Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

The teaching of Jesus is astonishing. People today are amazed at the depth of the truths taught by the Galilean carpenter. Those of the Master’s own day were astounded at the authority with which He spake as well (Matt. 7:28-29).

No passage more emphatically demonstrates the authority with which the Lord taught than does Matt. 5:21-48. In this portion of the Sermon on the Mount, the Master boldly announced that He was replacing the precepts of the Law of Moses, the venerated covenant given to Israel by Jehovah, with His own law. This section of scripture thus serves as a graphic illustration of some of the major differences between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.

In Matt. 5:21-48 the Master gave six separate examples of how His government is superior to that of Moses. Each time Jesus first quoted either the Old Testament directly or the rabbinic interpretation of Moses’ Law (“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time”-vv. 21, 27; “It hath been said”-v. 31; “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time”-v. 33; “Ye have heard that it hath been said”-vv. 38, 43) and then revealed His precept that replaced that of Moses (“But I say unto you”-vv. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44).

Some contend that since Jesus introduced the quotes by explaining, “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,” that He was referring only to the rabbinic traditions that had been added to the law and not to the law itself This they assert in order to get around the truth that Jesus did abolish the Old Testament to establish the New.

The fact is, in each case the Master either quoted the law directly or gave a correct comment on the meaning of the law. The disciples of Jesus, to whom He was primarily addressing Himself (Matt. 5:1-2), were common people, who only knew the law by the oral teaching of the rabbis, particularly in the synagogues. Thus, “Ye have heard that it hath been said” was simply a way of referring to what they had heard read in the synagogue (cf. Jn. 12:34), which consisted of both the law itself and the rabbinic tradition. Jesus replaced both with His own law, the law of the kingdom of heaven.

The first reference of Jesus, “Thou shalt not kill” (Matt. 5:21), was a direct quote from the sixth of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17) and was thus central to the Law of Moses and even to the very Ten Commandments. The second portion of His reference, “and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matt. 5:21), although not a direct quote from the law and apparently a reference to the traditions of the fathers, was, nevertheless, a precisely correct comment on and summary of the law’s demands concerning the murderer (cf. Num. 35:9-34; esp. vv. 16, 30-31; Lev. 24:21; Deut. 19:11-13). Thus, the Lord was replacing the law, and that moral, of Moses, the Old Testament.

Does this mean one is free to kill under the New Testament, since Jesus abolished the law which warned,. “Thou shaft no kill”? Most emphatically, No! The law of the nation of Mexico forbids murder. When, in 1836, following Sam Houston’s attack on Santa Anna at San Jacinto, Texas became an independent nation, and later, in 1845, when she became a state of the Union, the laws of Mexico, which formerly governed Texans, no longer applied to them. Did that mean citizens of Texas were free to murder? No, for that law of the State of Texas also forbids murder. The Law of Moses forbids murder. It has been abrogated. But the law of Christ also forbids murder (Jas. 2:8-12). Murder is wrong, not because the Ten Commandments so teaches, but because the New Testament so declares.

So far as the outward act of murder is concerned the Law of Moses does not differ from that of Christ. But the difference between the laws is that Jesus did not merely condemn the act of murder itself; He went to the very root of sin and condemned the attitude of heart and the words which led to the sinful act (Matt. 5:22).

Christ Replaced Moses, Law with The Law of the Spirit

Announcing Principles of the Kingdom of Heaven

Matt. 4:23; 5:3, 10, 19, 20

Came to Fulfill The Law

Matt. 5: 17-20

YE HAVE HEARD THAT IT WAS SAID		BUT I SAY
Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17 <————–	MURDER	—————————-> Matt. 5:21-26
Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18 <—————	ADULTERY	—————————-> Matt. 5:27-30
Deut. 24:1-4 <—————————–	DIVORCE	—————————-> Matt. 5:31-32
Lev. 19:12 <——————————-	SWEARING	—————————-> Matt. 5:33-37
Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21	REVENGE	—————————-> Matt. 5:38-42
Lev. 19:18 <——————————-	LOVE & HATE	—————————-> Matt. 5:43-47
Keep These: Fall Gal. 5:4		Keep These: Perfect   Matt. 5:48

 

The Mosaic covenant stipulated, “Thou shaft not commit adultery” (Matt. 5:27; cf. Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). The Master warned:

. . .whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already In his heart (Matt. 5:28).

Thus, the law of Moses did primarily deal with outward actions. This was the general tenor of the law. This does not mean the Old Testament never dealt with attitudes. It did teach:

thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Devi. 6:5).

The Master even pointed to this as the paramount commandment of the law (Matt. 22:34-38). The second most important precept likewise dealt with attitudes Matt. 22:39-40). Even in relationship to adultery, Moses said, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” (Exod. 20:17). Nevertheless, the Law of Moses was, generally speaking, “the law of a carnal commandment” (Heb. 7:16; cf. 9:10; Rom. 7:5). It dealt with outward, fleshly ordinances rather than with inward, spiritual principles.

In contrast, the Law of Christ deals directly and primarily with man’s heart, his attitudes (cf. Matt. 12:3435; 13:1-23; 15:18-20; Rom. 6:17-18). Thus, the New Testament embodies the highest and strictest moral and religious law ever given to man, including the strict demands of outward purity that the law of Moses contained with the even more stringent demands of inward purity taught by Christ.

When Jesus replaced Moses’s law concerning divorce with his own (Matt. 5:31-32), He illustrated yet another distinction between the two covenants. Moses’ commandment accepted a prevailing evil and regulated it (cf. Deut. 24:1-4). The Lord restored marriage to the high moral plane God placed it on in the beginning. The will of Christ, unlike the Mosaic regulations, restores man to his original state of purity.

The Master’s quotation concerning swearing (Matt. 5:33) is not found in so many words in the Old Testament. However, it is a fair summary of the Old Testament rules concerning oaths (Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21-23). The Lord replaced it with a stricter standard (Matt. 5:43-47). Thus, another difference between the covenants is exemplified. Whereas the moral demands of the Old were exceedingly high, the highest previously known to man, the standards of the New are even higher, embodying moral perfection.

The precept pertaining to revenge (Matt. 5:38) is a direct quote from the Old Testament (Exod. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21) and demonstrates an important difference between the testaments. In Moses’ law was found perfect justice (Rom. 7:12); in Christ’s law, mercy triumphs over justice (Matt. 5:39-42; cf. Ja. 2:13).

The requirement to love one’s neighbor (Matt. 5:43) was specifically laid down in the Mosaic covenant (Lev. 19:17-18). Although the opposite requirement, hatred of one’s enemies, was not precisely stated in the law, it was a fair application of the teaching of the Old Testament. The Lord demanded that Israel annihilate the Amalekites (Deut. 25:17-19) and Canaanite nations that inhabited the land before them (Deut. 7:1-2, 16, 23-26). They were never to make peace with the Moabites or Ammonites (Deut. 23:3-6). Pure men of God hated not only the ways of the enemies of God; they hated the enemies themselves (Ps. 26:5; 31:6; 139:21-22).

Thus, a clear distinction was made between faithful children of Abraham and the Gentiles, and demand for love was largely though not entirely, limited to the Israelites. This had a dual purpose: to protect the people from the evil influence of their idolatrous enemies and to preserve the lineage of the Messiah. Therefore, according to Paul, the law was the basis of enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:13-16). This was one of its defects, which, although it served a legitimate temporary purpose, necessitated its abrogation: Thus, another essential difference is exemplified between the two laws. The Law of Moses was a covenant designed for the nation of Israel alone (Deut. 5:1-3; 6:6-7), whereas the Law of Christ is universal in its scope (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15).

Comparing the Laws
Law of Moses	Law of Christ
Primary Outward Act — Matt. 5:21, 27	Primarily Attitudes — Matt. 5:22, 28
Regulated Prevailing Practices — Matt. 5:31	Restored Original Design — Matt. 5:32
Strict — Matt. 5:33	Stricter — Matt. 5:34
Just — Matt. 5:38	Merciful — Matt. 5:39
National — Matt. 5:43	Universal — Matt. 5:44

Christ set the theme for the Sermon on the Mount by revealing-to his disciples:

That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20). .

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48).

Although this primarily referred to the forgiveness of the gospel, it also demanded holier life than that which was considered the most pure in that day. Then, in Matthew 5:21-47, Jesus made known the standard of righteousness that would govern His kingdom. It was a standard far higher than ever before known, higher than the traditions of the Jews, yea, even higher than the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments.

The Law of Christ is superior to that of Moses in at least five particulars. It deals directly and primarily with the heart of man, his attitudes, whereas the Law of Moses deal primarily with outward actions. The Old Testament merely regulated many existing evils, whereas the Covenant of Christ restores man to his original state of purity. Whereas the Mosaic precepts were strict, those of Christ are stricter yet. Under the New Testament, unlike the Old, mercy triumphs over justice, both in man’s dealing with his fellow man and in God’s dealings with men. The Law of Moses was a national standard, for Israel alone, while the Law of Christ is universal, the standard of right and way of salvation for all mankind.

What an exalted standard! The Law of Moses, as great as it was cannot compare. Thus, if we attempt to be justified by the Old Testament, we “are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). In contrast, were a man to completely keep the will of Christ, he would in character be “perfect,” as God is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Of course, none of us do this (Jn. 1:8-10), but we should ever strive toward that goal (Phil. 3:12-14). As we make this perfect standard the rule of our lives, by which we examine ourselves daily (2 Cor. 13:5), obtaining forgiveness when we stumble (1 Jn. 2:1-2), we will be “perfect” in the sense of “mature, complete” or “lacking in nothing” (Jas. 1:4).

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, p.. 187-188
March 16, 1978

By P. J. Casebolt

Among other things, the term evolution can be applied to the gradual development, or disclosure of a thing. Some have tried to use this process in accounting for the existence of man and the universe. I think it can properly be applied to those false teachers’ who arise from among God’s people. In fact, this process, when applied to the development of false teachers, is so nearly identical in every situation that we begin to see a pattern which is followed closely by nearly every false teacher. I do not know in every case whether or not this is done consciously or unconsciously. But, just as surely as many criminals are identified and apprehended by their MO (method of operation), so also can the false teacher be recognized many times by his evolutionary pattern of apostasy. Not only has experience enlightened us on this point, but the word of God abounds with information on the subject.

Case No. 1

The time: late Forties or early Fifties. The place: Columbus, Ohio. (But, it could be Anyplace, USA, Asia, Europe, or Africa.) The congregation initially affected: the old Seventh Avenue church of Christ. The preacher’s name, though known to this writer and several others, is withheld, because we are studying a principle that could include many names. I have cited enough facts to let the reader know this is not a hypothetical case.

At the first, the preacher’s teaching began to change gradually, not so noticeably because of what he said, but because of what he did not say. Then, he began making statements gradually, which statements by themselves gave no evidence of false teaching, and yet, when considered in the light of other statements, began to form a good case of circumstantial evidence. But, you cannot convict a man on such evidence, even in a civil court, especially when the accused will not confess, and steadfastly maintains his innocence. Besides, he was an able preacher of some influence among the brethren in spite of his youth. He had influential relatives, and his grandfather was especially known among the brethren as a sound and able preacher of the gospel. Besides, no one wanted to compromise a young, promising preacher’s influence and reputation.

This continued for several months, and later it was learned that all this time the one under suspicion was privately teaching others, and even succeeded in converting some to his position. Some insisted he was being misunderstood, and falsely accused, and he succeeded in appearing to be the persecuted “underdog,” gaining even more sympathy. Those who dared question him were made to appear as the villains, prompted by jealousy or the desire to nail someone’s hide to the wall.

Finally, the elders called for a showdown. The preacher then admitted that he had continued to baptize people for the space of several months, but that he had ceased to believe it was essential to salvation. He, along with some accomplices, had delved into worldly wisdom, and decided the Bible was not properly translated (or could not be properly understood), and had generally accepted the Calvinistic doctrines taught by Baptists. In spite of all this, he stayed in the pulpit until he was evicted, tearing apart the body of Christ, which he no longer thought to be essential to salvation. When he was forced to leave the pulpit, he identified himself with a local denomination, and began preaching for it. He took some “disciples” with him. And, you could probably still find some brethren who believe he was just a victim of circumstances, that he was “driven” from the church, and that if brethren had loved him more and been more longsuffering toward him, he would still be with us today.

Case No. 2

This preacher was also able, influential, and highly respected throughout the Ohio Valley churches of Christ. (This collection of disciples does not constitute an organization of churches, but is only a geographical designation.) Twenty-five years ago he was already dropping “hints” and questions on certain subjects, generally in private, or before selected audiences. Did Jesus really mean the “mansions” of John 14:1-6 were in heaven, or could he be talking about the church? If so, the church must have already been established at that time. And, further, the church and kingdom must be two separate things.

In 1952, this preacher in question corresponded with a young preacher in Clarksburg, West Virginia, advocating some of the above possibilities. I and another preacher read the correspondence, and helped the younger preacher with his end of the writing. We urged this teacher of strange doctrines to publicly declare himself on these matters, but he said the brethren would not be receptive to his teachings at that time, but would be after they were educated. Some of us knew then (1952) that the church was being troubled by another false teacher, but few believed our reports. Brethren would come away from his meetings where he was preaching, or read his writings in the papers, and say, “I didn’t hear him say anything out of the way.” Some of us were accused of trying to hurt his reputation, or of being jealous, or of misunderstanding him.

Finally, this man converted his son-in-law to his peculiar teachings, and his son-in-law was also a preacher with much ability, influence, and promise among the churches. Brethren just could not believe that this young man could be guilty of believing or teaching such doctrines, and he, along with his father-in-law, continued in the good graces of the brethren despite warnings to the contrary. But now, in the words of a well-known newscaster, the brethren “know the rest of the story,” and have for the past few years.

This is partly true because the son-in-law authored a book containing his false doctrines, with an introduction by his father-in-law! That book was reviewed in the pages of Truth Magazine a few years back. It is the worst (or best) smorgasbord of premillennial positions I have ever seen. Some of it has to be original, with a mixture of doctrines peculiar to Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses! But, you will still find brethren who are sympathetic to these false teachers, and congregations and elderships who have been influenced by them.

Is There A Pattern?

I maintain that most false teachers are caught up in a gradual, evolutionary pattern from which they cannot extricate themselves, even while many of them maintain there is no pattern revealed in the Bible on any subject. The Holy Spirit has given us an abundant amount of evidence pertaining to false teachers, their doctrines and characteristics. Their very nature of trying to hide, conceal, deceive, divert, subvert, and convert makes it necessary for them to follow the pattern. No false teacher is going to confess that they are such, or that their teachings are contrary to truth. Some may even be sincerely convinced they are doing the church a great service, and setting souls in bondage free (2 Pet. 2:19).

Jesus warned of false teachers, and described their conduct (Mt. 7:15-20). Paul wrote much on the subject, and would probably be regarded as an alarmist, and a negativist, but the Holy Spirit says he wrote with the credentials of an apostle (Acts 20:28-31; Gal. 5:1-12; Eph 4:14; Col. 2:4-8, 18-23; 1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Tim. 4:1-4).. In fact, Paul warns of this in nearly all his epistles. Peter (2 Pet. 2), John (1, 2 & 3 John), and Jude all speak extensively on the matter. Yet, I get the impression that some brethren still think “there is no such animal” among God’s people! Or, if there is, it is a ghost, and not a real person. And, even if there are false teachers, we have no way of identifying them, and even if we do, there is nothing we can do about it. If you listen to some, no false teacher has ever been handled correctly. Israel murmured when God disciplined Korah and his associates, and he was forced to discipline 14,700 more before He got His message across (Num. 16).

Yes, I believe there is a pattern for us to follow in dealing with erring brethren, including those who teach false doctrines. Our motives must be pure, and without prejudice. We may be able to save some, or teach them “more perfectly” (Acts 19:26; Jas. 5:19, 20; Jude 22, 23). But, when our efforts go unrewarded, how long must we stand by and watch the bride of Christ being mugged, the body of Christ being divided? If the reputation of one false teacher is precious, and some think we should “go slow” lest we harm his influence, what about the rest of the body? Are the ones being subjected to false doctrine not also important? Is not the well-being of the church as important as one of its members? Some in the civil realm think it is high time the victims of a crime be accorded the same privileges as the criminals. Are not the souls of those being led away by false teaching as important as those doing the teaching?

By all means, get the facts, and do not act on suspicion or rumor. Sometimes it is difficult to get facts from those who have every reason to conceal them, but Jesus said, ” . . . by their fruits ye shall know them.” It is a serious thing to take action of any kind which pertains to the Lord’s body, but it is going to be even more serious for some of us if we have to explain why we did not do anything even when we had the facts. And, be sure, the Lord will require it of us, at His coming.

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, pp. 185-186
March 16, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

As surely as Paul declared that the husband is the head of the wife, and thus that he is indeed the head of the family circle, we must also agree that the wife (and mother) is the heart of the family. The poet said it so well when he wrote,

The hand that rocks the cradle, Is the hand that rules the world”. Nations rise and fall, empires prosper or crumble, and men are stirred to greatest accomplishments or they are driven to shameful failure, depending upon the influence of wives and mothers. Perhaps it is correct to say that no human being stoops so low as the immoral, base, promiscuous mother. Jezebel, the wife of Ahab (1 Kings 19:2) is recognized as symbolic of all that is evil-of deceit, mischief, lying, malice, injustice. Deliliah destroyed a strong man with her deceit; Solomon’s great wisdom did not survive the subtle and evil ways of women (someone has correctly said, “Solomon didn’t have a thousand wives; a thousand wives had him”).

Evil women who stoop so low are put in contrast to those who rise so high! Perhaps no one rises, to such a high plane of moral goodness, compassionate loyalty and dynamic influence as does the godly mother. Mary accompanied her Son all the way to persecution, rejection and to the cross. Hannah molded the life of an infant into a lad who was then possessed with the character to make him one of the greatest prophets of all time (1 Sam. 1:27, 28). Some author, unknown to me said,

Paint her as you see her, artist,

Let the lines and wrinkles show,

And the silver hair that crowns her,

Like a halo’s beautious glow.

Can you picture on your canvas,

All the years of sacrifice,

How she tended well her household,

Evercounting naught the price?

Let your brushes tell the story,

Of her patient love and care,

Mingle love with joy and sorrow,

Just as life has put them there.

Blend your colors softly, artist,

Face her toward the setting sun,

Smiling, calm, serene and peaceful,

For her task is almost done.

Call the portrait simply, “Mother;”

All the world will understand,

Nations thrive and empires prosper,

Guided by her gentle hand.

Motherhood is a great privilege — the crowning joy, the maximum happiness, the sublime fulfillment — for most women. Read the song of Hannah, rejoicing in motherhood (1 Sam. 2:1-10). And perhaps the greatest privilege of motherhood is that of willing, voluntary and enthusiastic sharing. No human being is able to share with others as does a mother; she shares her body with another in order that she might conceive; she shares again, most significantly, with her unborn child, and then she shares her time, her energy, her talent-even her very heart-as she weeps and laughs, as she sorrows and rejoices with her child through the months and years of infancy, adolescence and youthfulness.

But motherhood also involves obligation as well as privilege. No task on earth requires more dedication, greater skill or fuller commitment. The responsibilities of motherhood are not fulfilled passively but they demand devotion to the highest ideals and patient perseverance over long years of time. Yet, especially today, in our sophisticated society, many mothers lack the will and the courage to face the realities of the family circle, and many falter and fail, not because of inability, but because of lack of endeavor. Edgar A. Guest skid,

“There are Mothers who imagine,

Life could give them if it would,

Something richer, something better,

Than the joys of motherhood.”

Perhaps it is safe to say that there is no human obligation that is less adaptable to substitution than motherhood. By that I mean that you can substitute for the teacher, the ball player, the policeman, the governor and almost anyone else, but no one has found an adequate substitute for mother’s love! (Foster parents do great work and are deserving of much praise, but no one knows better than they that they can never achieve every aspect of parenthood that belongs exclusively to the natural mother.)

The greatest writers and speakers of the ages have tried to capture the fullness of glory, the opportunity and the duty of motherhood, and all have failed to maximize it. Naturally, then it is utterly impossible for me to do so, and I shall not even try. So in this chapter, I am not trying to specify every minute detail of duty that comes to mothers, nor am I trying to spell out the intricate items that separate between success and failure, between joy and sorrow. I am simply trying herein to arouse mothers to their God-given duties and to challenge them to respond to the teaching of God’s Word regarding their responsibilities.

Study with me two vivid contrasts: We read: “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counselor to do wickedly” (2 Chron. 22:2,3). But for a complete contrast, notice: “When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded in thee also” (2 Tim. 1:5).

Happy are we, and happy the home, when we find a dedicated father and a devoted mother living, loving and laboring in unison to fulfill the duties and to enjoy the opportunities of parenthood. In our next chapter we shall consider “Children: An Heritage of the Lord.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, pp. 184-185
March 16, 1978

By Johnie Edwards

The word walk occurs many times in the Bible and is descriptive of one’s living. When the Scriptures refer to the walk of a Christian, reference is made to the way one lives. It means to step rightly. I want us to take a look at a number of Bible rules which must guide the walk of a Christian.

Walk In Truth

David’s charge to his son Solomon is a principle Christians need to learn. “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul there shall not fail thee a man on the throne of Israel” (1 Kings 2:4). God has always demanded that His people walk in truth. John said, “For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth” (3 Jno. 4). To walk in truth is to walk according to the word, for the word is truth (Jn. 17:17).

Walk By Faith

Many Old Testament heroes are recorded in the New Testament (Heb. 11) because they walked by faith. Man cannot please God without faith (Heb. 11:6) and the Christian must walk by faith. Paul said, “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). To walk by faith, is to do things for which we can see no reason, but because God said do it.

Walk In The Old Paths

The principle for which Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, pleaded is one which Christian’s need to heed today. He said, “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (Jer. 6:16). But they, like so many today, said, “We will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:17). Too many want to modernize God’s way but it will just not work!

Walk In The Light

John said, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (1 Jn. 1:7). To walk in the light is to walk as the word directs, for the light is a “light unto my path” (Psa. 119:105).

Walk In Christ

After a person has been “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:27), he must then walk in Christ. Paul told the members at Colosse, “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord so walk ye in him” (Col. 2:6). Too many church members are content to just be baptized into Christ and then fail to walk in Him. Walking in Christ is just as vital as being baptized into Him.

Walk Uprightly

God expects His people to walk uprightly. The Psalmist asked, “Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy Hill?” Then he answered, “He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart” (Psa. 15:1-2). Solomon said that God is a “buckler to them that walk uprightly” (Prov. 2:7). Let’s strive to walk uprightly in ’78.

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, p. 183
March 16, 1978