This dystopian novel was written by Canadian Margaret Atwood (from Ottawa, born in 1939) back in 1985. The book appeared as a Jeopardy answer last month, and somewhere there was a protest recently with women wearing the outfit of the “handmaid”—a full-length red dress with a white bonnet that hides the face, which according to the author, was based on mid-Victorian practices, as well as what nuns wear (xvii).
The premise of the book is laughable: A right-wing religious group has taken over the United States, now renamed the Republic of Gilead, and is imposing its rigid moral system upon all the inhabitants. In this theocratic dictatorship, women are not allowed to drive, own property, or have any say-so in whom they might marry. Some choose to be handmaids because the alternative will likely mean death within a few years since Unwomen (those who will not or cannot bear children) are exposed to radiation. [This practice might prevent men from desiring to be transgendered souls.]
The novel’s author does not indicate what religious group might have managed to overthrow the entire United States government, but it was not the two largest religious groups, since both Catholics and Baptists are persecuted. The Quakers are friendly and sympathetic to those trying to escape this ungodly system. The oppressors would need to be some gun-toting cult that is using religion as a pretext to accomplish whatever they desire—who are interested in power and control rather than the second greatest commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” None of that is found. Whoever is in charge is practicing a materialistic, Macchievellan religion which knows nothing of righteousness.
In fact, with the way women are treated, the setting for this novel would make more sense if it was set in Mecca. Muslims go more by the Old Testament than the New; hence, making handmaids of women makes more sense for them than it does for Christians. The women would be read to periodically about God telling Adam and Noah to be fruitful and multiply, which was the only function of women in Gilead.
The Commander (the head of the household) would also read about Rachel demanding children, and, when she had none, she gave Jacob her handmaid, Bilhah, that she might bear “upon my knees, that I may also have children by her” (88). The only thing that was mentioned from the New Testament were some beatitudes, which included, Blessed are the poor in spirit, the merciful, the meek, the silent (89). No, that last one is not one of the beatitudes, but no one was allowed to read the Bible; so, the rulers could make up anything they wanted.
This is another reason the story lacks plausibility. The Bible was written to be shared—not kept under lock and key. People have heard of the great commission have they not? One wonders how a tiny “Christian” sect or cult could do so many things in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches—and get away with it without being opposed by every legitimate Christian group—not to mention atheistic and humanistic organizations, also. How did they gain control of a country this large with the news media, universities, and religious people all united against them? Probably, most works of fiction require to some degree a suspension of belief, but in this case the task is too great.
The Author
Atwood is a prolific writer, having written several other novels, short stories, poetry, non-fiction, and books for children. She enjoyed, as a young person, reading other novels in this genre, such as 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. The original title to the book was Offred, which is the name of the main character. It does not refer to an off-red color, such as crimson or coral; the name should be viewed as Of-Fred. In this dystopian world, women no longer have feminine names; they are designated by their father. One might also think of her as Offered (as a living sacrifice).
But Atwood changed the title to The Handmaid’s Tale in honor of Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. No one can predict whether or not Chaucer would be honored by this gesture. Two huge differences are that Atwood’s Tale is far lengthier than any of those of the pilgrims on the way to Canterbury and Chaucer’s work was written as poetry, which is the reason it took more than a decade to compose and was left unfinished at his death.
She is often asked if the book is intended to be antireligious. She denies the idea, saying that she is only “against the use of religion as a front for tyranny, which is a different thing altogether” (xviii). [Quotes from the book were copyrighted in the1986 edition and published by O. W. Toad. Anchor Books published the edition your congenial editor has (1998). Atwood’s “Introduction” was copyrighted in 2017 by O. W. Toad.]
But is that the case? First of all, she couches her “tale” with Biblical names, such as Lydia, Martha, and the place name, Gilead. Furthermore, she takes issue with Biblical doctrines and morality. One character with a non-Biblical name, Moira, is vulgar and makes perverted comments. She is the one Offred admires the most. No objectively moral position is taken in the book.
The fact is that Margaret Atwood is a doctrinaire agnostic, which means she believes quite passionately that certain things cannot be known and that therefore no one should make a pronouncement about it. Uh, would that include making the pronouncement that one is a doctrinaire agnostic?
Presumably, she would then object to the pronouncement that God is, that Jesus is His Son, that the Bible is the Word of God, and that moral objective truth exists. In other words, she must object to the most fundamental beliefs that are Christian. She also claims not to be a feminist, but an informed guess would be that she is such a feminist that the Bible lost her support when God created Adam first!
She is also in favor of abortion and considers that if the state makes a woman have a baby, it is enforced slavery. One website said she accused the Supreme Court of bringing to life her dystopian story. She claimed the overturning of Roe v. Wade (which was the right decision, since it should never have been made law in the first place) could bring about forced mass sterilizations and bring back a version of the Salem witch trials. Really? Does anyone see fanaticism and hysteria in this outlook?
In The Handmaid’s Tale, abortion is not an issue. Due to toxic elements in the atmosphere, women were becoming less and less fertile; so, the handmaids were women who chose to try to bear children, and it was considered a marvelous thing to do so. Atwood does not think women should be forced or prevented from having children.
But her analysis of the abortion issue is fairly shallow. She does not deal with the science involved. While the rest of us wonder how an actual child—a tiny human—can be removed from his mother’s womb and be killed, she will defend that “right.” But let her own words condemn her. She is writing on another topic, but her words certainly apply to this subject.
Before the country was taken over by religious zealots, Offred had a feminine name (many readers have assigned her the name June), was married, and had a daughter. The time came when this family had to flee from the new authorities; they could not take the family pet with them since they would be on the run, and they could not leave her on her own to starve. If they left her outside, people would notice and wonder where they were. Her husband said he would take care of it.
And because he said it instead of her, I knew he meant kill. That is what you have to do before you kill, I thought. You have to create an it, where none was before. You do that first in your head, and then you make it real. So that’s how they do it, I thought. I seemed never to have known that before (191-92).
This last sentence referred to those who kill the inhabitants of Gilead. The Guards had to make individuals an it so that it would be easier to kill them. She does not realize it, but Atwood has described exactly the way those who favor abortion think toward the child in the womb. They first make the human life there an it, and then they have no qualms killing it. Thanks for the inadvertent explanation on how people stomach abortion, Margaret Atwood.
The Story
The first few chapters tell the story of what life is like in Gilead. It’s fairly drab and gloomy—not much for people like the heroine to look forward to. The highlight of the heroine’s day is taking a walk to go shopping at places like Loaves and Fishes or Milk and Honey. But she is not allowed to go alone; she is met daily by another handmaid from another house, and they go together. Either one may be a spy, for all the other one knows. The woman she meets daily is Ofglen. They have some liberty as to where they may walk. They may decide to go by the wall, where the dead bodies of rebels are on display, or by a place that distributes prayers.
The first few chapters tell the story of what life is like in Gilead. It’s fairly drab and gloomy—not much for people like the heroine to look forward to. The highlight of the heroine’s day is taking a walk to go shopping at places like Loaves and Fishes or Milk and Honey. But she is not allowed to go alone; she is met daily by another handmaid from another house, and they go together. Either one may be a spy, for all the other one knows. The woman she meets daily is Ofglen. They have some liberty as to where they may walk. They may decide to go by the wall, where the dead bodies of rebels are on display, or by a
place that distributes prayers.
Very little breaks up the monotony. Two aunts run the household with the help of some Marthas. Then they have the weekly ceremony where she lays back on the body of the wife while her husband the Commander, tries to impregnate her. They take bearing a child for another very literally. If she has a child, she gives birth somewhat the same way while the other handmaids cheer her on. The term gross comes to mind.
Another slogan purportedly from the Bible concerning the women’s cooperation in all these matters is: From each, according to her ability, to each according to his needs.” No one in the tale seems to be aware that this slogan is an inaccurate paraphrase from Karl Marx (117).
On a given day several young women are married, and all of the marriages are arranged. The mothers give their daughters away. It doesn’t matter if they are happy or not; they will be serving a utilitarian service—bearing children. And they will live in silence, also, never objecting to the system.
Although it is against the rules, the Commander summons (through an intermediary) the heroine to his private quarters in order to—no, don’t even try to guess—wait for it—to play Scrabble. She visits him frequently (his wife is in another part of the house). However, if Offred was caught, she could be put to death. They communicate with each other about various matters; he does her an occasional favor, and then one evening, he takes her out to a club of some kind. She and the other women paint themselves up extensively and look like hookers. Apparently, this serves as an outlet to a straight-laced society. The place is referred to as Jezebel’s.
Meanwhile, the Commander’s wife, who suspects that her husband is impotent, although it would be illegal to say so, offers to hook her up with a young man who serves as the Commander’s chauffeur (so that she might bear a child which everyone would think was the commander’s; apparently, they did not have DNA testing). She and Nick enjoy each other frequently; everyone’s satisfied, and Offred thinks she may be going to have a baby. But the Commander’s wife finds out Offred has been with her husband. Before anything else can happen, Nick (who also works with the resistance) has her whisked away in a van, presumably to the Underground Female-road and safety. Suggestion: Read The Hunger Games.
During our Bible Quiz competitions, we usually have a Word Scramble. The congenial host gives a series of letters which need to be unscrambled to make a legitimate word. In order to help in the process, a clue is given that might help to determine the answer. The letters from one word, selected from Acts 8-14, were rogue lynes. When these are unscrambled, they spell out one word. The clue to help solve this puzzle was “not a skinflint.” Immediately, several teams asked, “What’s a skinflint?” It never occurred to me that people would not know that word. It’s one of those that I have heard all my life. But just to exasperate everyone, I answered that it was someone who was very conservative in pecuniary matters. Then they wanted to know what that meant; so, I gave in and told them we were discussing a miserly person. Then they got it.
One person came up with an explanation, based on Exodus 4:25, that it had something to do with circumcision. The KJV and NKJ have “sharp stone,” but some other versions have “flint.” Actually, that’s not a bad guess, since a flint was used to remove a piece of skin. The Internet provides the actual definition.
How much could a new flint cost? Nevertheless, some were too “cheap” to obtain one; hence they were known as skinflints. See the advantages of Bible Quiz competition? Not only does your knowledge of the Bible increase, but occasionally so does your vocabulary.
The rifle used a piece of flint held in a hammerlike device, or “cock.” When the trigger was pulled, the spring-loaded cock struck the flint against a steel plate…creating a shower of sparks. The flash of the priming powder in the pan just beneath the steel plate ignited the charge in the bore and fired the weapon…. After repeated firings, the flint wore down. Most riflemen merely replaced the flint, but some penny-pinchers “skinned” or sharpened their flints with a knife.
So, who is the most well-known skinflint in the Bible? The letters of his name, if scrambled, spell banal, which can be easily transformed into Nabal (or Laban, who may have had a touch of pecuniary conservativeness himself). When the time came for the sheep to be sheered, Nabal was greatly enriched, but he refused to give any of what he had earned away—even though David and his men had protected him and his land (1 Sam. 25:4-12). For this act of ingratitude, David was willing to kill every male in Nabal’s household (v. 22). Fortunately, the man had a wise wife who gave provisions to David and his men, and David did not attack. Nabal was so stingy, however, that when he heard of his goods being given away, his heart within him died, and he became like stone (v. 37). He should have learned not to be a skinflint—but to give generously.
“…It’s from an old familiar score, I know it well, that melody.” This million-selling song was made popular by
Harry James, who was born in Albany, Georgia. When he was eight, his family moved to Beaumont, Texas, the home
of the world-famous athlete, “Babe” Didrikson Zaharias. James and his orchestra, who began playing in 1939,
continued for nearly five decades. “I’ve Heard That Song Before” (1942) was preceded by another million-seller,
“You Made Me Love You,” in 1941. The concept of thinking that a tune seems familiar is one we all share; in fact,
it’s such a common experience, that we use the phrase to refer to an old story—or perhaps an old excuse someone
has revived. Some rationales never die, they just become recirculated.
The following information comes from pages 182-84 of the book, Long Legs and Short Breeches by Earl Kimbrough.
It concerns F. B. Srygley (1859-1940), who wrote many articles for the Gospel Advocate. On certain occasions he
highlighted the life of pioneer preacher John Taylor, who had contended for the faith (Jude 3) by debating various
denominational spokesmen on occasion. Such discussions were common during this time period. Srygley, however,
received a curious reply from a second cousin of his. Although this relative praised the value of setting forth the
biography of good men, he complained about the portion dealing with denominations. “Fussing at the Baptists and
Methodists does not get us anywhere. They are here and always will be.”
Has anyone heard this song before? It’s an old one, and the melody is familiar. Some don’t like it when we
point out errors that various religious groups teach, yet truth never shines brighter than when contrasted with the
darkness of error. Do people not understand that false doctrine leads to death? For that reason, Jesus taught His disciples
to beware of the doctrine of the Sadducees and Pharisees (Matt. 16:12). Paul commanded Timothy to take heed to
what he taught so that he could save both himself and others (1 Tim. 4:16). Paul delivered to Satan those who taught
error (1 Tim. 1:19-20).
When one reads, “They are here and always will be,” one thinks of sin. Prostitution, adultery, fornication,
drunkenness, covetousness, and pride will always be with us, also; does that mean they should not be opposed, either?
So, how did Srygley answer his cousin, Armstrong? He pointed out, “The devil is here and always will be, but that does
not prove that one should cease to fight him.” Srygley also showed the irony of his cousin telling him what he thought
was an error on his part—but didn’t want him to expose the error of false teaching in others.
In fact, John Taylor had debated a Baptist preacher named Rawhoof. Taylor “was so logical and severe on
Rawhoof that the debate closed at the end of the first day.” Then the Baptists found a man named Alexander,
and Taylor debated him. One of those who became convinced of the truth in those debates was the father of
F. B. Srygley. That’s right. His very salvation may have resulted from those debates that John Taylor
participated in.
Srygley wondered how many others owed Taylor gratitude for not growing up in religious error. Syrgley
said of his second cousin that if he were the only one endeavoring “to stop men from contending for the
whole truth, I could more easily afford to allow it to pass, but this disposition is entirely too common.” Srygley
was hearing that song way too often. And how many times do we hear that melody today? Some have the attitude,
“We just should love everybody,” which is true—but that includes warning those who abide in error of what awaits
them—not ignoring them. It’s not love if we pretend everyone is all right. Jesus did not take that approach (Matt. 7:13-14; 21-27).
Everyone probably does not, but everyone ought to, agree with Srygley’s conclusion on the matter: “It is a
pity that some brethren have no word of encouragement for a brave man who is fighting for the truth.”
When I hear a news item that seems too bizarre to be true, I go to the Internet to see if reliable sources can
verify what happened. When I heard about Bibles being burned by Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland, Oregon,
such an action seemed dubious. Why would a “civil rights” group want to burn Bibles? This event deserved to be
checked on, but no one in major media was covering it (go figure). In the first ten entries, nothing was reported by ABC,
CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox. Instead, those reporting on it were the Christian Broadcasting Network, The
Christian Post, www.washingtonexaminer.com, nypost.com, www.realclearpolitics.com, the federalist.com, and
www.reddit.com. So, why aren’t the main media covering what certainly is an important news story to Christians?
CBN began their report with these words: “Rioters carrying ‘Black Lives Matter’ signs threw Bibles into a fire in
front of the federal courthouse in Portland and burned an American flag….” Why would anyone do such a thing? What
is hoped to be gained by such an action? Christianity teaches against racism and recognizes that God is our Creator.
Paul wrote: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you
are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Christianity has taught and continues to teach that God created us in His image,
which gives all people value and dignity (Gen. 1:26-28). Why, therefore, do we see hatred extended toward the
Bible? To date, no one has come forward and said, “This was a mistake. We apologize. Burning Bibles is not what we
stand for. These were some rogue members.” Hmm. Why hasn’t anyone made such a statement?
Could it be that the beliefs of “Black Lives Matter” run contrary to Christianity? Certainly, violence and arson
do. Their website claims they are non-violent, but one of the co-founders says she is “a trained Marxist.” Their Website
also calls for defunding the police, which practice is already wreaking havoc in places where it is being tried—and in
many cases those paying the price for such foolishness are Black Lives. With Marxists in the leadership, it would explain
the hostility toward the Scriptures, since Marx called religion “the opium of the people.”
And if they are non-violent, why does violence and looting seem to occur wherever they are? These actions do
not harmonize with Christian principles. Jesus taught everyone to treat others the way they would like to be treated
(Matt. 7:12). Neither was it the way of Martin Luther King, Jr., who believed in and respected the Scriptures. What
would he say about the burning of the Bibles in Portland?
By Charles Pogue
When you have raised your children, and you are knocking on the door of old age (or, like I have, already
placed one foot through the door), you cannot but help observe how well or poorly you did at raising your offspring.
Sometimes, as adults, they do things that force you to ask, “Did I not bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord, as I should have?” (Eph. 6:4). Or did I train them properly, but as adults, they (of their own choosing) are on the
road of departing from that training?
If you are a parent with young children, let me please encourage you to never depart from the ways of the Lord,
even for a short season. If you do, you will lose valuable time in teaching your children correctly, which may be a factor
in the future when they begin to do things that grieve you. You, as an aging parent, will witness this behavior and say,
“Where did that come from?”
You may believe you did all that you could to raise those children correctly, but when they (as adults) commence doing
things that indicate they are embracing things that liberals in the church have done for years, you will have
second thoughts. If upon further observation you realize you have failed to some extent, there will be a heavy burden of
guilt that will weigh upon your mind every day. How sad it is when you realize the child you love so much, who once
could be counted among those who are sound in the faith, has all of a sudden been engaging in, even promoting, the
new innovations of man that the faithful have been warning against for decades.
Perhaps you journey back in your mind and come away with the belief that you imparted to the child all they
needed to know to always be counted among those who contend for the faith and combat against changes for the
Lord’s blood-bought body. However, upon closer look you realize there is one thing you neglected to do. You failed to
warn them of the company they keep. Beware if you never told them, “Do not be persuaded by modern-day methods
which originate in the mind of man and lead to alienation from the grace of God.’
Sadly, when it is too late, you have to admit to them, “I did not arm you sufficiently with the knowledge of how to
recognize the fox in the hen house, and now you are not only guarding the brood, you are abandoning the brood and
joining the skulk.”
Be certain of this: At the point when you attempt to make the child see the corrections they need to make,
there will be, via the avenue of the highway of excuses, an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Your instruction
that is too late will fall on deaf ears. It becomes even more difficult when you look back on your own life and
realize there were some companions you had who were only just commencing on the road to apostasy,
and you never realized it until it was too late. You look back on the first thing that individual or group did that
causes you to wish you had never been involved with them at all, and now your child is following their lead,
doing that very same thing. That too is a heavy burden to bear.
There are occasions, and they are not rare, when parents bring up their children in the nurture and admonition
of the Lord, but they gallop away from the faith on their own. That is bad enough, but when the child
ventures away because you know you failed at some point, that is even worse.
Hearken, ye parents of young children, do all you can, and when they are grown, pray that you did all you
could to get them started the right way and to stay on the right path. [Editor’s note: The same would hold
true of moral departures as well. Copied with minor edits from the July 13th Beacon, Pensacola, Florida.]
Generally, we tend to think of political news as “fake.” However, sports can be just as slanted as any other area
of life. In 1973, Howard Cosell, who was well-known for years as being a commentator on Monday Night Football,
along with Frank Gifford and Don Meredith, wrote his autobiography with a title not unexpected—Cosell. Known for
“telling it like it is,” he strove for accuracy in his live reporting and in the written word as well. A few times in the book,
he clearly takes issue with sports writers that present opinion pieces when they ought to be reporting.
Cosell had become so well known that the writer, Joe McGinniss, was assigned to do a piece on him and therefore was
with him for an entire week. McGinniss had already written the best seller, The Selling of the President (1968),
and would later write three true crime novels that were made into television miniseries: (Fatal Vision, Blind Faith, and
Cruel Doubt). McGinniss listened to a speech that Cosell made at a luncheon and complimented him on it. Cosell told
McGinniss he wouldn’t believe the way the speech would be reviewed in the Chicago papers the next day. McGinniss
seemed skeptical that Cosell would be treated unfairly. Later, someone handed Cosell an advance copy of the story,
which was titled, “BIG BAG OF WIND,” or words to that effect. Both he and McGinniss read it. The “reporting” bore
little resemblance to the speech actually given, let alone the way in which the material had been presented. McGinniss
admitted that Cosell’s prediction was correct: “It’s hard to believe what they do to you,” he observed (72-73). The sports
editor of the Chicago Tribune met Cosell at the stadium for the Monday night game. He complimented him on his
speech and mentioned he had assigned a man to cover it. McGinniss said they had already read it and that it was “a
far cry from what Howard said and how he said it” (74). The sports editor was genuinely shocked. He evidently read it
and pulled it out of the paper before publication because it did not appear the next day or any subsequent day.
Everyone acknowledges the greatness of Vince Lombardi, but that fame did not prevent the sports media from
reporting inaccurately concerning him. One “writer” said that Lombardi had abused his wife in front of a thousand people.
First of all, almost everyone had left the field, according to Lombardi’s wife. Although he did yell at her from a distance to
move her car, it actually turned into a humorous incident, which the “reporter” failed to note (111). When Cosell interviewed
Lombardi while he was coaching the Washington Redskins, he made his one and only public statement about sports writers:
“I know what they’re writing, and I know it’s not true” (114). The fact is that reporters, “journalists,”
and politicians do not consider themselves bound by the truth. Only Christians do.
[Editor’s Note: David and I decided a few months ago to send out the July Heart to Heart issue to homes near our building because the theme is: “I want to be saved like they were in Acts.” We know that many who receive the publication do not read it, but at least they will have access to the truth about salvation. The article below is the one I wrote for the column on the back page—space we can fill ourselves if we so choose. We have just a few copies of the publication here at the building; so we are reprinting the article here.]
This is always an interesting question, and many ask it skeptically, just as Pilate did when Jesus stood before him. If we were not cynical enough, we now doubt almost everything we see or hear on radio and television because so much disinformation exists, or news items are slanted. But truth—spiritual truth—does exist even if people have doubts. No. It is not a matter of “a leap of faith.” It is a matter of evidence. “What kind of proof can there be?” you might wonder. How about more than 300 prophecies being fulfilled from the time the Old Testament was written until the events of the New unfolded? Would anyone venture a guess as to who will be elected President in four years?
Imagine specific predictions made 400 to 1500 years in advance! Many people have a low opinion of the Scriptures who have never read them. Isn’t it time to take a firsthand look by reading one of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, followed by the spread of the church in the Acts of the Apostles? Christian living is defined in books like Philippians and Colossians. Truth is presented in the Bible, which was confirmed by the miracles of Jesus and the apostles (John 20:30-31), which people of that time observed for themselves. Truth may be difficult to come by in our society; the Scriptures proclaim it, along with standards of right and wrong.
All of us have committed sins which we cannot undo, but the Bible tells us how they may be removed. Please read this issue of House to House, Heart to Heart because it will provide passages you need to know about salvation from sin. Read the verses in their context, and call us if you have questions. Enjoy!
While driving near the church building a few days ago, I saw a license plate consisting of a message to all other
motorists: U MATTER. I would have thought it was a remarkable message even if it had not been surrounded by a
metal strip that said, Pittsburgh Steelers (which always lends a touch of class to a vehicle).
Probably a certain Harvard senior would disagree with the message on the license plate. On June 30th, she
posted a video in which she says, “The next person who has the sheer nerve, the sheer entitled caucasity
[a term referring to white privilege] I’ma stab you, I’ma stab you, and while you’re struggling and bleeding out, I’m going
to show youmy paper cut and say my cut matters too.” No, actually she was not Black. Okay, she got a little dramatic, but
she’s probably not really going to stab anyone. We don’t know what qualifies her to be such an expert. Chances are she got
the idea from one of her intellectual professors, who made a similar invalid comparison.
The subject is too complex to analyze in a short space, and the person with the message on the license plate
obviously knew nothing about such a recent incident—threat or no threat. However, the phrase in question expresses
something that God consistently tries to communicate to us. In Genesis 1:26-28, He taught us that human beings are
made in His image. Does not that imply that every individual matters? Unfortunately, we can waste all of the good
qualities He endowed us with, such as was the case in Genesis 6:5, when every imagination of the heart was only evil
continually. In the midst of an evil world, God still finds good souls like Enoch, Noah, or Abraham. Consider all of those
who obeyed the gospel on Pentecost and afterward. Many are still being converted all over the world.
Isn’t the message of John 3:16 that every individual matters to God? He is not willing that any should perish (2
Peter 3:9). God desires that all men be saved and “come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). This is the reason
that, for the Christian, race is not a barrier to the spreading of the Gospel. Men from all races and nationalities preach
the gospel. People from all races, nations, and genders obey the gospel. Any Christian’s desire (no matter what background)
is to help bring about what is spiritually best for others. Love helps accomplish that goal; anger and rage help
no one. All souls are precious to the Heavenly Father.
Inside is another article relating to the thinking of various false teachers. We have numerous warnings in the
New Testament against them (Matt. 7:15-20), yet very few ever seem to take them seriously—or the damage they are
doing in overthrowing the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Paul calls those who teach another gospel accursed (Gal.
1:8-9). These and other passages are sufficient to make the point, but sometimes God provides an object lesson for
us. For example, on another issue, we know that God desires true worshipers to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John
4:23-24). In the Old Testament, He provided an example of the way He detests those who act without proper authority.
When Nadab and Abihu offered unauthorized fire, fire came out from the Lord and devoured them (Lev. 10:1-2).
Similarly, God showed His attitude toward two false prophets in the Old Testament. For years, men had been
saying that Babylon would not come and take Israel captive. God told Jeremiah to tell one of them (Hananiah) that,
because he made the “people trust in a lie” and because he had taught “rebellion against the Lord,” he would die later
that year. He did die that same year (Jer. 28:15-17). God also charged Jeremiah to rebuke Shemaiah because God
had not sent him, and he caused the people “to trust in a lie.” His descendants after him would be cut off from Israel
and never observe the good that God did to Israel after the captivity (Jer. 29:31-32).
These false prophets emboldened Israel to continue in their sins and to avoid repentance, which is the reason
their messages were so devastating. They contradicted Jeremiah, who had spoken in the name of the Lord and told
them the truth. People cannot be saved by a lie. For the safety of God’s people, the mouths of false teachers must be
stopped (Titus 1:10-11). This is not accomplished by physical force; God is well able to rid the earth of anyone He desires
to remove. It is a spiritual stopping—-through the use of argumentation and reasoning—through the art of persuasion.
It is in the best interest of false teachers that the church succeeds in showing them to be in error. If they are
encouraged, the Day of Judgment will just be so much the worse for them. The blood of all those they have caused to
be lost will be upon them. The more successful they are, the more ruinous their future. They need to be brought out of
their darkness and back into the light, if it is at all possible. For their sake’s and for ours, let us continue to stand for the
truth.
Those outside the gates of Heaven have included dogs, sorcerers, the sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters,
and those who believe and practice a lie (Rev. 22:15). Some may be feeling optimistic at this point, thinking, “Well,
then, I’m in pretty good shape because I don’t do any of those things.” The problem with this rationale is that no one
gets into Heaven on the basis of what he did not do. Yes, it is important not to practice the things in that list, or, if so, to
repent of it. But these sins are not the only negative things to avoid, and there is another entire category of things classified as sin.
James 4:17 instructs us: “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” We
should all ask ourselves, “Have there been occasions when I should have called to cheer someone up? Should I have
lent a helping hand when someone needed it? Did I offer counsel to a brother or sister struggling with a problem? Did I
participate in the work and worship of the church, as I ought to have?” It is just as much a matter of sin to leave undone
good deeds as it is to transgress righteousness. Some misguided souls have never or seldom attended worship. They
have neglected being part of the assembly, never added their voices to those of others singing praises to God, never
contributed to those in need on a regular basis, yet they think they will be saved on the basis of what they didn’t do.
Although practicing goodness is essential, it does not merit salvation. Only the blood of Christ can redeem us
from our sins, but God does expect a certain behavior from us. He expects us to be like Him—hating evil and loving
righteousness and purity (1 John 3:3). We put off the old person we were when we repent. We die to sin and are buried,
coming forth from the waters of baptism (in which the blood of Christ cleanses us) as a new creation (Rom. 6:3-5).
Henceforth, we live for Him Who died for us (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, we live a Christian life.
Perhaps one of the best verses lies adjacent to Revelation 22:15, and that would be the preceding verse:
“Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter through
the gates into the city.” Those who live by the teachings of Christ, the commandments of the perfect law of liberty
(James 1:25), who are faithful unto death shall receive the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). All Christians should be committed
to this goal and not settle for anything less.
