Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King Sr.

Holy Scripture proclaims that God created the heavens and the earth. Everything which we see about us is the product of the divine hand:

By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap: He layeth up the deeps in store-houses. Let all the earth fear Jehovah: Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Ps. 33:6-9).

In our time there are many, however, who dispute this and allege that through a naturalistic process of evolution the world and all its inhabit-ants developed to the state in which we currently find them. In order to maintain this theory, from time to time the proponents of this system speak of those specimens found in the fossil record which they describe as “transitional forms.” These are forms of animals, plants, fish or birds, which are often said to be presently extinct, but which once were “transitional” or “developmental” forms between lower and higher types of living things.

For example, it is theorized that in the myths of ancient time, fish developed highly versatile propulsion methods which first permitted them to walk on the sea bed, then to crawl ashore to feed on land for short periods, and finally such fish remained ashore and their fins be-came legs and feet and they became the predecessors of many creatures which skillfully transport themselves about on land in our own day.

One such form, Latimeria chalumnae, or coelacanth, is said to be represented in fossils from 400 million to 60 million years old. For many years it was claimed that this fossil fish demonstrated how the fin of the fish eventually became the foot of the amphibian. The coelacanth, a crossopterygian fish, was supposed to have certain limb-like characters on its fins indicating initial advances toward amphibianhood. It was believed that it eventually developed into a primitive amphibian known as labyrinthodont. Since no fossils of the coelacanth were found in levels of rock said to be less than 60 million years old, it was speculated that it finished this transition in the Mesozoic era, and the coelacanth itself then became extinct.

However, two most embarrassing things have happened over the years. First, no fossil remains of this “fishibian,” with fins partly converted into feet has ever been found. Second, and most humiliating of all, in 1938 one of these “extinct” fish was caught by a fisherman off the coast of Africa (Madagascar). A second was captured in 1952 off Great Comoro in the Indian Ocean. Since that time over one hundred specimens of the “living fossil” Coelacanth have been taken. It has been widely studied by scientists since that first discovery.

In 1987 a group from National Geographic traveled to the Indian Ocean off the Comoro Islands, made numerous dives and found several specimens at a depth of about 550 feet. The fish was observed in its natural habitat, and found to be highly coordinated and specifically capable of function at great ocean depths. “Old Fourlegs” as Professor J.L.B. Smith, a noted ichthyologist at Rhodes University in South Africa, had called him, was not able to “walk upon the sea floor like a seal on its flippers.” Evolutionary theorists were forced to revise their fanciful theory when confronted with the facts!

This brings up some very intriguing questions for our friends who believe the theory of evolution. Here are just a few of them:

1. Why did the Coelacanth stop evolving? According to their own reading of the rocks and the fossils they find in them, Coelacanth is first observed in rock strata of the Devonian Era, some 410 million years ago. The mod-em Coelacanth is exactly the same fish that is found in the fossils. It has not changed in any perceptible way! Why did this fish stop evolving? In 410 million years it should certainly look very different, and be much more highly “advanced” than it did so long ago, assuming for argument’s sake that the evolutionary process did take place. Jacques Millot admits that this is a great mystery: “Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution” (Scientific American, Vol. 193, Dec., 1955, 37). Actually, it is only a mystery if we assume the theory of evolution to be true!

2. How did the Coelacanth disappear from the fossil record? For a period of 60 million years, according to evolutionary geology, the Coelacanth vanished from the fossil record. Yet, we now know that Coelacanth has been around all the time, since it is here now. Would this not say something to us about their way of reading the fossil record? Perhaps their reading of the fossil record is flawed from the beginning, and this is why Coelacanth seems to vanish for 60 million years!

3. Where is the evidence for “transitional forms”? Each time a “missing link” has been suggested in the chain of proof to establish the accuracy of the theory of evolution, it has somehow lost credibility with further study. Such has certainly been the case with coelacanth! What does this tell us about the theory itself?

Even Charles Darwin himself said that the lack of inter-mediate and finely graduated fossils to form an organic chain from the simple to the complex, was one of the most obvious and serious objections against his theory of evolution. It is still the thorn in the side of modem theorists.

4. How could such highly educated and brilliant men be wrong about Coelacanth’s form and function? Scientists with Ph.D. degrees had theorized that Coelacanth could walk on the ocean floor, and may even have walked some on land, with the strangely configured fins which the fish possessed. When confronted with living specimens, however, it was discovered that the fish lived in the ocean depths and used its appendages as all other fish do  as fins for swimming! How could they have been so wrong for so long?

That question is rather easy to answer. These men and women, though both intelligent and educated, are busy about looking for evidence to prove their cherished theory of origins, and sometimes they may tend to force the proof to fit the theory, rather than to configure the hypothesis to fit the facts. Where they are primarily wrong is at the starting point. The whole theory is composed of humanistic speculations, whose inspiration is a godless philosophy of naturalism. Fear not its intimidations, and beware of its atheistic influences!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 3-4
September 18, 1997

By Mike Willis

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law (Heb. 7:12).

Our Bibles are conveniently divided into two sections entitled the Old Testament and the New Testament. The division in these books is not arbitrarily made at the whim of man. The Scriptures speak of the “new testament.”

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28; cf. parallels in Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cot. 11:25).

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (2 Cor. 3:6).

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15).

The “new covenant” is contrasted with the “old” covenant. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13). Hence, the concept of a New Testament and an Old Testament is revealed in the Scriptures.

A Change in Priesthood Demands

A Change in the Law

The writer of the book of Hebrews argues from the priest-hood of Jesus that a change of laws has occurred. Our text says, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). The Old Testament priesthood descended through the lineage of Aaron. His descendants were assisted in their ministry at the altar by the other descendants of the tribe of Levi.

Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. From the standpoint of the Old Testament, Jesus could not serve as a priest. Hebrews 7:14 says, “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” The silence of the Scriptures closed the door on the descendants of the tribe of Judah from serving as priests. Hence, if Jesus is a priest today, then the law must have changed.

Hebrews develops the idea that Jesus is our high priest and that his priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, rather than a Levitical priesthood. That Jesus serves as our High Priest is central to the book:

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:14-15).

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Heb. 5:4-6).

Believing that Jesus is our Great High Priest, we conclude that we are living under a different law from the Old Testament, the Law of Moses.

Changes in the Testament

Because the law has changed there are many differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Here are some of them:

1. The sacrifice is different. The Old Testament commanded that the blood of bulls and goats was to be offered on a literal altar for sin. Under the New Testament, the blood of Christ was shed once for all times on the cross of Calvary as an atonement for the sins of men under both covenants.

2. The priesthood is different. The Old Testament legislated a separate priesthood that was passed down to the descendants of Aaron. Under the New Testament, every Christian is one of God’s priests. We are a royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9) offering our spiritual service to God (Rom. 12:1-2).

3. The worship is different. Under the Old Testament, the Law allowed for a separate group of singers (organized by David) who used mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. The Scriptures declare, “And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets” (2 Chron. 29:25). The use of mechanical instruments of music in the Christian dispensation is without divine authority.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds with the Lord’s supper. Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper on the night he was betrayed. The Lord’s supper was not a part of the Old Testament worship. Prayer in the name of Jesus was not a part of the Old Testament worship. Jesus said, “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:23-24). The manner of funding God’s worship has changed from tithing to a free-will offering (1 Cor. 16:1-2). The preaching of apostolic doctrine” was not a part of the Old Testament (cf. Acts 2:42).

4. God’s marriage laws are different. The Old Testament allowed men who participated in polygamy to be received into the fellowship of God and his people (Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.). In the New Testament, the Lord instructed, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). No one could serve as an elder or deacon but those who were the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). There were other Old Testament legislations that are not a part of the New Testament law of marriage. Here are some Old Testament laws on marriage that are not duplicated in the New Testament: (a) A priest could not marry a prostitute or a divorced woman (Lev. 21:7); (b) One who falsely charged that his wife was not a virgin when they married could never divorce his wife (Deut. 22:19); (c) One who commited fornication with a woman who is not betrothed was fined 50 shekels, married the woman, and could never divorce her (Deut. 22:28-29); (d) If one divorced his wife and she married another, he could never have her again as his wife, even if her second husband died (Deut. 24:1-4); (e) Adulterers were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10). Those who claim that there is but one eternal covenant have not explained why these provisions of the Old Testament are not still binding today.

Conclusion

We need to remember the fundamental themes of the Bible, one of which is that in these days, God speaks to us through his Son. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Heb. 1:1-2). We are no longer living under Old Testament legislation.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 2
September 18, 1997

God in His wisdom devised a plan,

To save the soul of every man.

He sent his Son to earth one day,

To save mankind in His own way.

The church was built, commandments given,

To guide each soul in search of Heaven.

But oh this foolish creature man,

Thinks that he can change God’s plan.

So he sets about and changes makes,

A plan his own filled with mistakes.

Oh brother listen while you may,

For truly there’s no other way.

God’s way is perfect sure to save,

Man’s way will plunge you to the grave.

So follow after God my son,

And he will say my child, “well done.”

Rosalie Hobson Salem, Indiana

Guardian of Truth XLI: 17 p. 19
September 4, 1997

By Bobby Witherington

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content (1 Tim. 6:6-8).

We live in a world in which the population in general is interested in obtaining “great gain.” Throughout the history of man “get-rich-quick” schemes have always attracted great interest. Even today, in our so-called enlightened age, virtually anyone is assured of a large following if he can only convince the public that his “new and novel” idea will produce large revenues.

The faithful child of God is also concerned about “great gain.” However, the faithful Christian is aware that there are two kinds of gain  physical and spiritual. While great physical gain is not inherently sinful, its possession often comes at tremendous risk to spirituality. On the one hand, with the increase of material wealth, there is the accompanying danger that the possessor thereof might become “high-minded,” and prone to “trust in uncertain riches” in-stead of “in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:7). On the other hand, we often multiply our earthly cares as we in-crease our material wealth (Eccl. 5:10-12). Then, too, as a materially wealthy person nears the sunset of earthly life his tangible possessions may become a source of great concern as he begins to contemplate the hands into which they will fall; will the next owner “be a wise man or a fool” (Eccl. 2:19)? Also earthly riches are inherently “uncertain,” for there is always the possibility that they will be corrupted by “moth” or “rust,” or thieves might “break through and steal” (Matt. 6:19). Indeed, the pages of history are filled with the biographies of multi-millionaires who died penniless and friendless. Notwithstanding the fact that multitudes live their lives chasing the proverbial “goose that laid the golden egg,” real happiness and great riches are seldom joined together. Perhaps with regards to material wealth we would do well to develop the attitude of Agur who petitioned God, saying, “Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches . . . Lest I be full and deny You, and say, `Who is the Lord?’ Or lest I be poor and steal, and profane the name of my God” (Prov. 30:7-9).

In view of the hidden dangers associated with earthly riches Paul warned against men “of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth” who suppose that “gain is godliness” (1 Tim. 6:5). He stated that those whose goal is to be rich “fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition” (1 Tim. 6:9). He affirmed that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). And he gave instructions to those “that are rich in this world” to trust in God, and to use their possessions to “do good.” It is one things to be possessed by your possessions and quite another to faithfully manage those possessions entrusted to you as a wise, God-fearing steward!

In a real sense, with respect to earthly wealth, 1 Timothy 6:5-19 speak of two distinct groups of people. Verses 5-10 address those who intend to be rich. Verses 17-19 address those who are rich.

Mindful of the unseen dangers facing both groups Paul gave practical instructions to those in each category. And it was with these factors in mind that Paul revealed the secret of true riches; he said “godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Tim. 6:6). You will please observe that inspiration joined together both godliness and contentment. It is one thing to have “godliness with contentment,” and something else to have godliness without contentment! Mindful that most readers of this paper are affected by their culture, and are therefore interested in “great gain,” we shall in this issue discuss each unit of the “great gain” formula, beginning with:

Godliness

In a real sense “godliness” is “great gain” within itself. That this is true is indicated in 1 Timothy 4:8 wherein Paul said “godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” “But what,” we ask, “is godliness?”

Godliness (Greek, eusebeia) “denotes that piety which, characterized by a Godward attitude, does that which is well-pleasing to him” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine). Other Scriptures penned by Paul which stress the necessity of godliness are 1 Timothy 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; 2 Timothy 3:5; Titus 1:1.

Godliness is one of the “Christian graces” which a Christian must continually develop in his effort to make his “calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:5-10). Godliness and “holy con-duct” should characterize responsible people as they contemplate the ultimate dissolution of the created universe (2 Pet. 3:11). The truth we acknowledge “is according to godliness” (Tit. 1:1).

Godliness is basic to a proper relationship with God. This is the character quality which enables one to say “hallowed be thy Name” (Matt. 6:9) with meaning and true reverence. This is the attitude which prompts a feeling of dependence on God, an attitude of reverence toward God, and a willingness to submit to the instructions of God. The godly know that God is indeed “in His holy temple,” and they are disposed to “keep silence before Him” (Hab. 2: 20), always mindful of their smallness and his greatness.

The godly are so mindful of the awe-inspiring majesty of the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9) that they dare not use God’s holy name as a byword, or make jokes about things sacred. Their feeling of awe in the greatness of him who is the “Almighty” (Gen. 17:1), and infinitely “holy” God (Isa. 6:3), make it unthinkable for them to joke about heaven or hell, or to question the wisdom and integrity of God on any issue.

Contentment

Contentment (Greek, autarkeia) “means sufficient in oneself, self-sufficient, adequate, needing no assistance; hence, content” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine). This same word is translated “sufficiency” in 2 Corinthians 9:8 wherein to certain generous, cheerful givers Paul said, “And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, having all sufficiency in all things, have an abundance for every good work.”

The “sufficiency” of real contentment is not determined by the size of one’s bank account, but by the size of his trust in God. It may be likened to the unworried confidence of a small child who, though he may possess nothing of his own, is care free  care free because he knows his parents won’t forsake him, nor ignore his material and emotional needs. Wasn’t that the secret behind the contentment of the apostle Paul who, while a prisoner in chains, wrote, saying, “I have learned in whatever state I am, to be con-tent” (Phil. 4:11)?

Ironically, many materially rich people are never con-tent, whereas others (much poorer in purse), like the Corinthians unto whom God’s grace abounded, have “all sufficiency in all things.” When all is said and done, contentment is not based upon what a person has, nor is it determined by where he lives. Rather, contentment is based upon what a person is, and it is determined by his awareness of the nearness of a merciful and beneficent heavenly Father who exhorts his children, saying, “Let your conduct be without covetousness, and be content with such things as you have, For . . . I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Heb. 13:5; cf. Josh. 1:5).

Conclusion

As long as we spend ourselves poor trying to “keep up with the Jones’s,” and run ourselves ragged trying to catch that elusive goose that lays the golden eggs we will be deprived of the truly “great gain” that accompanies “godliness with contentment.” We must cease looking outward with envy, and start looking upward with gratitude.

If you get a well-deserved job promotion which does not interfere with your service to God, I’m glad. If you inherit a fortune and are able to maintain your spiritual equilibrium, I’m glad. If you are able to operate a successful business, while continuing to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33), I’m glad. But remember that these items are not where real happiness lies. Real happiness is determined by what you are and by whether or not you are an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ (Rom. 8:17). If you must make a choice between pleasure with prosperity, and “godliness with contentment,” then choose the latter, for therein is the real basis for “great gain.” Consider ye well!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 6-7
September 18, 1997