Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

The sermon on the Mount is the formal announcement by the Master of the nature of the righteousness of the kingdom of Heaven. The theme of this magnificent discourse is stated in Matthew 5:20:

“For, I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

To understand this statement is to comprehend the relationship of Christ to law and to understand our means of being righteous in the sight of God. How is our righteousness to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees? How important is it that we have this righteousness?

The Lord’s demand must have thoroughly shocked His audience. To the humble Jews of that period, the scribes and Pharisees were the very epitome of righteousness. But, in reality, Christ repeatedly condemned the scribes and Pharisees in scathing terms for their utter lack of true righteousness (Matt. 6:1-2, 5, 16; 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29). Primarily, Jesus requires our righteousness to surpass Pharasaic righteousness in “kind.” We must have a different kind of righteousness than the scribes and Pharisees, if we are to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

How can we obtain this higher kind of righteousness? The Pharisees “trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Lk. 18:9-14). They supposed their purity had earned them salvation. This led the Pharisees to devise human plans and traditions to get around the parts of God’s law which they did not desire to keep (cf. Mt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-14; Rom. 10:1-3) and to compare themselves to sinners worse than themselves rather than to the perfect standard of the law of God (Lk. 18:11; cf. 2 Cor. 10:12). In contrast, our righteousness must be the result of merciful pardon from a gracious Father (Rom. 3:21-28), as we humbly recognize our own guilt of sin (Lk. 18:13) and submit to God’s will (Mt. 7:21). Without this righteousness by pardon as the result of humble, trusting obedience, we cannot be saved, for this is the requirement for entrance into the kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:20). But our righteousness must also excel that of the scribes and Pharisees in “degree.” How is this? By strict adherence to the law of God in both teaching and practice (cf. Gal. 1:6-9; Col. 3:17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 1:13; Heb. 8:1-5; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-19).

Adherents of the “Free Men in Christ” unity cult brand those who demand strict adherence to the law of Christ as “legalists” and “Pharisees.” Are they correct? In part of a lengthy definition of “legalism,” one of these libertines stated:

Legalism . . . is obviously an attempt to be related to God upon the basis of law (Harold Key, “The Threat of Legalism,” Mission Messenger, Feb., 1963, p. 18).

If this be “legalism,” I plead guilty as charged. After all, it was the Lord Who warned, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Rather sounds to me as though my relationship to God depends upon my keeping His law.

However, I emphatically deny the “Pharisee” charge. The Lord Jesus Christ never condemned a Pharisee, nor any one else, for teaching and practicing rigid observance of divine law. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, in that they said and did not (Matt. 23:1-4). In contrast, I believe we must be “doers of the word, and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22-25). The Lord condemned the Pharisees for doing their works to be seen of men (Mt. 23:5-7), whereas we should seek God’s approval, not man’s (Mt. 6:2-6, 16-18). The Pharisees loosed the law of God to keep their own traditions (Mt. 15:1-9; 23:16-22; Mk. 7:1-14), but Christians must disregard human traditions to observe the law of Christ (Col. 2:8-10). Pharisees kept the small details of the law while disregarding the weightier matters (Mt. 23:23-24), whereas we must obey all the law (Mt. 23:23-24; Jas. 2:10-11). The righteousness of the Pharisees consisted of outward, ceremonial observations empty of any true love for God, as proven by their obstinate disobedience (Matt. 23:25-33). We must obey from the heart to be saved (Rom. 6:17-18).

Dear friend, except your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you cannot be saved. Your righteousness must surpass theirs in kind, as the result of the forgiveness of sins based upon humble, trusting obedience. Your righteousness must exceed theirs in degree, as you strictly strive to serve God from your heart and pray for forgiveness when you stumble. Does your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees?

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, p. 754
December 8, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in my previous article that the concept of universal church action was, in a great degree, responsible for the introduction of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, with Alexander Campbell as its first president, I now propose to point out its counterpart in

Modern Cooperative Movements

Some one has said that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Whether it is through ignorance of history or ignorance of the Bible, or both, the fact is that history is being repeated today in modern cooperative movements in which the resources of a number of local congregations are centralized under some such arrangement as a sponsoring church in evangelism, or a benevolent society in the care of orphans and widows. Such arrangements are based on the same concept of universal church action. So, paradoxical as it appears, brethren rejecting the missionary society itself have adopted the premise which gave it birth.

Alexander Campbell, as pointed out in the previous article, conceived of the kingdom (church universal) as being composed of all local congregations in the aggregate. A few brethren, today, with some variation in the terms used, have adopted basically the same argument. Using Paul’s reference to the church as the body of Christ, with many members thereof (Rom. 12:4,5; 1 Cor. 12:12), the argument has been made that the body of Christ which is the church universal is made up of local congregations.

Over the years brethren have met and answered the old sectarian argument based on the vine and the branches (John 15:5). The argument that has been made is .that the vine is the church universal (they call it the invisible church) and the branches are the various denominations. Now we have brethren making basically the same argument in that they tell us that the members of the body of Christ are local congregations. So the only difference is that sectarians make denominations the members of the universal church, while brethren make local congregations the members. Of course neither are right, for the members of the body of Christ (or church universal) are neither denominations nor local congregations, but individual Christians.

Consider these facts: Before Pentecost in 33 A.D., the kingdom, or church, was preached as being at hand (Matt. 3:1,2; Luke 10:9). But following the first gospel sermon, preached on Pentecost, we find the church in existence with the saved being added to it day by day (Acts 2:47). But on the day of Pentecost, and for some time afterward, there was but one local congregation in existence — the church at Jerusalem. Was the church in the universal sense (composed of all the saved) in existence? Was Christ head over all things to the body (Eph. 1:22,23) on Pentecost? Or was it just a member of the body that was set up that day? And was the body of Christ (the church) formed, just one member at a time as new congregations were established? When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof” (1 Cor. 12:27), did he mean that they were members of the church universal, or just members of -a member of the universal church?

Admissions of Universal Church Action

That current cooperative movements with benevolent institutions operated by boards of directors through which many congregations do their benevolent work involve the concept of universal church action has been admitted by some who have been deeply involved in the defense of at least some of the modern orphan homes. As an example, Brother Roy Lanier, Sr., who claimed to occupy a middle-of-the-road position in regard to current issues, wrote a series of articles under that heading in the Firm Foundation a number of years ago in which he strongly opposed the building and church support of orphan homes which were separate and apart from the church and operated by the board of directors from various parts of the country. His position was that such homes, to be scriptural, must be under the elders of the local church.

That Brother Lanier believed that such homes under a board was universal church action is seen in a paragraph quoted from the above article:

“But if some say that these homes are avenues through which the universal church takes care of the needy, I ask for the authority to activate the universal church. If it was sinful for the brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why Is it now right to activate the universal church in forming a benevolent society?”

It is thus obvious from the above quotation that Brother Lanier paralleled the benevolent societies of today with their boards of directors with the missionary society of a hundred; years ago, in that they were both a means of activating the universal church. In this he was correct. Both are human institutions, devised by the wisdom of men. Both are chartered organizations, with a president and board of directors. And both serve as a means for an unlimited number of congregations to pool their financial resources in doing work assigned to the church.

The Sponsoring Church-Universal Church Action

The same principle of universal church action has been followed, though not openly admitted, in the sponsoring church concept of evangelism. The only difference is that in the area of benevolence the central agency is a corporate institution under a board of directors, while in evangelism the central agency is a local congregation under elders who have assumed more authority than God ever gave them. Of this, the Herald of Truth is a prime example. Sponsored by the Highland church at Abilene, Texas, it is the central agency through which some two thousand local congregations cooperate in the field of evangelism via radio and television. Highland church claims to have complete control over the program. In a brochure published by Highland church early in the history of the program, they said: “The Herald of Truth program is the work of Fifth and Highland church . . . . the elders of this congregation direct and oversee every phase of this work from the preparation of these sermons to mailing copies of these sermons.” In another statement of policy in the same brochure they said, “Questions and criticisms are welcomed, but since this is a work of Highland congregation, to maintain its autonomy or independence, the elders must make the decisions.”

From the above quotations it is plainly obvious that Highland church considers the Herald of Truth to be her own exclusive work. In the Tant-Harper debate Brother Harper said that if you can figure out who is paying for the program you will know whose program it is. The inference he left was that Highland was paying for the program. But the fact is that Highland was not then and is not now paying for the program. It requires the contributions of those hundreds of other congregations without which the program could not continue. Does not that fact make the Herald of Truth program the work of the contributing congregations as well as Highland’s?

And that was the position taken by Guy N. Woods in the Cogdill-Woods debate at Birmingham, Alabama. Twice, on pages 194 and 237, he said that the program was the work of all the contributing congregations, with Highland church having the oversight thereof. This only serves to pinpoint the fact that insofar as the Herald of Truth is concerned, Highland elders are functioning not just as elders of a local work, but of a brotherhood work and therefore as brotherhood elders and to that degree universal elders. They may deny it, but their denial reminds me of the story of the man who came home one night much the worse for alcohol. When his wife chided him for being drunk he replied, “I may be a bit under the influence of alcohol, but I’m not as think as you drunk I am.” His denial of being drunk was contradicted by his actions. And when elders begin overseeing a brotherhood work, they become brotherhood elders in spite of any denials.

So to paraphrase the words of Brother Roy Lamer quoted earlier: “If it was sinful for the brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why is it now right to activate the universal church in organizing a sponsoring congregation?”

Some of the defenders of the Herald of Truth have been able to see the danger that inheres in one congregation, or group of elders becoming the medium for a brotherhood work. Some three or four years ago when the program had fallen upon evil days with the control having passed into the hands of a committee, one of its former defenders, Ira Rice, Jr. said, “Do you recall just a few years ago, when some of us used to wonder whatever would happen to the churches of Christ if the forces of error should ever get hold of the Herald of Truth. I can just hear the anti-cooperationists rising up as one man to chide, ‘I told you so.’ However, brethren, it is no longer unthinkable. The unthinkable has happened.”

Congregational Action: The New Testament Pattern

In contrast to the colossal, and sometimes grandiose programs that men have set in action today, the work that God has assigned to the church was done in New Testament times by local congregations, each working under the oversight of its elders. That they cooperated in programs that sometimes exceeded the financial ability of any one congregation is not denied. But it was a cooperation that recognized the independence of each congregation.

1. Churches of Macedonia and Achaia and Galatia cooperated in sending relief to brethren in Judea where there was a famine (Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1.) No benevolent society was formed through which those churches functioned. Nor is there any evidence that any of the receiving churches acted as a sponsoring church for the others. Each church raised its own contribution, and selected its own messengers to carry the relief to its destination (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23).

2. Churches cooperated in evangelism. A number of churches sent wages to Paul while he labored at Corinth (2 Cor. 10:8). No missionary society was formed, nor is there any evidence that any congregation acted as “the sponsoring church”. Each church sent its contribution by its own messenger (2 Cor. 10:9; Phil. 2:25).

We close this article with a quotation with which we heartily concur. In the Gospel Advocate annual Lesson Commentary, page 341, Guy N. Woods, in commenting on Philippi’s contribution to Paul (Phil. 4:15,16) said,

“Here too, we see the simple manner in which the church at Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no missionary society in evidence, and none was needed, The brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way that it should be done today. No organization was needed to accomplish the work the Lord authorized the church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold of apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord’s manner of doing things.”

To which we say a hearty, “Amen!”

Truth Magazine XXI: 47, pp. 748-749
December 1, 1977

By Baxter Evans

I have been asked to write an article accompanying the picture appearing on the cover of this issue of Truth Magazine. I confess that I am not a writer (to that art I make no claim) but have decided to accept the challenge and do my best. So, in thinking and wrestling in my mind of something profitable to say, I thought of the statement, “Be ye kind one to another.” Our thoughts for this article will be based upon Matt. 7:12 and Eph. 4:31-32.

There is a law of purity which forbids all manner of uncleanness such as adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, etc. The law of purity is binding. Those who violate it dishonor God and suffer grave consequences. There is also a law of kindness which is just as sacred and just as binding as the law of purity. Those who violate it also dishonor God and bring upon themselves divine displeasure. It is unto this law that I direct your attention. It may be divided into the following three parts:

1. Be ye kind in thought. Whatsoever ye would that men should think about you, even so think ye about them. You would not have men to think evil of you-to be bitter in heart toward you, to be angry at you, to hold malice against you, to believe the worst about you. Then, you must think no evil of them. You would have men to think good of you, to be tenderhearted toward you, to forgive you, to believe the best of you. Then, you must think good of them. So, be ye kind in thought.

2. Be ye kind in word. Whatsoever ye would that men should say about you, even so say ye about them. You would not have men to speak evil of you, whether it be to your face or to your back; you would not have them tell ugly tales about you, to smear your good name, to speak unkindly about you. Then, you must not speak evil of the. Speak evil of no man. You would have them to speak good of you, to recognize your good deeds and noble traits, to promote friendly relationships between you and your neighbor. Then, you are under solemn obligation to speak good of them.

3. Be ye kind in deed. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye unto them. You would not have them to do unkind deeds to you which injure your body, damage your property or hurt the people you love. Then, you must do them no injury. You would have them to do kind deeds to you to help you in the hour of misfortune, to lift you when you are fallen, etc. Therefore, you must do as much for them (Lk. 10:30-35; Gal. 6:1-2). Every good thing that you in your heart require others to do unto you, God requires you to do the same unto them.

Truth Magazine XXI: 47, p. 747
December 1, 1977

By Stephen P. Willis

In 1 Cor. 2:2, Paul said, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” In making a comparison between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God, Paul singled out the theme of the Gospel Plan of Salvation: Jesus Christ and Him crucified. When discussing the death of Jesus, some consider the agony in the garden, the hurried trials, the pains of the scourgings and the mockings, His lack of sleep, the bearing of the cross, the tortues of the crucifixion and then conclude that Jesus died of a heart failure. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says that Jesus died from “orthostatic collapse through insufficient blood circulating to the brain and heart . . . .” It might be interesting to give various conjectures of the physical manner that Jesus died, but that is not our purpose here. This article will look at other aspects of the death of our Lord.

Jesus Died a Prophesied Death

It has been said that at least 300 prophecies were fulfilled in the events surrounding the death of Jesus. In Gen. 3:15 we find the first allusion to His death: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Ps. 22 specifies crucifixion: “They pierced my hands and my feet (cf. Mt. 27:35). We read of the dividing of His garments in Ps. 22:18 (cf. Lk. 23:34). Mt. 27:34,48 records the fulfillment of Ps. 69:21, “They also gave me gall for my food, And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”

In Acts 8, an Ethiopian nobleman was reading probably the greatest prophecy in the Suffering Servant passage, Isaiah 53. Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian, beginning with this passage. Many of the main points of this prophecy will be brought out as we further answer the question, What Kind of Death Did Jesus Die?

Jesus, Himself, foretold His death in a number of passages. He said that He would be lifted up (Jn. 12:32,33), and that this would take place during the time of the Passover feast (Mt. 26:2). He said that the Jews and the Gentiles would be responsible for His death (Mt. 20:17-19). He taught that the “sign of Jonah”-His being in the earth three days and nights-would be given to “this generation” (Mt. 12:40; 16:4).

In connection with this point, we might say that it was necessary that Jesus die-in order to fulfill prophecy.

Jesus Died a Blameless Death

“His grave was assigned to be with wicked men, Yet with a rich man in His death; Although He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth” (Is. 53:9). This prophesy is verified by the testimony of persons connected with the death of Jesus. Judas Iscariot exclaimed, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Mt. 27:4). Pilate spoke for himself and for Herod: “. . . I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him” (Lk. 23:14,15). Although Jesus was blameless, Pilate still allowed Him to be crucified. While Jesus was on the cross, a thief, dying in the same way, said this of Jesus, “. . . this man has done nothing wrong” (Lk. 23:41).

The writer of the book of Hebrews also asserts the innocence of our Lord: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin . . . . For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, to offer up sacrifices, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests (OT priests-sw), to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people . . .” (4:15; 7:26,27).

Jesus Died a Shameful Death

Certainly Jesus died a shameful death. The Romans considered crucifixion a humiliating way of dying. They only authorized this manner of death for slaves and degraded persons. When any leniency was shown to the victim, the executors would either cut the person’s throat or build a fire under him so that he might suffocate. We might not think this too lenient, but it did hasten death. They did not do this for Jesus.

The Jews, too, thought that this was a humiliating experience, for the Law said that those who died on a tree were under a curse (cf. Gal. 3:13 and Dt. 21:23). These persons demanded a shameful death for the One who shamed them with His teaching.

Adding more insult to injury, Jesus was crucified between two thieves. Isaiah prophesied, “His grave was assigned to be with wicked men . . . . And (he) was numbered with the transgressors” (53:9,12).

Jesus Died a Forsaken Death

As if dying in shame was not enough, Jesus was also forsaken in His death. The scriptures teach that He was despised of men (Is. 53:3) and “His own” did not receive Him (Jn. 1:11). Even His Apostles forsook their Lord. At Gethsemane, they would not even stay awake while Jesus prayed to the Father (Mt. 26:36ff). Later we read about Peter who wept when he remembered the prediction that Jesus had made, “Before a cock crows, you will deny Me three times.” Yes, Jesus was forsaken of men, even His disciples. But the crushing blow had to be the fact that He was forsaken by God in this death. Crying aloud, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Jesus again fulfilled prophecy (Ps. 22:lff). God will not, nor can He have fellowship with sinners, for He is light and in Him is no darkness at all (1 Jn. 1:5). This is the reason that Jesus was forsaken by God: He was made to bear our iniquity (Is. 53:6,12); He became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21).

Jesus Died a Forgiving Death

Though He died a shameful death, and was forsaken by all, Jesus died a forgiving death. Some of the last words spoken by Him were, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk. 23:34). Oh, that we could bear with our fellow men in like manner!

Jesus Died a Sacrificial Death

A number of points might be made here about the sacrificial nature of His death (see 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb. 9:26b-28; 10:10).

1. It was a vicarious sacrifice-for the behalf of others. “But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him… who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?” (Is. 53:6,8; cf. 1 Cor. 15:3).

2. It was a justifying sacrifice-by faith and obedience, we can be made whole. “My Servant will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities” (Is. 53:11; cf. Lk. 22:19; Mt. 26:28; Jn. 1:29; 1 Jn. 1:7; 2:2).

3. It was a loving sacrifice. “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13; cf. Eph. 5:2; Rev. 1:5).

4. It was a willing sacrifice. Regarding the giving of His life, Jesus said, “No one has taken it (His life-sw) away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father” (Jn. 10:17,18; Mt. 26:39,42).

5. Again, we might say it was necessary — for we could not have removed our own sins.

Jesus Died a Promising Death

By His death, Jesus made available a number of promises which are free to us upon faith and obedience. We can have our fears of death removed as a result of Jesus’ death (Heb. 2:14,15). We are able to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-6). We are purified and made to be His possession (Tit. 2:14). Eternal life is also promised to the believer (1 Th. 4:14; 5:9,10). These are but a few of the spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus.

Conclusion

Simply stated, Jesus died a saving death. “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift” (2 Cor. 9:15)!

Truth Magazine XXI: 47, pp. 746-747
December 1, 1977