Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

How can you preach what you do not know? Paul charged Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2). He said for him to “give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” and then Timothy to practice what he learned (“take heed to thyself’) continually in order to “save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:13-16). A gospel preacher must read in order to do his work effectively.

Early in the life of a gospel preacher decisions must be made and patterns established about the use of time. Routines must be established. Uninterrupted time for study is a must. It is all too easy to waste time reading things which will not profit. The Internet calls. The mail comes and brings an assortment of things to read. So then, priorities must be set. Some things are not as important to read as others.

“Search the Scriptures”

“Of the making of many books there is no end” (Eccl. 12:12). And there is no end to buying them over a lifetime. The first duty we have is to “search the scriptures.” We need to “hide” it in our hearts as a defense against sin. We must pour over it in order to absorb its message. We must struggle to learn the immediate and larger context and then work on applications of it to ourselves and our hearers. There is great value in memorizing Scripture. It is important to know exactly what the text said. While it is valuable to compare several translations, it is important to choose one good translation and use that consistently in public reading and quoting.

There are many more study tools available now than when I began preaching. They continue to multiply. But they are not all of equal value. Many books are written by denominational men, some scholarly and some otherwise. Some popular writers have concentrated on unique ways of saying things while offering little substance. When reading after any denominational writer, keep in mind that he does not know what the New Testament church is nor what to do to be saved. He may often have an axe to grind theologically. Calvinistic works abound in today’s religious book market. Many men have opted to spend their budget for books on the offerings of such men as Swindoll, McArthur, and Lucado while avoiding writings of men who have struggled to sort out the difference between sectarian error and the truth of God’s word.

The writings of the restoration pioneers are important and should be collected early in gathering a library. The writings of Campbell, Stone, Lard, and others of their day are of great value. They were not inspired, as were the apostles, but they were forced to grapple with fundamental issues in trying to arrive at a clear understanding of undenominational Christianity. Read The Christian System by A. Campbell, the first two volumes of Search For The Ancient Order by West, biographies on the lives of Campbell, Stone, and Raccoon John Smith. Such books as History of Reformatory Movements by Rowe, History of The Church Through The Ages by Brumback, Quest For a Christian America by Harrell are excellent. Collect and read available debates that occurred in the last 175 years.

Of more recent vintage such works as Foy E. Wallace’s God’s Prophetic Word, Bulwarks of The Faith, The Instru-mental Music Question, and Roy E. Cogdill’s New Testament Church, Walking by Faith and his book of sermons on Faith and the Faith are excellent. I have thrilled many times to read The Gospel Preacher, vols. 1 and 2 by Ben Franklin, and Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents.

Biographies of men whose lives have made a great difference appear all along and challenge all of us to rise to greater heights in service to the Lord. There are biographies of Campbell, Ben Franklin, Walter Scott, B.W. Stone, John Smith, J.D. Tant, N.B. Hardeman and soon to be added to the list a book on the life and work of Roy E. Cogdill by Steve Wolfgang. W. W. Otey by Cecil Willis is a great book.

Books of general church history are useful tools. Among them, I would mention History of the Christian Church (8 Vols.) by Schaff, History of the Reformation (2 Vols.) by Lindsay, Neander’s Works, and of course, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 Vols.).

Background books and surveys are of great value. Foy. E. Wallace, Jr. first told me about Introduction to the Scriptures (5 Vols.) by Home. Include An Introduction to the Old Testament by Young, Introduction to the New Testament by Harrison, and also Theissen has one by the same name. Tenney’s New Testament Survey and New Testament Times are useful. There are two classic works on the life of our Lord: the Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Edersheim and Life of Christ by Farrar.

Good reference works are a must. Among these are: The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by Vine, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, Young’s (or Strong’s) Concordance. There are several good Bible dictionaries. Take your pick.

In addition to the standard commentaries which have been in use for many years, there are the new ones published by Guardian of Truth Foundation. There are now six of these in print with others to follow. In print are these: 1 Corinthians by Mike Willis, Galatians by Mike Willis, Philippians-Colossians by Walton Weaver, Ephesians by Colly Caldwell,1 Peter by Clinton Hamilton, and 2 Peter & Jude also by Hamilton. Others are in the mill and some are near completion, including Revelation by Robert Harkrider and Romans by Clinton Hamilton. These are well done and all are in matching binding.

There are many others which fall into different categories. But these may offer some help in making a start. I would advise young preachers to inquire of older men they respect to offer suggestions along these lines.

What we feed into our minds determines what we are. While we are gathering books and devoting much of our lives to reading and studying them, I remind you of where we started. Unless your mind is filled with the knowledge of the Bible and your heart is determined to know it, to practice it yourself, and to teach it to all who will hear you, then any other study is of only marginal value. The books I have mentioned, and others which could be named by me or others, must never become bars to independent thought, nor crutches. They are simply tools to assist in the work of “mining the Scriptures.” Paul asked Timothy to bring “the books, but especially the parchments” (2 Tim. 4:13). So then, brethren, collect and read books, and computer pro-grams geared to Bible study. But unless you know the book and fill the minds of your hearers with what it says, your work will be a failure and your life a waste.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 2
December 5, 1996

By Joshua Gurtler

Throughout the Bible as well as history the refusal of men to study and discuss God’s word has been an ever present problem. Because of cowardice, selfishness, a lack of love, or just plain hard-heartedness, men are apt to keep their thoughts to themselves or in tight circles rather than boldly bringing them into the light for a critical analysis and/or consideration. Recall the Jews refusing to discuss Christ’s question, “Was the baptism of Christ from heaven or men?” (Mark 11:27-33). Or the unwillingness of the Pharisees to listen when Nicodemus said, “Our law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing does it?” (John 7:50-53). What about the Jews who, rather than meeting Stephen’s argument, chose to stone him instead (Acts 7). While standing in judgment upon these, today some brethren ironically manifest the same close-minded attitudes thus putting shackles on the truth.

God repudiates such demeanor when Paul says, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10) which can only come by such devotion as seen in the Berean brethren of Acts 17:10, 11. Based on these principles I commend to you the following discussion.

During the days of September 14-18, 1908 brothers W.W. Otey and J.B. Briney, at the meeting house of the Trinity Methodist church in Louisville, Kentucky, engaged in a series of discussions. The two questions discussed are seen in the following propositions.

(1) The use of instrumental music in connection with the songs sung by the church on the Lord’s day, when assembled for edification and communion, is opposed to New Testament teaching and sinful. W.W. Otey, affirms. J.B. Briney, denies.

(2) The use of such organizations as the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Mission Society, etc., is authorized in the New Testament Scrip-tures and is acceptable to God. J.B. Briney, affirms. W.W. Otey, denies.

Instrumental Music in the Lord’s Church

After the “Christian church” and the “Disciples of Christ” gained much popularity after introducing the musical instrument into the worship of the church and dividing congregations coast to coast in the latter part of the 19th century, it behooved many faithful brethren to continue teaching, preaching, writing, and even debating the issue in the hopes of reaching one soul who “sins and unintentionally does any one of the things which the Lord God has commanded not to be done, and he becomes guilty” (Lev. 4:22). Such was the desire of brother W.W. Otey who taught faithfully on this subject and eventually led him to the engagement we are here considering.

Even though the first affirmative speech belonged to brother Otey, he let brother Briney do most of the affirming through a thirty-nine year old article Briney had written before accepting the instrument into the church. Briney here aptly affirmed that Christians were commanded only to sing (1 Cor. 15:15; Eph. 5:18, 19; Heb. 13:15). He went on to say, “I affirm that an instrumental accompaniment is an addition to the ordinance, and effects its character, and is therefore an infringement of the divine prerogative.” Brother Otey stood by these words and drew the following conclusions. (1) As music in the church, New Testament Christians are authorized only to sing, (2) anything additional is foreign to God’s word. “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9). (3) If the instrument is used as an expedient, then it is still sinful for it “wounds the conscience” of many brethren and drives the wedge of division in the Lord’s body (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:12, 13).

Briney’s replies were, through the whole debate, unfortunately unconvincing and unscriptural and clearly contradictory on a number of occasions. At one point he was quoted as saying, “The New Testament is silent in regards to the use of the instrument in worship,” and then turns around and says, “the New Testament authorizes the use of instruments of music in the worship of God.” Which is it? Trying to justify an unscriptural practice often leaves one speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Brother Briney was then corrected after trying to support his practice by Miriam’s use of instruments in O.T. worship (Exod. 15:20) and shown that the old law was taken away (Gal. 5:9-11; Col. 3:14-17; Rom. 7:1-6). His argumentation then took an unbelievable turn when Briney said that only the “ceremonial law has been taken away leaving us with the Psalms and prophets. Anything from them that is not forbidden in the New Testament is thus authorized.” We know, however, that in Matthew 17:1-5 at the site of the transfiguration, God told the disciples that Christ is who we are to follow today excluding both the Law of Moses and the prophets.

To the argument that instruments are used in heaven in the book of Revelation and so we are to do as well, Otey responded, “While I am in the temporal kingdom of my master here and serving Him here below, I try to be abundantly satisfied with the provisions He has made for me .. . when I enter the pearly gates . . . if He puts a harp in my hand there, I shall loyally and joyfully play it, but inasmuch as he has not put one in my hand here below in the church, I refuse to dishonor Him by playing one in the worship.” How pleased the Lord would be if we would simply settle for the provisions he has made for us here!

The last argument worthy of mentioning is when Briney said, “harmonious melody of the accompanying instruments, edifies me … it has a subduing effect upon me. You know, my friends, that music has a taming effect even upon wild animals. You can mange them better, it subdues them.” To that Otey confirmed that Briney had just proven his point, “my good friend has given me the very illustration which proves just that . . . the mere sound of an instrument does appeal to the `fleshly’ sense of hearing . . . but remember our worship is not `fleshly’ but `spiritual. And with this, the first half of the debate ended with the affirmative proven.

Missionary Societies

In the second half of the discussion, brother Briney was responsible for proving that the missionary societies are authorized in the N.T. Scriptures. (See proposition #2 at the beginning of this article.) As could be expected, Briney’s time was filled with less of a scriptural discussion and more of an appeal to emotions by arguing that the ends of such justifies the means used. At one point he erected a map on the stage and pointed out all of the congregations established by their society and asked how one could condemn so much good work being done. He demanded that brother Otey tell how much work he was doing without a missionary society. To such a pompous and “this-worldly” attitude Otey quoted Matthew 6:1-4, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them, otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”

The only three Scriptures Briney used to support his practice were passages he said were clear examples of missionary societies in the New Testament. First, Christ’s “limited commission” to the apostles in Matthew 10 was proposed to fill such. Otey shows it falling far short in the fact that they weren’t the church, they weren’t under the New Covenant, and they were later instructed differently after the kingdom was established. Secondly, Briney said that the appointing of the seven in Acts 6 was a society. Otey said that would be impossible because it was the work of only one individual autonomous church and not the work of one head controlling multiplicity of churches. Third, it was suggested that the work done by the brethren in Acts 13:1-5 was such. Otey again corrected brother Briney showing him that no organized group of churches had sent these men out to do the work of the Lord but rather the Holy Spirit (v. 2).

Whatever cases are recorded in the Bible, one fact is always crystal clear, never do we see one church or eldership, or organization overseeing, directing or dictating the work of another church or the use of their funds. Never!

Otey laid a foundation for the work of the church as taught in the New Testament. 1. There is only one religious body (Eph. 4:4-6) with one head (Col. 1:18). Proponents of missionary societies neither believe this nor do they practice it. 2. We need no addition to what God has given us (2 Pet. 1:3). 3. Otey indicated that many of the characteristics of the societies indicate a worldly origin and tendency (Col. 2:8, 9). 4. The only way we see the work of the Lord being supported in the New Testament is by individual churches making an autonomous, conscious decision to directly support faithful men in the preaching of the word (Phil. 4:15, 16).

An interesting thing occurred when, after brother Briney repudiated the teaching of delegate assemblies in societies, Otey showed that the Illinois Missionary Society uses such which left Briney denying the very society that he agreed to affirm.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in these subjects or in studying religious debates. Some of my other favorites include the Bates-Teller discussion on the existence of God, the Warner-Fuqua debate concerning whether or not non-Christians are amenable to the law of Christ, the Halbrook-Freeman debate on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, the Houchen-Tatum debate on four errors of the Baptist church, and the Cogdill-Turner discussion dealing with institutionalism.

I often have brethren tell me that debates are inappropriate and are even a sinful means of teaching the truth. It’s interesting that Christ didn’t know that when he de-bated with the Pharisees and scribes on many occasions, or Paul when he reasoned in the School of Tyranus or with the pagans on Mars Hill, or even when he with-stood Peter to the face because he “stood condemned” in Galatians 2.

It is true that there may be abuses of something that is right and legitimate in and of itself. Just because Peter abused his office of an apostle and elder ostracizing certain Gentile brethren doesn’t mean that such positions are sinful. In the twenty plus debates I have studied, yes there were inconsiderate attitudes at times, but in every case the truth was taught and I continue to learn valuable insights into the Scriptures with each succeeding one.

I would hope that all brethren would have the open-mindedness to discuss every issue as we are commanded, in our search for the truth. Proverbs 27:17 tells us that “iron sharpeneth iron,” but too often we end up leaving our swords in the sheaths of ignorance or proof texts rather than wielding them as commanded and testing them “to see if you are in the faith.”

It was once said that if triangles made God he would be three-sided, and such is true among many today. Whenever we refuse to study, discuss, and yes even de-bate God’s word on any given subject we become like the triangle, making God fit into our comfortable compact mold and resort to idolatry, lest we “see with our eyes, and hear with our ears” and are inconvenienced by the rigidness of truth. Let us therefore take a stand as our faithful examples of old did in order that we may be “ready to give a defense.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 18-19
December 5, 1996

By Timothy J. Smelser

In The Life of Reason the American philosopher George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” In Paul’s letter to the Corinthian Christians we understand that the record of God’s dealings with the Israelites was written for our ad-monition that we might learn by example not to do the things that they did (1 Cor. 10:6-11). Whether it is secular history or church history, one of the great benefits of studying such is to learn from the mistakes that others have made so that those errors are not repeated.

Homer Hailey’s book Attitudes and Consequences in the Restoration Movement examines two attitudes toward Scripture that have resulted in the religious situation we find in the church today. The development of these attitudes centers around the issue of scriptural authority and can be traced back to apostolic times. Hailey’s book is actually an expansion of his thesis for his Master’s degree which he earned from Southern Methodist University in 1944. He states as his objective, “to consider the attitude of the nineteenth century reformers toward the Scriptures, and to trace that attitude through the growth and development of the movement known as the Restoration Movement, until finally another attitude developed, parallel with it, repeating the history of the early centuries, which resulted in a division in that great brotherhood . . .” (Hailey, 13). Fanning Yater Tant, in an addendum found in the most recent edition of the book, summarizes Hailey’s thesis as “`attitudes’ toward the Scripture, rather than understandings or interpretations of it are the basic root of divisions and separations” (258).

In the preface Hailey almost appears apologetic for his extensive use of quotes from other books and religious journals, but the reader will likely find this to be one of the great strengths of this book. Besides quoting from noted historians such as Schaff, Jennings, Garrison, Gates, and others, Halley uses many biographies written by the contemporaries of the Restoration leaders. Letting the men of the movement speak for themselves, Halley incorporates lengthy quotations from some of the more familiar journals such as The Christian Baptist, The Millennial Harbinger, Lard’s Quarterly, and refers to yet others which might not be so familiar to the average reader such as The Christian Journal or The Scroll.

The book itself is divided into three parts. The first part covering the years of 1809-1849 (although the first two chapters address attitudes leading up to the year 1809); the second part 1849-1875; and the third 1890-present (1945). As was mentioned above, the book was republished in 1975 and included an addendum by Fanning Yater Tant covering the period of 1945-1975. In the first chapter Hailey captures the attitude of the New Testament writers toward Scripture choosing as his starting point the same model the leaders of the Restoration chose. What follows in chapter one is a brief, yet excel-lent, overview of attitudes toward Scripture from the Roman Catholic Church (citing Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), i.e., that “Scripture must be authoritative because the church declares it so” (14) and “to the church even Scripture owes its authority” (15), to the sixteenth century reformers (such as Luther and Zwingli) and on to the Congregationalist and Baptist churches in early America. His purpose is to show the development of attitudes and the subsequent unrest which would set the stage for the great Restoration Movement in this country.

A detailed history of all the men and events involved in the Restoration Movement is never attempted by Hailey. Instead, his interest lies in the struggles experienced as application of Thomas Campbell’s famous slogan (“Speak where the Scriptures speak, and keep silent where the Scriptures are silent”) was made to numerous is-sues. Throughout the book, the reader is brought back to the idea that there are two prevalent attitudes at work. The first, that “the Scriptures provided the all-sufficient guide in matters of doctrine, worship, and morality” and the second that “where the Scriptures did not specifically forbid a thing, the worshiper was at liberty to use his own judgment and wisdom in the matter of its introduction” (197). These two attitudes seemed to stem from the same basic root, but ultimately the application of such would cause them to stand diametrically opposed to one another. This became apparent even to the Campbells as they came to realize that due to these different attitudes the union they initially desired with the religious bodies of that time was a hopeless task (68).

Hailey takes the reader through the debates and discussions that were waged over such early issues as the proper name to wear, the use of creeds, the impropriety of a clergy class, and the purpose of baptism. As issues such as church cooperation and missionary societies polarized brethren, Hailey deals with the instrument question as the “dividing wedge.” Finally, in the third part of the book, he examines each camp separately and the subsequent issues that troubled each in the early part of the twentieth century.

To those not familiar with two of the more famous documents of the Restoration period, a few extracts from The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery can be found in chapter 2, and a very good over-view of Thomas Campbell’s “Declaration and Address” can be found in chapter 3. Also worthy of mention is a satirical article of Alexander Campbell’s in The Christian Baptist written as the unpublished Third Epistle of Peter. His sarcasm was aimed at the “clergy” of his day, but the points are well taken in any age.

Young preachers (and old alike) should take special note of the personal struggles through which the men of the Restoration went. They experienced conflict in heart and conscience as they wrestled through various issues. Some-times this was a time consuming process. For example, in his first de-bate (against John Walker, 1820) Alexander Campbell “mildly suggested baptism for remission of sins as a Bible doctrine” (116). It was not until his debate with William McCalla, three years later, that Campbell affirmed this doctrine with conviction. In almost all of the issues of that day, there was a heart and soul-searching process that took place as men tested their convictions against the truth of God’s word.

Even though they were written fifty years ago, the words of Olan L. Hicks in the introduction to the book explain why this book is essential reading for young preachers today. He said, “There are many in the generation now coming into responsibility who may not know the story of the struggle and vigilance necessary to maintain the integrity of New Testament worship and work. . . . Those who believe in the New Testament as the word of God will have to bear the burden not only of converting the world, but also of combating infidel teaching from every side” (8).

There are probably very few of this generation who have taken the time to read The Arlington Meeting, and it is doubtful that those younger than 30 had the opportunity to attend the Nashville Meeting (1988) or the Dallas Meeting (1990). Gentlemen, if we do not equip ourselves to understand the particulars of the issues we face, if we do not learn from the battles waged and the stands taken by those who came before us, we will not be pre-pared soldiers of the cross. May God bless our efforts as we strive to do the work of evangelists and “fight the good fight of faith.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 14-15
December 5, 1996

By Marc W. Gibson

“Any work of man will exhibit imperfections, and there are views (not many) in this work which I do not follow; yet, I regard it as the greatest uninspired work ever writ-ten.”‘ This is high praise indeed! For most books, this assessment would be embarrassingly extreme. But after reading J.W. McGarvey’s Original Commentary on Acts, I found this evaluation not that unbelievable.’

J.W. McGarvey (1829-1912) published his commentary on the New Testament book of Acts in 1863, in the midst of the Civil War. He had begun writing it four years earlier when he was about thirty years of age. Upon release, it received very favorable reviews from brethren. Moses Lard wrote, “To say that the work is creditable to its patient and laborious author, would be a poor compliment indeed. It is a high honor to him. Throughout it bears most obvious traces of fine ability, clear, calm, close thought, and unremitting application.”3 W.K. Pendleton agreed, citing the excellent character of McGarvey and declaring that the commentary “strikes the happy medium . . . acceptable both to the common and to the critical reader,” taking us “back, religiously and ecclesiastically, to the days of the Apostles.”4 The appearance of McGarvey’s commentary set off among brethren a wave of interest in commentaries that resulted in the publication of other volumes in the years thereafter (Moses Lard on Romans, Robert Milligan on Hebrews, B.W. Johnson on John, et al.). McGarvey did write a revision of his commentary on Acts in 1892.5 He judged it an improved edition since he felt he was more fitted to the task. Yet, his original commentary remains more popular and, in many ways, still unsurpassed.

McGarvey’s intent and method are clearly laid out in his introduction. He first determines the exact design of Luke in writing his inspired history: “Much the greater part of Acts may be resolved into a detailed history of cases of conversion, and of unsuccessful attempts at the conversions of sinners. If we extract from it all cases of this kind, with the facts and incidents preparatory to each and immediately consequent upon it, we will have exhausted almost the entire contents of the narrative.”6 The leading objects and endeavors of his volume would be to (1) ascertain the exact terms of pardon as taught by the apostles, and the precise elements which constitute real conversion to Christ; (2) set forth the labors of the inspired preachers as the true and infallible guide of the modern evangelist; and (3) to see presented in living form and unmistakable simplicity, the work of the Holy Spirit.’ McGarvey effectively follows these themes throughout.

McGarvey’s style of writing makes all his fine books easy and worthwhile reading. In his original commentary on Acts he deliberately takes a narrative style so that it may be read through consecutively. This style is especially effective in making the history come alive as one reads the volume as a flowing story. He does not go verseby-verse disjointedly but integrates the text of Scripture into his flow of commentary. This is accomplished even as McGarvey stops from time to time to elaborate on issues andquestions of his day (and which continue to be issues and questions in our day).

McGarvey succeeded in making his commentary a virtual encyclopedia of biblical subjects. He covers every verse and includes extended discussions of the kingdom, the Holy Spirit, salvation, elders, deacons, confession, water baptism, baptism of the Holy Spirit, the name “Christian,” circumcision, and military service to mention just a few. Many commentaries are too wordy while others barely deal with difficult passages. McGarvey tackles each difficult verse and issue with sound, scriptural exegesis. On a negative note, he will refer, albeit rarely, to older writers and commentators who are unknown to most readers today.

It is also of note that McGarvey deftly catches the emotion and feeling of dramatic historical scenes, making them come alive. Do not miss his powerful and touching portrayal of Stephen in chapter 7, the classic discussion of baptism in chapter 8, his constant synthesis of the accounts of conversion, and the excellent and concise overview of Paul’s sermon in chapter 17. With a command and use of the facts of Scripture, logic, and rhetoric, McGarvey provides us with a sweeping work covering inspired New Testament history.

Of course, there will always be areas of disagreement with any work of men. I took issue with a few of McGarvey’s positions, but they amounted to minor disagreements, certainly not the kind of major doctrinal disagreements one would have with the erroneous teachings found in a liberal, denominational commentary. Without reservation I can recommend this commentary on Acts for both general reading and in-depth study. Its detail is thorough, but not too technical. The exposition is serious, yet written on a popular level. The author’s positions are acquired from the text of Scripture. The Bible student will come away challenged and satisfied. As stated well by one admirer, “Mastery of this matchless work will equip one better to preach the gospel than all the knowledge contained in a hundred works of theology often seen on the shelves of preachers today.”‘

Endnotes

1 Guy N. Woods, Questions and Answers (Open Forum, Freed-Hardeman College Lectures), (Henderson, Tennessee: Freedman-Hardeman College, 1976), 315.

2 This commentary is currently in its ninth edition published by the Guardian of Truth Foundation. 3 Lard’s Quarterly, Volume One (Rosemead, California: The

Old Paths Book Club, 1952), 199.

4 The Millennial Harbinger, 1864 (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, n.d.), 38-39.

5 McGarvey’s New Commentary On Acts of Apostles is avail-

able in the Restoration Library commentary set published by Gospel Light Publishing Company, Delight, Arkansas.

6 J. W. McGarvey, A Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Bowling Green, Kentucky Guardian of Truth Foundation, n.d.), 4.

7 Ibid., 5-7.

8 Woods, op. cit.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 12-13
December 5, 1996