Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

I ‘There is much mystery about the n4ture of Jesus’ body after the resurrection. It was a tangible body: the disciples saw Jesus (Mark 16:14; John 20:18; 1 Cor. 9: 1, etc.), and he talked with them (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:17, 25ff., etc.). The women who met with him on the path clasped His feet (Matt. 28:9), and apparently Mary Magdalene, too, clung to Him. He invited Thomas to handle His body (John 20.27). There is no evidence that Thomas did so, but it is most unlikely that Jesus would have invited Him to if it had not been possible. He ate in the presence of the disciples (Luke 24:42, 43). All of this indicates that his was a real body; he was no ghost” (Ray Summers, The Life Beyond, pp. 45, 46).

“Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Lk. 24:38,39). Yes, Jesus was in His physical body, “the body of his flesh.” Assuredly, he was no ghost. However, there is much speculation about other aspects of His body because of His appearance to the disciples in a secured room (Jn. 20:19), and His vanishing “out of their sight” (Lk. 24:31). But why the amazement? Certainly, the man who could walk on the water and traverse a stormy sea (Mk. 6:48), and who could restore a severed ear (Lk. 22:51), could also miraculously appear and disappear. There is no need to suppose that Jesus’ body was different after His resurrection. It was the same flesh that’was killed that was raised (Acts 2:31,32). He is not now in His physical body (Heb. 5:7; Phil. 3:21; 1 Jn. 3:2), but He was between His resurrection and ascension (2 Tim. 2: 8).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 598
October 6, 1983

By Frank Jamerson

In previous articles we have studied the life that is essential for unity and the facts of unity. The fourth chapter of Ephesians continues with a discussion of the “gifts” that Christ gave that we may attain “the unity of the faith” (read Eph. 4:7-16). The context is not dealing with the duration of the gifts, but with the purpose of them. the gifts were to produce a “full grown man” in contrast to children who are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” This process continues as newborn babes are brought to maturity through these gifts which Christ gave.

When Christ came to the earth, died, arose and ascended to the right hand of God, He “led captivity (sin, which held man) captive” and “gave gifts unto men.” The gifts are listed in verse 11. “And he gave some to be apostles; and some prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Each of these gifts had and has an important part in the unity that Christ enjoins.

The word “apostle” means “one sent forth.” It is used of Christ, who was sent to the earth (Heb. 3: 1). It is also used of those who were sent by a church (see 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). In Ephesians 4, the word refers to those who were chosen and sent by Christ. There was only one successor to an apostle. Matthias took Judas’ place, but he met the qualifications of accompanying Jesus from His baptism to His ascension and being an eye-witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-26). Paul was called “out of due season” to be an apostle (1 Cor. 15:8,9).

The work of apostles was to reveal and confirm the gospel. Mark said that Jesus commissioned the apostles to “go . . . into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk. 16:15). “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen” (v.20). They laid the foundation of the church, which is Christ (1 Cor. 3:11).

In a slightly different figure of speech, Paul said, “being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). It seems in this verse that the apostles and prophets are viewed as part of the foundation with Jesus being the “chief corner stone.”

Some religious people contend that we must have apostles on earth in order to have the New Testament church. If that were true, we would have to have Jesus on earth, too! The fact is that Jesus rules today through His word which was revealed and confirmed by the apostles and prophets. The foundation has been laid, and it is sufficient!

The “prophets” were men who spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20, 21). The prophets of our text were engaged in the same kind of work as the apostles. They did not have power to lay hands on people and bestow miraculous gifts, as the apostles did (Acts 8:18), but they were miraculously guided in their teaching. Prophets were not simply preachers. They were inspired preachers. Prophecy ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10), but preaching did not. There are no “prophets” today for the same reason that there are no apostles on earth today. (Reading the words of a prophet would no more make you a prophet than reading the words of ani apostle would make you an apostle!)

Christ gave “evangelists, ” which means “messengers of good.” Evangelists of the first century may have had miraculous powers to confirm their message, as did Philip (Acts 8:13), but that is not an essential part of their work. The work of an evangelist is to “preach the work; be urgent in season and out of season… suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:2-5). They are also called “ministers” (1 Tim. 4:6) and “preachers” (1 Tim. 2:7). They were not called “pastors.” There is a difference between an evangelist and a pastor, just as there is between an evangelist and an apostle!

Christ also gave “pastors.” The word poitnen is only translated “pastor” once in the standard English versions. (From the denominational use of it, one would think that it is on every page of the New Testament!) It is translated “shepherd” seventeen times and “rule” four times. The verb form of the word is translated to “feed” or “tend.” Paul told elders to “feed the church of the Lord” (Acts 20:17, 28). Peter exhorted elders to “feed” (KJV), “tend” (ASV), or “shepherd” (NASV) “the flock of God which is among you . . .” (I Pet. 5:2). The qualifications of elders, or pastors, are given in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

God intended that elders be appointed in every church (Acts 14:23). They are watchmen of souls and must give account of their stewardship (Heb. 13:17). They are not “lords,” but they do “rule” and must show kindness and consideration for others in the decisions that they make (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17). When qualified men are appointed as elders and the flock “knows and esteems them highly” (1 Thess. 5:12,13), unity is apt to exist!

The word “teachers” in the text may refer to the “pastors” who are to be “apt to teach.” (Some argue this because of the grammatical construction of the verse.) It is true that elders are to be teachers, but other passages clearly show that others, in addition to elders, should also be teachers.. “For when by reason of time ye ought to be teachers . . .” (Heb. 5:12). “And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The word “men” in this passage is from anthropos which means “a human being, male or female.” Women are restricted in their teaching (I Tim. 2:12), but this does not negate their responsibility to “teach. “

These are the “gifts” that Christ gave to bring us unto “the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 597
October 6, 1983

By Dan Walters

The Apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8, “Beware led any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” He expresses a similar thought in 2 Corinthians 11:3. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Perhaps we need these warnings of the New Unity Movement, of such men as Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, and Fudge, are the result of theological speculation, based upon the traditions of such theologians as Luther and Calvin., They contain their own perverse form of logic and human wisdom, but they could not have been formulated from a simple study of the Bible alone. Ile more I read the writings of R.L. Kilpatrick, for instance, the more amazed I become that he and his associates have been able to deceive any brother who is well grounded in the Scriptures. Kilpatrick could just as well be a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian, as a member of God’s church. Any brother who could answer such a denominationalist in debate could answer Kilpatrick. There is simply no new material being presented.

Why, then, have certain young preachers been deceived by these apostate brethren, when they would have Probably never been deceived by a Methodist preacher? One answer is that any person who has long been a member of the church of Christ has a strong bias against any material presented directly by a denominational clergyman. But the young preacher of today is not necessarily biased against the theological intellectualism which forms the heart of denominationalism. Most of the brethren who have been deceived have been aspiring intellectuals. I here use the word “intellectual” to refer, not to intelligence and knowledge alone, but to a love of sophisticated terminology and complex abstract reasoning which transcends basic logic and common sense. And there is a difference between an intelligent person and an intellectual, there is also a difference between a Bible student and a theologian. Someone once defined an intellectual as an individual who is educated beyond his intelligence. This may be close to the mark. The modern theologian is a religious philosopher who is not content with simple Bible statements, but insists upon harmonizing everything into a semi-logical pattern which fits certain preconceived theological assumptions.

We may have unknowingly started some of these young preachers down the wrong road. Consider the modern emphasis upon both secular and theological education as a qualification for preaching the gospel. Consider the heavy theological books, many of them written by sectarians, which young preachers are expected to own and to master. For example, I once received a letter from a young preacher in the Philippines who requested that I send him several expensive and profound theological volumes that were recommended to him by some “big name” American preacher. I have never felt the need to own these works myself, and here we are talking about an inexperienced young man who lives in a poor country with a high rate of illiteracy. I sent him several copies of Douthitt’s Bible Topic Studies and Nicholls Pocket Bible Encyclopedia, and did not receive a reply.

We have raised a generation of super-educated young preachers who are intent upon acquiring more and more academic knowledge in the field of theology, who are given recognition for such achievement, and who have not even mastered the fundamentals of simple Bible knowledge. Beside, many of them are not old enough and experienced enough to possess that wisdom which does not come from books. Worse, we recommend that they sit at the feet of Calvinists and other alien sinners and false teachers, either literally in the schools or through the medium of the books. We would not ask a Calvinist theologian to come and preach a sermon or teach a class in our local church. Why then do we subject ourselves and our young brethren to their influence? There may be a place for a few reference works, in the field of dead languages for instance, that have been written by non-Christians. But when it comes to commentaries and other books which must of necessity contain the element of opinion, it seems to me that we have enough of these which have been written by New Testament Christians.

Such old warriors as J.D. Tant and Joe H. Blue did not have much worldly education. Some assume that they would not be effective in our modem age. I disagree. And I am certain neither of these brethren would have had any trouble with Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, or Fudge. Brother Blue stated that when he started preaching he had in his saddle bags his Bible and a copy of The Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents. Brother Tant authored a book of short, simple sermons, The Gospel X-Ray, which would be of more use to a young preacher than all the works of learned sectarian doctors. These two books, along with the booklets I mentioned earlier, a Cruden’s Complete Concordance, and a good Bible would provide sufficient tools for many years of work in the vineyard of the Lord. Let us get back to the basics, lose our shame of simple and direct sermons, and leave the theologians in their “theological cemeteries.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 596
October 6, 1983

By Daniel H. King

Some things are worth a little inconvenience. In fact, there are a few things in life that are worth a lot of inconvenience. Among them is principle.

It is one of those things that sets us apart from the lower creatures and makes of us beings for whom eternity is prepared. Self-survival is the highest of all priorities to most of the baser forms of life on our planet. But for man there are some concerns which tower above self-preservation in importance. Principle is one of them. There are to his mind principles for which he is willing to sacrifice and even to die if need be. One could go so far as to say that if he proved unwilling to make some sort of person sacrifice upon the altar of principle he would be thought an ignoble man, perhaps even a coward.

I am personally indebted and duly grateful to my forebearers who gave their lives for the principle of freedom. When I offer prayer in the public assembly of the church (and often in private) I express my appreciation to the God of heaven for the freedom to worship Him according to the dictates of His Word in accord with my conscience. But I am ever mindful that this freedom did not come to me by accident or by divine flat. It is a heritage written in the blood of unnamed thousands who suffered and died to bestow it upon me and others unknown to them. It was not for me that they died, nor even for their loved ones and friends at home. They died for freedom, the sweet principle of independence from political and religious bullies, the right to choose for oneself, to live without fear of oppression or ill-treatment at the whims of others. Though I do not know them I love and honor these dead for their noble sacrifice for principle.

Often I have thought how great was their sacrifice. They left home and family, hearth and fire, to march in ranks with men they did not formerly know. They gave up their wives and children, not just for a time but for good. The tender embrace of a loving wife, the life together, the joys of oneness – these all and more were laid freely and willingly upon the altar of principle. None has thought them cruel or crazy for it. We rather honor them for their giving of themselves for something we all believe to be higher and better. They died for an ideal, for a principle, and principles are worth more than individual people. The protection and welfare of a whole people should take precedence over the comfort and pleasure of a few.

There is a need for us to renew our dedication to principle. Too many of us these days consider the comfort and pleasure of one person to be paramount in every area of life. In fact, it is of relatively little concern when measured against the majestic grandeur of principle as it touches the common life of an entire people. Our freedom as a people would be in the severest jeopardy if it rested alone in the hands of some of our contemporaries. They see only their own selfish concerns as worth any time or effort and care nothing at all for generations yet unborn. They worry me.

What worries me even more is when I see and hear their counterparts in the church of my Lord. The church exists because Christ died so that it (and we who are in it) might live. It began upon the note of personal sacrifice. Christ died not only for people but for principle, though. It was His ultimate desire to deliver men from slavery to sin and motivate them to live by the principles of His kingdom. When we hear of those who put the comfort and pleasure of one person at the head of the list and neglect the importance of spiritual principles, it certainly gives us cause for concern.

A case in point: Jesus taught that there is but one cause for -putting a marriage partner away and taking another. That cause is infidelity (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). When that happens, only the innocent party is free to take another partner; Jesus did not free the guilty. In discussions that center around cases of unscriptural divorcements these days, the teaching of the Bible and weighty spiritual principles are failing victim before an overriding concern for the comfort and pleasure of individuals. I am no more cold nor hardhearted than anyone else in my handling of these situations. I feel deeply for those so involved. But there is no room for compromising spiritual principles in this thing. The solidarity of the home is at stake. The principle of martial fidelity is at stake. The sacredness of the martial union is in the balances. If we give an inch of holy ground it will touch thousands of homes and generations yet unborn will arise to curse our day. It is tragic that at times we must choose, but choose we must! Let us choose principle over people and not be found loosening where God has bound: “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” (Matt. 19:12, NIV).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 595
October 6, 1983