Truth Magazine

By Don R. Hastings

You may think that this subject is not very important, but it is one that produces an argument in almost every Bible class when it is discussed. I have been accused of not believing what the Bible taught because I said that the word “corn”, found in the King James Version, has reference to grain. Many brethren, when they see the word “corn” in the King James Version, naturally think of corn as we know it. But, does the word “corn” have reference to what we call “corn”? We should want to know and teach the truth in all matters.

Albert Barnes, in his commentary, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, makes this statement while commenting on Matthew 12:1: “The word corn, as used in our translation of the Bible, has no reference to maize, or Indian corn, as it has with us. Indian corn was unknown till the discovery of America, and it is scarcely probable that the translators knew anything of it. The word was applied, as it is still in England, to wheat, rye, oats, and barley. This explains the circumstance that they rubbed it in their hands, (Luke VI. 1,) to separate the grain from the chaff.” In England, the word “corn” is a general term for grain. This explains why the King James translators translated the Hebrew and Greek word for grain as “corn”. The American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version and many other versions will invariably use the word “grain” where the King James has the word “corn”.

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24) The passage reveals clearly that the word “corn” has reference to grain as it is translated in the American Standard and other versions.

All this means that the disciples did not eat raw corn, but wheat or barley. Pharaoh did not dream of “seven ears of corn” as we think of corn, but “seven ears of grain” which was probably wheat (Genesis 41:5). Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt to buy wheat, not what we call “corn”.

While on this subject, let us notice another misunderstood passage. In Luke 15:16, we read of the prodigal son’s desire to eat “the husks that the swine did eat”. I wondered for a long time how anyone could be hungry enough to want to eat corn-husks. Now I know that the Greek word translated “husks” has reference to “the pods of the carob tree”. (See the footnote in the American Standard Version.) William Smith, in his book, A Dictionary of the Bible, describes these pods and tells how the seeds were used as food by poor people and swine.

After I had enlightened a Bible class on this important matter, Sister Meta Given, who is the author of a cookbook, came to me and asked if I had ever eaten carob. I assured her that I had not. So she invited my family to her house for a carob drink, which was like hot chocolate, and some carob cake. She said that the carob looks and tastes something like chocolate, but that it is better for you. If you want what the prodigal son wanted, you can get it in most health food stores.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, p. 354
June 9, 1977

By Larry A. Bunch

The subject of “church discipline” is often a neglected and misunderstood one. Many times when churches “act” on this matter, they do so in haste with little or no preparation. Consequently, many times harm is done and brethren are embittered against the church acting in this realm. Our purpose in this article is to thoroughly study the subject from the Bible so as to completely understand it and be able to act in agreement with God’s will.

The Necessity of Discipline

Where there is no penalty attached to the violation of law, there is neither respect for the Law nor for the Law-giver. Juvenile delinquency results from a lack of discipline (Prov. 13:24; Eph. 6:1-4). We all recognize the necessity of discipline in the classroom and that the civil government requires punishment upon criminals (Rom. 13:1-4).

God has never tolerated trifling with His Laws. Confusion would result if there was no punishment for violation and God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Adam and Eve were punished for violation of God’s instructions (Gen. 3:17-24; 2:17). The whole world, with the exception of eight righteous souls, perished in the flood because of wickedness (Gen. 6). Nadab and Abihu presumed to offer “strange fire” to the Lord and were consumed by fire from heaven (Lev. 10). Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Lord and fell dead at the apostle’s feet (Acts 5).

Similarly, there must be discipline in the church today. Note that I said similarly — not exactly like the above cases, but discipline nevertheless. There are two main differences between the above cases and discipline in the church today: 1) God does not deal directly with violators of His Law today and 2) God does not deal out punitive discipline either directly or indirectly (through agents) unless Hebrews 12 is an exception of this. Even though this is true, there is still discipline. If there is no discipline, then the effect would be the same as in the situations mentioned (classroom, parents, government)-there would be no respect for God or for His Law.

Definitions

More brethren would be in favor of church discipline if they understood the broad meaning of the term. Discipline is defined by Webster as: “noun; mental or moral training; education; subjection to control; military regulation; chastisement; an instrument of punishment. Verb transitive; to train to obedience or efficiency: regulate; chastise” (New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1962). In Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged, 1959, it is defined as: “Noun, (1) training that develops self-control, character, or orderliness and efficiency. (2) the result of such training; self-control; orderly conduct. (3) a system of rules or methods, as for the conduct of members of a monastic order. (4) subjection to rule; submissiveness to control. (5) correction; chastisement; punishment inflicted by way of correction and training. (6) anything taught; branch of knowledge or learning. Verb transitive, (1) to subject to discipline; to instruct or educate; to prepare by instruction; to train; as to discipline youth for a profession. (2) to chastise; to punish. (3) to execute the laws of a church on. (4) to keep in subjection; to regulate; to govern. Synonyms: train, form, educate, instruct, drill, regulate, correct, chastise, punish.” We can see from this that discipline does not involve corporal punishment only, but also involves instruction and training. In fact, the instruction and training come first!

The Old Testament equivalent of “discipline” is musar which comes from yasar meaning “to bind, to tame; hence to correct, chastise, instruct, admonish” (“First Century Preaching by Twentieth Century Preachers” by Jimmy Tuten and Floyd Chappelear, p. 81). Some passages to read are Proverbs 3:11-12; 13:24; 22:15; 23:13; Deut. 8:5; Job 5:17; Psalm 94:12.

The word “discipline” (from the Greek sophronismos) does not appear in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. It appears once in the American Standard Version (ASV) in 2 Timothy 1:7 (KJV, “sound mind”). This word means: “1. an admonishing or calling to soundness of mind, to moderation and self-control . . . 2. self-control, moderation…” (Thayer, p. 613).

However, the idea expressed in the Hebrew “yasar” is best expressed in two Greek words: 1) “paideia” and 2) “paideuo.” Thayer says regarding these words (p. 473):

“Paideia: 1. the whole training and education of children . . . Eph. 6:4 . . . 2. whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, esp. by correcting mistakes and curbing the passions; hence a. instruction which aims at the increase of virtue: 2 Tim. 3:16 . . . b. acc. to bibl. usage chastisement, chastening . . . Heb. 12:5. . . .

“Paideuo: 1 . . . . to train children: . . . to be instructed or taught, to learn: . . . 1 Tim. 1:20; to cause one to learn: . . . Titus 2:12. 2. to chastise; a. to chastise or castigate with words, to correct: . . . 2 Tim. 2:25 . . . b. in bibl. and eccl. use employed of God, to chasten by the infliction of evils and calamities . . . 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3. .:19 . . . c. to chastise with blows, to scourge . . . Heb. 12:7, (10) . . . Lk.23:26,22.”

We have seen that discipline is training, rules, submissiveness, corrections, chastisement, instruction, regulation, governing – and since we are talking about “church discipline,” it is discipline pertaining to the spiritual growth and development of the individual Christian in the local congregation and of the attitudes and actions of the members of the local congregation toward one another.

Two Kinds

There are two basic kinds of disciplinary action: (1) Instructive: This is “preventative” in nature. It is designed so the Christian can learn God’s will in order to apply it to his life and please God. Thus, the Christian avoids the second kind of disciplinary action – (2) Corrective: This is “punitive” in nature. It results from inadequate instructive discipline or the failure of the Christian to make application of that instruction to his life. These two kinds of disciplinary action will be discussed next week in the section “The Means of (How To) Discipline.”

The Scriptures Commanding Discipline

Matthew 18:15-17 (the offender is also to go to the offended, Matt. 5:23-24); Luke 17:3; Romans 16:17-20; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; James 5:19-20.

These are some of the passages dealing with “instructive discipline” and all the passages dealing with “corrective discipline.” It would be good to read these passages and keep them in mind as you complete this study. (Continued Next Week). See also the tract on Church Discipline by Cecil Willis.

Truth Magazine XXI:22, pp.349-350
June 2, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

The Defender is the name of an eight-page monthly bulletin put out by a liberal church in Pensacola, Florida. It has involved itself in a great deal of controversy with the ultra-liberal element in the church today, and has carried some good material in that effort. However in the June, 1976 issue, Leon Cole of Florence, Ala., decided to take the “antis” to task in an article entitled “From One Extreme To Another.” I have not yet teen able to decide if he was actually as ignorant of the truth as I suppose I ought to graciously consider him, or to conclude he cared that little about what the truth actually was!

Leon Cole begins with a quote from Olan Hicks, “Boys one extreme always leads to another,” and from that finds comfort in “the often maligned `middle of the road’.” He charges that the early opposition to institutionalism led to the opposite extreme of ultra-liberalism, and that now that they are fighting the ultra-liberals, “antism” is again having a resurgence. First of all, I would like to agree with the first half of his claim. It was the early opposition to institutionalism that led to the ultra-liberalism in the church today, but not as he supposes! Ultra-liberalism got its footing in the loose and anti-scriptural positions advocated during the early fifties of “Where there is no pattern, ” etc. What other conclusion was there left for the next generation to go on and accept? Bro. Cole needs to go back and look at the very roots of the movement they are now fighting! As for the “resurgence” of the “antis,” may I politely point out to him we never disappeared. We have been busy preaching the gospel and growing rapidly in the process. However the liberals have sought to isolate themselves from those of us opposing their pet projects, and thus have closed their eyes to our existence until the fruits of their logic gave birth to a new generation of ultra-liberals. Now they are being forced to back up in alarm at what they have begun to reap, and are finding they are having to return to the arguments we have been using all along-and they do not like getting caught in the middle of their own inconsistency. No wonder they have suddenly begun to recognize we are here-they are now hearing many of our own arguments being used, and this means other pet projects they are defending are going to be questioned again. This affords them no little lack of sleep. So, to minimize this effect, many liberals today have grossly misrepresented the facts so many “middle of the roaders” will not learn too much. When will they ever learn what it was that created that mess in the first place?

But after having branded early opposition to institutionalism as “one extreme,” Leon Cole goes on to admit the opposition “began as a legitimate protest (emp. mine-DPA) to including the colleges in the budgets of the churches, questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher who often would benefit financially if it were adopted, and an effort to make the church a glorified welfare agency or to `glamorize the church’ by watering down the gospel.” This strikes me a bit odd. How can something be an “extreme” and a “legitimate protest” at the same time? Or could it be that now that they have seen the results of the Herald of Truth going into apostasy, men who clearly did abuse their roles then (funny how much better hind-sight is), and the continued rapid growth of the effort to get churches to put the colleges in the budget (yet how can one condemn one human institution and justify another going into the budget-the orphan home?), that they have now concluded those objections were right-but do not want anyone to know they are now recanting and admitting the “antis” were right after all? A thing cannot be a “legitimate protest” and an “extreme” at the same time-it may go to an extreme in objecting, but it cannot start out as both! But Leon Cole charges this “legitimate protest” began sound in its objections (though denied then) and then “degenerated into the formation of a sect.” Well, in the words of the apostle Paul, “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers” (Acts 24:14).

The first charge against this “sect” is that it was “led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence.” This I flatly deny! I could as easily charge those who sought to perpetuate the various institutions among us were those who “sought to have the preeminence,” and in this Leon Cole has already agreed. Note his own statement again. First of all, opposition “began as a legitimate protest.” Now, he charges it was “led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence.” I wish he could decide which it was! Secondly, he admits that this “legitimate protest” was against “questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher who often would benefit financially if it were adopted”. That sounds to me like those seeking to benefit from the controversy were those who had something to gain! Certainly those gospel preachers who challenged the scripturalness of such were not benefitting financially as they were being quarantined, maligned, had meetings cancelled, lost meeting places, etc. By his own admission, the defenders of these institutions were the ones seeking to “benefit financially” and to “glamorize the church.” And now he charges those objecting with a “legitimate protest” of being so motivated. Hang your head in shame! Caught again!

He then continues to charge that “it was not long till a creed was formulated.” Now a creed is merely a conviction, but since Leon Cole charges we have accepted a creed, perhaps he would like to inform us when it was drawn up, by whom, etc. Have the churches of Christ accepted a “creed” because we believe baptism is by immersion and for the remission of sins? Was a “creed” involved when we objected to the use of instrumental music in worship to God? Yes, we have a creed, but our creed consists of following the word of God and it only (2 John 9). In that respect, apparently, this amounts to a denial the liberals have such a creed anymore. Have they ceased to follow the Bible altogether?

The “tenets” of this creed which Leon Cole has drawn up and so maliciously assigns to us consists of the following points. “One church may not help another in a cooperative work under any circumstances.” Such is an outright falsehood! That is about as logical (and honest) as the Christian Church charging we do not believe in worshipping God in song because we object to instrumental music. Could it be that Leon Cole has begun to see some of these “questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher” and “effort(s) to make the church a glorified welfare agency” are unscriptural, and this is the only way they could object to ultra-liberal practices without admitting there is a pattern? Caught in the middle again!

The second “tenet” is “Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 are limited to individuals and benevolence by the church is to saints only . . . .According to the teachings of this sect, if a family where the parents are members of the church are destitute the church could not contribute from its treasury to that family if there were children too young to be members unless the parents would refuse to let the children eat.” Again, purely a false statement-designed to arouse prejudice! I flatly deny anyone so teaches and call on Leon Cole to prove it or admit to (1) misrepresentation or (2) ignorance whereof he wrote! It is true we object to the church taking money from the treasury to care for non-saints, but there is a vast difference in this and aiding needy saints while forbidding them to do what God has commanded them to do (1 Tim. 5:8), and Leon Cole knows such to be so! I defy him to name anyone who would let children go hungry if the church had to relieve needy Christians who were their parents! But that does not authorize the church to become another Salvation Army, and again Leon Cole found himself caught in the middle. He believes benevolence is limited too! Note again his statement that we were raising a “legitimate protest” to “an effort to make the church a glorified welfare agency.” Now perhaps he would like to tell us how he can object to one without any standard of authority and not accept the other? Yes, that “middle of the road” is a dangerous place when one decides to call for authority!

But he then charges Gal. 6:10 is to the church because in v. 11 Paul mentioned his letter which was addressed to the “church” (Gal. 1:1-2). But, in v. 12 he goes on to talk about circumcision-I wonder if that was done to churches or individuals? I wonder if churches or individuals were baptized (Gal. 3:27). I wonder if Paul was part of the church here (6:10-“we”)? And then, since 1 Thess. 1:1 was addressed to the “church,” was Paul talking about churches in 1 Thess. 4:9-12-or individuals? Consistency, thou art a jewel! As for James 1:27, he knows better than to touch that with a ten-foot pole! Leon Cole has a problem. He objects to the church becoming a “glorified welfare agency,” yet wants to take a passage that is addressed to individuals and commit the church to “all men.” Caught in the middle!

The third “tenet” (such a short creed!) is “church property is sacramental and eating on the premises is forbidden, some even declare weddings and funerals should be excluded from the church building.” My, my, something happened here. A “creed” has been accepted by a “sect,” and yet “some” question weddings and funerals in the building. If a creed had been accepted (in the sense he implies), why are brethren still studying the issue and examining the authority that is associated with it? Could it be there is still an area brethren are questioning and requestioning, and not a “creed” at all? Could it be maybe the liberals are questioning their “creed” a church must support these benevolent societies being under elders or a board-but must be supported? Could it be the “creed” of “the college in every budget” is still being studied by them? Thank God brethren are willing to raise “legitimate protests” to abuses and unscriptural activities — and may we continue to examine, question and seek the full truth on all issues!

But how does he justify “eating on the premises”? “If we cannot eat on church premises neither could food be eliminated on church premises.” My my, such great scriptural authority! May I suggest he again read 1 Cor.11l and Paul’s criticism — not: “wait and eat a meal later” but “eat at home.” I suppose in John 2, the Jews should have reasoned, “If you cannot buy on these premises, neither can you sacrifice on them.” If you enter a building that says “no smoking,” and you have filled your lungs with the stink and fumes of this poisonous weed, then you could not exhale at all while in there? If you cannot buy clothes in a church building, can you wear them? Such silly reasoning is hardly worth answering. Food is eaten, digested and eliminated much later. Elimination is not something pre-planned and scheduled nor does the elimination of such convert the building into “fellowship halls” for which thousands of dollars of the Lord’s money are spent! Such places as rest rooms are necessary to public gathers because of this time lapse, especially where the public will be gathered for a prolonged period of time and includes in it babies, small kids-and perhaps yourself if you should get diarrhea, etc. An assembly of a prolonged nature could hardly be held in “decency and order” without such, as recognized by many state laws now. And whether we returned to “out-houses” as he accuses us of needing to do, or maintain an “in-house;” such is needful for an assembly-and a silly quibble if ever one was raised. Certainly the same logic that would iustify an “out-house” would also justify indoor facilities as well!

The issue is: Where has God authorized us to convert a building built .with His funds as part of our efforts to worship Him and teach others the gospel of Christ into a “fellowship hall” and place of entertainment? And, if we can so convert it, what limits would one place upon it? I heard one preacher seek to justify the Boy Scouts being sponsored by the church as “good for the morals of the kids,” but objected to Weight Watchers (“good for caring for the body that we might further serve him”?) as not being “religious” in nature. Surely he knows the difference between modern-day “fellowship halls” and the place authorized for the assembling of the saints, built and maintained by the money contributed to further the work of the Lord! But, as he admits, some today have sought to “glamorize the church” with many unscriptural schemes: sponsoring the Boy Scouts, socials, baby and wedding showers, Halloween parties, slumber parties, etc. Yes, “legitimate protests” were raised and still ask, “Where is the authority?” Caught in the middle again!

Swinging to the other side of his own self-declared “extremes,” he goes on to say, “From the extreme of antism developed an attitude not to be against anything,” and that is what is really upsetting the liberals today! His problem is how to draw the line against a full-scale apostasy they introduced, without being forced to consistently go back all the way and accept the full truth. It is a losing battle. They tried it in the last century and lost, and time will show the same thing will be true of the present apostasy. Too late have these liberals begun to wake up and object of where they are going, while seeking to hang on the ‘groundwork they themselves laid at the same time. No wonder they are so grossly misrepresenting the truth — it’s rough getting caught in the middle!

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 347-349
June 2, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

The preacher had always been a very busy man. Between meetings, debates, writing, study, and time spent with preaching cronies little time was spent home with the family. The preacher’s wife made a life that cared for the more “mundane” parts of life without her husband. She had always been taught that it was her lot and duty in life to “make-do” while her husband “sacrificed” for the Lord. Actually, she could have told anyone that the sacrifice was hers to make, and not her husband’s. He was doing what he enjoyed without a feeling of guilt for his neglect of such “non-exciting” duties as nurturing and admonishing his children and demonstrating, due benevolence to his wife. His wife assumed the duties of home and household because she had to.

The preacher sacrificed for the Gospel when he bought the sophisticated tape deck, amplifiers, and speakers to record his own voice. He bought books, tapes, file cabinets, typewriters, overhead projectors, printing presses, cameras, and other various expensive “aids” to help him in his work. His children wore hand-me-downs and ate beans. His wife took a job to make ends meet. While the wife and kids often “made-do” with their clothing, the preacher needed well tailored and attractive suits “for his work.” In some cases the preacher went to the beauty parlor more often than his wife for a razor trim and styling. It was quite a scene: the preacher in the pulpit exhorting brethren “to love your wives as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.” Later, his wife struggled down the aisle with arms full of babies, Bibles, and diaper bags while the preacher “shakes ’em out” the door.

It is a tribute to the godly nature of women such as these that they endure and persevere, still reverencing their husbands, submitting as unto the Lord. But is this the marriage God engineered in the garden (Gen. 2:24)? Is this the marriage that Jesus compares all marriage to (Matt. 19:4,5)? Can we look upon such a relationship and say with the Lord, “Behold, it is very good”?

The preacher’s family is often vulnerable because of confusion surrounding his work and place in the church. His wife is expected to be “first lady” in the church and must initiate and be included in all social functions. (Some may laugh, but this writer once heard a preacher seriously teach that while speaking on “The Preacher’s Wife.”) Is there a word in all of the Bible about “Preacher’s Wife” qualifications apart form the exhortation given all women and wives? His children are often used or abused by the brethren in attempts to win the parent’s approval, or wreak their vengeance upon the parents without having to personally confront them.

Some men of great ability receive a promotion above “local work.” They become preachers at large — meeting preachers — “prominent” preachers. As one of these brethren once sought to explain it to me, “There is a place, mind you, for the local preacher — the one who deals with problems and teaches only on a local level. But there is a place as well for those men who have the opportunity to deal with the bigger picture-those errors that are brotherhood wide. There have to be brotherhood preachers as well!” Often, these men do not actively seek this larger role, but have it thrust upon. them. But, however it is obtained, is there any precedent, example or authority for anything but a “local preacher?” Like personal work, preaching that is so broadly based as to be addressed to everyone, is addressed to no one. “Brotherhood preachers” seldom if ever touch and change as many lives as the man that takes them one at a time.

Too many times the problem is complicated when the preacher’s wife reacts emotionally to such presumptuous neglect by selfishness on her own part. The wife may refuse to anything that needs to be done, except as it pleases her. She has often developed her own way of life and living apart from her husband and family. It is from this world that she seeks what she feels she needs. The children are neglected, housework is not done, meals are not prepared, the family’s solidarity dissolves as everyone goes his own way and does as he pleases. The T.V. becomes the babysitter, teacher, and companion to the young. The adolescent turns to his friends and peers for love, approval, guidance as he sees only benign neglect form his parents. Resentments from unresolved anger and hatred build up in the marriage till all mutual feeling of compassion and love is smothered. Divorce is not a way out for godly Christians, so the preacher and his wife lead a grey, passionless existence having long past shed their tears of loss over their loneliness.

It Is A Problem

Anyone who does not believe there are such family problems among God’s servants is not too observant. It would be possible, if it were necessary, to take the specific lives of many families within the church to document this composite picture. The problem is not confronted and dealt with as a problen within the church because we are so loathe to recognize it to start with.

Responsibility

We owe much of this problem to our collective fuzzy thinking on the work of the preacher. Talk with any group of brethren for very long about the work of the evangelist, and soon he will have more qualifications and duties than an elder!

In the minds of many brethren, the preacher must compete with and parallel the denominational “Reverends.” Since we cannot have a Pastpr, we have a “Minister” and “Christianize” a denominational clergy. Our clergy must be well-dressed, well educated, on constant call, always on display, and set apart. The preacher is seldom considered a part of the local congregation where he worships. He is an employee of the church to be controlled, or who exercises control.

What is this man’s responsibility? What is his responsibility before God to the church, the sinner, the unbeliever, his family, his wife, his children? The questions and problems raised in this article cannot be answered in a few words-but they do have an answer. God’s word has an answer for every relationship of man (2 Pet. 1:3).

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 345-346
June 2, 1977