Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

As past articles in this series have indicated, The Acts is much more than a simple rendition of the beginning of the church and its early history. In fact, The Acts takes upon itself a form of apologetics as it presents the church to the world full of skepticism (Romans) and prejudice (Jews). One is not asked to accept Jesus Christ, the risen Savior, on blind faith. Rather, the evidence is presented to the Romans as in a forensic case; to the Jews as a model of Mosaic orthodoxy. We have already studied the case of evidence, based upon the role of the apostles as “witnesses.” Now, let us examine the case as it would appear in the eyes of those familiar to the Law of Moses.

Was this church something new, unexpected, unheralded? Did one have to turn one’s back on the Law and the prophets in order to accept Jesus of Nazareth? Could a descendant of Abraham remain faithful to his nation and yet become a part of a “sect” that opened its doors to Gentiles? Could a Jew become a part of this Kingdom and avoid conflict with Rome? To Jews, there were many disturbing factors to be considered: the Sabbath, sacrifices, the Temple, the priesthood, and most importantly, the Torah. Could anyone expect a devout Jew to turn his back on millennia of following after Moses and abruptly begin to follow Jesus?

Luke’s approach (by inspiration) was to lay the foundation that Christianity was but an extension, the natural culmination of all that Judaism represented. Rather than violate the law by accepting Jesus, a Jew realized the natural end (purpose) of the law by accepting him of whom the law and prophets testified. In becoming a Christian, a Jew fulfilled his planned destiny from God. As Paul would later declare, “For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom. 10:4). Luke proved that a Jew, in fact, followed orthodoxy when he became a Christian and that only by denying Jesus could he violate the Law.

Before us is another of the great themes from Acts.

Fulfilled Prophecy

When Pentecost occurred, there was not so much a break with the past as a fruition. God was beginning, at that pregnant moment of time, to fulfill the prophets, not destroy them (Matt. 5:17). Luke carefully rehearsed the sermon from Pentecost, showing that the apostles argued their case as Jews to Jews, brethren to brethren, as fellow inheritors of the promises to Abraham and David, not violators of the covenant. The event of the day was the culmination of history, not a break from it.

Without repeating the sermon of Acts 2, we must impress that it is a model of proof to those who loved the Old Testament. Beginning with Joel’s prediction of the “last days,” and continuing through David’s testimony of the Christ, the twelve drove home the fact that God had promised both a king and kingdom and that “this is that” (v. 16) spoken by the prophets. There would be no disloyalty in accepting Jesus as the Christ. It would be disloyal to God not to accept the Messiah. God had raised Jesus to sit upon the throne of David when he raised him from the dead (vv. 30-31). The Holy Spirit, of whom Joel spoke, had poured forth the power on Pentecost (v. 33), even as he had given proof through the works of Jesus of which the multitudes were witnesses (v. 22), as were the apostles (v. 32). The logical conclusion of such a presentation was that “God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified” (v. 36).

That Jesus was rejected by the nation came as no surprise. In fact, the rejection became, in itself, a mark of identity. While the gospel of Luke records the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, it also records the crucifixion. Cries of “Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Lk. 19:38) turned into cries of “Crucify, crucify him” (23:21). Luke attested to this as fulfillment of Scripture when he recorded Peter and John saying, “He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner” (Acts 4:11). This served as a warning to listeners not to repeat the tragedy of rejecting Jesus once again. The King of the Jews had now established the long-awaited kingdom.

From the opening paragraph to the last, Luke presented his case. He began with Christ “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (1:3) and closed with Paul before the Roman Jews “preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 31).

When Philip went to Samaria, he went “preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (8:12). When the disciples were confirmed by Paul on his second journey, he exhorted the brethren to “continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations (they) must enter the kingdom of God” (14:22). In the synagogues, Paul “spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God” (19:8).

And what better source for proof-texts than the Old Testament? The sacred Scriptures, which testified of Jesus (John 5:39), were used to make manifest the ancient testimonies of God. Peter affirmed that Jesus was “that prophet” (3:22-23) like Moses to whom all should pay heed and that “Samuel and all the prophets told of these days” (V. 24). Paul “expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets” (28:23).

A Universal Kingdom

As far back as Genesis 3:15, God promised the “seed of woman” who would become the Christ. In Abraham, he promised blessings to “all the families of the world” (Gen. 18:18) through this promised seed. In David, he promised a king and a kingdom (2 Sam. 7:11ff). Through Daniel, God promised further that the kingdom would consume all other nations (2:44). Isaiah had spoken that “all nations” would be in that kingdom (2:2).

This cumulative evidence, and more, must have been the basis for the heated discussion in Jerusalem in Acts 15 as to the destiny of the Gentiles who believed in Jesus. James summed up the evidence when he stated: “Simeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets” (15:14,15). This is followed by a quotation from Amos 9:11,12.

Surely, we must be struck by the steadfast manner in which Luke pressed his theme of a kingdom that required no treason to embrace. Under the searching light of his presentation, it would have been treasonous not to accept it.

Questions Are Answered

Was this church something new, unexpected, unheralded? No, it was a subject of ancient prophecy. Did one have to turn his back on the Law and the prophets in order to accept Jesus of Nazareth? No, one would establish the law and prophets (Acts 2:30-35; Rom. 3:31) by accepting Jesus. Could a descendant of Abraham remain faithful to his nation and yet become a part of a sect that opened its doors to Gentiles? Yes, if it was understood that God was granting them “repentance unto life” (11:18) as well as the Jews. Could a Jew become a part of this Kingdom and avoid conflict with Rome? Yes, if he realized that “his citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20; Acts 28:17-18). To Jews, there were many disturbing factors to be considered: the Sabbath, sacrifices, the Temple, the priesthood, and most importantly, the Torah. Could anyone expect a devout Jew to turn his back on millennia of following after Moses and abruptly begin to follow Jesus? Yes, if he understood that the Old Testament system was a “yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10), yet it did not require the Christian to do aught I against the people, or the customs of our fathers” (28:17). The typical system was gone; the anti-type had arrived, substance had replaced shadow.

With these things before us, we can only stand in awe at the evidence and testimony presented by this great historian. Another of the great themes from Acts is brought to view with evidence sufficient to convince Jew and Gentile alike that the Christ is now on the throne of David. Our own faith in Jesus is enhanced by the evidence before us and we can only thank God for his Providence in bringing it to our view.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 362-363
June 18, 1992

By Mike Willis

To give greater clarity to the plea to restore the New Testament church, I want to consider what is involved in that plea.

What the Plea Does Not Mean

1. The plea to restore the New Testament church does not simply mean a reformation of an existing denomination. We are not interested in merely reforming an existing denomination to bring it more into line with modern thought so that it can better adjust to changing social needs. Many have the concept that the Lord started the church and left it to adjust itself to the changing social circumstances of each age. The New Testament church, however, is just what its founder wants it to be. It never needs reformation. It simply needs to be restored.

2. The plea to restore the New Testament church does not mean starting or founding another church. The plea to restore the Lord’s church is not a call to found another denomination. There already are too many denominational churches, so why would anyone want to add to that number? What the world needs is not another new denomination; it needs the old New Testament church of Christ just as it came from the hand of God as Jesus promised to build it (Matt. 16:18).

Furthermore, the Bible condemns modern denominationalism with its sectarian divisions, creeds, humanly devised worship and organization. Why would we want to found another denomination?

3. The plea to restore the New Testament church does not mean another human creed or rule of faith and practice. The plea to restore the New Testament church is a renunciation of every human creed, every human rule of faith and practice. No human creed is needed. Creeds stand self-condemned. If they contain more than the Bible, they contain too much; if they contain less than the Bible, they do not contain enough; if they contain the same as the Bible, we do not need them for we already have the Bible. Human creeds have contributed to denominational division. Far from being statements to bring about unity, human creeds have divided brethren.

4. The plea to restore the New Testament church is not a plea to restore the immorality at Corinth, the Judaizing teaching in Galatia, the disorderly conduct in Thessalonica, or any of the other sins mentioned in the churches of the New Testament. One would think that this would go without saying, but some men among us have charged that the restoration plea must mean that we are going to restore these things. Those who make this objection are either woefully ignorant or intentionally dishonest. God will judge.

What the Plea Does Mean

1. The plea to restore the New Testament church does means a restoration. By “restoration” is meant a complete return to original ground to take up things just as they were revealed in the New Testament, When we speak of “restoring” furniture, we understand that we remove all of the paint and varnish to restore the original appearance of the furniture. The plea to restore the New Testament church is a plea to remove every human innovation in religion in order to return to the pristine original of the church as Jesus built it.

2. The plea to restore the New Testament church does mean the restoration of the one divine creed and rule of faith and practice. The word “creed” is derived from the Latin word credo, “I believe.” A creed is, strictly speaking, a summary of what one believes. The true creed and rule of faith and practice for the church is the New Testament. The entire church is built upon this one item of faith: “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This one item of faith is simple, although it comprehends every command and teaching which Jesus revealed. Because Jesus is the Son of God, whatever he commands and whatever he teaches is the truth which must be believed and obeyed.

3. The plea to restore the New Testament church is a plea to restore the faith and practice of the inspired apostles. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth (Jn. 16:13). What they taught and revealed was the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37). Recognizing that this is so, we seek to restore the “apostles’ doctrine ” (Acts 2:42).

Faith in Christ is faith that trusts Christ. Trust in Christ is shown by taking Christ at his word and doing what he says. No one has true faith in Christ, nor trusts in Christ ‘ who does not obey his commandments. It is folly to say that one has faith in Christ and, at the same time, not to believe what Jesus and his apostles taught or not to do what he commanded.

The restoration of the faith and practice of the apostles means a complete return in all things of faith and practice, wherein there has been a falling away, to original faith and teaching. It means the undoing of all false teaching and religious error by reproducing or restoring “the faith once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). It means going back to the Christ through the inspired apostles and restoring the New Testament church as it was first established by Christ through the apostles.

4. The plea to restore the New Testament church is a plea to restore the unity of the New Testament church. Jesus prayed for the New Testament church to be united. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20-21). They were expected to be of the same mind and the same judgment. Paul wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). They were to keep the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Epb. 4:3).

In order to keep the unity of the Spirit, seven things were revealed in which all must be one. Paul wrote,

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:4-6).

In order to restore the unity of the first century church, there must be an allegiance to Christ in each of the following:

a. One body. The one body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23). “But now are they many members, yet but one body” (1 Cor. 12:20). “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Rom. 12:5). “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:12-13). The unity of the New Testament church can never be attained or restored so long as men believe that there are many different churches and “Christians in all denominations.” (Only division can come from the idea that men become Christians without complying with the New Testament conditions for salvation. More divisions come from the idea that men can offer worship approved of God in ways not revealed in the New Testament.)

b. One Spirit. The one Spirit is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth (Jn. 14:16,17,26). The Holy Spirit’s work in human redemption was to reveal the word of truth which in turn begets men for the new birth (1 Cor. 4:15). Hence, those who are born again are “born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:3,5). Recognizing one Spirit points us to one consistent revelation. The one Spirit did not reveal conflicting messages (see 1 Cor. 12:3).

c. One hope. The Christian’s hope is hope for a home in heaven with the Lord. Peter wrote, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:3-5). This hope is the anchor to the soul (Heb. 6:18-19).

When men fix their highest hope on temporal changes, such as cleaning up the ghetto, racial equality including ending apartheid in South Africa, nuclear disarmament or any other worthy reform of society, they cease to have the one Christian hope. When men preach a temporal reign of Christ on earth for 1000 years, they have changed the Christian’s hope. The church can be united only so long as there is commitment to the one hope.

d. One Lord. The one Lord is Jesus Christ whom God has exalted above every name that is named (Phil. 2:9). He is head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:20-21). He is seated at the right hand of the throne of God (Acts 2:33). As Lord, he has “all authority” (Matt. 28:18). We can be united only so long as we all submit to the commandments of the one Lord. There can be no unity so long as men recognize the authority of popes, synods, and councils.

e. One faith. The word “faith” is used here in the sense of the body of revealed doctrine, the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). There is only one body of revealed doctrine. This conviction makes us stand opposed to all other “faiths,” including that written by Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon), Mary Baker Eddy (Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures), Ellen G. White (Seventh Day Adventists), Mohammed (Koran), etc.

f. One baptism. The one baptism of the gospel has always been water baptism – that which is commanded in the Great Commission. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). Water baptism is an immersion in water. The candidates for water baptism are penitent believers. The purpose of baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to “wash away sins” (Acts 22:16).

The church cannot be united so long as men teach and practice that there are many “forms” of baptism (sprinkling, pouring or immersion), administered to believers or unbelievers (such as infants), and for reasons other than “for remission of sins” (an outward sign of an inward grace, as a testimony to the world that one already has been saved, etc.).

g. One God. The early church recognized only one God and rejected every form of polytheism. Even as they rejected the worship of pagan deities (Dinah, Mercury, Jupiter), we also must reject the polytheism of our own day. The socalled “world religions” which teach another god are just as unacceptable in the twentieth century as the world religions of Egypt, Rome, Greece, and the east were in the first century.

Wherein these seven ones are found there can be unity among believers. Where these are not found, Bible unity cannot be attained or maintained.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, pp. 386, 406-407
July 2, 1992

By Randy Cavender

In the opening of Moses’ speech to the people in the book of Deuteronomy, he reviewed their history from the time they had been at Sinai until Israel had come to the Jordan River to cross over to the land of promise. Moses opens by reminding the people, “The Lord our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: ‘You have dwelt long enough at this mountain'” (Deut. 1:6). At times I believe we express this same sentiment when we say, “Haven’t you had enough!” I believe what God said to the people of Israel, He is saying to them:

Without Christ. The spiritual condition of those without Christ is described vividly in the New Testament! For instance, those without Christ are aliens and strangers (Eph. 2:12), having no hope (2:12), and far off (Eph. 2:1). What a miserable condition in which to be! Yet, as a sinner, this is exactly the spiritual condition you are in! “Have you dwelt long enough” in this lost condition? Haven’t you had enough of the passing pleasures of sin? If so, then be obedient to God and be “no longer strangers and foreigners” (Eph. 2:19) and be “made alive with Christ” (Col. 2:13).

Indifferent. As Jeremiah walked through his beloved city of Jerusalem and beheld its destruction, he lamented, “Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by?” (Lam. 1:12) There are some who profess to be Christians who are really indifferent toward their responsibilities! If this attitude of passivity is yours, please notice what God’s attitudes is toward you: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth” (Rev. 3:16). “Have you not dwelt long enough” with this attitude? If so, then repent and pledge total allegiance to Christ (Matt. 12:30).

In Doubt. As Peter was walking on the water toward Jesus, he began to sink. When he finally reached his Lord, Jesus rebuked him saying, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matt. 14:31) Doubt creates in us unbelief. The Hebrew writer warned: “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). “Have you not dwelt long enough” in doubting God?

Brethren, the bottom line is summed up in that the “wages of sin is death.” “Have you not dwelt long enough” in sin? If so, let each of us make the necessary changes in order to please God!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, p. 361
June 18, 1992

By Luther W. Martin

The institution of the Lord’s supper, the memorial sacrifice of Christ’ body and blood, which is kept by Christians each first day of the week, is recorded in Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, and Luke 22:19-20.

Some years later, the history recorded by Luke in Acts 20:6-7 authenticates the practice of the disciples in partaking of the supper of the Lord on the first day of the week. Paul, accompanied by Luke, arrived at Troas, and waited seven days for the arrival of the first day of the week, upon which day they assembled with the disciples at Troas and participated with them in “breaking bread.” Still later, the Apostle Paul provided an inspired record of Christ’s having instituted the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Expressions such as “My body” and “My blood of the new covenant” were quoted from the lips of Christ by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Each of these three witnesses quote Christ as no longer participating in the Passover feast, until it would be “fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then Paul’s testimony places the Lord’s table in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 10:21), thereby confirming the Lord’s kingdom and the Lord’s church as being one and the same.

The foregoing passages of Scripture provide the inspired authorization for the subsequent observance and practice of the Lord’s people, which prevailed for many centuries. Now, in the 20th century, there are yet congregations of Christian’s who gather together and worship each Lord’s day, after the New Testament order.

Unfortunately, over the centuries, men have presumptuously taken the Lord’s authority into their own hands, and have introduced changes in the observance of the Lord’s supper. Let us consider some of the innovations.

The Bread and the Fruit of the Vine

The unleavened bread, as used in the Passover observance, became the bread that served as a memorial of Christ’s body, “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). Also the “fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:18), was the scarlet liquid used in symbolizing Christ’s blood. Thus, inspiration authorized two substances in memorializing Christ’s sacrifice.

The “Eastern church” continued to observe the Lord’s supper by using the two substances in its Eucharist. Eucharist is an anglicized Greek word, eucharisteo, which means “to thank, or to be thankful.” It is used in Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, Luke 22:17,19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, as well as in other passages. Early in its history, the Eastern church resorted to leavened bread in its observance. For a time in the East, a spoon was used in taking the fruit of the vine, thereby rendering it unnecessary for the faithful to even touch the container(s). Some assemblies had a container for the priest, and another for the communicants. Later, the wafer or bit of bread was dipped into the wine, and thus both the bread and the fruit of the vine were taken by the communicant simultaneously. This was called “intinction.”

The Western Congregations Influenced by Rome

Even the congregations known as the “Western church” continued for many centuries to use the two substances (they termed it “two species”) when they observed the Eucharist in their place of worship. However, one of the earliest departures from the New Testament pattern for the Lord’s supper occurred when they determined to carry the bread and fruit of the vine to some Christian who was sick or in prison (see Worship, Vol. XXXVII, No. 8, August-September 1963, p. 527). Frequently the liquid was spilled, and so they began to take only the bread to the communicant on his sickbed. They further rationalized that the bread (the body), had the blood in it, anyway, so why not with regularity, just use the bread in observance.

The church in the West, introduced the use of a gold or silver tube (like a drinking straw), and called a fistula, through which the wine was sipped. The Pope still makes use of the fistula, in taking the fruit of the vine.

In the 11th and 12th centuries, the Roman church condemned the practice of “intinction.” This dipping of the “Host,” the wafer of bread into the wine, contributed to the ultimate omission of the use of the fruit of the vine, as a separate symbol of Christ’s blood. Partaking of the Lord’s supper was so poorly practiced in the early 13th century, that the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had to command its annual reception. This meant that about twice per year, there would be droves of communicants (not through faith in Christ, but in obedience to the decree!), while the rest of the year, there were almost none. Consequently, at these congested times, the priests were only too happy to have their task simplified by the distribution of the bread only, without having to also distribute the wine. Coincidentally, it was about a century earlier (1088), that Beregarius of Tours gave the Western church substantial opposition to the subject of Transubstantiation, wherein “the entire substance of the bread and the wine is (supposedly – lwm) changed into the Body and Blood of Christ” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary, p. 345, published by the Gilmary Society, 1941). Opposition to Transubstantiation would again arise with the beginning of the Reformation. Due to the attacks of John Huss, the matter of Communion under one species, had to be addressed by the Council of Constance (1415).

Later, the Council of Trent (1546-1564) defined Transubstantiation (sess. Xiii, can. 2, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 499, edited by Donald Attwater, published by the Macmillan Co., 1952). With such a definition, it was no longer required that the Catholic communicant partake of two 6ispecies” in observing the Eucharist. The chalice or cup was denied to the “laity” but the members of the hierarchy who served at the altar continue to partake of both “species.” The doctrine that “the whole Christ is present under either species” is called “concomitance” (see Worship, December, 1062, Vol. XXXVII, No. 1, p. 52).

The decree which forbade Communion under the two species was passed by a vote of 87 “for” and 79 “against.” The ballots of these 87 men do not invalidate the instructions of Christ or Paul; or, the example of the Christians at Troas!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 364-365
June 18, 1992