Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

It is sometimes surprising to witness the behavior of some who profess to be among the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. The claim of discipleship is a claim to Jesus as Lord-Lord of everything in the disciple’s life. It is thus somewhat conspicuous behavior when professing Christians utter profane language. There is perhaps no more telling evidence of one’s infidelity than his improper use of the tongue.

The concept of profanity certainly encompasses more than uttering several naughty words. Profanity is the practice of taking that which is holy, set apart for sacred use and making it common and ordinary. It involves irreverence and indolence, insolence and flippancy. It is the product of both ignorance and rebellion. We have come to associate profanity with filthy speech because it is perhaps the most graphic manifestation of disrespect that we encounter. However, such things as tampering with God’s word, using His funds unscripturally or corrupting His worship are no less instances of profanity-taking the holy and making it common.

For the Christian, the concepts of the sacred and the profane have their roots in the Old Testament. God’s word is said to be holy-an expression of His Holy Character. And when His people obey His word, they in turn become “holy” (Lev. 20:7, 8; Ezek. 22:26). The Book of Exodus particularly deals with the idea of a holiness manifested in God’s people, one that is founded upon their personal sanctification to the Lord. In Ex. 20:7, Jehovah says, “Thou shall not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.” Here perhaps the Lord has in view the entire life-style of a people dedicated to Him. The thought encompasses more than, though it includes, the mouthing of some nasty words. Using the Lord’s name, His word, His authority, in a frivolous or irreverent manner is despicable and incompatible with the claim of discipleship. One who only in pretense is set apart unto the Lord is living a vain and profane life . . . and the Lord “will not hold Him guiltless.”

In the New Testament, James has a lot to say about the use of the tongue. In the third chapter (vss. 3-12) he points out the folly and danger of a loose tongue. He illustrates the fundamental inconsistency of one who uses his tongue to bless God and then turns and curses those made in the image of God. The theme of the holy versus the profane life is echoed in the New Testament in such discourses as Eph. 4-6; Col. 3, 4; and Gal. 4, 5. Particularly in Eph. 5:3, 4 does a New Testament writer register a stinging rebuke for those with a nasty tongue. Paul argues, “But fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints; nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting; but rather giving of thanks.”

Though the mores and morals of a society may change and thus its concepts of obscenity and profanity, the Law of God does not change. There is no place for Ale filthy, the suggestive or the obscene in the vocabulary of the Christian; but there is much less place in the behavior of a Christian for the vulgar tongue which uses the name of God in a vain manner. Frivolous and flippant exclamations of “Lord,” “God,” “Jesus Christ,” and the subtle euphemistic forms (“Gosh,” “Golly”, “Gee,” etc.) are inexcusable and should be eliminated from one’s speech.

Profane language begins as a subtle habit absorbed from thoughtless parents and social peer groups, but soon if progresses into a life-style difficult to reform. Let the professing Christian consider his speech and deilermine if it is in keeping with his claim to discipleship (2 Pet. 1:1-8). Profane speech is an indica[ion of immaturity and total lack of self-control. It is neither “masculine” (or for that matter “feminine”) nor (as some seem to think) the only way to command attention, to motivate desired behavior or to fortify an argument. May we seek to sidestep profane behavior in every aspect of our lives. To do less is to deny the Master who bought us with His own blood.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 797-798
December 16, 1976

By Irven Lee

The righteousness of God is revealed in the Bible. Of course, God is righteous, and this is made clear, because He is the perfect standard of righteousness. In addition to this fact, the New Testament reveals God’s plan of righteousness for man (Rom. 1:16-18). The teacher, called the man of God, is well equipped and completely furnished to every good work by the word. It gives all things that pertain to life and godliness. Man should be forever grateful that God has spoken and that He has confirmed His word. We all need His whole counsel (2 Tim. 3:14-18; 2 Peter 1:24; Heb. 1:1,2; 2:14).

An amazing fact about the book of God is that it is as new and fresh today as it was when the apostles and prophets first wrote it for man’s enlightenment. The principles of righteousness are eternal. They are just as relevant now as they ever were, and they need to be proclaimed boldly by stout-hearted men to this corrupt, materialistic generation. It is difficult for man to realize how precious the revelation is and how great his need of it. The devil has been successful in keeping it out of the hearts of the masses through the centuries even though it was written to be read and understood (Eph. 3:1-5). Its influence has always been wholesome in the lives of those who have learned and appreciated its message of wisdom.

Our Lord’s command that the gospel be preached to every creature was carried out in one generation (Mark 16:15; Col. 1:23). There were no methods of rapid travel or means of mass communication, but the teachers had the zeal to walk and carry the message if there were no better way to reach the people. It has been in periods of much gospel preaching that there has been growth and the spreading of the borders of the Lord’s church. Apostasy comes when the church people look away from or lose sight of the revealed message and heaven’s authority expressed in it. In such times men in their ignorance of God’s righteousness go about to establish a righteousness of their own (Rom. 10:1-3).

Beginning with the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. men have given out many official pronouncements concerning religion, and they have often upheld them by the strong arm of the military and judicial powers of established governments, God wills that the governments exist, but it is not their prerogative to decide what is true in religious matters, nor can they force men to accept some prescribed creed of their fellows. Decisions of councils took the place of the Bible to a great extent. The councils handed down official decisions as if the inspired and confirmed testament of Christ were not already official and authoritative. This was a sad turn of events for the sin cursed world. The church must constantly fight against such or the superstitions and false beliefs of the world about it will come inside the body itself and hide the Bible from the people.

Men began to decide matters of religious controversy by vote, and these decisions we call creeds. When Rome fell into the hands of barbarous people ignorance covered the world with a blanket of darkness. Men were not taught to read. The Bible was pushed aside by the customs and beliefs of the pagan people, and the church went into the apostasy of the dark ages. As far as the typical man was concerned, it was as if there were no Bible. The decisions of ecumenical councils and the conformity with the world took the Bible away from the people. Out of this period of darkness there arose a church that was more like the Roman Empire in government and more like the pagans in practice and belief than it was like the Bible pattern for the Lord’s people.

The leading men of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century were, of course, men of courage because they ran the risk of losing their lives in opposing the doctrines and practices of the vicious Roman church. There had been several men who had tried to break that yoke, but they were killed before their efforts got off the ground. Luther and others of his generation succeeded in their efforts because there were many powerful political leaders as bitter toward Rome as were the reformers. That is how they were able to tear the church of the dark ages apart at the seams.

How do comments about the Reformation fit into an article about “The Bible through the Ages”? It is very much on the subject because one chief effort of those who opposed the pope and his dictatorial powers was to get the Bible to the people in a language they could understand. There were few copies of the Bible, and they were in Latin. The people were told that only the priests could understand it. The situation was as if there were no Bible. The people did not see a copy or hear it read. Their religion was pre-digested for them. It included ritualism, superstition, and paganism, dispensed by a money-loving, religio-political machine. One of the greatest things the reformers did was translate the scriptures into the language of the people. The printing press had come on the scene, and Bibles could at least be scattered to the extent that there could be one or more copies in each community or in each secondary school.

There is a very sad story associated with the Reformation in regard to the Bible. Calvin, Luther, Knox, and others taught that all were born totally depraved and incapable of any good because they were all heirs of Adam’s sins. They also taught that the decision as to those who were to be saved had already been settled by God. If they were destined to be saved they would be saved. If the decree of God was that they be damned they would be lost anyway. His grace was unconditional and irresistible. In other words, they were told that the Bible teaches thus and so and it was not necessary that they study it. No doctrine can do more to take the Bible away from the people than the doctrine that all decisions are made in heaven and man is so helpless that he need not try.

The Restoration Movement was a powerful influence in getting the message to the people that the Bible can be read and understood, that man is accountable, that he is invited to learn, and that he may obey as a free moral agent. The leaders of the Restoration taught that God has spoken to the common man, and for the sake of his family and friends, and for the sake of his own soul, each should search the scripture. The devil continued in these years to advance the old Calvinistic doctrine of helplessness. The god of this world blinded men to the Bible by getting them entangled and overcome in lust and pleasure, and by getting them ensnared by the love of money. The immorality and materialism of our pleasure mad age have taken the Bible from the people again. There are millions of copies of the good book, but there are tens of millions who never look inside it. To them it is as if there were no Bible. Many children are not taught its precepts, but they are taught evolution and skepticism.

The gospel is God’s power to salvation. The word is the seed of the kingdom and abundantly able to save. Faith comes by hearing the word, but millions among us are so blinded by the god of this world that they never hear it. The word is the seed of the kingdom, but many are like the wayside soil. People need to search the scripture until they can handle it aright. Keeping the Bible from the people is the way the devil keeps his power. Emotionalism requires no Bible study. It can satisfy without the word. How many ways has the prince of this world tried in keeping the Bible from the people? Resist the devil and reach for the Bible, please.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 796-797
December 16, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

A good fight for the faith has been waged in stemming and stunting the cancerous growth of a new unity movement. The efforts of many faithful brethren have, for the moment at least, successfully stifled the progress of Calvinism and denominationalism among Christians. All the faithful should be thankful for the public and private efforts of those who have fought so vigorously and valiantly against a compromising denominationalizing spirit that would disown and dethrone the doctrine of the Lord. Ketchersidian conclusions and Fudgian philosophies would have made greater havoc if they had gone unchecked and unopposed. But they were, thank God, checked and opposed. Carl Ketcherside has embraced alien, Baalian brethren. He still loves those who earnestly contend for the faith once delivered, he avers, but those same contenders are the only ones he makes unloving faces at in his writings and rantings. Otherwise, it is smile and pass the sugar, my dear brother. Mournfully, Brother Edward Fudge courts and curries the favor of sectism with his and Calvin’s imputed righteousness of Christ doctrine. We have been counseled thusly: (1) That if one’s convictions lead him into corruptions of the work, worship, and organization of the church, he is not severed from Christ; so, he should not be shunned by those who remain in the New Testament mold; (2) That societies to do the work of the church and instrumental music do not stand in the way of fellowship with God; no, rather, it is our opposition to such things that has kept us apart from the Christian Church and other “evangelicals.” If we will but cease to condemn such items, we can then seek a “re-approachment.” At least, that is how we were advised, but the advice was not taken. As a result, many have been saved from death in error (Jas. 5:19; 2 Pet, 3:17). Many more doubtless would have been overcome if numerous, nameless brethren had not taken a stand for the truth as it is in Jesus.

Is It Time To Relax?

So, what next? Where to now? Do not think those who advocate and propagate softness and false teaching are through. They are not. Certain events have forced a revisement and retrenchment of their efforts, but they are not wiped out. Where will they launch their next attack? What means and methods under the general guise of good words and fair speeches will they employ to destroy fundamentals of the faith? I do not know. This one thing I do know, however, and that is they will return. This is not the time for glorying and gloating as if all the grapples for truth had been won. The enemy is temporarily regrouping. He is not vanquished. Watch, therefore, for we know not the day nor the hour of his return.

The very spirit and disposition of the new unity movement is too much in tune with the times to be killed so easily and quickly. Signal sentiments tell those who are aware that the peace at any price doctrine is too soothing and serene to be ignored. Among those who stand for the truth, a weariness of battle is a potential danger. Let no one be found drunk on the wine of seeming victory. Eternal vigilance is, as Jefferson correctly observed, the price of liberty, but it is also the cost of truth. Thus, there should be no moans, no hand-wringing complaints about “another preacher fuss” when the soldiers of denominational gospelism renew their campaign for peace in and with error. Expect them, for they will appear on the horizon. They will not have on the same uniforms, but their end, their ultimate goal, will remain essentially unchanged. That end is the end of speaking as the oracles of God.

Let us hear no griping, groaning, and grumbling. Gravely pick up your scabbard, draw your sword, the word of God, attach your shield of faith, put on the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, the shoes of the gospel, and the girdle of truth. Then, and only then, stand, and having done all, stand.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, p. 795
December 16, 1976

By Lewis Willis

“There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish” (Lk. 13:1-5).

New Testament Christianity is a system of faith and practice that is predicated upon sound, solid, Scriptural reasoning and argumentation. It is not a weak, unintelligible form of activity that is susceptible to many varied, conflicting interpretations. Thus, the passing years have presented to a wicked world certain points of argumentation that are designed to convince and convert. Much of this argumentation is the product of the thinking of pioneer preachers who fought a valiant fight for Truth in another century. All too frequently, those arguments have been accepted and used without any thought being given to personally validate them with the Scriptures. This article concerns itself with one such consideration. For years, to show the essentiality of repentance unto salvation, we have quoted Luke 13:3,5. Above, you can read the first five verses of that chapter. Does the Lord have reference to the ultimate perishing of the soul? Or, is He concerned with a physical perishing of the Jews? Could we be guilty of using the passage out of its context? Does the case for repentance rest upon this passage and this alone? The answer to this last question is “No” (cf. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9). The necessity of repentance is clearly established in these passages, so that Luke 13:3 is not pivotal regarding this human responsibility. And, certainly no one wishes to use a passage in a manner not intended. If someone should endeavor to use the passage through “principle application,” it would be acknowledged that such is certainly done with efficacy regarding Old Testament events. However, let us be advised to understand the principle involved so that we use the passage “aright.”

The events referred to in Luke 13 occurred about 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. So, the time was about 30 A.D.(1) Four years earlier, Pontius Pilate had been appointed ruler of Judea.(2) He soon found himself in a running feud with the Jews. For some time he had left the ornaments of his military at his headquarters in Caesarea since the Jews did not want Jerusalem profaned with their presence. But, alas, Pilate decided to move them to Jerusalem. It was Roman custom to inscribe shields of war with insignia of animals and the bust of the Emperor. The Jews considered this idolatry and refused the presence of such in the Holy City. But Pilate “ordered the new regiments to enter the city by night with the offensive emblems on their standards, and Jerusalem awoke to see idolatrous symbols planted within sight of the Temple.”(3) The Jews counseled how this outrage might be removed. Mobs went to Caesarea to entreat Pilate to remove the offense. But, Pilate refused. For five days and nights the Jews continually surrounded his palace, raising the same cry that the emblems be removed. On the seventh day, he met with them, but he had stationed soldiers around the people. “When the Jews began to raise their mutinous cries again, on his refusing to yield, he ordered the troops to enter with drawn swords. But he had miscounted their fanatical earnestness. Baring their throats, and kneeling as if to meet the sword, the multitude cried out that they would rather part with their life than their Law. Pilate, dreading the anger of the Emperor if he commanded a wholesale massacre, had to yield, and the standards were withdrawn from Jerusalem. The power of Pilate over the people was henceforth broken. They had conquered his will by stronger wills of their own. From this time they knew how to extort concessions from him. Persistent clamor, that would take no refusal, was, henceforth, their most trusted reliance, as we see only too strikingly in he last hours of Jesus.(4) Galileans were always liable to get involved in any political trouble that might arise, because they were a highly inflammable people.(5) Pilate was always ready to shed the blood of a people he hated, and the hot-headed Galileans, ever ready to take affront at the hated infidels, gave him only too many excuses for violence.(6)

It was in this explosive atmosphere that Pilate proposed building a water conduit in Jerusalem to replace the old system which no longer served the needs of the city. He sought and received the sanction of the Jewish authorities for this modernization program. But, he made one miscalculation. “As the Temple was to be benefitted, he naturally thought that he might defray the expense from its treasury, forgetting that the money was Corban, or consecrated to God.”(7) When word of his intentions spread like wild fire through the city, a frantic cry rose that the Temple was to be plundered by the Romans. Thousands stormed the palace to repeat the tactics of Caesarea. But, Pilate had time to make ready for the mob on this occasion. He had scattered soldiers, dressed as Jews, throughout the mob. As soon as the tumultuous cries began, the soldiers rose up against the Jews and left many of them lying in the streets severly wounded. “The very precincts of the Temple were invaded by the legionaries, and some pilgrims who were so poor that they were slaying their own sacrifices, were struck down . . . . their blood mingling with that of the beasts they were preparing for the priests . . . “(8) It was an unprecedented outrage, and it filled every Jewish heart with wild indignation. The excitement even penetrated the palace of Herod, kindling bitter feelings toware Pilate, for those pilgrims Pilate had killed were Herod’s Galilean subjects, It was that massacre of Galileans that the Lord was asked about in Luke 13. Some conjecture that it was shortly after this, when work on the water conduit had almost reached the Pool of Siloam, that the tower there fell, and killed eighteen men.(9)

The Conclusion Drawn By The Jews

There is no contextual indication that the inquiry about the Galileans and the 18 who perished in the failing of the tower, was designed to entrap the Lord, as on many other occasions during His ministry. It was a barbaric act of sacrilegious cruelty committed by Pilate and it was a sample of the corruptions and iniquity prevailing under Roman domination. However, Jesus neither endorsed nor condemned the acts. “But knowing their thoughts he combats the opinion which is always the popular one, that sufferings are the consequence and therefore the evidence of excessive wickedness.”(10) They concluded, “If men might be safe anywhere, or at any time, it would be at the altar of God, and in the act of offering sacrifices to Him. But here, they would infer . . . there must have been some hidden enormous guilt, which turned the very sacrifices of these men into sin, – not a propitiation of God, but a provocation, – so that they themselves became peculiar expiations, their blood mingling with, and itself becoming part of, the sacrifices which they offered.”(11) “He by no means denies the intimate connection between natural and moral evil, but He disputes the infallible certainty of the assumption that every individual visitation is a retribution for individual transgressions, and does not concede to those who are witnesses of a judgment, the right . . . to permit themselves a conclusion as to their moral reprobacy.”(12) This was the same fallacy which prompted Eliphaz, in the long ago, to say to Job, “Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished ‘ being innocent?” (Job 4:7). The Saviour at least considers it necessary to contradict the erroneous conclusion that these Galileans were in any way stamped as greater sinners than all others by the judgment which had befallen them. Thus, he pronounces, “I tell you, nay. . . .” The word, “nay,” is translated from the Greek word, ouchi. It does not simply mean “no, not, expressing a negation absolutely.” But ouchi is an even stronger word. Thus, Jesus answers the error of the Jews with a strong expression of absolute negation.(13) So, even though these people perished, they were not greater sinners than anyone else. Which thought, of course, gave the Lord occasion to direct the thinking of these Jews back to themselves.

The Application Of Luke 13

He said, “But, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” “The Savior does not mean to say they shall perish in a similar, but that they shall perish in the same manner, namely, through the cruelty of the Romans . . . ” (My Emph., LW) (14) What had befallen these Galileans would soon be the doom of the whole nation, unless a great change transpired in the life of Israel, through repentance. This was His lesson to His countrymen, drawn from the calamities which befell others. “Jesus knew well that if the Jews went on with their intrigues, their rebellions, their plottings, their political ambitions, they were simply going to commit national suicide; He knew that in the end Rome would step in and obliterate the nation; and that is precisely what happened.”(15) Jesus had specific reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. He was calling them to repentance, to prevent the Messianic nation from extinction. Hence, the call to repentance and the threatened perishing had nothing to do with the alien sinner of our day. The destruction envisioned in Luke 13 was that of the Jewish nation, just as the destruction by water in Noah’s day was that of the Ante-diluvians. To apply either to the alien sinner today is a misapplication of the passage.

The Prediction Fulfilled

This treatise would be incomplete if it failed to deal with the fulfillment of that which the Lord foretold. In the parable of the barren fig tree which immediately follows this text, He told of a man who sought fruit of a fig tree for three years, and found none. He decided to cut it down because it was simply taking up space. The keeper of his vineyard sought permission to work with it another season, if perchance it might produce. If not, it could then be cut down. The extended period of growth was representative of God’s longsuffering with Israel! If she repented as the Lord commanded, her doom would not befall her. Otherwise, Israel would perish.

And perish, she did! The Romans laid seige to Jerusalem. Conditions became so severe that Josephus recounts an act of cannibalism. A certain rich woman became so destitute that she took her infant child and “roasted” him. Her deed was soon known by the people of the city because of the terrible scent of cooked, human flesh. The entire city was seized with horror and amazement.(16) No appeal from Titus could get Israel to surrender. Only total defeat would put the matter to rest. “So he gave orders to the soldiers both to burn and to plunder the City.(17) So many were killed that the Romans 11 made the whole city run down with blood, to such a degree, indeed, that the fire of many of the houses was quenched with these men’s blood.”(18) The city, was filled with native Jews and pilgrims from all over the world who came for the Passover feast. The estimate of those who perished or who were enslaved by Rome was 2,700,200.(19) From which destruction, the nation of Israel never recovered to be a significant entity in the purpose of God.

Conclusion

Anytime the things of the Kingdom come under attack, I feel compelled to insist upon a full explanation of this attack. Herein I have challenged the usual application of a much used passage of Scripture. I have used it often, and I have heard preachers all over the country use it in the same way as I have used it referring to the plan of salvation, citing Luke 13:3 to prove the necessity of repentance. 1 would not presume to tell you what to do in your use of this passage. I would ask your serious consideration of the material contained herein. But, as for me personally, I shall assume the position of Brother R. L. Whiteside who said, “A long time ago I repented of applying that scripture to those we now term alien sinners.”(20)

Endnotes

1. Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 16, Pt. 2, p. 20.

2. Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, Vol. 1, p. 279.

3. Ibid., p. 279.

4. Ibid., pp. 279-280.

5. Wm. Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, p. 177.

6. Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, Vol. 2, p. 166.

7. Geikie, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 279.

8. Geikie, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 167.

9. Geikie, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 281.

10. J. S. Lamar, New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 185.

11. R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables and Miracles, p. 268.

12. J. P. Lange, The Gospel According to Mark and Luke, Vol. 2, p. 211.

13. W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 3, p. 103.

14. Lange, op. cit., p. 212.

15. Barclay, op. cit., p. 178.

16. Josephus, Vol. 2, p. 425.

17. Ibid., p. 434.

18. Ibid., p. 439.

19. Ibid., p. 441.

20. R. L. Whiteside, Doctrinal Discourses, p. 371.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 793-795
December 16, 1976