Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

A Clue From Joshua

When Joshua gathered the tribes of Israel together at ancient Shechem, the aged solider and leader of the armies of God reminisced about Israel’s hoary past. But it was not altogether resplendent with glory. In the years before God’s revelation of Himself to Abram, there was no distinguishable difference between the patriarch’s religious heritage and that vile heathen idolatry which was the possession of the nations around him. “And Joshua said unto all the people, ‘Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac'” (Josh. 24:2,3). Joshua’s allusion gives us added information upon the religious patrimony of Abram which is only hinted at in Genesis chapters eleven and twelve.

Importance of Names

One of the suggestive elements of the Genesis account is the presence of certain theophoric designations, i.e. names given to children which glorify a particular deity. It was the practice of ancient peoples to name their children after a god, or with the name of the god in combination with a phrase which said something about the god or the child in connection with the god. When Israel was unfaithful to the Lord many of her children were named after Baal: Gideon’s name was also Jeru-baal (“Let Baal Contend,” Judges 7:1; and cf. also 6:32); one of Saul’s sons was named Eshbaal (“Fire of Baal,” 1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39), although he is called at other times Ishbosheth (“Mari of Shame,” 2 Sam. 2:10); Jonathan, also a son of Saul, had a son named Meribbaal (“Baal’s Fighter,” 1 Chron. 8; 34; 9:40) who is called in other places Mephi-bosheth (“Destroying the Idol” or “Destroying the Shame,” 2 Sam. 4:4). Many who held resolutely to the Lord as the sole God, however, named their children with appellations glorifying the true God: Eli (“My God is El”), Joshua (“Jehovah Saves”), Daniel (“God is My Judge”), Jeremiah (“Whom Jehovah Appoints”), and etc. It was the practice to name children after tutelary or protecting gods even as far back as the time of Abraham. In fact, ancient sources evidence that it even antedates the time of Abraham by many centuries.

Terah of Ur

Terah the father of Abraham, is specifically mentioned at Joshua 24:2 in connection with idolatry. And, it is interesting to note that linguists have for many years related the name of Terah to a Hebrew root meaning either “moon” or “month” (according to the vocalization: Yareah, “moon:” as at Josh. 10:13; or Yerah, “month” as at 1 Kgs. 6:37). The French archaeological mission which worked at Ras Shamrah under Mons. C. F. A. Schaeffer between 1929 and 1939 uncovered numerous tablets written in a language now called “Ugaritic” after the ancient name of the town in North Syria where it was spoken. Among these cuneiform texts are many documents devoted to religious matters. From them we learn that in North Syria the name of the Moon-god was “Terah.” The man Terah was, as an Aramaean, a blood-relation of the North Syrian peoples, and their language (to a degree, at least) was his also. There can therefore be no question here of an accidental resemblance between words of difference origin and meaning. The name of the Moon-god was Terah. The name of Abraham’s father was Terah. It can only be that Terah was considered to be under the special protection of that deity.

Another piece of evidence fitting nicely into this picture comes from the fact that the patron god of the city of Ur was the Moon-god Nannar. There were (according to Woolley) numerous temples and shrines consecrated to other members of the pantheon-but to Nannar the city itself was dedicated. The heart of the town was set apart as the Moongod’s sanctuary. The great ziggurat or temple-tower was his. And, although other gods had their shrines within the sacred enclosure, they were only there as attendants on the majesty of Nannar; he was the “King of Ur,” the “Lord of Heaven.” It was from this same city that the Bible tells us Terah and his family came (Gen. 11:28,31). Moreover, from the written documents of Sumerian Ur names appear compounded with the name of Nannar, e.g., Nannar-ludug, Nannarishag, etc. The possibility therefore exists that Terah was called “Nannar” (or a compound therewith) in Sumerian Mesopotamia but “Terah” by Syrians-Palestinians.

The Migration of Haran

In Gen. 11:31 the record of the migration of Terah and his family (with the exception of Haran who had died at Ur) is recounted. At this point a further piece of evidence is derived: “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the iand of Canaan; and they came into Haran, and dwelt there.” Now, it is both facinating and interesting that the city of Haran was a seat of the worship of Sin, the Moon-god, from very ancient times. In fact, some have called the inoon-cult of Haran “simply a replica of that of Ur.” If Terah was indeed a benefactor and patron of the Moon-god cult, then it is manifestly apparent why the selection of Haran as a stopping-place on the trip to Canaan. He stopped there for religious reasons, but such as we would hesitate to believe.

Sarah, Laban, and Milcah

In this connection the etymology of the name of Abram’s wife is also important. “Sarah” (or “Sarai”) corresponds to Sharratu (“the Queen”), which is the Akkadian translation of the Sumerian “Ningal,” the spouse of the god Sin. From later references, Laban, brother of Rebekah and son of Nahor, according to Gen. 24:29; 29:5 (and appearing only in the geographical context of the city of Haran in the country called Paddan-arani and Arain-naharaim; Gen. 24:10; 25:20) has also been connected by some scholars with the lunar-god, lord of Haran. The name Laban is documented by a sinall tablet found at Mari, which mentions a Laba-an. In any case we know that Laban possessed household gods, or teraphim (Gen. 31:19) and is characterized in the biblical text as being unscrupulous and dishonest. So there would not be any good reason to objecting to this thesis. Laban’s covenant at the heap called Jegarsahadutha or Galeed (“heap of witness” in Aramaic and in Hebrew; Gen. 31:47) should only be considered typical, for ancient peoples were about as little concerned with religious differences between themselves and others as denominational folk are today. This is altogether evident if Gensis 31:53 is translated literally from the Hebrew.

Other names important to this study which have been brought to light in other ancient literary texts besides the book of Genesis are: Abraham, which is not directly attested from Ur but is found in Mesopotamian texts at the beginning of the second millennium B. C. under the following forms: A-ba-ra-ma, A-ba-am-ra-tna, and A-baam-ra-am, Nahor, the name of Abraham’s brother and his grandfather, is found in Assyrian as Nakhur; Nahor’s wife, Milcha, could be related to the Assyrian malkatu (“princess”). Edouard Dhorme has also traced this latter name to the lunar cult. No such connection exists with either the name of Abraham or Nahor.

Called Out of Paganism

Perhaps some of the above evidence is sketchy and some may even be shown to be dubious in the years ahead, but it is exciting to think that we may know the particular form of paganism Terah and Abram in his youth were adherents of and from which Abraham was “converted.” Abraham was not only called out of his country and from his kindred he was called out of paganism! The all-important how of his “conversion” we have long known: “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, ‘Get thee out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.’ Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, God removed him into this land (Canaan). . . ” (Acts 7:2-4). God’s revelation of Himself to Abram is the explanation which we accept by faith of Abram’s complete departure from his heathen heritage. The high monotheistic concepts of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well as that of their loyal descendants were not borrowed, evolved or invented-they were revealed by God: by theophany.

Later writers imaginatively enlarge upon the story of Abram’s early life in apocryphal tales about his and his father’s involvement in idolatry. In the Genesis Rabbah, a late Jewish treatise, Abraham is pictured as the first iconoclast, the first smasher of idols. It is most entertaining: “Abraham’s father, Terah, sold idols. Once, upon going away, he left Abraham to sell them in his stead. A man came and wished to buy one. Abraham asked him, ‘How old are you?’ When the man answered that he was sixty years old, Abraham rebuked him, ‘You should be ashamed, a man of sixty wanting to bow down to an object that is but one day old.’ The man became embarrassed and left.

“Another time, a woman came carrying a plate of flour and said to him, ‘Take this and offer it to them.’ Abraham, thereupon took a stick, broke all the idols and placed the stick in the hands of the largest among them. When his father returned, he demanded to know who was responsible. Abraham answered, ‘Why hide it from you? A woman carrying a plate of flour came and told me to offer it to them. When I did so, each idol insisted that it must eat first and the largest idol got up, took a stick and broke all the others.’ Hearing this, Terah cried out, ‘Why do you mock me? Do idols have any knowledge? Abraham then retorted let your own ears hear your lips speak'”.

Although this is only a fanciful tale which has no rootage in reality, yet the fact of the matter is that the strong theological and philosophical arguments against idolatry and the other follies of heathenism began with God’s revealing Himself to the patriarch Abraham. Thereby God saved him from the absurd religious notions accepted even by his own father. And with him-us!

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 505-507
August 12, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

“There is one body” (Ephesians 4:4)

The common conception among people in the religious world at large is that unity in organization-organic unity-is impossible. They talk about spiritual unity and organic division. As we have pointed out, the common idea is that all of the churches included in the broadest possible usage of “Christianity” constitute the “Church of Christ” or the “one body” of the scriptures.

One Head and One Body

The Bible usage of the term “body” as it applies to the church always carries the idea of singularity. In fact, it is even emphasized that there is “one body” and “but one body” (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:20). This “one body” is the church of the Lord (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18). This is the body which Christ has saved (Ephesians 5:23). It is the body over which He is head (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18). Is there more than one head of the body? Catholics say “yes” for they believe that both Christ and the Pope are the heads of the church. This is a monstrosity; for then there would be a two-headed body. But Protestant denominationalism is just as wrong; for they contend for one head-Christ-and about three hundred bodies. This would be a greater monstrosity, if such were possible. It is just as wrong to preach “many bodies” as to preach “many heads.” Both of them deny the Word of God.

Many Members but One Body

In Romans, chapter 12, and in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12, Paul compares the church to the physical body. He tells us that just as the physical body has many members and yet there is but one body, so the church is made up of many members but there is “but one body.” These members that constitute the body of Christ are not different denominations or churches! That would make the comparison or figure ludicrous and ridiculous. It would mean that each member of the physical body would have to be a distinct and separate unit organically with its own organization and government. This is contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. Paul points out that the “members” are so “tempered together” that there should be “no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). These members do not speak a different language, have a separate organization, worship and serve the head separately, but they are correlated under one head and authority, each with its own capacity and function, but each obligated to function for the good of the body as a whole. The very argument of the apostle in these passages is condemnatory of sectarianism and denominationalism or organic division. The members of the physical body are representative of the individual members of the body of Christ. Christians are the members and not churches.

“The Body” – Both Universal and Local

Like the word “church” in the Scriptures, “the body” sometimes designates the relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit enjoyed by Christians universally, and sometimes this figure designates the relationship between the members of the church in these passages. Paul was writing to local churches and had in mind the application of the lesson to the local church with its members. ‘ He was teaching that the members of the local church do not all have the same function but that each is essential to the good of the body as a whole and that in the local church there must be complete symphony or harmony or the body as a whole is injured. This application to the local church becomes clear and plain when we consider the functions performed by the members. In Romans, chapter 12, Paul tells us that some members are “prophets,” some “ministers,” some “preachers,” some “exhorters,” some “rulers.” These “ruling” members are the elders of the church (1 Timothy 5:17). But elders in the Lord’s church are not 11 ruling members” over the church universal. The Jurisdiction of elders is over the local church and its membership only (Acts 20:17-28; 1 Peter 5:2). If the elders, or “ruling members” in this passage, refer to local elders, then the body of which they are “ruling members” must be the local church.

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Paul uses the word “body” as descriptive both of the universal relationship and the local church with its organization. In verse 13, for instance, he says, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” This “body” into which all men are baptized by the direction of the Holy Spirit, when they obey the Lord, is the saved relationship universally of which Christ spoke in Ephesians 5:23. It is the body which the Lord has saved. But in the chapter he is dealing with dissension and division among the members of a local body, the church at Corinth, and is emphasizing that in the fellowship of the local body there must be no “schism” nor discord among its members. Each must perform his own function, whatever he may be able to do out of the ability given him, whether ordinary or extraordinary, and he must function in perfect harmony with all the other members just as the members of the physical body. The application of the principle was very definitely to the members of the local church at Corinth as the whole context shows. This does not disallow the fact that Christians universally enjoy the same faith, salvation, and relationship with the Lord but it points out that in the local church they have a unique relationship with one another.

Every Figure Demands Unity

There is not a picture of the church in the New Testament Scriptures that will allow the denominational concept of the church. When the church is compared to a bride, with Christ as bridegroom, there is but one bride! Denominationalism would picture Christ as the brideoroom with many brides and each wearing a different name (Ephesians 5:25-27; John 3:29). Then the church is described figuratively as the “household of God” or God’s family (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:19). God is the father of the whole family (Ephesians 3:14-15). All of God’s children are in this family. God does not have any children outside of His family, and God does not have many families, each of them with a different family name. Denominationalism does not fit into the scriptural description of the church at any point.

The Body is One in Identity

Wherever the body of Christ, the church of the New Testament, is found, it is exactly the same in all of the salient features that identify it as the body of Christ. It does not have one name one time and another the next. It does not have a variety of organizations but always the same divine arrangement in organization. The only organization that can be found in the Scriptures is Christ the universal head, His word the divine law, and each congregation or local church with its elders, deacons and members (Philippians 1:1; Acts 14:23). There is no difference in matters of faith for the “one faith” of the Gospel must characterize all or they are not the body of Christ. They worship by the same pattern for they are guided by the same Spirit. Christ has but one body and the body of Christ is one!

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 503-504
August 12, 1976

By Philip S. North

The above question is often asked by Christians and non-christians alike. Hopefully, it is inquired of through sincerity of heart rather than maliciousness of attitude. Let us deal with it in this article.

To answer the question “point blank,” one only needs to turn in the inspired Word of God to James 1:13 where we read, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” God is not to be blamed for the sin that exists in this world today. Mankind is to be blamed (Rom. 5:12-14). One need not blame God for such sinful practices as adultery, murder, lying, stealing, homosexuality, drug abuse, etc.

However, swinging the pendulum the other way around, one also need not blame God for denominationalism, modernism, institutionalism, Neo-Calvinism, etc. God did not institute sin of any fashion in this world. Man did by his disobedience to God and his obedience to Satan. I often hear people speak of how God came and their child, or wife, or husband, or mother, and so on was a punishment to them. Such ought not to be in any way at all preached, practiced, or taught-or even believed one iota. I Jn. 4:8 teaches us that “God is love.” Then in 1 Jn. 1:5 we read that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” John 3:33 tells us in the last part of this verse that “God is true.”

Certainly we can see that God is not one who would create evil things and cause us to turn from Him as His children! One can even realize in the book of Genesis in Chapters I and 2 just what God is the Creator, author, and finisher of. Time after time Genesis says, “and God saw that it was good.” Every, single, solitary being and thing that our Creator brought forth and formed was good, perfect, and clean. God does not cause evil. He merely allows it to happen. It is a test of our faith to see if we are the children that we profess and are supposed to be. Any individual that stubbornly persists on blaming the good Lord for his faults, shortcomings, and evil happenings is equal to a lying child (brat) that blames someone else for his naughty ways. To blame God is to blaspheme His name! It only shows signs of spiritual and physical immaturity! It is nothing more than using God for a scapegoat. But just how are we tempted and who is behind it all? Who or what is to blame for evil?

Notice James 1:14-17: “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. I beg of you, brethren. Do not err. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Now look at the four verses closely. First, it tells us that we commit sin when we let lust take over our spirit, and allow it to be drawn away. Lust simply means “evil and inordinate desire.” Adultery and fornication are not the only sins that are born out of lust. Your lust might be for the opposite sex, to rob a bank, to kill, to lie, or whatever! In John 8:44 Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees, “Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. . .” So we see here that we yield to sin when the devil places lusts before us and deceives us into partaking of it. Blame God? NONSENSE!! The devil is the author of all evil in this world, and not the good God of Heaven who created us and all the beauties of the heavens and earth. Shame bemoans us when we do what many children do when they do not get their way-I am speaking of “biting the hands that feed you.” Next, we see that when lust is born in our minds and is allowed to conceive, sin is the product. When sin takes and rules over, and continues to dwell there with no repentence of heart, then spiritual damage is the result-spiritual death, which is Hell. Third, James tells us that every perfect gift and every good gift comes from God. Let it not once be said of you, gentle reader, that we “bite the hands that feed.” We are to never do this to our Creator who gives us our food, clothing, shelter, children, our very life, and most important of all, His only begotten Son. We should not think God would desire to place upon us grief, hard temptations, harassment, and sins of any kind.

In fact, God is the exact opposite of such an accusation. One day, He will completely and utterly destroy sin and its father. God will help us as Christians to flee from temptation and sin if we will but only go to Him. 1 Cor. 10:13 sums it all up for us: “There hath no temptation taken you but as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” Good reader, let us never, regardless of what any heady sinner, wayward Christian, agnostic, or vain philosopher says, blame our supreme, wonderful, matchless, and all-wise Creator for our everyday blunders, sins, and shortcomings.

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 502-503
August 12, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

1) In Acts 2, miraculous events, viz., “a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,” and “cloven tongues like as of fire,” in addition to Holy Spirit baptism occurred (vv. 2, 3). However, nothing like these marvelous, puzzling and perplexing sights and sounds accompanies a modern day Pentecostal service. Why not, if, as they claim, they exemplify the “Pentecostal experience?”

2) In Acts 2, the recipients of Holy Spirit baptism spoke tongues or languages which the audience could hear and understand (vv. 4, 6, 8, 11). Pentecostals of today babble like a baby and chatter like a chimp. None speak a language which the audience speaks as they did in Acts 2, yet they claim the “Pentecostal experience.”

3) The ones who received Holy Spirit baptism delivered a dignified discourse in Acts 2:14-41. Pentecostals shout, cry and moan incoherently. Their preachers deliver unorganized speeches which are full of philosophy and clever witticisms, but they rarely present an arranged speech on a given topic for any length of time as was done in Acts 2. Still, they avow, aver and avouch that they have the true “Pentecostal experience.”

4) The speakers, the preachers received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2, not the audience, but Pentecostal preachers urge the audience to “get the Holy Ghost” at their services. This is the reverse of Acts 2, yet they claim they are duplicating the “Pentecostal experience.”

5) No one in Acts 2 was urged to “come to the front” and “pray through for the Holy Ghost.” This is always done at Pentecostal services, yet they claim they are imitating the “Pentecostal experience.”

6) Sinners were exhorted to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, but Pentecostals urge people to “reach out” and “feel the Spirit of God come into your heart.” Why not say what the apostles said if they are indeed reenacting the “Pentecostal experience?”

7) In Acts 2, the ones saved were added to the church of the Lord (v. 47; Acts 20:28). Pentecostal converts become members of various Pentecostal Holiness groups and sects which are unknown to the New Testament, yet they claim they are the direct result of the “Pentecostal experience.”

8) Not one of the recipients of Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2 told how he felt when he received it. None of them described it as a “thrilling, refreshing sensation that made me tingle all over.” They did not mention a single physical feeling, but one of the first things a Pentecostal wants to tell is how he felt when he “got the Holy Ghost.” Is this truly comparable to the original “Pentecostal experience?”

9) None of the ones who received Holy Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost ever said that their experience transformed their drab, dismal life of sin into one of joy, beauty, happiness and forgiveness. Pentecostals of today often make this claim for what happened to them when they discuss their alleged “Pentecostal experience.”

10) No one in Acts 2 was told to “expect a healing.” No one was asked if he wanted to give his “testimony of healing,” but this is done at nearly every Pentecostal service today as they attempt to relive the “Pentecostal experience.”

11) In Acts 2, the miracles that transpired served to confirm the word preached (v. 33). But Pentecostal preachers expect that their word will confirm their claims of miracles. The apostles confirmed the word with miracles, but Pentecostals “confirm” their miracles with words; the exact reverse of the “Pentecostal experience.”

12) Those who received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2 performed “many wonders and signs” that even their enemies could not deny (Acts 4:16). Pentecostal preachers say they cannot work miracles “because unbelievers are present with us.” Certainly, this is not the genuine “Pentecost experience.”

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 501-502
August 12, 1976