Truth Magazine

By Bill Echols

(Author’s Note: These words, which seem so inadequate, were recently spoken for a couple who lost an infant son. They are passed on with the hope that they will be helpful to others.)

One of the comforts, of God’s Word is that it gives us an example or teaching to help us in our distresses regardless of the situation of life in which we find ourselves. God in His mercy has made it so. ” God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” (Psalm 46:1.)

You may feel that you are now suffering as no one has ever suffered before. Yet long ago David also lost an infant son. His love, as yours was the love of a parent; his thoughts were the thoughts of a parent. But more than that, his thoughts were the thoughts of a child of God. Listen to his words: “While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who knoweth whether Jehovah will not be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (II Sam. 12:22-23.)

This passage reveals the mature thinking of a saint of God. First, David realized that there is no return from death. “Can I bring him back?” We realize the only answer is no. All our prayers and our tears will not avail to bring him back. If there be no return to earth, then it is important that we who still have life use that life in a way that is pleasing to the Lord. If the Lord wills that we continue to live, let us resolve to serve Him.

Secondly, David recognized that he too must someday go the same way. “I shall go to him.” David believed that there would be a re-union in another land. David believed the child was safe; that he was happy. Therefore, David would look beyond the open grave that would receive the tiny body to another land that someday he himself would know.

But, my friends, to rejoin his son, David realized, as we must, that he would have to serve the Lord. “Blessed in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” (Psm. 116: 15.) Parents, the child is safe. He has been removed from an earth of sorrows to a land of peace. You cannot bring him back, but you can go to him. Jesus said, “I am the way.” If through Jesus’ blood you become pure and clean, you may rejoin one who never knew the taint of sin or the wrinkles and ugliness of unrighteousness.

God’ pity broken little families

Where there were four and now there are but threeWhere there were three and now there are

but one or two;

Pray, comfort these as Thou alone canst do.Send peace to houses where there is a crib,

Too wrinkleless its wild-rose-bordered spread,

Too smooth its pillow that, brief days ago,

Hollowed to hold a tiny, curl-framed head;God, teach all broken little families

To bear such losses self-conqueringly . . .

Understanding each other, day by day, more instinctively

Forbearing each other, day by day, more patiently,

Growing, day by day, more closely into

oneness with each other.

(Violet Alleyn Storey)

The words of Jesus come ringing down over the centuries to comfort our hearts in our present distress. “Suffer little children to come unto me… for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:15.) LET US PRAY.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 20
April 1962

By W. Curtis Porter

In John 9:31 a statement is made by a man who had been born blind. Jesus had just given him his sight, and it had caused quite a stir among those who knew the blind man. The healing was done on the Sabbath day. Some of the Pharisees said: This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. But there were others who said: “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” And so the discussion went on. They questioned the man about it; they questioned his parents; then they questioned the man again. They declared they did not know from whence the man was that wrought the miracle. The man who had been healed could easily tell from whence he was, because he had opened his eyes. A man with such power must be of God; he could not be a sinner. So the healed man said: “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.”

He reasoned that, as this man was heard, he was not a sinner! Yes, it is the language of the blind man. But he did not say, “I think God heareth not sinners; ” nor even did he say, “We think God heareth not sinners;” nor did he use the expression, “I know.” But he went beyond all these and said: “We know that God heareth not sinners.” That included them as well as himself; they all knew it. And they knew it from many statements to that effect in the Old Testament Scriptures. With such statements they were acquainted, and knew that God heareth not sinners. When we use the language of the blind man, we are staying within the realm of scriptural teaching. So we have often used his words, along with many other statements in both Testaments, to prove that sinners will not get salvation in answer to prayer alone; that a man must be a worshipper of God and do his will.

Some Erroneous Reasoning

Cornelius and some others have been introduced to prove that God will hear the prayers of sinners. One thing is certain, however: if “heard” means “answered,” Cornelius had not been praying for salvation; for even after the Bible says his prayer was heard (Acts 10:31), he was still unsaved. (Acts 11:14.) So he was not saved in answer to prayer before obedience. Every step that a sinner takes in obedience to God is a prayerful step, and from that standpoint God hears them; but he does not give a sinner salvation in answer to prayer short of obedience to his word. In a case of that kind he is turning away his ear from hearing the law, and his prayer is abomination. (Prov. 28:9.)

But some have advocated that if we stick to the argument based on John 9:31, away goes baptism for salvation, for “in 1 Cor. 14:23-25 we have a dear case of a man coming into the meetinghouse in a state of unbelief and becoming a worshipper of God right in the house.” The text of Scripture says: “If therefore the whole church become together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of the heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.” So this unbeliever comes into the assembly of the saints, is convinced and convicted of his sin, and “becomes a worshipper of God on the spot.” It is not necessary to take him to the pool of baptism to make him a worshipper of God! And if to be a worshipper of God means to be saved, then this unbeliever is saved right inside the meeting place. But if it does not mean he is saved, at least it puts him where God will hear his prayer, for John 9:31 declares God will hear the prayer of one who worships him; so we are told by men who wish to set aside baptism. And they ask: “For what would a sinner prostrate on his face before God be likely to pray?” “Who ever knew of a convicted sinner on his face before God asking God for anything but pardon?” Therefore they conclude that this “worshipper of God” may, right there in the meetinghouse, without going for baptism, ask God for pardon and get it, because God will hear a worshipper of him.

At first glance it looks like there might be something to all this and that they have “Campbellism up a tree;” that it does not make any difference which position is taken, it proves a sinner is saved without baptism, for he is either saved “right in the meeting- house” when he becomes a worshipper of God or he reaches the place where God will hear his prayer “right in the meetinghouse” without going to be baptized. But a little closer study of the matter shows that so-cal- led “Campbellism” is not treed, after all; for the language of the man who was blind does not say that “if any man be a worshipper of God, him he heareth.” Neither does any other Bible statement so declare. If a man could prove that God will hear any man who is a worshipper of him, the case would be made out, and we would have a man saved “on the spot” without submitting to baptism, as unbelievers may be made worshippers of God before baptism.

A very essential part of the text is overlooked. What the verse actually says is this: “If any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.” And that puts an entirely different complexion on the case. God will hear the man who worships him and does his will, not simply the man who worships him. Many worshippers of God are not Christians; nor are they in a position to be heard of the Father. Concerning some Jews, Jesus said: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt. 15:9.) So here were people who were worshipping the Lord, yet their worship was vain. Will opponents of baptism say these were saved already because they were worshippers of God? If they eliminate this on the ground that it was merely a lip service, that their hearts were not in their worship, then what about the Samaritans who worshipped God in the mountain instead of in Jerusalem? (John 4:20.) Will they say that none of the Samaritans were sincere in their worship of God? And yet their system was contrary to the authority of God. And what of Lydia, who worshipped God even before the Lord opened her heart, or before she heard the gospel proclaimed? (Acts 16:14.) Had she been saved just before she worshipped God? And even Cornelius was a worshipper of God before the angel ever appeared to him to tell him to send for a man who would tell him what to do to be saved. (Acts 10.) Many men today are worshippers of God who are not saved and whose prayers would not be answered. Not only men must worship God, they must also worship him “in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24.) So the unbeliever who is convinced in the assembly and falls down and worships God is not necessarily saved. Neither does that mean that God would grant him pardon right in the assembly in answer to his prayer. In addition to worshipping God he must do God’s will. “If any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.” To this we might add the language of Peter: “In every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:35.) Men must do God’s will, they must work righteousness, to be accepted. A man might fall down on his face and worship God, yet refuse to do his will, and never be saved; and while refusing to do the will of God he might pray till the day of doom and never get his prayer answered. Something stronger than this will have to be found to destroy the words of Christ: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16.)

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 2-3
May 1962

By Jerry C. Ray

1. In the last article was begun a contrast between Biblical demonology and the concepts of uninspired men. We noticed the silence of the New Testament regarding the origin, nature, characteristics or habits of demons as compared with the wild ideas of that age.

The Contrast

2. In the New Testament the demon is an ethically evil being. Contemporary Jewish and Gentile writings pictured demons as “mischievous fairies” with no particular allegiance to, nor connection with Satan and his forces of evil. In the New Testament demons are of the kingdom of Satan, and Christ’s power is shown to extend over these evil spirits.

3. New Testament demonology differs from all others in its negation of the power of magic rites to deliver the afflicted from his affliction. Many ancient Babylonian incantations have been discovered. Likewise among the Jews was found the idea of expulsion of demons by magic and magical rites.Jewish Magic

The Jews were strictly forbidden to practice magic, but by the traditions of the Jews it had been declared lawful to practice magic, under certain circumstances, even on the Sabbath. Egypt was regarded as the home of magic. “In connection with this, it deserves notice that the Talmud ascribes the miracles of Jesus to magic, which he had learned during His stay in Egypt, having taken care, when He left, to insert under His skin its rules and formulas, since every traveler, on quitting the country was searched, lest he should take to other lands the mysteries of magic.” (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, p. 772.) It should be noticed that the Jews did not deny the miracles of the early church, but simply attributed their source to magic.

The Jews had six classes of magicians. (1) The conjuror of the dead, who evoked a voice from under the armpit, or from other members of the dead body, the arms or other members being struck together to elicit the sound. Necromancy might be practiced in two ways. The dead might be called by a method in which the feet would appear upwards. This must not be practiced on the Sabbath. The second method: by means of magic, a skull might be made to answer. This could be practiced on the Sabbath. Or a demon might be called up to speak by means of incense. (2) Yideoni uttered oracles by putting a certain bone into their mouth. (3) Then there were the serpent charmers. (4) The Meonen could indicate the days or hours, which were lucky. (5) The “searcher after the dead” remained fasting on graves in order to communicate with an unclean spirit. (6) The Menachesh knew what omens were lucky and what unlucky.

Many, varied, and ridiculous were the magical formulas, cures, incantations and methods of exorcism. We reproduce a few as illustrative of their general nature: They are taken from Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, p. 775. “To ward off any danger from drinking water on a Wednesday or Sabbath-Evening, when evil spirits may rest on it, it is advised either to repeat a passage of Scripture in which the word Qol (‘Voice’) occurs seven times (Psa. 29:3-9), or else to say this: ‘Lul, Shaphan, Anigron, Anirdaphin–between the stars I sit, betwixt the lean and the fat I walk!’

“Here is an incantation against boils: ‘Bas, Baziyah, Mas, Masiya, Kas, Kasiyah, Sharlai and Amarlai–ye Angels that come from the land of Sodom to heal painful boils! Let the colour not become more red, let it not farther spread, let its seed be absorbed in the belly. As a mule does not propagate itself, so let not this evil propagate itself in the body of M. the son of M.”‘

In the apocryphal book of Tobit, chapter 8, verses 1-3, we have a legend of exorcism by means of fumigation: ” When they had finished eating, they escorted Tobias in to her. As he went he remembered the words of Raphael, and he took the live ashes of incense and put the heart and liver of the fish upon them and made a smoke. And when the demon smelled the odor he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him.”

This same superstition is found among the seven sons of Sceva mentioned in Acts l9, who thought that Paul’s “magic words” were adjuration in the name of Jesus. But these men learned a lesson the hard way. See Acts 19: 13-16.

Now, notice the contract in New Testament demonology. “While the New Testament furnishes no data by which to learn the views of Jesus or of the evangelists regarding the exact character of the phenomenon, it furnishes the fullest details as to the manner in which the demonized were set free. This was always the same. It consisted neither in magical means nor formulas pf exorcism, but always in the Word of Power which Jesus spake, or entrusted to His disciples, and which the demons always obeyed. There is here not only difference, but contrariety in comparison with the current Jewish notions, and it leads to the conclusion that there was the same contrast in His views, as in His treatment of the ‘demonised.”‘ (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I, p. 482.)

4. In the New Testament the range of activities attributed to demons is greatly restricted. In the Babylonian writings demons are said to be lurking everywhere, watching for their prey. This same exuberance is found in the non-canonical writings of the Jews. The writings attribute “all kinds of ills of mind and body to innumerable, swarming hosts of demons lying wait for men and besieging them with attacks and ills of all descriptions. Of this affluence of morbid fancy there is no hint in the New Testament.” (Sweet op. cit., p. 629.)

From this summary study the contrast is so abundantly evident that no serious charge of similarity between the New Testament demonology and that of uninspired literature could be entertained by anyone. To the contrary there is a great gulf between the sane and subdued doctrine of demonology as found in the Bible and the absurd superstitions that have flowed from the prolific imaginations of countless uninspired men.

In the next article we shall study more specifically what the New Testament says about demonology.

Next Article of this Series

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 6-7
May 1962

By Donald P. Ames

With the present day expressions taking hold and often repeated with little or no thought, it does us good to occasionally pause and give consideration to certain expressions that have been adopted and put into frequent usage. Some of these expressions may be in correct accord with the word of God, others are quite out of harmony. It is the latter that we need to shun, to give way to expressions and wording that is in accord with Bible usage.

One such expression that has been widely adopted is found in the first epistle by Paul to the Corinthians, 11:27. He here says: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (KJV.) From this passage, many today will offer the prayer that we might be “worthy” to partake of the bread and fruit of the vine. However, such is not the teaching of this particular passage.

If the Lord were to make one’s being “worthy” an essential feature in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, I fear many of us would fall under the above condemnation, as all have sinned (Rom. 3:23, I John 1:5-10), and are thus unworthy to partake of this blessed memorial. Being guilty of sin and limited judgments, who is man to determine within himself that he is worthy to partake of these memorials of the body and blood of our Lord.

However, as mentioned, this is not the teaching of this passage. The American Standard Version renders the correct meaning more clearly, translating it thusly: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” The word worthily (KJV) is an adverb, describing the manner in which the elements are partaken, and not the condition of the one partaking (adjective). All the Bible says about the condition of the one partaking is that the supper was designed for those “in the kingdom” (Matt. 27:39-44), and since the kingdom is the church, it would be those in the church– Christians.

But, then, the question is asked: Why the condemnation if the one is merely eating or drinking in an “improper fashion? ” Is not a memorial a memorial, regardless of how accepted? This question is not hard to answer if we will but place ourselves in the shoes of the New Testament disciples. The supper (as instituted by Christ) is a spiritual memorial with very special significance attached, as they recognized. It was a means of drawing them closer to the realization of the benefits obtained by the death of Christ on the cruel cross of Calvary. (I Cor. 10:14-17.) In partaking with a flippant attitude–not really concerned whether he bother with it or not, one was actually making a mockery of this sacred memorial–intentionally or otherwise. By so acting, he was; as guilty of mocking the death of Christ and his claims of deity, as were the Jews who mocked Him at the cross. (Matt. 27.) With this attitude, such a one stood condemned in the eyes of God.

Lacking the proper spiritual attitude, and thus obtaining nothing in the way of spiritual growth and renewed courage during this part of the worship (and more than likely, nothing during the rest either), is it any wonder Paul said, “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few asleep? ” (I Cor. 11:30.) With such an attitude, how could they worship God “in spirit and truth?” (John 4:24.) Thinking only of themselves, such was impossible. (I Cor. 11: 20.) If the spiritual value of this Supper be destroyed, so will be the individuals who, by their ungodly attitudes (lacking the proper attitude), have led to its downfall by their unconcern for its place in their lives. (vs. 27, 29.)

Let us indeed guard ourselves that we speak properly (I Pet. 4:11), as well as being sure our motives are also correct. Then can we indeed develop, as God desires.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 18-19
April 1962