Titus
By Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.
COPYRIGHT 2004
Week one: Titus 1.1-4 THE
CHARACTERS
1. Paul, a servant
of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect,
and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
"From" is implied
in the address of this letter - From Paul, to Titus.
The arrangement of his servanthood and his apostleship is
of great interest to me. His servanthood was listed first and so it should be.
We are servants first and then God may separate us to other works within the
church. All should be servants, but there will be pastors, teachers, workers
etc. within the servants of God at a particular location.
He uses the servant idea in Philippians 1.1 as well, but
in his other books only calls attention to his apostleship in the
introductions. Why he did this in Philippians and Titus would be information
only Paul and God would have, but it may relate to those that he was writing to
- he may have known that they also knew of servanthood in a practical way,
while other recipients may not have come to that knowledge as yet. This
reasoning may falter when applied to Timothy, one that seems to have been
serving God under Paul's own hand.
We see the apostle set forth his apostleship as well as
his servanthood. He truly was a servant, even unto qualifying as a zealot in
the good sense of the word.
Apostle is an office or designation of the twelve, as
well as a few others in the Scripture. It was a designation of one that was
accepted as an authority by other Christians - an authority from Christ
Himself. The term relates to being sent or appointed and sent. These people
were sent by Christ on a specific mission and ministry.
Paul means small or little and most agree that it may
well have related to his physical stature, however it would relate to ego and
his feeling of self importance - or lack there of - this we know from his
servanthood. One with a large ego seldom submits to anyone for anything.
"according to the faith of God's elect,"
"Faith" is the normal word for faith and
relates to a sound belief in something or someone. In this case the faith of
God's elect - it seems the faith of Christians was the basis of Paul's
apostleship in some manner. "Elect" is the normal term translated
elect and means chosen, or picked out. God, before time chose or elected some,
and those elected have faith, faith in the God that elected them.
This faith is not because God elected them, though many
would disagree with me here, but because that THEY BELIEVE the God that elected
them. Many believe that God elected and the elected received faith so that they
could believe. In reality faith is believing and it comes from within the
individual - it is not something zapped into the elect. (Young translates
"elect" as "chosen")
The question comes to my mind as to why the faith of the
elect relates in anyway to Paul's apostleship. Since Paul and the others were
appointed by Christ, why would the faith of others relate to the appointment?
The Net Bible probably has the right thought when it
translates "according" as "to further the faith" of the
elect. Paul was an apostle to go teaching and instructing the elect about the
salvation that their election has brought to them. I don't think this does
disservice to the text and it fits much better than according. If you think
about it a little, why would God elect or choose some to salvation and then
base apostleship on the faith of others. Indeed, in other books Paul declares
clearly that he is an apostle by Christ not by man. Galatians 1.1 is a fine
example of what I have just mentioned. "Paul, an apostle, (not of men,
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from
the dead;)"
"and the acknowledging of the truth which is after
godliness;" "Acknowledging" is related to precise and correct
knowledge.
Truth is the opposite of false or what is also opposite,
a lie. That which is true and based on truth. This is a concept
The term "after" is
the same term translated "according" in the earlier phrase.
"Godliness" is translated both
"godliness" and "holiness", thus we should be able to gain
a clear picture of the concept. Someone that is not living in sin, someone that
is living for God, and someone that is normally without sin.
There is a sidelight of truth in this phrase which should
be noted in our day. Truth which is after godliness indicates that nontruth is
after ungodliness.
Many there are today in Christian circles that use the
lie as if it were truth and truth as if is were a lie. John
Whats more, you are left to wonder how they get away with
it. Why do Christians allow other believers to lie to them? Why does God allow
them to continue on in their falsehood?
Now, specifically, this phrase refers back to Paul's apostleship.
Just how does "and the acknowledging of the truth which is after
godliness;" relate to apostleship? In the specific sense acknowledging of
the truth speaks of the Gospel. Had Paul not responded to the Gospel when
confronted with it, he would not have become an apostle.
I can hear the backbiters screaming already. How could
Paul not respond to the Gospel - he was elect, he could not "not
respond" is the cry I can almost hear. I respond with "free
will" is in the works though a further scream would be raised, "There
is no such thing as free will!" they would cry. "If Paul could have
refused His election, God would not be sovereign!" would be the next cry
of anguish.
Well, in my mind if man has no free will, then God is not
sovereign. A sovereign God is one that can do anything He wants to do and what
He wants is fact. Free will is not against the sovereignty of God as they
assume, it works beautifully with it in my mind. God in His foreknowledge - oh
more cries of anguish - foresaw all that would respond to the Gospel and
elected or chose them. This does not negate nor even diminish His sovereign
will, it indeed enhances it in my mind. He is free to allow man to have free
will and still do as He pleases. Now, that is sovereign!
Free will is simply doing what we want. This is
acceptable to all those that would reject my thoughts. They realize we choose
to sin, we choose many things in our lives FREELY, but they cannot tolerate
that same freedom in salvation. Seems a radical idea that God would grant us
freedom to do as we please except when it comes to salvation - that we have to
be saved, and that we have no choice in the matter.
Some would suggest that the lost elect are regenerated
before they are saved so that they can respond to salvation when it is
presented to them. This is closer to the truth, and allows for "free
will" in their minds, but to me this doctrine does damage to the
sovereignty of God. He can't do what He wants to in the elect’s life unless he
forces the elect to do as He desires. This does not fit will with Scripture in
my mind.
I think with my line of thought we have full sovereignty
of God and full free will without damage to either and we include foreknowledge
as the easy meaning of the term implies instead of twisting it to mean
something a little different. I don't mean to demean those that reject my
thought, but I do see a lack of faith in the Word on their part when they
eliminate foreknowledge and free will because the teaching does disservice to
their belief system.
A belief system must rise from the whole of the
Scripture, not just the parts that fit the system that we try to impress upon
the Scripture. If the Word speaks of election, predestination, free will,
foreknowledge and all the other items, we are responsible to find a system that
fits
I find it sad, however, that many of them conclude that I
am lost because I do not agree with their system - they would say I disagree
with God's salvation plan and thus am lost. I find this sad, in that they lose
a great fellowship with many believers and sad that they reject some of
Christ's brothers and sisters over a belief system.
I find more commonality with them as believers than I do
with the normal Bible believer today, because the Bible believers of our day
are so off into their own system of worship that they seldom worry about
doctrine. Yet, I cannot participate in their internet boards because I do not
agree with their confessions.
That alone says a lot about where their priorities are. I
agree with the Bible, but because I don't agree with their confessions (made by
man) I cannot participate in discussion with them. This also is sad to me.
2 In hope of
eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
When my father was on his death bed, I spoke to him again
of his eternal status with God. He, for the first time, explained to me his
belief. He had tried to live a good life all his life and he was hoping that he
had done enough good to get into heaven. He was hoping to make it on his good
deeds. This is not God's method of saving people as much as I would have loved
to see my father in heaven. We spoke of the true Gospel for a time as we had
before, but he never acknowledged to us verbally of his acceptance.
"In hope" - I really hope I make it. No, this
is not the thought of the passage. The word used here, carries the thought of
expectation of something rather than a healthy desire to see something come to
pass.
The author of hope is He who is its foundation - a
rephrase from a Lexicon. Also, the author of hope is the provider of that hope.
Ah, here I cannot disagree with my reformed brethren. It is all of God and all
for His glory!
Eternal is one of those terms some like to redefine to
fit their belief system. Eternal is just that - eternal - just as God is
eternal, so will our life with Him be. It is never ending, it is without end,
it is eternal, if you will. It can never mean that it will last only a few
years, a few eons, a few whatever, it will continue to exist for all time, all
eternity. Nor, is this meaning that we are eternal, as in pre-existing before
our birth. We have eternal life from the point of salvation - eternal and never
ending.
Those that teach that we lived in some existence before
with God make fools of themselves with their teaching. If you have always been,
why would you need to come to earth in the flesh to always be?
This life is given at the moment of salvation, it is
permanent and it is never retracted. It will continue whether you desire it to
or not, it will continue for all who have believed on the Lord and placed their
faith in Him.
"Life" is the normal word for life - one having
breath - one that is living. Eternal is the emphasis here, eternal life, living
- eternally continuing in existence in some manner similar to what we are in
now. Though glorified, we will be similar to what we are today I would suspect.
While we are continuing on in living, the lost will continue on in the death,
in that terrible state of pain and suffering.
There is a line of thought that needs to be covered at
this point.
All are eternal beings, the difference is the cross, the
difference is Christ, and the difference is confession of Him as your Savior -
I trust if you hear only these words from this study, hear them and act upon
them.
"Cannot lie" is one of the clearest statements
of the truthfulness of God. How much clearer could this truth be made? He
cannot lie, He cannot remove Himself from the truth and indeed He is truth.
This same God has promised eternal life to those that will receive His son's
work on the cross.
He, the One that is truth, promised us eternal life. Now,
refer back to that term "hope" and consider it a moment. It is a
surety of what will come based on the God that cannot lie. We have this hope of
an eternal life with Him - a surety - a fact to be fulfilled and surely it will
be fulfilled.
"Before the world began" is kind of a mouthful
and Paul didn't even explain it. Do you suppose he knew that Titus already knew
what that meant? I'd guess this was the case. Paul had really taught Mr. Titus
Theology 101 and maybe up and through theology 405. He didn't take six pages to
elaborate on this grand doctrine, thus Titus must have passed his theology
course.
Many have suggested that "in hope of eternal
life" relates to the fact that we have to work and work and hope and hope
that we will gain eternal life. This is not the teaching of this verse and you
have to totally ignore the plain literal interpretation of Scripture to use it
in this manner.
Not so according to those that believe in eternal
security. If God makes us His child, then we are his children and we are not
able to become an unchild.
I spoke to a pastor of a Nazarene church in
Both ends of the spectrum are in error when you
understand the teaching of salvation as a gift - grace from God. You don't work
to keep a gift that has been given freely, nor do you work to gain a gift that
is given at the discretion of the giver. Once on an internet board someone
posted the question "Is it really a free gift." I responded, "if
it ain't free it ain't a gift,” and of course he responded with illustrations
attempting to discredit the clear false hood of his question.
If it is a gift, it is free, and if it is free it is a
gift. If I have to do something or pay something for it then it can no longer
be considered a gift, but a purchase. It amazes me to see how many fail to see
the pure logic of the statement.
If you just can't resist digging into this topic further,
see my theology under security.
The next thought of Paul contradicts the thought of works
to gain salvation. God - who can't lie - promised eternal life before the
foundations of the world! The two ideas (working for something promised as a
gift before the creation of the world) are inconsistent.
If God promised eternal life, then there is nothing man
can do or not do for that salvation. The eternal life is presented for the
taking, not the working and worrying.
He planned it before creation, He promised it before
creation, and he instituted it before creation. The outworking of the plan has
continued on since and will ultimately be completed in the end times. How
arrogant the person that says after understanding all this, that they must work
and squirm to gain this gift, and keep working and squirming to keep it once
they have gotten it. My question. How much working and how much squirming does
it take to gain eternal life? How do you know when you have done enough? When
do you switch from gaining it to keeping it by your works?
3 But hath in due
times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me
according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
'Manifested" means simply that His Word was shown
forth or given forth to man. The idea is that it is there for viewing, for
inspection, and for consideration. It is not crammed down anyone’s throat, it
is given forth for all to see.
In downtown
Now, the modifier "in due times" is of note,
for all that have lived did not enjoy this manifestation. The Old Testament
saints before Moses had nothing, and after Moses for many they only had the
Pentateuch or the first five books of the Bible. Notice that the word was made
manifest through preaching. The early church did not have the written word
either, but they did have the preaching of the apostles. In this case the
Cretans were given the Word through Paul's preaching.
There is a significance to this idea of "in due
time." The Word has been revealed in a progressive manner. Some had only a
little bit of revelation, while others had more, and finally many of us enjoy
God's complete revelation.
From a purely logical and human standpoint, I would have
hated to have lived after the time of the prophets. I would have read some of
those prophecies and wondered for years what it all meant. The same, I'm sure
was true after the revelation of John. Imagine reading the book of Revelation
in the first or second century. What a load of questions a person would have to
ask. The real frustration would have been that there was no one to ask these
questions of, nor anyone to gain your answers from.
"Preaching" is simply the communication from
one announcing to one listening. Back to downtown
Preaching is the proclamation of God's Word. We hold this
to be the hallmark of our worship services, but you might want to look at the
book of Acts and see how much preaching was going on in the early church. When
Paul was around, they had preaching sessions (We won't talk about how long some
of them were - it might give preachers today some ideas :-) From a reading of
Acts the time of gathering of believers centered on other than preaching. I
assume when there was someone qualified to teach that it was done, but I'm not
sure they went for Sunday school and
Just crossed my mind - can you envision a gathering of
Christians in the book of Acts being interrupted from their prayer, fasting,
and fellowship to rise and mill around the sanctuary greeting one another? Okay
so that doesn't relate a whole lot to the passage, but then I just had to say
it. Then again maybe it should relate.
"Committed" is not the dedication that we
relate the word to, but it is something that is committed to someone - placed
in trust with another. It is a related word to the term translated
"faith" in the New Testament. It is something that Christ entrusted
Paul with to do. In that respect, Christ committed it to Paul. He was very
committed to doing that work, but the commitment was from Christ and it was
based on His belief in Paul.
Now, let us take that one step further. He relied on Paul
to proclaim the Word, and in truth He is relying on us in the same way to
proclaim the Gospel to the lost. II Corinthians tells us that we are
ambassadors of reconciliation - we are those proclaimers that are to go forth
into the world proclaiming the claims of Christ. The question comes - are we as
committed to that job as Paul was to his?
"Commandment" is not only something commanded
but has the idea of the command coming from someone with the authority to
command. Paul knew his preaching was a direct order from God and He was committed
to doing it to the very best of his ability - as we should be committed to
being witnesses for Christ.
"In due times" refers specifically to the fact
that it was on time - in God's time table everything is done and occurs at the
time specified in His overall plan of the ages.
As historians and theologians consider the timing of
Christ's entrance upon history, they find that there was no better time for Him
to have been born. All of history was right for His appearance and the ultimate
spread of the Gospel. The
No, this was not accidental; it was the culmination of
God's plan in the bringing of the savior into history. There are no accidents.
Daniel pictures God in the process of raising up and tearing down nations for
His purpose. He, indeed, raised up the
The spread of the Word was determined to be by the
preaching of the Word. God has designated His people to be the bearer of His
Good News. He has no other way for the Word to go forth, except by the
preaching of His people.
The obvious application of that knowledge is that every
one of us should be sharing the Word in some manner. Some by preaching, some by
teaching, and
4 To Titus, [mine]
own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Titus means nurse or someone that is gentle. Now there
are some that would argue that a nurse is always gentle, but NORMALLY they are
and this would give insight into Titus character I would think.
Paul labels Titus as his son in the faith.
"Son" can relate to a begotten son so this is a close relation that
the two men had. It is seldom that this sort of relationship develops so if you
have such a bond with another man, you should develop that friendship as much
as you can. It will be beneficial to both of you.
Paul goes on to declare that they have a common faith.
They have all things spiritual in common, and they are close as a father and a
son. I suspect that the common faith is what brought the relationship into
existence. It seems to me that oft times age disappears when spiritual things
are common.
I fear this is one area of the church where we really
fall short of what would be best. The aged have so much to teach the young and
the young are not interested in listening to the old folks. In my mind there
should be some planning along this line in churches today. The youth need to
get to know some of the aged - they would find them more fascinating than they
would expect, and all the while some of the wisdom might rub off.
A pastor from the
"Grace" normally is defined as favor extended
to one not worthy of favor. The word is used in that way but it is a much
broader word. It can relate to enjoyment, of pleasure, of thanks and other
variations. In this context I would guess Paul wanted to extend a greeting to
Titus that would set him at ease as he started to read this letter.
It is seemingly a simple prayer verbalized, requesting
that God would extend grace, mercy and peace to Titus in light of all that he
had to do at Crete. Indeed, as the letter continues, it seems that Titus will
need just these qualities from some source to work with the people he is going
to be working with.
"Mercy" is to show kindness or goodness toward
one that is afflicted. This should have encouraged Titus in light of coming
verses. "Peace" would have added to this. Peace is that which is
absent in wartime. Paul has just asked God to grant Titus mercy and peace - I
have to wonder what Titus was thinking at this point in time.
Paul calls upon the Father as well as Christ for this
assistance for the man he has set in charge in
A few further thoughts on the son aspect. There are some
things that a Father ought to do for his son, either before the Lord or his son
by birth. The parent will have a primary responsibility in all of these areas
and may well become the spiritual aspect of his son's life as well; however the
person that leads another to the Lord has a responsibility to do as much as he
can without causing interference in the true family relationship.
NURTURE: (Eph. 6.4)
EDUCATION: (Deut. 6.7)
DISCIPLINE: (Heb 12.5ff)
ENJOY: (Psa. 127.5 and
others)
Don't avoid this responsibility either in your physical
children or in your spiritual children. Those you lead to Christ ought to be
discipled and nurtured in their spiritual walk if at all possible. Imagine the
joy Paul had knowing that this young upstart Titus was now trained and ready to
minister to peoples needs. It must have been of great joy.
I have seen similar joy personally in a couple of men
that I followed in their pulpits. It wasn't because I had been trained by the
men, but that I was going to be assisting in training people they had been
teaching. Both had stepped out of their pulpits to retire, and they had left
the church men to seek temporary assistance. I was called as interim. When I
told one of the men that I was taking his old post he was overjoyed. The other
man the first time I preached he was in attendance, he was beaming, amening,
and was over joyed with the pick of his men. We should never be prideful over
the training we give, but we can certainly take joy in knowing that we have.
The application that is present here is the free gift of
salvation that brought Paul unto the Lord and then Titus. That same salvation
is available to all that will accept it.
Many declare that they are happy and at peace without
God, but I really do not believe that true peace and happiness can come without
God. Peace is God's gift to us as we accept Him.
Peace does not mean the super spiritual high with the ear
to ear smile with pearly white teeth, but is the inner peace that allows us to
go through all sorts of trials and problems with the assurance that God is with
us and that He is caring for us.
We have been introduced to the main characters though
some real characters are yet to be introduced. Paul the apostle has given a
great responsibility to Titus - a responsibility to set a church in order.
APPLICATION:
1. Verse one ended with the word godliness. Let's take a
moment with that word. It is defined in the Lexicon as piety before God, piety
meaning living correctly. The Webster's dictionary puts it this way, "A
religious life; a careful observance of the laws of God and performance of
religious duties, proceeding from love and reverence for the divine character and
commands;...." Since we are no longer under the law we know this not to be
correct but following Gods commands is certainly what we are to be about.
It is following what God has said. Is that all? Most
likely, but within that is a tremendous amount of territory. A major part of it
would be not doing what He tells us not to do as well.
Godliness is the opposite of godlessness and holiness is
the opposite of sinfulness. Thus a Godly life is a sinless life, it is an
obedient life, and it is a separated life - I know that word brings shudders to
the backs of so many Christians, but separation from sin is part of godliness
no matter how you twist and rationalize the Word of God. You might read I
Timothy four if you need an example of the outworking of all this.
Godliness demands an obedient life. Godliness demands a
sinless life. Godliness demands a committed life. Godliness demands a servant’s
life. Godliness demands a truthful life.
Do you get the truth of this? If you aren't godly, you
are ungodly, if you are untruthful you are a liar, if you are not holy you are
unholy. We can't be on both sides of the fence, either/or is the choice and we
must make it.
2. Barnes uses an interesting line of thinking that we
might consider. "It is the purpose of God to save his people, but he does
not mean to save them as infidels, or unbelievers. He intends that they shall
be believers first--and hence he sends his ministers that they may become
such."
Barnes introduces the fact that we are not saved completely
in this life. He had to change us from lost to His people, then at a point in
time He will complete that process. Those that die before the end will go
through changes that will adapt them to life in the heavenlies, but in the end
time when all is completed we will all be united with him in eternal life.
Now, whether Paul had any or all of this in mind in this
passage, I would say none of it, but I thank Barnes for introducing us to that
great truth of our salvation in process - even though it is done in God's mind.
3. A point to ponder. Paul uses "servant of
God" however, usually he used "servant of Christ" as do the
other apostles (Romans 1.1; I Cor. 1.1; II Cor. 1.1; Philippians 1.1; II Peter
1.1; Jude 1) I wondered if there was a reason that he chose a different phrase
here. In James 1.1 James uses both phrases to describe himself.
The question arises, is there a difference between a
"servant of God" and a "servant of Christ?" I assume that
there is a distinction since two writers use them both to describe themselves
and James uses both in the same verse - but just what it is remains to be seen.
I will give you a chart and you can fill it in when you do the study on your
own. I will give you a few possibles to consider.
I am going to make an assumption relating to this. Being
a servant of God is that commitment given to God in general to live a godly
life before Him, while I would take it that to be a servant of Christ would be
the more practical of how you live that godly life before God. One is the
mental while the other is the physical.
SERVANT OF GOD SERVANT OF CHRIST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Commitment to serve Serving by way of good works
2. Commitment to worship Glorifying Christ in our speech
before man
3. Commitment to witness Talking with people about the
Lord
4. Desire to love and grow closer Study of the Word and
applying it to life
4. Paul is his Roman name, and Saul is his Jewish name.
In Acts 13.9 we see that Saul was also called Paul. It was at this time he
started using his Roman name rather than the Jewish. I assume that there might
have been two reasons for the change. All Christians and Jews knew who Saul was
- he was the great persecutor of Christians. For this reason he may have wanted
to distance himself from his former self for the sake of the Gospel. The second
possibility might be so that he would relate more quickly with the Gentile
people he wished to evangelize. It better fits that ministry as well.
5. We mentioned that Paul was first a slave, and secondly
an apostle. The sequence seems to be important to him; however the sequence may
well be important to God as well. Only a servant relationship with God can
bring about the uplifting to an office by God. Had Paul not become a servant,
he would never have been an apostle.
A related line of thought is that the word servant is
backed by the Old Testament concept of one falling into debt and becoming a
slave to the man he owed money to. At the end of seven years the slave was free
to go, but many knowing the safety of their life as a slave in a terrible
culture to make a living, opted to submit themselves to their master for life
as a slave. It was a complete and free choice for them to make. This actually
gave them a real freedom in knowing that they would always be cared for and
would always have someone looking after them.
What is your status as a "free to make your
choice" Christian. Have you made a choice to be a servant, or are you out
there on your own doing it your own way? Servitude is the path to service. If
you desire to serve God then there is a step that you must take to achieve that
goal.
Servitude also demands that you will be set aside and
God's will taken as your way of life. You can't serve God while doing your own
desires.
Another thought - all of us are gifted, but many in the
church today are not using their gifts, and some don't even know what their
gift is. Might this be part of the problem? Would God bother informing you of
your gift if you aren't willing to use it for Him? Would he open an opportunity
for you to use your gift before you are within His Will for your life?
Doubtful.
This thing of servanthood is a big step and many in the
church today don't even know it is on the table, because they are untaught in
the Word that we are supposed to be proclaiming.
6. I might draw your thoughts to the purpose of
preaching. It is for the edification and training of the saints. It is never a
proper activity just for the sake of preaching the Word, it should be preached
for the purpose of changing lives. That should be obvious, but I am not sure it
is in many churches today.
For your further study on the term "apostle"
Keathley states: "As used in the New Testament, it had both a broad or
general use, much like our term "missionary" or "messenger"
(cf. Acts 14:14; Phil. 2:25; 1 Thess. 2:7; and 2 Cor. 8:23), and a more
technical or special use as used of the 12 apostles and Paul (Matt. 10:2; Acts
1:2, 26; 2:37; Rom. 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1; 15:7-9; Tit. 1:1; Acts 15:2, 4,
6)."
7. Paul uses this thought of "entrust" or
"committed" in I Tim. 6.20; II Tim. 1.12. It is a high honor for us
to be entrusted with the Gospel. God has chosen man to be his messenger. He
could have hired skywriters, or His own advertising agency to do the job, but
God chose mankind - believers to share the Gospel and to disciple those that
come to Christ.
In case you haven't considered it, that is Almighty God
placing faith in mankind - that same mankind that thumbed their nose at Him in
the Garden. He chose redeemed man to place His faith in. That tells me one of
two things. God has a tremendous reserve of faith, or regenerated man is
supposed to be very trustworthy. Both concepts are worth further consideration.
8. Rev. 13:8 states "And all that dwell upon the
earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
This is related to verse two. Two refers to the fact that
God promised salvation before creation, and here in Revelation we see that the
Lamb, Christ, was also slain from the foundation of the world. Both the gift
and the basis of the gift were completed before creation - in God's mind, not
in reality. The Word came later as man began to record it, and Christ's death
at the proper time.
Now, why is this important? Go back to your understanding
of salvation in the Old Testament. It is my contention that the Old Testament
saints were not regenerated on the spot of salvation, but only AFTER the cross.
This is why they did not receive the Holy Spirit as we; this is why they were
contained in Sheol as shown in Luke 16, instead of being ushered into the
presence of God as we are at death.
For further on this you can read my work on regeneration
but for now, understand that
This is also why the Old Testament talks about the
covering of sins, while the New Testament speaks of the removal of sin. The Old
Testament saints sins were only covered over until Christ's blood could remove
them. This, to me, is proof positive that my thinking is correct. Sin could not
be completely dealt with until the fact of the cross was done - even though all
sins are washed away or removed from before the foundation of the world in
God's mind.
8. We spoke of the truthfulness of God earlier. This is
what theologians call the "Veracity" of God. It is one of his
attributes that most seminarians and Bible college students study. I might
interject that this does not allow for Christ telling half truths as some
missions and missionaries go around the country saying to give credence to
their illegal activities on the field. Half truths are lies and God does not
lie.
Keathley states that this phrase could be translated
"the without deceit God." I really like that statement. He is without
deceit, and He cannot enter into deceit. Simple - he IS truth.
This was probably a dagger to the Cretan’s heart if any
of them read this letter. In verse twelve Paul says "One of themselves,
even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evilbeasts, and
slow bellies."
For your further study I have
included this section from my theology below.
GOD IS
Another term you
may run into in this study is veracity. Veracity is ".....devotion to the
truth: TRUTHFULNESS....." (By permission. From Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1991 by Merriam-Webster Inc., publisher of the
Merriam-Webster (registered) Dictionaries.)
God is called the true God. Jo. 17:3, "And this is
life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent."
God is called the God of truth. Ps. 31:5, "Into
thine hand I commit my spirit; thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of
truth." Isa. 65:16, "That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall
bless himself in the God of truth, and he that sweareth in the earth shall
swear by the God of truth, because the former troubles are forgotten, and
because they are hidden from mine eyes."
Strong tells us, "In virtue of His veracity, all His
revelations to creatures consist with His essential being and with each other.
In virtue of His faithfulness, He fulfills all His promises to His people,
whether expressed in words or implied in the constitution He has given them.
(Strong's SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY)
Ryrie mentions that God is consistent with Himself. This
illustrates truth. We are true to ourselves when we are ourselves.
"True" can be used of the character of an
object as well as the knowledge about the object. A gun barrel can be true or
straight. We can also know about a gun barrel and know of its true or straight
nature.
A man can be a true scientist by nature, but we may know
nothing about the man except lies that someone has spread about him. We can
know him to be true in nature because of his credentials but not know Him
truthfully because we know only of the gossip.
God is the true God for He matches the true God that is
revealed in the Word. We can know there is a true - real - God, yet not know
Him, or know much about Him. We need to understand BOTH!
God is the truthful God, for His knowledge conforms to
His nature, or more exactly IS true knowledge. He is completely accurate, and
there can be no inaccuracy.
All truth extends from Him and all truth conforms to Him.
He is the ultimate standard of truth for He is truth. (Ps. 31:5, Ps.
119:126-128, Ps. 119:160.)
God's truth is related to many of His other attributes
and characteristics. I will just list these for your further study.
Truth and light. Ps. 43:3
Truth and kindness. II Sam.
2:6
Truth and goodness. Ex. 34:6
Truth and uprightness. Ps.
111:8
Truth and righteousness. Jer.
4:2
Truth and peace. Jer. 33:6
Truth and grace. Jo.
Truth and life. Jo. 14:6
You will see that truth is defined in many ways as you
live and learn. For example, Mary Baker Eddy stated that if something was real,
then it was truth. The fallacy of this can be illustrated in the fact that
Hitler was real but he wasn't truth.
APPLICATION
1. God is total truth so there is no lie within Him.
Every promise and every Word are truth and to be trusted implicitly.
2. By a bit far off application, we might run along the
following lines for a moment. When we ask the Lord what He wants us to do in a
certain instance and He tells us, there is never any need for us to question
His answer for one split second. We know He wouldn't josh us! He is totally and
completely HONEST,
3. He will respond to us in all that is truth in the
manner of our worship and prayers. Jo.
4. His judgments will be entirely based upon truth. No
one can trick Him into letting them into heaven or out of hell. Ps. 54:5,
5. The holiness and truth of God should dictate our
ethics as men and women of God! I fear ethics are out the window in the
ministry today. I would like to illustrate this in a number of ways so you will
know what some good ethics are.
a. I was waiting in the office of a large evangelical
church in
b. I have observed and heard of many pastors that leave a
church in a small town and start another church in the same town. When on
deputation, I had a meeting in a town of four hundred people with two
fundamental Baptist churches. There is no need for two churches, two buildings,
two budgets, two pastors. What a waste of God's money.
c. Most churches have a clause in their doctrinal
statements and bylaws requesting that the pastor leave if he finds himself in a
doctrinal difference with the congregation. There are men who remain, and
continue to teach wrong doctrine. Some actually lead the congregation off into
their false doctrine.
d. I have observed a pastor moving into an area and
encouraging disgruntled people in a church to split, and then assuming the
pastorate over their new church. (There were no doctrinal differences
involved.)
e. Accepting a church they know they have differences within
doctrine and practice without telling them.
f. Candidating in three churches at one time and then
choosing the best one that call's you. I have seen this more and more in the
late 80's and early 90's.
g. Flying to one church to candidate and candidating at
another while you are there on the other people's money.
h. Accepting a church in one fellowship of churches while
planning to take it into another fellowship.
I. Counting churches in your fellowship when the church
hasn't had any association in years. When on deputation I found an address for
a church in a fellowship directory. I was able to set up a meeting with the
pastor. Upon arrival at the church the pastor asked me where I had heard about
his church. I told him of the directory. He stated that the church hadn't been
with that group in more than ten years.
j. Setting up a candidate appointment and calling two
days before your date to speak and telling them you have accepted another
church.
I trust that pastors, missionaries, and Christians in
general will consider how they live their lives. I feel confident in saying
that I believe God is embarrassed with His people, in this generation. Many
Christians are less than truthful in their personal lives.
May we strive for the holiness and the truth of God in
our personal and church lives.