Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

The Pharisees were probably condemned more severely than any other group of people by the Lord during His life on earth. The label of “Pharisee” has come to us as an extremely uncomplimentary label. Often it is misused by false teachers and those in sympathy with them. Let us notice some of the characteristics in Pharisees that Jesus condemned.

They were critical of Jesus for teaching sinners, but would not listen to Him themselves. The great chapter on God’s attitude toward the lost and what ours should be, Luke 15, was spoken to Pharisees who murmured because Jesus associated with sinners. Their attitude was demonstrated in the elder son who stayed home, but said to his father basically what the Pharisees had said to Jesus, “This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.” They objected to Jesus receiving sinners, “but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him (John)” (Lk. 7:30). The Pharisaical attitude is shown by those who criticize faithful teachers for teaching the truth, while refusing to listen or teach it themselves.

The Pharisees were hypocritical because they claimed to be interested in the details of the law, but ignored it when it suited their purposes. Jesus said, “But woe unto you Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and every herb, and pass over justice and the love of God: but these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you Pharisees! for you love the chief seats. in the synagogues, and the salutations in the marketplaces” (Lk. 11:42,43). They liked to appear “righteous,” but, justice and love were not part of their armor. When men today profess to be interested in God’s law, but lie, refuse to pay their debts, etc., they are demonstrating Pharisaical hypocrisy.

Pharisees were long on talk and short on practice. Jesus said: “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matt. 23:3). This spirit of finding things for others to do, but not for self did not die with the first century Pharisees! “Do as I say, not as I do” may be good advice; Jesus gave it; but He did not commend the conduct of those who lived that philosophy.

They were bound by traditions. In fact, the Pharisees were very strict when it came to observing their customs, even if they contradicted the teaching of God’s word (Matt. 15:1-6). Though there is nothing wrong with a practice because it has been done for a long time, there is something wrong with elevating custom to a “thus saith the Lord.” There was nothing wrong with washing hands before eating food, but to make this a law of God was to elevate man’s traditions to an equality with God’s word. Whether we have two songs and a prayer, or two prayers and a song are matters of judgment. Whether we have the Lord’s supper before the sermon or after it; close with a song or with a prayer, are all matters of liberty, but when men elevate traditions to a “thus saith the Lord” they disrespect God’s word. Likewise, when men substitute sprinkling for immersion, or add instrumental music to singing, they are demonstrating the Pharisaical spirit.

Jesus told a parable to those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought in Luke 18:9-14. The Pharisee who had not been an “extortioner, unjust or an adultere ” and had given “tithes of all” that he got was not condemned because of those characteristics, but because of his attitude toward others. This was not the only condemnation of this bad trait. Earlier, Luke had said: “And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath; that they might find how to accuse him” (Lk. 6:7). They had set their minds on finding fault, and faultfinders usually find fault!

Pharisees majored on minors. Jesus said that they “left undone the weightier matters” and “strained out the gnat, and swallowed the camel” (Matt. 23:23-25). Many misrepresent what Jesus said in this passage by saying that the little things are not important. Jesus did not say to “swallow the gnats,” but He did say that those who are careful to strain out gnats and then swallow camels are inconsistent. All of God’s word is important.

Not everything about Pharisees was bad. Paul said, “after the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5), and “as touching the law (he lived) a Pharisee” (Phil. 3:5). We need to strictly obey God’s law, but we must avoid the bad characteristics that God condemned in the Pharisees.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, p. 390
July 3, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In Mark 9.3 7, what is involved in receiving a little child in Jesus’ name?

Reply: Jesus was teaching a lesson on true greatness when He spoke, “If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mk. 9:35). The thrust of His statement is that true greatness in the kingdom is obtained by humility. True honor comes as a result of the willingness to sacrifice self. Paradoxically as it may seem, “the way up is down.” The idea is that the humble servant (one who gives voluntary service) in the kingdom is truly the greatest. This is the setting for what follows.

“And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me” (Mk. 9:36,37). The parallel of this discourse is Matthew 18.

First, our attention is called to the last phrase of verse 37, “whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” This is an elliptical sentence, so the meaning is: “whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me only, but also him that sent me.”

Remembering that Jesus is teaching humility, one who receives “such little children”; that is, of a childlike disposition (see Matt. 18:3) receives Jesus and the Father. The verse does not limit the receiving to little children, but these little children can symbolize any humble disciple of the Lord. If we receive a representative of Christ, we receive Christ and the Father. The disciples are not to aspire rank, pre-eminence or prominence. Rather they are to respond to the needs of one such as the little child in the arms of Jesus, or any similar person.

Involved in the word “receive” (Gr. dekomai) is “to extend hospitality. ” Benevolence, love and fellowship extended in the name of Christ will be rewarded. We are to treat “such little children” in the manner that Jesus has revealed Himself in His word. They are to be received with sincerity, warmth and enthusiasm. To do for such ones is to do for Christ; thus Christ comes to His own who suffer distress and need assistance. And, to welcome Christ by such acts, is to also welcome His sender – God the Father. Rather than focusing upon who is the greatest, the disciples of Jesus should focus their attention and care upon Christ’s little ones. This is the essence of true greatness. We as Christians should center our attention upon the little ones of Christ – the weak, those who have gone astray those who need our assistance in any way (Mk. 9:33-37; Rom. 15:1-3; Gal. 6:1,2; Phil. 2:3; Jas. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5; etc.).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, p. 365
June 19, 1986

By Mike Willis

Jesus’ mission in coming to this earth was to save mankind from sin (Lk. 19:10; Matt. 1:21). He did not come to correct all of the social problems of His day, such as government by dictators, slavery, poverty, lack of educational opportunities, etc. His mission was more important than the temporal problems pertaining only to life in the body. He came to deliver man from the eternal consequences of sin.

Man’s Need For Salvation

Most men have little conception of their need for salvation. They have minimized the consequences of sin. Though many will admit that they are sinners, they do not act like they believe sin to be a problem in their lives. Certainly it is not as important as next Sunday’s golf game, an outing at the lake on a holiday week-end, or shopping the sale at the nearest mail. At least, most people give more attention to these activities than to the problem of sin.

Sin’s punishment is eternal damnation. Paul wrote, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). “Death” is used in a number of senses in the Bible. In each of its uses, its basic meaning is separation. (1) It is used to refer to physical death where the body is separated from the spirit (Jas. 2:26). (2) It is used to refer to spiritual death where the soul is separated from God (cf. Gen. 2:17; Isa. 59:1-2; Eph. 2: 1). (3) It is used to refer to eternal separation from God in hell (Rev. 2:14). When a man sins, he is separated from God (2) and in danger of eternal damnation in hell (3).

We tend to categorize sin in our minds to the extent that we readily admit that these two separations are the consequences of “big” sins, such as murder, rape, kidnaping, terrorism, and other sins which have obvious temporal consequences of great magnitude. But, we tend to believe that God’s grace will be extended so that “little” sins will not have these same consequences. In Galatians 5:19-21, the “little” sins and “big” sins are placed side by side with each having the same consequences (cf. Rom. 1:28-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden would have been classified as a “little” sin by today’s standard, yet its consequence was death (Gen. 2:17). There are no little sins and big sins on God’s measuring stick. All sins are disobedience to the word of God and bring the consequence of separation from God and eternal damnation hereafter.

Sin has been committed by all men who have reached the age of accountability. Paul wrote, “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). However good one may think himself to be, he must admit that he has disobeyed God’s word in one or more ways. “For there is no man that sinneth not” (1 Kgs. 8:46). Hence, all men are in need of salvation.

Salvation Is By Grace

Man cannot atone for his own sins. “Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?” (Prov. 20:9) The psalmist recognized that man could not even prolong physical life; much less is he able to give spiritual life. He wrote,

They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for even) that he should still live for ever, and not see corruption (Psa. 49:6-9; cf. 1 Pet. 1:18).

No one can save himself from sin without the grace of God.

Years of good living do not erase sin. Sorrow for sin does not atone for sin. Man is unable to save himself from sin, acting alone.

The blood of animals cannot atone for sin. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin” (Heb. 10:4). A system of religion in which animals are sacrificed for sin cannot remove the guilt of sin.

Man’s terrible plight is now perceived. All of us have sinned. Man is unable to save himself from sin; he cannot pull himself up from the pits of sin by human works. God’s divine grace is needed to save us from sin.

God saw man’s plight – guilty of sin and doomed to eternal damnation – and acted to save him from his sins. He loved man so much that He gave His only begotten Son to die on the cross of Calvary as an atonement for sin (Jn. 3:16). He who was in the form of God took upon Himself the form of a man and endured the sufferings of the crucifixion in order that we might be forgiven of our sins. His blood obtained forgiveness of sins for mankind (Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 1:7).

The sending of God’s Son to die on Calvary was God’s gift of grace to mankind. God’s grace made man’s salvation possible. The death of Jesus on Calvary was God’s response to man’s need for salvation. We were not deserving of this wonderful gift (Rom. 5:8); hence, it is called “grace.” God did for us what we could not do for ourselves through the shedding of Jesus’ precious blood.

Salvation Is Conditionally Received

Jesus’ blood was shed in order that men of every nation could be saved. His grace offers salvation to every man (Tit. 2:11). Not everyone will be saved, however. The decision of who will be saved and who will not be saved is not determined by the arbitrary choice of God; rather, it is determined by man’s free-will choice to accept or reject God’s grace which brings salvation.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is to be preached to every creature of every nation under heaven (Matt. 28:18; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:48-49). His offer of salvation is extended to every man. However, only those who will accept God’s grace in obedience to the gospel will be saved.

In the Great Commission, Jesus revealed the conditions which man must meet in order to have his sins forgiven by the grace of God. He said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). Luke records that “repentance and remission of sins” is to be preached in Jesus’ name (Lk. 24:47). In order to be forgiven of his sins, man must (a) hear the gospel preached; (b) believe it with all of his heart; (c) repent of his sins; (d) be baptized (immersed) in water. Have you obeyed the gospel in order to have your sins remitted?

Conclusion

Many people will waste their lives pursuing things which are relatively unimportant, while they neglect obeying the gospel which can purify them from sin and give them the hope of eternal life. What does man have that is more valuable to him than the forgiveness of his sins? How sad that so many who have the opportunity to hear the word of God will never obey it!

Jesus has endured the cross to make your salvation possible. He wants you to be saved from sin. You have the choice of accepting or rejecting the salvation which God has offered to you through Christ. What will you do? Does salvation in heaven mean enough to you that you are willing to obey the gospel in order to receive it?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 362, 375
June 19, 1986

By Steve Wolfgang

Since at least the second century A.D., people from many cultures have been intrigued with the idea of “restoring” various facets of New Testament Christianity. The pages of church history are footnoted with occasional references to the multitude of movements which attempted to restore the doctrines or practices of the Christians and churches described in the New Testament. For twentieth century Americans to imagine that they are the first or only to attempt “restoration” or “restitution” of the first century church would be an ignorant sort of chronological snobbery.

We would not leave the impression that such groups are to be applauded or imitated for their own sake. Many such attempts at restoration have had limited or even perverse notions of what should be restored. Others, with broader or nobler goals, have fallen far short of their ideals. Occasionally, those involved in such efforts have emphasized one item, or a small cluster, to the exclusion of other equally important elements of New Testament life and worship. Sometimes the adherents of such groups have seen “restoration” only as a way-station to some more exotic religious expression.

We Are Not The First

The main value of recalling such efforts lies not so much in what they accomplished, or in whether or not they were successful in their attempts, but rather in the direction in which they were looking and moving. Though some today seem bent upon “restoring the Restoration,” most thoughtful Bible students understand that establishing “authority” from human precedent can only lead to further fracturing factions. We can, however, learn from what others have discovered – let us not be put off by those who scorn the lessons of history. (Charles Spurgeon’s remark in Commenting and Commentaries is appropriate here – It is strange, Spurgeon remarked, that those who think so much of what the Scripture reveals to them think so little of what the Scriptures reveals to others.) If it is true that we can see more clearly than some who have gone before, perhaps it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

We are not called to restore anyone’s restoration movement, nor to exalt any of the leaders of such attempts, however noble they may have been. It may be encouraging, though, to realize that we are not the first to make such an effort.

One of the problems encountered in attempting to chronicle the various attempts at restoration is that so much of the information about them has long been lost in the backwater of history. Perhaps because such attempts would have been seen as minority rebellions against the religious, political or economic “establishment,” the records of such groups have been suppressed in much the same manner as the groups themselves. We do know enough, however, to sketch an outlines.

Some Examples

Though it would be a mistake to consider groups such as the Cathars, Albigenses, or even the Waldensians as “medieval restorers,” they remind us of the fact that there have often been small bands of those who, believing some fundamental biblical truths, rejected many of the perversions and excesses of corrupt religion. Most of the records of these dissenting groups have survived, if at all, only through biased references by their tormentors, but the closer one comes to “modern” times the more evidence one discovers.

Although by the sixteenth century there were clear differences among individuals bent on reforming polluted religious bodies, as one historian has remarked, an idea common to them all was “that the Christians of the sixteenth century were called to reproduce in thought and life the intellectual beliefs and usages of the primitive Christians” (T.M. Lindsay, History of the Reformation, 11, 441).

Thomas Grantham published a series of essays on Primitive Christianity in 1678, referencing, among other passages, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, and Acts 10:47-48, and citing faith, repentance, and baptism for remission of sins as “the way of incorporation into the Church of Christ” (preface). Benjamin Grosvenor’s book of sermons, published in London in 1728 urged all to be simply Christians Only. Robert Sandeman, son-in-law of the Scottish “Independent” (i.e., “Congregationalist”) preacher John Glas, came to America in 1763 and organized a congregation in Danbury, Connecticut (he died in 1772 and was buried in the city cemetery in Danbury). Among other things, Sandeman distinguished between Old and New Testaments, advocated weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, and placed church government in the hands of elders.

More Than Slogans

Not all such efforts produced desired results. John Dunlavy, co-signer with Barton Stone and others of “The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery,” published, in 1818, The Manifesto, or a Declaration of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Christ. Unfortunately this was not what it might appear to be at first glance. Published at Pleasant Hill, KY, it was actually an exposition of the doctrines of the sect of Shakers which Dunlavy had joined.

Nathan Bangs published a book entitled An Original Church of Christ with the regrettable subtitle, A Scriptural Vindication. . . of the Methodist Episcopal Church (New York, 1837). Joseph Smith produced a Mormon church which even today styles itself a “Restoration Movement” (see essays by that title edited by F.M. McKiernan, Coronado Press, 1973). Both Smith’s non-biblical revelations and the “charismatic church leadership” which produced Daniel Warner’s “Church of God” at Anderson, IN (and another group of the same name at Cleveland, TN) demonstrate that lofty slogans are insufficient to produce true restoration’of the Christianity outlined in the New Testament.

Extreme attempts to restore “primitive lifestyle” which have spawned countless Amish/Mennonite groups warn of the danger of isolating one item to be restored at the expense of others equally important. However well-intentioned we may be, attempts to isolate Scripture from other portions of Divine revelation, or to elevate one set of practices or doctrines as the “Fundamentals” or the most important part of God’s will, often prove to be counter-productive, as history attests.

A restoration ideal which can be taken seriously by twentieth century humans is one which emphasizes a properly balanced search for the emotional, moral, doctrinal, and intellectual, “ancient order,” individually and corporately (cf. Mt. 22:36ff). Emphasizing doctrinal over practical or moral precepts; individual over collective activity or vice versa; of any other artificial division of the Word will result in schism and strife, not restoration of the divine order.

In a “restoration” context found in the Old Testament, Ezra “set his heart to study the law of the Lord, to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel” (7:10). In our day, the task is the same.

We are not the first to embark on such a journey, nor will we likely be the last. But we are called in our own generation to continue the never-ending task of becoming and being, truly, “Christians only.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 352-353
June 5, 1986