Truth Magazine

By Jon QuinnTerrace

As the Christian seeks to bring the lost to Jesus, he will always be confronted with abuses, misuses and misunderstandings of Scripture which so characterize the mass of society today. One area where such a misunderstanding is readily seen is the utter lack of regard for the teachings of the apostles in their epistles. In the denominational world today it seems that the apostles’ teaching has become merely “Paul’s opinion” or “Peter’s point of view” or “John’s idea”-no longer authoritative today, but just a convenient way to do things in the first century. Consequently, Paul, for example, has been labeled a “male chauvinist” by some because in several of his writings they contend he downgrades the place of woman. And I have heard Peter accused of being overly influenced by the Jewish practice of immersing proselytes. This caused him to demand the penitent believers to be baptized on the day of Pentecost. The fact is that the men who wrote the New Testament were recording more than the foolish, fallible viewpoints of men and their instructions are as authoritative as the instructions spoken directly by the Lord and printed in red in some Bibles.

Jesus foresaw the writing of the New Testament during His life on earth. In fact, not only did He foresee it, but also intended it. He deliberately made provision for it by appointing, teaching, authorizing and guiding the men who wrote it. The term “apostle” is the word Jesus used to apply to the twelve men selected by Him from among all His disciples. They were chosen for a specific work (Lk. 6:12-16). Mark adds that He “sent them out to preach” (Mk. 3:14). The verb, apostella means “to send.” The mission on which the apostles were sent was essentially a teaching and preaching mission. Of course, on a few occasions, the noun apostolos is used to apply to someone other than the chosen apostles of the Lord (Acts 8:23; 14:14) but nevertheless, its use almost universally applies to the “chosen twelve.”

The word apostolos seems to be the Greek equivalent to the Aramaic shaliach which means “the one who is sent as he who sent,” that is, the apostles’ authority was not their own, but instead they carried the authority of Christ in their teachings-that even “their” teachings were not in reality their own but rather the teachings of Christ. It is this point the Lord makes when he instructs His apostles, “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives Him who sent me” (Matt. 10:40; Jn. 13:20).

The apostles, then, were a unique group among the disciples. They were unique in that the Lord had personally selected them for a specific task; they were unique in that they were personally with Jesus and had witnessed the things concerning which they wrote; and they were unique in that they were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Personal Selection and Commission

No apostle was self-appointed, nor was he selected by another man, group of men or even congregations. All were personally chosen by Jesus Christ. They were chosen by Jesus from among many disciples (Lk. 6:13). When the apostles sought for a disciple to take Judas’ place, even they dared not make the choice for themselves, but depended on the Lord to make the decision, and thus Matthias became an apostle (Acts 1:21-26). The qualifications to be met by a disciple in order to become-an apostle are given here: that he must have accompanied Jesus and witnessed His resurrection. When Jesus chose Paul to be an apostle, He appeared unto Him that he, too, might be literally an eyewitness to His resurrection (Acts 9:3-7; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:4-9).

Personal Experience

Jesus called His apostles for two reasons: (1) that they might be with Him and (2) that they might be sent out to preach (Mk. 3:14). These two reasons go together because much of the preaching that the apostles would be engaged in would be giving their eye-witness account concerning their experiences with Jesus. Jesus said to them, “You are my witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning” (Jn. 15:27; cf. Acts 1:22). This historical experience was necessary, and was kept in mind at the time Matthias was chosen to take the place of Judas. Paul was the exception to the rule and yet even Paul was granted a post-resurrection appearance of Christ that he also might be able to give his own eye-witness account concerning his own historical experience with Christ (Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 15:4-9). Nevertheless, Paul recognized that his eye-witness account was unique among the apostles-“as a child untimely born.”

Special Inspiration

While it is true that in one sense the Holy Spirit dwells in all Christians, the apostles were promised something more to aid them in their unique work of preaching and confirming the word of God. This was to insure that mankind would indeed receive the perfect and true will of God untarnished by human opinions, ideas and mistakes. Jesus promised the apostles the “keys of the kingdom” and “whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19, NASB). During the last week before Jesus’ death, He prepared His apostles for what was about to take place. He promised to send them the Comforter after He left who would teach them all things and bring to their remembrance all things that He had taught them (Jn. 14:25-26; 16:12-13). Jesus was providing that after His ascension, His apostles would continue the mission He began, and that they would not need to rely on their own fallible memories, opinions and ideas, but they would be guided to instruct others perfectly in the way of God that His word would be preserved forever. After His death and resurrection and just before He was lifted up into the clouds, Jesus again assured the apostles that the promise of the Comforter would be realized “not many days hence” (Acts 1:1-8).

This baptism of the Holy Spirit indeed became a reality on the day of Pentecost, just fifty-three days after Jesus had died for the sins of the world; it was with this special inspiration that the world was (and is) assured of receiving the pure word of God. His word was delivered to the world in the writing of the Gospels (in which the Holy Spirit guided the writers through giving them a perfect remembrance of the things that they had been taught personally by Christ) and in the writing of the epistles (in which the Holy Spirit supplemented the teachings of Christ).

So we see that Jesus purposefully prepared for the writing of the New Testament and that it was entirely written by inspired apostles or by those inspired men that were companions of the apostles (e.g., Luke, Mark). It was because of this inspiration that Paul was able to state that the message he taught was indeed “the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). And Peter could assure the Christians to which he wrote that the word they had obeyed was indeed God’s pure word which would never pass away (1 Pet. 1:22-25).

Conclusion

As we seek to teach God’s word to those about us, we might be wasting our time quoting Acts 2:38 or 22:16 et al. unless we first establish that the apostles’ words meant something, that they are more than mere opinion which we may take or leave. We need to establish that we reject Christ when we reject the apostles’ teachings. People who take only what Jesus directly instructed as He ministered in Palestine undermine all the preparation that He made in readying and teaching His apostles and deny that Jesus ever made good His promise to send the Holy Spirit which would guide the apostles “into all truth.” To reject any instructions for Christians simply because they are “only Paul’s opinions” is to reject Jesus Christ (Lk. 10:16). We do well to point people to the commands, examples and necessary inferences in the New Testament epistles, but we would do better to establish first that these epistles have authority for us today. “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth Him who sent me” (Lk. 10:16).

Truth Magazine XXII: 13, pp. 218-220
March 30, 1978

By Donald P. Ames

Now that women are being accepted as “priests” in some denominations, the ground work has been laid for many problems ahead. And, although the Episcopalians and Catholics have received the most news coverage, we must not be so foolish as to think the ground work is not already being laid within the body of Christ today. Within the next decade, we, too, will be having our “heated discussions” regarding women preachers (some places already are).

Harding College and Abilene Christian University have been active in this area for several years. Harding has sought various churches to support both men and women to go to “mission fields” for the summer to do “missionary work.” Abilene, in a recent bulletin on “Mission Strategy” sought to firmly implant in all minds that there are “over 1,623 missionaries of the Church of Christ scattered throughout the world. . .half of these are women who, with their husbands or alone, have accepted the challenge to take the gospel to a lost and dying world” (Jan.-Feb., 1976).

Although they give lip-service to the fact “a woman cannot preach publicly, nor can she assume the leadership that belongs to the man,” it is limited to just that-lip service! Emphasis is placed on the woman (usually emphasis on the single woman) being actively involved in evangelism to fulfill her role. And while speaking of what the man should do to be an effective missionary, emphasis is repeatedly put forth that women need to be doing the same thing-especially the single woman going into the mission field. But notice then the shift that begins to become more pronounced: “The missionary woman has always been a little more `liberated’ than her sisters. . .This was particularly true of the early single missionary woman. Once on the field, in order to be effective, she also had to assume a more direct role than she might have had back in the continental United States. The church itself even regarded the missionary woman in a different light than the Christian woman at home” (Ibid; emp. mine-DPA). It continues, “There is no doubt that a missionary wife should prepare herself for a special ministry such as teaching, nutrition, translation or whatever ….The single missionary woman has a unique opportunity for service. She does not have a family to demand her time and energy. She has more freedom in movement and opportunity . . . .Here is a wealth of energy and talent yet untapped by the church” (Ibid). Now, despite disavowals of women preachers, certainly the implications are clear, and many will be moving in that very direction. How else can they so eagerly “accept the challenge to utilize her talents and opportunities to serve her Lord”?

As these women rise up to accept and meet these challenges-particularly the single woman entering a foreign field as a missionary, financed by a church back home, she is indeed going to find things different than back home. And, as she utilizes her talents and makes use of her freedom in movement and opportunity, the next step is to begin teaching and, yes, say it, preaching! And since she is single and a missionary, she is going to find herself doing such for mixed company rather than exclusively for women. After all, there is so much to be done and someone has to take the lead until things get started!

Then, they return to the States and fail to comprehend why we are so “narrow-minded” and “backward” that we cannot allow a woman to “fulfill” herself here as well as abroad. After all, if she can do it overseas, why can’t she preach to mixed audiences here, and give reports to the church as a whole? And then do you know what will be advocated next? I do, brethren, and it will not be a study of 1 Tim. 2:11-12! It may well be, “I have restudied 1 Tim. 2:11-12 in light of my missionary work, and am now a liberated woman.” “Woman preacher accepted overseas; rejected at home.” Etc., etc. Brethren, some dangerous ground work is being laid, that is not all pleasing to the Lord!

Truth Magazine XXII: 13, p. 218
March 30, 1978

By Grant B Caldwell

There is an old dodge used by the “faith only” people that has just about died. However, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have revived it and some others are still struggling along with it. It is the argument that says in effect that since we are to follow the example of Jesus (1 Peter, 2:21) and since Jesus was “baptized to fulfill all righteousness” and not to have his sins remitted or forgiven, then we are not to be baptized to have our sins forgiven.

The Case of Jesus

Let us take a look at this situation before we do anything else and see what is to be seen from the context. Jesus came to John who was practicing “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). The design of his baptism was for the remission of sins. Furthermore, the people came “confessing their sins.” They did not come confessing that they had no sins. They came confessing their sins and were baptized to have those sins remitted. This was all preparatory to the death of Christ and the establishing of the Kingdom with the coming of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11).

Now in this setting Jesus came along and said, “I want to be baptized.” John immediately recognized the fact that something was different and he “forbade him.” Jesus did not come “confessing his sins.” Jesus did not come for “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” John did not know, nor (dare we say) had he up to this point been authorized to practice the baptism that Jesus was requesting of him. It did not fit into the scope of his teaching, thus, he could not do it. It was not until the divine Son of God authorized it that John could practice it. John could see the difference, why can’t our religious friends?

Looking at Differences

Before we compare anything in our life to the life of Christ, we ought to look at the differences and see if there really is any comparison. Our religious neighbors say, “We need to be baptized as Jesus was.” Let us just test that a little bit.

In John 1:31-34, John the Baptist affirmed that the purpose of the entire confrontation just described was to confirm Jesus as the Son of God-not a son of God- but the Son of God. Our baptism does not confirm us individually as the Son of God. We become children of God when our faith leads us to be baptized (Gal. 3:26-27). Christ was the Son of God long before he was baptized. The difference is readily apparent.

Jesus came to John to be baptized having never committed a sin (1 Peter 2:22). Can we come to be baptized that way? Now if our baptism is just like Jesus’ baptism, then I ask, “Was Jesus forgiven of his sins before, during, or after his baptism?” People say, “We are baptized just like Jesus was.” Is that supposed to mean that they were baptized having never committed any sins., Jesus did not come to be baptized having already been forgiven of His sins. Nor did He come as denominationalists would say confessing that “God for Christ’s sake has pardoned my sins.” Jesus was never lost. Therefore, He was never saved-before, during, or after His baptism. You see, there is no comparison, even in the light of denominational teaching.

Our religious friends tell us that they are baptized to become members of their church. Now, I wonder if Jesus was baptized to get into the church. They say that they are baptized just as Jesus was and I wonder if Jesus was baptized to get into the church.

Looking at the Comparison

It ought to be apparent to anyone that one can push this sort of comparison too far. Surely Christ left us an example that we should follow in His steps (1 Pet. 2:21). But an example of what? Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). Are we to be the head of the church? Christ is the King of Kings (1 Tim. 6:15). Are we to be the king of kings? Christ is the one with all authority (Matt. 28:18). Are we to have all authority?

But there is one comparison that will hold up in regard to the baptism of Jesus. Jesus was baptized because it was the right thing in the sight of God for Him to do. He did it because the Father-for whatever reason-wanted it done. We should be baptized because the Father wants it done. We should not attempt to nullify it being “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). We should just do it because it is the right thing to do.

Doing the Father’s Will

Jesus said that He came not to do His own will but the will of the Father (John 5:30). Then He 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). The will of the Father is simple: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Jesus could not come to that baptism, but they did in the New Testament and you can too if you just will.

Truth Magazine XXII: 13, p. 217
March 30, 1978

By Dennis C. Abernathy

I am persuaded in my own mind that the use of tobacco is sinful. I know there are many, many, Christians who do believe that it is (or at least they will not admit it). But surely most will admit that the use of tobacco in any form (smoking, dipping, sniffing, chewing, etc.) by the Christian, to say the least, is a questionable practice. Do you know of any good that comes from it? It is a filthy and expensive habit. It injures the body of the user (although many will not admit it-they know more than all those medical doctors you know (Romans 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:1920). It enslaves the user (1 Cor. 6:12).

Is it not rather sad to see a person, seemingly not knowing where the next breath is- coming from, continually puffing on a cigarette? Even some gospel preachers are addicted to the habit. I surely agree that it is no worse for a preacher to use it than any one else (both should quit it), but it does cripple his influence for good. It does set a bad example before others (the same is true for elders).

But what about our children? Brothers or sisters who smoke, chew, dip, etc., do you want your children to do it? If you do, why? If not, why not? (Be honest now!) But how can you effectively teach your children not to use tobacco when you yourself use it? How can we teach our children not to use tobacco, if the elders, preacher, and fellow Christians use it? Well, it can be done, but it makes the task much more difficult.

Many who read this are going to call to memory someone they know who is 110 years old, who has smoked all his / her life and is still around (and still smoking too!). Presto! Justification for tobacco use. No matter what or how many scriptures are used, or medical facts cited, “if it is good enough for that 110 year old man/ woman (after all it didn’t kill them), it is good enough for me.” Others who read this are going to continue to smoke until the day they die! They “wish” they could quit, but will not exert the will power to do it. Many others are going to read this and make up their minds that I am just trying to criticize, hence, they will simply put it out of their minds. Some may even get angry: Perhaps one will even try to refute it with some intelligent argument. So be it. Hopefully, some will read this and ponder (honestly) this habit and resolve to put it away from among them. That is my hope, and my aim in writing this in the first place. Think on these things.

Truth Magazine XXII: 13, p. 216
March 30, 1978