Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In Matthew 27:36 we read: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My Got, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Did God actually forsake Jesus while he was dying on the cross?

Reply: This statement of Jesus is one of the seven recorded sayings of Jesus on the cross. Jesus said that God had forsaken him and we see no reason for believing otherwise. This utterance of Jesus is taken from Psalm 22:1, and while these words were partly verified in David, they were more fully applied to Christ. Christ applied the word to himself.

Did God actually forsake Jesus while he was on the cross? Some say that Jesus learned the 22nd Psalm while a child and now he was delirious and merely babbled these words. But we deny this; we have every reason to believe that Jesus was lucid every minute. And, if these words of Jesus were spoken in a state of delirium, why could not his other sayings also be attributed to this state? Who would determine when he was rational and when he was not? Some say Jesus was in such pain that these words were forced from his lips. This, however, is contrary to his attitude toward his own suffering and death. Jesus voluntarily laid down his life and gladly endured all the pain for us. He was a perfect example, even while dying (1 Pet. 2:21-24). Others say that Jesus just “felt” that God had forsaken him. No, Jesus knew what it was all about. There is no evidence that Jesus was at anytime self-deceived while he was upon the earth, and there is certainly no evidence that he was in this specific instance on the cross. Then there are some who offer the objection that if God actually forsook Jesus, why did not God turn away the whole six hours that he was on the cross instead of the last three? We do not know how long God forsook his Son. “Hast forsaken” (Gr. egkatelipes) is second aorist, therefore it is past tense. But supposing that God forsook his Son for the last three hours, at least one commentator has suggested that Jesus suffered at the hands of men and Satan for the first three hours and at the hands of God during the last three hours. Anyway, the length of time that God forsook Jesus is not germane to the issue. The fact is that God forsook him. Then it is asked, since Jesus as priest, presented himself before God as our substitute for sin, why did not God turn away then too (Heb. 7:26-28; 8:3; 9:7-9,23-25)? God did not turn away from his Son in his priestly function, but rather in his function as a sacrifice. As we shall see, he became a sin offering on our behalf, and paying the penalty for our sins is why God forsook Jesus, not because he was a priest. Neither did God turn away from Jesus because he was deity, or because he was a man, but because he was a sin offering. No one could ever truthfully say that Jesus our Lord ever did anything wrong (1 Pet. 2:21-23). After almost twenty centuries have passed, we still look upon him as a sinless. He was indeed God-man. We believe that he spoke the truth while he was on the cross, and that he was actually forsaken by God for a period of time.

Why did God forsake his Son? Jesus himself had no sin but he died in our behalf, taking upon himself our sins. We have this beautiful prophetic utterance about Christ in Isaiah 53:6: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” He died as if he were a criminal; he took the place of the sinner; therefore, God withdrew his presence from him. Paul wrote: “For he hath made him to be sin, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus paid the full penalty of sin and this is why God forsook him. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1,2). The word “forsaken” is one of the most tragic in human speech. We picture a wife forsaken by her husband, a child forsaken by his parents; but the most tragic of all is for man to be forsaken by God. By paying the full price or penalty for sin, Jesus experienced what man suffers when he commits sin and is separated from God. Jesus endured it all, and he paid it all – the full price. This made the sacrifice for our sins complete. Paul wrote in Romans 8:3, “. . . God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. . . . ” The marginal rendering is: “Or, as an offering for sin.” He took away the sins of the world by being a sin offering.

Jesus, on the cross, was burdened by all the sins of the world; thus, the pure eyes of God could not look upon the scene. For a period of time he turned away from it. It is stated: “Thou that art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look upon perverseness” (Hab. 1:13). God’s laws had been broken (1 Jn. 3:4) and someone had to pay the penalty. Jesus was qualified to do this because he had no sin. As we sing, “He bore it all.” All the sins of the world were on Jesus – murder, adultery, dishonesty, jealousy, and the list is ad infinitum. As we also sing, “He carried my sins with Him there.” Jesus was actually forsaken by God, and the Bible tells us why.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, p. 133
March 2, 1989

By Barney Keith

History has a way of repeating itself, doesn’t it? In April 1865 Moses E. Lard, one of the “Pioneer” preachers, was disturbed as he saw various things happening among churches of Christ. Writing in Lard’s Quarterly (Vol. II, p. 257) he referred to certain developments as “ill-omened symptoms in our ranks.” Among other things he cited weak and effeminate preaching, the “pastor system” in many congregations, instrumental music, and other unauthorized practices as he deplored the changes that were coming over the brethren in many places. On page 262 Lard remarked: “He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see growing up among us a class of men no longer satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the minds of the brotherhood to receive changes. Be not deceived, brethren, the Devil is not sleeping. If you refuse to see the danger till ruin is upon you, then it will be too late.”

Lard was absolutely correct in his appraisal of his times. A new generation of seminary-trained, liberalminded, young preachers had come along. Dissatisfaction with the anicent gospel became more evident and digression spread rapidly as innovations were introduced into one congregation after another. The result was inevitable – the liberals continued their march and the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ denominations emerged. The brethren who were insistent upon following the Bible pattern opposed the innovations and strove for the purity of the church of the Lord. The majority of the brethren embraced the digressive move toward change as only a very small minority stood firm for the old paths. Those stalwart brethren of more than a hundred years ago were called various names as they took their stand – such as “anti’s.” That struggling minority, however, grew faster than any would have dared think. Simple churches of Christ began to appear across the country and, with the passing years, the digressives lost more and more of their identity. Today they acknowledge their denominational status proudly.

Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening all over again. Since World War II especially there has been growing up among us a class of men who are no longer satisfied with the ancient gospel. Many of the present day preachers have been trained in schools where outright modernism is found. Those who have been anxious to put the church “on the march,” or to create a “a better image” for the church of Christ, or to involve the churches in all sorts of projects are no part of the New Testament pattern – these men have slowly had their effect on the people of God. Human wisdom and modernistic theology are always inimical to faith in the New Testament as an all-sufficient pattern. Too many people in too many churches of Christ are being taught by too many men who do not respect the authority of the Scriptures. It is no surprise that we have “liberal” churches.

There are many indications of “change” in the churches of the Lord. such as “sponsoring elderships” or “sponsoring churches” to coordinate the work of two or more churches; building and maintaining other institutions to do the work of the church; church support of recreational camps; church parties, dinners, showers, etc. (in the church’s “fellowship hall” or “Family Life Center,” of course); “youth ministers” to handle all activities of the young people; other “ministers” galore; church choruses; church involvement in social welfare projects; facilities for the counsel and care of unwed mothers; the operation of daycare centers, kindergartens, secular education schools; all sorts of gimmicks to attract kids to the “bus ministry” fad; etc. Brethren, there is no end in sight. What happened in the late 1800s has happened in the mid and late 1900s. Wearing the designation “Church of Christ” by no means is proof that a congregation is respecting the authority of Christ.

There are still many, many congregations which have notfollowed the digressive pattern of the day. There are many faithful disciples who still believe that we must “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11) and that we dare not “go beyond the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). A firm, Bible-based conviction is the only thing that will preserve a congregation from apostasy. It is faith in “what is written” that causes a church of Christ to avoid the many innovations. It will never be out of place for Christians to ask for Bible authority for the things churches may begin to undertake. And it will always be right to resist and oppose any changes which involve a surrender of the all-sufficiency of Divine revelation, God’s word.

What Moses Lard saw in 1865 is likely to be seen in any age. Let us take ample warning from the lessons of history. A Christian ought to have no fellowship with a congregation that digresses from the Bible pattern in organization, worship or work. Let none of us be deterred from standing firmly for the truth by the ridicule, sarcasm, name-calling, etc. from our brethren who are bent on following the course of liberalism. Fellowship with God isfar more important than fellowship with men.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, p. 140
March 2, 1989

By Lowell Blasingame

Fellowship! It’s a good Bible word but like some others, it is often abused and mis-used. John said that we have fellowship with God by walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:7). Some folks don’t seem to be able to say the word without conjuring visions of fried chicken, coffee and donuts, etc. or without frolicking through church sponsored social activities.

The truth is that such no more fits the biblical use of the word fellowship than do sprinkling or pouring fit the biblical use of baptism. Neither do such activities conform to what former gospel preachers have taught us about the work of the church. The late B.C. Goodpasture, who edited the Gospel Advocate for years, in answering a question about the work of the church, said:

This question can be answered both negatively and positively. It is not the mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world, or even for its members. For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. If the church will discharge its duty in preaching the gospel, in edifying its members, and in helping the worthy poor, it will not have desire or the time to amuse or entertain (Gospel Advocate, p. 484, 1948).

Former gospel preachers taught us that it was the duty of the home, not the church, to provide recreational activities. I believe that, not just because preachers such as Hardeman, Goodpasture, Lyles, Boles, etc. taught it, but because it is what the Bible teaches (1 Cor. 11:22,34). Don’t be fooled into thinking that Paul is merely dealing with an abuse of the Lord’s supper. He’s pointing out that social activities belong to the home and ought to be kept there.

Some churches of Christ have adopted this denominational folly. Like Israel of old, they have sat down to eat and drink and arisen to play! They erect play houses called “fellowship halls” or “multi-purpose” buildings, employ a “Youth Minister” to cheerlead the folly and immediately following the worship, the pulpit is removed, the goal posts set in place, the chairs pushed back and the ball game or shuffleboard play begins I I’m not exaggerating. I have before me at this writing The Family Flyer of the Madison church of Christ, Madison, TN and among its activities are listed softball, volleyball, Ping Pong, Ladies Slimnastics, Bowling, a CPR class, jogging (included is a joggers’s prayer), Golf and among the events for the “Golden Agers” are a Halloween party, Christmas crafts and a Valentine party!

Now if you think that these are activities belonging to the work of the church of Christ bought with with his blood, you and I have been reading two different books.

I’m wondering just how much longer it will be before some enterprising Youth Minister sees the advantage of having a “multi-purpose” baptistry and persuades some church into building one large enough to double for a swimming pool! After all, if eating and playing together are fellowship, why would not swimming together, also, be fellowship? And, just think what a crowd we could draw if we could get granny, in her bikini, and the Youth Minister to have “fellowship” in the church sponsored, multi-purpose baptistry! For an encore, we might have “pot-luck” or a “spaghetti supper” for all in “Room I” of the church building.

John Townsdin, preacher for Whitehall church of Christ, tried to justify church sponsored recreation on the grounds that it is a “good work” and the church can “engage in any good work” (taken from a taped conversation with Ron Daly, Hepburn St. church of Christ). What brother Townsdin overlooked is that no unauthorized work can in the scriptural sense be a good work” for the church to perform (Matt. 7:22-23). What he needs first is the authority from the Lord for the church to provide recreation.

Fellowship or folly-ship, which is it, brethren? If we initiate a practice that is unscriptural, then mis-use a Bible word for its justification, are we any different from those who substitute sprinkling for immersion and call it baptism? Are we so foolish as to suppose that gospel preachers of the past who rejected church sponsored recreation did not believe in and have fellowship with other children of God?

Jeremiah called Judah a gadding bride for trimming her ways to be like nations about her (Jer. 2:32-27). Is the church of Christ of which you are a member becoming more like the denominations about us? If it has a “Youth Minister” will he have a “youth gospel” and preach to a “youth church”? Why not a special “ministry” for spinsters and bachelors. Such foolishness simply paves the way for further deviations from the Lord’s way.

There are still those who cry for the old paths (Jer. 6:16) and plead for brethren to walk in them. Are you one of them?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, p. 141
March 2, 1989

By Ron Halbrook

Christ taught his disciples to share the Lord’s Supper on the first day of each week to remember his death for our sins (Matt. 26:26-29; Acts 20:7). He did not authorize a religious festival, ritual, or ceremony to commemorate his birth. “Christmas” as a religious holy day is the result of the doctrines and “commandments of men,” which Christ forbade (Matt. 15:8-9). Paul warned that those who “observe days, and months, and times, and years” are “in bondage” to human tradition and do not please the Lord (Gal. 4:8-11). True churches of Christ follow the Bible pattern of worship at all times of the year. They have no special service to celebrate the birthday of Jesus because no such ceremony is given in the Bible.

Not everything done during December and early January is religious. This season has evolved into a mixture of some religious practices and some secular practices. This season is centered upon a religious holy day for some people, but is only a secular holiday for true Christians. We can enjoy many activities which are social, civil, business, and family oriented without being involved in the false religious activities of the season. Jesus does not teach us to withdraw like a hermit from all cultural and social contact with our fellowman, but he does expect us to avoid participating in sin and false religion of every kind (Jn. 17:15; Eph. 5:11).

We can distinguish the secular holiday practices of this season from the religious holy day practices. There are so many harmless secular activities associated with this season today that even religious leaders talk about trying to “put Christ back into Christmas” and to direcover a Christ-cmtered Christmas” (Houston Chronicle, 10 Dec. 1988, p. 2E). These leaders promote displaying religious symbols and scenes, conducting religious “masses” and special services, burning religious candles, presenting religious plays, sending religious cards, singing religious songs, and performing other religious observances – all centered on celebrating the birthday of Jesus. Jesus said such human traditions are vain substitutes for obeying the true commandments of God (Mk. 7:6-9).

The secular holiday practices of this season are many and harmless: (1) special offers and sales at stores; (2) family gatherings; (3) the smells of special baking, desserts, spices, candles, etc.; (4) other diet delights such as fruits and nuts; (5) seasonal songs such as “Jingle Bells,” “Winter Wonderland,” “Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer,” “Frosty the Snowman,” etc.; (6) giving gifts for family fun; (7) special vacations, trips, time off work; (8) greeting cards and expressions of goodwill (“Happy holidays,” “Happy New Year,” etc.); (9) curtailment or closing of business activities; (10) household, business, and school decorations – snowflakes, peppermint, greenery, craft objects, bells, etc. (not manger scenes); (11) time for parties, visits, and gettogethers; (12) playing Santa Claus with children, without introducing the ancient tradition of so-called Saint Nicolas; (13) vacations from school, and from government and civic agencies; (14) holiday bonuses from employers; (15) taking pictures of children or family to give relatives and friends; and other customs and practices.

Some things done at this time of the year, whether on a secular or a religious basis, ought never to be done. Celebrations and parties will include revelry with dancing, gambling, lascivious songs, and the drinking of wine, beer, and liquor – the ungodly works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). People often makes debts they cannot pay in order to provide lavish parties or for extravagant trips, gifts, clothes, and decorations. “Provide things honest in the sight of all men” (Rom. 12:17).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses sect objects, “If we reject seasonal religious practices, we must reject all social activities too.” No, to sing “Jingle Bells” does not honor a Roman Catholic holy day. If it does, then we should send our children to school though no one else will be there, reject all time off from work or special bonuses, eat no nuts or fruit, and have no family gatherings lest someone might think we are recognizing the Pope’s holy days. The truth is that we must simply discern between good and evil – between false, unauthorized sinful religious observances, on the one hand,.and activities on the other hand which are social and seasonal, customary and traditional, harmless and innocent.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, p. 137
March 2, 1989