Truth Magazine

By Grant B. Caldwell

Points in the life of Christ go as far toward proving him to be the Son of God as do any other forms of proof. Two particular points the virgin birth and the miracles-must be viewed and understood and believed in order to have a true understanding of the Sonship of Jesus Christ.

The Virgin Birth

Modernists have been endeavoring for some time, now to explain away the virgin birth and the New Testament teaching on the matter. But try as they will, the Bible affirms that Jesus Christ was to be and was born of a virgin. By this, we simply mean that it was a matter of prophecy, and Jesus fulfilled that prophecy.

Prophecy: There could perhaps be several ways of discussing the virgin birth of Christ, but it would seem best to simply look at the advance notice made by God concerning the matter and then note how He carried out the matter.

Perhaps the first reference to this event is made at the time when it became obvious that man would need a redeemer. In Genesis, 3 -15, after man had fallen from his state of bliss and the Lord was ready to predict the one who would bruise the head of the great enemy of man, it is stated that this victor would be of the “seed of woman.” This is strange language in which to refer to a human being — strange even for the Bible. It is customary to refer to the seed from the male and not the female.

The most forceful of all the prophecies, however, is the one found in Isaiah 7:14. “Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.” The scholarship of our day often seems to gain great enjoyment from ridiculing and finally rejecting the virgin birth. They affirm that the word translated “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 only means a young woman and not necessarily a virgin. There are three Hebrew words that indicate a young female. Two of the words do not necessarily mean a virgin. However, the third word Almah- (used seven times including Isaiah 7:14) always means A young virgin.

Should we grant for the sake of argument that the word only means “a young woman,” the passage would no longer make sense. The prophet said that this would be “a sign.” How is a young woman bearing a child a sign? Young women do that every day and there is nothing significant about it. But it is indeed unusual for a woman who is a virgin to bring forth a child.

Fulfillment: In the first chapter of Matthews gospel, he gives the account of the fulfillment of these prophecies. Matthew states several key points of consideration:

1. This was before Joseph and Mary came together. (vs. 18)

2. Joseph wanted to put Mary away for he knew the child was not his. (vs. 19)

3. The angel said that the baby was of the Holy Ghost. (vs. 20)

4. Matthew regards this as the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. (vs. 22)

Some have said that this tale was invented by Joseph and Mary to cover up for “their mistake” and that Jesus was simply illegitimate. This too makes no sense. Consider the facts. When Joseph found that the woman was with child, he was ready to put her away. If he and Mary had “come together” it would not have been a shameful thing, for they were espoused but because of custom had, not come together. It would have been no more than a violation of custom. Joseph never tried to hide anything and even allowed it to be thought that the child was his.

Paul further states that Christ was “made of a woman.” (Galatians 4:1-4) This could hardly be anything but a reference to his virgin birth.

Some have said that Jesus was a product of parthenogenesis. This is simply virgin or self reproduction. One professor at a certain university went to great lengths to argue this point. It should be noted, however, that this form of reproduction has never been known in higher life forms, much less in man. And besides this, genetically Christ would probably have been a woman if parthenogenesis was the method of his conception.

Too many today are following the reasoning of Harry Emerson Fosdick who said, “Of course I do not believe in the virgin birth or in that old-fashioned doctrine of the atonement and I do not know any intelligent Christian minister who does.” Maybe I am “old-fashioned” and I know I would not be classified by Mr. Fosdick as intelligent, but I believe in both. I will go one step further; if the minister does not believe in these, he is not a Christian.

The Miracles

No study of the divinity of Jesus would be complete without some discussion of the miracles he was credited with performing. Only one authorized by the God of heaven could heal the blind, cast out devils, raise the dead, cause the impotents to walk, and the leper to be pure. Jesus did all of this and more to prove that he was indeed the son of God.

In John 20:30-31, John said, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

In this brief resume of the proof of the sonship of Jesus based on his miracles, we would like to limit our investigation to a few of the miracles found in the Book of John. John writes this book, often referred to as the Gospel of Belief, with the specific purpose of proving through the miracles that Jesus is the Christ.

Examples: In John 2, the record of the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee is found. The report says that Jesus turned six water pots full of water into water pots full of good wine, wine better than had, been purchased for the occasion. The skeptic, of course, would deny this actually happening and probably label it as a fable. However, it should be noticed that this was no mean feast. With servants and a feast ruler, this surely was a party of size. Who would claim such an event as this, transpiring in an audience of such magnitude had it not actually happened? Material substances could not contain Jesus.

In John 4, he healed the Noblemans son. This he did without coming into the boys presence. He thus proved that distance could not contain him.

In John 5, we read concerning the man who bad been lame for thirty-eight years. Surely, there could be no doubt about this mans affliction. He was known to be an impotent fellow. Longevity could not contain Jesus.

In John 6, Christ fed the five thousand and persuaded them by this deed that he was from God. Lack of quantity could not contain him.

Also in John 6, Christ walked on the water, thus, proving that natural forces could not contain him.

In John 11, he raised Lazarus from the dead, showing that death could not contain him.

These few examples are cited to illustrate the power that Jesus used while here on earth. Christ affirmed that if people could not believe in him because of what he said, they could “believe me for the very works sake.” (John 14:11)

Modernists have openly and aggressively denied the miracles of Jesus. It seems foolish to me for someone who was not there to take it upon themselves to deny what they do not know. There is no record of anyone who was with Jesus denying that he performed these things. Oh, they denied the power by which he did them, but no one denied that be did the things lie claimed to do.

Testimony: Listen to those who were there. Nicodemus, “No man can, do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2) This man was a ruler of the Jews and John was willing to identify him. At the time of this writing, many would know whether or not such an event could have transpired.

The scribes said, “By the prince of devils casteth he out devils.” (Mark 3:22) Notice: They denied the power Christ claimed, but not the actual miracles.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, said “he performed many wonderful works.” So impressed was this man with Jesus that he thought it not right to call Jesus a man.

Jesus said, “The works that I do in my Fathers name, they bear witness of me.” (John 10: 25) Surely, only the Son of God could do the things that Jesus did. They prove him to be the Christ.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 37, pp. 5-7
July 27, 1972

By Cecil Willis

There are many passages that teach that brethren in the Lord should love one another. Let us all read carefully the following scriptures. “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if you have love one to another (Jno. 13:34, 35). Paul added, “Let love be without hypocrisy…. In love of the brethren be tenderly affectionate one to another” (Rom. 12:9, 10). Peter enjoined love also: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently” (I Pet. 1:22). Of course, the apostle of love had much to say on this subject. “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (I Jno. 4:7, 8). John also said, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for be that loveth not his brother whom he bath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also” (I Jno. 4:20, 21). The Hebrew writer used the words from which the title of this article is taken, “Let love of the brethren continue” (Heb. 13:1).

The tensions and conflicts among brethren the past two decades or so have severely tested our love one for another. Of course, some brethren think that the mere fact that we have any disagreements at all is evidence that we do not love one another. Others think that when a person mentions the name of a brother with whom he differs that brotherly love is absent. Actually, the brother who believes his brethren are in error and that their souls are jeopardized must seek to correct them. God loves us, and thus He corrects us and chastens us by His word.

But we have now for many years been engaged in heated conflict with many of our brethren. We all should have waged our battle on the basis of principles rather than merely against personalities, if we have not. There is no justification for character assassination of brother against brother. There is a manly and an honorable way in which to differ with a brother.

Unfortunately, not every person who has participated in the controversies, both past and present, has conducted himself as he should have. Neither has all the wrong been on one side. Possibly nearly all of us have, on some occasion, said or done something that is somewhat beneath the standard of acceptable conduct.

Every person who has been knowledgeable to the controversy could recite the occurrence of untoward incidents. I have known of occasions when brethren became so heated in their disagreements that they actually engaged in physical combat. How ridiculous can brethren get? Imagine, sinfully engaging in physical combat over a Bible subject. In a number of other instances, brethren have become so worked up and lost control of themselves so that they have shouted at one another, and in other instances pushed and shoved one another around. One preaching brother wrote me from the Philippines that a liberal brother had gotten after him “with a long barreled gun.” But again I state, all the sinful anger and reproachable conduct have not been on one side.

Sometimes brethren are downright childish in their reaction to another brother. At other times, perhaps the word asinine would better describe the dishonorable conduct. When I lived in Kansas City several years ago, we had a peculiar incident to occur. The congregation for which I was preaching had built and paid for a large highway sign. When the sign was put up, differences between brethren had not become so intense, so the names and addresses of another nearby congregation or two had also been given on the highway sign as a courtesy to the other congregations. After severe differences developed between congregations, you know what action someone took? Rather than asking us to remove the names and addresses of the other congregations from our sign, someone went out, and painted out the name of our congregation on our sign. That was an audacious and childish deed.

Another incident, about equally childish, just came to my attention. Last fall the Lennon Road church in Flint, Michigan conducted a ladies lectureship, whatever that implies. The small conservative church in Flint was also invited to attend, as I imagine were all the other congregations in the city of Flint. Sometime later, after someone had discovered that the invitation had been sent to the “Anti” church, Brother Andrew Ashlock, one of the Elders at Lennon Road church, wrote the following letter to the Ladies of the faithful 12th Street church in Flint: “Dear Ladies: You were mistakenly included on our mailing list for the Christian Ladies Lectureship. We did not intend to extend the invitation to you and we hope you understand that you would not be welcome at this event. We are sorrowfully and prayerfully yours.” Then the letter is signed “For the Elders” by Andrew Ashlock.

This is the kind of reproachable and childish action that we could so well do without. If I were one of the 5 Elders and twelve Deacons whose names appear on the letterhead, or “Minister” Kenneth Jarrett or “Missionary” E. Ray COX” I think I would want to apologize to the 12th Street church and to let them know that I was not a party to, nor in sympathy with, the childish letter signed by Elder Andrew Ashlock.

Disagreements among brethren are bad enough. Division in the Body of Christ is deplored by every right thinking person. But even in our sincere disagreements, and even when division becomes necessary in order to practice what one believes to be acceptable worship to God, at least we can be manly, honorable, and brotherly in our dealings with one another. Indeed, “let brotherly love continue.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 37, pp. 3-5
July 27, 1972

By C. D. Plum

“Faith is that which comes by hearing the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

“Opinion is what men think when the Word of God has not spoken.”

That God appeared to Moses in a burning bush is a matter of faith. It is written. (Ex. 3: 12). Why God appeared to Moses in a burning bush is a matter of opinion. Because the reason is not written. That Nicodemus came to Jesus by night is a matter of faith. It is written (Jno. 3:1-2). Why Nicodemus came to Jesus by night is a matter of opinion. Because the reason is not written.

Opinions Divide Brethren

It is some brethrens opinion that the church treasury may be used to support any good work. They say the college is a good work, so the money in the church treasury may be used to support such. This is an opinion. This is what men think when the Word of God does not speak. They lack scripture that would make such a statement a matter of faith. They may give you a reference to Galatians 6: 10, but they know when they do it that this scripture is describing individual action, and not church action. They give their opinion that what the individual can do, the church can do. It would be a matter of faith for me to support a widowed mother, but it would not be a matter of faith for the church to support my widowed mother. Here is individual action on my part that is right, but the same action on the churchs part would be sin. It is written, “Let not the church be charged” (I Tim. 5:16).

And some brethren will allow opinions to tear the church to pieces. No one that I know of denies brethren the right to have and to hold an opinion, to keep it to themselves. But when they go to teaching this publicly, or from person to person, that is a horse of a different color, and such will stir up a lot of balking and kicking. And the fellow that gets hurt is not always the opinion peddler, but the fellow who wants to “walk by faith” (2 Co. 5:7) and not by opinion. Persecution came to Jesus, and to the apostles, but they continued to walk by faith, and not by sight, or by opinion. I am not so good, or so little, that I shall accept error in order to get somebody off my back. I can still “fight the good fight of Faith.” And I am not ready or intending to surrender to error.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, p. 13
July 20, 1972

By Joe Neil Clayton

When God saved Israel from bondage in Egypt, He led them in the wilderness, and provided for them there. By miracles he protected them from enemies and gave them food to sustain their lives. He spoke laws to them directly and through Moses, and commanded them to heed these laws. Jude tells us, however, that “the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” (Jude 5). When Paul issues a similar warning to Christians, and illustrates it with a description of the sins of Israel, the accusations suggest monstrous sins, such as lust, idolatry, fornication, etc. However, we can be profitably enlightened, if we go back to the accounts of the actual events. We think that we do not need warnings against such terrible sins, but we may learn that we can easily imitate the Israelites, and receive the same condemnation.

For example, Paul says, “We should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” (I Co. 10:6). Without knowing the details of the actual sin, we might picture in our minds all sorts of morbid and sensual sins that could have been called lust. Yet, in fact, all they were guilty of was a desire for a change of diet! In Numbers 11:4-6, Moses records that the children of Israel “lusted exceedingly” for flesh to eat (mentioned is fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic). All they had to eat was the manna God sent each day. Later, they were to say, “Our soul loaths this light bread.” (Num. 21:5). Remember that these people began this trek into the desert on a 7-day diet of unleavened bread (Ex. 12:15). Ever since, die diet had been manna. For months, or even years, they had eaten nothing else, apparently. If we had been confined to such a diet, would we have “lusted” for a change? Certainly! We cannot condemn them, yet God charged them with sin, and “smote the people with a very great plague.” (Num. 11:33). So, the enormity (i the sin is not so apparent, when we view the circumstances. Our own lack of contentment and our restlessness could easily supply fertile ground to be tempted, as they were.

Again, Paul says, “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them.” (I Co. 10: 7). The same verse identifies the incident Paul had in mind. It was the making of the Golden Calf. But, when we think of Idolatry, we identify it with heathen worship of dumb images. We protest, then, to God that we are not like the heathen. Yet, we can be guilty of the idolatrous worship of God. It is revealing to notice that the worship of the Golden Calf was in the form of a “feast to Jehovah” (Ex. 32:5). The Israelites were not worshipping false gods. Rather, they worshipped Jehovah God by their own method. It must be an easy thing to do this, since so many religious people do it. The first time we worship God in some way other than His prescribed plan, we become idolaters.

The pattern of this warning runs true in the other faults of Israel. They were guilty of fornication, Paul says. Yet, what they actually did seems to relate more closely to our concept of idolatry. We abhor the thought of Christians defiling their bodies in sensual fornication, but Moses says that the fornication of Israel was spiritual; “. . . the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab: for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their Gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods” (Num. 25:1-2). This quotation from the American Standard Version casts a different light on the action. Their fornication was like that idolatrous worship described in Lev. 20:1-5. The man today who would shrink from joining his body with a harlot might make light of the sin of “exchanging the truth of God for a lie.” (Rom. 1:25).

Paul says that the Israelites “made trial of the Lord” (I Co. 10:9). We think that we would never deliberately “make trial” of the Lord, but we might if we had suffered the same discouragement they did. Moses says, “. . . the soul of the people was much discouraged, because of the way.” (Num. 21:4). They complained to the Lord because they were footsore, perhaps. We would have to walk over the same rough wilderness ground to test our own ability to resist the temptation to complain, probably, but it is likely that if we were honest, we would admit that we are made of the same fabric.

The “murmuring” mentioned by Paul (I Co. 10: 10) refers to the reaction of the people to the report of the spies sent to Canaan (Num. 13:25-14:2). The fears confronting them exceeded those left behind. Their faith to follow the Lord was weak. Can we be guilty of this? Of course, many Christians figuratively “return to Egypt” in their hearts after beginning the journey to heaven.

We see then that the warnings of Paul were not “far-fetched.” On the contrary, they touch on sins that we are capable of doing. “Wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (I Co. 10: 12). Our security rests on our endurance quotient. Can we survive the wilderness of mortality, so as to enter into the Canaan land of blissful immortality? We must, because the alternative is unthinkable.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, pp. 12-13
July 20, 1972