Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The Lord has revealed himself to man through various figures of speech. Jesus compared himself to the water of life (Jn. 4:14), bread of life (Jn. 6:35), light of the world (Jn. 8:12), door (Jn. 10:9), etc. In each of these, the Lord reveals something about himself to mankind. In the Old Testament, the Lord revealed himself to man as the Rock.

He is the Rock, his work is perfect (Deut. 32:4).

. . . he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation (Deut. 32:15).

The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer (Psa. 18:2).

The figure captured the minds of both the Old Testament poets and our own, as it reveals our God to us.

How fitting that Moses should be the first to describe God as his Rock. “On the rocks of Sinai was the Law proclaimed. In the rock cleft was Moses hidden. From the smitten rock the waters gushed forth. How natural for Moses to apply this figure to the eternal God! ” (The Pulpit Commentary: Deuteronomy, p. 504) Let us see what traits about God are revealed through this figure of speech.

The Eternity of God

Rocks endure the ravages of nature. They are not washed away as is the dirt. Consequently, the comparison of God to a rock reminds us of his eternity (cf. Psa. 90:1-3). He is the “Rock of Ages.”

The Immutability of God

To describe God as immutable points to his unchanging character. He is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8). Because of his unchanging character, we can rely upon our God. Everything else in life may change, but not our God. In “There Stands A Rock,” S.S. Journal contrasts the “ever drifting sand” on which some build their hopes with the immutable God.

There stands a Rock on shores of time,

That rears to heav’n its head sublime;

That Rock is cleft, and they are blest

Who find within this cleft a rest.

Some build their hopes on the ever drifting sand,

Some on their fame or their treasure or their land,

Mine’s on the Rock that forever stall stand,

Jesus, the “Rock of Ages.”

In contrast to God, the solid Rock, “all other ground is sinking sand.”

God, the Sheltering Rock

The figure of God as a rock also points to him as our shelter in the time of trouble. A rock was a place to hide in time of enemy invasion (Judg. 15:8,11,15; 1 Sam. 13:6). The shade of the rock protected those who hid under its shadow from the intense heat (Isa. 32:2). Hence, the description of God as a Rock emphasizes to us that he is our shelter and refuge (Psa. 32:7).

David said that God was “his hiding place” (Psa. 32:7). In Psalm 61 he wrote,

Hear my cry, O God;

Attend unto my prayer,

From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed:

Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

For thou hast been a shelter for me,

And a strong tower from the enemy (61:2-3).

Impressed with the figure of God as a rock “higher than I, ” William G. Fisher wrote “The Rock That Is Higher Than I.”

O, sometimes the shadows are deep,

And rough seems the path to the goal;

And sorrows, sometimes how they sweep

Like tempests down over the soul.

O, then to the Rock let me fly,

To the Rock that is higher than I;

O, then to the Rock let me fly, To the Rock that is higher than I

Others of our poets have caught the imagery of God as the sheltering rock, protecting those under its shadow from the intense heat or the thunderstorm. Here are some of their words:

The Lord’s our Rock, in Him we hide,

A shelter in the time of storm;

Secure whatever ill betide,

A shelter in the time of storm.

(Shelter in Time of Storm, V.J. Charlesworth)

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,

Let me hide myself in Thee.

(Rock of Ages, A.M. Toplady)

A Wonderful Savior is Jesus my Lord,

A wonderful Savior to me;

He hideth my soul in the cleft of the Rock,

Where rivers of pleaseure I see.

He hideth my soul in the cleft of the Rock

That shadows a dry, thirsty land;

He hideth my life in the depth of his love,

And covers me there with his hand.

(He Hideth My Soul, Fanny J. Crosby)

When enemies assault, the man who is protected by rock is safer than those in hiding in more vulnerable places (see the illustration of this in the Three Little Pigs fairy tale). The Lord is our strong defense, our impregnable Rock, in the face of the enemy. David said, “I will love thee, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower” (Psa. 15:1-2). He prayed to his God, “Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me. For thou art my rock and my fortress” (Psa. 31:2-3).

Conclusion

There is no other God but Jehovah. He alone is man’s Rock. As Moses described Jehovah as his Rock, he said to Israel, “For their (the Gentiles) rock (god) is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges” (Deut. 32:31). He realized the uniqueness of Jehovah. When Hannah praised God for giving her a son name Samuel, she confessed, “There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God” (1 Sam. 2:2). “For who is God save the Lord? Or who is a rock save our God” (Psa. 18:31).

“The Lord liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted” (Psa. 18:46).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 546, 564
September 20, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

In an effort to improve their communication with the church, the elders here requested that the letter published below be sent to each family. The idea of some schedule changes discussed in the letter had been offered at a meeting of the elders with the other men of the congregation. Sometimes elders hesitate to conduct open meetings of this kind because they have bad memories of brethren bickering and haggling in open meetings conducted before elders were appointed. Such meetings can be productive if the elders preside and lead them properly. In six years here, there has not been an untoward incident of any kind in our open meetings. When brethren are accustomed to such meetings properly conducted on a regular basis, rather than being called only when the kettle has reached a boiling point, even criticisms and complaints can be handled in a more orderly fashion. Suggestions may be offered in these meetings which help to solve problems while they are small and before they reach the size where they provoke confrontations, bitterness, and factions.

This letter makes it clear that the elders are not forfeiting their God-given duties to the changing whims of a ballot box. The letter also makes it apparent that the elders are trying very hard to take into account the needs and wants of the church as a whole. There is no desire – or even appearance of a desire – to impose an arbitrary decision purely to suit the whims of the elders. When the elders announced their decision, it was obvious to those who agreed and to those who disagreed with the new schedule that the elders had been fair and open in the process of reaching a conclusion. Such a letter is certainly not necessary in making every decision, but it can be a valuable tool of open communication from time to time.

Letter from the Elders to Each Family in the Church at West Columbia

Dear Brethren,

The elders are continuing their efforts to maintain good communication with the church. This letter is being sent to every family in order to gather information on a suggestion offered by some of our men in the recent quarterly meeting. It was suggested that we might change the time of some or all of our assemblies.

This letter is not a ballot and the elders are not going to make decisions by asking you to vote. The decision will not be based on “majority rule” or “minority rule” but upon what we believe to be in the best interest of the church as a whole. As one part of gathering information before we make a decision, we want a response from each family and so we are asking you to return this letter. We want to consider the preference and convenience of the church as a whole. We want to know whether a change in the time of a service will work a hardship on anyone or make it impossible for them to come.

With each change suggested by some of the men, you will see the reason given. When you indicate your preference, please give the reason listed fair consideration and then feel free to indicate a reason for your preference if you wish to.

1. Some suggest an earlier time for Sunday morning services is better. They feel fresher and more alert earlier, which helps them get more out of the services. Children might do better if services did not run close to the noon meal time. There would be more time left for afternoon visits, trips, etc.

Check Your Preference for Sunday Morning Services:

_____ 9:00 A.M. Bible class, 10:00 worship

_____9:30 A.M. Bible class, 10:30 worship

_____ 10:00 A.M. Bible class, 11:00 worship.

If you wish to, give reasons for your preference:

2.Those who wish to will gather for a special 30 minute session on Sunday evenings before the regular worship period. One week the time will be devoted to memory work and other training for children (seated on the first two or three rows); the next week, the time will be used for our men to work on Bible reading, short lessons, leading songs and prayers. We will alternate these sessions week after week.

Check Your Preference for the Sunday Evening Services:

______ 5:30 P.M. session, 6:00 P.M. worship.

______6:00 P.M. session, 6:30 P.M. worship.

Some of the men prefer 6:00 P.M. session and 6:30 P.M. worship along with 9:00 A.M. classes and 10:00 A.M. worship to give a longer afternoon and time for supper before services. If you wish to, give reasons for your preference:

3. Someone suggested that since it gets dark earlier now, we might consider having Wednesday service at 7:00 P.M. through the winter, but this might make it hard for some people to attend after work. Check One: _____ 7:00 P.M.; ____ 7:30 P.M. Thank you for your cooperation and suggestions! Please sign.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 557
September 20, 1990

By Lewis Willis

In the book of Acts, there are three accounts of the conversion of the Apostle Paul. You find these in chapters 9, 22 and 26. I want to focus on one of these, and Dote the charge or mission Jesus assigned to him.

After Paul was captured by the Jews, he appeared before Felix, Festus and Agrippa in his own defense. In his appearances before these magistrates he was defending himself against many grievous complaints which the Jews were unable to prove. His answer was that he had done nothing against the Law of Moses, the Temple or against Caesar (Acts 25:7-8). These charges could have brought death upon him, so his answer was crucial. In his defense before Agrippa, he recounted his conversion, telling what had happened when Jesus appeared to him and what Jesus had said. He said he heard a voice which identified itself as Jesus. When Jesus appeared, he gave to Paul his charge for Paul’s life.

But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me (Acts 26:16-18).

Consider with me this responsibility assigned by Jesus to Paul. I will number the points I have underscored above.

1. To open their eyes. in Matthew 13:14-15, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9 to the effect that some close their eyes to the truth. To the Ephesians, Paul argued that their understanding was darkened (4:18) and that the eyes of their understanding should be enlightened (1: 18). Paul was to lead in bringing the Gentiles to see the Truth.

2. To turn them from darkness to light. Paul told the church at Ephesus, “for ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light” (5:8). When these people pursued a life of sin, they groped in darkness. Paul was going to turn them from that darkness to light. Jesus had said, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (Jn. 8:12). Thus, Paul’s charge was to bring men out of sin, presenting them to Jesus, the light.

3. To turn them from the power of Satan unto God. Paul commended the Thessalonians saying, “Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). On another occasion he said the Gentiles were “carried away unto these dumb idols” (1 Cor. 12:2). Idolatry was one of the devices of Satan to deceive and condemn humanity. Satan exerted power over the minds of men through the sins he induced men to commit (Eph. 6:12). Paul’s mission was to turn them from Satan’s power unto God.

4. That they may receive forgiveness of sins. Peter and the Apostles argued that Jesus was raised from the dead and exalted to be a Prince and a Savior, “for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:29-31). What Jesus did for the Jews, he also did for the Gentiles. In setting forth the supremacy of Jesus to the Ephesians, one of the things Paul argued was that in him “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). He repeats this same statement in Colossians 1:14.

5. That they may receive inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith. Again, he discharged this responsibility when he argued that in Christ “we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph. 1:11). To the elders of this church, he said he commended them to God “and to the Word of his grace which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). Peter affirms that we have been begotten unto a lively hope, “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). The inheritance is ours when we have that comprehensive faith that accepts that Jesus is Lord, and that leads us to obey his commandments.

Paul executed the charge that Jesus gave to him. He did so by teaching the Gospel. However, we must understand that his work was to be perpetuated. He said, “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). Thus, and this is important, we serve under that same charge today! A lost world awaits our fulfillment of our charge. The blessings of eternity are to be enjoyed by those we reach by fulfilling our mission. What are you doing to reach the lost?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 17, p. 531
September 6, 1990

By Frank Jameson

Some of the articles that I have read lately have confused ridicule with reasoning. They seem to think that if they ridicule commands, examples and necessary inferences as the basis of authority, they have given a scholarly refutation of pattern authority. One such article concluded: “It seems to me that we ought to do less interpreting of Scriptures and just read and understand them more instead.” I wonder how you are going to “read and understand” Scriptures without “interpreting” them, and how will you interpret them without understanding how to establish authority?

Reading and understanding Scripture includes accepting what the Bible teaches about how to establish authority. The appeal to commands, approved examples and necessary inferences was not only used by Jesus to teach God’s will, but also by the apostles and other Spirit guided men of the first century.

Commands

As far as I know, everyone agrees that plain commands of God are binding upon men. John said, “And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:3,4). In the Jerusalem conference over circumcision, James appealed to a statement of fact from Amos, and concluded that the raising up of David’s tabernacle and the “residue of men” seeking the Lord was fulfilled in the Gentiles entering the church. When Paul wrote the Corinthians, he commanded them to “lay by in store upon the first day of the week,” just as he had given “order to the churches of Galatia” (1 Cor. 16:1,2). Many other commands could be used, but these are sufficient, because this point is not challenged.

Though not all commands are binding on us, when we want to know God’s will on a subject, we can look at his commands, or statements of fact, then study the context and compare our situation to that discussed and draw our conclusions. If we were disposed to ridicule commands, we would ask if you brought Paul’s cloak and the books and parchments, as he commanded Timothy (2 Tim. 4:13). We might even ask if you have washed anyone’s feet lately, as Jesus commanded (Jn. 13:14). My point is that if we are to reject examples because not all are binding, and men disagree on which should be followed, then the same reasoning would reject all commands!

Approved Examples

Is the appeal to examples for authority a “church of Christ tradition,” or is it an apostolic tradition? We understand that the apostles and others in the first century had to be taught to do certain things before they could leave the example, but we may have a record of the example and not the command. Paul commanded the Philippians to “be ye imitators together of me, and mark them that so walk even as ye have us for an example” (Phil. 3:17).

The Jerusalem conference shows us how the apostles regarded examples. When there had been much discussion of the issue of circumcision, Peter said, “Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:7-9). The Spirit could have had Peter issue a command for the Judaizers to quit binding circumcision, but he did not. He used an example of Gentiles being accepted without circumcision, and concluded that this revealed God’s will on the matter. Paul and Barnabas also gave some examples of the same fact, which are not enumerated (Acts 15:12).

It is by example that we learn that elders were appointed in “every church” (Acts 14:23). We could learn from command that they are to be in “every city” (Tit. 1:5), but the example of what the apostle Paul did reveals God’s will for every church. Likewise, we learn when to observe the Lord’s supper from an example (Acts 20:7). Some who want to deny examples in the work of the church have tried to hold on to the example of the Lord’s supper, but they cannot be consistent and do so. Others have begun denying that the example in Acts 20:7 is even the Lord’s supper. Their attitude seems to be “if churches of Christ have done it since the first century, it must be wrong”!

Necessary Inferences

The fact that truth can be learned from necessary inferences should be obvious to anyone who believes that the Bible applies to him. How did he determine that? Was it written to him, or did he draw a conclusion that the same revelation given to others should be applied to him?

There are examples in the Bible of men who drew necessary conclusions from the facts given them and those conclusions were obviously God’s will. Peter saw a vision of animals on a sheet, which he was told to “kill and eat,” and concluded that he should not call any man “common or unclean” (Acts 10:11-16,28). At the Jerusalem conference, he said that God “bears them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us,” and concluded: “Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:8,9) This conclusion was necessarily implied from the example and those who wanted to know God’s will knew it!

These principles did not originate in the “Restoration Movement,” but are found in both the Old and New Testaments. Dungan’s book on Hermeneutics illustrates necessary inference with the first verse in the Bible. He said: “It is not stated in verse one that God existed; that he had the wisdom and power to accomplish this work; but it is assumed, and, being assumed, no interpreter has a right to call it in question” (p. 92).

The rejection of “pattern authority” is the rejection of the Bible as the source of authority. “Reading and understanding” God’s word includes understanding how truth authorizes, and we do not do that by ridicule of the very principles illustrated in the Bible.

The apostles in Jerusalem did not ask the Judaizers how they felt about admitting Gentiles into the church without circumcision, nor how they thought Jesus might act. They appealed to objective revelation – a statement of fact in Amos and the example of Cornelius, then drew the necessary conclusion that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. That “hermeneutic” is as old as Scripture, and when we want to know God’s will on any subject, we had better find a command, statement of fact, approved example or draw a necessary inference. The “new hermeneutics” being advocated today is simply “old Modernism.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 545, 565
September 20, 1990