Truth Magazine

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: What is “that which is perfect” in I Corinthians 13:10? Please remember that when James wrote “the perfect law of liberty” in James 1:25, some of the books of the New Testament had still not been written.

Reply: First, we need to examine the context of the phrase “that which is perfect.” Nine spiritual gifts are enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. They were distributed among some of the Christians, each one possessing one of these gifts. These gifts were miraculous in nature. Some at Corinth were coveting the gift of speaking in tongues more than other gifts. So, this is the setting for the beautiful treatise on love in I Corinthians thirteen ‘ It was more important to have love than to “speak with the tongues of men or angels” (I Cor. 13:1), and Paul urged his readers to “follow after love” (1 Cor. 14: 1). This is the 46most excellent way,” referred to in the last verse of chapter twelve. There was an abuse of spiritual gifts among those at Corinth and Paul, in chapter fourteen, is giving instruction as to their proper use. While his readers were to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, they were to have love and would do better to prophesy. With this gift they would not only be able to foretell future events but would also be qualified to teach the word of God. In other words, while seeking these gifts they were to place proper priority on them; and, they were not to be used for a mere display.

Next, Paul shows that those miraculous gifts which some of the Corinthians were so desirously seeking were to cease. After emphasizing the quality and nature of love and its importance, he then stated, “Love never faileth but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:8). Remember that, since these gifts were miraculous in their nature, it was the miraculous manifestation of them that was to cease. These supernatural gifts were to cease, but in contrast, love would continue.

Then Paul foretold when these gifts would cease: “For we know in part, and we prophecy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:9,10). Here Paul is contrasting the incomplete with the complete – the part with the whole. “In part” (v. 9) (ek merous) is contrasted with “perfect” (to teleion) (v. 10). The point that Paul is making here is that revelation by means of these spiritual gifts was incomplete. The meaning of “that which is perfect” in verse ten must be understood in the same realm as “in part” in verse nine. Ek merous (in part) was the partial revelation of God’s will to men, whereas to teleion (the perfect) is the completed will of God. It is the difference of the part and the whole and refers to revelation.

Paul used childhood verses manhood and the mirror darkly versus face to face as illustrations of the incomplete (partial) revelation with the complete (perfect) revelation (vv. 11,12). The things “in part” (miraculous gifts) were in the childhood stage of revelation: “when I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child . . . ” (v. 11a). “That which is perfect” refers to the manhood stage of revelation: “now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things” (v. 11 b). The second illustration is that of the mirror “darkly” and “face to face.” Paul continues: “For now we see in a mirror, darkly . . .” (v. 12a). This is an example again of partial or incomplete revelation during the use of miraculous gifts. The word “darkly” (Gr. ainigma) means “an obscure saying, an enigma. An obscure thing” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 16). Ancient mirrors did not reflect an image clearly. They were usually made of polished brass. We have seen one of these brass mirrors on several of our visits to the museum in Corinth. Such was revelation through these gifts. In contrast, Paul states: “but then face to face” (v. 12b). This is the “perfect” or complete revelation. What was obscure will be made clear. “Now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known” (v. 12c). Incidentally, this verse does not refer to heaven as some brethren have interpreted it. The context is revelation, not heaven.,

The fact that James mentions “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25) but some of the books of the New Testament had not yet been written poses no problem. The word “perfect” is used in different ways. Its meaning must be determined by the context. In the verses we have considered above, the term “perfect” (teleion) means completion, as we have seen. The term “perfect” may also refer to “moral and spiritual perfection” (see Thayer, p. 618 on teleios). God is perfect in character (Matt. 5:48). Even of the old law the psalmist declared, “The law of Jehovah is perfect . . .” (Ps. 19:7). The idea of the law being “perfect” in James 1:25 is that it is complete in moral excellence – it is without moral defect. Also, consider that the gospel is the “perfect” law because it is superior to the law of Moses. It is a higher law. J.13. Mayor makes an appropriate comment: “The law of liberty is called perfect as the heavenly tabernacle in Heb. 9:11, because it carries out, completes, realizes the object and meaning of the Mosaic law which it replaces (Matt. 5:17)” (The Epistle of James, p. 74). The “perfect law” in James 1:25 is equivalent to the “word of truth” (v. 18), “the implanted word” (v. 21) and “the word” (v. 22). This is the fight in which the word “perfect” is used in James. It does not mean that revelation was completed and there would be no more to follow. Revelation was completed when the last book of the New Testament was written.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, p. 613
October 20, 1983

By Jimmy Tuten

A recent issue of Time had an interesting statement about the development of a new mirror. All conventional mirrors are reversed and flattened making it impossible for us to see ourselves as others see us. Now there is a mirror available that gives a “positive” reflection. No longer will we (while looking into a conventional mirror) have to see ourselves doing things opposite to what we are actually doing. If, for “ample, you part your hair on the left you will no longer see it as if it is being parted on the right, as a regular mirror shows it. This new mirror is called the “Really Me” mirror and retails for about $50.00. What is especially interesting is that it is estimated that “some 70 percent of those who see themselves positively for the first time do not like their appearance and would prefer an old fashioned mirror.”

The Bible presents itself as a true mirror of the soul (Jas. 1: 19-25). “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (Jas. 1:25). This mirror reveals man as God sees him and gives him a truly positive picture of the condition of the soul. As men view themselves in God’s mirror, some turn away with a preference for what they wish. Because some do not like the positive ID revealed in God’s Word, they reject that Word and bring upon themselves swift destruction. Why is it that most do not like the real positive view of themselves?

Looking at God’s “glass” (Jas. 1:23) we see perfect truth and the beauty of holiness. In contrast we see deformity and unholiness of our real self. Because one is simply charmed with the truth and holiness seen in God’s word and has an equally loathing for his own sin, he goes away forgetting the manner of man that he is. Sometimes there is no real “doing” of God’s will because looking requires continuance. There must be an abiding practice of God’s law (Paul calls this the working out of one’s own salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2:12) that can only result from a continued gazing into its excellence of beauty and knowledge, and consequent knowledge of our own distance from the standard of God’s Word. The Bible teaches that there is no cleansing from sin without meeting specific requirements for forgiveness and cleansing (Acts 2:38; 1 Jn. 1:7-9). Looking into the mirror of God is like walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:7). Looking and walking can be discontinued, and if we fail to be a “doer” or a “looker” there is no blessing. One may look into the perfect law of liberty, but turn away tomorrow! How sad that some of our own brethren cannot see this, but are saying instead that a “penitent attitude benefits from the blood of Christ even as he sins. . . ” (Sentry Magazine, Aug. 31, 1981). God’s Word teaches that there can be no looking and not looking, doing and not doing at the same time, no matter what the disposition or attitude. “. . . He being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (Jas. 1:25).

As you look at the mirror of God’s Word, is it the result of its charm and novelty (as some see it), rather than a desire to see a positive ID? Perhaps youthful pride in intellectual achievement blinds so that the image is blurred. One may desire the tenants of denominationalism’s creeds and disciplines, but only God’s Word can give a positive ID of the soul. “To see ourselves as others see us,” in the words of Robert Burns, has always been possible. The perfect mirror giving one a perfect image is the mirror of God’s Word. Perhaps our real problem lies in the fact that we do not like what we see. So, we turn away. How sad!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 611-612
October 20, 1983

By Mike Willis

One of the latest releases from the Guardian of Truth Foundation is the book entitled The Cogdell- Turner Discussion. The book is a printed debate between Gaston D. Cogdell, preacher for the Clifton Church of Christ in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Robert F. Turner. The book might be generally described as a discussion of the issues which have divided brethren in the last twenty-five years. It differs somewhat from a debate in that no formal propositions were signed.

The book is divided into four sections: (1) The Church of Christ, Universal and Local; (2) Independent and Autonomous Congregations; (3) Cooperation In The Church; (4) The Work of the Church. Each participant in the discussion wrote an affirmative position paper and two rebuttals. The format is difficult to follow. I hope that this does not indicate the direction which some brethren are going to take toward “discussions.” Some who have become too refined for debates are wanting discussions. The “improved” format, from my point of view, leaves more to be desired than the old format of debates. At least in the debates, one could relate the second speech to the first and so on through the debate; in this format, the articles are sometimes separated by two or more intervening articles, making the course of the discussion more difficult to follow. I am not aware of who was responsible for the arrangement of the discussion, but I would like to voice my opinion about it in hopes that this arrangement will not become the norm.

The Universal Church

The opening subject was the concept of the universal church and the local church. Brother Turner affirmed that the units in the universal church are saints. He stated that there is no such thing as a work given to the universal church as an organized entity and there are no officers in the universal church.

In a somewhat surprising affirmation, brother Cogdell openly affirmed that the universal church is composed of all of the local churches. He wrote,

In other words, the individual congregations were constituent parts of the church of God (p. 15).

The various states of the Union comprise the United States and all of the states are equal components of the United States, each one autonomous and absolutely independent of all the other states, just as the various congregations of the church comprise one great congregation, and they are all under one-federal head – Jesus Christ (p. 18).

If the Scriptures teach anything at all, they teach that the local congregation is a part and manifestation of the one true universal and eternal church . . . . According to the Scriptures, the local congregation is a unit of the one true and universal Church (p. 25).

These quotations demonstrate that brother Cogdell holds and defends the very concept of the universal church which Alexander Campbell held in promoting and defending the American Christian Missionary Society. Campbell wrote,

. . . In achieving this, it will require the cooperation of the brotherhood not only of one congregation, but sometimes of more than’one congregation; nay, of all the congregations in a given district. In other words it will require, on some occasions, all the talents, all the means possessed by all the disciples in a given district, to wage a successful war against infidelity, atheism, sensuality, and all that leads men captive to destruction. That it is the duty of churches to co-operate in every thing beyond the individual achievements of a particular congregation, we shall now attempt to illustrate and sustain.

A church can do what an individual disciple cannot, and so can a district of churches do what a single congregation cannot. But although reason and the nature of things make this apparent, it must pass for nothing as respects the conscience, if we cannot show that in the apostolic churches such co-operation existed, that it was a pan of the means adopted by the authority of the Lord for the furtherance of the gospel C’The Co-operation of Churches, No. 1, ” Millennial Harbinger [May 183 11. pp. 237-238).

Brother Cogdell’s concept of the church universal, like that of Alexander Campbell, is that the universal Church is composed of all of the local congregations.

Churches With A Common Treasury

A second point of this discussion which was of interest was the position that several congregations could have a common treasury. Brother Cogdell affirmed that the church at Jerusalem was composed of many congregations. Then he affirmed that these small congregations had one common treasury. He wrote,

The model church in Jerusalem was made up of perhaps 10,000 people (5,OW men alone, Acts 4:4). Since every New Testament church of which we have any record met in someone’s home rather than in a church building (Acts 2:46; Rom. 16:5.14,15; 1 Cor. 16:19; Phile. 2; Col. 4:15), and since, under any circumstances, there was no building in Jerusalem that would even begin to accommodate more than a fraction of the number of people who belonged to the Jerusalem church, it is reasonable to assume that there were many congregations in Jerusalem. These many conSregations had a common treasury (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37). Furthermore, they worked together as one body, as is fully shown by Acts chapters 2,3,4 and by the council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15:5-29 (p. 37).

The implications of these statements are far reaching. All of the local congregations could have a common treasury and work through one congregation. I fail to see how brother Cogdell could oppose the organizational ar_ rangements of the Christian Science and Catholic Churches in respect to the fact that both groups have all of the local congregations functioning through one local church.

Any Form Of Church Cooperation

In the articles relating to cooperation in the church, brother Gaston Cogdell wrote,

The Lord desires and demands that His people work with each other in every way possible. Because He has not said how we are to work together, just as He has not said how we are to preach and teach the word, or how we are to sing His praises, we know that any way we do it is pleasing to Him, just as long as we do it, and do not violate any of His other commandments in so doing (pp. 58-59).

Here brother Cogdell affirms that there is no pattern of church co-operation. If there is no pattern of church cooperation, there can be no violation of a pattern; where there is no law, there can be no transgression (Rom. 4:15). Hence, any form of church co-operation which does not violate some moral principle would be scriptural.

If there is no pattern of church co-operation, the form of church co-operation practiced in the American Chnistian Missionary Society would be scriptural. Furthermore, the Baptist association of churches would also be scriptural, as would also be the form of church co-operation used by every denomination in the world.

Where Does The Bible Say Not To?

The Christian Church used the argument, “Where does the Bible say not to?” with reference to instrumental music in worship and church supported missionary societies. Brother Cogdell used the same argument in his defense of sponsoring church forms of church organization. He wrote.

And this is exactly what Satan has done, so that many congregations of the Lord’s church not only will not cooperate with each other, but actually regard such cooperation as a sin, and disfellowship all those congregations which do cooperate with each other in various joint endeavors.

On what scriptural basis do the non-congregational-cooperation brethren propound this strange doctrine?. Since Brother Turner represents that position, I will ask him the following question: (1) Please cite just one passage of scripture which directly or indirectly forbids congregations of the Lord’s church from working together on joint endeavors of a benevolent or evangelistic nature? (p. 59).

Brother Cogdell’s request for a specific prohibition reminds us of the Christian Church argument regarding instrumental music.

Conclusion

I would like to commend brother Robert Turner for a commendable job in defending the truth in this discussion. Furthermore, I would like to recommend this book to our brethren. The statements which brother Cogdell made win surely be of historical importance in marking the departure in the thinking of our liberal brethren. His open admissions regarding some of the concepts which we have charged liberal brethren with holding demonstrate the widening chasm which separates us from one another. The differences in our concepts regarding the universal church, church cooperation and the work of the church make fellowship with one another impossible.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 610, 612
October 20, 1983

By Irvin Himmel

Every parent should be deeply interested in the physical, moral and spiritual welfare of his or her offspring. Children are a wonderful blessing from God. Their upbringing presents a great, challenge to both father and mother. Parental responsibility demands. wisdom, patience, courage, sympathy, love, and a lot of other attributes.

Some parents, perhaps unwittingly, do their children grave injustices. The following are a few of the ways in which mothers and fathers wrong their sons and daughters:

(1) Babying

Some parents would like to see their children stay in that precious stage of being cute little babies. Occasionally a remark like this is heard by a mother who holds a lovely child in her arms: “Isn’t it awful that they have to grow up?” But is it really awful? Growth is natural. Only retarded children fail to grow up. I have always been thankful that my children are not retarded, and I have rejoiced to see them grow and mature.

Parents are foolish not to accept growth as a normal part of life. Treating a growing youth as if a little baby does much harm. The immaturity shown by some youngsters in their late teens and early twenties reflects the results of parents’ treating them like babies instead of maturing young men and women. Life is not all fun and games. Young people need to learn from their parents that they are expected to think and act more maturely with each passing year.

(2) Pampering

In this age of great material prosperity many parents give their children virtually everything they desire – if it can be bought with money. Teenagers drive costly cars, own expensive stereo outfits, have the latest electronic gadgets for entertainment, spend lavishly on recreation, and expect the “old man” to furnish all of this plus food, clothing, and a room.

The indulgent manner in which young people are reared contributes to irresponsible behavior, lack of appreciation for blessings, and inability to cope with hardships. Mother and daddy, you do your child no favor by endless pampering. Learn the difference between loving care and overindulgence.

(3) Neglecting Discipline

Many children have the freedom to do just about what they please. There is precious little restraint. Although they are not capable of making certain decisions, their parents leave them without direction and guidance. These parents who are permissive toward their offspring are not doing them a favor. Good parents say “no” to whatever is not in the best interests of their children.

Fathers and mothers need to train their children to accept responsibilities. Girls to be taught to sew and cook. Boys should be taught to work. I know that in some cases it is less bother for a parent to do a job than to stay after Johnny or Mary, reminding and perhaps threatening punishment, but if Johnny and Mary are allowed to be lazy, in later years they will suffer the consequences. Parents do their children a serious wrong when they do not teach them (by whatever means necessary) to work around the house.

(4) Ignoring Needs

We bristle with righteous indignation when we read a newspaper account of parents who have failed to provide food, clothing, and medical care for their children. Child abuse takes on a variety of forms. A parent may provide aft the temporal necessities and still ignore the personal attention that should be given to the problems which a child encounters. Some children are starved for affection from their own parents!

A father who is gone from home except for occasional weekend visits could be losing his son or daughter without realizing it. I feel strongly that some preachers have become so wrapped up in preaching, traveling and teaching, dealing with marriage problems and controversies in the church, that they have failed to take the time to help their own children. It is sad that some parents have so little time for their sons and daughters.

Then there are parents who are keenly aware of all the needs which their offspring have except the most important – their spiritual training. Even among Christians, there are parents who pay no attention to whether or not their children attend Bible classes, study their lessons, and behave properly during church services. Every father needs to give personal attention to the spiritual life of his children.

(5) Setting Bad Examples

It should be obvious to parents that they do an injustice when they fail to teach their children by wholesome example. A child learns quickly that his mother and father do not really mean what they say – when they are seen doing the opposite.

Parents, let us take a good look at ourselves. We may be just too easy-going. Do we look the other way when we ought to show firmness in dealing with our children? Do our youngsters feel close to mom and pop, or somewhat estranged due to our lack of interest in them? Our children need our help. Let’s provide it!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 609, 624
October 20, 1983