Truth Magazine

Hypocrisy is certainly a sin which the Lord condemns without hesitation. Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees this way, “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:28). These people who Jesus addressed were acting righteous to men, but their hearts were far from God even as our Lord quoted from Isaiah saying, “. . . Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Mark 7:6; cf. Isa. 29:13). Jesus also warned his disciples about walking in this same hypocritical path in Luke 12:1, “in the meantime, when an innumerable multitude of people had gathered together, so that they trampled one another, He began to say to His disciples first of all, ‘Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.’”

The lessons are obvious to the Christian, for we can immediately see that we cannot act like we are a Christian and not really live as one and be pleasing to God. If we make a commitment to God by dying to sin in baptism and rising to live for Christ, yet willingly forsake the assembling of the saints, we are committing hypocrisy. If we say that we love God and do not the things which he has commanded, then we are walking in a hypocritical path. A verbal love or faith that does not work is simply a hypocritical love or faith. John, the apostle encouraged, “My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but indeed and in truth” (I John 3:18). If we have become Christians and refuse to bear the cross, then we are com- mitting hypocrisy. Living as a Christian demands some “cross-bearing.” There are some things that we must crucify (i.e., selfishness, lusts, insubordination, pride, etc.) if we are going to consider ourselves Christians. If one is not willing to “bear his cross” (Luke 14:27), then he should not deceive himself or others by thinking that he is a Christian, a disciple of Christ, because he is not; he is a disciple of the devil. We cannot pretend to be someone that we are not, for God knows the hearts of men.

Some, however, use hypocrisy as an excuse to relieve themselves of their personal responsibility to God. You may have heard someone speak something like this, “I don’t need a church to go to. There are too many hypocrites there anyway. In fact, all hypocrites are found in church buildings on Sunday mornings. My spirituality rests on a personal relationship with God.” To one who is ignorant of God’s word, this may seem wise, enticing, and even excusing, but it is simply playing the hypocrite (as we will show) and is dangerously playing with eternal fire! Christians are to have a personal relationship with God; however, much of our “personal relationship” with God rests on our personal responsibilities toward others! Refer to Matthew 25:31-46 for a case in point. Too, Paul penned, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). And again one said, “For God is not un- just to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister” (Heb. 6:10; emp. mine). We cannot hide our faith in some closet and be apathetic towards our fellowman’s soul justifying it all by some erroneous idea of a “personal (private) relationship.”

When these people say “personal” relationship, they mean an “inconspicuous” relationship. Most who justify their complacency by condemning other persons’ hypocrisy are acting hypocritically themselves. For example, they go to work to earn their buck even though they work with hypocrites, hypocrites who only work when the boss is around.

Nearly everyone has worked with someone who in- stead of working hard, works hard to hardly work! Again, many of these same people who sneer and deride the “church’s” hypocrisy will gladly entertain themselves listening to musicians who sing about adultery, premarital sex, drinking parties, and things of the like, who then praise and thank God for their Grammy. Why will some work with hypocrites, but not worship with them. Why will some listen to hypocrites entertain, but not study God’s word with them?

Is this not hypocrisy? Would one be so foolish to refuse blood for an immediate surgery for fear of a hypocrite who may have worked in the blood drive? Would one resist a lifeline and perish in a raging sea because there may be a hypocrite on board the ship? How absurd! I am not excusing hypocrisy, I am simply questioning some people’s inconsistency. How Jesus’ words ring true, “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye?” (Luke 6:41).

People who excuse themselves from any responsibility to the Lord’s church because of some person’s sin of hypocrisy will never be saved unless they examine their own hypocrisy of self-righteousness, repent and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. With such an evasive attitude, these people would have even refused to enter into the first-century church, for there was this ugly problem even then (see Acts 5:1-10). In fact some of the prominent lead- ers in the first century fell subject to this very problem (see Gal. 2:11-14)!

Though we detest hypocrisy, it is a sin that can be cleansed by the blood of Jesus if we are willing to self-examine and judge ourselves before we judge others. Hypocrisy is a sin that must be repented from in order to be forgiven. Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. As for all sins, let us take up the words of the apostle Peter, “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). Don’t stand in the gate of hypocrisy and neither hide behind it. No flesh shall be justified before God by committing it or prejudicially pointing it out in others. Hypocrisy is a poor flimsy excuse that some give to justify their ungodliness.

Let us never be sucked into this deceit. Have you yet?

By Lewis Willis

Much is promised because of the shedding of his blood. Peter called his blood the precious blood: “For as much as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

Because the Jews hated Jesus with such passion, they demanded that the Romans crucify him (Matt. 27:22-23). To appease the Jewish mob, Pilate delivered Jesus and two common thieves to his soldiers and they crucified them (Luke 23:32-33). Because the Jews wanted the bodies removed from the cross before the Sabbath day, they besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and their bodies removed from the crosses. The legs of the thieves were broken, but when they came to Jesus, he was dead already. Thus, one of the soldiers reached forth with his spear and pierced his side, and precious blood of the Son of God was shed (John 19:31-34).

In volume, it was not much blood. It is unlikely that even all of his blood was shed. At the most it was but the blood of a single man which John witnessed falling from the cross onto Palestinian soil (John 19:35). However, with the shedding of that blood there was wrought a change that would affect the lives and souls of people from the beginning of man’s sojourn on the earth, until the time that Jesus shall come again. The Hebrew writer tells us that his blood was shed for the transgressions of those who lived under the first testament, as well as those who live under the second (Heb. 9:15). All of humanity who desire salvation are depending upon the blood of the cross.

In this article I wish to list some of the things that are said to be accomplished by the blood of Christ, defining some of the terms that are used in the Divine narrative. We often use these words interchangeably, but they have different shades of meaning which I would like to share with you.

1. Made nigh. It is said that those who were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. “But now in Christ Je- sus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). The immediate reference was to the Gentiles, but in a real sense, it refers to us all. All of us are far from God because of our sin. Sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2). By the blood of the cross, we are made nigh to him again.

2. Peace is given. Paul said that Jesus, when he died, “made peace through the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20). The peace effected is a peace with God. We became his enemy when we sinned (Jas. 4:4), but that state of enmity was corrected by the blood of the cross. Peace was the result: Peace with God, and peace within the soul.

3. Redemption obtained. The Bible says, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12). Several words are translated redeem or redemption. Exagorazo “denotes to buy out, especially of purchasing a slave with a view to his freedom.” Lutrosis means “deliverance . . . from the guilt and power of sin.” Apolutrosis means “liberation from the guilt and doom of sin and the intro- duction into a life of liberty” (Vine 263-264). All of these definitions apply in this case. Man was enslaved to sin until Christ delivered or liberated him from that sin by the blood of the cross. Through redemption the power, guilt and doom of sin was removed.

4. Purged from dead works. The Hebrew writer asked: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:14). Katharizo is the word translated purge. It means “to cleanse, make clean . . . purification” (Vine 232). By the blood of the cross we are cleansed from the dead works of sin (1 John 1:7).

5. Reconciled. Paul said, “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Col. 1:20). Katallasso is the word translated reconcile. It means “to change from enmity to friendship” (Vine 260). We have already noted that sin or friendship with the world establishes a state of enmity and alienation between man and God (Isa. 59:1- 2; Jas. 4:4). That state of enmity is changed to a state of friendship by the blood of the cross when we obey the gospel of Christ.

6. Sanctified. The word is hagiasmos which means “separation to God . . . from evil things and ways.” Hagiazo signifies “the separation of the believer from the world” (Vine 317-318). The Hebrew writer spoke of the punishment of those who have “counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing” (Heb. 10:29). By the blood of the cross, we are separated from the evil of sin and the world, and we are separated or set apart unto God. This is said to be “an individual possession.”

7. Justified. Paul said we are“now justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9). Dikaiosis is translated justified and it means “acquittal . . . from guilt . . . pronouncing righteous” (Vine 284-285). Vine also says the idea is “no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1). The meaning of acquittal is release, or to set free. We cannot change the fact that we have sinned (Rom. 3:23). But, by the blood of the cross, we are set free from the guilt of sin and pronounced just or righteous by God.

8. Forgiven. Paul said, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). Forgiveness or aphiemi means “to send away.” Another form of the word, aphesis, means “a dismissal” (Vine 122). Through the blood of the cross, our sins are removed from us, and we are dismissed from the doom of them through our obedience to the gospel of Christ. That obedience remits our sins (Acts 2:38).

A host of blessings are ours through the blood of the cross. It is evident that we are in serious trouble until that blood saves us from our sins. What does the blood mean to you? Does it mean enough to cause you to obey the Lord? Or, do you despise it through your refusal to obey the gospel?

In recent years, abortion has become the center of much controversy, both religiously and politically. The very fact that the extent of this controversy is of recent origin should indicate that some are being influenced by popular custom rather than by moral principles.

Much of the abortion dispute centers around the time when abortion is performed and when life really begins from a medical or a spiritual standpoint. Personally, I believe that we can arrive at morally defensible positions on this important subject without turning the pulpit into a demonstration that would be more appropriate in a medical college laboratory, and without allowing the advocates of abortion to draw the battle lines from a purely scientific standpoint.

When we believe that God is the giver of life, and that man has a God-given spirit which activates the “also flesh” part of man (Gen. 6:3), then we need to let our Creator define the principles upon which we decide our earthly and eternal destinies. Maybe it will help us to look at the subject of abortion from both a fleshly and a spiritual standpoint. And I believe that man is in no position to separate the fleshly from the spiritual. Further, some common-sense questions and answers may help to clear the atmosphere around this subject which has been clouded by demonstrations centering around abortion clinics.

Even the sensitive matter of deciding between the life of the mother vs. the life of the child constitutes a very small percentage of the questions which arise from the abortion debate. But similar decisions must be made every day. In emergency care manuals, there is a chapter on “Triage,” which simply means a sorting out priorities which must be set in any life-threatening situation. In both the time of birth and the time of death, decisions must be made by families and by the medical profession, and it is difficult to make such decisions.

Rachel died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16-20), as did the wife of Phinehas (1 Sam. 4:19-22). Maybe with modern medical facilities, both the mothers and children could have been saved. I don’t know. Neither do I profess to know or dictate what should be done in similar situations today. But there are some things we can know, and it is with those things that we are more concerned.

Cyrus, the Persian king, was chosen and named by God some 100 years before he was born (Isa. 44:28; 45:1-4), and in the first year of that king’s reign, he began to fulfill the mission which God had planned for him (2 Chron. 36:22, 23). To Jeremiah, the Lord said, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 2:5).

God told Zacharias and Elisabeth that they would have a son, that his name would be John, “and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:13-15). At about the same time, Mary was told, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus” (Luke 1:31).

Similar examples from the Scriptures could be cited, but these are sufficient for us to ask some questions and reach some conclusions. Do you think that the mothers of Cyrus, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus should have considered an abortion, when God “knew” them even before they were conceived or born, and had their missions in life planned? It may be said that God revealed sufficient information to the mothers of John and Jesus that an abortion clinic was not an option, but nothing is said about the mothers of Cyrus and Jeremiah having such information.

How can prospective mothers today know what is in store for their unborn children? Where would the champions of abortion be if their mothers had decided to visit an abortion clinic? Sure, these may be hypothetical questions, but they should remind us that God is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9), the Giver of life, and that when in doubt as to the scientific or medical protocols of birth and life, we need to give at least equal consideration to what God’s will may be in the matter. If all women were to embrace the philosophy of abortion, the population of the world would not only decrease, but it would cease. And why should some women continue to accept the responsibilities of marriage and childbearing while the rest pursue a selfish course and in many cases simply satisfy the lust of fornication?

Let us consider the matter of figurative, or spiritual abortion, for many religious people become guilty of this practice, while voicing their opposition to fleshly abortion.

God had plans for fleshly Zion, as well as for spiritual Zion, and the two ideas are inseparably related. “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God” (Isa. 66:7-9). According to the premillenialist, God had plans to set up his kingdom, but he aborted those plans when the Jewish nation rejected their Messiah. God had said 700 years before Christ came that he would be rejected (Isa. 53:3), and some 300 years before Isaiah’s time, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (Ps. 2:6). And this was to be accomplished in spite  of the fact that kings and rulers would “set themselves . . . against his anointed” (Ps. 2:2; Acts 4:25-30). No, God did not allow some premillennial abortion clinic to abort his plans concerning the kingdom.

There are other religious people who oppose fleshly abortion, but set up their abortion clinics in an effort to keep people from being born into the family of God. As the Jews tried to hinder the establishment of Christ’s kingdom and those who would enter that kingdom (Matt. 11:12), “Elymas the sorcerer . . . withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith” (Acts 13:8). I have seen people who would not be born into the kingdom themselves, and who would also discourage others from being “born of water and of the Spirit” that they might enter the kingdom (cf. Matt. 23:13; John 3:5). As Nicodemus could not discern between a physical and a spiritual birth, so are some today unable to discern between a fleshly abortion and a spiritual abortion.

We are born into the family of God by the incorruptible seed of God’s word (1 Pet. 1:23), and that word tells us that we become children of God through faith and baptism (Gal. 3:26, 27). As the Lord hates “putting away” (Mal. 2:16), so does God hate abortion, whether it be fleshly or spiritual.

By Jarrod Jacobs

The religion of Masonry dates itself back to the time of Solomon. It is said that a man named Hiram Abiff (the widow’s son and architect of the Temple) was attacked by three of his fellow-workers (Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum) during construction of the Temple. These three men met Hiram after he had worshiped in the Temple, and one after another accosted and beat him because he refused to give them the Master Masons’ word, or secrets of the Master Mason, which would allow them to receive wages as a Master Mason in other countries after the Temple was built. At Hiram Abiff ’s refusal to tell any of the three the words, he was subsequently killed. A short time later, these three men were discovered as the murderers of Hiram Abiff and they were executed tor their crime.

Thus, begins the religion of Freemasonry. Hiram Abiff is put on an equal plane with Jesus Christ. Masons consider Hiram Abiff to be their redeemer. Please read the following (emphasis mine, JJ): “All antiquity solved the enigma of the existence of evil by supposing the existence of a Principle of Evil, of demons, fallen angels, an Ahriman, a Typhon, a Sivi, A Loki, or a Satan, that, first falling them- selves, and plunged into misery and darkness, tempted man to his fall and brought sin into the world. All believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state of successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer by whom the Evil Principal was to be overcome and Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. The belief was general that He was to be born of a virgin and suffer a painful death. The Hindus called him Krishma; the Chinese, Kiountse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram” (Kentucky Monitor xiv, iv).

Yes, dear readers, Masonry is a (false) religious organization, just like the Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Methodists, etc. In Albert Pike’s book, Morals and Dogma, Pike makes it clear that Masonry is a religion, and those who say otherwise, including those in the “Blue Lodge” (first three degrees of Masonry) are “intentionally misled by false interpretations. . . . deceived.” Pike says, “it is well enough for the mass of those called Masons to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees” (Morals and Dogma 819). From the pen of Mr. Pike, himself, we learn that people are deceived, and merely imagine that all is contained in the first three degrees of Masonry, You see, the “truth” has been reserved for the higher-ups in Masonry! Pike again says (emphasis mine, JJ), “Masonry, like all other religions, . . . conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts (skilled person, expert, JJ) and Sages (profoundly wise men, JJ), or the Elect (person or pawns worthy to be chosen, JJ), and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it or would pervert it” (Morals and Dogma 104-105). Not only is Masonry a religion, but they use tactics to fool and mislead those they consider “unworthy.” No wonder there are so many confused as to what Masonry is all about!

Further Proof That Masonry Is Considered to Be A Religious Institution

1.The Master’s Lodge represents“Sanctum Sanctorum,” the holy of holies in Solomon’s temple.

2. Such men as Albert Mackay and Albert Pike have said in no uncertain terms that Masonry is a religion. They have said that it is a religious institution in which the Lodge is used for “sacred and religious purposes.” Albert Mackey said that Freemasonry “will produce an active religious faith and lead in the end to a building not made with hands, eternal in the heaven.”

3. They teach that Masonry produces religious faith.

4. Masons have their own “worship” during their meetings. This includes: prayer and ceremonial songs such as: “Lord of all! below-above — Fill our hearts with truth and love, When dissolves this earthly tie, Take us to Thy lodge on high.” Another song they sing is, “Hail, Masonry divine, Glory of ages shine; Long may’st thou reign! Where’er thy lodges stand, May they have great command, And always grace the land, Thou art divine.”

5. Masonry teaches its own “new birth.” It teaches that salvation is in the Lodge, and that it gives light. Masons teach that a person outside the Lodge is in darkness, help- less, and ignorant. In fact in the first degree of Masonry, a potential candidate must stand outside the doors, and declare he is “in search of light.”

Yes, Masonry is a religion, and anyone claiming to be a Christian could not be a Mason any more than they could be a Christian and a Baptist at the same time.

Hiram Abiff

A man named “Hiram” is mentioned in the Bible in connection with the building of Solomon’s temple. This is found in 1 Kings 7:13-40 and 2 Chronicles 2:14-15. He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, his father being of Tyre. However, this man was one “skillful to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, timber, purple, blue, fine linen, crimson . . . to grave any manner of graving” (2 Chron. 2:14). He was also responsible for building the Temple pillars, Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21). He was a “cunning man” but the Bible says nothing about his being an architect on the Temple! Nor does the Bible give us his last name! Interestingly enough Hiram is not mentioned outside of these verses, and he most assuredly takes a back seat to Jesus Christ in the Bible! Yet the Masons want to hold up this man Hiram as something great, as their Redeemer! Why?

The Contradictions and Conflicts Between Christ and Masonry

The following reasons will make clear why a Christian cannot be a Mason:

1. Masonry claims the status of “religious institution,” therefore, it conflicts with the Bible when it says there is “one body” (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4; Col. 1:18, 24). Along this same line, we see that if Christ is the head of his one body, the church, then who is the head of the Masons?

2. In a related point, the Masons teach that the Lodge is a better institution than the church! They say, “No institution was ever raised upon a better principle or more solid foundation; nor were ever more excellent rules and useful maxims laid down” (Kentucky Monitor 53-34). Can anyone else see a problem here? The Bible says that the church was founded upon Christ (1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:6-8). According to them, their lodge has a “more solid foundation” than that! The Bible says that the church follows the “perfect law of liberty,” the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9; Jas. 1:25). The Masons say that the Lodge has “more excellent rules” than the Bible! Who can believe it? What true Christian would say, or believe such a thing?

3. The Masons claim their redeemer is Hiram Abiff. The Bible says our redeemer is Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19; Luke 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15). When a Christian becomes a Mason, does he now have two redeemers? No! He has a choice

to make, Christ or Hiram (Matt. 6:24).

4. Masonry practices “unity-in doctrinal-diversity” to the greatest degree. They speak of “one common altar of Masonry on which the Veda, Shastras (sacred books of Hinduism, JJ), Sade, Zend-Avesta (religious books of Iran and India, JJ), Koran (Muslim), and Bible shall lie untouched by sacrilegious hands, and at whose shrine the Hindoo, the Persian, the Assyrian, the Chaldean, the Egyptian, the Chinese, the Mohammedan, the Jew, and the Christian may kneel with one united voice celebrate the praises of the Supreme Architect of the Universe” (Kentucky Monitor 95). The Bible teaches that a Christian must “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” (Eph. 5:11). A Mason cannot obey this verse. The Bible teaches that true unity comes when we all submit to the same standard, being of “one mind” and “striving together” (Phil. 1:27; 2:2). This cannot happen when all those various books are on the “same altar” of Masonry! The Bible says that Christians are not to have fellowship with those who do not live by and teach the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). How could a Christian consider a Mason a “brother” in a religious sense when they are their own religious body, doing their own things? Jesus said those he considers “brothers” are those who do his will (Matt. 12:48-50). Are we doing his will when we endorse Masonry and its various teachings? Of course, not!

Conclusion

Why any Christian would want to be a Mason is beyond me. If one claims to be a Mason and a Christian “at the same time,” why not claim to be a Christian and a Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, or Jew, “at the same time”? It does not work! Freemasonry has no part in the life of a Christian. It is sinful.