By Larry Ray Hafley
“Easter Sunday” I sought to find;
Through the Bible I searched a lot,
And though I’m not blind,
Try as I did, I could not.
I turned many Bible pages
Hunting for the “Easter Holiday,”
But all I found were sin’s wages
For adding to God’s holy way.
I am not trying to be “cute,”
Nor to be simply funny, But with error to refute,
I may as well’ve looked for the Easter Bunny.
Guardian of Truth XL: 8 p.
April 18, 1996
By Colly Caldwell
On May 29, 1962, in the beautiful rolling hills of Chattanooga Memorial Park, we laid to rest the mortal body of our grandfather, Charles G. Caldwell, Sr. He was better known to the family as Dad. On that memorable day, our Daddy, Charles G. Caldwell, Jr., told us when it was his time to depart this life, we were to bring his body back to this same place and lay it to rest at his father’s feet. On Tuesday, February 6, 1966, back up in the snow-covered hills of Chattanooga Memorial Park, he was laid to rest, and we fulfilled his wishes of so long ago. He had left us the previous Saturday morning, February 3, in Franklin, Tennessee.
More important in Daddy’s planning for this occasion, however, was his great desire to go to heaven. In 1931, at the age of eleven, Daddy obeyed the gospel of Christ. He sometimes told us how he had planned to be baptized at twelve, the same age his Dad was when he was baptized. He came to the point of conviction, however, at which he could wait no longer. He said that when he came up out of the water, he remembered thinking that if he could only die at that moment, he would surely go to heaven.
The Lord had much more in mind for this man than only being for-given. Others needed the salvation the gospel had offered to him, and he spoke frequently of his own feeling of being “debtor to preach” the word. Through his teen years he made talks and otherwise participated in the worship. At nineteen, he preached the first of thousands of sermons. Daddy loved the Lord, and he spent his life teaching others to love the Lord. He took great joy in being “conservative,” a term which he used to describe the spirit of one who wanted to conserve the word of God and thus God’s will for man in both faith and practice. He stood for the authority of Christ, the completeness of the gospel, and the autonomy of the local church. He spoke up strongly any time he felt brethren were moving away from any biblical truth. Until the end of life, he remained concerned over current issues and expressed himself to us and the local church of which he was a part on subjects ranging from unauthorized “rights” in remarriage to the subject direction of celebration and performance worship. He was opposed to every attempt to preach on any topic without proper biblical support in the sermon. While we were growing up, he would say, “Don’t preach it if you cannot support it from the Scriptures.” He also would say, “Always do what the Lord says whether it is what I say or not. Just do it.”
Daddy never considered himself a brotherhood preacher, though he preached in many gospel meetings throughout the country. He was at home in local work. In forty-five years of preaching, he worked with local churches in Tennessee, Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, and Kentucky. His work was leading others to Christ and helping Christians “to become and be what the Lord would have you to be.”
Daddy quoted Scripture. The word was written in his heart and his desire was to place it in the hearts of his listeners. He did not need to open the pew Bible he carried while preaching and did so only to be certain his hearers kept their attention focused upon what God was saying. He loved all the Scripture, but he seemed most to enjoy preaching from James and Philippians, two books particularly designed for individual Christians. After his retirement from the pulpit in 1984, he set his mind to write commentaries on those two books. He called that work his “swan song.” We intend to publish his work and make these two commentaries available to his brethren.
Daddy was a truly family man. The romantic love of his life was Fern Aileen Bailey Caldwell. They met at Freed-Hardeman College in 1938 and married in 1941 when he was twenty-one and she twenty. They worked together faithfully in the kingdom of Christ for more than fifty-four years. He was a strong yet loving father. Together, they taught us to love the Lord, the truth, the church, our fellowman, and our families. They helped us to understand that this world does not provide real meaning in life be-cause we are all going to another place. Somehow, they were able to place in us such strong feelings about those things, that one by one, we each made our decision to preach the gospel. Now some of their grandsons are preaching and most of the grandchildren have obeyed the gospel.
While he was Daddy to us and Charles to Mother, he was better known as Daddy Chuck first to his grandchildren and then to family and friends. He claimed he was able to love better than anyone else. Like Abel “He being dead still speaks” (Heb. 11:4). And like all those who have died in the Lord, he will rest from his labors but his works will follow him (Rev. 14:13). He certainly speaks in our voices as we articulate the great truths we learned from him. If the expressions of comfort we have all received from others is any indication, he will also speak in the lives of a vast number which only eternity will count. It is our earnest prayer to God and our labor of faith that “in his time” we will be together again, only this time in heaven.
In loving memory, his sons, Colly, Grant, and Stanley. . . .
Guardian of Truth XL: 8 p. 24-25
April 18, 1996
By David McClister
The transfiguration of Jesus (recorded in Matthew 17 and its parallels) is a unique scene in the gospels. Unlike many other events, Jesus did not announce that it would happen, the disciples certainly did not expect it, and this event was never repeated. There does not appear to be any Old Testament prophecy connected with this event. It is not connected with any of the great discourses of Jesus, and Jesus instructed those disciples who witnessed it to keep quiet about what they had seen. Even today for many students it is an enigmatic event, one that seems, at first glance, to be out of place. Expositions of this scene often treat it abstractly, as if it had little or nothing to do with our salvation. If we look carefully at this scene, however, we find that it was anything but a random event and that it is not unconnected with Jesus’ mission or our salvation.
The Context
The context of Matthew 17 is extremely important in understanding the transfiguration. In Matthew 16 Jesus had asked the disciples about how the public and the disciples themselves perceived him (v. 13ff). The public response had been that Jesus must be one of the great prophets of Israel returned (v. 14). This was really not a bad response, for the prophetic features of Jesus’ ministry are obvious to anyone familiar with the work of the Old Testament prophets. The disciples, however, who had a more intimate knowledge of Jesus, had begun to perceive that he was the promised Messiah. This was critical.
In Jesus’ work of training the disciples there were two basic phases: identification and understanding. In the first part of Jesus’ ministry the disciples accompanied him all over Galilee observing his power at work and listening to his teaching. The design was to bring the disciples to identify Jesus correctly, not as just another prophet but as the Son of God. The disciples reached this plateau in Matthew 16:16, with Peter’s confession.
The aim of the second phase of the training of the twelve was to teach the disciples what it meant to say that Jesus was the Son of God. It is clear that the disciples of Jesus harbored the same kinds of Messianic hopes as most other Jews of their day. While there does not appear to have been any strict consensus or uniformity in Messianic expectations in that time, people generally expected a militaristic figure who would lead Israel against her enemies and establish God’s kingdom on earth (or, reestablish the glorious kingdom of Solomon). The Jews expected a nationalistic revival and a period of unequaled glory. For example, in Matthew 14 Jesus fed the 5000, and John tells us that this prompted the crowds to try to make Jesus king immediately (John 6:15). However, Jesus refused any part in such worldly expectations. In Matthew 15:29 we read of the healing of the multitudes and the feeding of the 4000. This apparently prompted the Pharisees to wonder if Jesus was the Messiah, for they came to him asking for a sign (16:1ff). Jesus knew that the disciples were harboring the same expectations of him (cf. Luke 22:37-38 and Acts 1:6), and so he asked them the famous question in Matthew 16:15, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16 was a great break-through, and Jesus commended Peter for it (v. 17). He wanted his disciples to believe that he was the Son of God, the Messiah. Now, from this point onwards, there is a marked change in the narrative. Up until this time Jesus had been working signs and debating with the Pharisees, dropping hints as to his identity. Now, after Peter’s confession, Jesus is much more direct in the way he deals with the disciples.
Immediately after Peter’s breakthrough confession, Jesus announces, for the first time in an explicit way, his coming death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21). Here was a head-on collision between the popular idea of the Messiah (which the disciples held) and the biblical concept (which Jesus held). The popular idea involved a Messiah who came to earthly glory in victory over the Jews’ enemies. Jesus, now acknowledged as Messiah, tells his disciples that he will, in effect, be the opposite of what they expected. He will die an inglorious death in apparent defeat by his enemies. Although passages such as Isaiah 53 made this clear, the popular Messianic expectation did not include this. Moreover, Jesus’ predicting his own resurrection must have sounded like nonsense to these men.
It is no wonder that Peter reacted as he did upon hearing this announcement (Matt. 16:22). Peter could not imagine the Messiah dying at the hands of his enemies. Jesus was mistaken, he thought. However, Jesus turns and rebukes Peter sharply for not accepting the idea of his death and resurrection. He even goes on to explain that not only will he die, but every disciple of his must follow him into that same death (v. 24ff).
The Transfiguration
It is in this context of confusion among the disciples that we read the transfiguration story. Six days went by after Peter’s confrontation with Jesus, apparently uneventful but no doubt filled with confusion on the part of the disciples. Then Jesus took Peter, James, and John up “to a high mountain” where they witnessed a most wonderful sight. Jesus was glorified before their eyes. His body took on a different appearance (Matt. 17:2). Then there appeared Moses and Elijah. When we think about it, these two characters fit perfectly in this scene. Moses was the great lawgiver in Israelite history, but he was also the first of God’s great prophets (cf. Deut 18:14ff). Elijah was a great prophet too. Furthermore, both of them saw an appearance of God in their lifetimes (Moses: Exod 33:17ff; Elijah: 1 Kings 19:9ff), and both of these occurred on a mountain (Mt. Sinai). Both of them, like Jesus, had performed mighty works in the name of the Lord God of Israel, and both had experienced, to some degree, the rejection of their own people. These two characters have symbolic significance as well. Together they represent the Law and the Prophets, both of which pointed to Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:21).
Then there was the heavenly voice speaking the same words that were heard at Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:17). It is important to note that the heavenly voice sounded while Peter was suggesting the building of three tents (no doubt as “shrines”) for Jesus and the other two figures. It seems that Peter thought the kingdom could be established right there and then. Just a few days earlier he had heard Jesus say that some of them would live to see it (Matt.16:28), and no doubt he assumed this was it. But whereas Peter wanted to give Jesus, Moses, and Elijah equal treatment, the divine voice corrects him. The voice from heaven singled out Jesus as the new and sole source of authority. Again, Peter stood corrected. Then, just about as quickly as it had happened, it was over (Matt. 17:7f).
The Meaning
What did this mean? First, it was a lesson for the disciples about who Jesus was. Recall the context here. The disciples (Peter speaking for them) had confessed that Jesus was the Messiah but they had a mistaken idea of what that meant, and Jesus’ speaking of his death had confused them. The transfiguration served to confirm Peter’s confession. It showed Peter, James, and John that Jesus was no ordinary man nor even a great prophet, but that he was indeed no less than the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel. God was confirming the disciples’ confession.
Second, this scene demanded that men hear Jesus as one who had authority to speak to them. Peter later came to understand this point. In 2 Peter 1:16-21 he acknowledges that the word of Jesus is sure and confirmed and that we must not move away from it. In that passage he tells us that the transfiguration, of which he was a witness, carried this significance. The transfiguration was a statement about the authority of Jesus. On that mountain it was demonstrated that it is now Jesus alone who has authority over men. Moses and Elijah served only a temporary purpose in the plan of God (cf. Rom. 3:21). I think that it is interesting that it was this very point (the passing away of the Law and Prophets) that caused so much trouble in the early church (cf. Acts 15, Galatians, etc.), yet God had already settled this question in the transfiguration of Jesus.
Third, the transfiguration confirmed that the kingdom of the Messiah would be characterized by glory. In the transfiguration the three selected disciples saw a foretaste of the glory and victory of Jesus. This posture of victory would be even clearer to them after Jesus’ resurrection, and it was really only then that the disciples began to put it all together. But for now this scene encouraged the disciples. It showed them that Jesus was indeed the glorified Son of God.
Fourth, this scene is the key to understanding the cross of Jesus and his commitment to it. In Luke’s version of the story he tells us that Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah about his approaching death in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). This is an important piece of information, for it shows us the proper context in which to view this scene. The sequence of events in the narrative here in Matthew also shows us very plainly that the transfiguration was meant to be interpreted in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus. References to Jesus’ death literally surround the transfiguration story (Matt.16:21; 17:12, 22f), and Jesus told his disciples not to discuss what they had seen until after his resurrection (Matt. 17:9). Clearly, he wanted them to view the transfiguration in that specific context.
Jesus wanted his disciples to know that he would, in-deed, be glorified, but it would not at all be the kind of glory most people were expecting (a worldly kind of supremacy). Nor would he gain that glory in the way most people thought he would (by physical war with Rome). The glory that lay in store for Jesus, which the disciples previewed in the transfiguration, would come through his death and resurrection. The transfiguration was therefore meant to be a lesson on the cross, to show its necessity. It would only be through his death and resurrection that he would attain glory. That’s why Jesus committed himself to the cross: it was the path to glory (cf. John 12:24). The disciples needed to begin to learn this new, biblical but unheard-of idea of glory.
Thus with the transfiguration began phase two of the disciples’ training. The transfiguration was not a random event, but was a precisely timed and executed manifestation of glory that was to serve as a lesson to the disciples about what kind of Messiah Jesus was, and how he would attain his greatness. It was the first lesson in Jesus’ at-tempt to get them to understand his Messiahship and what it entailed. They had to unlearn the physical, worldly notions of their day and come to terms with the biblical concept of the Messiah that Jesus would fulfill in the days ahead of them.
Guardian of Truth XL: 8 p. 20-22
April 18, 1996
By P. J. Casebolt
Our title is in quotation marks be-cause it is a common Bible term. It is also a common phrase used by brethren and by religious people in general to denote some of their activities, which in a Bible sense are not really “good works.”
The source of all good is God. Jesus said to the rich ruler, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God . . .” (Matt. 19:17). I do not understand that Jesus was disassociating from God. On the contrary, if God is the source of all good, and Jesus is good, then Jesus is associated with the Godhead. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9).
“. . .God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John. 1:5). Jesus said, “I am the light of the world …” (John 8:12). Christians reflect light from God (Matt 5:16), and are to “be zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14), but the Godhead is light and is good.
Brethren, and religious people in general, sometimes ask the question, “Isn’t this a good work?” That all depends on where we get our definition of “good,” and whether our good is “mixed with faith” (Heb. 4:2), a faith that comes “by hearing the word of God” (Rom. 10:17), or whether our works are mixed with “evil, that good may come” (Rom. 3:8).
God never puts us in the position of having to disobey him in order to obey him. We are never put in a situation where our only alternative is to mix good works with iniquity (lawlessness).
Was it a “good work” to offer animal sacrifices under the Mosaic law? Saul not only offered sacrifices unto God, but he offered “the best of the sheep and of the oxen” (1 Sam. 15:15). Yet, his “good work” was put in the category of “rebellion . . . witchcraft … stubbornness . . . iniquity and idolatry” (v. 23). Saul allowed his “good” to be “evil spoken of” (cf. Rom. 14:16), by violating other conditions associated with his “good work” of offering sacrifices.
Zeal, like good works, must be circumscribed by lawful activity. “But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing” (Gal. 4:18). But if we allow either zeal or “a good thing” to be corrupted by unlawful activity, they are rendered unacceptable before God.
In the judgment, Jesus said that many would claim to have done “many wonderful works” in his name, but that he would regard them as workers of iniquity (Matt. 7:21-23). God’s people are under the same restrictions as those which we bind upon the religious world when it comes to “good works.” We seem to have forgotten that the Scriptures will furnish us completely “unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17).
When we violate one Scripture in order to obey another, we sin.
The church is God’s workmanship, created unto good works (Eph. 2:10). When we attempt to perform those good works of edification, benevolence, or preaching the gospel in a manner which violates the autonomy and all-sufficiency of the church, we turn such works into acts of iniquity.
Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 5
May 2, 1996
