Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

According to Greek mythology, Achilles, hero of the Trojan War, had been dipped at birth in the river Styx that he might thus be rendered safe from injury in battle. His mother Thetis, the sea goddess, held him by his heel to perform the operation; hence his whole body was covered by the water of the river except the heel by which he was held. This proved to be his undoing, for later in battle he was struck in that very heel by an arrow from the bow of Paris, son of Priam, inflicting upon him a mortal wound.

Ketcherside’s unity-fellowship theory, unlike Achilles, has, not one, but many vulnerable spots, however none is so exposed to view nor so susceptible of refutation as his concept concerning baptism. It is a veritable “heel of Achilles.” Not only does baptism give Ketcherside himself serious difficulties, but also it is a source of trouble and embarrassment to those who attempt to adopt and follow the Ketchersidean line. Attention has been called to the fact in a previous article. Recently, Brother Ketcherside has begun a series of articles in his propaganda medium, Mission Messenger, designed to explain his position and answer questions, which he says were posed in a taped interview with a group of young college students. In the May, 1973, issue, he has an article entitled, “Baptism and Brethren.” In this article, as in most of what he writes, like so many other false teachers, he complains bitterly of being misunderstood and misrepresented. Why is it that a false teacher is never understood and invariably misrepresented? This effort to explain his views is a masterpiece of double-talk. Never have I encountered more hedging, equivocation, and temporizing, and downright self-contradiction than did I in the reading of this article.

The Background of Ketcherside’s Dilemma

Ketcherside makes much in his speaking and writing of the fact that we are all sinners saved by grace, and that no one has perfect knowledge of the Divine will or is characterized by flawless execution of that will. He insists that all of us “are brethren in error,” that “he has no other kind of brethren.” From these premises, he concludes that “fellowship” obtains despite these errors on the basis of Divine grace and not on the basis of conformity to Divine truth in faith and practice.”

Yet, our apostle of sweetness, our ambassador of “brotherhood,” is unwilling to accept his own conclusion in its ultimate application. He hedges and equivocates, He insists there must be proper views of the deity and lordship of Jesus, proper moral practice, proper attitude toward the unity of God’s people (antipartyism), and proper practice relative to the action of baptism-the individual must be “immersed as a confirmation of his belief” in the deity and lordship of Jesus. In other places, he says one must be baptized “as an act of obedience to God” without regard to any other design or purpose. In our next article, this shall be dealt with at some length.

Participation in Saving, Divine Grace Not Unconditional

Ketcherside recognizes that participation in the saving grace of God is not unconditional in the following statements:

False Reports

“2. You are aware, are you not, that a number of brethren are saying that you claim to be in fellowship with anyone who is a believer in Christ, regardless of whether such a person has been baptized or not?” (Question purportedly posed by college students JWA.)

“I am probably more aware of it than you are, but it does not bother me except as I feel compassion for those who prefer to engage in falsehood rather than reporting the truth. But I am older than you and I have long since learned that a lot of preaching brethren are not too trustworthy in repeating the views of another, especially if they tend to differ with him and would like to see him wiped out. I am glad that I will be judged by the Lord instead of by preachers, for if they get control of the judgment we are all sunk.”

“My position now is, and always has been, that obedience to the gospel, that is acquiescence in the truth and credibility of the seven great historical facts related to Jesus of Nazareth, and immersion in water as a recognition of His Lordship over life, introduces one into that fellowship to which we are called by the wonderful grace of God. My position is identical with that of Alexander Campbell, that the belief of one fact, and the obedience of one act as a confirmation of that belief, is all that is required for entrance into the glorious family of the Father of spirits” (Mission Messenger, May, 1973, pp. 65, 66).

One of the favorite devices of the cagey editor of the Mission Messenger in speaking and writing is the diverting of the minds of those he addresses from the real issue by dragging “red herrings” into the discussion. Nothing illustrates this better than his constant emphasis of the fact that salvation is a matter of Divine grace. No informed preacher or teacher of New Testament truth would think of denying that Divine grace, mercy, and love constitute the basis of the procurement of the sinner’s salvation through the sacrificial death of Jesus. None known to me among the brethren believes or teaches that the sinner procures his own salvation through the merit of fleshly birth and subsequent fleshly circumcision, the merit of natural religion or human morality, or even the merit of perfect compliance with Divine law. However, all faithful brethren of my acquaintance believe and teach that the enjoyment of personal salvation (remission of sins and acceptance with God now and eternal life with God hereafter) is conditioned upon obedience to the gospel which brings one into the realm of saving grace and faithfulness not sinless perfection-to Christ in doctrine and life which keeps one in the realm of saving grace.

Ketcherside constantly ridicules the idea that a clear understanding of the teaching of Christ through his apostles concerning worship, organization and work of the Lord’s disciples plus a faithful practicing of the Lord’s will in these realms have anything whatsoever to do with the fellowship and unity of those disciples in the one body of Christ. He is almost, but not quite, like our Baptist friends who insist that becoming a Christian is conditional, but remaining a Christian is unconditional entering the realm of saving grace conditional, but remaining in the realm of saving grace unconditional. Our erring brother enters a two-point demurrer to the latter of these two concepts. He insists that entrance into the “fellowship of Christ” is conditional and remaining in that fellowship unconditional with two exceptions: (1) immorality; (2) partyism.

The Inconsistency of this Position

In developing his thesis, Ketcherside has much to say about those who use the mechanical instrument of music in Christian worship believing in “the lordship of Jesus,” the idea being that their use of the instrument is no denial of His lordship because they profess to honor it. On this ground, he enjoys complete fellowship with members of the Christian Churches and is often featured as a speaker in their gatherings. On the other hand, as the quotation from Mission Messenger demonstrates, Ketcherside teaches immersion to be essential to a complete surrender of one’s life to the lordship of Jesus.

I know thousands of people who are as sincere as Ketcherside or any member of a Christian Church on earth who verily believe sprinkling to be scriptural baptism and, on that basis, practice it religiously. These people profess to honor the lordship of Jesus as fervently and sincerely as do members of Christian Churches, hence were I to accept Ketcherside’s point of view relative to the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship, I would have to concede that sprinkling is no bar to Christian fellowship, and so must Ketcherside if he is to be consistent. He must accept the pious unimmersed. In such case, the report concerning him who he so decries would be abundantly correct. His lack of consistency is the only thing that keeps the report from being wholly accurate. Our crusading ecumenist needs to recognize that a practical denial of the lordship of Jesus is quite as reprehensible as a theoretical denial. Paul said, “They profess they know God; but in works they deny him (Tit. 2:16).

Ketcherside Acknowledges the Difficulty

Our brother recognizes the force of this objection to his theory and spends more than half of the article to which reference has been made addressing himself to the removal of the difficulty. As usual, he drags every “red herring” he can think of across the path of the discussion to throw his pursuers off the trail. He pictures those who oppose him by raising objections to his concepts as “Church of Christ” querists asking “typical Church of Christ questions” which emanate from their “legalistic approach to God’s grace.” Having unburdened his loving (?) heart of his thinly-veiled contempt for those who have been his brethren, he proceeds to charge these spiritually-warped individuals with attempting to “forge a set of handcuffs for God” making it impossible for Him to extend mercy beyond law to take care of the salvation of sincere practitioners of sprinkling. (Has our friend forgotten that there are some things God cannot do? Heb. 6:18.) Yet, at the same time, he says, “Sprinkling is not baptism.” Furthermore, he makes baptism essential to the new birth, son ship, covenant relation, saving grace, and surrender to the Lordship of Jesus. All of this is to me a species of spiritual schizophrenia.

After making the usual completely inconclusive and presumptuously speculative arguments on what others have called “the uncovenanted mercies of God,” designed to extend hope to the sincerely disobedient, Ketcherside disclaims at great length any intention on his part to decide whom God will save. He then makes a distinction between those whom Ketcherside will ‘ fellowship on earth and those whom God may see fit to permit to enter heaven (Op. cit., pp. 66-75).

Conclusion

As I said in the beginning, Ketcherside’s article takes first prize for temporizing, hedging, equivocation, and self-contradiction. None of what is said actually deals forthrightly with the point of inconsistency involved in Ketcherside’s recognizing a state of fellowship as existing between him and members of Christian Churches and refusing to recognize such a state as existing between him and sincere practitioners of sprinkling for baptism. If the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship without scriptural authority is no bar to fellowship because it does not antagonize the Lordship of Jesus by reason of the fact that its users profess to honor His Lordship, why should the practice of sprinkling for baptism be a bar to fellowship when its practitioners profess to honor the Lordship of Jesus and sincerely believe that in being sprinkled they are in fact doing the will of Christ from the heart? This is the question, and Ketcherside touches it not, top, side, nor bottom!

For the record, I do not sit in judgment on the eternal destiny of the soul of any member of a Christian Church because of his use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship, nor do I sit in judgment on the eternal destiny of the soul of any paedobaptist who sincerely practices sprinkling for baptism on the ground of that practice. This is not the point. The point is: I believe both practices to be contrary to the revealed will of Christ-one corrupting an appropriating condition of salvation, the other an act of Divine worship. I believe both of these practices constitute practical denials of the Lordship of Jesus; hence I cannot regard those who use them as being faithful and in a state of fellowship with Christ. I must regard both as being in a state of disobedience to Christ. Therefore, I cannot regard myself as being in fellowship with either of these classes of people as faithful children of God, hence cannot engage in any religious activity with them which would in my judgment constitute a recognition of them as such. To do so would involve me in a compromise of the principles of truth that are involved in our divergent beliefs and practices. In my sincere judgment, this is precisely what is involved in 2 John 9, 10 where fellowship is forbidden, Ketcherside’s exegesis to the contrary notwithstanding. I shall deal in a later article with this passage of Scripture when I discuss the kerygnia and the didache in the light of Ketcherside’s views concerning them.

I am by no means through with Ketcherside and baptism, but further discussion must wait until my next article, “The Achilles’ Heel of the New Unity Cult No. 2.” In the meantime, I recommend that our readers obtain and read Mission Messenger, “Baptism and Brethren,” May 1973. The writer of this article reminds me of the cavalryman who upon being advised that the enemy was approaching “jumped on his horse and rode off in all directions at the same time.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 36, pp. 3-6
July 19, 1973

By Mason Harris

It is said that after Thomas Carlyle took Ralph Waldo Emerson through the dark streets of London, with its sin, he asked, “Do you believe in the Devil now?” In our own day listen to die news or read the daily paper if you need proof of the, Devil’s existence.

Not only does he exist, Peter says, “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour.” Naturalists have observed that a lion roars when he is aroused with hunger, for then he is most fierce, and most eagerly seeks his prey. And under the figure of a hungry lion, Peter pictures the devil at work among people. And what defense does man have in the presence of such a foe? James said, “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (1:7)

The strategy for overcoming the devil begins in the submission of self unto God. We are to yield to what he has judged necessary for our welfare in the, life that is, and our salvation in the life to come. The object of the command here is to show how we might obtain the grace, which God is willing to bestow, and how we might overcome the evils against which we have been warned.

The strategy for overcoming the devil continues by resisting him, and this is with the assurance that the devil will flee. While we are to yield to God in all things, we are to yield to the devil in nothing. We are to resist and oppose him in whatever way lie may approach us, whether by allurements, by flattering promises, by the fascinations of the world, by temptations, or by threats.

The true way of meeting him is by direct resistance, rather than by argument; by steadfast refusing to yield in the slightest degree, rather than by a belief that we can either convince him that he is wrong, or can return to virtue when we have gone a certain length in complying with his demands. No one is safe who yields in the least to the suggestions of the Tempter. Place yourself under the, protecting arm of God. He is faithful and will not allow you to be tempted above that which you are able to overcome. (1 Cor. 10:13)

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 36, p. 2
July 19, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother J. D. Tant used to warn and exhort, “Brethren, we are drifting.” The late and lamented W. W. Otey once wrote a lengthy series of articles on “Trends.” The practice of these men does not establish the way of truth, but their admonition to beware of gradually slipping away (“drifting”) from the truth is scriptural. Today, however, we are hearing the sound of a different drum. We are told not to worry about “where some are headed.” We are not to charge others with tendencies or leanings in the wrong direction. We are urged to leave a wandering one alone lest he be turned to error. Do not fire at him, wait until he goes into complete apostasy, or else you may spur him prematurely into digression. Some advice that is! Sublime counsel! It is neither sensible, practical, nor godly. immediately, I ‘am branded a legalistic, vindictive mote seeker. So be it. But mark this down. When one pleads for tolerance he may justly deserve mercy, reserve, and understanding. Fine, he should receive it, but occasionally one asks for a cease-fire so he can continue his trend to error unimpeded. That is the bird to keep your eye on.

New Testament Trends

1. Hebrews: “For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Heb. 2: 1). “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called to day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:12, 13). “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by it many be defiled” (Heb. 12:15). The book of Hebrews was written to smother a trend, a deadly direction into which some were headed. This can be shown in the author’s statement, “And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation” (Heb. 13:22). Some were on the verge of casting away their confidence and of drawing and drifting back unto perdition. So, the Hebrew writer exhorted them not to waver but to hold fast.

2. 2 Peter: Peter’s entire second epistle was written to those who were “established in the present truth.” The apostle, though, felt the need to stir them up by putting them in remembrance. Was he concerned about the way some might be headed? “Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17).

3. Acts 20:28-32: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, which after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.” Paul warned of “perverse things” (doctrines) designed to “draw away” disciples. Why did he not wait until the fact was evident? Why warn of the coming trend? Might he not “turn off” some with his language and “turn” them “on” to innovations? If he was worried about such a thing, this passage does not tell us. Rather, the passage reveals:

(1) That it is proper to call attention to error not yet present;

(2) That it is right to cite sources of potential danger;

(3) That it is correct to point out the results of imminent arisings of error.

Dangers Of Holding Fire

Hesitating to expose a movement or a trend has several drawbacks. First, it allows a person to become hardened. He may be redeemable and retrievable if reproved early, but if allowed to go unchecked, he may be “hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” Second, it permits a little leaven to penetrate and permeate a whole lump. If one is allowed to drift he may lead astray “whole houses,” whereas, if his mouth is stopped early, his influence is stifled. Third, it condemns those who allow the drifter to slip away, for “his blood,” God says, “will I require at thine hand” (Ezek. 3:17-21). Fourth, it establishes a precedent that encourages drifting. Anything that is tolerated ceases to be odious. Others drift and no concern is expressed. Drifting is not so bad after all, thus, we unwittingly set the stage for our own drifting, departure, and damnation.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 35, pp. 12-13
July 12, 1973

By Eugene Britnell

The Sermon on the Mount is truly the masterpiece of the ages. It was delivered by one whose ability, as a teacher was so great that he was frequently called “The Teacher.” We cannot question the clarity, sincerity, practicality and authority by which he spake. Concerning this great sermon, the multitude said, “He taught as one having authority.” (Matt. 7:29.) The thunders from the summit of Mount Sinai proclaiming the Ten Commandments form a striking contrast to the gentle voice of Jesus from the mountain in Galilee proclaiming the religion of blessedness. Jesus began this sermon with a series of blessings or “beatitudes.” Our lesson is to deal with the third of these – “Blessed are the meek.”

Meekness Defined

The Greek word “praos” translated “meek” in our text is thus defined by the authorities: “Meek, gentle, kind, forgiving, Matt. 5.5; mild, benevolent, humane.” (Analytical Greek Lexicon, P. 340.) “Gentle, mild, meek.” (Thayer, p. 534.) “Gentle, kind, not easily provoked, ready to yield rather than cause trouble: but not used in the Bible in the bad sense of tamely submissive and servile.” (Cruden’s Concordance, P. 424.) “Mild of temper; patient under injuries; long suffering. Gentle. Kind.” (Webster.)

So when the Lord pronounced a blessing upon the meek, he had in mind that character that would be kind, gentle, forgiving and humble; one who would “go the second mile” and “be defrauded” rather than possess the spirit of personal retaliation. As we shall see later, he does not expect the meek to allow truth to suffer and be perverted at the hands of unholy men, but rather to defend it and “fight the good fight of faith.”

Meekness is rather the attitude of the soul toward another when that other is in a state of activity toward it. It is the attitude of the disciple to the teacher when teaching; of the son to the father when exercising his parental authority; of the servant to the master when giving him orders. It is therefore essentially as applicable to the relation of man to God as to that of man to man. Meekness toward God necessarily issues in meekness toward men. It is not meekness in the relation of man to man barely stated, of which Christ here speaks, but meekness in the relation of man to man with its prior and presupposed fact of meekness in the relation of man to God.

Meekness is patience in the endurance of injuries with the belief that God will vindicate us and with the attitude that we are willing to wait for that time. Both Jesus and Paul set fine examples of meekness or patience in the endurance of suffering, willing to wait the Father’s good time to vindicate them. Some look upon meekness as cowardice or the surrender of our rights to others, but it takes more courage to be meek than it does to fight for our rights. A deeper appreciation of the meaning of meekness can be seen when we consider that it is associated with lowliness (Eph. 4:2.), a quiet spirit (1 Pet. 3:4), and gentleness. (Titus 3:2.)

Meekness Exemplified

Moses: Concerning this great man of God we read, “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.” (Num. 12:3.) The meekness of this man consisted

(a) Not in the absence of temper, but in the control of it. The word rendered “meek” is the word used by the Greeks to describe a colt when it has been harnessed and broken.

(b) Not in timidity, but in able and aggressive leadership of God’s people.

(c) In forbearance toward his enemies and oppressors.

(d) In submission, without complaint, to God’s plan even though it thwarted his personal ambition. (See Deut. 34.)

Jesus: From a study of Deut. 18:15 and many other passages we learn that Jesus was to be like Moses in many ways. Meekness was a characteristic of both. Meekness and lowliness of heart are the only qualities that he claimed for himself. “For I am meek and lowly in heart.” (Matt. 11.29.) In his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, he is described as being meek. “Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, Meek, and riding upon an ass. And upon a colt the foal of an ass.” (Matt. 21:5.) This was a fulfillment of prophecy. In 2 Cor. 10: 1, Paul speaks of the “meekness and gentleness of Christ.”

As diametric as it may seem, and as hard as it may seem for us to comprehend it, the Book says that Christ possessed the characteristics of both the lamb and the lion. First, let us consider him as a lamb. When John saw Jesus coming unto him, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1: 29.) In his unjust trial and crucifixion on the cross, he fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy, which described the slaughter of a lamb. The passage referred to (Isa. 53.) described his vicarious death, his submissiveness, his humility and meekness. No animal could better demonstrate those characteristics in Christ than a little lamb.

But let us not forget that he was also “the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah.” (Rev. 5:5.) Under some forms of attack he was a lamb, but when the enemies of God began to pervert and fight against Truth, he turned lion in his opposition to their evil works. Hear him as he rebukes the scribes and Pharisees. (Matt. 23.) Six times in that chapter he called them “hypocrites” and once he referred to them as “blind guides.” Of course he knew the hearts of men, but this doesn’t sound too much like a lamb, does it? Why did he thus speak? Because he was fighting sin and hypocrisy. His action in the temple of God (Matt. 21.) is another example of his firmness in dealing with sin.

Remember, it was in the Sermon on the Mount that he pronounced a blessing upon the meek. But in that same sermon he pointed out the one way to God (7:14; Cf. Jno. 14:6), warned against false prophets (7:15) and condemned all who would call him “Lord, Lord” but obey not the things, which he commanded. Since he left us an example that we should follow him (I Pet. 2:21), we conclude that we are to do the same today, and such is not “fighting” or “judging” but the work of true meekness and love.

As we sum up the life of Jesus, we find the following:

(a) Toward the fallen he was not harsh, but gentle.

(b) He was not a spineless man, but a courageous leader as was Moses.

(c) He suffered much wrong, but did no wrong; he was not vengeful, but forgiving.

(d) Like Moses, he yielded to God’s will though it led to his death. (John 5:30)

Paul: Another great character in whom we see a true picture of meekness was the apostle Paul. Like Moses and Christ, he was meek but firm. Paul gives us this description of himself: “Now I Paul myself entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I who in your presence am lowly among you, but being absent am of good courage toward you.” (2 Cor. 10: 1) Note that he claimed to possess the two outstanding characteristics of Christ – meekness and lowliness. I am confident that he was both in the fullest sense that it is possible for a human to be. Yet in verse 2 of the same chapter he said he was bold and in verse 3 he said he (and all Christians) are engaged in war. Can one be meek and lowly and at the same time be bold and aggressive? Certainly he can. In verse 5 he describes the type of war in which he and all Christians are engaged. “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”

In 1 Cor. 4:21, Paul asked the Corinthians: “What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?” Here again we see both the lion and the lamb. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians (5:23) he listed “meekness” as a fruit of the Spirit. In addition to being meek himself, he taught his brethren to be. But we see from this same letter that meekness did not preclude firmness and aggressiveness. In verse 8 of the first chapter be called down the anathema of heaven upon those who would dare pervert the gospel of Christ. In verses 4 and 5 of chapter two we see that neither he nor the Galatians compromised with nor tolerated the work of Judaizing teachers. In verse 11 of the same chapter we see Paul in his meekness as he resisted and condemned Peter to his face. And he did not call him off into a corner and whisper it into his ear for verse 14 shows that he reprimanded him “before them all.” Some brethren of today think it is wrong to publicly call names and rebuke brethren for their false teaching, unscriptural works and liberal attitudes. But it is not. If Paul could do so and be meek, so can we. The same principle can be seen in his letter to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 4:2, he admonished them to be meek, but in verses 10-17 of chapter six he told them to put on the armor of God and fight the fight of faith. And yet all of this is in harmony with true meekness.

Meekness Vs. Weakness

One may be meek and militant at the same time. As we have seen by numerous examples in this study, one does not have to be weak in order to be meek. Weakness is not meekness and meekness is not weakness. One may be truly meek and yet be strong in those things, which demand strength. Or one may be very strong in some ways and lack true meekness. Jesus was meek, yet he had power over self, the heavens, the earth, sin, sickness and the gates of Hades. Violate the principles of his Father’s will and he was the Lion of the tribe of Judah; revile and abuse him personally and he was the lamb dumb before his shearer. The man who is truly meek is not interested in getting praise for himself, but in seeing God’s will done regardless of the cost to him for he knows that herein lies not only his strength but that of the church and all righteousness. No, one does not have to have a backbone like a wet noodle in order to be meek.

The Reward

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” The promise connected with this blessing has been the object of much discussion and controversy in the religious world. The Premillennialist reads it and finds comfort in thinking it helps substantiate the theory of premillennialism. He interprets it to mean that Christ will reign with the meek on this literal earth for one thousand years. But it does not mean that. In 2 Peter 3: 10 we read: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Since this shows that the literal earth shall be destroyed, obviously Christ did not mean the meek shall inherit this earth.

Among the lower forms of life, the meek are inheriting the land, while the vicious are vanishing. Among the nations of the earth, the meek are surviving while the cruel and lustful are fading. The Old Testament promised that certain ones would inherit the earth. (See Psalms 25:13; 37:9, 11). To those under the Law, such a promise referred to the land of Canaan, and the land came to be looked upon as a type of all blessings. It seems the Lord had reference to his spiritual kingdom, of which “the land” of Canaan was a type. The meek shall not become the actual title-holders of the land (Luke 12:15); but they shall come into the real enjoyment of the things of God; they have a greater capacity for enjoyment. Divine protection and contentment are theirs. Eventually, they shall enter the heavenly land or country; that spiritual “earth” whose builder and maker is God.

Let us therefore be meek: In the reception of the word (Jas. 1:21); in teaching the word (2 Tim. 2:25); in restoring the erring (Gal. 6: 1); in reciting a reason for the hope we entertain in our hearts. (1 Peter 3: 15)

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 35, pp. 6-9
July 12, 1973