Truth Magazine

By Jerry C. Ray

In a previous article the concepts of the heathen writers, the Hellenistic writers, and the “church Fathers” concerning demonology were presented. Three modernistic theories to explain away New Testament demonology were considered and answered.

At this point let’s notice a basic fallacy in the Modernist’s denial of the existence of demons in Biblical times. He illogically reasons thusly: “I have never seen a demon. No one in this present age has ever seen, or been able to prove the existence of demons. Demons are beyond the range of experience of the present age, so they didn’t exist in Biblical times.” Such reasoning places everything upon the basis of experience. By such reasoning I could “prove” that Napoleon Bonaparte never existed. I nor anyone of this present world has ever seen Napoleon, so he must not have ever existed! McClintock & Strong says, “No one has a right to eviscerate the strong expression of Scripture in order to reduce its declarations to a level with our own ignorance.” (II p. 642.) Translated into simpler language, this simply means, “Your (the modernist) ignorance of demons, no matter how great, can set aside my (the New Testament writers) knowledge, no matter how small.”

In reply to the Modernist’s flat assertion that demons didn’t exist in New Testament times, and Jesus did not really cast out demons, we simply say, “Vas you dere, Charlie? “

Non-Canonical Writings of the Jews

The Modernist makes a great deal of the absurdities of the non-canonical Jewish writings concerning demonology. The modernist states that Jesus got his doctrine of demonology from His Jewish heritage. He further states that since the Jewish superstitions are so absurd as to be patently false, then the New Testament writings concerning demons is likewise merely superstitions of an ignorant age and people.

Let’s give ourselves to an examination of these objections presented by the Modernist and see if they are so.

It is absolutely correct that the Jews (as well as the gentiles) had many absurd and ridiculous ideas concerning demons, but their misconceptions in no way invalidate the actuality of the existence of demons, no more than the existence of many false religions would invalidate the divine origin of Christianity, or the Book of Mormon invalidate the truth of the Bible. In fact, a study of the Jewish ideas as compared with the New Testament teaching on demonology will only serve to prove the validity of the New Testament testimony.

To say that Jesus’ teaching concerning demons came from the Jewish ideas is absolutely false. The difference in the Jewish concepts and His is as the difference between black and white. Alfred Edersheim stated, “Those who contend that the representations of the Evangelists are identical with the popular 3ewish notions of the time, must be ill acquainted with the latter.” (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I, p. 482.) He adds, “Greater contrast could scarcely be conceived than between what we read in the New Testament and the views and practices mentioned in Rabbinic writings.” (Ibid., II p. 776.)

The statement that Jesus and his disciples were mistaken in their belief in the existence of demons that they “seem rather to have shared in the popular demonology, although they never committed themselves to the absurdities which marked some of the rabbinical teachers.” (A New Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls Co., pp. 176-177), leaves the wrong impression. It was not a matter of “some” of the rabbis teaching errors. The whole rabbinical library is “riddled” with absurdities and errors.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume II, gives an excellent contrast in four different points between noncanonical writings and the New Testament testimony on demonology. This I shall present with additional materials from other sources.

“The most marked and significant fact of New Testament demonology is that it provides no materials for a discussion of the nature and characteristics of demons.

The presence among New Testament writers of an influence curbing curiosity and restraining the imagination is of all things the most important for us to discover and emphasize. In four of its most vital features the New Testament attitude on this subject differs from all popular conceptions: (a) in the absence of all imaginative details concerning demons; (b) in the emphasis placed upon the moral character of demons and their connection with the ethical disorder of the human race; (c) in the absence of confidence in magical methods of any kind in dealing with demons; (d) in its intense restrictions of the sphere of demoniacal operations.” (Louis Matthews Sweet, I. S. B. E., II, p. 828.)

The Contrast

1. The origin, nature, characteristics or habits of demons. The New Testament tells us practically nothing. In contrast with this reticence of New Testament writers is not only the heathen writers, but the non-canonical writings of the Jews, and even the church Fathers (see article one). The Book of Enoch states that demons are fallen angels, while Josephus holds that they are the spirits of the wicked dead. In rabbinical writings speculation has run riot as to their origin, nature and habits. Demons “are represented as the offspring of Adam and Eve in conjunction with male and female spirits, as being themselves sexed and capable of reproduction as well as performing all other physical functions. Details are given of their number, haunts and habits, of times and places where they are especially dangerous, and of ways and methods of breaking their power. Full sweep is also given to the imagination in descriptive narratives, oftentimes of the most morbid and unwholesome character, of their doings among men.” (Ibid.)

Edershiem mentions, from among the rabbinical writings, that “their number can scarcely be limited, since they propagate themselves, resembling men in this as well as in their taking of nourishment and dying… like the Angels they have wings, pass unhindered through space, and know the future… they are produced by a process of transformation from vipers, which, in the course of four times seven years, successively pass through the forms of vampires, thistles and thorns, into Shedim (demons).” (Edersheim, Op. cit., II, p. 710.) These Shedim may take the form of man, but they will not reflect the same likeness as of a man. Some of the Shedim have defects. Those who live in the caper bushes are blind. Trees; gardens, vineyards and ruined and desolate houses are their favorite abodes, and they especially like dirty places. Nighttime and before the cock crowing are their favorite time of appearance. It is dangerous to go to their habitations alone, and dangerous to sleep in a house alone. They are especially dangerous on the eves of Wednesday and the Sabbath. But they have no power over that which has been counted, measured, tied up and sealed. They could be conquered by the “Ineffable Name” and they could be banished by the use of certain formulas, which, when written and worn, served as amulets.

“Legions of demons lay in waiting for any error or failing on the part of man. Their power extended over all even numbers. Hence, care must be had not to drink an even number of cups, except on the Passover night, when the demons have no power over Israel.” (Ibid., p. 762.)

“As Shedim have cock’s feet, nothing more is required than to strew ashes by the side of one’s bed, when in the morning their marks will be perceived.” (Ibid., p. 763.)

The Talmud gives the infallible means whereby one can see the demons. “Take the afterbirth of a black cat which is the daughter of a black cat–both mother and daughter being firstborn–burn it in the fire, and put some of the ashes in your eyes. Before using, the ashes must be put into an iron tube, and sealed with an iron signet.” (Ibid.)

So much for the first point of contrast. The next article will continue with a contrast between uninspired ideas of demonology and the New Testament teachings, beginning with the second point of contrast.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 9-11
April 1962

By Charles G. Maples

In talking with brethren concerning kitchens, “fellowship” halls, etc., etc., I find that many who object to such do not know just why they object. Many have concluded that such is wrong, but cannot say just WHY. On the other hand, there are many who, although a part of a congregation opposed to such practices, would not object if suddenly some one should propose to start a drive for a “fellowship” hall in the church building.

Now, I am thoroughly convinced that the Lord’s church should have no part in such… but just WHY? I shall proceed to briefly state some objections.

First, let it be clearly understood that we do not object on the basis that “the building is sacred.” The building WAS built with the LORD’S MONEY, and for the purpose of WORSHIP–not FUN and FROLIC, but this does not make it “Holy.” There is no objection (Scriptural) to a “workman eating a sandwich in the basement,” nor to “the preacher bringing his lunch and eating it in his study.” However, these are far from parallel with the “fellowship” halls!

When the Lord commanded his people to assemble (Heb. 10:25; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:1-2), He authorized whatever “expedients” necessary to such assembly; such as rest rooms, water coolers, furnaces, lights, air-conditioning, etc. All of these “expedients” have to do with the assembly for the purpose of worshiping God. But the kitchen and “fellowship” halls are provided for an assembly, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORSHIP, but FOR FUN AND FROLIC! Which assembly God never authorized! Now, if God had commanded us to assemble for such a purpose, then within this command would be found authority for kitchens, etc. which would be necessary to the carrying out of the command. The kitchen would, by virtue of the command to assemble for feasting, become LAWFUL, and then brethren would have a right to decide whether or not such were EXPEDIENT under given circumstances.

Another point of objection is that these things place the emphasis on the physical man, instead of the spiritual. These things appeal to the appetites of the FLESH, and not to the HEART of man. These devices of meets wisdom are rapidly replacing the appeal of THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST as God’s drawing power. Many brethren have concluded, as their sectarian predecessors have, that unless we have these things we’ll not be able to “draw the crowds,” nor HOLD them after drawing them! I don’t believe such! I believe the simple gospel of the Son of God is just as appealing to the HONEST heart as it was in the first century. And of this one thing I’m sure; people who will not be drawn by it, but must be coaxed by coffee, cake and comestibles, would not be worth very much to the Cause of New Testament Christianity!

Hear the apostle Paul: “What, have ye not houses to eat in? Or despise ye the church of God and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” (I Cor. 11:22.) It is true that the apostle is here condemning the Corinthians for profaning the worship; but at the same time he reminds them, and US, that the place for feasting is our homes!

We all recognize that the Lord’s church is authorized to function in three fields; namely, Evangelism, Edification and Benevolence. Now, under just which of these would one place these festivities of fleshly frivolity? It couldn’t be called Evangelism, for that is the preaching of the gospel; God’s power to save the souls of men. Neither does it fit under Edification, for that is the building up and strengthening of the SOULS of saints. Nor could it by the greatest stretch of the imagination, be called Benevolence, for the work of the church in this field, as authorized in the New Testament, is the caring for Needy saints. Of course since there is no authority for such, some brethren have “reasoned” (?) as their denominational counterparts; “show us the Scripture that says ‘thou shalt not.”‘

And so, WHY NOT A CHURCH KITCHEN? THERE IS NO BIBLE AUTHORITY FOR IT! And “Hear ye!” “And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of (by the authority of cgm.) the Lord Jesus.” (Col. 3:17.)

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 14-15
April 1962

By Lewis Willis

On this subject there are as many ideas as on any other one subject which would enter into a religious discussion. One man contends that what he teaches is the GOSPEL, while another says the same thing about his teaching, even though each of these doctrines are in conflict with the other, AS WELL AS THE WORD. The preacher, in whom you have the greatest confidence, may be one who leads you astray. He may be teaching something, calling it the GOSPEL, which he could not, with many years, prove to be true from the Bible. He may also be adverse to anyone who is interested enough to ask him questions. I think one of the remarkable things about Christ was his readiness to answer the questions asked him (those which were worthy of answers), for the benefit of his followers. Therefore, it is quite difficult to understand a man who does not welcome questions that pertain to the doctrine he believes and teaches. Let us now examine the GOSPEL, to note the different characteristics of it. If you read this honestly, you will see the amazing difference in the GOSPEL OF CHRIST and the varied creeds of men. We welcome your questions.

In analyzing the GOSPEL, we notice three distinct characteristics and we wish to notice them in this article.

1. There are many facts about the GOSPEL that we must believe. They are the (a) death, (b) burial, and (c) the resurrection of Christ. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that HE WAS BURIED and that HE ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15:1-4) These facts, preached by Paul, are basic facts that every honest person must accept in accepting the GOSPEL.2. In addition to facts, there are certain commands that must be obeyed. Acceptance of the GOSPEL is more than mental assent, it involves some definite action; that of ascertaining responsibility and fulfilling it. We list these commands, citing passages that prove their validity. We urge you to refer to the scriptures cited to see that we are not leading you astray.a. One must believe in Christ. (Jno. 8: 24.)

b. One must repent of sins. (Lk. 13:3.)

c. One must confess Christ as God’s Son. (Acts 8:31.)

d. One must be baptized that sins be washed away. (Acts 22:16.)

e. One must continue to live faithfully before God. (Rev. 2:10.)

3. The GOSPEL makes certain provisions for the person who has believed the facts and obeyed the commands. These are called promises.

a. The first of these promises we mention is remission of sins. (Acts 2:38.)

b. This same passage teaches us that one shall receive the gif t of the Holy Spirit. While this may be difficult to define, one who believes the Bible will not doubt its being given to the obedient. (Acts 2: 38.)

c. The last of these we mention is the promise of eternal life. (1 Jno. 5: 11) After all, is not this the ultimate end we all seek?

This is the GOSPEL! It is the “good news” that is to be proclaimed unto all men today. With Christ’s coming, death, burial and resurrection, there was made possible certain blessings which exceed any other blessings of all time. We are recipients of these blessings. It is, therefore, a great question in the minds of faithful men as to why some people seek to change the GOSPEL.

Hear this warning from the apostle Paul: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:6-9.) There are many points of great value to be gleaned from these verses, and for our purposes just here, notice that some were turning away from the GOSPEL OF CHRIST and were turned to another GOSPEL. Paul said that this was not actually another GOSPEL, but some were PERVERTING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. Some were changing the GOSPEL that was delivered to the world by the Spirit of God. Paul further said that he had PREACHED THE GOSPEL and that the Galatians had RECEIVED it. If there came any man or angel, preaching any perverted GOSPEL, that man stood condemned; he is destined to receive the eternal curse of God.

The problem referred to by Paul is one that we face today. There are many men who are actively teaching a PERVERTED GOSPEL. In many respects, the truthfulness of their teaching is not so much as challenged, and thus, many honest men believe the corrupt doctrine. The purpose now is to show the existence of some perversions of the GOSPEL that all may ever be on guard lest they become the victims of these false teachers. Let us notice the teaching of one prominent denomination on the:

Justification of Man

“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings; wherefore, THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ONLY, IS A MOST WHOLESOME DOCTRINE, AND VERY FULL OF COMFORT.” (My Emp., LW. Articles of Religion; Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1914; Edited by Gross Alexander. If some would question the validity of this statement today, it might be of interest to know that this was checked with the Methodist minister, Greencastle, Indiana, who read this identical statement from the latest Methodist Discipline, 1960.) The doctrine is that man is justified before God, and that by FAITH ONLY.

How many times have you seen checks marked “only 50 cents?” I doubt that anyone misunderstands this statement. We would not expect to receive 59″: ONLY the 50″. In regard to this Methodist doctrine, we notice that Methodists teach that man is justified by “faith only.” It would be a misinterpretation of their doctrine to include repentance or confession; for “faith only” excludes anything else.

There are examples in the New Testament of men who believed but those who teach the afore-mentioned doctrine will not agree that they were justified. John 12:42 tells of rulers of the synagogue that believed but would not confess Him. They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. James 2:19 tells of demons that believed and trembled. Is there anyone who believes that these were justified? (Notice point No. 2 above – “Commands.” There you will see other things that one must do in addition to faith.)

This is a perversion of the GOSPEL OF CHRIST for it alters the commandments. No man will ever be justified until he obeys, not part, but all the commands of God. Thus we see that the doctrine of justification by faith only is not nearly as “full of comfort” as some preacher would have you believe.

To further illustrate the different perversions of the GOSPEL, we direct your attention to one doctrine on the subject:

Church Membership

“It is most likely that in the apostolic age when there was but ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was a door into the church.’ NOW, IT IS DIFFERENT . . .” (My Emp., LW; Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox, D. D., 1890. This statement is found in the 1951 copies of this manual) Here, in regard to church-membership, we see that some would change the manner practiced in the early church. At that time, one who was obedient to the Lord in baptism, was immediately granted the blessings that accompany membership in the Lord’s body. However, according to the creed of the Baptist Church, now it is different. BY WHOSE AUTHORITY IS IT NOW DIFFERENT??? With Christ and the apostles, one situation prevailed; with this modern-day denomination, another. Christ and the apostles accomplished their work and there were no denominations, only the unique body of Christ. Now, after the mind of man has become so corrupted that he thinks he can improve upon the Word of God, there are many different and conflicting denominations, some of which, would have us to believe that somewhere down through the years, Christ altered the laws governing the church and its membership. This is, by no means, the only difference present among the religious minds of the day, but it does serve to illustrate our point. Here is a perversion, A CHANGE, in the GOSPEL that was presented to mankind by an Almighty God. The Baptist creed leaves positive evidence of this in saying: “Now, it is different . . .”

I think it meet that we notice what the Bible says about this most important subject. There were 12 disciples of the Lord, divinely appointed, who began, on the day of Pentecost, the great task of spreading the Kingdom over the world. These apostles spoke to a great multitude of Jews, speaking the GOSPEL, and these Jews were the first to hear it. Hear Luke’s account of the events of that day. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41.) Here were some who were baptized and added to the disciples back when “no differing denominations existed.” These people were extremely happy over the fact that they now enjoyed salvation. so much so that they were “praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47.)

What was the manner of becoming a member of that church of the New Testament?

It was: hearing the GOSPEL ( the death, burial and resurrection) proclaimed; obeying it; and being added, by the Lord, to the church. These additions being day by day as others were being saved. Are we going to adhere to the teachings of fallible men and say that now the manner of entrance into the church is different? The honest man will not. He will be content to simply obey the GOSPEL as it is recorded.

Man’s Great Mistake

One of man’s greatest failings is the attitude of heart that leads him.to think that he has the wisdom to improve upon God’s law. “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” (Jer. 10: 23.) Thus we see that man does not have the ability or authority to alter, in any respect, the law of God. WE MUST BE CONCERNED WITH OBEYING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, nothing more or nothing less. This GOSPEL is found only in the New Testament. Sinner friend, forget your creed, manual, confession of faith, etc. STUDY THE BIBLE. You will find life beautiful, and after this life, eternity that is beyond description by man. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MUST DECIDE.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 1, 3-4
April, 1962

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

“And this I pray, abound yet more and that your love may more in knowledge and all discernment; so that ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and void of offence unto the day of Christ; b e i n g filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are through Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God”. (Phil. 1:9-11)

The above statement by the apostle embodies a most laudable desire prayerfully voiced as touching that that is designed to effect in its culmination the Philippians’ salvation eternally. All that we are, that we do and that we become here is to be esteemed in relation to our final destiny. In this prayer there is the looking to the day of Christ, and relating the present to that time. Standing between them and the final state of being sincere and void of offense in the day of Christ is the growth in knowledge and discernment to the end they may thereby be enabled to approve the things that are excellent; and the ability and practice of approving the things which are excellent renders one capable of being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which, in turn, secured the final end contemplated in the day of Christ.

To the Corinthians Paul said that it is “not he that commendeth himself (that) is approved but whom the Lord commendeth.” (2 Cor. 10:18) That is, we may be disposed to commend ourselves apart from being approved–tried, tested; however, that one whom the Lord commends is he who has been thus approved–approved through the means of having been proved or tried. James tells us, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation, for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to them that love him.” Notwithstanding, however, the fact that God thus exercises discernment by means of testing or trying those whom he will ultimately reward, it is essential that we, in order that we may emerge victorious from all such testing, also cultivate the quality of discernment to the end we may approve the things which are excellent. The footnote in the R. V. on this expression says: distinguish the things that differ. This is the act of discerning.

A very serious rebuke was administered to the Hebrews in the following language: “For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that someone teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For everyone that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.” (Heb. 5:12-14) The senses here are those of perception, and the capacity of spiritual apprehension. The full-grown are those, then, who by their knowledge of the truth are thereby enabled to exercise these spiritual faculties of perception and apprehension of the spiritual as distinguished from that which differs therefrom. Herein is found the explanation of that which so besets and afflicts the people of God even in our present time. Spiritual infantilism characterizes the great generality of the children of God today. They are children in that very sense in which they are told not to remain such, whereas too often they fail to be as little children in those respects in which we all must be in order to please God. There must be that humility, docility and guilelessness in our hearts and lives so eminently manifested in little children; whereas those elements of mental discernment and judgment are the product of growth and development essentially dependent on time, interest and effort, and thus not associated as characteristics of children.

The ability, therefore, of distinguishing between those things that differ is required of us, and possessing this ability is not inherent within man. We are constitutionally finite, fallible and thus liable to error in thinking as well as in action. The latter grows out of the former. This liability in varying degrees ever remains with and characterizes the lives of all men. Truly, “it is not within man that walks to direct his own steps,” and the Lord orders the steps of a good man. It is, then, recognition of one’s dependence on the Lord, and this leading to a complete reliance on His Word to direct us, which can mature the capability of exercising our senses to discern good and evil and thereby enjoy the security the Lord promises His people, which we need so much today.

The mind of the world insofar as the quality of good or evil is concerned is largely, if not wholly, confined to principles of morality. And these principles are subjected to a great torturing by man. Morality is never for long enthroned in the hearts and lives of men, when not undergirded and sustained by a just conception of God and proper relations with Him. In confirmation of this one has to but read the description of the moral decline and degeneracy of the Gentiles described in Romans the first chapter. What preceded and led to this course but the repudiation of God from their hearts? Man never can improve his character apart from Divine guidance, and influence. Where the morals of a people who aren’t Christian can be regarded as elevated such must be attributed to the indirect influence of Divine Truth on them. Thus, then, has affected beneficially these, and enabled to do so by instilling proper concepts of good and evil and thereby the power to discern between them. The children of God, while obligated to influence for weal the world, often succumb to the influence of the world. Therein is found the primary cause of the spiritual immaturity that lacks the powers of discernment we are enjoined to possess. We have taken recourse to the world to form and mold our thinking rather than being content with and informed by the mind of God. Conduct which formerly was condemned by the children of God is indulged in by many of them now, and is regarded as such to be alright since we see nothing wrong with it; and the reason we see nothing wrong or evil in such things is because we are thinking as the world thinks and does.

Also, and of great seriousness, is the disposition to evaluate spiritual matters by a moral standard, thereby failing to distinguish the difference in whether a given thing comes within the spiritual or moral realm. Recognizing that a thing may be wholly free of all moral wrong, we lack discernment if we thus adjudge such to be spiritually acceptable. Jerusalem was charged by Jehovah with having profaned holy things in failing to put a difference “between the holy and profane.” (Ezek. 22:26) That which is holy is such because it is so made and designated by Deity. Man cannot transmute the unholy into the holy by any decree of his own. Too, he cannot intrude the profane into the realm of the sacred. A given thing or action may be good species in that and a counterfeit in this. The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, made the fatal mistake of failing to distinguish between that which God commanded and that which “he commanded them not. ” Jehovah warned Aaron that neither he nor his sons should drink strong drink when they went into the tabernacle to the end they should put a difference between unclean and clean. (Lev. 10:9-11)

A most vital lesson bearing on this very point is found in l Cor. 8. There is depicted by Paul a given action, that of eating meat; in the one instance it is all right, and in the other it is wrong. Basically, there is acknowledged by the apostle “that meat commendeth us not to God, for neither, if we eat are we the better, neither, if we eat not are we the worse.” That is so far’ as the moral aspect of the matter is concerned the eating of meat is amoral–it lies outside of being either morally or immorally considered. Furthermore, the Lord taught while here that it isn’t that which goes into the mouth of a man that defiles him, but that which comes out. So, then, starting from this base, we are confronted with the need of recognizing that one man may eat meat without being guilty of wrong doing, whereas another brother in Christ may do the same thing and thereby effect his ruin. What is the difference? The first one has knowledge; the second one has not this knowledge. But what is the knowledge the one has and the other has not? It is that an idol is nothing, and thus meat offered to an idol has no essential significance therefore attaching to it. But back of this immediate knowledge is the more fundamental concept that meat does not commend one to God, and therefore the eating it or not has no bearing on one’s standing before God. This being true, then, one cannot eat meat as an action performed in relation to God, and hence as designed to commend him to God. To do this is to sanctify to a purpose that which has not been so done by God.

In the case of the one, therefore, the eating of meat was without effect on his standing before God; whereas the same act by the other did affect his standing before God, because he attached to his eating a religious significance. It results in his condemnation. (vs. 13) So, then, we see in the one instance the act of eating meat as being an innocent one, and in the other instance a guilty one, and all because of the different concepts of the act as thus performed by the respective parties involved. The former was done as by one possessing proper knowledge and thus as exercising becoming discernment. The latter did the same act, that of eating meat, but was condemned by the’ identification in his mind of the wrong concept of the meaning and significance of that which he did as related to God. It was a non-religious thing done, but had assigned by the latter a religious connotation. Every “fellowship dinner” in which brethren participate they are unwittingly becoming the victims of the same erroneous reasoning that underlay the reasoning of the brother who was lacking in knowledge and discernment in the case instanced by Paul.

Spiritual matters are restricted to those instrumentalities and actions designated by the Lord. Man has been granted no prerogative in utilizing the one and performing the other apart from Divine authorization. To do so is to be guilty of confounding the profane and the holy.. The economy of the Jews was sanctified by the blood of animals, even the vessels employed in the service of God. (Heb. 9:18-22) Corresponding thereto, all that is within and a part of the Economy of Grace has been thus sanctified by the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the blood of the New Testament, and thus that which has been authorized therein is so sanctified. Herein lies the vital objection to instrumental music in the worship–it has not been sanctified by the blood of the New Testament. Consequently, it is profane as distinguished from that which is holy. This same principle of distinguishing between that which differs and thus the approving of things which are excellent is to be employed throughout the whole area of our service to God in the work and worship of the church. Let us, therefore, prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 21-23
March 1962