Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Anytime that one person sets out to review the writings of another, there is a tendency to disagree with everything which that persons says. In trying to avoid the error in which the other wallows, one sometimes falls into an error equally as bad on the other side; in avoiding the Scylla, one sometimes falls into the Charybdis. I am trying to avoid making that mistake with reference to my review of Leroy Garrett’s series on “The Word Abused.”

In the September, 1975 issue (Vol. XVII, No. 7) of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett considered our usage of Amos 3:3 which reads as follows: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”- (KJV). So long as he spoke with reference to this passage, I found myself in agreement with Garrett. Amos 3:3 is part of a series of cause-and-effect statements to establish Amos’ right and duty to prophesy. The context reads as follows:

“Do two men walk together unless they have made an appointment?

Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey?

Does a young lion growl from his den unless he has captured something?

Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it?

Does a trap spring up from the earth when it captures nothing at all?

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?

Surely the Lord God does nothing

Unless He reveals His secret counsel

To His servants the prophets.

A lion has roared! Who will not fear?

The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy!” (3:3-8).

The cause-and-effect statements of this verse are written to show that the only reason Amos, a sheepherder and grower of sycamore figs from Tekoa, could consider himself a prophet was because God had called him. The word in 3:3 which must be dealt with is ya’ad (to agree-KJV); it is a Niphal (passive or reflective verb) verb which is defined as follows:

“1. Reflex. meet with any one at an appointed place, by appointment…. 2. Recipr. to meet together at an appointed time and place, by appointment … Am. 3,3.”1

“1. reflexive, meet at an appointed place…. 2. meet by appointment, Am. 3 3 . . .”2

The point of the verse is that Amos would not have been prophesying had God not called him (after all, Amos was neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet) the same as two people would not be walking together unless they had previously made an appointment to meet each other. The following commentators explain the meaning better than I can:

“The contents of these verses are not to be reduced to the general thought, that: a -prophet could no more speak without a divine impulse than any other effect could take place without a cause. There was certainly no need for a long series of examples, such as we have In very. 3-6, to substantiate or illustrate the thought, which a reflecting hearer would hardly have disputed, that there was a connection between cause and effect. The examples are evidently selected with the view of showing that the utterances of the prophet originate with God. This is obvious enough In vers. 7,8. The first clause, ‘Do two men walk together, without having agreed as to their meeting?’ (no’ad, to betake one’s sell to a place, to meet together at an appointed place’or an appointed time; compare Job ii:11, Josh. xi.5, Neh. vi.2; not merely to agree together) contains something more than the trivial truth, that two persons do not take a walk, together without a previous arrangement. The two who walk together are Jehovah and the prophet (Cyril); not Jehovah and the nation, to which the judgment is predicted. . . . Amos went as prophet to Samaria or Bethel, because the Lord had sent him thither to preach judgment on the sinful kingdom.”3

“The ‘two’ are God’s judgments and the prophet’s word. These do not coincide by mere chance, no more than two persons pursue in company the same end without previous agreement. The prophet announces God’s judgment because God has commissioned him; the prophet Is of one mind with God, therefore the Lord is with him and confirms his words.” 4

“The ‘two’ are Jehovah and the prophet. The prophet had been sent to Israel to carry out a mission from Jehovah; it would be Jehovah’s judgment through the prophet’s word. The prophet’s presence at Beth-el was by divine appointment.”5

Actually, had Garrett stopped with his exposition of Amos 3:3, I would have voiced only an “Amen” to what he said; I might have had some minor disagreements with his exposition but nothing of enough. consequence to have sought to reply to it. Furthermore, I would have concurred that our usage of Amos 3:3 with reference to a discussion of unity was an abuse of the Scriptures. But Garrett did not stop there. No, Garrett used the occasion to propagate his unity-in-diversity basis of fellowship. Read what he wrote:

“It Is Incredible that a misinterpretation could catch hold as this one has on Amos 3:3. One can hear It at college lectureships and from many pulpits, and he can read it in papers, books and church bulletins. ‘Can two walk together except they be agreed?’ is made to teach the people cannot be together, united In Jesus, and enjoying the fellowship of the saints unless they be agreed on everything or most: everything. One opposing societies or classes will insist that if he walks with a man, which Is made to refer to fellowship, the two of them will have to agree on societies and classes. If one is a premillennialist and another Is not, they can never ‘walk together’ until they see the issue alike. If the other fellow has an organ or piano at his church, fellowship is. impossible until he gives it up and comes over to our side, for we have to ‘be agreed’ if we ‘walk together.’ And there is no way, of course, for a Baptist and a member of the Church of Christ to share Jesus together since they are not ‘agreed’ on all the points of doctrine.

“One can only conclude that some dear soul back yonder, a debater or an editor perhaps, lifted that verse completely from its context and gave it this weird interpretation. It Is rather easily memorized, and it makes a good argument for one who has already concluded that unity Is :dependent upon conformity. So it has lived on as part of our “stock in trade, a proof text that unity Is contingent upon endorsement and approval. If you do not ‘agree’ or approve or endorse a person’s position or practice, then unity and fellowship are Impossible. Amos 3:3 says so!

“But this is to brutalize the scriptures. So abusive is this that it not only neglects the context, but ft is made to say the very apposite to what the scriptures really teach on agreement and unity.”6

I deny that the Bible’ teaches unity-in-diversity in the sense which Leroy Garrett means it. (I recognize that diversity within the realm of lawful ‘items is permitted.) Here is the kind of unity in which he believes:

Each of our parties circumvents all this by demanding conformity on ‘the doctrinal issues,’ meaning of course the peculiar doctrinal stance of that particular sect. They might differ on what others divide over, while other differ on what they divide over, but they make sure that all others line up on what they call the issues or else. Quoting Amos 3:3 of course.

“We all admit that there are those basics that we must all accept. This Is why we all agree with the old slogan, ‘In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love.’ The faith that we are all to agree on is a matter of facts of Jesus, not theories about every question that comes up about the work, worship and organization of the church.’ Those things fall withing the category of opinion, and there is to be liberty, and this is why ‘unity in diversity’ is the only things that makes sense. It is the facts about Jesus-the facts are believed, the commands are obeyed, and the promises are accepted-that makes us one and unites us together In Christ. The disposition we make about instrumental music, supporting Herald of Truth, or forming agencies for the work of the church has nothing, but nothing to do with our being in fellowship together with Christ.” 7

“And yes, we may, for the time being, have to meet in separate houses because of our traditional hangups about organs, classes, cups, literature, tongues, or whatever. But it Is imperative that we realize that we are all in Jesus together in spite of these differences; and because we are in Jesus together we are sons of God together and brothers. Thank God, we are brothers! We must accept each other as such even if we do meet separately.

One thing we can do now is to forget about that wildcat interpretation of Amos 3:3. An organic brother and an inorganic brother CAN walk together even if they don’t agree on that issue. And so with all, the rest of the opinions that we have allowed to separate us.”8

With these statements, I am in strong disagreement. Although our usage of Amos 3:3 has been incorrect, the conclusion does not follow that unity-in-diversity is true! There are other texts which demonstrate the veracity of unity-in-truth; the doctrine does not need Amos 3:3 in order to stand. AI am’ willing to forget Amos 3:3 and resort to 1 Cor: 1:10; Rom. 16:17-18 2 Jn. 9-11; etc. for confirmation that doctrinal agreement is necessary for unity.

Actually, Garrett recognizes that doctrinal unity is essential on some points. Thus, he wrote, “We all admit that there are those basics that we all must accept.”9 (Are you saying that one must believe in unity in doctrine, mere bland conformity, Brother Garrett?) That is correct; but, we differ in deciding what these basics are. Garrett is willing to say that instrumental music, sponsoring churches, missionary societies, etc. are not among the essentials. He goes even further to say that they are mere “hangups”-i.e., prejudices that arise somewhere other than through our study of the scriptures. I am not ready to admit that because I do not believe that it is true! If you are willing to concede these points, you are willing to concede what I will not.

Neither Garrett nor any of his cohorts have proven that instrumental music, sponsoring churches, institutionalism, making recreation a part of the church’s work, etc. are in the realm of lawful items and, therefore, qualified to be considered opinions. I might just as well label one’s doctrine about Jesus in the realm of opinion as to label any of the above. My “say-so” is worth just as much as Leroy Garrett’s “say-so.” If you are willing to accept his “say-so” that instrumental music is in the realm of opinion, you logically must accept my “say-so” that one’s doctrine about Jesus (whether it be the doctrine held by the Jews or modernists) is in the realm of opinion. The alternative to this is to demand that both of us prove by the Scriptures that what we assert is true. Until Garrett and his cohorts can prove that these items are authorized, and therefore qualified to be called expedient items, we cannot treat them as opinions; rather, we must treat them as unauthorized innovations.

Though I am not in disagreement with Garrett’s exegesis of Amos 3:3; I am in total disagreement with his conclusion that fellowship can be maintained between those who oppose instrumental music in worship, sponsoring churches, recreation as part of the work of the church, etc. and those who support them. When you hear brethren methodically trying to discharge every passage which we have used to stop false teachers, you had better beware. Are you ready to concede that mechanical instruments of music in worship, sponsoring churches, recreation as part of the work of the church, etc. are scriptural? That is where they are heading. Personally, I am not going to wait until they get there before I start fighting them!

FOOTNOTES

1. William Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1888), p. 408.

2. Frances Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), p. 416.

3. Carl Friedrich Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951), p. 260.

4. W. J. Deane, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1950), Vol. XIV, p. 40.

5. Homer Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), pp. 99-100.

6. Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . ‘Can Two Walk Together Except They Be Agreed,’ ” Restoration Review, XVII, No. 7 (September, 1975), p. 123.

7. Ibid., p. 124.

8. Garrett, Op. Cit., p. 125.

9. Garrett, Op. Cit., p. 124.

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 7-8
January 8, 1976

By Jeffery Kingry

“Orphans reared in a mental institution by caring, mentally retarded women fare much better-physically, intellectually, and socially-than do similar children reared in a state run orphanage by trained but busy, matrons” (Robert T. Trotter, Science News, Vol. 108, No. 41).

With this bold assertion the writer of an article in a leading science magazine cites the unavoidable conclusion of a study on child-rearing spanning forty years.

This thesis was first postulated by H. M. Skeels in the 1930s, and it shocked Psychologists, especially those who believed that intelligence was a strictly genetical inheritance. The Skeels’ study and others like it eventually forced the closing down of the huge institutions of the depression that were used as warehouses for unwanted children.

The original study was made at the Iowa State orphanage forty years ago. The children were kept in bleak barracks, many of the buildings dating back to the Civil War. Infants were stored in cribs draped with white sheets to prevent the children from seeing each other. The infants had few toys and their only human contacts were with busy nurses who did little more than feed and change them on schedule. At the age of two those who survived (There is a 35% death rate among institutionalized infants) were moved into “family cottages” where they ate and slept according to rigid schedule. At the age of six they received a minimal sort of schooling on the orphanage grounds.

The study grew out of a casual observation early in the 1930s by H. M. Skeels of two young girls. Skeels described them as “pitiful little creatures.” The children were always crying, had runny noses, and little or no hair. They were undersized, sad, and inactive, and spent most of their time rocking back and forth on their beds. After testing, it was suggested that the children’s intellectual quotient (I.Q.) was 50 or less. Because of their extremely poor mental and physical condition; it was unlikely that these girls would be adopted. They were transferred to a home for the mentally retarded.

A while later Dr. Skeels, who also had clinical duties at the home for the retarded, visited the wards and was surprised to discover “two outstanding little girls. They were alert, smiling, running about, responding to the playful attention of adults and generally behaving and looking like any other toddlers.” Skeels tested them and found their I.Q. normal. Another test a year later again proved their normal and growing intelligence.

What had happened to these children? The sole difference was that they had been loved, cuddled, talked to, and provided an environment of confidence. They had been placed separately on wards with retarded adults. Each had been “adopted” by a “foster mother” who had plenty of time to devote to a child. Other women on the wards considered themselves to be “aunts” and shared in the care taking responsibilities. Convinced that the stimulating and loving environment of a “family” was responsible for their improvement Dr. Skeels attempted to demonstrate it in a controlled experiment. Thirteen preschool children who were tested as mentally retarded or coming from mothers who were mentally retarded were transferred to the adult home of mental retardation. All of the children came from educationally and economically deprived backgrounds.

These children started with an initial I.Q. average of 64 at 18 months. All gained 7 to 45 points in their I.Q. while at the institution. At age six, the mean I.Q. showed a total gain of 31 points. When seen as adults all were independent and self-supporting. Two other groups of children were placed in the homes of normal families before six months of age. All of these children came from severely retarded or disturbed mothers. In normal families they overcame their “high risk” status and became successful as adults.

The “control group” was not so fortunate. Twelve children, who had been normal as infants, for one reason or another were not placed in homes, or moved to the adult retardation home. After two to four years in the orphanages, it was found that these children were no longer normal in their development. One child with an I.Q. of 99 at 14 months, by age three had dropped to an I.Q. of 54, and by five this poor child’s I.Q. had dropped to 35-severely mentally retarded. By the age of eight, nine of the twelve had been transferred to the institution for the mentally retarded-as residents, not for therapeutic reasons. When seen as adults, ten of the twelve had spent nearly all of their lives in institutions.

“These fit the classical stereotype of the mentally retarded: minimally skilled, unemployed or unemployable: They had a singular barren, affectionless, detached childhood.” The state had taken 12 infants, and at tax-payer expense made mentally retarded adults from normal healthy children. In the words of Skeels, “The evidence speaks for itself.”

Nothing Replaces You

What man can demonstrate by the scientific method God has already revealed in His Word. True religious service before God is to care for the fatherless and the widow in their time of trouble (Jas. 1:27). Contrary to the belief and practice of some brethren, “care” is not provided by institutionalizing them. Providing for the needs of the thirsty man, is to give the thirsty man what he needs and lacks: water. The need of the fatherless and widow is family. Putting them in a building and providing for their food and clothing meets a need, but not the one they really desire, and certainly does not meet God’s standard of “pure religion.” I pray for the day the doors of all orphanages open and the children are allowed to enter and become part of the homes of Christians.

And parents, whoever fails to care for his own relatives, especially those in his own household has in fact repudiated the faith. He has no right to say he is a Christian. He is worse than any unbeliever (1 Tim. 5:8). “Care” is not just caring for the physical needs of a family. A nurse or matron, or robot, could care for these duties. Parents owe their family, before God and at his command, “to love their children … be keepers at home” (Tit. 2:4,5): There is no such thing in the eyes of God. as a “sometimes parent.” May God’s damnation come down in judgment on women’s lib and all day-care centers! These rebellious unbelievers are raising a godless, lost generation. “A. good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22). “A child left to himself bringeth his mother shame” (Prov. 29:15). Brethren, both the evidence and the testimony of God speak eloquently for themselves.

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 5-6
January 8, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Let us begin this article with a question posed by Jesus: “For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26). The implications involved in the answer of this rhetorical question are tremendous indeed.

Man has a Soul

There are many people who deny that man has an immortal soul within him, but these individuals are not believers in Biblical teaching. Let us note some passages pointing out the fact that man does consist of more than just the body. The, Bible states that “God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Solomon said in Ecc. 3:21, “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” Jesus clinched the point in Matt. 10:28, as he said, “And fear not them who are able to kill the body and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.”.Peter said, “Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls unto him in well doing as unto a faithful creator” (1 Pet. 4:19). Once more Paul said in Heb. 10:39: “We are riot of them that draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” Furthermore, James said that the body without the spirit is dead (Jas. 2:26). So’ we can see that the Bible teaches that man does have a soul or spirit, and that the body without the spirit is dead. Every man, rich or poor, wise or unwise, bond or free. Jew of Gentile, has an immortal soul which is of greater value than all the possessions of the world.

The Soul has Value

Implied in the question, “what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world, and lose his soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” is the affirmation that the soul of man is of transcendent value. It is impossible for one to measure the value of his soul in tangible things. Man cannot; with his finite sense of values, realize the infinite value of his soul. The only standards of worth and value that man can know and comprehend are those by which we evaluate materials in this life, but one’s soul cannot be classified with this group of things. The worth of the soul is not to be judged by monetary standards, by stocks and bonds, or by houses or lands.

Since I, myself, cannot properly sense its tremendous worth, I am unable adequately to impress your mind with its value. Were I to comprehend its infinite worth, words would be insufficient to express it. Let us try, though, by physical standards of value, to get some concept of the worth of the soul.

Every year, millions of dollars are made through the oil industry, even to the extent that we commonly think of oil as a symbol of riches. Think of the many industries dependent upon the oil industry, and all the money that is made through this giant business: hundreds of millions of dollars annually! After thinking of all this wealth, turn now to the spirit of a small child, and so incomparably greater is the soul in value that we need not speak of it.

Go to the great shipping centers of the world and stand there watching the valuables to which we have been referring, and still there is no comparison between them and just one soul.

Think, now, of the staggering cost of war! Billions of dollars have been added annually to our national budget because of the terrific cost of such engagements. Add to this the cost of every war since the beginning of time (and our imagination will not permit us to picture such a figure) and still it is incomparable to the soul.

Fill the world itself with money, and one would be foolish, indeed, to exchange it for a soul. So Christ said, “What shall a man be profited if, he gain the whole world?” All that the whole world holds is not equal in value to that priceless gem which the poorest of us have been given.

Who Values Our Souls?

We can better understand Christ’s question and the value of one’s soul when we consider how much interest is manifested in the human soul by all the higher powers of the universe. First, the Devil is deeply interested in every soul of the earth. But remember what kind of an interest it is that the Devil has in our soul. Is it malicious or benevolent? All who read the Bible know the answer to that question. When God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden, giving them complete happiness, Satan had no rest until he had tempted and seduced them into sinning in order that he might wreck their happiness. When Job and his sons were living charitably and happy, he assailed them with his wicked intents. All are familiar with his efforts to destroy the saving power-which Christ alone could bring unto mankind-by tempting our Lord. The Devil’s interest in our soul is that he might destroy both body and soul in hell.

The soul has been shown to be of great value by the keen interest which the angels have in it. Jesus said, “See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 18:10). Paul said, in referring to the angels, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. 1:14). Christ again said, “Even so, I say unto you, that there is joy in the presence of angels of God over one sinner that repenteth” (Luke 15:10). When such great characters as the angels in the presence of the God of heaven show interest in man’s soul, surely it must be of great value.

Again the soul of man is shown to be of great worth because of the supreme interest which God has shown in it. The reason for God’s interest in man’s soul seems only to be because the soul is created in the image of God. God said, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). The body of man is not made in the image of God, but the soul (or spirit) is. God gave His Son, His only Son, that man’s soul might be redeemed from eternal destruction. One is not willing to give a son, much less his only son, for a cause in which he is not vitally interested, but such was the interest which God showed in the saving of man. Such was the intrinsic worth attached to man’s soul by God. The Lord wants us to preserve that valuable soul which He has given us, so He gave His only begotten Son in order that we might do it. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing’ that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

Also the human soul is of greatest value, because of how much Christ was willing to give for its salvation. When one has given his life for a cause there remains nothing more that he . can give. He has given all. “Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our life for our brethren” (1 Jno. 3:16). Since Christ paid the greatest price to save our souls, they certainly must be of greatest value.

What are You Exchanging?

Notice now, the last part of the question, “Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” This should cause us to think seriously. Now is the time of exchange. We might exchange our time, thoughts, labors and energies now for the salvation of our souls eternally, but in eternity it will be too late. There is a time coming when I cannot give my time in the saving of my soul for time will be no more; my energy cannot be given for it shall have been expended. It takes all that one can do to save his soul plus all that has been done by God. Some now will exchange their souls for a moment’s pleasure, but in the day of judgment they would exchange an eternity of physical pleasure to save their souls, but the offer will be futile and rejected.

What are we doing now to save our souls? Eternity will be too late. Now is the accepted time. A realization of this should inspire us to greater consecration day by day and to make diligent effort to exchange our souls for an eternal reward rather than for a world.

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 3-4
January 8, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Illinois: “Matthew 21:42-44-Verse 43 says, ‘The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.’ To what nation did he refer?”

Reply:

To ascertain the answer to the question, we must: (1) observe the context; (2) determine who the “you” is – “shall be taken from you” (?); (3) understand the nature of the kingdom of God.

The Context

Jesus is addressing “the chief priests and the elders of the people,” Jews (Matt. 21:23). He upbraids them for not believing John the Baptist who came unto them “in the way of righteousness” (Matt. 21:32). He then reveals that their rejection of John is typical of their history. Jesus accomplishes this by means of a parable (Read Matt. 21:33-44). Old Testament prophets had been sent unto the nation of Israel to call them to repentance, but the prophets had been beaten and murdered (Vs. 35, 36; Cf. 2 Chron. 36:15, 16; Neh. 9:26; Acts 7:51, 52). The householder in the parable sent his son, the counterpart of whom is Jesus. The husbandmen killed him as the Jews were to kill Christ (Matt. 16:21; Acts 2:22, 23). What will the Lord do to those husbandmen? “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen. Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. 21:41-43). The “you” is the unbelieving Jewish nation.

The Jews must repent or perish” (Lk: 13:3). Moses was told of a prophet who would come. That prophet was Christ (Deut. 18:15-19; Acts 3:22, 23). “Every soul which will not hear that prophet, (Jesus) shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23). In other words, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (Jno. 8:24). If the Jews would not hear and reverence the Son of God, they were to be “miserably” destroyed (Cf. Matt. 21:41; Acts 3:23). Romans 11:20-23 is a divine commentary on Matt. 21:41-43 and Acts 3:22, 23. Because of unbelief the Jews were broken off. All who do not continue to God’s grace shall likewise be “cut off” and “destroyed form among the people.”

Nation

The “nation” in Matthew 21:43 is NOT: (1) an earthly nation or country; (2) all Gentiles; (3) all believing Gentiles, excluding Jewish believers. This can be seen from the fact that the kingdom of God was never given to a fleshly nation; it was never given to all Gentiles; it was never given to Gentiles, excluding Jewish believers. To whom, then was the New Testament kingdom given? When we find to whom the kingdom was given, we will find the nation.

Christians, the saved, constitute spiritual Israel, Abraham’s seed, a holy nation. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit; not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Rom. 2:28, 29). “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. . . . And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:26, 27, 29). “For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of god and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).

Those redeemed “by the precious blood of Christ,” who “have in obedience to the truth purified (their) souls,” who “have been born again . . . through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet. 1:18-23), these “as living stones” are built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:). “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Pet. 1:9, 10).

The saved, therefore, are the nation to whom the kingdom has been given. This includes “both” Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-18). All who believe and are “obedient to the faith” are “reconciled unto God in one body,” the church (Rom. 3:22; 6:7, 18; Eph. 2:16), “for there is not respect of persons with God.” The kingdom of God is “not of this world” (John 18:36). It is not an earthly, fleshly nation. It is not “eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). The saved, those whom He has washed from their sins in his blood are “made . . . to be a kingdom” (Rev. 1:5, 6). “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Heb. 12:28).

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 2
January 8, 1976