Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Error and its advocates seek shelter from attacks of truth. Numberless ways have been manufactured to protect the practice and practitioners of error. In the last decade or so of the last century, we had Romans 14 thrust in our faces as a shield. “You can’t chasten me; you can’t challenge my doctrines, for they fall under Romans 14.” This was an old ruse which worked its leaven on the simple and ensnared the gullible (Rom. 16:17, 18).

Another umbrella for error has been opened. It is the cry of “church autonomy.” It is ever so effective, for it is used against those who are, because of the institutional conflict, super-sensitive to anything that would violate the self governing status of a local church! We have fought too hard and labored too long to transgress the principle which many struggled to maintain. 

This tactic is not a new one. (That is one thing about error. Its proponents are not original. They add a few new words to their song, but it is always the same old tune.) From an article by J.W. McGarvey, first published in 1864, we extract the following strategy (Brother McGarvey was addressing the issue of “Instrumental Music In Churches.” He tells how some instrumental innovators were seeking to avoid having their practice questioned.):

But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not unanimous in favor of instruments, and upon the principle of church independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the wishes of other congregations. 

Note the excuse, the justifying qualification, “upon the principle of congregational independence.” In other words, “Since we are all independent churches, none may justly protest our pianos or oppose our organs.” Change “independence” to “autonomy,” and we have the same thread- bare argument in modern garb. Then, as now, it is argued that congregations may avoid opposition to their innovations by appealing to “the principle of congregational (autonomy).” 

Regarding the use of man-made instruments in worship, brother McGarvey acknowledged, “If the practice is in itself innocent, then these congregations act upon a correct principle and others have no right to interfere or complain.” However, as he correctly observed, if the question is not one of congregational judgment but of scriptural authority, then, said he, “We must discuss it upon its merits . . . renew the original investigation, lay aside all feeling pro and con, and start anew the inquiry: Ought we to make use of musical instruments in public worship?”

Some Modern Examples

Let us use other items of work and worship to God and apply them to the problem and principle cited by McGarvey. 

1. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of a monthly or weekday communion, and upon the principle of church independence they have assumed the right to practice it without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Will that work? Does congregational autonomy allow a church the freedom to break bread upon the first day of the month (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; Phil. 3:16, 17; 4:9)? 
2. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of fund raising sales and suppers, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Is congregational autonomy a sufficient smokescreen for pancake breakfasts, pie suppers, and rummage sales (1 Cor. 4:6, 17; 7:17; 11:2; 16:1-3; 2 Thess. 3:4)? 
3. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of women leading the church in prayers and public preaching and teaching over the man, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Does the autonomy of each local church permit it to appoint women to act contrary to Scripture (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12)?   
4. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of building cafeterias and physical fitness centers, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Will any argue that a church’s self governing status gives it the right to build such facilities for the social and recreational pursuits of its members (Eph. 4:11-16)? 
5. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of observing Christmas and Easter (some, like Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado, do so in cooperation with denominational churches), and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to observe them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Does a congregation’s independence free it from the injunction of the word of Christ on the incorporation of human traditions in worship (Matt. 15:8, 9; Col. 2:8; 2 John 9)? 
6. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of giving “the right hands of fellowship” to those whose teaching encourages people to continue in adulterous marriages, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Does a local church have the sovereignty to allow “that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:20)? 

Was brother McGarvey wrong when he denied independent churches the right to decide what they would do with respect to the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship?  Brethren, if congregational autonomy forbids one of the above scenarios, it prohibits them all. If it tolerates one, it authorizes them all. They stand or fall together. 

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521

By Mike Willis

In this lesson of this series, we intend to cite for our study the example of the conduct of the Apostles as models worthy of imitation. We shall call especial attention to some examples of conduct that are presently condemned by brethren with mistaken concepts about the proper work of a gospel preacher in exposing error and with mistaken concepts about the autonomy of the local church.

Typical of men’s mistaken concepts about the role of the apostles and other inspired men is the following quotation that I lifted from an e-mail that recently came to me: “I recognize that Elijah and Christ, as inspired men, were able to call false teachers’ names, and even make fun of them at times. There are no inspired men today who have that authority.” This argument clearly implies that one cannot refer to false teachers by name unless one is doing so under divine inspiration.

The Example of the Apostles in Exposing Error

The Apostles had to address the various false doctrines that threatened the first century church. Their conduct in addressing these false teachers is a model for our imitation. From a study of their conduct, we learn how to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7). We learn how to cast “down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring(ing) into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” without resorting to using the weapons of carnal warfare (2 Cor. 10:4-5). Let us consider the example of the Apostles’ conduct.

1. The Apostle Peter. The Apostle Peter preached in Jerusalem the resurrection of Christ from the dead, which stirred up the Sadducees who insisted that he quit preaching Christ in Jerusalem. Peter refused to submit to their dictum and continued preaching in spite of their demanding that he quit (Acts 4:19). (Would the situation have been different had the ones demanding that Peter quit preaching been elders in a liberal church?) Later the high priest had Peter arrested, but even this did not stop his preaching (Acts 5:17-41).

Peter wrote one of the most scathing rebukes of false teachers found anywhere in the Bible (2 Pet. 2). He described these men:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift  destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not (2 Pet. 2:1-3).

. . . Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage (2:10-19).
Could the things that Peter said about these false teachers be known only by inspiration, or can one also identify false teaching without inspiration, be able to perceive covetousness, lasciviousness, presumption, self-willed conduct, and such like things from observation? We know from experience that we can know these things in that manner as well. Can we, then, follow this apostle’s example and rebuke it in the manner that he did? Perhaps the better question is not “can we. . .” but “should we?”

The conduct of Peter with reference to the autonomy of the local church also needs to be considered. When the brethren at Jerusalem heard what had happened at Caesarea in the conversion of Cornelius, they contended with Peter about his conduct (Acts 11:2). Apparently, being an apostle did not carry so much clout that the brethren in Jerusalem were intimidated by it. Nor did “congregational autonomy” prevent them from asking what happened at Caesarea. When these brethren were convinced that Peter’s conduct was scriptural, they then held their peace (Acts 11:18).

Those who were scattered abroad from Jerusalem as a result of the persecution recorded in Acts 8 went as far as Antioch, Phenice, and Cyprus. In Antioch, brethren began preaching to Grecians. “Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch” (Acts 11:22). Did the brethren in Jerusalem violate the autonomy of the church at Antioch in sending someone to check out what was being done at Antioch? If brethren did the same thing today, some would react, “You are violating the autonomy of the local church!” Did the Jerusalem church have the right to commit sin (i.e., violate the autonomy of the local church) because it was the first church established and had apostles among its members? I remind you of what we have previously asserted: (1) “Being an apostle did not give one the right to commit sin (i.e., violate the autonomy of the local church).” (2) “The Apostles were not officers over a brotherhood of churches,” because there is no such thing as a brotherhood of churches! That being the case, surely one must conclude that some modern concepts of church autonomy are wrong.

2. The Example of Jude. Jude is probably the brother of Jesus, rather than the apostle who bore that name. Whereas Peter foretold the coming of the false teachers, Jude testifies to their having come. His words are so nearly the same as those of Peter, that some believe one borrowed from the other. He exhorted that the saints should “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (v. 3). He exhorted this for this reason: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 4). He went on to describe these men saying, 

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. . . . But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. . . . These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. . . . These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage (vv. 8, 10, 12-13, 16).

He reminded the brethren that the apostles had previously foretold the coming of these men saying, 

But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves (“divide you,” NIV), sensual, having not the Spirit (vv. 17-19).

Jude instructed the saints in how to salvage saints from their influence: “And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (vv. 22-23). In none of these texts did he imply that one should have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those men who preached these false doctrines and were leading men’s souls into sin and, ultimately, damnation. 

If I were to write about false teachers in the same terms as Jude used, some today would say, “You’re not an apostle.” But, then of course, neither was Jude! He was the brother of the Lord, not an apostle! They would react, “You’re not inspired.” Do we mean that inspired men were allowed to do things that, should we do the same today, are sinful? Do you mean that inspired men had the right to sin? “No! We don’t mean that,” they would reply. Then, their conduct was not sinful. It was righteous conduct to be imitated by other righteous, God-fearing men. The example of inspired men such as Jude was given for our instruction and learning, that we today might imitate them in how they addressed false doctrine and false teachers.

3. The Apostle John. This apostle is generally described as the “apostle of love” because he wrote so much about love. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find one who did more to attack the false teachers and false doctrines of his day than did John. In addition to the gospel which bears his name, this apostle wrote 1-3 John and Revelation. 

In 1 John, the apostle wrote to correct the impression that one’s sins did not affect one’s relationship with the Lord (see 1:5-6). He insisted that one could know that he had fellowship with the Lord only as he abides in the commandments of the Lord (1:7; 2:3). He wrote, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). This statement was not a judgment about the person’s personal integrity who said such (that is, he is not stating that he willfully and intentionally is telling a falsehood), but a comment about the truthfulness of his message. He judged these false teachers saying, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (2:19). They had departed from apostolic teaching and those who followed it.

A number of years ago, I made a similar statement about a brother who “went out from us.” Some brethren criticized my saying so, stating that I am not an apostle. Does it take inspiration to know whether or not a person has departed from apostolic teaching and those who follow it? If one has left us and is influencing others to go with him, should we imitate the example of the “apostle of love” and say about him what he said about those in his day?

John continued, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). Was John passing judgment on the moral integrity of these men when he described them as “liars”? He was not saying, “These men’s word cannot be trusted. They do not tell the truth. They are insincere, dishonest, immoral, and covetous.” Rather, he was saying, “Their message is not the truth.” John could know this about any teacher who denied the humanity of Christ and proceeded into gnostic teaching. We can know the same thing about those who deny the deity of Christ and proceed into modernism just as certainly. In John’s usage of the word, all such men are liars.

John further instructed his followers in how they could identify false teachers. “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” (3:10). “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (4:1-3). “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (4:6). They could identify who these false teachers were without the need of divine inspiration. Being able to identify false teachers, they should follow the apostles’ example and oppose their false doctrines and sinful ways.

In 2 John 9-11, John commanded brethren not to have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who transgressed the doctrine revealed through Christ. He said, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

In his book of Revelation, John directly confronted false doctrine and false teachers. He commended the church at Ephesus who, without having an apostle in its membership, “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (2:4). He specifically stated that he and the church at Ephesus hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans (2:6). The specific mention of this religious group by name is no different from one of us saying, “I commend the brethren in Salt Lake city who hate the deeds of the Mormons, which I also hate.” Yet, some brethren would condemn a preacher for saying such a thing because he was not manifesting love. Some would even say, “You’re not an apostle.” But the “apostle of love” is the one who said this and his example is for our emulation!

John condemned the church at Pergamos saying, “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Rev. 2:14-15). He condemned the religious “denomination” by name and condemned the local church, of which he was not a member, for having them in its membership. Were I to do the same thing today, I would be condemned on two counts: (a) not showing love; (b) violating congregational autonomy. Men would say, “You’re not an apostle.” Did being an apostle give one the right to sin by not showing love and by violating congregational autonomy? Surely, everyone can see that such an argument is erroneous.

John condemned the church at Thyatira saying, “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev. 2:20). This is a rather specific identification of someone at Thyatira who the brethren there would recognize as specifically condemned by John. He drew her picture in such a clear manner that they did not need for him to put her name on it for all to know of whom he was speaking. Can we follow this apostle’s example?

The main thrust of the book of Revelation is aimed at attacking another form of false worship of that day — emperor worship. He described this false religion under the image of the beast that comes out of the earth who “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast” (13:12). This false religion is described as being under divine judgment and sentence of damnation and death.

Can one know these things with reference to false religion only by inspiration? The purpose of 1 John was to let us know how we could know the same things about false religion and that without the present possession of miraculous, divine revelation. Having recognized something as false religion, can one follow the apostles’ example and treat false religion as they did? Were they guilty of sin in treating false religion and its proponents as they did? Of course not! Their conduct is recorded as divine guidance for all gospel preachers and brethren to know how to confront false doctrine.

We will conclude this series in the next article with a consideration of the example of the Apostle Paul.

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Irvin Himmel

One of the greatest powers possessed by every human being is the sway of influence. Each individual has ability to affect others. Influence is power exerted over the minds and conduct of others. Just as a stone, whether a pebble or a boulder, makes a ring of waves when dropped into a pool of water, all people have influence. Whether we are rich or poor, learned or unlearned, strong or weak, prominent or obscure, we have a circle of influence.

Our influence may be conscious or unconscious. Many times we influence someone without realizing it. Our actions touch chords that vibrate. Another person is swayed or moved without our knowing it.

Most of us, with a little reflection, can call to mind some of the people who have influenced our thinking and our pattern of behavior. Our parents, our teachers, perhaps an uncle, an aunt, or a grandparent, our classmates, our neighbors, a business associate, our close friends, the author of a book, a famous person who was regarded as a hero — the list grows long when we try to recall all the people who have influenced our lives. 

Christ’s Influence

The greatest influence in the life of a Christian should be Jesus Christ. He is the central figure in our faith, our walk, and our goal. It is to him that we have turned for salvation. It is by him that we are reconciled to God. It is in him that we have fellowship with the Father. It is through him that we have hope of glory. It is because of him that we rejoice with joy unspeakable. It is on him that we rely for sustenance and strength. It is under him that we serve. It is with him that we inherit. It is from him that we receive the teaching given in the Testament. It is after him that we follow. It is before him that we shall appear in the day of judgment.

Our Master expects us to have a good, wholesome influence on others. He instructs us to be “the salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt. 5:13-­16). He does not want us to hide our light under a bushel. He teaches us to make a conscious and sustained effort to influence others for their good and the Father’s glory. Our attitude, our speech, our conduct, our teaching, and our example should mirror Christ’s influence on us.

Parental Influence

Parents have a powerful sway over their children. Hypocritical or unfaithful parents are influencing their sons and daughters in the wrong way. Parents who give top priority to material things, pushing the interest of the spiritual side of life to a secondary role, are influencing their offspring to think that God’s kingdom is not the most important thing. Yet Jesus said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness . . .” (Matt. 6:33).

Normally, parental influence begins at a very early age. Impressions projected early in life are lasting. Lessons learned in our tender years may stick with us throughout life. Bad influences in our early development can produce injurious attitudes, objectionable traits of character, and warped perceptions. How vigilant parents must be over the kind of influence they are wielding on their little ones.

Influence of Teachers

Bible class teachers who instruct youth are in a position to exert strong influence over impressionable minds. This is one reason why qualified teachers need to be selected. Some who volunteer to teach children’s classes are poorly prepared. A teacher influences by the example of his or her life, as well as what is done and said in the class room. Teachers of adult classes likewise make impressions on other people that influence their thinking.

Public school teachers have a weighty impact over the minds of their pupils. College professors and other types of instructors make an imprint on the minds of students. God-fearing parents must be prepared to offset the influences that come from educators who foster atheism, evolution, modernism, and humanism. 

Influence of Leaders in the Church

Elders, deacons, and preachers have a hefty impact on the general direction in which a congregation moves. A preacher’s influence out of the pulpit is just as important as his influence in the pulpit. He must live the gospel and preach the gospel. Elders are to be “ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3). Deacons must be “blameless” (1 Tim. 3:10).

Church leaders having a loose and lenient attitude toward God’s word and who desire to keep pace with the denominations emit an influence that produces digression. Weak members are easily swayed by leaders who do not stand up for a “thus saith the Lord.” Many congregations have been swept into apostasy by influential elders, deacons, and preachers who preferred numerical growth over walking in “the old paths.”

A Christian’s Influence

Every child of God has a sphere of influence. It does not require dramatic overt acts for a measure of influence to be exerted. Each life touches other lives. One has an influence, for good or for bad, in his family, on the job, at school, at play, when traveling, when shopping, when transacting business, etc. Let us be aware that others are observing our words and our deeds. Let us use whatever degree of influence we have on the side of truth and righteousness.

2820 Hunterwood Dr. S. E., Decatur, Alabama 35603-5638

By Bobby Witherington

More Than Just A Historical Being

The fact that a man called “Jesus of Nazareth” actually lived upon this earth and died upon a cross is a matter of historical record. If we can believe that such men as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Julius Caesar lived on this earth and interacted with fellow human beings, then we must surely acknowledge that Jesus Christ once dwelt among men on planet earth. Various reputable, contemporary historians were unanimous in their affirmations concerning the actual existence of Jesus, as well as the fact of his death on the cross. Notwithstanding their erroneous conclusions concerning the nature of Jesus, most informed atheists and infidels agree that a person known as Jesus of Nazareth lived at the time and place ascribed to him in the Scriptures. In fact, our calendar is dated from the time of Jesus’ birth. Hence, notwithstanding the inward agony it must give them, infidels cannot even write a check without providing mute testimony that Jesus lived!

But Jesus was not just a man. He claimed equality with God the Father (John 5:17, 18). He referred to himself as “the Son of God” (John 9:35-37). On another occasion, referring to God, Jesus said, “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). That Jesus regarded himself as more than man is evidenced by the facts that he accepted the worship of men (Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25, etc.), claimed to “have come down from heaven” (John 6:38), as well as having the power to give “life” (John 5:21), and even said the “Father . . . has committed all judgment to the Son” (John 6:22). In fact, Jesus made claims which no mere sane mortal could ever make. He said, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:48), “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12), “I am the door” (John 10:9), “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11), “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25), “I am the true vine” (John 15:1), etc. Jesus went so far as to say “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” and then said, “. . . no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Jesus also said that “Moses . . . wrote about Me” (John 5:46), and he even claimed the “power . . . to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10). Moreover, he even said that “all authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth” (Matt. 28:18).

Surely, in view of the affirmations made by Jesus regarding himself, we must agree that no person ever made greater claims for himself  than did Jesus of Nazareth. And we must all agree that his claims were either true or false. If they were true, then he was nothing less than “Immanuel,” meaning “God with us” (Matt. 1:23), or “God . . . manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). On the other hand, if his claims were false, then he was either the world’s biggest liar, or the world’s most self-deceived lunatic! We admit that some people brazenly charge Jesus with being either a liar or a lunatic. However, in so doing they obligate themselves to explain how a liar could deliver the greatest moral code which ever existed, or how a lunatic could devise the most workable system ever revealed for enabling human beings to clean up their own lives and to live peacefully, successfully, and happily with others!

Proof That Jesus Is the Son of God

In a sense, there are many “witnesses” who affirmed the Deity and Divinity of Jesus Christ. On two separate occasions (at his baptism and his transfiguration) our heavenly Father said concerning Jesus, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17; 17:5). At Jesus’ death, after witnessing the amazing chain of events which then occurred in such close proximity, “the centurion and those with him . . . feared greatly, saying, ‘Truly this was the Son of God’” (Matt. 27:54)! On a prior occasion, Peter, who had witnessed so many of his miracles, said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). After seeing the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and remaining upon Jesus at the time of his baptism, John the Baptist “testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34). Yes, there are so many credible witnesses who affirmed the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, all of whom deserve to be heard. However, for the sake of space we must reserve our further comment to three reliable and irrefutable “witnesses.”

1. Prophecy and fulfillment. That Jesus would be the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, born of a virgin, born in Bethlehem, begotten of the Holy Spirit, introduced by a harbinger, rejected by the Jews, betrayed by a friend, become a sin offering, be buried in the grave of the rich, and ascend on high had been foretold centuries in advance (Gen. 12:3; 49:10; Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:2; Ps. 2:7; Isa. 40:3; 53:3; Ps. 41:9; Isa. 53:4, 5; 53:9; Ps. 68:18). Amazingly, each of these prophecies was fulfilled in the birth, life, death, burial, and ascension of Jesus (Gal. 3:16; Heb. 7:14; Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:35; Matt. 3:1-3; John 1:11; 13:18-30; Matt. 20:28; 27:57-60; Acts 1:9). In fact, in the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus some 300 Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled. The mathematical improbabilities of all of these prophecies being “fulfilled” simply through a string of unplanned coincidences are simply too great for an honest, intelligent person to reach any other conclusion than this: prophetic fulfillment proves that Jesus is the Son of God!
2. The Miracles Jesus worked. Jesus healed the sick (Matt. 4:23, 24), fed the multitudes (John 6:1-10), walked on water (Matt. 14:26), calmed the wind and the sea (Matt. 8:26), gave sight to the blind (John 9:6-9), cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32), raised the dead (John 11:43, 44), etc. His miracles were not faked; they were genuine! Even his enemies acknowledged that “this Man works many signs” (John 11:47; Acts 2:22). In fact, Jesus performed many more miracles than are recorded, but the ones that were recorded were “written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God . . .” (John 20:30, 31).
3. His resurrection. Jesus repeatedly foretold the facts pertaining to his death, the location of his death, the persons involved, and his resurrection some three days later (John 2:19; Matt. 16:21; 17:9; 20:18,19). Even his enemies were aware of his pronouncements concerning his resurrection, so they requested Pilate to place soldiers at the tomb to prevent his disciples from coming by night and removing his body (Matt. 27:62-66). However, notwithstanding the fact that Roman guards were placed at the tomb to make sure that Jesus’ body could not be removed, some three days later on the first day of the week visitors to the tomb discovered that it was empty (Matt. 28:1-6; Luke 24:1-7). Moreover, the resurrected Jesus remained on the earth for another 40 days, presenting himself “alive . . . by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3), was seen by Peter, then “by the twelve,” by over 500 “brethren at once,” by James, and last of all by Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8). In view of the fact that all the remaining apostles, save John, reportedly died a martyr’s death for their declarations concerning the resurrected Jesus, then you can be sure that all the ones closest to Jesus knew that he is the Son of God! They never wavered in their testimony as to the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Jesus Christ is the Son of God! But, with reference to our salvation, he is more than that! He is “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). He is our Teacher and has all power to instruct us in the moral and spiritual realms (Matt. 7:28, 29). He is our Redeemer, who shed his blood for our salvation (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19). He is our King (1 Tim. 6:14, 15), and has “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) to reign in our hearts and lives (Eph. 1:20-23). Having conquered death himself (John 10:18), he has power to raise us from the dead (John 5:28, 29), and to judge us by his word (John 12:48). He is our “High Priest” (Heb. 3:1), and upon the merits of his own shed blood he has the authority to forgive our sins against God (Luke 24:46, 47).

Yes, what a wonderful Savior is Jesus our Lord! However, he does not save man apart from man’s ready, obedient response to his revealed will. Jesus is the “author of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9). In New Testament days, he saved those believers (John 8:24) who repented of their sins (Acts 17:30), who confessed their faith in him as the Son of God (Acts 8:37), and who were baptized “into” him “for the remission of sins” (Gal. 3:27; Acts 2:38). Upon so doing, such people constituted the “saved” whom God “added” to his church (Acts 2:47), and who then had the obligation to be “faithful unto death” (Rev. 2:20). Dear reader, do you have a deep and an abiding faith in Jesus as the Son of God, and have you exerted your faith in scriptural obedience to his saving gospel? Consider ye well!

2807 Malone Dr., Panama City, Florida 32504-3820