Truth Magazine

By Dudley Ross

More and more articles are being written and sermons being delivered in which William Barclay is quoted to substantiate some point. The popularity of Barclay among brethren is quite understandable for at least two reasons. (1) His writings are numerous. Barclay had over twenty books on the market at the time of his death. (2) His ability to organize thoughts was remarkable. When one reads any of the short topics in his Daily Bible Study Series, this ability of Barclay is clearly observed. His short treatment of segments of the New Testament lends itself to quick and painless sermonizing.

There are a number of things about William Barclay that some are not aware of. Nearly everyone who reads after the man remarks that he is really good but no one seems to know where he gets his information for he does not document his sources. He treats a Greek or Hebrew word without citing any lexical authority. Yet he will use men like A.J. Gossip and C.H. Dodd without hesitation. C.H. Dodd’s writings are about as full of infidelity and modernism as anything you can find. Dodd’s biblical scholarship is very questionable also. Of course, that can be said likewise of Barclay.

Barclay never made any claims to genius or originality. He described his mind as “second class” and went on to admit, “It is the simple truth that I never had an original idea in my life. In all the books I have written I have explained and expounded other men’s ideas.”(1) However, Barclay failed to say just who the other men from whom he borrowed ideas were. While he was not secretive about his lack of originality, he was not shy about his ability to remember. He said, “If then I have a second-class mind, how did I emerge with a first-class honors degree in Classics? Because I happen to have a phenomenal memory, and I am therefore an excellent examinee which merely goes to show what a poor test of real ability examinations are.”(2)

William Barclay was a man whose ideas, admittedly borrowed, run quite contrary to those of faithful brethren. It is here that faithful brethren should take warning. Barclay was a liberal and, in a sense, a modernist. He admits as much when he discussed the problem of being “evangelical.” The term “evangelical” is misused, misapplied and exploited by denominationalists who claim they are fundamentalists and Bible believers who are born again Christians – or some such description. In reality they are not evangelical in any sense of the term, but when Barclay discussed the point here was his comment: “It has always been to me a matter of deep regret that the word evangelical must in the eyes of some people always by preceded by the word conservative – a conservative evangelical. An evangelical is surely one who loves the good news of God in Jesus Christ, and I cannot see why there should be no such thing as a liberal evangelical.”(3)

The evidence of the liberal theology of Barclay is abundant. When you read Barclay’s books, look at such topics in the index as “The Virgin Birth,” “Miracles” and “The Person of Christ.” As Barclay dealt with these and other matters related to them, he would often just cast a little aspersion on the belief in super natural matters. He did not directly deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ in his commentary on Matthew but called it a “crude fact” and emphasized that it is not important to literally believe that Jesus was born only of a woman. Let us look at some things he had to say about the birth of Christ.

He argued that both genealogies recorded in the Gospel records are traced through Joseph and argued that Mary is never even mentioned, except to say that Joseph was her husband. He argued that the virgin birth story could not be taken literally. He argued, “If Jesus was the son of Mary alone, he was of Aaronic and not Davidic descent.”(4) He contended that there was a “strong strand of thought which was at least unaware of the Virgin Birth” in the New Testament text.(5) Then he alleged, “The phrase `born of woman’ has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth.”(6) This is the man many are quoting as an authority in sermons and articles.

His concept of the miracles is the classic modernistic position. He expressed it this way. “That which would be a miracle in one age or in one society is a commonplace in another. Even fifty years ago people would have regarded it as a miracle to be able to sit in a room and look into a glass-fronted box and see plays being acted, games being played, events happening hundreds and even thousands of miles away.”(7) Over twenty years ago, this writer had a confrontation with a Presbyterian preacher who contended that what the Jews considered miraculous provision of Manna from Heaven was now a natural thing in that Maniferis Sinaiticus is a regularly exported product from the peninsula of Sinai today. Of course the obvious reply was that Jesus endorsed the giving of the Manna as a miracle and based His claim to being the true “bread of life” on that miraculous occurence (John 6:48-51).

Barclay looked at the healing miracles as simple legends and not facts. He had no more faith in the miracles of healing Jesus performed than he did those of the pagans of Christ’s time. He described an event that took place in Alexandria when a blind man came to Vespasian and “besought him to cure him by touching his eyes with his spittle, and a man who had a diseased hand, who besought him to heal it by touching it with the sole of his foot.”(8) Barclay then related how the blind man saw again and said, “Both facts are attested to this day.” He affirmed, “There is every reason to believe that these cures happened, and that they were not uncommon in the ancient world.” Later, however, he attributes it all, including the miracles of Christ and the apostles, to the current thought of those ancient days. He did not believe in miracles as divine intervention in the natural realm of the world. This man who regarded the miracles of Jesus as understood only in the characteristic Hebrew exagerations, is quoted far too often today by faithful brethren.

Barclay really did not believe that Jesus was God. Here is an area that is enigmatic in studying Barclay, for one time he wrote of his faith in Christ, but then made such statements as these. “It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God. Time and time again we see Jesus unhesitatingly and unquestioningly and unconditionally accepting the will of God for himself. Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus and God. (My emphasis, DRS) He said: `He who has seen me has seen God.’ There are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God’s omniscience in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know (sic).”(9)

There are any number of other errors Barclay taught. There are some things he wrote that are well said, but when one is as liberal and modernistic as was Barclay, it is difficult to trust him. It is important to know the theology of a man if we are going to use him authoritatively. It is like using Thayer as a lexical authority, keeping in mind that the man was Unitarian. As the publishers preface reads, “A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the expalatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy.”(10) The same is said in regard to Barclay and the works he left. This article is just a word of caution.

Endnotes:

1. Barclay, W. “A Spiritual Biography, ” Eerdmans, 1975, p. 27.

2. Ibid. p. 28.

3. Ibid. pp. 102-103.

4. Barclay, W. The Mind of Jesus, Harper & Rowe, 1961, p. 329.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid. p. 330.

7. Ibid. p. 68.

8. Ibid. p. 69.

9. Op. cit. p. 56.

10. Thayer, J.H. A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker, 1977 (preface) p. vii.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 10, pp. 150-151
March 5, 1981

By John W. Hedge

It has been said that Paul’s letter to the church at Rome is “a tough piece of meat” to be understood. I remember that brother Peter said that “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:15-16). But please observe, that Peter did not say that the “hard to be understood” things which Paul wrote could not be understood. Paul himself said, “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things” (2 Tim. 2:7). Only those who are “unlearned and unstable” fail to consider what Paul wrote in the light of the context and, therefore, “wrest it unto their own destruction.” This was what the apostle Peter said about the matter.

A casual reading of the epistle addressed to the church at Rome reveals the following facts: First, the letter was addressed to “all that be in Rome, beloved of God, and called to be saints” (Rom. 1:7). Second, Rome was at that time the capitol of the whole world. Its citizenship was composed of both Jews and Gentiles in general; certainly those composing the church there came from these diverse nationalities. Third, Paul informs the church of the fact that salvation had been provided for “every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The Jewish people had been previously brought up under the Old Testament system, with all of its ceremonies, “works of righteousness,” and “law keeping,” and, at the same time, were regarded as being God’s only people; it is easy to see why they thought that all such things should be continued in the church as necessary prerequisites to salvation (see Acts 15:1; Rom. 3:1-31).

Fourth, in view of the Jewish prejudice against the “the uncircumcised” Gentile elements within the church and their being “sticklers” for “keeping the law of Moses,” of maintaining “good works,” Paul is moved to write in opposition to such views. Naturally in writing he had to condemn “keeping law,” of salvation by “good works,” as being essential to salvation under Christ. Such condemnation does not apply to the one who obeys the “law of Christ” and who “fears God and works righteousness” (Acts 10:34-35; Tit. 2:11-12).

Fifth, for one to take Paul’s condemnation of “law” and “works” as found in the Roman epistle and apply it to all law and works as plainly taught in the New Testament is but to “wrest” this portion of God’s word. The shades of the teachings of Martin Luther to the effect that one is “justified by faith alone” and apart from any further acts of obedience, and that of John Calvin that “salvation is wholly of the grace of God” and without any effort on man’s part is seen in the teachings of many today, including some who claim to be “preachers of the gospel of Christ” and who have “escaped the bondage in denominationalism.” It was Martin Luther and John Calvin with whom modern denominationalism, (known as “Protestantism,”) originated, which was based upon their teachings regarding how the lost are saved. If “denominationalism” was begun by their teachings concerning salvation being “solely by faith” on the one hand, and “wholly by grace” on the other, those who teach the same things today are guilty of perpetuating denominationalism.

Yes, indeed, Paul did write some things, “hard to be understood” but by taking what he wrote in the light of context and circumstances, along with what is taught in general throughout the Bible, one can understand what he wrote, for what he wrote was written for our learning. If we can’t understand what he wrote, I am unable to understand how we could profit by our study of it. If you are “unlearned and unstable” it is clear why you do not understand it. One of Paul’s admonitions was, “Be not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). If we cannot understand and make the right application of Paul’s letter to the saints in Rome I wonder how those to whom the epistle was sent did so.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 10, pp. 149-150
March 5, 1981

By Mike Willis

The psalmist wrote, “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law” (Psa. 119:126). The Hebrew word parar in the Hiphil means “to break, frustrate” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 830). It is used to refer to “Making ineffectual, breaking or violating.” Wicked men, in the psalmist’s day, were making God’s word void; they were breaking God’s law, violating it, and making it of none effect.

Men are still making God’s law void today in a number of different ways. I would like for you to consider how men are making God’s law void today.

1. By lawless conduct. This is probably the primary meaning of the psalmist. The wicked men of his day made the law void by their obstinate and willful refusal to live by its precepts. If such conduct made the law void then, it also makes the law void today. We are certainly living in an age in which men have a little concern when setting aside God’s law.

What God said about marriage, divorce and remarriage is being set aside by our lawless society (Matt. 19:1-12). Whereas God allowed one reason for a divorce which allowed the innocent party to remarry, men have set aside God’s law to grant divorces for any reason. We have simply legalized adultery. What God has said regarding homosexuality is being set aside (cf. Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Homosexuals are wanting to be treated as if their immorality was not disrespectful, in spite of their sinful, lawless conduct. Pornography is present in every quick stop market and on our television sets.

Even those things which are still considered to be crimes receive very little punishment. A man can commit a crime which has tens of years of punishment and be on the streets in a matter of months on shock probation. Ungodly, lawless men make our streets unsafe in many sections of the country. Our women are raped and left for dead. Our elderly people have become prisoners in their own houses because of the lawlessness which characterizes our society. There are no teeth left in the law; our government acts as if it is afraid to wield the sword in punishment against the evil doer.

The social do-gooders who have been in control of our courts and government have nearly destroyed us. Their concepts regarding sin have not been effective. The idea that sin can be controlled by a better environment, more education, and money has only resulted in criminals who are richer, more educated, and living in better facilities. Thugs who robbed banks have been replaced by thieves who rob through computers. We have not cured sin by our social programs. Rather, we have left sin unpunished and allowed crime to grow at rampant rates. “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law” (Psa. 119:126).

2. By denying its inspiration. Another group of men have made void the word of God in another way. They have denied that the Bible is inspired. The result is that the word of God is reduced to the mere words of men. The authority which resides in the word of God is, thereby, removed.

I shall never forget some of the classroom experiences I have had under infidel professors who were preachers in denominational seminaries. I have heard nearly every miracle which we studied denied, re-interpreted, and demythologized. I have witnessed men undermine the commandments of God by treating the inspired revelation as if it were the misguided opinions of a given man who only reflected the social conditions of his time. Paul’s statements regarding the subordination of women is one example. He is supposed to have been a writer who only reflected the social milieu of his day.

By denying the inspiration of the Bible, every word becomes suspect. What is considered right by one man is considered wrong and uninspired by someone else. Rather than being obedient to the law, man becomes a judge of the law (Jas. 4:11). The modernist goes through the Bible with his scissors and excises those parts with which he disagrees, denying that they are truth. He goes through the gospel accounts of the life of Christ and eliminates everything which is contrary to his personal mental image of Jesus, denying the historicity of those accounts. The rest of the life of Christ he accepts and eulogizes. The result is that he has created Jesus in his own image!

The modernists who deny the verbal inspiration of the Bible have made the word of God void. They need to learn what the psalmist wrote, “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false away” (Psa. 119:128). Unfortunately, our land is permeated with modernism. Modernists fill many of the pulpits, control most of the denominational seminaries, control most of the media, and control most of the secular centers of learning. “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law” (Psa. 119:126).

3. By skepticism. Skepticism means “the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge must always be in question.” This position states that man can never know anything positively. What is true is true for today but may very well be false for tomorrow. Whatever absolute truth might exist cannot be certainly known.

Anyone can see how this undermines God’s word. The Bible plainly teaches that there is a truth and that truth has been revealed to man in the Bible. The psalmist said, “Thou art near, O Lord; and all they commandments are truth” (Psa. 119:151). Again, he wrote, “Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth” (Psa. 119:142). Our Savior stated the same thing when lie said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth (Jn. 17:17). Any position which teaches that there is no absolute truth is contrary to God’s word.

The Bible also teaches that this truth can be understood. Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:31-32). Notice that one can know the truth; that truth is known through continuing in Christ’s word; that truth which is known through continuing in Christ’s word frees man from sin. In another passage, the apostle Paul wrote, “. . . wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Man has the ability to understand the Lord’s will.

Hence, the Scriptures reveal the truth of God and man can understand it. The position held by skeptics is contrary to God’s revelation. Their denial of an absolute truth and denial of man’s ability to know truth effectively negates God’s revelation. What God has spoken is dismissed as being relative or unable to be understood. The effect of this is that God gave His law without benefit to man. “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law” (Psa. 119:126).

4. By tradition. Another manner in which God’s law is set aside by man is through human tradition. What God has said is replaced by man’s wisdom and opinions. The best passage to illustrate this is Matthew 15 (cf. the parallel account in Mk. 7). God had spoken in the Ten Commandments; one of the commandments said, “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12). This commandment placed a greater responsibility upon children than merely to show respect for age; it placed the responsibility to provide financially for one’s parents upon the children (cf. 1 Tim. 5:1-16). However, the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day had a tradition that one was relieved of his responsibility to care for his aged parents if he put that money in the Temple treasury. Jesus spoke of this tradition when He said, “But God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition” (Matt. 15:4-6).

What was true of human traditions in Jesus’ day remains true of human tradition today. What God commanded about baptism has been made of none effect by traditions of men. Jesus commanded that men be immersed in water for the forgiveness of sins. Human tradition, among most denominations, has stated that sprinkling or pouring are acceptable “modes” of baptism. The result is that the majority of denominations practice sprinkling or pouring rather than baptism (immersion in water). What God said has been set aside by human tradition; He might as well not have spoken on the subject because human tradition has set it aside.

In a similar fashion, God’s revelation concerning the Lord’s supper is negated by the traditions of men. Our Bibles reveal that the early church continued steadfastly in the observance of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42 “breaking of bread”). They observed this memorial to the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection on the first day of every week (Acts 20:7). This was God’s pattern for the observance of the Lord’s supper – upon the first day of every week. However, God’s revelation has been set aside by the traditions of men which teach that the Lord’s supper should be observed monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually.

Multitudes of God’s commandments have been set aside by the traditions of men. What God has spoken regarding the organization of the church, the work of the church, the names of the church, the worship of the church, the moral standards of God’s people, and many other items are presently being set aside by the religious leaders of our day on no higher authority than human tradition, man’s own opinions! “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law” (Psa. 119:126).

5. By indifference. The reason for God giving a revelation is also made of none effect by indifference. God spoke to give mankind a standard by which to live. The man who is indifferent to what God has spoken, choosing to live as if God had not spoken, has the same practical effect as the man who openly and defiantly refuses to live by God’s word. The word was given to save mankind from sin (Rom. 1:16). If men treat the word as if it were not given, God might as well not have spoken so far as the practical effect is concerned.

Indifference toward God’s word is certainly a mark of the American society. Americans are more interested in television, recreation, eating at some fancy restaurant, sporting events, and a multitude of other things than they are the word of God. For all practical purposes, God might as well not have spoken because men have made the word of God of no effect in their lives by their indifferene toward it. “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law” (Psa. 119:126).

Conclusion

Whereas it is true that the vast majority of our society has set aside the word of God in one way or another, not every person has refused to abide in compliance with God’s revelation. There are thousands of saints seeking to obey the word of God. They honor every word which has proceeded from the mouth of God; they are humbly bowing before God’s throne in submission to Him. Each of these men is distraught over the immorality, anarchy, and neglect of God’s law which he sees in our society. We are like David who said, “I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word” (Psa. 119:158). We recognize that there is grace to wash away every sin which a man commits, even as God’s grace has forgiven each of us of our sins. Yet God’s word is spurned and refused. “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law” (Psa. 119:126).

Guardian of Truth XXV: 10, pp. 147-149
March 5, 1981

By Steve Wolfgang

A recent AP release reported an unusual five-year project by a committee of 14 “participating scholars” which will meet three times annually during the next five years “to examine each Gospel saying” in order to “determine exactly what Jesus said.” These men propose to settle such questions by majority vote of the committee.

When this project was first announced two years ago, a story carried by the Los Angeles Times/ Washington Post news service reported that several of Jesus’ statements were mentioned by those initiating the project as being relatively sure to be voted down. Some of those likely to be voted out included texts usually identified as “the Great Commission” or the “I Am” statements in the Gospel of John. In the words of one Harvard Divinity School professor, “I’m convinced that we will come up with a Jesus that the church is unaccustomed to.”

It should be obvious that at least one of the reasons underlying the composition of the “hit-list” of Jesus’ statements composed by these “authorities” is a simple disbelief of the proposition that the Bible is a supernatural revelation from God to man. Statements such as the “great commission,” which rests squarely on Jesus’ authority, stated explicitly in the verse preceding the command to “Go ye into all the world,” and the “I am” statements which imply or even claim outright Jesus’ equality with God, and other such statements, get the axe from these “objective scholarly authorities” who do not believe that Jesus was Divine nor that His words are authoritative.

Leaving aside the question of authority or of inspiration, however, it ought to seem obvious to even a casual observer (whether or not he believes that Jesus was something more than simply human) that the issue comes down to the simple question of who is in a better position to pass judgement on what Jesus actually said. Who would be more likely to know what passed from the Lord’s mouth: those who claim eyewitness testimony (2 Pet. 1:16-21) or men removed twenty centuries from the source of the Lord’s statements? With what other historical documents do contemporary “historians” (the word must be used loosely to be applied to these men) take such liberties as a complete re-writing of sections of the text which do not suit their biases? The simple fact is that when these modernists are finished mutilating the Scriptures which record the statements of Christ, we will know a great deal more about theta and their presuppositions than about Christ, for they simply will have finished doing what men have been attempting for centuries: remaking Christ in their own image.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 10, p. 146
March 5, 1981