Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The word of God is composed of both milk and meat (Heb. 5:12-14). The Bible includes both simple principles and “some things hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). At best, we all have challenges to overcome in studying God’s word. We need to “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col. 3:16). Just as inspired men were gifted to “speak as the oracles of God” and were to speak only God’s word, so we are to “speak the things which become sound doctrine” and nothing else (1 Pet. 4:11; Tit. 2:1; Rev. 22:18-19). As we immerse ourselves in the Bible and Bible language, we equip ourselves to “call Bible things by Bible names.” The more we understand about God’s word, the purer our speech should become.

Some individuals have the knack of creating needless confusion. They think they are teaching the brethren a pure speech at times when they are only making pointless distinctions. Some seem to pride themselves in discovering supposed gross inconsistencies in language commonly used by brethren. Perfectly good synonyms in the English language are labeled “the language of Ashdod,” and speaking a Bible language has been made by some to mean speaking the King James English of 1611. Speaking Bible language and calling Bible things by Bible names does not mean freezing James’ English for ever more, amen! We speak as the Bible speaks when we teach exactly what it teaches-and that does not necessarily mean constant rote recitation of a Bible verse in King James English.

Some think they have discovered earthshaking distinctions by moving, removing, or otherwise rearranging commas, question marks, periods, colons, and other punctuation marks. Occasionally, an observation on some punctuation mark can bring a point into clearer focus; but here again, some brethren seem to pride themselves in juggling the punctuation marks to discover some great truth overlooked by others (and amazingly missed by the translators and grammarians who have spent a lifetime studying such matters!). Doubt and confusion is thus created regarding commonly accepted and sound use of scripture.

We do not mean to question the sincerity of all brethren who may feel safer using one verse than another to teach some Bible truth, or who may raise points for study. We recognize that some even hold personal opinions on some such matters, but they have the good sense to recognize them for nothing more than that-personal opinions. But some are creating needless confusion over such matters. Brethren, there are enough difficulties, challenges, and problems at best. It would be well to use extreme caution, common sense, and patience in further examination before blurting out some “new-found discovery overlooked by most of the brethren.”

Ever so often we are treated to an “appeal for Bible language” by an elimination of the expression “members of the church.” The ignorance of this appeal has probably been exposed a thousand times through the years, but every so often some bright new “scholar” does an “in-depth” study and “discovers” it all over again. It is currently circulating in several places again, so we shall look at it again.

What Is the Church?

The word “church” as used in New Testament times was not just a religious word or used only in a religious context. It meant any “called-out” group. In the Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine points out church “was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of State, Acts 19:39” and even of “a riotous mob” (Acts 19:32,41). The word was applied to “companies of Christians,” either “the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era” (Matt. 16:18) or “a company consisting of professed believers” as in a given locality (1 Cor. 1:2). Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says “the Greeks” used the term church of various gatherings of people, then “the Israelites” used it of their various assemblies; the word could be used of “any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance” for whatever purpose; because the word basically meant any “gathering” or “assembly” of people, it was properly used of “an assembly of Christians gathered for worship” or “a company of Christians.” The original word is ekklesia.

What are some English words used today which represent the idea found in the Greek word ekklesia. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary reports there is an English word church which is currently used of “a body or organization of religious believers” or “congregation.” Ekklesia is a body or congregation of believers, so “church” is a good translation for today. Searching for synonyms, we find company would fit well because it means an “association” or “fellowship,” “a group of persons.” Assembly will also work, since it means “a company of persons gathered for deliberation, and legislation, worship, or entertainment.” Obviously, many different kinds of groups can be called an assembly and obviously a group of God’s people gathered for worship can be called an assembly.

Some translators have suggested community, which will also convey the idea of ekklesia. A community is “a unified body of individuals,” “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest,” “a group linked together by common policy,” “joint ownership or participation,” “fellowship.” Congregation is sometimes used, and correctly so; it is “an assembly of persons: gathering.” The common, humble word group works very well, meaning “a number of individuals assembled together or having common interests.” The ekklesia is certainly a number of individuals with common interests.

But what is a member? Webster reports it is, “one of the individuals composing a group,” “a constituent part of a whole.” One of the individuals composing the ekklesia is a member of the ekklesia! If the ekklesia is a group, one of its individuals is a member! Since a congregation is “an assembly of persons,” then any one person is “a constituent part of (the) whole”-a member. A community is “a unified body of individuals” and a member is “one of the individuals;” a community has members. An assembly is “a company of persons” and any one person of the whole is a member. A company is “a group” and “a group” has members. A “church” is a body or group or congregation, and any “one of the individuals” composing it is a member-“a constituent part of a whole.” If it is proper to translate ekklesia “church” (or “company,” “assembly,” “community,” “congregation,” “group”)and it is – then it is proper to speak of members of the church.

When the Holy Spirit chose ekklesia, he chose a word which designates a whole or a group. Every whole or group has parts or members, so it is necessarily implied that the ekklesia has parts or members. Yet one cannot find in the Bible the expression “parts of the whole,” “parts of the church,” “members of the whole,” or “members of the church.” The concept of members of the church is revealed through the very word ekklesia. A rose is a rose by any other name-the church has members regardless of how one may choose to express it. Brethren are at liberty to use a synonym for “member” if they wish, but not a liberty to create needless confusion over the matter.

Institution, Organization?

Sometimes brethren object to the expression “bloodbought institution” to describe the church. “The church is not an institution or organization-such terms are not found in the Bible-they are `the language of Ashdod!’ ” Brethren will labor long and hard on such points as though their speech were more sound than others’, then demonstrate their own absurdity by calling the church “an aggregate.” As a brother who witnessed one of these performances said one time, “Since that term was not in the Bible either, I had to go home and look it up in the dictionary!” Some who urge the use of “collective” to the exclusion of other terms apparently have not noticed that it is also in the dictionary but not in the Bible.

A collective is “a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole,” “a collective body: group,” “a cooperative unit or organization.” That describes the church all right, but so does “institution.” Any “significant practice, relationship, or organization,” any “established society” is an institution. Taking another source along with Webster, we learn an institution is “that which is instituted or established,” as under certain principles and laws.

The church is an “organization” because it has “the condition . . . of being organized,” it is an “association, society. ” To “organize” is “to arrange or form into a coherent unity or functioning whole,” “to arrange by systematic planning and united effort.” Yes, the church ,has the condition. of being organized and is therefore an organization. “Aggregate” is also a proper term; it means anything “formed by the collection of units or particles into a body, mass, or amount: COLLECTIVE.” (Notice that “aggregation” is “a group, body, or mass composed of many distinct parts: ASSEMBLAGE”-it has parts or members!)

The charge is made that when we call the church an institution or organization, we are evidencing the denominational idea of institutionalism. We are told we should do everything possible to get people’s minds away from institutionalism, therefore we should drop the use of “institution.” But there is a difference between institution al-ISM and the church being an institution.

“ISM” frequently denotes “abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing.” Accordingly, the definition of institutionalism is “emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors.” The “ism” carries the significance of undue emphasis, out-of-balance, abuse. The scheme of redemption revealed in the Gospel Age is rational, emotional, and legal in various aspects; it also involves an institution-bought by the blood of Christ, extablished and organized under the direction of Christ, headed by Christ, belonging to him. But the scheme of redemption is not characterized by rationalism, emotionalism, legalism, or institutionalism.

The way to correct the abuse of the gospel by the religious world is not by dropping perfectly good terms and throwing away all helpful synonyms, but by showing what the Bible teaches on each matter in plainness and simplicity. The same is true of terms like grace, faith, love, etc. (To be continued.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, pp. 40-41
January 20, 1977

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

“Do not say, ‘Why is it that the former days were better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this” (Eccl. 7:10, NASB).

How is one to take the sudden fetish in society for the nostalgic? Movies like Summer of 42, The Way We Were and That’s Entertainment as well as television programs like The Waltons and Happy Days which exploit the past become instant hits. Adults and teenagers alike are fawning for the “good old days;” commercials urge us to return to “basics;” aged “rock ‘n roll” stars are making startling “comebacks;” and in the world of fashion there is an obvious throwback to earlier styles and tastes. What does it all mean? Is this just another quirk of a strange secular society? Can we cast it aside lightly as a temporary “fad?” Or is there a subtler, deeper meaning behind this phenomenon? Let us look a little closer at the present situation and perhaps uncover some surprising answers.

“Post-Christian” Age

Author Francis Schaeffer has suggested that we are living in a “post-Christian” age. The implication is that those who hold the Bible to be a revelation from the Creator God and a binding pattern in one’s life are no longer in the majority. There is no longer what we might accommodatively call a “Christian consensus” among politicians, educators, scientists – those making up the core of the leadership in a nation. Instead such ideologies as humanism, communism, atheism and existentialism now hold dominance in the major social institutions. No longer is there a consensus of majority that believes there are absolutes, that there are definite answers to ultimate questions, that God has something to say as to our conduct in this life. The traumatic experience of “Watergate” should alert us to the utter erosion of a moral sense among those in positions of authority. Our children are fed the evolutionist line so “matter-of-factly” that it seems seldom that anyone ever stops to consider that “evolution” is an unproven, faulty human hypothesis. The notion that there is a rational order of meaning behind the universe is rarely pondered by the majority. Hence, we are living in an age where God has been “phased out” by a self-righteous, arrogant society which sees itself too “sophisticated” to be bothered with the possibility of creation as a reasonable answer to the problem of origin.

The aftermath of two generations of persistent atheistic and hedonistic philosophy is that man has virtually cast off all restraints and is speeding headlong into perdition.(1) The most important questions of life, the most fundamental queries of day-to-day living are thought unanswerable by most. Young people have been reared in a skeptical academic atmosphere that affirms man is an animal and only an animal! To our “intelligensia” man is simply a machine, the result of the chance collision of a few molecules, the aftermath of a chemical reaction. No matter how one adds it up, if what today’s “geniuses” say is true, man is a zero. If man be nothing but a domesticated mammal, soulless and Godless, then any appeal to – “rationality” or “common sense” is utter nonsense. And the logical dilemma that these learned men find themselves in is that; if man’s thoughts and actions are merely biochemical accidents, who then can confidently affirm any .explanation for the origin of life or basis for existence-including their own?

Some Observations

In view of the above, let us make some observations regarding the phenomenon of the obsession with nostalgia. It is apparent that the past has an appeal that present circumstances do not; evidently it represents something substantial which the present lacks. The fact is: society is living on the memory of Christianity. Modern culture has systematically swept away all the foundations for a rational (i.e., Biblical) existence. According to modern ethics there is no reason why someone should not kidnap, steal, murder, rape or perform any of the other sinful deeds mankind is fond of committing; after all, if man is just an “animal” how can we hold him responsible for his conduct? Ironically, however, modern society still lives as if Christianity were true. Men still become outraged at death and pillage and plunder, though theoretically for them there is no reason to be outraged. They are living on a memory! Back there, somewhere there is a feeling among the nostalgic that there was a better or more simpler way that has been lost. Such are wistfully searching for that time – a salve for the deep emptiness and loneliness that fills their souls.. They seek that “Christian consensus” that prevailed over society in those earlier decades. No, not everyone was a New Testament Christian – BUT there was a majority that held the Bible was God’s book and that what it said mattered! Back in “the good old days” more people believed that there were answers and that man did have meaning, being someone unique in creation. But now that belief has vanished from the public domain and three generations cry out in despair for meaning, seeking it in the past.

Now is the time for those who have some answers God’s answers – to stand up and with a loud and clear voice proclaim them! There are many that are searching for truth and now is the golden opportunity to capture them for Christ. Let us have no “uncertain sound” uttered from our tongues, rather let us in unison direct men to the only shelter and antidote to despair that there is . . . Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. From this task we must not back down.

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, p. 7
January 20, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

The Psalmist said, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly . . .” (Psa. 1:1).

Rehoboam, son of Solomon, asked for advice when he was about to be made king. The people wanted their burdens made lighter. The older men advised Rehoboam to be considerate of the people. “But he forsook the counsel of the old men . . .” (1 Ki. 12:8). Turning to the younger men, his contemporaries, Rehoboam was advised to answer the people sternly and to warn that he would increase their burdens. Speaking to them after the counsel of the young men, he said, “My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” Rebellion broke out. Ten tribes revolted and made Jeroboam their king.

Not long after Jeroboam took command of the newly formed ten-tribe kingdom, he said in his heart that the people must not be allowed to go up to Jerusalem to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord. He feared that going to Jerusalem for worship would turn the hearts of the people back to Rehoboam, and they would slay Jeroboam. “Wherefore the king took counsel . . .” (1 Kgs. 12:28). Whoever his advisers were, their counsel must have been wicked. The king set up calves of gold, one in Dan and one in Bethel, and urged the people to worship in their own kingdom. He argued that it was too much to go all the way to Jerusalem. He changed the feast day and ordained men to the priesthood who were not of the tribe of Levi. His greatest desire was to insure his political position.

In the days when Ahaziah, grandson of Jehoshaphat, was. ruling in Judah, evil counsel had a strong influence. Ahaziah’s mother was a daughter of the notorious Ahab. It was said of Ahaziah, “He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counselor to do wickedly. Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the Lord like the house of Ahab: for they were his counselors after the death of his father to his destruction” (2 Chron. 22:2-4).

Often men feel the need for advice. How careful we must be that counsel we receive is not evil.

Twentieth-Century Examples

Sometimes people with marriage problems turn to professional counselors. A lot of these “experts” in the field of marriage know nothing about the teaching of the Scriptures. They give advice which sets their clients on a course directly opposed to the will of the Lord. Beware of the counselors who are not Christians!

People with emotional problems sometimes seek the advice of psychiatrists. Not a few professionals in the field of psychiatry are anti-religious. They see religion as a major cause of mental disorders. Take heed that your faith be not wrecked by such evil counselors!

And people are constantly looking to preachers and religious leaders for spiritual advice. Unfortunately, many of these do not respect the authority of Jesus Christ. Preachers who are bound up in sectarianism are not good counselors. Preachers who deny the miracles of the Bible are unfit to counsel others in spiritual matters. Preachers who interpret the Bible to suit themselves are not safe advisers. Beware of religious leaders whose counsel disagrees with the word of God!

High school teachers and college professors frequently give advice to their students. Some of these instructions know not God. Many are rank evolutionists. Some of them glory in human wisdom and delight in making fun of the Bible. It is not uncommon for college professors to urge young people to throw off restraints of morality. Beware of these wicked counselors!

One who feels the need of advice about something that affects the course of his life or the destiny of his souls should seek a godly, wise, and respected person to be his counselor. Mature persons are better prepared to give advice, generally speaking, than are the inexperienced.

Weigh all advice carefully by the word of God. No matter what men may say, God’s word is right. His word should be the final word. The only truly infallible guide that we have is the Bible.

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsel. . .” (Prov. 1:5). “Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end” (Prov. 19:20).

When people are taught to expect the Holy Spirit to guide them apart from God’s word and they wait for a mysterious operation, the counsel is evil.

When Christians are encouraged to believe that in some manner the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them simply because they are children of God, no matter how they live nor what they believe, that counsel is evil.

When men and women are advised to expect salvation from sin by faith without obedience to the gospel, that counsel is evil.

When people are advised that all truth is relative and none absolute, and that right and wrong depend solely on one’s situation rather than a fixed standard, that counsel is evil.

Do not misled by wicked counsel.

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, p. 38
January 20, 1977

By Cecil Willis

When we speak of a miracle we do not mean by it what the Modernist means. He says a miracle is the religious name for any event. When we speak of a miracle, we mean an event which cannot be explained by natural causes. It is effected by a supernatural power. In this article I want to turn to the Old Testament to study some of the more noteworthy miracles in it. Our purpose in doing this is just to refresh our memory as to what the Bible teaches about the happening of miracles.

Creation

The first miracle that comes to one’s mind as he thinks of the Bible would, of course, be the miracle of creation. How did all these things we see about us come to be? Where did this universe come from? And where did life originate? The answer to all these questions as to origins is found in the Biblical account of creation. We find a record of the origin of the heavens and the earth stated in this language: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). No better explanation can be offered than this one as to the origin of the earth. Let it also be here noted that this creation was an absolute creation. It was a creation of something out of nothing. It was not a mere renovation or a reordering of the state of something already existent. The Hebrew word for create, bara, implies that it had no previous existence. Had the idea of reformation been implied, the word would not have been “create” (bara), but the word “made” (asah). So an absolute creation is implied. In accord with the definition of a miracle, this cannot be explained naturalistically. Men cannot make an absolute creation. They cannot create something from nothing. Only God can do this.

Probably, the first chapter of Genesis has been attacked more by critics than any other single chapter in all of the Bible. The tragedy is that the severest critics are those who profess to be children of God. Preachers and members of denominational bodies are ready to deny the Biblical account of creation. They unhesitatingly speak of the “creation myth”. They tell us that this universe and its contents were not fashioned in six days, but in hundreds of thousands of years. They believe that God set off the first spark of activity, and that all the rest of what we know came by a gradual and even process of evolution. They are theistic evolutionists. They believe that God began the cycles. Others are naturalistic evolutionists believing that nature is the parent of all there is; God had nothing to do with it.

They begin their argument against the Biblical account of creation by denying that the days of Gen. 1 are twenty-four hour days. They assume that each day spoken of in Gen. 1 refers to a geological era, often said to be about 250,000 years, rather than to an ordinary twenty-four hour day. How they arrive at this wonderful data we are not told. But if one will stop to think of this he will see the absurdity of it. These same individuals are quick to deny that people lived as long as the Bible declares they did. Methuselah, for example, lived to be 969 years old (Gen. 5:27). Yet they admit that Adam was created on the sixth day. Then God rested on the seventh day (remember, if they are correct, God had a 250,000-year rest). Later Adam and Eve sinned, so this must have been at least on another day after God’s rest, so man lived at least the eighth day. So, Adam lived a part of the sixth, seventh, and was yet alive on the eighth day. If a day is a geological era, then Adam lived at least 250,000 years. This would be as great an obstacle to the Modernist as the Biblical record of creation.

In like manner, they scoff at the idea of a fiat creation. Fiat creation means to speak something into existence. In Gen. 1:3, we have an example of fiat creation: “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” This is too great a miracle for them to accept. So they reject it, thinking they can offer a better explanation by suggesting that evolution gave birth to all that there is. They claim that science has proven the theory of evolution to be true. But can science ever prove a theory of origins? Science is supposed to be based upon observation and experiment. But no one could observe the beginning, for there would be no one present to observe it. But the Bible gives us evidence of its supernatural origin by predicting events centuries before they occur; this is super-human. Man cannot accurately predict the future. Thus proving its inspiration, the Bible gives us an authentic account of the creation.

The Bible declares that the first life was created of God. Psuedo-scientists deny this to be true. But where did the first life come from? It either has to be eternal, or to have been created by God, or to have come from matter which scientists must assume to have been eternal. The problem of proving the origin of life is one most difficult for the evolutionist. He would much rather talk about what has happened since the first living cell originated. But they are morally obligated to give a more plausible explanation if they are to deny the Biblical origin of life. Either something has always lived, or something came from nothing. So they must say that matter is the parent of everything. So it resolves itself into a problem of whether it is more reasonable to believe that blind, insensate, unintelligible matter gave birth to everything, or to believe that an infinite all-wise God created the universe and its contents. For me, I will accept this great miracle of creation, and say with David, “Know ye that Jehovah, he is God: It is he that hath made us, and we are his” (Psa. 100:3) God is the Creator of the universe, of life, and of man.

The Flood

Another miracle of the Old Testament which has been the center of considerable discussion is the Flood. You will remember that God warned Noah of the Flood, and told him to prepare an ark to the saving of his house. Noah followed carefully and minutely the instructions of God, building the ark precisely according to the pattern given him by God. Finally, when the Flood came, only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were saved to repopulate the earth. The unbelieving critics of the Bible regard the account of the Flood as but another religious myth. They think it preposterous to believe that at one time the waters covered the entire earth, and destroyed all of mankind except eight souls.

While the New Testament also tells of the Flood, it would likely not be any more authentic to the unbeliever than the Old Testament account. But I am not willing to cease quoting the Bible as authoritative until these critics answer the arguments proving the Bible’s inspiration. In 1 Pet. 3:18-20, we have mention made of the Flood: “Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved through water.” Jesus also stamps the story of the Flood as a truth when He warns of the nature of His second coming. It will be suddenly and without warning. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man” (Mt. 24:35-39). So the New Testament and the Flood account stand or fall together. Modernists, or those who profess to believe the Bible, but deny miracles, want to accept the ethical and moral teachings in the Bible, but deny the miraculous happenings, but Jesus teaches that these Old Testament miracles, and the New Testament teachings stand or fall together.

Furthermore, virtually every ancient civilization has had an account of the Flood preserved. The Babylonian account of the Flood has been discovered and deciphered so that today we are able to compare the account of this ancient civilization with the Biblical account of the Flood. We could go through the different civilizations and study their versions of the Flood, but space will not permit. However, let us notice this statement from a five-volume set entitled, World’s Great Events: “The one tradition which is really universal among those bearing on the history of primitive man is that of the Deluge (Flood-CW).It would, perhaps, be too much to say that it is found among all people; but it occurs among all the great races of the human species, with one important exception, the black race, among whom no trace of the tradition has been found, either among the African tribes or the populations of Polynesia” (Vol. 1, p. 35). But this is the important point

of this whole discussion on the universality of the Flood nor in ancient accounts: How did these accounts come to be? Did a legend just simultaneously spring up within each civilization throughout the world, with no support in reality? Was there nothing in fact or reality to support the account of the Flood? Yet, there is remarkable similarity between these accounts. Virtually all of them declare that the population was destroyed by water, that only a few were saved, and they were saved

by being in a ship or an ark. These are the essential events of the Biblical accounts. The truth is, the Flood actually happened, and it was such a momentous occasion in the annals of human history that each civilization preserved a story of it.

Also great masses of sea shells are to be found in the tops of mountains, and on one occasion the skeleton of a great shark was found in the top of a high mountain. This find silenced the argument of the infidels that the sea shells happened to be in the mountains because the pilgrims carried them there on their journeys, for it was quite inconceivable that a pilgrim would carry an eighteen-foot shark into a high mountain. In like manner, and as an additional proof, some outstanding geologists, such as George McCready Price explained the phenomena of geology by the Flood, and offer good proof for such explanation.

Conclusion

One cannot just discredit the Old Testament miracles with a wave of the hand. Those who deny such miracles much rather choose to laugh at them and to ridicule those who believe that miracles actually happened than to come to the polemical platform to offer good proof in denial of miracles. Scoffing is cheaper than offering arguments.

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, pp. 35-37
January 20, 1977