Truth Magazine

By Titus Edwards

Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Paul surely does when he connects Jesus to David in the sermon he delivered to the Jews in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14-41). Great speakers tailor their lessons to their audiences. So watch a master preacher at work. Paul declares that in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, to be our ever-reigning King, the words of Isaiah have been fulfilled, when he said, “I will give you the sure mercies of David” (13:34, quoting Isaiah 55:3).

The ASV and NAS have “the holy and sure blessings of David.” I like the NIV rendering; “the holy and sure blessings promised to David.” The “mercies”/”blessings” here refer to the promise made to David that one of his family would sit on the throne forever (2 Sam. 7:12-13; Rom. 1:3-4; Acts 2:29-32; Ps. 132:11-12). How favored was David because of this promise! These promises (mercies/blessings) were indeed sure, as being true and unfailing. God had promised  he would fulfill it! The Jews understood this promise as referring to the Messiah, and indeed it did. It is obvious from the Isaiah passage (55:1, 4) that the Messiah is under consideration.

Let us back up and look at the context of this passage to see how Paul is using it in his sermon. The “sure mercies of David “quoted from Isaiah 55:3, is the second of three Old Testament quotes that Paul uses together in verses 33-35. The first quote (v. 33), “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee” is taken from Psalm 2:7. It speaks of Jesus’ resurrection, which was proof of his being the Son of God (Rom. 1:3-4). The third quote (v. 35), “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” is taken from Psalm 16:10. Paul affirms that this passage could not have been referring literally to David, for he died and his body decayed. It must refer to the one whom God raised from the dead, who was of the seed of David  the Messiah.

All three of these quotations are used by Paul to con-firm his assertion “that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus” (vv. 32-33). Earlier in the sermon, Paul had stated a number of things in Jewish history that God had done. That prepares the way for him to tell of what God has done in raising Jesus from the dead. As God had “raised up unto them David to be their king . . . Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus” (vv. 22-23).

Paul tells of Jesus’ coming and of his death. “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher. But God raised him from the dead” (vv. 29-30). The resurrection of Jesus is mentioned four times from verses 30-37. There are witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (v. 31). The resurrection of Jesus is the fulfillment of these prophecies (vv. 33-35). The resurrection is the glad tidings that is being declared unto them (v. 32). The resurrection is the fulfillment of the promise made unto the fathers (vv. 32-33). In the resurrection of Jesus, God has given the Jews “the sure mercies of David” (v. 34).

No sermon would be complete without an application. Look at the application Paul gives to this sermon. “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (vv. 38-39). Jesus arose from the dead to live forever, reigning as our King and Savior. And because of that, we can be for-given of all of our sins! What a great promise!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 4 p. 5
February 20, 1997

By Norman Midgefte

In the King James Version, Romans 5:14 reads, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.” In the American Standard Version, the phrase under consideration reads, “the likeness of Adam’s transgression.”

By definition the word, “similitude,” means, “that which is made like something, a resemblance” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

So what does it mean to sin, but not to sin after the similitude of Adam’s transgression? Since God did not tell us, it must not be important for us to know but human curiosity wonders. There had to be differences for it says so. What could they have been? The context or some other source must give us the answers if we are to have them.

To begin with, here are four things about the sin of Adam that no one could ever duplicate.

Four Differences

To begin with Adam was the first man to experience sin and its consequences. This within itself is not earth shaking but simply a historical fact. No one else could be first.

Secondly, no one but Eve ever lived under the same law Adam did of being forbidden to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No one else could have ever committed this specific sin since he was never given this prohibition nor had access to the tree.

Thirdly, when Adam sinned he suddenly had a knowledge he had not had before. Something about his mind changed. Genesis 3:7 says, “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” That had not concerned them before. Then God said in verse 22, “Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Since Adam’s day this no longer happens when man commits his first sin.

And fourthly, Adam’s sin brought physical death to the human race. The sin of Adam and the sins of each one who has lived since has resulted in spiritual death. But only the sin of Adam brought on himself and all humanity physical death. Genesis 3:23, 24 shows this to be the reason he and Eve were driven from the garden. If we never sinned, we would still die physically. We all have Adam to thank for that.

Now in addition to these four differences there are two others from the vantage point of those who followed Adam. Cain, for example, violated God’s laws concerning worship and sacrifice (Gen. 4:1-5). The transgression of Adam did not involve this.

In Genesis 4:6-8 Cain violated a moral law of God and killed Abel. God had warned him to deal with his feelings against Abel for, as he said, “sin coucheth at the door” (4:7). Violence against others was also prevalent in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:10, 11). Adam’s sin was different in that it was not directed at another and in this sense was not immoral in nature.

The sins of those following Adam could be different from his in all these ways but all these considerations are secondary to the real point of Romans 5:14. When you look at the context, beginning in verse 12, you will observe these five important facts.

The Context

1. Adam introduced sin into the world. In Genesis 2:16 God gave him a specific, positive command not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He knew what God had said but chose to disobey. From this act the world was introduced to sin and to the penalty for sin, death.

2. Next, the people involved were those who lived between the times of Adam and Moses. While all in every generation have sinned, verse 14 shows that only the patriarchal dispensation is under consideration here.

3. We know that during this time there were laws from God to which men were accountable. Where there is no law sin is not imputed (v. 13). Since all sinned during this time God’s law existed. The condition of the world at the time of Noah makes this clear (Gen. 6:1-8).

4. Some, including Albert Barnes, have argued that the difference between the sin of Adam and the sin of others was that Adam had a revealed and positive law given him, and all others had only the “law of nature or of tradition.” This is not true. Was it a positive law or a law of nature that instructed Noah to build the ark, or instructed Abram to leave his hometown, Ur, for some foreign and unspecified destination, or commanded Abraham to offer Isaac in sacrifice (Gen. 6:14; 12:1; 22:2)? It was not nature or tradition. It was positive law. Others besides Adam had positive law during the patriarchal age. Since all sinned, all had specific laws from God they were expected to obey.

5. Finally, whatever their sins, they were all as serious as Adam’s because they all bought death (v. 14). There-fore, the contrast being made between the sin of Adam and the sin of all others had nothing to do with the spiritual consequences for spiritual death came to all. Some might have said, “Since I did not commit a sin like Adam’s, my guilt is less.” That was not true.

Conclusion

The main point in this whole context is not to show which specific sins were like or unlike the sin of Adam, but to show that all sin brings the same consequence, death. Paul did not say that no one committed a sin like the sin of Adam between the time of Adam and time of Moses. He only said that those who committed other kinds of sins were just as guilty and subject to death as Adam. Sins relating to worship and sacrifice (Gen. 4) and sins of a moral and social nature (Gen. 6: 1-11) made one just as guilty before God as a sin like Adam’s. If those people violated God’s positive laws or God’s laws relating to worship or morality, it did not matter. Death awaited. Whatever sin could be committed in the similitude of Adam’s bore no greater consequence than any other infraction of God’s law. This seems to me to be his message when he said, “Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”

Guardian of Truth XLI: 4 p. 21-22
February 20, 1997

By Robert Jackson

“Eye has not seen, or ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9)

These words from the pen of the beloved Paul are often spoken at funerals . This is due to the fact that many think Paul here is peaking of heaven. I am aware of the fact this would give much comfort to one who sorrows over the death of a loved one. There are many other Scriptures that tell us about heaven. However, it is my understanding, at this time, that Paul is not referring to the glories that believers well receive after death, but rather to the blessings that one enjoys now as a result of his love for God.

Let us observe the following:

Paul Was Speaking About His Message

As we examine the first five verses of this chapter, we note that Paul was speaking that the message of his preaching was a divine power. In verse one, he speaks of declaring to them the Testament of God. He declared unto them that Jesus was crucified. This message was not of human wisdom. The he follows in verse five that our faith should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. What then does it mean that our faith should be in the power of God? The power of God had to be revealed.

A Message Revealed

Looking at verse seven, we understand from Paul that the message he was presently delivering at one time was hidden. The truth about what God had prepared for those whom he loved had never been seen by the eye, ear, or heart of man. Now Paul informs us that the things not seen by the eye, heard by the heard, or thought of by the mind of man have now been revealed to us (the apostles) by the Holy Spirit. Only the Spirit of God knows the deep things of God. Since they have been revealed by the Spirit, we can now know the deep things of God. Listen to the words of Paul in the Ephesian letter. “How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before a few words which when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Eph. 3:3-4). When we leave these words of Paul, as he spoke them, it seems clear that what he is speaking about, when he said that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and the heart of man had not thought of was that which had been revealed to them being the message, the gospel of Christ.

The Blessing Now

Let us not overlook the blessings that now come to those who love the Lord, the forgiveness of sins, to be called the sons of God, (Rom. 8:14) and the blessing of being a member of his church, the body now (1 Cor. 12:13), and the joy of serving the Lord. Let us be grateful for the blessing of Romans 8:28, and the blessing of prayer  the blessing that we can cast our care on him (1 Pet. 5).

Eye hath not seen, ear heard, nor the heart of man ever thought about the glorious gospel of Christ that was revealed by the Spirit. The gospel of Christ is the power of God (Rom. 1:16).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 4 p. 2
February 20, 1997

By Tom M. Roberts

If by character assassination, ignoring the truth, condemning as factional, or in some other way, the message of faithful men is silenced, it doesn’t change the truth of the gospel.

In ancient Oriental kingdoms, messengers who brought a monarch bad news sometimes suffered the penalty of death. Woe to the messenger who had to tell the king that his army had suffered defeat at the hands of the enemy, that a beloved family member had died, or that affairs of state were in turmoil. Absolute monarchs answered to no one for their actions and messengers could, and sometimes were, dispatched on the spot for being the bearer of bad tidings. Of course, killing the messenger did not change the message, but it gave the king an outlet for his fury.

Such events are not unknown in biblical accounts. Upon hearing that Saul and Jonathan were dead, David slew the messenger who brought the news. Of course, the extenuating circumstance on this occasion was that the messenger was an Amelakite who lied, claiming to have slain Saul at Saul’s request. It infuriated David that a pagan had dared to deal so with King Saul, saying, “How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” (2 Sam. 1:14). The messenger paid with his life.

King Herod likewise cut off the head of John the Baptizer since John had boldly opposed the sinful marriage of Herod to Herodias, Philip’s wife. John stated: “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4). Though Herodias and her daughter were implicated in the plot to kill John, the ultimate power was Herod’s and he slew the messenger of God who condemned his sin. Again, killing John did not change the truth that he declared, but he was effectively silenced because of the message he delivered; the messenger paid with his life.

We Don’t Kill Messengers Today

Of course, we live in “kinder and gentler” days and messengers are not slain today when they deliver bad news. But messengers are not immune to ill treatment when a communication carries unfavorable tidings. There are more subtle, albeit effective, ways to vent one’s displeasure. These “civilized” methods of dispatching unwelcome messengers are even found among members of the church who do not like the truth of God. Gospel preachers have sometimes been on the receiving end of this “kinder and gentler” method of dealing with the messenger: fire the preacher, cut off his support, throw him out of the preacher’s house, and haul him over the coals in a business meeting. Paul was no stranger to ill-treatment by brethren, raising the question, “Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). He stated that he had been in “perils often,” even among “false brethren” (2 Cor. 11:26). Paul understood the danger of being the bearer of bad news.

Institutional History Continues the Pattern

The wrath of the guilty against the messenger who exposes his guilt is still a viable force to be reckoned with in our time. No, those who preach the truth aren’t beheaded, thrust through with spears or stoned to death in the public square. But let us not be so naive as to believe that the anger of the evil-doer cannot find its outlet against the messenger in the twentieth (or twenty-first) century. During the institutional controversy of the 50s, the “yellow flag of quarantine” was an effective tool against many of God’s messengers. Meetings were canceled, whisper campaigns were conducted, reputations were ruined by name-calling (some charged as “orphan haters,” “church splitters,” and such like). Many who did not study the issues were influenced against truth by those who assassinated characters as readily as Herodias demanded the head of John. All of this was done “in the spirit of Jesus,” of course!

Messages and Messengers Today That Face Opposition

Every generation faces its own issues, its own controversies, its own forces of iniquity. In one generation it is called Gnosticism, in another institutionalism, in another doctrinal unity-in-diversity. However the titles are changed, the battle remains the same. The battle is truth versus error, law versus iniquity, right versus wrong. The actors on the stage change with each succeeding generation, but the plot remains the same. And one constant that is still with us is, “Kill the messenger.” Diotrephes threw some out of the church who received John’s letters (3 John 9-10). John was exiled (Rev. 1:9). We don’t have the custom of beheading people in our times and no one has been stoned to death like Stephen in centuries (Acts 7:58). But don’t think modem iniquity hasn’t developed effective means of dealing with those who preach the truth when it is “out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2).

The overwhelming iniquity of our age is that of compromise, of doctrinal unity-in-diversity, by which the unforgivable sin is to have conviction and stand opposed to error. It is a little recognized fact that unity-in-diversity, specifically relating to doctrinal matters, earlier taught by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, and considered so radical at the time, has come of age and is quite acceptable among “sound” brethren today. Some brethren mistakenly believed that Carl Ketcherside was isolated, ridiculed and put to flight before he died. Nothing could be further from the truth! The New Hermeneutic Movement today is Carl’s unity-in-diversity gone up-town. A doctrine that was once scorned by many as illiterate has become the darling of the sophisticates as they use their Master’s and Doctorates from “brotherhood colleges” to encourage fellowship with denominations.

But compromise is not restricted to the ultra-liberals. New ammunition has been found “among us” by those who are turning a misuse of Romans 14 into the breeding ground for a unity-in-diversity that mirrors that of Carl Ketcherside. Used at the first to embrace those who would accept the “alien who would come to God” in unlawful marriages, Romans 14 is quickly being expanded to allow sinful beliefs and doctrines of every sort. Compromise with sin is the order of the day and woe to the messenger who has the conviction to speak out. Kill the messenger? Of course not. But please don’t think that just as effective methods are not available to silence those who would “preach the word.”

It is possible for the voice of gospel preachers to be stilled just as effectively (and politely) as in the days of the institutional apostasy. The “good of boy” system is still effective by which whispers and innuendoes ruin the reputation of faithful preachers. Brethren are quarantined today by inclusive, unpublished lists which, at the same time, exclude unwanted preachers. Those who raise the voice of opposition are ignored as they appeal to brethren for Bible studies. Careful and studious articles are condemned as “rash,” “shoot from the hip,” “knee-jerk” attacks by the very ones who refuse to meet and study issues. It is considered bad taste at the best and sinful at the worst to call names and identify those who advocate compromise. Tape recorders are outlawed from study sessions where compromise is taught lest some “troubler of Israel” get an insight to the material presented. Some are obliquely labeled as factional because their stand for truth is too open, too plain, too uncompromising.

The tongue can be as effective as a sword in such controversies. Faithful messengers of the Word have had their characters assailed as “brotherhood watchdogs,” “creed makers,” “meddlers in other men’s matters,” and “guardians of truth” so many times that even the innocent and naive are led to believe the lie. Such barbed comments are smilingly pronounced against brethren while they decry the mean spirit of the “name callers” and “busybodies.” Even while those who teach error are militant in their spread of compromise, they berate those who oppose them as “too militant.” Those who travel across continents to teach error attack those who write in papers such as this one as desiring to direct brotherhood affairs, to control the church universal.

Kill the messenger in the church today? Oh, we are much too polite for that. But this approach is just as deadly, lethal to a fault, and has the advantage of shedding no blood. And, sad to say, it is effective. Those who are guilty can stand in shocked dismay and claim innocence while they continue to spread error and refuse to study. They are the ones with the sweet spirit, who rise above controversy, who refuse to sully their hands in debate. Meanwhile, error continues its destructive march and compromise eats away at the heart of conviction.

The Message Is Not Changed

by Killing the Messenger

Stephen told those who were to stone him to death: “Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it” (Acts 7:51-53). These words will face his murderers at the Judgment.

Herod must still hear the haunting echo of John saying, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”

The splash of the water could not wash away the guilt of Pilate even as he consented to the death of Jesus. Pilate is gone but the gospel remains.

And so will it be in our generation. If by character assassination, ignoring the truth, condemning as factional, or in some other way, the message of faithful men is silenced, it doesn’t change the truth of the gospel. Doctrinal unity-in-diversity is still compromise no matter if every voice of opposition is stilled. It remains comforting to know, even as Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). You may kill the messenger, but you can’t stop the message.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 16-18
February 6, 1997