Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Kentucky: “Please explain the meaning of laying on hands before sending out preachers (not connected with spiritual gifts) as mentioned in Acts 13:2, 3. Should this be practiced today along with fasting?”

REPLY:

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers …. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:13).

General Introductory Remarks

Our querist has limited and defined the area of his interrogative, but a few general thoughts may be in order. The laying on of hands is a natural and symbolic act which indicates the conferring of a gift, a charge, or blessing. At least, this is the case in the Old Testament. The laying on of hands was used in the consecration of men and the dedication of things to Divine service (Ex. 29:10; Lev. 1:4; 3:8; Num. 8:9-11; 27:15-23; Deut. 34:9). In the New Testament, hands were laid on some (1) by the apostles when the Holy Spirit was imparted (Acts 6:6, 8; 8:17, 18; 19:6; Cf. Rom. 1:11), (2) when healing was effected (Acts 9:12; 28:8), and (3) in recommending men to a special service, function, or work (Acts 13:1-4; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22). The first two numbered items are not accomplished today because: (A) There are no living apostles, and (B) no miracles of healing are being worked as these contemplated in the passages cited. But what about the action of Acts 13?

Acts 13:1-4 And Laying On Of Hands

Acts 13:1-4 was a special mission for a limited duration. In Acts 13, hands were not laid on Barnabas and Paul (1) to confirm or appoint them as preachers, (2) to install them as apostles of the Lord, nor (3) to give them a spiritual gift. They simply agreed to separate them according to the Spirit’s direction. The word “separate” is from aphorizo. Thayer says it means “to appoint, set apart, one for some purpose.” Thus, saints in Antioch appointed and set apart Barnabas and Paul for a certain work or service. The brethren were only to separate and recommend. The “work” which they were called unto was their work, not the work of the Antioch disciples. The labor was limited; it was a specific task confined to a certain time. Later, we read that they “sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled” (Acts 14:26). They were called by the Holy Spirit. They were separated by the brethren. They completed or “fulfilled” their work.

The laying on of hands preceded the sending away. It, along with prayer and fasting, solemnly symbolized the recommendation for the work. The Holy Spirit did not say, “fast, pray, and lay hands on Barnabas and Saul.” He said, “Separate . . . Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” An appointment to a position or an office was not made as may be indicated in 1 Timothy 5:22. Rather, Barnabas and Saul were recommended to God for the work.

This laying on of hands involved their mission, not the miraculous. For this reason, Luke calls them apostles, those set apart and sent (Acts 14:14). The laying on of hands did not confer apostleship in the sense Paul was an apostle of Christ. (1) Paul was then an apostle of the Lord. (2) As an apostle of Jesus, Paul needed nothing these brethren could have given him (Ram. 15:19; 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:12). (3) Paul’s apostleship was not of man. Galatians 1:1, 11, 12, 16, 17, denies that such an event as Acts 13 made him an apostle. (4) The brethren in Antioch could not impart spiritual gifts, much less apostleships. Only apostles could “impart . . . some spiritual gift” (Acts 8:14-18; 19:6; Rom. 1:11). (5) Barnabas and Paul were apostles from Antioch in the same way Epaphroditus was a “messenger” (apostolos) of the Philippian church. They were ones sent from Antioch. That is the extent of the term in Acts 14:14. Epaphroditus was sent by the Philippians to minister unto Paul. He was Philippi’s “messenger” (Phil. 2:25), or apostle. So, it is in Acts 13:1-4; 14:14.

The laying on of hands was evidently commonly and frequently practiced by the apostles. As they laid hands in giving the Holy Spirit, imparting spiritual gifts, so the disciples would naturally adopt the same act in various appointments. As the apostles died, the practice continued, but it was not required as a means of setting one apart for a special function.

Laying On Of Hands Today

We may use the same procedure today. Timothy did (1 Tim. 5:22), and we know he did not pretend to bestow gifts of the Spirit. The laying on of hands signifies appointment (1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22). Acts 13 is a special instance, a peculiar case. No such selection, separation, calling and sending is done today as was done through the Spirit then.

The New Testament supplies no illustration or demonstration of a particular mode or manner of laying hands on another. Churches appoint men to duties. Who is- to say that a handshake or an informal affectionate hand on the shoulder is not a form of “laying on hands?” Compare the “holy kiss” of Romans 16:16 and 1 Corinthians 16:20. The laying on of hands, if practiced today, must not be considered as a means of conveying authority. It is but a means of committing another to the Lord for a work.

Fasting And Acts 13:1-4

One may elect to fast, or abstaining from food may be naturally forced upon him by the awesomeness of a responsibility or situation. Fasting is not, and never has been, bound upon saints as a regular duty. In its purest form, fasting is a natural deprivation. It loses some of its appeal when it is contrived or enforced. In times of great stress and strain, we are repelled and repulsed from food. When events overwhelm us, we naturally fast. What could provide more anxious reverence than a command from the Holy Spirit to separate two men for arduous effort in foreign fields? Is it any wonder they fasted and prayed? The amazement would have been if they had feasted and failed to pray with this charge before them!

Conclusion: “Should this be practiced today?” We may, but we need not do so.

Truth Magazine XIX: 16, pp. 246-247
February 27, 1975

By Cecil Willis

In the bulletins and religious journals which I receive, brethren continually are expressing amazement at the lack of knowledge on the part of some brethren. One’s amazement at the confusion and ignorance of the masses of brethren will be somewhat lessened if he will examine carefully what they are being taught. Judging from the bulletins that I receive, and from some of the sermons that I have heard, I am amazed that brethren have learned as much as they have.

Just today I was reading of a report of visits to services of liberal churches by Brother Robert McDonald of Pampa, Texas. He said that the sermons he heard could have been preached by virtually any denominational preacher in town. Brethren who refuse to see how bad things are in some places prefer to bury their heads in the sand, and to try to convince themselves that things are better than they are.

There are many gospel preachers, even among conservative churches, who do not use enough scripture during a sermon to make a decent “Introduction” to the sermons of many other real gospel preachers. Luther Blackmon gave me some advice many years ago that I have well remembered, and diligently have tried to put it into practice in my preaching. When I was a very young preacher, he told me: “Remember, brethren will get a lot more good out of your preaching if you spend five minutes telling them what the Word of God says and two minutes telling them what you think It means, than if you spend two minutes telling them what the Bible says and five minutes telling them what you think it means.”

Many years ago I heard G. K. Wallace make the following statement to a group of young preachers: “Young men, it is absolutely impossible to over-estimate the ignorance of an audience.” That statement rubbed me the wrong way at the time, but after spending twenty-five years trying to preach the gospel, I think now he was correct. His statement in no way implies that everyone in the audience is ignorant. But it would be very difficult for some of us to realize just how ignorant of God’s Word some, in nearly every audience, are. We take for granted that many understand certain things, merely because we have heard them so many times and understand them ourselves so clearly.

While holding a meeting in Terre Haute, Indiana about fifteen years ago, I walked to the rear of the auditorium on Sunday night after I had finished my sermon. Being a little “bone-weary,” I sat down on the back row. ”here were some present who had not partaken of the Lord’s Supper on that Lord’s Day, and so the opportunity to partake was offered. Several were served, with little or no explanation of what was being done having been made. A visitor to the services (a middle-aged man) leaned over to me and said, “What on earth are they doing up there?” That incident drove home to me just how little some really know about Bible teaching.

But the point I wanted to make in this article is that the reason why some brethren know so little is because they have been taught so little. Furthermore, some of the teaching that is done, is done in such a disorderly way that it is a wonder anybody learns anything at all from it. Just to present a real-life case-in-point, let me quote now from the bulletin of a congregation in Chicago, Illinois. Some of the preachers who read what I am about to quote will think I am “spoofing” them, and that such an incident really could not have happened with the teaching being done by a preacher in the Church of Christ. If it would do any good, I would give you the name of the author, and the address of the Chicago church from whose bulletin. I am about to quote. But just be assured that I really do have such a bulletin, and that it was published in all seriousness. In fact, for the benefit of some of you debating preachers, I might just mention that the author closed with this blunt challenge: “I will debate this issue.” I would almost defy you to tell me what the issue is, after reading his article. Space forbids me quoting all the article. It is single-spaced, mimeographed on legal-size paper, and the article fills both sides of the 11 X 14 inch page. It is all one paragraph! On the first side of the sheet, he cited 191 verses of Scripture, but you never saw such a jumbled up mess of twisted Scripture.

The title to this article is “A Sermon on a Fornicator and a Profane Person.” I shall quote it, punctuate it, and reproduce it precisely as given. Perhaps then you will understand why some of the brethren are confused. With teachers and preachers like this, who would not be confused? “This Supreme giver of life made and planed eternal life based on conditions Jesus Christ, The law of Christ that plainly set forth the nine Beatitudes are his saying, when he said, upon this Rock speaking of himself.’ and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt. 16:13-19; this is part one of this Supreme law of Christ, the second part of this Supreme law God granted him his requist when he said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them, In the name of the Father,’ and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things. What so ever I have commanded you to I am with you always even unto the end of the world. Matt, 28:1820. God the Father gave Jesus the power to pass and execute this law; Esau a profane person who sold his birth right for a morsel of food, this is the only grounds that a man or woman is freed to marry only in the Lord. No one Esau married out of the everlasting covenant; no two he sold his birth right for a morsel of food, and if we marry out of the eternal covenant wilfully knowingly we are lost eternally lest we let them slip. Heb, 12:14-17. On these basic fundamental principles: Abraham and Sarah set the stage with Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob and his wives Leah and Rachel; every thing was bought and paid for with Abraham’s money. God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham through circumcision of the foreskin; this covenant was never broken, so all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrieing away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ Jesus are fourteen generation Gen, 17:7-I5; Matt, 1:1 7-18; Luke, 2:12-21; 3:21-23. Therefore owe no man, Under the Mosaic law of circumcision of the foreskin this made you a Jew outwardly. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, Romans, 15:l-6. Now that we have established the fact of the eternal covenant that never was broken; and this end the seed Jesus Christ was born, and this is the foundation on which Christ’s church and kingdom is established; and is built on the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone; that the seed the Word of God. Luke, 8:10-11; The Word of God the seed is able to build you up and save your soul. Js. 1:16-22. Now we have no more use for the circumcision of the foreskin only for health sake. For Jesus the seed is standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55; set on the throne in heaven. Heb. 8:1-2; 12:1-2, The seed is the Word of the kingdom of God; sown in the heart and minds of human beings, The eternal covenant is the circumcision of the heart without hands, This is a Jew inwardly. This circumcision of the heart came by Abraham the faithful. Gen, 26:1-5; Gal, 3: Col, 2:8-14; In Isaac shall thy seed be called Jesus Christ. Christ Jesus is the seed of a woman. Gen, 3:15; But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the Law, Gal, 4:1-7. Jesus Christ said, I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, MY FATHER he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you. John, 15:1-5; Joseph of Jacob interpreted the chief Butler’s dream about

a vine having three branches. Gen, 40:8-12; The Sceptree shall not depart from Judah, nor a law giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be, Jesus Christ. The vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine. Gen, 49:9-12; The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the Olive, Fig, the Bramble, and cedar of Lebanon, and when they asked the vine to rule over trees. The Vine remained a question mark?. Judges, 9:815. The choicest Vine that men tried to mix with other vines only made the fruit of the worse. Isa, 5:1-3; and when the disciples and Jesus were eating the passover. Jesus took bread and blessed it, and break it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, eat; this is my Body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drank ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom. Matt, 26:26-29; Mark, 14:22-26; Luke, 22:16-20; 1 Cor, 11:23-34. Now that the Lord supper is taken from the vine. The next thing in order is the seed Jesus Christ: And I will put an enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen, 3:15. but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the Law. Gal, 4:4. Jesus we see, for verily he took not. on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham . . . .”

I tried to find as appropriate a place as possible to break off this quotation, but there was no appropriate place. More than this much more remained of the article. I found it somewhat like the country boy who was trying to read the dictionary, and commented: “Its an interesting book, but the author surely does change subjects frequently.”

O. K., now you debaters, line right up. This man boldly states, “I will debate this issue.” Who will be the first to take him on? Perhaps you are not even sure, at this point, what the issue is. Having read the whole article several times, I am not absolutely sure myself what the brother was seeking to prove. I think he was trying to show that it is unscriptural for a Christian to marry a non-Christian! With a fellow who uses Scriptures like this as their teacher, does anyone have difficulty understanding why just a few of the brethren might be confused on a few points? How would one of you debaters begin, if you were going to reply to such a speech?

I sent this article to John Clark in Louisville, and told him that I was thinking about using it as one of my editorials in Truth Magazine, and asked if he would suggest a title for it. He suggested that it might either be called “Lines From the Labyrinth of LSD,” or “Marijuana Mutterings on Marriage.” Either title seems appropriate to me. John even suggested we perhaps should secure permission to publish this article in tract form.

The only thing that I can remember that had the Scriptures more jumbled up was the tale some preacher told when I was a boy about an uneducated, country preacher who quoted from his favorite New Testament book, “The Book of Parables.” His recitation went something like this, as he told of the Good Samaritan:

“Well once upon a time a man went from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves and the thorns grew up and choked him. And he went on and didn’t have any money, and he met the Queen of Sheba, and she gave him a thousand talents of gold and one hundred changes of raiment. And he got in a chairot and drove furiously, and while he was driving under a tree his hair caught among the limbs, and he hung there for three days and three nights; and the ravens brought him food to eat and water to drink, and one night while he was hanging his wife came along and cut off his hair, and he fell or; stony ground and it rained forty days and forty nights, and he hid himself in a cave and he met a man who said, `Come in and have supper with me.’ And he said, `I have married a wife and can’t come now.’So the man went into the highways and byways and compelled him to come in and have supper with him. And he went on to Jerusalem and sitting high up in a window was Jezebel and when she saw him she laughed and they Hang her down. And he said, Wang her down some more,’ and they Hang her down some more. And they Hang her down seventy and seven times and of the fragments they picked up twelve baskets full. Now whose wife is she going to be in the resurrection because they all had her? Amen.”

Now I am aware that you preachers have your own version of this tale, but the first jumbled-up mess that I quoted is no tale. It is the sad truth. Do you think it just might be possible that we preachers are partly responsible for the confusion among some of the brethren? Or, do you think they deserve all the credit themselves?

Truth Magazine XIX: 16, pp. 243-246
February 27, 1975

By Gordon J. Pennock

We regard it our duty to constantly exhort brethren to neither inject nor accept into our teaching, worship, work or organization anything for which clear authorization cannot be found in the Bible. This may not be the way to get the church on the “band-wagon” nor “in step” with the many innovations which are cropping up among brethren, but in the light of the following scriptures, it will keep us “in step” with the Lord. Let us note:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” (Dent. 4:2.)

“What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Dent. 12:32.)

“Add not to his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:6.)

“That . . . ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written.” (1 Cor. 4:6.)

“Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9.)

“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18, 19.)

Surely, any one of these passages would be sufficient to establish our point, but perhaps the preponderance of evidence so repeatedly stated might convince one who might otherwise be skeptical. The summarized conclusion to be learned from them is that no additions or subtractions, substitutions or supplements may be made without corrupting, destroying and thus rendering ineffective one’s response to that which includes, but is not limited to, that which God has revealed. Any change whatsoever implies that God did not know what He wanted men to do, as well as the presumption that man, by his wisdom may improve upon the wisdom of God. Such attitudes and actions are sinful.

The sin of thus corrupting and contaminating God’s word is illustrated by the following: Several years ago a leading oil company used the following advertising slogan to encourage motorists to change the crank-case oil in their automobiles frequently: “3 quarts dirty oil 1 quart clean oil = 4 quarts dirty oil.” Some old-time country preachers used to make the same point by saying, “Sweet milk, plus sour milk, equals sour milk.” Who can deny the logic in such illustrations!

Let us therefore not ask, “Where has the Bible` forbidden this doctrine or that practice?” Let us rather ask, “where has it been authorized?” For a matter to be sinful does not mean that it must be specifically forbidden. It must be “according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5)!

Truth Magazine XIX: 16, p. 242
February 27, 1975

By Ron Halbrook

(A Reflection On Franklin Puckett’s Passing)

Awake, young men, and fill in the gaps! Now is a time to sing with understanding, “Soldiers of Christ, arise, And put your armor on; Strong in the strength which God supplies, Strong in the strength which God supplies Thro’ His beloved Son.” That song should be a constant prayer of God’s people. Yet this is a time when we can well afford to be especially conscious of its need.

At 2:07 A.M. this morning (January 16, 1975), Brother Franklin Puckett of Florence, Alabama, laid down his sword and rested from his labors. His death follows a massive heart attack several weeks ago. When I first received word of that attack with the expectation of impending death, something forced itself immediately into my mind. It was the memory of a serious discussion with Brother Puckett in the not-so-distant past.

In the discussion, Brother Puckett was recalling what an able, educated, articulate, young preacher and scribe had told him in recent times. They were exchanging thoughts on whether preaching should be positive or negative or both, whether it should be “distinctive” or “tolerant.” Brother Puckett related to me with genuine sadness and deep concern how the young man made one thing perfectly clear. He let brother Puckett know the time was coming when his style of preaching would pass off the scene. Already the older men were passing and younger men arising to take their places-men of broader views and more tolerant sentiments. In other words, this young preacher felt it was not necessary to say much publicly in direct opposition to the kind of preaching done by men like Brother Puckett. It was sufficient to let time and nature remove such men from the pulpits. After the passing of several years, such men would quietly and unobtrusively be replaced by broader, more tolerant spirits. That, then, is the hope entertained by some in the church today.

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever” (Eccl. 1:4). It is certain that time will remove an older generation of preachers from the scene. But does that mean that good, plain, direct gospel preaching (such as was done by Brother Puckett) will pass with them, to be replaced by something less distinctive and more tolerant??? That depends, dear reader, on you and me-especially those of us who are younger in years. It depends very much, as well, on older and more experienced men who are laboring in the fields today.

Just when Israel needed most to hear teaching on the distinctive nature of divine religion as opposed to human, and on specific sins being tolerated in daily living, she was treated instead to “broader views” and “more tolerant” sentiments. Ezekiel said of her prophets, “Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord” (13:1-16). These prophets were cunning as “foxes in the deserts,” lacking in courage and plainness, and said, “The Lord saith . . . ,” when He had not spoken (vv. 4,5,6). “. . . they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered mortar . . . . So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered mortar . . . . Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered mortar . . . to wit, the prophets of Israel which prophesy concerning Jerusalem and which see visions of peace for her, and there is no peace, saith the Lord” (vv. 10-16). The wall thrown up by false teaching was defective both in workmanship and materials, but it was whitewashed “to hide its defects and give it a semblance of solidity. They come, that is, with smooth words and promises of peace” (Pulpit Commentary).

Distinctive presentation of truth and scathing denunciation of error is not much appreciated in some quarters today. The awful sinfulness of sin and the awesome perils of false doctrine are being whitewashed. Someone has suggested these perils which accompany false doctrine: (1) carnal ambition, (2) self-assumption, (3) sophistical arts of speech, (4) lack of courage, (5) final collapse and defeat (“The frog that would swell its dimensions to the size of a bull destroyed itself.”). This failure to uphold the truth in all its distinctive features and fullness is crucial! Ezekiel points out concerning the weak-as-water prophets, “They have not taken their place in the breach, they have not helped in the defense of the city, they have not stood in the van of the battle, when the enemy has made an assault. Here is the practical test, which reveals the worthlessness” of all their claims and professions of loving the truth (Ibid., emph. added, RH).

“There were breaches in the walls of Jerusalem, literally and spiritually . . . .” But in the face of “arduous toil” and “serious danger,” the false prophets “were conspicuous by their absence. Truth makes men at all times courageous, but falsehood corrodes the metal of a man’s bravery. These pretentious prophets desired the honor and advantage; the risks they devolved on others” (Ibid., emph. added, RH). It is ever characteristic of such teachers to bide their time in a bid for advantage. It is never characteristic of them to face crucial issues at the risk of some imagined honor or ambition. A message of “peace and brotherhood” is “all the rage” with such men. They hope to multiply their number by the sugary seeds of sweet sentimentality and judicious silence. Such men today do not rise to stand in the gaps, but make themselves conspicuous by their absence in the face of danger, denominationalism, and false doctrine.

God’s people in the long ago needed exactly what God’s people need today. “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” As the seed falls into good and honest hearts, others will rise up in faith and courage to join in rebuilding “the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in” (Isa. 58:1-12).

Men like Brother Franklin Puckett have been standing in the gaps left by others who passed off the scene in days gone by. He was standing and planning to stand and calling others to stand right up until the end. The class for young preachers he was planning on Calvinism for February 25-March 7 of this year is just evidence. Who will arise as he and others pass off the scene today? Will it be those who are unwilling to go up “into the gaps . . . for the house of Israel to stand in the battle”? Such men are biding their time and sowing their seed toward that end, as one of them made abundantly clear to Brother Puckett himself. Will there not be others-and by “others,” I mean you and me, dear reader-who will say, “Here am I, Lord, send me”? (Isa. 6:8).

Let us who are young pledge ourselves to fill in the gaps, no matter what the cost. We dare not do it simply in memory of a mortal man like Brother Puckett, but his passing can justly force us to see the need, and to ask, “If I will not go, who will?” Not merely to perpetuate “a great tradition,” but because the same God who called Franklin Puckett to preach the gospel is calling young men today to preach the same gospel. Awake, young men, and fill in the gaps!

Truth Magazine XIX: 15, pp. 237-238
February 20, 1975