Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Several passages have recently been used to promote the idea that the Christian remains in Christ even as he commits sins of ignorance and weakness of the flesh. The doctrine says that the blood of Jesus continues to cleanse the Christian, who is striving to walk in the light, of the sins he habitually commits in ignorance and through the weakness of the flesh without him becoming aware of his sin, repenting of it, confessing it to God, and quitting the sin.

Some have been so frantic to defend this doctrine of constant cleansing that they have misrepresented those of us who believe pardon is conditional by claiming we demand a confession in the form of a specific list or detailed recounting of sins. We go on record, again, as denying such an idea. If an erring Christian becomes conscious of a single specific sin which needs to be confessed to God, let him confess it. If he has been unfaithful over a period of time, generally negligent of his duties, or involved in the practices of religious error, let him repent of these habits. No one pretends he can or must specify all the sinful acts which have occurred. Some brethren are trying to find a provision of constant cleansing for sins habitually and constantly practiced throughout a lifetime, which accounts for the talk about pardon for sins from which a man never turns. This also accounts for the complaint about an imaginary demand that specific lists of all sins must be recounted in confession of sin. The provision some are seeking cannot be found in the Bible because God’s Word does not teach that faithful Christians will constantly and habitually practice sin of any kind. The only provision made is for sins and errors into which we may fall but from which we turn in genuine penitence and earnest prayer for pardon (Acts 8:22-24; I Jn. I: 7-2:2).

Here is the dangerous application made of this doctrine of continuous or constant cleansing. Those who in ignorance use mechanical instruments of music in worship, support human institutions (missionary societies, colleges, orphan homes, old folks’ homes, etc.) from the church treasury, involve the church in recreational activities (build fellowship halls and gymnasiums, sponsor ball teams and recreational outings, etc.), and participate in the sponsoring church form of organization are not separated from God by these sins because they are generally striving to walk in the light. Other men who believe some form of the constant cleansing doctrine do not make the same application as described above, but have fought liberalism so long and hard that none who are guilty of it have found any opportunity for compromise. However, those who do make the above dangerous application of compromise with liberalism are using the writings of these other men to justify the position which they hold and to defend themselves when they are challenged for their compromising conduct.

One of the passages which has been used to defend the position that a Christian is not separated by his habitual sins of ignorance and weakness of the flesh has been Philippians 3:15-16 which read as follows:

Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

The argument which has been made from this verse is this: Christ never said that I had to have a mature degree of knowledge or faith in order to be received by Him (2 Pet. 3:18). Rather, it is simply the fact that I have believed in Him, putting Him on in baptism (Gal. 3:26-27). This fellowship is maintained by my pressing on, continuing to walk according to the level of understanding I have attained (Phil. 3:13-16).

This argument maintains that one is able to maintain his fellowship with God so long as he is walking according “to the level of understanding” which he has attained, regardless of the sins which he may be committing habitually. The baptized believer who is ignorantly participating in an adulterous marriage is not separated from God by his sin; the baptized believer who uses instrumental music in worship in ignorance is not separated from God by his sin; the baptized believer who, because of ignorance, worships with a church involved in institutionalism, the sponsoring church arrangement, and church sponsored recreation is not separated from God by his sins. The next step relates to fellowship. If this man is in fellowship with God, he should be fellowshipped by other Christians.

Does Philippians 3:15-16 teach that one is not separated from God by his habitual sins of ignorance and weakness of the flesh so long as he is walking according to the level of knowledge to which he has attained? Let us see.

Is The Interpretation Consistent With The Bible?

The first step to consider in examining any interpretation of the Scriptures is this: “Is this interpretation consistent with what the rest of the Bible teaches?” What does the rest of the Bible teach regarding sins of ignorance or any other sins habitually practiced?

1. The man who blindly follows a blind guide will `fall into a ditch” (Mt. 15:14). In discussing those who corrupted Jewish worship by bringing in their human traditions, Jesus said, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:8-9). What will happen to those good, honest Jews who ignorantly follow these false teachers? Jesus continued, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Mt. 15:13-14). Any interpretation of Philippians 3:15-16 (or any other passage) which implies or explicitly teaches that a blind follower of a blind leader will go to heaven is wrong.

2. Men are held responsible for their ignorance of God’s revelation. Several passages demonstrate this:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31).

And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day (Acts 23:1).

I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 26:9).

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief (1 Tim. 1:12-13).

These passages clearly show that men are held responsible for knowing God’s revelation.

The usual objection to these passages is that these verses apply of alien sinners. Are we to assume that God expects less of Christians than to alien sinners? Does God hold the alien sinner responsible for knowing God’s revelation, thereby holding him accountable for whatever sins he might commit in ignorance, but excuses the Christian of whatever sins he might commit in ignorance? What verse makes a distinction between the sins of ignorance committed by a Christian and those committed by an alien sinner?

Someone objects, “But the Christian has the blood of Christ.” So does the alien sinner. The alien sinner has the blood of Christ available to him if he will meet the conditions for receiving the forgiveness of his sins. The Christian has the blood of Christ available to him on the condition that he will meet the conditions for receiving the forgiveness of his sins. Is the objection implying, “The Christian has the blood of Christ unconditionally for certain sins and conditionally for other sins?”

3. Paul stated that sincerity was no proof of salvation for a Christian. He wrote, “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord” (1 Cor. 4:3-4). The plain argument of Paul is that, though he had a clean conscience, he was not therefore justified before God. Later he added, “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth” (2 Cor. 10:18). Paul realized what the Proverbs taught:

All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits (Prov. 16:2)

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Prov. 16:25)

4. The logical conclusion of this interpretation of Philippians 3:15-16 leads to spiritual absurdity. If a Christian is not separated from God by his habitual sins of ignorance and weakness of the flesh, we should leave him in his ignorance once he is baptized. We should just burn all of the Bibles and kill all of the preachers and let him go to heaven in his ignorance!

These facts should lead a man to question the interpretation of Philippians 3:15-16 which says that a man is acceptable before God so long as he is walking according to the level of knowledge to which he has attained. But what is the passage teaching?

The Text In Its Context

in responding to Judaizers, Paul showed his willingness to renounce everything in which man might trust and boast for salvation in order to gain Christ (Phil. 3:3-11). He forsook his ancestry, the Pharisee sect, and any effort to attain righteousness through perfect law-keeping in order to be saved through Christ. Paul forgot the things which were behind him (Phil. 3:13), counting them as mere refuse (Phil. 3:8). He pressed forward toward the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:14).

In this context, he wrote these words:

Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing (Phil. 3:15-16).

Although some commentators express the interpretation presented by those who say sins of ignorance do not separate us from God, I reject .their interpretation for reasons cited above and because it is inconsistent with the context.

After describing these Judaizing teachers as “dogs,” “evil workers” and the “concision” or mutilation (Phil. 3:2), for Paul to imply that those who ignorantly follow these men are not separated from God is inconceivable. Later he continued to describe these wicked false teachers saying, “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things” (Phil. 3:18-19). It is inconceivable that Paul could describe these wicked false teachers in these terms and then turn to say, “So long as the one who is following these men does not know better, he is not separated from God by his sin.”

Verse 15 admonishes all Christians to have the same mind as Paul had (“let us therefore, as many as be perfect [teleois means mature, not sinless], be thus minded.” The kind of mind he described is the mind to forget the things behind and press forward to the prize which lies before him. It is the mind which counts those things which cannot save as mere dung. J.B. Lightfoot explained it this way, “. . . let us make it our rule to forget the past and press ever forward” (Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, p. 153).

Paul then added, “. . . and if in any thing ye be otherwise interpreting this sentence, the denominational commentaries begin to differ among themselves and to teach various false doctrines. One commentary says, “If only we be in earnest, pressing onwards in the Christian race with sustained perseverance, God will, by the manifestation of his Spirit in our heart, correct any minor errors of doctrine or of practice” (B.C. Coffin, “Philippians,” The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 20, p. 115). This is sometimes joined with the Calvinist doctrine of enlightenment by the Holy Spirit to teach that God will illuminate the Christian to understand those areas in which he is wrong.

R.C.H. Lenski avoids the subjectivism of Calvinism’s doctrine of illumination by emphasizing that God’s revelation is given to us in the Bible (in the days of the apostles, it was given in the Old Testament and through the apostles and prophets).

When Paul says, “This, too (even this), God will reveal to you,” he is not turning them over to God because he himself does not know what else to do. Nor may we think of an immediate revelation. Kai, “even” or “also” implies that God has revealed to these mature Christians all that had brought them to their maturity, all their knowledge of Christ and his righteousness, and all their earnest, zealous Christian life; and God had done this by the Spirit who works through the Scripture Word (the Old Testament in this case) and through Christ’s apostles (John 16:13-14), the doctrine and the instruction which spread all the truth and make it a power in the hearts of Christians. Paul says that God will thus enlighten the Philippians on even any minor point that may yet be left and that is not fully clear to them either in itself or in its value for them. In fact, in this very epistle Paul is presenting anew to the Philippians a good deal of God’s revelation which ever penetrates our hearts more deeply. Our constant experience is that even we mature Christians see many a point more clearly as time and our own personal experience go on (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles To the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, p. 854).

Hence, God’s means of revealing more of His will to me today is through the Bible. The verse does not condone a diversity of doctrinal beliefs but directs those holding diverse ideas to the revelation of God for a correction of them.

Verse 16 then adds, “nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same” (cf. several translations for study of the textual variant readings). The loose interpretation of some brethren (that is, a man is acceptable before God so long as he is walking according to the level of knowledge of God’s work which he knows) does not do justice to this passage.

What Paul is saying is this: So far the Christians had been living by the rule of God as given earlier by Paul. They should not depart from that rule but should resolve to continue in that same rule in the future. H.A.W. Meyer used this graphic illustration to make this clear:

The line A, B, C indicates the course of life in which God demands that the Christians walk. The Philippians had progressed from point A to point B. Paul is admonishing them not to depart from that line but to continue on from point B to C. A departure to D or E would be apostasy. Hence, in keeping with the course of conduct in which they had walked so far, they should continue in the future. (For more detailed exposition of this, read Critical And Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistles to the Philippians and To Philemon by H.A.W. Meyer, pp. 140-145.)

Other commentaries stress the same point.

The literal Greek is, “walk by the same.” The context speaks of a path. Translation: Only one thing, so far as we have come, let us keep our lives in the same path (Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies, Vol. II, p. 100).

Or, more literally, “Only, to what we have attained, with the same let us keep in line.” The rule has been established. The principle – namely, “We are still far from perfect, but in Christ we should strive to become perfect” – has been enunciated and exemplified. Let our lives be regulated by the consistent application of this principle. It must never be surrendered (William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary; Exposition of Philippians, p. 177).

The thought is the same as that expressed in Gal. 6:16: “as many as are keeping in line with this canon” or rule (the one stated in Gal. 6:15). Stoichein = to stand and march like a soldier, each in his place in rank and file.

Paul by no means says that being minded differently in some respect is a matter of indifference just so we keep to the main thing, faith in Christ. He is not an indifferentist regarding even the least point. He is the soundest unionist that ever lived, who united in the completest inner union of heart and life all whom he taught. The Philippians, lined up and ever keeping in line with all that by God’s grace and revelation they have thus far attained, will by this very means attain also one mind in any minor matter that may st~l need one-mindedness. Perfect oneness in the Word (revelation), with one heart and one spirit, is the prayer of Jesus (John 17:17-21) and the preachment of all his apostles. Paul’s effort is a completely united front against the errorists of his day (R.C.H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 855).

He is anxious for two things – that they should keep on the same course, and that all should keep on together. In both senses he addresses the perfect; he will have them understand that they have attained only one thing – to be in the right path, and that it is for them to continue in it; he also. bids them to refrain from setting themselves up above the imperfect… (David Lipscomb and J.W. Shepherd, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles: Philippians, p. 210).

Conclusion

There is nothing in Philippians 3:15-16 to warrant the conclusion being drawn that habitual sins of ignorance and weakness of the flesh do not separate a person from God or that God will accept the Christian who is walking the best he knows how to walk or the basis of knowledge to which he has attained. Such an interpretation is being given to this verse in order to justify the practice of extending the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9) and holding out the hope of salvation to those who are involved in using instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions (missionary societies, colleges, orphan homes, hospitals, old folks’ homes, etc.), the sponsoring church arrangement, and church sponsored recreation. Some who are not content with the limits imposed by God’s word regarding fellowship are seeking some means of justifying their predetermined conclusion to fellowship those who are not content to walk in God’s word.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, pp. 226, 243-245
April 21, 1983

By Lewis Willis

Not long ago I received a request for written answers to some passages from the Psalms. Specifically, the inquiry concerned certain statements from David regarding mechanical instruments of music. The first passage was Psalms 149:3-4: “Let them praise His name in the dance: let them sing praises unto Him with the timbrel and harp. For the Lord taketh pleasure in His people: He will beautify the meek with salvation.” The second passage was Psalms 150:3-5: “Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet: praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbrel and dance: praise Him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals: praise Him upon the high sounding cymbals.” It is evident from these two passages that David was speaking of worship to God engaged in by him and his peers. Furthermore, I would affirm that the worship to God was a worship with which God was pleased at that time. One would be hard pressed to deny that David used mechanical instruments in his worship. The question is not, “Did David worship God acceptably while using his instruments?” The question is, “Does David’s worship constitute a pattern for the worship of the church?”, or, “Are David’s actions authority for church action?”

I think that we could agree to the following. If these Psalms are to be used as authority for the worship of the church then everything mentioned would have to be included in that worship. So what would be the character of this worship? There would be singing of praises which would be accompanied with the following: timbrel, harp, trumpet, psaltery, stringed instruments, organs and loud and high sounding cymbals. If this is authority for the church then the church must have all – not some – of these instruments in its worship. But, wait a minute, that is not all. Both passages affirm that the singing of praise must be accompanied by the dance. Keep in mind, you cannot just pick and choose from Scripture the thing(s) that you want. In this case, everything involved in this worship is authorized if anything is authorized. Before you answer, “That’s fine with me,” you’d better stop to consider what this dance is that would be incorporated into the worship of the church.

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament is to the Hebrew language, in which the Psalms are written, what Thayer is to the Greek language and Webster is to the English language. The definition Gesenius gives to the word translated “dance” describes a rather interesting worship activity. He said it is “well compared to skipping” (p. 193). Additionally, he says it “is also done according to thythmical numbers, and is connected with singing and music” (p. 248). On page 260 he expands the definition of the term to include, “to go round in a circle …. to keep a festival, from the idea of leaping, and dancing in sacred dances …. especially of a public assembly.” On page 416 he says the meaning includes “to run.” Finally, he said the idea of “dance” denotes “to go in a circle, to revolve . . . hence to turn, to turn one’s self about, . . . to dance in a circle . . . to leap . . . to chirp, to twitter, as a bird” (p. 717).

What an interesting worship this would be – all of the mechanical instruments playing their wonderful sounds and all of the worshipers gathering in a circle. They skip and leap rhythmically, run and revolve around, chirping and twittering as birds. I wonder if the modern church is ready for this? It was this kind of dance Miriam engaged in after the Red Sea had been crossed (Ex. 15:20). Also, it was this sacred dance which David engaged in, “leaping and dancing before the Lord,” which caused his wife Michal to despise him for the spectacle he made of himself before the nation of Israel (2 Sam. 6:14-20). Keil and Delitzsch commented on the festive dance, noting “the chief instrumental accompaniment is the . . . tambourine” (“Psalms”, Vol. III, page 415). Can’t you image the modern preacher saying, “Honey, did you bring your tambourine for my sacred dance at worship this morning?”

Now remember, the advocates of the use of instrumental music in worship want to use these two passages to prove their practice is acceptable. But if they authorize and/or demand the use of an instrument in worship, then they authorize and demand sacred dancing in worship. The next time you hear about a preacher who is willing to accept the consequence of his position on Psalms 149 and 150, and incorporates sacred dancing in his worship, please contact me and let me know about it. I think I’d take a week’s vacation and drive to Kansas to see such a spectacle. And I would really go out of my way to see the application these fellows would make of the next verse in our first text, Psalms 149:5. The Scripture says, “Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.” Some folks who like to sleep through sermons are anxiously awaiting the introduction of beds “into the worship.” I think I’ve seen a few times when beds would be the most appropriate thing to have. But don’t hold your breath until you hear bout it. No need to worry, the dance will not be incorporated, just the part that human minds want included. The rest will be rejected without any compulsions of conscience whatsoever.

What Did David Do?

Many never stop to consider the implications of arguing that we can do something because David did it. Does it not seem reasonable that if his acceptable action in one thing authorizes the church to do the same, his acceptable actions in other things are also authority for the church? Look at this list of things David did:

1. Offered animal sacrifices (1 Chron. 29:1-20; Psa. 118:27).

2. Burned incense (Psa. 66:13-15).

3. He was a good Jew so he practiced circumcision (Lev. 12:2-3; Deut. 10:16).

4. He worshiped on the Sabbath (Seventh) Day (1 Chron. 23:27ff; 2 Chron. 2:3-4).

5. He had seven or eight wives (2 Sam. 3:1-5).

If we are going to adopt David’s mechanical instruments, by what form of reasoning can the church reject his animal sacrifices, incense, circumcision and Sabbath worship? But before modern man begins to follow the example of David with regard to these things, they would be well advised to consult their wives to see if the lady of the house would be willing to allow them to follow the example of David and have a multitude of wives. I can’t speak for everybody, but I can tell you what the answer is at my house.

You know God could have helped us a great deal in determining what the church should do, if He had been a little more explicit. He didn’t say, “Thou shalt not listen to the voice of David,” or, “Thou shalt not do as David did.” I wonder what He meant, though, when on the Mount of Transfiguration He affirmed of Jesus, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5), After awhile it will be necessary for us to make up our minds, are we going to do as God said and listen to the Lord, or shall we listen to David and do as he did?

Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth

One of the things carelessly overlooked by many religionists is the instruction Paul gave to Timothy to rightly divide or handle aright the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). This is one of the chief causes of Bible abuse in religious circles today. It is done so frequently and so lightly that many never pause to even consider it. “If it’s in the Bible, that’s all I need to know.” This position has such serious consequences that when noted, people cry out, “Ridiculous!” But it is not ridiculous, it is just logical and, if they will ever learn to rightly divide the word, they will not have to deal with charges that they consider ridiculous. Genesis 6 (Noah’s ark) and Psalms 150 (David’s mechanical instrument) were given under the direction of the Holy Spirit but they do not specify church action as Ephesians 5:19 does. If so, we must build that ark if we intend to introduce mechanical instruments of music.

Time, as dealt with in the Bible, logically divides itself into three parts. The first was a time scholars refer to as the Patriarchal Age. This was a period extending roughly from the creation to Mt. Sinai. During this time, God legislated directly and personally with the heads of families. Thus, He instructed Adam concerning his conduct in the Garden of Eden. He told Noah to build an ark and, He told Abraham to leave his homeland and family and go out to another place. All of these things were God’s instructions to men. But they have not the remotest application to the church today. If this is not so, the church would be obligated to leave its homeland, eat only certain fruits, and build an ark. To be sure, principles are involved which are applicable, but not the specific instructions.

The second period of time extends from Mt. Sinai until the crucifixion of Christ and is known as the Mosaical Age. God had separated the Jews from the rest of the nations and entered into peculiar covenant with them at Mt. Sinai. All aspects of the Law of Moses were bound upon them to discharge during the time that this law was in force. It remained in effect until Christ nailed it to His cross (Col. 2:14). When the Jew of that age wanted to know what God required him to do, he did not appeal to the instruction God gave to Adam, Noah or Abraham. He appealed to the law of Moses under which he lived and to which he was responsible. Everything that God wanted or permitted was authorized by that law. Jesus lived and died under the auspices of the Law of Moses. Jeremiah, during the days when the Law of Moses was in effect, predicted, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah . . .” (Jer. 31:31). He explained that the new covenant would not be according to the covenant that was given when Israel departed from Egypt. The Hebrew writer applied that prophecy to the New Testament, will, covenant, law or Gospel of Jesus Christ (Heb. 8:8-13).

Following His resurrection, Jesus announced “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). When the apostles on Pentecost started preaching repentance and remission of sins (Acts 2:38), the third and final great age began. It is the Christian age. The Apostle John said, “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Those who lived under Moses were obligated to do as Moses said and those of us who live under Christ are obligated to do as He says. We do not consult Abraham to find out what we’re supposed to do. Or Moses. Or David. We consult Christ! Only His Gospel will save our souls (Rom. 1:16). It furnishes the church completely unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Worship under Christ is a good work and the gospel of Christ specifies the character of the worship of the New Testament church. God’s dealing with man in the first two ages presents the church with many principles that can be profitably learned (Rom. 15:4). But this does not mean that we are to build arks, offer animal sacrifices, or burn incense. Nor does it mean that we can have mechanical instruments of music in our worship simply because David did. All it does is illustrate that God is to be worshiped according to the provisions of the law under which the people of each dispensation live. From the gospel we learn what kind of music God wants in the church. He tells us specifically to “sing” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16, etc.).

When James P. Miller debated Morris Book in Orlando, Florida in 1955, Miller made this point: “My friends, when God commands one thing, that automatically excludes another. Let me show you now what I mean. You remember back yonder in that long ago when God told Abraham to take Isaac and offer him? He did not tell Abraham not to kill Ishmael too, did He? When God said, `Take Isaac,’ that left Ishmael out. When God said, `Take gopher wood’ that left out cypress. When God said, `Take a lamb’ that left out a pig. When God said, `sing,’ that leaves out every other kind of music . . . . You might as well say, `When God told Moses to speak to the rock it was right for him to strike it also,’ as to say when God said, `sing,’ it was right to play” (Book-Miller Debate, p. 90). God specified sing and that excludes everything else. And we find that from the law of Christ and not the law of David, Moses, Abraham or Noah. We who are in the churches of Christ listen to Jesus Christ.

Some Think They Find An Instrument In The New Testament

Through the years the subject of instrumental music has been the center of controversy. Those who advocate its use have been sorely pressed to find some authorization for the practice they insist on using. One of their more famous arguments has centered on the definition of the Greek word psallo which appears in such passages as Ephesians 5:19. M.C. Kurfees, in his book Instrumental Music In The Worship, quoted 17 Greek-English lexicons which give definitions of the word. He noted the great number and variety of meanings which this word has had at different times in history. At one time, it signified to touch the cords of a mechanical instrument. But he carefully noted that that was not the only meaning that psallo ever had. He lists five different meanings that have attended this word in Greek literature.

1. To pluck the hair.

2. To twang the bow string.

3. To twitch a carpenter’s line.

4. To touch the cords of a musical instrument, that is, to make instrumental music.

5. To touch the cords of the human heart, that is, to sing, to celebrate with hymns of praise.

The lexicons all affirm the use of these meanings. Kurfees said, “Now, in view of these facts, what shall we say is the meaning of this word? Out of five well-defined and distinct meanings, shall we select one of them, and then affirm …. that this is the meaning of the word? If so, which one of the five meanings shall it be, and why? As we have them here numbered, shall it be the first one? If so, why so? If not, why not? According to the highest standard authorities, the word at one time meant to `pluck the hair.’ Now, when Christians assemble to worship God, may they proceed, Nehemiah-like (Neh. 13:25), `to pluck off their hair’ as a part of that worship? If not, why not? Does the reader say that such an act in the worship of God would be silly? We reply that it would, indeed, be silly, and sinful, too, for that matter. But certainly not because that was not a meaning of psallo. Such worshipers could promptly defend themselves by appealing both to the Greek lexicons and to the Bible. They could show from standard Greek lexicons that `psallo’ had that meaning, and that the New Testament authorizes them . . . to `psallo’ ” (pp. 16-17).

Obviously, something governs and controls the definition of a word. The context of the New Testament Scriptures under which we live and by which we shall be judged, (Jn. 12:48), must determine the application the church makes regarding psallo. The use of it by Nehemiah, David, or Alexander the Great means nothing to the church. Church action is action that Jesus authorized and Jesus told us to pluck, twang, twitch or touch the human heart as the instrument in Christian worship (Eph. 5:19). Such is consistent with all the New Testament says on this subject and it is correct grammatical construction.

Conclusion

Therefore, we in the churches of Christ shall continue to worship God in song with the full assurance that such is authorized by the gospel, consistent with everything it says. Those who insist upon using instrumental music, appealing to David and others as authority, should do so with full understanding that they embrace David’s actions, while rejecting what Christ has said. We will not make their mistake!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, pp. 225, 248-249
April 21, 1983

By Bill McMilleon

In Romans 14:5 Paul wrote, “One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord.”

Does this passage teach that our worship services on the first day of the week are only a matter of personal preference; that one day is as good as another? Can this verse be applied to the Seventh Day Adventist position? Should we not allow the Adventists the liberty of worshiping on the Sabbath without condemnation? These are questions which have occasionally come to me from young Christians or older ones who should know better.

The First Day Assembly

Before dealing with the context of Romans 14, it is in order to consider what the New Testament Scriptures say about the first day of the week.

In Hebrews 10:25 we are told “to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together.” We can easily see from this verse, though negatively stated, that we are commanded to assemble. Granted, the day of the assembly is not found here, but can be elicited from a study of other pertinent passages.

In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul had to give specific instructions concerning observance of the Lord’s Supper. In v. 20 Paul says, “Therefore when you meet together it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” If you continue reading, the reason for Paul’s statement becomes obvious (i. e. their abuse in its observance). The point to be emphasized here is that, even though their manner of observance was faulty, their coming together was not rebuked. The Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated when they came together. Now, when did they come together? The only passage directly related to our subject at hand is Acts 20:7 which states, “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.” Since Paul was present (v. 7b) and participated, this assembly for the purpose of breaking bread (Lord’s Supper) had apostolic approval (see Phil. 4:9). While it is true that the assembly in Act 20 took place in Troas, the concept would have universal application. Paul taught the same thing in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17).

What have we learned?

(1) We are commanded to assemble (Heb. 10:25).

(2) That the purpose for this assembly is the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11).

(3) By apostolic example we know the time of this observance (Acts 20:7).

The foregoing facts establish the New Testament pattern for the specific day of worship under the New Covenant. If Paul is saying in Romans 14 that each man is left to his own convictions in this matter, he has contradicted not only himself, but the other writers of the New Testament Scriptures.

Context And Situation

I firmly believe that most, if not all, difficulties in understanding a particular Scripture can be resolved by a close examination of the context and situation. With this thought in mind, let us examine Romans 14:5.

In Romans 14 Paul uses phraseology which demands that we should understand these verses as applying to individual action. Notice the language, “one who is weak” (v. 1), “one man has faith” (v. 2), and “one man regards one day” (v. 5). It is obvious (at least to me) that Paul is not dealing with group or collective action and, therefore, has nothing at all to do with the first day of the week assembly.

Jews that were converted to Christianity would initially hold to many things found in the Old Covenant until they were spiritually mature enough to recognize these things as not belonging to the New Testament system. That is why Paul calls them “weak in the faith” in verse one. Thayer says that this word “weak” means, “want of strength or capacity; to understand a thing.” If an individual felt, due to his “inability to understand a thing” in the faith, that he had to honor a day not necessarily belonging to the New Testament system, he was allowed that liberty. The rub came when he would try to make his liberty a law binding on someone else (notice v. 4). This does not excuse remaining immature or “weak” but does give some allowance for time to grow (Heb. 5:12, 13). Any thinking person can see that the Adventist position is not, even in the remotest sense, an exercise in individual liberty by immature Christians. They not only would bind the Sabbath upon all but take it to the extreme of anathematizing those who observe the first day of the week. The following statements from their own writings show this to be true. Referring to the “mark of the beast” in Revelation 19:20 they may, “Sunday keeping must be the mark of the beast” (The Marvel of the Nations, Uriah Smith, pg. 183). Also, in the August 1850 issue of the Advent Review Extra on pages 10 and 11, we have this statement, “Sunday keeping is an institution of the first beast and all who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, `the mark of the beast’. Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshipers of the golden calf.”

I do not have to be an exegetical genius to recognize that this type of arbitrary definition of the mark of the beast is erroneous. The Adventists cannot escape the fact that their all inclusive condemnation of those who observe the first day of the week would cast the apostle Paul into Hell! Read Acts 20:7 and Revelation 14:9-11 along with their exegesis (?) on the mark of the beast which is found above and see if this is not so!

The Spirit inspired apostle wrote, “Let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival, or a new moon or a Sabbath day” (Col. 2:16). This includes the Adventists.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 210
April 7, 1983

By Earl E. Robertson

The Bible is replete with instruction, both positive and negative, for the behavioral patterns of acceptable living for all men. This is a most difficult lesson for men to learn, even some professing Christianity. We all must recognize that there are no alternatives when God speaks. He blesses the obedient, and condemns the disobedient. This lesson God has stressed from Eden to the present. His word continues to say the same, but men like Adam of old, continue to find what they conceive to be an acceptable alternative to obedience (see 1 Sam. 15:19-25).

The pressures of life, witnessed in all relationships of human endeavor, have a tendency to cause man to move from complete honesty with God and man that he becomes nothing more than a “man pleaser.” The giving in to these various pressures do not justify our actions; it is never right to do wrong (Rom. 3:8). To not do the right thing is to do the wrong (cf. James 4:I7). Paul says, “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Col. 3:22, 23). The same is stated in Ephesians 6:5-7. These are the only times this word is used in the New Testament and is herein used in the nominative plural. The basic idea of the word is: “studying to please men, courting the favor of men!”

It seems rather strange that a man would make more effort to please men than he would to please God. God says, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Heb. 10:25), but men will do this purely out of desire to please some human being! One who makes no effort to do the will of God in this matter, but rather justifies his doings as a “man pleaser” has no right to the fellowship of God or His people. Some Christians (?) have visitors or they go visiting on the Lord’s day, but to be pleasing to all concerned (but the Lord), they just visit and forget all about the Lord! The basic, underlying sin in this behavior is “men pleaser.” There is no love and reverence for God in this, all efforts are to please men. Such, as Christians, need to publicly repent that God and His people may forgive and the sinner be restored. Too many people take this matter lightly and it is eternally dangerous!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 209
April 7, 1983