Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Affirming the Negative on Women Teachers

On 6 December at Fairborn, J. W. Holcomb affirmed his negative proposition: “When the church comes together for the purpose of studying the Bible, and uses the class arrangement, it is a violation of the Scriptures for women to be appointed teachers of any of those classes.” “Any” means not even classes of women and children. About eight charts were offered but two basic passages appeared over and over on them: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man”) and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (“let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”). The charge in 2 Timothy 2:2 to train “faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” cannot include women in any way, Holcomb asserted, because if “men” means mankind it violates 1 Timothy 2. “Men” must be “male members of the church only,” he claimed.

Though Titus 2:3-4 says of aged women that they are to be “teachers of good things” and to “teach the young women,” this cannot mean it is a class arrangement because it would violate 1 Timothy 2 also. “Since the Bible does not contradict itself, then I maintain that contextually that this work, this particular teaching here is done by her deportment, her behavior,” said Holcomb. He added that a woman may also teach her own children privately in the home, may teach by singing in the church, and may teach other people in private conversation.

After saying, “Everything that is commanded of the church in 1 Corinthians 14 certainly applies in the church today with respect to conduct of the members of the church in assembly,” Holcomb added that “we are not inspired as they were” but only men have ever been given the authority of a teacher. Asserting that “there were no women in the Great Commission,” Holcomb said none were apostles, evangelists, elders, or otherwise “in the position of authority” as teachers of anyone under any circumstances. The restriction “not to teach” in 1 Timothy 2 applies “whether in man’s presence or out of his presence,” according to Holcomb. This excludes the church permitting her to teach “other women” and “children other than her own.” He stressed that if some women moved into a new community where there was no church, they could not establish one by any arrangement of group teaching even if limited to groups of women and children. Furthermore, Holcomb asked about a woman in a mixed class taught by a man.

Can the teacher turn the class over to her in a mixed Bible class and let her comment, read and comment on passages of Scripture before that class and thereby teach class while she is doing that?

He was certain she would be exercising the authority of the teacher if permitted to ask questions, make comments, or read a Scripture. When Paul said, “Let your women keep silence,” he meant al! of the women, in any and every arrangement of the church, whether convened in one assembly hall or several classrooms, and the total absence of men would not change the restriction. So Holcomb argued throughout the debate.

Negating the Negative Affirmation

Weldon Warnock asked Holcomb to define the place of assembly and to tell whether the Bible class arrangement meets the criterion of 1 Corinthians 14:23, “if the whole church be come together.” Webster defines assembly as “a company or collection of individuals in the same place usually for the same purpose,” then gives 25 definitions of “place,” including a region, a city, or a residence. If all classes meeting in separate rooms in one building constitute the assembled church of 14:23, then no more than two or three teachers could be appointed and they would be limited to speaking one by one rather than simultaneously in the several rooms (vv. 27-33). Warnock maintained that 1 Corinthians 14 did not preclude class arrangements with women teaching women and children, but dealt rather with disturbances in which women tried to take charge over men when the whole church assembled. As to a woman commenting in a class taught by a man, it is ludicrous to suppose a student has taken the teacher’s authority, simply by making a comment!

Warnock centered his attention on 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. The chart “What Does It Mean?” a’sked whether. 1 Timothy 2 prohibited a woman from all teaching, ever teaching a man, teaching when the church assembled, teaching men when the church assembled, or teaching under circumstances that violate subjection to man. Warnock said it was the last one, explaining that woman wqs simply not to take charge and authority over men in teaching the Bible or-in any other spiritual matter:

I do not read in 1 Timothy 2:12 that she cannot teach over women, or that she cannot teach over children. It says, “I permit not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over man,” brother Holcomb. Not woman. Not children. But man! That’s what the text says.

If the passage is not so qualified, then a woman cannot sing, teach a child, teach under any condition, prophesy in the first century, worship if only women are present, or fulfill Titus 2:3. Holcomb admitted he did not think women could come together to worship if no men were present, though several such situations have been known. The explanation of 1 Timothy 2 given by Holcomb would prohibit her teaching by participation in song service unless he could find the passage that specifies she is permitted to teach by song.

What Does It Mean? 1 Tim. 2:11-12

1. I permit not a woman to teach (period)?

2. To teach a man (period)?

3. To teach when the church is assembled?

4. To teach a man when church assembled?

5. To teach in such a way as to disregard her place of subjection to man?

6. Other

If Unqualified

1. A woman may not sing (Col. 3:16).

2. Teach a child (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14).

3: Teach under any condition (Tit. 2:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:2)

4. Do what God endowed her to do (Acts 2:17; Acts 21:9).

5. May not worship if only women are present.

6. Cannot fulfill God’s command (Tit. 2:3).

Warnock charted the comments of scholars R.C.H. Lenski (famed commentator), Homer A. Kent (New Testament and Greek professor at Grace Theological Seminary), and Stephen W. Paine (Greek professor at Houghton College) showing that “not to teach” is explained by “nor to usurp authority over the man” in 1 Timothy 2:12. The-woman is not to teach when she exercises authority over man.

Scholars On 1 Tim. 2:12

. . we have explicative oude, for `neither to exercise authority over a man’ states the point involved in the forbidding to teach” (R. C. H. Lenski, D. D. )

“I understand Lenski’s comment to be the proper explanation for that passage. I regard `neither to exercise authority over a man’ to be somewhat exegetical of the previous clause and giving one of the reasons why the prohibition to teach is made” (Homer A. Kent, Th.D., Prof. of N.T. & Greek, Grace Theological Sem.).

. . concerning Lenski’s comment . . . As you realize, the Greek word oude means simply `and not’ and thus presents us with a double negative in the combination `I do not permit a woman to teach and not to take (the) authority of a man’. However, in Greek, a double negative does not follow the mathematical process that English does. Hence, `nor’ is an inadequate translation, and the interpretative step which identifies `to teach’ with `to take (the) authority’ is justified and Lenski is grammatically correct” (Stephen W. Paine, Ph.D. Prof. of Greek, Houghton College).

This chart could not be overturned, but Holcomb said he found one Greek scholar (Bruce M. Metzger) who thought Paul intended to forbid a woman from all teaching anal that “not to teach” was independent from the expression which follows in the text: On Titus 2:3-4, which Holcomb claimed referred only to the woman’s behavior~by example, Warnock pointed out that part of her behavior is being an exemplary teacher. They were commanded to be “teachers of good things” and several of these things are specified in the text. Also in 2 Timothy 2:2, “faithful men” who are to teach and raise up teachers does not refer to sex but does include women, just as “men” is generic in 1 Timothy 2:5 (“one mediator between God and men”). Since Holcomb wanted to know where in the Bible a woman taught a class, Warnock pointed out that classes taught by both men and women are authorized under the generic command to teach.

No Fellowship Here and No Heaven Hereafter?

Every speech of Warnock pled for brethren to receive one another in Christ while studying these differences which involve personal conscience. His chart on “Narrowing, the Circle” pointed out that Holcomb was determined to impose his own conscience to the extent of congregational discipline and rejection of brethren who differ from him on several such questions. The church was neither sound in teaching nor faithful to the Lord where women have no symbolic religious garb on the head, teach classes, trim their hair, wear women’s slacks on any occasion, or exchnge gifts as a private family affair on 25 December. Pursuing this course, J.W. Holcomb is about to narrow the circle down to himself alone. “Brother Howard See has been alienated from brother Holcomb. Brother Wendell Wiser, who moderated for him back in 1956, has been alienated. We don’t want to see this” alienation continue and spread, but it will if Holcomb is allowed to impose his own private convictions, Warnock warned.

As if to underscore Warnock’s warning, Holcomb explained the view that first led him to condemn sister Irven Lee’s classes and then to debate the question of a woman teaching:

What’s she a’doing in a Bible class? What’s she a’doing at 10 o’clock in the morning with the women together and her preaching to them but delivering a discourse to instruct them. She’s in a position of authority and is out of order and sinning and will be lost in hell if she doesn’t repent. And the brethren who appoint her to that and encourage her to that will go to hell with her, if they don’t repent. That’s why I’m here.

Warnock need not complain about my “pressing these things” to the point of discipline and division, said Holcomb, because there would be no pressing “if you could go to heaven and do what you’re doing. I don’t believe you can.”

Since Warnock asked for the passage that specified woman’s right to sing, Holcomb responded,

It’s the next verse down under where you get-specific authority for her to teach a Bible class or group of women every morning.

Warnock reminded the audience that Holcomb himself allowed women to sing and therefore must base it on some passage. Now by Holcomb’s own admission, that passage stood next to the one that permits women to teach Bible classes. Warnock wondered if the debate was over at that point! Since Holcomb had insisted that women usurp the place of men in teaching a class even in the total absence of men, Warnock asked what man would a woman be usurping authority over in the absence of all men. Furthermore, he asked if Holcomb would apply the same rule to 1 Corinthians 11 and maintain that a woman must be covered in all worship and devotion, even that she might offer when no man is present. When Holcomb argued that no woman was given the authority to teach in the New Testament because there were no women apostles, evangelists, and elders, Warnock pointed out that he had overlooked the role of prophetesses (Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5). She taught others not merely by example of behavior but by speaking.

Woman Teachers or No Classes, Which?

The debate concluded on 7 December. Holcomb said that he did not know when or where the prophetess spoke but that it would have been sinful for the church to make any arrangement for her to do so. As to Holcomb’s repeated charge that Warnock would end up with a “woman ministry” in the pulpit, Warnock warned that Holcomb’s confusion on the generic authority for classes with both male and female teachers would logically lead to the “no-class position.” Gary Halcomb, who had been on the stage at Holcomb’s side in the Ogden debate, had already followed that course. He could not attend the present debate because he was away holding a meeting for the no-class, one-cup church in Nashville, Tennessee, where sister Irene S. Foy had ended up before her death because of taking these positions which J.W. Holcomb was defending in debate.

Warnock emphasized affirmative arguments the last night. Matthew 28:19-20 says to teach and baptize people of all nations, then to train these disciples to continue spreading the truth. This would include both males and females. This charge is in part implemented by Titus 2:1-10, where aged women are charged to teach the younger. The specific arrangements, whether made by the church or an individual, would be under the generic authority to teach and a matter of human judgment. Women would be limited by 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 not to exercise authority over men in teaching. The passages that tell men to teach authorize the class arrangement with male teachers, just as the Scriptures charging women to teach authorize the class arrangement with women teachers over women and children. Holcomb wanted to know where the Bible specified women as class teachers, but Warnock reminded him that no Scripture specified males as class teachers. Classes arranged with male or female teachers are authorized in precisely the same fashion. If the generic authority for women to teach in Matthew 28 and Titus 2 is not sufficient to permit women to teach classes, then the same authority in Matthew 28 and 1 Timothy 4 is not sufficient to permit males to teach classes. Warnock pointed out Holcomb’s dilemma: women teachers or the no-class position.

Holcomb emphatically denied that women were included in the Great Commission or that Titus 2 implemented anything taught in Matthew 28. “The Great Commission is not in Titus 2,” and Titus 2 “doesn’t say that a woman taught a Bible class,” thundered Holcomb. He was especially upset at the idea that a woman might face circumstances where she would baptize the woman or child she had taught. He further thundered concerning those who disagree with him on the covering, women teacher, and other issues mentioned on “Narrowing the Circle,”

I’ll tell you this. Unless it is an accident some way, I never will sit in your assemblies. I don’t fellowship stuff like that.

The reference was to visiting the services and hearing men preach with whom he disagreed.

Women Can’t Write: “Take That Thing Out”

Since Warnock had asked about the tract “Fashions” by Mrs. Lurie G. Yater in Fairborn’s tract rack, Holcomb addressed the church he was representing as follows:

I don’t know where the brethren got the tract and 1 don’t know what it’s doing here. But I’ll tell you this. It’s wrong and you need to take that thing out because women have got no business being a teacher of the Word of God. And you need to correct that. You take that out. She’s setting herself up as a teacher. What right does she have to do that? Even in the printed page, what right does she have to do it? You give me Book, Chapter, and Verse for that. Give it to me. I’ll tell you I don’t condone that . . . . I don’t condone a woman becoming a writer! . . . That woman is out of place doing that.

He did not say whether these strictures would apply to Dorothy Avenue also permitting some females in classes to communicate by writing comments or questions on the classroom blackboard. Brother Warnock asked if the next step was for men like Holcomb to demand that the song books be Tipped up to eliminate songs written by women. Such songs were sung at both Knollwood and Dorothy Avenue, but he did not seem to worry about this inconsistency. “Get your scissors,” said Warnock. He then closed with an appeal not to permit men to bind matters of their own conscience and private conviction as matters of the faith (Jude 3).

Does Romans 14 Apply?

At the debate’s conclusion, a letter from Knollwood’s elders to Dorothy Avenue expressed a commitment and requested a reciprocal “commitment to encourage greater unity among us all as brethren in Christ.” Women who wore coverings and abstained from teaching classes were not asked to change their practice for unity.

We ask nothing of the kind and can fully respect brethren who have a conscience in such matters. We believe that all such matters as have been discussed in the debate can be treated on the basis of Romans 14. The Holy Spirit said through Paul that each of us is allowed to have his strong convictions, being “fully persuaded in his own mind” (14:15). We need not judge one another in respect to these matters (14:13).

The hope was expressed that those brethren who disagreed with us on the covering and woman teacher would be willing to extend the right hand of fellowship with love and respect in Christ. A letter six weeks later from Dorothy Avenue said that they chose not to clarify such matters directly, but added that “in the past” they had announced Knollwood’s meetings and called upon her members for prayer.

The following responses have also been noticed. After several weeks no reciprocal letter has been received but the response of the following people was made known. (1) J. W. Holcomb had made clear in the debate that he could not agree to the letter but insisted that the issues discussed be treated as matters of the faith, matters essential to salvation, or matters of discipline within the church and of division from brethren if necessary. (2) His moderator, Emery M. McCollister, had written in a tract on “Let Her Be Covered” that the covering is “essential to our soul’s salvation” but ought not to become “a test of fellowship or to cause division” (p. 1). But he said concerning the letter read, that should brother Begley take such a stand as it requested, “then brother Begley would no longer be in fellowship with me.” McCallister explicitly said that these matters could not be left to the determination of personal conviction as per Romans 14. These conflicting statements illustrate the difficulty of declaring some thing a matter of the revealed faith without at the same time treating it as a matter of fellowship. (3) Joe Hill, Holcomb’s timekeeper who has challenged for several debates on these issues, said in conversation after the debate that Romans 14 emphatically could not be applied to the pre

sent differences.

(4) Brother Begley said that unity should be the goal, just as with institutional brethren. This would appear to exclude the approach of Romans 14 since institutional-social-gospel problems involve the faith and function of the whole church. But he did not clarify further and he had said in private that the approach of Romans 14 should be taken. Like McCallister, Begley illustrates the distressing inconsistencies in which many of these brethren are trapped. They couple a high degree of certainty that such issues as the covering are matters of the faith along side a high degree of uncertainty as to whether these same issues are matters of fellowship. On fellowship, many of these brethren have one foot firmly planted on each side of the fence and are uncomfortably seated on the fence itself. They can lean either way as the occasion demands.

The issues of which Paul wrote in Romans 14 – “receive ye” one another – are certainly not in the same class with those discussed in such passages as:

2 Timothy 3:1-5, which describes false teachers and trucebreakers coming in perilous times, adding, “from such turn away;”

2 Peter 2:1, which warns of false teachers who bring “damnable doctrines;”

Acts 20:30, which speaks of “perverse men” drawing away their own disciples; and

I John 2:19, which speaks of those who depart from apostolic teaching because “they were not of us.”

Yet, those four passages were used by Begley in his radio review (23 December on WPFB, Middletown, Ohio), as he spoke of “doctrines that cause the soul to be lost” in warning against the “elders and preachers” involved in the debate with Holcomb. Why did Begley use these passages and omit Romans 14 on the radio, but claim privately that Romans 14 should apply? Brethren such as Holcomb are consistent in linking the faith with fellowship, but those such as Begley are still straddling and juggling the two questions. One thing is certain: Romans 14 is not discussing “doctrines that cause the soul to be lost” and consequently does not say “from such turn away.” Truth Magazine is ready to publish an article from Begley on “How Romans 14, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 2:1, Acts 20:30, and I John 2:19 Can All Apply to the Same Issue at the Same Time,” or “How to Apply ‘Receive Ye’ One Another and ‘From Such Turn Away’ to the Same Brethren at the Same Time.” We were charged with gross misrepresentation for saying a certain brother had been withdrawn from, over the issues under debate. Let us bypass that brother’s name, then, and ask whether a church should withdraw from women who do not wear a covering. Holcomb shouts, “Yes!” Warnock pleads, “No!” What does Begley – standing at Holcomb’s side – say? Would “from such turn away” include disfellowship by a local church and a refusal to extend the hand of fellowship among brethren generally? Which way will our dizzy brother Begley go?

Brother Begley’s radio review charged the elders and preachers working with Knollwood as “trucebreakers” on the censorship stipulation. Either Warnock kept the agreement, or Begley broke it. Warnock signed his name on the blackboard giving consent for reviewers to write or speak, thus giving Begley written consent for his radio review of 23 December. That would justify Begley in never sending a manuscript or tape of his radio address to Warnock or Knollwood for approval. The fact is that Begley had Warnock’s signed approval on the blackboard and so is not obligated to send us his manuscript or tape at any time. This we freely grant. But if Begley considers Warnock’s blackboard signature inadequate to permit reviews, then Begley should have submitted his material to us for specific approval. He whinned on the radio, “When folks won’t even recognize their own signature, I don’t know whether 1’d want to accept a check they’d write me because it might not be good” (he can check the tape for the exact wording if he ever decides to send us a copy). As a matter of courtesy, Holcomb and Begley received advance copies of this article and are receiving free extra copies of its publication. In addition, they were assured several months ago that Truth Magazine is open to their reviews. We want to be open and fair toward those who disagree with us, but do not intend to be censored and shackled by them.

Concluding Remarks

From our standpoint, the debate was held not in the hope to divide brethren, but to study the issues with open Bibles while emphasizing a plea for unity. How did the covering and woman teacher issues get into one debate? Holcomb admits no special circumstances in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 which affect their application today. He repeatedly referred to these passages as “Siamese twins” because “they’re joined together in their teaching in that they teach the same thing” (his 4 December, second affirmative speech). In debate Holcomb controls his own speeches and tries to control the speeches of opponents by repetitious charts and questions. Rather than reviewing all of these in detail, Warnock pointed out what passages they centered upon and dealt with the passages. Those who debate Holcomb in the future should take note because this approach kept him on the defensive much of the time. In addition to his censorship stipulation, he may dream up a new stipulation trying to “lock in” future debates to his repetitious questions and charts which allow him to make pat speeches made a hundred times before. The debate generated much good Bible study. We have talked to people whose doubts on the covering and woman teacher were cleared up. A brother from Akron who had believed in the covering idea all his adult life, an elder from Columbus, and two Cincinnati-area brethren all said that their minds were changed by hearing the two positions examined side by side. Most importantly, a large number of brethren were brought to a renewed appreciation of the importance and application of Romans 14 in matters of personal conscience or private conviction. The Spoken Word (P.O. Box 127 Greenville, IN 47124) plans to make the tapes available. Numerous and lengthy quotations from tapes of Holcomb’s speeches have been given to insure accuracy, but he can submit his own transcriptions to Truth Magazine if ours are not exact. He and Begley got advance copies of our article; we are always glad to weigh any suggestions they might have.

An extensive review of the debate at this time is justified by the recurring need to emphasize the difference between matters of the faith clearly revealed and matters of private opinion, which often involve difficult passages or principles requiring judgmental applications. In addition to five questions mentioned in this debate, we hear of discussions on kneeling for certain prayers, belonging to unions, the right of private foundations and colleges which provide Bible teaching to exist, the “located” preacher, Sunday evening communion, funerals and weddings in the meetinghouse, and any number of others from time to time. Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall many of these questions. A continuing effort to study such differences as a people united in Christ is healthy. But it is another matter to face the demand that churches disfellowship certain brethren and that a division of churches all across the country should take place over the covering, woman teacher, and similar questions of personal conscience. Appealing directly to people who might agree with his position but worship where a different view prevailed, Holcomb exhorted, “Come out from among them and be ye separate.” It is time for those of us who differ on such issues but are determined to study them as a united people in Christ, in keeping with Romans 14, to say so!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 11, pp. 185-188
March 13, 1980

By S. Leonard Tyler

“Why have I prayed so sincerely, confidently and unselfishly for something, I believed to be just, and did not get it?” This is an apt question and needs consideration. I guess, all of us have wondered or pondered this thought. Job certainly did. He could not, for the life of him, understand why God allowed the tragedies to befall him and his family. He plainly expresses his inability to comprehend God’s dealings with him. Yet, his faith would not allow him to blame God.

Job’s faith in God and His goodness confirmed in his own heart that his only hope was in God and that God would not forsake him. He humbled himself before God in worship and said, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly” (Job 1:21-22). This proves, to me, that God knows best and that my trust must be in him. I may not understand, I cannot comprehend the infinite mind and good of God, but I can believe that every good and perfect gift comes from God. The story of Job confirms this and is preserved to sustain us in times of trouble. It is for our learning, admonition and assurance the God knows best, and we must trust Him.

When a child goes to his parents and requests some special consideration, he cannot understand why they fail to give it. You and I recognize there, are some things that children cannot have and some things they must endure to grow up strong and capable of living successful lives. They feel that we are inconsiderate, hard-hearted and forgetful of them. However, the parent should know what is best and answer accordingly. Parents could be mistaken in responding to the child’s petitions but God knows what is best. We, as children of God, must make our prayers in absolute faith: God knows what is best and will answer our petitions accordingly. Then let us pray: “Lord, strengthen our faith, give us courage and confidence; and, whatever response we receive from Thee, help us to be therewith content.”

Paul had a thorn in “the flesh” and prayed “thrice, that it might depart from me.” The answer was not a positive one. This does not prove that prayer is ineffective. The Lord did respond to Paul. Paul said, “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:7-9).

Why God refused to remove the thorn is stated, “Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). We still must suffer for Christ. We must suffer so long as we live in this physical world, and death is certain. This, however, does not prevent, or make void, our privilege or prayer. It is true, God may see fit to withhold some requests we make. Our faith must say, “God knows best and will grant what is best according to His own purpose.” Our faith in God should build in us the desire that, since God’s will is best, that is what we want.

Paul accepted the thorn gracefully and took strength in his infirmities. He said, “I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). God’s refusal to remove the thorn did not weaken Paul’s faith. It strengthened it; in fact, it lead him closer and caused him to depend upon Christ more. He continued to pray with faith and to recognize Christ as his strength and salvation. He said, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day . . . I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (2 Tim. 1:12; Phil. 4:13). Paul conceded to God the right to say what was best and accepted it gracefully, and was therewith content.

David prayed most sincerely and fervently for his child while it was alive. The child died, David arose from the earth, refreshed himself and worshiped God. His servants could not understand his actions. He said, “While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:15-23). David did not forsake God because He refused to spare his child. He was drawn closer to the Father and served him more fervently. He was called a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14).

Our finite minds cannot grasp the infinite mind of God. We must allow faith to make the connection. Our inabilities cannot comprehend the infinite good of God. Klan cannot know what God has prepared for him. This was true in the preparation of the church and it certainly is true in the eternal world (1 Cor. 2:9). Faith must lead us to gladly accept the infinite good from God (Jas. 1:17). The ineffable power, wisdom, love and concern God has manifested toward us will surely beget in us an ineffable faith, love and submission to Him in all things. If this be true, we can and will pray, “Thy will be done – not ours.” This is indeed the characteristic attitude of a true child of God. It will also enhance our desire to pray.

Faith is manifested when one enters his closet, closes the door and prays. He really believes that the Father will hear and award (Matt. 6:6). Jesus, our Lord, leaves us an example: “In the morning, rising up before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed” (Mark 1:35). His apostles prayed together (Acts 4:31), and by the riverside (Acts 16:13); at Miletus, Paul “kneel down, and prayed with them all” (Acts 20:36); and Luke said that at Tyre along with the disciples, women and children, just before boarding the ship, “We kneeled down on the shore and prayed” (Acts 21:5). They prayed together.

God May Refuse To Give Our Requests

There will be times when God refuses to grant our requests, times when He withholds for a reason, and times when they are granted. This should not determine our faith. The Psalmist cried, “Lord, why casteth thou off my soul? Why hidest thou thy face from me?” (Ps. 88:14). But he did not cease to pray. He prayed, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer” (Psa. 19:14).

We may become as the prophet, Habakkuk, when he said, “O Lord, how long shall 1 cry, and thou wilt not hear? Even cry out unto Thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!” (Hab. 1:2). The Old Testament men of God could not understand all of God’s ways. We cannot understand all of God’s dealings with us. But why stagger at that? Is it true in the physical world? Is it not more likely to be manifestly demonstrated in the spiritual? We cannot comprehend the Almighty for He is not man: “hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Num. 23:19). He is not slack concerning His promises (2 Pet. 3:9), which means that time does not count with God; He will accomplish His will. Faith is that which lifts man up to God and builds within his heart confidence to say, “Lord, Thy will be done in me. Help my unbelief.”

Why Should Christians Pray?

(1) They are children of God and want to talk with their Father.

(2) They recognize their own sinful condition and need forgiveness, (1 Jn. 2:1-2).

(3) They believe that God will hear their pleadings and their cries.

(4) They recognize their inability to do anything without God’s care and grace.

(5) They believe that God’s will is best and want it done in them.

(6) They remember the needs of all mankind and pray for them.

(7) They believe that God has opened a door of prayer according to His own eternal purpose and they use it.

(8) They believe that the Scriptures so instruct Christians to pray and they gladly accept.

“Pray always,” (Luke 18:1), “pray everywhere,” (1 Tim. 2:8), “pray without ceasing,” (1 Thess. 5:17), are but a few texts in the New Testament to impress us with the need and privilege of prayer. Paul expresses it, “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). Prayer is indeed a privilege and blessing.

Prayer is not an avenue of escape, but, rather, the acceptance of the reality of God. Prayer is not a substitute for obedience; it is a manifestation of faith in Him who directs the whole affair. Prayer is not for the indifferent, lukewarm, careless, and lazy; but rather to those who are zealous, enthusiastic and committed to God. They recognize that work alone is not sufficient but “faith without works is dead,” so they work and pray. The stronger one’s faith is, the more he works and prays. The more one prays the more he appreciates and enjoys his relationship with God (1 Jn. 1:7). This leads one into a faithful, active, obedient and confident life in Christ (Rom. 8:1).

I Believe

I believe that prayer is an open door through which a child of God may approach the Father, express his thanks, make his requests and ask forgiveness and mercy. I believe that He, and He alone, knows what is best and will grant it to His children. I believe that all this is provided within the realm of His Own Will. Therefore, I pray, “Father, I express, intreat and petition that Thy will be done – not mine. Thou art all wise, all powerful and Thy grace is sufficient to sustain us in life and save us eternally. Give me faith to accept it, courage to endure faithfully, and confidence that all is well and best.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 11, pp. 183-185
March 13, 1980

By Morris W. R. Bailey

I Having discussed in preceding articles, a number of unfavorable attitudes toward the truth, in this, the concluding article, of this series, I propose to discuss briefly

The Proper Attitude

There is but one proper attitude toward truth which will make us receptive to the truth, and that is love for the truth. When Paul, in 2 Thess. 2:10-12, ascribed the unbelief of some, in the fact that they had not received the love of the truth, there is implied therein the suggestion that those who had believed the truth (v. 13) did so because of love for the truth. In fact, the nature of the truth of the gospel is such that it can be received only by those who are favorably disposed toward it.

In speaking of a proper attitude toward the truth, Solomon stated it this way, “Buy the truth and sell it not; Yea, wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Prov. 23:23). Which means that one will prize the truth so highly that he will make every effort to acquire it, regardless of the cost; and, having found it, he will not part with it regardless of what price may be offered:

A proper attitude toward the truth may be learned from the parable of “The Pearl Of Great Price.” Jesus said, “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant seeking goodly pearls: and having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it” (Matt. 13:45, 46). Since the kingdom of heaven is founded on truth and its citizens are those who receive the truth (John 18:37), it does no injustice to this parable when it is used to teach a proper attitude toward the truth. That being granted, I therefore submit the following observations:

1. The merchant of the parable was “seeking.” He was motivated by a dominant purpose; he was not just out “window shopping,” nor was he an impulse buyer. He was in search of something – goodly pearls. If we are going to find the truth, it will not be through any halfhearted effort, nor will it be found in such generalizations as “getting religion,” or “joining the church.” It will be the result of a diligent search for the truth. It does not come to us by accident.

2. The merchant of the parable knew what he wanted. He was seeking goodly pearls. He was obviously, then, a judge of values, for the pearl was one of the most valuable gems of that day. He was thus not to be fobbed off with some inferior gem, nor with a cheap imitation, nor even with a pearl of small value. When we realize that only the truth will make us free from the bondage of sin (John 8:32) and save us from the guilt of sin (2 Thess. 2:13), the honest seeker after truth will be satisfied with nothing else. He will be able to distinguish between truth and error. (1 John 4: 1-6)

3. The merchant did not find the long-sought-after pearl in some bargain basement. What the exact price of the pearl was, we do not know, except that Jesus said it was great. It cost him all that he had. Nor is the truth cheap. Something of its superlative value can be judged by the fact that Jesus came to earth to bring it (John 1:17; 18:37). The apostles fought to preserve it from the assaults of false teachers (Gal. 2:5). They suffered persecution that it might be preached (Acts 4:1, 2).

4. When the merchant found the pearl for which he had been seeking, there was no haggling over the price. Regardless of the fact that the price was great, he immediately took steps to acquire it, even though it meant extreme sacrifice. He went and sold all that he had in order to buy the pearl. And when one is seeking with the same determination for the truth, he will find that the price is great. It will mean the abandonment of previous false doctrine that has been tenaciously held; for there can be no compatibility between truth and error (1 John 2:21). It may cost him the good will of former associates. Witness the things that Paul suffered for the truth at the hands of his own people, the Jews. (Acts 17:5, 13; 20:19). It may even cost one his family ties (Matt. 10:34-37).

Some Examples Of Love For The Truth

In the New Testament, particularly in the book of Acts, we find some outstanding examples of people who displayed an attitude that made them receptive to the truth when it was presented to them.

The Ethiopian Eunuch

The story of the Ethiopian Eunuch is related in the eighth chapter of Acts. He held a responsible position as a cabinet minister to the queen of Ethiopia being in charge of her treasury. His concern for spiritual matters is seen in the fact that despite the demands of his position, he had made a journey of about a thousand miles to Jerusalem, not for a vacation nor to visit friends, but for the specific purpose of worshiping God. True, the requirement to worship at Jerusalem was no longer binding (John 4:21), but he was worshiping according to the light that he then had. His godly character is further seen in the fact that on his return journey he was reading, not some light fiction nor the stock market quotations, but the scriptures, in this case what we know as the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. His desire to know the truth is further seen in the fact that he wanted to know the meaning of a portion of the scripture that puzzled him. Was the prophet speaking of himself, or of some other (v. 34)? His quest for the truth was answered when Philip, “beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus” (v. 35).

Cornelius

Another fine example of a receptive attitude toward the truth is seen in the conversion of Cornelius, a Roman centurion. His godly character is evident from the fact that the writer of Acts described him as “a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always” (Acts 10:2). Yet despite such fine qualities he was still unsaved. That is evident from the fact that he was instructed by an angel to send to Joppa for Peter, “who shall speak unto thee words whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house” (Acts 11:14).

While awaiting the arrival of Peter, Cornelius had called together his kinsmen and his near friends. The purpose of their coming together was stated in the words of Cornelius: “. . . now therefore we are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of the Lord” (Acts 10:33). Such a receptive attitude toward the truth is certain to be rewarded (John. 7:17). And it was. That very day Cornelius and his household learned the truth, by which they were made free (John 8:32).

The Bereans

After having been driven out of Thessalonica by unbelieving Jews, Paul came to Berea and, as his custom was, went into the Synagogue of the Jews to preach. Of the Bereans, the inspired writer said, “Now these were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

In this brief account, two praiseworthy characteristics on the part of the Bereans are displayed. (1) Unlike the Jews of Thessalonica, they allowed Paul to preach, and gave him an attentive hearing. (2) They wanted to be certain that what Paul taught was the truth. They may have had some experience with false teachers, and may well have heard some of the false Christ’s that Jesus foretold would come in his name (Matt. 24:5). They wanted to be certain that the Christ whom Paul preached was the Christ foretold by the prophets. To that end they searched the scriptures daily to see if the things spoken by Paul were so. Such a receptive attitude toward the truth, and nothing but the truth is worthy of our imitation. May God help us all to be like Bereans.

Conclusion

What was true of the characters mentioned above is just as true today. If men, with singleness of purpose, seek the truth with the same persistence, they will find the truth. One example comes to my mind.

Some thirty years ago I was preaching on a daily radio program from Moose Jaw. I received several letters from listeners. Some were complimentary. Others were critical. But one letter came from a man in Medicine Hat, Alberta. The teaching I was doing struck a responsive chord in him. When he later obeyed the gospel, he made the remark, “This is what I have been seeking for, for some years.” He sought the truth and he found it. May his tribe increase!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 11, pp. 182-183
March 13, 1980

By Mike Willis

Justification Without The Law

What a new doctrine was being taught when, for the first time, salvation without obedience to the law of Moses was taught to the Jews! Yet, this is exactly the message of Romans. Paul wrote,

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets . . . (Rom, 3:21).

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28).

Statements such as this reveal the fact that the New Testament Scriptures release man from obligation to observe the law of Moses. Other passages show the same thing.

Second Corinthians 3:6-18 contrasted the Mosaical law with the new covenant as follows:

Old Covenant	New Covenant
1. Written within ink (v. 3, 8)	1. Written with spirit (v. 3)
2. Written in tables of stone (v. 2)	2. Written in fleshly tables of heart (v. 3)
3. Of the letter (v. 6)	3. Of the Spirit (v. 6)
4. Killeth (v. 6)	4. Giveth life (v. 6)
5. Ministration of death (v. 7)	5. Ministration of the Spirit (v. 8)
6. Glorious (v. 7)	6. Exceeds in glory (v. 9)
7. Ministrations of condemnation (v. 9)	7. Ministrations of righteousness (v. 9)
8. Glory fades (v. 7)	8. Glory remains (v. 11)

Romans 7.-1-6 teaches that Christians died to the law with Christ and, therefore, are no longer obligated to obey it. “But now we are delivered from the law” (Rom. 7:6).

Ephesians 2:14-17. The law which was the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was abolished having been nailed to the cross.

Colossians 2:14-17. The handwriting of ordinances which was contrary to us was nailed to the cross and blotted out. Therefore, one no longer has obligations to obey the Mosaical law.

Hebrews. Inasmuch as Christ, a descendant of the tribe of Judah, is now the High Priest, a change of law was necessitated (Heb. 7:12). Hence, the first covenant was removed in order to establish the second covenant (8:7-13). “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (10:9).

Man’s release from the Old Law was not contrary to the Old Law. Rather, Paul said, “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live to God” (Gal. 2:19). Through the law man was left spiritually dead, condemned to Hell because of his sin. Furthermore, the law itself foretold its own cessation (Jer. 31:31-34). The sacrifices of the Old Law only foreshadowed the one true sacrifice for sin. When Christ gave His life a ransom for sin, the law’s dominion over man was over.

Hence, man’s justification is totally separated from obedience to the Mosaical law! He is not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). “But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:25). In Christ, we died to the law (Rom. 7:1-6).

Reversion To The Law

What happens when those who have been justified through faith in Christ Jesus decide to return to subjection to the Mosaical law? That is exactly the question faced by the early Christians in the issue of circumcision. Circumcision was not viewed as it is now as a mere operation for cleanliness related to one’s health; it was properly understood in its relationship to the Mosaical law. Those who demanded that one be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:1-2) were demanding that Gentile Christians submit to the law of Moses in order to stand justified in God’s sight.

The apostle Paul properly understood the seriousness of this issue. It struck at the very heart of the gospel of Christ. Hence, he stated that reversion to the law of Moses frustrated the grace of God, “for if righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). That is, if any person could be justified by law-keeping, then Christ did not really need to come to this world to die for the sins of mankind; there was already a way prepared for man’s salvation which did not involve the death of God’s Son. Hence, His death would have been in vain.

Inasmuch as this was contrary to the very heart of the gospel, Paul correctly charged that reversion to the law of Moses was apostasy (Gal. 5:1-4). In that argument in Galatians 5, Paul stated that reversion to the law made the death of Christ of no benefit, obligated one to keep all of the law if one kept so much as one part of it, and resulted in one falling from grace (Gal. 5:1-4). Peter had earlier stated that those who taught that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved were subverting souls and troubling brethren (Acts 15:24).

Hence, when Paul realized that salvation was by faith in Christ Jesus and not through obedience to the law of Moses, he forsook the law as a means of justification (Gal. 2:16). The things which he had considered important while serving the law, he now considered to be mere refuse; he. cast them aside in order that he might be saved through Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:2-12).

The Attitude of First Century Jews Toward The Law

The books of Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews show that the early church had conflict because certain members of it felt that the law of Moses was still binding on Christians. Other Christians disagreed; consequently, a conflict ensued. The early church manifested at least three distinct parties: (1) The Judaizers. These Christians earnestly believed that one had to be obedient to the law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15:1-2). (2) Jewish Christians who kept the Law of Moses as apart of their heritage. Luke records that many in the Jerusalem church still kept the law of Moses, in spite of the fact that an official document had been sent out stating that Gentiles did not have to obey the law of Moses in order to be saved. Yet, James said to Paul, “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20, 24). Hence, there was a group who kept the law of Moses but not in order to be saved. (3) Gentile Christians. These men did not keep the law of Moses for any reason whatsoever. These parties came into conflict with each other, during the first and second centuries.

As this conflict continued throughout the first century, different men manifested different attitudes toward the law. Yet, the truth as the Holy Spirit proclaimed it through Paul received the full approval of the Jerusalem apostles, and prevailed. He stated that he became a Jew to the Jews and acted like a Gentile to the Gentiles. He wrote,

For though I be free from all men, yet have 1 made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that 1 might gain the Jews; to them that, are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some (I Cor. 9:19-22).

This passage reveals that Paul’s studied conduct was to present himself inoffensive to the people with whom he was laboring. Hence, when among Jews, he kept the law of Moses (Acts 21:26); when among the Gentiles, he conducted himself as a Gentile.

Yet, there is no doubt that Paul’s inspired view was opposed in the New Testament era. The Gentiles thought that he made too many concessions to the Jews; the Jews thought that he forsook the law of Moses. Yet Paul did neither. In living in obedience to the law of Christ, he tried to accept the differing cultures of both groups.

Under Law To Christ

Although the Christian does not live under the Mosaical law and is not justified through perfect obedience to any law, he is, nevertheless, under law. Paul stated that although he was not under the Mosaical law, he was “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). In the book of Galatians, one of the great treatises against justification through perfect obedience to law, he stated that one should. fulfill the “law of Christ”. (Gal. 6:2). James also spoke f “the perfect law of liberty” (Jas: 1:25; 2:12). From these passages, we see a reference to law under which Christians live. Let us notice the following points from this observation.

1. If there was no law, there would be no transgression. The point which we observed with reference to those who lived prior to the giving of the Mosaical law needs to be restated with reference to those who are living after the law of Moses was abrogated. Sin is the transgression of the law (1,,1n. 3:4). Where there is no law, there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15; 5:13). If a person is going to be guilty of sin today, there must be a law in force. Those who state that there is no law in force today have denied the need for Christ. Without law, there is no sin; without sin, there is no guilt and penalty for sin; without the penalty of sin, there is no need for Christ. Hence, to deny that (here is a law for people today is to deny the need for Christ.

2. The law of Christ provides a remedy for the sins of mankind. The Mosaical law had nothing but the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats to atone for sin; yet, the blood of bulls and goats was not sufficient to pay the penalty of sin (Heb. 10:4). The person who sought to live under the law of Moses in rejecting the Christ as the Savior of the world was left with no method of justification but to keep the law of Moses perfectly. However, through Christ one can obtain forgiveness of sins. Though he is under law to God, he is not in bondage to sin because of the forgiveness of sins which is available to him through Christ. He is delivered from the body of this death through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 7:24-25); there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

One can understand why James could refer to the law under which we Christians live as a law of .liberty (Jas. 1:25; 2:12) in contrast to the law of condemnation which, left man dead inns t’respa’sses and sins. The law of Christ provides a way of releasing a man from the guilt and penalty of his sins. The blood of Christ which has been shed for the sins of mankind redeems man from the curse of sin.

3. There is a revealed pattern of conduct by which men are to live. Without law, man would be left free to live as he might please. Yet, Christianity is not ethical anarchy, religious worship without rules, or any other form of religious subjectivism. God has a law for men today which is variously known as the “law of liberty” or “law of Christ.” Inasmuch as it is also derived from God, it can also be called a law of God. This law details a pattern of ethics, a pattern of worship, and other matters revealed to man from God.

This law is not merely an outward code by which men keep the letter of the law, It is a law which penetrated much deeper than that. The prophet Jeremiah prophesied of this new law saying, “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts” (as quoted in Heb. 8:10). The new covenant under which we live is written in the fleshly tables of the heart (2 Cor. 3:3). It is a ministration of the spirit and of righteousness (2 Cor. 3:8, 9). The crucified and risen Savior is at the heart of the gospel system in all its parts. And that Savior exalted in man’s heart is the secret of the gospel’s unique spiritual power. The word of God is spiritual and life-giving, not a grievous burden (Jn. 6:63; 1 Jn. 5:1-4). One can certainly see from these references that man is not left without a divinely revealed standard of conduct for this age.

Conclusion

From this study of the usage of law in the New Testament, we draw the following conclusions:

(1) Man cannot be saved through perfect law-keeping of any law.

(2) Man can be saved without living in obedience to the law of Moses.

(3) Man is saved conditionally on the ground of Jesus’ shed blood.

(4) Man is presently to live in obedience to the law of Christ.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 11, pp. 179-181
March 13, 1980