A feeling has arisen in the minds of some goobrethren that the meetinghouse may not be used for weddings or funerals. They are saying that thchurch building was erected with the Lord's money,and, therefore, it may only be used for authorized church functions. This position, as I see it, is anextreme and inconsistent one.

It is granted that the Lord's money when used in

building construction should only be used to erect

facilities that expedite the church's authorized work.

The church has no right to build kitchens and dining

halls for social purposes, wedding chapels or funeral

parlors. These things do not constitute the work of

the church. But for the building to be used for a

wedding or funeral is something else. No divine

principle is violated in any way by such usage o

the building. Really, the Lord never did say what

could or could not be done in a meetinghouse. He

informed the church how to conduct itself, but said

nothing about the meetinghouse. Hence, the issue

is a matter of judgment and expediency. However,

in the exercise of this liberty, nothing should be

done that is in poor taste or that reflects upon the

cause of Christ.

Brethren talk about the meetinghouse not beinholy, then turn around and treat it like Solomon's temple. Some chide the too liberal brethren for their "dedication service" of the new church buildingEight here is where the matter becomes rather ironic. The too liberal brethren "dedicate" their building to the Lord and then make a big ado aboutit not being sacred. Whereas some of the "conservative" brethren would have nothing to do with "dedicatorial service" but act toward the building asthough it was a sacred shrine on holy ground. I see a little taint of the Catholic attitude in this conceptof the meetinghouse.

If no weddings or funerals may be conducted i

the building because they are not functions of the church, then we are going to have to quit socializing before and after worship. Everything in theworld (an exaggeration, wew) is discussed by thbrethren in the building — from little junior's cutting of teeth to the number of coons old Blue treed the night before. These things must come to a halt if consistency is to be attained. There can be no conversation, other than on the Bible until you get off church property. After all, the church's money was not spent to provide a place to discuss coon hunting

Too, I am certain that the church's yard andparking area bear the same relationship to this problem as the meetinghouse does. I do not thinkthat one can logically say that the building should be anymore restricted than the outside premises. Both were bought with the same money. Hence, if the meetinghouse may not be used for anythingother than church functions, then neither may thoutside grounds. We are therefore forced to enclose the premises with a fence to prohibit football games,hopscotch, tag, etc. by the neighborhood children. Fencing the lot will also prevent the townspeople, in some places, parking on the property dur ing thweek while they shop or work

Remember that the parking lot was not built for a neighborhood playground or a public parking lot.If the meetinghouse may not be used for weddings and funerals because it was not built for these purposes, then neither may the parking lot be used for games and public parking because it was not builtfor these purposes. If some brethren's thinking issound on the meetinghouse, the same kind of thinking is valid on the parking lot. If not, why not?

But someone says, "The public will get the wrongimpression of the church if weddings and funerals are permitted." Here is where teaching enters the picture. We must teach the public. Really, I do notknow of any that has gotten harmful impre ions from a wedding or funeral in the building. There are some that are getting distorted concepts andimpressions of extremism from those who refuse to allow them in the building. One woman said, whenher daughter, who had recently become a Christian, was not allowed to have her wedding in the building,"She was refused because she did not grow up ithat chur ch."

Our children attend the services of the church all of their young lives, then when they get ready tomarry, they are forced to go to another congregation's building where weddings are not objectionable. Oh yes, the opposition to weddings in a church building (at the home congregation, anyway) are right there to watch and give their ble ings to the couple. Inconsistent, would not you say

It seems to me that instead of getting so stringent on weddings and funerals in the meetinghouse,there needs to be a lot of emphasis on the non-use of the building. Brethren will spend from 100 to200 thousand dollars on a structure, then use it about four hours a week. A good portion of theweekly contribution is consumed paying on the debtfor 15 to 20 year s, just to have a place to meet few hours each week. This non-use does not seem to bother some of the brethren, but mention a weddingand they quickly respond about the misuse of thebuilding. Let's make the meetinghouse a center forspecial classes, training and development, and a host of other work that comes within the church's mission. We need to be better stewards of church property.

— 103 Gaylane Dr. Columbus, Miss.

Not only are human institutions that derive their funds from the treasury of the church unscriptural but they are hard to manage. Living under human rules instead of those laid down by the Lord they are constantly in trouble because it is not in manthat walketh to direct his steps. When the nameChristian is placed on anything (in the Bible it refers to a saint) all the obligations this name implies go with it.

The doors of all such institutions have to be opento all and any attempt to enforce the man made rules will be considered "unchristian." This places the administrators in a bad position. The ones who desire to do right do not approve of any lowering of highstandards and those who do not have those same high standards are in a position to do such an institution great harm.

T he mor al of all of this is that the Lord knew what he was doing when he gave his blood for thechurch ruled over by elders and guided by the NeTestament. This church can provide for all the needs of the ones requiring his services, that are scriptural, and those that are not do not need to be provided.

Instead of starting a Student Center, a PrayeCenter or a Reconciliation Center to live off the Lord's money just start the church and all will stand on the ground the Lord stood on when he declared,"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

With the beginning of another year it seems appropriate that I restate the general policy of this paper and to briefly respond to some questions that have been asked and some statements that have been made.

Searching the Scriptures is now entering its fourteenth year and the editorial policy has not changed since the first i ue of the paper. The main objectiveof the entire staff of writers and this editor is to do exactly what the name of the journal implies: to"search the scriptures." It is not our desire to act as judge of what truth is, nor to sit as a brotherhoodumpire and determine the rules by which men should live, and who is right and who is wrong. Rather, itis the responsibility of the editor and each contributor to strive to determine what the truth is as it is revealed in the Bible and to boldly stand in defense of it.

During the past thirteen years a very few indirect criticisms have been made against some of the men who have been selected as staff writers. For the most part all of this has been totally ignored. I recall only two occasions in which individuals came face to face with me in their criticism of two different writers for the paper. Since the criticism was more in the area of hearsay and opinion, and could not be proved, the entire matter was dropped so far as I am concerned. This-does not mean that I consider any or all the writers to be immune from error, oreven unrighteous conduct in life, but you may beassured that if I know for a fact that someone is not living what he preaches, he will certainly be asked to quit writing for this paper because of his influence.

These men who are considered staff writers or regular contributors have been asked to do so because of my confidence in their ability and becauseI consider them to be men of conviction and integrity. It is not to be understood that the pages of Searching the Scriptures are open only to these men who regularly write. If you have something edifyingand worthwhile to say, we will be glad to receive your article and give it space in Searching the Scriptures as we have opportunity.

I have received at least a thousand letters during the past twelve months in which very favorable and encouraging comments were made concerningSearching the Scriptures or some particular article or writer. Some two or three years ago I stoppedpublishing these statements because I agreed withsome criticism of friends that it sounded too much like we were boasting of ourselves beyond measure,and using space for patting ourselves on the back that should be used in preaching the gospel. I dohowever, wish to express my personal appreciation to all of those who have in every way expressed their appreciation and encouragement and have a isted by sending in subscriptions or an extra few dollars to help bear the heavy financial responsibilities of a publication such as this. You have been so kind and helpful.

I should like to express personal appreciation forthe dedicated men who have so willingly given otheir valuable time to do the research and to prepare excellent articles which have built the reputation Searching the Scriptures now enjoys. In addition to these men who have contributed their labors, a number of other men and women have paid for a list ofsubscriptions every year for several years. There are no words to express my personal gratitude to these who have taken such an interest in the work of another man.

As I have said a number of times editorially, because I publish a certain article, it does not follownecessarily that I am in agreement with the article. I do not always reply to every statement or every article that a contributor or staff writer may makwith which I do not agree, because in most cases it is not significant enough to consume space that should be used for more edifying material. However,occasionally it becomes necessary to call special attention to some articles that are more sensitive to controversy than others, and in defense of the truth we must make some observation. We will not hesitate to do so at any time we feel the need. One article recently appeared on the subject of abortion bClarence Johnson. This, we believe, was a well-prepared and thorough article on the subject. But wehave another article taking a different view by Rolf

L. Miller of Ventura, California. In fairness to both sides of this i ue, as to any other i ue, we willinglypublish his article in Searching the Scriptures as we did that of Clarence Johnson.

While I do not intend to write on this i ue at the present, I do wish to say a word or two about amoral aspect that needs to be clearly set forth. Iknow little or nothing of the medical advantages or disadvantages, but I do know that most abortions are to avoid the social disgrace and inconvenience of promiscuity in illicit sex. The infidelity of a married woman can be conveniently covered up by abortion. The unwed teenage girl who engages in fornication may escape the problems of bearing and rearing child and the shame and disgrace in the home bhaving a convenient abortion. This would be themajor ground of my attack against abortion because it encourages the sin of adultery and fornication and brings to the lowest level the moral concept of civilization. You could condemn the sin of adultery anfornication to your last breath, but as long as the bitter fruits of this sin are covered so easily, more and more will become involved.

We want to make Searching the Scriptures a paper that will deal with scriptural i ues in a scriptural way, with a spiritual attitude, but with firmness and dedication to the word of God as the only authorityto govern our lives.

We hope you will renew your subscription toSearching the Scriptures and in addition send a club of three to friends and relatives for only $12.00for a full year.

QUESTION: A few years ago a church bulletin fell into my hands with a question in it that had been submitted to the editor for an answer. The question was printed with the request for comments from readers with the indication that, after more consideration, an answer would be given in future issues.Perhaps, in time, the answer was given, but I was not privileged to receive those i ues. The question has bothered me much. I am sending it to you hoping you will comment on it in Searching The Scriptures.

"Husband A puts away his wife, B, for the cause of fornication. But after a period of time, wife B approaches husband A and tries to get him to 'take her back.' Since there is no malice on the part ofhusband A, he agrees, so they marry (or is it remarr y?) . I s this scr iptur al?

"My thinking on this is as follows: When A putB away, the marriage was di olved in God's sight,and does not exist anymore. They are not 'husband and wife' anymore, but just 'man and woman.' If B could marry A, why could she not marry C, (or anyman who would be eligible for a scriptural marriage) ? I know that A and B do not have any marriage ties 'reserved' for a re-marriage, because A can scripturally marry another woman, and not be livingin adultery. It seems to me that the penalty of the guilty, B, is being deprived of the privilege of marrying again. Let me know what your thinking is on this." — A.N.

ANSWER: I believe the answer can be found in Matt. 19:9: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, andshall marry another, committeth adultery: anwhoso marrieth her which is put away doth commitadultery."

I would give an affirmative answer to the question above: Is this scriptural? The reason why B could marry A, and could not marry C (or any man whowould be eligible for a scriptural marriage) is that in so doing B would not be marrying "another." Jesus did not say "... and shall marry again," but rather "... and shall marry another."

Since B was guilty of fornication, she has no rightto marry "another," ever. With A it is optional. Ido not understand the above passage to teach thadivorce and remarriage is mandatory on his part. If B is penitent, he should forgive her. Even then,the sin of fornication is so serious in God's sight thatHe does not obligate A to live thereafter with onethus defiled. He may divorce and marry "another."

But if B is penitent, love still exists on the part ofboth, circumstances and wisdom dictate, the guiltmay be forgiven and the marriage continue. If at a later date, after divorce, these conditions developand they desire to resume the former marriage, they may marry again. Neither is marrying "another,"which is what our Lord prohibits.

Matt. 19:9b does not preclude their marryingagain. The "whoso," in context, implies one who marries a woman who, in God's sight, belongs to another. In the case of A and B above, neither would be marrying "another."

PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION NO. 2

The word "predestinate" or a form of the word is used four times in the New Testament. It is used in Rom. 8:29,30; and Eph. 1:5,11. It comes from the Greek word proorizo and means, "to predetermine,decide beforehand" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Page 541). The thought, of course, is that God has determined beforehand what the destination of all will be who live upon the face of the earth. However, though he has determined that some will besaved and others lost, he has not done this on anindividual basis, and the number is not so fixed that it cannot be changed as Calvinists would have us believe. Instead God has determined before the world began that those "in Christ" would be saved, anthose who obey not the gospel of Christ will be"punished with an everlasting destruction from thepresence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (II Thess. 1:9). The fact of the matter is,all who will "yield themselves to become servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:16) may do so. For "the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but thatall should come to repentance" (II Pet. 3:9). SoGod has ordained beforehand that the destiny othose IN CHRIST will be heaven, and that the destiny of those OUTSIDE OF CHRIST will be hell.Thus the Bible teaches predestination.

In the next article we will discuss the meaning of"election."

BILLY GRAHAM ON THE CHURCH

It is difficult to understand how a man can read the Bible as much as Billy Graham evidently has and yetknow so little about the church which is clearly revealed therein. In his newspaper column (Arkansas Gazette, 12-1572) someone asked him the following question: "What do you think of the concept of 'one church'? I have heard that there are over 200 Protestant denominations in the United States. Don't you think this is too many ? Church unitwould seem to be desirable. Are you for oragainst it?" T.D.I.

By reading Billy's answer, one is immediately impressed with the fact that the querist knew moreabout the Bible than the person to whom the question was addressed. In fact, one would have to get upearly and stay up late in order to pervert the truth any more than Billy did in answering the question. We shall quote all that he said, but only a paragraph at the time in order to comment on his remarks.

"ANSWER: The word 'church' as often used,

is a misnomer. Actually, there is only one Church

(with a capital C), that's the body of believers in

Jesus Christ. I heard of a lady who went to the

post office and ordered a book of stamps. 'What

denomination ?' asked the post office employee. 'I

didn't know they came that way,' said the lady,

'But make mine Baptist'."

It is true that the word "church" is often misused. It is applied to some human denomination, or a collection of denominations such as Billy defends. The Bible reveals no such thing as a church with a capitalC, if by that one means an ecclesiastical hierarchy composed of denominations. Does Billy believe tha"the body of believers in Jesus Christ" should be divided into hundreds of denominations ? Yes, he does. But the Bible doesn't teach it.

The word "church" is used in the New Testament in two ways: universal, embracing all of the saved everywhere; and local, referring to Christians whomeet and work together in one locality (Matt. 16:18;I Cor. 1:2). No denomination on earth fits either of these descriptions. By their own admi ion, a denomination contains less than the saved of the earth and more than the saved in one congregation or locality. A body of people that is not the church in the universal sense or the local sense is not the church in any sense!

"I believe in churches respecting each otherand working together. I am against, however,the amalgamation of denominations into onesuper-church. You see, various church bodies are indicative of the differences in human personality and the minor variations in theological understanding. Neither logically, nor Biblically,could they be squeezed into one repressive mold. They can, however, cooperate in such a way that they implement the over-arching plan and willof God."

I, too, am against the amalgamation of all denominations into one super-church. If every denomination on earth merged today that wouldn't make themright. No, it would not be logical nor Biblical tosqueeze them together. Due to their "minor" variations and the way they fight one another, it would belike tying a cat and a dog together. And just what is the "over-arching plan and will of God?" It is not denominationalism, but rather all Christians united in the one body, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead of denominationalism implementing th"over-arching plan" of God, the Lord taught thadivision would thwart the Lord's plan and impedthe progress of his people (John 17)

"I couldn't envision 'one church' in the United States, unless the nation became a dictatorshipand we were ordered to organize and unify administratively."I wonder if Billy can envision one church in the

days of the apostles and the first century. Perhaps he is so blinded by denominationalism and the"church of your choice" idea that he cannot. But there was only one church in the beginning, and itwas by the authority of the Lord and not a decree of the civil government.

"Denominations have a rationale, or reason for existence. If such organization serves the purposes of Christian education, mi ions and evangelism, that's one thing. An oppressive hierarchy is another."He failed to tell us the reason or rationale behind

denominationalism — according to the Bible. Whenit comes to a consideration of truth and the Lord's church, we are not concerned with logic or human wisdom. Those who are thus guided have never found it logical or reasonable to follow the will of God (ICor. 1:18-31). And it is not an "either or" proposition. We are not forced to accept denominationalism or an oppressive hierarchy. What about acceptingthe authority of Christ and all being one in him

"Denominational philosophy was denned well when the apostle Paul said in II Corinthians 1:24, 'Not that we lord it over your faith; wework with you for your joy'." It is bad enough for a modern sectarian preacher to try to defendenominationalism, but when one accuses the apostle Paul of defending it, that's just going tofar! If Paul denned the denominational philosophy ( in the sense of defending it) then he contradicted himself — as we are about to show.

The context of the verse cited by Billy proves that he perverted it. Paul had been falsely accused by theJews. They had impugned his motives in preaching and nurturing the early Christians. He did not claim the right or desire to rule or dictate their faith. In the King James Version the passage reads, ."Not forthat we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand." And the same apostle wrote that faith comes by hearing the word (Rom. 10:17) and that there is ONE faith (Eph4:5). Does that sound like "denominational philosophy?"

Paul condemned division among the Corinthians and admonished them to speak the same thing (ICor. 1:10). To the Philippians he said, "...let uwalk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing(3:16). He declared that all who are truly obedient to the Lord are "baptized into one body" and that there is "but one body" (I Cor. 12:13,20). He said that the one body is the church (Eph. 1:22,23). Nowhow many true churches does the Lord have ? If youhave trouble with that question, answer this one: If I said that I had one animal and that animal was a dog, how many dogs would I have?

I realize that to oppose Billy Graham is, to some people, like condemning Santa Claus, motherhood and apple pie, but he is a false teacher and a dangerous man. His preaching and work is in direct conflict with that for which our Lord prayed (John 17:20-23). When he gets hundreds of people standingbefore him in his revivals, or listening to his radio programs, he NEVER tells them what Peter toldbelievers to do when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). He does not tell people that upon their obedience to the gospel theLord adds them to his church (Acts 2:47). Instead,he tells them to pray the prayer of a sinner, be saved by faith only, be baptized if and when they desire,and go home and join the church of their choice. He seems to think that the Lord has neither church nor choice! Honest people can see the difference between what he preaches and what the Bible teaches.

Oh yes, about that joke: It is obvious that thelady didn't know any more about stamps than she did true Christianity.

THE THREAT OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

The use of instrumental music in worship has always been a live question to those concerned withNew Testament teaching. The i ue is an old one.Churches have children growing up and these children need to be instructed. The i ue is never settled once for all as each new generation must study anddeal with the problem.

The New Testament does not mention the New Testament church using instrumental music. To this statement most informed people will agree.

A THREAT

The use of the instrument threatens the peace ofthe children of God today as it did in yesteryears. Consider some statements which points this out.

(1) "We do not say nor affirm that instruments in worship are sinful. It is a good thing in the placewhere God placed them, but he did not place themin New Testament worship" (Darrell Moore, The Bible Way, Dec. 1965). (2) "I think I have brothers who wor ship Gowhere the instrument aids them, just as I havebrothers who worship with no instrument ever present. Since the Scriptures are silent on this matter, Ithink it belongs in the realm of opinion" (Robert Meyer, Truth Magazine, Vol. 9, page 211) "We can hardly see how it can be a matter offaith, since faith comes by hearing or reading anwe neither hear nor read anything about the instrument in the New Testament. Any discussion of theinstrument must necessarily fall in the realm of opinion ... It is becoming increasingly clear to manyin the Churches of Christ that our arguments against the instrument are for the most part notarguments at all, but quibbles. I can say this without a trace of embarra ment. . . I know of no arguments strong enough to permit disfellowship over an instrument... Since we find no divine law against the instrument, we refuse to consider our Christian brothers who use one as being in hopeless error ... We conclude that its use is a matter of opinion ... A distur bing thing to me is that not a few teachers and ministers in high regard among the Church of Christ share this view, but fear to speak it publicly. I know for an absolute fact that there are men on the faculties of Church of Christ colleges whofeel this way about the use of the instrument" (Ibid., page 146) (3) A Christian Church preacher, Reggie Thomas,said in a letter dated March 20, 1965, a copy of which I have in my files, that Wayne Poucher "is

a member of the Church of Christ but he is not as radical as many of the Church of Christ preachers are; he is willing to recognize members of the Christian Church as Christians; he doesn't consign us all to hell for using the musical instrument, as do manyof the Church of Christ brethren. Because Brother Poucher is willing to consider the music question a matter of opinion, he does speak in a lot of thChristian Churches. He always brings a great message ..."

(4) J. W. Roberts of the Bible Department at Abilene Christian College said, "Nor is there any reasonable doubt that the continued use of the instrument in worship is almost the sole barrier tofellowship between the conservative churches of Christ (Christian Churches) who use the instrument and those of us who do not... These Conservative Christian Church people and we belong together... The music question is still the barrier to fellowshipand communion" (God's Eternal Purpose, 1969 ACC lectures) (5) Brother Brent Lewis said, "While I was attending Abilene Christian College, and majoring inmusic, I had occasion to talk to the then A Cappelladirector, Mr. Rollie Blondeau. He expressed to me and several others one day, in a verbal discussion,that he did not see anything wrong with instrumental music in the worship service of the church —and that, to his way of thinking, it was simply anexpedient. He said that he felt that the "Church of Christ" was rather narrow-minded about this viewpoint of "vocal music only," and that it would beperfectly all right to have instrumental music. However, he pointed out that he did not profess this position openly, because there were too many peoplthat would disagree. I was also told by several reliable sources that Vernon Moody (who was awaygetting his doctor's degree at the time I was at ACC) held the same position, which he expressed from time to time ... Also, there was a great amount of dissatisfaction on the music faculty in general because the administration would not yet permit them to perform classic religious works with theuse of any organ or piano or orchestra. Mrs. Mina Coleman, one of the music teachers, was eagerlylooking to the day when the administration would permit these works to be performed with instrumental accompaniment, in order to simply enhancethe "state of the art" — which should accompanythe performance of standard religious works" (Walking In Truth, Vol. 4, No. 34)

(6) One of the most significant statements alongthis line to me comes from the pen of Carl Ketcherside when he said, "More than two years ago a meeting of top-level men in the churches of Christ was held in an eastern city with a prominent brother from the Christian Church. It was agreed that these leaders in the non-instrumental ranks would tone down the factional approach in their articles andbroadcasts, eliminating such materials as would intensify tensions between the two groups. No mention of the meeting ever leaked out to orthodoxjournals but the effect has been seen coast to coast. ... A front-rank man in the Bible department atAbilene Christian College recently said that if the instrument was being introduced now, the brethren who oppose it would look at it a long time before

they would divide over it... We must face up tthe fact that a great many preachers and professors -in Christian Colleges now realize that it was wrongand sinful to divide over instrumental music and the millennial question .. . After all the conferences have been held and the bone-weary negotiators have completed their awesome studies of 'ham on the Lord's table' and 'gopher wood in the ark' in relation to

-instrumental music, the only way they can unite is to unite ... All of the sparring and fencing around over whether psallo includes plucking or twanging on something while you are singing is beside the point when it comes to fellowship in Christ Jesus" (Mission Messenger, November 1969)If one will look at the above statements it will be very evident that we are going to have to re-fightthe battle over instrumental music in the church in our generation.

Those who question the values of Old Testament study should consider the fact that no place in the word of God defines obedience with greater precision and clarity than the book of Deuteronomy. Special attention should be focused upon three passages: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah

your God which I command you (Deut. 4:2)

Ye shall observe to do therefore as Jehovah your

God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn

aside to the right hand or to the left. (Deut.

5:32).What thing soever I command you, that shall yeobserve to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it (Deut. 12:32). What is suggested is that obedience requires doing exactly what Gocommands without modification. Israel was warned against adding to or diminishing from God's commandment, and in the first of the three verses the purpose of such strict adherence to the divine command is assigned — "that — i. e., in order that — ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God." Which is simply to say that the onlway to keep the commandments of God is to do exactly as God says, without addition or subtraction. When one adds to or diminishes from the divine commandment, and then fulfills the modified version, he has not kept the commandment of God at all; he has done as he pleases.

That is a le on worth remembering. The com

mandments of God that are in force today are not

altogether the same commandments which God gave

in an earlier age. But the meaning of obedience does

not change, no matter what commandments God gives.

Box 155

Romulus, Mich. 48174

KEEPING IT IN CONTEXT — No. 2

In the first article in this series, I pointed outthat many misunderstand the Bible because of taking words out of their context. Many words have a number of meanings and this makes it difficult to know what a specific word might mean in a particular text. Many times the Greek or Hebrew does not give us much help because they are the same. The only solution to this problem is the context.

Our study this month is on the word "Father." The noun, father from (Pater) has a number ofmeanings. The root meaning signifies a nourisher or protector. In Matt. 23:9, Jesus said, "Call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven. In I Cor. 4:15 Paul said, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Chr ist, yet have ye not many father s; for in Chr ist Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." To manypeople these scriptures present a problem. In thefirst, Jesus forbids calling anyone on earth "Father" and yet Paul told the Corinthians he was their "Father." Here again the context comes to our aid.The context shows the difference in the meaningof the words. It is obvious that in the statement of Christ he was alluding to the Divinity of God. In this sense we ar e to call no man father on this earth. However, Paul was referring to himself as agospel preacher caring for his spiritual children inhis letter. He was the first to plant the seed of thegospel on Corinthian soil and could therefore becalled their father. It must be made known that Paul's apostleship had been in question by some atCorinth. He was therefore vindicating his apostleship with such an affirmation.

For years the Catholic people have addressed their priest as "Father." When they are challenged onthis matter they always run to scriptures where the word "Father" may be used. The question is do the Catholic people use the word "Father" in a scriptural way?

We will now observe the ways the word "Father" is used in the New Testament. In Heb. 12:9, Paulsaid, "Furthermore, we have had fathers of ourflesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence." It is made clear in this text that the word "Father" means a fleshly father or a progenitor ofchildren. Do the Catholic people mean this whenthey address the priest as father? I hope not!

The word is sometimes used with reference to the patriarchs. In II Peter 3:4, "For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." When Catholics addr ess the pr iest do they mean he is a patr iar ch? I don't think so.

As I mentioned above the word "Father" is sometimes used in the sense of one who has taught other people the truth. Paul called himself the "Father" of the Corinthian brethren. Notice he said (I Cor. 4:15) they had only ONE father in this sense. Some Catholics will argue they call the priest "Father" in the same way Paul used it in this text. This cannot betrue for two reasons: First, they call ALL priests Father but Paul says we have ONLY ONE in thissense! The second reason is: In the text Paul taught the Corinthians the truth and started the church at Corinth. Catholics do not limit the use of this term to the priest who first taught them Catholicdoctrine. It is given to all priests. I insist that the Catholic people do not use the word in this sense.

Last, it is used as the Lord used it in Matt. 23:9. T hat is calling anyone on earth your spir itual or divine father. I must affirm without reservation that this is the sense in which it is used by Catholics. T his is forbidden by the Lord himself.

Again, we can see how important it is to keepwords in their context.

IDIOMS

Idioms are a characteristic phenomenon of most languages. I am referring to idioms in a sense of expressions that are logically inexplicable; butwhich convey a meaning in the total sense of theexpression. For example, in English we say, "Howdo you do?" This expression does not mean what it seems to say literally. To the contrary, the meaning of the total expression is something like "How are you feeling, etc."

GREEK USAGE

In the Greek language there are many idioms that cannot be translated word for word in a literal manner. It might be noted, incidentally, that thevery word "idiom" comes from the Greek adjective idios, "belonging to one," "one's own," etc.

In this article several Greek idioms that are

found in the New Testament are presented for brief

study.

"SAINT"

There is no Greek word as such for our word

"saint." The Greek equivalent is actually the ad

jective hagios, "holy," that is used in the substan

tive sense of "a holy one." Hence, a "saint" is a

"holy one."

"WIFE," "HUSBAND"

Our words "wife" and "husband" in our English Bibles are translated from the Greek nouns gune,"woman," and aner, "man." The context must determine whether the "woman" under study is a"woman" in the general sense, or a "woman" in the sense of one's "wife." In Greek, one's "wife" isone's "woman." Similarly, one's "husband" is one's"man."

"GOD FORBID"

The expression "God forbid" is found several

times in the epistles of Paul. In the Greek text we

find neither the word "God" nor the word "forbid."

Literally, the Greek expression says "may it not

become (happen)."

"UPON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK"

The Greek text that is translated "upon the first day of the week contains very few of these English words; in fact, the Greek expression would literallysay, "on (in) the one of the Sabbaths (or Sabbath)."

Some Greek students would say that the Greek

expression means "on the first (day) after the Sabbath; that is, on Sunday." Others suppose that theplural "Sabbaths" is to be "understood in the sense

of "week." In any event, it appears clearly that the Greek

idiom is to be understood in the sense of "Sunday,"

which is "the first day of the week."

Is it po ible to attack an argument in the interest of truth without being labeled a proponent for thi ue which the argument supports? I hope so because this is not written in support of mass and uncontrolled abortion, but rather for sake of truth.

That abortion is murder has been put forth as an indisputable fact. Is abortion murder? It is argued that the unborn has life, thus has a spirit (James 2:26), and therefore, to kill the unborn is murder.

That the unborn has life and thus a spirit is notdisputed. But is the taking of mere animal life murder? Animal life?! Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 affirms that the life of both man and animal consists of body and spirit. Of course, man has, in addition to his bodyand spirit, an inner-man (II Cor. 4:16). It is this difference between man and animal that makes the premeditated killing of man murder (Gen. 9:6)

Now the fact that the unborn human is alive does not. prove it also has "LIFE" — that inner-man, thatimage of God. To argue that "kind begats kind," and hence the unborn human has "LIFE" — that image of God — is not valid because a child is not begotten until it is born. Does the unborn have "LIFE" — that inner-man? Does God consider the unborn "LIFE?" Let God's word answer.

The following is quoted from Exodus 21:22-23 as rendered in the Douay Version. "If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require,and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life."

Now it is asked: if God considers the unborn "LIFE," why did he not demand the penalty of "life for life" in the case of killing the unborn ? It cannot be argued that "life for life" was not demanded because this is an accidental killing since if the mother was killed, it would also be accidental, and yet her death carried the death penalty. How can it be said that God considers the unborn "LIFE" when he did not demand "life for life" for causing the death ofthe unborn, but did demand "life for life" for causing the death of the mother wherein both deaths were the result of the same cause?

Clearly, the unborn child, while it is alive, does not possess "LIFE" — that inner-man, that imageof God — that distinguishes it from mere animallife. This truth is further evidenced in Isaiah 44:24 which speaks of "man" being formed from the womb.

Obviously, any conclusions based upon the premise that abortion is murder is without foundation.

There is one exception, and that of course is any

abortion wherein the aborted child in fact lives. To

then kill such is indeed murder.

In closing let it be said that mass and uncontrolled

abortion is the result of mass and uncontrolled pre-

and extra-marital relations. The best way to elimi

nate the effect is to eliminate the cause. Let us then

deal with the cause, and preach: "Flee fornication!"

— 492 S. AnacapaVentura, Calif. 93003

Response to my article on "Abortion" in the November 1972 i ue of Searching the Scriptures has been heartening indeed. In addition to the radio editorial broadcast on KDXI in Mansfield, Louisiana (and reprinted in Searching the Scriptures, December 1972), I received a letter from brother Richard Cravy of Impact Tracts, Route 4, Box 505, Huntsville, Texas, asking permi ion to reprint the article in full. Brother Cravy writes, "I am in full agreement with the position you take and feel that altrue servants of the Lord are too... We live in a university town with over 10,000 students and believethe truth on this matter should be presented to them as this is very definitely a moral i ue." Concerningthe reprints of the article he states, "If we have anydemand for the material we will sell it on a non-profit basis as we do all our printed products."

A lady from Pine Bluff, Arkansas who wrote and requested copies of the article adds, "I think one (copy of the article) should be read in all teenagclasses at church."

A gospel preacher from east Texas wrote these encouraging words, "... I want to commend you forwriting and teaching on a subject which has in mopinion, been neglected. I think you did a superb jobin the writing of the article and in setting forth thetruth on this widely discussed subject and I appreciate it." Another gospel preacher from Mi ouri writes, "It (the article) is excellent and the quotations are especially helpful."

A lady from Mar yland wr ites these words, "I wanted to share with you an additional problem. Wewould like very much to adopt some children, buthanks to abortion, they won't even put your name on a waiting list for three years. There are few babies being born eligible for adoption, due solely toabortion leniency. These children would not be 'unwanted, battered children or on welfare rolls' if theywould be given to parents who would love and care for them."

I share these letters with you because I feel theyagain underscore the need for preachers and teachers of the gospel to take a stand on this i ue. Each of these letters has received an immediate and personal reply. I appreciate very much the encouragement I have received from the brotherhood.

P.O. Box 98 Springhill,Louisiana 71075

"Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery,which was kept secret since the world began, but is now made manifest, and by the scriptures of theprophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:25,26)

When the apostles went forth telling of the Christ and Him crucified, they were telling a secret. God had a plan in His mind since the world began, but it was not known by man until the revelation in thefulness of time. Bits of information may be foundin the scr iptures of the prophets of old, but theapostles and prophets of the New T estament madethe plan known. The faith they proclaimed includethe great facts of how Christ died for our sins, andwas buried, and on the third day arose. All this was according to the scripture (I Cor. 15:1-4). The faith was made known to all nations for obedience of faith. People were to believe, but this belief was to be active in working through love. No action of the mind alone can suffice. Faith without works of obedience to perfect it is as dead and usele as the body without the spirit (James 2:14-26).

Let us read more about this mystery and its manifestation. "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is givento me for you, to fulfil the word of God; even themystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles;which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:25-27).

It was a mystery, but it is now made manifest. One part of this revealed plan was that Christ should be preached among the Gentiles, giving them hopeof glory. People who say that one's conversion is amysterious miracle which no man can understand doseriously err. The mystery is now made manifest. It has been revealed, so it is no more secret or hidden. It was never a mystery because it could not be understood. It was, rather, a mystery because it was at first in the mind of God only, and was not revealed. The word mystery in our Testament gives no encouragement to or excuse for the emotional excesses conducted in many places today in the name of religion. Such disorderly services are contrary to His will. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:26,33,40).

Peter makes it clear that the plan of God concerning which the prophets of old, and even the angels,only saw a glimpse, related to man's salvation made po ible by the suffering of Christ and His subsequent glory. "Receiving the end of your faith, evethe salvation of your souls. Of which salvation theprophets have inquired and searched diligently, whoprophesied of the grace that should come unto you:searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when itestified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, anthe glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us theydid minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospelunto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desir e to look into" (I Pet. 1:9-12)

Angels did not know the precious truth until itwas revealed, but now the Holy Spirit has guidedthe apostles and prophets in making a complete revelation. For this let us be very thankful, and let us resolve with new determination to know the wonderful words of life. Good students of the patriarchal and Jewish laws, and of the prophets of old, can see that the mind that guided the writers of the OldTestament had plans for a New Testament. Hints were given as to His secret, and it was made clear that a great new day was coming. Angels and prophets could see this, but much was kept secret. Theycould see that a Messiah was coming who should first suffer and then be glorified. The complete revelation came in Peter's day, and it remains in written form for us. We may understand when we read. Common people could hear and understand when itwas spoken (Mark 12:37). Those who were blinded by tradition could not see (Matt. 13:15)

The message came by revelation (Gal. 1:11,12). It was first spoken and then written. "If ye havheard of the dispensation of the grace of God whichis given me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

Let any who do not understand study. If they seek they shall find. There is more for us all since we all should grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Ignorance of this great salvation is sinful and without excuse. Read I Cor. 2:6-13 and profit. Need we say more concerning the past mystery that is mademanifest in this sunlight age of revelation?

SEND A CLUB TODAY!

Three for $12.00 per year

DUDLEY ROSS SPEARS WILL GO TO GERMANY

My plans for moving to Germany next summer depend on being able to raise $1,000 month support, $800 of which is salar y an$200 of which is a working fund. I am also $4,000 short on travel expenses for my familand personal effects. It is imperative that Iraise the support by the end of March because I have to pre-register my children in a German school. Anyone who can help, please contact me immediately.

The cause of truth in Germany now offers agreat opportunity. If we wait, this opportunitymay not be there. During November two small conservative churches were strongly confirmed during meetings I held with them and another group was started in the Frankfort area, making a total of three small groups now meetingin West Germany. Brethren, I am willing to gobut I cannot go without adequate support. Iyou brethren feel that it is good for me to go at this time, please contact me at 35 W. Par,Orlando, Florida 32804. My telephone number is Area Code 305 425-7021. If I don't raise the support by the middle of March, I won't be able to go this year and the work already started may come to an end.

Ed Lewis, Route 3, Box 259, Leland, North Carolina 28451 — Recently my family moved to the Wilmington area from Tampa, after having spent three years learning from and worshipping with the Lord's people at the North Street and North Boulevard congregations. There has never, to my knowledge, been a faithful congregation in this place. There is, however a group of unfaithful brethren, about 100 inumber, established in Wilmington. We have some dear friends there and feel that through teaching the word of God in its purity, that we might reach several honest hearts and bring them out of error. We plan to establish the Winter Park Church of Christ on February 4, 1973. The field is wide open and there is much to be done: We are fortunate to be a ociated with, and be encouraged by, the small but faithful number of Christians that we will be working withThe Harold Taylors, the Paul Evans, the Lee Shepherds, the Jimmy Lusks, and Bro. Danny Foster and several children make up a capable nucleus withwhich to establish a congregation and to spread the gospel in this area. We are trying to find a gospel preacher to work with us and we hope to have thisaccomplished soon. We would appreciate hearingfrom any preacher who might be interested in this work. We also plan to have several gospel meetings to teach the lost and edify us in 1973.

In addition to our work in Wilmington, WintePark men will take turns going to a small nearby congregation in Bolivia, N. C, to preach each Lord's day. The Winter Park congregation is located at 5028 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N. C. 28401. Visitors or inquirers can call 919 371-3844 or 919 7912541. We seek the prayers of every Christian whoreads this article for the Lord's work here.

PHILIPPINE PREACHING TRIP Wallace H. Little

God being willing, Frank Butler of Anniston, Ala.,Jady Copeland of Sepulveda, Calif., and I will spendfive weeks this spring in the Philippines preachingamong brethren there. This is at their invitation. Tentatively we will depart the United States on March 29 and return during the first week in May. Quite a number of brethren have asked about thepo ibility, following our return, of bringing them an up-to-date report on the work there. This interest was especially strong among those having part insupport of native preachers. We are planning to dothis. Those desiring one of us to speak before them,please contact us so we can work out the schedule. We desire your prayers for this trip, that God's will may be done.

P.O. Box 1306 Marshall,Texas 75670

Herbert Thornton, Edna, Texas — I plan to movein the summer of 1973.1 have talked to the elders of the congregation here at 301 S. Robison St. in Edna,Texas. We have mutually agreed that I will resign in January effective in the summer of '73. Anyone desiring a conservative preacher may write me at this address: P.O. Drawer "Y", Edna, Texas 77957 or call me at area code 512 657-2844.1 am 43, married, have a son who is a Junior at Florida College, a son who is graduating from high school in May of '73, also a daughter 12. I will consider moving anywhere where my services are needed. I commend the elders,deacons and members to any preacher desiring tconsider the work here in Edna.

Calvin C. Essary, 205 Pike Road, Selma, Ala.36701 — It is po ible that some have not been aware that there is a faithful church meeting in Selmwhich takes a clear stand for the purity of thchurch and therefore against church support of human institutions. The congregation meets at 724Parkman Avenue in Selma, and several faithful congregations are cooperating scripturally to make itpo ible for me to do the work of an evangelist here. The Craig Air Force Base is located here, and wwould be pleased to receive information about anfriends or relatives you may have who are stationed or working at the base, as well as names of another persons in the Selma-Marion Junction area, so that we might encourage them in the truth. If youdo know of such persons please tell us about them and tell them about us. When you are in the area,plan to assemble with us. If you are in the vicinitand desire information as to times of meeting odirections to the meeting place, call 872-6695 or 8721839.

Walter Schreiner, 239 North Street, Utica, Ohio43080 — I have been working with the church inUtica for the past 18 months. I am leaving the work here and would like to hear from any congregation who may desire my services. My phone is: (614) 8922629.

DEBATE Ray Hawk, P.O. Box 2005, East Gadsden, Alabama

35903 — A public discu ion has been arranged be

tween Mr. Henry McCaghren, evangelist with the

Sansom Avenue church of Christ and Mr. G. T.

Sharp, pastor of the United Pentecostal Church,

Florence, Ala. The discu ion is scheduled in Gads

den for Feb. 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 27, 1973. The

propositions cover the Godhead, Holy Ghost baptism,

and miraculous gifts. Holy Ghost baptism will be

discussed Monday and T uesday nights. Spir itual

gifts Thursday and Friday nights. The Godhead

question will be discussed Monday and Tuesday o

the following week. I will moderate for brother Mc-

Gaghren. Mr. Joe Harrod will moderate for Mr. Sharp.

Gene Reno, Route 1, Box 149, Gerber, Calif. 96035

— The church of Christ, 1605 Park Avenue, ReBluff, Calif. 96080, is in need of a full time preacher. Anyone interested please contact me at the aboveaddress or Tom Holmes, Route 1, Box 114, Gerber,Calif. 93035, phone: 385-1216 or John Purdy, Route 2, Box 2186, Red Bluff, Calif. 96080, phone 527-3913. My phone is: 385-1252.

Clyde Kelley, 15671 Louisville St., Homeworth, Ohio 44634 — The Silver Park church of Christ, 2738So. Union Avenue, Alliance, Ohio 44601, is lookingfor a sound preacher of the gospel to work with us. The preacher moved the first of the year. We are asmall congregation and can only partially support aman, but can help him secure adequate support.Please write to the above address if interested.

Charles F. House, P.O. Box 1031, Douglas, Ariz. 85607 — Checks from individuals to the Spanish church of Christ marked building funds are 100% tax deductible and may be sent to Box 1031, Douglas,AZ. 85607.

Elden Givens, 3201 Lakeside Road, Lethbridge,Alberta, Canada — Several months ago, Dave Bradford, of Calgary, Alberta, wrote of the work here in Southern Alberta, so I will not take more space to say again what he said; find his article in April '72i ue and reread it. My brother, Donald R. Givens,appealed for support and received enough to moveto Lethbridge last July. I moved here the first ofAugust from the work with the Brawner Parkwaychurch in Corpus Christi, Texas. At first my intentions were to work at a "secular job" and preach and teach when the opportunity came. Since August 20,I have been driving the 105 miles each Sunday topreach and teach in Medicine Hat; and since October 2, I have been working here in Lethbridge as a student accountant. However, as men have found who have tried such an arrangement, there is not enough time or as much time as we would like to devote to study and teaching. We would like to stay here in Lethbridge, as "full-time" teacher and preacher, being convinced that two men are needed in thework, and that an abundance of teaching is here to be done. We have a program of work outlined for the coming months that we would like to be involved in "full-time" if we can secure enough monthlysupport. We are already here in Canada; are there any churches or individuals that will help us stay to do what we believe will be a very fruitful work? Concerning our program of work, we hope to have"public Bible lectures" at the civic center, a schedule of "college level" Bible classes for the members here, and more home Bible studies (which we believe we could have if we had the time). At this date we have a commitment from one church to help $50 on our monthly support; we would appreciate hearing from others. If you would like more information about our planned work or myself, please wr ite or call me collect, area code 403 - 328-5489.