Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

When Paul stood on the stairs of the castle following his arrest in Jerusalem, he addressed the people in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:40). Daniel and his friends were taught the tongue of the Chaldeans (Dan. 1:4). Moses forewarned that the Israelites’ failure to hearken to God would result in a nation’s being brought against them from the end of the earth, “a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand” (Deut. 28:49). A “tongue” is a language.

As Jesus was sending forth the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, He promised that signs would accompany the believers. One of these signs was: “they shall speak with new tongues” (Mark 16:17). Any language which one has never spoken would be for him a “new tongue.”

On the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit, “and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1-4). This speaking in tongues was miraculous. The apostles were empowered by the Spirit to speak in tongues “other” than what they ordinarily spoke: they had not studied the languages which they began using.

These tongues were “new” in that the apostles had not spoken them previously. However, they were not new to those who heard. The multitudes were amazed “because that every man heard them speak in his own language.” They asked, “Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:6-8).

The “new tongues” promised by Jesus were “other languages.” This supernatural gift was a “sign” to the unbelievers that the apostles of Christ were indeed men of God. They were not using unintelligible gibberish or mere ecstatic utterance. Such a miracle had never been witnessed previously. The effect was to draw the attention of the hearers to the marvelous truths being declared by Peter and the other apostles.

Supernatural tongue-speaking was a gift that could be imparted through the laying on of the hands of an apostle. This is illustrated in Acts 19:6. After certain people at Ephesus had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, “and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

Paul discussed tongue-speaking, along with other miraculous endowments, in 1 Corinthians 12 through 14. One having this gift might be moved by the Spirit to speak in a tongue foreign to all who were present. In that case an interpreter would be needed, hence some had the miraculous gift of interpretation of tongues. In the absence of an interpreter, the one empowered to speak in a tongue (foreign or unknown to those present) was to keep silent (1 Cor. 14:27, 28).

The purpose of tongue-speaking was clearly expressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14-22.

Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not . . .
Miraculous tongue-speaking on Pentecost confirmed to unbelievers that the apostles were inspired or moved by the Spirit of God. Tongues were a sign that the Holy Spirit was being poured out. They were useful in gaining the attention of unbelievers and in producing conviction. In a similar way, when the Spirit “fell” on Cornelius and his house (Acts 11:15), they spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 10:44-46). This was a direct outpouring of the Spirit, not an impartation through apostolic hands. Nevertheless, it gave witness that God put no difference between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:7-9).

A “sign” is a token, mark, indication, attestation, or verification of something. The signs mentioned by Jesus in Mark 16:17-18 were for the confirmation of the gospel. So the apostles “went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following” (Mark 16:20).

Miraculous tongue-speaking signified to the world (unbelievers or outsiders) that the gospel message was from God, not man. Matthew Poole sums it up in these words in his comments on 1 Corinthians 14:22: Tongues are “for the confirmation of the truth of the doctrine of the gospel; signifying that the doctrine which was so delivered in every nation’s language, must be from heaven, from whence the first ministers must have their power to speak . . .”

Supernatural tongues, like other special gifts to confirm the word, were “done away” when the perfect revelation of God’s will came (1 Cor. 13:8-10). R. L. Whiteside wrote the following in 1941:

The apostles did not know the full will of God right at the beginning of their inspiration. Revelation was made only as they needed it — some one day and some another. To one was revealed a part and to another a part. All of that ceased when the full revelation was completed. We have the results of their inspiration. Since the perfect will of God has been revealed, there would now be nothing for an inspired man to reveal. That which is perfect has come; hence, that which was in part has been done away (Annual Lesson Commentary, 279).

Prophecies, tongues, and miraculous knowledge belong to the apostolic age. They served their divine purpose and have ceased.

2820 Hunterwood Dr., S.E., Decatur, Alabama 35603-5638

By Carl A. Allen

For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Tit. 2:11). In times past, God’s law was extended to a “nation” and not to “all men”; but now, we find all have an equal opportunity to salvation. The Gospel is God’s power to salvation (Rom. 1:16) and is extended to all the world (Matt. 28:19-20). John described this salvation as being to “whosoever will” (Rev. 22:17). If, this was the only passage read from the word of God, one might conclude all men would be saved — universal salvation! When, though, I observe the principle of “again it is written” (Matt. 4:7), I learn universal salvation is not the answer.

“For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it” (Matt. 7:14). Now, I know that all men will not be saved and that there will be only a few to enter the gates of heaven. This was so in the days of Noah, Lot, and the destruction of Jerusalem. We here, are not talking of a physical salvation, though, we are thinking of a spiritual salvation — entrance into heaven. Jesus says that only few will be saved! We are anxious to ask the question: “Why?” The answer rings in our ears, loud and clear.

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Our salvation is conditioned upon doing the “will of God,” and if we do not conform to the will of God we shall most assuredly be lost. The reason for doing the will of the Father is — we shall be judged by the word of God (John 12:48). Thus, we must know the word of God and obey it to be permitted entrance into the joys of heaven (Rom. 6:17-18).

We now have passed from the “grace of God” being extended to “all” men, to the limitation that only a “few” will be saved. The reason for only a few being saved is; there will be few who will “do” the will of the Father.

1115 E. Houston Ave., Crockett, Texas 75835

By Paul K. Williams

The Custom

When three men came to Abraham he said, “Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet and rest yourselves under the tree” (Gen. 18:4). When two angels came in the form of men to Lot he said, “Please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet” (Gen.19:2). When David proposed to Abigail to take her as his wife she replied, “Behold, your maidservant is a maid to wash the feet of my lord’s servants” (1 Sam. 25:41). When David tried to entice Uriah to go to his house he said, “Go down to your house and wash your feet” (2 Sam. 11:8). When Jesus rebuked Simon, the Pharisee, he said, “I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet” (Luke 7:44).

From these Scriptures we can see that for centuries it was customary to welcome guests by washing their feet or by giving them water for their feet.

The Command

In John 13 Jesus and his twelve apostles assembled in an upper room to eat the Passover meal. There was no servant to wash the feet of the guests, and no apostle was willing to be a servant and wash the feet of the others. So Jesus “rose from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a  towel, He girded himself about. Then he poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.” Then He said, “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:4-5, 14).

New Testament or Old Testament?

When Jesus gave the command, the Old Testament had only one day of life left. The next day Jesus was crucified and the law of Moses was “nailed to the cross” (Col. 2:14). Therefore, Jesus was giving something which his disciples would carry out while living under the New Testament. The command to wash one another’s feet was a New Testament command.

What Does It Mean?

Jesus commanded that his disciples wash feet. It was not to be done as an act of worship but as an act of hospitality and service. This is what it always was. It is what it continues to be. The widow who was put on the list is one “having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work” (1 Tim. 5:10).

Customs change, but the principle stays the same. Since today we wear shoes and socks and ride in cars, it is not usually necessary for us to wash feet when we arrive somewhere. But the principle of making a guest comfortable even to performing the work of a servant for him, still applies. Jesus intends for his disciples to be servants of one another, and in hospitality to do everything to ensure that our guests feel welcome and comfortable.

P.O. Box 324, Eshowe, 3815 South Africa  paulw@netactive.co.za

By Wayne S. Walker

There are those who affirm that everything which Jesus taught during his personal ministry on earth, and for that matter nearly everything in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are merely explanations of the Old Testament law, thus pertaining only to the Jews and not applicable to us today. One of the main arguments made by these teachers is that nothing new could be introduced until after Jesus died on the cross and the New Testament was revealed on Pentecost. This would mean that Jesus could not make known any of the conditions of his will while alive, and also that John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, could not have said anything relating to the new covenant that God was going to make.
 
In fact, it is claimed that both John and Jesus only prepared the Jews for the coming kingdom by simply calling them back to the original intent and purpose of the law of Moses. It is true that John and Jesus lived and died while the old covenant was still in force. But does this necessarily mean that all their teaching had to expound nothing but the Old Testament law? Or is it possible that some of their teaching might also point directly to the New Testament and its provisions for our salvation? “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light” (John 1:6-8). What was the mission of John the Baptist? Was it to bear witness of the old law or to bear witness of the Light of Christ? In other words, did John just come to remind people of the old or to prepare them for the new?

To begin, John’s coming signaled the beginning of “preaching the kingdom of God.” Old Testament prophets had prophesied about the kingdom of God, but Jesus said, “And the law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it” (Luke 16:16). This does not mean that the law actually ended or that the kingdom came with John. The point is that with the coming of John there is something different, something new, in stark contrast to the law and the prophets. This was more than just another prophecy of the kingdom like those of the Old Testament prophets. Of course, the gospel had been preached to Abraham in promise (Gal. 3:8). And the Old Testament prophets had prophesied of the gospel in the coming of Christ and his kingdom (1 Pet. 1:10-11). However, Jesus’ statement means that, up until John the Baptist, the law of Moses was preached, but after John came, the emphasis was no longer on the law of Moses. Rather, it was on the coming kingdom of God. Thus, the preaching of John, and of Jesus after him, was primarily the kingdom of God or the church of our Lord, not the old law.

Next, it was prophesied that John would be a preparatory messenger of the covenant. “‘Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,’ says the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 3:1). The “Messenger of the covenant” apparently refers to Christ, who came to establish the new covenant (Heb. 8:6-13). So again the question is raised, did Christ come just to teach the Old Testament law to the Jews, or to bring something different? And the point here is that John was to be the messenger to prepare the way before Christ. So here it is affirmed that John’s work had to do with the new covenant, not the old one. To accomplish this purpose, it was prophesied that John would come in the spirit and power of Elijah (Mal. 4:5-6). The Jews apparently were looking for Elijah to be literally raised from the dead as a sign of the Messiah’s coming. Some even today believe that Elijah or someone like him will arise to signal the second coming of Christ. However, the New Testament indicates that this prophecy found its fulfillment in John the Baptist (see Matt. 11:13-14; 17:10-13; Luke 1:17). John said that he was not Elijah (John 1:21). He was not literally Elijah raised from the dead. He was like Elijah in many ways, but he was not Elijah himself. Why is this important? Elijah was a prophet of the Old Testament, but John was a messenger of the Christ who would bring in the New Testament.

Then, John preached that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 3:1-2). This is the same kingdom that had so long been prophesied in the Old Testament (cf. Dan. 2:44). However, John’s message was not just another Old Testament prediction, but a new message. It was now “at hand.” And this is the same kingdom that Jesus began to preach (Matt. 4:17). Again, He did not just say, “The kingdom is coming someday” as did the Old Testament prophets, but that it was “at hand.” The whole atmosphere at that time was that change was in the air, something new was afoot. Thus, the focus of John’s preaching was to prepare the people for what was coming, not to point them back to what had been. He was the prophet of transition.

Again, John’s practice of baptizing was certainly not old covenant law. “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:3). We do not read anything about baptism for the remission of sins in the Old Testament law to the Jews. Some try to make this equivalent to the various washings for uncleanness under the law, or to the priests’ bathing in the golden laver, but those were only ceremonial rites. John’s baptism was something else. It was “for the remission of sins.” And this baptism was a divine requirement. Jesus necessarily implied that it was from God (Matt. 21:25). The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for them by not being baptized by John (Luke 7:28-30). What was the purpose of John’s baptism? Was it just to call the people back to the Old Testament law? The Old Testament prophets did that without teaching baptism. “And they asked of him, saying, ‘Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?’ John answered them, saying, ‘I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal straps I am not worthy to loose’” (John 1:25-27). John’s baptism was to help prepare people for the coming Messiah. Requiring people to be baptized to have their sins remitted was something new. We have to remember that under the old covenant, God could add new revelations by inspired prophets, and evidently he did so here by bringing something different to signal that a radical change was about to occur.

Finally, the specifics of John’s demands for repentance did not echo the old law. In Luke 3:8-14 he told the people that they must bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and then said, when asked questions by specific groups of people, that this included giving to the poor, tax collectors being honest, and soldiers behaving fairly. Certainly, the Old Testament law taught the Jews to repent of their sins and to live right before God and man (cf. Ezek. 18:30, Mic. 6:8). It is true that God has certain moral principles which are rooted in his very nature and have always been part of his revelation to mankind in every covenant. However, John did not just tell the people the demands of the Old Testament law. In fact, he even spoke to the Roman soldiers who were Gentiles and not   under the Old Testament law. No, he pointed to a whole new arrangement. While he was in prison, he was still talking about “the Coming One” (Matt. 11:3). We must understand that John was not just trying to get people to go back to the Old Testament law. He was urging them to look forward to things that were coming.

Yes, we recognize that the work of John the Baptist was carried out under the law of Moses. Hence, the law that he himself kept and urged others to keep during that time was the old covenant. However, the focus of his mission was not to testify concerning the Old Testament law. That had already been done. Rather, it was to testify of the Christ as part of the preparation for the kingdom that was to come under the new covenant. As a result, the law and the prophets were preached until John, but after he came, the kingdom of God was preached. He said that it was at hand, and then the One for whom he prepared the way came and began revealing various aspects of that coming kingdom along with some of the things to be required of those who would be citizens of his kingdom. The very mission of John the Baptist precludes the idea that Jesus’ teaching only expounded the Old Testament law of Moses to the Jews. Both John and Jesus taught New Testament concepts.