Truth Magazine

By Bill H. Reeves

The Bureau of the Census, of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, prepared a two-volume work entitled, “Religious Bodies: 1936,” which contains some of the most valuable material in print on denominationalism. The government had for a good number of decades taken such a census every ten years. I have only the 1936 work, but prize it highly. In my early years I had heard of older preachers refer to the “more than 250 different denominations in the U.S.” and wondered where they got that information, and if really there were that many!

This work states, “The denominations presented in this report number 256, of which 183 are grouped in 24 families and 73 are listed as separate denominations.” The one feature which I find so valuable is that for each separate denomination the account of its history, doctrine and organization, and work, is prepared by one representing that particular denomination, usually a high official in it. It is not a one-author work, or statements of what others think a particular group believes and practices! So, one can quote from this material and be confident that he is correctly representing each denomination.

I want to quote from two entries in this Census, and then make some observations on them. (I can make available a few copies of the entire entries, if any care to have them).

“Churches Of Christ”

The entry under this heading bears this footnote: “This statement, which is substantially the same as that published in Vol. II of the Report on Religious Bodies, 1926, has been revised by Leslie G. Thomas, Churches of Christ, Dickson, Tenn., and approved by him in its present form.”

Brother Thomas, after mentioning the Campbells, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone, and their plea in general, comes to the issue of the missionary society. He wrote:

The agitation for the organization of a missionary society began soon after 1840 and continued unfit the American Christian Missionary Society was formed in Cincinnati Ohio, in 1849.

He quoted from Alexander Campbell’s earlier writings to prove that Campbell was “not the real leader behind the effort nor the same man mentally who had previously opposed such inventions of men:”

Their churches were not fractured into missionary societies, Bible societies and educational societies; nor did they dream of organizing such . . . . They knew nothing of the hobbies of modern times. In their church capacity alone they moved …. They viewed the Church of Jesus Christ as the scheme of salvation to ameliorate the world. As members of it they considered themselves bound to do all they could for the glory of God and the good of men. They dared not transfer to a missionary society a cent or a prayer, lest In so doing they should rob the Church of its glory and exalt the inventions of men above the wisdom of God.

Brother Thomas quoted from the article in the constitution of the Missionary Society which referred to selling of membership and directorship for money, which thing gave great offense to many brethren. Then follows a paragraph on instrumental music, and two other matters of controversy.

The question as to the use of instrumental music In the services of the church became an issue as early as 1859, when a melodeon was placed in the church at Midway, Ky. Much opposition was aroused, and the claim was made that Instrumental music in the church services “ministered to pride and worldliness, was without the sanction of New Testament precept and example, and was consequently unscriptural and sinful.”

Other matters In regard to which there was controversy were the introduction of the “modern pastor” and the adoption of “unscrlptural means of raising money.”

It is interesting to note that the term “anti” is nothing new. It was part of the controversy of the last century as well, according to Brother Thomas back in 1936. He writes:

It was inevitable that such divergencies of opinion should result in the formation of opposing parties, and these parties were variously called “Conservatives” and “Progressives,” or “Antis” and “Digressives.”

After presenting some very helpful material concerning the Missionary Society issue, which divided the brotherhood in the nineteenth century, Brother Thomas then proceeds to surrender his whole contention before discerning readers, as he lists what he calls the “institutions of the Churches of Christ”! Strange that one institution (the Missionary Society), through which local churches do part of their work (that of evangelism), is all wrong, whereas other institutions, built and maintained by churches of Christ, are alright for doing part of their work! If churches of Christ have educational, benevolent and publishing institutions, then they are as denominational in nature as the other religious movements which have the like, and function through such centralized agencies. Here is what Brother Thomas says about the “work” of churches of Christ:

The opposition to missionary societies on the part of the Churches of Christ does not imply any lack of interest in missionary work, which has been fully developed since the division. They are rapidly establishing new churches in different parts of the United States, and are carrying on missionary work in Japan, China, Korea, Persia, Brazil, Hawaii, Philippine Islands, India, Africa, Mexico, and other parts of the world.

The educational institutions of the Churches of Christ include 7 Bible, or Christian colleges, with 184 teachers, 2,206 students, and property valued at $2,610,974. There are also several academies and professional schools; 7 orphanages, with 833 children, and property valued at $496,001; and 2 homes for the aged (1 takes children, too, and is not included In the orphanages), with 50 inmates and property valued at $500,000. These institutions are located in Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and California.

They publish eight monthly, two semimonthly, and three weekly journals devoted exclusively to religious instruction.

We turn now to the second entry which we will notice, this one concerning the Disciples of Christ.“Disciples of Christ”

The footnote under this entry says: “This statement, which is substantially the same as that published in Vol. II of the Report on Religious Bodies, 1926, has been revised by Dr. Stephen J. Corey, president, the United Christian Missionary Society, Disciples of Christ, Indianapolis, Ind., and approved by him in its present form.”

Mr. Corey first gives some brief information on the restoration period, dating from 1800, referring to the Campbells and Barton W. Stone. When Stone, Campbell and their associates effected a partial union in 1832, “the question arose as to the name to be adopted.” He says:

Mr. Stone favored “Christians,” as the name given In the beginning by divine authority. Mr. Campbell and his friends preferred the name “Disciples” as less offensive to good people and quite as scriptural. The result was that no definite action was taken and both names were used, the local organization being known, generally, as a “Christian Church,” or a “Church of Christ,” and, rarely, as a “Church of Disciples,” or a “Disciples’ Church.”

Barton Stone, according to Corey, wanted to use the Scriptural name (Christian, Acts 11:26, a proper name), while Alexander Campbell advocated making a proper name out of a common noun (disciple), in order to not “turn people off,” as it is expressed today. This is familiar reasoning, is it not? Such is the age-old conflict between human wisdom and divine!

I find it interesting to note what Mr. Corey says about public debates of that period:

During the first few years of the movement, Alexander Campbell and other leaders were often.engaged fn more or less heated controversies with representatives of other denominations. Gradually, however, these discussions became less frequent and at the same time more conciliatory in tone.

How true this pattern is followed in all ages! First there is militancy, but as numerical success is realized, the tendency is to slack off, especially on the part of the innovator. During the 50’s and 60’s there were many debates on centralization (“sponsoring church”) and institutionalism (church support of orphanages, colleges, etc.), but now that the liberal brethren have taken the majority with them, they see little or no need for debates. Today debates are virtually unheard of.

Christ and His apostles engaged in public debates almost constantly (e.g., Matt. 21:23-24:1, two and a half chapters of debating; Acts 17:17-34; 19:8-10; Jude 3). Truth has always prevailed in controversy; not so with error. As an old Texas friend of mine used to say, “Some brethren don’t believe in debating for the same reason that a muley cow doesn’t believe in hooking!” (A “p.s.” for city folk: muley cows have no horns!).

Mr. Corey then speaks of the rapid growth of this movement in its early years, and makes a very honest admission concerning opposition within the brotherhood:

The growth of the new organization was very rapid, especially in the Middle West. Throughout Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, and Missouri It gathered numerous congregations, though there was evident a strong objection to any such association, even for fellowship, as would appear to involve ecclesiastical organization. This manifested Itself fn various ways, especially in opposition to the use of societies for carrying on missionary work. The use of instrumental music in the churches also occasioned dissatisfaction.

Liberal churches of Christ of our day have revived the old principal of centralization, which underlay the missionary society concept, and no doubt instrumental music in worship will not be long in following. A growing number of preachers are playing down objection to its use. History has a way of repeating itself.

Innovations, being of necessity without Scriptural authority, are always the “wedges” that “split the log.” As in the last century, so in this! Mr. Corey speaks of the division of the last century, and beginning of this one:

During the Civil War the movement suffered from the general disorganization of the sections In which it had gained its strength, and the death of Alexander Campbell in 1866 was no doubt a severe blow. From the effect of these discouragements, however, it soon,recovered, and the period since that war has been one of rapid expansion. With this expansion there developed, out of the objections referred to above, and especially to any semblance of ecclesiastical organization and to the use of Instrumental music In the churches, two parties, generally termed “Progressives” and “Conservatives.” The former were anxious to include all under one general head as was done in the census report for 1890, leaving each church free to conduct its affairs In its own way, but the Conservatives objected, and Insisted on separate classification. Accordingly, in the’ report for 1906 and in subsequent reports the “Conservative” churches have been listed as Churches of Christ. The line of demarcation between the two bodies, however, is by no means clear.

Where would the liberal brethren of today have stood in the controversy of yesteryear? Would they have been the “Conservatives,” as referred to by Mr. Corey? They are not the conservatives of today!

Under the heading of “doctrine,” Mr. Corey gives the “doctrinal position of the Disciples.” It is a good statement of some Bible truths. He then proceeds to say: “In addition to these beliefs, in which they are in general accord with other Protestant churches, the Disciples hold certain positions which they regard as distinctive.” He mentions ten of these, nine of which I find well expressed, as far as their being expressions of Bible truths. But, the fifth one reads: “While claiming for themselves the New Testament names of `Christians,’ or `Disciples,’ `they do not deny that others are Christians or that other churches are Churches of Christ'” This is a little hard to harmonize with a later statement of Mr. Corey’s: “sects are unscriptural and unapostolic,” unless he means that “other churches” are not “sects”!

Within the last few years we have begun to hear language similar to Mr. Corey’s, respecting “other churches,” coming from our liberal brethren! I am amazed as I read this 1936 material, regarding events and attitudes and vocabulary of the last century, and then contemplate the same regarding the last twenty-five years within the brotherhood.

Under the head of “Organization,” Mr. Corey insists that “in polity the Disciples churches are congregational. Each local church elects its own officers, calls its own ministers, and conducts its own affairs with no supervision by any outside ecclesiastical authority.” Furthermore, he says:

There is no national ecclesiastical organization of the churches. There is an International Convention of Disciples of Christ, which is composed of Individual members of the churches. These may or may not be selected by the churches, but their standing In the convention is personal rather than representative, and the convention as such has no authority over the action of the churches, which are at liberty to accept or reject its recommendations.

For mutual conference in regard to their general affairs, the churches unite in district and State conventions. These conventions, however, have no ecclesiastical authority, the ultimate responsibility In every case resting in the local church.

This is interesting to note, in the light of the charges of our liberal brethren respecting the Missionary Society of the Christian Church. Inasmuch as there is a “deadly parallel” between the Missionary Society of the Christian Church (or, Disciples of Christ), and the “Sponsoring Church” of our brethren, the advocates of the “Sponsoring Church” disclaim this parallel by telling us that the Missionary Society controls the local Christian Churches, while the Sponsoring Church does not control local churches of Christ. According to Mr. Corey, our liberal brethren misrepresent the facts! He insists that the local church is not controlled by any “outside ecclesiastical authority”! But, the indirect control which the Missionary Society does effect over local congregations is the same kind of control which the Sponsoring Church effects over local churches of Christ. Both parties deny any direct control. Both must admit that the indirect control is there, to a degree.

Just ask members of churches of Christ, “What is wrong with the Missionary Society?” and you will get one of three answers, in essence: (1) Churches of Christ just do not have a Missionary Society! (Which equals saying, I do not know why, except that we just do not have one!); (2) It is a human organization, controlling the local church and destroying its autonomy (This is the typical answer of those advocating the Sponsoring Church concept); (3) It is a human organization through which churches do work of evangelism, and is therefore without Scriptural authority, being an expression of denominational centralization. (This is the answer that represents the facts. Too few are heard to give it!).

The first answer is pitiable; it shows that brethren are uninformed, and most likely do not intend to inform themselves. The second answer misrepresents the Missionary Society advocates, as the quotes from Mr. Corey amply show. But, there is some truth in that second answer: the Missionary Society is a human organization; it does exercise control, but it is indirect in nature; autonomy is sacrificed, to the degree that the local church turns over its money and work to a human organization. But, all this can be truthfully said about the Sponsoring Church arrangement. The elders of that Sponsoring Church are a human organization, because they have the oversight of work of a brotherhood proportion, or scope. The Sponsoring Church effects an indirect control over local churches through pressure tactics (including unsavory epithets for those not “cooperating,” quarantines, etc.). The third answer is the truth of the matter and condemns both the Missionary Society and the Sponsoring Church, and for the same reasons!

Under the heading of “Work,” Mr. Corey says that the “general activities of Disciples of Christ are carried on through several societies or boards, which, in their organization, are independent of any ecclesiastical control . . . .” He mentions The International Convention of Disciples of Christ, but insists that “its powers are advisory.” This is institutionalism; that is, local churches doing work through boards set up to manage the institutions actually doing the work. There is not one ounce of difference, in principal, between what the Disciples of Christ Churches are doing, and what our liberal brethren are doing.

Mr. Corey admits that “the earlier sentiment was somewhat adverse to the organization of societies,” but affirms that Campbell’s association at Washington, Pa., and the organization with which Stone was associated, were forerunners of the Missionary Society of 1849. The development of various boards and societies is set forth in the following, somewhat lengthy, quotation:

It was with Mr. Campbell’s fun approval that in 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society was formed at Cincinnati,, its object being, as stated in Its. constitution, to promote the preaching of the Gospel in this and other lands.” He was the first president and held the office 18 years, until his death In 1866. In 1874 the Christian Woman’s Board of Missions was organized. Prior to this time a large number of State, district, and city societies had been formed. The next year the Foreign Christian Missionary Society came into being, followed in 1887 by the National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church, in 1888 by the Board of Church Extension, in 1895 by the Board of Ministerial Relief, in 1910 by the Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity, in 1914 by the Board’ of Education, and later by the Board of Temperance and Social Welfare.

These boards continued to function separately until, at the International Convention in Kansas City in 1917, the three missionary societies appointed a committee on unification, instructing the committee to seek to bring about the complete unification of societies so that they should function as one organization, having one headquarters and one management. It was proposed that whatever organization should ultimately be brought about, it should have on Its board and Its executive committee equal representation of men and women.

The committee on cooperation and unification held a preliminary meeting In Indianapolis, December 11, 1917. The original proposal was to unite the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, the Christian Woman’s Board of Missions, and the American Christian Missionary Society, the latter involving the Board of Church Extension, which was a board of the American Society. Later the Board of Ministerial Relief and the National Benevolent Association sought representation on the committee and voted to join the above-mentioned boards in forming. the United Christian Missionary Society.

When the committee on cooperation and unification came squarely up to the legal problems involved in a merger of the several societies, it found that technically such a merger, involving as it would the Immediate surrender and dissolution of the old boards, could not be accomplished, or at least, not for a period of years. It seemed, however, that the objects sought in the unification could be accomplished by creating a new society, duly incorporated, to which the operating functions of the old boards should be committed. The old societies, however, were to continue their legal existence to the States where they originated, for the purpose of holding the trusts committed to them and of discharging the responsibilities required by law.

Appropriate articles of agreement were drawn up and adopted by each of the boards and societies prior to their coming together In the International Convention at Cincinnati, in 1919. At this convention, the constitution and bylaws of the new United Christian Missionary Society were presented and adopted, and the organization was effected. The executive committee chose St. Louis, Mo., as the operative headquarters for the United Christian Missionary Society, and it began its functions there October 1920. In 1928 the Society moved its headquarters to Indianapolis, Ind., where it Is located in Its own commodious quarters, called The Missions Building.

Look what came out of some innocent (?) little city, district and state societies! Organization after organization was formed, until the many were unified into one, the United Christian Missionary Society. It took seventy years (1849-1919). Then the great united society itself began to expand, taking on other endeavors. Modernism showed its inroads by addition in 1935 of departments of social action and of higher education.

The Christian Church has come a long way in its apostasy. This article deals with quotes from 1936. That was 40 years ago! It all started with an abandonment of the all-sufficiency of the local church, God’s only organization on this earth, and the advocacy of centralization and institutionalism. Today, the Christian Church is just another human denomination. The “anti’s” of the last century fought those innovations, and there are churches of Christ today because of their battles. The “anti’s” of today have fought the same battle, the same issues (in principle), and the very young, who are coming to manhood, and so were no part of the battle of two or three decades ago, would do well to give a little heed to history and a little more appreciation for some aging warriors (some have passed on) to whom all of us are debtors. There are faithful churches of Christ around the land today because they fought that fight!

When will man learn that the solution to problems in the church is not the substitution of man-made arrangements for divine ones, but the correction of affairs within divine arrangements? Yes, the judge Samuel, had some bad sons, who as judges were turning aside after lucre, taking bribes and perverting justice. This was bad! What was the solution? Punish the judges and remove them, if they did not repent, and appoint others, as God would direct? Ignore God’s arrangement of government by judges, while He reigned over them as King, and substitute another type of government, a human monarchy? They could do one of the two; they chose to substitute!

It was no different in the last century. What to do since the churches were not getting the gospel spread as fast as some thought they should do? Again, there was the same choice: respect God’s arrangements in the local church and exhort those local churches to do more in evangelism, each one according to its opportunity and ability, or, ignore God’s arrangement and substitute human organizations through which the local churches could do work of evangelism, centralizing the power of the many in the hands of the few, thus activating the entire brotherhood. The “antis” took the first course mentioned; the “progressives” the second. A new denomination was born.

That 1936 Religious Census is very revealing!

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, pp. 282-286
May 5, 1977

By Roy E. Cogdill

We have pointed out in previous articles that Bible baptism has one element, one authority, and one action. We want to notice further that the one baptism of the New Testament is one in design. While that design can be expressed in several different ways in Bible language-it is in essence one and the same in purpose and principle-that is, the salvation of the soul of men.

We want to be distinctly understood about a matter concerning which we have been so often misrepresented. We do not believe baptism in and of itself saves anyone. God does the saving. Jesus Christ made it possible for man to be saved by the sacrifice of Himself for our sins. The Holy Spirit has revealed that salvation thus provided and its terms in the pages of New Testament teaching include baptism. Faith upon the part of man must motivate his compliance with the stipulated conditions upon which heaven requires and God has named in His word and upon which God has offered salvation. Otherwise it would have no significance at all. Baptism must be an act of faith and preceded by repentance. Water could not wash sins away or remove its guilt in any sense. Surely no one thinks or believes that water has the power to cleanse our hearts from sin. Water is only the element God has chosen in which men are baptized as an act of obedience to His will. It takes the blood of Christ to save and one cannot be saved without contact with it through obedience to the truth (1 Peter 1:18-22).

But how do we reach the saving power of Christ’s blood? Our eyes have never beheld the blood of Christ except by faith. Our finger tips have never been actually bathed in it. We can reach the saving power of the sacrifice of the Son of God only through the obedience of faith. In Hebrews 9:13-14, Paul tells us, “For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Then in Hebrews 10:19-22, the same writer tells us, “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” We reach the sprinkling of the blood upon our hearts by washing our bodies with pure water. This pure-unmixed water-is contrasted with the “water of cleansing” in the Old Testament law (Numbers 19). Instead of this pure water being sprinkled, the blood of Christ is sprinkled. The “washing of the body in pure water” can only refer to the act of baptism. There is nothing else in the scheme of human redemption that can be so described. When our bodies are washed with pure water in the act of baptism, God sprinkles the blood of Christ upon our hearts to cleanse them from an evil conscience.

This is further amplified in 1 Peter 3:18-21. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits , in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” From this we learn that the purpose of washing the body in the water of baptism is not to get the body clean but rather in order to obtain a good conscience before God. Only the blood of Christ can give us a purged conscience; so it should be obvious that the purpose of baptism is to bring us to the blood of Christ.

Another passage makes this so plain that it cannot be misunderstood but only needs believing, Romans 6:3-4: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. This passage tells us that by baptism we reach the death of Christ. This is where His blood was shed which is able to save us from our sins. Baptism in its action is a burial and a resurrection. But in its design it is to reach the death of Christ that we might die to sin. We are buried into this death to sin by baptism, and “death to sin” in this passage means “justification from sin” (Rom. 6:7). When a man is baptized into Christ, therefore, he is baptized into His death, and when he reaches the death of Christ (blood), he dies unto the guilt of sin; and is therefore justified from sin. How simple this is to the unprejudiced heart!

Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16). This passage does not say as men teach. “He that believeth and is baptized is saved.” There is a vast deal of difference in “is saved” and “shall be saved.” There is also a lot of difference between “is baptized” and “shall be baptized.”

Peter, on the day of Pentecost, commanded men and women who asked “What shall we do?” “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:36-38). This is also easily understood unless someone helps us to misunderstand it by telling us that it does not mean what it says. What does “for the remission of sins” mean? All the scholars tell us that eis (for) denotes transition-movement toward-and not “because of.” Hence, the American Standard version translates it “unto the remission of sins.” But we can settle the matter for ourselves in a very simple manner. Just drop baptism out of the sentence and read it: “Repent every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” What does “Repent for remission of sins” mean? Would anyone be foolish enough to say that it means “Repent because of the remission of sins?” Surely not! But if “Repent for the remission of sins” means “Repent unto the remission of sins,” then “be baptized for the remission of sins” would also mean “be baptized unto the remission of sins.” These two verbs-repent and be baptized-form a compound predicate joined together by the copulative “and.” They must move in the same direction. One cannot point backward and the other forward when they are both modified by the same prepositional phrase-“for the remission of sins.” Whatever repentance is for, therefore, baptism must be for in this sentence. Remission of sins in this passage means the same thing that “be saved” means in Mark 16:15-16. Remission is the payment of the debt of sin by the blood of Christ.

Then the New Testament emphasizes that baptism is one act of transition from one state to another state. We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27). We are baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3). We are baptized into death to sin (Rom. 6:4). We are baptized into the body of Christ, which is the church of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). This baptism puts us all into the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:4). This one baptism establishes therefore, but one relationship. It will not put one man into one body (church) and another man into another body (church), but it puts us all into the same body (church) for there is but one baptism and there is but one body.

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, pp. 281-282
May 5, 1977

By Wayne S. Walker

One of the arguments made by Sabbatarians against Christians’ worshiping on the first day of the week is their claim that the resurrection was not on Sunday. They place the historical occurrence of the resurrection on Saturday, the day they have chosen to revere as “God’s eternal sabbath.”Often when they assert that the seventh day of the week, the Old Testament sabbath, is the day Christians should assemble for worship, they run into some resistance. Most of so-called Christendom tends to regard the first day of the week, Sunday, as the day to which it attaches any religious significance. This practice has generally been a result of the belief that Christ rose from the dead on that day. Thus, any mention of Saturday worship turns many off. Sabbatarians have chosen to deny the Sunday resurrection in an attempt to persuade people to cease their recognition of Sunday as a “special day,” and to present a better case for sabbath observance. It is not the desire of this writer to deal with false teaching concerning the sabbath since there are many good scriptural refutations concerning it. I mention it here merely to give some background.

Three Days and Three Nights

The first passage to be considered in our study is Matthew 12:39-40. In this text, Jesus compared Jonah’s three day and three night’s stay in the belly of the sea creature to His own three day and three night’s rest in the grave. It is a mistake to conclude that the particular sign Jesus was giving here to prove His Messiahship is the three days and three nights in the sepulcher, no more and no less. One writer has declared that the evidence of Christ’s deity was not the fact of the resurrection itself, but the length of time He would repose in the grave before His resurrection.(1) However, this concept comes into conflict with the apostle Paul in Romans 1:1-4. The inspired writer did not say that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness” by the amount of time spent in the grave, but “by the resurrection from the dead” itself. Although if Jesus said He would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, He was of course; the language of Paul indicates that the length of time is not so important as the actual event.

It is also a mistake to define “three days and three nights” as seventy-two hours. Some have compared Genesis 1:13 where Moses said, “And the evening and the morning were the third day,” with John 11:9-10 where Jesus asked, “Are there not twelve hours in a day? . . . but if any man walk in the night, he stumbleth.” They erroneously conclude that since God “divided the light from the darkness . . . (and) called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night” (Genesis 1:4-5), that three days and three nights must include three twelve hour periods each of light and darkness, hence seventy two hours. This is clearly a mishandling of Scripture by joining two totally unrelated passages and using modern definitions to interpret them. I do not believe that the Bible writers nor the Holy Ghost who inspired them were too interested in our arithmetical method of figuring time. We do err when we try to force our own Western measurements into the Spirit breathed words of men of Oriental thought. What we must do instead is determine what was meant in First Century Palestine by “three days and three nights,” according to what the Scriptures reveal.

Comparing Matthew 12:39-40 with Mark 8:31, 9:31, and John 2:19-21, one must conclude that the terms “three days and three nights,” “after three days,” “(on) the third day,” and “(with) in three days,” all cover equivalent periods of time, or else Jesus openly contradicted Himself. It is accepted by practically all reputable authorities(2) who have a knowledge of the original languages of the Biblical text that the Jews in all periods of Bible history used the expressions “after three days” and “on the third day” as equivalent, even though in our parlance, they would mean different things. (See Gen. 42:17-18, 1 Kings 12:5-12, 2 Chron. 10:5-12, and compare Matt. 16:21 with Mark 8:31.) The same is true of the phrases “within three days” and “on the third day” (Gen. 10:13-20). Notice again that a feast lasting “three days, night and day” (equal to three days and three nights) ended “on the third day” (Esther 4:16, 5:1) not on the fourth, and that a period of “three days and three nights” began “three days ago” (1 Sam. 30:1213) not four. In addition, the Pharisees, recognizing that Jesus had said while alive, “After three days will I rise again,” asked Pilate to “Command therefore the sepulcher to be made sure until the third day” (Matt. 27:63-64). According to our terminology, if Jesus were to rise after three days, we would guard the tomb until the fourth day; but not so with the Jews. A final note on Hebrew time measuring is found in 1 Sam. 20:12., where Jonathan told David he would sound out his father “about tomorrow any time, or the third day,” making the third day equal to the day after tomorrow.

Sabbatarians say that expositors impose upon their credulity in arguing that the expression “three days and three nights” may include any part of a day or night.(3) Even some evangelical Protestants are not satisfied with this explanation and consider it a weak makeshift at best.(4) Besides the scriptural testimony in the paragraph above, please note the chronological time table in Acts 10 as corroborating evidence. In verses 1-8, Cornelius received a vision in which he was instructed to send for Peter. In verse 9, it was the morrow when the men journeyed to Joppa and when Peter had his vision. In verse 23, two days later, Peter accompanied the men to Caesarea, and in verse 24 they all arrived at Cornelius’ house three days after Cornelius’ vision. We would say Cornelius saw his vision three days prior. But Cornelius himself put it “four days ago” (verse 30). Why? First, in the expression, “four days,” any part of any day from the original day was included; and second, the ancients figured in the day on which an event occurred when counting time from that event. Thus, Cornelius’ vision was on the first day and Peter’s arrival on the fourth day-a total period of four days according to First Century reckoning, even though we would consider it “three days” in our way of thinking.

The point to be understood is that it is folly to restrict the phrase “three days and three nights” to an exact period of seventy-two hours. This is simply not what the Holy Spirit meant to say. In their reasoning, Sabbatarians put their own meaning upon the construction. They usually assume the crucifixion was on Wednesday, then try to establish this assumption using either the modern Hebrew calendar or supposed astronomical observations, both of which are suspect and shaky evidence. Following this trend of thought, if “three days and three nights” were literally seventy-two hours, then this period would have ended on Saturday. This hypothesis fits amazingly well with their sabbath worship. But the whole theory is based solely on supposition, human wisdom, and perversion of Bible passages. There is not one shred of Scripture to substantiate it. We might pause here to state that if Sunday be the “third day” after the crucifixion, then Saturday was the second, and Friday was the “first day,” which would have been the day on which the crucifixion must have taken place according to the Jewish mode of calculation used by the Bible writers. This is the only tenable conclusion to be drawn from the Bible record.

Objections Examined

The Bible indicates that Jesus was crucified on Friday, for the next day was called “the day that followed the day of preparation” (Matt. 27:62). It is not mere assumption to say that the day of preparation was Friday, because the term “preparation” was, and still is, the common method of referring to the sixth day of the week by both Jews and Greek speaking people. From what we have studied concerning the Hebrew expression “three days and three nights,” a Friday crucifixion would necessitate a Sunday resurrection. However, some invariably will ask, “Which preparation is Matthew speaking of?” as they try to devise a week with two preparations in it. Their attempted explanation is that Wednesday was the preparation for the Passover and Friday was the preparation for the regular sabbath. In this way, they can return to their idea of a Wednesday crucifixion, but it is merely a guess, and a poor one at that. Although it is admittedly difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct the exact chain of events according to day and time in the last week of Jesus’ life, there are certain statements which help us understand what did happen when. The Bible, in referring to the day following the crucifixion, explains, “That sabbath (regular term for seventh day) was an high day” (a special occasion or feast, John 19:31). This explains why the day of the crucifixion was “the preparation of the passover” (John 19:14), as well as the preparation of the weekly sabbath. What this means is that the passover feast that year fell on the seventh day of the week. Jesus was crucified the day before this occasion, on Friday, the preparation.

Furthermore, the Bible clearly reveals which day Jesus arose from the grave. In Mark 16:9 we read, “When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons” (NIV). Amazingly, we are told that this verse does not say the resurrection was on Sunday. It is argued that the verb is in the perfect tense, and that Jesus’ condition early on the first day of the week was “risen” because He arose the afternoon before.(5) This is admittedly the normal meaning of a perfect verb in the Greek New Testament. However, even if the information about the tense were correct, it would not uphold the argument because the perfect tense of that particular verb (anistemi) has the sense of a present.(6) But the tense of the verb is not perfect. The form of the verb is anastas, which is a second aorist active participle. If it were perfect, it would be anestekds. The verse literally reads, “Now having risen early on the first day of the week,”(7) or “Now after (or when) he had risen on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” There is no doubt what the verse says-it says that Jesus did rise on the first day of the week. The only doubt might be as to its canonicity since some of the more ancient manuscripts omit it. But I believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant accepting this passage as authentic scripture.

Another statement concerning the first day resurrection is Luke 24:21, “Today is the third day since these things were done.” The first day of the week is specified in verse 1; the events transpiring in this section of the chapter happened “that same day” (verse 13); and that day was the third day. An objection is raised to this that “these things” included the setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb which occurred “the next day” (Matt. 27:62). The desired conclusion is that Sunday was the third day since the day this was accomplished (which would be the day following the crucifixion) but not since the day of the crucifixion itself. But when we examine the speech of Cleopas in verses 18-20 of Luke 24, it is clear he did not include the events which transpired on the day after Jesus was crucified, but ended his account with “The chief priests and our rulers . . . have crucified him.” Besides, Cleopas was not intending to give a detailed chronological account of all the events surrounding Christ’s death. All he was saying was that Christ predicted that He would die, be buried, and arise the third day. And “Today (the first day of the week) is the third day.”

Conclusion

The Scriptures, written by the holy apostles and prophets who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, which reveal the very mind of God, plainly teach that the resurrection of Christ from the dead occurred on the first day of the week, the day we call Sunday. To deny this is to deny the Biblical record. Sabbatarians teach otherwise, however, in proclaiming that Christ arose on the sabbath, the day we call Saturday. They say, “The seventh day;” God says, “The first day;” the Bible says, “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:2). I shall let you draw your own conclusions.

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, pp. 279-281
May 5, 1977

By Robert Jackson

As we continue our study of evangelism, I want you to take your Bibles and follow along with me. Find out exactly what the Bible says about the local church being engaged in New Testament evangelism. In 1 Timothy 1:3 the apostle Paul is telling young Timothy to abide still at Ephesus. Now here we have a Bible example where there was a man located with the church in Ephesus, preaching the word of the living God, and where an apostle said to continue to abide there. There is Bible authority for a local church to have a local preacher. Sometimes I have had people to say, “No, you cannot have a local preacher at a local congregation where you have elders-the man ought to move when there are elders.” But this is not so. The church at Ephesus had elders and Timothy was there, and Paul said, Timothy, I want you to continue to abide there.

But then again, someone might say, “Well, preacher, how do you know that there was not more than one church in Ephesus, and that Timothy was preaching for one where they did not have elders?” I believe that I can give you a Bible answer, if you will turn to the book of Acts 20, and also read in the Revelation letter. When the apostle Paul in Acts 20 called for the elders of the church at Ephesus, he did not call for the elders of the churches. He called for the elders of the church. Therefore there was only one church in that particular city. Where there were a plurality of churches in a city, it was always identified in the plural use, like in Galatians 1, the “churches of Galatia.” There was more than one church, more than one congregation, in that particular area; but in the city of Ephesus, there was only one church. Paul said he called for the elders of the church in Ephesus to come over there to Miletus. The same thing is true when he addressed the church in the book of Revelation. As John was guided by the spirit of God, he addressed “the church at Ephesus.” So evidently there was only one congregation there. They had elders, and Timothy was preaching there, and Paul said to continue to abide there. So then we have established Bible authority for a local church to have a local preacher.

But let us notice something else, and that is the fact that a local church has the God given right to support a man away from that particular work. Open your Bibles to Philippians 4:15. When Paul was writing to the church at Philippi, he said, “No church communicated with me concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.” Alright now, what do we find? We find the church at Philippi supporting the apostle Paul in the preaching of the word of God away from Philippi. Keep in mind that Paul said, “No church communicated with me concerning giving and receiving but ye only.” Now the church at Philippi sent directly to Paul. They did not send it through the missionary society. They did not send it through any other organization. They sent it directly to the man in the field. This is the pattern that we read about in the revelation of Christ. So thus far we have established the fact that a local church may secure the services of a preacher and the preacher may remain in this locality and preach the word of God. Secondly, the local church has the God-given right to support a man away from that field and send directly to that man.

But then there is a third thing that we need to know. In 2 Corinthians 11:8 the apostle said, “I robbed other churches.” Now note your Bibles carefully-“churches”, in the plural. “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do ye service.” Now here we find several churches joined together in the supporting of a man of God. But take your Bible and look at it carefully, and you will observe that the churches sent directly to the man. Paul said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do ye service.” Note that they did not send it through the missionary society, they did not send it through any other institution; they sent it directly to the man in the field. Now, my beloved friend, I challenge you to take your Bible and find out if this is not so. First, that a local church can secure the services of a preacher and the preacher remain in that locality preaching the word of God. That is New Testament evangelism. Secondly, you will find where one church supported a man away from that field and they sent directly to him (Philippians 4:15). That is New Testament evangelism. Thirdly, you will find where several churches supported a man-they sent it directly to him, and he went out preaching the word of God. This is New Testament evangelism.

Now this is the way that it ought to be done today, and any time you find churches either supporting an institution, building an institution where the churches are joined together doing this, then they have violated Bible authority, and they are going to cause division within the ranks of God. Today we have division within our ranks, and why? Some of it is due to the fact of evangelism. For an example, several years ago, some of the brethren came up with the idea that we will have what you call a “sponsoring church.” Now some of these little churches of Christ out here in the rural areas are not able to do very much, so what we need is to gather all these churches together in some way and send out preachers. But, they wanted to stay away from the missionary society-that thing had already divided the brethren and the Christian Church has already formed. So they said, “We don’t want a board of directors and we don’t want a missionary society, so we are going to have a sponsoring church.” Now let me tell you what they labored under: They labored under the impression that if you just put that thing under the eldership of a local church that would make it right. And so they called it a “Sponsoring Church,” and to and behold, the first thing you know, you have got a church out here setting itself up as a motherhood church, a sponsoring church, and all the churches of Christ sending their money into it and then the sponsoring church would send out preachers. I challenge you to find the Bible authority for it. I challenge you to show one time in the word of God where there was ever a sponsoring church, where there was ever one church which received funds from other churches to send on to gospel preachers.

Today, we find a lot of people who endorse that idea. They ought to be willing to give book, chapter and verse. They ought to say, “Here it is.” I will tell you one thing: When they give book, chapter and verse, that would help heal the division within our ranks. I will assure you that I would join forces with you when you can show me in the Bible where there was ever a Sponsoring Church which received money four other churches to send out preachers. I challenge you to show me the authority for it.

First of all, there is no Bible authority for it. Secondly, it violates 1 Peter 5, where God told the elders to oversee the flock of God which is “among” them. Now what have you got? You have got a sponsoring church, with elders overseeing people away from them. This violates the very principle God laid down in His word. What is it going to lead to? The same thing as when you had a universal bishop. You are going to have a motherhood church, and eventually, you are going to have someone to control the brotherhood, and it is contrary to the teaching of Christ and contrary to the revelation of Jesus Christ.

After the sponsoring church view came in mind, some of the brethren decided that we needed a world-wide radio program. We needed to preach the gospel to people out there, so then what we needed was a world-wide radio program by the churches of Christ! And to and behold, out in Abilene, Texas, they started one called the “Herald of Truth.” The Abilene church said, “You send us the money and we will put on a nation-wide church of Christ radio program.” Well, this is exactly what they started. Now I ask you, where is the Bible authority for it? I challenge you to give me book, chapter and verse! I want to know where is there any Bible authority for one church to set itself up to have a world-wide radio program by the churches of Christ, to be supported by the churches of Christ, where this church would be the Sponsoring Church? I want to know where is the book, chapter and verse? Now then, if you will give me book, chapter and verse, I will join hands with you. But until then, I am going to stand in opposition to it. What has divided the body of Christ? Why is there division in our ranks? This is exactly why.

How do brethren answer us when we say, Will you please give us book, chapter and verse? What do they say? “Oh,” they say, “You folks are anti, you are just a bunch of antis.” Anti-what? You mean to say that we are antipreachers? If we are anti-preachers, why under the living sun would we support preachers? Why certainly we are not anti-preachers! We are not anti-sending-out-men-of-God. We are just anti the sponsoring church. We are anti the Herald of Truth. We anti anything that sets up this thing and puts it under an eldership where there is not any Bible authority for it! There is not one bit of difference between the missionary society and the sponsoring church except one is under a board of directors and the other is under a local church or eldership. Both of them violate the principle of Bible authority and that is exactly why they are wrong.

But someone might say, “Preacher, you little antis started all this business.” Well, now let me read to you for just a minute. In the 1946 issue of the Gospel Advocate (and most people go by the Gospel Advocate and say that these are the people who stand for the truth and all the rest of them are antis), in the 1946 annual published by the Gospel Advocate, I want to read to you from page 341, in regards to Philippians 4:15-16. Now listen carefully: “Here we see the simple manner in which the church at Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel.” Watch it now. “There was no missionary society in evidence, and none was needed.” Listen. “The brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way it should be done today. No organization is needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized the church to do.” Now that is the absolute truth. Now listen again. “When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up their own, they have already crossed the threshold to apostasy. Let us be satisfied with tile Lord’s manner of doing things. ” That is exactly right! In 1946 this was where the Gospel Advocate stood, but now she says we can do it in another way, and that is why we are divided. It is shameful, but it is so.

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, pp. 277-279
May 5, 1977