Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled” (Matt. 5:6).

My mother grew up on a ranch in Southwest Texas during the depression. My grandfather, Daddy Sprott, was always poor, but during those times they were desperately so. My mother, along with her seven brothers and sisters and my grandparents, made it through one winter on a wagon load of frijoles (beans) that Daddy Sprott bought from a Mexican in Uvalde, along with corn bread and the milk, butter and cream from one cow. They knew hunger as most people of my generation and younger have never experienced.

The Lord spoke of those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness.” What does this mean? How shall they be filled?

The original language is striking here.

“It is a rule of Greek grammar teat verbs: of hungering and thirsting are followed by the genitive case. The genitive case is the case which, in English, is expressed by the word of; of the man is the genitive case. The genitive which follows verbs of hungering and thirsting in Greek is called the partitive genitive, that is the genitive of the’ part. The idea is this. The Greek said, ‘I hunger for of bread.’ It was some bread he desired, not the whole loaf. The Greek said, ‘I thirst for of water.’ It was some water he desired, a drink of water, not all the water in the tank. But in this beatitude most unusually righteousness. is in the direct accusative, and not in the normal genitive. Now, when verbs of hungering and thirsting in Greek take the accusative instead of the genitive, the meaning is that the hunger and thirst is for the whole thing. To say I hunger for bread in the accusative means, I want the whole loaf. To say I thirst for water in the accusative means, I want the whole pitcher. Therefore the correct translation of this is:

” Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for the whole of righteousness, for complete righteousness.”1

As people in my mother’s childhood, only more so, the poor people in the time of Jesus were pitifully familiar with hunger and thirst. A hired hand in Palestine earned one Roman denarius (“penny,” KJV) for a day’s labor (cf. Matt. 20:1-2). It was worth about seventeen cents.2 Even if we allow for present inflation, that did not buy very much. These men had to work every day, or their families would go hungry. At best, they were always just a step ahead of real hunger. Meat was a luxury enjoyed only once a week.

In the dry Bible lands, people were familiar with real thirst. The hot desert wind blowing stinging sand into one’s face would create a terrible, throat-wrenching thirst.

The Lord did not speak of a little hunger pang to be met by a light snack. Nor did He refer to the half-hearted desire for a sip of tea. He rather spoke of a craving hunger and a driving thirst which a man would do anything to satisfy.

One of the basic reasons most people in our day refuse to obey the Gospel is that they do not “hunger and thirst after righteousness.” Many know what they should do, but they are simply not interested enough in salvation to do anything about it. They are careless of their lost condition. Others who are ignorant of the truth do not care enough to honestly, diligently study. To the Spirit’s tender invitation they respond, “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season I will call for thee” (Acts 24:26).

We must be as the ancient psalmist:

“As the hart panteth after the waterbrooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.

“My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” (Ps. 42:1-2; cf. 63:1).

As Paul, we must count the rightousness that comes through Christ more important than anything else in the world (Phil 3:7-9).

How are those who “hunger and thirst after righteous … filled”?

To be righteous is to be right in point of law, to be declared not guilty. Those who are “poor in spirit” recognize they are sinners, destitute of this righteousness. They “mourn” over their guilt. Those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” have a craving desire to be right with God, to be declared “not guilty” and enjoy fellowship with their Maker.

One who desires something is filled when that which he craves is supplied. How is righteousness supplied? Righteousness is certainly not supplied by our own perfect obedience to God’s law. In the Roman letter Paul discussed this very problem. Of perfect obedience, he declared, “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:9-10). This is because “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

If we are to be right, our guilt must be removed by executive pardon (forgiveness) through the grace of the Lawgiver. God, by his grace, sent his Son as a propitiation for our sins, that we through him might receive the forgiveness of our sins by the sacrifice of his blood on the cross (Rom. 3:21-26′; 4:6-8). This plan of forgiveness, whereby we might be as spotlessly righteous as though we had never sinned, is the gospel (Rom. 1:16). Those who believe and obey the Gospel appropriate to themselves the forgiveness God has promised and become righteous by God’s mercy through their own obedient faith (Rom. 4:5; 6:17-18). This gospel fist began to be preached on the first Pentecost after the Lord’s resurrection, and on that very day the righteousness of the kingdom of Heaven was first granted to hungering and thirsting souls (Acts 2:37-41).

Dear, careless, sinner, are you not parched and weary in a baked “desert of sin”? Do you not hunger to be filled with the bread of righteousness from Heaven? The Master offers water, whereof, if a man drinks, he “shall never thirst” (Jn. 4:13-14). Jesus is “the bread of life,” and whoever comes to Him “shall never hunger” (Jn. 6:35). All who truly “hunger and thirst after righteousness” shall be filled abundantly by forgiveness 1hrought the Gospel (Matt. 7:7-11).

Why, then, dear sinner, will you perish miserably in hunger and thirst?

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

“Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is no bread? and you labor for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness” (Isa. 55:1-2).

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).

FOOTNOTES

1 William Barclay. The Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia, 1958), 1, 96.

2 John D. Davis, Davis Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972), pp. 533-34.

Truth Magazine, XX:26; p. 11-12
June 24, 1976

By H. Edward McCaskill

I have been a reader of The Spiritual Sword, published by the Getwell church of Christ in Memphis and edited by my long time friend and former teacher, Thomas B. Warren, for a number of years. The material contained in this publication has been excellent and I have appreciated a host of timely and scriptural articles from Tom and his staff of writers.

Occasionally, however, Tom gets a bit overly zealous and takes a thrust at some he designates as “antis.” I assume, in the present usage, as he has in the past, he is referring to those of us who oppose the sponsoring church arrangement and church support of human institutions.

In the Volume 6, Number 3 issue, dated April of last year, Brother Warren says in as article entitled, “Skepticism is the Basic Issue Now,” “On the one hand, the men who uphold the `anti’ positions (I mean no unkindness in using this term) are men who believe in God and in the Bible as His inspired, inerrant, and authoritative word. They hold that truth is absolute (objective) and is attainable (can be learned). In all of this (and more) they are right. But, they disallowed what God has authorized (cf. Tim. 4:1-5) and thus caused great trouble to the church.”

I, for one, do not believe a simple statement such as the above, regardless of how kindly and graciously made should go unnoticed. Brother Warren’s magazine, to my knowledge, has not devoted an issue to an objective study of the “Institutional Controversy.” Nevertheless, statements of the above accuse those of us who have for almost a quarter of a century sought God’s authorization for the above mentioned endeavors of being the guilty ones of disturbing the Lord’s church. If God has authorized such then I, with all honesty and sincerity, want to know it.

Tom, it seems, has wilfully forgotten that he among others helped some of us to see the truth in the institutional controversy and the fallacy of false reasoning on these issues many years ago. For example, in a three part series of truth-setting articles that appeared in the Gospel Guardian, Volume 6, Numbers 3, 4, and 5, dated May 20, May 27, June 3, 1954 respectively, under the title, “Evasions of the Law of Rationalism”, he showed, in article 1, that the Herald of Truth sponsoring-type-arrangement and church support of human institutions such as Boles Home could not be defended on the basis of the say-so of some highly respected individual. In article 2 he showed that such could not be authorized on the basis of emotional appeal. Simply stated, the end does not justify the means. The third article, “Argumentum ad hominem” – argument to the man-stated, “Again, some brother writes an article in which he calls in question the principle of ‘cooperation’ involved in such things as the Herald of Truth! As an ‘answer’ to the arguments which were made, other brethren say, Oh, he is just as “anti.” He is not for real plans which really get the job of preaching done. You need pay no attention to what he says. . . . ” And further in closing his article Tom makes a timely appeal: “Brethren, may this sincere plea sink into good and honest hearts: let us grow spiritually to the point where our practices may be called in question without our making a personal attack upon the man who asked the questions.” Tom was right then even though he may have forgotten his appeal and has resorted to the same tactics he at one time abhorred. One would definitely surmise and conclude from a reading of these articles (and others that he wrote —- remember those two interesting fictitious characters Kareah and Jakim?). Later he changed and even debated the issues with Bro. Cecil Douthitt in Houston, and assisted others as a moderator in their discussions. Still, some of us have not been convinced with his “component parts-constituent elements” arguments establishing Biblical authority, nor appeals to emotion, or to name calling, nor to the words of highly respected men of the scripturalness of such arrangements under consideration.

Furthermore, if seeking Biblical authority through command, example, or necessary inference, has caused great trouble in the church then trouble shall continue. I will simply not accept the incrimination of Tom’s usage of Tim 4:1-5 and admit that I have “disallowed what God has authorized.” I am still waiting and willing and anxious to learn, after all these years, where God has allowed it.

Truth Magazine, XX:26, p. 11
June 24, 1976

By Donald P Ames

The other Sunday, while driving to worship services, we passed one of the local denominational buildings, and my youngest son remarked, “That’s a bad church, isn’t it, Daddy?” Of course, one’s first reaction is to point out that calling it a “bad church” is not polite, but that it is a church that does not follow the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. To this, he promptly replied, “But that makes it a bad church, doesn’t it?”

Perhaps this is one of the problems we are facing today. We have become too concerned about being polite, and have not called a spade a spade. By this I do not mean one should go out of his way to deliberately be insulting and offensive, but on the other hand, we need to make a clearer distinction between the Lord’s church and those of the world. Yes, it this context, it is a “bad church!”

But, what characteristics make up a “bad church.” Surely none of us would want to be affiliated with a church that was bad, so we ought to give some thought to this very idea. If a church can be described as “bad,” then it cannot be part of that which came from God (James 1:17), and we should want to avoid it at all costs.

First of all, we might note that a church is “bad” if it does not care enough about the Lord to honor Him by wearing His name. We would not term women of the world as “good” if they went about dishonoring their husbands as their heads and seeking constantly to be identified as belonging to someone else instead. Even so, the church of the Lord belongs to Christ. He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28), and loves it as husbands are to love their wives (Eph. 5:22-33). Since it is the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2), it is but natural that it would be identified as the “church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Any church that does not give the Lord the respect He deserves in this way, but prefers to flirt around with the names of human origin in reality dishonors Christ by such actions, and is a “bad church.”

In this same line of thought, a church could be identified as a “bad church” (even if it honored Christ by wearing His name) if it refuses to honor Him as truly being its head. Again, if Mrs. Jones was willing to wear the name of Mrs. Jones, but refused to be in submission to her husband and preferred to run after other men, she would be termed “bad.” Even so, Christ’s being the head of the church (Eph. 5:23-24), has the authority to direct its activities. Not only does the Bible so affirm (Eph. 1:20-23), but such is inherent in the very confession we make in obedience to the Gospel of Christ (Rom. 10:9-10). But too many churches today have set aside the headship (authority) of Christ and begun to flirt with practices and doctrines of human origin.

Whether it be following the creeds of men, the pursuit of the Social Gospel, or practices of human origin such as instrumental music and centralized cooperative arrangements; if such cannot be justified by the word of God, then it has originated and developed by the flirtation and seeking of the good favor of men. As such, the church would stand in rebellion to its head, and thus be correctly identified as a “bad church.”

Again, a church can be identified as “bad” when that which it teaches is designed to deceive and mislead others. If someone was able to lead you to great riches, but instead sent you off on a wild goose chase that resulted in you being lost all day and perhaps even cost you your life, we would say such a person was mean and bad. The same is true of the church. This is not to say that all do so intentionally, but denominational churches deceive and mislead people into thinking they have found salvation, when in reality such is not so. They convince them they can be saved by “faith only” and thus they feel “safe,” when in reality their soul is still lost and seeking. They convince them that sprinkling is acceptable as baptism, but the Bible plainly teaches that baptism is by immersion (Rom. 6:4), and that in such one obtains the forgiveness of his sins (Rom. 6:7, Acts 2:38). They claim it makes no difference of what church one is a member when in reality Christ died to purchase His church (Acts 20:28) and this is the only one He has promised to save (Eph. 5:26-27). Others would even go so far as to deny that there is any need to be concerned whether or not the word of God was so – and usually deny it in the end. To them, the important thing is that you “do your own thing.” However this too will result in souls being lost for eternity (Matt. 7:21-23). Such deception and misleading certainly makes a church “bad” in that regardless of their good points, they still give a false security that results in one being lost. Even though one may sincerely believe a lie, that does not make it right in the sight of God (read 1 Kings 13, particularly v. 18 and 21).

But other churches decline to teach all that God would have them, and engage in practices that contradict God’s word (silently assuming it is acceptable, and are unconcerned about it). A woman may not teach that fornication is right, but if she practices it anyway, her practice is a testimony against her that she is bad. So also with the church. Some will not teach for the instrument, institutionalism, and fellowship with those engaged in practices contrary to the word of God. If you pinned them down, they would probably reply, “I’m not sure yet. I haven’t studied it.” Yet they go ahead and practice it – and this in direct violation of the statement in Rom. 14:23. By their silence, they are giving their approval. They are, in reality, in the same class as those Edomites whom God reproved Obadiah 1:11: “In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou was as one of them.” They, too, are deceiving the people, and shall have to give account in the Day of Judgment, just as those who “sufferest that woman Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:20). Such a church is not a “good church” in God’s eyes, and thus would be “bad” for failing to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3).

Yes, we need to be more emphatic! Quit minimizing the error of denominationalism! Quit being so polite that people do not get the point of our lessons! No, we do not need to go out of our way to be rude and offensive, but on the other hand, if it is the truth, let us be men enough to stand up and say so! “Yes, son, it is a ‘bad church.'”

Truth Magazine, XX:26, p. 9-10
June 26, 1976

By Cecil Belcher

It is with deep sorrow that we report the untimely death of Brother Russell Parks, age 68. Brother Parks was preaching for the Central Church of Christ Terre Haute, Indiana at the time of his death. He was born June 9, 1907 and passed from this life March 11, 1976 at the Regional Hospital, Terre Haute, Indiana. Memorial services were conducted at the Orvis-Palmer Funeral Home, South Bend, Indiana March 15 with Brother Doyle Hood leading the congregation present in songs and Cecil Belcher delivered the Bible lesson to those assembled. Brother Parks loved the Gospel of Christ and it was indeed fitting that it should be preached on that occasion.

Brother Parks had been a faithful member of the Caroline Street church in South Bend, for a number of years. Shortly after my move to South Bend, it was possible for us to begin teaching Bible classes in some nursing homes. His interest increased and he decided that he would seek for a small congregation that could provide him a place to live but no salary. He felt that he could live off of his retirement benefits. In late October, 1975, he moved to work with the Central church in Terre Haute, Indiana. He was enjoying his work with the brethren there and anticipating much good being done but, on March 4th, when returning home from having his evening meal he became ill. He stopped his car and stepped to the sidewalk and was attacked by some one or ones injuring him so that he was paralyzed from his neck down. He was placed into the rear seat of his car and driven to another part of town; his billfold was taken and he was left in the car for some twelve hours when a child heard his call for help and summoned its mother who called for assistance. He was placed in the intensive care unit where he was only able to regain use of his arms. My wife and I were able to visit him March 6th and he was hoping to be able to carry on his preaching duties in a short time but due to the paralysis his condition grew worse and he passed from this life about one week after the brutal attack.

He is survived by two sons, George of Indianapolis, Larry of South Bend, five grandchildren, two brothers, Tom of Oklahoma, Ralph of Indianapolis, and one sister, Ruby Pope of Plainfield, Indiana.

He was loved much by the church here at South Bend and the church in Terre Haute as well as by a large number of friends and brethren who knew him.

Brother Parks had written and published a book of poems entitled “God’s Plan and Other Poems” one of which is used here.

Man’s Eternal Soul

My soul was steeped in sin and lost

My life meant naught to me,

Until I heard the story told

Of Christ on Calvary.

I went to Him in simple faith

and ask “What must I do?”

I found the answer in His word

Just like all sinners do.

Baptism freed me from my sins,

(Oh what a friend is He!)

The blood he shed on Calvary’s cross

Can set all sinners free.

And now I live my life for God

And soon my home shall be

A mansion that my Saviour said

That he’d prepare for me.

(Russell Parks)

Truth Magazine, XX:26, p. 7
June 26, 1976