Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Does the confession mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 10:32, 33 refer to confessing or denying Him in one’s life, or does it mean with the lips?

Reply: Jesus said, “Every one therefore who shall confess me before me, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32, 33).

Some time ago I received by mail a bulletin in which the following comment is made on the above passage: “Note that the confessing or denying is, in this context, in life, and by one’s life. ” It is difficult to understand how the author of this statement arrives at this conclusion. We believe that this comment is erroneous for the following reasons:

(1) The context of the passage is seen in the background, where Jesus is encouraging His apostles to not be afraid when they would be persecuted. The confession or denial in Matthew 10:32,33 refers primarily to times when they would be brought before tribunals. The word “therefore” in this passage indicates that what follows is in regard to what has preceded. What had preceded? Jesus had said in verse 28, “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Lord is encouraging His disciples not to fear men. After assuring them of their Father’s care (vv 29,30), He says, “Fear not therefore. . . ” (v. 3 1). Then Jesus follows with the statement under consideration, “Every one therefore who shall confess me before men. . . . ” The context should be obvious, not only from the preceding verses, but also by those which follow. Note that Jesus states in verse 34, “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth.” Jesus is telling His followers that He does not preach peace at any price. They are not to compromise the truth, even at the cost of their own families (v. 37). The passage then closes with the Lord’s admonition to each of them to take his cross and follow Him (v. 38). Finally, “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (v. 39). It is in this setting (vv. 28-39) that our text is found. To “take his cross” would sometimes necessitate an oral acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. To confess Him publicly could mean persecution (Acts 4:19-21; 5:33-42) and in some instances it was death (Acts 12:1, 2).

(2) The definition of the Greek word homologeo, translated “confess” in Matthew 10:32,33, refers primarily to an oral confession. The expression “confess me” is an Aramaic idiom and is literally, “make his confession in and for me” (see A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the N. T., Vol. 1, p. 83). The confession to be made implies identification or union with Christ.

W.E. Vine defines the word: “to declare openly by way of speaking out freely, such confession being the effect of deep conviction of facts, Matt. 7:23; 10:32 (twice) and Luke 12:8” (Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words, Vol. 1, p. 224).

J.H. Thayer defines the word: “to declare openly, speak out freely, confess” (Greek English Lexicon, p. 446).

Edward Robinson defines it: “to confess publicly, to acknowledge openly, to profess.” Also, “to confess in behalf of any one, i.e. to profess or acknowledge him, Matt. 10: 32; Lk. 12:8” (Greek and English Lexicon, p. 507).

R.C.H. Lenski comments on the word: “The verb really means ‘to say the same thing’ as another, to voice agreement with him, and thus to acknowledge and to confess him” (The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, p. 421).

William Hendricksen, commenting on the word says: “To profess or ‘confess’ – Christ means to acknowledge him as Lord of one’s life and to do so openly (‘before men’), even in the hearing of those who were opposing him” (Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, p. 473). He also observes that the passage (Matt. 10:32, 33) is an example of antithetic parallelism (verses 32b, 33b; Ibid., p. 473). In view of this, if the context of Matthew 10:32, 33 is “in life, and by one’s life,” then it would follow that the confession of Jesus before His Father in heaven would also be “in life, and by His life.” This would be absurd. Who can believe it? No, Jesus is primarily referring to a lip confession in our passage, as the context shows, and the confession of Jesus before the Father in heaven will also be oral.

(3) The Greek word translated “confess” also means an oral confession in other passages in the New Testament. In Matthew 7:23, the same Greek word is translated “profess.” Jesus said, “then will I profess unto them.” This refers to the day of judgment, and that this profession will be oral, we cannot deny. Paul, in Romans 10:9, wrote: “because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord . . .” It is obvious that this is an oral confession. The gospel of John states (Jn. 12:42), “Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it.” They failed to acknowledge orally what they believed to be true. Writing to young Timothy, Paul mentions that the young evangelist “didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses” (1 Tim. 6:12). Wc do not know for sure when that confession was made, but probably when he was on trial for his life (see Heb. 13:23). It was an oral confession in face of danger or even death. We read in 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins . . .” It is apparent that this confession is oral, not by our life. Likewise, the same word is found in 1 John 4:2: “every spirit that confesseth that Jesus is come. . . . ” No one can deny that this is an oral confession. Then in 2 John 7, “For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” So, in the foregoing passages, the Greek word that is translated “confess” or “profess” is homologeo and in every instance it is to be understood as oral.

We have seen that the context of our passage indicates an oral confession, the Greek word showing the confession to be primarily oral; and other passages where the same word is used plainly illustrate that it is oral. It is true that we confess Jesus by the lives that we live, in addition to our lip profession; but the conclusion that the context of Matthew 10:32, 33 is “in life, and by our life” is a mere assertion and contrary to the teaching of Jesus. We are always to continue confessing Jesus orally as well as by our lives (our profession). We must confess Him in word and deed.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 37, 50
January 16, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

Alvin Jennings’ book, How Christianity Grows in the City, is an expanded and renamed edition of his original 3 R’s of Urban Church Growth. It caused a stir among liberal churches, including a rather “hot” review by G.K. Wallace in the Gospel Advocate (Nov. 19, ’81); and now the book is being sent to conservative brethren. The writer makes a strong and commendable plea for individual involvement, one-on-one teaching the gospel to our neighbors, and home Bible studies. Small group studies seem to get a less prejudicial hearing, and talents for leadership are more easily discovered and developed there. But Jennings’ book goes far beyond home “devotionals” and Bible study. He treats these neighborhood groups as “house churches,” and contends all such groups in a given city should be under one eldership.

Much of the appeal and drive of the book is gained by citing the abuses to be seen in large building-oriented churches, preacher rule, congregational jealousies, infighting, etc. The writer dreams of “unstructured, unpolitical, and unmaterialistic” churches – toward which we all should strive. But “look at all the wrong. . . ” does not prove one’s proposal to be right. He dwells long on the fact that early churches often met in private homes, but this does not argue one group of elders should be over many churches. He challenges a “holy place” for worship -as do all who understand true worship. He cites differences in belief among independent congregations, but those same differences will exist in his “house churches” if brethren are free to study and act out of personal conviction. He decries elders who “lord it” over the church, but all history testifies that one group of elders over all churches in a city is conducive to more, not less lording.

It is not my intention to review this book in detail, but to address two subjects found therein: the structure of first century congregations; and, what determines the scope or boundaries of local church “oversight.” The writer sums his aims by saying, “The church, the treasury and elders will be one in the urban area. Elders will allow and encourage assemblies anywhere and everywhere that men may gather in the name of Jesus. Congregational autonomy will begin to fade within the city, (my emphasis) and individual congregational growth consciousness will give way to the overall growth of the urban church with all its congregations regardless of their place of assembly.” Here is a church, made up of churches, under a single eldership. We shall deal with the “eldership” concept first; then, investigate “the church in – house” and its application to first century congregational structure.

The most obvious text for city-wide elders is Titus 1:5, appoint elders in every city”; and a few seem to think this settles the matter. But we must ask, can we safely assume this verse teaches that God intended each city have only one group of elders, though it may contain many churches? Does this mean the scope of oversight is determined by geographic or civic boundaries? If there were five churches in a city, and Titus appointed elders in each of them (five churches, five groups of elders), would he not have done what Paul commanded? Going further, if one only of the five churches had qualified men, and Titus appointed those men to serve that church, would not this meet the demands of the text? These men could tend the flock which is among them, and before whom they could be “ensamples'”(1 Pet. 5:2-3).

We must also ask if Paul’s practice violated the instructions he gave to Titus. Paul and Barnabas “appointed for them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). It is easy enough to say “These churches were still small enough to meet in one household per city. . . ” but assertion is not proof. Uncertainty is admitted by adding, “or, the writer may have been thinking of the church in each city as being made up of all the household assemblies in that town.” This blandly assumes the point which must be proven. Such assumptions are frequent in the author’s attempts to give scriptural backing for his concept. Note: “We know that in some cities there were a number of house churches. When Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:27, he urged that the letter be read ‘to all the brethren,’ suggesting the existence of more than one assembly in Thessalonica.” Do you see “house churches” in that statement? It is not surprising that those who do, are able to see one group of elders over all of them.

“Elders in every church” makes oversight of the same scope as collective functions. The “church,” not just a plurality of brethren, heard and spoke in matters of discipline (Matt. 18:17). The “church,” consisting of, yet distinct from believers, cared for widows indeed (1 Tim. 5:16). Paul gave orders to the “churches” regarding accumulation of funds peculiarly theirs (1 Cor. 16:1-3), and the “church” at Philippi “communicated” (singular verb) with Paul, in their support of him (Phil. 4:15). These are examples of team work on the part of saints that necessitated examples of team work on the part of saints that necessitated the forming of a common mind, being subject to some kind of direction and guidance. Wherever there is a “church” in this sense, there must be oversight; and the appointment of “elders in every church” is consistent with this principle. There is no authority for enlarging oversight beyond the boundaries of the saints who agree to function as one. This becomes the scope of oversight, not geography or city limits.

We are not saying there is no local church except when the members are literally assembled (cf. 1 Cor. 14:23). Nor are we saying various saints may not meet at different times and places (Acts 12:5,12,17). We do say that when a group of saints are identified as an organized church, the Scriptures indicate this group should be independent and autonomous (self-ruled). Independence and autonomy are God-ordained characteristics for the local church, not subject to alteration by the will of the people. But the writer of the book under consideration says, “Smaller suburban towns could be included in the urban church if they so desire, or they may elect to maintain an autonomous church in their own city. An example would be the harbor city of Cenchrea near Corinth, just seven miles away. There was a church at Cenchrea as well as at Corinth (Rom. 16:1)” (p. 68).

The books begins by offering what was called the divine pattern, elders over one city only. The writer even says, “There was no authority to extend the organization of the church above or beyond the city, so there is no danger of developing an hierarchy or super-organization such as bishop over a plurality of cities” (p. 58). But now, “if they so desire” other cities may join up. With such matters put in the realm of “judgment or opinion” we can not seriously regard this book as a guide to scriptural church organization.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 39, 47
January 19, 1986

By Bill Cavender

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and re”Fturneth not thither, but waterth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:8-13).

Our God and Father in heaven has ordained that by the preaching of the gospel of Christ lost men and women shall hear, believe and obey His truth to the saving of the soul from sin’s guilt. Paul said, “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). He told our brethren in Corinth that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). James, an elder of the church of Christ in Jerusalem, our Lord’s brother, and brother of Jude (Acts 12:17; 15:13ff; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9; Jude 1), servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ (Jas. 1:1), tells us that “of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures” and to “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness (“overflowing of wickedness” – ASV), and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:18, 21). Peter says that our souls are purified through obeying the truth through the Spirit and this is accomplished by the word of God, the truth of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:22-25). Jesus said that it is the baptized believer who is saved from his past sins, this believer being such because he has heard the gospel (Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 10:13-17).

God’s power to save the lost is made known, and is effected and exerted through His word. “The word, of God is quick and powerful (“living, and active” – ASV) . . . and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). This word of the truth of the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8,9,13; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). There are believers only where the word of God is taught, where the gospel of Christ is preached. Those who hear and believe the truth of the gospel have the authority, power and right to become God’s children when they will repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (John 1: 12; Acts 2:37-41). The blood of the precious Jesus, who came to seek and to save the lost, and to die for lost sinners, only cleanses those who through faith obey the gospel, being baptized into Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rom. 5:6-10; 3:21-26; Luke 19:10; Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-7).

Preachers are commanded by the God of heaven to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching,” and to “watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Without fear or favor of or from men the true preacher of God’s word is to “go into all the world,” preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ to saint and sinner, friend and foe, male and female, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, black and white, to all those who will believe and to those who will not, doing nothing by partiality (Gal. 1:10; Eph. 3:8-11; 2 Cor. 12:15; 13:8; 1 Tim. 5:21). The welfare of the church and of the world depends upon the faithful, diligent proclamation of God’s word by true and tried preachers. “The word of God is not bound,” and it is to have “free course, and be glorified” (2 Tim. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:1). The only power in all the world that will really change men, turn their hearts from error and evil, and create in them a new and pure heart and good conscience, is the power of God Almighty working through His word of truth.

The world and the church need the gospel preached and taught without addition or subtraction, without compromise or apology, without human wisdom and opinions, without pretense and hypocrisy. Each and every gospel preacher should dedicate himself to this task. God’s work will not return unto Him void if it is proclaimed in all of its power, purity, purpose and perfectness, and if it is not obscured by the faults and failures, sins and shortcomings, doctrines and divisiveness, of those who profess to be its adherents, advocates and apologists.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 33, 55
January 16, 1986

By H.E. Phillips

“Unity” is defined by Webster as: “1. the state of being one; oneness; singleness; being united. 2. something considered complete in itself; single, separate thing. 3. the quality of being one in spirit, sentiment, purpose, etc.; harmony; agreement; concord; uniformity. . .” (New World Dictionary, College Edition).

“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” (Psa. 133:1) Is unity possible? God commands it of His children (1 Cor. 1:10). Christ prayed for unity among His disciples through His word (John 17:20, 21). The Holy Spirit taught unity as a requirement to be right with God (Eph. 4:1-6). We are to practice the same thing (1 Cor. 11:1). To maintain unity in Christ we must all speak the same thing (1 Pet. 4:11). The only standard by which unity can be attained is the Bible. The word is complete (2 Pet. 1:3), and God will not allow any changes in it (Rev. 22:18,19). It will completely perfect a man unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

How Division Comes

Division comes by the doctrines of men (Matt. 15:9; 2 Jn. 9,10). Carnal thinking people are determined to follow courses that are charted by their carnal senses and drives rather than by what the word of God says.

I believe it is vital to the subject of unity to have some historical background of the divisions that have ripped through churches over the past 135 years, but space does not permit this material to be presented at this time. My assignment is: The Impact Of Unity Movements On Th Church. I will briefly address this subject in this study.

The first major rupture of the harmony and unity of churches of Christ in this country came in the middle of the 19th century. The instrument of music was introduced in the worship at Midway, Kentucky in 1849 over the protest of many in that congregation. It resulted in a division. Instrumental music had caused division in some denominations by 1849.

Impact Of Unity Movements

There have been many Unity Meetings and Movements over the past 100 years. What impact do these unity movements have upon the church of our Lord? From several adverse influences these have upon the church, I have selected seven:

1. The loss of respect and love for the word of God is the first real impact they have had upon churches of Christ. In the efforts to find agreement on a subject that separates brethren the sense of compromise will cause some to believe a lie and be damned, because they did not have the love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10, 11). The compromise of the truth by a few influential men and women in a congregation can take that whole congregation away from the faith. The tendency of unity movements is to affect the church with less love and knowledge of the truth.

2. It stifles the thinking and conviction of babes in Christ. New converts are often influenced by the advocates of some doctrine of man that fractures the unity and harmony of the church. They are left with the impression that “there are many ways that are right.”

Error is error, and it will not be changed into truth by the declaration of some renown cleric, or the pronouncement of an international synod. Truth is truth by its very nature. It, like history, can not and will not be changed. Whether I know the truth or not is another matter. The fact that truth and error will remain what they are, makes it impossible for the two to be brought together in any kind of “Unity Movement” that will have any degree of acceptance with God. Unity of the faith must be “oneness” of belief and action based upon what the word of God authorizes.

3. It weakens the church by compromises with false teachers and denominational error. One of the pillars of strength of the church is its sanctification from religions of men (2 Cor. 6:17). The unity movements have the effect of destroying that distinction from religious error.

It seems that most brethren have always had the inclination to think like Israel of old, and require a king to rule over them “like the other nations.” When these chasms in the body have occurred, the next step is some method to “join” with those of the denominations about them. Then in the course of time, they want to “get together” with their former brethren and form some kind of relationship by which they can feel accepted. They seek a compromise, which they usually call “Unity Forums” or “Unity Meetings.”

4. It stifles the study and search for the truth by the youth in the church. Youth has the natural curiosity for the unknown, and will seek for the right answers. But when the more mature in the gospel differ over major issues taught in the word of God, and some of them suggest that we are all right: we should just agree to disagree – that is what the unity movements really are – the young are discouraged from searching for the answer in the word of God. The whole church becomes weak in the faith, and strong in the social gospel.

Unsuccessful efforts were made about the turn of the century to find some basis for unity. But the instrument advocates and the promoters of the missionary societies would not give them up, and brethren faithful to the word of God could not allow these innovations in the church; so the division not only continued, but the chasm widened.

About 1938 James DeForest Murch of the Christian Church and Claude F. Witty of the church of Christ spent seven years talking about unity, but they never achieved it. They developed what was called the Murch-Witty Unity Plan. They wanted brethren to come together and worship, but they wanted to allow each to hold his respective views. Anyone who is casually acquainted with the issues of that day would understand the utter impossibility of this position.

5. It generates further division in the body and really hinders progress toward bringing about the unity based upon the truth of the gospel.

When the institutional innovations and promotions invaded the church in the 1940s and 50s which developed into full grown divisions by the 60s and 70s, bitter and deep divisions came into congregations all across the nation. It was a rerun of the divisions of a century before over the instrument and missionary society. Many of the arguments and positions were exactly the same, only the subjects were different. Only those who lived through that time will understand the depth and bitterness of that division.

6. It directs the appeal of the church toward world standards rather than to the divine standard. A usual claim for the promoters of these unity movements and meetings is the impression and appeal the church will make upon the world if all stand together, even if we disagree on some minor points. Of course, all points of difference are minor to them. Their appeal is to the world rather than to God. The religious world did not like the preaching of Peter and John (Acts 4:1-22).

An example of this is the unity plea of Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, with several others who are in full accord with them. In their estimation, they have moved to an upper intellectual and spiritual level, where they have found truth about the great restoration brotherhood, and a fellowship based upon their acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Nothing else really matters. They have abandoned all conditions of discipleship but acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Their pleas for “Unity in Diversity” are well known to those who have read much from the periodicals and journals of the past fifteen years. Unity in Diversity is a false unity. It is an agreement to disagree, but they call this relationship “fellowship.” The real problem of division still plagues all who are involved; what they say about their “unity” does not change the fact that they are not the same and do not agree in vital matters of belief and practice.

7. Every such unity movement seems to foster an ever enlarging class of professional clergymen, who are being trained more to deal with social, psychological, economic and philosophic matters than they are with spiritual things. The deeper we get into the unity movements, the broader the base becomes for those things of this life, and the less need they have for the Bible. The simple reason is that the Bible is no longer a text book for the faith and the way of life.

A big top-level Unity Conference took place in Joplin, Missouri in August 7-9, 1984 on the campus of Ozark Bible College, an organ of the Christian Church. It is reported that fifty members of the Christian Church and fifty members of the churches of Christ participated. The speakers pleaded with each other to let “love” rule their hearts and accept one another. From all I have read about the meeting, it was typical of other unity meetings. Perhaps many in this one were better groomed for compromise on anything but truth.

Most of those who promote major unity movements are gifted at quoting respected writers and preachers of the early restoration period. They go from Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and Walter Scott to David Lipscomb, J.A. Harding, J.W. McGarvey, and many others. Their quotations are directed to show that these men recognized differences among themselves and other brethren, yet they called for fellowship among themselves. It is pointed out that many of these men opposed the instrument in worship, yet they preached for churches that used them in meetings. This argues that we ought to follow the same course to seek unity among all brethren today while we retain doctrinal differences. This is not the unity for which Christ prayed, and it is not the unity taught in the word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 27-28
January 2, 1986