Truth Magazine

By Clinton Douglas III

With the Babylonian exile in the past, God’s people had returned to their home land with full intentions of rebuilding the temple. However, after laying only the foundation, the work came to a squelching halt. Due to discouragement, despondency, and carnality, some six-teen years passed and the project was not finished.

Not pleased with the situation, God raised up the prophet Haggai and sent him to the people with a series of messages (sermonettes), designed to stir up the nation to complete the temple. In a word, God chose the right man! We don’t have any background on this fine spokesman, but the following is clearly seen or implied in the book that bears his name. Think of Haggai as the man who:

Had the Spark!

Yes, he had the faith, the initiative, and the driving force to provoke his respective audience to repent of their ways and do the work God enjoined upon them. In fact, Haggai’s central focus and purpose was to build the temple. Build the temple. Build the temple! He asked “Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, and this temple to lie in ruins?” (NKJV). His challenge did not fall on deaf ears (cf. 1:4, 12, 14, 15).

Had the Right Attitude

While the people to whom he spoke exerted an attitude of complacency, such was not true of Haggai. Quite evidently, he had the attitude we all need when it comes to doing the Lord’s work. The people were saying “The time has not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built” (1:2b). Haggai’s response was in so many words, it’s always time to do God’s work! His business must al-ways have priority. With that in mind, he told them, “To carefully consider their thoughts.” Even to this date brethren, we must not allow material things to rob us of spiritual insight and faithful service to our Creator (see 1:2-7)!

Had Guts and Courage

The prophet Haggai like ourselves, was given a message to preach. Having received his message, he would boldly proclaim it and let the chips fall where they may. The question is, do we have such boldness to take the message God has given us and deliver it with the same force as a Haggai? We desperately need such boldness (cf. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 8:4; 2 Tim. 2:2; 4:1-5).

Had God’s Blessings and Backing

It is conveyed throughout the book of Haggai that the hand of the Almighty God was with him and was behind his every message. In fact, the Lord desired to extend his blessings to all his people, and would do so readily, if they would resume their work and finish the temple (1:13). It might be of interest to you to note that the phrase “Thus says the Lord” or its equivalent is given some 26 times in this short book of only 38 verses.

Had Anticipation

We can see too, that in Haggai’s preaching there was expectation and anticipation. He and the Lord expected things to happen and that a change for the better prevail. And guess what? Things did change! Thank God for such a change. Its always refreshing and joyous to see the good results from having proclaimed God’s powerful word (2:1-6).

Had Interest and Will

Last but certainly not least, we can learn from Haggai, that when God’s will becomes our will much good will result. On the other hand, to ignore God’s will severely limits our blessings, potential, success, and our full joy!

Conclusion

Truly, Haggai had all the right stuff. Because of him (and God), the temple was rebuilt as ordered. Consequently, God’s glory was re-established among his people (cf. 2:1-9). Hopefully, this lesson will put some fire under the likes of you and me, my beloved brethren, and we’ll begin with more urgency to do what the Lord commands and demands of us. Let it be so!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 13
October 16, 1997

By Olen Holderby

Isaiah 59:20 predicts, “And the redeemer shall come to Zion”; however, the word “redeemer” is not found in the New Testament, though the idea is there. Paul tells us that the Lord “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity” (Fit. 2:14). The one who redeems would certainly be a redeemer. One who pays the price of redemption would, also, be called a redeemer; and Peter tells us that this is what Christ did (1 Pet. 1:18-19). But, do we really comprehend these terms and their implications?

Old Testament Background

We introduce, just here, three Hebrew words which have to do with our subject:

1. Padah  “Buy (off), ransom, redeem” (verb).

2. Gaal  To “act as kinsman, redeem” (verb).

3. Gael  Sometimes used to refer to the one doing the redeeming, thus “redeemer” (noun).

Both padah and gaal are used to suggest the idea of “release by the payment of a price,” or “buy back” (ISBE, 4:61). A good understanding of these Hebrew words, in their Old Testament setting, can be highly beneficial.

Redemption of the “first-born”: “First-born” males of both man and beast were to belong to the Lord, set apart to his service (Exod.13:2, 12). This was alluded to in Luke 2:23, at the birth of Jesus. “First-born” clean animals were to be sacrificed on the altar, to the Lord; but “first-born” unclean animals could not be sacrificed. They had to be redeemed by clean animals which could be sacrificed (Exod. 13:13). Such an animal, not redeemed, must die; rendered of no use to its owner. The animal used to redeem the unclean animal would be the redemption price to be paid.

“First-born” male children could not be sacrificed; but were to be redeemed (Num.18:15ff). “Five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary” was the redemption price for each such male child. This same redemption price is used in reference to the Levites (Num. 3:44-51); and this was given to the priests.

Please notice that in each case a redemption price was to be paid; and some one had to pay that price! Whoever paid that price could be referred to as a redeemer.

Redemption of land: First, we should remember that they were not to sell the land in perpetuity; but, one might be forced to sell because of poverty (Lev. 25:33). There were three ways in which the land might be redeemed: (1) A kinsman might redeem it (Lev. 25:23ff; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12, 13; 4:lff). This kinsman would be called the gael (the one paying the price), the redeemer. (2) The seller himself, could redeem his land if be became able to do so. (3) If the first two options were not used, the land remained with the buyer until Jubliee (end of 50 years); then, it would return to its original owner (Lev. 25:10, 28). In each of these cases there was a price to pay and someone had to pay that price; that price payer would be a redeemer.

Redemption of dwellings: Houses within city walls were to be redeemed within one year of the date of sale. If outside the city walls, it could be redeemed at any time. “Jubilee” would return them to their original owners. We have the same reasoning here as with the “first-born” and with lands (Lev. 25).

All this shows at least three things: (1) “Redemption” refers to the recovery of persons or things, (2) A redemption price was necessary for this recovery, and (3) An intermediary (gael) acted to secure the recovery or redemption.

Applied to God’s Dealings with Israel

Both padah and gaal are used to refer to salvation wrought by God for Israel. The Lord, as the kinsman practicing the gaal, is seen in Exodus 6:6; 15:13; while he is seen in Deuteronomy 7:8 as paying the ransom, buying them off (padah) from under Pharaoh. Many passages could be cited, showing Israel being redeemed from various calamities, but deliverance from Egyptian bondage is the central theme. “Redemption,” in the Old Testament is not to be thought of as merely deliverance; it also reflects very pointedly on the “mode” of deliverance  more inclusive than what we, today, may think.

Though space will not permit us to discuss it, Galatians 3:24, properly viewed, reflects this same thought. They simply could not effect redemption for themselves; thus, some one had to make arrangements, pay the price, for their redemption.

Gael is often applied to the Lord in the Old Testament (see Job 19:25; Ps. 19:14; Isa. 41:14; Jer. 50:34, etc). With this, the idea of redemption is carried to its highest level. God speaks of himself as their “kinsman,” arranging their redemption, and paying the ransom price. However, we must not ever forget that Israel had certain conditions to be met to show their acceptance and their appreciation of the offered redemption.

Out of this background comes at least two things: (1) Moses’ instructions to the Jews concerning the redemption of the “first-born,” land, and houses. We have already discussed these. (2) Old Testament prophecy of a future Redeemer (Isa. 59:20; Rom. 11:26). Let number two register well with us!

Redemption in the New Testament

The New Testament uses several Greek words refer-ring to redemption, reflecting the same meanings as their Hebrew counterparts.

We have already noticed that Christ gave himself as a ransom for our iniquities; He substituted himself for the price which we were “suppose” to pay (Tit. 2:14). We have also noticed Peter’s view of the same thought (1 Pet. 1:18-19). In our deep poverty we could not redeem ourselves; thus, Christ as our kinsman, steps forward and pays the price in our stead. Paul expresses agreement with Peter in both Ephesians 1:7 and Romans 3:24-26. “Ye are bought with a price,” says Paul (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). The price is not identified in these verses, but there can be no doubt, “.. . for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood. . .” (Rev. 5:9).

“Redemption” is redemption from sin, from all phases of the bondage to which sin confines us. We are in the power of the archenemy of God, Satan; but, our eyes can be opened, we can be turned from the power of Satan unto God, and receive the forgiveness of our sins (Acts 26:18).

Now, do we get the picture? Christ is united as both the padah and gaal, recovering us from sin, by playing the role of our “kinsman” (gael), offering himself as the intermediary, securing redemption for us (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:6-8). Us! We could not do it for ourselves; we were lost and doomed to eternal torment. Our kinsman steps for-ward and obtains eternal redemption for us (Heb. 9:12). True, as Israel of old, we have conditions to be met to show our acceptance and our appreciation of the offered redemption. Thanks to God, Christ is the padah, the goal, the gael all, for us!

Ought we not, then, to be eternally grateful, and ever happy to do his bidding? All else is nothing (Heb. 12:1-2).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 18-19
October 16, 1997

By Luther Everett

It has been said that there are as many interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15:29 as there have been commentators. While I find this a little hard to believe, it is true that this verse has been the subject of much speculation. Indeed, it is a very difficult passage which does not lend itself well to correct interpretation.

Using the ASV 1901 as a source, the verse reads: “Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

A Common Opinion

Of the opinions which I am familiar with, there is one which seems to enjoy the acceptance of a large audience. This opinion puts a lot of emphasis on early church practices, albeit a limited number of participants, and grammatical usage of terms. While both of these techniques are useful in the interpretation of Scripture, as with any accepted practice their misuse can lead to an incorrect interpretation.

Some have argued that there was a custom among the early Christians of baptizing a living person for the benefit of a person who had died without being baptized themselves. The blessings of baptism being received by proxy. Baptism for dead persons is practiced in con-temporary times by members of the Mormon church.

Still, there is no record within the Scriptures which indicate that it was actually practiced by the first century church, unless one wishes to argue that this verse demonstrates such. And if this were true, then by inference one could possibly conclude that other churches were familiar with and may have even practiced it themselves.

The opinion states, that Paul in addressing the Corinthians, posed a rhetorical question. This question, being an ad hominem, could be used to demonstrate inconsistencies in a person’s view, without the speaker being in agreement with said view.

The argument states, that Paul during his defense and promotion of a resurrection of the dead, referred to a practice among the Corinthians in order to give further weight to his argument. By doing so he did not necessarily imply a personal acceptance of baptizing on the behalf of dead persons, but used its familiarity to make his point more profound. “Why do you baptize for the dead if you do not believe in the resurrection from the dead?” It is argued that his usage of why are they, in-stead of why are we, indicates that Paul did not include himself this group.

Problematic Opinion

This opinion has some problems, which to me cannot go unanswered.

1. Paul does not condemn the practice. Within this same letter Paul condemns infighting (1:10, 11), honor to men instead of Christ (1:12-17), worldliness (3:1-3), and fornication (5:1-13), just to name a few. In fact most of the letter addresses some form of error and its correction. And yet, when it comes to the practice of baptizing oneself on the behalf of the dead, Paul offers no correction.

John states that those who abide not in the teaching of Christ have not God (2 John 9). Christ himself said, that to follow the doctrines of men is vain worship (Matt. 15:9). If this be true, how is it that Paul could allow these babes in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1, 2) to worship in vain and have not God?

If it is true that Paul mentions the practice and does not condemn it, then in effect he would be saying that the practice is not sinful. His silence on the subject would indicate such to those who supposedly baptized for dead persons. I could further argue that after reading this letter those who are supposed to practice such might say, “See Paul does not condemn it, he even acknowledges it and says there is no reason for doing it, if there be no resurrection from the dead.” In trying to confound the baptizers for the dead, Paul would only have confused a congregation which needed instruction not fancy rhetoric.

2. It is not in harmony with Paul’s character  a man who preached Christ in the synagogues of the Jews under threat of death (Acts 9:20-23), the one who rebuked the foremost Apostle Peter for shunning the Gentile brethren (Gal. 2:11-21), a tireless fighter for the cause of Christ (2 Tim. 4:7). There are too many examples to list of Paul’s devotion to truth and his tireless efforts to correct error, to believe he would remain silent about baptism on behalf of dead persons.

3. It stands alone in its usage by Paul. I personally cannot find another instance where Paul uses an ad horninem argument. Especially about a subject which should be considered sinful, and therefore condemned, not given further confidence by silence on the subject. Also, with the great many verses devoted by Paul to baptism, this is the only one where he ever mentions a so-called baptism on behalf of the dead.

A Different Opinion

I believe that there was no custom or practice among the Corinthian brethren of baptizing persons on behalf of dead persons. Any such practice which may have occurred later could possibly have been based upon a misunderstanding of this verse. Therefore, latter-day practice in no way justifies the thought that the Corinthians practiced such, and should not give weight to such opinions. In other words, just because scholars can find religious groups who may have practiced baptism for dead persons, does not imply that the Corinthians must have also done so.

I strongly believe that if such practice occurred, then Paul would have condemned it. He would not have allowed a congregation to knowingly participate in a sinful act, even to get his point across. Therefore, Paul did not use an ad hominem argument.

The context within which a difficult verse is presented will often times present a solution as to its meaning. The entire fifteenth chapter deals with the fact of the resurrection, its relationship to our belief, and the ultimate victory over sin and death. There are three concepts upon which Paul preaches that, if there be no resurrection, then your very efforts are in vain.

In verse 14 he says: “and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.” In verse 16 he says: “For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised.” And in verse 29 he says: “What shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all.” So, if there be no resurrection, then your faith is in vain, the gospel of Christ is a lie, and there is no reason for baptism.

Paul here places a little more weight on baptism than some of our contemporaries would like. Indeed, the denigration of baptism by the denominations may be part of the prejudice which conceals this verse’s interpretation. Because many denominations deny the importance of baptism, they cannot believe that it is being spoken of here. They prefer to believe that Paul is only referring to a sinful practice of the Corinthians. But not only does Paul place the gospel and faith in a position where it is directly dependent on a resurrection of the dead, but he puts baptism on an equal footing. This thought is in harmony with Paul’s teachings on the subject of baptism.

Rather than present multiple statements concerning the fact that the practice of baptism without a resurrection would simply be a bath, Paul unequivocally states it within one verse. A single verse being in conjunction and addition to what was just presented. I believe this thought to be borne out by Paul’s usage of the adverb “else.” Be-cause of his lengthy presentation on the necessity of a bodily resurrection, Paul does not reiterate this fact by repeating another lengthy presentation in relation to baptism. The argument has previously been presented. Paul here simply states that baptism also depends on a resurrection from the dead.

Some in conflict with this opinion may say, “Why did he use they, instead of we?” In verse 16, Paul said, “your faith.” Could we argue as above, that by using the adjective “your” Paul was acknowledging that their faith was different from his own. Why not use our? In verse two Paul again uses “you” in “by which also you are saved.” Why not use “we” instead of you? Again is Paul not saved by the very same gospel? To argue that “they” in verse 29 definitely excludes Paul is in-consistent with his message. “They” refers to those who are to receive or have received baptism. Paul is a member of this group. I am a member of this group. Why are they or anyone baptized if there will be no resurrection.

In verse 23 it says, “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his coming. ” Does Paul count himself as one of Christ’s own? Does his language here exclude him? Did he use “they” instead of “we” here because his is only a hope of everlasting life and not an assuredness? Why does they here include Paul, but in verse 29 exclude him?

Lastly, in verse 29 it says, “If the dead are not raised.” In verse 16 it says, “if the dead are not raised.” And concluding verse 16, “neither hath Christ been raised.” Is it simply coincidence that the phraseology is exactly the same. In verse 16 Paul concludes that if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. So too in verse 29, if the dead are not raised, then why be baptized? So then, when Paul said the dead in verse 29, I believe that he was referring to the resurrection of the dead.

I feel that I have presented a very credible answer to the question, “What does this verse mean?” It does not suffer from problems 1, 2, and 3. It does present an answer which is in harmony with the context, Paul’s character, and his message.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 22-23
October 16, 1997

By Clint Springer

The temple in Jerusalem had been torn down and rebuilt twice, was full of splendor and riches, but Jesus plainly said it would be completely razzed. They wanted to know when?

Notice that these things concerned the apostles. They were living in troublesome times. A good commentary will tell of actual earthquakes, famines and such in those days (see Acts 11:27-30), but the two chapters of Matthew 24 and Luke 21 under consideration are specific to the tragedy named in our title.

When the Master was questioned about the kingdom, three catastrophic events came into focus: The crucifixion, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world (Luke 17:20-37). Terrible times were to come after the crucifixion, but certain distinctions will become clear as we re-view other chapters.

In the parable related by Luke (19:11-44) the noble-man is Jesus, but the coronation was foretold by Daniel (7:13, 14). However, those who rejected him were punished  no doubt relating both to the devastation brought against Jerusalem as well as final judgment on all.

In such a study Matthew 24 is usually considered. In that text two questions were asked, the first relating to the time when one stone would not be left standing on another. The second is about the end of the world, a topic beyond the purview of present study. Verses 1-35 constitute the first division, and all was to take place before that generation passed away (v. 34). That overlaps with a study of Luke 21, the transition text of Matthew 24 being verse 36.

When studying Old Testament prophecy, it is important to remember that Jesus said the final “end” of Judaism (A.D. 70) was that which Daniel foretold. At that point in time, all Old Testament prophecy found fulfillment (Luke 21:22).

The disciples were to be persecuted and any church history book will tell about that. Still, they were to preach being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. The terrible tragedy shortly to unfold related to God’s judgment against rebellious Israel. As has been al-ready stated, that catastrophe took place when the Romans besieged the city, desecrated the temple, and burned the whole metropolis.

The prophet Daniel called this event “the abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15). How bad was it? The great tribulation, Jesus said, was to be worse than anything before or after (Matt. 24:21). Those who try to make this relate to the end of the world, or some devastation yet to take place, need to remember that it pertained only to Judea and was to happen before that generation passed away.

Matthew 22:7 reads, “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.”

Matthew’s account said the gospel would be preached in all the world for a witness, and that happened ten or so years before the fulfillment came about (Col. 1:6; Rom. 10:18). Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are called apocalyptic language, exotic figures and symbols similar to the book of Revelation. Notice also that specific signs at that time were in contrast to normal times that will be characteristic of the end of the world. A “coming of the Lord” does not always demand a personal appearance, for Old Testament examples use similar language when in reality one nation was used to punish another.

Since words like “catastrophe” have been used to describe that which Jesus said was worse than anything that had ever happened, it is needful to get an insight into the events of A.D. 70. Most of the following notes are taken from the writings of Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian. He was present during the siege.

After the Jews rebelled, Vaspasian began his march to subdue the cities of Judea. When he was called back to Rome, his son Titus continued the campaign and besieged Jerusalem calling on them to surrender. There were al-ready seditions and civil war, three factions vying for control. There was fighting in and around the temple, it being “de-filed with murders” on every side.

Had the Jews been united, the Romans would have been hard pressed to capture the city due to the uneven terrain and three walls that encompassed most of it. A major factor was famine, for the factions burned several years’ worth of “corn” in their fighting.

Owing to the Feast of the Passover, there were great numbers in the city  dead bodies, unburied, everywhere. Besides arrows, both sides fought with “engines” that hurled darts, rocks, and spears. The Romans engaged huge battering rams. The Romans build “banks” by cutting down all the trees; starvation set in; the strong began to take by force what little food the poor and weak possessed. As months passed, the situation became progressively worse. Some slipped outside the city searching for food, and those caught were tortured. Upwards to five hundred a day were crucified in plain sight of the wall, but the Jews would not surrender. Hordes of dead bodies were cast from a wall into a deep valley, where “thick putrefaction” made Titus draw back in horror.

Many who escaped or surrendered swallowed gold coins in an effort to get away with their savings. When this be-came known, multitudes were murdered and their intestines opened in search of the money. Josephus says that in one night two thousand were disemboweled as soldiers looked for gold.

151,880 corpses were brought out one gate; another re-ported 600,000. Inside the city, some rooms were stacked with bodies like racks of timber. Starvation became so severe, some began to search the dunghills for anything edible  for bits of undigested grain. The “pestilential stench” became overwhelming.

On page 579, the historian tells a story so contemptible that it’s hard to believe. Sustained by reliable witnesses, the story is about a woman who slew her son, then roasted and used him for food. This was foretold by Moses when he wrote about the curses that would come upon Israel because of disobedience (Deut. 28:53).

The temple was looted, burned, stones overturned, and dead bodies were heaped upon one another. The Romans set up “ensigns” in the temple and offered sacrifices be-fore them. The whole city was then burned.

Being tired of slaughter, about 40,000 were allowed to go free, but the sound of body were made slaves, some sent to the Egyptian mines, others turned into gladiators.

Some of the final figures look like this: There were 2,700,000 in the city; 1,100,000 were slain during the whole siege; 97,000 were taken captive. This article only relates partially the atrocities perpetrated by both sides in that war. It lasted about seven months, and the words of Jesus were indeed fulfilled during that generation.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 14-15
October 16, 1997