Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In Rev. 1:10, John wrote, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day . . .” By the time that the book of Revelation was written, one day had already come to be designated as the “Lord’s day.” Which day was it? Sabbatarians tell us that the Lord’s day is the seventh day of the week and teach that the early church worshiped on the Sabbath day. They further charge that either the pope or Constantine changed the day of worship of the New Testament church and that those of us who worship on the first day of the week have departed from New Testament Christianity. Let us find out just what John meant when he spoke of the “Lord’s day” to see if the first or the seventh day of the week is the Lord’s day.

Sabbath Observance Was Abolished

The observance of the Sabbath day was instituted shortly after God led Israel out of Egyptian bondage. The commandment to “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy” was given to the nation Israel in conjunction with the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Deut. 5). God specifically stipulated how the Sabbath was to be observed. Here are some of the ordinances required for proper observance of the Sabbath day, according to the Mosaical law: (a) do no work (Ex. 31:15); (b) kindle no fire (Ex. 35:3); (c) gather no sticks (Num. 15:32); (d) offer burnt offerings (Num. 28:9-10); (e) buy no goods (Neh. 10:31; 28:9-10); (f) bear no burden (Jer. 17:21); (g) prepare shewbread (1 Chron. 9:32); (h) stay in one’s place (Ex. 16:29; Acts 1:12). Anyone who disobeyed these commandments was to be punished by being put to death (Ex. 31:14; Num. 15:32-36).

Though many religious people say that they observe the Sabbath day, I have never yet met anyone who observed it according to the Scriptures. Though they might do no work and buy no goods, I know of no Sabbatarian who prepares shewbread and offers burnt offerings on the Sabbath day as the Mosaical law requires. Neither have I ever met the man who believes that all those who do not observe the Sabbath day should be put to death. Even those who believe in worshiping on the Sabbath day do not believe in observing it as the Bible dictates.

However, when the law of Christ was given, the Mosaical law was abolished or abrogated (Heb. 8:13; 7:12; Eph. 2:14-16; etc.). Consequently, Paul could write, “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:1317). Hence, Sabbath observance was abolished when the rest of the ordinances of the Mosaical law were abolished. Men do not observe the Sabbath, not because the pope or Constantine said not to observe, but because of a divine decree which set aside the Sabbath day.

Scriptural Evidence For The First Day of the Week

The first day of the week is the Lord’s day. It is the only day in the week which can properly be called the “Lord’s day.” When one remembers some of the important things which transpired on that day, he can see why the day came to be called the “Lord’s day.” On the first day of the week, Jesus arose from the dead (Mk. 16:1-9). On that day, he appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mk. 16:9); to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35); to the apostles with Thomas absent (Jn. 20:19-25?; to the apostles with Thomas present (Jn. 20:26-?9); etc. Inasmuch as Pentecost always fell on the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15), these important events with reference to the early church occurred on the first day of the week: the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), the first gospel sermon and the obedience of three thousand whom the Lord added to the church. Hence, the first day of week was an important day for the early church.

The early church met habitually on the first day of the week to worship the Lord. Let me give scriptural evidence that this is so. There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the early church assembled regularly. Paul wrote, “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse . . . . Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:17, 20). Notice that these passages show that the church customarily assembled. The instructions in 1 Cor. 14 presuppose an assembly of the church. Then, too, Heb. 10:25 (“not forsaking our own assembling together”) shows that the early church customarily assembled together for worship. That this assembly occurred on the first day of the week is evident from the Scriptures as well. In 1 Cor. 16:1-2, Paul wrote, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of the every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” Notice several things from this verse. The instructions were given to a number of churches; these were not limited to Corinth. The instructions enjoined were to be observed on the first day of every week. Too, the instructions are not “come together to give” but “give while you are come together.” Hence, this passage is conclusive evidence that the early church worshipped on Sunday, the first day of the week, which day came to be known as the Lord’s day.

Furthermore, Acts 20:7 shows that the early church worshipped regularly on the first day of the week. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem on an urgent trip to take funds gathered for benevolent purposes for the saints in Jerusalem. However, he wanted to worship with the saints at Troas. Apparently, he arrived on Monday for he tarried seven days (Acts 20:6) to await the assemblying of the saints. The Scriptures say, “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.” Notice, that Paul expected the church to assemble on the first day of the week and, for that reason, waited seven days to meet with them. Too, the early church usually met on that day to “break bread,” to observe the Lord’s supper. Hence, this passage further confirms what I have said, namely,:that the early church regularly worshipped on -the first day of the week.

Therefore, when we read that John was in the Spirit on the “Lord’s day,” we should properly understand that this was the first day of the week, the day set aside to worship and adore God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. The Scriptural evidence is quite clear that the early church worshipped on the first day of the week. The change in the days of worship from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week occurred by divine decree.

Extra-Biblical Evidences

Lest someone still is unconvinced that the early church worshipped on the first day of the week, I would like to cite the extra-biblical evidences which confirm what I have already proven from the Scriptures. McClintock and Strong cited a number of post-biblical evidences that the early church worshipped on the first day of the week; here are part of them:

“The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, which, though certainly not written by that apostle, was in existence in the earlier part of the 2d century, has (c. 15) the following words ‘We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which, too, Jesus rose from the dead.’

“A pagan document now comes into view. It Is the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan written (about A.D. 100) while he presided over Pontus and Bithynia. The Christians (says he) affirm the whole of their guilt or error to be that they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day (state die), before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a god, and to bind themselves by a sacramentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, the8, or adultery; never to break their word, or to refuse, when called upon; to deliver up any trust; after which it was their custom to separate, and to assemble again to take a meal, but a general one, and without guilty purpose’ (Epist. x, 97).”

“A thoroughly Christian authority, Justin Martyr, who flourished A.D. 140, stands next on the list. He writes thus: ‘On the day called Sunday (te tou heliou legomene hemera) Is an assembly of all who five either in the cities or In the rural districts, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read . . . . He afterwards assigns the reasons which Christians had for meeting on Sunday. There are, ‘because it is the First Day, on which God dispelled the darkness (to skotos) and the original state of things (ten hulen), and formed the world, and because Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead upon it’ (Apol. I, 67)” (“The Lord’s Day,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. V, p. 507).

After citing these evidences and several more, McClintock and Strong gave their summation of the evidence:

“The results of our examination of the principal writers of the two centuries after the death of St. John may be thus summed up. The Lord’s day (a name which has now come out more prominently, and is connected more explicitly with our Lord’s resurrection than before) existed during these two centuries as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of scriptural Christianity. It was never defended, for it was never impugned, or, at least, only impugned as other things received from the apostles were. It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it . . . . ” (Ibid., p. 508).

Hence, both biblical and extra-biblical evidences confirm that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week, a day which they called the Lord’s day.

Conclusion

Why, then, does the Lord’s church worship on the first day of the week? The answer is simple: because the Scriptures authorize it. The first day of the week, therefore, is the day of worship of the New Testament church. On that day, worship according the divine pattern must be offered. Do you observe the Lord’s day?

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 2-4
January 5, 1978

By Daniel H. King

There are a lot of people in the churches who, when they read our articles and hear our sermons on liberalism, social gospelism, and the issues presently confronting the church, will scoff and say, “Just more of the ravings of those crazy antis.” At the same time, though, there are sincere and well-intentioned brethren in a multitude of places who are caught up in personalities, family ties, friendships, and politics in local churches and hate to leave. And so they stay.

They have the wisdom to see the direction in which many of their friends and brethren are moving. And yet they stay. They have no words of derision. They want no part in slinging mud at the “antis” because they know that what they are saying and have been saying all along is true. Liberalism to them is not something one reads about in the papers and periodicals. It is present reality, very present reality. Indeed, it is moving in at such a rapid pace that it scares them to death. And, what scares them even more is the fact that they usually stand almost entirely alone in trying to stem the tide. Their plight is sad. But still they stay. We continue to hope and pray that soon they will see the hopelessness of their present condition and the futility of their task while they continue to fellowship this sin and contribute to its malignant growth in the churches by encouraging and financing it. But they know that if they take a strong stand for truth and sound doctrine they might be forced out like many of us were and like the early disciples were forced out of the synagogues (Jn. 16:2). And so, they stay.

All too many, however, think of this horrendous cancer as benign until it is far too late for the radical surgery that it requires to arrest it. After a time they awake to find that it has enlarged and has swallowed the whole church (1 Cor. 5:6), stolen their children’s hearts and affections, and entangled them in a web from which they feel powerless to escape. Their innocuous presence is no real threat to the eventual triumph of the malignancy. And so they stay. They fret and they fuss, they rant and they rave. But still they stay. They are frustrated and bewildered, incensed and infuriated. But they stay. They possess neither the intestinal fortitude nor the courage to defy the “powers that be” who “lord it over” the flock (1 Pet. 5:3) in the place of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 5:4) by leading the church into error (Acts 20:3). They have insight, hindsight and foresight, but they have no grit and they lack mettle. “And besides,” they say, “I like it here.”

Is there any wonder that they stayed? You know, unless they change, I hope they do stay.

Truth Magazine XXI: 50, pp. 787
December 22, 1977

By Mike Willis

With this issue, we complete twenty-one years of publication of Truth Magazine and the end of my first year as editor of the paper. I must confess that I have thoroughly enjoyed my work, although there have been times when my work load was over bearing. With the end of this calendar year and this volume of Truth Magazine, I would like to give a preview of Volume XXII and changes which lie ahead for the paper.

First of all, I must announce that Jeffery Kingry has resigned as a staff writer for the paper. There are no doctrinal differences between us which have led to his resignation and there are no hard feelings between us. Jeff has simply reached the conclusion that he would be able to work more effectively without being formally connected with Truth Magazine. He has every intention of continuing to write for us from time to time, as my file cabinet with his submitted manuscripts proves amply.

Johnie Edwards Added To Our Staff

Secondly, I need to announce the addition of a new staff writer to the paper. I have asked Johnie Edwards of Plainfield, Indiana to serve as a staff writer for Truth Magazine and he has consented. Johnie was born in Dixon, Kentucky on July 1, 1929 to John B. and Lillie Edwards. He married Loretta Crowley of Dixon, Kentucky on July 29, 1950. They have three sons, Tom, Titus, and Johnie Paul. Tom is in the interior design business in Bloomington, Indiana; Titus is presently preaching for the Hessville church in Hammond, Indiana; Johnie Paul has just begun working with the First Street Church in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee.

Johnie received a Bachelor of Arts degree from David Lipscomb College in 1951 and has done some work toward a Master’s Degree at Indiana University. He began preaching in 1948, when he preached his first sermon for the Fairview church in Dixon, Kentucky where he grew up. He has worked with local churches in Burns, Tennessee; Aiken, South Carolina; West Second Street in Bloomington, Indiana; and North Church in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. He moved just this past year from Ellettsville, Indiana to Plainfield, Indiana after preaching in Ellettsville for almost sixteen years. Johnie holds a large number of meetings every year in all parts of the country. He has conducted a weekly radio program in Bloomington, Indiana for over twenty years. He has also been instrumental in helping a number of young men get started in gospel preaching.

Johnie has also written articles for the following periodicals: Truth Magazine, Faith and Facts, The Gospel Guardian, and others. We hope that you will look forward to reading his articles as they appear from time to time in Truth Magazine.

Special Material In Volume XXII

I have already done a good bit of work toward the completion of Volume XXII, although we are at the present closing out Volume XXI. I think that you will look forward to receiving the next year of Truth Magazine because of the fine material which we shall be publishing in it. Here are some of the specials we have prepared:

1. A special issue on the Lord’s Day and other holy days. The very first issues of 1978 will contain some excellent material on the proper observance of the Lord’s Day, including the activities of the Lord’s Day, what has happened to the Lord’s Day, and unscriptural holy days (Jewish feast days, Christmas, Easter, etc.). I think that you will find this material to be some of the best which you have ever seen written on this subject.

2. A Family Circles Series. Inasmuch as the family is under constant attack, we have asked Leslie Diestelkamp to write some material on the home which we intend to publish on a weekly basis beginning in the latter part of January. Brother Diestelkamp is very qualified to write on this subject, as those who know him will testify. Having already read this material in preparing it to be set in type, I can tell you now that you will not want to miss a single issue of Truth Magazine in 1978.

3. A Study of the Translations of the Bible. Bobby Graham has given us permission to publish the series which appeared in his weekly bulletin on the various translations of the Bible which have been made. The material comes to us highly recommended. It is written on the level of the common man so I am sure that you will not be bogged down with details so much that you do not understand what Bobby has written. I am sure that you will not want to miss Bobby’s comments about the translation of the Scriptures which you use.

I have a few other special issues in mind for 1978 which are still on the drawing board which I hope to bring to completion very soon. Too, I already have several editorials which are planned. I have a series of articles already set in type on “Imputed Righteousness” which I plan to publish in the early months of 1978 and another series on the “Battle of Armageddon” which is already written. In addition to these materials, I have a good collection of manuscripts written by brethren all over the country on a variety of subjects which I shall be publishing throughout the year. The year 1978 will be a good year for those who read Truth Magazine.

Because of the nature of the material which we are publishing, I would like to encourage each of our readers to tell one other Christian about Truth Magazine. Quite frankly, I need your help to increase the circulation of the paper. You know brethren whom I have never met who would be interested in receiving just such a paper as we publish. Will you recommend Truth Magazine to your friends? Truth Magazine continues to be the very best bargain among the religious journals. We mail out fifty issues of sixteen pages each every year for the annual subscription price of $7.50. Where can you beat that quantity and quality of material at that price? We will send a club of ten subscriptions for $5.00 per month or a club of twenty subscriptions for $10.00 per month. Will you help us to increa$e our circulation by telling your friends about this paper or sending a club of subscriptions?

Bound Volumes

We conclude each calendar year with the publication of an index to what has been written during the preceding year. An index is the only thing which makes the valuable material published in the periodicals accessible to later readers. The bound volumes and stacks of old papers which brethren collect are only as useful as the availability of recall makes possible. We think that we have one of the very best indexes around. We have a good index because Jeffery Kingry has devoted his time to putting it together for us. I do not know how to thank Jeff adequately for the job which he has done. It is very time consuming to prepare An index to a paper like Truth Magazine. All of our readers thank you for a job well done, Jeff.

I might also mention that you should place your order now for the bound volume of Truth Magazine if you ever intend to get one. We do have a few volumes of earlier volumes of Truth Magazine left in stock but when that supply is exhausted there will be no reprinting of them. The best way you have to guarantee that you will have each year’s bound volume is to write to have your name placed on the list of those who automatically purchase a bound volume each year. Why not send in your order now?

Conclusion

I am looking forward to coming into your home fifty times during the next year. I hope that you will take the time to read Truth Magazine-from cover to cover. I have read every page of every one of these issues and I can tell you that it is worth your time. We will be seeing you again in 1978.

Truth Magazine XXI: 50, pp. 786-787
December 22, 1977

By Charles G. Caldwell Jr.

In Matt. 12:31, 32, Jesus said, “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

Down through the years, this passage has been the occasion of great concern to devout, God-fearing people. This concern is the result of a gross misunderstanding of what our Lord was actually saying. It is the sequel to a perversion of His teaching and is productive of the usual effect of such perversion in depriving men of the peace, contentment, and happiness of soul and mind, and the joy that God intends for us to have in Christ. It would, in the very nature of the case, be impossible for one to “rejoice in the Lord always” (Phil. 4:4) if there was the slightest possibility of his having sometime inadvertently committed a sin that could not be forgiven.

All Sins Forgivable

John said in 1 John 1:7, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another {He with us, and we with Him, CGC), and the blood of,, Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” I do not consider this passage to be in conflict with Matt. 12:31, 32. Nor do I consider Matt. 12:31, 32 to set forth an exception to John’s promise. In order to the forgiveness of sins — all sins — there are certain conditions, divinely ordained, that must be met. If a sin — any sin — is not forgiven it is because the conditions have not been met. One may fail to meet the conditions either because of his unwillingness to do so or because he is unable to do so. Both of these reasons might be involved and it is my contention that such is the case with all those about whom our Lord spoke in Matt. 12. It is possible for one to reach such a state of depravity that he has no willingness to accept the truth and be governed by it, no matter how strong the evidence, and sink so low in the mire of degradation that he is unwilling and even unable because of his degenerate attitude to submit to that which is right.

Anyone, therefore, who is interested in truth and righteousness or who is concerned about his soul’s well being has not committed the “unpardonable sin.”

The Case in Context

An understanding of the passage under consideration is dependent-as is almost always the case–upon the context in which it is found. Jesus has just healed a man possessed of a demon which caused the multitudes to marvel and be amazed. But there were others of the Pharisees and Scribes who heard of it and being unable to deny that a miracle had indeed been performed sought to explain it away by attributing the- power by which it was accomplished to “Beelzebub”. The claim was made by them that Christ was not exercising divine power but rather Satanic or diabolical power. Christ then proceeded to disprove their contention with a number of arguments which are irresistible:

Argument Number 1: First, He showed that which is evident on the surface, that Satan would not work against his own interest because in doing so, he would destroy himself and be brought to an “end.”

Argument Number 2: His next argument to disprove their contention was based upon their purported claim that their disciples, “sons,” cast out demons. If it was true that they did cast out demons (which Christ did not admit) and that demons were cast out only by “Beelzebub,” then it would follow that their “sons” exercised diabolical power. This He argued to show the absurdity of their contention from their own premise.

Argument Number 3: He next submitted that since He could not possibly be casting out demons by the power of the Devil, it must of necessity be by the power of God and that such exercise signaled the arrival of the kingdom of God.

Argument Number 4: His final argument in this regard was to the effect that He had entered Satan’s house (the body of the demoniac) and had spoiled Satan’s goods (the evil spirit in the man) and, therefore, instead of being in league with the devil, He had contested him and defeated him. The conclusion based on these arguments is that these Scribes and Pharisees were wrong in their charge that Christ was working miracles by the power of Satan rather than by the power of God. Their charge was not against the power of God, the Holy Spirit, but rather against Christ — that He was in league with the Devil and not with the Holy Spirit. This, Christ disproved and sought to correct their misconception.

Misunderstanding the Charge

Contrary to popular opinion and acceptation, Christ did not say that these Jews had committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but He did say in substance that they had blasphemed against Him and He emphatically says that such will (or can) be forgiven. The circumstances surrounding the incident, however, do suggest to the mind of Christ a need for a warning to these people of the danger of the course they are following. They had said that He was casting out demons by the power of “Beelzebub” (the Devil). If they persisted in this contention and in the light of all the evidence became convinced that the power exercised was of God but nevertheless was still evil because it worked through Christ, whom they hated and refused to accept, then they would become guilty of the sin against which Christ warned. In this they would be charging the Holy Spirit with being a devil or being equivalent to the Devil. Certainly, they were not now saying that the Holy Spirit was a devil or that He was as bad as the Devil. They were not denying that the Spirit is holy or affirming that the Spirit is evil. They were simply denying that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with Christ’s miracles.

If they were affirming that the Spirit of God was not holy but rather was as evil as the Devil, this would, of, course, have been blasphemy against the Spirit and there would have been no point in Christ’s having attempted to correct them by presenting the arguments that He did. They would have been beyond argument and beyond the hope of correction. They were getting on dangerous ground, however. They were approaching the point of no return. They were getting near to a condition of heart and mind which would damn their souls and Christ was simply warning them to stop before they had gone too far; not to allow their hatred and their contemptuous attitude toward Him to cause them to defame the Spirit of God. To take that step and affirm that the Holy Spirit is not holy but is evil and only evil continually, that He is a devil and on a par with Satan is to sink beyond all hope. Such a frame of mind on the part of anyone would be beyond all correction. Thus, the conditions of correction and forgiveness given by the spirit have no place in the man’s heart.

The Good Tree

Jesus said, “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt” (vs. 33). If the product of the working of the Spirit is good, the Spirit, Himself, is good and holy, “for the tree is known by his fruit.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 781-782
December 15, 1977