Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

An instrument of music was introduced into the worship at Midway, Kentucky about 1858. This innovation moved slowly among churches in the North and finally came to the South about 1900. Of course, the church support of the missionary society and other central collecting and disbursing organizations came with the instrument. The intra church organizations also came along about the same time, as well as church sponsored entertainment and fraternization with the Protestant denominations who taught that one is saved at the point of faith before obedience.

If a stranger had come to some little town in the early part of this century and had inquired as to the location of the meeting place of the church, some local man might have asked, “Which one?” The stranger might then have asked; “What is the difference?” He would have been told that one used instruments of music and the other did not. Division usually came when the instrument was added. Actually, the social gospel and the church support of manmade institutions also marked the difference, but these facts were not so conspicuous to the neighbors at first. Even the churches themselves gave almost nothing but lip service to the societies with an occasional small token gift of money.

The greatest difference of all was not seen or generally realized. The real difference was in the attitude toward the Bible. Those who brought in the innovations would say that the Bible does not say that we should not have these things. To them the silence of the scriptures meant liberty to add samples of human wisdom. Those who did not approve of the instrument and the societies pointed out that these things were without New Testament authority. They were not commanded, implied, or taught by approved example. To them it was a sin to go beyond that which was written (2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:3).

Those who approved the changes thought of themselves as progressives. They were bringing in the things that were similar to the practices of the neighboring religious bodies so they would not be so “narrow” (different). In their sight, those who opposed the innovations were non-progressives. Then, as always, the church division was accompanied by bitterness. One group thought that the others were fanatics, hair-splitters, moss backs, antis, and non-progressives even though they were teaching and practicing what their fathers and grandfathers and the Bible taught.

The “progressives” carried most of the members in this movement which was more popular with the religious organizations about them. It was a move in their direction. The progressives wanted to be more acceptable to their neighbors. They were tired of the word “narrow” even though our Lord spoke of the way that leads to life as being narrow (Matt. 7:13, 14). Finer buildings were erected, kitchens were added, and plans were made to have more fun and “fellowship.” There was less emphasis on the fellowship often mentioned in the New Testament. That fellowship was with God and with fellow soldiers in earnestly contending for the faith. The battle with denominational errors in faith and practice gradually came to a halt where the instrument and other innovations came into favor. The progress of the progressives was not in winning the fight against error in the good warfare (1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 4:7; Eph. 6:10-20).

Emotionalism and sensationalism came with the progressive movement. The interest came to be in numbers, prominent members, good buildings, and social recognition in the community. These ideas and practices did not come to every place at the same time or to every member to the same degree. There was a package of things to be accepted, and some would offer resistance at times; but the machine was moving rapidly by the time the instrument was added. Big changes in attitude had already come or it would never have been added. Changes continued to such an extent that those who first added the instrument would be shocked by the “Disciples” today if they could come back to life and walk in among their descendants in religion. It would be hard for them to believe that they were more than distant cousins.

Typical arguments for the instruments of music were: (1) David used them; (2) Others use them; (3) We like them; (4) The Bible does not say that we cannot have them. These arguments are as strong as they could make; they are not indications of their desire to please God in the church that is according to His eternal purpose. They had reorganized the church until they could speak of “our church, our money, and our business.” Their desire was the final and highest law. To speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent was too narrow for them.

The only choice the “non-progressives” had was to go along with the innovations or get out and worship with the few kindred spirits they could find. They might meet in some one’s living room, a store building, a court room, or a school house. In several years, they would reach a point where they could build a meeting house of their own on some little inexpensive lot. These “anti’s” were almost always the members with less money and with less social prestige. There was a sense of responsibility (often too weak) that caused them to start one little church after another in communities all around the good building where the “progressives” met and continued to become more and more progressive. By the late thirties, this growth of the more conservative people became rather amazing.

In the more rapid growth of the forties many came to these conservative churches from the religious groups about them. Some of them were not fully converted, and teaching was inadequate in many places. They were not grounded sufficiently in the basic teachings of the one body and the importance of doing all things according to the pattern. The progressive, social gospel, and institutional spirit started among them. In the last thirty or so years, history has been repeating itself in a very vivid way. It is easy to see that attitude, arguments, bitterness, and the back to denominationalism movement are the same as they were a few decades earlier.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 215-216
March 27, 1980

By Dan Walters

Certain brethren have defended the concept of unity-in-diversity by claiming that the written Word should not be approached as a legal document. Some have said that the New Testament is a book of principle, not a book of law. It is true that the New Testament stands in contrast to the law, that legal system given by Moses. It is also true that our salvation does not rest upon perfect obedience to law; we are not saved by meritorious works. The most religious Christian must depend upon the shed blood of Christ to remove the stain of sin from his soul. Furthermore, the written New Testament is not in the form of law, at least not in the form of human civil law. It is written in the language of the common man, and intended to be read and understood by the use of common sense. Otherwise, most of us would be dependent upon theological lawyers to explain its meaning to us. It is not written, as is civil law, with the intention of closing every possible loophole. The man who understands the intent of the law, but still seeks a loophole, has transgressed already in his heart.

These facts notwithstanding, it can be clearly established that the written New Testament is a book containing law. It contains history, it contains prophecy, but it also contains law. In the Great Commission, Jesus told the Apostles to teach all nations “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. . .” (Matt. 28:20). A command is not a suggestion or a piece of friendly advice. It is a directive from a person in authority to a subordinate, which the subordinate must obey or suffer penalty. One of the definitions of law is “a commandment or a revelation from God.” So any commandment of God is a law of God. Jesus commanded the Apostles, but did the Apostles in turn, acting as Christ’s agents, command us? Paul said, “the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Since Paul had no authority above that of the other Apostles, we can necessarily infer, that the things which all the Apostles wrote in the New Testament are the commandments of the Lord. Certainly the inspired prophets such as James and Jude, working under Apostolic authority and having received their gifts through the laying on of Apostolic hands, were also able to act as Christ’s agents in delivering commands. This being established, it follows that the entire written New Testament consists of “the commandments of the Lord,” which is equivalent to saying that the New Testament consists of the law of the Lord.

The New Testament contains much teaching which is not in the form of direct commands. Paul delivered relatively few direct commands, yet He said that all of His inspired writing consisted of “the commandments of the Lord.” Logic and common sense tell us that there are only two ways, in addition to direct command, by which the Lord may command us. These are approved example and necessary inference. We know that the Old Testament taught in these ways. We learn from 1 Cor. 10 that the Old Testament teaches us by example. Jesus used necessary inference to teach the truth of the resurrection from the Scripture (Matt. 22:31, 32). So any truth taught in the New Testament, whether in the form of direct command, approved example, or necessary inference is in the broad sense a command, or a law, of God.

Having seen that the New Testament is a book of commandments, or laws, of God, we must now ask ourselves whether it is important that a Christian keep these commandments. Perhaps, as some seem to imply, being a Christian, saved by grace through faith, exempts one from the necessity of keeping God’s commandments. Or, perhaps the Christian is not subject to the penalty of the lawbreaker. In that case, though the New Testament consists of law, it is not binding law insofar as the Christian is concerned. I believe that all brethren would agree that love for Christ is necessary in order for a Christian to be eternally saved. Jesus said in John 14:21, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father . . . .” He continued in verse 23, “If a man love me, he will keep my words.” 1 John 2:4 says, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Where do liars spend eternity? Rev. 21:8 tells us that they shall have their part in the lake of fire. Paul delivered certain commands, in the name of the Lord, to the Thessalonians. He then said, “And if any man obey not out word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). Rev. 22:14 says, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” So it seems that whether or not a Christian keeps God’s commandments is a serious matter, and has an effect upon fellowship with his brethren and upon his final destiny.

The word “command” or “commandment” in the New Testament is not limited to those items contained in the Ten Commandments of Moses, nor is it limited to moral precepts. The following things are specifically identified as commands in the New Testament: to love one another (John 15:17), to withdraw from the disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6), to work and to eat our own bread (2 Thess. 3:12), to remain married to one’s spouse (1 Cor. 7:10), to be baptized (Acts 10:48), for a woman to be in subjection (1 Cor. 14:34), to repent (Acts 17:30), to keep the teachings of the Apostles (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Pet. 21:21; 1 Tim. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:2). The commandments of God cannot be divided into essential and non-essential. They include those things which we may classify as gospel and doctrine, morals and religion.

But some seek to escape the force of this truth by saying that the New Testament is a book of principles, not a book of laws. A principle is. defined as “an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct.” What is that but a law? It is further defined as “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Here we begin to see the point. The New Testament may be accepted as a law or a rule of conduct, so long as we keep it general. We can then say that if a man has faith, shows love, practices justice toward his fellows, etc., he is a keeper of God’s commandments, even though he ignores or rejects the greater part of the specific commandments. We must then ask how one can distinguish a principle from a law, so as to blind one and not the other. We have already noticed that some of God’s commands are very broad and others are very specific. What about baptism? That is a specific command and the method of obedience to this command is very specific. If the New Testament is a book of principles, not laws, then perhaps the specific action of baptism is merely an illustration in other ways. To insist on one specific action of baptism would be to change the New Testament from a book of principle to a book of law. The same could be said of the Lord’s Supper. The principle is that we should remember the Lord’s death. The specific time and method of remembrance are legalistic details. Perhaps we could remember His death better on some Lord’s Day by viewing a collection of great paintings of the crucifixion. Do I hear an objection? Then it must be admitted that the New Testament is a book of laws as well as a book of principles. The “book of principles” argument is used very selectively to support some particular innovation of which some brother is fond. Few would be willing to apply it consistently.

The great truth which should be presented concerning the New Testament is that it is a book of law, but it is not merely a book of law. It is written to regulate our conduct, but more basically, to regulate the thoughts of our hearts. It is a book which reveals Christ, the gift of God’s love, and, thus, is designed to remold the intellect, the emotions, and the will of man. The obedience demanded by the New Testament is, in some cases, as specific as the obedience demanded by the Law of Moses. But the emphasis is now upon the underlying attitudes and motivations. If there is no love, if there is a grudging spirit, then the most perfect outward obedience is totally nullified. If, on the other hand, one’s heart is right toward God, there will be no reluctance to follow the pattern laid down by Christ and the Apostles, even to the most specific details.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 213-214
March 27, 1980

By Mike Willis

In recent years, the divorce rate in America has continued to skyrocket. The number of people being divorced is rapidly growing in such proportions that many of those with whom we associate and whom we try to convert to the Lord have been divorced and remarried. Christians are, consequently, forced to deal with the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage as it relates to leading people to Christ who are in second and third marriages. In addition to that, as the world has become more inclined to divorce and remarriage, members of the church have become more involved in divorces and second and third marriages. Because of this influence of our society upon us, we need to understand what the scriptures teach regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage.

One of the real dangers which faces Christians is the tendency to have its moral standard dictated to it by the world rather than reaching its conclusions about morality from the Bible. At the present, the morals of America are in a transition period. Things that ‘were. considered immoral a few years ago are now accepted and blatantly practiced. We see this happening with reference to homosexuality, gambling, drinking, fornication, and other sins condemned by God’s word. The warning which Paul gave in Romans 12:2 is therefore quite apropos for a discussion of marriage, divorce and remarriage. In Rom. 12:2, Paul wrote as follows: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” We have got to be careful that we do not allow what the society around us legislates and accepts become our moral standard with reference to marriage, divorce and remarriage. We must not be conformed to this world but rather we must be guided by the revelation of God.

The fact that we must not allow society around us to govern what we teach on marriage, divorce and remarriage has been shown to us repeatedly in some of the work which gospel preachers have done in societies where polygamy is accepted. As they went into those cultures with the gospel and taught people what the Bible said about marriage, they were forced to teach what the scriptures taught about one man being married to one woman for life. No doubt it was painful for some of those who were involved in polygamous relationships to break those associations. However, God’s standard of right and wrong could not be determined by what any particular culture taught at any given time. Rather, the revelation of God went against the grain of that culture; they were forced to teach the truth of the Scriptures relative to marriage regardless of who was hurt or suffered because of past disobedience.

We who are in America today are going to have to be careful that we do not allow our culture to determine what we preach on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Some in our culture are looking at the number of divorces and loosening the standards which they teach on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Because that is happening on such a wide-spread basis, it is imperative that we go back to the revelation of God to find out what the scriptures teach on marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Jesus’ Teaching on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it–was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be – eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it. (Matt. 19:3-12)

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they swain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)

These parallel statements of the question which the Pharisees asked Jesus contain the most detailed teaching which Jesus gave with reference to the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. We need to examine the teaching of Jesus in this section to find out what was taught.

The Historical Context

The question which the Pharisees came to ask Jesus was, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The question is certainly as pertinent to twentieth century man as it was for first century Jews. If that same question were asked in today’s society, practically every person in the land would say, “Yes, it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.” Our society has become so liberal in its divorce laws that we presently have what is called “no-fault” divorce – divorce which can be granted without placing blame on either party. A person just has to state that he and his wife have irreconcilable differences and that they no longer desire for the marriage to exist in order to obtain a divorce. Then, the persons freed by these divorces go out and remarry. They are accepted by society and, unfortunately, by many in the church as if their marriage was approved of God. Because of the present-day situation being so nearly like what it was in Jesus’ time, we need to notice His answer to the question posed by the Jews.

The Jewish schools of that day were divided into two opinions over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. ` There Moses wrote that a man could put away his wife for uncleanness. The school of Hillel interpreted uncleanness to be virtually anything. For example, they believed that if a man found another woman that was more appealing to him than the one to wham he was married, he could divorce his wife and marry someone else. On the other hand, the school of Shammai, interpreted uncleanness to refer to some act of lewdness. Thus, they were divided into two groups along these lines. The question which they presented to Jesus, undoubtedly, was going to cause a conflict with one group or the other. No doubt, this was the reason that they came to Jesus and asked that question, tempting Him (Mk. 10:2).

Jesus’ Answer

In Jesus’ reply to the question which He was asked, He referred the Pharisees to the book of Genesis. There He said,

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh, Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God bath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:4-5).

There are several things learned from this quotation by Jesus which need to be observed. They are as follows:

1. God’s arrangement of one male and one female shows God’s desire for the marriage relationship: There are a number of sins which exist today, and in societies of the past, which are shown to be sin from God’s positive arrangements in creation. We see, for example, that homosexuality is sin by the fact that God made a man for woman and a woman for man. God did not make a second Adam for Adam or a second Eve for Eve. Had He wanted the homosexual relationship, He would not have made Eve for Adam but would have made another Adam for Adam. Hence, the divine disapproval of homosexuality is seen by the original provision of God and also in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27. Furthermore, we also see that other relationships such as polygamy, polyandry and successive fornication relationships are all disapproved of God for the simple reason that they are no more what God originally intended than homosexuality is.

2. We see that marriage involves leaving father and mother, cleaving to one’s wife and becoming one flesh. Those who are contemplating marriage would do themselves a favor if they would study each one of these ideas. Young married people need to leave father and mother. Untold numbers of arguments have existed in marriages newly formed because of arguments relating to the in-laws of one or the other of the people in the marriage relationship. Secondly, the person ought to cleave to his wife. He ought to try to become as intimate with her as he possibly can.

3. They shall be one flesh. Of course, this refers to more than the sexual relationship. It refers to the manner in which personalities and goals and intentions in life are merged in the two people.

We see the divine sanction upon this relationship in the statement, “What therefore God hath joined together . . .” God unites the man and his wife. That is important to observe because some leave the impression that if man decides to break a relationship, he can break it regardless of what God thinks about it at all. Consequently, we have such things happen as a man and woman being married to each other in a relationship which God considers to be adulterous (see Rom. 7:1-3). Hence, in order for a marriage to be acceptable to God, it must be a marriage that is meeting God’s approval. Man’s tampering with marriage is a violation of the Lord’s will. Hence, we need to give some more attention to this area of study. (Continued next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 211-213
March 27, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

The Madison (Tennessee) Marcher for 19 September 1979 reported that the “Sunday School Round-Up” the previous week was a success with 3,349 attending. The “Round-Up” was a drive to increase attendance at Sunday morning Bible classes by inviting everyone to “the annual Treasure Hunt and Sunday School outing” which followed the services. Among “the two hundred and seventy-five prizes” given away were a puzzle, a new lamp, country hams, a Bible, and “the grand prize” – a new ten-speed bicycle donated by Ira North. Appropriately, the Bible was not the grand prize. Actually, the grand prize should have been the city ham – Ira, that is.

Getting back to country hams, all these prizes would have sweetened the pot when Editor Ira wrote his “Come Home” article to the “Antis” a few weeks ago in the Gospel Advocate. All seriousness aside, the smell of country ham in the church kitchen – now that’s a home coming that would be mighty tempting! I think I will mark my calendar for the next rodeo . . . circus . . . er, round-up, that’s is.

Oh, I forgot to give the Scripture authorizing all these shenanigans in the name of religion. Checking the bulletin again, I find Ira did quote the following passage in his weekly editorial: “Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Yes, Ira said that the church can at times “nauseate the Lord” and make “Him sick at His stomach” because brethren forget the necessity for observing the Bible as “the standard” in all things. It would appear that Ira says that the Lord is so disgraced and disgusted by Madison’s carnival atmosphere that He has decided to have nothing to do with the place.

Speaking of getting sick at the stomach, try to bear with me for this last announcement from the Ringmaster’s editorial:

From every practical standpoint, we appreciate the fact that the church has emerged from the days and conditions of penury, and is shining its light in premises that we deem more worthy of the One these temples are supposed to honor. But what is the true value of architectural masterpiece so designated – and all of the attendant beauties and distinctions – if the central figure and purpose be not Jesus Christ and His healing power for a sin-sick world?

I think this means that another thing about Madison which disgusts Christ is that they have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars for premises” which include temples, architectural masterpieces, and gymnasiums with the silly notion that Christ is at the center of it all.

By, the way, Cecil Wright says that Madison is “conservative to the core” with”its “super salesman and promoter”. preacher (Gospel Advocate, 6 September 1979, pp. -566-67). Guy N. Woods, North’s co-editor in the Gospel Advocate, assures us that North is “in every instance. . . as anxious as I to maintain” purest New Testament teaching (GA, 4 January 1979, p. 2). No doubt, conservative-to-the-core Woods means that he and North are equally anxious to hunt treasure, eat ham, and perform gymnastics in the name of the church purchased by the Savior’s blood. We hereby offer brother Woods an invitation, embossed in twenty-four carat gold, to publish in our column the Bible authority for all this. R.S.V.P.

Preaching the Fundamentals

Brother Roy E. Cogdill was scheduled for September 1979 gospel meeting with the Knollwood church of Christ in Xenia, Ohio, but sickness intervened to deny us the privilege of hearing his fundamental lessons on The New Testament Church. Since brother H.E. Phillips was to speak at about the same time at the Thayer St. lectures in Ajcron, he was able to rearrange part of his schedule so as to preach at Knollwood. His lessons were some of the best we have ever heard, concentrating on such fundamentals as The Bible as God’s Word, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Youth’s Need of God, The Importance of the Family to the Church, Be Thankful, and The Judgment. These excellent lessons – as well as the ones at Thayer St. on Imputed Righteousness – were taped and can be ordered from The Spoken Word, P.O. Box 127, Greenville, Indiana 47124.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 210
March 27, 1980