Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

In his letter to the saints at Rome, Paul wrote about the idolatry that engulfed the Gentiles. Men had been given opportunity to know God, but “they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:21-23).

1. Some profess to know that God does not exist. A few years ago Charles Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, was one of this nation’s champions of “no-God-ism.” Later, Mrs. Madalyn Murray O’Hair gained the dubious distinction of being the chief voice crying in America that there is no God. While disavowing communism, she has sown the seeds of the same brand of atheism that prevails in communist countries.

If there is no God, how did intelligent life originate? How could an impersonal force produce a personal being? How could that which neither thinks nor wills produce that which thinks and wills? How could lifeless matter ever by chance grouping of the particles produce that which is not matter, a soul? How could that which has no self-consciousness, and consequently no purpose, ever produce that which is self-conscious and which shows the. result of purpose? How could that which has neither life, consciousness, intelligence, nor morality produce a living, conscious, intelligent, moral being?

The individual who claims to know that there is no God is placing man, the thing made, above the Maker. Atheism is the fruit of human conceit. People turn to atheism because they are unwilling to admit that there is wisdom greater than that found in human intelligence. The Bible is right when it says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14:1).

2. Some profess to sit in judgment on the word of God. It never ceases to amaze me that there are men who claim to believe God, and claim to accept the Bible as God’s revelation, yet they are constantly pronouncing judgment on God’s decrees. For example, the Bible plainly reveals that the wicked will be cast into hell, the lake which burns with fire and brimstone (Mk. 9:43-48; Rev. 20:10, 15; 21:8).. Some profess themselves to be so wise that they pronounce the doctrine of eternal punishment as “unjust” and “contrary to the nature of God.” They evidently feel that they know more about how God ought to handle the wicked than He knows. How absurd that puny man should exalt his wisdom above the wisdom of God!

3. Some profess to be wise above that which is written. Paul told the Corinthians that they needed to learn “not to think of men above that which is written,” or to use the wording of the New American Standard Bible, “not to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Some people are just sure that it pleases God to accompany the singing in worship with the playing of musical instruments. It is not so written in the New Testament. If it is, where is the passage? Others are positive in their minds that sprinkling will suffice for baptism. It is not so written in the Bible. They are exceeding what is written. And others insist that burning incense is perfectly lawful as a part of our devotion to God. But where does the New Testament authorize us to burn incense to God?

4. Some profess to know that God’s word does not mean what it says. Men have argued that “water” in John 3:5 means everything imaginable except water. One woman told me that “water” means “the word” in that passage. I asked her if that is what “water” means in Acts 8:38 where Philip and the eunuch “went down both into the water.” She replied, “Well, that could mean that they were both digging down deep into the word.” I guess that is supposed to mean that Philip figuratively immersed the eunuch in one of those “in-depth” studies that some preachers talk about!

Some religionists maintain that “one body” in Eph. 4:4 does not really mean that the Lord has only one, church.Yet Paul identified the body as the church in that same letter (Eph. 1:22,23). They would sooner believe that “one body” means three hundred bodies than to believe that it means just what it says.

5. Some profess to know all the answers. No question is too complex or difficult. They have an answer for every inquiry. How can they profess themselves to be so wise? The Bible does not answer every curious questfon that man might frame. There are some things undisclosed, and these secret things belong to God (Deut. 29:29). It is the part of wisdom and humility for man to admit his limitations of knowledge.

Men often become fools by professing themselves to be wise.

Truth Magazine XXI: 33, pp. 525-526M
August 25, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In writing to Timothy, Paul gave this instruction: “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). That is the rendering of the American Revised Version. The King James Version renders it, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

While the two versions differ some what in their rendering of this important passage, the meaning is the same. To present one’s self approved unto God requires a knowledge of His will, which comes only through diligent study. To rightly divide the word of truth is to handle it aright. To handle aright the word of truth requires that it be rightly divided.

To speak of rightly dividing the word of truth, suggests that it is susceptible of a wrong division. To speak of handling aright the word of truth implies that it can be handled improperly. The fact is that much of the confusion and division in the religious world of today stems from just such an improper handling or division of the Bible. With many, the Bible is just a convenient book by which to prove men’s preconceived ideas. Consequently, positions are taken and doctrines espoused, and then .the Bible is brought into use to prove them. The result is that passages of scripture are often taken out of their context and quoted indiscriminately, without any regard as to who wrote them, to whom they were addressed, the time of writing, or the circumstances under which they were written.

Such would be a gross mishandling of any book, or library. No competent physician, treating a case of typhoid fever, would go to his library and take down some book at random and begin reading just where it happened to fall open. No competent lawyer, dealing with a matter involving real estate would attempt to prepare his case by consulting at random just any book on law.

Yet that is the way that the Bible is often read. Many begin to read just where it happens to fall open, and without any regard for the division between the Old and New Testaments, and without any consideration as to who is speaking, or to whom it is spoken, they apply it to present day conditions and problems. Such is an indiscriminate handling of the Bible and inevitably leads to confusion and ridiculous conclusions. Most of us have heard of the man who claimed that he could prove from the Bible that it was right for a man to hang himself. First he went to Matthew 27:5 which tells us that Judas went out and hanged himself. Then he went to Luke 10:37 where Jesus is recorded as saying, “Go, and do thou likewise.” Now, who could deny his conclusion? It was in the Bible, was it not? But of course, we know that it was an indiscriminate use of these two passages of scripture that led him to a ridiculous conclusion. Yet it was no more ridiculous than some other conclusions to which others have come as a result of a haphazard scrambling of unrelated scriptures.

The Word Of Truth

At this point someone asks, “Is not the Bible all true? And if so, does it not all apply to us?” This raises the question, What do we mean by the expression, “The word of truth?” And, “What do we mean when we say that the Bible is true, when it records things that were said that were obviously not true?” As an example, the third chapter of Genesis records some words that were spoken by Satan. He preached a lie to mother Eve. We know the sad story. God had said concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). But Satan said to Eve, “Thou shalt not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). Obviously what he said was a lie. Yet it is recorded in the Bible and we say that the Bible is true. The point is, the Bible is historically true in recording what the devil said, even though what he said was a lie. Or, to express it another way, what the devil said was a lie, but it is true that he said it.

Another example may be found in Romans 3:8, where we find the words, “Let us do evil that good may come?” Is this true? Is it right to do that which is evil if one believes that good will result? That is the basis upon which some try to justify unscriptural practices. They say, Look at the good we are doing. But when we examine the words of the above scripture in their context we learn that Paul is not stating it as a command, but rather quoting a slanderous report that was being circulated concerning what he taught. What the verse says is, “(. . . as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that good may come.” This allegation Paul denied. So the point is that while Paul repudiated the concept of doing evil that good may come, the Bible is true in recording the fact that some had accused Paul of saying it.

So the truth of the Bible has to do with its authenticity. By that we mean that it gives an authentic record of things done, without condoning evil deeds that it records. It also gives a true quotation of things that were said, even though that which was said may have been false. To this we may add that the Bible gives a true record of commands that God gave at various times in history. Some of these commands were addressed to individuals, and some to a particular nation, and therefore not of universal obligation or application. Of this we shall write in another article.

Recognizing Proper Distinctions

Handling aright the word of truth involves the recognition of certain distinctions in divine revelation. That the Bible itself makes such distinctions is obvious from a reading of Hebrews 1:1,2): “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these. last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (King James Version).

Please notice that three important distinctions are made in this passage of scripture:

1. There is a distinction between what God spoke “of old time,” and what He has spoken “in these last days.” The expression, “of old time,” refers to the Old Testament dispensation. The expression, “these last days,” refers to the Christian dispensation that began with Pentecost, 33 A.D. and will continue until the end of time. True, in both ages God has spoken. But it makes a lot of difference to us as to whether what God said was spoken “of old time,” or spoken “in these last days.”

2. A second distinction that must be recognized concerns the medium through whom God has spoken. The writer of Hebrews said that when God spoke of old time he spoke through the prophets. These were the Old Testament prophets, Moses, Samuel and them that followed after (Acts 3:22-24). In these last days, however, God has spoken to us through His Son. So while it is God who speaks to us in the Bible, it is essential that we make the proper distinction as to what He spoke through the Old Testament prophets, and what he has spoken through His Son.

3. A third distinction is seen in the fact that when God spoke of old time through the prophets, He was speaking to the fathers. By that the writer means those who lived during the Old Testament dispensation. Today, however, when he speaks through Christ, he speaks to us. This is a most important distinction. It is a gross mishandling of the word of truth to regard that which God spoke through the prophets to the fathers, as being addressed to us.

It is a failure to recognize and honor these distinctions that is responsible for many of the errors of Protestantism, especially the Judaistic doctrines of Seventh Day Adventism and the speculative theories of millennialism. Much of the teaching of these cults is based on a mixture of what God spoke of old time through the prophets to the fathers, and what He has spoken to us today through his Son.

In a number of articles to follow, we shall discuss several distinctions that must be recognized in order to handle aright the word of truth.

Truth Magazine XXI: 33, pp. 523-525
August 25, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

John Doe is a preacher who went through the great depression. John and his wife will never forget the financial burden of those years. Their home is small, but it is paid for. They have over 100,000 miles on their eight year old car, and John keeps it in good shape by doing almost all of his own mechanical work. John’s wife shops the sales and buys food on a budget. The Doe’s do not use credit cards, borrow seldom, and then only for short periods of three to six months from a bank. They keep a large savings account against emergencies.

Bill Black is a younger preacher who grew up in the post war boom of the fifties. Bill and his wife bought a house on the G.I. Bill for nothing down and have resold and bought larger homes twice. They owe the bank money on their new car, appliances, and boat. They use several department store credit cards, oil company credit cards, and bank credit cards. They have no savings at all and pay out almost two thirds of their income to their creditors. They live well and worry little that it would take their whole salary for three years to bring them totally out of debt.

Which Way Of Life Is Right?

Consumer credit is an integral part of American culture. Since 1950 domestic American debt has increased from 75.5 billion dollars to over 450 billion dollars. Two thirds of all disposable income in America is owed to someone else. Of our gross national product (the total value of all the goods and services produced in America before overhead or expenses are taken out), 13 percent of it is owed in credit. To give you an idea of the staggering amount of money owed by Americans, if the total domestic credit were divided equally among the population, every man, woman, child in America would owe $2,150. This total does not include the national debt (that amount of money owed by our national government: 396 billion dollars), the public debt of state and local governments (190.5 billion dollars), and the debt of businesses publically and privately owned.

Credit has advantages and disadvantages. Those who save money can expect interest on their savings because people are willing to pay to use their money. Borrowers can enjoy immediately luxuries they would have to wait till they could afford through savings. The borrower enjoys a higher standard of life than would be possible by refusing credit.

The disadvantages of credit, though are immense. The first and most. obvious disadvantage of credit is that it makes everything purchased cost more for the consumer. A house that would cost $10,000.00 if bought outright, costs in the end $15,000 or more. The clothes bought on a store credit card costs 18 percent to 20 percent more by the time it is paid for. Over extension of credit is painfully easy and leads to inflation, extravagance, careless buying habits, and economic instability. Easy credit and lack of discipline often makes it possible to incur so much debt that it is impossible to meet all payments. Default on personal debts results in repossession of goods and loss of credit privileges, to say nothing of the loss to personal esteem and standing in the community. Most economists agree that any person who pays 15 percent or more of his disposable income in installment credit is headed for serious trouble.

Biblical Principles

Under the law of Moses, Jews were not allowed to lend money at interest to their brethren. While they were encouraged to be generous in giving and lending their money, they could not charge their brethren usury of any kind (Deut. 23:19). They could require a “security” from their creditors to insure a debt would be paid, but it could not be something a man needed, like his clothing. God’s anger was kindled, not only at the Jew’s unfaithfulness, but their exacting interest from their brethren, and this habit was one reason they were forsaken by God (Neh. 5:1-13). Oppressing the poor by economic means was equally condemned by God (Deut. 24:6-13). Some sociologists believe the primary reason for the professional success of Jews in the world today is traceable to the willingness of successful Jews to help their brethren economically, without usury. Mosaical law made provision for the canceling of all debts every 50 years during Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-55). Indentured servants were to be released without debt after seven years of service (Ex. 2:12ff). The Jew who pleased God was one who gave of what he had to others without thought for repayment or usury (Psa. 112:5). This same attitude is to characterize the Christian today. It is the responsibility of the lender to give. It is the responsibility of the borrower to pay again. “If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again” (Luke 6:34).

In the New Testament God used the creditor’s relationship to demonstrate man’s relationship to God and his fellow man. The theme of the parable of the unjust steward was to demonstrate the origin of mercy and all blessings and the arrogance to demand exact accounting of debt, when our debts have been so freely and generously forgiven (Matt. 18:23-35).

Within the church, the needs of the members beyond their ability to provide or pay was met by loving sharing of good and by charity (Acts 2:44,45; 6:1-4; 11:29,30; Rom. 15:25-27; 2 Cor. 9:1-5). Jesus taught plainly that a free, generous, and open spirit brings great blessing from heaven: “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn riot thou away” (Matt. 5:42). “He that bath two coats, let him impart to him that bath none; and he that bath meat, let him do likewise” (Luke 3:11).

The test of love on judgment will be our generous distribution of our abundance in love to those who do not have (Matt. 25:35-45; Jas. 2:15,16;.1 Cor. 13:3). Such a practical application of God’s spiritual word will make it unnecessary for any brother to borrow money for the essentials of life.

Credit, Stewardship, And Covetousness

Most trouble that comes to the unwary Christian today because of abuse of credit is a result of covetousness. Few Christians see covetousness as a sin today, or if they do acknowledge it as sin, they do not recognize it as sin in their lives or of their brethren in a practical way. How many brethren give but a small portion 9f their wealth to the Lord because of their overwhelming “bills”? “Keep up with neighbors” is a sin (Ex. 20:17). How many brethren do you know that buy and buy and buy to enjoy the same things their worldly neighbors have. This writer has seen his brethren buy boats, and bigger boats that are seldom used, because of covetousness. Brethren who buy motorcycles, new cars, expensive and overly large homes, ostentatious gadgets, furniture, and furnishings, elaborate and unused libraries or other such collections are playing into the hands of the devil. “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord” (Prov. 30:8,9)? We are to be content with what the Lord has given to us, and a motivating desire for more than food and clothing is sinful covetousness (1 Tim. 6:6-9). The family that is constantly amassing more and more material possessions and going deeper and deeper into debt to obtain them are scripturally covetous (Luke 12:15,33,34).

The Law of Diminishing Return

There is a principle in life that applies to everything of the flesh. It is called “The Law Of Diminishing Return.” Briefly stated it is that the more one possesses, the less satisfied one becomes with what one has, and the greater the desire for more. This principle is true as it applies to all temptations of the flesh: Sexual abuse (Prov. 6:20-35), false teaching (2 Tim. 3:12,13). Drinking alcohol (Deut. 29:19), apostasy through marriage to an unbeliever (1 Kings 16:29-33), etc. This principle is even more true when it applies to the “lust of the eye.”

Stated in Scripture the principle is expressed in several ways: “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase . . . . When goods increase, they are increased who eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes” (Eccl. 5:10,11)?

“Labor not to be rich; wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? For riches make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven” (Prov. 23:4,5).

Materialism, worldliness, covetousness are all sins. Compromise with sin always brings more sin. Christians are told to rebuke sin, and then to have no fellowship with it (1 Cor. 5:11-13). These sins, as all sin, lead people into situations where they lose control of their lives. These sins compel brethren to buy more than they can afford. As God’s servants we are stewards of all that he has given to us, and the use of our resources is to be primarily directed towards spiritual ends (2 Cor. 9:615). When we cannot meet our spiritual obligations to lay by in store with the brethren for the work of the church, for individual benevolence as we have opportunity, for charity towards all men and especially to the household of faith, to support gospel preaching individually and collectively, because all of our substance is wrapped up in “getting” then we stand condemned by God (Luke 16:19).

A Christian’s life before the world is the most public way of teaching God’s will. Therefore the Christian should pay all of his debts and be honest in his financial affairs. The Christian’s life can not include greed for material possessions which lead to unmanageable debt.

Credit is not sinful-but like all things in this world-abused it can cost a man his soul. “Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away the bed from under thee” (Prov. 22:26, 27)?

Truth Magazine XXI: 33, pp. 522-523
August 25, 1977

By Daniel H. King

In the course of our reaction against false doctrine it has often been a temptation to some of us to “go off the deep end” into radicalism. The danger of over-reaction is just as real and just as threatening as that of liberalism at the opposite pole. To avoid either one is not an easy thing to do. Therefore it is not at all surprising to occasionally, or even frequently, meet views in the congregational setting or in the pages of the journals which reflect excessive positions. Now, at times we are moved to let them slip by unnoticed, hoping that they will just go away and recognizing that making an issue of such matters will only serve to give them undue advertisement and publicity. And, while I recognize that there are times when this is actually the best thing to do, especially when the case is an isolated one, there are also occasions when the best remedy is to reply in a public manner and trust the objectivity of fair-minded folk to judge as to where the truth lies. I think that in this particular situation the latter is the fitting answer. I make reference to the article under the heading “The Songs That We Sing” which appeared in the Feb. 17, 1977 issue of Truth Magazine. I invite you to either read it or reread it, as the case may be, in all fairness to Brother Ronny Milliner, its author. For, it is my firm conviction that many of the remarks found in the text of the article are excessive and even unbiblical. I believe that most of those who read the proscription looked at it as I at first did, feeling it to be no real threat to anything, even though I did not agree with it. But the more I thought about it and remembered the several people through the years that I have seen in churches in various parts of the country who sat stone-faced and stone-silent while the people of God praised the Almighty without their help-because they conscientiously felt that the song being sung was unscriptural and so dishonored God-I thought better of it and decided to take the time to publicly reply. So, it is not only to that particular article that I respond, but to the basic misunderstandings that I believe motivated its composition and motivated those good people who refused to obey the command of God to sing (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). Because, if they are wrong and the songs they demur to sing are proper, then the only conclusion which appears possible .is that they have sinned in abstaining. And that is no trivial matter.

Let me preface my further remarks by saying that since the appearance of Sacred Selections For The Church there have been a number who have registered objection to particular hymns which appear on its pages. I believe for the most part that the objections have been unfounded, unfair, and utterly subjective. But I am not attempting to be the exponent or advocate of that or any other song-book as the one-and-only scriptural and acceptable book to be utilized by the churches. But I must say that I do have a very great personal appreciation for it and have at different times urged churches to use it. I did so not because I would make any profit from their purchase (which I did not do), but because I felt that it offered a broad selection of acceptable and beautiful “songs, hymns, and spiritual songs.” I should perhaps also add that the Hillview church where I preach on a regular basis does use it and considers it to be scripturally sound. In addition, we do sing those songs that Brother Milliner alluded to and consider them to be scriptural and right. Therefore, I feel compelled to reply to our brother’s comments both in general and in specific. For if in singing these songs we articulate words and ideas that are not in keeping with the Bible, then it follows that upon every occasion in which we vocalize them we transgress the will of the Lord. And that is no trivial matter either.

With the substantial gravity of the thing now before us, let us look at a few general factors which will hopefully clarify our position.

“Written By Sectarians”

One of the bases upon which some (including Brother Milliner) object to some of our songs is the fact that they were written by sectarians. Well, sad to say, it is true that many were written by denominational people who in some cases included in the hymns ideas that were foreign to the Bible. Some were changed too, so that they could be scripturally sung. Others, though, needed no such alteration. The way in which many of them were worded allowed for them to be sung even though they had been originally intended to mean something different and unbiblical. Just so long as their wording did not preclude a scriptural interpretation, most compilers have felt that they could still be used. I am inclined to agree with their judgment. I think that Ellis J. Crum was both honest and correct when he wrote in the Forward of Sacred Selections: “Perhaps a few favorites will not be found because of unscripturalness. In the process of editing, not just one false doctrine was sought out, but as attempt was made to remove all false teachings and sectarian ideas. Scriptural sentiment was more desired than poetic excellence. Though far from perfect, it is believed that those who love the Lord and His church, and desire to ‘speak as the oracles of God,’ will find ;his book a step in the direction toward ‘sound speech’ in songs. This is as much needed in singing as in preaching or teaching . . . . It is believed that all Christians can sing these sacred selections without offense of conscience or violation of New Testament teaching.”

To press the point further, however, we would inquire as whether the simple fact of denominational authorship would make a thing unscriptural? The anti-class people have always argued this about the “Sunday-school,” but we have been safe in declaring that the question is not one of authorship but of authority. Does the Bible allow us to use this method as a device for the instruction of the Lord’s people?. The answer to this is “yes.” Again, do we not partake (in most cases) of bread baked and packaged by Jews? Do we not partake of the fruit of the vine, grape juice, which has been squeezed and bottled by atheists, infidels, and who knows what else? Do not most of us study commentaries and other books written by sectarian scholars, gleaning out and using those things of value, while weeding out and refusing the false doctrines usually contained therein? Have not the various compilers done that very thing with our songbooks? I believe so. At times we do not give these men much credit in the intelligence department. I personally feel that most of them deserve a great deal more credit for the knowledge, time, and labor that obviously went into these compilations than some of us are willing to give. Undoubtedly they have worked through a great number of songs and selected out only that very small portion which could be sung by God-fearing and Biblebelieving people. Indeed, here is where the real question lies, that is, “Are these songs scriptural?” This is the real issue. It is not really a question of who wrote them. That is actually an evasion of the real question, i.e. an argument from prejudice. If a song is scriptural, then we can sing it no matter who the writer is or was. So, this is the question which we intend to address ourselves to.

Poetic License and Symbolism

The most remarkable thing about the majority of criticisms which are lodged against modern hymnody is the fact that they-if applied to biblical psalms from the Old Testament-would show them to be unscriptural! Imagine that; we have applied such strict canons of judgment to hymnody as to disqualify hymns which were inspired by God! How could we know so incredibly little about the Bible? Any half-serious student of the Old Testament is aware that the Psalms that Israel sang are found in the book of Psalms and at other places in its pages; and that those songs are literally filled with examples of poetic symbolism is beyond any real dispute. But, since there are those among us who seem not to have studied them, let me point out just a few and direct some questions to those who are so skeptical of our contemporary hymns.

For an instance, in Psalm 18 David, in his Psalm of Deliverance, made use of more symbolic figures than I really care to count. Sometimes they are hard to discern, but in others they are easy. Let me innumerate only a few of the most obvious among them. First, he calls God a “Rock,” a “Fortress,” a “Shield,” and a “High Tower” (vs. 2). Now, did God really turn into a Rock, or a Fortress, or a Shield, or a Tower during the days of David? I should say not. And I would venture to say that Brother Milliner would agree. David here makes use of what students of poetry and literature call “metaphor,” a simple figure of speech in which one thing or person (in this case God) is spoken of as if it were another (in this case Rock, Fortress, etc). When one thing is thus likened to another it does not imply that the two are the same thing, only that there is a correlation in some important aspect (in this case God’s protective care as is illustrated by the power to protect characteristic of a Rock, Fortress, etc). A literalist would disallow this section of David’s song because it is not literally true.

Next, David says that the “cords of death” compassed him and the “floods of ungodliness” made him afraid (vs. 4). Question: Does death have literal “ropes” which literally held David? And, did ungodly waters literally frighten him? Of course not. Once again, the “sweet psalmist of Israel” is employing metaphorical speech and utilizing symbols that are not literally true but are figuratively true. David had been threatened by death and frightened by the course of events which led up to that threat. These truths he dressed in an outer garment of poetic symbolism which is both majestic and instructive.

In verse thirty-three he makes use of a poetic figure called “simile,” whereby the words “like” or “as” are applied in a case of poetic comparison. He says, “He maketh my feet like. hind’s feet.” Were David’s feet literally transformed into the feet of a deer? No, obviously he was only making a simple comparison using poetic symbolism. Usually there is not much difficulty when modern poets use the simile for comparative purposes in our hymns. The metaphors are the ones that get the most of the flack. But be it known that both are made use of innumerable times in the Old Testament Psalms and a simple reading of them will show this to be true. Moreover, one is not any more scriptural than the other, for both are often used.

Additionally, David in this same poem-hymn, and in a multitude of other places as well, uses “poetic imagery.” From verses six through fifteen a section appears which uses heavily symbolic elements throughout. He speaks of God’s “ears,” “mouth,” and “nostrils” (vss. 6, and 8). This is called “anthropomorphic imagery,” since it compares God with man in order to point out his abilities to perceive and communicate. He also sings of how God blew smoke from his nostrils and fire from his mouth, “rode” and “flew” and “soared” upon “cherubs” and the “wings of the wind” (vs. 10). This is “theocratic imagery,” since it displays God’s power in symbolic fashion.

Assuredly, this last type is the hardest of all for the literalist to accept. Yet it appears in a variety of places in the Scriptures and especially in the Psalms, the hymns of Israel’s worship. Through poetic imagery the poet (in this case a biblical writer under the influence of the Spirit of God) contemplates an object or experience perceived in relation to a second object, person, or event. He thus, by means of the figure, transfers from this image certain qualities which are then perceived as attributes of the original object. It is really not all that hard to understand. But we have always had trouble getting the point across to premillennialists when such figures appear in the prophets. They have time and time again in their zeal to sustain their theories turned literal prophecies into figurative ones and figurative prophecies into literal ones. Yet there is really not all that much difficulty to the whole thing, unless one is thus burdened by the weight of a false theory which needs props under it. The problem would be easily solved if the simple rules of contextual Bible study were applied honestly and the remedial principles of literary and poetic style were understood and treated likewise. Indeed, to this writer’s mind the article in question would never have been written if those same rules applied to the songs that we sing in our worship today.

In all of the above discussion, the important thing to understand and remember is that in Bible times the Bible people (Israel) used Bible songs (Psalms) which made use of a Bible stylistic feature which we may call after its common designation: poetic license. These principles of poetic license allow for “a deviation from strict fact, form, or rule . . . on the assumption that it will be permitted for the sake of the advantage or effect gained” (Webster’s Third International Dictionary, p. 1304). So, when I sing “They searched through heaven end found a Savior to save a poor lost soul like me” (one of those songs assailed by Brother Milliner), though I know that heaven was not literally searched in view of finding a Savior to save me-yet for the “effect” of making me realize that Jesus was perfect as a Savior and that none either in the heavens or upon the earth could have filled his place–for that “effect” I am able to “deviate from strict fact, form, or rule,” i.e. from literalism and sing this beautiful hymn. This same point applies to a whole host of songs in every one of our books, not just Sacred Selections.

I remember several years ago a case which fitly illustrates this point. A preacher raised an objection to the song “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name” which appears in Great Songs of the Church, on page 330. This hymn-book had often been criticized on account of the fact that E. L. Jorgenson, a premillennialist, had been its compiler. In fact, the publishers had removed his name from the front of the volume on account of the bad sentiment that it arroused. Anyway, the preacher pointed out that when the song said “Bring forth the royal diadem, and crown him Lord of all” it was giving voice to the doctrine of premillenialism. The song-leader, also an elder and a godly man, promptly explained that when he sang the song he was making use of poetic license, in that he daily crowned Jesus as King in his life by obeying his commands. That settled the question. But the question should never have arisen in the first place, especially from the mouth of one who should have been aware of that usage of imagery in the Bible itself. The fact is that we could apply a rigid literalism to any song-book and before long we would disqualify most of the songs contained therein as unscriptural. For instance, in the old Christian Hymns Number Two, a book that held sway in the churches for many years and is still being used in many places, the song “When They Ring the Golden Bells” appears (page 366). Where does the Bible speak of “bells” in heaven? I know not where. Perchance someone could enlighten me? Yet by this very rule the song “Where the Roses Never Fade” from Sacred Selections is pronounced unbiblical by some literalists. Or, what of “Whispering Hope” (page 322), again from Number Two? “Soft as the voice of an angel, Breathing a lesson unheard, Hope with a gentle persuasion, Whispers her comforting word.” Does hope literally come and whisper to us? Does this not sound much like the sectarian “salvation experience”? Why, the Bible uses a comparable figure in the book of Proverbs when referring to Wisdom: “Wisdom crieth aloud in the street, She uttereth her voice in the broad places . . .” (1:20). Yet some of the songs from Sacred Selections have been objected to on these very grounds. The point here is that we could nitpick like nit-wits until we could pick any hymnal apart that anyone had written-even the one God wrote, the book of Psalms. But if we use the good common sense that God supplied us with, then such questions would not even surface. The Bible surely condemns all such “questionings and disputes of words” (1 Tim. 6:4), for “foolish and ignorant questionings . . . gender strifes” (2 Tim. 2:23).“Christ’s Righteousness Alone”

Another song which was attacked in the above-named article is number 120 in Sacred Selections, “The Solid Rock.” Brother Milliner claims that it teaches the false doctrine of imputed righteousness. Now, I dare say that I am just as adamantly opposed to the doctrine of imputed righteousness as it is expostulated by the sectarians as he, but I think that I have kept my head about the matter. The scripture does teach that the righteousness of God and Christ saves us. Let there be no misunderstanding about – that. The Jew tried to deliver himself by his own system and failed (Rom. 10:3), but we, being dependent upon God’s righteous plan as revealed in Christ and his New Testament can succeed where the Jew failed (Rom. 1:17; 3:22; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Jn. 3:7). Pray tell me, what is wrong with singing about it, especially in lieu of language reminiscent of the Bible itself?

“Imminent Return of Christ”

Similarly, our brother brought under question “It Won’t Be Very Long,” page 343. In doing so it appears that he has not read his Bible in preparation for the writing of the essay, for if he had done so he would not have insulted the song on the grounds that it taught the imminent return of Christ. If the apostles were able to say, “The end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7); “The Lord is at hand” (Phil. 4:5); and Jesus could proclaim on several occasions, “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20), without teaching the imminent return of Christ, then is it not scriptural for us to sing “It Won’t Be Very Long”? Has the sense of urgency and of immediacy disappeared among us to the extent that we have become this sterile and impotent about the return of the Lord? I do not claim to know when Jesus will come back, whether a day or a million years, but I cannot believe that many of us would be forced into an unbiblical position such that we cannot even express in song the very teaching of the Bible in almost the same words that the Bible uses! Truly there are those of us who try so hard to stand up straight that we fall over backwards!

“Child’s Sin”

The only other song that Brother Milliner assaulted was “Jesus Loves Me” (page 274a). He attacked it on the conviction that it teaches inherited sin, which it does not teach. He starts out by assuming that it was written for children, since it is often sung by children. The simple truth is that this is not so. The song was composed by Philip Paul Bliss, an associate of the sectarian evangelist Ira D. Sankey and was utilized by him and others in their evangelistic campaigns. Primarily adults sang the song at first (cf. Ira D. Sankey, My Life and the Story of the Gospel Hymns, 1906). In time because of the simplicity and intrinsic appeal to little ones it came to be associated more with children than with adults. I do, however, know that it has often been sung in assemblies where both adults and children are present, since I have been there on several of such occasions. As I sing the song, I understand it to be referring to the instruction in Matt. 18:1-4, where Jesus taught that we must “become as little children” to enter the kingdom of heaven. I see myself as his “little child,” and recognize the sin that I have. When children sing the song it is certain that we ought to instruct them that they are not sinners as yet, but that they soon will be. But I would suppose that would be necessary in almost all songs that a child would sing or that we would sing, for that matter. The answer to most things of this sort is sound and thorough teaching-not the exclusion of this or any of the other songs or entire hymn-books which I have discussed above. If we do the proper teaching from the Word of God we will not have to be anxious about poetic imagery, hymnic similes or metaphors, or misapprehensions about what is true and what is not in our modern hymns or in ancient Israel’s. I am convinced that this, instead of over-reactions and extreme measures, is the answer. I leave it to the better judgment of honest people to determine whether this is right or not. I think that most will concur.

Truth Magazine XXI: 33, pp. 518-521
August 25, 1977