GIVE GOD'S PLAN A CHANCE

Jos. P. Miller

Israel is in another great crisis. The sons of Samuel have proven to be no better than the sons of Eli. Eli's sons had "made themselves vile," had gone without reproof, and Eli's house had been cut off forever. (1 Samuel 3:13.) Samuel had been chosen in his place and God continued his rulethrough the Judges, fifteen in number, beginning with Othniel (Jud. 3:9), and now ending with Samuel. Israel cried out for a king. "Give us a king," was the watchword all over Israel, "let us be like the nations round about us." Their argument was against Samuel's sons on the surface, but it went far deeper than that. They rebelled against God's system. The charge found in I Samuel 8:5 was true, in which they said, "Behold thou art old and your sons walk not in thy ways," but their conclusion was pure rebellion when they called for a king. God did not defend the sins of the sons of Samuel any more than he defended the sons of Eli. He resented, however, their idea that if they changed the system of judges He had given they would solve the problem. His words to Samuel are found in I Samuel 8:7, "And the Lord said unto Samuel. Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

Israel's idea was, CHANGE THE SYSTEM AND YOU CORRECT THE EVIL. How wrong they were. The very first answer to their request was Saul, who died in disgrace after visiting the witch of Endor. The failure of the sons of Samuel did not justify turning their backs on God and his way. Man cannot improve on the plan of the Almighty.They needed to give God's plan the glory and correct the corrupt sons of the prophets.

Elders

In these latter days God's plan is to rule the church by elders. (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1). In far too many places these men do not meet the standards of the Bible. They are either not qualified or being lifted up with pride they fall into the snare of the Devil. They become power mad and govern to the hurt of the people of the Lord. Like Israel of old, brethren seeing the evil turn on the system and "cry for a King." Many congregations are content to go foryears without elders for they remember the "sons of Samuel." Others, such as the disgressives, set up rotating boards and limit their time of service. Offices are created that are unknown to the word of God and titles worn that are not so much as named in Holy Writ. They fail to see that the fault is not with God's plan, but with the failure on the part of brethren-to make the divine plan work. When they change the scriptural arrangement, they are not rejecting the men who are not worthy to govern, but they are rejecting God's right to rule over them.

The Missionary Society

The great mission of the church is to preach the gospel to the lost. As the pillar and ground of the truth, "she is to carry the word of life to a darkened people. Many times the church fails in its mission. Brethren are not interested in evangelizing this great planet. Some see this sad condition and cry, "give us a King." The Missionary Society was started on this very principle. Thousands of brethren thought it would take more than the simple plan of God to reach the world. They reasoned that the fault was with the system, the evil was in the plan; change the plan and start the society and they would correct the evil. Good men cried out for the "old paths," and for the plan of Jehovah to be given achance. Let the churches awake to the task and make the Bible way work. Set churches on fire for the Lord and for the salvation, of souls. Alas: like the leaders of Israel, the tents were already "pitched toward Sodom," and the Missionary Society was the sad result. How many bitter tears were shed too late. Their daughters were made "cooks and their sons ran before the chariots."

The Organ

The introduction of the instrument of music in the worship of the New Testament church came about in much the same way. In far too many places the brethren were not concerned with the singing as taught in the word of God. (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). The quality was poor, the songs were ill chosen, the leaders were indifferent and the "spirit and understanding," had fled. Men saw the evil and again they cried out against the plan. "Give us the organ and we will correct the evil. Let us be like the nations round about us." The authority of the scripture was forgotten, God's right to rule was set aside, and the instrument was put in the worship to the division of l/2 million of the saints of light. How much better it would have been for the churches to have improved their singing, trained their leaders and all made melody on the heart in spirit and understanding. The blood-bought body of Christ would not have been torn asunder, and the right of the Almighty to rule set aside. They had not rejected the indifferent song leader, or the lukewarm brethren; they had rejected God.

Our Problems Today

No one can deny that some brethren are indifferent tothe needs of the poor. In some places the unfortunate have cried for help in vain. Perhaps some orphan or widow has been without bread, and have had to turn to the world for the succor that should have come from the saints. But, brethren, is this reason enough to change the system given by Christ and his apostles? Can any man justify the establishment and maintenance of man-made organizations from the treasury of the Church on the same grounds that Israel usedof old. It would be much better to teach the church, and every member of it, their duty both individually and collectively, and set their hands to the work. Why cry out for a King? The same zeal and divine wisdom that caused the apostles to ask the first congregation of God's people seek out seven men and put them over their matters of benevolence that none would lack, should be our desire today, (Acts 6). The failure of the church to meet the challenge is not grounds for refusal to teach and practice the all sufficiency of the body of Christ. What we need today is not institutions without authority, but the body of Christ taught and on fire for the Lord doing what God required. God's plan should be made to work. It worked for the early church in Jerusalem. It worked at Antioch, Philippi, and Ephesus. The divine plan worked in the centuries as they went by and the oldest institution, church supported, is a new comer of the ways of men. Heaven's plan did work and will work. Every congregation on earth can see to its needy if it wills to do so, or can find scriptural aid from those who can supply that which is wanting. It is foolish to talk of the means and ways of the denominational world and hold them up as a pattern. We are not walking in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. When the organizations of men are praised, the blood-bought church is rejected. Infar too many quarters brethren have the idea that all the church can do is furnish the money, while human wisdom furnished the organization. It is the old cry heard in our time; "give us a King." There is no end to the effects of this cry. Benevolent homes, homes for the aged, and colleges today; hospitals, retired preachers' homes, and great holding companies tomorrow.

It does not take a Solomon to determine that there are wide differences of views on some Bible matters among Christians today. The explanation is not satisfactory that says we are individuals and by nature must be different. The Holy Spirit demands that we be of the same mind and judgment; that we all speak the same thing religiously (I Cor. 1:10). Jesus prayed that all his disciples be ONE, and explains that this oneness be the same as Christ and Godare one. We are further taught to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit. (Eph. 4:3). Why then do we differ? Why does one man say it does not make any difference whether one attends all worship assemblies or not, and another insists that one must attend all such periods of worship? Why does one man insist that it makes no difference whether or not we believe in the verbal inspiration of the word of God, and another insists that it makes all the difference? Such differences could be multiplied hundreds of times.

There are at least four reasons why we differ, none of them justified in the word of God. If any two men are solely influenced by the word of God, nothing else, theywill stand exactly together. But if some influence enters with the Bible and affects one and not the other, that influence makes them differ.

1. Ancestry— The influence of parents and background is a powerful factor in determining the view one will ordinarily take toward the Bible. If parents and early training took a strict view of the word of God, most likely the person will have the same view. On the other hand, If parental training be liberal on some matters of the word, it is likely that the person will occupy the same position. Some denominational positions that were never completely destroyed in parents who left these denominations will be felt by thechildren, and they will be more or less liberal in what the

Page 3

Bible says about them. This is one cause of different views on Bible matters. It is not justified on this basis and it does not follow that both views are right. We must determine that family back ground and training will not decide for us what God commands.

2. Authority— Deciding where the right authority is will eliminate differences of opinion on Bible matters. Some place tradition (common practice and teaching over a period of time) as the proper authority in determining what is right and what is wrong. Others look to men of reputation and experience as the proper authority to decide which view is right. Still others rely entirely upon their personal preference as the final authority in what is right and what is wrong. There is no authority in religious matters but Christ the Lord. He has all authority in the church NOW (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:17, 18; Matt. 28:18-20). Every question must be decided by his authority, and his authority alone. This will produce complete agreement between all who so respect His word.

It is quite a common thing for many elders and preachers to wait and see how some respected preacher, college or religious paper speaks on a certain subject, and there they take their stand without further investigation. Does it not occur to you that preachers, colleges and religious papers may be wrong and that the Lord never for one momentgranted any of them legislative powers or rights to act as interpreters for the whole body of Christians? Each man and woman in the family of God has the same one guide— the revealed Word of God. This is the only authority that God will hold you responsible for in the day when the secrets of men shall be revealed. There can and will be unity on this one authority, but there will be continued division when men look to other sources to determine their religious practices and beliefs.

3. Associations— "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (I Cor. 15:33). We are greatly influenced by the company we keep. This is a powerfulfactor in helping one determine his views on a certain questionable subject. If one becomes intimately associated with a man who has a very liberal view toward the word of God, in time he will also accept the liberal view to. some degree. The change will often come without notice to the person who is changing. The same is true with respect to the conservative view of God's word. Men have been known to lose respect for the plain and pointed commands of God in the plan of salvation because they married a woman who did not respect these requirements. Associations will influence one's view toward matters plainly taught in the Book of God, and this will cause differences between that one and another will has not been so influenced by liberal and modern associates.

All this is not to say that just because another differs with us we should have absolutely nothing to do with him. Since the influence of associations .works both ways, we might lead one who does not properly respect God's word to respect it. The point is that we should be aware of the fact that our associations with others can change our views on any matter if we do not always keep before us the true and only authority in religion— the word of God.

4. Ambitions— Many are not influenced by personal training, traditional authority or the wrong associates in studying the Bible, but their own personal ambitions will cause them to differ from their brethren on Bible doctrine. One may desire to justify himself in something and take a

position on some subject that he would not take otherwise.

Another is too interested in pleasing the general public and

forms a view on some subject that differs from the one

who is not interested in pleasing everybody. Another carves

the recognition of his fellowmen and uses a strange doctrine

to accomplish that goal. We will differ from another who

does not have that ambition.

Now, what is the solution to this problem? How shall we approach the matter to bring unity among brethren? There is only one answer— there is absolutely no substitute. The only basis of agreement is the word of God. One says, "All accept this, but all do not see the Bible alike. How shall the problem be solved?"

It is true that many do not "see the Bible alike"— or more correctly, many are not alike because they do not see the Bible. All who see (understand) the Bible see it alike. For example: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." One looks at this and says, "It means one must believe and be baptized before he can be saved." Another says, "No, it means one must believe but not necessarily be baptized to be saved." Why do they differ? It is not because the passage says one thing to one and something else to the other. Some or all of these factors mentioned before are influencing one or the other. To understand this in agreement, each must forget what his parents believed about it, discard all other authorities but the Bible, leave the influence of associates out of it and bury all personal ambitions. Both individuals seeking to understand the Bible alike must first do these things. Then each must ask himself three questions: Whose authority is this, God's or man's? What does this authority actually say? (Not what does someone says it means). Is this meant for me in this age? If every person came to this passage asking these questions and answering them honestly, complete agreement in faith and practice would result. Christ said it, therefore, it is the proper authority. Christ said to believe and be baptized in order to be saved. The statement is simple and plain. It is meant for me in this age because it involves "every creature." In every matter of faith this principle is the same. In matters of personal judgment— in matters where God has not spoken— each must be careful not to bind these judgments as matters of faith and cause division among brethren. But let us be sure we are not confusing matters of faith and opinion. All too often men will charge that some are pressing matters of opinion because God is silent on them. The silence of the Bible is as great authority not to do a thing as the plain statements in the Bible are authority to do them. Instrumental music is not discussed in the New Testament, but that does not mean that it is a matter of opinion and not of faith. Christ told us how to make music in worship to him, and the only realm where opinion reigns is in such matters of how many songs, what pitch, etc. Remember this: nothing is private judgment or opinion when it changes anything of the nature of a command or procedure in obeying a command that God has given.

Why do we differ? It is not God's fault; it is not the fault of the Bible. The fault is with those who are involved, and if we expect to go to heaven "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" (Phil. 3:16).

The final text of our lives will not be how much we have lived but how we have lived; not how tempestuous ourlives have been, but how much bigger, better and strongerthese trials have left us.

THE BUILDING FITLY FRAMED TOGETHER

E. L. Flannery, Bedford, Ohio

"Being built upon the foundations of the apostels and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians2:20-22).

A building is a structure uniting various materials. The framing of a building is the forming of it, the constructing of it. A building "fitly" framed together would be constructed becomingly and seemingly, conforming with the architect's conception of beauty and function set forth in the blueprint.

Materials for the building will vary and come from many quarters of the earth. A Douglas fir is felled in Oregon to provide sheeting and studding, while a Yellow pine from Georgia is laminated into structural arches tosupport the roof. Red oak from the Appalachian plateaus of Tennessee will be fitted into furniture for the new church building. Mahogany paneling will travel several seas on its way from the Philippine .Islands to adorn the building. Ceramic tile and clay pipe from Ohio's pits and kilns; nails and reinforcing steel from the Mesabi range of Minnesota via Pittsburgh's mills; bricks, mortar, concrete, shingles, glass, paint, varnish, floor tile, fixtures, equipment, — from many quarters of the nation and the world. These are the materials, but to become a building they must be "fitly framed together." A lot stacked high with these materials does not constitute a building.

The church is Christ's building into which is fitted seemingly diverse "materials," Jew and Gentile, bond and free, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, peoples of all nations, tribes or tongues.

Great animosity existed between Jews and Gentiles when Paul wrote this letter to the church at Ephesus. For centuries there had been a wall, a "partition," between them. But Christ, the peace-maker, made peace between the Jew and Gentile by removing the partition (the law of commandments) in his death, thus reconciling both Jew and Gentile" "unto God in one body by the cross" (Eph. 2:13-16). Of the two he made one new man, so making peace. Now, the Gentiles are no longer without God, having no hope, but are "fellow citizens with the saints and of the household (family) of God" (verse 19).

At this point the apostle Paul changes his reference of the church to the temple and shows how both Jew and Gentile are "fitly framed together" and thus grow into a holy temple in the Lord, a habitation for God in the Spirit. Paul writes:

"Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph. 2:20).

No building is properly erected unless it has a sure foundation. Jesus Christ is the only foundation upon which the spiritual temple can be built. "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 3:11). The expression "being built upon the foun

dation of the apostles and prophets" simply means the

foundation laid by the apostles and New Testament prophets.

They were not the foundation. The church is built on Christ

(Matt. 16:18). Paul said, "I laid a foundation" (I Cor.

3:10) but he did not imply he was or is a foundation.

(See Eph. 3:1-5).

In building the temple of God today one must have

the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets or he builds

in vain. "Common sense" will not suffice for the silence

of the scriptures. "Expediency" cannot be substituted for

law, example, precept, or claimed in the absence of these.

Did the apostles and new testament prophets lay the founda

tion of "church recreational facilities," "church entertain

ment," and many other practices seen in congregations today?

If they did not lay such foundations from where did they

come? Evidently from human wisdom. Did the apostles

and New testament prophets lay the foundations seen in

denominations today, "faith only," "once saved, always

saved," "nothing in a name," "once a month Communion,"

wearing of titles, as "Reverend," etc.? If the apostles did

not lay these foundations, where did they come from?

Evidently from uninspired men, or by failing to rightly

divide the word of God.

Christ is not only the foundation of the new temple, the church, but he is the corner stone of the foundation and wall. The corner stone is most important for it binds together the two lines of the wall at their foundation, and if a true square, will assure the true direction of the walls, making the walls meet at each corner perfectly square and absolutely straight and parallel. The slightest imperfection in the corner stone would be immensely increased along the wall. More corner stones were rejected by the builders than any other stone in the building, so much depended upon their perfectness. But Christ (though rejected by the Jewish "builders") was a precious, perfect corner stone used of Godto square the foundation walls and tie the whole of the church together. Unity, harmony in any congregation is dependent upon each "living stone" (each Christian) permitting Christ to be the cornerstone, and squaring or plumbing his life to the teaching of Christ as done by the apostles and new testament prophets. Discord cannot arise when such a course is followed. Discord comes when men "square" their practice by human reasoning, by editorial opinion, by "Christian prudence," by brotherhood opinion, by eldership decisions. Such is not building "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Builders today could scarcely build unless the producers of building materials realized the importance of the square. Suppose no two pieces of sheet-rock were of the same size, no floor tile were square, no lumber planed until it was of even width— what a problem it would be to build!

Upon this foundation of which Christ is the cornerstone each of us can be fitly framed together. The Jews and the Gentiles were "fitly framed together" into a holy temple at Antioch. There is no wall of partition between them in the new temple, the church. They are no longer divided but "framed together." Gentile Christians proved their love of Jewish brethren in Christ by sending to them during their need and poverty (II Cor. 8). The enmity was removed in Christ. The Twentieth Century New Testament reads: "You have been built up upon the foundation laid by the Apostles and Prophets Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone. United in him, each separate part will be closely joined to the others, and will grow into a temple, sacred through its union with the Lord. And through your union in him, you also are being built up together, to be a dwelling-place for God through his Spirit." (Eph. 2:19-22).

The erecting of a building is the uniting of the constituient elements going into the building. It is the joining of all the materials according to a pattern or plan. Its purpose is for habitation.

The church is for the sacred habitation of God through his Spirit. The local body of Christ, the church, is the most sacred body on earth. The local congregation is the temple of God in that locality and is the most sacred "temple" on earth. It is the highest sin of desecration to make it sub-serve human-made bodies.

If it was the will of God to remove the partition wall between Jew and Gentile which he himself had erected that all might be one in Christ and be at peace with each other, how very sinful it must be for men today to erect walls of human laws and practices that divide the people. God does not intend his people to divide and subdivide into contending parties, but to be "fitly framed together," being "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." But division is unavoidable when some build on the foundation laid by the apostles and some build on human opinions. The two cannot be "squared" or "plumbed" with God's will. What a blessing to the church today if all walls were leveled to the ground that men have built and which divide us.

Adam Clarke wrote on this passage concerning the church being God's temple and therefore a most noble and wonderful creation:

There is nothing so august as this church, seeing it is the temple of God. Nothing so worthy of reverence seeing God dwells in it ... Nothing so solid, since Jesus Christ is the foundation of it. Nothing more closely united and indivisible, since he is the

corner-stone. Nothing so lofty, since it reaches as high as heaven, and to the bosom of God himself. Nothing so regular and well-proportioned, since the Holy Spirit is the architect . . . Nothing so divine, since it is a living building, animated and inhabited by the Holy Spirit. Nothing so beneficent, seeing it gives shelter to the poor,

the wretched, the distressed, of every nation, and

kindred

and tongue.

It is the place in which God does his marvelous works; the theatre of his justice, mercy, goodness, and truth; where he is to be sought, where he is to be found, and in which alone he is to be retained.

As we have one only God, and one only Saviour and Mediator between God and man, and one only inspiring Spirit; so there is but one church, in which this ineffable Jehovah performs his work of salvation . . . (Clarke's Commentary, Ephesians, Chapter 2.)

True religion is built on Jesus Christ and needs no other ornament than his beauty and glory. Let us as "living stones" in the temple of our God strive to be worthy of a place in his temple, the church. Let us individually purify our lives and hearts and our bodies that we may be fitted for His presence. Let each of us seek to be "fitly framed together" with the others of the church to grow into a holy temple to provide a habitation for God in the Spirit in the local church. And in this age of building attractive, neat, clean church buildings in which to assemble, let us not overlook the fact that the real church, the real temple of God, are the Christians themselves. And it is in our attitudes and practices that most attention should be given so as to grow spiritually. A fine, attractive church building does not assure a fine, attractive temple of God. God dwells in pure, Christian hearts, not in buildings made with men's hands. The church was built by the Spirit as a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. How wonderful is the churchof our Lord! It is peculiar in that it alone, of all the institutions God ordained, is spiritual and eternal. Let us abound in our work of the Lord as it can never be fruitless or .in vain.

BE YE STEADFAST

Charles M. Hendrix— Orlando, Fla.

In this era of unstable character and vacillating ideas little attention is given to following apostolic example and teaching found in the New Testament. Only a casual thought portrays a great contrast in the lackadaisical attitude of many today with those of 1900 years ago who "continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayer" (Acts 2:42). These Christians gladly observed these acts of worship because of their love for Christ, and felt it a privilege to pay homage to Him who died for all.

Our love for Christ should cause us to do the will of our Saviour in all things. "And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him" (I Jno. 2:3 -5). We as Christians today should manifest our love toward God, counting it a privilege for the opportunity to be present when the disciples are assembled together to worship.

Contrary to the belief of some today, Christians are required to make a sacrifice. "I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom. 12:1). When we do this we will seek first the kingdom of God, having the promise that temporal blessings of this life will be ours to enjoy (Matt. 6:33).

We are to study to show ourselves "approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of God" (II Tim. 2:15). We are to do this not only that we may learn what God expects of each of us, but also that we may be able to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2), and to give an answer to everyone that asketh a reason for the hope that is within us (I Pet. 3:15).

In Heb. 10:25 we are commanded to forsake not the assembly. This is true not only of the Sunday morning service, but each assembly of the church. The following verse teaches us the consequence of wilfully rejecting to do that which has been commanded — "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin" (v. 26).

We are further warned: "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world (have become Christians) through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ they are entangled therein and overcome (center our thoughts on material things) the latter end with them is worse than the beginning" (2 Pet. 2:20). This entanglement contaminates both the inner and outward man leading to his condemnation. "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after they have known it, to turn from the Holy commandments delivered unto them.

But it has happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog has turned to his own vomit again and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Peter 2:2122). This is indeed a deplorable picture of the Christian who fails to remain steadfast.

Thus we must heed the admonition of Paul, "Be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of theLord for as much as you know your labor is not in vain in the Lord" (I Cor. 15:58). For the Christian to be steadfast he must not only assemble with the disciples on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:23-26); pray (I Thess. 5:17; I Tim. 2:1-8; sing (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19); fellowship (I Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 9;6); preaching and teaching (edifying) (Acts 2:42; 20:7), but he should be present every time Christians assemble together.

Christ became the author of eternal salvation unto them that obey Him (.Heb. 5:8-9). This obedience must encompass all He has commanded of us. Steadfastness would surely become more a part of our life if we would but reali2e that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body according to what he hath done whether it be good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10). "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the words spoken by angels was steadfast and if every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him" (Heb. 2:1-3).

May the love of God abide in us through a knowledgeof His Word, strengthen us that our faith may not falter and keep us ever steadfast.

BEAUTY IN WORSHIP

Wilbur Hunt, Palmetto, Florida

Our English words "beauties," "beautiful," "beautify,"and "beauty" are translated from seventeen Hebrew words and one Greek word. Two of these Hebrew words are HADARAH (had-aw-raw) and YOPHIY (yof-ee). The first one is found in the following two passages. "Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness" (I Chronicles 16:29). "O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him all the earth" (Psalm 96:9). The meaning is "ornament, adorning"; and "holy ornaments i.e. apparel worn at solemn festivals" (page 217 and 218 of Gesenius' English-Hebrew Lexicon).

The second one is found in Psalm 45:11. This Psalm is a Messianic prophecy regarding the glory of Christ the King. Several women are mentioned in it, which may partly, if not all of the way, have reference to the bride of Christ and her marriage to Christ, namely, the union between Christ and the Church. The entire Psalm should be carefully read, especially verses 10 and 11. "Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; so shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him." The meaning of "beauty" here is "gracefulness" (page 358). Grace, among other things, involves being natural, tactful, attractive, harmonious, properly dressed, polished or refined, and "happily timed or done"; and "displaying grace or beauty in form or action." What lessons can be learned from these four verses regarding the Christian in his life and worship?

First of all, God is to receive "the glory due unto his name." In other words, God is to be glorified, acknowledged, and feared or respected. This is what is really involved in true worship or the worship to the one true and living God, the Creator, Ruler, and Sustainer of the Universe.

Where should this glorification of God be done? It should be done in the public assembly when the saints are gathered together for worship and whenever the doors of the church building are opened. Hebrews 10:25 is a good passage to keep in mind in this connection. "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." This should not just be believed in and accepted, mentally speaking, but it shouldbe also practiced so as to glorify God rather than the desires of the flesh. The glorification of God should be done in one's home, either privately or with one's family and perhaps friends or both; this is where family or personal devotions come in, but how much of this is practiced at home? Finally, it should be done as one lives day by day as a Christian should in thought, word, and deed.

How should this be done? The first requirement is having the right kind of faith in and attitude toward God and His word. Then there is the studying and practicing of the word of God. A third way is being conscious or aware of spiritual things, one's need for God, and the need of the Church and the world for God and His word of salvation. The fourth item is doing one's part in spreading the word of God to others by word and deed. It is all summed up in right living and confessing God and Christ by word and deed in general.

Second, worship to God should be done in the right way and with the right attitude in order to please God better. As suggested by the phrase "the beauty of holiness," one's worship should be serious, solemn, and so on. Worship to God, therefore, is not the time to play and, in general, act in a frivolous way. This applies, not just to children, but to adults as well. Furthermore, one's life and attitude should be holy, pure, and clean because God Himself is holy. This is the type of life that God considers to be beautiful: one that is in harmony with the word of God. Such a person will get more out of worship and in living the Christian life in general. "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

Now, let us turn to Psalm 45:10 and 11, and notice a few points. First of all, worldly things are to be cast out of one's mind and life, not just at worship, but also when one becomes a Christian and strives to live the Christian life day by day. The worship service is not the time to dwell on worldly things as it is not the time to play. Matthew 10:37 is a good passage to remember in this connection. "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not! worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Second, the word of God is to be studied with reverence in worship as well as at other times. Finally, "let all things be done decently and in order" so as to avoid confusion, awkwardness, and so on" (I Corinthians 14:40). In view of these things and their| seriousness, let us strive to worship, serve, and fear God better than we have ever done in the past.

Almost a century and a half have gone by since Alexander Campbell met W. L. Maccalla in the great debate on baptism that stirred the religious world. In his introduction to the printed discussion Campbell had this to say, "We have only to remind the reader that there is but one infallible standard of the Christian religion, and that is the New Testament. To this let him ever appeal as the supreme judge of all controversies about Christian faith and practice. By this standard let our arguments be tried, his views guided, and his conscience ruled. And if unlearned, in the science and philosophy of men, let him remember that those Rev. Philosophers who composed the Westminister Confession of Faith declare, that the scriptures are so plain, "that not only the learned but the unlearned, by a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.' "

The present president of Bethany College, founded by Campbell, is a "doctor" of philosophy. Perry Epler Gresham who has just finished a "preaching mission," for the Tampa Ministers Association in the city of Tampa. The meeting was conducted at the Hyde Park Methodist Church at Platt and Cedar Streets. Mr. Gresham is one of the most honored men in the denominational world and a noted preacher in both this country and in England. He is also the great compromiser of all that Campbell contended for in his debate with Maccalla. He came to the people who practice the very things that Campbell founded Bethany College to oppose. He turned his back on the appeal of Campbell to go to the New Testament, and there settle all matters.

This does not surprise the people of God for we have grown accustomed to the digression of another generation. I marvel, however, at our inability to learn from the history of the past. Like Israel of old we have forgotten that we too have passed "under the cloud and through the sea." Why would the man who sits in the very seat of Alexander Campbell compromise the very things for which Campbell gave his all? Some of the answers are very clear.

First, the church of the 19th century so newly restored to mankind was not able to withstand the pressure of the world around them. "Give us a king," was the watchword. This pressure is constant and demanding. After the true church was restored and some of the cries of battle had died, the first great loyalty to the oracles of God was forgotten. Brethren became concerned about the education of the preachers, the quality of the buildings, and the prominence of the church in the community. "Let us admit our heritage as human and take our place with the other respected denominations of our time," was the sentiment in too many hearts and the words on too many lips. This is one of the factors that led to the president of Bethany College becoming the representative of the Ministers Association of Tampa.

Secondly, there was a lack of faith in the ability of the church to meet all the spiritual problems assigned it by the Lord. This led to the formation of the missionary society to do the work of the church. When opposed, the society's advocates cried out, "of what are we guilty? all we are trying to do is to preach the gospel to a lost world." They missed the point a million miles in such a defense. It was pointed out that God already had a people to preach the gospel to the world and those were Christians organized in the church, the only organization that God wanted or needed. That to go beyond was to surrender a "thus saith the Lord," and in turn to act without divine authority. Hurt and angry they charged all who were opposed to the society as being anti-missionary and in the early days of my preaching I heard this charge many times. The statement went something like this, "Oh yes, you preach for the anti-branch that does not believe in missionary work." No amount of argument seemed to do much good. An anti was an anti and that closed the book.

I marvel that in our day we cannot see the parallel. Men build human institutions to do the work of the church and all who oppose them are antis. Just as those of another age were anti-missionary because they did not want to do their work through the missionary society, men are called anti today because they do not want to do the work of the church through a benevolent society. If the church was its own missionary society, it is its own benevolent society. This is another of the reasons for such a change.

Thirdly, the brethren became involved with the means of the sectarian world to attract the people. The simplicity of the gospel was forgotten with its power and the upper room gave way to the super room. Special groups in the church were singled out for praise and attention and the social affairs of men became the concern of the church. Instead of praying, preaching, and communing they were playing, feasting, and entertaining. Recreation was shifted from the home to the church. Brethren lost sight of the great mission of the blood bought church of the Lord. The emphasis was placed on the wrong things and the digressive element found themselves to be just what some of their leaders had called for, another denomination.

Brethren, I marvel. It is not nearly as far from Campbell to Gresham, and from the Bethany of yesterday to the Bethany of today as some might believe. We cannot help but wonder if Maccalla did not win after all.

TRIPLETS OF WORLDLINESS

fames P. Needham, St. Petersburg, Fla.

GAMBLING NO. II

The subject of gambling is not an easy one to discuss for several reasons. (1) Some have been so anxious to condemn it as a sin that they have classified matters as gamblingwhich should not be so characterized. This always confuses an issue and makes difficult an intelligent discussion of it. (2) Not much has been said about what makes gambling wrong. People have been content to assume that it is wrong without really knowing why. (3) Because this is one of those matters which must be discussed in the light of biblical principles since the word gamble, or gambling, is not found in the Bible. This makes a study of it especially difficult since so many people have the idea that the Bible is a book of "thou shalt nots," and are thus unwilling to condemn an act on the basis of principle. They believe everything is admissible which is not expressly and specificallyforbidden. But, even though it is a difficult subject, and even though I don't claim to have all the answers, I solicit your careful consideration of the following observations.

I. WHAT IS GAMBLING? Unfortunately, we cannot turn to the Bible and read a clear-cut divine definition of the act of gambling; and from secular sources we are able to obtain little, if any, help. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says: "1. To play or game for money or other stake. 2. To hazard; wager." I think all can easily see that this definition serves to complicate, rather than clarify. It is too broad. If we accepted it as iron-clad and absolute it would condemn many games and practices which we know to be innocent. Take a few examples. If it is gambling merely to "play or game for money or other stake.!' it would be sinful to engage in a professional sport where one is paid for his skill such as baseball, basketball, etc. It would even be sinful to participate in the Olympics, or other amateur sports where the winners are awarded anything of value, which is equal to saying that the only way one could game would be by gratis. But this is manifestly false. Looking at the definition further, we discover that the secondary meaning (vis. "To hazard or wager,") is about as confusing as the first. Hazard is defined as "Risk; danger; peril; also, a source of risk." (Web. Collegiate Diet.) Wager is defined as: "That which is risked on an uncertain event; a bet. Act of wagering. That on which bets are laid; the subject of a bet. Act of giving a pledge to do something or to abide the event of something; as, wager of battle." (Web. Col. Diet.). While this begins to help us some, it is not all we need and desire, because we all know that it is not a sin to merely take a chance. The farmer takes a chance in planting his crop; the buyer takes a chance when he purchases merchandise; the traveler takes a chance in making a trip. We all take chances when we go to worship, etc., etc. All of which tells us that we haven't gotten to the real wrong of gambling thus far. Now, to an effort to really define gambling in its bad sense. Just here I shall ask your indulgence while I borrow from one of the ripest Bible scholars of his time a definition of our subject: "Gambling proper is a game of chance in which each party puts up a given sum or some valuable article and in which the winner gets back what he puts up and also what the others put up." (R. L. Whiteside). This is my understanding of what gambling really is, and yet it

is not an easy matter to show why it is wrong. It does however, bring us to another point of consideration, namely,

II. SOME PRACTICES WHICH ARE NOT GAMBLING

1. Some people say anything is gambling in which one gets something for nothing. This is obviously not gambling, since it would make all gifts sinful, and yet the Bible commands us to give to those who need. Furthermore, the gambling I have observed has not been a getting of something for nothing. People have to work at gambling, and the mental strain appears to be much more severe than the physical.
2. Many believe the giving of a door prize is gambling. In view of the above definition this is not true. By a door prize I mean the giving of a prize to people for merely being present at an event. This is no more or less than a simple gift, and cannot rightly be classified as gambling and sinful.
3. Many feel that "drawings" where the people holding tickets bearing the winning numbers receive prizes are

a form of gambling. Now, in view of our definition, they may or may not be. It would depend upon how the tickets are obtained. If the tickets were given free by those providing the gifts, then it would not be gambling. On the other hand if the tickets were sold and the proceeds used to provide the prizes, then it would fit our definition of gambling.

1. Some think it is gambling to enter any kind of a contest in which the one excelling receives a prize. Again, this depends upon certain factors. If one has to pay an entrance fee which becomes a part of the prize, it wouldcome under the definition of gambling we have given above. On the other hand, if there is no entrance fee it could not be considered gambling.
2. Yet others feel that anything involving the element of chance is gambling. As shown above, this cannot be true because no one has ever lived who took no chance. We all take chances every day of our lives.

III. WHAT IS WRONG WITH GAMBLING? This is indeed the hardest question of all to answer. Though most, if not all, of us believe gambling to be wrong, how many of us can give a real, thorough, scriptural reason why is it wrong? That it is wrong is hardly debatable. People of the world generally believe it to be wrong, and it is unlawful in many states and communities; and where it is legal there are many restrictions upon it. This shows that it is recognized by civil government, and men of the world as a social evil. There is something involved which makes it a cancer on society, WHAT IS IT?

The basic sin of gambling is covetousness. We are warned to beware of covetousness: ".. . Covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints . . ." (Eph. 5:3). "Mortify . . . covetousness, which is idolatry . . ." (Col. 3:5). Of the meaning of the word "PLEONEXIA" translated "covetousness" in these passages, Thayer says, "Greedy desire to have more, covetousness, avarice." (p. 516). This is the basic motivation of gambling; it becomes overpowering, a sort of self-inflicted disease. Gamblers are greedy and vicious. They see gambling as a means of getting rich over night, and the more they play the more they want to play. If they lose, they must continue to play because they feel they can't always be unlucky— sooner or later they will be a winner and become rich. If they lose all they have, they feel they have been cheated and defrauded and must seek vengeance, so they continue to play, and many times continue to lose. It is then that they become desperate; they will play on their credit and incur large debts which they know they can't pay. Some are even driven to suicide.

On the other hand, if they win, they say, "This is easy; I won once, why not again? Once more and I'll be fixed for life." If they continue to win they continue to want more, and more and more; then they say, "Why should I quit when I'm ahead— this is easy— I'll continue to win." It becomes a vicious circle to which there is no end. Men become addicted to gambling as to narcotics or alcohol, and any argument against addiction becomes an argument against gambling. Hence, the best throw of the dice is in the trash can!

CONCLUSION Let every Christian abstain from every form of gambling. It is an evil that is very subtle and hard to detect, which makes it the more dangerous. Like many other evils, there

are forms of it which seem innocent enough, but are fought with frightful consequences even when participation in them is only for entertainment. We need to remember this axiom: NO MAN EVER BECOMES ADDICTED TO THAT WHICH HE DOES NOT INDULGE. He who gambles his money, wagers his soul!

(Editor's note: William "Doug" Burgess is ateacher of biology and other kindred subjects at Florida Christian College. He is not only a faithful Christian and a fine gospel preacher, but also a scientist who believes that every word of God is true. He will contribute regular articles under the above heading.)

Science is "to know." A science is a department of systematized knowledge. Not all things entitled "science" are true. It is possible to know both truth and error. It is difficult at times to be able to make the proper distinction between the two.

A true scientist is one who is seeking to know truth. There are three distinct steps in this search. In the search for truth a science does not properly include any facts which have not been verified and subjected to the test of experimentation or repeated accurate observation.

In searching for truth the scientist makes certain tentative explanations or hypotheses, which are products of the imagination of the investigator and in agreement with the known facts. Many hypotheses are soon discarded for lack of evidence or because they are contrary to newly discovered facts. If a hypothesis survives the tests of newly discovered facts and is not replaced by some more reasonable hypothesisit will, in time, be considered a theory. A theory is not recognized as a general truth or a natural law until it has long stood the tests of newly discovered facts. Many theories, like hypothesis, are discarded because they fail to stand as more truth is revealed.

Be not afraid to investigate. Truth, regardless of where it is found, is still truth. Although the Bible is not a book of science as such, not one single scientific error has been successfully ascribed to this Book.

THE GENTILES AND THE LAW

R. A. Ginn, Meridian, Miss.

The subject to be treated in this article is, "The Gentiles and the Law." The passage assigned upon which to base this study is Romans 2:12-16: "For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by thelaw; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified; (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves: in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ."

DEFINITIONS "The Gentiles" ("Nations") were those peoples whowere not "Jews" or "Israelites" as Jews were called before the captivity of the northern tribes. "The Law" refers to the covenant God made with the Jews at Mount Sinai (Exodus, ff). Our purpose will be to determine what relationship existed between Gentiles and God during that period when Jews were governed by the Law of Moses.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS It is readily admitted that there are many things concern-ing this relationship that we have no means for definite determination. Some things may be inferred, but we cannot be certain about them. This situation stems from the fact that the old Testament is primarily God's history of dealings with one nation, the Jews, rather than with the Gentile peoples. Other matters are fairly clear for purposes of study. It is to these things that we must address ourselves.

BEFORE THE LAW Before the Law separated one nation (the Jews) from all others, God seems to have dealt with men chiefly, if not altogether, through heads of families, or "patriarchs." During this time, man was attended by some degree of moral sensitivity and was conscious of guilt when this moral standard was violated. Cain's reaction following the murder of Abel illustrates this point. Whence these moral principles to govern man's conduct is a matter for later consideration.

GIVING OF THE LAW It was, for various reasons, necessary that some nation be used in special preparation for Christ's coming. It appears that the election was actually vested in faithful Abraham,and in the Jews because of their relationship to him (Gen. 12:1-3; 18:18,19). The Law was given as a shield against such things as might defeat the purposes for which the Jews were to be used in bringing the Saviour into the world (Gal. 3:19)-The Law stood as a "middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14). Its main features that distinguished the Jews from others were: the seal of circumcision; the observance of the sabbath and special feast days; and an intricate system of worship through a special priesthood. As a result of unique treatment, the Jewish nation enjoyed an advantage (Rom. 3:1). However, with this advantage went a more stringent duty to God (Luke12:48). GOD DID NOT DISCRIMINATE Where did all this leave the Gentile world ? One truth is evident: God did not discriminate against the Gentiles when he gave the Law to the Jews. Much of the burden of teaching in the Roman letter is that there is no respect of persons with God (Rom. 2:11). Favors to the Jews did not remove God-given blessings already enjoyed by the Gentiles. God maintained his willingness to bless Gentiles until such time as He was constrained to "give them up" because of their personal ungodliness and degraded practice (Rom. 1:24, 26).

ONE LIMITED APPROACH For Gentiles whose desire it was to serve the true God

in spite of popular idolatrous practices, two possible avenues were open. One was limited to such Gentiles as had opportunity to dwell within the influence of Moses' Law, which provided for "proselytes" or "strangers" to live among Jews and adopt the "Law in its entirety. God's pleasure was promised to those Gentiles who chose to desert their ways and embrace all the ways of the Jews (Exo. 12:48, 49; Isa. 56:6). This option was exercised by Gentiles in varying numbers during the period of the Law.

AN UNLIMITED AVENUE Romans 2:12-16, our text, indicates a more generally followed approach to God by the Gentile in this era. Verse 14 attests that some Gentiles did "by nature" the things of the Law. When they did the "things of the law," it was not necessarily from familiarity with the Law, for they are described as "not having the law." Rather, verse 15 says the "work of the law" (i. e., moral conduct specified in the Law) was "written in their hearts." Through an unwritten moral code of the heart, the Gentile had sufficient opportunity for forming some degree of moral judgment concerning good and bad human conduct (verse 15). When these moral standards were confirmed through mutual "thoughts (reasoning-footnote) one with another," the Gentile's conscience (that "consciousness" God gives all) either accused him of violating the divine morality or excused (upheld) him for faithfulness to it (verse 15). The fact that there were reasonings among Gentiles concerning their moral conduct is proof that some rather definite standard or right and wrong existed, and that this standard was generally known. Where did this conception of morality originate? How come it to be lodged in the hearts of people who had no written revelation of those principles? There are two answers to this proposition, either of which may be correct: First, it is believed that this awareness of moral right is inborn, or else springs up in man as life unfolds. This view may have some connection with the Bible account of man's first consciousness of sin, when man learned about good and evil (Gen. 2:17, 25; 3:5, 7, 10, 11). Second, this theory of innate moral judgment is rejected for one that the knowledge of good and evil found in the Gentile heart was formed on unperished traditions of the divine will, communicated to the early fathers of mankind, during the "patriarchy." A SIMILARITY Whichever theory is true, it should be apparent that, so far as it went, the Gentiles' standard of morality agreed with the external revelation of Jewish morals in the Law. In either case, since this standard came to the Gentiles from God, and since God's mind is entirely consistent, those principles of right and wrong retained by the Gentiles were just such as were found in the written Law. Hence, Paul states in Romans 2:14 that the moral judgment of the Gentiles, based upon this divine standard, was a "law unto themselves." It was in obedience to that "law" that Gentiles could be justified (verse 13).

THEIR NEED Despite the fact that salvation was in theory to be found in such moral obedience, in practice it remained forever beyond the Gentiles' reach. Each in turn fell short in his efforts to keep this moral law. Even so good a Gentile as Cornelius (Acts 10) was unable to render perfect obedience to it. He had need that "words" be spoken to him whereby

he might be saved (Acts 11:14). Any law requires perfect obedience. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all" (Jas. 2:10). Unless there is some provision of mercy and forgivness, the man who is under law is under sin for violating that law. Jews could not live perfectly under the Law's requirements; neither could the Gentiles live perfectly under a standard of morality. So, Paul declared that Jew and Greek were both "under sin" (Rom. 3:9). God had given to each ample occasion to prove his worthiness under a system of law. Each had failed miserably to exonerate himself under his respective system. Each was therefore condemned when he failed to keep the law without blame. The pressing need of Jew and Greek alike was mercy from God and forgiveness of guilt. Apart from the grace offered through the gospel, both would perish eternally. How significant, then, are the words that declare Paul's theme throughout the Roman letter: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed the righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, but the righteous shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:16, 17)!

A lot of preaching is going on in this old world. Somesay we have too much preaching, which has caused the church to become inactive by comparison to a generation or two ago. Some say we do not have enough preaching, which explains the moral and spiritual decay of the age. What do you think?

Some preaching does more entertaining than edifying; some more complimenting than exposing of sin; some more pacifying than purifying; some more consoling than censuring. It is not the amount of preaching that is troubling the world either way. It is the kind of preaching that we should be concerned about. The kind of preaching that entertains, generalizes and lulls into a state of self-satisfaction is not worth the time and effort to do it. The only successful preaching is that taught in the Bible. It must draw the line between sin and righteousness; it must prick the heart as a two-edged sword; it must convict the sinner of his evil life and urge him to correct it; it must hurt those who are not doing exactly what they ought to do. That is the kind of preaching the apostles did, and it is the kind of preaching Christ wants done today. Preaching a sermon from the New Testament should not aim at gaining the approval of anyone but God.

Some who hear scriptural preaching react differently. A few will become violently angry; some will become sullen and leave the church; others will argue that the preacher is wrong; still others will close their ears and eyes and refuse! to listen, charging that the preacher is unkind and unchristian. The faithful will be thankful for the truth and strive to correct their lives. How do you act to sound gospel preaching?

Page 11

"... They rehearsed all that God had done with them . . ."— Acts 14:27

GOSPEL MEETINGS

Bob Bryson began a meeting at Park Street church in Bowling Green, Ky. April 17 .. . Oaks Gowen of Bradenton, Fla. will preach in a meeting at Lake Shore church in Jacksonville, Fla. May 1-8. Herbert Moss of Jacksonville, Fla. concluded a meeting at Indiana, Pa. April 6. On June 1st brother Moss will begin work with this congregation . . . C. M. Campbell of Nashville, Tenn. preached in a meeting in Waukegan, Ill. April 10-17 . . .Joe Baird of Oklahoma City closed a meeting at 14th Street in Gainesville, Fla. April 10th. 5 were baptized and 2 restored . . . Frank Ingram of Pensacola, Fla. will preach in a meeting at Eastgate church in Pensacola about May 16 .. . Paul Simon of Milton, Fla. preached in a meeting at Palafox congregation in Pensacola beginning April 18.

Paul Brock of Dyersburg, Tenn. preached in a meeting at Bessemer, Ala. April 5-12 .. . An 8 day meeting concluded on April 24 at Gardendale, Ala. with different speakers from the Birmingham area speaking each evening . . . Gordon Teffeteller of Valdosta, Ga. will be the speaker in a meeting in Homerville, Ga. beginning May 1 .. . Bobby Owen was the preacher in a meeting at the Redland congregation in Valdosta, Ga. in April . . . Harold Hazelip preached in a meeting at Cascade Heights in Atlanta, Ga. April 3-10 . . .

M. E. Patton of Orlando, Fla. preached in a meeting at Central church in Ocala beginning April 3. He was in a meeting in Moundsville, W. Va. April 17-27 . . . W. Curtis Porter of Monette, Ark. will speak in a meeting May 8-15 at the Blaine Avenue church in St. Louis, Mo. . . . Grover Stevens of St. Louis, Mo. preached in meetings in San Saba and Del Rio, Texas in April . . . Ferrell Jenkins preached in a meeting with the Kirkwood church in St. Louis, Mo. April 24-May 4 ... Homer Hailey of Tampa, Fla. preached in a meeting with the Lorain Avenue church in Cleveland, Ohio in April . . . Brown Street church in Akron, Ohio had a series of lectures on some current issues by different speakers during the month of April.

Robert Jackson of Nashville, Tenn. preached in a meeting at Valley Station, Ky. during the month of April . . . A., C. Grider of Louisville, Ky. preached in a meeting at Preston Highway church in Louisville April 17-24 . . . James R. Cope of Tampa, Fla. will be the speaker in a meeting at Wendell Avenue church in Louisville, Ky. June 12-19.

HAZELIP - MYERS DEBATE

The arrangements have been completed for the religious discussion to be held in Louisville the last week in April between Harold Hazelip and Billy Sunday Myers. The dates will be April 26-29 (Tuesday through Friday) with a two-hour session beginning at 7:30 p.m. each evening. The place will be the Male High School Auditorium (1505 seats) located at 911 S. Brook St.

Mr. Myers will represent the Church of God (Cleve

land, Tenn. branch). He is an experienced debater and

has previously met a number of our brethren, including

James P. Miller, who is well known here at Wendell.

The proposition the first two nights will be "Premillen

nialism" (the belief that after the second coming of Christ,

he will reign for 1,000 years over a kingdom on earth).

The proposition the last two nights will be the "Plan Of

Salvation." Each man will affirm one night on each proposi

tion.

ELDERS APPOINTED AT NORTH STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA

On April 3 elders were appointed to oversee the congregation at North Street in Tampa, Florida. Brother Paul Andrews carefully outlined the qualifications and work of the elders and then each elder addressed the congregation, pledging himself without reservation to serve well. Here are the key statements made by each elder, taken from the bulletin of that congregation:

Hiram Raybon: "I realize the great responsibility thatan elder has. He must be an example for good to all men. I promise to do my very best."

Sidney Matthews: "I don't want to over-elder or under-elder, I want to Bible elder. Each local congregation is complete and fully capable of doing all the work that God intends for it to do."

Lloyd Copeland: "We will never be too busy to helpyou in your need. Bring your problems to us. Rest assured that if we need to keep your problems confidential, we will; but if we need to be bold, that we shall do."

GOSPEL MEETING AT DUNDEE, FLA.

Our gospel meeting will be July 10-17 with brother R.

A. Ginn of Meridian, Mississippi doing the preaching. Brethren in the area of Dundee are invited to attend this meeting.

TALLAHASSEE, FLA.— Bob Wagner— This is to report that interest and enthusiasm continue high at the Jefferson Street congregation at Tallahassee, which congregationhad its beginning in January of this year.

During March there were three responses, one requesting prayer and two baptized into Christ. Average attendance for the month of March was 128 in Bible study and 148in Sunday morning worship service. We are now in the process of the selecting and appointment of elders and deacons. The congregations in this city are at peace and complete harmony prevails.

"...REPENT YE .. . BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE..."

It is commonly asserted that repentance and baptism in Acts 2i:38 are not joined to secure the same result, for the expressions "repent ye" and "be baptized" differ, in the original text, in person and number.

It is true that in the original text, "repent ye" is a first aorist active imperative, second person plural from the verb metanoeo, "I repent." Further, the words' "be baptized" come from a first aorist passive imperative, third person singular form of the verb baptizo, "I baptize."

It is not true, however, that this difference in the person and number of these verbs precludes the possibility of their both being prerequisites of salvation. To the contrary, "be baptized" is simply pointing up or emphasizing a duty that belongs to each individual of the group. This construction is not uncommon in the Greek. For an elaboration on this Greek construction see Winer's New Testament Greek Grammar, p. 174. Also see hekastos (every one) in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon. Cf. also hekastos in Thayer's Lexicon, p. 192.

MATTHEW 28:18, ". . . ALL POWER . . ."

Melvin Curry, Oak Lawn, Illinois

"Biblical Word Studies" by brother Srygley is a very fine column, and I look forward to reading it in each issue of Searching the Scriptures. It adds lustre to an exceptionally good publication. I must, however, add somewhat to the discussion of Matthew 28:18, ".. . all power . . ." (March, I960 issue, p. 10).

Brother Srygley writes, "The Greek here for 'power' is exousia which means 'right to rule or govern.' However, the power given to the apostles, (Acts 1:8), is from the Greek dunamis which refers to ability or power to perform certain acts. This power was manifested in miracles." Read also his concluding remarks.

He seems to imply, although not necessarily through direct intention, that Christ did not give exousia to the apostles. The Scriptures teach, however, that the apostles did receive exousia from the Lord, as well as dunamis.

During His personal ministry, Jesus "ordained twelve, that .. . he might send them forth to preach, and to have power (exousia) to heal sickness . . ." (Mark 3:15; also Luke 10:19). After the Lord's ascension, according to the record in Acts, when Peter and John journeyed to Samaria in order to lay hands on the converts so that they might receive the Holy Ghost, Simon the sorcerer offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power (exousia), that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:18, 19).

Paul, in the Corinthian letters, makes reference to his apostolic power which was received from the Lord. He writes, "What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power (exousia) in the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:18). And again, "For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority . . ." (2 Cor. 10:8). He then adds, "Therefore, I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power (exousia) which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction" (2 Cor. 13:10).

The apostolic exousia included power to perform miracles, but, according to the above Scriptures, it seems to have included somewhat more. The apostles were given both dunamis and exousia. This does not, however, minimize the right of our Lord Jesus Christ to ". . . all power . . ." He Himself commissioned His apostles to have power on earth.

REGARDING "EXOUSIA" AND "DUNAMIS"

In reply to the preceding response to my article on "Authority,"-1 should like to make the following statements:

1. I was considering in my article the primary, absolute denotation of exousia in Matt. 28:18 as that term is to be distinguished from dunamis in Acts 1:8. I was really not concerned with more remote senses in which the apostles or anyone else might have had exousia.
2. According to Moulton and Milligan the "primary" meaning of exousia is "power of choice," "liberty of action," Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 225. Commenting on exousia in Matt. 28:18, Lenski says, "full ability to do as one wills," Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 1171. Commenting on the same passage, Buttrick says, "supreme right to appoint to office," Interpreter's Bible, vol. 7, p. 622. I do not believe that any apostle, or any man for that matter, possessed exousia in this primary, absolute sense in which it occurs in Matt. 28:18. In my former article on "Authority" this was my only point on exousia.
3. The "power" of Acts 1:8 is dunamis. This term denotes "natural ability or physical strength manifesting itself in powerful deeds." The term has no reference to the authority to enact and enforce spiritual laws, as some have tried to claim.
4. I do not deny that the apostles possessed exousia in[ some senses. Brother Curry has cited passages in which that is made clear. I believe, however, that the passages cited employ exousia in senses not parallel to the use in Matt.

28:18. All the Greek lexicons reveal varied meanings of exousia. The term may mean for instance, no more than the denotation of dunamis. The term may also denote delegated authority or "authorization."