Truth Magazine

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

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