Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Is it a violation of Acts 17.29 to use pictures that depict Jesus in teaching children’s classes or to use other graphic art in bulletins or on transparencies that portray events in the life of Jesus?

Reply: When Paul came to Athens on his second preaching tour, he saw a city full of idols (Acts 17:22,23). He was standing in the stronghold of Greek mythology, and this was the occasion for his sermon on the one true and living God.

Paul introduced his discourse by showing that God is the creator of all things and that he does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is he served with men’s hands (vv. 24,25). He proceeded to show that God is the creator of mankind and that all should seek God, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being” – man is the offspring of God (vv. 26-28). He concluded his speech by saying: “Being the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man” (v. 29).

The context of Acts 17:29 is a contrast of idolatry with the one and only one true God. The phrase, “keep the text in context,” is appropriate here. Objects of gold, silver or stone are not to be worshiped. Athens was the intellectual and artistic capital of the world, as well as the center of Greek mythology. It is no wonder then, that in this idolatrous city would be found objects “graven by art and device of man.”

As to the use of pictures, cut-outs, sand tables, film strips for teaching, motive is the important consideration. Are the illustrations of Bible characters and events as depicted by pictures, cut-outs, sand tables and film strips objects of worship? We cannot believe that any of our brethren would use them in a classroom for this purpose. There is a difference in using such aids as objects of instruction about dress and customs, and using them as objects of bowing, adoration and homage. There is really no comparison of these lesson aids and the use of images in a Catholic church building. God prohibited the making of graven images when he gave the ten commandments to Israel, but he also gave the reason for which they were not to be made. The second commandment is: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them” (Ex. 20:4,5, my emphasis). This is the idea.

Those who object to the use of sand tables, film strips etc. as aids in Bible teaching will refer to this verse as an argument against their use. But, as is true so often, what proves too much proves nothing. We observe that any likeness of anything that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth is prohibited, in addition to the prohibition to make any likeness of anything that is in heaven above. If it is objected that it is wrong to make any image per se, then it is wrong for a teacher of children to show her pupils a picture of a camel (a mode of transportation in Bible times) or a net of fishes (Peter, Andrew, James and John were fishermen). Images were not to be made for objects of worship.

Perhaps the best commentary on this prohibition is found in Leviticus 26:1. It reads: “Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down to it. for I am Jehovah your God” (my emphasis). The worship of illustrated Bible characters and events would violate Exodus 20:4,5; Leviticus 26:1; Acts 17:29 and all other Scriptures which forbid idolatry. Please consider this thought before we leave this point. While the prohibition of images for worship was in effect, the walls of the temple were figured with cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, within and without (1 Kgs. 6:29). God would not have sanctioned what was sinful within itself. Artistic figures within themselves do not fall in the realm of idols.

That certain things are right, provided they are used properly, is illustrated by instrumental music. Instrumental music is permissible, provided the proper use is made of it. Its use in a concert or at home for entertainment purposes, with no connection with worship to God is right, but sinful if used in the worship of God.

Bible teachers should be selected who are grounded in the faith and who are capable of making proper distinctions. Teachers of children should make it clear that the number of wise men who visited Jesus is unknown, and that we do not know what Jesus looked like while he was here on earth. But lesson aids which illustrate the mode of travel in those days, how people dressed and how they ate may be used effectively by knowledgeable teachers. Should the objection be made that such teaching aids should not be used if they have to be explained, we reply that we explain other things which are right within themselves. We must explain that the church building is not the church. People compose the church, thus it is not the building where Christians assemble. We also explain the proper use of the church building, but because we make these explanations is no valid objection to the church building being right within itself. The Scriptures authorize whatever visual aids may illustrate the truth (overhead projectors, canvas charts, chalk boards, work books, etc.). These violate no Scripture, provided they are properly used, illustrating the Bible truths the hearer needs to learn.

Abuses of pictures, images, etc. can certainly be made, and we readily acknowledge it. So-called pictures of Jesus are seen hanging on the walls of homes and in a prominent place, and it appears that these pictures are venerated. And, in most instances the so-called portrait of Jesus shows the person with long hair, a violation of 1 Corinthians 11:14. When such pictures are venerated, used for homage or worship, there is no difference in this and the use made by the Catholics with religious pictures and images in their homes. But mere making of the likeness of men or women in Bible times is not wrong. Sand boxes and other tools used by Bible teachers should not be abused by making play boxes out of them. Aids should be right within themselves first, and should also be properly used and not abused.

No effort is made by faithful Bible teachers to depict the deity of Jesus by the use of graphic art, film strips and overheads, but rather to illustrate him only as a human being, as men dressed and appeared in his time. Clearly, it should be impressed upon the mind of all that we do not know what our Lord looked like as to his face, his height, his weight, etc. The Bible has not revealed his physical features to us. Qualified teachers will make it clear to their pupils that a picture of some man dressed according to the custom of the time in which he lived is not an actual picture of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus or any other Bible character. It is purely and simply an illustration of a person, any person who would have looked this way in the time that he lived.

All of us should desire to do only what is authorized by the word of God and to teach the truth in the most simple and effective manner, but in our effort to do this we should also try to keep every Scripture in context.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 69-70
February 4, 1988

By Jady W. Copeland

I am not writing of the balanced diet of our daily food, though that would be a worthy subject. There is a renewed interest in a good diet in our time and many friends of mine take vitamins to supplement their diet because they believe the foods we now eat are not complete in the nutrients that make for a healthy body. But rather we are interested in spiritual nutrition or the spiritual diet that brethren (as well as non-Christians) are getting. The Bible speaks of “solid food” (Heb. 5:14) and “spiritual milk” (1 Pet. 2:2), the first of which is for mature people and the last for babes. Paul had to “feed” the Corinthians with “milk” and not “meat” because of their carnality (1 Cor. 3:1-3).

In feeding others, whether physically or spiritually, there are several considerations that need attention. First there is the need itself. It would seem some think you do not need to be fed with the word; they never read, nor do they listen to others. But any Bible reader with a small amount of perception knows that we must be fed.

Secondly, the food must be pure. Peter addresses this in I Peter 2:2. “Sincere” here means guileless, pure, unadulterated, according to W.E. Vine. James Macknight says, “. . . earnestly desire the unadulterated milk of the gospel doctrine. . . ” (Macknight on the Epistles, Vol. 5, p. 451). The gospel must be without additions or subtractions.

But as important as these are we must be fed a balanced diet. As necessary as carbohydrates are to the diet, we must have more. That is the reason some take vitamins. They think the soils have been depleted of the many needed nutrients, so they add these daily to supplement their normal diet. Spiritually we must feed some milk and some meat. Some would have preachers preach on love, patience, forbearance, etc. most of the time. Others want “hell fire and damnation” as a steady diet. Neither is right. Just as a person physically must have a well-rounded diet, so must the mature Christian.

In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul writes, “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ASV). The New American Standard translation says, “handling accurately the word of truth.” The New International Version says, “correctly handles.” Lenski comments, “Cut the word of the truth . . . straight when you present it to others by preaching and teaching” (The Interpretation of Timothy, p. 799). James Macknight says, “rightly distribute the doctrine of the gospel to all, according to their needs” (Macknight on the Epistles, Vol. 4, p. 311). The word “divide” means to cut straight. Therefore “rightly dividing” the word of God deals with handling it according to truth – the truth of the gospel as the Holy Spirit revealed it. I am convinced this requires teaching it all as the needs may be. Peter’s statement in I Peter 2:2 tells us that the newborn babe must have the milk without guile – without being “baited.” The goal is to “grow thereby unto salvation.” The implication is “necessary” that some can partake of more solid food than can others. The new Christian must eat of the simpler things of the gospel before he can eat of the more difficult things. Too many want to know all about Romans and Revelation before they are able to eat of the “meat” of the word.

But in addition to the emphasis on the “pure” word of God and “handling it aright” we want to give emphasis also on the diet being balanced. While I don’t consider myself to be the best judge, and perhaps I do not hear others preach as much as some, it seems to me that our preaching in recent times (at least in some cases) may lack balance. (I surely hope I am wrong about that.) In attending meetings over the past several years I seldom (if ever) hear sermons on the death, burial, resurrection and atonement of Christ. I seldom hear how awful sin is, and how the “remedy” (blood of Christ) must be given. I haven’t heard much about the priesthood of Christ or of his church, his kingdom or his vineyard. I hear a lot about some of the practical things of life (which are good); I hear a lot about teaching the lost, sexual relationships, the home and love of those around us. Now I certainly do not fault those who preach such, unless they are leaving out the other things! Except from our “older preachers” I have heard little about the independence of the local church, but more about what we are to call the church. Now I know we don’t have to preach all these things, but I do know we must reap what we sow and if we can take lessons from the apostasies of the past, it seems certain that another will occur when this type of preaching has time *to take root.

A generation of young people has grown up that know nothing (except what they have heard from others) about the problems that divided brethren in the 50s and 60s and when “institutionalism,” or “sponsoring churches” or “church autonomy” and such subjects are mentioned they may yawn and change the subject. It is “ancient history” to them and they are sure we are “beating a dead horse.” While these problems are not important to them now, it doesn’t mean they are not problems. I doubt there are many congregations around the country but what have some among them that not only do not know what the “issues” were all about, but more they don’t care. And if someone wanted to include the human institutions in the budget, about the only argument they would give is, “Don’t the ‘liberals’ do that?” I heard of a congregation recently that surely wanted to be known as a “conservative church.” Many hardly know what is meant by the term “liberal” or “conservative” (“institutional” or “noninstitutional” if you prefer, though I’m not sure that is less offensive). I believe all this is due to the fact that we are not preaching a balanced diet. Perhaps you are saying, “You older preachers are ‘unbalanced’ in your preaching because the ‘issues’ is all you preach about.” All I can say is that we try to feed a balanced diet.

I was impressed recently by an article in Christianity by brother Paul Earnhart warning us of the possibility of apostasy as we increase our zeal for lost souls. I too thrill at the zeal of many young people who are working hard to save others. But as brother Paul says, we also must give attention to faithfulness and soundness in the faith. What good is a full house of people who are not converted in a genuine way. And may I hasten to say there is no virtue in smallness, and there is no vice in bigness. The more souls saved the more will be in heaven, but if they are not grounded in the faith they will fall away and finally be lost . . . and that’s worse.

When I started preaching 46 years ago, I thought faithful preachers and others had won the battle over institutionalism and instrumental music, and all that was left for us to do was save souls. But as history has revealed, these same questions are bothering his people again. And I suppose they will again. I guess since I am eligible for Medicare I have to be considered one of the older preachers. So may I make this appeal to the young? As Paul said, “Preach the word.” But in doing so, “handle it aright” and that includes preaching it all. Yes’ preach personal evangelism, and preach love, patience and forbearance. Yes preach the home, marriage and divorce, and preach the duties of husbands and wives. But also preach the blood of Christ, and preach his kingdom (rule), his church and his judgment. Preach there are two places to spend eternity – heaven and hell. “Be instant in season, out of season.” Preach that the local church is sufficient to do all God intended his people to do in a collective way. Show the sin of instrumental music in worship, and preach that the elders of each church have oversight only of the one church where they are overseers. Indeed, feed the flock with a balanced diet! I know you were not here when the problems divided us, but neither were we there when problems bothered the brethren in the first century. But we can “fix” things now as then with the pure gospel of Christ. But we cannot do so with only a part of the gospel. As fine as pablum is for the babe suppose the mother decided to never get him off that diet.

We have been asked, “What are the problems facing God’s people today?” This is one of them. We are not preaching a balanced diet of the word of God. If all the people get is “milk” then they will never be mature, grown-up Christians. “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Think on these things.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 78-49
February 4, 1988

By William C. Sexton

“Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things” (Gal. 6:6).

When I first moved back to Kansas City after being away 23 years, I was pleased to find about nine “sound” congregations in the area, instead of the four that were here when I left. Although some of them are small, I considered such to be evidence of growth.

I was speaking at Blue Springs shortly after I moved back, and I expressed my observation of the growth. Brother Lindy McDaniel, after the lesson and in response to my observation remarked, that “when we see the meeting houses filled with enthusiastic brethren in meetings, then we’ll see the growth we are potentially capable of producing.” I believe that he’s right. However, I’m concerned that the “growth” may not be all that balanced and real. Here I express some observations in that regard, for our consideration.

Discouraging Evidence

I find it discouraging having as many congregations in the area who claim to be “sound,” that when a meeting is going on, so very few show up from other congregations. What is reflected by such action or the lack of it? I’m afraid that therein lies a deeper problem than we are freely admitting!

One expressed to me, rather off handedly, that he hoped that we’d give little consideration to what other congregations are doing when we plan a meeting – we’d thereby manifest a real concern for the souls of the lost! There may be some truth there worth pondering, yet I wonder if there isn’t some undercurrent forces at work there too, which need some uncovering!

Perspective On Numbers

To be overly concerned about numbers is not good; and such reflects, perhaps, an egotistical view. Some will drive many miles to hear a certain (“big name”) preacher, yet they wouldn’t travel. across the street to hear another – that reflects human attraction and attachment rather than love for the gospel and souls of the lost. Neither should we let up because others do not support us (2 Tim. 4:10, 16), remembering that all faithful men have had to stand alone or apart at time. Yet, we need to deal honestly and forthrightly with such action – or the lack of support!

Danger Areas

We conservatives may like to feel that we are growing, presenting the truth on a united front, etc., when in fact there are so many weak spots in our defenses. I truly believe that the “truth” is the only thing that will make men free and stand ultimately, providing the only real basis for growth (Jn. 8:3132; 2 Pet. 3:18). However, men have often been puffed up, feeling secure, thinking that all was well when in fact they were weak, miserable, and in great need of the divine remedy (cf. Rev. 3:15-20).

The plain truth is that we are all too busy, and there is evidence of a lack of true dedication. We can all find things to do to “justify” ourselves from attending a meeting. But I have observed over the years that people as a rule do what they want to. Honesty demands that we admit that we do pretty much what we want to. Therefore, if we really wanted to attend, we’d do so; otherwise, we’ll make justifying excuses!

Effect of Lack of Support

New members, filled with enthusiasm, anticipate many loyal, dedicated Christians from surrounding congregations at a meeting, singing with zest and life in worship of God. Frequently, they find a meager few, with no real reason present other than the simple lack of interest in the true gospel message being presented; they cannot help but be “let down.” I see it on the faces, detect such in the voice, see the results after the meeting. Often there is not the zeal and zest after as before, simply because they have been disappointed by the lack of support of older Christians.

Yes, I believe the effect is evidenced on many fronts and in various ways. Preachers are often affected, too, by the lack of support. Often you can see the apologetic, rationalizations, etc., but you know deep in the heart, they are reading the “body language” rather correctly – “there’s simply not the real interest in what I’m saying.”

Correct Response

Not for a minute am I suggesting that we need to let up, be unconcerned about presenting the gospel in meetings of all sorts, when the opportunity can be made. I’m saying, though, let us observe the playing field and the players! There is an evidenced lack of support of the gospel from quarters where there ought to be much.

I am truly grateful to see brethren who will drive even up to and over a hundred miles to attend a meeting, and there are some around, but often they are in places where there are very few “sound brethren” around. Preachers who have worked in hard places often will drive and lend their support. Last year when I was in a meeting in Merrillville, Indiana, brother Leslie Diestelkamp and his wife drove over 65 miles to attend the meeting, on a rainy night. Recently, in a meeting in Morrrilton, Arkansas, some brethren drove from Beebe which must be 60 or so miles. Brother Dick Blackford related to me recently that in a meeting out in the northwest (Utah, Wyoming, etc.), that it’s not unusual to see people drive over a hundred miles to attend a gospel meeting. Why? Because they are hungry to hear the gospel! I see reports from the northeast and other “hard” places where the same is true.

Why then brethren should it be that we in our own area do not support the gospel when it is preached? Why not bring that “prospect” we are studying with to a meeting on that night, instead of having the in-home study and allow him/her to witness and participate in the worship with other enthusiastic Christians?

Beloved, let us heed the apostle Paul (Rom. 11:25; 12:16) when he said, “lest ye should be wise in you own conceits. . . Be not wise in your own conceits.” Are you really dedicated to the saving of souls? Are you really supportive of the gospel message? Your body language, action, tells the story very plainly!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 82, 87
February 4, 1988

By Wayne W. Walker

The inspired account of the very first sin ever committed is found in Genesis 3:1-24. Sin is a problem that every one of us faces and with which we must cope. The more we learn about the subject from the Bible, the better we will be able to avoid and overcome it. And there is a great deal that we can learn about sin from the third chapter of Genesis.

1. First, we notice the temptation. Satan, in the form of a serpent, approached Eve and focused her mind upon the prohibition. “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'” Adam and Eve could eat of every tree in the garden except one, but Satan emphasized this one negative, and thus distorted the situation. Eve apparently understood God’s command, although we are made to wonder why she added, “Nor shall you touch it.”

Then the devil very plainly changed God’s command. “You will not surely die.” All he did was add one little word, “not,” but in so doing he simply denied God’s word. There is reason to believe that the devil was equivocating. Adam and Eve would die spiritually when they ate, but not physically. In any event, Satan was living up to his reputation as the great deceiver. Then he cast doubts on God’s goodness. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The basic appeal of humanism is to cause people to desire to be their own gods. Thus, they are deceived just as was the woman here.

Eve was tempted in the very same ways that we are tempted (I Jn. 2:15-17). She saw that the tree was good for food -the lust of the flesh. She saw that it was pleasant to the sight – the lust of the eyes. And she saw that it was desirable to make one wise – the pride of life. Jesus was tempted through these same avenues (Matt. 4:1-11). By his example, we can know that if we will resist the devil, he will flee from us also (Jas. 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:8-9). This is what Eve failed to do.

II. Because of this failure, Eve sinned. “She took of its fruit and ate.” Not satisfied with this, “She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” Many believe, based on 1 Timothy 2:14, that Eve, being tricked, ate without fully understanding the consequences of her actions, but Adam did so with full knowledge of what he was doing. This is entirely possible. Whatever the case, both of them did the very worst thing they could do. They disobeyed God and did exactly what he had told them not to do.

Sin takes several different forms. Sometimes it is a direct transgression of God’s law, like Adam and Eve’s, doing that which God has specifically forbidden (1 Jn. 3:4). Other times, it is a failure to do what God has positively commanded must be done (Jas. 4:17). Sin may also take the form of a violation of one’s conscience, even if the act itself is not one of disobedience to what God has said (Rom. 14:23). In fact, “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 Jn. 5:17). Anything that is not right in the sight of God, i.e., in harmony with his revealed will, is sin.

III. Adam and Eve not only sinned, but also tried to cover up their sin from God. When they heard the sound of the Lord in the garden, they hid themselves among the trees. Many other people have tried to hide their sins from God, as do many people today. David thought he could hide his sin by letting time take care of it. Jonah thought he could hide his by running away from it. However, the trees of the garden could not hide Adam and Eve from God. Neither can we hide our sins from him because he is omnipresent (Psa. 139:7-12).

Since they were not able to hide from God, they evidently decided to lie their way out of their predicament. Instead of owning up to their wrong and telling God the whole truth, they merely said that they were hiding because they were naked. Ananias and Sapphira tried to cover up their sin by lying in Acts 5, and it did not work then either. God is omniscient (Psa. 139:1-6). He knows everything about us. As soon as Adam said the word, “naked,” he was trapped! “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23). And even if we are successful in covering up our sins from men while on earth, we shall still have to face them in the day of judgment (Eccl. 12:13-14).

Now that their lie was exposed and their sin known, the only other route left open to them, aside from acknowledgment and repentance, was to “pass the buck.” Adam blamed Eve who “gave me of the tree, and I ate.” In effect, he was also blaming God (“The woman whom You gave to be with me”), implying that if God had not given him Eve, he would not be in this mess. Eve then blamed the devil. “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” It was from Eve that Flip Wilson must have drawn his now-famous line, “The devil made me do it.” There was some truth to both of these accusations, but notice that each one was still held accountable for his or her own actions.

IV. This brings us to the punishment. God turned his attention first to Satan, whose deception was the heart of the problem. The form that he used, the serpent, was cursed to crawl on its belly. And the devil himself was promised that the seed of the woman would arise to crush his head, that is, to deliver him a crushing blow. This is sometimes called the “proto-evangelicum” for in it, the first glimmers of hope for mankind through the gospel are found. It was in Jesus Christ, who was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4), that this promise was ultimately fulfilled. He came to destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8).

Next, God spoke to the woman. It was she who was beguiled by the serpent (2 Cor. 11:3). Even so, she should have known better. Therefore, God said that he would greatly multiply her sorrow in her conception, so that in pain she would bring forth children. God’s place for the woman has always been in the home, providing for the needs of her family (1 Tim. 2:15; 5:14; Tit. 2:4-5). Also, as a result of her sin, her desire was to be to her husband and he was to rule over her. God’s word teaches that women are to be in subjection to their husbands who are their heads (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). Today’s feminists may not like this, but it is what God has decreed.

Then, God passed judgment on the man. No longer would he be provided with all he needed unconditionally. The ground from that time onward would bring forth thorns and thistles so that he would eat of it through toil and the sweat of his face. For this reason, mankind has always been required to work to make his livelihood (Exod. 20:9; Eph. 4:28). “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thess. 3: 10). The responsibility to provide for the needs of the family falls upon the husband and father (1 Tim. 5:8). But even more serious, whatever God had planned for human beings before the fall, they would now return to the ground from which they were taken (Eccl. 12:7; cf. Gen. 2:7). No, we do not bear the guilt of Adam’s sin, but because we are born into a sinful world and become sinners ourselves, we must bear the consequences (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Conclusion

There are many lessons that we can learn from this account. We must recognize that sin is still with us (Rom. 3:23; 1 Jn. 1:8-10). There are some who seem to want to debate which kinds of sins will condemn and which will not. I do not wish to be drawn into this argument, except to say that sins which are confessed, forsaken, and covered by God will not be imputed to us (Prov. 28:13; Rom. 4:7-8). All I know to preach about sin is that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

However, we have good news. We know that “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1:14-15). Therefore, we can turn to God for help to overcome temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). “And this is the victory that has overcome the world – our faith” (1 Jn. 5:3). And when we do sin, it is in Christ that “we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).

Jesus Christ is our Advocate with the Father (1 Jn. 2:1). Therefore, if we will confess our sins, we can know that God will be faithful to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn. 1:9). In this way, we have the promise that the blood of Jesus Christ the righteous will cleanse us from all sin (1 Jn. 1:7). The statement that is often made is, I believe, true that what mankind lost in Adam, we can regain through Jesus Christ. May we ever be thankful to him who died for us as a sacrifice for sin. Praise God for his love and grace!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 75-76
February 4, 1988