The four recent articles (May 3, 10, 17, and 24) that reviewed material on the “The Law and Its Binding Requirements” drew two responses: The first was seven more pages of text from the one who sent the original material; the second was a book with a brief letter of explanation from a man in Dongola, Illinois. Since a few new issues were raised, concerning which a discussion may profit the reader, a little more space will be devoted to this topic.
The additional pages sent by Shernel (my pseudonym for him) were respectful, and we do not intend to be mean in return, but he is advocating a position that will cause people to be lost! No one has the right to attempt to bind on others what God has not bound, and all who insist on the Sabbath day being kept under the new covenant are guilty of the same sin that the Judaizing teachers were in the first century when they attempted to bind circumcision and the Law upon Gentiles. Much of Romans and Galatians is written to fight against that mentality. Paul makes it clear that Gentiles were never under the Law, nor are they bound by it under the Gospel of Christ. This effort of trying to bind the Sabbath day falls in the same category.
How to Approach the Scriptures
Shernel’s approach to the Scriptures is different from responsible exegesis. He writes: “…as I continue to study, the Spirit opens up more and more exalted truth as the Saviour has promised to everyone that is seeking to follow His will and way” (1) He cites James 1:5 as support. Of course, the problem is that we all pray for wisdom, and yet these disagreements over the meaning and interpretation of the Word of God continue. Either many people’s prayers are not being answered, or we are relying on God to do more for us than we should. One prerequisite of receiving wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Pr. 9:10). Some may not fear God as much as they think they do.
The fear of God will cause us to reverence His Word and the message He is communicating, which means that we will draw out of it (exegesis) what He put into it—not what we would like it to say. Shernel may not have intended to make this accusation, but he did in these words: “In Part 2 of your assessment you went into more detail of the words ordinances and statutes, in order to support your understanding…” (5). Part Two did deal with a study of the Hebrew words translated “ordinance” and “statute.” But I had no idea what I would find when I began the research!
That is the difference between Shernel and me—between one who studies to support a position and one who studies the truth and follows where it leads. Those who reverence God’s Word study to see what God actually communicates to us in the Scriptures. Only the dishonest look for Scriptures to support their position. Shernel had argued that only the “ordinances” had been done away—not the “statutes.” His case was destroyed by the fact that both English words are translated from the same Hebrew word. Thus, he was making a distinction that the Bible did not make. What did he say in response to the research that was provided for him on this subject? Nothing!
Is that the fear of God? Can one expect to obtain wisdom when he ignores the facts? Praying for wisdom is appropriate, but it does not come to those who wish to manipulate the Word to fit a doctrine rather than find out the truth and abide by it. Knowledge and wisdom come from earnest study of the Word. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to be certain that Paul’s teachings were true (Acts 17:11). They did not just pray and hope that God would reveal something to them. Paul said that through reading his revelation, the Ephesians would understand his knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:1-7). Prayer is not a substitute for diligent study; it is an addition to it, and God may grant us wisdom by means of honest study.
Did Jesus Just Explain the Law?
In my first article, I responded to Shernel’s position that Jesus never taught His disciples any other Law than that given in the Old Testament. I gave five examples, and he spent most of his time on these. He kept repeating that Jesus was making the Law more clear, which is an unsupported assertion. Where is the verse in which Jesus said, “I am just making the law more clear”? In Matthew 5:44, Jesus said that we are to love our enemies. Shernel contends that this teaching was just making clearer what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. He may convince himself that it is clarification, but Jesus did not say that it was, nor, in fact, is it. Loving one’s enemies is not an explanation of loving one’s neighbor; it is a new and different teaching. The illustration of the “good Samaritan” is a clarification of loving one’s neighbor (Luke 10:30-37).
Shernel commented briefly on Matthew 18:22 but did not write one word about the command that Jesus gave about marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:9), nor did he comment on Mark 16:16 (1). It would be difficult to explain what command of Moses Jesus was clarifying when He taught that people should believe and be baptized. One who fears God and reverences His Word would not duck the responsibility of standing by his statements rather than overlooking things that fail to fit his theory.
He misunderstood entirely the point of Mark 1:1, which declares that the inspired writer is discussing the gospel. He does not say that this is the beginning of the clarification of the Law. The new covenant is different from the old. It is established on better promises (Heb. 8:6-7). It is final and complete (2 Peter 1:3; Jude 3). The new covenant is different—not an elaboration of the old—hence the word new—not improved or clarified. The inspired writers use the words old and new. Nobody uses the word clarified except Seventh-Day Adventists. No one has ever picked up a reliable translation and discovered that it is divided into two parts—the Old Testament and the Clarified Old Testament. Perhaps, if we point out this truth in fifty ways, it will eventually dawn on folks like Shernel. Reading the Scriptures is much more instructive than reading the books of men—and women.
Next, Shernel affirms that Jesus did not contrast His teaching with that of the Law: “He is simply giving the interpretation of the Law” (2). Yes, he does seem to be stuck in this one groove. Perhaps a dictionary would help resolve this dispute. After quoting two of the Ten Commandments, which the people had heard (and knew quite well), Jesus said, “but I say to you….” The definition of the word but is: “1. On the contrary.” Hello! Do we really need a dictionary to point out what everyone knows in the first place? The word but “introduces a statement in opposition to what precedes it” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 180). The Greek conjunctive particle, de, is translated as “but” by all major translations. The idea that Jesus was not making a contrast is just plain false.
Although it is hard to imagine, the argument gets even worse. Shernel writes: “The expression ‘ye have heard’ implies that the majority of the audience upon this occasion had not read the Law for themselves” (2). Whether or not they had personally read it might be debatable, but they certainly knew their own Law. No one in the entire New Testament shows any ignorance of the main teachings of the Law. They sometimes did not realize the significance of a particular verse, but they were not without rudimentary knowledge. The idea that the majority of people present for the Sermon on the Mount did not know the Ten Commandments is a baseless and faulty assumption.
The Law and the Gospel
More statements along these same lines are included in the letter, but they merely repeat what has already been stated—as if repetition might make them true somehow. Shernel next asserts that “the Law and the gospel are in perfect harmony” (2), which is true if by that expression one means that they complement each other—that the Law was a tutor to bring us into Christ (Gal. 3:24), or something of that nature. Shernel does say that is the case (3), but he does not mean it in the sense that most do. He argues that the Law condemned but could not save (which is true), but then he adds: “The gospel without the Law is insufficient and powerless” (3). Whoa!
People do not need the Law of Moses in order to sin. The Law was not given until around 1,000 years after the Flood—and then it was only given to the Israelites. God was able to punish those before the Flood without the Law of Moses, and He does not need it today for people to be guilty of sin, either. Yet, Shernel must have it that way; so he makes this statement: “The law of God existed before the creation of man or else Adam could not have sinned.” (3). Does anyone think this statement is true?
One could argue that all law existed before man was created in the sense that God knew what He was going to do and had everything in readiness. In that sense Christ was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Adam did not sin, however, because he violated the Law of Moses, which had never been given to him; he sinned because he violated the command that God had bound upon him, which was that he was not allowed to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Any violation of a commandment of God is sin. The Law of Moses did not enter into this transgression in the slightest.
Seventh-Day Adventists absolutely obsess over the Law. They cannot go anywhere else to find a Sabbath commandment; therefore, they must somehow establish the Law’s validity even though it is old and has been done away with. They try to have it in operation before it was given as well as after it has been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross of Christ (Col. 2:14). This attachment blinds them to what the Scriptures teach and puts them at odds with the Word.
Matthew 5:17-19 Again
The text of Matthew 5:17-19 surfaces again because it is one of the few passages that Shernel thinks he can hang his hat on. Due to his inability to get past the word destroy, Shernel could not understand the point made concerning TILL even though it was in bold letters. Nothing in the Law would pass away TILL all was fulfilled. The Scriptures proclaim that all was fulfilled, but all he could say was that I gave nothing to establish my assertions. Really? I cited John 19:30 (“It is finished”), Luke 24:44 (all things had been fulfilled concerning Him), and Colossian 2:14 (the law was taken out of the way and nailed to His cross). So, first he claims I failed to give anything to establish my assertions; then he begins to disagree with those very Scriptures. Obviously, then, I did provide a basis for my “assertions.”
Believe it or not, he returns to his “there is no new teaching by Jesus” mantra. Concerning what Jesus taught about hate and lust in Matthew 5:21-22 and 5:27-28, he moans: “What new teaching? Where does it say new?” (4). Most people know what new means. Anything that has not been taught before is new. Does Jesus have to say, “Now I have something to say that is new, and I’m saying it is new because some of you are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears”? How silly!! If Shernel thinks they are teachings repeat-ed from the Old Testament, let him tell us all where they may be found.
The Old Testament taught against both murder and adultery; Jesus, however, condemns going beyond the physical commission of the act. He aims at the heart, and says that this is the source of the problem. This is not an explanation of the Law; it is not even remotely implied in the Law. It is a new teaching. They were to control the anger and the lust that might be in their minds that would lead to the acts of murder and adultery. These prohibitions are not identical; those taught by Jesus do not clarify or explain the Law; they express a new concept not taught previously.
Fulfilled?
Jesus said His work was finished and that all the things written concerning Him had been fulfilled. Shernel disagrees. After citing Hebrews 5:6 and 10 about Jesus being a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, he evidently thinks he has proved something. He writes in bold letters: “All has not yet been fulfilled” (4). Huh? Yes, when Jesus ascended into heaven, He became both king and High Priest—in fulfillment of 2 Sam. 7:12-16, Zechariah 6:13, and Psalm 110:4.
Occasionally, my Seventh-Day Adventist opponent will make a “straw man” argument—taking issue with something that I did not say. This type of argumentation works really well against someone who has no opportunity for a reply; otherwise it can be pointed out, in which case the argument falls flat. One of those “straw man” arguments involves Luke 24:44.
All that I wrote was: “He [Jesus] explained to the two disciples He met on the road to Emmaeus…” and then quoted Luke 24:44. Shernel, concerning this matter, wrote: “With all due respect, neither can you assert that [he may have meant what, gws] the Saviour might have told the disciples on the way to Emmaeus” (5). I never said that He told them anything except what the text says. How can that be an assertion? Jesus told them “that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning” Himself. Nobody knows specifically what Jesus told them or what prophecies He might have explained, but the point is that they were fulfilled, which is the reason that the Law could be done away. It had to remain in force TILL all was fulfilled. It was fulfilled; therefore, it is destroyed, and the New Testament is now in force.
Another “straw man” statement the writer made was:
Those who profess to cling to Christ, centering their hope on Him, while they pour contempt upon the Law, and the prophecies, are in no safer position than were the unbelieving Jews (3).
No one has poured contempt on the Law or the prophets. This is a wild and reckless assertion—one that the respondent himself made. He acknowledged the following points:
The Law without faith in the gospel of Christ cannot save the transgressor of the Law (3).
There was no power in the Law to pardon its transgressor. Jesus alone could pay the sinner’s debt (3).
It is true that the Law could not save; it had no power to pardon the transgressor, but does Shernel realize that he has admitted that no one could be saved under the Law? And if he realizes that point, is he himself not guilty of pouring contempt upon the Law? To say that the Law, which could not save the Jews, was taken out of the way and replaced by the Gospel is not pouring contempt on the Law—it simply recognizes that God did not design the Law to save mankind. The gospel, however, is designed for that express purpose (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Neither do we denigrate the prophets. What they wrote is of vital importance as we study to see the ways in which Jesus fulfilled them. Shernel confuses the two concepts of salvation being foretold and being explained. Isaiah 53 does foretell the death of Jesus for our sins in a graphic way, but it does not mention crucifixion (although the results of it are portrayed), nor does it describe the way in which one is to respond to Jesus in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). Yes, many things are foreshadowed about the Christian system (Ex. 25-27, 30), but they are not explained until the New. No one has ever denied the value of the Old Testament. We study it because of its richness. We do not examine it, however, because it is binding upon us; it is not. To state the truth about the Law is not contempt.
Many “religious” people and some brethren do not enjoy reading or hearing sermons about actions that are “worldly.” The reason usually is that they stand guilty of the practice. If they do not personally participate in the sin, then a family member or a close friend does. How do we know that is the case? The answer is that only someone with an emotional attachment to the sin or to a loved one could fail to see what the Scriptures teach.
First of all, many people entirely divorce what they are taught in Bible classes and worship from their everyday lives. Even preachers make a distinction between the principles they teach and the way they live. They would teach, for example, that brethren must communicate with each other when they have a problem (Matt. 5:23-24; 18:15-17), but in reality some just ignore others and refuse to communicate, Apparently, teaching Scriptural truths is a lofty goal, but practicing them is too strenuous.
This dichotomy between teaching and practicing was highlighted in a recent question in the “Personality” section of Parade, the Sunday supplement to the news-paper. A writer from Riverview, Florida wanted to know how tennis great, Serena Williams, could justify wearing sexy clothes, since she is a Jehovah’s Witness. The answer was that she dresses conservatively while she is at the Kingdom Hall, “but there’s no religious dress code preventing her from wearing revealing clothes on or off the court” (April 26, 2009, p. 2).
Oh! I get it. When Paul wrote about women wearing modest clothing, he was only referring to the time they were in the Kingdom Hall. If women are on a tennis court, at the beach, or on the sidelines at a football or basketball game, cheering on the students, it’s all right to wear immodest clothing. How anyone could miss these exceptions in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 is beyond me, since they are so clear!
This interpretation, therefore, means that, when God clothed Adam and Eve properly (with coats of skins that went from the shoulders to the knees), they were standing in a Kingdom Hall. Undoubtedly, when they went outside the Kingdom Hall, they could put their fig leaves back on and enjoy a day in the sunshine. That’s probably the reason it was all right for the seductress to wear the attire of a harlot in Proverbs 7:10; after all, she was near a street corner—not in a Kingdom Hall.
Does this principle work for speech, also? When Paul said that our communication should be for edification, did he mean only in the Kingdom Hall? Outside it must be all right to curse, blaspheme, and tell dirty jokes, right? In other words, God sets standards of holiness for His people while they are in the Kingdom Hall, but outside they are like the proverbial troubles that “melt like lemon drops.” Standards of speech can be ignored in the world.
Leaving the sarcasm aside, it is sad that some think that this is a wise way of looking at things. Is that how some justify receiving contributions from mobsters? As long as they do not shake down anyone in the gathering of the “saints,” it is all right. What a deal! Anyone can be respectable in the assembly, so long as they keep their immoralities outside. Is this the kind of religion that Jesus taught?
Divorce
In the June 21, 2009 Parade, someone else wrote to the “Personality” section, asking how it could be that a devout Catholic like Mel Gibson could get a divorce? Based on the earlier question, one would assume that the answer would be that he is not getting a divorce in the Kingdom Hall (maybe a Hall of Justice); so it did not violate the Catholic religion’s teachings. But, no, this time the answer was different. “In the Catholic Church, adultery is a grievous sin” (2)
How about the fact that in the Bible adultery is a grievous sin? Consider its destructive influence upon David’s kingdom. His concubines were violated in the sight of all Israel, and four of his sons died long before their normal span of life had ended, due to his sin and his “cover-up.” Yes, adultery, when discovered, affects the lives of many innocent souls. So—has the Catholic Church said anything to Mel? Have they excommunicated him for this “grievous sin”? If not, why not?
Furthermore, it is disappointing that someone who would produce as great a movie as The Passion of the Christ would take so lightly the concept of sin for which Jesus died on the cross. The movie portrayed graphically the types of sufferings Jesus endured, and with such scenes vividly imprinted in our minds, it should be difficult for us to persist in sin. Making a mistake out of weakness is understandable (although wrong), but divorcing one’s wife for another woman and persisting in an unauthorized relationship is unfathomable. John told Herod it was not lawful for him to have his brother Philip’s wife (Mark 6:17-18). God still expects men—even rich men—to honor their wedding vows.
Alcohol
Dressing immodestly and adultery are both forms of worldliness, and so is the drinking of alcoholic beverages. A third article from Parade (Feb. 1, 2009) is titled, “How To Stop Drunk Drivers.” The first line of the brief piece informs us that there are 13,000 Americans each year who are killed by drunk drivers; hundreds of thousands more are injured (6). One would have thought we would have learned by now that alcohol is a dangerous drug, but, no, we lose more each year to alcohol than we have lost soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past eight years. Whereas war protestors can just about always find press coverage, where are those outraged by the effects of drunk drivers? Or do we think the privilege of drinking alcoholic beverages is worth the price?
The article goes on to describe a device that one blows into which locks up the car ignition if the would- be driver’s blood alcohol level is over the limit. Apparently, this system works well and cuts down on traffic accidents. No one has yet devised a way to keep children from being abused and women from being battered; perhaps a breathalyzer should be placed just above the doorbell, and if the blood alcohol content is too high, an inebriated parent would be prohibited from entering his house by means of an uncooperative lock.
Probably we should applaud these efforts instead of mocking them, since they do cut down on the number of fatalities; our only goal is to show that, as a society we are dealing with the symptoms instead of the disease. If some type of swine flu killed 13,000 people in the United States in one year, it would be declared pandemic, and the Center for Disease Control would kick into high gear to make people safe. Alcohol-related problems have a cure, but few are willing to try it.
Worldliness
Whether it is drinking, committing adultery, or dressing immodestly, these are all things that are not spiritual but associated with the world. All of them (and many more) are listed in Galatians 5:19-21 as “works of the flesh.” Adultery and fornication are both listed, which apply to Mel Gibson. Licentiousness applies to Serena Williams because she has taken the license to dress in a way that the Scriptures do not authorize. The problem of alcohol is addressed when it is included in the works of the flesh by the descriptions of “drunkenness, revelries, and the like.”
Why would a Christian want to have any association with any of these? If the dynamite is about to explode, how many bystanders say to themselves, “I wonder how close I can get without being injured”? Anyone with any sense would run the other direction until sure the distance is sufficient. Likewise, anyone who is thinking clearly does not say, “How provocative can I wear my clothing without actually crossing the line?” And rather than putting oneself in a position where he might be tempted to continue drinking beyond the ability to stop, why is it not just easier to stay away from alcohol altogether?
The promise of “no condemnation” is for those who do not walk “according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1). Shouldn’t we be feeding ourselves in this manner and encouraging others to do the same? What do we think we will gain if we sow to the flesh? The Bible answers, “Corruption!” (Gal. 6:8). But if we sow to the Spirit, we reap life everlasting. There should be no discrepancy between what we teach in Bible classes or worship and what we practice in our daily lives. God is interested in those who practice what they preach.
IS THE LORD’S SUPPER THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF WORSHIP?
Randy Robinson
Unfortunately, there are a significant number of brethren who would answer the above question in the affirmative. There are others who, although would not necessarily answer that way, demonstrate their belief that this is true through their attitudes and actions. Jesus once noted, “Ye shall know them by their fruits… “ (Matt. 7:16). Indeed, we often employ the cliché, “Action speaks louder than words.” By the same token, there are brethren who perhaps would not admit that they believe one act of worship is more important than the others, but their actions would indicate otherwise.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during His final Passover observance with His disciples. Matthew records that “as they were eating” (Matt. 26:26), Jesus took the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine and offered thanks for it and then explained to the disciples what these elements would now represent—His body and blood that would be sacrificed for the remission of sins. It was also a symbol of the fellowship that the Lord would continue to have with them and with all others who would believe and obey Him. Jesus told the disciples:
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom (Matt. 26: 29).
This signifies that, although Christ is reigning at the right hand of God and not physically present with the body of believers, the fellowship is maintained through that observance. Paul noted to the Corinthians that in partaking of the Lord’s Supper that they would “proclaim” [ASV] the Lord’s death until His return (1 Cor. 11:26).
Therefore, when we partake of those elements, we are to put aside the cares and concerns of the world and reflect on the sacrifice of Jesus and the opportunity that it provides for mankind. Ideally, we will reflect on the Lord’s final hours and the pain and degradation that He endured for our sakes. We have an example set by the brethren at Troas which indicates that this observance is to be done each Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7). Some have rebelled in protest at the idea of doing this every week. But when we examine the Scriptures, we still read that “upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7). Since every week has a first day, it is clear that this practice is to be done every week.
But does all of that, while indeed significant, make the Lord’s Supper the most important aspect of worship? God also desires that worshippers honor and praise Him in song (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). He has provided the avenue of prayer whereby we glorify His name, offer thanks to Him, and make requests for continued blessings (1 Thess. 5:17-18; Phil. 4:6). Out of what He has given to us, He expects us to return a portion of that to Him to conduct the work of the church (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 9:7). To promote greater Bible knowledge and spiritual growth, God also requires that His Word be proclaimed, as was done also by Paul at Troas (Acts 20:7). Are any of these acts of worship more significant than the others? Perhaps a case could be made for all of them. A preacher might consider the preaching to be more important. An eldership could decide that giving is most important, since so much of the function of what the church has to do is based on having the funds to do so. The song leader or those blessed with pleasant singing voices may believe that singing should be elevated to that status. Perhaps it could be praying since it involves literally addressing the throne of Almighty God.
However, there are some interesting aspects to this question to consider. For example, one rarely [if ever] sees a brother or sister come into the assembly and participate in the singing of one song and then leave. It is unheard of for someone to depart after the first prayer is led (unless they suddenly become ill or an emergency arises). It is highly unlikely that an individual will arrive at worship only in time to hear the sermon (unless the Lord’s Supper is served afterward).
Yet, we can cite several cases where brethren partook of the Lord’s Supper and then left before the sermon and in some cases even before the offering! What are we to conclude if or when this takes place? Should we not conclude that these brethren consider the Lord’s Supper as the most important act of worship and that all of the other acts are expendable?
The view that the Lord’s Supper is the most important element of worship is likely based on a denominational concept. Since many denominations observe it less often than each Lord’s Day, as scripturally required, there is a tendency to elevate it to a status that was not intended. Furthermore, some religions consider the Lord’s Supper to be a “sacrament.” According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Online, the term sacrament is defined as “an outward sign of something sacred.” This term is not a Biblical one and the declaration that certain things are sacraments is absent of New Testament authority.
Baptism is also considered to be a sacrament and while it is necessary for an individual’s sins to be forgiven and the Lord’s Supper is to be observed during worship each Lord’s day, that in and of itself does not make them sacraments in the way that denominationalism defines them. Although it is doubtful that those who believe the Lord’s Supper is more important than the other acts of worship would admit that their reasoning is based as a whole or in part in denominational doctrine, it is apparent that portions of this doctrine have been an influence upon some. It is perhaps akin to a new convert referring to the preacher as the “pastor.” It often takes time for the denominational influence to be purged.
To exalt the Lord’s Supper above the other acts of worship in effect, diminishes the significance of those other acts. It reduces the other acts of worship to a “second-tier” status which God never intended. It declares them to be less important and also it perhaps has the unintended effect of reducing the Lord’s Supper to a mere ritual rather than an observance based on the Lord’s sacrifice for the sins of mankind. When one attends worship merely to get their “Lord’s Supper fix” for the week, it diminishes the sacrifice that was made on our behalf.
We have previously noted that brethren can be providentially hindered from attending worship. When that occurs, God excuses our absence and we are released from the obligation of worship for that day, including the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. When we are again able to attend, we resume our worship to God, which includes all of the scriptural acts of worship, not merely the ones we wish to take the time for, or the ones we deem the most important. Failure to worship God completely in spirit and in truth attracts God’s disapproval and furthermore renders our worship insufficient. May we always worship according to God’s will.
This 34th Annual Lectureship book from the Bellview Church of Christ in Pensacola, Florida, contains 559 pages of excellent information and is a companion volume to the previous year’s book on the Major Prophets. Neither volume was designed as a verse-by-verse commentary, but they contain expositions of several key passages. All of the material examines and explains the Word of God.
The introduction contains a two-page chart which dates and shows the overlapping reigns of the 19 kings of Israel and Judah. The Scriptures showing the relationship between the kings’ reigns are also provided (2-3). The next page has a chart of all the minor prophets, including the traditional dates, as well as the date of each based on the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom. All the prophets are then examined in what is thought to be chronological order. Each of the twelve sections contains the rationale for the date, a summary of the message, and three key lessons from the book.
The remainder of the book contains major messages from the Minor Prophets. The four that come from Hosea are: “God’s Love,” “Destroyed for a Lack of Knowledge,” “Forbidden Fellowship,” and “Improper Rejoicing.” Among other things is a description of the two possibilities that occur when the mind is confronted with truth (56). The author also contrasts two views of Gomer and includes a short essay by J. W. McGarvey (67-69).
The next chapter discusses who was responsible for Israel’s sad spiritual condition (76-77) and also deals with the consequences of spiritual ignorance (78-84), along with its cure. The third lesson from Hosea, “Forbidden Fellowship,” describes “The Silly Dove Syndrome” (101-102), which brings certain parallels to mind. The final message based on Hosea is “Improper Rejoicing,”—something all of us should want to avoid, yet some prefer rejoicing in iniquity (1 Co. 13:6).
“God’s Goodness and Severity” is the first subject treated from Joel; the second is an examination of the prophecy and fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (2:28-32), which Peter cited on the Day of Pentecost. After a discussion of the five baptisms in the New Testament (138-41), the writer considers what is meant by the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The reader finds a section that explores the signs of Jesus, the signs of Moses, and the signs of the apostles (146-48). What is the gift of the Holy Spirit? What is the promise of the Holy Spirit? Several scholars who have researched words and phrases are cited in the course of answering these questions. The reader may agree or disagree with the conclusions, but the material is well worth consideration.
Four themes from Amos follow. The first of these deals with another aspect of fellowship (“Can Two Walk Together?”). The second is the always-sobering declaration given to Israel: “Prepare to Meet Thy God.” Given attention are “The Transgressions of the Atheist,” “Transgressions of Religious Divisions,” and “Transgressions of Selective Blindness” (185-89). Two more chapters are particularly appropriate for this age: “Woe to Them at Ease in Zion” and “A Famine in the Land,” which includes an article by Bill Jackson—“The Best Hamburgers in Town” (220-21).
The one lesson from Jonah is: “Comfort for the Afflicted,” which God promised to Israel when Edom, their troubler, was herself troubled. Jonah was a unique prophet from several standpoints; a significant one is found on page 244 in the chapter titled, “A Whale of a Tale.” How should the story of Jonah and the big fish be regarded? The author here presents the allegorical view, as well as the parabolic, the mythical, and the literal. The rationale behind each view is submitted and analyzed. Each Christian could surely profit from this study of the four views and be better able to defend the truth.
Terry Hightower’s chapter on “Preaching That I Bid Thee” ought to be required reading for every Christian college student majoring in Bible and for every school of preaching. It is both practical and thoroughly Biblical. He starts with a quote from Joel Osteen that represents his philosophy of preaching (such as it is) (264). He points out that Osteen had a difficult time on television shows hosted by Larry King and Bill O’Reilly in answering the simple question, “Is Jesus the way, the truth, and the life”? The audience knows that someone is in trouble when a guest cannot answer the softball questions usually served up by Larry King. Robert Schuller’s philosophy of communicating Scriptures is also examined. One might wonder what convicted criminal, Robert Courtney, has to do with preaching, but he is entirely relevant (269).
Quotations from Brian D. McLaren of the “Emergent Church” also have a bearing on what is happening in today’s churches. Quotations from him will absolutely amaze the reader and make one wonder what would have happened to the Ninevites if God had sent someone like him (271-72). Roy F. Osborne actually had enough arrogance to question whether God gave Jonah the right message (273-74). The kind of preaching that God wants then is discussed for 37 more pages, all of which is well worth reading carefully.
As the section on Micah begins, the first theme is—“Prophesy Ye Not” (2:6). After a consideration of the context, the remainder of the material involves applications to current situations. For example, brethren in a local congregation can sometimes adopt the same attitude as the enemies of the gospel, demanding that an evangelist not preach on certain topics.
Another reliable test of faithfulness to the Truth is preaching on holiness and righteousness, if specifically applied to such things as drinking, wearing immodest apparel, smoking, dancing, and buying lottery tickets (316-17).
Another problem in the church is compromising on fellowship. This portion refers to at least three current situations in which the Biblical principles concerning fellowship, once upheld by all, are currently being ignored by many (318-28). This essay concludes with a look at various forces in society who likewise wish to silence those who proclaim God’s Word (328-33).
Two more chapters include themes from Micah. The first centers on “Evil Leaders” ((3:1-3) and presents a thorough Biblical summary of those found within the Scriptures—from Satan to Diotrephes. Then evil leaders in society are mentioned, as well as others. The final Micah text is one that is frequently studied (6:8), “What Does the Lord Require of Thee?” A thorough analysis is provided with a look at misapplications as well the true meaning of the verse.
The first message from Nahum is “God’s Jealousy” (1:2). This attribute of God seldom receives attention. The writer includes a chart of the kings of Assyria, from Tiglath-Pileser III (747 B.C.) to Esarhaddon (612 B.C.) (369-700), which aids in understanding the book’s background. The message concerning God’s jealous nature is set forth in the form of an acronym, beginning with “Jehovah is a Jealous God” and ending with “Studied Scripture” (372-88). The other text examined from the prophet Nahum is: “Woe to the Bloody City!” (3:1). Although Nineveh was spared in the days of Jonah, she is now to be destroyed; the prophet enumerates her many sins that make her worthy of destruction.
“How Long?” (1:2) and “The Just Shall Live by Faith” (2:4) are the two messages taken from Habakkuk. The first of these looks at Habakkuk’s verbal wrestling with God; the latter one deals with the popular theme of living by faith; the author cites ten sources used in providing a thorough discussion of the matter.
The people of Zephaniah’s day were complacent, thinking that the Lord would neither do good or evil to them, yet within 25 years they had experienced their first captivity by Babylon, thus learning in a painful way that “The Lord Will Act” (1:12). “No Shame for Sin” (3: 5) usually accompanies complacency. Pertinent data from both of these lectures should provoke us to think about our current condition in America. The chapter on “Shame” includes an Appendix, which also reflects the attitude of many in the church. One of “our” institutions of higher learning, often recommended by conservative brethren, has a teacher which provides students a “Home Cell Group Leader’s Manual.” Brethren need to read these in order to believe them (467-73). Or are we also too complacent?
“Consider Your Ways” is the theme of the only lesson from Haggai. All four of the prophet’s sermons receive attention. The first chapter based on Zechariah is “The Priest King,” which considers seven prophecies about Jesus before explaining the significance of Jesus being king and priest individually, as well as that of the combined meaning. Zechariah 7:1-14 explores “Refusing to Obey.” The author states the formula many are using today to justify unauthorized practices (502).
This outstanding lectureship book closes with three messages from Malachi. The first, “Polluting the Worship” (1:7-14), refutes a common error, as voiced by one editorial writer: “I can’t believe that God cares how He is worshipped, just as long as He is worshipped” (513). The second, “The Wife of Thy Youth,” provides the background for Malachi 2:14-17. Provided is an in-depth analysis of verse 14, and it is unlikely that anyone would find material of this caliber anywhere else—without doing hours and hours of research. The writer lists 27 sources for the information he provides. This information alone is worth the price of the book. Brethren ought to read it studiously. The third reminds us to evaluate ourselves to see if we are guilty of “Robbing God?” (3:7-12).
Preaching from the Major Prophets is available from the Bellview Church of Christ in Pensacola, Florida. One may call (850) 455-7595 for more information.
“WHAT HE DID WAS LEGAL”
Gary W. Summers
On May 31st of this year, Dr. George Tiller, known by many as “Tiller, the Baby Killer,” was shot and killed while serving as an usher of the Reformation Lutheran Church. This murder of an abortionist is the first in over a decade; it is not an occurrence that pro-lifers desire to see. He now has no opportunity to repent of his sins.
Some have referred to him as a “hero,” but nothing could be further from the truth. Tiller was one of five or six “doctors” in America that would perform late-term abortions (for a fee of $5,000). Sometimes these abortions would be close to the time of birth, and even many who support abortion “rights” do not agree with taking the life of a baby who would be viable outside the womb.
In fact, Tiller had just been tried in Kansas last March, and some legal experts expected that, in the face of all the evidence, the jury would find him guilty, but for some reason they failed to do so. Many people have commented on the situation in Kansas both before and after Tiller was shot.
One of those was Amy Richards, co-founder of the Third Wave Foundation. She appeared on The O’Reilly Factor awhile back; like most liberals, she failed to answer the first question he asked, which was if late-term abortions were acceptable to her. After trying to go around the barn, she was interrupted by the host, who reminded her that she had ignored the question. Finally, she admitted that she did not think Tiller was killing babies.
Really? Only the most hardened and calloused of people could miss that fact. Had he removed serpents or koalas or tiny elephants from the womb? No. If he had, the animal rights activists would have howled in protest. What was it that was alive but put to death, then? Ms. Richard notwithstanding, then, Tiller did remove babies—some of which were in their ninth month of progress! He did not earn his nickname for refusing to help old ladies across the street!
The abortion doctor will face the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the Day of Judgment with innocent blood on his hands—something that is an abomination to God (Pr. 6:16-19). Those such as Richards may not have done the actual shedding of blood, but they stand guilty, also, by virtue of their fellowship with evil. “He [or she, in Ms. Richards’ case, gws] who justifies the wicked [Dr. Tiller, gws], and he [or she, gws] who condemns the just [babies who have committed no sin worthy of death, gws], both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15).
Furthermore, no body of people calling themselves Christians should be fellowshipping anyone who makes his living by killing innocent children. Any funds this “church” received by way of contribution from Tiller was blood money.
Another note of importance involves the former governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius. After Tiller’s trial, legislation in Kansas was passed that would have limited the number of late-term abortions. The governor vetoed the protective measure as one of her last official acts before becoming the head of the Department of Health and Human Services in the president’s new cabinet. Thus, former governor Sebelius showed total support for Tiller, which means that she has no respect for innocent human life, either. How sad that she has been given a position of prominence in this nation!
Legality
On another Factor Joan Walsh, Editor of Salon.com, was interviewed. She too was evasive, but she finally admitted that aborting late-term fetuses was all right with her. Whereas, Ms. Richards continually talked at the same time as O’Reilly, Ms. Walsh was more attentive, but in the end it made no difference. When she said that she had seen no evidence that Tiller had done anything wrong, O’Reilly showed her a clip of the results of research on Tiller—testimony from Dr. Paul McHugh, M.D., head of the Psychiatric School of Johns Hopkins University. She was about as interested as viewing a collection of bottle caps from the 60s.
All Walsh could do was muster a lame, “I don’t know what makes these men better experts than Dr. Tiller.” In other words, the evidence of the research had no impact on her whatsoever. She muttered, “You have your experts, and I have mine,”—another lame copout. When all else fails, liberals start chanting mantras. Her mindless chatter was, “What he did was legal. What he did was legal. What he did was legal.” “And if you give me any more facts, I’ll stick my fingers in my ears and start humming.” She didn’t actually say that last line, but she may as well have.
O’Reilly should have immediately asked her what law the Germans violated when they put to death six million Jews. What they did was legal. Societies sometimes make mistakes. Germany made a huge one by not valuing human life. Allowing slavery was legal. One can just imagine Ms. Walsh chanting to President Lincoln all the way to his inauguration, “It’s legal, Abe.”
Abortion itself should not be legal. The Roe v. Wade Decision was not based upon legal precedent. It did not interpret law; it legislated it. Abortion should not be legal, period; certainly late-term abortion should not be legal—unless the life of the mother is imperiled. Every day babies are delivered from the sixth month onward; most of them survive due to the wonderful technology that we have. It is a shame that, as our technology has grown stronger, our morals and ethics have grown weaker. As a society, we have not stood up for those who cannot defend themselves. The rationale that “what he did was legal” reinforces that America at the current time is tragically broken and in need of fixing.
Dawson continues in his stream of apostasy, which is designed to create a broader role for women in the church than the Bible authorizes. He sets forth his position in his book, Christians, Churches, and Controversies. Having discussed the rationale for his views, we come to the heading, “How Should These Concepts Affect Congregational Action?” His basic advice is that, if everyone would agree with him, then no problems will result from women speaking in a business meeting.
He begins by saying that if someone did not want women to sing in the assembly, we would ignore the protest and allow them to sing anyway (25). First of all, has anyone ever taken such a position? Second, the Bible does authorize women to sing in or out of the assembly (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Third, almost every objection he provides in this section (and later ones) is related to example, which is only one means of authorization. We do not expect an example of every practice; implication or direct statement will also serve.
In addition to singing, Dawson adds that we must reject objections to a woman confessing Christ or confessing sin in the assembly, along with women making comments in Bible classes, teaching children’s classes, or speaking in a congregational meeting (25). All of these (but the last one) are things that most brethren will agree with him on. Attending and speaking in the business meetings, however, is not on a par with the others; it deserves more scrutiny.
Personal Experiences
On the way to his destination, Dawson makes some observations about business meetings. He mentions that in seventeen years of attending congregational meetings, he could only remember two or three occasions when women came close to crossing the line of subjection, and then other women got them back in line (28). Such is fine, but what does it prove?
This writer, as a young college student, began attending a church in a college town that was not only friendly—it contained as members four college professors. As a young Christian who had never heard of liberalism, he wondered about certain practices, one of which was allowing the women to attend the business meetings. A couple of them chaired committees, and one may have been treasurer; she read the financial report each month. There was obviously no being in subjection, and no one seemed to care. These events occurred in 1966-67, before most had even heard of “Women’s Liberation.”
Personal experiences like these may add insight into certain situations, but they cannot be used as proof that something works or does not work. Two things bear on the issue of business meetings: the first is the consideration of whether they are authorized, and the Scriptures indicate that they are. The second matter is expediency: each individual congregation makes that determination. The meeting in Acts 6 occurred because of a specific problem. But even if a congregation determines to have one today, there remains no indication that, contrary to Dawson, the women were involved in the decision-making process.
The Seven Reasons
Near the end of his chapter Dawson provides seven “arguments” for congregational meetings. The first one is that “men-only business meetings are without foundation in the New Testament” (31). This is simply not true. Being without foundation is not the same as lacking a specific example of one. What has Dawson shown his reader? He mentioned Acts 6, which was far from an ordinary business meeting. An issue needed to be resolved; the twelve called the multitude together to ask them to find seven men to care of the problem. We are not given the specific way the decision was made. This event does not establish Dawson’s claim.
In fact, on one level, all it really authorizes is the apostles calling a special meeting of the church to select seven men to serve tables. Probably our problems are not going to be resolved by the apostles, and most congregations do not have this particular difficulty to deal with today.
Is it true that no “male only” meetings are authorized? The apostles and elders met in Acts 15; that was a “male only” meeting. Jesus called a “male only” meeting to appoint apostles in Luke 6:12-16. Regardless of any Biblical examples, however, since God determined that males provide the leadership in the church, He therefore authorized males to meet with each other to accomplish what God wants done.
Second, Dawson said congregational meetings were the norm (31), yet he does not have enough instances to establish a norm. This point fails utterly for lack of genuine support for it.
Third, he says that nearly all churches have congregational meetings “when they’re considering building a new building or hiring a new preacher or selecting elders” (31). Really? Nearly all? This writer cannot name a single instance of a time when women were part of a meeting in which a preacher was hired. (A few have something to do with one being fired! But even that was usually done through her husband.) Dawson must have an entirely different experience than some of the rest of us.
Fourth, Dawson says that it is “dangerous for women to support something financially when they don’t know what’s going on….” (31). Amen! And that goes for every member, male or female. How many men do not attend business meetings? People too often support local congregations and other works without finding out adequate information. Especially as it relates to para-church organizations, how many people have demanded an accounting of the funds they receive? How many works have a false teacher associated with them or believe a false doctrine (even on their Website)? Brethren are far too trusting; some local congregations do not print reports of their own spending.
However, Dawson assumes that the only way a woman can find out anything is by attending a congregational meeting, by which he has created a false dichotomy (a contrived either-or situation). It is not the case that either women must attend business meetings and speak in them or they will not know anything about the budget. Any person with minimal communication skills can be an informed individual.
Fifth, it is dangerous for her to have to rely on her husband for information, since his view of the decisions might be skewed (32). Surely, Dawson has become desperate here. What if elders call in the preacher and fire him (not an unusual occurrence)? How many different versions is his wife going to receive of it? Published minutes of the business meeting should resolve this quibble, and women are free to ask questions.
Sixth, Dawson argues that “it is hurtful to a local church to exclude the talents, resources, energy, intellect, insights, and ingenuity of the women” (32). This is another false dichotomy. How does Dawson think that congregations with “male only” meetings have survived all these years? Obviously, the numerous talents of the ladies have contributed greatly to the well-being of the church—and without doing things the way he thinks we must do it.
Although Dawson did not make this application, it is interesting that this argument is precisely the same one used by liberals to authorize women preaching, leading in prayers, leading songs, or reading Scripture. He did not take this view; he specifically says otherwise, and he should not be charged with believing it. Still, it is interesting that liberals make the exact same point.
Seventh, “it is foolish for the men not to have the input of the women” (32). Probably, just about all men would agree with that statement, but it does not prove his case, since it is already being done in congregations that have “male only” business meetings. Dawson’s use of the Scriptures was not enhanced by his citing of Proverbs 18:13 to prove that women must be consulted before making decisions in the home and in the church. The verse says: “He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.” The point of the verse is that one must listen to a full explanation from someone before giving a reply. Even if there is an application to decision-making in the home or the church, it would not require a congregational meeting to get the desired result.
The Final Plea
The chapter closes with a plea for brethren to be open-minded and willing to study this (or any other issue). Well, of course, that is the right attitude—the one we have been encouraging for centuries (1 Thess. 5:21-22). We wish that all who are in denominations would adopt this attitude and study the Bible rather than what some catechism says.
On the other hand, just because we are willing to study a subject does not mean we will thereby be convinced to adopt the argumentation that is presented. In this instance, for example, it was good to rethink the matter—even if we found Dawson’s thesis unsubstantiated and ended up disagreeing with him. Whatever positive benefits we might have from his chapter do not offset the damage that it might do in influencing some. He should rethink his position and his proof, since it is woefully lacking.
The rationale for the author’s conclusion is not valid. He obviously is dedicated to his position, but the passages did not say what he concluded they taught, and his applications fell short. As always, there is no ill-will toward him personally; he may have sincerely put this material together, but he is sincerely wrong if he thinks it justifies women speaking in business meetings and participating in the decision-making process.
JOSIAH’S DISCOVERY OF THE LAW
Marvin L. Weir
The prophet Jeremiah lived during a period of time in which God’s law had been ignored. A failure to stud-y, teach, and practice the law of Jehovah resulted in the Israelites sinking into the depths of apostasy. The people did not desire to listen to law that condemned their sinful lifestyles. Neither did folks desire to be condemned for rejecting God and worshipping idols. The kings had no intention of insisting that God’s law be read or followed. It is said that history repeats itself, and who can argue that we are not walking in Israel’s footsteps today? What lessons are ours to learn?
First, Josiah’s parents failed to teach him the Word of God! The last good king before Josiah was Hezekiah. Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, introduced idols in the temple, allowed human sacrifices, encouraged wizards and soothsayers, and shed innocent blood. Manasseh’s son, Amon, followed in the steps of his father and “trespassed more and more” until finally killed (2 Chron. 33:23). Josiah was the son of Amon. This explains Josiah’s ignorance of the law; he had not been taught to respect God’s Word! Moses made clear the responsibility of parents in teaching their children in saying:
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates” (Deut. 6:6-9).
Josiah’s parents will give an account to God for their failure to correctly teach their son, but Josiah shows that one can overcome lack of teaching and bad influence if he so desires. When but sixteen years of age, Josiah makes a choice to follow the God of David (2 Chron. 34:3). The young boy king was tempted in every way to follow the path of evil but instead rejected sin’s beckoning call. Every person today of the age of accountability and of sound mind is responsible for his actions and decisions!
Second, there is always the opportunity to do what is godly and right. God allows this world to stand and life to continue. Each day is another opportunity for one to choose to obey and follow the Creator of all that is good (Gen. 1:31; Jam. 1:17). Josiah could not have been reared in more unfavorable conditions. He could have used the excuse that he was a product of his environment and that because of such he was due understanding, special considerations, and an exemption from God’s laws. But Josiah did not harden his sense of right and wrong, and he chose to follow the true and living God who has made Himself known to all (Rom. 1:19-20).
Third, Josiah is proof that one does not inherit the sins of his parents and can choose to have either a humble or haughty heart! One could have no more wicked parents and grandparents than did Josiah! Neither could one live in a more wicked environment! But Josiah refused to be corrupted by evil people and worldly things. His ego was not overly inflated, and neither did he have an arrogant and haughty heart. In the Scriptures Josiah is told that,
because thy heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before Jehovah, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith Jehovah (2 Kings 22:19).
A hardened heart opposed to the will of God will always lead to the loss of the soul. Josiah knew that two ways stood before him—the way of the world and the way of God! Millions today are faced with the same choice. Our prayer is for tender hearts that will respond to the Lord’s will.
Fourth, the determination of one devoted to doing God’s will is a powerful force. Josiah knew that all things pertaining to spiritual matters had to be done with the proper spirit and in the right way (cf. John 4:24)! He gathered all the people at Jerusalem, publicly read from the book of the law, and demanded that all submit to God’s will. The Divine commentary says:
Surely there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; but in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this passover kept to Jehovah in Jerusalem. Moreover them that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the teraphim, and the idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of Jehovah. And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him (2 Kings 23:22-25).
The greatest need today is for one to find and obey the Word of God and turn to Jehovah with his whole heart!
—The Bonham Street Beacon (Paris, TX)
June 11, 2009
In reviewing chapter five of Samuel G. Dawson’s book, Christians, Churches, and Controversy, we have already examined his false claim that women were in on the decision-making process, along with the apostles and elders, regarding a doctrinal problem in Acts 15. That text does not indicate that anyone but the apostles and elders made the decision, although the whole church approved of the decision.
The author of said book also argues that the women participated in the decision in Acts 6 with respect to the distribution of food among the widows (19). He has a much better case here than in Acts 15, but he still cannot prove his point. The text says that the twelve apostles summoned the multitude of the disciples and told them to seek out from among themselves seven men who possessed certain qualifications (Acts 6:2-3). The saying pleased the whole multitude, and they made their choices (Acts 6:5-6).
What the text does not tell us is the way that the multitude arrived at their decision. Apparently, Dawson thinks that they took a vote, as in a business meeting, but we do not know if anyone voted on anything. If a vote was called for, who actually participated? Were there requirements to be of a certain age or gender? Or did they cast lots? Perhaps there was an overseeing committee to whom the brethren submitted names; did that group, then, make the final decision? Were the elders of Jerusalem placed in charge of the process? Or was it a benevolent committee? No one can say how it was done because the text does not provide any details of the selection process.
It may be that the women suggested several of the names of those who were chosen (which would not violate any passage of Scripture). There is a difference between giving input (an idea that Dawson is so fond of championing) and actually making the decision. The former notion does not necessitate the latter.
Withdrawal of Fellowship
Another example of the entire congregation acting together is in the withdrawing of fellowship of a wayward member (20). How this helps the author’s case is unknown. We would expect the whole congregation to participate in the withdrawal of fellowship from an impenitent member just as we would expect both men and women to participate in worship together. Neither of these actions is an infringement on male leadership, however. It would not appear that Dawson is arguing that the women of the congregation would take the lead in this matter; so why does he bother to bring it up? This was not a decision for the congregation to make; Paul gave them the commandment to do it.
Evangelism
In addition to Acts 15, Acts 6, and 1 Corinthians 5 being used to authorize women attending business meetings, the writer of this material also throws in Acts 14:27, commenting that “an entire local church met to deliberate about a matter of evangelism in the New Testament…” (20). Wow! What must this verse say? The event referenced occurs at the conclusion of the first missionary journey of Paul—the one on which he and Barnabas labored together. They arrived in Antioch, and the verse quite innocently states:
And when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of truth to the Gentiles.
How is this different from missionaries coming to report to congregations today? The church gathered together to hear the results of this evangelistic sojourn; we do the same thing today with reports of evangelistic work. No decision was made; how does this passage authorize sisters participating in business meetings?
Paul and Barnabas also made reports in Acts 15:3-4. The church was excited to hear of the great successes that they had. The way that Dawson cites this passage, one would think that there was an evangelism committee, half of whose members were women, and that they had made the decision as to what cities Paul and Barnabas would go to preach in. Of course, no Scripture describes such a process. The church was not deliberating about evangelism in Acts 14:27.
Private Meetings?
Having mentioned these four passages, Dawson, declares the matter proved (20). He does allow that elders can hold private meetings and cites Acts 15:6, the very passage he uses for a congregational meeting. He apparently does not see his contradiction. After also citing Acts 20:17-35 and Galatians 2:2 as examples of Paul meeting with elders only, he then challenges someone to find a Scripture where only the men of a church met (20). But if only certain men met on those two occasions, why would we not think that only men met on other occasions? And if women had a special meeting in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, why is it so difficult to believe that the men may have met by themselves, also?
But Dawson goes even further in insisting that, if we cannot find any passage that describes “men only” business meetings, then they must be unscriptural, since there is no New Testament authority for them (20). Apparently, he does not understand the way authority works in the Bible. We do not need an example for every possible situation that might occur. For example, are men authorized to use buses, cars, trains, airplanes, or helicopters to travel somewhere to preach the gospel? After all, there is not a single example of any of those being used in the New Testament.
We can use such methods because they are all subordinate means of achieving the general command: “Go.” Similarly, men have been give roles of leadership in the home and in the church. We know that elders make decisions, since that idea is present in the word bishop, which means “overseer.” How they make their decisions is up to them. They may have several ways of getting information from the congregation before they decide something. In the absence of elders (and we know that some congregations did not at various times have them), the responsibility to make decisions remains the same. We have, therefore, authority for making them, and each congregation is free to do so the way they think is most effective.
Most churches think that it is appropriate for the men (the spiritual leaders of the congregation) to make the decisions as part of their leadership role. This determination and practice is not in defiance of New Testament authority; it is in compliance with it. The men have the responsibility to lead—the way that they do so is up to their judgment. No verse of Scripture requires women to be present in those meetings, yet they can still be pleased with the results without being present.
Serving
Dawson’s creek diverges from the main stream in several ways. Whereas he is careful to analyze some things at length before making pronouncements, at other times his assessments appear to be shallow and without foundation. For example, he includes one paragraph right before the attempted proof that women can attend congregational meetings and take part in the decision-making process, in which he advocates that women can serve the Lord’s Supper but not lead the prayer of thanksgiving for it.
What is the justification for this practice? Sit down; this one is bizarre: “Women serve men in restaurants and at home, and men think nothing of it” (17). Does this argument really need a reply? An assembly of the saints meets to offer up worship to God; eating a common meal has nothing to do with worship. How do people get by with making such lame arguments?
Rubel Shelly once made the statement that women pass communion down the row; why can they pass the bread and the fruit of the vine horizontally but not vertically? His is such a silly argument that one would think that anyone might ask: “If an atheist passes it horizontally down the row, can he also pass it vertically?” Why do some go to such great lengths to hide their brains?
Returning to Dawson, however, we note that it is true that some serving the Lord’s Supper do not lead in prayer and are silent. But they are still in a position of leadership. They are before the congregation in a serving capacity, but they are also leading in that aspect of worship. Most types of service do not require being before the church.
In fact, Acts 6 is one of those. That first church problem began with a complaint that certain widows were being neglected in the daily distribution (v. 1). The apostles could not leave a work more vital than that of serving tables (v. 2). For that reason they prescribed to the selection of seven men to take care of this work (3). Why did the apostles require men for this act of service? If widows were being served, why not appoint seven women over it? After all, if these women went to a restaurant, they might have been served by women. And, so far as we know, this service had nothing to do with the assembly! Is it the case that women cannot be servants? They absolutely can, but their place of service is not before the assembly of the saints in worship.
“Women could operate an overhead projector in a debate…” (17). She might, but how does that relate to being before the assembly in a leadership role? Dawson then adds that she might debate another woman before an audience of women. Okay, but how does this idea relate to the subject under discussion? He also avers that women could write articles for bulletins or even Bible commentaries. Yes, they can, but here is the difference. No man would be forced to read them, but he is forced to see her if she leads the church.
As Dawson continues this list of mixed and unrelated items, he argues that she might be treasurer for a local congregation. He points out that many wives write checks and take care of the household finances, “and their husbands don’t consider it an unsubmissive act” (17). Isn’t that how Inspector Clousseau got in trouble? Seriously, however, are we now going to base what happens in the church upon what happens in the home? Some men’s wives may have an aptitude and efficiency in handling finances, it is true, but this is a personal matter—not one which involves the church. Even though overseeing finances is not a public matter or done in the assembly, it is still a matter of leadership. Dawson offers no proof for the idea of a female treasurer, and the little rationale he does offer is not valid.
Can Women Speak in the Assembly?
Anyone who thought these arguments were lacking in merit will likely not think too highly of this next one. Throughout this chapter, Dawson has pointed out that most brethren can accept three practices. Most brethren acknowledge that women are authorized to sing. We also do not object if a woman confesses Christ before the assembly. To make the good confession is not an attempt to teach or to usurp authority over men in a public assembly. The confession of faith is something that is expected of everyone. He also includes confession of sin, although various congregations handle that in different ways. Most of the time someone hands a preacher or elder a written statement—or tells someone verbally while the invitation song is being sung.
He argues that the Scriptures authorize a woman to do these things in a barn, a tree, a Bible class, or an assembly (23). While the cows might enjoy the singing, how does this practice relate to the issue? Some orioles might be impressed with a confession of faith, but it is doubtful they would make reliable witnesses of the good confession. Confessing one’s sins in a Bible class would probably take everyone’s mind off the topic for that day. The point is: God designed some things for the assembly for a reason.
Singing, for example, is designed to be an activity in which Christians praise God and encourage and exhort each another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Doing so in a barn or a tree will not have quite the same impact. Again, the confession of faith or sin works best when other people are present. It is a strange argument, however, that bases worship in the assembly upon what one might do in a barn or a tree.
The Bible Class
Some may wonder, however, why women are allowed to speak or read a Scripture in a Bible class. The answer is not intended to be frivolous—the reason is that it is not the assembly. The purpose of a class is so that students will learn. In such cases, all students are encouraged to ask questions and sometimes to give an answer or make comments. Even in that situation a woman is not allowed to teach over the man.
Jesus conducted a personal Bible study with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. She asked questions and made comments. They were not, however, engaged in worship. Perhaps people are confused because the class is conducted in the same place where brethren assemble for worship. The confusion is understandable, but all need to see that, regardless of the location, each meeting has a different purpose.
Applications
All of us must be careful in handling Biblical authority properly. Remarkably, Dawson gets most of his applications correct, despite using the wrong standard. He does not think a woman ought to read Scripture in a mixed assembly of worshipers, but he does allow for them to sing, confess Christ, confess sin, or comment in Bible class. Then he comes to her speaking in the assembly. He argues that there is generic authority for a woman to speak, period (Eph. 4:29). Then he says that there is no specific prohibition for her doing so in a congregational meeting, as long as she remains in subjection (24). Does this argument make sense to anyone?
The fact that she can speak, period, means she can speak in the assembly. Wouldn’t this be tantamount to Jesus saying to the woman at the well: “I notice that you can speak, period, perhaps you would like to come and say a few words when I present My Sermon on the Mount; remember to stay in subjection, however”? The fact that a woman is authorized to speak, period, does not grant her authority to speak in the assembly. Dawson adds that she may speak as long as there is no specific prohibition against it. What happened to needing authority? The fact that women are authorized to speak in general does not in any way authorize them to speak in the assembly. The two acts are not related with any meaningful connection.
Nevertheless, Dawson insists that “the above examples show that every collective activity that a woman engages in with the brethren is authorized through general authority” (24). Broomsticks and hockey pucks! Whoever heard of such a thing? What is the difference between this misapplication and arguing that, since we are authorized to eat meat, period, we can grill hamburgers and eat them in the assembly? Is there a prohibition against it? We are authorized to walk (in a general sense); should we bring treadmills to worship so that we can improve our physical and spiritual health at the same time?
This is a gross misapplication of Biblical hermeneutics. Women are included in the command to sing—that is what authorizes them to sing—not the fact that they can speak, period. All are required to confess their faith in obeying the gospel—that is the authority. Speaking in a Bible class is authorized on the basis of the fundamental definition of being a student. If Bible classes are authorized at all (and they are), then it presumes that students speak in order to ask questions so as to learn. All of these are authorized in other ways than just speaking (in a general sense). Dawson’s argument is invalid.
Recently, this writer was given some material by a writer named Samuel G. Dawson. The Internet was consulted, since no previous contact had occurred between us. Dawson makes a statement about himself, in which he identifies his background as being a student of physics and mathematics; he graduated from Texas Tech and spent many years in the aerospace industry. He left this work two decades ago to begin teaching on religious topics, although he does not say why or what his religious training or preparation was for making the switch (http://30ce.com/jesusonhell.htm).
That Dawson is up a creek without a paddle is seen by the fact that, due to a caller comment on one of his radio shows, he made the determination that “hell is the invention of Roman Catholicism; and…most…of our popular concepts of hell can be found in the writings of Roman Catholic writers like the Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), author of Dante’s Inferno. He also cites Milton, a non-Catholic, who borrowed from their teachings.
Apparently, it did not occur to him that Dante and Milton borrowed concepts from the Bible. Roman Catholicism did not invent the doctrine of hell; Jesus and the apostles taught it in the New Testament. The concept of hell fire was preached by John as early as Matthew 3:12 and by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:22). The New Testament mentions the concept several more times, and concludes with John describing the lake which burns with fire and brimstone in Revelation 20:14-15 and 21:8. The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with this concept. One of the terrible facets of hell is that the soul is separated from God for eternity (2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:14). Those who enter there should, as Dante said, abandon all hope. The Roman Catholic Church has probably taught these truths, but she did not originate them. Thus, Dawson has joined Fudge, Pickering, and Clayton in denying the Biblical doctrine of hell.
The Role of Women in the Church
However, this article does not concern itself with Dawson’s heresy on hell. Instead, it will discuss the material in chapter five of his book, Christians, Church-es, and Controversy: Navigating Doctrinal and Personal Clashes, written in accompaniment with his wife. Dawson leaves the current of the river on which so many brethren have been sailing for decades and opts for a stream of apostasy, on which others, especially women, will feel comfortable canoeing He shows evidence of once having been a member of the Lord’s church (by virtue of his familiarity with churches of Christ and various brotherhood writers), but he has gone out from among us, as so many have, for they were never truly of us (1 John 2:19). The form of the material being examined is in 33 unbound pages and will be designated by these throughout the study.
At the conclusion of Dawson’s introduction, he alerts the reader that he believes that “men-only business meetings” are “without scriptural foundation” (2). However, after arguing that society often influences the church, he then launches into an explanation of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 that is quite good, demonstrating that women are to be in subjection to men. About the time one is convinced he must have misread the statement above and that Dawson is actually on the right track, he makes this bizarre assessment:
These regulations applied to all assemblies of the church, i.e., Bible classes, business meetings, preaching assemblies, or Lord’s supper assemblies (8).
He adds that any distinction between these four gatherings is “purely man made.” Why would that be the case, since the purpose for business meetings is not the same as that for worship? He makes an assertion here without any proof to substantiate it.
In the first place, there is no evidence that regular business meetings were conducted in the first century, although they may have been. Certainly, some procedure of decision-making must be followed when a church does not have elders. We also do not have anything stated with respect to Bible classes, such as what we conduct today, although having them complies with the principles and philosophy of the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 does imply special gatherings for women, but nothing is spoken of classes for children.
Second, Dawson has already made a proper distinction between the 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 passage and that of chapter 14; so why turn right around and say that all assemblies are the same? Bible classes have one purpose (and only contain a certain segment of the congregation), business meetings have an entirely different function, and worship assemblies are dif-ferent yet in design. It is obvious that in 1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is discussing worship and not Bible classes or business meetings. To insist that Paul included every kind of Christian meeting in those statements lacks any kind of foundation or proof.
Silence
The writer of this chapter next brings the element of silence into the mix by rightly pointing out that in 1 Corinthians 14:34 the women are to keep absolute silence—with respect to the exercising of her spiritual gift in the assembly. He then points out that the word silent is not the same as the word attend and that women should be allowed to attend business meetings (9). The implication of this statement would seem to be that he is arguing that women can attend such meetings but not speak at them. While the reader is pondering that idea, however, Dawson turns right around and says that she can speak, so long as she is in subjection. (10)!
He provides an example of contrasting attitudes: in one instance, a woman simply asks a harmless question such as, “What was that passage again?”; in the other, a woman challenges the teacher concerning the material he has presented (11). Of course, these two differences are easy to see, but what about all of the comments that lie between the two extremes? Who decides whether the woman’s comments are innocuous or out of line? Furthermore, if all gatherings are the same, then why would it not be just as proper for a woman to interrupt a preacher while he is speaking and ask, “What was that passage again?”
The daughters of Zelophehad are cited as an example of women speaking before the whole congregation under the Law of Moses (12), which they did do (Num. 27:2). However, there are two things wrong with using this example to authorize women speaking in gatherings in the Old Testament. First, the assembly under question was not a worship assembly; it was one designed to resolve judicial problems. These women had a problem that the Law had not dealt with.
Their father had died, and they, the five daughters, wanted to keep the inheritance of their father. Moses brought the case to the Lord (which shows that the assembly was for problem resolution, not worship), and He agreed with their petition. As a result of this case, God made a law for Israel to follow, whenever this situation should occur (Num. 27: 7-11).
The second problem with this example is that these women made a demand rather than speaking submissively, which undermines Dawson’s whole point. They said: “Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no sons? Therefore give us a possession among the brothers of our father” (Num. 27:4). Is this the submissive behavior we can expect in business meetings: “Why must we use a refrigerator that is fifty years old? Therefore give us a brand new, super-deluxe model if you ever hope to have another potluck here.” Hmm.
Can Women Teach Men?
1 Timothy 2:11-12 is the next passage to which Dawson devotes himself. He correctly points out that the word silence here is not the same word that is used in 1 Corinthians 14. It does not mean “silent, period.” He also correctly points out that this passage is not associated with a worship assembly, as the other passage is.
So, what does Paul mean when he writes: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence”? Dawson goes into an extraordinary explanation of the verse, the upshot of which is:
Paul didn’t say that a woman cannot teach at all (as absolute prohibition), for she can teach women and children (Tit. 2:2-5) and men (14).
Paul says she is not to teach or have authority over men; Dawson says that does not mean that she cannot teach men. This argument seems similar to those who quote Matthew 19:9 but then argue that it does not apply to non-Christians, Christians, or the guilty party. To whom, then, was Jesus speaking?
Aquila and Priscilla
Invariably, those pushing for an expansion of the role of women in the church get around to Aquila and Priscilla, although citing the situation with Apollos never establishes what they think it does. Acts 18:26 says:
So he [Apollos, gws] began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately.
It is interesting how many conclusions brethren have drawn from what the passage does not say. How much of the explaining in private did Aquila do? How much did Priscilla do? The text does not say.
We know about as much of the answer to that question as we do to this one: “What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8?” Dawson, however, “knows” that Priscilla didn’t sit passively while the expounding occurred (15). Really? In the Bible, two people are frequently said to do something even though only one of them takes the lead. Neither Dawson nor anyone else knows if Priscilla said anything after, “Hello,” although she was obviously in agreement with all that her husband taught. After insisting that Priscilla was not passive in the explaining, the author then confidently asserts that “Paul prohibited women from exercising authority over men in a teaching situation which is private or public, whether or not it’s in the assembly of a local church” (15). So, was she passive or not, and if she taught Apollos privately, was that wrong? Dawson leaves the reader in a state of confusion.
Furthermore, the author already pointed out that 1 Timothy 2 did not refer to the assembly. So, if Priscilla expounded the word to Apollos privately while being in subjection, then why can she not teach men publicly and still be in submission? Did not Dawson already insist she could not do so in the exercising of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14)? Are we to believe that, in the absence of spiritual gifts (our situation today), women do not need to remain silent in the assembly?
The Example of Public Correction
Actually, Dawson so affirms. He provides his readers with an illustration which actually occurred in a preaching assembly. A preacher misspoke, and an elderly man stood up and raised his hand and was recognized. He told the preacher that he was certain that he had just said something he did not believe and that he might want to make the correction, which he did. Dawson thought that the man pointing out the error did so in a kind and humble way. However, the example he had just cited concerning Aquila and Priscilla found them correcting Apollos after he had finished speaking. Many people might feel uncomfortable being interrupted while speaking. What if the person disrupting the preacher misunderstood the point or did not hear correctly what was said? It is not necessarily orderly to do things in such a fashion.
But, incredibly, Dawson argues that it would be all right for a woman to do the same thing the man had done (15)! Our assemblies will be lively soon—with men and women interrupting in order to correct misstatements and inaccurate Scripture references. Well, at least some people might pay more attention so that they can raise their hand to tell the preacher he said Proverbs 30:5 when he meant Proverbs 30:6.
Who is Deceived?
Intermixed with some of the erroneous statements is a lot of truth, which means that the reader must read closely what Dawson communicates. He does an excellent job of explaining that the husband has the leadership role in the home but then concludes a paragraph by saying: “While Adam sinned and was deceived, he did not go to the limit that Eve did in her sin” (16). One wonders if he is in the Twilight Zone when reading these words, for surely Dawson is too good of a scholar to have made this statement.
First, Adam was not deceived, as 1 Timothy 2:14 explicitly teaches. The woman was deceived; Adam was not deceived; this point could not be clearer. Second, how is it that he did not go to the limit in the sin that Eve did? They both ate the forbidden fruit. They both transgressed God’s law; they both received various punishments for their wrongdoing. Third, if anything, since he was not deceived, Adam’s sin may have been worse. He was not fooled by Satan; he committed the sin with full knowledge that it was wrong. The reason that women do not have the leadership role in the home is that the woman led the man into sin.
Congregational Meetings
Mr. Dawson next asserts that women were part of the congregational meeting in Acts 15:22 and were “involved in the decision to send a letter to Gentile churches (17). What is the truth of the matter? Some of the Pharisees claimed it was necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and “to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). We read that “the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter” (v. 6). Peter then spoke to those assembled (vv. 7-11).
We next read that “all the multitude kept silent” (v. 12), which may indicate that other were present besides the apostles and elders, but since we do not know the number of the elders (could it have been 500?), multitude just might fit the number of the total group gathered. James speaks (vv. 13-21), and afterward we see: “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men…” (v. 22).
What this verse does not say was that anyone else besides the apostles and elders participated in making the decision. All were pleased by what was decided, but that does not imply that everyone had a voice in the decision. Nor does the passage in any way indicate that the leaders called for a vote. How do we not know that all agreed with what was said and that no one raised any objections?
Not only were no women said to be involved in this decision; we have no evidence that anyone besides the apostles and elders were involved in the process. People can be completely happy with the results of a judgment without having given their input. God did not consult any human being on the plan of salvation that He had from the foundation of the world, yet we are pleased that He had one and that we are saved by it.
It is just as inappropriate to use Acts 15:22 to authorize women being part of the decision-making process in the church as it is to use Acts 18:26 to establish that they can teach and exercise authority over men. These verses cannot be used as proof for what they do not say.
This article does not in any way defend beauty pageants in general, nor does it specifically defend the wearing of immodest clothing with which the contestants are briefly adorned. The Miss USA Pageant that recently received great notoriety, however, does serve as the backdrop for a discussion of the two concepts in the title of this essay.
By now, nearly everyone who listens even to an occasional news broadcast knows that Carrie Prejean, who represented the state of California, was asked a provocative question by one of the “judges,” who called himself Perez Hilton (a pseudonym involving a turn on the name Paris Hilton). He asked her if she believed that every state in the union should legalize same-sex marriage. How such a controversial issue pertains to contestants wearing bikinis is anybody’s guess, but remember that, since the homosexual initiative failed in California last November, the homosexuals have ratcheted up their campaigns several notches. Miss Prejean’s answer is provided below:
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.
This evaluation was rather all over the place. She first trotted out the politically correct answer about living in a country where one can choose either kind of marriage. Since California, the state she was representing, had just voted down the concept of homosexual “marriage,” people were not really free to choose it in that state. Having given the answer that the judge undoubtedly wanted to hear, however, she then decided to add her own personal thoughts (which is what he had asked for). The ignoble “judge” wanted to know her views; so giving them was entirely appropriate (and in accordance with the constitution). What caused the uproar is that her views did not match those of the querist.
In America, a certain portion of the population does not think that a person ought to be able to publicly agree with what the Bible states in the second chapter of Genesis—that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman!
The judge who asked the question called her unflattering names, such as a dumb _____; apparently he is neither professional nor knows how to extend courtesy to someone with whom he disagrees. He also said that her answer cost her winning the competition, although the truthfulness of that remark is in doubt.
The Position of the Feminists
This “judge” was not the only one who berated the beauty contestant. She was also savaged by Michael Musto, a homosexual writer for The Village Voice. He and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (where else?) made numerous ad hominem attacks against her, including crude sexual jokes. Was it only two years ago that the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team was offended by Don Imus? Few protested that Musto said that Prejean was like a “Klaus Barbie Doll,” which is a reference to Klaus Barbie, a Nazi war criminal. For stating that she believed in marriage between a man and a woman, she is likened to a Nazi, who murdered thousands?!
Musto also said of her: “I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man, who liked marriage so much, he did it three times. Now he’s a babe who needs a brain implant.” Har, har; who writes this material? Only viewers (few, apparently) with a perverse set of values would laugh at this “humor.”
Laura Ingraham, guest-hosting for Bill O’Reilly, called attention to these attacks and then asked feminist Gloria Feldt if the feminists were upset with the way Miss Prejean had been treated, but Miss California was getting no sympathy from them. Gloria began her response by saying that she had been “attacked from the right so many times” and even perhaps from the likes of Laura Ingraham. The host refused to let her continue without correcting her; she had never trashed someone personally that way and particularly Ms. Feldt. (This writer does not stand guilty of attacking her personally, either, having never heard of her before.)
After Ingraham pointed out that the view expressed by Miss Prejean was the same one espoused by the president and the majority of people in California, Ms. Feldt argued that Feminism is about justice and equality, a phrase she kept repeating throughout the interview. Then she made one of the cattiest and meanest statements imaginable:
I think that what Miss Prejean needs is, perhaps, a heart transplant rather than the breast implants that she had paid for by the pageant.
One can certainly pack a great deal of cruelty into one sentence. First of all, why does the California candidate need a heart transplant—because she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman? She did not say that all homosexuals should be arrested, shot, or waterboarded. She simply expressed a majority opinion. Apparently, the majority of Americans need heart transplants, also, not to mention God, who defines even the practice of homosexuality as “vile,” which it is, and “against nature,” which ought to be obvious to anyone.
The second point was picked up by Ingraham, who asked her if it was all right to ridicule women for the way they look. When Feldt began to deny that she had done so, Ingraham rightly explained that she had done so by implication. (Fortunately, no new hermeneutikers were there to advise Ingraham that implication is not valid.) When Feldt again denied the fact, Igraham asked her why, then, had she brought up the implants, adding that she did not think Miss Prejean would refer to any physical attributes that Feldt had or did not have.
All Gloria Feldt could do was to keep repeating that Miss Prejean’s position was in opposition to freedom and justice and equality for a whole group of Americans. So why is that bad? Ms. Feldt’s position is offensive to Christians and to those who believe the Bible. Trying to call Biblically-condemned, sinful liaisons “marriage” is offensive to anyone who believes in truth and righteousness. Yet we have not suggested that Ms. Feldt needs a heart transplant. Clearly, Feminism is more about lesbianism than it is standing up for the rights of women not to suffer abuse. When the two concepts stand opposed to each other, everyone can see which one Feminism is interested in defending. Besides, with the different worldviews that people hold, a large segment of Americans is usually always offended by somebody’s views.
On May 7th, O’Reilly showed a clip of British politician, Alan Duncan, commenting on this controversy. After calling her a silly _____, he added: “If you read that Miss California’s been murdered, you’ll know it was me, won’t you?” What a nice man! Not only does someone who disagrees with the concept of homosexual ”marriage” need a heart transplant, they are worthy of committing violence against—even murder. Will Duncan introduce a bill to that effect in Parliament?
Black Sanity
Bill O’Reilly hosted an African-American, Miles McPherson, whom he described as Carrie Prejean’s pastor. Of course, we cannot endorse his denominationalist leanings or the fact that he should have advised her concerning modest apparel, but regarding the issue of homosexual marriage, he injected some sanity into the discussion. He was one of those who had supported Proposition 8, the California Amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, which amendment the California Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional last Tuesday, May 26th.
O’Reilly asked McPherson if he was surprised about all of the uproar over Miss Prejean’s answer. Citing his experience while working for the passage of Proposition 8, he said they were not surprised, since “…we saw a lot of ugliness, hate at us every single day, e-mails all day and night.” O’Reilly then asked him:
As a black man, you have heard the argument that gay marriage is a civil right. This is how it’s framed. And if you are opposed to gay marriage…then you are a bigot … you are violating the rights of gay Americans. How do you respond to that?
McPherson answered with unassailable logic:
I find it very offensive that someone would equate that behavior to my ethnicity. I know a lot of people who used to be gay; I don’t know anyone who used to be black. So I don’t see the similarity between those two things; I’m offended by it.
He is right. To try to equate sexual preference with skin color is an insult of the highest magnitude. O’Reilly wanted to know: “What if someone says, “God made me this way’?” McPherson replied: “What’s your evidence that God made you that way?” He said people ought to ask what the Bible says. O’Reilly probably did not want to go there, and the time slot was up anyway.
Of course, those who read and study the Bible know what it teaches regarding homosexuality (Rom. 1:26). But where is the proof that someone is “born that way”? To date, no credible evidence exists to establish that point. People are not born polygamists, monogamists, homosexuals, adulterers, or craving a sex change operation. They become such, which is proven by the fact that there are exes of all of these—which is precisely what the Bible teaches (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
A CHILD LEFT TO HIMSELF
Lynn Parker
I was still in my twenties when I met the boy. He was a high school student. I was a young deputy sheriff in a Texas hill-country county. His father had left the family. The mother was trying to provide by working at several jobs. Her elderly parents helped as they could. Still, the boy was almost always home alone.
He picked his own friends and did a pretty poor job of it. Some were much older and spent their evenings drinking beer and cruising the roads. No surprise then when this boy, at sixteen years of age, became a heavy drinker. The first time I met him he was stumbling down a street toward his home. I picked him up and took him to the house where I met with his mother and grandfather. The mother’s reaction was one of amusement. She pretty much attributed it to sowing wild oats. “Don’t all boys do that?” she asked in defense of her son. The next time I saw him was when he broke into a house in town. Again, he was picked up, and again he was drunk. The mother was contacted and she couldn’t brush it off—her son was going to juvenile court on a felony charge. But this tragic story does not end there.
Late one evening, just about bedtime, the phone rang. An excited voice said, “Deputy Parker, you need to get here quick. We’ve got a shooting.” It was a neighbor of this troubled young man. I arrived and found the teen had shot himself in the head with his grandpa’s pistol. He died in route to the hospital. His blood alcohol content was more than 0.20.
Here’s what the Bible says:
“A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her that bare him” (Prov. 17:25).
“The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself causeth shame to his mother” (Prov. 29:15).
—From the March 9, 2009 Beacon (Pensacola, FL)
ACCEPTING CHRIST IS
ACCEPTING THE WORD OF CHRIST
G. K. Wallace
Only those who accepted the teachings of Christ while He was here in person accepted Christ. Likewise, all who come to Christ today must do so by the teachings and instructions given by Him. Christ draws all men through teaching (John 6:44-45). When the apostles went out to preach the great commission, they were thereby preaching Christ. This was the burden of all their discourses. The prophet said, “all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” (Isa. 54:13). Therefore, all who have been properly taught through the living oracles concerning Jesus of Nazareth—and have obeyed those words—have come to Him.
Christianity has never changed. Its ordinances are still the same as they were in the first century. It is ridiculous, absurd, and sectarian to talk to people about coming to Christ, and leave the impression that they can do so without doing what Jesus taught. To deny that baptism is a part of the grace of God is to deny the Bible. If baptism does not belong to the grace of God, it belongs to the grace of the devil. If you have been baptized, your baptism is either of the grace of God or the grace of the devil.
Suppose you are sick and nigh unto death. Your beloved doctor diagnoses your case and tells you that he is positive he can be of assistance and effect a cure. You rejoice at hearing his words; then he picks up his pen and begins to write. You turn to him and ask, “What is that you’re doing, doctor?” The physician replies, “I am writing a prescription suited to your case which you should carefully take, according to my instructions.”
Then suppose you say, “Doctor, I can have nothing to do with your pills and powders. I believe in you! I want you personally, but your pills and powders can have no place in my life and cannot be a part or a means of healing. My confidence is in you.”
The physician would likely reply, “He that rejects my remedy, rejects me, and he that has no confidence in what I prescribe as a means of healing has no confidence in me” (cf, John 12:48).
The book of Acts was written to illustrate the laws of the kingdom of God and particularly those that relate to primary obedience. Such examples as the conversion of Saul and the eunuch (Acts 22:16; 8:35-39) make the way of obedience so plain that no one but the most prejudiced can fail to understand what to do to be saved.
It should be our custom today to preach with the same vigor and force that was characteristic of pioneer preachers of previous generations. Human nature has not changed, and it will ever remain the same. The needs of man are the same, and the answer to those needs was revealed in the Word of God 2,000 years ago.
As it did for the eunuch and Paul, the blood of Christ still cleanses men today who believe in Christ (John 8:24), repent of their sins (Luke 13:3), confess that faith (Mat. 10:32; Rom. 10:10), and are baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).
—From the May 4, 2009 Beacon (Pensacola, FL
“Drink Your Cocoa!
Hot cocoa fights disease better than wine or tea. One cup of hot cocoa contains 611 mg. of phenols and 564 mg of flavonoids, two powerful antioxidants that protect against cancer and heart disease. By comparison a glass of red wine has 340 mg and 163 mg respectively, while green tea had 165 mg and 47 mg…and black tea has only 124 mg and 34 mg. Bonus: Although chocolate…is high in saturated fat…the equivalent amount of cocoa contains less than 1 gram of saturated fat (Chang Y. Lee, Ph.D., Cornell U., in Healthy Home News, June, 2009).
In this final look at Shernel’s criticism of Searching for Truth, the emphasis will be on the Lord’s day and acceptable worship unto God. Seventh-Day Adventists must try to destroy the New Testament idea that Christians worship on Sunday, the first day of the week (also known as the Lord’s day). They feel compelled to discredit the day because of their obsession with the Sabbath, which they insist is the only day for worship. In a vain effort to denounce the Lord’s day, Shernel writes:
In Acts 20:7, Paul is rejoicing with the disciples. “And upon the first [day] of the week, (in the King James the word ‘day’ is a supplied word by man) when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight.” This meeting was not because it was the “first day” but because Paul was “ready to depart”. It was a social meeting. There is no scriptural evidence that this was an exalted day or that they were celebrating the Saviour’s supper. Breaking bread was a widely used term for fellowship meals. It was a fellowship meeting, and Paul was with the disciples before his departure. One verse does not a doctrine make (5, all formatting and spellings are his).
Anyone who desires to understand how false teachers manipulate the Scriptures could use this “analysis” as an example. It is a mixture of truth and error that those unfamiliar with the Bible would not catch. Following are several points the reader needs to know.
1. Shernel noted that the word day is supplied by the translators. That part is true; however, it is calculated to deceive—to imply there is something wrong or objectionable with the inclusion of day, although he never says what that might be. But why bring it up at all, since the Greek expression translated “first day” consistently leaves out day? The whole truth is that the phrase, the first day of the week, appears eight times in the New Testament (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2), and in every case the word day is italicized. Shernel did not bother to mention that. He could have also discovered the word Sabbath appears 60 times in the New Testament, but he either did not or would not check on this phrase to see if the omission of day was significant, which it is not.
2. The writer is correct when he quotes Acts 20:7, but he is immediately wrong when he begins to explain the verse. Once again, a person only needs to read the context to know that he is blatantly trying to mislead them. He says this is only “a social meeting.” It helps to read the preceding verse, which explains that Paul had stayed in Troas seven days (Acts 20:6). Why would he do that—to wait for a social meeting—or to meet with the brethren for worship? We find out only a few verses later that Paul sailed past Asia because he was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem by the Day of Pentecost (Acts 20:16). So here is Paul, trying to meet a deadline that could not be changed, and he lounges around Troas seven days—waiting on a social meeting? Hah!
3. Shernel is correct when he says that the phrase, to break bread, is used to describe fellowship meals, but he did not explain that the same phrase is also used of the Lord’s Supper—and that the context determines which meaning is intended. This and similar phrases are found a few times in the New Testament. In Luke 24:30 and 35, Jesus and the two disciples were not engaging in worship but were about to share a common meal. In Act 2:46, the brethren were breaking bread from house to house, and the intended meaning is a fellowship meal. In Acts 2:42, however, the teaching of doctrine, fellowship, and prayers indicate worship. A “social meal” interpretation would be out of order.
Not only do both senses of the expression occur in the same passage in Acts 2, they also do in Acts 20. The disciples came together to break bread (v. 7). Paul had waited seven days in order to join them in worship—not a social gathering. Their purpose in coming together was to observe the Lord’s death. To break bread is a synecdoche in which the part stands for the whole (namely the bread and the fruit of the vine). At how many social gatherings does someone preach until midnight? Shernel’s allegation of a social meeting is ludicrous. However, later that evening, he broke bread and talked a long while (v. 11). This breaking of bread was for nourishment. The church is not said to join Paul in this action.
4. When Paul writes to the Corinthians, it is obvious that they are partaking of the Lord’s Supper with some degree of frequency (1 Cor. 11:20-34). The implication is that their observance of the Lord’s death was during their usual meeting time. How interesting for Shernel to say of the first day of the week that it is not an exalted day when it is obvious that this was a special day for Christians! It was the day they met together for worship, and there is no other day mentioned.
5. So, one verse does not a doctrine make, right? This statement is uproariously funny when one realizes that Seventh-Day Adventists have zero verses to support worship on the Sabbath Day. They would pay handsomely if they could find even one verse to support their doctrine, but they search in vain. Furthermore, Acts 20:7 is not the only verse that demonstrates that the disciples met for worship then; Paul commanded the brethren in Corinth to give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2). In addition to these two verses, all of the historical accounts agree with the Scriptures; none indicate that brethren ever met on the seventh day.
And the Point Is?
The topic of attention now shifts to the Lord’s Supper, but what Shernel is trying to say is anybody’s guess. He says that the “Communion service,” as he calls it, is meaningful in remembering a dying Savior and pointing to the second coming, but then He says: “In all the Scriptures you will not find one instance of a worship service feast or Sabbath where the service of communion was celebrated” (6) What?? Yes, the “Communion service” is so meaningful that no one ever observed it. This is a strange doctrine to claim. He quotes from 1 Corinthians 11:23-30. What does he think they were doing in Corinth? Oh, that’s right. He omitted verse 20, which indicates that they came together to “eat the Lord’s Supper.” Hmm. Just like those in Troas, they too came together for the purpose of worship, which included eating the Lord’s Supper. He did not discover that the two groups of Christians were meeting to remember Christ’s death because he does not want that to be the case—especially on the first day of the week. These are examples of someone attempting to make the Bible fit a false doctrine.
But even though the Bible allegedly contains no record of Christians having observed the “Communion service,” Shernel is certain that, when it is done, brethren ought to wash one another’s feet as well (John 13: 5-9, 14-17). Ironically, there really is no example of washing each other’s feet as part of worship. Jesus was not requiring a practice, as with remembering His death; He was teaching His disciples about humility in connection with a practice of first-century hospitality. Streets could be dusty, sandals exposed feet to dust, and they got dirty. A good host washed the feet of his guests (see Luke 7:44 and 1 Tim. 5:10). Today, people come to worship with clean feet, and washing them would become a meaningless ritual. Shernel is confusing an item of worship that the church observed with an act of hospitality that was not part of worship.
At the beginning of these four articles, it was pointed out that the author of this document did not show much familiarity with the churches of Christ. He addressed this document to “pastor,” obviously thinking that we are like religious denominations. He also misstated that only the Catholic Church observes Communion every Sunday. Churches of Christ have been doing so since the first century. He did not do his homework before attacking us.
Who Changed the Day?
The seventh page of his document contains quotes from several Catholics and two Protestants, claiming that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship from the Sabbath (Saturday) to the first day of the week (Sunday). It would not prove anything if Shernel had a list of hundreds of quotes. The question, regardless of the number of testimonies, that one must ask is: “Is the claim true?” No one doubts that the Catholic Church may have taken credit for what the Lord did, but is their claim valid? If a thousand folks jumped on the bandwagon and agreed that the Catholic Church changed the day, we must still demand proof.
The evidence shows that they did not do so. As al-ready demonstrated, brethren met on the first day of the week to remember the Lord’s death (Acts 20:7). No verse in the New Testament commands Christians to meet on the Sabbath Day for worship, and there are zero examples of brethren doing so. Why do we refer to the first day of the week as “the Lord’s day”?
1. This is the first day the Lord made (cf. Ps. 118:24).
2. It is the day that the Lord rose from the dead.
3. It is the day that the church was established.
4. It is the day the disciples met to remember Jesus.
5. It is the day Paul told Christians to lay aside money.
6. It is the day that the great Commission was given.
7. It was the day John was in the Spirit (Rev. 1:10).
Anyone who insists that the Catholic Church altered the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday has two insurmountable problems. The first is that there was no pope for six centuries after the establishment of the church. No pope could take credit for the change until 600 years after the fact—unless Shernel believes in the Catholic Church’s claim that Peter was the first pope! He does not give the impression that he believes such a doctrine, yet he affirms that they changed it. He must answer one all-important question: “At what date did the Catholic Church change the date?” If he answers, “In the first century,” then he must believe that the Catholic Church existed then, which it did not. Will he say, “It happened in the second century or the third,” amidst all of the persecutions? Or will he wait until Constantine comes along and issues the Edict of Toleration in A.D. 312?
Phillip Schaff composed a monumental work called, History of the Christian Church, which consists of eight volumes, each of which contains 800 to 1,000 pages. He provides all of the sources he researched at the beginning of each section, and it is regarded by scholars as a landmark work. He follows the development of Christianity as to when the first universal pope began. In the late sixth century, there were five men who were considered popes (or patriarchs) over certain geographical regions. Gregory the Great (590-604) was over Rome. Schaff writes about the situation at that time with respect to Gregory:
But a universal episcopate, including an authority of jurisdiction over the Eastern or Greek church, was not acknowledged, and, what is more remarkable, was not even claimed by him, but emphatically declined and denounced. He stood between the patriarchal and the strictly papal system. He regarded the four patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem…as coordinate leaders of the church under Christ… (4:218-19).
Boniface III. (606-607) did not scruple to assume the title of “universal bishop,” against which Gregory, in proud humility, had so indignantly protested as a blasphemous antichristian assumption (4:230).
In other words, Gregory considered his four fellow patriarchs as equal to him and was willing to share the ruling power with them, but Boniface III did not hesitate to declare himself over the entire church. This first universal bishop, or pope, made this claim in 606. Now, can Shernel claim that some “pope” prior to this man changed the time of worship? The day was not changed for nearly 600 years, and nobody noticed when it was changed? It would not help if it were changed during the time of Constantine—because of the second difficulty, which is that Christians were meeting on the first day of the week in the Bible (Acts 20:7), and that fact is corroborated by early church history. Once again, Schaff writes concerning the practices of Christians early on:
The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches in the second century. There is no dissenting voice (2:201).
When was the last time there was no dissent on anything? Brethren uniformly worshipped God on the first day of the week, which they referred to as the Lord’s Day. Everett Ferguson, in his book, Early Christians Speak, provided the following quotations: Ignatius, around A. D. 110, wrote that those who “came to the new hope” no longer observed “the Sabbath but” lived “according to the Lord’s Day” (67). Justin Martyr wrote the following around 150:
We are always together with one another…. And on that day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or a rural district…. We all make our assembly in common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturn’s day… (67-68).
There are many more references, but these are sufficient to demonstrate the truth. If a Catholic Pope or the Council of Trent or some denominational men came along years later and claimed that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship, it only shows that they, like Shernel, either do not know or do not acknowledge historical truth.
Conclusion
Christians believe, or ought to, in the authority of the New Testament. We practice only what we are authorized to do. We have no authority for worshipping on the Sabbath Day. If we did, we would. Jesus kept the Sabbath Day because He lived under the Old Covenant. He could not break God’s Law and be guiltless. At the same time He preached the principles of the kingdom, and no occasion is recorded in which He reminded everyone to continue to honor the Sabbath day.
Paul sought his fellow-Jews on the Sabbath because that was the day they met; he went into the synagogue because it was the place they met. It afforded him an opportunity to teach them—as long as they allowed him to do so. But the apostle met with brethren on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and even commanded that they give on that day (1 Cor. 16:2). Christians have continued to meet on the first day of the week ever since.
No pope or religious institution changed the day of worship—God changed it. Christians meet for worship on the first day because the Lord so authorized. The Sabbath was part of a covenant made with the Israelites that was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. Let us continue to enjoy the new and better covenant.
After arguing that the old and new covenants are the same in that they both demand perfect obedience, the author of the criticism against Searching for Truth then says the only difference between the two is that Jesus in the New has fulfilled all of the sacrifices of the Old. We already examined this claim that only portions of the Law of Moses were done away and found it to be wanting. It is only an assertion that cannot stand the light of evidence.
So why would anyone want to argue that only portions of the Law have been done away with? The answer is that he wants to retain something from that now-defunct system. If Shernel and others acknowledge that the Law has been taken away, then that means that the Sabbath and the dietary laws have also been removed, and for some reason they do not want to let go of those things, although they clearly have been changed. God demonstrated to Peter that all animals were acceptable for consumption under the Christian age (Acts 10:9-20).
The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel forever (Ex. 31:17). The most one could argue is that the day is still binding upon the Jews, but the Seventh-Day Adventists cannot even logically do that—because it would also bind the ceremonial aspects of the Law (which they say were done away with) that are also termed as being “forever.” In the Old Testament, the term forever meant age-lasting. All of those things came to an end when the covenant did.
The reason Shernel insists that the Old Testament was not thoroughly terminated is that the New Testament does not authorize worship on the Sabbath day. If there were a single passage in the New Testament that told Christians to meet on the Sabbath day or if a single verse showed Christians meeting to worship then, they would not need to insist that the Law of Moses were still semi-effective, but there is not.
The New Testament and the Sabbath
However, knowing that the best defense is a good offense, Shernel writes:
I find it quite amazing that anyone could say that the Sabbath or Sabbath commandment is not in the New Testament. I find in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that it is mentioned 50 times. In Acts it appears 9 times and in Colossians once. A total of 60 times the Sabbath is mentioned (5).
This paragraph provides the perfect example of how false teachers try to manipulate people. No, the writer is not lacking in mathematical skills, but not one of those 60 times are Christians commanded to keep or remember the Sabbath. The vast majority of those references involve controversy; someone is complaining that Jesus violated the Sabbath day, something that neither He nor His followers ever did. Jesus lived and died under the Old Testament system; thus He kept every law in the Mosaic system perfectly.
Eight of the ten times that Sabbath occurs in Matthew are in one text (Matt. 12:1-12). In the first eight verses the disciples were accused of violating the Sabbath by doing “work.” It was a tradition of the Jews they transgressed—not the Law. The second event in Matthew 12 involves Jesus healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day. Seven of Mark’s eleven usages refer to these same two occasions, as do six of Luke’s eighteen references to the Sabbath. That makes 21 out of the 50 (42%), and these have nothing to do with binding the Sabbath on man. Nine of John’s eleven references relate to Jesus healing on the Sabbath, as well as eight more of Luke’s, making a total of 38 out of 50. Seven more refer to the Sabbath day that Jesus was in the tomb, which only leaves five Sabbath mentions remaining.
One of those last five relates to fleeing Jerusalem; Jesus says they should pray it is not on a Sabbath day (Matt. 24:20). The final four of the 50 references all have to do with Jesus entering the synagogues and teaching on the Sabbath day (Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke 4:16, 31). These are the same types of references found in the book of Acts. After the initial Sabbath-day’s journey mentioned in Acts 1:12, there are two general references to Moses or the prophets being read each Sabbath. The other six refer to the fact that Paul preached to the Jews on the Sabbath day. Why? That was the day the Jews met. These verses say nothing about Christians meeting then.
The final mention in the New Testament works against the author. Colossians 2:16-17 exhorts:
Therefore let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
These comments are based on what Paul had just pointed out—that the law had been nailed to the cross. Since that old covenant is no longer in effect, Jewish Christians (or Gentile ones, for that matter) should not allow their fellows Jews (Christian or not) to judge them with respect to keeping portions of the law. They were no longer under that law, and they had no obligation to keep those commandments any longer. They should not allow someone to tell them they could not eat certain foods, as per the dietary restrictions under the law. Neither did they have to honor the various feasts that had been required of them—or the new moon (Ps. 81:3; Amos 8:5) or the Sabbath day; these were only a shadow of the things to come.
When someone reads Shernel’s material, the 60 references to the Sabbath day sounds impressive, but not one of these involves Christians being commanded to keep the Sabbath day or Christians meeting then. In fact, Colossians 2:16 declares that Christians do not have to keep it and should not be judged when they do not honor that day. Below is the breakdown once again.
The disciples criticized for eating grain 13
The man with the withered hand 8
Other references to Sabbath-day healings 17
The Sabbath after Jesus was crucified 7
Fleeing on the Sabbath 1
Jesus teaching on the Sabbath 4
A Sabbath-day’s journey 1
Moses and the prophets read on the Sabbath 2
Paul teaching on the Sabbath 6
Don’t judge Christians for not keeping the Sabbath 1
Total 60
None of these 60 references admonish Christians to keep the Sabbath day. They simply describe what was practiced while the Law of Moses was in effect and what the Jews still practiced after it came to an end.
The Missing Commandment
What Seventh-Day Adventists need is a passage that teaches the perpetuation of the Sabbath day, and they cannot find one. Where is the message from the Lord that the fourth commandment is “the authenticating seal” of the other nine (5)? Why, when Jesus was asked about the greatest commandments, did He not say, “The fourth commandment is the greatest because it is the seal of all the others”? How could that point have escaped Jesus’ attention? And where is the glowing passage in the Sermon on the Mount? He even mentioned that the Law must be kept until all things were fulfilled. What a great opportunity to re-emphasize keeping the Sabbath Day holy! Yet He did not refer to it there or anywhere else in His entire ministry—except in dispute as to whether He had violated it or not.
Where is the veneration of the Sabbath day in the epistles? Paul wrote to the Corinthians about their assemblies and the things they were doing wrong in them, but he never says they were on the Sabbath day; in fact, he commands them to put aside their gift on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2), which would be an odd request if they assembled together on the seventh day. Where is at least one passage that teaches brethren to observe the Sabbath? If that day were still binding, we would expect one passage like the one below:
My prayer for you all is that you continue to grow in grace and knowledge and continue to keep the Sabbath day holy, for you know that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and rested on the seventh day. This day He sanctified and hallowed for all time, and whereas the feasts have passed away, this day stands eternal and must always be honored by all who call on His name.
If Seventh-Day Adventists had had anything to do with the compilation of the New Testament, those verses would be in there somewhere. Their absence is significant. Not only does no special mention of the Sabbath find its way into Holy Writ; no writer even made a glancing allusion to it—except to say Christians should not be judged for failure to keep it.
In Acts 15, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem made a decision regarding things taught under the old covenant because some Jews insisted that the Law of Moses and circumcision be bound upon the Gentiles (Acts 15:1, 5). The decision was this—that they had given no commandment to these Judaizing teachers or anyone else, requiring them to keep the Law of Moses or to be circumcised (Acts 15:24). These teachings were not authorized by God. The Holy Spirit would lay no greater burden upon Gentiles who became Christians than 4 things: 1) to abstain from things offered to idols; 2) from blood; 3) from things strangled; and 4) from sexual immorality (Acts 15:29). Gentiles had never kept the Sabbath day—so why were they not now told to honor that day?
From Genesis to Jesus
In the absence of evidence, Shernel resorts to irrelevant data in a vain effort to make his case. He states: “The Sabbath was given at creation and there were no Israelites or Jews at that time.” Here is an example of mixing truth with error. Of course there were no Israelites when only Adam and Eve existed. It is not the case, however, that God gave the Sabbath to man at that time. God did rest the seventh day, and although He blessed it and sanctified it, there is no evidence that He “gave” it—even to Adam and Eve. In fact, the word Sabbath does not even appear until Exodus 16:23—2,500 years after the Creation.
God does not record that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses ever kept the Sabbath until the children of Israel left Egypt. Can anyone imagine the Israelites trying to convince Pharaoh that they needed one day a week to rest—and him granting such a request? God’s sanctifying the day in Genesis later served as the basis for Israel keeping the Sabbath once they were given His law (Ex. 20:8-11), but no mention is made of man observing the day for 2 and ½ millennia.
This next argument is totally illogical: “If the Old Testament was abolished or discarded, then we have no evidence of our heavenly Fathers [sic] creation week and sanctification…of the seventh day” (5). What? Whatever things were written aforetime were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). Not being under that law does not mean we want to annihilate its very existence. We study the Old Testament frequently—not because we are subject to it, but because God recorded it for our benefit—including the truth about His creation.
“The Sabbath or seventh day was kept by our Savior…” (5). Jesus kept the Law perfectly because He lived under the law of Moses. He was preaching, however, the gospel of the kingdom, which does not include the Sabbath day. Now watch the slant put on this next argument:
it was kept by Paul, “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” Acts 17:2. See also Acts 18:4 (5).
What impression is the reader likely to have? Most would think that Paul worshipped on the Sabbath and that it was his custom to do so. What is the truth? It might help to read Acts 17:1: “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of Jews.” Paul was not going into a synagogue to worship with Christians (as implied by Shernel). He was going into a synagogue of the Jews to reason with them about Jesus from the Scriptures. As a Jew by birth, he was allowed to address his fellow Jews, and he took the opportunity to try to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah that they had been waiting for. His custom was to try to convert the Jews—not to worship on the Sabbath day. Shernel’s argument is deceitful.
“After the death of the Saviour [sic] He did not instruct His disciples that, the Sabbath Day was to be changed to Sunday the first day” (5) Actually, we do not know what Jesus said to His disciples during the 40 days He made appearances to them after His resurrection, since none of those things was recorded. The Sabbath day and the first day of the week do not correspond to each other anyway, except that both are days of worship. There are no laws against work on the first day of the week; in fact, Christians in the first century probably did work on that day, but they also worshipped God.
Shernel thinks it is significant that the women “rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56)—the day between Jesus’ burial and resurrection (5). The importance of this fact is highly over-rated. Why would they not rest on the Sabbath, since they as yet knew nothing contrary to the Law? Jesus had not arisen; He had not yet explained how He had fulfilled all things. He had not spoken with His disciples; they had not yet been filled with the Holy Spirit. Shernel expects way too much to have been accomplished without adequate passage of time.
“The Sabbath will be kept in heaven,” it is affirmed, with Isaiah 66:23 being cited as proof (5). Most scholars believe that this text is describing the earth, not heaven. Consider further what we know about heaven. Revelation 22:5 says there shall be no night there. Apparently, Shernel envisions heaven as a place that has 24-hour days, which are based on the earth’s rotation on its axis. Heavenly days will be based on earthly days? This is a peculiar view. Or did God pattern earthly days after heavenly days, and was the Sabbath already in existence in heaven when He made the earth? Would God really ordain a Sabbath day of rest in eternity, which is characterized as a place of rest anyway (2 Thess. 1:6-7; Rev. 14:13; Heb. 3:11; 4:1, 9-11)? What do we do on the Sabbath in heaven—rest twice as much? The idea that Christians will be resting on a Sabbath Day in heaven is a fanciful fantasy.
“The Sabbath was part of the moral law and not an ordinance” (5). The last article pointed out that the Hebrew word translated “ordinances” and “statutes” is used of all the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5); so this statement is false. That fact aside, there is nothing of a moral nature about keeping the Sabbath. Most laws concerning morality are to protect others, as Paul points out in Romans 13:10. He does not include the Sabbath Day there as one of the moral laws. Furthermore, resting one day in seven is an individual advantage—not one that directly affects others.
Shernel’s entire treatise is full of one misstatement after another, and oftentimes he “spins” things to convey an impression that is not accurate. Whenever someone presents material like he does that looks Biblical because of the use (abuse) of Scriptures, we need to take the time to look them up to see if they are used correctly or not. We need to study the Scriptures in their context, and we need to have honest hearts. How sad that many are convinced by superficial statements!
Previously examined were the complaints against the DVD and book, Searching for Truth, by brother John Moore of Dripping Springs, Texas. It has already been shown that Jesus did teach His disciples things other than what were in the Law of Moses, contrary to the reckless assertions of the one to whom we have given the name Shernel. Last week’s analysis of his assertions was based on one paragraph (except for a related passage that he cited on page 4), yet we could not cover all of the false statements in just that one paragraph, which concludes with these words:
“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” Psalms 89:34 The Old Testament is quoted more than 250 times in the New Testament. There are 50 prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah. How detrimental to be ignorant of such exalted truths and prophecies. The Saviour on the road to Emaus taught His disciples starting from Moses. He never said the Old Testament was done away with. John the Baptist, Stephen, Peter, Paul, all taught from the Old Testament. Only the ordinances and sacrifices and offerings were done away with. How can the book of Revelation be understood without the key, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament (1, all misspellings and spacing variations are Shernel’s).
In logic there is a fallacy known as the “straw man” argument. In Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic, he defines this term:
Straw man: A fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an opponent’s position for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then proceeds to conclude that the original argument has been demolished (661). [The publisher is Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, 2003.]
The statement by Shernel attributes to Moore what he never said. In particular, neither he nor any of us who teach on this subject have ever made the following statements:
1. God violated His covenant.
2. The New Testament never mentions the Old.
3. There are no prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament.
4. New Testament writers never taught from the Old Testament.
5. Daniel cannot be used in understanding the book of Revelation.
No one among us has ever made these arguments, yet Shernel acts as if these are our positions so that he can conclude: “How detrimental to be ignorant of such exalted truths and prophecies.” To attribute to us positions that we do not hold is to use the “straw man” fallacy. He said that the sacrifices, ordinances, and offerings were done away. By his own “logic” he should be indicting and attacking himself as having rendered large portions of the Old Testament worthless, thus joining the ranks of the ignorant.
God does not break His covenants with man. He made three promises to Abraham, and He kept each one of them. Some of God’s covenants, however, are conditional. Jonah preached destruction coming on Nineveh in 40 days’ time, but the promised wrath to be poured out on them was withheld because of their repentance. Similarly, if God makes a conditional covenant with an individual (or a nation), and he does not keep the conditions assigned to him, He can nullify the agreement. When He does so, He has not violated the terms of the covenant; rather, He is adhering to them. He can also fulfill what He has promised. Jesus fulfilled the promise of Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 22:18. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, thus enabling God to establish the New Covenant.
What Jesus Never Said
Is it true that Jesus never said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus that the Old Testament was done away with? First of all, Luke 24:27 says that Jesus “expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” How does Shernel know that Jesus did not explain to them at that time how that the Law had been done away and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14)? He was talking about the fulfillment of things relating to Him both then and afterward (Luke 24:44-45). Jesus had the opportunity to explain the termination of the Law and the fulfillment of all things (Matt. 5:17-19). Not having been present, Shernel cannot affirm what Jesus did or did not say on this subject.
Only the Ordinances
We come now to the heart of the Seventh-Day Adventist claim: “Only the ordinances and sacrifices and offerings were done away with.” The main question in response to this allegation is: “What verse teaches this doctrine?” We do not know how Shernel defines the word ordinances. It is, however, a profitable study to see the way the Scriptures use the word. More than one Hebrew word is translated “ordinance,” but we will just look at the two words that have the same meaning, according to Strong: 2706 and 2708).
1. The Passover is described as one: “You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance” (Ex. 12: 14, 17, 24).
2. Sometimes the word is used of offerings and sacrifices (Num. 18:8; 19:2) and purification (Num. 31: 21).
3. It was made an ordinance for the singers to speak of Josiah in their lamentations (2 Chron. 35:25).
4. Ezekiel mentions that there was an ordinance concerning oil (Ezek. 45:14).
5. Israel was taught not to walk in the ordinances of the Egyptians but rather in God’s ordinances (Lev. 18:3-4).
6. God refers to “the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night” (Jer. 31:35-36).
7. Jeremiah also records the Lord speaking about “the ordinances of heaven and earth” (33:25).
8. Ezekiel mentions the ordinances of the temple (43: 11; 44:5) and the “ordinances of the altar” (43:18).
9. In Malachi 3:7, God says: “Yet from the days of your fathers you have gone away from My ordinances and have not kept them….”
We have seen that this term is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament; sometimes it does refer to ceremonial things such as items pertaining to the temple, purification, or the Passover. But probably no one wants God to do away with the ordinances of the moon or those of heaven and earth. If God had done away with these ordinances, in all likelihood we would not be here to discuss the matter. But there is more. The Hebrew words translated “ordinances” are also rendered “statutes,” and they refer to God’s teachings. Below are a few more samples.
10. God made a covenant with Isaac because his father “obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, my statutes, and My laws” (Gen. 26:5). These obviously were unrelated to the Passover, the offerings, the temple, or anything else that pertained to the Law of Moses.
11. Israel is told: “”You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:5). The same word translated as “ordinances” in the two preceding verses (see #5) is translated “statutes” here. Shernel even cited Leviticus 18:5 at the beginning of his next paragraph. He thinks that the ordinances were done away with and that the statutes remain but does not know they are the same word in the Hebrew!
12. The book of Deuteronomy uses “statutes” 28 times, and it is obvious that these refer to things other than ceremonial laws. The first one, for example, calls for Israel to listen to the statutes and judgments which they must observe in order to live. The very first one of these is: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). Clearly, this is an admonition to be careful in handling the Word of God—all of it. It is wrong to change any part of God’s law—whether it pertains to the Passover or the Ten Commandments. To try to add leaven to the bread of the Passover would be just as serious an error as removing the not from: “You shall not commit adultery.”
The death blow to the “only the ordinances have been done away” argument is that even the Ten Commandments are included in the ordinances. Deuteronomy 5:1 had Moses telling Israel: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them.” After describing the conditions at Mount Horeb, Moses then repeats the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:6-21).
If Shernel wants to argue that only the ordinances were done away with—okay. That would include, however, the Ten Commandments (see Deut. 5:1-33), the very thing he insists was not done away.
13. To make it an even “Baker’s Dozen,” it should also be noted that “statutes” is used 22 times in Psalm 119, which is an extended praise—not of the sacrifices and offerings—but of the Word of God.
“Ordinances” in the New Testament
The Greek word that is translated “ordinances” in the New Testament is dogma, from the verb, meaning “to think.” The noun appears five times and the verb once. It is translated “decree” in three passages (Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4, 17:7). The verb form of dogma is found in Colossians 2:20, and the noun is used in Ephesians 2:15 and Col. 2:14, both of which are cited below:
Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in himself one new man from the two, thus making peace (Eph. 2:15).
Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements [ordinances] that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Col. 2:14).
The question is: “To what do these ordinances refer?” Probably the best way to determine the answer to that question is to first read the entire context of Ephesians 2:11-22 and Colossian 2:11-15. After drawing a conclusion based on the context, then it might be safe to read Shernel’s opinion, reproduced below:
The Saviour at His death on the cross, broke down the partition wall with its unnumbered human enactments that had been placed on the law in the form of ordinances (civil, ceremonial, ecclesiastical decrees). The ordinance here specified are not the moral law of the ten commandments (4, all errors Shernel’s).
The first question to ask, in response to this statement, is, “Where does the context so define the word ordinances?” It does not. This assertion is part of Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine, but it is not taught in the New Testament. The text is talking about uniting Jews and Gentiles. Why were they divided? The first thing that is mentioned is circumcision; in fact, Paul calls the Jews by that name and the Gentiles he calls the Uncircumcision (v. 11). He adds that the Gentiles, up to the time of Christ, were strangers from the covenants of promise (not ceremonial observances) (v. 12).
What, then, was the middle wall of division between Jew and Gentile: human enactments? Such is folly. The difference between them was God’s holy Law; the Jews had it, and the Gentiles did not. The two are brought to peace in Christ because there is now one law for all, the Law of Christ, the Gospel system. The two groups are reconciled to God through the cross. For that reason there is no more Jew nor Greek; all are one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). The physical differences remain (just as with male and female), but spiritually all are united. For that reason it no longer matters if males are circumcised or not; those were distinctions of a now bygone era. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything…” (Gal. 6:15). Only “keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (1 Cor. 7:19).
That which separated Jews and Gentiles (the Law) was abolished and put to death. Colossians 2:14 expresses it this way—that the Law was nailed to the cross. The handwriting of ordinances was against us and thus it was taken out of the way. Were these merely humans enactments that were taken way? How could any of this discussion refer to anything invented by men, since those things were never recognized by God nor valid in the first place! God took away what He had given His people in the first place—the Law which now hopelessly separated the Jews from the Gentiles, including the observance of the Sabbath day.
What were the options God had when bringing Jesus into the world to die for the sins of mankind, realizing there was great hatred between Jew and Gentile?
1. The Jews could retain their Law, but they would have gospel “additions” to it. The Gentiles could maintain their old customs and be free from the Jewish observances, but they had to accept the gospel “additions,” also. The only problem with this system is that Jews and Gentiles end up partly united and partly divided.
2. The Jews retain their law with its gospel “additions,” and the Gentiles must embrace both the Law and its additions. This is the actual position of the Judaizing teachers (Acts 15:1, 5); the apostles rejected it.
3. God does away with the Law of Moses and the customs of the Gentiles and inaugurates an entirely new system, which is what the New Testament teaches.
4. Shernel’s argument is that God retained part of the Law, gave up parts of it, and then made additions to it. Jesus talked about sewing a piece of unshrunk cloth to an old garment for a reason (Matt. 9:16).
Jesus taught that no one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). So did Paul. He argued that the Law could not be valid at the same time the new covenant is. He wrote to the Romans: “Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead” (7:4).
Furthermore, if the Law is still in effect, Jesus could be neither priest nor king. He could not be a priest because He is from the tribe of Judah, whom Moses did not authorize to be priests (Heb. 7:13-14). Therefore, for Jesus to be our high priest, “there had to be a change of the law” (Heb. 7:12). There could be no future king from the line of David on an earthly throne (Jer. 22:20). Jesus can, however, rule from the spiritual throne of David (Acts 2:40-33).
God did not modify the Law that He gave to the Jews. He put it to death, did away with it, and nailed it to the cross. No one is under that covenant; we are all under the New Testament of Jesus Christ. The Law of Moses, including the observance of the Sabbath day, has not been in force since our Savior died on the cross. May all have the desire to obey the Lord’s New Covenant.
