Truth Magazine

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

By Jeff Asher

Almost two thousand years ago the Son of God was nailed to a rough hewn cross, not to satisfy a jealous rabble of Jews or a savage squadron of Roman soldiers, but rather to pay the penalty for all the sins of our rebellious race. In the words of Isaiah, “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: The chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). Christ died for us. The death of the sinless Son atoned for our sin instead of God judiciously exacting the penalty upon each of us.

In the Scripture we read that sinners are saved by washing in the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5). This is the blood that Jesus shed in his death (Jn. 19:34). Now, this is not a physical application of Jesus’ blood, but a spiritual one. The death of Christ, that is, the benefits gained in his death must be applied to sinners.

This application of Jesus’ blood takes place during baptism. The Scripture says, “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3) In baptism our sins are washed away or forgiven (Acts 22:16). This forgiveness is possible through our faith in the blood of Jesus (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Yet, the forgiveness of sins is a prerogative reserved only to God (Isa. 43:25; Lk. 5:21). Forgiveness of sins takes place in his mind and is likened to their being buried in the depths of the sea (Mic. 7:19). Therefore, we understand baptism as God’s operation whereby he appropriates to sinners the blood of his Son and forgives sin (Col. 2:12). It is in this sense that baptism saves us (1 Pet. 3:21).

Consider also that Jesus’ blood was the purchase price paid for the church (Acts 20:28). Also, we Christians are redeemed by his blood (1 Pet. 1:18-20). Thus, the Lord adds to his church those that are being saved by the blood of Jesus. These are they that believe and are baptized (Acts 2:40; Mk. 16:16).

It should be evident that the blood of Christ is appropriated only to penitent believers in baptism into the death of Christ. Friend, have you been properly baptized into the sin cleansing death? If not, why not?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 17, p. 530
September 6, 1990

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Questions submitted for response in this column come from diverse people scattered throughout this and other countries. No doubt, there is a context in which the question arose and a context clearly understood by the questioners when they posed the questions. However, the one receiving the questions may read in some other context. Hopefully, in this column, the point of issue in the questioner’s mind will be addressed.

Question: Are the English words church and kingdom the same thing? If yes, are there any exceptions? Is the word church ever used in any other way than people? Assembled or not.

Response: The simplest answer to give is that the word church and the word kingdom are not the same thing. But more needs to be said. Church in the English translations of the Bible is from the Greek term ekklesia. The meaning of ekklesia is assembly, congregation, a called out group, or some such sense. Kingdom is translated from basileia, which means, as an abstract noun, sovereignty, royal power, or dominion. By metonymy, it is often used to mean the people over whom a king rules. Sometimes, it is used to denote the territory over which a king rules. It can be quickly observed that the two words church and kingdom do not mean the same thing.

However, it should be stated that the two words can refer to exactly the same group of people but viewed from different standpoints. Those who are called by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:13-14) and baptized into the one body (1 Cor. 13:13) and together constituting the saved in a given location as in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2) or the entire group of the saved in Christ (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 5:25) are referred to as the church. On the other hand, this same group might be viewed from another figure as being the people ruled by the king Jesus.

One enters the kingdom of God by the new birth of water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5); one enters the church in the same way (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 12:13). The group known as the kingdom, therefore, is the same as the group known as the church. In these uses, the two groups are identical but are viewed from entirely different points. Rule, sovereignty, or dominion is the emphasis in the term kingdom but in church the emphasis is on one’s being called out of the world and being in special relation to the Savior.

In all contexts in which the term church or ekklesia is used in the New Testament, and it is used approximately 115 times, it refers to a congregation or group of people.

However, the same congregation by nature of the people is not always meant. In Acts 7:38, the church is the group of Jews brought out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Other instances of the occurrence of ekk1esia have reference to a different group by nature: a mob called together off the street is the meaning in Acts 19:32,41; in Acts 19:39, the assembly is a regularly constituted body under the laws prevailing in the political realm. People are involved in each of these and they were viewed as assembled together.

In some contexts, the church is viewed as scattered and persecuted as individual men and women belonging to the assembly. These were delivered to prison (Acts 8:1,3). Those that were scattered passed through where they were, preaching the word (Acts 8:4). They did this preaching as individuals but they were nevertheless members of the assembly of Christ. They were of the company of believers baptized into Christ over which he reigned.

Paul gave enlightening instructions to the Corinthians. He instructed about behavior that should govern if the whole church be come together (1 Cor. 14:23). It is obvious that those who were a part of the called out of Christ were no less a part of that group when they were at individual homes than when they assembled together. Therefore, the church can be viewed as assembled or unassembled. Each member of the church was to control himself so as to obey the instructions given as to how he was to behave in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:26-35). The case is that the church could be assembled or disassembled. People, of course, are always involved. Certain things could be done by individuals when unassembled that could not be done with God’s approval when they were assembled (1 Cor. 14:33-35).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 549
September 20, 1990

By Jimmy Tuten

Introduction:

A. Review the introduction in lesson 1. Stress the influence of Romans 12 for determining what is acceptable Christian conduct.

1. The basic motivation of obedience – God’s love for mankind (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 12:1, “the mercies of God”).

2. The plea for mortal compliance – “I beseech you” (Lit. I beg you, please, a tone of gentle, affectionate persuasion).

3. By calling his readers “brethren,” he employs the appeal of love to enforce the precepts of duty.

4. Too, his language implies that compliance with his admonitions is not a matter optional and indifferent.

B. Before entering upon specific duties of the God-pleasing life, and depicting in detail the character of the Christian, the apostle exhibits in this verse the general and comprehensive principle of practical Christianity.

1. As a matter of course, the Christian must offer a sacrifice and a service.

2. The presentation of self to God is the one great act in which all specific acts of obedience are summed

up and involved.

3. Let God’s people come before him, bringing with them a living sacrifice and offering to heaven a spiritual, reasonable worship.

4. With such the Father will be well pleased.

Body:

I. What the inspired writer commands that we present:

A. “Present your bodies.” Nothing is more characteristic of N.T. Christianity than this demand, for it reveals the value and glory of the human body.

1. The Greek world in Paul’s day believed that the body was only evil, something to be despised. The position of the humanist, the evolutionist, etc. today degrades the body.

2. God reveals that the body, as well as the soul, belongs to him and that man can serve him with it as he can with his mind and spirit.

3. God reveals the value of the flesh of the Christian (1 Cor. 6:19; 3:17; 6:20). The greatest demonstration of its value, perhaps, is that Christ took upon himself this form (Phil. 2:5-11).

4. The fact that it is the body, and not the whole man that is under consideration is seen in that:

a. Body is from the Gr. word soma, meaning the physical body.

b. It is contrasted with the “mind” of verse 2. c. The word “present” is the technical term for presenting the Levitical offerings and victims (Wuest, Romans In the Greek New Testament, p. 205). “Present” means “to offer, to put at one’s disposal (cf. 6:3, “yield”).

B. “A Living Sacrifice. ” In contrast to the slain (dead) sacrifice of the O.T. which was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:1,11-12,28). However, the Lord having been slain arose from the sacrificial death. The slaughter of a lamb under the old economy could not prefigure this fact.

1. In view of this fact, God decreed that the Christian himself be presented as a living sacrifice, “dying to sin, buried with Christ in baptism, and rising to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:1-4, jt), and thus providing a continual witness of the primary facts of the gospel. . .”(Coffman, Romans, p. 410).

2. This new sacrifice referred far more emphatically to Christ than did the ancient type (the sacrifice of the Christian looks back to the cross, while the sacrificial lamb of the O.T. looked forward to his coming).

3. Christ is truly the keynote of all Scripture and the focus of all true religion. When we present ourselves a living sacrifice we witness to the great facts of the gospel (1 Pet. 3:21). This sacrifice requires the volition and assent of the whole person who formally and faithfully continues to present himself in worship and service.

4. Our bodies are presented alive, indicative of action. Yet, some try to present a sick, weak body (1 Cor. 11:30; Eph. 5:14; 1 Thess. 5:6).

C. A “Holy” Sacrifice. Indicates the sacredness of the action in being set apart for the Lord’s use (1 Pet. 1:15). There must be purity of life, without pollution, brokenness or divided interest (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 2:2; Jas. 4:7-10). Cf. the demands of “without spot or blemish” of the sacrifices of the Law of Moses.

D. An “acceptable” sacrifice. One that is well-pleasing to God (2 Cor. 5:9).

1 . To be “acceptable” it must be authorized (Lev. 10:1; 1 Sam. 15:22; Col. 3:17). God will not accept everything we put a religious face on (Col. 2:20-23).

2. It matters little what men think of us, if God approves what we do. Our highest aim should be to please him; the fact that we do please him is our highest reward!

E. This Sacrifice Is A “Reasonable Service. “Reasonable” is that which pertains to the mind. Thayer says this is “worship which is rendered by the reason, or the soul.”

1. This “service” is in keeping with the conclusions of the highest intelligence which acknowledges that it is harmonious with all that really blesses man. “The most ardent application of discerning intelligence will always reveal the reasonableness of serving God” (Coffman, p. 412).

2. This does not mean that we do what is just or equitable, as in the purchase of land because the price is reasonable. It pertains to the Bible heart of man, i.e., obey from the heart (Rom. 6:17). This is a death blow to formalism in religion.

F. It is a sacrifice of our feelings (many allow themselves to be dominated by feelings which are inconsistent with the precepts and spirit of Christ) and affections (Matt. 22:36-40). Note the example of Christ who “pleased not himself” (Phil. 2).

II. In sacrificing ourselves we sacrifice to God a potential for greatness.

A. The sacrifice of the eyes (Lust of the eye is, replaced with a diligent study of his Word, 2 Tim. 2:15 – a vision for his work, Jn. 9:4).

B. The sacrifice of the ears (“swift to hear” the voice of instruction and not temptation, Jas. 1:19).

C. The sacrifice of the hands (“working with his hands the thing that is good,” Eph. 4:28).

D. The sacrifice of the feet (not fleeing from responsibility, Jonah 1:3; Rom. 10:15).

E. The sacrifice of the tongue (“Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth,” Eph. 4:29).

F. The sacrifice of the emotions (as the works of the flesh, Gal. 5:19-21, replaced by the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22-23).

G. The sacrifice of the affections (love for all others and all else is secondary to love for Jehovah, Matt. 10:37).

Conclusion:

1. The best summary of Romans 12:1 is found in the story of the scribe who asked Jesus, “What commandment is the first of all?” (Mk. 12:28)

2. It is expressed in Mark 12:30.

3. Because we have been so richly blessed, and so generously granted the mercies of God, well should we sing with the famed Isaac Watts:

Were the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 555-556
September 20, 1990