Laborers In The Vineyard

This piece was written by Quentin McCay. It appeared in the November 18, 1973 edition of "Reminders", published by Moundsville Church of Christ in Moundsville, West Virginia.

One of the many needed lessons learned from the parables of Christ is the lesson of laboring in the kingdom of God. Several parables set forth the importance of each member of the body of Christ being busy and working according to the natural abilities God has bestowed upon him. Each citizen in the kingdom of God is to be busy. Christ likened the kingdom or church to a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers in his vineyard (Matthew 10:1-16). It is clear from the words of our Lord in this parable that the householder hired "laborers" into his vineyard. He did not accept any idlers, piddlers nor free-loaders. He hired laborers.

All are to work. Each Christian has an individual duty to perform. There is room in the kingdom of God for all who will work. There are no exceptions to this fact. There are differences in desires, abilities and opportunities, but there are no exceptions to the fact that all citizens in the kingdom of God are to labor. The young, the middle aged and the aged are to continue laboring faithfully in all seasons. there is no time to quit in this life. "No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looketh back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62).

Elders

Elders of the church of our Lord have a "good work" to perform. "This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a Bishop he desireth a good work" (First Timothy 3:1). The work of elders is not just seeing that the meeting house is in proper state of repair, not just shaking hands with visitors, not just opening and closing doors of the church building, and not just seeing that the lawn is mowed. Their work is far greater than these relatively unimportant matters. They are to watch for the souls of those in the kingdom of God. But the elders cannot do everything that must be done in the work of saving souls. When they do their duty fully and faithfully, there remains much work to be done by others in the kingdom.

Deacons

Deacons must be busy using the "office of a deacon well" (First Timothy 3:13). "and let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless" (First Timothy 3:10). Sometimes deacons are deacons in name only. Because elders do not assign work to them, or else because they will not "serve" their work goes lacking. But God's plan of work for his kingdom includes work for deacons.

Preachers

Preachers are to do the work of evangelists. "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry" (Second Timothy 4:5). the preacher is not an errand boy. His work is not to do the work of other members. His work is to study and prepare to preach the gospel. He need time to study, meditate and make sufficient preparations to preach the gospel of Christ. This will be enough to keep him busy without burdening him with the work that others are to do. It is his work to preach, exhort, encourage and be a Christian. He must "preach the word, be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine" (Second Timothy 4:2).

Every Other Member

Every other member of the body of Christ has work to do. When the elders, deacons and the preacher have done all their work faithfully and fully, every other citizen in the kingdom still has all the work he can do. There is much work to be done by all. Teaching the truth to the lost, exhorting the wayward and those who are out of duty, bearing the burdens of others, attending to the sick and attending all the services of the church will keep each member busy as long as one lives on earth. But many citizens in God's kingdom are like the barren fig tree. They are good for nothing. Such will be lost and will be the cause of many others being lost in Hell.

The kingdom of God is composed of individuals who are laboring in the great cause of Christ. For this purpose they were saved from the life of sin. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works" (Ephesians 2:10). Those citizens in the kingdom of God who fail to labor diligently in His vineyard are not fulfilling the divine purpose of citizenship.

No excuse will suffice for a failure to give dedicated service and consecrated labor in the cause of Christ. The fact that we have to make a living will not be considered a valid reason for not working in the Lord's vineyard when one stands before the King in the day of judgement. Company, worldly pleasures, buried talents, lack of money or worldly possessions are not acceptable excuses for not laboring in the King's great and urgent cause. The only way to fulfill the divine purpose of citizenship in the kingdom of God is to toil daily until death.

If each member a congregation would recognize that there is work that each must do to please God here and to have the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and get busy doing this work, there would be a great change in the spiritual picture of the church within a very short time.

"The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of harvest, that he will send laborers into his harvest" (Matthew 9-37-38).

Proper Relationships Between Men and Women

This "Notes From the Margin of My Bible" column was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the October 1989 edition of the "Christian Courier."

In First Corinthians 7:1, the apostle Paul instructed the Corinthian saints as follows: "...It is good for a man not touch a woman..." There are some, especially critics of the Bible who would suggest that this admonition reflects a radically "puritanical" disposition, and is, therefore, a reflection upon the credibility of the Scriptures. What shall we say to such a charge?

The Greek word rendered "touch" is haptesthai, and the term is sometimes used euphemistically in the Bible for sexual relations. Hence, in Genesis 20:6, when Abimelech took Sarah into his harem, the Lord permitted the ruler not to "touch" her, which harmonizes with the fact that Abimelech "had not come near her" (4). Sexual union was wrong because she was Abraham's wife. Similarly, in Proverbs 6:29, the inspired writer states that one "who goes in to his neighbor's wife" and "touches" her shall not go unpunished; indeed, such a one who commits adultery is void of understanding (32).

It is thus clear that Paul's prohibition in First Corinthians 7:1 is not against touching the opposite sex per se (as in a casual handshake); rather, the apostle is condemning a sexual act outside of marriage. This is further evidenced by the immediate context wherein Paul suggest that "fornications," i.e., illicit sexual activity, can be prevented by entering into a marriage relationship where such a union is legitimate. Thus, underline the word "touch" in your Testament, and in the margin write: See Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 26:9.

Was The Lord's Supper Observed Daily In the Early Church?

This article was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the August 1989 edition of the "Christian Courier."

It is becoming increasingly common to hear brethren argue that the first century church, under the oversight of the apostles, observed the Lord's Supper on a daily basis. Hence it is alleged that it does not matter upon which day Christians celebrate the communion; such is an optional matter.

The "Proof-text"

The chief proof-text for this new concept is Acts 2:46. "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat [food] with gladness and singleness of heart." Some are contending that this passage affords evidence that those primitive saints broke bread, i.e., partook of the Lord's Supper, on a daily basis. The exegesis underlying this view is flawed in several particulars.

First, the expression "daily" denotes the frequency with which the disciples were meeting in the temple. Grammatically, it does not modify "breaking bread." Thus, even if it could be established that "breaking bread" in verse 46 is an allusion to the Lord's Supper, there would still be no proof that communion was an everyday occurrence.

Second, the terms "breaking bread" in this passage do not refer to the Lord's Supper; rather, they denote a common meal as evidenced by the fact that they are paralleled with "eat their food" in the same clause. The word "food" translates in Greek trophe, which essentially means nourishment (Arndt & Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 835). The term (employed some sixteen times in the Greek New Testament) is never used of the communion, for such was not designed to nourish the physical body. A comment of Albert Barnes speaks to this point: "Here [meat - KJV] it means all kinds of sustenance; that which nourishes them -trophes-and the use of this word proves that it does not refer to the Lord's Supper; for that ordinance is nowhere represented as designed for an ordinary meal, or to nourish the body" (Commentary on Acts, p. 59).

Third, in Acts 2:42 there is a reference to the disciples "breaking the bread (not translated in our common versions, but present in Greek text). The article indicates that a special "bread" is under consideration, i.e., the Lord's Supper (cf. Acts 20:7 "the breaking of bread" and First Corinthians 10:16 "the bread which we break"). However, in Acts 2:46 there is no article in connection with "bread", hence a distinction seems to be drawn between the "bread" of 2:42 and 46 (cf. A. Campbell, The Christian System, pp. 272,3). Numerous scholars do not believe that the Lord's Supper is referred to in Acts 2:46 (cf. R.C.H. Lenski, A.T. Robertson, J.W. McGarvey, W.E. Vine, etc.).

Fourth, there is an interesting context later in the book of Acts which may add some insight to this matter. Near the conclusion of his third missionary journey, Paul had departed from Philippi just after "the days of unleavened bread" - which came just following the Jewish Passover - (cf. Acts 20:6), and he was hurriedly makings his way to Jerusalem. He hoped to arrive there in time for Pentecost - fifty days after Passover (cf. 20:16). In spite of the fact that he had a journey of several hundred miles, which could involve difficult sailing conditions, he took the time to tarry seven days in Troas. Why? The best answer is so that he could meet with the saints of that city and observe the communion with them. Burton Coffman notes: "Presumably, this delay from Tuesday till the following Monday was to enable the missionary group with Paul to observe the Lord's Supper with the church in Troas, as inference from the fact that no reason was given for the delay, coupled with the account of the Lord's Day meeting in Troas immediately after mentioning the delay" (Commentary on Acts, p. 384). If this reasoning is correct, the following question is entirely appropriate: if the communion was being observed daily, or if the time of this commemoration was optional, what need would there have been for a delay of one week? this is circumstantial evidence for a weekly Lord's Supper.

Faith Healing

This short but insightful "Notes From the Margin of My Bible" article appeared in the August 1989 edition of the "Christian Chronicle." It was written by Wayne Jackson.

In an attempt to explain their obvious failures to perform miracles of healing, Pentecostal preachers generally claim that their clients simply did not have sufficient faith. A passage frequently employed to support their rationalization is Acts 3:16. It is argued that this verse suggest that the lame man's healed condition was a consequence of his strong faith. Not only is there no evidence for such a view within the passage, this concept contradicts other Bible information. Consider the following facts.

(1) Faith was a condition required of the healer, not the healed. When the disciples could not expel a demon from a boy, Jesus declared that the problem was their faith (Matthew 17:19-20).

(2) There are numerous healing cases in the New Testament where the faith was totally absent on the part of the recipient (Luke 7:11-17; John 5:2-13), including the case in Acts 3 where the man clearly expected to receive money, not a miracle (3:5).

(3) Acts 3:16 affirms that the miracle upon the lame man was wrought through the name (authority) of Christ in conjunction with the apostles' faith. The passage is to be explained as follows:

"And by [our - the apostles'] faith in His name [Christ's] hath His name made this man strong, whom ye behold and know; yea, the faith [which we have] which is through Him [Christ] hath given him [the healed man] this perfect soundness in the presence of you all."

Make appropriate notations in your Bible regarding Acts 3:16, for it is a passage that you may be called upon to explain.

Christ's Prediction of His Time In the Grave

This "Notes From The Margin of My Bible" article appeared in the November 1989 edition of the "Christian Courier". It was written by Wayne Jackson.

Christ predicted that he would be raised from the dead "the third day" (Matthew 16:21). However, He also declared that He would rise "after three days" (Mark 8:31). To complicate matters, Jesus further stated that He would be in the grave "three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40). These references, which some see as disharmonious, puzzle sincere Bible students. What is the explanation?

The solution lies in understanding how the Hebrews measured time. According to a common Hebrew idiom, any part of a day could be counted as the whole day and night (ct. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the NT from the Talmud & Hebraica, II, pp. 210,11). There are many examples of such usage in the Scriptures.

(1) The rain of the flood was upon the earth "forty days and forty nights," or simple "forty days" (Genesis 7:12, 17). (2) In First Samuel 30:12, 13, "three days and three nights" and "three days" are equivalent. (3) When Israel asked Rehoboam to lighten its burdens, he said: "Depart ye for three days, then come again to me." They returned on "the third day" (cf. First Kings 12:5,12). (4) When Esther was about to risk entrance into the king's presence, she requested her fellow Jews to neither "eat nor drink three days, night or day," but on "the third day" she went in unto the king" (Esther 4:16; 5:1). (5) Finally, note this: The Pharisees said to Pilate, "This deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day" (Matthew 27:63,64).

One must understand, therefore, how the Hebrews computed time. Our Lord did not contradict Himself! Is it not significant that no Jew ever accused Him of such in connection with His resurrection prophecies? Thus, underline Matthew 12:40 and, in the margin of your Bible enter some of these parallel time references. Such notes will help you in explaining this seeming Bible difficulty.

The Book of Revelation - When Written? (Part 3)

This is the third and final installment of an article written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the November 1989 edition of the "Christian Courier" published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, CA.

Arguments For The Early Date Answered

In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view. In the main, their arguments are:

First, it is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospel - when the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek. To this it may be replied:

(a) Archaeological discoveries and literary studies have recently demonstrated that along with Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek was commonly spoken among first century Palestinians. Thus John must have known and used Greek since his youth.

(b) B. B. Warfield contends that, "the Apocalypse betrays no lack of knowledge of, or command over Greek syntax or vocabulary; the difference lies, rather, in the manner in whhich a language well in hand is used, in style, properly so called; and the solution of it must turn on psychological, not chronological considerations.

(c) R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the "International Critical Commentary" series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called "bad grammar" as deliberate for purposes of emphasis and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages. It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott & Hort's "Greek New Testament" gives over 500 references and allusions to the Old Testament.

(d) Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out, "It may be admitted that the Revelation has many surprising grammatical peculiarities. But much of this is accounted for by the fact that it was probably written down, as it was seen, 'in the Spirit', while the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness, filled the apostle's mind and rendered him less capable of attending to forms of speech. His Gospel and Epistles on the other hand, were composed equally under divine influence, but an influence of a gentler, more ordinary kind with much care, after long deliberation, after frequent recollection and recital of the facts and deep pondering of the doctrinal truths which they involve."

Second, it is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing. In response we note:

(a) If John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century. However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem's destruction in 11:8, where "the great city", in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem) is called Sodom; not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil.

(b) The contention that the literal city and temple were still standing based upon chapter 11, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is "difficult to understand how anyone could have imagined that the vision represents the temple as still standing. For the whole scene is laid in heaven, and the temple that is measured is the heavenly temple (11:19, 15:5). We have only to compare this vision with the parallel vision of a measuring reed seen by Ezekiel (ch. 40), in which the prophet is commanded to measure - surely not the city which it is stated had been demolished fourteen years previously, but the city of the future seen by the prophet in vision."

Third, some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatical 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis. to come up with such an interpretation one must: (a) Add the title "Caesar" to Nero's name; (b) Compute the letter/number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; (c) Alter the spelling of Caesar by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew. All of this reveals a truly desperate attempt to find a reference to Nero in the text.

Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture. Noted critic Theodor Zann observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831.

In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of "realized eschatology" which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.

The Book of Revelation - When Written (Part 2)

This is the continuation of a piece written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the November 1989 edition of the "Christian Courier" published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, CA.

Internal Evidence

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

(1) The spiritual condition of the churches described in Revelation 2-3 more readily harmonize with the late date. "The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudian's reign and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith" (Ephesians 1:15). Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (2:4) and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

(2) This book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island?

(3) The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60 though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

(4) The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later writing. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John's writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in II Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

(5) Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches in Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero's persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons.

The Book of Revelation - When Written (Part 1)

Wayne Jackson wrote this piece. It appeared in the November 1989 edition of the "Christian Courier" published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, CA.

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. some writers, however, have advanced the preterist view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g. Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot and our own Foy E. Wallace, Jr.) and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholors. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96. The fact is, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong. In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g. the notion of all "end time" prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70) which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.
(1) Irenaeus (A.D.180) a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John) wrote that the Apocalyptic vision "was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian." The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian's reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

(2) Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the Isle of Patmos "after the tyrant was dead" and Eusebius, known as the "Father of Church History" identifies the tyrant as Domitian. Even Moses Stuart, America's most prominent preterist, admitted that the "tyrant here meant is probably Domitian." Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an "old man." If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

(3) Victorinus (late 3rd century) author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote: "When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was released."

(4) Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said, "In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he (John) was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse..."

(5) To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian's reign.

McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that "there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place." Upon the basis of external evidence therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

When Silence Is Eloquent

Wayne Jackson wrote the following article which appeared in the June 1985 edition of the "Christian Courier, published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, CA.

On that fateful night before His death, Jesus and his disciples had adjourned to the garden called Gethsemane, a place where the Lord had frequently communed with His little band of men (John 18:2). Judas the traitor, surmising the Lord's whereabouts, led a group of soldiers and temple police to the secluded spot. With torches and lanterns (and in the light of a full Passover moon) the blood-thirsty mob made their way up the slope of Mt. Olivet in search of the Son of God. With weapons they came seeking the Prince of Peace.

As they sought to arrest the Lord, the following incident occurred, as recorded by the apostle John. "Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear" (18:10). We are informed that the servant's name was Malchus. The Master rebuked his impetuous disciple, warning him that "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. 26:52), further purposing to drink the cup of death which had been appointed by His heavenly Father (John 18:11).

With this dramatic event in mind, let us go forward in time several hours and observe the Lord's appearance before Pilate, the Roman governor. Pilate interrogated Jesus: "Are you the king of the Jews?" (18:33) That was not a question that could be answered with a simple yes or no. No, he was not a political king who had come to establish earthly Jewish supremacy (a lesson some religionists could well learn today) but yes, he was the long awaited king of the Jewish scriptures. The Savior thus answered the governor's question in the following way. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence" verse 36). Christ argued that his kingdom is not of a political nature, as evidenced by the fact that his followers would not fight to prevent his arrest by the Jews.

It is at this very point however, that a very intriguing question arises. Why did Pilate not stop this defense of Jesus by calling attention to an obvious "flaw" in his argument? He might have said, "Hold it a second. It is well known that one of your disciples Simon Peter by name, attempted to fight in your defense only hours ago. In fact, he cut off the ear of Malchus. The incident was witnessed, and as a matter of fact, one of the victim's kinsman is in the vicinity right now" (cf. 18:26). Would not that have been a powerful rebuttal? Yes indeed except for one gigantic problem.

Christ might well have responded, "Now why don't you bring Malchus himself into this court? Let him testify. Let us examine his wounded head." Had the gentleman been brought into court what an awkward situation that would have created for the Jewish authorities and indeed for Pilate himself, for as one learns by an examination of Luke's record, the amputation of the ear was not the end of the incident. Luke the physician, ever interested in investigating medical matters, declared that Jesus, "touched his ear, and healed him" (22:51).

Now we know why this event was never mentioned. The last thing these men wanted at this point was to attract additional attention to the miracle working deeds of the Son of God. And in this respect, their silence becomes all the more eloquent. The incident was simply too well known and too powerful not to use against Christ had it not been for the fact that His healing miracle demolished it! This case affords therefore, very strong indirect evidence for one of the miracles of Jesus; and it is a type of evidence which no gospel writer could ever have contrived.

The miracles of our Lord bear up under the most rigorous investigation. He is the Christ, the Savior of all who obey Him (Hebrews 5:8-9).

Where Is Your Contribution?

This short article was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the February 1981 edition of the Christian Courier, published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, CA.

It is the will of God that Christians in various localities congregate themselves together for the purpose of worshiping and working to the glory of God. We thus read in the New Testament of the church at Corinth, Ephesus, etc. It is the responsibility of all Christians to identify with a congregation of the Lord's people if a faithful one is available to them. Even Paul recognized the need to "join himself to the disciples" in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26).

When one identifies with a congregation, he assumes a share of the work responsibility according to his ability, of course. This means he is to be involved in the work activity of the church and that he is to share the financial load. Carrying on the work of preaching to the lost, edifying the saints and doing benevolence requires tremendous financial support. Where does all that money come from? It comes from the faithful, generous Christians!

Now here is a very serious question. When you have to miss Lord's day worship (for a valid reason, we trust) do you make up the contribution you missed? Expenses go right on you know, whether you are there or not. When you go on vacation, do you upon your return home, inform the electric company, water service, etc. that you do not intend to pay your bills since you were away? We do not hesitate to meet these obligation even though we were away. Surely we do not think less of the work of our blessed Lord. Let's all do our share.

He Loves Even Me

This appeared in the January 1975 edition of "Plain Talk" published by the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, TX. The author is unknown.

How may one who is pure, relate to sin and the sinner? Light has no fellowship with darkness (Second Corinthians 6:14-18). Yet Jesus Christ, the purest of pure lived no monastic life. "The Son of Man has come eating drinking, and you say 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' But wisdom is justified by all her children." (Luke 7:34-35)

Space will not permit discussion of the many examples of Jesus' association with sinners but we urge you to read Luke 7:36-50, 15:2-32, 19:1-10 and John 8:3-11 then think with us.

First, we should realize that much of Jesus' ccriticism came from people who judged themselves righteous on a basis of externals. "I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess" (Luke 18:10-14). The fault is compounded when we judge ourselves "sound" because we oppose something. Such prejudicial and superficial judgment makes it easy to classify all tax collectors (etc.) as sinners rather than fairly deal with each one.

But the universal lesson in all of Jesus' dealing with sinners, and the ever-present contrast of His attitude with that of the Pharisees, was His genuine concern for them. Like a parent whose child has contracted some loathsome disease, He could shrink from the foul contamination even as He reached lovingly for the victim.

Jesus rejected the idea of defilement via touch (Mark 7:14-23); insisting we keep a pure heart as protection against corruption. He shrank not from the woman of bad reputation when she evinced repentance and came to Him for understanding. He could not allow a sulky elder brother to dampen the joy in Heaven over a sinner that repents. He went to Zaccheus' house for the same reason a fisherman goes to water. He sought the lost where they were. He told the adulterous woman, "Go, and sin no more."

We may dismiss our Lord's compassion as a divine attribute; as unreal. Failing to appreciate His motives, we may even excuse our vile life by His pure examples. But we will not be Christ like until we learn this love.

Thomas: A Study in Belief Problems

This appeared in the June 1976 edition of "Does God Exist" published by the Donmoyer Avenue Church of Christ in South Bend, IN. I do not know who wrote it.

Of the twelve chosen disciples of Christ, only one really showed the problem of belief in a way similar to you and I today. All of the followers of Jesus had their faith problems, and some like Peter even denied Christ when placed under duress. Thomas however, demonstrated a very human weakness in his relationship with our Lord; with which many of us can relate.

Mention of Thomas in the Scriptures is spotty but a very positive account in given of Thomas in John 11. The passage is the account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Jesus had delayed His travel to Bethany. The Jews in Judea had attempted to kill Christ on His last visit there and the disciples questioned Jesus in verse eight about the wisdom of His returning to that area. Their concern was well founded for in John 10:31 and 39 they attempt to stone Him.

Jesus was adamant in His determination to go to Bethany and in verse 14 told them they were definitely going. We can imagine the reaction that must have taken place among the disciples. If they returned to Judea they would almost certainly be killed. A great test of their faith in God and in Christ was upon them. One can almost feel the indecision and fear that existed in these men. How easy it would have been to walk away and deny Christ, assuring their own safety.

Out of this cloud of indecision stepped Thomas who said, "Let us also go, that we may die with Him." Notice that Thomas expressed what we have already stated. He was convinced that to go with Christ was to face sure death. No statement of probability is made, only a simple statement of factual death. The magnitude of faith demonstrated by Thomas exceeds that of most of us today and it would see that in the eyes of Jesus, this very well may have been Thomas' finest hour.

Now let us look on into a later time in the life of Thomas. In John 20:25 we see an incident in which several of the disciples had seen the risen Christ. When they reported to Thomas that they had seen Jesus, Thomas was unable to accept their testimony. One thing many of us fail to recognize is that the disciples who saw Jesus not only saw Him but verse 20 tells us they saw the hands and side which Thomas saw alter. Thomas was asked to accept their word about what they had seen. He had to see it for himself.

In many ways Thomas stands above his contemporaries. He was a scientist who could only deal with that for which he had evidence. He would not accept testimony but had to have direct evidence. Jesus provided that evidence and met Thomas' need.

It seems to me however that another message exists in this story. Prior to the account in John 20, Thomas had been faced with many failures. His concept of the "Kingdom" had been violated. Jesus had been killed in a degrading way. Every concept he had possessed of what Jesus would do had been wrong and the accumulation of this disappointment destroyed the zeal he had demonstrated in John 11 not too many days before.

We too have disappointments. We too have our concepts of what ought to happen violated. Time and again our expectations are violated and our faith may fail as Thomas' did under stress. Jesus provided an answer to Thomas. Thomas still had to examine the evidence Christ gave. He still had a choice to make and energy to expend. We also are promised an answer to our doubts and fears. It won't be forced upon us against our will without any examination or thought on our part. It may come about through an agent of God's will; a person or book or tape or event which will fill our need. God promises us that He will providentially provide for our needs and fears and temptations.

First Corinthians 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it."

Matthew 7:7-8: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

The Individual Christian's Responsibility to the Local Church

Written by Colly Caldwell, this article appeared in the July 1971 edition of the "Mooresville Memo" published by the Mooresville Pike Church of Christ in Columbia, TN.

1. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be free from divisiveness (I Corinthians 1). Churches need so badly to be united within themselves upon the word of God. The church at Corinth was literally torn apart by the attitudes of the member parts. They wished to be divided. Theirs was not a question of doctrinal belief. They simply would not get along (I Corinthians 1:10-16; 11:17-21; 4:6-7; 6:1-7). Some are so self-willed that they will divide the body of the Lord over trivial, meaningless questions, or over matters which are purely determined by judgement or expediency. The attitude of many is to have things their own way. The words of Paul, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself" (Philippians 2:3) are so very timely for churches today.

2. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to stand upon the revealed word of God (I Corinthians 2). In matters which involve human preferences within the realm of lawful selection, the Christian must bend his desire many times to accommodate others; but in matters involving revealed Truth there can be no bending. Paul addresses the Corinthians with the proposition that faith is directed by the revelation of the mind of God and that the words of man's wisdom can only destroy.

Many churches could have been saved from digression in the past twenty five years if Christians had only been strong enough to stand upon the truths of the New Testament. I owe that to my brethren with whom I worship. They may not always appreciate it but it will be to their good. I cannot be compromising in dealing with God's revealed Word. I may cause my brethren to be lost.

3. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to labor for the building up of the body (I Corinthians 3-4). Paul uses first his own example, how that he diligently worked to build at Corinth (I Corinthians 3:1-10). He then turns to the responsibility of each man and woman there to build upon the foundation which is Christ. Their work should be an abiding one (I Corinthians 3:11-15). And then in chapter four, he discusses further his stewardship and its place in their growth.

Saving souls by leading them to the Savior is the primary work of the church. We have been saved and we must help others to be saved. If any local congregation is to grow, each member must put himself to the task of talking to others about the Lord and teaching the Truth to all that we can. This takes persistent effort. It takes getting folks out to the worship services. It has often been suggested that every Christian try to convert one soul to Christ each year. This is not an unreasonable request. If we were all as interested in souls and giving our best to the task of converting them, we would be doing more than that. And if we did, the church would double in size each year.

4. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to lead a righteously moral life. (I Corinthians 5-7). At Corinth there was fornication (chapter 5), public defrauding of one another (6:1-14), or immorality (6:15-20) and uncertainties about the proper marital and home life requirements of God (chapter 7). Now how could the Corinthian church grow with the world seeing all that? If this church of which I am a member is to be what it ought to be, each member must be a Christian in every sense of that word. We want the congregation to radiate a wholesome influence in the community. We must show the light of Christ in our lives. None of us is so insignificant that our example cannot hurt. What we do reflects upon the other brethren either for good or bad. When the world sees our evil, they associate it with the church. When the other brethren see it, they are discouraged and some may even imitate us. Paul said that a little leaven leavens the whole lump and therefore must be purged out before its effect may be felt. On the other hand, the influence of a godly life will do as much for the well-being of the local church as any other single factor.

David and Instrumental Music

This is copied from the July 1971 edition of the "Mooresville Memo" a publication of the Mooresville Pike Church of Christ in Columbia, TN. It was written by H. E. Phillips.

A few days ago my brother Charles E. Phillips gave me a tract written by P. W. Hayes of Lake Wales, Florida entitled "Where Was David?" This small tract was written to prove the use of instrumental music in worship to God. My brother had a long talk with this Christian Church preacher about this subject but did not convince him of his error. I wish to examine some of his points in this tract for the sake of any who may not understand the nature of the arguments made by these people.

Hayes states that Jesus mentioned in Luke 24:44 three common divisions of the Old Testament: Law, Prophets and Psalms. He then says, "It is generally accepted that when Moses and Elijah appeared on the mountain, one represented the law and the other the prophets. Why did not someone represent the Psalms?"

Any argument that is based upon "it is generally accepted" is not worth the time it takes to make it. "It is generally accepted" that the word baptism includes sprinkling and pouring water upon a person as well as burying one in water, but does this prove it to be true? The very thing that P. W. Hayes must do is prove that the appearance of Moses and Elias with Christ at the transfiguration represented the law and the prophets. If he cannot prove this by the word of God, his argument based upon it is worthless.

But even if he did this, the voice from the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him" (Matthew 17:5). This says nothing about hearing David. How does one get David into this passage?

Hayes says further, "When a party makes a will and then alter makes a new will there is nothing to hinder them from incorporating some of the provisions of the old into the new. When this is done they become as binding as any of the new provisions."

That is exactly right. However, it is also true that when one makes a new will and omits some provisions in an old one, the former provisions are no part of the new one. Hayes must prove first that the Psalms have been incorporated into the New Testament and then he must explain how he takes the instruments of Psalms and eliminates the burning of incense and animal sacrifices. These are a part of Psalms also. "May He remember all your offerings, and accept your burnt sacrifice" (Psalm 20:3). "Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then they shall offer bulls on Your alter." (Psalm 51:19. "I will go in to Your house with burnt offerings; I will pay You my vows, which my lips have uttered and my mouth has spoken when I was in trouble. I will offer You burnt sacrifices of fat animals, with the sweet aroma of rams; I will offer bulls with goats" (Psalm 66:13-15).

Either the Psalms are a part of the New Testament or they are not. In the word of Hayes in this very paragraph from which I have just quoted, "To discount them because they happened to be a part of the Old would be foolish. It would be an attempt to question the power and authority of the one who made the will." Every argument Hayes will make from Psalms to prove instrumental music in worship today I will make for the burning of incense and the offering of animal sacrifice.

The writer then quotes Colossians 3:16 to the effect that the apostle Paul said to teach and admonish one another, "in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." He argues that some, "wish to cloud the issue" by claiming the word psalms means, "a spiritual song." No, this is not the case so far as I am concerned. But Paul did say in this passage what to do with the psalms; "singing with the grace in your hearts to the Lord." He did not say play.

But if the word psalms demanded playing, which it does not, the instruments are specified and must be used. In Psalm 149:3 the dance, timbrel and harp are specified as instruments. In Psalm 150:3-5 the trumpet, psalter, harp, timbrel, dance, stringed instruments, organs, loud cymbals and high sounding cymbals are specified. Do these people use all these instruments specified? It is as wrong to substitute or omit the instruments specified as it is to substitute or omit what is specified upon the Lord's table. If not, why not?

Examine Yourselves

This piece appeared in the July 11, 1971 edition of "The Gospel Teacher" published by the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio. The author is unknown.

Try to answer the following questions:

1. If each member attended as many services as I do, how often would the building be closed?
2. If each member reached the services the same time as I do, how many would be late for worship?
3. If each one attended Bible study as I do, how many would be there?
4. If each on studied the Bible as I do, how much study would there be?
5. If each one prayed as I do, how much praying would there be?
6. If each one tried to sing as hard as I do, what kind of singing would there be?
7. If each member gave as I do, how much would the contribution be?
8. If each member sacrificed just like I do, how much sacrificing would there be?
9. If each member visited the sick as I do, how many of the sick would be visited?
10. If each member invited others to the services like I do, how many visitors would we have to attend?
11. If each member stayed at home with company as I do, how many would attend the worship services?
12. If each member tried to lead lost souls to Christ as hard as I do, how many would be reached?

The Sabbath

Written by Ferrell Jenkins, this article appeared in July 11, 1971 edition of "The Gospel Teacher". It was published by the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio.

The sabbath is the seventh day of the week or the day we know as Saturday. In considering the question as to whether Christians are to keep the sabbath it is important to notice that the sabbath was a part of the national covenant that God made with Israel. In Exodus 31:12-17 the Lord explained this matter and said to Israel that the sabbath was, "a sign between me and you." If the sabbath was a command to all the nations (both Jews and Gentiles) how could it have been a sign between God and one nation? The following syllogism should make this clear:

The Covenant, the Ten Commandments, was given to the Israelites only.
The Sabbath is the fourth of the Ten Commandments, therefore:
The Sabbath was given to the Israelites only.
No Gentile was ever commanded to keep the sabbath.

The sabbath was a day of rest for the Israelites. When was the sabbath given to man as a day of rest? Some claim that this was given in the Garden of Eden but the Bible does not bear this out. It is true that in giving the sabbath, God used the same day upon which he had rested or ceased the work of the creation, but according to the Scriptures no man ever kept the sabbath before Exodus 16:23. This is, in fact the first mention of the sabbath in the Bible. There is no written evidence that anyone even knew what day God rested until Genesis was written about 1500 B. C. Nehemiah 9:13-14 further bears out that the sabbath was given at Mt. Sinai by Moses.

The Jews were told to rest on the sabbath. Those who violated this command were punished. On the sabbath the Jews were not to build a fire (Exodus 25:3). In the book of Nehemiah they are instructed not to buy various goods (Nehemiah 10:31), do certain work (13:15-19) or even to pass out of the city gates (13:19) on the sabbath. We see in light of these instructions that no person today can keep the sabbath.

Another reason no one can keep the sabbath day today is that it was given as a memorial of the exit of Israel from Egyptian bondage (Deuteronomy 5:15). Let me illustrate the point this way: The 4th of July is a memorial to the American nation of her independence from England but no one expects England to observe it. Neither should anyone expect Gentiles to keep the sabbath which was a memorial of an event in Jewish history.

When the Law of Moses was fulfilled by Jesus (Matthew 5:17-18) and taken away (Colossians 2:14-17, Ephesians 2:14-17, II Corinthians 3:1-16, Galatians 4:21-31) the sabbath, being a part of it was taken away also. It is no longer binding, even on Jews.

A distinction is sometimes made between the "moral" and "ceremonial" law or the law of God and the law of Moses. It is admitted by those who make this distinction that the ceremonial law or the law of Moses was abolished but that the law of God or the moral law still remains. The Bible makes no such distinction! The terms law of God and law of Moses are used interchangeably. Ezra was said to be, "a skilled scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given." (Ezra 7:6) Hilkiah, "found the Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses." (II Chronicles 34:14) We see from these references that God gave the law of Moses and Moses gave the law of God. Several offerings which would certainly be ceremonial are mentioned in II Chronicles 31:3 as being written in the law of the Lord. Ezra read in the "book of the Law of Moses", "the Book of the Law" and "the book, the Law of God". (Nehemiah 8:1, 3, 8) The man-made distinction between the ceremonial moral or the law of God and the law of Moses fails every time. Since the Bible makes no such distinction, we should not!

The expression "Christian Sabbath" with reference to the first day of the week is certainly not a Biblical expression. We might as well talk about Christian bowls of incense or Christian animal sacrifices as to talk about a Christian sabbath. Christians meet for worship and to observe the memorial of the death of Christ, the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. We do not KEEP the first day of the week. Jesus was raised from the dead on the first day of the week and the church was established on that day. In Acts 20:7, we read of the Christians at Troas meeting on the first day of the week to break bread. The Lord's Supper was observed on the Lord's day. (I Corinthians 11:20, Revelation 1:10)

Let us ever strive to know God's will, to do it and teach it. Let us endeavor to call Bible things by Bible names. We need to clear up the confusion in many minds about the sabbath and the first day of the week; the Lord's day.

Scriptural Baptism

The following was written by Grant B. Caldwell. It appeared in the July 11, 1971 edition of "The Gospel Teacher" published by the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio. It's every bit as relevant now as when it was written.

There is no plainer doctrine taught in all the Bible than that of baptism for the remission of sins. And yet, there is perhaps no more controversial doctrine among religious people. The hoax has been perpetrated that it is not essential for men to be baptized in order to be saved.

The simple fact of the matter is that this is in direct conflict with the words of Jesus, spoken just before his ascension back to the Father. He said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)

How can anyone say that baptism has nothing to do with salvation when the Lord said that it does? He said the man who does it upon the basis of his belief in the gospel, "will be saved."

It is sometimes argued that in the latter part of the sixteenth verse, baptism is not mentioned. Only, "he who does not believe will be condemned." Thus, it is said, baptism is not essential. The context however, forever answers this argument. You will note that Christ instructed the apostles to go and preach the gospel. Then He says, "He who believes." He who believes what? Is He saying that the man who believes in Christ is the one under consideration? No, I think not. Nor one who believes in the existence of God. Both of these points of faith would be involved but are not the point of consideration.

The point is that the man believes what is preached. That is, the gospel! Surely the gospel includes faith in God and in Jesus Christ. It also contains many other things; all of which are to be believed. The man who rejects the gospel by refusing to believe any of its teaching, is a man who cannot be saved.

Thus, if a man refuses to be baptized, he has not believed the gospel and will indeed be condemned. There was no need in the latter part of the verse to repeat instruction. Lack of obedience shows to the Lord the imperfection of our faith. (James 2:22)

Argue as you will but you will destroy the force of the passage herein cited. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Do you believe the gospel or will you reject it?

Specific Instruction to Ederly Men

This was written by Jim Bill McInteer. It is copied here from volume 19, number 7, the May 1, 1971 edition of "The Bible Herald".

The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ fits every age, talent and need of man. The word of God is that matchless message given to mankind and nothing on earth equals its power.

To the aged men of the church, God had some specific instructions. He said that it was necessary to teach the aged men that they, "be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience." (Titus 2:2) Precisely what does this mean?

The dignity of age demands that those who have so achieved in successful living be sober. Perhaps there is nothing more ridiculous than a "silly old man." His clowning, frivolousness and grandstanding are all distasteful. Not only do the Scriptures teach that the elderly are to be sober, Plato called it one of the "four cardinal virtues." The vigilance of sobriety gives the aged an impact upon all society that nothing else can impart.

Secondly, the older man is instructed to "be grave." Some have used as synonyms for gravity the words august, venerable and reverent. Here is a living sermon that justifies the fact that he has learned life's true values. As younger men listen in view of eternity, the elderly lives in view of it! His contribution is invaluable.

Thirdly, he is instructed to be "temperate." Everything is under control; he is mastered by nothing save the Lord. A control of body and mind is his to employ; and so important is temperance (or self control) that the Holy Spirit uses it in reference to elderly men, elderly women, young men and young women. Everybody is to know the complete mastery over passions and desires.

Lastly, the elderly man is instructed to be "sound in faith, charity and patience." To be sound in the faith, of course, is to be correct of doctrine. No blessing is found in error; no one is advanced by believing what is erroneous. Practice that is contrary to the will of the Lord jeopardizes one's hope of salvation. The second leg of that triangle is to be "sound in charity." It is sometimes difficult to grow older and to grow more lovable at the same time. Some fruits ripen with age whereas others rot. It must be the task of the Christian "old man" to see that he is sound in love. Lastly, he is instructed to be "sound in patience."

Patience is not to be confused with listlessness and of course patience is the enemy of censoriousness and fault finding. That man who is patient has learned to accept and with meekness to continue his service. He has enough charity not to believe the church is going to the dogs just because he is shortly to leave it. Isn't it wonderful to think of the contribution God expects of the elderly men?

Is It Vital?

I found this short piece in the December 16, 1973 edition of "Reminders"; a paper published by the Moundsville Church of Christ in Moundsville, WV.  They credit it to "The Voice of West End" in Bowling Green, KY.

In every situation the most basic question is not what must one do but what must one do first. The first requisite of successful living is to know what is most vital. We should ask of each possible action not merely, "Is it right?" but "Is it worthwhile?" A thing may not be wrong in itself but if it consumes time which could be spent for something better, it becomes wrong.

When we are confronted with Christ's teaching, we hear Him calling us back to the central issues of life. When we are busy accumulating possessions, He makes us ask ourselves what they are really worth. When we are going somewhere quickly and often, He makes us ask ourselves, "Where am I going?" We may try to escape His words by busying ourselves with all sorts of activities, many of them worthwhile, but His voice still follows us with the penetrating question, "What is your main job?"

Is our busy activity really worthwhile? Is it vital? What should we first do? Jesus' answer is forever the same. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." (Matthew 6:33)

Two Thousand Horses

This article was written by Grand B. Caldwell. It is reprinted from the October 22, 1972 edition of "The Gospel Teacher", volume 2, number 43. It was published by the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio.

In II Kings 18:23, the king of Assyria had sent messengers to the servants of King Hezekiah. He said to him, "I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them." In this verse he chides Hezekiah for not having the ability to perform in the face of battle. His in in effect saying, "You cannot find two thousand good horsemen."

This to me is a dramatic incident in the life of this great king. There are two points that we want to notice about this passage.

The king of Assyria is here saying that Hezekiah could not fight if he were given the opportunity to have proper equipment. How many of us could fight for the Lord if given the opportunities we desire? Our service to Jesus is measured on the basis of two things; one, our ability and two, our opportunities. From this His is able to tell a third thing of importance and that is our willingness to perform.

In the account given by Christ in Matthew 25 of the parable of the talents, we see these points. Christ gave each man talents. But of what is the talent representative? Some think that it represents a man's ability and you hear people say, "I am just a one talent man." They mean they don't have much ability but this is not what Jesus meant. The talent here is an opportunity for it was given on the basis of each man's ability.

Jesus does not give ability on the basis of ability. But He does give opportunities on the basis of ability. Each man had so much opportunity depending on his ability to use it. Now the difference was not that two men had much opportunity and one had little, or that two men had much ability and one had little but that one was not willing to use his little ability; he was not willing to use his opportunity to the service of the great master. Do you see how Jesus takes our ability and puts it with our opportunities, and from this He is able to judge our willingness to perform?

Another striking passage is found in II Corinthians 8:11-12. Paul said, "Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." Notice the inference. A man only has so much. But with what he has, he can do all the Lord expects of him. He may not do all he would like to, or all that needs doing. But he can do all that the Lord expects him to do. How? By his willingness to do. So again, if we take our ability and join it with our opportunities, the Lord can tell just how willing we are to perform.

So the question is not can we sit astraddle two thousand horses but ARE WE LEARNING TO RIDE AND TEACHING OTHERS TO RIDE WITH US? If we were given two thousand opportunities to preach the gospel, could we handle them? Not if we are not handling the one or two we now have. Paul said, "And the things that thou has heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit though to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." (II Timothy 2:2) If we prepare now, when the big opportunities do come, we will be ready and others will be there with us to help.

Examples of Conversion

This illustration showing the neccesity of baptism was printed in the August 1971 edition of "The Gospel Teacher", volume 1, number 31. It was published by the church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio.

Notice the absence of course of the so called "sinner's prayer."

Baptism and Salvation

This is an outstanding article written by Grant B. Caldwell. It is copied from the August 1971 edition of "The Gospel Teacher", volume 1, number 31, published by the church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio.

It is not the least bit uncommon to hear someone say that baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. This seems strange to me in view of the fact that the Bible makes a statement that is just the opposite to this. In First Peter 3:21, we read, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

This passage says beyond any shadow of a doubt that baptism saves us. Now how or why would anyone argue with that? The simple truth of God's will is that baptism saves! Those who love the Lord and are willing to obey His truth are going to do that and show their love for Him (John 14:15).

In a futile attempt to escape the force of this passage denominational teachers have concocted a couple of quibbles regarding the passage. These will not answer the need for baptism but only serve to satiate those who are unwilling to accept the teaching of the passage.

First, some will say that this passage says that baptism is only a figure. They argue that if baptism were only a figure, it could not have anything to do with salvation. The very argument ought to answer itself. If baptism is only a figure and has nothing to do with salvation, then First Peter 3:21 could not be true because it says that it saves.

If figures have nothing to do with salvation and baptism is a figure, then how could baptism do what the passage says it does? The fact is that this particular verse does not say that baptism is a figure. Regarding the phrase "the like figure", the margin reads, "Which also in the anti-type, baptism doth now save you." The American Standard reads, "Which also after a true likeness doth now save you even baptism." And the New American Standard has it, "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The figure or type is the salvation of Noah and his house. And in drawing a lesson Peter is just simply saying that baptism is like that. Baptism is no figure. It saves us.

Others have seen that this argument will not work and thus have sought another answer to this passage. They say that the "filth of the flesh" here is the same as the "works of the flesh" in Galatians 5:19. This passage says that baptism is, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" thus, it is not the putting away of the works of the flesh. But even this fails to answer the need for baptism.

What these people really mean is more than putting the works of the flesh away. They will not allow baptism to put the guilt of the works of the flesh away. I would admit that the works of the flesh are not put away in baptism. That is a job for repentance. But it is the job of baptism to save us from the guilt of sin. Again however, we must note that this is not that about which the passage is speaking. The filth of the flesh here is no more or less than dirt from the body. Baptism does not cleanse one's body of physical soil. It deals with the conscience and is not for the body. Again, we sight the New American Standard. It reads, "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience."

Again note that if this were saying that baptism had nothing to do with removing the guilt of sin, then it would deny the simple statement made in the first of the verse. BAPTISM DOTH NOW SAVE US!

Why are people so set on the ways of error that they will not accept the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Why not accept it?

God Requires Efforts, Not Results

This article appeared in the December 30, 1973 edition of "Reminders", Volume 9, Number 52 published by the Moundsville church of Christ in Moundsville, WV. It was written by Dudley R. Spears.

"It won't do any good." This is the usual response made by many of us when we are asked to invite someone to hear the gospel preached or when we consider trying to talk to someone about religion. This is wrong; dead wrong! It will do good. It can do no other than good because it is what God requires. The reason behind this erroneous response is that we think God requires results from us in the form of numbers and such like.

The only thing required of us is effort and lots of it. Paul said of the establishment and growth of the church at Corinth, "I planted, Apollos watered and God gave the increase." (First Corinthians 3:6) Planting and watering are the duties of God's children; increase is God's business. If we are diligent about our work God is faithful in His.

Far too often we get discouraged when God does not give us the increase we expect. Thus, we become lax in our efforts to plant and water the seed, the word of God. But to cure this evil, Paul by the Spirit wrote, "And let us not be weary in well doing for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." (Galatians 6:9)

The next time you have the opportunity to sow some seed, or water the seed, don't think of it in terms of wasted effort just because you think it won't do any good. Work and teach and invite and encourage everyone with whom you come in contact to be what the Lord would have them be. Remember, "Therefore, my beloved brethern, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." (First Corinthians 15:58)

Giving Thanks to God

This article appeared in "Plain Talk", Volume 13, Number 5, published by the Oaks-West church of Christ in Burnet, TX in July of 1976.

In Romans 1 Paul describes sin in its most basic sense as a rejection of God. Man's responsibility is shown in that he could "know God" as "eternal power and deity" from evidences in the world about him. But man's vanity, his ego prevents his acceptance of God; and this is demonstrated by two things. One, his refusal to glorify God; to praise or look up to God. Secondly, man's ingratitude. "They glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful." (verse 21)

Being thankful, so much like genuine worship or praise demands an humble and contrite heart. It indicates our feeling of need for God; of dependence upon Him. it makes us ever aware that, "in Him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28)

Sermons on thanksgiving tend to stress the expression of gratitude that is due, following the reception of blessings. This is of course, in order as Jesus taught when He had healed the ten lepers. (Luke 17:12-19) "Were not the ten cleansed, but where are the nine?" We are daily blessed and should daily express our thanks.

But gratitude goes much further than a courteous thank you or even the most sincere and complete expression of thanksgiving. It is an attitude, basic to the life of a Christian. Paul wrote to the Collossians, "As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him, and established in your faith, even as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving." (2:6-7) Various manuscripts relate this thanksgiving to their faith while Lenski says, "it is closely united with the confirmation that is constantly received."

First Thessalonians 5:18 reads, "In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." A deep-seated, constant feeling of gratitude toward God seems to sum up the awareness, dependence and confidence which characterizes a true follower of God in Christ; and without which we cannot please Him. It is indicative of faith and hope and love. It produces, "the sacrifice of praise" (Hebrews 13:15) both in word and in a life devoted to Him. (Col. 3:17)

Walking in Christ: The Joy

From the June 30, 1974 edition of "Reminders", Volume 10, Number 6 published by the Moundsville church of Christ in Moundsville, WV. This article was written by Don Bassett.

The New Testament encourages us to live as Jesus did and develop the attitudes that were so plainly mnifest in His life. But we are discouraged perhaps, by the feeling that Jesus did not do or think as He did out of motives that were anything like ours. And we dispair of ever having the "mind of Christ" though we know we should. (Phil. 2:5)

Now it is true that Jesus' deeds and thoughts were unselfish and noble in every respect. He laid down His life for us out of love and concern for us. (John 15:13-14) Yet He did not do it without some hope of joy beyond the suffering of Calvary. "Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and perfector of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him edured the cross, despised shame and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

Jesus did not suffer because He enjoyed suffering. He suffered willingly because of His love for us and because He knew it was the only path to honorable, meaningful happiness and joy when torment was over.

Let us learn to suffer if need be, not only out of a sense of duty or from the fear of Hell, but the sake of, "the joy that is set before us." It is Christlike to do so. Jesus knew, and so must we, "that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glord which shal be revealed to us." (Romans 8:18)

"Bapto" In God's Book

From "Plain Talk", Volume 10, Number 6 published by the Oaks-West church of Christ in Burnet, TX in August 1973.

In 1843 Alexander Campbell met Mr. N. L. Rice, a Presbyterian preacher, in public debate. The discussion took place in Lexington, KY beginning on November 15 and lasting 16 days. The battle was hard-fought, with Campbell dealing in comprehensive principles while Rice picked at the details. Of the six propositions four related to baptism, one to the Holy Spirit in the written Word and one to human creeds and their influence. Rice was perhaps the most difficult opponent that Campbell met in his debating career and the metal tested in this forge earned its proof mark. This is the setting for this month's quote material.

Our source is "Alexander Campbell" by Benjamin Lyon Smith; The Bethany Press, St. Louis, MO, 1930. From pages 226-228 we reprint an interesting comment on Alexander Campbell's confidence in his research of the Greek lexicons and the principles learned there. In a sense this is also a test of his confidence in the uniformity of truth set forth in God's word.

"A brilliant example of the soundness of Mr. Campbell's scholorship and the deductions he drew therefrom occurred in this debate. Dr. Rice had him in some difficulty in an argument over the possible meanings of the Greek root bapto, showing that in both the Syriac Version and in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, and also in Origen there was evidence which seemed to show that the root could have the connotation of sprinkle. Mr. Campbell was convinced from all his study that in spite of this indication the root bapto and its derivatives could never justly be translated sprinkle; and he therefore insisted that in the original manuscript from which the Syriac Version was made and from which Origen quoted there must be a different reading. The word which was translated sprinkle in the Syriac was not a derivative of bapto but of some other root.

There was no manuscript known at the time which gave this reading and Dr. Rice rather ridiculed Mr. Campbell's idea, which indeed had already been advanced by otheres. But twenty years later, when the two protagonists in this debate were old men, the scholor Tischendorf actually discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai a complete copy of the New Testament on vellum, which proved to be one of the oldest and most authentic manuscripts in the world, and which confirmed all of Mr. Campbell's arguments. The reading of the disputed passage sustained his argument that the Syriac Version had followed a manuscript which gave a derivative of raino, to sprinkle instead of bapto, to dip."

We feel it is in order to warn the tyro about making such arguments as did Mr. Campbell. The lexicons are tools which often require a skillful user. How many foolish conclusions are drawn by one who sees (in one or two "authorities") that which he has predetermned to see. And uniformity of truth does not mean MY preconception of truth. The "hard" passage may be the head-knocker that can turn an honest man to God's truth.

Thanking God...Really!

It's been a long time since I've posted here; too long really. Thanks to my Dad I now own a small treasure of bulletins and brotherhood publications from years gone by. It is my hope to begin posting some of the timeless articles from these publications here. That will not only free up space in my office but allow others to share this knowledge and information. I hope you enjoy them and find them beneficial.

This article entitled "Thanking God...Really" is from the paper "Plain Talk", Volume 10, Number 6 published by the Oaks-West church of Christ in Burnet, Texas in August of 1973.

It is not uncommon to hear small children confuse "Thank you" with "You are welcome" sometimes asking which is which and I suppose it is to be expected that beginners in public service will also get confused. But it seems that after a few years of practice grown men should be able to thank God for the Lord's Supper.

Jesus, "took break, and blessed it, ...and He took the cup, and gave thanks".(Matt. 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23) "And He took bread and gave thanks...Likewise also the cup". (Luke 22:19-20) "Took bread, and when he had given thanks, He brake it...After the same manner also He took the cup." (I Cor. 11:24-25) Is there any lack of clarity in this information and instruction? The blessing and the giving thanks amount to the same thing, as seen by a comparison of passages. In any event, if Christ blessed in any efficacious sense, we could do no more than give Him thanks for it. Are we not united in the knowledge that we should give thanks for the bread and for the fruit of the vine?

Then why do so many fail to do it? Listen carefully to the wording of prayers at the Lord's table. We ask God to "make us worthy" or "aware of the signifigance" or "help us partake in a worthy manner" or even "forgive us of our sins as we partake" but more and more frequently I listen in vain for "Thank you for this bread."

The problem is not lack of knowledge but lapse of attention and that is why this article is on the front page. We urge you to enter into worship with a prepared mind and to sing, pray, etc. purposefully. How else can our worship be sincere? How else indeed can it be worship?

This is not a plea for a particular formula or memorized prayer. We do suggest that before you pic up that plate you say to yourself, "I was helplessly lost in sin but Jesus died for me." Then look at that bread and fruit of the vine as the body and blood of your Saviour, a memorial of His sacrifice and I think you will have no difficulty in praying, "Oh thank you Lord, thank you."