Volume XXXIII January 1992 Number 1

WHEN WAS THE KINGDOM ESTABLISHED ON EARTH?

When was the kingdom of the Old Testamentprophets established? Some think that it began in the days of Abraham when God made His promises to him.This is obviously not true because the propheciesconcerning the kingdom had not been made and a King had not been designated to received a kingdom.

Some theologians teach that the kingdom was established during the days that John the Baptist wasupon earth. This could not be true because Jesus made the statement that none was greater than John theBaptist, "notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11: 11). Thisis to say that John was not in the kingdom. He livedand died before the kingdom was established.

Besides this, John the Baptist preached, "Repentye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3: 1, 2).After John was put in prison, he was never released(Matt. 14: 3-12). Jesus came preaching, "the kingdomof God is at hand... " (Mark 1: 14, 15). The kingdom had not come when John was beheaded. John was dead before the church or kingdom was established.

The kingdom or church could not begin before the death, burial, resurrection and Ascension of JesusChrist. In fact, the death, burial and resurrection must have occurred before Christ could receive a kingdom, according to prophecy. Daniel prophesied ofChrist ascending to the Father to receive his kingdom:"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like theSon of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him nearbefore him. And there was given him dominion, andglory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, andlanguages, should serve him: His dominion is aneverlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, andhis kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.

7: 13, 14).

The promise was made of Messiah who would savethe people.: "But when the fullness of time was come,God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made underthe law, to redeem them that were under the law, thatwe might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4: 4, 5).Jesus came at the right time for a definite purpose.The blood of the lamb of God had to be shed in order to make both Jew and Gentile one in Christ (Eph. 2: 1316). By his blood, Christ reconciled all unto God inONE body "by the cross. " The one body is the church(Eph. 1: 22, 23; Col. 1: 18, 24). Our redemption, theforgiveness of sins, is through his blood (Eph. 1: 7). The church is purchased with his blood (Acts 20: 28). The church could not have been established before Christ gave his blood on the cross.

The kingdom could not have been established before Christ ascended to the Father to receive the kingdom of prophecy. He could not ascend until he wasraised from the dead. He gave his life in fulfillment ofthe eternal purpose of God, and he must be raised fromthe dead before he could ascend to the Father and receive the power he now has.

Christ told the twelve just before he ascended intoheaven that they should tarry in Jerusalem until theywere endued with power from on high (Luke 24: 49;Acts 1: 8, 9). After he said this he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. Daniel saw night visions in which "one like the Son of man camewith the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient ofdays, and they brought him near before him" (Dan.

7: 13).

The kingdom or church could not be establisheduntil the power came. Jesus said unto the people andhis disciples, that there were some of them standingthere, "Which shall not taste of death, till they haveseen the kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9: 1).If we can know exactly when the power came, we knowexactly when the kingdom came. Just before his Ascension, Jesus told his apostles to "tarry ye in the city

Page 2

of Jerusalem, until ye be endured with power from onhigh" (Luke 24: 49).

Luke was the inspired writer of both Luke and Acts.He addressed both to "most excellent Theophilus"(Luke 1: 3; Acts 1: 1). Acts begins where Luke leaves off."The former treatise" Most surely refers to Luke (Acts

1: 1). Christ commands the eleven not to depart fromJerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1: 4). Verse 6 gives the account of the eleven askingJesus if he was now ready to "restore again the kingdomto Israel. " He replied, in effect, that it was not any oftheir business what the Father put in His own power.Then he adds, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and inSamaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth"(Acts 1: 8).

We have the right PLACE and the right TIME:Jerusalem and Pentecost. That is where the powercame and when the power came. That is where and when the kingdom of Christ began upon earth according to prophecy and fulfillment. That is the time whenand place where the church had its beginning. Acts 2 isthe account of that power beginning its work and in thelast verse we read, "And the Lord added to the churchdaily such as should be saved" (Acts 2: 47).

There is one undeniable fact that is proved by this:any church that began anytime before or after Pentecost, and at any place other than Jerusalem is not thechurch the prophets spoke of, and is not the one Christpromised to build in Matthew 16: 18. Since the "church"and "kingdom" are but two terms for the same body ofpeople over whom Christ reigns, the kingdom of Christbegan on earth in Jerusalem on the first Pentecostfollowing the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3

MAGIC AIDS FORNICATION

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth iswithout the body; but he that committeth fornicationsinneth against his own body. What? know ye not thatyour body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For yeare bought with a price: Therefore glorify God in yourbody, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6: 1820). This simple approach to sexuality is seldom heardon the modern scene. While the passage is addressed toChristians (for they are bought with the price of the shedblood of Christ), the practice of the principles set forthhere would solve many problems in society at large.

If more would understand that human bodies were made by God and intended to become instruments ofrighteousness in which God is to be glorified, it would change what people decide to do with their bodies. Ifmore would flee fornication, it would cut way down onthe divorce epidemic. It would reduce the number ofmurders, for many lives are taken by betrayed mates. Itwould slow down teenage pregnancies. It would drastically cut down on the number of abortions, for many ofthese grow out of fornication. And, it would greatly reduce the problem of Aids and other diseases directlyrelated to ungodly behaviour.

For sometime now, efforts have been made to solvethe problem of AIDS. The public has been lectured aboutloving those with this disease. We are told that theyneed to be hugged. Some large cities have given out clean needles to dope addicts to help curb this scourge.High school students in New York (and soon other citiesplan to do the same) have been given condoms. A recentfront-page newspaper article appeared with a picture oftwo high school students (a fifteen year old boy and histhirteen year old girl friend) holding this birth control device which they had received at school. One teenage boy told me sometime ago that his sex education class atschool was mainly a course in how to commit fornication without getting pregnant or contracting a disease.

With all the money spent on AIDS (and I certainlydon't begrudge medical attention to anyone who is ill),far more people in this country are fighting cancer, heartdisease and other serious ailments from which manypeople die every year — far more than from the AIDSvirus. If you paid attention to the news media, you mightget the impression that AIDS is about the only newsworthy malady in our nation.

But none of this has compared to the frenzy generated bythe announcement by basketball super-star, Magic Johnson, that he now has the HIV virus and that he wasretiring from professional basketball. He has been praised by the media, by entertainers and by politiciansas a great hero. How did he get this virus? He admits to sexual encounters with women. Wilt Chamberlain,another basketball great boasted in a recent book abouthis promiscuity with many women. I am sorry MagicJohnson has the HIV virus. Further, I am sorry for his sinful lifestyle which exposed him to it. Now he is goingto "help" young people by telling them how to have "safesex. " His emphasis will be on using protection. In one anemic statement, he acknowledged the criticism hehas received for his sinful contact by saying he would saysomething about the choice of abstinence. Which choicedo you think immature and sexually active young peoplewill hear from him. Abstinence, or protection? And doesanyone seriously believe that young people who are given birth control equipment will not commit fornication?

It is argued by some that "everyone is doing this" sowe might as well protect ourselves. Well, not everyone iscommitting fornication, thank the Lord, but all toomany are. Two people are too many.

What is "safe sex"? Would you listen to divine wisdom? "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her ownhusband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power over her own body, butthe husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not onethe other, except it be with consent for a time, that yemay give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and cometogether again, that Satan tempt you not for yourincontinency" (1 Cor. 7: 2-5).

Again, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: Thatevery one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as other Gentiles which know not God" (1Thes. 4: 3-5).

And again, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bedundefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13: 4). These passages define the limits of"safe sex. " God ordained marriage to be honorable for allpeople and the marriage bed is "undefiled. " Fornicationis to be avoided for it is sinful. God will judge those whopractice it. Each one is responsible for keeping his"vessel" pure. Husbands and wives have privileges witheach others bodies which are not to be denied. Each is to render to the other what is their "due. " In marriage it issafe, honorable, designed for pleasure for both husbandand wife, and provides a preventive to fornication.

Now, what will become of fornicators, includinghomosexuals and lesbians? "Whoremongers" shall havetheir part "in the lake of fire" (Rev. 21: 8), whether we aretalking about Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain orJimmy Swaggart. He told his congregation it was "noneof their business" if he consorted with prostitutes. But

Page 4 ___________________________________________________________________________________________

according to John, it is indeed God's business. Jesus taught that out of an evil heart proceed fornications, murders, and other evils, and added "All these evil things come from within, and defile the man" (Mk. 7:21-23). Paul listed fornication as a work of the flesh and said "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:1921). My friends, what fornicators need is not protection but a penitent heart which results in a changed life which respects God's law on sexuality. But then, you would not hear that on the network news, would you?

I am personally outraged that our President has put Magic Johnson on a commission to work with young people and offer them advice. Unless there has been some change from what I have seen out of Magic, his principle advice will be how to commit fornication and not get caught. As long as that prevails then it will be true that Magic aids fornication.

********** A PERSONAL NOTE TO READERS

It is a joy to be back at my desk putting together an issue of STS. Therapy is still going on with my back, and I still have some restrictions for a few more weeks, but it is a relief to feel that I am back at my post. Words cannot fully express to Donnie V. Rader my heartfelt appreciation for his able and faithful work in editing the paper for the past seven months. His three months for the summer turned into seven and I am much in his debt and so are the readers. Why not take a moment and drop him a note of gratitude.

The fall meetings are now behind us and we are into our winter classes at Manslick Road in Louisville. We appreciate your prayers and other encouragements.

.

JOHN 1: 1-3, 14

In the prologue (perhaps better stated as the epilogue) of John's gospel, he wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1: 1). The "Word" is translated from the Greek word logos. The "Word" (logos) here is "the personal manifestation, not of a part of the divine nature, but of the whole Deity" (W.

E. Vine, op. cit. Vol. 4, p. 230). B. F. Westcott says of the "logos" that "no idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. " He further states: 'Thus we are led to conceive that the divine nature is essentially in the Son, and at the same time that the Son can be regarded, according to that which is His peculiar characteristic, in relation to God as God. He is the "image of God" and not simply of the Father" (The Gospel According to John, p. 3). Christ (the eternal Word, the logos) is said to be "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1: 15). The word "image" (Gr. eikon) is defined by Thayer: "an image, figure, likeness: (op. cit. p. 175). Philip requested of Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. " Jesus replied: "Have I been so long time with you, and doest thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me has seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?" (Jno. 14: 8, 9). Westcott comments on the expression has seen the Father": "hath seen not God in His absolute being (1: 18), but God in this relation" (Ibid., p. 203). He explains this relation in his comment on John 1:

18. "It is impossible, so far as our experience goes, for man to have direct knowledge of God as God. He can come to know Him only through One who shares both the human and divine natures, and who is in vital fellowship both with God and with man. In Christ this condition is satisfied" (Ibid., p. 14). C. E. W. Dorris also makes the meaning of John 1: 18 clear. "Natural eyes cannot behold God who is a 'Spirit' no more than they can see the soul of man. Man 'cannot see God and live, ' but he can see and understand 'God manifested in the flesh. ' Christ was not an ambassador from God but 'Immanuel, God with us, ' the 'Godhead in bodily form'" (A Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 223).

We now consider John 1: 14, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us... " The verb "dwelt" is from the Greek word skeenoo, literally, "tabernacled. " We arenot to suppose that because the Word "became" flesh thatthe Word itself was different from what He was

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5

before the Incarnation.

How was Christ "made" flesh (KJV), or how did He"become" flesh (ASV)? Jesus was made or became incarnate. Webster defines "incarnate, " "invested with a bodily and human nature" (Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 608). Westcott says, "He was with God;and 'He tabernacled among us: ' the divine existence is brought into a vital and historical connection withhuman life... The mode of the Lord's existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions ofhuman existence; but He never ceased to be God... TheLord's human and divine natures were united in one Person" (op. cit. p. 10).

How was Christ made, or how did he become incarnate? He was born of a virgin (Matt. 1: 18-21). To denythe virgin birth of Jesus Christ is to call in question thesacred historians and to doubt the honor and purity ofMary. Someone has said: "He was born from a virginwomb and when He died he was placed in a virgin tomb. "He was God in the flesh (1 Tim. 3: 16, KJV). Whether ornot there is sufficient evidence for the King Jamestranslation "God, " the fact remains that other scripturessustain the idea. The eternal Word (logos) was made,became flesh. He was born of a woman (Gal. 4: 4). He wasmade like His brethren in all things "That he mightbecome a merciful and faithful high priest in thingspertaining to God" (Heb. 2: 17). He became "perfect"(Heb. 5: 9). The word "perfect" here does not denotesinlessness. He was already sinless — He lived a sinlesslife. The word "perfect" in this verse is the first aoristpassive participle of teleioo and is defined by A. T. Robertson as "the completion of the process of trainingmentioned by this same verb in 2: 10 'by means ofsufferings' (op. cit. Vol. 5, p. 370). Robertson also makesa worthwhile observation on Hebrews 2: 10, "perfectthrough sufferings. " He says: "If one recoils at the ideaof God making Christ perfect, he should bear in mindthat it is the humanity of Jesus that is under discussion.The writer does not say that Jesus was sinful (see theopposite in 4: 15), but simply that 'by means of sufferings' God perfected His Son in his human life and deathfor his task as Redeemer and Saviour" (op. cit. Vol. 5, p.347). In Hebrews 10: 5, the inspired writer says of Christ,"... but a body didst thou prepare for me. " The contextdenotes that the body was to be for an offering, anoffering for sin. Please notice that "a body didst thouprepare for me. " Who is the ME? The ME existed beforethe body. The body was prepared for the ME. The virginMary became the mother of the human body of Jesus.She is not the mother of God, as the Catholics claim. TheME already existed. The ME, or God, is eternal. H. Leo Boles has well expressed it: "Jesus was as human as hismother Mary, and as divine as his father God" (Commentary on Matthew, p. 25).

Existing in the flesh (incarnate) Jesus accomplishedall that He came to earth to do. He prayed to the Father,"I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the workwhich thou hast given me to do" (Jno. 17: 4). There can beno reason for God the Son (Christ) to again take a bodilyform and return to earth. He finished the work of redemption, and His kingdom was established on the

first Pentecost after His resurrection from the dead. He presently is at the right hand of His Father where He is "far above all rule and authority, and power, and domin-ion, and every name that is named, not only inthis world, but also in that which is to come" (Eph. 1:21). He rules in the hearts of, and over the lives of Hissubjects in His spiritual kingdom. He will reign untilthe last enemy is destroyed — death (1 Cor. 15: 26). TheBible is silent upon a future bodily reign of Christ.

Our finite minds cannot comprehend how Jesus wasboth God and man upon the earth. This comes in therealm of the supernatural which we must accept byfaith. Neither do we understand, nor are we able toexplain, the miracles which Jesus performed; but webelieve that He did them (Jno. 20: 30, 31). We acceptthem by faith (Rom. 10: 17).

Jesus Was More Than A Man

When Jesus was upon earth He was human yetdivine. He became thirsty; yet it was He who said: "if anyman thirst, let him come unto me and drink (Jno. 7: 37).He became hungry, but He was able to feed about fivethousand men besides women and children with five loaves and two fishes (Matt. 14: 19-21). He becameweary, yet He offered Himself to all who were weary andheavy laden (Matt. 11: 28-30).

It is contended by some that Jesus could not havebeen God on earth because He was tempted in all pointsas we are (Heb. 4: 15), but God cannot be tempted withevil (Jas. 1: 13). So, the argument is that the devil is theepitome of evil; therefore, since Jesus was tempted withevil, He could not have been God. It is true that thedivine nature of Jesus could not be tempted (as God hecould not be tempted with evil), but His human nature(like other men) faced temptation and experienced thefull force of it. As God, He was sinless; and as a human being he was sinless (1 Pet. 2: 21-23).

When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that shewould give birth to a son, he said of this son, "He shall begreat, and shall be called the Son of the Most High... " (Lk. 1: 32). In this announcement, the angel also referredto the child to be born as "the holy thing" and he wouldbe called "the Son of God" (vs. 35). Could such statements be made of a mere human infant? When Maryvisited Elizabeth, she said, to Mary, "and whence is thisto me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?"(vs. 43). Such could not have been said of just anordinary child.

Jesus was worshipped while upon the earth. He wasworshipped by the wise men who had come from the eat.they came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he that isborn King of the Jews? for we saw the star in the east,and are come to worship him" (Matt. 2: 1, 2). In verse 9 it is stated that "they fell down and worshipped him." The word "worship" is translated from the Greek word proskuneo and denotes an act of reverence whether paid to creature or to the Creator (see footnoteon Matt. 2: 2 in ASV). The word is applied to Jesus "whois to be revered and worshipped as Messianic King andDivine Helper: Mt. 2: 2, 8, 11. — 8: 2; 9: 18; 14: 33, 15:25; Jno. 9: 38 —Mt. 20: 20" (Amdt and Gingrich, op. cit.

p. 724). This word is used in several instances in theNew Testament. Jesus

Page 6 _________________________________________________________________________________________________

said to Satan in Matthew 4: 10: "Thou shalt worship theLord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. " TheSamaritan leper whom Jesus had healed, fell upon hisface at his feet, giving him thanks (Lk. 17: 16). But when Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and worshipped him, Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up;I MYSELF ALSO AM A MAN" (Acts 10: 25, 26,Emphasis mine, H. H. ). Never did Jesus ever give thiscommand to anyone who bowed or kneeled at His feet.Neither did He ever command anyone, saying, "Standup; I also am a man. " Interestingly Peter would notallow Cornelius to fall down at his feet and worshiphim; but Peter "fell down at Jesus' knees saying, Departfrom me; for I am a sinful man, O LORD" (Lk. 5: 8,Emphasis mine, H. H. ). Women took hold of the feet ofthe risen Jesus and worshipped Him (Matt. 28: 9).After the apostle Thomas had probed the wounds ofJesus, he said unto him. "My Lord and my God" (Jno. 20:28). (More to follow).

WHAT LAW?

In the late fall of 1990, Jerry F. Bassett of Eugene, Orpublished a book (Rethinking Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage) which advocates the views that he has been circulating in the Coburg Rd. bulletin and in his exchanges with Weldon Warnock (Guardian Of Truth) and Ken Leach (Sentry).

The editor of this paper has asked that I write a reviewof Jerry's material in a series of four or five articles

What The Book Says

Brother Bassett's book (consisting of twelve chapters

— 149 pages) makes about seven major points:

1. Matt. 5: 32 and Matt. 19: 9 are explanations ofthe law of Moses (Chapters II, III, IV, V).
2. He affirms that marriage and the bond are the same. Thus, he concludes that those who are divorced(unscripturally) are unmarried and not bound (VI).
3. The term "adultery" refers to unscriptural divorceand remarriage and not to unlawful sexual activity.Brother Bassett affirms that when a couple "commitadultery" that it refers to their unlawful dissolving of a previous marriage and entering another. He tells us thatcommitting adultery is not continuous action (ChapterVII).
4. I Cor. 7: 15 teaches that the believer (who has beendivorced by the unbeliever) is not under the marriage bond and is thus free to remarry (Chapter VIII).
5. God does not require that those who have committed adultery (by unlawful divorce and remarriage) to separate (dissolve the marriage). God does require repentance for adultery. However, the couple repent of the unlawful divorce and remarriageand continue to live together (Chapter IX).

6. The guilty party can remarry (Chapter X).

7. Divorce and remarriage is a matter of individualdifference. Thus, it is not a question over which todissolve fellowship (Chapters XI, XII).

The Articles In Review

We plan to examine the above points in a series of fivearticles:

1. "What Law?"
2. "Marriage, Bond And Adultery. "

1. "1 Cor. 7: 15 — Is The Believer Free To Remarry?"
2. "Must Those Who Have Committed Adultery Separate?"
3. "May The Guilty Party Remarry? Divorce, Remarriage And Fellowship. "

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7

Divine Law and Human Responsibility

The above line is the title of Bassett's first chapterwhich doesn't directly address divorce and remarriage.His point is that God's law for man is twofold: (1) loveGod and (2) love man. This is couched in man's nature — being in the image of God. The Gentiles and aliens today sin because they violate one of these two principles(Bassett, pp. 4-6). We are told that after the gospel waseffective, the Gentiles were convicted of sin by pointingback to the two principles above rather than a violationof the gospel (Bassett, p. 4, 6).

From these principles Jerry concludes: 1. That allmen are under Gen. 2: 24. It is a sin for any (includingGentiles and aliens today) to violate it (Bassett, p. 7, 9).

2. The solution for this sin or any other is to obey thegospel (Bassett, pp. 10-12). 3. "Thus, the gospel ofChrist, the New Covenant, may warn the world of theconsequences of sin, but it is not the means by which those of the world are made sinners" (Bassett, p. 12).

At first, it may not appear that this first chapter hasmuch to do with the divorce and remarriage issue. But,as one wades deeper into the book, he can see where theauthor is headed. His point is that the Gentiles were notunder the gospel. The aliens are not under the gospel.The gospel does not condemn the alien's marriage, butshows him the remedy (repent and be forgiven andcontinue in that same marriage).

The Gentiles

Even a casual study will reveal that the Gentiles havebeen under the law of Christ since its beginning. Thus,we conclude that the same principle is true concerningthe alien sinner.

1. Jesus has universal authority. He has "powerover all flesh" (John 17: 2). He claimed, "All power isgiven unto me in heaven and in earth... " (Matt. 28: 18). Jesus will judge the world (which includes the Gentiles and alien sinners (Acts 17: 30-31).

2. If the Gentiles are amenable to part of the law,then they are amenable to all of the law (as a whole).Both the Old and New Testaments come as package deals (Gal. 5: 3; Jas. 2: 10). Thus, if the Gentiles and the aliens are subject to the part of the law thatdeals with faith, repentance, confession and baptism(Rom. 8: 2), then he is subject to the rest of the law ofChrist.

1. How could the Gentiles (and aliens) havebeen guilty of adultery if they were not under the law ofChrist on marriage? Paul stated that the Corinthians had been guilty of adultery and fornication prior to their becoming children of God (1 Cor. 6: 9-11). It will not do to argue as Bassett does that they were under the twofold law (1. Love God; 2. Love man). Neither of those principles within themselves tell us about what islawful or not with regard to marriage.
2. God has one body of laws for the Christian and the alien sinner. There is not one set of laws for the Christian and another for the alien. The set of laws given to one is the same as given to the other.

The gospel is for the alien (Mark 16: 15) and the Christian (Rom. 1: 7, 15). The doctrine is for the alien (Acts 5: 27) as well as the children of God (2 Jno. 9).

The "Law In The Heart" — Rom. 2

Jerry argues that the Gentiles were still under the"work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom. 2: 15) some "twenty-five years after the gospel was preached in Jerusalem" (Bassett, p. 6).

First of all, it was the "work of the law" and not the law itself that was written in their hearts (Rom. 2: 15).Secondly, the law was the law that was not given to theGentiles (vs. 12-15) — the law of Moses. Though theGentiles did not receive the law itself, they did adopt some of the moral principles that were found therein.Thus, they had the work of the law written in theirhearts.

If Paul's description of the Jews being "in the law" isa reference to their state before the law was taken awayand the law of Christ became effective (Rom. 2: 12), thenhis description of the Gentiles being "without the law"and having the "work of the law written in their hearts"must also refer to their state before the law was taken away and the gospel of Christ was effective. If not, whynot?

If the Gentiles were still under the "work of the law written in the heart" some "twenty-five years after thegospel was first preached in Jerusalem, " then the Jewswere still "in the law" at the same time!

Matt. 5: 32 and Matt. 19: 9

Chapters 2-6 of Bassett's book are devoted to sayingthat Matt. 5: 32 and Matt. 19: 9 are not presentationsof the law of Christ, but explanations of the law ofMoses.

Bassett puts the whole Sermon on the Mount withinthe framework of the law or Moses. He says, "TwentiethCentury folk tend to read the words of Jesus recorded atMatthew 5: 13-16 while visualizing him speaking to an audience of Christians... Jesus spoke in the Sermon onthe Mount to Jews who still lived under the Law of Moses... Clearly, Jesus was reminding these Jews ofwhat God intended for them to be as God's covenant people within the framework of the Mosaic law... theyknew he was teaching them to be obedient to the law under which they yet lived, the Law of Moses" (Bassett,pp. 18, 20).

In contrast, the text says that what Jesus was preaching was the "gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. 4: 23).

Bassett insists that in the Sermon on the Mount and in Matt. 19: 9 Jesus was not contrasting the old law with his law (pp. 22-24). In these texts, Jesus was not "introducing new legislation" (Bassett. p. 24). What he wasdoing, Jerry says, is contrasting the false notions of theScribes and Pharisees with what the law actuallytaught (Bassett, p. 23).

Listen to what Bassett says specifically about ourtexts under consideration.

Matt. 5: 32 — "If we can see this, then the conclusion is unavoidable that Jesus' words at Matthew

5: 32 were his statement as to what the Law of Moses really taught" (p. 30). "... his statement at Matthew 5:32 was not new legislation peculiar to the gospel.Instead, it was his statement of what Moses had actually said per Deuter-onomy 24: 1-4" (p. 33).

Matt. 19: 9 — "Were it not for these facts, virtually no one would have even the least difficulty seeingthat

Page 8

Jesus' conversation with the Pharisees fits the same pattern as his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount" (p.35). This passage is also an explanation of Deut. 24: 14 (p. 53).

1. To reject Matt. 5: 32 and Matt. 19: 9 as a part ofthe New Testament, will lead to rejecting much more.If these passages are not a part of the New Covenant, then neither is the whole book of Matthew. If that is true we must reject the other "gospels" as well.

1. There are definite contrasts to the law of Moses in Matt. 5 and 19. In both texts, Jesus puts his teaching in contrast to the law of Moses. In Matt. 5 he would begin by saying "Ye have heard that it was saidby them of old time... " and then in contrast, he wouldsay, "But I say unto you... " This is done at least six times in the chapter (vs. 21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 3839; 43-44). Yes, it is true that Jesus deals with themisinterpretations of the law in this chapter,however, there are definite contrasts to the law ofMoses. In Matt. 19 the Pharisees saw a contrast in what Jesus was saying and in what Moses had said.
2. A law can be written or stated before it becomes effective. Mark 16: 16 is one example. If Matt.

5: 32 and 19: 9 are an explanation of the law of Mosesbecause that was the law in effect at the time they werespoken, then I wonder about Matt. 18: 17; Jno 3: 5;Matt. 7: 21; Jno. 14: 6; Luke 22: 30; Matt. 28: 18-19 and many other passages.

4. Matt. 5 and 19 are not explanations of Deut.

24. What Jesus taught in Matt. 19: 9 was in harmonywith God's law at the beginning (vs. 4-5). He showed,how- ever, that what Moses allowed (tolerated) wascontrary to that (v. 8). The disciples' reaction (vs. 10-12)shows that what Jesus taught (v. 9) was more rigid thanwhat Moses tolerated. Thus, they are not the same. Also, in v. 12, Jesus' teaching included a reference tobeing an eunuch for the kingdom's sake. That doesn't sound like an explanation of the old law.

If Deut. 24 meant that God approved of divorce forfornication (which is what Bassett argues), then whatwas allowed was not for the hardness of the Jew's heart.

In Deut. 24, one could not put away with approval.It was not for fornication, for the fornicator was to bestone (Deut. 22). Furthermore the one who remarriedwould be defiled. Yet, in Matt. 5 and 19 one could putaway his/her mate for fornication with God's approval.The one who put away his/her mate for this cause couldremarry. This does not harmonize with Deut. 24.

5. Bassett manages to make Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9 applicable to us anyway. He says that since the Jews werecovenant people then the same principle applies tocovenant people today (Bassett, p. 62). I wonder why that wouldn't work on all that was said to the Jews.

POPPING THE QUESTION

Jack was a retired business man I met on the first tee one afternoon. I had gone alone to the golf course for a little fresh air and sunshine, and Jack, also about to teeoff without a partner, asked me if I'd like to play with him.I said yes, silently promising myself to ask him, no laterthan tie third hole, if he would let me come to his hometo study the Bible.

His first drive sailed admirably down the middle of the fairway. Mine did not. On the way to look for my ball weexchanged the usual pleasantries, inquiring into one another's work, families, etc. When he offered the standard comment that being a preacher must be "interesting" work, I knew the door would never be more open, soI forged ahead.

"You attend church much?"

"No, not very often. "

"Know anything about the 'Church of Christ?"

"No, not really. "

"Well, to tell you the truth, those of us who designateourselves as churches of Christ occupy somewhat of a unique position in the religious world. I meet a good manypeople who have a fairly mixed up idea of what we are allabout. "

"Really?"

"Tell you what. If I promised it wouldn't take more than forty-five minutes, would you let me come to your homesome evening and try to make our case from the Bible forwhat we honestly think is a distinctive viewpoint on whatChristianity is supposed to be. "

"Oh, I don't know. I'm really not a religious person. Nooffense, but I guess I probably wouldn't be interested. "

'That's okay. I'm not trying to 'hustle' you or anything!But seriously, if you ever want to talk, give me a call. Ithink there are some interesting things in the Bible thata lot of folks have just never looked at very carefully. "

At this point, having found my ball, I scared it with an 8 iron into a greenside bunker and the conversationturned to other, less pleasant, considerations. But I had asked this fellow for a study, and though he had declinedI felt good about having asked. There are any number ofother approaches that might have been taken, obviously.Some are preferable to the one I happened to use on thatoccasion. But the important things is that I got thequestion asked. And I did it before the third hole!

Page 8

Granted it is not always possible to ask a totalstranger so quickly if he would like to study the Bible.Even when it is, it may not be expedient. What wisdomis always urging us to look for is the optimum moment to bring up the subject of Bible study with those we meet.We want to broach the matter at the very best timepossible: the time at which all things considered, thereis the best possible chance of meeting with a positiveresponse. The point I want to make, however, is that theoptimum moment often comes earlier, rather than later, in our association with people.

Of course, I did not merely "let it go at that" whenJack declined my rather abrupt request. At the end ofthe round, after having come much better acquainted,I handed Jack my card and tried (now in the context of a rudimentary "relationship" with the fellow) to restate that if her ever wanted to talk about the Bible, Iwould be happy to get together. I will probably call him at some point in the future and see at least one moretime if he wants to study. Who knows what will comeof it? What I have done with this man up front does not rule out my developing a friendship with him and beingin an even better position to teach him later. But thatmay not happen. If it does not, I know that I havealready asked him the question that needed to be asked. And my conscience feels good about it.

In our various deliberations about personalevangel-ism, it seems to me that we are losing, ratherthan gaining, ground with our insistence that we must"build a relationship" with people before we ask themfor a home study. Whether we build a relationship withfolks or not, sooner or later we are going to have to"pop the question" and simply ask them if we can studythe Bible with them. And my observation is that thefarther we go into a relationship with somebody, generally the less likely we are to ask them. The reasonis simple: the more involved the relationship, the morereluctant we are to jeopardize it by bringing up thetouchy subject of reli-gion. Perhaps my experience issimply unique, but I have found the quicker I get tothe point with a new acquaintance, the easier it is.

Admittedly, popping the question is not easy. Ask any young man who has had to get up the courage to ask a young lady to marry him. He dreads the veryidea. He gets sweaty palms just thinking when andhow he is going to do it. It is entirely possible that hewill stumble awkwardly when he finally does getaround to it. But make no mistake, get around to it hewill — because he loves her!

Similarly, when we need to ask someone to studyGod's word, delaying the inevitable (all the while tellingourselves we are "building a relationship") only makesus more miserable. What is more, it risks the possibilityof some unexpected misfortune ending that person's opportunity to obey the gospel before we have talked with them about it. Is there not much to be said for going ahead and promptly asking folks if they will study withus? With home studies it may be as James says it is withthe Lord's blessings generally: "You do not have becauseyou do not ask" (Jas. 4: 2). But whether we ask up front

(Continued on bottom of next column)

THE SINFULNESS OF THE "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" CAMPAIGN

The Sycamore church in Cookeville, Tennessee, decided to "meet the challenge" of raising $17 million to mail out a brochure to every home in the U. S., purchaseads in some leading publications, and conduct a TVprogram. When it became obvious they weren't going toget $ 17 million they went back to the drawing board anddecided they could do essentially the same thing for only $10 million. They were about to waste $7 million of the"brotherhood's" money before they realized this. Thething that kept them from it is that the "brotherhood"didn't send it. Would you consider it a good risk as an investor in a $17 million project with me if I cut the pricenearly in half when I realized I couldn't get the full amount?

The Sycamore church is donating about 2% of the total, so did they meet the challenge or did they meetonly 2% of the challenge?

From The Mail-Outs

Numerous high quality, three-color mail-outs haverepeatedly been sent to thousands of churches beggingfunds. Add to that video tapes, postage, salary andtravel expense for the promoters. It would be safe to saythat approximately $1 million was spent on begging.Note what these mail-outs have had to say.

1. THE PLAN — "Brethren offer $17 million to evangelize the nation. Elders of the Sycamore Church OfChrist accept oversight of the project. " That's not quite the way it happened. It did not happen in that order(Brethren offer, Sycamore accepts). The brethren didn't offer $17 million. They didn't even offer $10 million so the Sycamore church had to mortgage their buildingand continue to beg (See The Update, July 1991).

If Sycamore "accepted" the oversight, who told themthey could have it? Where did those who gave it to themget that right? Who were these people? Who had the

(Continued from previous column) or wait until we have gotten to know someone better, ask we must. Love for a lost soul will move us — somehow,someway — to pop the question. And when we learn to do that simple thing, we may be surprised at how manydoors the Lord opens for His word!

Page 10 __________________________________________________________________________________________________

right to make plans for "the brotherhood?" In August,1989 (before the oversight was assumed by Sycamore)there were "Brainstorming meetings with brethren experienced in evangelistic outreach, seeking advice and counsel. " The only officer in the universal church isJesus. He did not ordain "brotherhood" elders (1 Pet.

5: 2). Such authority was usurped. They didn't "accept"oversight, they seized it! They assumed more than God assigned. And there was no authority for these "Brainstorming Meetings" (which originated outside any localeldership) to decide anything for the "brotherhood" (actually, a "churchhood").

2. A MESSAGE FROM THE ELDERS — "Never before (that we know of) has there been a realistic plan for national and world evangelism. " They should read more of the Scriptures than the manual on denominational schemes. Paul said the gospel hadbeen "preached to every creature under heaven" during his lifetime (Col. 1: 23). Is that not realistic enough? How did they do it? Jesus gave the Great Commissionto the apostles and told them to teach others "to teachothers" (Mt. 28: 19, 20). Paul taught the same (2 Tim.

2: 2). He taught that the local church is "the pillar andground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3: 15). Local churches "sounded forth the word of the Lord" (1 Thess. 1: 7, 8).This was how they did it. No mention is made of a sponsoring church or brotherhood eldership. Even if they had never heard of a "realistic plan" it would notjustify an unscriptural project.

1. WHAT CHRISTIANS DESERVE. "Christians deserve the opportunity to participate in something bigger than a budget, larger than the local work. " What did they do to deserve something the Lord didn't authorize? The Lord didn't give us anything larger than a localwork so He must not have thought we deserved it.Surely his wisdom and knowledge are not so limited asnot to see that we needed something larger than a localwork. Why didn't he set up some centralized mechanismfor doing it? Some elders have stepped beyond the roleof local elders. They think such limitations are old fogyand they have "improved" upon the Lord's way. But, "myways are not your ways, saith Jehovah" (Isa. 55: 8). Yetall oversight, flock-feeding, worship, discipline, andevangelism was done by each local church (1 Pet. 5: 2;Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 11: 17-34; 16: 1, 2: 14: 16, etc. ).
2. THE GREAT PRIVILEGE. "It allows the individual to feel that he is an integral part of thecongregation. " You mean he wasn't allowed this before the campaign? That is what is implied. When each member functions in the body as he should (whether heis an "eye, " an "ear, " a "foot, " or a "hand, 1 Cor. 12:15-25), he is an integral part. He was allowed to do thisbefore the "One Nation Under God" Campaign was ever heard of. It was not a privilege that was not allowed when he was functioning in the local church before this churchhood project came along (somethinglarger than a local church).
3. GRAND CLAIMS. "Here at the end, is youropportunity to be part of the greatest, most successfulevangelistic effort in our brotherhood's history. " This was said even before all the brochures were mailed out and the results were known. Is it greater than what happened in Jerusalem beginning on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 5,

9, 41; 4: 4)? Is it more successful than when Paulstated "the gospel... was preached to every creature under heaven" in his lifetime (Col. 1: 23)? Our "Brotherhood's history" goes back to when it began.Promoters are careless to make grand claims (beforethe facts are known) when they want your money.

6. SOMETHING LARGER AND SOMETHING SMALLER THAN A LOCAL WORK. When elders assume oversight of a multi-church project they take on adual role. They may still be over their local congregation,but they are something more than local elders whenthey put themselves in charge of a churchhood (misnamed "Brotherhood") project. They are making decisions over something other than and more then their local work (1 Pet. 5: 2).

Also, Bible classes are taking collections and forming their own treasuries and taking action under the oversight of someone in the class. Someone also acts as

treasurer. " ------and he 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade

class have set a goal of $50 to contribute to the 'One Nation Under God' Campaign. " (Other similar quotesappear in the mail-outs). Regardless of good intentions,there is no authority for a functioning organization larger or smaller than a local church.

7. AIMED AT THE "UNCHURCHED. " The brochure briefly mentions personal problems such asdrugs, materialism, divorce, pornography, but saysnothing about the sin of denominationalism, a sinwhich is causing billions of people to be lost eternally.Concerning their TV talk-show we are told that it is"aimed at 45% of the United States population whichbelieves in God, but is not part of any organized denominational group. "

8. BROTHERHOOD THINKING. "As a brotherhood, we will give an answer as to why we haveneglected the Lord's command to take the Gospel toevery creature... " As an individual I must give account for everything I have done or left undone (2 Cor. 5: 10; Mt. 25). Where does the Bible teach we will be judged "as a brotherhood?" No where! If so, a fewbad apples in the brotherhood could cause the whole brotherhood to be lost. Our individual salvation would be dependent on what others had left undone. The judgment will be on a personal basis, whether your ownname is written in the book of life (Heb. 9: 27; Rev. 20:13-15).

"Anxiously, we await news from the brotherhood thatthe funds are forthcoming. " There are numerous references to the "brotherhood. " It seems some "local" elders can think on no other plan. They think "churchhood" when they say brotherhood. A brotherhood is made up ofbrothers, not churches. And then they refer to churchesas "sister" congregations! Boy, try making sense out ofthat! They have drunk too much from the pollutedwaters of denominationalism and are engaged in thelanguage of Ashdod.

A churchhood is a "hood" of churches. Christ did not authorize a churchhood. Churches are not tied togetherbut are local, independent and autonomous. The only oversight is local. A brotherhood is a "hood" of brothers.Christ is the only officer in the brotherhood and he gaveit no function as a brotherhood. It is only mentioned one

Page 11

time in the New Testament and the extent of brotherhood responsibility is specified. "Love the brotherhood"(1 Pet. 2: 17). That's it! The way some Sponsoring Eldersspeak and think for the brotherhood you would think itwas mentioned on every page of the Bible and in themargin.

9. "WHY YOUR CONGREGATION DESERVES A SPECIAL COLLECTION OPPORTUNITY" FOR THE CAMPAIGN. "They get to participate in something Biblical, like the ancient Christians. "'But they were ableto do this long before any "Sponsoring Church" projectwas ever heard from or thought of. Perhaps this hasreference to the times when congregations sent relief toJerusalem (1 Cor. 16: 1, 2). But consider:

a. Jerusalem was a destitute church. Sycamore isnot. They contributed over $200, 000 to the campaign. b. The Jerusalem church did not launch a 10year program of being destitute. Sycamore launched a 10- year program of begging the "brotherhood" fortheir churchhood project. c. Jerusalem did not launch a massive campaign tosolicit funds. Sycamore spent huge sums to beg more money. d. Jerusalem's want was in benevolence. Sycamore's is not. Sycamore wants, but they are not"in want. " e. Jerusalem's want was peculiarly theirs. Sycamore's "want" is no more theirs than it is any othercongregation's. God has not assigned world obligationsto one congregation alone. We all have identical andequal duty according to our ability. f. Jerusalem's case is in the Bible. Sycamore's is not. So where is the parallel?

CONCLUSION: The Sycamore elders have allowed themselves to be influenced by "brotherhood" planners

— the "Brainstormers. " They seized the oversight ofa churchhood project. In doing so, they took more authority than God gave them and involved the congregation in error. The contributing churches havebecome partakers of their sin. We must strive lawfullyand follow the pattern. The great Commission does notgive us a blank check to do anything we want. Wecannot "do evil that good may come" (Rom. 3: 8). Weplead with the Sycamore elders to give up their projectfor the sake of the Scriptures and unity or else have thecourage to defend it in public debate.

HELPING THE NEEDY

QUESTION: Would you explain Acts 6: 1-6 abouthelping the needy widows? Our preacher says itmeans to help saints in emergencies (one time andnot ongoing). What constitutes a need where the church should take care of it out of the treasury?

ANSWER: The passage, Acts 6: 1-6, is self-explanatory in regard to the obligation of the church's relievingneedy widows. Here is an explicit example of the Jerusalem church taking care of its own. We must do no less. Ofcourse, we deduce that these widows had no children toprovide for them because the apostle Paul stated, "if anyman or woman that believeth have widows, let themrelieve them, and let not the church be charged; that itmay relieve them that are widows indeed" (1 Tim. 5: 16).Sometimes children don't have the resources to help, orthey are too scoundrelly to assist, and under such circumstances the church must help.

Certainly, the plight of the widows in Acts 6 was an emergency, but an emergency may result into a persistent thing. Webster defines emergency as "an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting statethat calls for immediate action. " There could be a widow,or any other saint, who may need permanent help. Forinstance, if a young woman was widowed with littlechildren, she might need continual aid from the treasury of the church for several months or longer. It wouldbe unconscionable to deny this sister ongoing support with no family to assist.

We are asked what constitutes a need? A need is when a person is in "want of the means of subsistence. " Theword subsistence suggests "the minimum as of food and shelter) necessary to support life" (Webster). A needysaint is not a brother or sister who no longer can affordan affluent life-style and thereby needs financial support in order to keep his new car, elaborate home andrunabout pleasure boat. Those can be sold and he or shecan live a less fashionable and luxurious life.

However, I don't see that a person has to becomeimpoverished, totally destitute, and ready for the poorhouse, before a congregation may provide some relief ina temporary crisis. He may not be able to obtain a loan.His need is real. A situation of this kind has to be evaluated and a prudent judgment made on the facts ofthe matter.

Page 12 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

More On Helping The Needy

QUESTION: A few years ago a destitute sisterasked the church for help and the brethren told her"no" because she lived with an unfaithful relative,and they were afraid he might benefit from it. Do youthink their fear was justified to deny the sister assistance?

ANSWER: According to the querist's description itseems to me the brethren should have been more concerned about the welfare of the woman than whether the relative would benefit from the assistance. I don't know all the circumstances of the case, but if thesister was staying in the home of the unfaithful relative, she would have some obligation for room and board, unless it was gratis. The church would, therefore, not be giving direct benefit to the relative. It wouldsimply be providing for the needs of a worthy saint.Since we are not told what the request was for, we haveno way of knowing. It might have been for clothes ormedical bills. We assume it was a legitimate request.

Maybe the sister was easily influenced by the relative and the brethren realized the money would mostlikely fall into his hands. Of course, there would be a way to avoid this by the brethren finding out what sheneeded and arranging for the purchase of them.

To deny a worthy saint provisions of life because offear of the possibility that it may indirectly benefit someunbeliever is to close our hearts to compassion. Shouldwe sit back and allow a brother or sister to go hungrybecause, for example, his/her unbelieving spouse will also eat of the food provided? Little children may attimes be involved. The church is taking care of its own under such conditions and the Christian in turn is providing for his/her own responsibilities.

In the October 1991 issue of Searching The Scriptures,Vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 4-5 (508-509), an article by brotherRobert L. McDonald appears entitled, "Of What Did Jesus Empty Himself?" This same article had appearedat least four months earlier in Preceptor (June 1991, Vol.40, no. 6, pp. 2-4 (158-159)). The editor of the Preceptor,brother Danny Brown, graciously provided me space to respond and brother McDonald a reply to my response(Preceptor, September, 1991, Vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 254-257).Although brother Connie Adams knew of my originalresponse to McDonald's article before it was printed inSearching The Scriptures, he chose not to contact me about printing my response, nor remove reference to myname in the article. I knew that brother Adams had published articles on "continuous cleansing" only uponthe condition that the names of those quoted were removed and I thought that this was his "editorial policy. "So I contacted him and asked why those promoting"continuous cleansing" had not been named in the paperwhile he left my name in an article that misrepresented me. He told me that on "continuous cleansing" he did not want to get into the "blood bath" going on in Arkansas andlose a couple of his Arkansas writers, but McDonald's article was different.

So I asked brother Adams for an opportunity to respond in Searching The Scriptures, as I had in the Preceptor, so that readers who do not get Preceptor could read both sides of the discussion. Brother Adams did not agree to publish my original full response (and brotherMcDonald's reply), but he did say he would "think about"printing a shorter response. (For those who will not havethe opportunity to read the full response and reply inSearching The Scriptures, contact me and I will send you a copy. )

Brother McDonald's article suggests that I wrote thatChrist emptied himself of his deity and that I denied the deity of Christ. In support of this allegation, brotherMcDonald takes brief quotes from an article I wroteentitled "Did He 'Empty Himself Or Not?" (Faith and Facts, Oct. 1990, Vol. 18, no. 4, p. 76-94 (376-394)). I neverhave said nor written that Christ emptied himself of hisdeity, nor have I written denying the deity of Christ.What did I write concerning the deity of Christ?

The "Second" member of the Godhead, identified bythe apostle John as "Word, " was with God, and the Word was God" (Jn. 1: 1). The Word has always been and always will be the person of God, for he cannotdeny himself (2 Tim. 2: 13). When "the Word became

Page 13

flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn. 1; 14) he did not cease to be the very person of God. I do not knowhow to say this any plainer. For anyone to accuse me of denying that Jesus was God in the flesh would be a deliberate misrepresentation. (Wayne Greeson, "Did He 'Empty Himself Or Not?", pp. 77-76).

My position on the deity of Christ could not beany plainer. If brother McDonald still has problemswith this statement, I want to personally invitehim to attend a debate I have scheduled with a Oneness Pentecostal preacher for December 1991, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, in which I will beaffirming the deity of Christ under the propositionthat there are three persons in the Godhead. Will brother McDonald come and stand with me and defend the truth of the scriptures? I made thisoffer and asked this question in the Preceptor and brother McDonald has yet to respond.

In brother McDonald's article as it appeared in the Preceptor, I was misquoted. Brother Adamsinformed me that brother McDonald had corrected his inaccurate quotes for Searching The Scriptures.While brother McDonald's quotations have gotten closer to the original, he still managed to missquoting from my article faithfully and accurately.Why did he omit the quotation marks from the Biblelanguage and the Bible references from my quotes?Brother McDonald quotes twice from my article and both times fails to put in quotation marks theapostle Paul's language or supply the Bible references as I did in the original. Paul wrote concerning Christ that "he emptied himself in Philippians 2: 7, not Wayne Greeson. I wrote, "when the Word became flesh" (Jn. 1: 14), "he emptied himself (Phil. 2: 7) of certain of the attributes ofpowers of God for "in all things he had to be made likehis brethren" (Heb. 2: 17), and he "was in all pointstempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4: 15).(Wayne Greeson, "Did He 'Empty Himself Or Not?", pp. 78-79).

I am sure most readers will be glad to know thatactually brother McDonald and I are very close inagreement on this subject. The only objection brother McDonald has to what I wrote is my choiceof the word "attribute. " On the one hand he vigorously denies that Christ "emptied himself of any ofthe attributes of God, while on the other hand, heaffirms that Christ "divested Himself of the form of God" (emphasis in the original) and "He did not jealously seek to retain His equality with Godbut was willing to divest Himself so as to appear to sinful man" (emphasis added).

An "attribute" of God is "something attributed asbelonging; a quality, character, characteristic, orproperty" of God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, p. 96).The "form of God" and "equality with God" are bothclearly attributed of God. These are qualities orcharacteristics that belong to God. Brother McDonald strongly argues that Christ "divested

Himself of these two attributes of Deity, while taking me to task for saying Christ "emptied himself of certain attributes of God!

Isn't it time for this preacher's wrangle over words, this "blood bath" in which venomous name-calling has replaced sincere Bible study to end? I hope that my brotherin Christ will stand with me upon the revealed truth ofGod's Word. Together we must preach the good news tolost souls of the love of God that was so great "he emptiedhimself to become flesh, and then "he humbled himselfto die a cruel death. And he did all this for you and me.(Editor's note: We are glad to let brother Greeson speak for himself since his name was mentioned in brother McDonald's article. We still are persuaded that brotherMcDonald correctly dealt with the text of Phil. 2: 5-8 which is critical in this present controversy. As to the closingstatement in brother Greeson's article, I say a hearty"Amen. " Now if he can get that message across to the editor and a few of his fellow-writers for FAITH AND FACTS we may be able to make some progress in thatdirection. I certainly hope that anonymous "Louisvillian"reads these words and takes them to heart. )

Page 14

"PREACH THE WORD"

The charge to "Preach the word" is made "before God,and the Lord Jesus Christ, " and in view of the comingjudgment. And, the word is to be preached to offset the digressive tendencies of those who "will not enduresound doctrine" (2 Tim. 4: 1-4).

But if some "turn away their ears from the truth" evenwhen the word is preached, how much more when those claiming to be evangelists fail to preach that word?

The Condition

For a quarter of a century, the preacher had preached mainly topical sermons, and the congregation had tolerated those dry, boring sermons. The preacher resortedto personal opinion-giving and "cute" stories, and members of the congregation usually closed their Biblesafter the Scripture lesson was read from the pulpit.

The preacher used familiar phrasings and thought-concepts, and scouted around in a tired brain for somenew brainstorm or some clever innovation "to keep thepeople awake for another service. " Like other preachers,he panicked when Sunday drew near, because he had nomessage burning on the stove. He had run out of sermonthemes.

Then came the temptation to substitute entertainment to replace the sermons, and fill up the worshiptime with rites in order to use up the time allotted for themessage. But these continued diets of "the preacher's wise opinions" were not sufficient for the congregation'sspiritual growth, and neither were the "constant 'specials'—visiting musical groups, gospel films and thelike. " The preacher was "caught up in other things"community meetings driving about town on errands,talking on the phone, arranging the weekly newsletterand bulletin. "

The Cure

After a quarter of a century of famine, for both thepreacher and his audience, a cure was finally found:expository preaching from the Bible.

The Result

Now, the members "keep their Bibles open throughout the entire message. " The preacher himself hasdiscovered the adventures of exploring the inspired text."The Bible has been elevated to a lofty place within theworship itself, " and criticism must be directed towardthe Bible instead of the preacher.

The preacher now feels that "he is dealing witheternal material which begs for the telling. "

The Surprise

The foregoing example could fit any number of preachers and congregations among churches of Christ.Actually, the information came from a sectarian publication called Pulpit Helps (April, 1991). The articlewas written by J. Grant Swank, Jr., and was a reprintfrom Preaching (July/ August, 1990).

Topical Or Expository?

Actually, the Bible is filled with both topical and expository preaching, in both Old and New Testaments.The same sermon can consist of both types of preaching,

e. g., The resurrection (1 Cor. 15). "The Mystery ofGodliness" is as good a topical sermon as a preacher canfind, and if he can't divide his topic into six separate but related points, he is in the wrong business.

Some preachers may be more suited to one method ofteaching than they are to another, but a well-rounded diet of spiritual food is an absolute necessity, both for the preacher and the congregation. Even private studiescan be fruitful by using both the topical and expositorymethods of teaching.

And if you teach the Bible, there are times when you can't help but do a little, or a good bit of both.

A Sad Commentary

It is a sad commentary on some papers and bulletinspublished by members of the church of Christ, when youcan get more Bible from some sectarian publicationsthan you can from those written by the brethren.

And, with some of our pulpits characterized by the very conditions set forth in the beginning of this article,it wouldn't take much Bible preaching by a Methodist ora Baptist to outdo some preachers in the church ofChrist.

Some sectarian congregations have to take whateverpreacher their "conference" sends them, do without, orleave their particular denomination. Or a denominational preacher may have to leave his denomination inorder to "preach the word. " But given the Bible doctrineof congregational autonomy, no church of Christ shouldhave to endure a preacher who will not "preach theword. "

And given the charge before God, the Lord JesusChrist, and in view of the coming judgment to "preach the word, " no preacher should want to do otherwise.

Page 15

Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P. O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109

PATRICK ANDREWS, 1780 Mooreland Rd., Clarksville, TN 37040

— After four and a half years with the South Clarksville church, 111 be moving to work with the Chena Small Tracts church in Fairbanks,Alaska. During our stay at Clarksville, we baptized more than twodozen, many were restored and we withdrew from over half a dozen.We also appointed three mature, qualified men to serve as elders. I can only say good things about this church. The church at Fairbanks issmall with about 25 in attendance. The closest sound church is 450 miles south, over the mountains, in Anchorage. We will be isolatedfrom other brethren by at least a day by car. The cost of living in Alaska is 34% higher than in the lower 48 states. The church in Fairbanks will supply me with housing but I must raise the rest. My wife and seven children are willing and eager to help me. They will sell off what theyown except what will fit in three small trunks, and go live 130 milesfrom the Artie Circle. If you can help us it would be appreciated.

CLARENCE R. JOHNSON, 819 E. Commerce, Mexia, TX 76667 — After seven and a half years in Exton, Pennsylvania, I am moving tobegin work with the Shiloh church in Mexia, Texas. Much progresshas been made by the Exton church during our time together. Weturned back all outside support, built a new worship auditorium, andmore than doubled our average attendance. Twenty-nine have beenbaptized and three former members have gone to preach the gospel inother areas (Dale Garrison, Leo Rodrigue and Edward Smith). OnNovember 3, elders were appointed to oversee the Exton work. Theyare Jerry Carson, (215) 793-2441; and Phil Smith, (717) 768-3714.

ED WARREN NEEDHAM, 1325 Overlook Terrace, Titusville, FL 32796 — I worked with the church in Dunedin, FL since March 1, 1982. I had made an agreement to work with the church in St.Cloud, FL, but while making preparation to move was visited againwith heart blockage. I entered Tampa General Hospital on December11, 1990 for open heart surgery. After surgery and on Dec, 17, 1 experienced severe pain in my eyes and ended up with a blood clotlodging in my brain, causing a stroke, I am blinded in my right eye and lost the ability to read for a few months. My eyesight has not comeback but I am able to read some, but at a low level. I had to cancel the move to the work at St. Cloud. We are moving back to Titusville whereour only daughter lives and where we have a house from our formerwork there.

WALLACE H. LITTLE, 357 Honey Cove, Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548 — We at Northside just closed our fall meeting on the theme ofBible Authority. Sam C. Hastings, Bobby Witherington, SamBinkley, Don Meredith, Frank Timmennan and Aubrey Belue spoke.We had visitors from faithful churches, liberals and local walk-ins. Some new families came. They were "looking for the right church. " The lessons strengthened all and opened the eyes of several who had not heard these things. I am to be in the Philippines from December 14-February 15. God willing, I will take benevolence toneedy saints there, victims of the disastrous flood on the island ofLeyte. Pray for them and me.

EUGENE BRITNELL, P. O. Box 505, Athens, AL 35611—Near the first of the year, we moved from Russellville to Athens. We have builta house here and are near our sons and their families. After 37 yearsin Arkansas, we had enjoyed three and a half years with the Eastside church in Russellville where Johnny Richardson is now preaching.We are enjoying Athens and the area. I am preaching full-time for the Hays Mill church meeting five miles north of Athens. It is a pleasantand peaceful work. I also teach Bible daily in Athens Bible School.After 36 years, the SOWER continues to have a good circulation andinfluence. If you do not receive it, write for a sample copy. Brethren,let us endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit' and 'work while it is day. '

OBITUARIES

RAY E. CORNS of Gibsonburg, Ohio passed away within the last fewweeks. He had preached for many years in northeastern and northwestern Ohio and supported himself the last several years of hispreaching work by working for the railroad. I have stayed in his homein meetings two or three times. He did much good work and will bemissed. Ray was a joy to know. He always sent me a letter each yearto tell me when "Baptist Hog Day" would be in West Virginia, apractice dating back to the area where he grew up. He was a goodfriend and helped to introduce this paper to many people, paying fora number of subscriptions as long as he was able. Our sympathy to hislovely wife, Marge.

DON DUKE of Baytown, Texas also recently left this world for abetter place. He served for many years as an elder with the good Pruettand Lobit church in Baytown, Texas. His life was a blessing to all who knew him. Our best wishes are extended to sister Duke and the children.

WARNING STEVE HUDGINS, 2922 S. E. 7th St., Ocala, FL 32671 — Brethren who support men in the Philippines need to be aware of unscrupulouscharacters who may be able to tap into your checking account in yourlocal bank without your knowledge. It seem there are some expertforgers who can see a signature and reproduce it so the individual who signed the check could not tell it from his own. This happened to the church here in Ocala. This church is very small but we have beenhelping support brethren as we were able and from time to time havehelped in various emergencies. Recently our bank received a requestfor a wire transfer of 70% of our bank account to be sent to the savingsaccount of a woman we have never heard of and a request for astatement of the balance of our account to the hospital where ourtreasurer was supposedly a patient and this to take care of his hospitalbills. The letter was signed with a perfect signature of this brotherwho has never been out of the USA. The bank upon comparing thesignature with the signature card at the bank immediately wired the money without calling us. They did notify us after the fact. We wereable to get a stop payment before the check cleared. I don't think this woman has any connection with the church but she must have seen a check we sent and forged this name or had it done. I have notified the hospital figuring she may be an employee.

Several steps may be taken to avoid such a thing happening toanyone else. (1) Make certain the signature card at the bank lists the telephone number of those authorized to sign checks. (2) make surethe bank is informed to make no wire transfers without calling ortalking directly to the one whose signature appears on such a request.

(3) Send money with a bank check or some other way than with a personal signature. Should such a thing happen, call the corresponding bank immediately as well as notifying the local bank. It is unfortunate that something like this happened and we don't intend to allow this to keep us from helping those we feel need and deserve help.

SPANISH WORK IN MIAMI, FLORIDATERRY PARTAIN, 6060 18th Ave., N., St. Petersburg, FL 33710 — As of the beginning of 1992, 1 have switched my energies to full-timeSpanish work. The faithful Hispanic brethren in Miami have welcomed me with their typical warmth and charm. They will be my colaborers, tutors and family in this work. As a child, I heard my fatherpreaching the gospel to small Hispanic churches. I still remember the song we sang, the sights, the sounds, and the smells that were part ofmy childhood. During the twenty years that I have preached inEnglish, my heart has never been very far from the Spanish work. Inthe late 70's I worked in the Miami area surrounded by Cubans anddiscovered a growing interest in my heart. I have never been able toforget the vastness of that barely touched field.

Page 16

The complexion of the Hispanic community has changed dramatically since 1979. Wave upon wave of immigrants have come fromCuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador as well as Columbia, Venezuela andmost of the countries of South America. The Anglo community hasdropped by one-fourth but the Latin Community has increased bytwo-thirds so that now they are half of the population numbering about one million in Dade County alone. "Balseros" are floating ashoredaily... 1300 last year. Whole communities are 70 to 90 % Hispanic.

These people often have relatives in Central and South Americawith which they are in close contact. Miami is the hub of the wheel ofthe Americas extending to New York and Chicago northward, and toChile and Argentina southward. Like Ephesus in Asia in the NewTestament, this is a strategic place from which to spread the Word toall of Latin America. A young Guatemalan told me on my last visit toMiami that the gospel had changed his way of thinking and that whenhe goes to visit his family, he is going as a brother in Christ.

This is a fertile field. Walk down the streets and you can hearradios tuned to religious programs. There are four Spanish stationsthat carry such programs and their rates are cheap by Americanstandards ($125/hour). They read. They are not uneducated. Gospelteaching in the mass media has a better reception among the Hispanics, I believe, than among the Anglo population.

I am interested also in written materials which will have a life of their own. What is available is doing a tremendous job. But more isneeded. Also, I want to help train others to fight the good fight. Inrecent years many churches have been established or pulled out ofliberalism and they cry for help. They need visits, gospel meetings,exhortations to be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the faith. I want to help. Who will help me? Let me discuss this work withyou. I am entering this work for the long term. My phone number is

(813) 347-7572.

ROBERTO V. SPENCER, P. O. Box 98187, Lubbock, TX 79499 — In May three people were baptized who had studied for about 10 yearswith the Jehovah's Witnesses. We have other studies going on with J. W.'s and they are very angry. In September I preached a meeting inChihuahua City, Mexico where Jose Lopez preaches. In November Iwas also in a meeting in Camargo, Chi., Mexico where Francisco Rivera preaches. This last year I lost $400 a month support and amhaving some difficulty replacing it.

READER TO BE 100

On January 26, L. P. Cheek will be 100. He has lived most of hislife in San Antonio and in central Kentucky. He still lives alonewithout a radio or T. V. but spends his time in his garden or reading his Bible. He has been a subscriber to STS for many years. He has read his Bible through 300 times. The editor would appreciate if some ofyou would send him a card or a note and I am sure it would thrill him.Send it to L. P. Creek, 91 Nails Lane, Radcliff, KY 40160, or Monie Mathews, 1921 Taffeta Dr., Valley Station, KY 40272.

FROM AROUND THE WORLD SOUTH AFRICA — DAN HUDDLESTON has been invited down to Capetown for a five night meeting to respond to an attack fromliberals. One of their preachers wrote a booklet entitled "Anti-ism, AnError in Elementary Hermeneutics" and has circulated it all overSouth Africa. Henrick Joubert has already written a reply to it and Dan will deal with it in this meeting. He also reports that a youngbrother from where Ray Votaw preaches was killed by a stray bulletmeant for a criminal in a police shoot-out. Brother Huddleston has lost$1000 a month of his support and has been selling personal items and household things to keep going. He is a good man, worthy of help and is doing a good work. His address is: P. O. Box 16072, Strubenvale 1570 R. O. & S. Africa.

VENEZUELA — Ruben C. Amador reports two baptized in a recentgospel meeting in Caracas. He says the work is growing and lookingbetter in that country. He was to be in Costa Rica for preaching inDecember. He works with the Judiway St. church in Houston whereJamie Sloan of Klein wood was recently a guest speaker.

SOUTH AFRICA — Paul K. Williams reports two baptized in a tentmeeting in Esikhawini where a small congregation meets normally ina school classroom. Gene and Betty Tope are now back in South Africa

and David and Joanne Beckley have returned to the States after15 and 1/2 years in South Africa. Ray Votaw reports that the Beckleys had to return on credit because they did not receive enough help beforehand. Brother Votaw says "The Beckleys have had a tremen-dous impact for good in this multi-racial country withall races and cultures. They are truly worthy of your assistance. Theywill be sorely missed by so many — including yours truly. Please consider their needs. "

PHILIPPINES — a FAX from Jeff Kingry received on December 2,says that BERT ENOSTACION, able preacher not only in the Philippines but who did such good work in Hong Kong with the Kingrys,Smalls and Smelsers, was hit by a jeepney on the street and badlyinjured. He suffered internal injuries, many lacerations and histongue was severed and had to be re-attached. He has been moved froma hospital to a care unit nearer his home where his wife can help nurse him. This family has lost substantial support and is in seriousfinancial hardship. He had to stop the good paper he was publishing,called "Speaking the Truth" for lack of funds. You may reach him orhis wife at: P. O. Box 9, San Fernando 2500, La Union, Philippines.

ALBERTO VIVERO AND JESUS BEJAGON both have reportedfrom the island of Leyte where over 7, 000 died and many were lefthomeless from the sudden floods which swept down on Ormoc Cityforcing a wall of mud from surrounding hills which swept houses and people out into the sea, that there was no loss of life among brethrenin the four congregations in that immediate area, but that a numberof brethren lost their houses and all they had. NORMAN FULTZ,13018 N. Oakland Ave., Kansas City, MO 64166 (along with KEITHBURNET of Russellville, KY) preached in Leyte in the spring of 1991 and are familiar with the brethren there.

REYNALDO E. CORSINO reports from the Cagayan Valley area that 13 were recently baptized there. Also in Lasam 8 were baptized.

MARCELINO G. ORTEGA, ABAS SALLAPADAN, 2818 Abra, Philippines — "Through the help of Bert Enostacion and EusebioCabannag in studying with me issues about institutionalism, onOctober 20, 19911 renounced my association with the institutional brethren. I had been a self-supporting full-time preacher for six yearsbefore some of our rice-fields were destroyed in a destructive typhoonin 1989. "

RODY GUMPAD, P. O. Box 8, Tugeuegarao, Cagayan 3500. Philippines — "The doctors tell us that our son's cancer is now under control but he will require additional chemotherapy for sometime. In Octoberfour were baptized including a Pentecostal preacher and his wife. Ibegan teaching him in 1984. He is a well-known glossolalia speaker,the great leader of his group, he learned he was wrong and obeyed the gospel. He is now preaching the truth and baptized already five of hisformer colleagues at I lagan, Isabela. "

PREACHERS NEEDED EXTON, PA — The church here, which serves the western greaterPhiladelphia area, needs a fulltime preacher. The congregation is 15years old with an average attendance of 80. Elders were recentlyappointed. We are self-supporting. Those interested should contactJerry Carson (215) 793-2441.

JAMESTOWN, KY — We need a fulltime preacher and can furnishfull support, depending on the needs. We do not have a house. Interested parties may contact Bill O"Neal (502) 866-3863, or write to: 153 Oak St., Russell Springs. KY 42642.

CHESTER, VA — The Rivermont church in Chester, VA needs an experienced fulltime evangelist. We are located on Route 10 two mileswest of Hope well and 5 1/2 miles east of I-95, Exit 6E. If interested, please write to: Rivermont Church of Christ, 2316 E. Hundred Road,Chester, VA 23832, or contact Ed Sulc (804) 458-1606.

GREEN WAY, WISCONSIN — The church which meets at 1621 Hillcrest Dr, Green Bay, WI 45313 needs a fulltime preacher. Average attendance is about 30. Partial support is available. ContactWilmer Kirsten (715) 758-8615.

Page 17

DEBATE RESPONSE

Brother JOHN WELCH, editor of FAITH AND FACTS, has responded in his paper to my proposal to debate the Deity of Christ (SeeOctober, 1991 STS), by saying that he does not think I am representative enough of the issues which he wants to link to the question ofthe Deity of Jesus. He issued a challenge for a debate and namedLouisville as a place where such discussion would be in order. I havea letter from the elders of the Expressway church in Louisville offeringto endorse me on the propositions submitted and offering their building for a discussion here on the condition that brother Welcheither obtain like endorsement from a congregation in this area oragree to an exchange discussion, with one in Louisville and one inIndianapolis. He is not interested in this. Doy Moyer of the South Endcongregation offered over a year ago to engage him in discussion and Gene Frost also of Louisville has offered to have a written exchange.Instead brother Welch has suggested that three preachers who do notlive in Louisville should be brought into the picture. This is strangereasoning. Brethren who seriously disagree with him on the Deity ofJesus (I am one of these) cannot discuss the issue with him unless weagree to debate on continuous cleansing and whether or not man hasto sin. It is either agree to discuss all of those subjects or else we are not representative enough to merit his time and trouble.

Meanwhile, some irresponsible brother, who writes under the cloak of anonymity and signs himself "Louisvillian" continues to attempt to spread ill-will, make false charges, engage in speculationand innuendo about churches and preachers in the Louisville area

and the editor of FAITH AND FACTS has no better judgmentthan to print these unsubstantiated charges. For example, he saidthat several churches in the Louisville area were looking for preachersand that they would not consider one unless he agreed with GeneFrost. The only churches in Louisville within the last few months toemploy new preachers were Expressway, Shivery and Kenwood and the charge is absolutely false. But this cowardly brother hidesbehind anonymity so he can say whatever he wishes and nobody can deal with him. Whoever Louisvillian is, and I am confident that I know who he is, he needs to repent for his unfounded and malicious attacks on gospel preachers and churches in this area. When his name comes to light (and it will in time), the congregation where he is a member ought to take disciplinaryaction on him unless he repents. And the same goes for those who are funneling rumors to Louisvillian.

**********MOTTO FOR SOME FOLKS

Those given to the views being expressed by some on marriage,divorce and remarriage might well say that they wish to "have their Kate and Edith too. " (Thanks to David Baker).

********** HOWS THAT?

Bill McQuistion told me of a new convert's report on a congregationwhich had withdrawn from a brother. Said he, "they dismemberedhim. "

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 447

RESTORATIONS 84

(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the

editor)