Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

“How can people of the twentieth century and beyond be expected to believe that a man walked on water, healed the blind and the deaf, and walked out of the grave three days after his crucifixion?” This is, as it has ever been, the burden of faith.

Faith challenges us to believe that which seems unbelievable, even as it did those of two thousand years ago. On the one hand it expects us to look forward to an unseeable future, toward an invisible heaven, and trust in unprovable prophecies and promises. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1), and again, “We walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). On the other, it just as remarkably stands between us in the present and those in the distant past. We read the biblical histories and are met with men and women of like passions with us, and yet hear of them experiencing incredible happenings – things which we know we have never known or experienced. We read of Moses and the burning bush, of Moses and the parting of the Red Sea, of Elijah and the chariots of fire, etc.

But most remarkable of all is our confrontation in the text of the New Testament with the Galilean Jesus. The stories of his miracles boggle the imagination of the modem reader. They are stupendous in every way and yet the gospels report them in such a matter-of-fact fashion that we often forget to feel the utter incredulity of the onlookers and witnesses to the events. The writers clearly were convinced that Jesus of Nazareth not only performed such feats of in explicable power, but that this was fully to be expected of that Person who came to say and show and be more than any Old Testament prophet or priest had ever before claimed. The miracles are plainly a declaration of his divine nature as well as the seal of divine approval of his message. Can we believe them today? The answer to this can only Or be given by each individual as he or she analyzes the evidence put forward in the accounts and decides whether to accept it or not. We were not there to see these wonderful incidents, and so are left to judge the case on the basis of the historical information contained in the gospels about Christ. Perhaps we may even say that our decision must rest upon degrees of relative probability. Do the accounts sound credible, aside from the miraculous aspect couched in the stories? Most reasonable people would agree that they do. In other words, there are no “magic dragons” or personages who ordinarily inhabit the environs of fantasy (gremlins or hobgoblins).

The man who appears at center stage is a very ordinary figure in many ways: he is raised in Nazareth in Galilee, pursues the common trade of carpentry till he is thirty, then becomes an itinerant teacher and preacher for some three years or so, and, at the last, when the tide of public sentiment turns against him, is executed for crimes against the state. Were it not for the extraordinary appeal of his teaching and the miracles – we cannot seem to ignore those miracles – then his life and death would probably have gone unnoticed in history.

Are the witnesses trustworthy? This is one of the most crucial of issues in examining their testimony. What kind of men were they? Any unschooled person may quite easily extricate a few simple facts from the text. First, they were men who were just as ordinary as Jesus. They were fishermen, tax gatherers and people of the streets and towns of Galilee. Second, they were men of honesty and integrity. The Christian religion, which they vouchsafed to those of subsequent times, exalted truth and honesty while it condemned all falsehood and lying. Third, they were men who showed no signs of mental incompetence. Fourth, they gained nothing by what they said. In fact, they gave up everything to herald the message of a risen Savior to every corner of the globe. When the story of the apostolic age had been finally written, it was a saga of misery and suffering for each of them, with all but one having to die a cruel death for the cause of their Lord. Where can we find in this history a shred of proof that these men had ought but their desire to meet their Master in another and better land as inspiration for their sacrifices?

Fifth, their testimony is of such a personal and tangible nature as to elicit trust on our part. John describes the demands of “Doubting Thomas” as though he needed for us as readers to appreciate their inability to naively accept such an incredible story as that of the resurrection (Jn. 21:24ff.): “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Whenever I read those words, it is as though I am there with him, doubting as he doubted – but hoping all the while that he might be alive. Moreover, all my doubts and questions are, along with those of the first doubting disciple, put to rest in the Master’s challenge at his appearance to Thomas: “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” I can, along with him, feel my own trembling hand reach out and touch the terrible scars left by the driven nails – and with that touch experience the dawning of faith in my own soul. Though we cannot broach he wide centuries personally to see and talk with our Lord after his resurrection, still our thirst for evidence may be abundantly satisfied in this and other accounts of his greatest display of power. Paul even attests that on one occasion he appeared to over five hundred people at one time (1 Cor. 15:6).

John concludes his synopsis of just a few of the Lord’s miracles in this way: “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (20:30-31). The most important of these, of course, is his resurrection. In his life the miracles display his mastery over sickness and disease, the powers of evil, even the forces of nature. But in his death, and in the resurrection, there is something else again. It brings us face to face with his divinity. It shows us that he cannot die without our hopes and dreams dying with him. And if he lives, then we can also live with him.

Herein we discover our own God-given aspiration for enduring life. As Paul worded it: “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling . . . . For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety . . . . For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:1-2,4,7). In this miracle of Jesus we have God’s promise of our own resurrection and the demand for faith on our part. The New Testament is the source of both. If we cannot trust the New Testament, then we can have neither.

Conclusion

Living as we do in an age of television and hypermedia, it is not as easy for us to “stand amazed in the presence of Jesus the Nazarene” as it once was. What is accomplished on film is, at times, nothing short of fantastic. But it is only trickery. Technologically wonderful, yes; but really only slight of hand taken one step beyond the magician’s bag of tricks.

The Book of God, though, confronts us with one who needed no stunts or tricks. He possessed power. And with power he needed only to command a thing to be or to happen, and it did. What we have in the New Testament is the report of this miraculous work, utterly dependable in all its details, amazing though they may sometimes seem! In this chronicle of his life and works there is not only a story of events but also a communication to our hearts and hopes. Some may question whether this is merely conjured up to pull us through the rough spots of life, but as the disciples on the road to Emmaus knew so well when they remarked that “our hearts burned within us . . . while he talked with us by the way,” the Word of God speaks to the needs and hopes of man in a way that is quite unique. It is the key that answers to the lock of our souls, opening up for us the vistas of eternity. Well-crafted it is, exactly as its divine Author planned it!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 628-629
October 20, 1989

By Joe Price

The doctrine which says the personal, second coming of Jesus Christ occurred in 70 A.D. is confusing some brethren, and destroying the faith of others. In our previous article, we saw how this doctrine claims that all the second coming prophecies happened in 70 A.D. While showing that Jesus did come in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., we also noticed three passages which teach us that the personal return of Christ is still future. These passages are Acts 1:9-11, 2 Peter 3:4-11 and 1 Corinthians 15. He will come bringing rest to the righteous and punishment to the wicked (2 Thess. 1:7-10; Matt. 25:31-46). At his return, all mankind will be resurrected to stand before his judgment seat, and there receive a just sentence for the deeds done in this life (Jn. 5:28-29; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12-15). This world shall be dissolved in a fiery judgment, and a new order shall be established (2 Pet. 3:10-13). These events did not occur in 70 A.D. It is therefore right to hope for a future return of Jesus Christ. We were not begotten unto a dead hope, but a living one (1 Pet. 1:3-5; cf. 1 Cor. 15:19).

Why has 70 A.D. been made such a focal point in this false doctrine? While several answers could be offered which address this question, I submit that the underlying reason for this doctrinal error rests upon a perverted interpretation of the allegory found in Galatians 4:21-31. In this allegory, the A.D. 70 advocate believes that he finds comfort and support for this doctrine. Instead, he finds a refutation of it!

An Overlapping of the Covenants?

To understand how the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31 fits into the system of Realized Eschatology, consider Max King’s following statement:

Christianity is a fulfillment of the prophecies, types and shadows of the law and not merely a “fill-in” between Judaism and another age to come. Abraham had two sons, and there was no gap between them. They overlapped a little, but Isaac “came on” when Ishmael “went out.” The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh. Hence, this simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) establishes the “Spirit of Prophecy,” confirming prophecy’s fulfillment in the spiritual seed of Abraham through Christ (Gal. 3:16,26-29), and beyond the fall of Jerusalem these prophecies cannot be extended (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239. Emp. King’s).

According to King (and others), this allegory establishes his view of the end times. This doctrine teaches that “out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity” (Ibid., p. 200). We are told that this occurred during the forty year period of 30-70 A.D. Therefore, an overlapping of the old and new covenants is believed to have occurred, and becomes crucial to this doctrine’s defense. By having us believe that the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D., this heresy would have us believe that Christians were “given the place and inheritance” of the Jews. These two allegations (an overlapping of the covenants, and Christians being given the inheritance of the Jews) constitute two fatal mistakes in this false doctrine. So then, let us first look at whether or not the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D. Then, we will consider the inheritance obtained by Christians.

God’s word clearly teaches us that the old covenant ceased prior to 70 A.D. To suggest that the covenant remained until 70 A.D. is to deny God’s revealed truth! Consider the following evidence:

(1) Romans 7.1-6. An overlapping of the covenants would amount to spiritual adultery. It is adultery to be married to another man while one’s husband lives (v. 3). With his death, the wife is “discharged from the law of the husband” (v. 2), and is free to marry another (v. 3). With these truths, Paul illustrates man’s current relationship to the law of Moses:

Ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined (“married” – KJV) to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, . . . . But now we have been discharged from the law (vv. 4,6).

If the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D., Paul’s illustration would mean nothing! Furthermore, a Jewish Christian would be married to two husbands (covenants) simultaneously, hence, spiritual adultery! More than a decade before 70 A.D., the apostle said, “But now we have been discharged from the law!” There was no overlapping of the covenants!

(2) Colossians 2.13-15. The focal point in the removal of the old covenant is the cross, not 70 A.D. In this passage, Paul emphasizes the cross as the means whereby one was released from the “bond written in ordinances.” While the old covenant could not forgive (Heb. 10: 1-4), the cross triumphs over sin and its cohorts (v. 15). At the cross, three things regarding the old covenant occurred (v. 14): (a) It was blotted out. That is, it was removed, being against or contrary to man’s forgiveness. (b) It was taken out of the way. Again, its removal is stressed. (c) It was nailed to the cross. Triumph over sin occurred at the cross, not 70 A.D.!

(3) 2 Corinthians 3:14. The old covenant is done away in Christ, not in 70 A.D. Like the Hebrews of Paul’s day, the A.D. 70 advocate fails to perceive that the old covenant was done away in Christ. The old covenant was already done away when Paul wrote this passage! Only minds “hardened” to this truth could miss the apostle’s meaning.

(4) Hebrews 7.11-14. An overlapping of the covenants would mean two priesthoods were in force at the same time. Under the old covenant, the Levitical priesthood was in force (v. 11). However, Christ is not a priest like Aaron (v. 11), but one who is “after the likeness of Melchizedek” (vv. 15,3). Because Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and not Levi, he could not serve as a priest while the old law was in force (vv. 13-14; Heb. 8:4). The law had to change to enable,Jesus Christ to serve as priest over the house of God (Heb. 7:12,15-17; 10:21; 3:1; 5:5-6; 6:20). Jesus did not wait until 70 A.D. to become a priest. Neither did he gradually become one. He began serving as High Priest when he sat down at God’s right hand (Heb. 8:1-2). Therefore, since Jesus served as High Priest before 70 A.D., the law was changed before 70 A.D. (Heb. 7:12).

(5) Ephesians 2.13-18. Christ made peace between Jews and Gentiles in his death, not in 70 A.D. Again, wefind the Bible teaching us that the cross is thefocal point of God’s plan for peace and human redemption, not 70A.D. “He is our peace” (v. 13), thus identifying Christ as the one who accomplished peace between Jews and Gentiles. When and how did he do this? He produced peace between Jews and Gentiles by removing that which stood as a barrier between them, namely, the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” (vv. 14-15). This abolition of the “middle wall of partition,” with its enmity, occurred “in his flesh” (v. 15). Verse 16 confirms this as Christ’s death, by teaching us that reconciliation with God was accomplished “through the cross, having slain the erunity thereby.” Peace between the Jews and Gentiles, and reconciliation with God, were not achieved only after a 40-year struggle of the two covenants (with the new one finally overcoming the old one!). Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) was available for all flesh, and preached without distinction to all flesh, long before 70 A.D. (Acts 2:17,21,39; 11:12-18; 10:34-35; 15:7-11). Access to God for both Jews and Gentiles is through Christ’s death (v. 18).

Were Christians Given the Place and Inheritance of the Jews?

Realized Eschatology would have you believe that Christians were given the place and inheritance of the Jews. Recall Max King’s quote, given earlier, where he said, “They overlapped a little, but Isaac ‘came on’ when Ishmael ‘went out.’ The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh” (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239). By redefining the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31, the A.D. 70 doctrine has occasioned its own downfall.

An assumed purpose of Paul’s allegory is used as the basis for contending that Christians were given the Place and inheritance of the Jews:

The purpose of Paul in this allegory was threefold: First, to show that Abraham had two sons which existed side by side for a time (emp., mine, jp) in the same household. This is a truth that is vital to the teachings of the New Testament, and will be a key factor in the study and application of prophecy. Much misapplication of Scripture can be attributed to a failure to recognize this simple but vital truth. These two sons are typical of the two Israels of God, one born after the flesh (old covenant) and the other born after the Spirit (new covenant) . . . . Ishmael was thefirst born and, as such, had the right ofprimogeniture, a right he maintained at the birth of Isaac, and even thereq/ter until he was cast out or disinherited (Ibid., pp. 29-30, emp., mine, ip).

Realized Eschatology’s redefinition of the allegory concludes that Ishmael was the rightful heir of Abraham “until” he was “cast out.” Thus, we should believe that the Jews under the old covenant were the rightful heirs of the inheritance, but were “cast out” at 70 A.D. (at which time Christians took their place and received the Jews’ inheritance). However, the Bible declares that Ishmael was never heir of the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 12:1-3)! Remember, Ishmael was Sarah’s remedy for Abraham’s lack of an heir (inasmuch as he gave her handmaid Hagar to Abraham, Gen. 16:1-3), not God’s. Even before Isaac was born, God made it clear that Ishmael was not heir of the promises he had made, when he declared that his covenant would be established with Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen. 17:15-21). Since Ishmael never was heir to these blessings, he could not be “disinherited” of them! Isaac did not take Ishmael’s place as heir! Neither did Christians take the Jews’ place as heirs of God’s inheritance!

The old covenant did not contain the inheritance of God’s Abrahamic promises. Righteousness and justification are not through the law, but through faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16,21; 3:7-14,21-23; Rom. 3:20-22). The law gave a knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20), but no release from it (Gal. 3:10,12,22-23). It produced “children of bondage” (Gal. 4:24). It contained no inheritance (Gal. 3:18-19), only a curse (Gal. 3:10-14). The “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:22) is “apart from the law” (Rom. 3:21). Therefore, the “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28 Christians) did not receive their inheritance from the Jews of the old covenant. If they did, the inheritance would be “no more of promise” (Gal. 3:18). To suggest that Christians were given the place and inheritance of the Jews is to demonstrate a woeful misunderstanding of God’s promise to Abraham and how it is received. Its blessing are received through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16-19,23-29), not through the law. Our inheritance is “according to promise,” not according to the law!

The Allegory of Galatians 4:21-31 Denies the A.D. 70 Doctrine

Max King’s quote from page 239 of his book says “this simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-3 1) establishes the ‘Spirit of Prophecy. “‘ Instead, the truth of this allegory destroys the A.D. 70 doctrine. Why was this allegory used by the apostle Paul? What does the allegory teach?

The background of the allegory is found in Galatians 3:23-29, where the inspired teacher makes four needed observations:

(1) V. 23 – The law of Moses was in force, and men were under it, before faith came.

(2) Vv. 24-25 – The law was a tutor to bring men to Christ, and now that tutor was no longer needed.

(3) Vv. 26-29 – We are children of God and heirs according to promise through faith in Christ, not through the law of Moses.

Having used Galatians 3 to teach that Christians are not justified by the law of Moses, but through faith in Christ, Paul now addresses those Christians who “desire to be under the law” (Gal. 4:21), and shows them that the law itself contains an illustration of how their desire was out of place.

The allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) uses Sarah and Hagar as the two covenants (v. 24), and their sons as the product of those covenants. Hagar signifies the Mosaic law, which produced “children of bondage” (v. 24). Verse 25 emphasizes this point of bondage (cf. Gal. 3:10,22; Rom. 3:20). Sarah corresponds to the new covenant. Isaac corresponds to Christians, who are the children of promise (vv. 26-28). In verse 29, the children of bondage (Jews) are presented as persecutors of the children of promise (Christians), just as Ishmael was the persecutor of Isaac (not “the first born” of Abraham). What should Christians do? Should they desire to be under the law? Should they turn back to bondage by joining their persecutors? No! The allegory teaches them (and us) not to go back to the law and live under it, for that would place them (and us) in the bondage of sin. Instead, “Cast out the handmaid (old covenant) and her son (Jews with their persecutions),” and live in the freedom of the new covenant (Gal. 4:30-5:4). God says to purge yourself from turning back to the Mosaic law, and to live as the children of promise that you are! Do not live in bondage to the law and its curse, but in freedom from sin and death through faith in Christ!

The allegory does not carry within it the arbitrary definitions and subjective applications which the A.D. 70 doctrine places upon it. We cannot apply the allegory beyond where and how the inspired apostle of Christ applied it. To make of it an “embryonic statement” of the Realized Eschatology theory is a wresting of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16) by the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 3:18-20; Rom. 1:22). Such mishandling of the word of truth must be avoided (2 Tim. 2:15) and contended against (Jude 3-4). In our final installment on the A.D. 70 doctrine, we will look at some of the grave consequences of its principle tenets.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 618-620
October 19, 1989

By Greg Gwin

The famous denominational preacher Charles Spurgeon complained about a fellow preacher whose sermons he said were “little better than sacred miniature painting” and amounted to “holy trifling.” Spurgeon went on to explain that: “he is great upon the ten toes of the beast, the four faces of the cherubim, the mystical meaning of badgers’ skins, . . . and the windows of Solomon’s temple: but the sins of business men, the temptations of the times, and the needs of the age, he scarcely ever touches upon. Such preaching reminds me of a lion engaged in mouse hunting” (Spurgeon’s Lectures to His Students).

Spurgeon has been dead for nearly 100 years, but the situation has not improved. There’s precious little preaching that addresses the real problem of sin in men’s lives. Most preachers (like Spurgeon himself) teach a perverted doctrine that could not save a man even if he was convicted of his sin. Paul says that they are “accursed” (Gal. 1:9).

Churches of Christ are not immune from this problem. We see more and more of this “pointless preaching.” The test of a preacher’s worth has come to be his ability to entertain and make folks feel good, rather than his ability to proclaim God’s truth in a way that provokes men to obedience. Too many sermons that are preached do not include any information about what one must do to be saved. Such efforts clearly miss the mark. There’s a proper place for words of comfort such as Paul preached (1 Thess. 1:11). But these positive words of peace need to be based on the foundation of true obedience, or else they are meaningless.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, p. 623
October 19, 1989

By Lewis Willis

Several years ago, some of our brethren decided they wanted to have fellowship with other religious organizations, like the Christian Church, the Baptists, etc. Naturally, they needed to establish some basis for this desire, and out of their effort grew the “Grace-Fellowship Movement.” Basically they argued that man was saved by grace – not by doing the things set forth in the Scripture. Their position is something like that of the premillennialists – each one believes something a little different than the others, so it is hard to pinpoint a particular position held in common among them. Anyway, if grace saves, regardless of whether we have done what the Scripture says, they concluded we should have fellowship with those kind of folks. But, there was a problem. If this premise applied to the Christian Church, which was not following the authority of the Scriptures, why would it not apply to others as well? So, over a number of years, they finally concluded we should have a fellowship with those kind of folks. But, there was a problem. If this premise applied to the Christian Church, which was not following the authority of the Scriptures, why would it not apply to others as well?

So, over a number of years, they finally concluded that not only were people in the Christian Church justified while doing things not authorized in the Scripture, they are now saying that the same is true of Jews, Catholics, Unitarians, Buddhists and even those who seek salvation like the pagans who have never even heard of Jesus Christ. I have before me a copy of The Reformer (Vol. 4, No. 6), edited by Buff Scott, Jr. On page 11 he said, “Anyone — now hear me correctly — anyone who seeks glory, honor, and immortality and who sincerely responds to any divine truth to which he may be exposed, will be given eternal life – yea, even those pagans in the most remote sections of the earth who seek God and find him only through the revelation of creation. . . . Those persons in the most remote corners of the earth although not exposed to scripture and have never heard the name Jesus Christ (my emp., LW) will be given eternal life provided they seek glory, honor, and immortality through the revelation of creation. ” He affirms the same thing in Vol. 5, Nos. I and 2. He bases his argument on Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen.” Also, eternal life is imparted to those who seek for glory, honor, and immortality (Rom. 2:7).

As far as I can tell, he concludes from these two passages that a pagan who looks at God’s creation – the moon or stars or rivers – and longs to be like them – must be seeking glory, honor, and immortality. Therefore, he has eternal life, even though he has no knowledge of the “written revelation” – the New Testament – and, even if he does not know the name of Jesus. Scott wrote, “If Paul is not teaching this principle in Romans, Chapter I in referring to the pagans, I am at a total loss as to what he is teaching” (my emp., LW). I have been reading the writings of Buff Scott for several years and this is one of the few things he has said with which I am in total argument – he is at a total loss in knowing what the Scriptures teach!

Now keep in mind, he believes a pagan is saved, even though he is ignorant about Jesus and the New Testament. But Jesus said – and there is a monumental difference between what Jesus says and what Buff Scott says – that “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). He further said that people could not come to him except the Father draws them and except they have heard and learned of the Father (Jn. 6:44-45). 1 believe God ordained that the Gospel be preached, heard and learned so that we might come to Christ for eternal life. Scott says you can get that eternal life without going to this much trouble. Jesus said, “Without me ye can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5). Scott says without Jesus you can have eternal life – just want to be like a star and you’ve got it! There are many other passages that could be introduced here. If we do not believe in Jesus, we will die in our sins (Jn. 8:24). If we do not repent of our sins, we are going to perish (Lk. 13:3). Those who do not confess Jew will not be confessed before God (Matt. 10:32-33). Only those who believe and are baptized will be saved (Mk. 16:16). If we do not obey the gospel, God will meet out his vengeance to us (2 Thess. 1:8). Buff Scott, and others like him, have simply rejected these passages of Scripture.

Folks, it is a shame how some brethren will accept any absurd position in order to embrace something they like or want to believe. No idea is too far-fetched for them. Jesus and the New Testament will be trodden under foot without any apparent sense of shame or regret if they get in the way. Ali we can do is remind them of what God’s Word says. If it does not save them, then, possibly it will keep us from falling with them. Study this issue well. We are far from hearing and seeing the end of it. Scott’s paper, The Reformer, should be more accurately name The Deformer. What he is doing to Christ and the Church is an abomination.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, p. 617
October 19, 1989