Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

When brethren make such statements as: “Jesus did not come to establish a covenant which was different from any previous arrangements,” and “Jesus is the covenant victim, not a covenant maker or law-maker,” it indicates a dire need to get back to basics. When men are confused about the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and affirm that God has only one covenant, it is time to get out the Bible dictionary and concordance and study God’s word instead of listening to men.

Though a dictionary definition is not to be accepted as inspired of God, it often helps to understand a subject. Thayer defines diatheke (covenant) as: “a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid . . . a testament or will . . . a compact, covenant . . . we find in the N.T. two distinct covenants spoken of (Gal. 4:24), viz. the Mosaic and the Christian … This new covenant Christ set up and ratified by undergoing death . . . by metonymy . . . diatheke is used in 2 Cor. 3:14, of the sacred books of the O.T. because in them the conditions and principles of the older covenant were recorded” (136, 137). He defined nomos (law) as “anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law . . . a law or rule producing a state approved by God” (427). When we examine the uses of these words in the Bible, we can see that Thayer has basically described what we read in God’s word.

The first time the word “covenant” appears (though not necessarily the first covenant) is God’s promise to Noah, “But I will establish My covenant with you …” (Gen. 6:18). Later, God said, “Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth,” and the “sign of the covenant” was the rainbow (Gen. 9:12, 13). The next covenant is the threefold promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3). The land promise is specifically called “a covenant” (Gen. 15:18), and an “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8). God kept his covenant with Israel (Josh. 21:43-45). The nation promise also is called an everlasting covenant. “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7). They became a “nation, great, mighty, and populous” while they were in Egypt (Deut. 26:5). As a “sign of the covenant” God commanded that descendants of Abraham be circumcised (Gen. 17:10,11). Later, circumcision (Lev. 12:3) and the Sabbath (Exod. 31:16, 17) were given as a sign of the special relationship between God and Israel. In one sense both these things were covenants and in another they were signs of a special covenant with Israel. The seed promise is called a covenant in Galatians 3:16, 17. This covenant was fulfilled in Christ and includes all nations (Gen. 22:18). That was not true of the nation and land covenants with Abraham.

The Old Covenant

There are many other “covenants” mentioned in the Old Testament. In fact there are half a dozen that are called “everlasting” (Gen. 9:16; 17:8,19; 48:4; Exod. 40:15; Lev. 16:34; Num. 25:13; 2 Sam. 23:5; 1 Chron. 16:17). These, and more, are included in what is called the Old Covenant which God gave to the nation of Israel. The covenant given on Mt. Sinai was ratified by the blood of animals. Moses “took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, `All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient.’ And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, `Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you ac-cording to all these words”‘ (Exod. 24:7, 8). This is also called the Law of Moses, the Law of God, or simply the Law (Neh. 8:1, 8, 13). When Hilkiah found “the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 22:8), Josiah learned about it and “read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 23:2). Obviously, not every “covenant” is a law (in the sense of being a rule to be followed by men). The covenant God made with Noah (Gen. 9:12, 13) did not demand any action on the part of man, but the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:13, 14) was a law (Gal. 5:2, 3), and to deny that the “Book of the Covenant” was also the “Book of the Law” is to deny plain Bible statements in order to maintain a false theory.

The New Covenant

The Messianic prophet said that “in the latter days” the law would go forth from Zion (Isa. 2:2, 3). In the forty-second chapter, God said: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles . . . He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlines (Gen-tiles) shall wait for His law” (vs. 1, 4). The law that went forth from Zion was the law of “My Servant, My Elect One”! (To deny that Jesus was a law-maker is to argue with Isaiah!) It is called a better covenant, which was established on better promises (Heb. 8:6), the second covenant (v. 7), a new covenant (of which Jesus is the mediator, 12:24) and the everlasting covenant (13:20). It is also called “the faith” which was revealed after the law had accomplished its purpose (Gal. 3:23-25). It is “the new covenant . . . the ministry of the Spirit . . . the ministry of righteousness” and those who do not see a difference between this and “the Old Testament (or Covenant)” have “minds that are hardened” (2 Cor. 3:6-14). It is “the law of liberty” by which we are blessed, and by which we will be judged (Jas. 1:25; 2:12). It was ratified by the “blood of the new covenant” (Matt. 26:28). The fruit of the vine was “the new covenant in My blood (not the old covenant, Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). The Old Covenant was ratified by the blood of animals, but “the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:19-23). In his sacrifice, Christ took away “the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:9, 10). (Those who say the only thing taken away at the cross was sin must be saying that he took away the first sin to establish the second sin! Those who say he took away the first priesthood to establish the second, have not helped their cause, because the change of priesthood demands a change also in the law, Heb. 7:12.) When this covenant went into effect, sins were genuinely forgiven On contrast to the first covenant, Heb. 10:3, 4), and “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:16-18).

The fact that there are many similarities between the two covenants does not prove that we live under the old covenant. (There are many similarities between my right hand and my left, but they are two different hands!) Have we for-gotten: “God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds” (Heb. 1:1, 2)? If it is not in the New Covenant, which was dedicated by the blood of Christ, we cannot do it and please God.

(Next  Did Jesus come to perpetuate the law or to fulfill it?)

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 11-12
July 17, 1997

By Dennis Tucker

I should have known that April first was going to be `just one of those days.” First of all, the University of Kentucky Wildcats lost to the Arizona Wildcats last night. Then, I got up to walk and one of the kids had taken my head-phones and misplaced them.

I know what you are probably thinking. Losing a ball game and not being able to find something is not earth shattering. However, the morning had just started. After trying to record a radio lesson, it was time to type on the computer. Word Pro is the word processor I use for the bulletin, lessons, and class material. It is vital! However, once I tried to use it I got an error message. “APPLICATION ERROR, PROGRAM WILL SHUT DOWN AUTOMATICALLY, IF PROBLEM PERSISTS CALL VENDOR.” That sounds serious! In fact, I almost expected the program to self-destruct or call my parents next. So, I tried a couple of “things,” and it kept giving me the error message. My day was getting worse. Next, I tried to uninstall (delete, eradicate, annihilate, etc.) the program. My intention was to get the program off the computer and just reinstall it. Maybe the problem would be taken care of.

My next problem (I told you it was one of those days) was, once I had deleted (eradicated, nuked, etc.) the pro-gram the computer told me that part of the program was still on the computer. It would not delete all of the program. So I decided to call John Duvall. John is a preacher over at Jonesboro; he is a friend, nice guy, and a computer nerd. So I called John to ask for help. To my surprise John said, “That sounds serious, you better call LOTUS.”

It was turning into “one of those days.”

I found the phone number for the LOTUS people. I called the number and got a personalized recording. The recording told me to call during normal office hours. This was the normal office hours at least that is what the recording said. It was in the middle of Tuesday! It was just “one of those days.”

Thankfully, Dewey came along and rescued me, and we went visiting. I really owe Dewey a lot for keeping me sane. I was really upset and worried. However, Jesus addresses occasions such as these and much worse.

Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, 0 you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink” or “What shall we wear?” For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you (Matt. 6:26-33).

We must keep everything in perspective. What we want and what we need are often different. Let us notice some points that Jesus makes.

1. We must have our priorities right. A lot of things are not really that important. We take our games too seriously and the serious matters we treat like a game.

2. We must have faith in God to help us. God knows what we need, and he is able to provide for us. “I have been young, and now am old; Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging bread” (Ps. 37:25).

3. We must let tomorrow take care of itself. “There-fore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matt. 6:34). We fret, agonize and anguish over a lot of things that will never happen or we cannot control.

4. We must allow our problems to make us better. Patience and endurance are by-products of problems we face. A lot of our growth comes when we are tested. “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (Jas. 1:2-4).

5. We need to count our blessings. While we get upset over mundane things, others are struggling with problems much worse. I remember my Momma saying that things are not so bad that they could not get worse. There have been times I wondered how much worse things could get, but I realized she was right.

By the way, the University of Kentucky will be better next year, the computer is running, and April first is over.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 17-18
July 3, 1997

By Steve Willis

Deaths Caused by Alcohol

Scientific American reported: “Excessive alcohol consumption leads to more than 100,000 deaths annually in the U.S. Accidents, mostly from drunken driving made up a quarter of this number in 1992; alcohol-related homicide and suicide accounted for 11 and 8 percent, respectively. Cancers that are partly attributable to alcohol, such as those of the esophagus and larynx, contribute to an additional 17 percent. About 9 percent resulted from alcohol-related stroke. Another major contributor is a group of 12 ailments … of which alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver and alcohol dependence syndrome are the most important. These 12 ailments represented 18 percent of all alcohol-related deaths in 1992 (“By the Numbers: Deaths Caused by Alcohol,” December 1996, 30-31).

Marilyn Manson

Take names from Marilyn Monroe and Charles Manson, add Satanism and music and what do you get? Marilyn Manson, the Rolling Stone magazine Best New Artist for 1996.

Marilyn Manson is a he  a stage name used by Brian Warner. He is a “shock rocker” who must be extra shocking in these days of shocking things on TV, radio, movies, and the Internet. “Manson, 28, a skinny, chinless Floridian who wears androgynous make-up, Nazi-style clothing, and fishnet stockings, is a church of Satan minister. He drinks his own blood and has had oral sex with male groupies during concerts. In his `Irresponsible Hate Anthem,’ he shrieks: `Let’s just kill everyone and let your god sort them out.’ Manson claims he spends his free time beating up bootlickers and consuming pot, cocaine and amphetamines. His favored nocturnal activities include desecrating graves and smoking human bone chips.”

Manson’s crusade is to stamp out Christianity, which he calls, the “root of all weakness.” He does so in concerts and on albums, one of which is named Antichrist Superstar  a reference to the musical and movie Jesus Christ Super-star. Not all songs have this aim, but the ones that don’t, such as the remake of “Sweet Dreams” are bait for the Satanist trap. Manson’s words said of the song on his al-bum that it is “a clever piece of cheese on a rat trap. A lot of innocuous mall shoppers bought [the song] and were then introduced to this whole new world of Marilyn Manson they didn’t expect. .Now that I’ve got the attention of a main-stream audience, things can really be accomplished.”

Beware! Check out what you or your children are listening to. It may be the bait on a trap such as Marilyn Manson’s (quotes from Alberta Report, “Antichrist in a black G-string,” January 27, 1997, 42).

Kids and Marijuana

Articles in the December 9, 1996 Time magazine report that marijuana (pot) use is up among many children. “Kids and Pot” gave these statistics: “By the time teens reach 17: 68% can buy marijuana within a day; 62% have friends who use marijuana; 58% have been solicited to buy marijuana.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human services surveyed 18,000 Americans and concluded that “marijuana use among youths (ages 12 to 17) has roughly doubled in the past few years. Use of pot by young people rose 105% from 1992 to 1994, and gained 37% between 1994 and 1995. At the Phoenix House Foundation ten years ago, 13% of adolescents sought treatment for marijuana; today that figure has jumped to 40%.” In “What I Would Say… ,” an article with advice from public figures, we find the former U.S. Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, saying, “…don’t be judgmental” of your kids if they are using drugs, and “Re-member, your goal is not to change your child’s behavior because that is impossible.”

Compare her advice to that of Joseph Califono, Jr., President of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: “With all three of my children, I made two points. First, each was a creature of God, blessed with brains and talent. With such generous divine gifts goes a moral obligation to develop those talents and use them to help others less fortunate. That’s why it is morally wrong to use drugs.” It is a good thing that Elders is not in a position to make policy. Donna Shala, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, said it right: “Our children need to hear a clear and consistent no-use message about marijuana  that it is illegal, dangerous, and wrong. Research tells us it limits learning, memory, perception, judgment and motor skills, and it damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system. Marijuana is not a `soft’ drug.” Califano added, “Our research shows that the earlier someone smokes marijuana, the likelier that youngster is to move on to other drugs. Children who smoke pot before age 12 are 42 times likelier to use drugs like cocaine and heroin than those who first smoked after age 16.”

In “High limes at New Trier High” Time reported that the potency of marijuana has gone up. In the 1980s and early 1990s the chief intoxicant, THC was 3-4%. In 1995 it was approaching 6%. This gives a greater “high” and certainly adds to the addictive nature of the drug.

The attitudes of our kids toward drugs and drug users may be changing too. From a study of 6000 teens by the Partnership of a Drug-Free America, we read: I agree strongly with the statements:

Taking drugs scares me -1993: 47%, 1995: 36%

I don’t want to hang around drug users  1993: 55%, 1995: 39%

The same article gave a serious reflection on parental responsibility: a Chicago policeman said, “Parents tell me they never go into their kids’ rooms  then they wonder why they have a problem….” They call this “enabling behavior”  no parental responsibility enables the kids to use drugs. “The school and the police can’t do much with-out the support and concern of parents, many of who can’t seem to decide whether to be the good cop or the bad cop with their kids.” It’s important that we decide!

More Dan Quayle Was Right

Remember VP Dan Quayle’s Murphy Brown problems? Of course later many came to realize that Dan Quayle was right in asserting that single mothering was not the best for children. A Statistic Canada study shows again, Dan Quayle was right. From the Alberta Report: “The good news: 84% of children live in a traditional two-parent family, and 79% with both their natural parents. .. In only one-third of the two-parent families surveyed by Statscan does the mother have a full-time job. So fully 56% of Canadian children have either mothers with only part-time jobs or full-time, stay-at-home mothers.”

“The bad news: 14% in single-mother families suffer at least as much harm as earlier studies have suggested.. . .On average, children raised by single mothers were 167% to 235% more likely to be destructive, depressed, or socially impaired. These effects likely do not result solely from the career-mom’s absence from home, for fully 54% of single mothers do not have jobs.” In a chart on “The sociopath of single parenthood” the National Longitudinal Survey of Children studied and reported on these areas: Hyperactivity, Conduct disorder, Emotional disorder, One or more behavior problems, Repeated a grade. Whether the single-mothers had high or low income, their children had more problems than those of two-parent families.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah

OK, so I borrowed a title from Robert Bork’s book, though I’ve not read it. The sins of “going after strange flesh”  homosexuality  are coming closer and closer to being legalized. In Canada, federal Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Hedy Fry “wants to put `queer culture’ under the banner of multiculturalism funding.” This is just a short step away from employers being given a homosexual employee quota. She told the gay-newspaperXtra West that starting in April her department will fund any group that meets three criteria: civic participation, identity, and social justice. Further she added that, “the hate that the gay community tends to be faced with would qualify them” for federal money (Alberta Report, “Federal favors for ‘queer culture’,” December 23, 1996).

Of course this is not only happening in Canada. In “Hawaiian Courtship,” Time magazine (December 16, 1996) reports: “Gay marriage may become legal in the islands without necessarily coming to a chapel near you.” It began six years ago, when three couples, longtime residents of Hawaii, challenged the proscription of same-sex marriages in Hawaii. The health department refused to issues licenses “on the ground that only a man can marry a woman, and only a woman can marry a man.” The couples challenged this on the basis of sex discrimination. In 1993, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled the law violated a person’s equal protection under the law, and that same sex marriages could not be proscribed unless there could be found some compelling, legitimate reason to ban them. By 1998 gay couples may be free to many in Hawaii.

The problem presented is whether other states or countries will recognize those couples as married. Robert Knight, of the Family Research Council in Washington, emphasizes the concern of conservatives who would reject recognizing gay marriages: “It will lead to calls for other relationships to be recognized, because if feelings are the key to recognizing a marriage, there’s no logical reason why three or four people who say, ‘We sincerely love each other’ should be denied this status.”

Recent considerations say that the decision won’t have a broad impact in the other U.S. states. Time reports: “The state supreme court’s decision has no binding effect as a precedent in other states, though gays elsewhere could invoke the persuasiveness of its reasoning. Other states remain free to set gender-based restrictions on marriage because the U.S. Supreme Court has never decided whether the U.S. Constitution bans restrictions. (The high courts of several states have ruled that it does not)” And the recently passed “Defense of Marriage Act” forbids the U.S. government to recognize same-sex unions.

And, another item from the “Milestones” section in the February 24, 1997 Time (Canadian Edition): “BORN: Bailey Jean Cypher, a baby for girl singer Melissa Etheridge and her partner, Julie Cypher, ex-wife of Lou Diamond Phillips; in Los Angeles.” This lesbian couple and “their” baby made the cover of Newsweek magazine about the same time. As I noted at the beginning, it appears we’re slouching toward Gomorrah.

Great News for Women  NOT!

The Canadian Southam newspapers reported: “The women of Ontario are now legally free to bare their breasts in public.” Of course a similar case was won by a woman in the U.S. a few years ago. The Canadian case arose when Gwen Jacob decided to go for a stroll in downtown Guelph five years ago in protest to a law she said discriminates against women on hot days. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling is technically only binding in Ontario, but it could carry weight with courts in other provinces. Justice Coulter Osborne made a few comments with the ruling: “There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what (Jacob) did. “The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non-commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her. Jacob’s lawyer called the ruling “great news for women, it’s a victory for women’s equality.”

A Change in Policy, Again

It was announced that Statistics Canada would no longer compile statistics on marriages and divorces. This caused quite an uproar as it appeared marriage was not as important to the agency. “Faced with mounting public opposition, Statistics Canada decided [in Nov. 1996] the agency would continue to compile annual statistics on marriage and divorce. The agency announced earlier [in 1996] it would drop the tally to save $150,000 annually; it argued these statistics were no longer useful given the number of common-law unions. Critics maintained Statscan was trying to undermine the importance of marriage. Statscan was inundated by so many complaints it had to hire a part-time secretary to keep up with the volume of mail” (Alberta Re-port, “Sooner count marriages than complaints,” December 2, 1996, 43).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 24-26
July 3, 1997

By Ron Roberts

I was very grateful when God gave us a daughter about eleven years ago. I took great care in selecting a virtuous woman to marry two years earlier. When we received our baby girl, I felt her mother would teach her to be just like her. I could sit back and watch the prize which is far above rubies develop (Prov. 31:10). Although my wife appreciated the compliment, she reminded me that child rearing was not a spectator sport for either parent.

The Bible doesn’t speak a great deal about the specific relationship between fathers and daughters.

We know Jairus (Mark 5:21ff), Philip (Acts 21:9), and Jephthah (Judges 11) all had girls, but the father I would like to consider is daughters to be the 2 Peter 2:5-9 and Luke 17:26-29 couple Noah and Lot together. Both men lived in an environment of great wickedness. Both men remained pure in spite of their surroundings. Both men were rescued by God when their neighbors were destroyed.

There were also some serious direction to find their differences between the two men. Noah had sons while Lot had daughters. Noah had to live in a wicked world, while Lot chose to live in a wicked city (Gen. 13:7-13). The most significant difference for our study though is that Noah saved his family while Lot lost his.

“And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where … ” (Gen. 13:10). Lot made his selection based on profit. Many men make their choices based on money. They will accept a transfer, a promotion, or overtime without considering how it will impact their family. Fathers are to provide for their families (1 Tim. 5:8), but these provisions go much deeper than the wallet. I must give my girls spiritual instruction, a refuge from the wicked world, and an opportunity to meet Christian boys from whom to choose their husbands.

In time God decided to destroy Sodom and its neighbors. Angels were sent to deliver Lot’s family, but before they retired for the evening the men of the city came to Lot’s door demanding the visitors for sex (Gen. 19:4-8). Lot offered these men his two virgin daughters to satisfy their lusts. (I hope at this point Lot realized what a poor choice he had made for his family.) The angels struck the Sodomites with blindness to rescue Lot and his daughters.

Before the city was destroyed Lot tried to persuade his sons-in-law to leave with him (Gen. 19:14). Some have suggested that Lot had two daughters. They believe that these virgins who were offered to the mob were also betrothed to the men who are called sons-in-law. Others believe Lot had at least four daughters. Two or more had already married men of the city. If this was the case then the husbands had authority over their wives. Lot could not rescue his daughters without convincing their husbands to depart. The men weren’t persuaded, and Lot had to leave his children to die.

Our culture allows children to pick their own mates, but we can do a great deal to influence their decision. From the time our girls were old enough to know what marriage was their mother and I have spoken to them about finding a husband who loves God like they do. We want them to marry a true Christian and not just a church member.

The story ends with Lot and his daughters living in the mountains. His wife was dead. The daughters feared their father would have no heirs, and so they got him drunk and committed incest with him. They were out of Sodom, but Sodom was not out of them. Lot escaped the city, but his family died or was contaminated by its evil.

As fathers we often think we should protect our daughters from boys, but we must also learn to protect boys from our daughters. The immoral woman found in Proverbs 5-7 was someone’s daughter. Some father’s little girl grew up to be a seductress.

The wickedness which led to the flood began when the sons of God (spiritually minded men) looked upon the daughters of men (immoral women). The women were valued for their fleshly beauty only. Their influence led to the contamination of all except for Noah’s family. We don’t want our daughters to be the daughters of men, but children of God. We brought them into this world. Let’s give them the love and direction to find their way into God’s family.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 1
July 17, 1997