Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The churches of Christ at Knollwood in Xenia, Ohio, and at Dorothy Avenue in Fairborn have differed for several years on the covering question and women teachers. Brethren at both places have generally respected each other’s convictions with quietness and encouraged one another in gospel labors. Recent strains in our relations led to the J.W. Holcomb – Weldon Warnock debate on 3-4 and 6-7 December 1979. Among brethren generally, there have been strained relations at times over several recurring questions: the covering, woman teachers, exchanging gifts as a private family affair in December, belonging to unions, women wearing slacks, Sunday evening communion, funerals and weddings in the meetinghouse, kneeling for prayer, the “located” preacher, the right of private foundations and colleges which provide Bible teaching to exist (those kept separate from the church), and similar issues. An important feature of the Holcomb- Warnock debate was the emphasis on opposite approaches to unity in connection with many such issues.

Background To This Debate

Glen Begley, who preaches regularly for the Dorothy Avenue church, worked and stood with Holcomb during his debate with Art Ogden in nearby Cincinnati (26-27, 29-30 March 1979). Brother Holcomb charged there that Knollwood has used “woman preachers.” His “evidence” was Knollwood’s meeting on “The Home” in the fall of 1978 when Irven Lee spoke each evening and his wife taught a ladies class each morning. Churches using such “preachers” would eventually put these women in the pulpits, Holcomb asserted. In spite of protests from Knollwood brethren,, brother Begley gave his assent and approval to such misrepresentations rather than correcting them. Believing that such conduct breeds misunderstanding and strained relations among brethren, Knollwood’s elders had correspondence with Dorothy Avenue initiated within one week of the Cincinnati debate, proposing a debate between representative men to be selected by each church. The motive was to encourage serious Bible study and a better understanding on both sides in regard to differences between us. The debate has implications beyond our local situation since Holcomb regularly debates these issues and some churches have been divided by them.

When Fairborn submitted their propositions, J.W. Holcomb of Catlettsburg, Kentucky offered to affirm that a Christian woman is commanded “to wear a covering in an assembly of the church where praying and teaching is being done.” He also offered to deny that the church in using the class arrangement “may appoint women to be teachers of classes of other women and classes of children.” One positive and one negative proposition on each subject was submitted (rather than the correct procedure of each person simply affirming his own practice). Knollwood had Weldon E. Warnock of Akron, Ohio to sign the propositions and they were returned as quickly as possible. Warnock had debated Holcomb in 1956 at Carter City, Kentucky.

Censorship Stipulation

But brother Holcomb had included the stipulation, “No one is to write any review of the debate, nor any other article concerning the debate, to be printed in any bulletin or other religious journal, without the written consent of both disputants.” Shocked at this call for censorship, brother Warnock appended a note saying he had “no disposition to try to control what others write.” When letters from Begley and Holcomb made it plain that there would be no debate unless the condition were signed, Warnock decided to sign and to explain his feeling about it during the debate. Besides, letters from Knollwood were taking 6-9 weeks for Fairborn toe answer and the agreed dates for debate were drawing near. Knollwood agreed that the censorship stipulation would be read at each session of the debate and it was.

Four Fundamental Points

The first two propositions dealt with the covering and were discussed at Knollwood on 3-4 December with 218 and 243 attending. Ron Halbrook moderated and Mike Willis kept time for brother Warnock; Emery M. McCallister moderated and Joe Hill kept time for brother Holcomb. In Warnock’s opening speech on the negative proposition, he said that the disputants actually had no control over written reviews. But since he had agreed at Holcomb’s insistence to give reviews his written consent, he wrote his name on the blackboard and told reviewers to “go at it.”

Four major points were made by Warnock. (1) Brethren who require women to wear coverings in assemblies of the church today assume without positive evidence that the assembly of the church is under consideration in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. (2) The subjects addressed in reference to the need of a covering in the passage are assumed to be all women in general, but the passage says the woman who speaks in prayer or prophecy. (3) Prophecy is assumed to be uninspired teaching, or worse yet; listening to someone else speak. Holcomb worded the proposition “praying and teaching” whereas the passage said “praying or prophesying. ” Prophesying in the New Testament refers to delivering inspired revelation. Rather than merely being in the presence of teaching done by others, the prophetess herself spoke under divine inspiration. (4) It is assumed that almost anything can be worn for a covering. The garb worn by women today as coverings do not cover or veil as the passage teaches because they do not hang down to cover fully the head.

“Scarlet Sin” and Fellowship

During his speech, Warnock quoted Holcomb’s cohort Gary W. Halcomb in the August 1979 Opening the Scriptures (bulletin of Pisgah Church of Christ at West Chester, Ohio), “Not wearing the coverings of long hair (vs. 15) and the artificial covering (vv. 5, 6, 10) while praying or prophesying is scarlet sin, just as scarlet as hypocrisy (see Isa. 1:18). There are no little sins.” “All women who refuse to wear both of the coverings are guilty of unrighteousness.” Warnock asked whether J.W. Holcomb endorsed such strictures and specifically whether this means the covering is a test of fellowship, adding his own fervent plea that such not be done. This plea was ardently repeated throughout the debate.

Holcomb endorsed the “scarlet sin” statement and addressed the question, “Is this a cause of disfellowship?” His answer was plain enough as he spoke of what God has commanded of a woman and how that those who do not comply have sinned and transgressed against God. Attempting to shift the pressure, Holcomb challenged, “Let’s put the shoe on the other foot,” and asked, “Do you fellowship us?” As the point was pursued each night, Warnock repeated his willingness to recognize his brethren in Christ without making a test of the covering and woman teacher issues, while Holcomb repeated with increasing vehemence his unwillingness. The Knollwood church called on those who differ from us to lead prayer at the debate but this manifestation of desire for unity was not reciprocated at Fairborn. The original incident which precipitated the debate was Holcomb’s attack on sister Lee’s classes at Knollwood, in which we labored in the gospel harmoniously with the Lees though differing from them on the covering. Holcomb made it clear that he does not want to see such joint efforts where we differ on personal conscience. His insistence on division is why a debate instead of a gospel meeting was held with him, whereas a gospel meeting rather than a debate was held with the Lees because they insist on unity in these matters!

Holcomb was angered by Warnock’s solution to the censorship stipulation, as could be seen when Holcomb thundered,

Now I’m going to tell you, brethren, I say that if you write anything – any article about this – without my written consent, you sin against God! You’ve offended a brother. And it’s wrong and sinful to offend a brother. I don’t want you doing it. I ask you not to do it until I see it. You know why? I don’t trust what these men write about what I said (all quotations taken directly from tapes, RH).

The irony of an experienced preacher misusing the Bible word “offend” in such a manner never occurred to Holcomb, even when it was pointed out. Because censorship could not be imposed, Holcomb charged in his closing speech 7 December that both Warnock and Knollwood’s elders are “dishonorable” and “liars.”

Holcomb sought to negate Warnock’s four fundamental arguments. (1) Warnock needs to read what the scholars say on whether the assembly is in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Adam Clarke is quoted with the additional explanation that “every scholar that I’ve ever checked says that 1 Corinthians 11 was dealing with a public assembly of the church.” Holcomb agreed that some teaching was done outside the assembly but repeatedly stressed that “every scholar I’ve ever checked on says this was dealing with the public assembly.” Next, he turned to the subjects addressed and the prophesying, points (2) and (3) in Warnock’s outline. Paul was concerned with all women, it was asserted. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 corrects women praying and prophesying uncovered, but 14:34-36 forbids their praying and prophesying at all in assemblies, said Holcomb. Barnes’ Notes was quoted to show that the women were speaking but that Paul waited to deal with that until chapter 14. Young’s Analytical Concordance was quoted in an attempt to show that prophesying was not inspired revelation in I Corinthians 11 but might be ordinary preaching or singing in such passages. Furthermore, he argued,

The trouble in people studying 1 Corinthians 11 is that they think that Paul is saying, “You women cover your heads when you pray and prophesy.” That’s not what the passage says.

Some women were doing this, Holcomb conceded, but Paul was not justifying such practices. Paul did not intend to teach, “Cover your head and go ahead and do this praying and prophesying.” Holcomb explained that “we teach by singing but I want to insist that that was not the prophesying that Paul particularly was talking about in 1 Corinthians 11. If so, they would all have to sing one by one and they would have to sing solos.” So “singing is a form of prophecy” but not the form discussed in 1 Corinthians 11. The speaking in I Corinthians 11 was not inspired, but, “All the scholars I read after said that on a pretense of inspiration they were speaking in the church.” As to whether these women were inspired, Holcomb proclaimed, “Ten thousand times, No!” (4) The covering Paul specified covered the head but not the face, Holcomb asserted.

To Kiss or Not to Kiss

During the second round of speeches on 3 December, each disputant pressed the points already introduced. Warnock said that Holcomb’s explanations of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 put Paul in the ludicrous position of saying, “Ladies, when you sin put on your veil.” When Warnock referred to the holy kiss and foot washing as commands limited to first century circumstances, Holcomb answered that both practices are still literally binding today and had a brother to testify that Holcomb had kissed him that very night. Warnock pointed out the next night in view of “greet one another with a holy kiss” that it was insufficient for Holcomb to kiss this man without being kissed back. When Warnock asked the man if he kissed Holcomb back, the answer was an eloquent silence!

On 4 December, Holcomb was in the affirmative arguing that because of man’s headship the woman in every age is obligated to worship with her head covered in some fashion. Most of the material presented by each speaker this night reiterated and emphasized the points made the first night. To preclude inspired speech in 1 Corinthians 11, Holcomb said that the phrase in 12:1, “Now concerning spiritual gifts,” means Paul “hadn’t been talking about spiritual gifts prior to that.” If that be the case, Warnock answered, then the phrase in 11:17, “Now in this . . . that ye come together,” means that Paul had not discussed the assembly prior to that. Also, Holcomb’s claim that I Corinthians 11 and 14 are Siamese twins inseparably connected in teaching must mean spiritual gifts are in both passages because Holcomb admits they are in chapter 14.

“A Born Natural Instinct” to Sin?

A startling argument was made, illustrating how far a man can go in his determination to make a point regardless of the extreme consequences. Holcomb argued that the glory of the hair covering is taught and buttressed by “nature” (1 Cor. 11:14), a word which he said uniformly means in Scripture “the natural nature that was born in them – that natural instinct . . . . that nature in us when we’re born . . . . that natural instinct in them.” Nature never means custom or second nature but in all cases is “talking about the way we were born into this world,” he said. W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was quoted in bold letters on a large chart to show that nature always means “the natural powers of constitution of a person or thing” in 1 Corinthians 11 and every other passage, including Ephesians 2:3. The latter speaks of men being “by nature the children of wrath,” meaning by inborn, innate, or natural instinct according to Holcomb. Warnock protested that this is Calvinist teaching! He quoted Thayer to show that nature can mean a native sense of propriety accomplished by training or learned by instruction (Thayer lists 1 Cor. 11:14 under this definition, p. 660); this is the meaning in passages such as Ephesians 2:3. Trying to salvage his argument on nature (6 December), Holcomb said that he rejected the Calvinist idea that we are born in sin but asserted that nature means “a born natural instinct” to sin in Ephesians 2:3. Said he,

Now what does that passage teach? Well, we have an instinct in us that when we reach the years of accountability, that we immediately commit sin. Why is it that everybody has to obey the gospel? Why is it that all are included under sin?

. . . There is by nature, born in a person – Paul said there’s a warfare in my body. That, that I would, I do not. And that, that I would not, that I do. Why certainly when a person reaches the years of accountability, the natural thing is they do wrong.

The chart on “Holcomb’s Calvinism,” quoted the Second Helvetic Confession and Calvin’s Institutes, both standards of Calvinism for hundreds of years, to show that Calvinism not only teaches that we are born in sin but also that we are born with the innate corruption or natural instinct to commit sin.

Holcomb’s Calvinism
Vine:	“Phusis. . . (a) the nature . . . the natural powers or constitution of a person or thing, Eph. 2:3 . . .” (Vol. III, p. 103).
Holcomb:	Baby is born with a natural instinct to sin.
Synonyms:	instinctive, innate, inborn, hereditary, inherited, natural, intrinsic
Second Helvetic Confession	Sin . . . that innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us all from our first parents, by which we, immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good, are inclined to all evil.
Calvin:	Original sin . . . corruption of our nature . . . which brings forth in us . . . works of flesh (Institutes, Bk. II, Ch. 1, No. 8).
Is This Man A Safe Teacher?

On the one hand, Holcomb argued that man learned and obeyed truth by natural instinct: the Gentiles of Romans 2 learn to do right by nature; men learn by nature that a woman’s long hair is a glory and therefore her trimming it a shame. On the other hand, he fought to the end for the Calvinistic idea that man sins by natural instinct. But pointing out the Calvinist quotations and his own contradictions did not deter him from the theory necessary to prop his argument on the covering. He continued to assert that his arguments are so simple and convincing that local churches must discipline those who disagree and that division must come.

Since Holcomb stressed for two nights that “every scholar I’ve ever checked” said that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 involved the affairs of the church assembled: Warnock presented a chart giving references from several imminent commentators who did not take such an approach (Lenski, Meyer, Beet, Grosheide, Vine, Bengel, Schaff). As to Holcomb’s denial that inspiration is in the chapter and his appeal to scholarship, a chart giving fifteen authorities in addition to the oft-quoted Thayer was presented (Hodge, Michaelis, Meyer, Bengel, Bloomfield, Roberts, Weiss, Alford, Vine, Findlay, Barrett, Wilson, Friedrich, Adam Clarke, and E.P. Gould). Referring to the Judgment Day to come, Holcomb claimed to be a prophet: “I’m quoting divine inspiration. Therefore that’s a form of prophecy.” On that basis, Warnock said that he would be the President if he quoted one. Holcomb’s complaint that he is often misrepresented was dealt with by means of the Merry-Go-Round chart; at different times he made prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11 singing, pretense, listening, and the uninspired teaching that faithful men can do today.

 

 

Holcomb’s claim that the chapter does not say to “cover your heads when you pray and prophesy” was countered by quoting the New American Standard, Machen, and Meyer, who translate “while” or “when” in the passage. After appealing to a couple of commentaries and being answered on the ground of reliable scholarship, Holcomb decided there needs to be a debate in which dictionaries, commentaries, and other reference works could not be used!

Unity Plea Rejected

Warnock continued to insist that whereas there must be unity in the faith (Jade 3), there also must be liberty in matters of personal conscience, devotion, or opinion. He pled for brethren united in the faith not to divide over personal convictions about wearing or not wearing the covering. But Holcomb continued to insist, on the covering issue.

Now I want to tell you something, friends. When you fail to practice what the Bible says for you women to do to show your subjection to the man, then you are destroying the principle of headship and you can’t go to heaven and do it.

In view of what Holcomb considered the damning nature of this “sin” (not wearing the artificial covering), he rejected Warnock’s unity plea.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 10,pp. 169-171
March 6, 1980

By Leonard Tyler

In Luke 18:1-14 are two parables on prayer. Both of these present some needful thoughts regarding prayer. Both impress that God hears and responds to the prayers of His children. The purpose of the first parable was: “that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.” This instruction goes right along with Paul’s, “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). Did this mean that Jesus expected those of His day to be on their knees at all times or uttering a prayer without stopping? If He did, they did not obey and neither did He practice it nor did His disciples. It must have meant something other than that. Yet, it meant a constancy. To me, what it meant then it means now. We should pray “always, without ceasing,” just as they were taught to pray in the first century. If not, why not?

The parable of the unjust judge teaches this very lesson. He neither feared God, nor regarded man. This was a wicked, unbelieving judge. He did not subject himself to the law which constituted him a judge (Ex. 18:21; Deut. 16:18; 2 Chron. 19:6-7). He was not even careful to practice the law in his judgeship (Ex. 23:6-9; Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:16-17). His lack of respect for God led him to disrespect the law; and, when one disrespects God’s law, he disrespects God. One cannot respect God without respecting His law; neither can one respect God’s law without respecting God. Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). This is just as true in respect to prayer as it is in any other relationship with God.

There was a widow in the city who came to the judge asking him to “avenge me of mine adversary” or “deliver her from the oppression of unjust men.” The judge refused to give her audience at first. She kept asking until the judge finally reached the conclusion, “I had better grant her request or she will continue to annoy me.”

Jesus said, “Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?” Jesus used this type of character to impress upon each person that if an ungodly, wicked judge who cares neither for God or man, can be touched by the pleading of a widow, then surely God who loves and cares for his children will hear and answer their pleading. He said, “I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.” This teaches that God will hear. It also teaches that a faithful Christian will continue to pray and allow God to respond at His own time and way. “Avenge them speedily” seems to contradict any delay, but as the Expositors Greek Testament explains the terms, it is understandable: “Quickly, quite compatible with delay; quickly when the hour comes, that is suddenly.” God can accomplish and grant at His own will. Our part is to trust Him and be content.

The second parable teaches humility. A meek spirit is essential when one approaches God. This attitude leads one to recognize his dependence upon God. It also builds in one confidence that God is able and will hear and respond -not because of one’s own accomplishments but because of God’s grace and mercy. This, rather than overlooking man’s faith, emphasizes it.

Jesus pictures two men going into the temple to pray: one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. These two men are extremes. The Pharisee was very religious, and accepted as a teacher; the publican was much less respected, and especially in religious circles. The Pharisee was self-righteous and set others at nought. He prayed as if God did not know anything about either of them. He first told God everything that he did not do and then added all the things that he did do (vs. 11-12). He was the one classified by Jesus as “certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” An attitude of self-righteousness or self-centered religion thinks, “I do no wrong. I do right completely and am pure, clean and need no forgiveness.” Not only did he justify himself but also sat in judgment on others, “and despised others.” His prayer was about himself. A selfish prayer will not be acceptable to God.

The publican was of humble disposition. He “would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me as a sinner.” This is the attitude that all need to have toward God. We are not able – God is. We are praying – God listens and answers, if the answer comes. We need – God is the giver. We are weak – God is strong. God is our only hope for salvation – God gives help in the time of need. Therefore, we ought to approach Him in a humble, submissive and obedient spirit. This publican did. Now listen to Jesus: “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

Humility alone is not sufficient. In the parable of the rich man and the beggar, being poor was not enough. The parable teaches that if a person is going to pray acceptably to God he must do so with a humble heart. The person who humbly submits himself to God to do His will and with a meek and quiet spirit prays to God can confidently arise with assurance – God heard me.

To whom shall one pray? Paul wrote in Col. 1:3, “We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” He said to the Romans, “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8). Therefore, one’s prayer should be made to God through Jesus; our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5; Col. 3:17).

How often should one pray? Romans 12:12 answers, “rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer.” “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). One must keep his heart in a prayerful mood, being thankful to Almighty God and depending upon Him completely for every good thing. Therefore, “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). Be instant in prayer; pray always without fear. Pray wherever you are any time, always “let your requests be made known unto God.”

Why pray? “Let us therefore come boldy unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need” (Heb. 4:16).

Conclusion

The Bible plainly teaches the child of God to pray. He is to pray for all things, all. men everywhere and for his own well being. Therefore, pray. This means that God will hear. We are taught to pray not as to an idol or a post but rather to our heavenly Father and His ears are open and His hand is limited only by His own will. Pray! We need God’s help every day and every hour of our lives. In the eternal world He and He alone is our only Hope. Therefore, Pray! As Peter put it, “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.”

Robert Grant expresses it thusly:

Savior, as in dust to Thee,

Low we bow the adoring knee,

When repentant, to the skies,

Scarce we lift our weeping eyes,

O by Thy pains and woe,

Suffered once for man below,

Bending from the throne on high,

Listen to our humble cry!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 10, pp. 168-169
March 6, 1980

By Morris W.R. Bailey

In this article in this series, I shall point out that a wrong attitude toward the truth is implied in the fact that there are some who become

Enemies Because Of The Truth

The epistle to the Galatians is, perhaps, one of the most controversial of the New Testament epistles. It was written, primarily, to expose certain Judaising teachers who were endeavoring to bind circumcision and the law of Moses on Christians. It was a problem that Paul encountered many tunes during his apostolic career, and which often brought him into sharp conflict with the purveyors of this error. In recalling one particular clash – with such false teachers, he described them as, “. . . false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.” Then in speaking of the uncompromising manner in which he opposed them, Paul said, “To whom we gave place by way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:4, 5). It was obviously a hotly contested battle; but in the end it was a victory for the truth. Methinks, however, that if some of our brethren who want peace at any price had been there, they would have been shocked at the unyielding attitude of Paul, and would perhaps have suggested that he should not be so dogmatic. They might have even recommended that Paul take a course on “How To Win Friends And Influence People.”

Paul’s Concern For the Galatians

Paul’s intolerance of error is seen in his concern for the Galatian Christians who were being led astray. Early in the epistle, he expressed surprise and implied disappointment that they had been “so quickly removed from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6, 7).

In chapter three, Paul begins on a note of rebuke, with the question: “O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?” (Gal. 3:1). He thus regarded their conduct in forsaking the gospel and seeking to be justified by the law as the result of having fallen under some enchanting spell cast over them by false teachers.

In chapter four, Paul again expressed deep concern over their defection from the truth when he said, “But now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, wherein ye desire to be in bondage over again? Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain” (Gal. 4:9-11).

It was in this context of concern because of their seeking to be justified by the law that Paul, in an impassioned appeal to their better nature, asked them the question of verse sixteen: “So then, am I become your enemy, by telling you the truth?”

Hitherto Paul had seemingly been held in the highest esteem by the Galatian brethren. Something of their warm feelings toward him is implied in the following words: “I beseech you brethren, become as I am, for I also am become as ye are. Ye did me no wrong: but ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you the first time: and that which was a temptation in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where then is that gratulation of yourselves? for I bear you witness, that if possible ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me” (Gal. 4:12-15).

Whether or not Paul did incur the enmity of the Galatians because of the truth he had told them, we are not told. We do know, however, that it was his sad experience in other places. Often he had been the victim of those who became his enemies because of the truth which he preached. Paul had preached the truth without fear or favor. To the elders of the church at Ephesus, he said, “Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26, 27). No one ever had any trouble knowing where Paul stood on any issue. And it mattered not to him whether or not it pleased men. To the Galatians, he said, “For am I now seeking the favor of men or of God? or am I striving to please men. If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). So, without fear or favor he had exposed the error of false teachers (Gal. 6:12, 13) and rebuked the sins of church members (2 Cor. 12:20, 21). He had one all consuming purpose, and that was that the gospel might be preached and souls saved (1 Cor. 9:19-22).

The Grim Result

The sad story is that Paul’s determination to preach the truth often incurred the ingratitude, and even the enmity of those whom he was trying to save. Sometimes he was misunderstood. His unbounded zeal was mistaken for a misguided fanaticism (Acts 26:24). Sometimes his good intentions were misconstrued. Some in Corinth suggested that he was afraid to come there (1 Cor. 4:18) when in fact he had purposely delayed his coming in order to give them the opportunity to repent of sins that needed to be corrected, so that his coming would be an occasion of joy and not one of administering severe discipline (2 Cor. 12:19-21). Saddest of all, he was often the victim of violence. The eleventh chapter of second Corinthians tells us indignities he suffered at the hands of enemies of the truth -imprisonments, beatings, once stoned and left for dead. (vs. 23-25).

Paul was not the only one to experience the displeasure of those who were enemies of the truth. No sooner had the apostles began preaching under the great commission than the same spirit that lead men to persecute and crucify the Lord Jesus Christ was unleashed in all its fury on them. The fourth chapter of Acts tells of an imprisonment of Peter and John, instigated by the priests and Sadducees who “were sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (vs. 1-3). The fifth chapter tells of an incarceration of all the apostles, and from which they were released only after they had been beaten, and charged not to preach any more in the name of Jesus (vs. 1-3, 40). Chapter seven tells of the death of Stephen, the first martyr, the result of his blistering indictment of Jewish conduct, both present and past (51-60). Chapter twelve tells of the death of the first apostle, James, the brother of John (vs. I, 2).

An Ongoing Disposition

Human nature has not changed since the days of the apostles. There are those today whose attitudes toward the truth is such that they regard the preacher of truth as their enemy, and thus, in effect become his enemy. It is somewhat disturbing to hear someone make the claim that in years of preaching he has never made an enemy, or to hear some one praising the diplomacy (?) of some preacher who “never says anything to offend anyone”. Make no mistake about it! The gospel preacher who preaches the same gospel that Paul preached, with the same zeal, and in the same uncompromising manner will make enemies because of that truth just as Paul did. It may not result in death or even imprisonment, but in other ways he will be made to experience the displeasure of his foes. If he preaches that there is but one plan of salvation, one church, one way of getting heaven, he will be branded as narrow-minded. If he preaches as Paul preached that those who do not obey the gospel will be lost forever (2 Thess. 1:7-10), he will be accused of judging.

Enemies From Among Brethren

Enmity on the part of the unconverted, though a sad experience, is, to some degree, to be expected. Paul said, “For the word of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:18). What is even sadder, however, is the fact that some of the most bitter enemies Paul encountered were professedly brethren in Christ. This was especially true of the Jewish element. They brought with them a long-standing prejudice against Gentiles, and resented Paul’s preaching to them (Acts 22:21-22). The first two chapters of the Galatian epistle was Paul’s answer to implied efforts of false teachers to deny his apostolic authority. He called them “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4). To the Philippians, he wrote of some who “preached Christ even of envy and strife . . . thinking to raise up affliction for me in my bonds” (Phil. 1:15-17).

It can be – yea is – just as true today that some of the most bitter enmities can arise within the church of the Lord. It should not be, but it is a stubborn fact that it is. Let a preacher begin exposing worldliness in the church, and all too often he will incur the wrath of the worldlyminded. He will be called a square and out of step with modern times. Let a preacher preach about the necessity of giving of our means as we have been prospered, and he will be accused of preaching for money by the tight-fisted. Let him expose the false teaching of some brethren on premillennialism or the subject of the Holy Spirit, and he will be labelled as a heresy-hunter and troublemaker. One may criticize the church of the Lord without causing anything more than a few raised eyebrows, but let him oppose human institutions built to do the work God gave the church to do or the sponsoring church set-up, and see how quickly he is branded as an anti, church-splitter, noncooperative and other such names. Those who resort to such name-calling have proved themselves to be enemies because of the truth.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 10, pp. 166-167
March 6, 1980

By Mike Willis

The word nomos which is generally translated “law” appears a number of times in the New Testament. The greatest concentration of references to the law occur in Romans and Galatians, as one familiar with the theme of these two books would expect.

Law Before Moses

Inasmuch as sin is the transgression of the law of God (1 Jn. 3:4), where there is no law, there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 5:13). Without divine law, sin is dead (Rom. 2:8). If there was ever a period during which man had no law from God, there would have been no sin committed.

Consequently, we see that some law from God existed from creation. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. Others were guilty of sin prior to the giving of the law of Moses. Hence, Paul wrote, “For until the law (of Moses) sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law” (Rom. 5:13).

Furthermore, the Gentiles , were under law to God, though not under obligation to obey the law of Moses. Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is designed to show that the Gentiles rejected God’s revelation and turned to lawless conduct. In summation of his argument in chapter 3, Paul stated that he had proved that “both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin” (Rom. 3:9). If the Gentiles were sinners (which they were), they were under a law of some kind from God.

Whatever law the world in general was under prior to God revealing a special law through Moses was the law under which the Gentiles lived until the Christ came. They were guilty of sin because they violated that law.

The Covenant And The Law

Some people tend to confuse God’s covenant with the Law of Moses. Let us remember that God established His covenant with Abraham, promising that through his seed all families of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3), over four hundred years before the law came.

In Galatians 3:15-18, Paul affirmed that once a covenant is made between two parties, new conditions cannot be added.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise (Gal. 3:15-18).

Hence, one becomes an heir of God, not through the law, but through the covenant. Salvation comes through the covenant, with its perfect forgiveness of sin, not through mere law-keeping, with a perfect life void of all sin. In Romans 4:14, Paul, emphasized this same point; he said, “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect” (Rom. 4:14).

Understanding this, one can see that man has never been acceptable to God on the basis of perfect law-keeping. A law system of salvation never has been used for justification. If it had been used for justification, no one could have been saved.

The law of Moses was never thought of as other than divine in origin. The law came from God; Moses only repeated what God revealed to him. “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator” (Gal. 2:19). Hence, the law of Moses was the law of God.

The Law’s Demand of Perfect Obedience

The greatest concern for the book of Galatians is with reference to the law conceived as a system of justification. Paul contrasts salvation by works of obedience to the law with salvation by faith through grace in both Romans and Galatians. To understand the theme of these books, one must understand the contrast intended by Paul and his usage of the word law.

The law promised salvation to the man who obeyed its commandments. Paul stated,

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom. 2:13).

For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them (Rom. 10:5).

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal. 3:10).

Hence, life is promised to the man who obeys the law of God whereas the curse of the law falls upon the disobedient.

The law never was intended as man’s means of justification. No one has ever been justified by a flawless life of law-keeping. Paul’s argument in Romans 4 is that no one was ever expected to be justified by perfect obedience. The case of Abraham, who was justified by faith, was cited to show that God has always justified man by faith and not through perfect obedience to the Mosaical law (or any other law for that matter). Hence, Paul said, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect” (Rom. 4:13-14). Similarly, he added, “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness” (Rom. 9:31). In Galatians, Paul added the following:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (2:16).

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith (3:10-11).

What was true of the Mosaical law is true of any law. No one can be saved by perfect obedience to law inasmuch as none of us are perfect keepers of the law; we all have sinned, have become transgressors of the law, are lying under the curse of the law, and are doomed to damnation. If law could justify, there would have been no need of anything except the law of Moses; “for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal. 2:21).

Inasmuch as all men are guilty of sin, the law left man in a condemned and doomed condition. It worked wrath (Rom. 4:15); it brought death (Rom. 7:5); it left man in a wretched condition (Rom. 7:24); it left man under a curse (Gal. 3:10-11); it left all men under sin (Gal. 3:22); it left all men in prison to sin (Gal. 3:23). Hence, it was a yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1). Peter described the law as a “yoke” which “neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The law of commandments contained in ordinances was enmity (Eph. 2:15). The very strength of sin was the law (1 Cor. 15:56). The law was unable to deliver us from the bondage of sin (Rom. 8:3). It could not justify (Gal. 3:21); it made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19). Those under the law needed redemption (Gal. 4:5).

No one could live a perfect life. All men have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Jesus alone has lived a life of perfect obedience to the law. He came to this world, being subject to the law (Gal. 4:4). Though tempted in all points, He never sinned (Heb. 4:15). He was able to meet all of the law’s demands. Having lived a perfect life, He was qualified as a Lamb without blemish (1 Pet. 1:19) to be offered for the sins of the world.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was needed in order to deliver mankind from sin. Hence, Paul preached, “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sin: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39). Notice that the Law could not justify man (whether the Mosaical law or any other law; for surely no law of human origin could do what the Law of Moses could not do).

The demands of the law cannot be met by me living a perfect life, inasmuch as I am guilty of sin.-However, the demands of the law can be met by the shed blood of Christ; hence, the “righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:4). Christ is the end of the law of righteousness (Rom. 10:4).

If the law could not justify, why was it given?

Why Was The Law Given?

There are several statements in the New Testament which reveal the purpose of the law. Paul said, for example, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). We need to look at several of these statements to see God’s purpose in sending His law.

1. The law revealed sin to man. The only way in which man could know what sin is was through the revelation of God. Paul said, “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). “By the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). In this sense, the law made offences to abound (Rom. 5:20). The law “was added because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19).

When we look at this aspect of law, we appreciate the fact that God has given a law to mankind. The only thing that makes murder, rape, stealing, etc. sinful is that God has said, “Thou shalt not.” Without a revelation from God, we would not understand these things to be sinful for “where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). Hence, the existence of a law makes certain things sinful; the revelation of the law manifests to man what things displease God. God’s law is not transmitted in man’s physical nature by conception and birth any more than the guilt of sin is thusly transmitted. Special divine revelation is required in order for man to know right from wrong. Hence, the law revealed to man what sin is.

2. The law revealed the correct way of life to man. Even as the law revealed sin to man, it also revealed righteousness to man. The “law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Rom. 7:12). It was ordained to life (Rom. 7:10); that is, it was ordained to reveal the way of life to man.

As a Christian, I look upon the law of God, not as a yoke of bondage which is grievous to be borne (though were I trying to be saved through perfect obedience to law, I would probably so consider it), but as a revelation of how God wants me to live. The law reveals to me the kind of conduct which God approves and wants me to manifest in my life.

We can see therefore a two-fold purpose of the law. It was given to hold the wicked in check (1 Tim. 1:8-10) and to reveal the proper conduct in life for the righteous. For this reason, one can understand why Paul listed the giving of the law of Moses as one of the blessed privileges given to the nation of Israel (Rom. 9:4).

3. The law brought one to Christ. The law was added because of transgressions (Gal. 3:19). Its temporary nature was seen in that it was to last until “the Seed” (Christ) should come. Hence, the law was “our (the Jew’s) schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ” (Gal. 3:24). Paul told Timothy that the Sacred Writings (the Old Testament) was able to “make thee wise unto salvation which is in Christ Jesus”(2 Tim. 3:15).

4. The law typified the work of Christ. Through types and shadows, the Mosaical law foretold and explained the great work of Christ in the redemption of mankind. The book of Hebrews demonstrates this usage of the law in detail by comparing Christ to the Levitical priest and the sacrifice in Levitical worship. Without the ordinances of the law, we would have trouble understanding how Jesus is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin, of the world” (Jn. 1:29).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 10, pp. 163-165
March 6, 1980