Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

In this second of a series designed to encourage a deeper consideration of the themes to be found in the Book of Acts, we want to consider the faithfulness and accuracy of the apostles in carrying out the “marching orders” given to them by Christ when he gave to them the Great Commission. No greater call to duty has ever been issued. No greater response has ever been registered than the successful response of the apostles as they took the message to the entire world in their day (Col. 1:23). No greater failure of the modern religious world exists than our failure to agree on the message of the Great Commission and to take it to our world. The confusion in our modern world concerning the plan of salvation would suggest that there is no basis for exact preaching concerning salvation when, in fact, The Acts presents the clear precedent for every age to follow. One can hear everything today from Universalism to the individual predestination of Calvinism, with all the shades of doctrines in between. A veritable cacophony, a babel of preaching, fills the air waves and pulpits of the land, confusing the untaught and detracting from the clarity of the biblical message. Can we not be sure of what the Lord intended when he spoke so poignantly concerning the mission of the apostles after his departure? Are we to be cursed to wonder forever about the grand theme of Justification or can we not learn from apostolic preaching what Jesus intended?

It is one of the themes of the Book of Acts that the apostles had a clear vision of the Great Commission and that New Testament Christianity was founded upon a faithful proclamation of that saving message. Luke provides a valuable connection between the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus and the history of gospel preaching in the first century. His inspired record provides the assurance that we, too, can understand the intent and purpose of the Great Commission which was spoken to the apostles but which embraced every responsible person from then until the end of the world.

The Great Commission

The synoptic Gospels give us the record of what we have come to call the Great Commission (as opposed to the Limited Commission given only to the Jews, Matt. 10:5); only John omits it.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 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 of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matt. 28:18-20).

And he said unto them, 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).

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Lk. 24:46-47).

If we understand that the different accounts by Matthew, Mark and Luke are not antagonistic to each other, but harmonious accounts by different men who wrote to give us the cumulative total to revelation, we can see clearly what the apostles saw. None of the accounts is disparate from the others, but they fuse and merge into a single message.

From these three accounts, we observe the following ingredients: (1) Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. (2) Upon this authority, the apostles are sent forth, beginning at Jerusalem, (3) teaching all nations who will (4) believe, (5) repent, (6) be baptized, (7) receive remission of sins (be saved), (8) be further taught all that Jesus said.

This is a simple outline of the Great Commission but one that can be easily compared to the gospel accounts. Is it understandable? Can it be preached in its pure form today? Are the doctrines of Universalism, justification by faith alone, preach the man and not the plan, Pentecostalism, etc., compatible with Jesus’ message? Has anyone ever faithfully preached the Great Commission?

Did The Apostles Understand It?

In the light of so much confusion about the plan of salvation today, we raise the question, “Did the apostles understand and correctly proclaim the Great Commission gospel?” If they did not understand it, being so closely associated with Jesus and later endowed with the Holy Spirit, there might be some justification for the lack of unity among us. If we can show that the apostles either did not understand or that they taught widely conflicting doctrines about salvation, we can give up any semblance of unanimity without feeling guilty. But, on the other hand, if it can be demonstrated that the apostles not only understood what Jesus divulged to them but that they faithfully adhered to this message, we must realize our obligation to this same faithful proclamation. Thankfully, Luke does not leave us in the dark, but shows throughout his marvelous work that all the first century preachers clearly understood Jesus’ commission and that they harmoniously taught this message throughout the Roman Empire. One of the themes of the Acts is how the gospel went “unto the uttermost parts of the earth” (1:8).

Examine the Record

Our examination begins in chapter two. True to his promise, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1ff) upon the apostles “to teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (Jn. 14:26), and to “guide you into all the truth” (16:13). Thus, the apostles were not comfortless (orphans), but had the power of the Holy Spirit. Who can doubt that they truly understood the Great Commission as they addressed the multitudes in Acts 2 or that they realized they were at the “beginning” (Acts 11:15) of the gospel, fulfilling the Great Commission? As they spoke to the “devout Jews” from all around the world, they asserted the authority of Jesus (“Lord and Christ,” 2:36), taught faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, and continued teaching (2:40,42) after the conversion of 3000 souls.

Could anyone ask for a clearer chronicle of the Great Commission?

If the apostles understood it and preached it, why can’t we also teach it today? Are we not obligated to do so? As Paul said to Timothy, a second generation preacher of the gospel, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

But did Paul teach the same gospel as the other apostles? It is affirmed that he did, because he received his message from the Lord, even as the original twelve: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11, 12). Also, the others apostles knew what he preached, giving him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9), and accepting the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles as being the same as preached to the Jews (Acts 15). All the apostles preached the same gospel and Paul even warned that those who preached “another” gospel would be cursed of God (Gal. 1:6-9).

No, there were no dissenting voices among the apostles, no denominational creeds, no church manuals, no catechisms written by church councils. The simple message of the cross was preached by one and all alike. Men and women of honest and good hearts (Luke 8:15) obeyed the message (Acts 2:41) and were saved, being added to the church (Acts 2:47).

All the rest of Luke’s records throughout Acts attest to the same harmony and oneness. Only when Judaizing teachers attempted to bring in the “law/gospel” did something different appear, but Heaven spoke against it and all the apostles concurred (Acts 15).

In Acts 8, the story of the Samaritans and Simon illustrate the Great Commission gospel. Philip proclaimed Christ (v. 5), they heard the message, believed in Jesus, repented (gave heed, v. 6), and were baptized.

In this same chapter, the Ethiopian showed the Great Commission in his conversion. He heard Philip concerning Christ (v. 35), and was baptized.

Acts 9, 22 and 26 relate the conversion of Saul (Paul) and it deviates not a whit from previous cases of conversion. Paul heard from Christ himself that he was a sinner, believed in Jesus (9:5), repented (9:9), and was baptized (9:18; 22:16; 26:19).

The Gentiles came into Christ through the Great Commission (remember that it was to be preached to the whole world). Acts 10 records the conversion of Cornelius and though legalistic Jews tried to void the message, it prevailed (Acts 15). Cornelius heard the message (10:33; 11:14), believed(15:9), repented (11:18), and was baptized (10:48). Peter noted that what happened to Cornelius was like that which happened to the Jews “in the beginning” (11:14).

Shall we omit the first European converts: Lydia and her household and the jailer and his household? In both instances, they heard Christ proclaimed, believed and were baptized.

The Corinthians of Acts 18, “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (v. 8).

In no case before us from the book of Acts has there been shown any deviation from the Great Commission. Isn’t it wonderful to know, every time that you preach the gospel, that you are taking your place in the company of faithful men and women through the ages who have been true to the Great Commission? Faithful preaching is Great Commission gospel preaching. Faithful preaching is preaching like it is revealed in The Acts. Luke does us a great service in making so plain in his record that the apostles fully understood the message of Jesus and with it conquered kings and nations. We can enroll ourselves in no nobler task than that of preaching the gospel of the Great Commission.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, pp. 208-209
April 2, 1992

He that deviseth to do evil shall be called a mischievous person (Prov. 24:8).

There are people who make mischief their business. They ponder, plan, and plot wicked deeds. They are “inventors of

evil things” (Rom. 1:30).

The burglar studies how he may break into a house undetected. The murderer carefully devises a scheme for killing someone without leaving a trail of evidence. The con artist deliberates on ways to milk some trusting soul. The rapist reflects on plans for locating and attacking his victims without getting caught. The common thief figures a variety of angles and approaches by which to steal. Big operators in such fields as prostitution and pornography hire expensive attorneys to research legal loopholes and study avenues of evading prosecution.

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). That which was true of mankind in general in Noah’s time is all too true of so many in our own time. Not all sin is premeditated, but so often the wicked person “deviseth mischief continually” (Prov. 6:14).

Bible Examples

1. King Saul. Motivated largely by envy, Saul concentrated on harming David (1 Sam. 18:6-9). He offered David his daughter Michal in marriage, asking for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines as payment in place of dowry. “But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.” The plan failed, for David and his men slew two hundred Philistines rather than one hundred (1 Sam. 18:20-27). Saul sought to smite David with a javelin, but David escaped. He sent messengers to watch David’s house and slay him in the morning. Michal helped David to escape (1 Sam. 19:10-17). Fleeing from place to place to stay out of the reach of Saul, “David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischief against him” (1 Sam. 23:9). Saul’s evil designs against David failed because God was with David.

2. Haman. An Agagite and enemy of the Jews, Haman became prime minister of the Persian rule. Haman devised a wicked plot for exterminating the whole Jewish race. Esther, a lovely Jewish woman who had become the queen of Persia, risked her life to expose Haman’s wicked plan. Esther approached the king “and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews” (Esth. 8:3). The decree enacted under Haman’s influence was offset by another royal decree.

3. Greedy Leaders. The prophet Micah addressed certain nobles or leaders among the Israelites who devised mischief to enrich themselves, “Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and. take them by violence, and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:1,2).

These covetous men lay awake at night pondering evil plans. “Their wickedness is planned and deliberate . . . for instead of retiring at night to sleep, they lie awake scheming and devising evil plans” (H. Hailey).

4. Sanballet, Tobiah, and Gesham. These men were foreigners residing in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the time that Nehemiah arrived to rebuild the wall of the city. They thought up every scheme they could to stop the work on the wall. “. . . It grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel” (Neh. 2:10). They scoffed at the effort and insinuated that the Jews were making plans to rebel against the Persians (2:19). They resorted to mockery (4:1,2) and threatened to fight against Jerusalem (4:8). Later, as the work on the wall progressed, these enemies of the Jews urged Nehemiah to meet with them in the plains of Ono. Nehemiah knew their wicked design and refused to go. He said, “They thought to do me mischief” (6:2).

5. Chief Priests and Scribes. These leaders among the Jews during the days of Christ’s ministry studied and consulted with each other about plans for slaying Jesus. “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priests . . . And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him” (Matt. 26:3,4). The chief priests agreed to pay Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus (Matt. 26:14-16). These same leaders later “sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death” (Matt. 26:59).

These are few of the many examples in the Bible of people who could be called mischief-makers. God considers as abominable a “heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” (Prov. 6:18).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, p. 181
March 19, 1992

By Bobby L. Graham

Has there ever been a time when more diverse thinking existed on the subject of marriage? It would appear that the once nearly unanimous teaching of brethren on this subject has been disrupted by concepts and theories conceived in the womb of necessity and born under conditions of convenience. The lack of genuine conviction of the reality of those ideas expressed is often seen in the posture of some in raising doubts and promoting questions about biblical teaching relative to marriage. They seem content to raise questions and elicit doubts and then back off with the excuse that they are merely studying the matter and their convictions are not yet formulated. The testing of the winds of thought and opinion seems to be the purpose of such operations. Brethren, it is far past the time for men of courage to stand up for what is right on these matters by calling in question the weaknesses in the positions of error.

Because of the extensive review superbly done by brother Weldon Warnock in this very journal, this writer shall not attempt to deal with all details identified by him. Some errors remain so glaring, however, as to demand the spotlight of truth be once again focused thereon. Such is the limited design of this article.

Marriage in God’s Moral Scheme

In some instances God’s original intent for marriage, set forth in Genesis 2:24, has been described as the divine ideal; in others, as merely the first installment of teaching about marriage. Remember, however, that the principle stated in the passage was given to regulate those made by the Lord for each other in that relationship appointed by him. Recall also that every later reference to the same arrangement conformed to the same ideal (Mal. 2; Matt. 19; Rom. 7; 1 Cor. 7; and others). The statements in praise of the marital relationship as the source of one’s fulfillment of those desires implanted by God must also be kept in mind (Prov. 5). Paul’s insistence on marriage as God’s means to prevent fornication in 1 Corinthians 7 places it squarely in the moral government/law originating with God and rooted in his character. Fornication, whether committed by a married person or an unmarried one, is an undermining of the moral teaching of Scriptures regarding marriage and its purpose. Marriage is God’s moral solution to the problem of sexual desire. Marriage then becomes part of God’s moral law, to which all moral beings are amenable. That all – those accepting God’s will and those refusing his covenant – are subject there to is easily seen in those indictments of Scripture against both classes respecting the sins here identified – fornication and adultery (Rom. 1:29,31 – covenant breakers and fornicators; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). While it is difficult to know precisely all that God told mankind about his moral law from the beginning, it can be discerned that marriage was a part of it by his condemnations of marital perversions. If this be not the case, by what authority does any alien marry? How could God recognize marriage between the alien and the believer?

The Role of Deuteronomy 24 in Christ’s Will

Some have recently asserted that the details of Deuteronomy 24 must be given a place in the teaching of Jesus, just as the principle of Genesis 2:24, for both were used by him in explanation of his will. Closer examination of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19, however, reveals that Jesus did not cite Moses, but the Pharisees did. When Jesus explained Moses, he presented him as permitting putting away, not directing it, and regulating it as a practice already existing for the protection of the woman involved. He further demonstrated the correct procedure for us to follow in his reaffirmation of the ideal of Genesis 2, what had been true from the beginning (what Moses permitted was not then, nor had it ever been, the divine ideal) and giving it weight over the Mosiac permission/limitation. By following Jesus’ procedure, we too will conclude correctly: one woman and one man for life. Only when the correct procedure is used will one conclude the correct position.

Invented Definitions

When people have something to prove, they will find a way to do so. One wanting to show that people cannot “live in adultery” and that adultery need not prevent future marriages has to deny what relevant passages say or use different definitions for the words used. The meaning of the word for “adultery” has been woefully changed in recent years by people who ought to know better. There is not a standard reference work in existence, to this writer’s knowledge, that will undergird their change. Instead of letting it mean the sexual activity involving one who is the spouse of another, some have changed it to mean breaking the covenant of marriage, whether in mind, in bed, or at the courthouse. There is not a shred of evidence that such is the meaning of the word. Word etymology will not suffice to determine meanings of words at a particular time in linguistic history, as has been attempted by some of the proponents of the new definition of “adultery.”

Brethren, when a person has to carry his own glossary with him to prove his idea, it becomes evident that the idea is his, not the Bible’s.

Jesus presented the will of God in his teaching on marriage. He never referred to the operation of civil law as such in his teaching, but the operation of divine law, in regard to marriage, putting away, fornication, or adultery. Additional error is taught when the legal intricacies of civil law are imposed on the teaching of Jesus. While people should abide by civil law in this field if divine law permits, the procedures and operations of civil law do not determine what marriage is, what putting away is, what adultery is, or when any one of these has taken place. Only God’s will is decisive in any of these matters.

May God’s will always determine our every attitude and action in this area of life, as in all areas. It is to him that all shall give account, by him that the faithful shall be blessed, and by him that the wicked shall be punished.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, pp. 180-181
March 19, 1992

By S.K. Milton 

Believer’s Baptism	Infant Sprinkling
Believer’s baptism is commanded – Matt.	Infant sprinkling has not a single command.
Believer’s baptism has examples.	Infant sprinkling has no example.
Believer’s baptism is from heaven – Matt. 21	Infant sprinkling is from men.
Believer’s baptism is the counsel of God.	Infant sprinkling has the counsel of men.
Believer’s baptism has been sealed from heaven.	Infant sprinkling never was sealed of God.
In believer’s baptism the person submits in acts of obedience to the gospel.	Infant sprinkling the infant put forth no acts of obedience to the gospel, but to men.
Believers are buried with Christ by baptism – Rom. 6:4	Infants are not buried, but only sprinkled.
All believers that are baptized are thereby brought into Christ – Gal. 3:27.	Infants are not thus brought into Christ.
All believers baptized receive the remission of sins. – Acts 2:37,38	Infants do not receive remission of sins. They have no sins to be remitted.
God has promised that all who believe and are baptized shall be saved – Mk. 16:16	God has not promised that all sprinkled infants shall be saved.
Believers rejoice when they are baptized – Acts 8:37; 16:34	Infants cannot rejoice.
All the world may undeniably affirm that believers were baptized by the Apostles – Acts 8:12	But none can affirm that any infant was sprinkled by the apostles.
Those who practice infant sprinkling are compelled to confess believer’s baptism.	But all baptized believers do not acknowledge, but deny infant baptism.
All baptized believers are living stones, fit for God’s building – 1 Pet. 2:5	But all sprinkled infants are not living stones, fit for God’s building.
Baptized believers build on Christ by their own faith.	Sprinkled infants are built on the faith of others.
They that receive Christ upon their own faith, shall never perish – Jn. 10:28	But such as are sprinkled upon another’s faith, have no such assurance.
Baptized believers know Christ to be precious – 2 Pet. 2:7	Sprinkled infants have no such knowledge
Baptized believers love Christ and keep his commandments – Jn. 14:15	Sprinkled infants do not love Christ nor keep his commandments, for they are incapable.
Baptized believers may repel Satan as Christ did, saying, “It is written, They believed and were baptized.”	But infant sprinklers cannot say, ‘It is written, Infants were baptized;’ for it is not written.

The foregoing contrast is enough, I would think, to convince every mind, which is not so shackled and trammeled by prejudice, prepossession, and parental education, as to be rendered invulnerable to the truth, though strongly enforced by the infallible word of God, reason, and every thing that merits the name of evidence. But the time is evidently near at hand, when, I awfully fear, they will lament their folly. I tremble when I consider the near approach of the time when every thing of human policy, invented in place of the pure religion of Jesus Christ, must be lost in one universal wreck of irreparable ruin. My apprehensions proportionably increase as I view (as to me appears evident), that by far the greater part of the world is in an unprepared state; nay, the greater part of professors of Christianity, are not prepared to say, “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly”; nor the societies, to which they belong, ready to respond, “Amen; come, Lord Jesus” (Reprinted from Millennial Harbinger, IV, XI, [Nov. 1833]: 547-548).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, p. 197
April 2, 1992