Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

The assignment to discuss the comments of various religious leaders regarding instrumental music has raised several questions in my own mind which will no doubt occur to readers of this article as well. I would like to consider some of these questions by way of introduction to their comments.

What Does It Matter?

Though I have more than a passing interest in church history, it appears to me that there is little utility in discussing the opinions of religious leaders on this or any other subject. As interesting as it many be to study the views of past generations, we must never forget that they in no way provide a basis for authorizing (or condemning) any practice. This is not to argue that there is no value whatsoever in discovering that there were many leaders in various denominations who did oppose the instrument – it is simply to remind us that a doctrine or practice is authorized or condemned only on the basis of what the Scriptures teach. The reverse of this principle is even more salient to our study: even if we could find no religious leader of the past (or present) who opposed the use of instrumental music, it would yet stand condemned, lacking scriptural justification despite the opinions of religious leaders pro or con.

How Reliable Are These Quotations?

This raises at least two separate questions. I have given diligence to check the accuracy of these quotations in their original sources (insofar as is possible, some of them being rather obscure). I have on occasion quoted from a secondary source, of which several can be recommended. These include M. C. Kurfees, Instrumental Music in the Worship, and James D. Bales, Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, both excellent overall studies of these (and other) aspects of the instrument question; Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak and A Capella Music, for the views of the “church fathers” and early church figures; and John T. Lewis, Voices of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies, for quotations from “Restoration” figures.

A second aspect of this question pertains to the integrity of the men themselves. Men do change their opinions, being human, and it is entirely possible to find quotations from the same man on opposite sides of one issue. That is not the case, insofar as I can ascertain, for the men quoted in this article, but is entirely possible that any of them, or any other men, may have written strongly in favor of the instrument at one time, and then later may have changed his mind and subsequently may have written equally as fervently against the practice, or vice versa. Even then it is possible, as M.C. Kurfees so often does in his landmark work cited above, to quote a fatal admission from a man openly arguing in favor of the instrument – using the man’s own admissions to capsize his case. This simply further underscores the futility of establishing any religious practice or doctrine on the shifting sands of human ideas, regardless of the brilliance of the human or our esteem for him.

What Have Religious Leaders Said About Instrumental Music?

We turn now to a brief sampling of some comments of religious leaders, including:

John Calvin: “Calvin is very express in his condemnation of instrumental music in connection with the public worship of the Christian church . . . In his commentary on the thirty-third Psalm he says: `I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was part of the . . . puerile instruction of the law. [But for believers now] musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise, but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.’

“In his homily on 1 Sam. xviii. 1-9, he delivers himself emphatically . . . on the subject: What therefore was in use under the law is by no means entitled to our practice under the gospel . . . . Instrumental music, we therefore maintain, was tolerated only on account of the times and the people, because they were as boys, as the Sacred Scriptures speaketh”‘ (John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, pp. 163-165).

Ulrich Zwingli, who “had read some of Luther’s writings, had become convinced that the New Testament was above all other authority and that the church should be thoroughly purged of everything which did not square with its teachings. Far more than Luther, he wanted to break with the Roman tradition, and to reestablish the church squarely on apostolic foundations . . . . the silence of the Scriptures . . . for Zwingli . . . tended to be a prohibition. Therefore, under his preaching, . . . such Roman practices as Mass, the veneration of images and relics, the confessional, . . . fasting during Lent, clerical celibacy, and the use of organs, were abolished as having no warrant in Scripture” (Richard M. Pope, The Church and Its Culture, p. 355).

John Wesley: “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, providing they are neither heard nor seen” (quoted by Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, IV, 684).

The above quotation (as well as others below front Clarke) are some of the more frequently seen comments and raise again the questions of reliability of the sources. Though having some exposure to the Wesleyan tradition, I have been unable to document this often-quoted statement anywhere else, and would be indebted to anyone who can provide verification. The source, Adam Clarke, a Methodist commentator, is himself often cited from his remarks made at several places in his Old Testament commentaries, such as:

“Moses had not appointed any musical instruments to be used in the divine worship; there was nothing of the kind under the first tabernacle. The trumpets or horns then used were not for song nor for praise, but as we use bells, i.e., to give notice to the congregation . . . But David did certainly introduce many instruments of music into God’s worship . . . and it was by the order of David that so many instruments of music should be introduced into the Divine service. But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by Divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason, that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No: the whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this, and . . . these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion . . . . Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires his followers to worship him in spirit and in truth, for to no such worship are those instruments friendly” (Clarke’s Commentary, II, 690-691, @ 2 Chronicles 29:25).

I believe that Clarke has allowed his opposition to the instrument to lead him to an extreme position here (and elsewhere), though much of what he says is true. He cites in the above commentary (omitted here) the frequently abused passage in Amos 5 and 6, and we reproduce a portion of his comments on that passage below:

“I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read; and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirits of true devotion, and that they are sinful . . . . Music, as a science, I esteem and admire; but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and I here register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity” (Clarke’s Commentary, IV, 684, on Amos 6:5; see also comments on 1 Chronicles 23:5 in Vol. II, pp. 620-621).

Again, these quotations, while containing several good points, demonstrate some of the problems of relying on quotations from commentators to determine the truth or falsity of an issue. As another commentator (!) has observed, this passage

“did not refer to the instruments used in worship; nor can this passage be used as an argument against the use of such instruments in worship today as is done by Adam Clarke. They invented musical instruments to be used in the sordid revelry of their feasts . . .” (Homer Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, p. 114).

This is not to argue that commentators and other leaders in the formulation of religious thought cannot and do not express many proper and appropriate ideas; as demonstrated by the following quotation, they often do so. It is simply to warn against placing too much stock in the remarks of any human commentator. From Conybeare and Howson:

“Let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart . . .” (W.J. Conybeare and J.S. Howson, The Life and Epistle of St. Paul, II, p. 408).

Another illustration of questionable use of commentators is a quotation sometimes seen from the pen of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, British Baptist preacher. It is reproduced in the following manner in a recent handbook of religious quotations (an otherwise excellent work):

“Praise the Lord with harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes . . . . We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice.” (Spurgeon, Commentary on Ps. 42).

This quotation, probably lifted from a secondary source, is in fact taken from Spurgeon’s Treasury of David, Volume II, p. 115. Commenting on Psalm 33:2, Spurgeon includes the following comments, often omitted when reproduced elsewhere:

“We who do not believe these things (instruments – SW) to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well-tuned instruments, who shall gainsay their right?”

Further, after the phrase, “We do not need then,” Spurgeon says:

“but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty?”

We are not attempting here to be hypercritical of the excellent work of brethren in compiling useful quotations, but simply wish to counsel all of us (self included) to be extremely careful to check the reliablity of what we quote, if we must quote. When we do, let us attempt to do so accurately. Above all, let us turn our attention to the Scriptures themselves, and what they actually say, rather than depending upon the “think-sos” of the world’s religious leaders, past or present.

Questions

1. Is there any value to considering what religious leaders say about this or any issue?
2. How much “weight” should be placed on what religious leaders say about a religious question?
3. Discuss the differences in the reforming principles of Luther and Zwingli as revealed in their attitudes toward instrumental music.
4. Can you find any indication in the Old Testament that instruments were unscriptural in the times of the Old Covenant?
5. Discuss Amos 5:23 and 6:5 in this context.
6. Did David sin by using the instrument in his day?
7. Compare the quotations of John Calvin and Adam Clarke. In your opinion, who was closer to the truth on the use of instruments in the Old Testament?
8. If one concludes that instrumental music was authorized or permitted in the Old Testament, does it follow that such instruments are permitted under the New Covenant?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 24, pp. 389-390
June 12, 1980

By Brooks Cochran

The story is told of a new husband who was watching his wife prepare her first ham for the oven. He noticed that she cut off a few inches from the end. When asked her reason for doing such, her only reply was that her mother always did it that way. Upon calling her mother they found she could give no other reason except that her mother had always prepared her hams that way. Finally, they called the grandmother, who told them she always cut a few inches off because her pan was too small.

This story reminds us of the fact that people may do things a certain way simply because they have always been done that way; i.e., they do things out of tradition. This is especially true in matters of religion. Many times the only reason a person can give for believing or practicing a certain thing is, “That’s the way we’ve always believed or done things.” Jesus, in Mark 7:6-9, warns us against following the customs and traditions of men.

One such example of this would be the use of instrumental music in worship to God. The only reason some people can give for the use of the instrument is that they have always used them. In fact, many may live their entire life without -ever giving any serious thought about the matter. But, has the instrument always been a part of man’s worship to God? If not, when did it become a part and who authorized such?

In this lesson we will see that the instrument was not always used in worship to God. During the early years of the church’s existence, there were no instruments of music used in the worship of the church. It was several hundred years later that the instrument made its way into the worship. This being the case, exactly when did the instrument become a part of Christian worship?

Introduced In 666 A.D.

Most reference works ascribe the introduction of the instrument into worship to Pope Vitalian I (657-672):

The organ is said to have been first introduced into church worship by Pope Vitalian I, in 666 (Chambers’ Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 112).

The organ is said to have been first employed in the church during the time of Pope Vitaliam I (c. 666 A.D.) (New International Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 446).

Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe . . . (The American Cyclopedia, Vol. XII, p. 688).

Introduced Later Than 666 A.D.

However, not all agree with the above statements. Some tend to place the introduction of the instrument much later. Everett Ferguson states that “it is quite late before there is evidence of instrumental music, first the organ, employed in public worship of the church. Recent studies put the introduction of instrumental music even later than the dates found in ,reference books. It was perhaps as late as the tenth century when the organ was played as part of the service . . . When introduced in the Middle Ages, the organ was still not part of the liturgy proper. That is, it did not initially accompany the hymn service, but was a separate item in the service” (A Cappella Music In The Public Worship of the Church, p. 81).

The Catholic .Encyclopedia .(1913 edition) states that “according to Plating (`De vitis Pontificum’, Cologne, 1593), Pope’ Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service. This, however, is very doubtful. At all events, a strong objection to the organ in church service remained pretty general down to the twelfth century, which may be accounted for partly by the imperfection of tone in organs of that time. But from the twelfth century on, the organ became the privileged church instrument . . .” (Vol. XI, pp. 300-301).

Edward Dickinson states that “since harmony was unknown during the first one thousand years or more of the Christian era, and instrumental music had no independent existence, the whole vast system of chant melodies was purely unison and unaccompanied, its rhythm usually subordinated to that of the text” (Music in the History of the Western Church, p. 129).

As can be seen from the above quotes, it is apparent that there is a question in the mind of some, as to whether or not the instrument was introduced into the worship of the church during the seventh century.

Introduced Prior To 666 A.D.

Yet, there are some who reject both the seventh and tenth century dates and place the introduction of the instrument as far back as the third, fourth, or fifth century. Though this would be too early a date for the organ, it is argued that the lute and/or lyre were used in the worship.

To support this claim an appeal is made to Clement of Alexander. He wrote around 200 A.D. He said, “And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.” But, as James Bales points out, “Clement is not discussing the assembly, or even a private devotional service, but `How to Conduct Ourselves at Feasts.’ Second, he spoke of the use of musical instruments at banquets and called them `instruments of delusion”‘ (Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, p. 262).

M.C. Kurfees states that “with no other light on the case except that thrown on it by these bare words themselves, we submit that it would be utterly impossible to tell whether the author of the passage meant that these instruments might be used by Christians in the worship of God, or as a mere entertainment outside of that worship. The passage itself does not specify either, while the context is decidedly in favor of the latter view” (Instrumental Music In The Worship, p. 124).

Joseph Bingham states that Clement “speaks not of what was then in use in Christian churches, but of what might lawfully be used by any private Christian, if they were disposed to use it; which rather argues that instrumental music, the lute and the harp, of which he speaks, was not in use in the public churches” (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 485).

By a careful study of Clement’s statement one would be hard pressed to prove he had the public worship of the church under consideration when he wrote these words. (For those wishing to study his statement in light of its context, see the following: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, pp. 248-249, American reprint of the Edinburgh edition.)

[Note: Though both Kurfees and Bingham refer to the use of the instrument at home, it should be pointed out that to sing hymns to God with an instrument, whether collectively in public worship with a group of Christians in a private home, and/or by by oneself would be sinful. Any hymn singing must be done without the addition of the instrument for it to be acceptable to God.]

Sir John Hawkins, in General History of Music, makes an appeal to Ambrose (340-397) Bishop of Milan to support the view that the instrument was in use in public worship prior to the seventh century: “T hough it is uncontroverted that Vitalianus introduced the organ into the service of the Romish church, yet the use of instruments in churches was much earlier; for we are told that St. Ambrose joined instruments of music with the public service in the Cathedral church of Milan, which example of his was so approved of, that by degrees it became the general practice of other churches, and has since obtained in almost all the Christian world besides. Nay, the antiquity of instrumental church music is still higher, if we may credit the testimony of Justin Martyr and Eusubius, the latter of whom lived fifty and the former two hundred years before the time of St. Ambrose” (Vol. 1, p. 147).

Hawkins, however; fails to support his claim. He gives no evidence as to whom it was that “told that” Ambrose introduced the instrument into the worship of the Cathedral church of Milan. He does make an appeal to the writings of Justin Martyr and Eusebius in support of his claim that the instrument was in general use before Ambrose. Yet; upon reading the writings of these men, one will not find any statement made by them favoring ttie use of the instrument in worship. Kurfees made it a point to read the writings of the two and found that they were void of any reference to the use of instruments in worship.

The weight of historical evidence is against any who would claim the instrument was used in Christian worship prior to 600 A.D.:

All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church, but they are chary with mention of any other manifestation of musical art . . . T he development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church (Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization, pp. 53, 54).

These chants – and the word chant (and not music) is used advisedly, for many centuries were to pass before instruments accompanied the sung melodies (Kurt Pahlen, Music of the World, p. 27). [Note: T he chant, which is a simple song in which a number of syllables or words are sung in a monotone, was the main form of music in the church from about the fifth century on.)

While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were antiphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal . . . . Many of the fathers, speaking of religious song, make no mention of instruments in worship; others, refer to them only to denounce them . . . . The religious guides of the early Christians felt that there would be an incongruity, and even profanity, in the use of the sensuous nerve-exciting effects of instrumental sound in their mystical, spiritual worship. Their high religious and moral enthusiasm needed no aid from external stimulus; the pure vocal utterance was the more proper expression of their faith (Edward Dickinson, Music in the History of the Western Church, pp. 54, 55).

Musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp were associated so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in worship (E.E. Ryden, The Story of Christian Hymnody, p. 7).

Thus, to argue that the instrument, be it harp, lute, lyre, organ or whatever, was used in Christian worship prior to the seventh century is to do so with little or no historical evidence. The voice of history is against such. James W. McKinnon states that “many musicologists, while acknowledging that early church music was predominantly vocal, have tried to produce evidence that instruments were employed in the liturgy at various times and places. T he result of such attempts has been a history of misinterpretations and mistranslations” (Unpublished dissertation quoted by James Bales, Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, p. 261). [Note: For further study on this subject see the following: James William McKinnon, “The Meaning of the Patristic Polemic Against Musical Instruments,” Current Musicology, Spring, 1965, published under the aegis of the Music Department, Columbia University, New York.]

Conclusion

Though we may not be able to determine the exact date the organ was first used in worship, we do know that it was several hundred years after the establishment of the church before it was introduced. However, due to opposition, it was another two or three hundred years before it became generally accepted. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope Vitalian introduced the organ into the worship of the church at Rome to improve the congregation singing. But, it was not until the ninth century that the organ was “consistently” used, and the thirteenth century before it was “in general use throughout the Latin Church” (Vol. 10, p. 746).

It would be fair to assume that the first known use of the instrument in worship occurred under Pope Vitalian, in the mid-seventh century. However, many years were to pass before it would be generally accepted and put into common usage.

We need to realize that the use of instruments in worship to God was never authorized or allowed in the Lord’s Church. Regardless of what church councils, creeds, dogmas, leaders, and/or traditions may say; the use of the instrument in worship is wrong. The New Testament does not command, authorize, or sanction its use. To do otherwise is to follow the teaching and commandments of men, and Christ condemned such in Mark 7:1-9.

Questions

1. How do many people justify their religious practices when asked their reason(s) for doing so?
2. Did the first century church use instruments in its worship? Why?
3. What is the generally accepted date that is given for the introduction of the instrument into worship? Who introduced it? Check some major reference works and see if you can find some other things this man did.
4. What reason(s) could one give in support of the view that the instrument was introduced into worship later than 666 A.D.?
5. Is there any evidence that the instrument was used in worship prior to 666 A.D.?
6. Who were Clement and Ambrose? What is their importance to us in this study?
7. What arguments can be made for and/or against the use of the instrument in worship prior to 666 A.D.?
8. Discuss the use of the instrument in the home. Would it be right to sing hymns at home with the addition of the instrument? Why?
9. Discuss Mark 7:1-9 as it relates to this study. What do the following terms mean: a. Vain; b. Doctrines; c. Precepts of men; d. Tradition of men; e. Commandment of God. (See also: Matt. 21:23-27).
10. Suppose that it could be shown from secular history that the instrument was used by some congregations in the first century. Would that make it right for us to use it today? Why?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 24, pp. 386-388
June 12, 1980

By Mike Willis

1 Corinthians 1:10

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

This passage which condemns division among the Corinthians has been used by brethren for years to show that our divisions over the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship is sinful. Brethren have insisted that we should all speak the same thing with reference to the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship in the same way as we have spoken the same thing on baptism. Through teaching the same doctrine on this subject, we can have unity among ourselves.

However, Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside and others lampoon the idea that we can ever have unity in doctrine on such matters. Typical of what they are saying is the following statement:

Does this passage enjoin believers to see everything in the Bible alike? Does it teach that we must see eye to eye on all points of doctrine, that there can be no honest differences of opinion?

This is what we are told. We must all speak the same thing! If we study prophecy in the Old Covenant scriptures, we must come up with identical positions . . . .

On and on it goes, almost endlessly. We have to speak “the same thing” on whether congregations may cooperate and on what basis. (A division has occurred in the last two decades over the support of Herald of Truth TV/Radio). We have to speak “the same thing” on instrumental music, otherwise the division must continue another century (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . That You All Speak The Same Thing,” Restoration Review, XVIII, p. 282).

A more obvious abuse of the Scriptures cannot be imagined than this. Whereas Paul demanded that unity be obtained by all of the divided brethren speaking the same thing, the grace-unity brethren say that this is impossible and cannot be Paul’s meaning in this passage. Any theory which posits unity without us speaking the same thing on doctrinal matters is not that which Paul demanded.

Several current theories for overcoming the divisions among Christianity completely ignore the divine instructions given in this verse regarding how to have unity in the body of Christ. The ecumenical movement, for example, encourages a “unity in diversity” basis of unity. The diversity to be tolerated ranges from evangelical churches to non-Christian religions. Others have sought union on the basis of some type of super organization such as the Catholic Church. Inside the Churches of Christ, some are presently promoting an ecumenical movement to reconcile the divisions among us. Like their denominational counterpart, these men are tolerant of doctrinal differences which range from the Disciples of Christ (the body which has within its fellowship modernists who deny the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, etc.) to the radical right-wing churches (such as the no Bible class, no located preacher, and no literature groups, etc.). This type of unity is one which ignores the issues which divided us and ignores Paul’s instructions for unity given in this verse.

Although noos (mind) and gnome (judgment) are synonyms, they have distinctive meanings. Some understand mind to refer to theoretical understanding and judgment to be practical life. This distinction, though not totally inaccurate, is not sufficiently precise. The noos refers to the Christian way of thinking. The same word is used in 1 Cor. 2:16 (the noos of Christ) to refer to the revelation delivered to the apostles by the Holy Spirit. Thus, when Paul urges the Christians to be of the same mind, he is urging them to have the mind of Christ, i.e. to accept the Christian revelation as the final authority in settling religious questions. The gnome (judgment) refers to the manner of deciding a particular issue in question.

Let me illustrate how the unity of the church can be maintained on the basis of Paul’s advice given in this verse. The question we shall consider is this: What is the action of baptism (baptisma)? Everybody must approach the matter with the same mind (noos); the inspired scriptures will be the final authority in answering the question. Approaching the matter in this way, the people studying the question turn to the Bible for guidance. Inasmuch as the Bible does not teach a multitude of doctrines on the subject and it is able to be understood, the different people will reach the one conclusion: Baptism is immersion in water. Having reached the same conclusion (gnome), the body will all give the same answer (speak the same). In this manner, the unity of the church can be attained. So long as matters not authorized in the Scriptures are not brought into the work and worship of the church there will be no divisions in the body of Christ. Scriptural unity can be attained or maintained only so long as brethren follow Paul’s instructions presented in this verse. Our first work is .not to arrive at unity, but to conform ourselves to the standard of Divine Truth. Just as the unity of a choir is not gained by each singer striving to keep in harmony with his neighbor but by all following the prescribed notes of music, so also the unity of the Lord’s church can be attained only by all of us conforming to the revelation which He has given to us.

A Pattern Of Conduct

I think that any perceptive reader can see a pattern of conduct developed in the handling of passages pertaining to false teachers by the grace-unity brethren. Every passage which demands that false teachers be rebuked and exposed as heretics has been said not to be applicable to those false teachers among us who have introduced mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions (missionary, benevolent, or educational), church sponsored recreation, the sponsoring church arrangement, premillennialism, and any other false doctrine (such as the denial of the virgin birth, resurrection, necessity of faith in Jesus Christ, as some individuals promoting the grace-unity heresy have said). To further demonstrate this, I reproduce several other comments on other verses, not for the purpose of giving ,a detailed examination of what the verses say, but to demonstrate that these brethren are consistently trying to make passages which have been used against false teachers among us to be not applicable to them anymore.

1. 2 Peter 2:1. Peter warned, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.” Garrett assures us that this passage cannot be legitimately applied to denominational people, much less our own brethren.

I may shock some of my more staid readers with the thesis I now set forth as to the identity of a false teacher. I do not believe, as I was always taught in the sect in which I grew up, that “denominational preachers” are necessarily false teachers, which is the view still urged upon us by many within Christian Churches-Churches of Christ.

. . . The nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the light does not necessarily deserve the epithet of false, whatever judgment you made of Romanism . . . .

No one is a false teacher who is honestly mistaken or in error. It is gracious of us to distinguish between unintentional wrong and deliberate and malicious falsehood (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . Who Is The False Teacher?”, Restoration Review, XVIII, pp. 262, 264, 265).

Whereas it is an abuse of this passage to apply this passage to denominational preachers or brethren who have introduced unauthorized items into the work, worship and organization of the church, Garrett believes that it can be legitimately applied to those of us who are calling for a “book, chapter, and verse” for all that we do. He continued.

. . I have no interest in excluding anyone as a false teacher if he fits the description set forth here, whether he be of “us” or “them.” And we may be closer to the description than we realize when we bask in our own self-righteousness and set all others at naught. We have those among us who are willing to bruise and batter innocent lives in order to safe-guard the party and preserve what they call sound doctrine. That too gets close (Ibid., p. 264).

Though this passage. cannot be applied to those who introduce false doctrines, it can be applied to those who are dedicated to practicing only those things found in the New Testament. And Garrett wants us to believe that we are abusing the Scriptures!

2. 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Paul wrote, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” Once again, our grace-unity brethren have assured us that this passage definitely cannot be applied to those who have departed from the revelation of God by introducing things unauthorized into the work, worship, and organization of the church.

Paul could never have dreamed that his words, “Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” would someday be used as a proof text for “withdrawing fellowship” from those who veer from this or that doctrinal position, whether in reference to a divorce, speaking in tongues, importing an organ, becoming a Mason, conducting a Sunday School, using uninspired literature, adopting the pastor system, or supporting a TV-radio program through the treasury of the church (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . Withdrawing From The Disorderly,” Restoration Review, XVIII, p. 343).

Again, this passage cannot be applied to those “disorderly” people among us who “obey not our word by this epistle” (2 Thess. 3:14), according to the grace-unity brethren.

3. Jude 3. We read, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Whenever brethren have introduced matters which are not a part of the faith which the apostles delivered to us, this passage has been used to admonish brethren to defend only what has been authorized in the Scriptures. But, Ketcherside says that this is an abuse of the Scriptures.

It is argued by factional leaders that “the faith” here spoken of is the entire body of new covenant scriptures. In addition, each party includes in “the faith” the particular and peculiar traditional interpretation and deductions which separate and segregate it from all other believers, sects and parties. This when one debates the validity of cups and classes, he is contending for “the faith.” When another engages in heated discussion over support of orphan homes or Herald of Truth, he is contending for “the faith.” When another argues about the use of instrumental music, either pro or con, he is contending for “the faith.” When another goes on a radio station and delivers an attack on the pre-millennial interpretation he is contending for “the faith.” The content of the faith which was “once for all delivered to the saints” differs with each contentious party of saints (Carl Ketcherside, “The One Faith,” Mission Messenger, XXVII, p. 150).

Hence, this passage cannot be understood to have any bearing on additions made later than the revelation of the one body of doctrine from the inspired men. Garrett and Ketcherside said so and, surely, they cannot be wrong.

Conclusion

Why have the grace-unity brethren been so bent upon reinterpreting every passage which has been used to oppose those who have unscripturally introduced into the worship, work, and organization of the church things which are not found in the Bible? Is it because they are concerned with the proper interpretation of the Scripture? Is it just because they want to be sure that other passages are applied to those who have introduced things which are not authorized? Are they opposed to these things having been introduced but simply feel that we have been using the wrong Scriptures to condemn them?

Most definitely not! Read their journals from cover to cover, year in and year out. You will never see one single passage applied in opposition to those who have unscripturally introduced mechanical instruments of music in worship. You will never see one passage introduced to call back to the word of God those who have departed from the Scriptures in urging churches to contribute to human institutions (whether missionary societies, benevolent societies, or colleges). You will never find one condemnation of those who split the church by forcing these matters upon brethren who were conscientiously opposed to doctrinal innovation. Why? Because they do not believe that sin was committed in introducing mechanical instruments of music in worship, churches supporting human institutions, churches sponsoring recreation as part of their work, or altering the organization of the church in the sponsoring church arrangement. Not believing that these things are sinful and will send a man to hell, Ketcherside and Garrett are methodically trying to get brethren to quit calling those who do introduce these things “sinners.” Unfortunately, they have been successful with some. Bruce Edwards, Jr., Arnold Hardin, Edward Fudge, and some others who formerly stood with us have become convinced. If you doubt that this is so, try to find anything written by them in recent years in which the introduction of these items is condemned as sinful, brethren were admonished to repent of the sin in order to avoid going to hell, and condemnation was given because of their guilt in dividing the body of Christ through the introduction of unauthorized items!

The result is that these brethren are cutting their own throats. By saying that these verses have nothing to do with doctrinal apostasies, they will have no verses to use on those who are departing from what the revelation of God says about the (what they incorrectly label) “gospel.” Already some are teaching that men can go to heaven without believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, and the coronation of Jesus. They have been teaching that one can go to heaven without baptism for several years now. What Scripture can be used to show that these brethren have “departed from the faith”? There are none left by their own admission.

Hence, salvation is reduced to a warm, syrupy feeling of love that is closely akin to what Pentecostals and other denominations have been preaching for years. If these brethren are attracted to this kind of “religion,” why won’t they just go to those denominations? Why do they feel compelled to drag all of the rest of us with them? It certainly cannot be because they believe that what we are doing will send us to hell; they have already admitted that this is not what they believe. Why?

Brethren, the time to become alarmed is past. We each need to be aware of the false doctrines and unscrupulous tactics employed by the grace-unity brethren as they “abuse the word” and “twist the scriptures.” An informed membership is a strong membership.

Questions

1. How is unity to be attained according to 1 Cor. 1:10?
2. How can we be united on the action, subject, and purpose of baptism? How can we be united on the frequency of observing the Lord’s supper? Is unity in doctrine necessary to unity in these matters?
3. Why are some trying to deny that Gal. 1:8-9, 2 John 9-11, Rom. 16:17-18 and other passages have any application to modern problems?
4. Is there a pattern of conduct in their treatment of these passages? If so, what is it?
5. Why would one cease to oppose the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship?
6. Are there any false teachers among us today? If so, what makes him a false teacher?
7. Must one be insincere to be a false teacher?
8. If insincerity is necessary for one to be a false teacher, how can I know if a given man is a false teacher?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 23, pp. 377-380
June 5, 1980

By Mike Willis

About the most appropriately two named series of articles written by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett were the series entitled “Twisted Scriptures” and “The Word Abused.” In both of these series, the respective authors abused the word and twisted the Scriptures! The two series of articles were supposed to be detailed studies of texts which brethren have used against false teachers. The major thesis of both series of articles by these false teachers was that these texts cannot be applied to those who have introduced church supported missionary societies, mechanical instruments of music in worship, premillennialism, church sponsored recreation, the sponsoring church arrangement, and church support of benevolent societies and colleges. However, to apply these Scriptures to those who oppose the introduction of these innovations into the worship and work of the church is a legitimate usage of most of these Scriptures, according to Ketcherside and Garrett. A more obvious example of twisting and abusing Scriptures cannot be imagined than that which has been done by Ketcherside and Garrett.

2 John 9-11

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the docrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring you this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

This text has been one of the battlegrounds for tile grace-unity brethren. With all of their energies, they have sought to convince brethren that this text cannot be used to apply to those who have introduced innovations in the work and worship of the church.

The argument with reference to this verse hinges on whether “doctrine of Christ” refers to the doctrine which Christ taught or the doctrine about Christ (the objective or subjective genitive). Ketcherside, Garrett, Fudge, Hardin, and others made the “doctrine of Christ” mean “the thing taught about Jesus.” This limited amount of doctrinal instruction they call “gospel,” extending the right hands of fellowship to everyone who has accepted seven facts of the gospel which they arbitrarily have chosen and has obeyed the one act (baptism). Consequently, they teach that this passage has nothing to do with current doctrinal apostasies in the churches of Christ. Consider these comments.

I have heard the expression “this doctrine” applied to every item of controversy among the various factions calling themselves “The Church of Christ.” Depending upon the particular party whose champion quoted it, the expression has been related to individual cups, Bible classes, colleges, orphan homes, the pastor system, fermenting wine in the Lord’s Supper, a method of breaking the bread, the pre-millennial viewpoint, instrumental music, missionary societies, and a diversified host of motley issues which have made “the restoration robe of righteousness” a Joseph’s coat that puts the rainbow spectrum to shame (Ketcherside, “Receive Him Not,” Mission Messenger, XXXVII, p. 89).

And I was led to muse upon what we have done to 2 John 9-10 all these years, and what we have allowed that intrepretation to do to us. One wonders how the notion ever got started, that we can’t invite a brother into our home and thank God for him if he differs with us on cups, classes, colleges, organs, organizations, or the millennium. Or that we’d have to turn from our door the likes of Keith Miller or Francis Schaeffer. It is complete idiocy (Leroy Garrett, Restoration Review, XVI, p. 230).

Both Garrett and Ketcherside restrict this passage to apply to only those who deny the doctrine about Christ. Hence, if one denies either the humanity or the deity of Christ, 2 John 9-11 applies to him. However, it can never be used to apply to those who introduce instruments of music in worship, take money from the church treasury to support human institutions (missionary societies, orphan homes, or colleges), pervert the organization of the church through the sponsoring church arrangement, or any other division in the body of Christ.

Even this admission however is fatal to their gospeldoctrine distinction. The phrase “doctrine of Christ” is here applied to what the grace-unity movement labels “gospel.” Hence, there is no difference in doctrine and gospel as they assert, if we grant their own usage and definitions of terms. Secondly, assuming that there is a difference in gospel and doctrine, 2 John 9-11 states that the fellowship of the saints should be broken over a doctrinal matter, something which both Garrett and Ketcherside deny.

When one considers the context of 1 John, he will see that those who were teaching their false doctrines which John was opposing, in many respects, resembles that of the modern grace-unity movement. For example, those who John was opposing taught that one could walk in darkness and remain in fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6). That is exactly what Garrett and Ketcherside teach about those involved in the sins of using mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church organization, or church sponsored recreation. They say that brethren can remain in these sins without breaking their fellowship with God. Hence, John revealed that one cannot continue in sin and remain in fellowship with God; as a matter of fact, the one who continues in sin is not born of God (1 Jn. 3:9). Those who came and brought this doctrine were the ones who went beyond the doctrine of Christ and had not God whom John revealed that we should not fellowship.

One should also see this conclusion by a consideration of 2 John 9-11. Whatever “doctrine of Christ” means in this context, one should notice that the one who abided in the doctrine. of Christ had God. If Garrett and Ketcherside’s definition of “doctrine of Christ” (“doctrine about Christ”) is correct, anyone who believes the right things about Jesus has fellowship with God, regardless of whether or not he has been baptized or faithful in his walk after being baptized. Brethren, are you ready to admit that whoever believes the right facts about Christ is in fellowship with God? If not, you need to consider whether or not “doctrine of Christ” might mean something other than the “doctrine about Christ.”

As a matter of fact, the grammatical construction of this passage is similar to that which appears in Matt. 7:28; 22:33; 16:12; Mk. 1:22; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38; Acts 2:42. Each of these constructions in Greek have “doctrine” (didache) followed by the genitive construction. They never mean “the doctrine about . . . .” They consistently mean “the doctrine taught by” or “originating from” the persons discussed. Similarly, in 2 John 9-11, the “doctrine of Christ” means the doctrine which Christ brought (first in His own persons and later in His followers).

The usage of the personal genitive to qualify the noun (the doctrine of Christ) is used in such a way as to refer to “the doctrine which Christ brought, and which He brought first in His own person, and then through His followers” (see The Doctrine of Christ and Unity of the Saints, Ron Halbrook, pp. 34-36). It refers to the body of doctrine revealed to us by Christ and His apostles. Inasmuch as this is its usage in the context of 2 John 9-11, the teaching of this passage is that anyone who denies the doctrine revealed to us by and through Christ cannot be fellowshipped.

2 John 9-I1 continues to be a roadblock in the path of the grace-unity brethren who would extend the umbrella of fellowship to those who have gone beyond the revealed word of God’s grace. Because it condemns them for doing what God has prohibited, they will continue to try to dismiss its most obvious meaning from the minds of brethren.

Galatians 1:8-9

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The grace-unity brethren leave no doubt that they consider it an abuse of this passage, a twisting of this passage, to apply it to those who are introducing innovations in the worship, work and organization of the church.

This passage is abused in our day in such a manner that the effect is as much a perversion as it was with the Judaizers in Galatia. One is preaching “another gospel,” we are told, if he holds some doctrinal error, or what is presumed to be an error, such as maintaining a TV program like Herald of Truth or using an instrument in congregational singing. One is not a true gospel preacher if he believes in Sunday Schools or if he uses a plurality of cups at the Supper. Indeed, he comes under the same curse of heaven as would an angel that proclaims a different gospel if he is other than a faithful Church of Christ minister after the Gospel Advocate or Abilene Christian College. If that doesn’t out-Judaize the Judaizers of Galatia, it runs them a close second (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . If We Or An Angel Preach Any Other Gospel,” Restoration Review, XVII, p. 42).

A quotation of a similar nature could be given from the pen of Carl Ketcherside. Though these brethren believe that applying this passage to those who introduce things not authorized in the worship, work, and organization of the church is an abuse of the passage, they have no hesitation in applying it to those who stand against these innovations, calling for a strict adherence to the old paths. Allusions -to this can be seen in the above quotation; however, Ketcherside wrote as follows:

When brethren make a test of union and communion out of an attitude toward the use of instrumental music in expression of praise to God, their creed is no longer simply Christ but conformity with a factional pattern.

To make one’s right standing with God depend not upon surrender of himself to Jesus, but upon standing right on other things, is dangerously near to perverting the gospel. This was the mistake of the circumcision party in the days of Paul (Another Gospel,” Mission Messenger, XXVII, p. 10).

It is a strange usage of the Scriptures indeed, a twisting of them or an abusing of them, when warnings such as Galatians 1:8-9 cannot be legitimately applied to those who are introducing unauthorized items into the worship,. work and organization of the church but can be applied to those who are faithfully calling for Scriptural authority for the introduction of these things!

The manner in which Garrett and Ketcherside avoid the force of G latians 1:8-9 is by denying that whatever one believes abut the usage of mechanical instruments of music in wo ship, the sponsoring church arrangement, church sponsored recreation, premillennialism, and other doctrinal apostasies are part of the “gospel.” Holding say that these are ma ers of doctrine and have nothing to do with “another gospel” of Galatians 1:8-9.

However, by Garrett and Ketcherside’s definition, not even the Judaizers themselves were preaching “another gospel.” According to these brethren, the “gospel” is confined to the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Christ. Yet, the Judaizers did not deny any of these points. Neither did they deny that one had to be baptized in order to be saved. They simply sought to teach that a person had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to go to heaven when he dies. According to Ketcherside and Garrett’s definition, this is “doctrine” and the fellowship of saints should not be broken over doctrine!

However, Paul called this preaching “another gospel.” It was apostasy in full bloom. Consequently, he was willing to resist any person who taught that one had to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, whether he was a blatant Judaizer, a mixed-up Peter or a carried away Barnabas! The truth of the gospel had to be preserved regardless of who stood in its way.

Let us now examine what the Bible says about the “gospel” and the “doctrine.” Didache, the Greek word which is translated “doctrine,” is defined as follows:

1. teaching, ‘viz. that which is taught . . . one’s doctrine, i.e. what he teaches . . . doctrine, teaching, concerning something . . . 2. (the act of) teaching, instruction . . . . (Thayer, pp. 144-145).

Among the Gks. this is used in the sense of “teaching,” “instruction” . . . with a strong tendency to restrict it to the fact, so that didaskein or didaskesthai can normally be used as an alternative . . . . In the LXX . . . . didache is thus syn, with the Rabbinic talmud, which signifies “teaching” in the sense that it might denote according to context either “teaching” or “being taught” . . . . The New Testament follows this usage fairly closely (Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 2, pp. 163-164).

Euangelion, the Greek word which is translated “gospel,” is defined as follows:

1. a reward for good tidings . . . 2. good tidings . . . . In the N.T. spec. a. the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of the this kingdom . . . After the death of Christ the term to euangelion comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God; so that it may be more briefly defined as the glad tidings of salvation through Christ; the proclamation of the grace of God manifested and pledged in Christ; the gospel (Thayer, p. 257).

Kittle gave the derivation of the thought of euangelion from “besrah” (Heb.) to demonstrate that the primary connotation of the word is “the good news of victory.” When used in the New Testament, the fact that Jesus died for our sins makes the preaching of Jesus a message which is especially one which might be described as “the good news of victory” (Vol. 2, pp. 721-735).

From these definitions, let us draw some conclusions. (a) The basic idea connoted by didache is “to teach;” the basic thought connoted by euangelion is “the good news of victory.” (b) The content of the message cannot be learned from the words themselves. The didache could as easily be that of Balaam as that of Christ; the euangelion could as easily be that of victory over the Persians as victory over sin and death. (c) The content of the message is not necessarily different when both didache and euangelion are used; that which is taught can be the good news. Obviously, this is the case in the New Testament; that which is taught is the good news of Christ’s victory over sin and death.

If our conclusions are true, then the following should be and are found in the New Testament:

(a) The gospel being preached to both saints (Rom. 1:7, 15-16) and aliens (Mk. 16:15-16), the assertions of Ketcherside and Garrett notwithstanding.

(b) The doctrine being preached to both aliens (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 5:28; 13:5, 7, 8, 10, 12; 17:19) and Christians (1 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 4:2; Acts 2:42).

(c) Things which are called the gospel also referred to as doctrine. That which has freed us from sin is called both doctrine (Rom. 6:17-18).and gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16). That which leads to Christian maturity is called both doctrine (Mt. 28:20; Acts 2:42) and gospel (Gal. 2:14; Eph. 6:15; 1 Tim. 1:10-11).

(d) The “word of truth,” which is identified as the gospel (Col. 1:5; Eph. 1:13), should be applicable to both saints and sinners. In keeping with this, the “truth” is that which frees one from sin (Jn. 8:32; Jas. 1:18) and anyone who does not obey it is lost (Rom. 2:8; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8); it is also that which produces sanctification (Jn. 17:17-19). Thus, one must not only obey the truth, he must also walk in it to keep from being lost (Jas. 5:19; Gal. 2:5, 14; 3:1; 5:7).

No one would deny that there is a distinction between becoming a Christian and maturing as a Christian. Undoubtedly, a person must not know every apostolic commandment in order to become a Christian. Therefore, there are some things which are taught before baptism and some things which are taught after baptism (Mt. 28:20). However, to maintain that (1) the former are exclusively called “gospel” and the latter are exclusively called “doctrine” and (2) one can break the fellowship of the saints only over differences pertaining to the “gospel” are false positions nowhere justifiable in the Scriptures.

Hence, the limiting of this passage to applications of the Judaizers alone is an unnecessary limitation to place on the verse. It is contrary to the usage of the word “gospel” in the New Testament. It is limited for a very obvious reason: to restrict the usage of this verse to those who are perverting the work, worship, and organization of the church. This is being done in order to broaden the umbrella of fellowship to those who have departed from the revelation of God in order to walk in the traditions of men.

Romans 16:17-18

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

As is the usual case with any verse warning against doctrinal apostasy, the grace-unity brethren do not believe it can have application to apostasies which are occurring today.

There is no way that this passage can be applied to sincere, wellmeaning, unity-loving brothers who happen to hold to ideas different from what we believe the scriptures to teach. To apply this to those who support Herald of Truth, divide into classes for study, use a plurality of cups, employ a resident pastor, use a piano or organ, interpret a prophecy in terms of a premillennial reign, or do their missionary and educational work through societies is to abuse the scriptures. In fact the one who so twists the scripui es as to impose this kind of oppression upon his brothers is more guilty of the sin involved than the one he is applying it to, and if anyone needs to be Marked it is he (Leroy Garrett, “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, p. 23).

Of course, this passage can be legitimately applied, according to Carl Ketcherside, to those of us who are trying to maintain the purity of the church through calling for a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we do and teach (Mission Messenger, Vol. XXVII, pp. 39-40). Let us look at the passage more clearly.

Whatever the situation was in Rome, Paul advised the brethren to guard themselves against men who caused “dissensions and hinderances contrary to the teaching which you learned.” “Dissensions” (dichostasia) “denotes a state of things in which men are divided, in which feuds flourish, and in which unity is destroyed. Dichostasia bears its picture on its face; it literally means `standing apart,’ that is, a state in which all community, all fellowship, and all togetherness are gone” (William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit, pp. 56-57). “Hinderances” (skandalon) is an interesting word; skandalon is properly “the moveable stick or tricker (`trigger’) of a trap, trap-stick; a trap, snare; any impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or fall” (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 577).

The ministry of the disciples of Christ was divisive in nature; Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and daugther-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household” (Mt. 10:34-36). Paul added, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may become evident among you” (1 Cor. 11:19-20). With reference to the word skandalon, one needs to notice that it is applied with reference to the Christ on some occasions. With reference to the Jews, Paul said, “They stumbled over the stumbling-stone, just as it is written, `Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense (skandalon), and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed’ ” (Rom. 9:23-33). (See also 1 Pet. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11). “In N.T. skandalon is always used metaphorically, and ordinarily of anything that arouses prejudice, or becomes a hindrance to others, or causes them to fall by the way. Sometimes the hinderance is in itself good, and those stumbled by it are the wicked” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 129). Where the gospel, correctly presented, produces divisions, as it always will, the divisions are right. We are not responsible for the legitimate effects of the truth.

Inasmuch as the teaching of truth and Jesus Himself can be the source of division, the phrase “contrary to the teaching which you have learned” (para ten didachen hen humeis emathete) becomes all important. Commentators cannot be sure which teaching Paul is referring to in this passage. Ketcherside and Garrett say that the teaching referred to is “almost certainly . . . the teaching on unity in spite of differences which he had just laid before them in the letter, especially Rom. 14” (Leroy Garrett, Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 2, p. 25). Most commentators are not so certain as are Garrett and Ketcherside. Actually, most commentators which I have read say that the divisive men mentioned here are Judaizers who tried to bind the Mosaical law on Christians and, therefore, make the “teaching which you learned” the teaching concerning the Jew-Gentile relationship and the proper usage of the Mosaical law (which items are among the major threats of the letter), as the following quotations demonstrate:

Probably he refers here to Jewish teachers, or those who insisted strenuously on the observance of the rites of Moses, and who set up a claim for greater purity and orthodoxy than those possessed who receive the Gentile converts as brethren (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans, p. 456).

The warning is against a class of persons whose mischievous activity he had had experience of elsewhere, and attempts by some of whom to disturb the peace of the Roman Church he may possibly have heard of. They may have been Judaists, or others who taught views contrary to the received faith, and so caused divisions and offences in the church (J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary: Romans, p. 456).

What precisely was the mischief, who precisely were the dangerous teachers, spoken of here so abruptly and so urgently by St. Paul? It is easier to ask the question than to answer it. Some expositors have sought a solution in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, and have found in an extreme school of theoretical `liberty’ these men of `pious’ language and specious pleas. But to us this seems impossible . . . . In our view, the case was one of embryo Gnosticism (Handley C.G. Moule, The Expositor’s Bible: Romans, Vol. V, p. 622).

. . . the most natural way to understand the reference to those who create dissensions and difficulties is as pointing to the Judaizers (John Knox, The lntrepreter’s Bible: Romans, p. 662).

Additional comments from others could be cited but these are sufficient to demonstrate that no one can be certain as to precisely which teaching was being distorted. Therefore, the best explanation appears to me to be one which makes a general application of the passage: whoever causes a division over any teaching not revealed in the scriptures is to be marked and avoided!

Even if the contentions of Ketcherside and Garrett were correct and reference to Rom. 14 is the teaching which Paul had in mind, the case for those who divided the church over instrumental music, benevolent institutions, and the sponsoring church would not be improved. The very best that could be said for the promoters of instrumental music, benevolent institutions and the sponsoring church is that they divided the church over an expediency! We were forced either to conform or to get out! According to 1 Tim. 4:1-3, any person who so binds his opinions is “fallen away from the faith.”

Romans 16:17-18 still stands as a bastion against any false teacher who is willing to divide the body of Christ through the introduction of his unauthorized additions to the work, worship and organization of the church, the works of men such as Ketcherside, Garret, Fudge, and Hardin notwithstanding!

Questions

1. Does 2 John 9-11 refer to “the doctrine about Christ” or “the doctrine which Christ taught”?
2. Study 1 John to see the nature of apostasy opposed by John. Describe it to the class.
3. Can this verse be applied to anyone living today? If so, who?
4. Cite some other verses with parallel grammatical constructions to “doctrine of Christ” in 2 John 9-11. What does the phrase mean in those passages?
5. What necessary conclusion with reference to the pious unimmersed follows if one limits “doctrine of Christ” to “doctrine about Christ”? Is he saved or lost, according to 2 John 9-11?
6. Are “gospel” and “doctrine” distinguishable portions of divine revelation?
7. Can the fellowship of the saints be broken solely over gospel matters but not over doctrinal matters?
8. Look up “doctrine” in a concordance to see what kinds of teaching are called “doctrine.”
9. What distinction in meaning exists in “gospel” and “doctrine”? Can both words apply to the some thing?
10. Can Rom. 16:17-18 be applied to those who introduce unauthorized items in the work of the church?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 23, pp. 373-377
June 5, 1980