Truth Magazine

By Charles G. Caldwell, Jr.

James and John, sons of Zebedee, together with Peter were among the most faithful disciples of Jesus and privileged to accompany Him on many occasions when others of the Apostles were not allowed to go. These three are sometimes referred to as “the inner circle” of Jesus. They, however, were very slow to grasp the fundamental concept of His Kingdom being not temporal but spiritual in its nature. If it was a difficult thing for these who walked and talked with the Master here on earth and who were privy to His every word spoken in private conversation-I say, if it was hard for them to understand the nature of His kingdom, perhaps we can better comprehend how it is that many in our day with their prejudices and preconceived ideas have difficulty along this line. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). It would seem that anyone would be able to understand that the Kingdom of Christ is totally a spiritual institution and not, therefore, of this world.

The Request

In Matt. 20:20, 21 and the parallel passage in Mark 10:35, we are told that James and John in company with their mother, Salome, came to Jesus with the request that they should have prominent places in His Kingdom. “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory” (Mark 10:37). Matthew records that Jesus put the question squarely to the mother, “What wilt thou?” She replied, “Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.” For Jesus to be in His “glory” and to be in His “Kingdom” is the same thing. In heaven today He is at the right hand of God and in His “glory”; and since to be in His “glory” and to be in His “kingdom” is the same thing, He is now in His “kingdom.” Let there be no mistake about that.

To sit on the right hand of a sovereign ruler is to occupy the highest position of honor that he can give. To sit on the`’left hand is to occupy the second highest position. Both positions entail not only great honor but also involve tremendous responsibility. To occupy these positions in the Kingdom of Christ was the heart’s desire of these two brothers.

Why The Request?

The traditional view is to look upon these disciples with disdain. In a highly critical air we are inclined to regard them as being rather egocentric, thinking more highly of themselves than they ought to think. “Why should they consider themselves more deserving of prominence than all the others? Who do they think they are anyway?”, we are inclined to ask. And so we conclude that this indeed was an ugly chapter in the lives of these otherwise good men. Is it possible that our conclusions are based solely on the attitude of the other Apostles who “were moved with indignation against the two brothers” (Matt. 20:24).

I have an idea that we have been too hard on James and John. It is my conviction that there is much here that is worthy of our serious consideration and emulation. If we can just put out of our minds for a moment the conceptions to which we have been wedded, let us look at these two men in the contextual setting.

Faith in the Promises

Note first of all, that Jesus had just made the statement, for the third time at least, that He would be crucified. He spoke of His being betrayed, that the rulers would condemn Him to death. Being delivered to the Gentiles He would be- mocked, scourged and crucified. He was careful to add, however, that the third day He would rise again. Surely James and John had heard all this and had been duly impressed with it. But, did that dampen their faith? Did that cast any doubt in their mind as to His ability to do what He had taught throughout His career that He would do and what was prophesied by the seerers of old?

Men of lesser faith would have wavered. But James and John had supreme faith in their Master and were confident that He would set up His kingdom just as He had promised and that He would rule over it. True, they did not fully understand the nature of the Kingdom but whatever the nature they wanted to be a part of it when it did come. I can think of no incident that demonstrates more forcefully their invincible faith in Christ.

I am convinced that our faith in Christ and His promises is not always that strong. Too often when the way grows weary and our sky grows dark and troubles beset us on every hand our faith wavers. In the hour when we need Him most, our faith in Christ weakens and we fail to unreservedly believe that He is with us to bless and carry the weight of the load resting heavily upon us. We should never abandon the conviction that the victory belongs to our Lord and regardless of opposing forces and obstacles in our way, if we will but walk by His side and hold to His hand we too will be victorious in the fight. The Word of God gives to us assurance that Christ will reign, in His Kingdom, till all His enemies are abolished (1 Cor. 15:25, 26). “Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (vs. 57).

Unquestioned Loyalty

Another thing that strikes me about these two brothers is their loyalty and fidelity. Even though they had been told of all that Jesus was to endure and the assurance given that they too would suffer because of their allegiance to Him and even drink of the cup of death, it never entered their mind to turn back, to forsake, to get out of the line of fire. “We will follow all the way” was their attitude. Oh, how we need men-and women-like that today: Christians who love the Lord supremely and are not about to give up or faint in the way because of adverse circumstances. We need those, .who like James and John, are determined to “stay with it.” How about you, my brother, are you so determined?

Ambitious

The criticism most commonly leveled against these two disciples of Jesus is that they were ambitious. But, is that really something to be despised: Is it not rather to their credit: They were looking forward eagerly to the coming of the Kingdom predicted by the Master. Without a great deal of understanding concerning its nature, they nevertheless wanted to be a real and vital part of it. The very fact that it was Christ’s Kingdom and that He was to be the King over it was sufficient to commend it unreservedly to them. Certainly, they wanted to be in it. But more than that, they wanted to be deeply involved in it. There are too many in the Kingdom of the Lord today who have an altogether different view of the matter. They are those who have no ambition so far as spiritual matters are concerned. They are willing to assume an air of complacence, sit back and let others do the work, enjoy if possible the blessings without taking on any of the responsibilities. In other words, they are content to just sit around doing nothing, just going along for the ride. How unlike James and John!

The Request Not Denied

You will note that Jesus did not tell these brothers that they would not occupy the positions for which they asked. He rather told them that those positions would “be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” Then He proceeded to inform them who the Father had decreed should hold such positions. It would be the one who ministered; the one who served (Matt. 20:26, 27). He reiterated the same thought in Matt. 23:11, 12, “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Worthwhile positions in the Kingdom would come to James and John and they will come to you and me only as we meet the specified conditions. Are we willing to humble ourselves and render worthwhile service? How about you, my friend?

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, pp. 92-93
February 2, 1978

 

We come to services to worship God: Our concentration should be with the speaker — whether in class, during prayer, or during the sermon. But at times, our concentration is broken and the message lost to us because of noise in the building. Did you ever lose the entire lesson because you were trying to figure out who was clipping their nails in services? Did you lose your concentration because you were trying to figure out who was popping their gum?

Children are often the source of noise and distraction. Sometimes we give our children anything in our purse or pocket just to keep them quiet-for example, our keys. Did you ever stop to realize that just one clink of keys could be heard in the entire building — how about an entire service of keys hitting the bench? Then there is the case of squeaking toys for our children to play with during worship services. Here again, just one squeak causes a loss of concentration; but, how about constant squeaking?

Where was your interest when someone came in to sit down late for class, with the speaker or with the person late? How about late arrivals coming in during the song service? Were you able to put all you had into the song and receive the same? Who was the person that arrived late and came in the building during prayer?

When we arrive for worship services we need to come prepared. We should have our lessons studied and our minds open for the word of God. If we are guilty of coming in late, we are not only taking away from our own concentration, but also distracting others. If our nails need to be manicured, our eyebrows plucked, or our hair brushed, let us prepare before services.

For those of us who have children, we need to prepare them for services. We need to “practice” quiet times at home so this hour of worship will not be strange. We also need to prepare by having “quiet” toys, if we feel toys are necessary, for our babies. We also should prepare by feeding them before they arrive at the building. I am not referring to bottles of milk or juice for the babies, but cereals such as “cheerios” and food such as raisins are not necessary in the building. They have a way of being left on our carpet to be ground in or tracked throughout the building.

There are times when quietness is essential in our services. We need to stop and take stock of what we do to help others learn the word of God. Are we helping someone to learn how a Christian should act in worship services,? Do we add to the reverent atmosphere that is conducive to the uplifting of our souls? What are we doing here? Think on these things.

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, p. 92
February 2, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

Consistent Pattern of Openness

It is important to emphasize that Truth Magazine has never been characterized by that bigoted brand of journalism that can allow only one side of vital issues to be published. From its earliest days, there has been openness to consider opposing views, to let them be heard. This does not mean the paper has become a forum for the propagation of every crackpot idea to come along. Editorial restraint and balance has guarded against the paper becoming needlessly repetitious, tedious, or irresponsible. When modernism was opposed at the beginning, Roy Key was allowed to make his defense. When institutionalism was opposed, not only were opponents allowed space when they asked it, but special debates were arranged to ensure both sides a fair hearing. During the battle over the new grace-unity movement, opposition articles have been reprinted from other journals, those asking for space have been given it, and those who have been under review have been invited to respond.

If militant propagation and defense of truth is vital, the posture of openness is no less so. The author’s first contact in recent years with editor Willis, was for the purpose of responding to two articles which had appeared in truth Magazine (cf. Ron Halbrook, “The `Spiritual’ and the Prayer Amendment: A Review,” XVI, Aug. 31, 1972, pp. 663ff.). Exchanges with R. B. Sweet and Lindy McDaniel have already been noted. Discussion on both sides of the carnal war question has been allowed (cf. Bruce Edwards, Jr., Cecil Willis, and Robert H. West in Vol. XVI, Oct. 12, 1972, pp. 757 and 755; XVII, Dec. 21, 1972, pp. 122-124). When he was under review, Randall Mark Trainer asked to have “Having Trouble Over Baptism?” printed (Vol. XVII, Sept. 27, 1973, p. 722). As he promised to do, Cecil printed a letter from Edward Fudge in “Editor’s Memory Is Fallible!” (Vol. XVIII, Jan. 24, 1974, pp. 179-180).

The editor’s willingness to apologize when appropriate — something impossible for a closed mind — has already been mentioned. Brethren who have felt a need to criticize the editor’s way of expressing himself on a subject, have been allowed a hearing in print (cf. Vol. XVIII, July 11, 1974, pp. 546-550). When a potentially misleading statement has been called to his attention, Cecil has been willing to clarify. One example is his “Concerning the Brethren In Tuscaloosa, Alabama,” on December 6, 1973. The preacher at Tuscaloosa, Aubrey Belue, Jr., added an unsolicited statement regarding Cecil’s editorial work — “not because I am in `his party,’ but because he and I stand together on Scriptural truth.”

Brother Willis has been “knocked” more than praised — I myself have been critical of his editorial judgment. It is very easy for us who are onlookers to see flaws-or things we think are flaws-in the activity of those who are at work. I am sure that he has expected some of this, and I am glad to see that it has not deterred him from doing his duty as he saw it (Vol. XVIII, pp. 83-84).

Along this same line, Brother Willis has not attempted to make Truth Magazine a one-man show, even on the matter of editorial judgment. Throughout his fifteen years of editing, he has tried to surround himself with men of mature, sound judgment and has actively sought their counsel. In recent years, he has repeatedly sought the advice of men like Roy Cogdill, James Adams, Earl Robertson, and others. His “Tell Us It Is Not So” article “was not published until several other brethren of great knowledge and experience, and to whose wisdom I often resort for editorial advice, had read the article and unanimously recommended it be immediately published,” as he later explained (Vol. XVII, Oct. 18, 1973, pp. 771-775).

Looking to the Future

Perhaps the one piece of advice repeatedly offered which Cecil Willis has found hardest to accept is the warning that he was pressing himself beyond reasonable human limits in his work. After ten years of editing, Cecil wrote “Ten Years Ago,” saying he enjoyed the work in spite of its demanding rigors (Vol. XVI, Sept. 7, 1972, p. 675). “Looking to the Future” in 1974, he said the “tenuous existence” of a paper like Truth Magazine hung upon one thing: “its contents.” In addition to the two generations already on the staff, Cecil announced that “yet a third generation of preachers and writers” was to be added-beginning with his youngest brother Mike as a new Associate Editor, and’including several others shortly as “Staff Writers.” Without compromise “in soundness, ability, work out-put, or quality,” the additions would enhance the papers effectiveness, he felt. He added that Mike, being nearby, would assist in “the editorial position a little.” Mike had developed “very good work habits” before and during college, was “a very capable worker in personal evangelism,” had “good pulpit ability,” demonstrated “competent writing skills,” and maintained “a rigid reading schedule” (Vol. XVIII, Apr. 25, 1974, pp. 387-389). The Staff Writers were presented the following November: Donald P. Ames, Karl Diestelkamp (who had actually been writing in Truth Magazine for twelve years, and doing the `News Briefs” for some time), Bruce Edwards, Jr.,- Ron Halbrook, Jeffery Kingry, John McCort, Harry Ozmont, Steve Wolfgang, and, as Circulation Manager, George T. Eldridge (Vol. XVIX, Nov. 7, 197’4, pp. 3-12).

For the past fifteen years, besides editing Truth Magazine, Cecil Willis has been writing books, debating, traveling to preach in foreign countries, holding numerous gospel meetings in this country, trying to do located preaching work most of the time, and serving as an elder part of the time. As of April 1, 1977. he formally resigned the editorship of Truth Magazine and related responsibilities with the Cogdill Foundation. Recurring health problems coupled with some personal considerations and pressures which have mounted over time, helped bring about this action. The Corinthians gave beyond what Paul expected and “beyond their power” to the needy saints of Jerusalem. Just as certainly, Cecil has given himself to editorial and related duties along with evangelistic labors beyond what could be expected of any human being. Extending himself beyond the limitations of human power-with reference to normal needs of rest, recreation, and diversion — his body has forced him several times to curtail his work and to lean on the faithful help of co-laborers like Mike Willis.

Though still relatively young at 45, brother Cecil Willis has accomplished more in the variety and volume of his work than most of us can do in a lifetime. He has paid a dear price in the demands, pressures, and sacrifices of such labor. Though mortals cannot make the final .judgment or evaluation of this labor — “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom. 14:4) — yet we can know that we have benefitted and shall continue to benefit from these labors. We are not ashamed to say what a great debt of gratitude we owe Cecil Willis. We are not afraid to say that we hope and trust that his future labors will benefit us yet again and again. Somewhere these words are inscribed on a wall at a university: “On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest and resting, died.” Obviously, Cecil Willis did not sit down in the editor’s chair to rest! Perhaps his determination throughout as editor is best portrayed in an editorial on “Our Obligations Toward Truth”: Procure It, Practice It, Proclaim It, Protect It, Plead It (Vol. XVIII, Nov. 15, 1973, pp. 35-37).

Truth Magazine’s early years set the tone for a wellbalanced paper, a militant paper, an evangelistic paper. During the next fifteen years of diligent, determined labor, the paper has continued admirably in that same path. Looking back, and looking forward, we must realize that now is not the time for hesitation or rest. Truth Magazine must continue to be well-balanced. militant, and evangelistic. We believe it shall!

III. Hopeful Anticipation (1977- )

Truth Magazine will continue to be well-balanced, militant, and evangelistic because its newly announced editor is Mike Willis. “On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest and resting, died.” Mike Willis has not taken the editor’s chair to rest. He brings the energy of youth to this demanding job, and brings as well a maturity beyond his years. The editor’s mantle is passed on to safe and hopeful hands. We view his work with hopeful anticipation because we know Mike, and because he comes to his work with hopeful anticipation.

Mike’s willingness to press the demands of truth in the face of denominational error has been evident since his first article in Truth Magazine. His article entitled “Abolished” dealt with the Sabbath, and was to be followed later by one on “Contradictions in the Book of Mormon” (Vol. X1I, Apr., 1968; XIV, Feb. 12, 1970). His second article dealt with “The Goodness and Severity of God” (Vol. XII, Aug., 1968). In “Vestigial Organs” on the subject of evolution, Mike quipped that some members of the church appear to be vestigial organs (Vol. XIV, Nov. 27, 1969). After several other articles on a variety of subjects in 1969-70 (Vol. XIV, pp. 60, 164, 320, 752, 787), he examined at length the “Ancestry of the English Bible” the following year (Vol. XV, ten parts between Feb. 11 and Apr. 15, 1971). Another good series the next year was presented on “Archaeology and the Bible” (Vol. XVI, ten parts between Aug. 24 and Oct. 26, 1972). He has wrestled with such difficult subjects as “The Problem of Suffering” and written on such unpopular ones as “More Evidence on Smoking” (Vol. XIV, p. 164, p. 752).

By the time Mike began writing in Truth Magazine the institutional battle had passed its hottest period; the two groups had pretty much gone their own ways. But when controversy broke out over grace-unity-fellowship, it became quickly evident that Mike had been doing his Bible homework. His March 1, 1973, article, “Unity in Diversity or Unity in Doctrine?” compared Ketcherside’s plea to Paul’s approach in 1 Corinthians: “Paul urged that unity in the body of Christ be attained by unity in doctrine; not by unity in diversity!” Mike dealt with other key concepts related to this matter, such as the authority of silence (March 8, 1973), the charge of legalism (March 15), and the exclusive nature of truth (Nov. 22). In “When It’s Me and When It’s You,” Mike pointed out that when Ketcherside reviewed someone he said he was simply stating his convictions, but when someone reviewed him they were guilty of journalistic propaganda — “Ketcherside `speaks with forked tongue’!” (Mar. 22). Mike continued to uproot error with articles on “Sins of Ignorance” (exposing such special pleading as essentially situationism; July 18, 1974), “The `Unity Movement’s Distinction Between `Gospel’ and `Doctrine’, ” (Oct. 24, 1974), and `Twisted Scriptures” (June 12, 1975). The latter in Vol. XIX (pp. 488-492) began a series reviewing Ketcherside’s reconstruction of many passages; the timeliness of this series can be seen in the fact that Ketcherside recently re-issued his own volume entitled The Twisted Scriptures. Beginning January 8, 1976 (Vol. XX, pp. 23-24), Mike also followed a similar series by Leroy Garrett on “The Word Abused,” dealing first with Amos 3:3, then Romans 14:23 (p. 235f), 1 John 1:7 (p. 264f), 2 Peter 2:1 (p. 518f), 1 Cor. 1:10 (p. 647f), and others. During this time, he also presented a series on “Descriptive Terms of Christians” and prepared the “Book Briefs” column.

Honored to Serve Through This Medium

Mike wrote the wrap-up for Vol. XX (Dec. 23, 1976, p. 804), observing that Truth Magazine emerged during “the fight against institutionalism and the sponsoring church concept.” In more recent years, Truth Magazine exposed “the grace-unity heresy as propagated by Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, etc . . . . Frankly, those of us who are associated with this paper are honored to have served the Lord in exposing this heresy through this teaching medium.” Obviously, Mike’s work will not represent an apologetic or compromising stance with reference to the previous editors’ determined work for truth and against error. In time, it will be apparent that the work of these men blends, overlaps, and bonds together as a unified whole.

Just as Cecil Willis had earlier indicated would be the case, Mike was doing editorial work at the beginning of 1977 (Vol. XXI, Jan. 13, 1977, p. 22). Mike’s editorials have appeared with unbroken regularity since February 3, 1977. On March 10, Mike announced these additional Staff Writers: Bill Cavender, Daniel H. King, Keith Sharp, and Johnny Stringer. Therefore, Mike was to begin editing the paper with ten Staff Writers, including Donald Ames, Karl Diestelkamp, Ron Halbrook, Jeffery Kingry, John McCort, and Steve Wolfgang. As Mike formally began editorial labors on May 19 (announced in the issue for that date), his Associate Editors were O. C. Birdwell, Luther Blackmon, Roy Cogdill, Larry Hafley, Irvin Himmel, Earl Robertson, and Jimmy Tuten, with George T. Eldridge the Circulation Manager. One sample of Mike’s work can be seen in the special issues arranged on Gospel Preaching and The Work of the Church which appeared March 17 and 24. Already, he is working ahead to produce similar issues on other interesting and important topics.

What lies ahead? No man can predict the future, but we believe fully that hopeful anticipation is justified. Reviewing the history of Truth Magazine helps us to see that it has been a well-balanced, militant, evangelistic paper. So long as the paper keeps that character, it will be a much needed voice in a world of darkness and sin. Should it ever lose that character, it will deserve to die. Our loyalty is not a printed medium called Truth Magazine, nor to the Cogdill Foundation which publishes it nor to any man or group of men connected with the paper. Our loyalty must be to deity alone, to Jesus Christ, to the everlasting gospel! With that in mind, those of us who have promised to write should do so, to the very best of our abilities. Mature men connected with the paper should give Mike all the benefit of their advice, wisdom, and counsel. We encourage our readers to re-subscribe (why not use the automatic renewal plan), and to subscribe for others who might not otherwise take the paper (only $5.00 per month for 10 subscriptions, or $10.00 for 20).

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unm,oveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, pp. 88-90
February 2, 1978

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As we continue our study of handling aright the word of truth, I now propose to show that such requires that we consider

The Text In The Light Of Its Context

I recall an incident that occurred several years ago, when I was a boy in school. One day we received a visit from a woman who was from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. She gave some fine lessons and some very emphatic warnings about the evils of the use of alcohol. In the course of her speech she quoted the words, “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” It was a very impressive appeal since it was obviously supposed to be a quotation from the Bible and seemed very appropriate as regards the use of alcohol as a beverage. But none of us realized, and probably she did not realize, that she had lifted the passage (Col. 2:21) out of its setting. Paul was not discussing the use of alcohol. The context shows that he was warning against the doctrines of men.

The above incident, while perhaps not as far reaching in its implications as other examples which I shall discuss, nevertheless demonstrates how a passage of scripture can be lifted out of its context and used to teach something completely foreign to the subject being discussed by the inspired writer.

Some one has well said that a text taken out of its context becomes a pretext. Yet this is a common failing among many students of the Bible, and sadly, often among preachers. It is found especially in the denominational world and sometimes, surprisingly, among some who profess to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent. Often a position is taken on some subject, or some religious practice is introduced, and then the progenitor goes to the Bible for “proof.” The result is that passages of scripture are taken completely out of their setting, and used to teach something they were never intended to teach.

Sometimes these perversions take on the character of the ludicrous. The story is told of a preacher who was much opposed to a woman’s wearing her hair in a knob. Wanting to preach a sermon on the subject, he decided he must have a text from the Bible. After a long search he found what he wanted-Matt. 24:17 where Jesus said, “Let him that is on the housetop not come down take anything out of his house.” He then announced his subject which was, “Top not (knot) come down.” It may have satisfied him as a text, but it was a far call from the context in which Jesus spoke those words. Such is a wresting of scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

Matthew 24

There are some, especially those of the premillennial school of thought, who are prone to speculate concerning the future. With them, every event such as a war, or rumor of war, a famine or an earthquake presages the approaching end of time, and is construed as fulfilling the words of Jesus in Matt. 24:6,7, “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars . . . for nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places.”

A careful perusal of this controverted chapter, however, reveals that verses one to thirty-four deal, not with the second coming of Christ, but with the impending destruction of Jerusalem. In verses one and two we read: “And Jesus went out from the temple, .and was going on his way; and his disciples came unto him to show him the buildings of the temple. And he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

How can these words be construed to mean anything other than the coming destruction of the temple? Keeping them in mind, we now turn to verse three which tells us that later the disciples of Jesus came to him with the question, “When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” This question is recorded by Mark in the following words, “When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to be accomplished?” (Mark 13:4). This same question is recorded by Luke in these words, “When therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?” (Luke 21:7).

In the light of the above quotations is it not obvious that the question of the disciples related to the destruction of the temple and of the city of Jerusalem? The words of Matthew, “What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?” present no real difficulty. It would be natural that the disciples, being loyal Jews, would associate such a catastrophic event as the destruction of the temple only with the end of the world. Therefore, the signs which Jesus gave pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem. Or, are we to believe that Jesus ignored the subject in which the disciples were so obviously interested, namely, the time when the temple would be destroyed, and dealt with a matter that was not even involved in their question? For it should be remembered that the disciples had little, if any, conception of the second coming of Christ, as they later did when enlightened by the Holy Spirit. There is reason to believe that they had their doubts about His going away (John 14:5; 16:5,6). That being true, how could they believe in His second coming as it was later revealed by the Holy Spirit?

A further discriminating study of this twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew suggests to my mind an obvious contrast between the subject matter discussed prior to and following verse thirty-four which says, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.” Attention is now drawn to the following contrasts.

1. In verses 5-12 Jesus gave a number of portending signs, such as wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes as signaling the near approach of the event foretold. Regarding His second coming, however, Jesus gave no sign. (vs. 42-44). Here He likened His coming to that of a thief. And we know that thieves give no signs portending their coming. Paul used the same illustration when he spoke of the time of the second coming of Christ (1 Thess. 5:2).

2. The event foretold is cast in a local setting. In verses 15, 16, Jesus said, “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, . . . then let them that are Judea flee into the mountains.” Question: Why urge just those in Judea to flee, if Jesus was speaking of His coming in judgment at the end of time? And, to what mountains will they flee seeing that the earth is going to be destroyed at Christ’s second coming (2 Peter 3:10)? In contrast to the above local phenomenon, the second coming of Christ will be world-wide (Rev. 1:7).

3. The signs preceding verse thirty-four describe abnormal times of war, famine, tribulation, proliferation of false prophets (vss 6-11). The second coming of Christ, however, will be preceded by normal times (vs. 37-39).

From the foregoing contrasts, we therefore conclude that such signs as were given prior to verse 34 pointed to the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus said that those signs would be accomplished (or fulfilled) before that generation passed away. To apply them, then, to the second coming of Christ is to take them out of their setting.

First Corinthians 1:17

This verse is often used (or misused, I should say) by sectarians in their efforts to prove that baptism is not essential to salvation. The verse says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Their reasoning follows this pattern: If baptism is necessary to salvation, Paul would have been sent to baptize. But since he was not sent to baptize, therefore baptism is not any part of the plan of salvation.

Before examining the context in which Paul wrote these words, let us make the following observations:

1. There was only one man who was ever sent specifically to baptize. He was John the Baptist (John 1:33). It was from the fact of his being sent to baptize that he was called the Baptist or baptizer. Yet John did something more than to baptize. He preached the message of the coming kingdom of heaven (Matt. 3:1). Did John do something that God had not sent him to do? Is it not obvious that his mission to baptize included preaching?

2. Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Yet Paul did baptize some people (1 Cor. 1:14,15). Did he do something that God had not authorized him to do? It does not help any to say that he baptized very few poeple. To have baptized one would have been one too many if he was not commissioned to baptize. Surely we can see that if John’s commission to baptize included the preaching that preceded it and led to multitudes being baptized, (Matt. 3:1-5), then we should be able to see that Paul’s commission to preach the gospel included the baptizing that was the result of such preaching (Acts 18:8).

But let us now examine the context in which Paul said that he had been sent not to baptize, but to preach the go;;pel. In verses eleven and twelve we learn that the ch zrch at Corinth was divided into fractions. Some declared themselves to be of Paul, some of Apollos, some of Cephas, and some of Christ. This vexed the heart of the great apostle who regarded himself and Apollos simply as “ministers through whom ye believed,” and not as heads of parties (1 Cor. 3:5).

In the questions, “Is Christ divided: was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”, the apostle stated the only grounds on which they could claim to be “of Paul.” These questions demanding a negative answer left those of that faction without any justification for such a claim.

Fearing lest some would attach an undue significance to their having been baptized by the hands of Paul, supposing that they had been baptized.in his name (vs. 14,15), he had therefore abstained from baptizing, with the exception of but a very few, leaving the baptizing of the “many Corinthians” of Acts 18:8 to other hands. It was in this context that Paul said that he had not been sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. Had he been sent to baptize as John the Baptist was, he would not have delegated the baptizing to others any more than he could have delegated his responsibility to preach the gospel to others.

Therefore, when sectarian preachers use Paul’s words in an effort to prove that Paul did not regard baptism as a part of the plan of salvation they take it out of its context and thus pervert it.

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, pp. 86-88
February 2, 1978