctified by the Spirit of God. How do we reconcile this? Either the new birth, salvation, and sanctification are accomplished for some by the Holy Spirit and for others by the word, or they are accomplished for all in the same way, namely by the Spirit acting through the word as his instrument.

The Cases of Conversion Agree

The Holy Spirit’s activity in conversion is found in the cases of conversion as they are recorded in Acts. Let us quickly examine some of these. On the day of Pentecost those present in the audience said, “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (2:11). Peter then stood and lifted up his voice. Following the sermon (2:37) the record states, “When they heard this they were pricked in their heart.” The conviction in heart of those Jews was not accomplished until they received the preaching. Their hearts were not pricked by the personal presence of the Holy Spirit on that occasion; they were pricked by the word heard.

Another example is that of Saul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. We see that Jesus refused to tell Saul what to do aside from, “Go into the city and it shall be told thee what to do.” In no way and at no time does the conversion of Saul differ from any other. He prayed for three days and finally Jesus sent Ananias to tell him what to do, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (22:16). Saul did not undergo any experience in prayer, or receive forgiveness on the road to Damascus. Saul was saved when he washed away his sins in baptism, not before.

Finally, the conversion of Cornelius must be considered. He also prayed, but was told to send for Peter in Joppa in order that he might hear words whereby he and all of his house could be saved (10:6; 11:14). Peter came and preached (10:34-43). The Holy Spirit then fell on all them that heard the word (v. 44). An examination of the sermon reveals Peter had preached belief in Christ and remission of sins through him. Now, the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his house served a purpose which is expressed in Peter’s question, “Can any man forbid water, that these should be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we” (v. 47). This reception of the Holy Spirit served to convince those present that the uncircumcised Gentile could enter the Kingdom without first becoming a Jew and reassured Peter in the next action he would logically take, being the command of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus (cf. Acts 15:7-9).

Conclusion

There are no conversions which do not come about without the Holy Spirit being involved. However, bear in mind that he does his work through his instrument, God’s Word, by which we are indicted as sinners and taught what we must do to be saved. If you are aware of what you must do I urge you to obey it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, pp. 483-484
August 16, 1990

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: Explain, please, 1 Corinthians 13:7, believeth all things. ” Does this mean unlimited belief? If one thinks he can stop a tornado, is that what Paul meant to teach in this verse? If someone said so-and-so was a thief, was Paul teaching that a person should believe the statement without any investigation, etc.?

Reply: Certainly one is not to believe what his conscience will not permit (cf. Rom. 14:23). All things which can be believed consistent with truth, conscience, and the available evidence are to be accepted. One should exercise a disposition without suspicion of another. If the evidence is convincing that one is lying, he should not believe that individual. If there is no real evidence presented that one is a thief, then one should not believe that the person is.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 13, the emphasis is on the conduct which love produces. If one loves or has active goodwill toward another, one will accept the person, his word, and character without suspicion. However, if evidence that is convincing is presented demonstrating that the person is otherwise, then the person could not believe that he is morally upright.

Question: What is the meaning of Matthew 5:19, “break” (KJV), “annul” (NASB) and “he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ” in the light of such passages at Matthew 7:2-23; 2 Jn. 9; Jas 2:10; etc.?

Reply: Break in Matthew 5:19 means to loose, dismiss, or undo and is from luo. One who breaks a commandment does not bind himself by what is enjoined. Rather, he disregards it as if it did not exist. Jews circumcised a boy on the eighth day even if it was the sabbath in order not to break the commandment that enjoined the circumcision (Jn. 7:23). One who is of the disposition to break a commandment is one who views it as having no authority to which he should give heed. The spirit is a headlong one that goes about doing one’s own will and not heeding God’s will. To teach men thus to do – break the law – is to have a spirit completely alien to the kingdom of heaven.

One who is what God desires is one who properly respects and is kindly disposed toward the commandments of God, whether they be considered little or great. The spirit or disposition toward God’s law that would cause one to violate a little commandment likewise would cause one to violate great commandment.

To offend in one point is to be guilty of all (Jas. 2:10). If one pays no attention to one commandment, the same disposition would lead one to pay no attention to another. One’s will determines which command he breaks. But the spirit that causes one to break one command is the same spirit that would lead to breaking any other or all of them. At heart he is a lawbreaker.

It is obvious by the language of the passage in relation to verse 18 that God’s commandments, whether viewed as little or great, are binding and of the same force. It is not a question of whether one can set aside a little commandment. In fact, one should obey all of the commands of God. He should not neglect any part (Matt. 23:23).

In the kingdom of the Lord, that person is great who properly regards the commands of God and teaches others to regard them properly. No command of God is insignificant. The thrust of the text is toward having the right disposition toward the law of God and teaching man to have the right disposition. In the kingdom of heaven that person who is of this disposition is great. That one who would dare to break even a little command, as he might view it, is not great. He shall be least. The issue is not whether one may break a command. It is the issue about the disposition in the breaking of the command.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, p. 485
August 16, 1990

By Frank Jamerson

The word “hermeneutics” has been generally left to the classrooms by brethren. Many know what is it, but not by that name! During the Florida College lectures this year, one of the speakers kept talking about the “new hermeneutic, ” and a friend standing near me, leaned over and said, “What is that?” I explained that it is just principles of interpreting the Scripture. After the speaker had made a few more references to it, my friend handed me a pencil and piece of paper and said “write it down.

Those who are calling for “a new hermeneutic” are simply saying that they do not believe that the methods of interpretation we have used are correct. The appeal to commands, examples and necessary inferences should be discarded and we should look at the example of Jesus and do whatever we think he would do in a situation. It seems strange to me that brethren would claim to follow the example of Jesus in some areas, but not accept his example in how to establish authority. If we are to follow the examples of Jesus, surely that would include his methods of teaching, or establishing authority.

In every temptation, Jesus appealed to the word of God. When the devil said, “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones become bread,” Jesus responded, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:3,4). When the tempter quoted Scripture, Jesus countered by saying, “Again, it is written. . . ” (v. 7). To the third temptation, Jesus said, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (v. 10). If I understand the examples of Jesus, he taught us to act only by the authority of God, to accept everything God said on a subject and that the practical application of Scripture is to show us how to worship and serve God. That does not sound like some subjective feeling of what God might want us to do in a certain situation.

Jesus used commands or statements of fact when he was asked about the Father’s will. When a lawyer asked him about what to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said, “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” (Lk. 10:26) The lawyer quoted God’s words and Jesus said, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live” (v. 28). When the Pharisees asked him about divorce, he quoted Genesis 2:24 and concluded, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). The Pharisees objected to his application of that passage and tried to circumvent it by appealing to what Moses had permitted, but Jesus insisted that the statement and his conclusions applied to everyone who married. The eunuchs did not “receive it” because they would not be considered subjects of marriage, but it applied to everyone else.

Jesus appealed to examples in the Old Testament and also taught his disciples to follow his examples. Certain scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, but he said, they had the sign (example) of Jonah, Nineveh and the queen of the South and those were sufficient to show them that they should listen to him. After his great display of humility, the washing of the disciples’ feet, Jesus said, “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet” (Jn. 13:14). This is not only an example, but a command to follow it!

Jesus also established truth through necessary inference. The Sadducees thought they had Jesus in a dilemma because of the woman who had been married to seven brothers, but Jesus said: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. . . But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching” (Matt. 22:29-33). The example in Exodus 3:6 had a necessary implication, which people could see. Again, in the latter part of the chapter, Jesus used a necessary inference, from a statement of fact, when he asked the Pharisees how he could be just the Son of David, if David had called him Lord (Matt. 22:41-46).

Yes, I agree that we should follow the example of Jesus, but that should include his example of respect for Scripture and the proper use of it. Jesus never told people to follow what they thought Moses might do under a certain situation; he quoted what Moses said! Those who tell people to do what they think Jesus would do are not following the example of Jesus.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, p. 462
August 2, 1990 

By Mike Willis

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more (Jn. 8:1-11).

This incident from the life of Jesus graphically portrays many of his divine attributes: his omniscience, ability to convict sinners of their sin, compassion, forgiveness, demand for righteous living, etc. We will do well to study what this text reveals to us about our Lord.

The Sin of the Woman

The woman was guilty of adultery. Adultery is one of the sins condemned in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14); it was punishable by death (Lev. 18:20). A promiscuous society may wink its eye at this sin, but not God. Adultery still is a sin, a work of the flesh punishable by eternal damnation (Gal. 5:19-21; Heb. 13:4). Whatever interpretation one puts on the series of events recorded in John’s gospel cannot conflict with these truths.

The woman was caught red-handed, “in the very act of adultery.” What an embarrassing situation she was in! In addition to being caught in the act of adultery, she also was dragged into the Temple and publicly exposed. She is not the only one who has been caught in adultery. Many unmarried fornicators are caught red-handed in their sin by an illegitimate pregnancy; many adulterers are exposed by a suspicious mate, This passage reminds us of the truth: “be sure your sins will find you out” (Num. 32:23).

Adultery is a sin with serious consequences. Under the law of Moses, an adulterer was to be put to death. Hence, this woman had committed a sin which could cost her life. Nevertheless, the lust of the flesh was so strong that she committed the sin, no doubt thinking that she would escape sin’s consequences. The same sin can destroy a marriage, alienate a person from his children, parents, brothers and sisters, bring public humiliation before the whole community, and scar children for life. Unrepented of, the sin also leads to eternal damnation. The lure of sensual lust is so strong that even Christians throw reason to the wind to fulfill the desires of inflamed lust.

Indeed, the adulterous woman was guilty of a terrible sin, a sin prominent in our own society.

The Sin of the Woman’s Accusers

In studying the woman taken in adultery, there is a possibility that we might not see the others who were caught redhanded in their sin, namely her accusers. The men who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus were hypocrites. This is seen from several evidences: (a) They did not bring the man with whom the woman was committing adultery; (b) Had their only interest been the enforcement of the Law of Moses, they would have carried out the judicial proceedings to execute both the man and the woman without bringing her to Jesus in the Temple; (c) The Scriptures plainly state that the accusers used the occasion to tempt Jesus (8:6).

Their main purpose was to find an occasion which would justify them in putting Jesus to death (cf. 7:1,19-20; 8:59). They had no interest in the soul of the woman guilty of adultery; they made no effort to bring her to repentance. Instead, they were interested in “using” the woman to accomplish their purpose of entrapping Jesus. When they were finished using her, they would discard her without concern for her soul.

These Jews were plotting the death of Jesus. While they manifested a sanctimonious righteousness at having found this woman guilty of adultery – caught in the very act, they were guilty of premeditating murder and were “caught in the very act” before the omniscient eye of Jesus. God is equally opposed to murder as to adultery.

Their plot was complex. When they asked Jesus whether or not the woman should be put to death, they intended to place him in a position in which they entrapped him regardless of which answer he gave. If he said the woman should not be put to death, he was in opposition to the Law of Moses. If he said the woman should be put to death in agreement with the Law of Moses, he could be accused before the Roman authorities which did not make adultery a crime punishable by death. Furthermore, Jesus would be usurping the role of a civil judge, either of the Jews or the Romans, in passing judgment; he steadfastly had refused the role of civil judge even as he refused the rule of an earthly king (cf. Lk. 12:13-14).

Jesus’ Answer to the Accusers

In giving answer to the accusers, Jesus faced several problems: (a) How can he join mercy and Law? He did not want to minimize the sin committed by the woman or approve her conduct. Nevertheless, he was interested in saving her soul. (b) How can he expose the sinfulness of the woman’s accusers, to bring them to a conviction of their own sins? (c) How can he save the woman’s accusers? Jesus’ answer manifests remarkable compassion and mercy in his effort to redeem the woman and her accusers. Jesus always worked toward man’s redemption, not his destruction.

In giving answer to the woman’s accusers, Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (8:7). This answer might he misinterpreted. If one understands Jesus to say that judicial punishment cannot be administered except by sinless men, he has misunderstood Jesus. Such as interpretation undermines the entire judicial system of every country and at every level. Such an interpretation would put Jesus in conflict with the Law of Moses which mandated that eyewitnesses be the first to inflict punishment inasmuch as their testimony is what convicted the guilty (Deut. 17:6-7). Jesus was not acting as a legal judge at all. He was working to redeem the woman’s sinful accusers. The accusers needed to be brought to repentance just as certainly as did the woman.

Jesus’ answer to the accusers called on them to focus their attention on their own sins, not on the sins of the adulterous woman. Jesus called on the accusers to judge themselves instead of the woman. By Jesus’ reply, the accusers were forced to admit that they too were guilty of sin (cf. Rom. 3:23). To the credit of the accusers, each one silently dropped the case and walked away, Jesus’ words apparently having pricked his conscience.

The accusers left because their purpose was thwarted. When they saw that they were unable to use the woman to gain their advantage over Jesus, they walked away with no concern for the woman’s soul and her salvation.

Jesus’ Answer to the Adulterous Woman

After the woman’s accusers had gone away, Jesus turned to the woman. He asked, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She said, “No man, Lord.” Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”

“Neither do I condemn thee” is not to be understood to mean that Jesus did not hold her responsible for her sin or that he approved her conduct. What the statement emphasizes is that Jesus did not come to the world to condemn the world, but to save it (cf. 3:17). “Neither do I condemn thee” are the words of grace – words extended to every sinner. The gospel’s message is that the Lord’s redeeming grace is offered to every sinner. Paul preached the gospel of grace saying, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Tit. 2:11-12). Because of God’s marvelous grace, we sinners can be forgiven, provided an opportunity to begin anew. What Jesus offered this adulterous woman, he offers to all of us. Redemption and forgiveness are the good news of the gospel.

“Go and sin no more” commands the woman to repent of her sins. The command to “sin no more” would demand strong resolution in view of the circumstances which faced the adulterous woman. She possibly faced a divorce. She faced her own feelings of bitterness brought on by the double standard in how she was treated in contrast to how the man was treated. She faced the temptation to bitterness brought on by the public exposure of her sins. Jesus’ demand, “Go and sin no more” was no “cheap grace.”

We wish we knew what became of the woman, but the Scriptures are silent as to whether or not she became a Christian and lived in obedience to the Lord’s word. From the record of John, we learn many valuable lessons regarding the Lord’s mercy, grace, love, and kindness. We also learn that we who confront sinners with their sins must avoid the sin of the woman’s accusers who showed no concern for the sinner’s soul. Like the Lord, let us work toward the salvation of sinners and not destroy those who have fallen into Satan’s snares.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, pp. 482, 501-502
August 16, 1990