Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

For twenty-five years (1917-1942) the Watch Tower Society, hierarchical organization of the group known today as “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” was under the leadership of J. F. Rutherford. Of the many writings that came from his pen, none is more vivid than a 128-page book entitled Millions Now Living Will Never Die! The book was published in 1920.

World Ended in 1914

Rutherford argued that the word “world” in the Bible means an epoch or dispensation of time. He reasoned that a “world” existed from the time of Eden to the flood, then a new “world” began which was to last until the coming of the Messiah’s kingdom. He declared that 1914 marked the end of the second world and the beginning of a new period

“We therefore propose to prove in this argument that the social order of things, the second world, legally ended in 1914, and since that time has been and is passing away; that the new order of things is coming in, to take its place; that within a definite period of time the old order will be completely eradicated and the new order in full sway; and that these things shall take place within the time of the present generation and that therefore there are millions of people now living on earth who will see them take place, to whom everlasting life will be offered and who, if they accept it upon the terms offered and obey those terms, will never die” (p. 12).

A clever system of interpretation still used by Jehovah’s Witnesses-a conglomeration of figures from assorted passages wherever needed-made possible the arbitrary date of 1914. So Rutherford wrote with the sound of confidence in 1920:

” . . .that the old world legally ended in 1914 and the process of removing the worn out systems in now progressing, preparatory to the inauguration of Messiah’s kingdom” (p. 19).

Abraham and Others to be Resurrected in 1925

By a similar method of calculation, Rutherford announced:.

“That period of time beginning 1575 before A. D. 1 of necessity would end in the fall of the year 1925, at which time the type ends and the great antitype must begin. What, then, should we expect to take place? In the type there must be a full restoration; therefore the great antitype must mark the beginning of restoration of all things. The chief thing to he restored is the human race to life; and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favor, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth” (p. 88).

“As we have heretofore stated, the great jubilee cycle is due to begin in 1925 . . . They are to be resurrected as perfect men and constitute the princes or rulers in the earth . . . Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection” (pp. 89, 90).

“Based upon the argument heretofore set forth, then, that the old order of things, the old world, is ending and is therefore passing away, and that the new order is coming in, and that 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of reconstruction, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of people now on the earth will he still on the earth in 1925” (p. 97).

Rutherford died in 1942 and his calculated resurrection of Abraham and others had not taken place. In 1943, the Watch Tower Society published a book called “The Truth Shall Make You Free, ” in which it is stated, “there is hope that these faithful men of old may be resurrected in the near future” (p. 358). It is now more than thirty years later, and still no appearance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from the dead!

Russell, Rutherford, and others of Watchtower fame have set dates when there is no Biblical basis for such calculations. Rutherford was manifestly wrong in his interpretations about 1925, so why put confidence in such a nian and his teachings? Today’s publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses are largely a rehash of Rutherford’s books and pamphlets. The Bible, not Watch Tower literature, should be man’s guide in all that pertains to his faith and practice.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 700-701
November 4, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

Each of the following errors will enlarge the circle of unity and fellowship. But this enlarged circle is wholly manmade. It is not Bible unity. Since it is not scriptural unity, it is not pleasing to God.

I. We Are All Brethren In Error. (i.e., every Christian and all congregations are involved in the sinful practices of doctrinal error). The grace of God is ours if we obey the “gospel.” Error in “doctrine” does not remove us from God’s Grace. Those in one kind of doctrinal error can accept those in another kind.

This concept rests partly on a supposed distortion between “gospel” and “doctrine.” The distortion is false. After Jesus taught on such basic concepts as (1) the importance of humility, repentance, and longing after God if man is to be spiritually blessed” (2) “no man can serve two masters; (3) “enter ye in at the strait gate;” (4) “not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but, he that doeth the will of my Fattier which is in heaven;” after his speaking on such basic principles as would admittedly be included in the “gospel,” Matthew observes, “The people were astonished at his doctrine” (Matt. 7:28).

Furthermore, after one becomes a Christian, if he then teaches the necessity of day observance or circumcision that would have to fall in the so-called “doctrine” department. In which case, such teaching would not be a matter of “gospel” nor would it remove the teacher from God’s grace. Yet Paul’s letter to the Galatians deals with those teaching such “doctrinal” error and charges them with perverting “the gospel of Christ” (1:7-9; 4:10; 5:6). Paul says of those who abide such things, “Ye are fallen from grace” (5:4).

The truth of the matter is, then, that, “Whosoever committeth sin trangresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4) The Bible knows nothing about sin which violates the gospel as distinguished from sin which violates the doctrine, as though the results were any different. The sinful practices of error will cause us to be lost if not repented of.

II. None Of Us Knows Everything About The Word Of God; therefore, the argument says, all of us are involved in sin of one kind or another. Those who practice one sort of sin are received in God’s grace along with those who practice another sort. Since God accepts us in this situation, we should accept one another.

The problem here is passing from a true promise to a false conclusion. Truly, none of us knows everything in the Bible. The argument says therefore we are all continuingto practice sin of one kind of another. Non sequitur! In Rom. 14:2-3, Paul deals with certain brethern who did not understand that a Christian may eat any food. But he does not argue therefore they sinned, and since all of us are continuing in sin one way or another we ought to accept these sinful brethern. In effect he says what 1 Cor. 8:8 says, “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” In Romans, he puts it this way, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men” (14:17-18).

We may have any number of misunderstandings; all of us certainly need to grow in grace and knowledge. But sin is some specific violation of the law of Christ; we call misunderstand a passage without violating any law; we can eat meat or never eat it, without violating any law. Sin is clearly defined in the word of God. It is not an intricate subject. One does not have to live a lifetime before he knows what it is. God’s revelation does not weave a web of philosophy which one must learn to unravel before he can understand what sin is. So while we will continue in a study of many things in the Old and New Testaments throughout our life, that does not mean we continue in the practice of sin throughout our life. Study and growth must be a habit, a constant pattern in the life of a Christian. (2 Pet. 1:5ff). Sin cannot be a habit, a constant pattern in the life of God’s child (1 Jn. 3:9).

III. The Personal Obedience Or Righteousness Of Christ Is Imputed To The Christian instead of the disobedience or unrighteousness the Christian might practice. Some claim the personal righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Christian to make up for only certain kinds of sins, and some say all sins in the life of a Christian are taken care of this way.

The Bible teaches predestination, but not John Calvin’s theory of it. Even so, the Bible teaches imputed righteousness, but not John Calvins theory of it. In brief, Calvin explained imputed righteousness this way. God transfers or imputes the righetousness of Christ (the perfect obedience of Christ) to the account of the Christian (who, oil account of his inherited sinful nature, continuously breaks God’s law). It is interesting to notice the Catholic theory which Calvin sought to escape. Supposedly, a “treasury of grace”–the obedience and good works of deceased saints–existed; God could transfer or impute the merit of righteous deeds of dead saints to the Christian who breaks God’s law, or even to a mail in “Purgatory.”

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness . . . . . it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe oil him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:3, 23-25). We come to God by obedient faith and maintain our relationship with Him by obedient faith, just as is seen in, the life of Abraham, “As it is written, The just shall live by faith” (1:17). A Christian will sin from time to time; none will be able to say to God, “I lived a sinlessly perfect life.” God by grace counts or imputes our obedient faith “for (eis, in order to, unto; cf. Acts 2:38) righteousness.” He first recognizes or counts to us the sins we commit; then as we meet the required conditions for forgiveness, He washes those sins away through the blood of Christ (Acts 8:21-24; 1 Jn. 1:7-9; 2:1).

“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without word saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to Whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:6-8). When did David know the blessedness of having righteousness put to his account in place of sin which he had committed? When David met the condition of forgiveness- -obedient faith–in this case, confession of his sin! Paul is quoting David from the 32nd Psalm. Before he met the condition of forgiveness, he did not know the blessedness of forgiveness. “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring (i.e. groaning, suffering, misery) all the day long.” But then, “I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (vv. 3-5). By obedient faith David received forgiveness and knew the blessedness of an imputed righteousness– certainly not an earned righteousness, for he had in fact sinned. If he had never sinned, if he “were justified by works, he hath whereof to glorry . . . . Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoried of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:1-5).

Since many Christians in this generation are unacquainted with the Calvinist’s theory of imputed righteousness, perhaps some resource material will be of help.

In 1536 the first edition (and in 1559 the final one) of John Calvin’s famous work appeared, In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XI (“The Way We Receive The Grace of Christ”), Section 23 says,

“From this it is also evident that we are justified before God solely by the intercession of Christ’s righteousness. This is equivalent to saying that man is not righteous in himself but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation–something worth carefully noting. . . For in such a way does the Lord Christ share his righteousness with us that in some wonderful manner, he pours into us enough of his power to meet the judgment of God . . . . To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?”

Calvin tries to prove his theory by quoting, “For as by one mail’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall iliany be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Calvin thought Adam’s “disobedience” was imputed to us, and then, Christ’s “obedience.” Adam’s sin actually made only Adam guilty; our sin makes its guilty; it is true Adam’s one act of sin introduced sin and death into the world. Similarly, Christ’s one act of obedience brought forgiveness and life into the world. What was that obedience? “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God . . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body-of Jesus Christ once for all . . . . he . . offered one sacrifice for sins for ever” (Heb. 10:7-12). Down goes Calvin’s theory!

Protestant Reformation “divines” further systematized many of Calvin’s theories in The Westminister Confession of Faith of 1647. Chapter XI, Section I says,

“Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing (Sic) wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them. . .”

The Westminister Shorter Catechism of 1647 asks in question 33, “What is justification?” The answer given is, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.”

Presbyterian and Baptist churches have been especially noted for perpetuating these theories of Calvin. The Baptist Encyclopedia of 1881, Vol. I, as well as many modern Baptist publications, contain such statements as (under the heading “Justification”), “He imputes or reckons his righteousness to every one of them, and it becomes their own just as really as if they had ‘wrought it out’ for themselves.” “By the righteousness of Christ we are to understand his complete submission to the precepts and penalties of the law of God, his perfect earthly obedience . . . ; these he places the credit of each member of his elect family.” The Constitution of The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1960) contains the Westminister Confession and Shorter Catechism as quoted above.

In recent years, some brethern have imbibed these theories. Discussing “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God,” one brother said, “Because of His obedience, those who are in Him can be saved although they do never achieve perfect obedience themselves.” “But there is a sphere where sin is not imputed to the sinner and that sphere is in Christ.” “Christ is . . . a representative law-keeper who justifies others by His obedience” (Edward Fudge, Gospel Guardian, Feb. 12, 1970). Brethern are applying Calvin’s theory to those who use instrumental music in worship, centralization and institutionalism in church organization, social-gospel-ism, and such doctrines as premillennialism. With Calvin’s theory, concepts of unity and grace can be broadened to include such erring brethren.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 698-700
November 4, 1976

By Arthur M.Ogden

God’s revelation is so beautiful; so marvelous, Its bits and pieces so entwined that every partial of it fits harmoniously together to make one complete embodiment of truth. If this were not true, we could never determine when one was teaching the truth, but since every jot and tittle of the truth harmonizes, we can know the truth and expose error. Any position taken on any Bible passage that does not perfectly harmonize with every other passage on that subject must be identified as a false position.

In this study, I want us to take a good look at 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in its context, and its relationship to other passages which deal with the same subject, in order that we might harmonize it with all that the Bible says on the subject, and be consistent in our conclusions. Paul said, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Those who would forbid Christian women from teaching classes of other women or children quote this passage loud and long. It is their sugar stick. They want to leave the impression that Paul is saying, “I suffer not a woman to teach, period.” They know as well as I, that it cannot be so. It must be qualified. If it were not qualified, Christian women could not sing (Col. 3:16), be teachers of good things (Tit. 2:3), teach their children (2 Tim. 1:5), or even teach as Priscilla did in Acts 18:26. If Paul was saying, “I suffer not a woman to teach, period,” then we have Christian women doing what Paul forbid. You can see that Paul’s statement must be qualified, but there is only one way to qualify it and harmonize it with all other passages on the subject, and that is to believe the Truth. The false teacher will never harmonize it by his position.

Thayer on Didasko

Some try to qualify it by qualifying the word didasko (to teach). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon is quoted to try and prove their contention. Thayer defines didasko, “(a) to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses. (b) To be a teacher (c) To discharge the office of teacher, conduct oneself as a teacher” (p. 144). Now, it should be remembered that though Thayer is an authority in his field, he is not an infallible authority, and when he cites a text as an example of the use of a word according to a given definition, as he cites 1 Timothy 2:12 in conjunction with (a), he is giving his personal opinion as to its use in that given text. Thayer did not understand 1 Timothy 2:12 any more than any other false teacher. By giving this restricted meaning to didasko in this text, he sought to solve his problem. But Thayer understood that didasko meant more than the above definition. He further defines it, “to impart instruction, instil doctrine into one. . . . Col. 3.16; to explain, expound, a thing; to teach one something.” You see, didasko means all of this, and Thayer knew this, but he seeks to give the meaning of words as he understands them to be used in given texts. It should be noted, however, that if Thayer misunderstood a text, he might well misunderstand the use of a given word in that text.

I suggest that the majority of the world’s greatest Greek scholars have not agreed with Thayer’s use of didasko in 1 Timothy 2:12. There are hundreds of them in (he translations and more than two-thirds of them recognized that the rendering of didasko as “to teach” was the correct rendition in this text. Surely, if didasko had had the restricted meaning that Thayer gives it for this text, they would have known it, and would have translated it accordingly, but they did not so translate it. The word means “to teach” and that is the way they translated it.

Look at Thayer’s definition again. Note (a) “to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses.” One would get the impression from that definition, that Thayer is talking about preaching a sermon. Maybe he intended to leave that impression, but if you will check the words “didactic” and “discourse” you will find that these words identify any logical line of reasoning that is “intended to instruct.” Now, think about it. Isn’t that what we do when we sing spiritual songs (Col. 3:16)? Isn’t that the way Eunice and Lois taught Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5), and the way Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26)? Surely, all of that teaching was “intended to instruct.

Thayer’s second definition is (b) “to be a teacher.” The very thing that Paul commands the aged women to be in Titus 2:3. He said they were to be “teachers of good things.” You see, you cannot qualify 1 Timothy 2:12 by Thayer’s definition. The same is true of his third definition.

Other Qualifications

When false teachers use Thayer’s definition to qualify the passage, they realize that they have forbidden women to be teachers in the Public School System, so they must qualify it even further. They then say 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are parallel passages and both apply “in the church.” We sing in the church, don’t we? So, therefore, according to this false position women cannot sing “in the church.” Also, since false teachers seek to qualify the text by in the church, they leave the door open for women to teach and usurp authority over men at any time and place that is not described as in the church. I tell you, they cannot harmonize 1 Timothy 2:11-12 with the Bible. They cannot harmonize it with their own teaching.

To further qualify their false position on 1 Timothy 2:12, false teachers will say that a woman is not to be a teacher in “any class the church may arrange.” This is supposed to permit women to teach by example, teach her children, be a teacher of good things, and even teach as Priscilla did in helping to teach Apollos, as long as the church does not arrange it. The problem wi(h it is, (1) Paul did not say it, and (2) it still will not permit women to sing in any grouping “the church has arranged.”

Recognizing that the above qualifications would not forbid Christian women from teaching any group that would not be described as “in the church” or “class the church may arrange,” false teachers are forced to further qualify it. They usually add in public or in worship. Even that addition will give them no comfort for it too prohibits women from singing (worship) in the public assemblies of the church.

All of these and other qualifications are put on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in an effort to sustain a false doctrine. Recently, in public debate, I charged my opponent with changing God’s Word to read: “But I suffer not a woman to teach (that is: be a teacher, deliver a didactic discourse), in the church, or in any class the church may arrange, or in public, or in worship; nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” He accepted (his and his and Mr. Thayer’s rendition of the passage. It certainly is not what the Bible says.

The Truth Harmonized

There can be no substitute for the truth. As stated in the firs[ paragraph of this article, the truth perfectly harmonizes with every partial of it. There is no lie of the truth (1 Jn. 2:21). When the truth on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is found, it too harmonizes perfectly with every other passage. Let us consider the context.

In the first seven verses of the chapter, Paul talks about God’s will for all men to be saved through Jesus Christ who died for all, and that he had been ordained to preach the gospel to them. In verse 8 he says, “I will therefore that men (Greek; andras, males) pray every where.” The nature of this statement in view of its context shows that women cannot pray every where. why? ‘The same reason women are told in verses 9-12 to (1) dress modestly, (2) “learn in silence with all subjection,” (3) not “to teach,” and (4) “nor to usurp authority over the man,” The reason is her relationship to man. She cannot pray everywhere because of her relationship to man (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1-16). She is to be in “subjection” (v. 11), and she is “not to usurp authority over the man” (v. 12). She cannot pray or teach in any capacity that causes her to violate her submission to man, but when she does not sustain a relationship to any inan, she cannot violate the passage. That is why she does not violate it when she teaches a class of other women or children. In these classes she does not have a relationship to men when teaching.

Paul then gives the reasons for the regulation. (1) “Adam was first formed,” and (2) “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (v. 13-14). The first reason is as old as Eve, arid the second nearly as Old (Gen. 3:16). From the beginning it was not so that wonian should violate and ignore their submission to man, and she niust not do so even today, but let us not dare to forbid christian women to do what they art commanded to do.

Women are commanded to sing (Col. 3:16), and they can do so as long as they do not violate their submission to man. Likewise, they can be teachers of good things, teach the younger wornen (Tit. 2:3-5), teach by example, teach their children (2 Tim. 1:5), and teach like Priscilla (Acts 18:26), and do it all without violating their submission to man and without exercising authority over man. That is the truth about it, and it is the only way 1 Timothy 2:11-12 can be harmonized with those passages teaching women to teach.

Next article: “Wells With Water.”

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 696-698
November 4, 1976

By Daniel H. King

The sentiment of skepticism and unbelief which pervades all of human society at the present time has a singular facet which has led to its appeal to a large segment of mankind. Strangely enough, that facet is that it leaves people oblivious to any purpose for existence. It may not sound as though this exactly jibes, but it is clear that the mail who is set on having his own way about things anyway is left with a free hand by such a sentiment. In fact, he is left to determine what he most wants to do with his own little span of mortality — that, even in the face of what every other individual wants to do with his. God does not even enter the picture.

There is no arguing the point that this is only a new form of license. It is different from the old forms in title and description only. Its effects are the same. Its contemporary title is “freedom,” but at a glance it is evident that it has formerly paraded under the designations “antinomianism” and “libertinisin.” In the past, as now, it has been the practice for such ideologies to undermine and then remove the thing which hindered its acceptance, Usually that has been the Bible or parts of it. In this case it involves the Bible and the One Who inspired it. The surgical removal of both from the consciences of men and women in our day has been successfully completed by, of all people, the “doctors” of the clerical profession. The success of the operation is evident all about us. People are now more than ever living with themselves in the center of their attention. Husbands, wives, parents, children, friends, country, and even religion, have given way to the preeminence of self. The past and the future are also put out of sight arid out of mind. The present is the going commodity. And, admittedly, all is well if the philosophy of our day is correct in assuming that there is no over-all, all-encompassing, all-engrossing purpose for the universe in general and man in particular, If this is true why should one be the least interested in anyone or anything except the all-important me in the all-important now.

By means of this applied philosophy the combined forces of religion have brought more genuine peril and misery upon humankind than ever a molten idol or apostate church dared to hope. Animated by it people go about from day to day undauntedly making decisions to lie to, steal from, cheat, rape, and even kill their fellow human beings when the other’s interests come into conflict with their own self-interests, Freed from the bonds of a so-called “out-dated” morality and motivated solely by beastly instincts, they prowl without pang of conscience or fear of destiny-alas, to their minds there is none. The religionists told them this when they compromised with current scientific theory and informed them that they were one with the animal kingdom, alike animals, and alike without future beyond the cessation of biological functioning. And, while platitudes and cliche’s are sufficient as motivation to acceptable moral behavior for the intellectual elite who peddle them to the rank and file they are an unsatisfactory substitute for religious law couched in divine imperatives the like of, “Thou shalt and “Thou shalt not. . .”

Why should we wonder that drugs and sex are the ,escape routes taken from the dog-eat-dog treadmill of life by so many of-our young? Why be surprised that the oldsters whose faith has been destroyed bury themselves in a grave of alcohol or materialism? And, when either finds that none of these offer any real repose, why are we shocked at suicide as an inviting alternative to the depressing aimlessness and purposelessness of it all? On the whole they are left a bit like the female salmon that has struggled long and hard to make her journey upstream to the place of her origin. She deposits her eggs and her purpose in the ongoing process of nature has been accomplished. She travelled the long distance to procreate, and having done so she swims about aimlessly, waiting to die. That’s all there is left for her. Similarly, to their hurt and to the hurt of the rest of society, that is all there is left for too large a portion of the world’s population today.

And, realistically now, is there any logical reason why Iliev should. not act like the lower creatures in their daily intercourse with their fellows? Their pupose in living has,been ascertained by their “intellectual” and “spiritual” leaders to be no higher-nor more noble than that of animals. What could be a possible reason for their making daily decisions in tune with any standard other than the biological urge or personal ambition which manifests itself at the time the decision is made? In light of !he presuppositions under which they operate, obviously there is none. Man enters the world selfishly crying out for nourishment and comfort for himself and usually leaves it wishing for more life for himself. During the interim why should he make moral decisions with anything in mind except his own personal gratification? If there is nothing outside of and superior to himself demanding of his attention and intention, then he should not. (And by “superior” we mean superiority in his estimation of it, whether in power or in worth or both). If he is going to practice selflessness there must be something in it for him (at least to get him started). All talk of selflessness or selfless action is just so much hogwash without an attendant conviction which makes even this a matter of personal gratification, This is a coarse reality, but it is simply true that practical (not theoretical) morality is unworkable without an undergirding “ulterior motive” to make it operable. In the past that motive was to enjoy heaven and avoid hell, with a vacillating primacy to the one or the other. With this motivation stripped away by the clerics themselves, however, men just will not be bounded by platitudes. The motivation is gone. So is absolute moral law. What is left is not very pretty to look at-and even worse to live with.

But it is all too clear that morality, goodness, justice, and the multitude of other excellent virtues that we love in others have their place in all of us and in the larger purpose of the universe as a whole. Furthermore, the ugly vices and malignities that we regard as contemptible in others: greed, haired, cruelty, etc., have no rightful place in either and serve only to thwart the worthy goal for which the creation evidences that it was brought into being. Notwithstanding the clarity of these truths, men live on in a haphazard fashion. It is even ludicrous to entertain the notion that they will not continue to lull themselves into aimlessness by promoting the idea that it is all a Grand Enigma, even though all of logic and reason (and even the very existence of logic and reason) militate against this comfortable illusion. The simple reason for this is that they like it better, nonsensical though it be. Meaninglessness is the basis upon which their philosophy of life is based as well as the reason that life can be exploited in pursuit of self-interest. Purpose and order, on the other hand, demand a moral standard in keeping with purposeful existence. Standards in the moral sphere enjoin restrictions and limitations. Enigma is therefore the much-to-be-preferred alternative.

Contrariwise, when we ask the seminal question “why?”, and answer it with “God!”, then all of the parts of the puzzle fall into place for us-even my part. Genuine virtue does not have to be legislated for us be human governments. We do not have to be cajoled into it by empty platitudes. Instead, virtue and right action is viewed by us as a functionary in a Grand Scheme in which we all play a real and important role. Those who do not take their cues are “wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 13). They are without purpose, unguided. And, the man is an utter fool who thinks that he can stimulate them to virtue as a regular response without God and the Bible being the stimuli. The present state of things should be sufficient argumentation to satisfy any questioner of this point. Not until men recognize that they are creatures made in the image of the eternal, benevolent, and glorious God (Gen. 1:27), and that all other people are alike fashioned in His image will they be able truly to love and respect their neighbors as they do themselves. Not until they see that their every decision for good or for evil is cosmic and eternal both in its significance and its consequence will they learn to make their judgements based on an external moral standard set up and enforced by One who loves them and has their best interest always in mind (1 John 5:3). And, not until men view their lives as filled with purpose and intent (Psa. 139:16) by God Who by His grace and mercy has granted them their few days of sojourn will they want to use them up in the pursuit of anything except self-interest (Eccl. 12:13).

Indeed, God is the Reason for it all. He is both the Ultimate Cause of everything and the Reason for the continuance of all that is. This world is riot without purpose and neither are we. Is God the Supreme Factor that motivates your every decision? Is His Word the standard for your conduct? Remember, you have a part in His Grand Scheme–and life would be, is, and always will be aimless without Him. If you do not believe that, then merely open your eyes and take a good look around you. Unknowing witnesses testify on every side. The aimlessness of their lives stands as a stark testimony to this principle. “Reverence God and observe His commandments; because this is the whole purpose of man.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 694-696
November 4, 1976