Truth Magazine

By Ronald D. Hooves

A Questionable Power

Our intrepid author decided to end his scholarly section of the book with an emotional appeal.

It is also true that if once put away he can never remarry, the wife has the power to restore his home with her or put him away and thus deny him the right to ever be married again. Would you care to have such power? If you had it would you dare exercise it? Remember, even if you should die, his sentence of celibacy continues until his death!(1)

Apparently Hale is trying to frighten us off firm ground with scare tactics. Brethren, I do not shed tears when the murderer is executed, the rapist locked up, and the thief put behind bars. Law, civil or spiritual, is a product of the divine right to rule and to enforce penalties. Without laws and without penalties for those laws, we would be an anarchical society.

We never rejoice at the unfortunate circumstances of others, but neither can we afford to shed crocodile tears when justice is meted out. That God gives the innocent party of Matthew 19 this prerogative is sensible, just and a fitting deterrent for a most heinous crime. Let us hold up the hands of those who must make these decisions and not brow beat them into distraction with our misplaced emotions.

Grammar, Grammar, Grammar

Pages 32 through 44 of our subject text deal with ten common objections to Brother Hales thesis. I have chosen to deal with objection number 4 which I find the most objectionable of all. In four pages Brother Hale seeks to prove his point by using the grammatical argument. Several years ago when I held Brother Hales position, this is what had convinced me. Someone said “Why the grammar proves it,” and whipped out a sentence diagram showing the “except for fornication” phrase modifying the second clause in the compound sentence of Matthew 19:9. In other words, “Whosoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery, unless she was put away for fornication, and then its okay.” This is where Brother Hale should have pitched his tent to begin with. If that is what the scripture says then that is what the true believer will hold fast to. It matters not if the implications of the position demand that the whole civilization comes tumbling down around our ears. “What does the scripture say?”

Some General Objections

Brother Hale makes an argument that smacks of intellectualism. How many times have I heard a Christian Church preacher say, “Well, if you non-instrumentalists knew the Greek, you would admit that we’re right.” I distrust anyone who cannot find their position in the English Bible. One of my all time favorite quotes is from Brother Edgar Srygley who says he is often asked if you have to know Greek to go to heaven!

My second general objection is that Brother Hale again finds himself in the same old quandry of having to quote himself as an authority. He comments,

Firm Foundation (Fib. 20, 1973, p. 921) carried a diagram of Matthew 5:32, diagrammed by a Greek teacher in one of our Christian colleges. It did not carry the Greek words, so they have been supplied . . . . while I do not believe the diagram is strictly correct (emp. mine – rdh) I would like to use it, but, with one addition. Please note apart from a matter of fornication on the dotted lines. This indicates it as being understood.(2)

He does not believe it is strictly correct, but offers us no scholastic credentials to challenge those of the Greek teacher. Not only that, but our intrepid brother puts himself up against 500 years of English Bible translations when he says “excuse me while I insert this little phrase down here” (paraphrase mine – rdh). At this point, I am inclined to say, “I don’t care that you don’t believe it is correct Brother Hale. That is not the issue. What can you prove?”

In another of his amazing attempts to enlist support for his views, he resorts to Dean Alford again. Again, he winds up having to admit

the witness is unfriendly to the position herein advocated.(3)

Even a casual observer would cross his eyes at this juncture and ask, “Why use a man as an authority when he doesn’t agree with you?” Alford knew the grammar backwards and forwards which is evident from Hale’s respect for him, and yet Alford did not believe the scripture taught what Hale says it does.

But now, what about grammatical argument, or logical implication, or that inserted, understood phrase? Does it really belong. there in the second clause? Several universities have been polled on this question and here is a sampling of their replies to our question, “Gramatically speaking, does the phrase except for fornication modify the clause in the compound sentence in Mt. 19:9?

Texas Tech: “From a strictly grammatical standpoint the phrase except for fornication modifies whosoever shall put away his wife.”

University of Georgia: “The phrase except for fornication should not be read into the second clause.”

University of Wisconsin: “No, it is not possible for the except to modify both clauses.”

This is just a drop in the bucket sampling of the overwhelming grammatical evidence against Brother Hale’s position. Our young adult class here at St. Paul, polled 35 state universities on this question. The results are overwhelming. Simply put, the verse does not say what Brother Hale wants it to say. It does not say it. It does not mean it. It does not imply it. It does not teach it.

Finally

I hope for this article a wide circulation among those of my brethren whose lives have been touched by this false doctrine. It must be met and defeated, we must speak out, as truth cannot defend itself. My personal thanks to Cecil Willis and Glenn Burt who paddled my britches on this topic four years ago.

Recommended Reading

1. Except For Fornication, Roy Deaver, a review in Spiritual Sword, Vol. 6, number 2, pp. 14-26, Jan. 1975.
2. Divorce and Remarriage, J. D. Thomas, B.R. Press (Abilene, 1977).
3. Divorce and Remarriage, Gene Frost, series in Gospel An chor’ (Louisville, Jan.-Feb. 1979).

Endnotes:

1. Op. Cit., Lewis G. Hale, p. 30.

2. Ibid, p. 36.

3. Ibid, p. 39 (see also Greek Testament, Vol. 1, Henry Alford,) (Chicago, 1958), p. 194.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 49, pp. 792-793
December 13, 1979

By Bob Tuten

Apologetics And Oppositions

Became the religious periodicals played such an important role during the controversy over instruments and are the source from which we draw a great deal of information during these periods, it seems quite appropriate to mention the leading ones and their editorial positions.

The Apostolic Times, which was begun in April of 1869, could not accept the missionary society, yet it accepted instruments of music. Their position was commonly referred to as the “middle of the road” stand. For awhile this position was popular but gradually faded because of its inconsistency. Most came to realize that opposing instruments as human additions to divine worship was in principle the same as opposing missionary societies as human additions to divine work. The Christian Standard was led to accept the instrument on the same grounds that it accepted the society. The American Christian Review and The Gospel Advocate also saw the inconsistency of a “middle of the road” position and naturally rejected the society.

Such leading men in the brotherhood as A.S. Hayden, Isaac Errett, N.A. Walker, L.L. Pinkerton, and J.B. Briney placed the authority for the use of instrumental music upon expediency.

The apology chiefly used for introducing the instrument was the rapidly changing world. The frontier had pushed on westward; larger cities were growing up in the mid-west. Science was making new discoveries. The train was increasing its speed and efficiency, tying the country closer together. New standards were arising, and consequently, society was raising its requirements. Some felt that a worship without an instrument was all right in a society that was accustomed only to the backwoods, but new standards of respectability were now set up, and the church to be progressive must meet these standards.(1)

With N.A. Walker, however, it was more than just expediency. He sold instruments to churches for which he conducted meetings around the country and thus found himself in a profitable business. Walker evidently felt that the instrument helped convert people to Christ and reported baptizing three hundred people and using an instrument in every service except one. J.B. Briney, who at first rejected the instrument, but later favored its use, made an interesting statement concerning Walker in the American Christian Review which follows:

I suppose he has an improved edition of the commission to this effect: “Go preach the gospel and play on an instrument to every nation!” What a mistake the Savior made in leaving the instrument out of the commission. When N.A. Walker can convert (?) three hundred persons per annum by the use of the instrument, while he might fail altogether with the simple gospel!

With N.A. Walker I am personally unacquainted, but how to reconcile a disposition to travel through the country sowing the seed of discord and strife among brethren with the spirit of the Master, I know not . . . .

He knows that its introduction has caused strife and contention in various places, and, in some degree, injured the influence of some congregations. He knows that some of his preaching brethren cannot conscientiously preach for a congregation where an instrument is used. He knows that leaving the instrument off can do no harm, while taking it on must work mischief. He knows this and much more, and yet he is going through the country introducing the instrument wherever he can, and organizing churches with it . . . .

“Concerning him, I can only say to the brethren, “Ephraim is joined to his idols. let him alone.”(2)

Those opposing the use of instruments in worship were such men as Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscortb, W.K. Pendleton, Ben Franklin, D.P. Henderson, J.W. McGarvey, Robert Richardson, Moses E. Lard, and Alexander Campbell, although Campbell was too old for the most part before the controversy rose to its peak. These individuals could not see grounds for expediency. To them, instruments were human additions to divine worship. The following articles appeared in The Christian Standard:

It was expediency that caused the Pope and Church of Rome to make the change from immersion to sprinkling and pouring. in Christian baptism; and that caused the same “church” to introduce the organs in the worship of God, or what was styled that worship. From the Roman Catholics the Episcopalians got it; and thus it has come on down to us of the present day. The chart of God’s word is the only safe guide in religion. As long as we adhere to that, properly or correctly interpreted, there is no danger; but when we leave it, there is no telling where we will float to or land.(3)

As regards the use of musical instruments in church worship, the case is wholly different. This can never be a question of expediency, for the simple reason that there is no law prescribing or authorizing it. If it were anywhere said in the New Testament that Christians should use instruments, then it would become a question of expediency what kind of instruments was to be used, whether an organ or melodeon, the “loud-sounding cymbals,” or the light guitar”; whether it should cost $50 or $500 or $1,000, and what circumstances should regulate the performance.(4)

Those in favor of instruments felt that the use of them was not a transgression. of law since there was no law on that point and was, thus, expedient. The objection to this, however, was that expediency has to do with the manner, time, means, and circumstances of doing things authorized by God. No question of expediency can arise until it is first proven that the things themselves are lawful and proper to be done.

With the controversy intensifying with the passing of time, the ultimate end had to be division. As early as 1864, Moses E. Lard gave these suggestions as a remedy for disciples defending the apostolic pattern who were being forced to worship with the instrument by majority rule.

1. Let every preacher in our ranks resolve at once that he will never, under any circumstances or on any account, enter a meeting house belonging to our brethren in which an organ stands. We beg and entreat our preaching brethren to adopt this as an unalterable rule of conduct. This and like evils must be checked, and the very speediest way to effect it is to one here suggested.

2. Let no brother who takes a letter from one church even unite with another using an organ. Rather let him live out of a church rather than go into such a den.

3. Let those brethren who oppose the introduction of an organ first remonstrate in gentle, kind of decided terms. If their remonstrance is unheeded, and the organ is brought in, then let them at once, and without even the formality of asking for a letter, abandon the church so acting; and let all such members unite elsewhere. Thus these organ-grinding churches will in the lapse of time be broken down, or wholly apostatize, and the sooner they are in fragments the better for the cause of Christ.(5)

Division had not been considered too often prior to 1870 except to say that both sides were blaming the other for making it a test of fellowship. Finally in 1870 John Rogers laid down a pattern which proved useful later for those of the minority. He said, “If the whole congregation, after all laudable means have been used, persist in the use of organs, or any other objectionable thing, we must withdraw from such disorderly congregations, and go where we can worship with a good conscience.”(6)

By 1906 two separate groups were listed in the United States Census of Religious Bodies. Those using instrumental music were known as Christian Churches or Disciples of Christ; those refusing to use it were known as Churches of Christ.

Endnotes:

1. West, Op. Cit., Vol. II., p. 83.

2. J.B. Briney, “The Organ or the Gospel – Which?”, American Christian Review, Vol. XIII., No. 7 (February 15, 1870), p. 50.

3. Alexis, “Alexis on Instrumental Music in Worshiping of God in Christian Congregations,” Christian Standard, Vol. IV., No. 19 (May 8, 1869, p. 145.

4. Robert Richardson, “Expediency,” Christian Standard, Vol. III (1868), p. 409.

5. Moses E. Lard, “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing,” Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. I., No. 3 (March, 1864), pp. 332, 333.

6. John 1. Rogers, “Objectionable Language,” Apostolic Times, Vol. 11., No. 26 (October 6, 1870), p. 206.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 49, pp. 791-792
December 13, 1979

By Dudley Ross Spears

Would it surprise you to know that the average member of the Jehovah’s Witness cult has read at least fifty books that improves his knowledge of the errors that cult propagates? About the same could be said of the Mormons. I have never seen a poll among members of the Lord’s church, but no one should be surprised to find that the percentage is far below that of the cults in this world.

How many books do you buy a year? How much money do you spend on religious literature? If your answer is an average of $7.50 per week, you are probably a gospel preacher. But I am writing to you – the man or woman the teen-age boy or girl – who think of yourself as “just an average member of the church.” How much do you spend on religious literature? If you compared the amount you spend on religious publications with, say, the TV Guide or Teen Magazine, or The Wall Street Journal, what would the comparison be?

I have much more in mind than trying to boost sales for some religious bookstore. While we should all wish every store that sells good religious print success, the important thing is to get good material into the homes and eventually into the minds and lives of members of the Lord’s church. The more reading you do on things pertaining to the kingdom of God, the more useful you will be in that kingdom.

It is necessary to be selective in buying good religious reading matter. So much that one finds on the book shelves of bookstores nowadays is wasted paper and ink. Recently some book company put on a sale in Bowling Green and offered for only eight cents a copy of The Search for Noah’s Ark. It might have been a good purchase – but that is up for question. I am sure that there are more valuable books for the Christian’s library than some of the denominational offerings that are either on some highly speculative subject or deal only with someone and their personal experience. It is important to be selective.

In order to be selective, there are a few tips that might be worthwhile. I hope that those who are not gospel preachers have continued to read. I offer these tips to those who may simply want to have some good religious reading materials around the house and also want to put them to use. Take these tips for what they are worth.

1. Buy books that are written by authors you know something about. By this is meant that, if you really want to get the most benefit from a book, know something about what the author stands for. Having studied the issue of premillennialism, I would not buy much that comes from the pen of Scofield. I know of too many errors he teaches. Probably the “average member of the church” knows some of our own brethren who have books in print. It is usually safe to buy books published by those with whom we have something in common.

2. Buy books on subjects that you are interested in. That may sound like something too puerile for you, but it is important. Only the foolishly rich will buy things they never intend to use. Do you buy clothes you never intend to wear, or food you have no idea of ever eating or automobiles you will never drive or a house you intend to remain empty and idle? A book may be one of the best ever written, but if it remains as part of the decor for the family room, what value is it? So, if you are interested in a subject, find a book on that subject written by an author in whom you have confidence and get it.

3. Buy good standard reference books. I mean by that such books as Davis Bible Dictionary, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Strong’s (or Young’s) Complete Concordance, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine and a good commentary on the Old and New Testament like Adam Clarke or Matthew Henry. Albert Barnes Commentary is also a good investment.

4. Buy books that are marked down in price. Just to show you I am not trying to boost any particular book store, buy books where you can get them cheapest. Not only do you save money, you have the satisfaction of telling others how much you saved. Look for damaged editions that usually are marked down; nearly every good book store has some that are slightly marred either in shipping or from fabrication.

5. Make a budget for religious material for your home. Like the rest of your household necessities, budget a little for the purchase of good religious material. Say you budget $2.50 per week – that will amount to $10.00 per month. Most of the time you can buy one good book for that and at the end of a year you could have purchased the entire set of Barnes Notes.

I imagine some of you who have read this far know of a few tricks that would help me. If so, I would like to know them from you. It is still true that, “a smart person takes money from the pocket and puts it in the mind.” One last suggestion is to subscribe for all the religious magazines you can afford. Do that for one year and then the next year weed out the ones that do not offer you the help you want.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 49, p. 790
December 13, 1979

By Earl Robertson

Peter wrote to people who had purified their souls in obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). The truth they had obeyed is also identified as seed incorruptible, which he declares to be the “word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:23). Though man is like the grass and his glory as the flower of the grass, the word of God is not. In contradistinction to the weaknesses and frailties of man, the word of the Lord endureth for ever (1 Pet. 1:25). Furthermore, Peter adds, “And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Pet. 1:25). The word “word” translates rhema, meaning the thing said.

God says things to man in the gospel! It is not a meaningless message or a dead letter; the gospel is God’s means of conveying His word to man. It must not, therefore, be taken lightly. What God says to man is essential to one’s morals and spiritual life. One is unable to live acceptably to the Lord in the absence of what He says in the gospel. Jesus emphasized the fact that man lives by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4).

Inasmuch as man cannot guide himself (Jer. 10:23), and this means any man in any age, he so definitely needs the word of the Lord. Man does not change and his needs remain constant. This being true, man needs a guide in and for life that is constant. This is why Peter says the word of the Lord endureth for ever and that it liveth and abideth for ever. Not only does the word of the Lord convict man of sin and imperfections (cf. Acts 2), but it complements and meets every need of man morally and spiritually. Furthermore, it guides man in acceptable worship to God. In fact, the manner of one’s life and his worship to God can be acceptable only in the authorization of the word preached by the gospel (Col. 3:17). There will never come a time when man has a need of his nature but what the word of the Lord will be present to guide him. The word of Faith preached by the apostles was exactly what the Lord gave them to preach to produce faith in the hearts of men (Rom. 10:8-18). These words were the means used by the Lord to save sinners (Acts 11:14). These very words` are also the means by which Christians grow in the Lord (1 Pet. 2:2), and will ultimately be the standard of judgment itself (John 12:48). Yes, the word will be here when the world is on fire and will judge us all!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 49, p. 789
December 13, 1979