Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

Jesus is Head

Head in our Testament comes from kephala and is used in various ways. It is used to convey “a sum total; a sum of money, capital, Acts 22:28; the crowning or ultimate point to preliminary matters, He. 8:1.” The “roll” or “volume” or God’s book is called kephalidi (head) by the apostle (Heb. 10:7) as he uses Psalms 40:7. This word, used by Jesus, reflects His reverence for the word of His Father. Many times during His personal ministry Jesus emphatically stated His regard for God’s position and word.

Christ is head of the universe as a whole in that God “put all things under his feet” (Eph. 1:22). Of the cosmic powers Christ is head. Paul wrote, “And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Col. 2:10). Being head of all powers, He causes the whole of the universe to cohere. Paul says, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:17). Jesus, being head, holds it all together.

Christ is the head of the church-His church (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18). In every relationship involving the church of Christ, the rank of Jesus Christ is superior-He is head! The series of headship in 1 Corinthians 11 is: God, the head of Christ; Christ, the head of the man; the man, the head of the woman. This order cannot be changed. The head of man is Christ. The husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). If this order is perverted, whether spiritually or maritally, all parties involved suffer. The divine order must not be changed by man.

Christ is not only head of His church, but He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22, 23). The church is God’s house (1 Tim. 3:15) and, as a house, Christ is the “head of the corner” (Mk. 12:10; Lk. 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7). Just as a wife might cease to “reverence” her husband as her head (Eph. 5:33), so might the church become insubordinate to Christ the head in her worship and work. Such action is not only rebellious, it is sinful; Christ will be subordinate to no man. Some people think that they have a voice in church work, church government, and worship; however, only Christ the head is the legislator in such matters. This means that if you are unable to read in the word of God instructions for what you are and what the church where you worship does, then it’s time for repentance.

Truth Magazine XXII: 8, p. 136
February 23, 1978

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

I have before me what I consider to be an outstanding commentary on the book of Galatians. It is written by C.F. Hogg and W.E. Vine. The clearness and the preciseness with which the authors deal with the text is commendable. However, the influences of religious prejudice express themselves throughout the book. In several instances cleverly concealed expressions of religious background are to be found. In each case the conclusion drawn is a glaring contradiction to the Scriptures.

Note the following example: “The believer, when he ‘heard the word of Truth, the gospel of his salvation,’ Eph. 1:13, there and then acquiesced in the sentence of himself with Christ in His death on the cross” (p. 301, italics mine). On the same page it is stated that “a certain standing before God as having died and risen with Christ” is given “in response to faith in the Lord Jesus”. A careful analysis of these statements show that the authors are setting forth the idea that one is saved at the point of faith without any further acts of obedience, and that at this point one is crucified with Christ. On page 173, the authors make themselves clearer in this respect. They say, “ideally the moment of believing is the moment of baptism, for in the act of being baptized, the believer sets forth in a symbol what has happened when he first trusted in the Christ” (italics mine).

One thing is certain, what actually happened concerning those about whom the authors are writing and what is stated in the commentary is in direct conflict! They were not saved by faith only, or by “trusting” in Christ. Now was their baptism a symbol or sign of what had already taken place. The inspired writer said, concerning the Galatians, “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:2627). Children of God are made such only when they are baptized. Baptism is a burial in water and is for the remission of sins (Col. 2:12; Acts 8:36; 2:38). Only in baptism does the believer crucify the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-6)., Since ” as many” of the Galatians as were baptized became the “children of God by faith,” and these were said to have crucified the flesh (Gal. 5:24), it is obvious that crucifying the flesh did not take place at the moment of faith. Nor is faith the moment of baptism. The Lord said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). If you have been baptized into Christ, then and only then, are you a child of God by faith. If you have been buried with him, then you are risen with him; if you are risen with him, you are seated with Christ and you will be manifested with Him in glory (Col. 3:4; Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1; Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:12). Man says one is saved by faith only; the Lord says that salvation comes by faith and baptism, as well as faithfulness unto death. Whom will you obey? God, or man?

Truth Magazine XXII: 8, pp. 135-136
February 23, 1978

By Morris R. Bailey

In this article it is my purpose to point out that handling the word of truth aright, requires that we recognize

The Role Of Approved Example

Because of conditions and attitudes that have developed within the brotherhood during the past quarter century, this has become a much discussed issue. There was a time when there was almost complete agreement among brethren as to the role of approved apostolic examples in establishing scriptural authority for a practice. Consequently anything that ran contrary to example was rejected as unscriptural.

Today, however, there are some brethren who deny that an example, of itself, is sufficient to establish authority for any practice. Lest anyone think that this is an unfounded and unjust charge, I call attention to the fact that a few years ago an article appeared in a prominent brotherhood publication entitled, “What constitutes Bible Authority?” In that article the following statements appear; “No example is binding unless it is backed up by a command, specifying what is to be done.” And, “An example, unless backed up by a command that applies to us today, has no authority.” Still another writer is on record as saying, “I will show a Bible command for everything I do in religion, and for everything that God binds on anybody.”

Do not misunderstand me. I am not minimizing the binding force of commands that are applicable to us. There is, or should be, no disagreement among brethren on that point. What I am pointing out is the sentiment of brethren who minimize the authority of examples. The idea that is set forth in the above quotations is that an example only serves to demonstrate what a command authorizes. In that case the authority would inhere in the command and not in the example.

The Position Tested

One of the best methods of testing a position or doctrine is to pursue it to its logical conclusion. This is the method that was adopted by Paul when discussing the no-resurrection doctrine held by some of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:12-19). If such a testing leads to a conclusion that one would be unwilling to accept it is time for such a one to re-examine his position. This leads us to make the observation that if examples, in themselves, do not provide us with a pattern to follow, we are going to have to revise much of our preaching as well as our practice. That is conceivable, of course. For we should be ready and willing to abandon anything that is not scripturally authorized. But before we begin such a wholesale revision, let us consider the following:

1. The act performed in baptism. Yes, it is by example that the average reader learns what act is performed when one is baptized. Some one says. “Oh, but we know that the word baptize means to immerse.” True; but how do we know it? We will not learn its exclusive meaning from the dictionary, for it defines baptism as sprinkling or pouring as well as immersion. Actually, the word baptize is not an English word, at all, but a Greek word with an English ending. So to define this Greek word, one would have to be sufficiently familiar with the Greek language to speak with authority on the subject. That is a qualification that few readers of the Bible possess.

So it is only by observing the examples of baptism in the New Testament that we can learn what actually took place. There we learn that baptism involves going down into the water and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:38, 39). It requires a burial and a resurrection (Rom. 6:4).

2. The element in which one is baptized. Having established that baptism is immersion, there is implied an element in which one is immersed. But that element does not inhere in the word baptize. It must be learned from the context. Jesus promised that his apostles would be baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). He also spoke of a baptism of suffering (Mark 10:38,39). It is only when we go to the examples of baptism that took place under the great commission that we learn the element in which people were baptized in obedience to Christ. At the house of Cornelius Peter asked, “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized?” (Acts 10:47). See also Acts 8:36-39. Without these examples one would not know in what element people are to be baptized.

3. Eating the Lord’s supper only on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7 says, “And upon the first day of the week when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them . . . .” This had proved to be a difficult passage for those who are disposed to discount the authority of examples. First; because they are not yet ready to abandon a practice as firmly entrenched among churches of Christ as that of eating the Lord’s supper only on the first day of the week. Secondly; having denied the authority of examples they have cut themselves off from the only passage in all the New Testament where the Lord’s supper is associated with the first day of the week.

They have gone to 1 Cor. 16:2, where Paul speaks of the first day of the week but does not mention the Lord’s supper. They have gone to 1 Cor. 11, where Paul speaks of the Lord’s supper but does not mention the first day of the week. So the fact remains that it is only by the example of Acts 20:7 that we know on what day the Lord’s supper is to be eaten. Take away this vital passage with its example and there is no reason to believe that the Lord’s supper could not be eaten any day or every day.

4. Church government. It is by New Testament example that we learn the form of government that God has ordained for local congregations. Where is the command, addressed to all congregations, requiring them to appoint elders? However, we do have an example. When Paul and Barnabus began retracing their steps on the first missionary journey, “They appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). In writing to Titus, Paul said, “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee charge” (Titus 1:5). True, this was a command; but it was addressed to Titus and is now history, so it becomes to us an example of what God required in regard to the appointment of elders.

Moreover, we learn by example something of the responsibilities of elders and the limitations of their oversight. To the elders of the church at Ephesus Paul delivered the solemn charge, “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, that ye feed the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Without these examples what would we know about the necessity of elders in every church? What would we know about the limitation of their oversight to the congregation where they were appointed? The conclusion from the above observations is irresistible. Examples do reveal the will of God and are sufficient, within themselves, to authorize a practice.

The Power Of Example In The Home

Webster defines the word example as “1. a pattern”; “2. a model or copy.” Every parent, every teacher, in fact everyone who has been associated with the rearing and educating of children, can attest to the power of example as a teacher. Long before the child is able to fully understand verbal instruction he or she begins to imitate the parents. In fact, that is the way that the child learns to talk, by hearing others talk. Those of us who have had experience in rearing children have often been amused and delighted with their efforts to imitate us. This places a tremendous responsibility upon parents. For it is the example that the child sees in its father and mother that constitutes the first and, therefore, the most lasting impressions in life which will determine to a large extent the course that child’s life will take.

The Testimony Of Scripture

The ultimate authority on the role of examples is the testimony of the scriptures. Time after time the inspired writers of the New Testament appealed to examples to enforce their teaching of the great truths of the kingdom of heaven.

1. Examples were used to warn. In the tenth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul recited Israel’s history of disobedience; in verse six he said, “Now these things were our examples, to the end that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.” In a similar context the writer of Hebrews said, “Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience” (Heb. 4:11).

2. Examples were used by the writers of the New Testament as a source of encouragement to Christians under persecution. The writer of the book of James said, “Take, brethren, for an example of suffering and patience, the prophets who spake in the name of the Lord” (Jas. 5:10).

3. We are urged to follow Christ as our example. “For hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that ye should follow in his footsteps” (1 Pet. 2:21).

4. The apostle Paul held himself up as an example to be followed to the extent that he followed Christ. “Be ye imitators of me even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

5. Moreover Paul ascribed equal authority to what he taught by word of mouth and by example. To the Philippians he wrote, “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do, and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:9).

6. Finally, to say that the New Testament does not teach by example is, in effect, to deny the book of Acts the useful role that it so obviously fills in the New Testament. In giving the great commission to his apostles, Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ….” (Matt. 28:19, 20). The book of Acts is a record of examples of conversions that took place under the great commission. But the apostles were also to teach the new converts to observe all that Jesus commanded. The book of Acts is, thus, also a record of examples of how churches were set in order, how they were governed, how they worked in preaching the gospel and caring for the poor. From the foregoing observations we conclude that the New Testament does teach by example. Human experience attests to the place of example in teaching. The New Testament declares it to be so.

Truth Magazine XXII: 8, pp. 134-135
February 23, 1978

By Mike Willis

There has been so much written in recent articles pertaining to doctrinal matters that I wanted to take the time to write about one of the Christian virtues in this editorial. I could think of no better virtue to comment on than love; indeed, love is the queen of the Christian virtues. What is love?

The definition of a word can be destroyed by allowing it to become so broad in meaning that it encompasses virtually every meaning in the book. This has practically happened with reference to the English word love. Our word love is used to discuss everything from the sexual union of a prostitute with someone she does not know, one’s reaction to the pleasant taste of a food (“I love ice cream”), and one’s feelings toward his wife to one’s relationship with God (God’s love for man and man’s love for God). With the meaning of the word love so broad as it is, we should not be too surprised to find that many things described as love have nothing whatever to do with the Christian virtue commanded by Paul in many places (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22). The need to properly define the word love is obvious.

Defining the Word

The Greek language had several different words to describe the various shades of meaning conveyed in our English word love. The word eros (from which the English word erotic was derived) is used to refer to the passionate love that is predominate in sexual relationships. The word storgos is the primary word to describe the love that exists in a family. The man who is astorgos is without natural affection; he does not have the proper love toward his family as he should have (cf. Rom 1:31). The word philia refers to the love that is attracted to another because what he sees in that other person or thing is pleasant to him. Kenneth Wuest described philia as this kind of love: it is

a love which consists of the glow of the heart kindled by the perception of that in the object which affords us pleasure. It is the response of the human spirit to what appeals to it as pleasurable …. It is a love called out of one in response to a feeling of pleasure or delight which one experiences from an apprehension of qualities in another that furnish such pleasure or delight (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. III, “Golden Nuggets From the Greek New Testament,” p. 62).

Though each of these words suggests concepts associated with love, none of them reach the height of the Christian virtue commanded by Paul in his usage of the word agape.

Let us turn to define this Christian virtue so that we can better grasp its meaning. One of the very first things that we learn about the Christian virtue known as love is that it is not an emotion. Let me emphasize this thought again. Agape does not describe an emotion! There is no ethical achievement when a man sees something in someone or something which gives him pleasure and he responds to that in a favorable way. Something would be wrong with any person who did not respond favorably to that which gave him pleasure. Yet, Christian love is a virtue-a particular moral quality regarded as good; like all other virtues, it must be developed.

Whereas eros, philia, and storgos refer to emotions, agape refers to an act of the will. This is significant. An emotion cannot be commanded. I cannot say to a man, “Hate!” and expect him to immediately start hating someone he has previously loved. Hate is an emotion; it reacts to one on the basis of how one is treated. However, God commands that we love-even to love our enemies. Consequently, agape is not an emotion; it is an act of one’s will.

This agape, this Christian love, is not merely an emotional experience which comes to us unbidden and unsought; it is a deliberate principle of the mind, and a deliberate conquest and achievement of the will. It is in fact the power to love the unloveable, to love people whom we do not like (H illiam Barclay, More New Testament Words, p. 15).

With the idea that Christian love is not an emotion, let us now inquire into exactly what agape is.

The attempts to define the word agape and its cognate agapao are manifold. This love is built on respect and reverence. It is a “reasoning attachment, of choice and selection. . .from a seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard” (R.C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 41-42).

“Agapao” speaks of a love which is awakened by a sense of value in an object which causes one to prize ft. It springs from an apprehension of the preciousness of an object. It is a love of esteem and approbation. The quality of this love is determined by the character of the one who loves, and that of the object loved (bluest, op. cit., p. 60).

As an example of the kind of virtue intended by love, let us consider God’s love for man. The scriptures record, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that God did not see anything in this world which gave Him pleasure. He only saw a body of men who had rebelled against His holy commandments and were, therefore, enemies of God (Rom. 5:8-9). What was there in man which could possibly attract God that we should be pleasurable to Him? Nothing! Consequently, we do not read that God had philia toward man but that He had agape. What God recognized was that man had been created in His own image and, therefore, had an immortal soul that was precious in His sight. This was what moved Him to love us-the preciousness of man’s soul.

God’s love for a sinful and lost race springs from His heart in response to the high value He places upon each human soul. Every sinner is exceedingly precious in His sight.

“Phileo” which is another word for love, a love which is the magazine response of the human spirit to what appeals to it as pleasurable, will not do here, for there is nothing In a lost sinner that the heart of God can find pleasure In, but on the contrary, everything that His holiness rebels against. But each sinner is most precious to God, first, because he bears the image of his Creator even though that Image be marred by sin, and second, because through redemption, that sinner can be conformed into the very image of God’s dear Son. This preciousness of each member of the human race to the heart of God is the constituent element of the love that gave His Son to die on the Cross (Ibid., p. 61).

The kind of love mentioned with reference to God is a virtue; it is an act of the will. God’s natural feelings toward those who rebel against His holy commandments would be that of antagonism toward man; yet, He acted, not on the basis of feelings, but on the basis of love. Consequently, He sent His Son to die for us.

Now let us make the transition toward man and the application to ethics. The way which seems most reasonable to make the application is to present a human situation as nearly parallel to that of God’s relationship toward man as possible. In. Matt. 5:43-48, Jesus commanded,

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy:” But 1 say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you; In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Christian love does not shut its eyes to the faults of others. Love is not blind. It will use, rebuke and discipline when these are needed. The love which shuts its eyes to all faults, and which evades the unpleasantness of all discipline, is not real love at all, for in the end it does nothing but harm to the loved one (William Barclay, More New Testament Words, p. 22).

Notice several things regarding the love that is mentioned here. (1) It it directed toward one’s enemies. There are those who try to excuse themselves from obligations to love others because they do not “feel good toward them.” Feelings have nothing to do with the matter. Who ever felt good toward his enemies? Yet, the one who is trying to practice this Christian virtue of love is expected to love his enemies. (2) It is commanded. Jesus did not ask that we “try” to love our enemies; He commanded that we love our enemies. Hence, the love of which we are speaking is not an emotion; it is an act of the will. (3) It is based on respect for that which is precious in another rather than emotions. The natural reaction to one who slaps me on the right cheek is to slap him back. The reaction which the Christian is to give to such an enemy is to turn to him the left cheek also. Similarly, the natural reaction of a man toward his enemies is that of hatred or vengeance. This is precisely the point in which love becomes a Christian virtue. Love is the conquering of the natural reactions toward another by an act of the will as a result of which the man seeks the best for those with whom he associates.

Having understood the nature of love as compared by God’s actions toward those of us who, being sinners, are His enemies, maybe we are better in a position to understand how love is to govern our every action. The Christian virtue of love always seeks the highest good for those to whom it is directed.

There are a good many things which pass for love which are not really love. There is a disposition to treat love toward one’s brother as some kind of sweet, syrupy sentimentalism. Indeed, this is especially true with reference to the comments that some make when it is necessary to rebuke the doctrinal or ethical errors of a brother. Some act as if the man who rebukes the errors of another does not have love for him. This may be true but it is not necessarily true. As a matter of fact, a good many of the rebukes which are made spring from Christian love. The brother recognizes that this brother needs to be rebuked to call him back to the way of truth in the same manner as Paul, from a spirit of love, withstood Peter to the face (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul manifested the spirit of love toward Peter in rebuking him. Had he ignored Peter’s conduct, Peter might have continued in his sin and lost his soul; we do know that Peter stood condemned. Yet, Paul’s rebuke called him back to the way of righteousness; he restored his brother, covered a multitude of sin, and saved a soul from death. We simply must recognize that sometime it is for the best good of a man for him to be rebuked and punished! When it is for the man’s good, the one who loves him will administer such a rebuke and punishment.

We understand this fact about love with reference to parental discipline of unruly children; we need to learn the same with reference to the unruly spiritual children of God.

There are few jobs which I have ever done that required a greater discipline of my spirit than that of going to a brother in sin and telling him that the church would have to withdraw from him if he did not chose to repent. Every fiber in me wanted to ignore the man’s faults and let him go his way. Precisely at this point do I recognize why Christian love is a virtue. It requires the conquering of my personal will to subjugate it to Christ’s will. How different is Christian love from the many things which we mean when we speak of love in our daily conversation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 8, pp. 131-133
February 23, 1978