Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, let us consider the blood of Christ. Religious Liberalism says Jesus died as a hero of martyr — He is a great “inspiration” in his uncomplaining death — that is all there is to it. The Bible teaches differently.

The death of Christ was not accidental or incidental, but was a matter of prophecy. “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities . . . an offering for sin . . . he hath poured out his soul unto death . . . and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isa. 53). Isaiah said the death of Jesus Christ would “justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”

Before His death, Jesus appointed the keeping of the Lord’s Supper. “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28). After His resurrection, Jesus explained to His disciples that His death, burial, and resurrection had been foretold in the Old Testament. Now that it had all been fulfilled, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Lk. 24:47).

When the apostle Peter preached the death of Christ, he explained its meaning: “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:14-47). He also said men are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:19). The apostle Paul said that in Christ “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). Under the New Covenant, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10).

While the world lieth in wickedness and death, many churches talk of “urban renewal” and “social renovation.” Preachers spend their time drumming up support or opposition on civil rights, Federal rights, States’ rights, neighborhood rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, etc., etc. SHAME!!! Whatever happened to the “right” and duty of gospel preachers declaring “the precious blood of Christ” which was shed for the remission of sins?

Many who claim to believe in the blood of Christ will not preach what the Bible says on how to reach that cleansing blood. False teachers say we are saved by “grace only” or “faith only” or “Christ only” or “the Bible only.” All of these are involved. And another: obedience to the Gospel. Jesus Christ is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9). He Himself said, “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 . . : ” (Matt. 7:21). How do we reach the blood?-“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”-“Repent and be baptized every one of you .in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” -“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, p. 306
May 19, 1977

By Mike T. Rogacs

When the Lord established His covenant with the people called Israel, He built into that covenant several precepts which were meant to insure the continuance of truth and justice among His people. One such precept was found applied in several instances in the law of Moses. The basic structure of this principle was as follows: all matters involving the necessity of testimony should be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses (or more). This was to become the general principle by which several commandments were formulated. The Israelites were told, “a murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die” (Num. 35:30). Again, anyone committing any transgression worthy of death had to be accused by two or more witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In fact, the law stated that no iniquity was to be laid to the account of any person unless it had been established by the mouth of two or more witnesses (Deut. 19:15). And so it was that bearing false witness was so strongly spoken against in the ten commandments and later in the covenant as a whole (Ex. 20:16; Deut.19:16).

It is clear to the student of the scriptures that the Lord was herein setting a precedent upon which He would function when later He would deal with this Israelite nation and then all of humanity. That is, the Lord intended to continue in the spirit of this principle and would establish anything between Himself and man by two or more witnesses. (Even before this time, it was by Moses and Aaron and the works God gave them that the message of “let my people go” was established to indeed be from God.) And so as the scriptures were written, the Lord did indeed continue in application of this principle.

To my knowledge Jesus never once during His earthly ministry directly stated that He was the Messiah. The reason for such conduct was explained in John 5:30-39. Jesus said that if He alone bore witness of Himself, His witness would be false. But He reminded those to whom he was speaking that at least three had been giving witness of His position and authority as Messiah all along. One had been John, who had baptized in the Jordan. Another, God the Father, affirmed the fact through the works He gave His Son to finish. And the scriptures, which those Jews should search, were given by the Holy Spirit unto men of old who proclaimed the Messiah. The witness of one was not to be relied upon to establish Jesus as being the Christ. Again, it was by the witness of two or more (John 1:15; 3:1-2; 20:30-31).

We are even to understand that, as Christians, the evidence of our sonship with the Father is proven not by the witness of men but by the witness of three in heaven (1 John 5:5-10). Man’s wisdom may teach many differing doctrines in the name of religion and thereby deceive many into believing that they are part of God’s family when they are not. But this is only false witnessing and is of no validity since it contradicts the witness given in heaven. It is like the denominations which encourage so-called personal witnessing of salvation. An individual stands before many and “testifies” concerning an event in his or her life which was proof to him that he had been saved. Not only is this witness of man, but it is an attempt to bear witness by the mouth of one. This violates the principle God took long pains to establish, and it is therefore to be considered “false witness” (Ex. 20:16). Our obedience of God’s patterns must be pure and all evidence of salvation which we might need is given us in the scriptures (2 John 810; 1 Peter 4:11; etc.). This is how the three in heaven bear witness that we are sons of God. If we believe we have achieved redemption through any other testimony, we have been deceived.Another Example-Misapplied

In the discussion of the principle of establishing a fact by witnesses, there is yet one more example which seems expedient to examine. But with this example, it is deemed expedient to say that it is located in a passage which brethren have sometimes misapplied. Have you even heard someone speak concerning what constitutes an assembly of Christians (worship assembly, local assembly, etc.)? We are usually instructed that Jesus said, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Is it truth that Jesus was here giving a criteria by which we can define an assembly or even speaking of something else but is a passage which we can take out of context and apply it as such criteria?

With all due respect given all who have used this line of reasoning in the past (myself included), it seems that such an application of Matthew 18:20 is in error. I have heard the verse used to define assembly as mentioned above and as a proof text defining the meaning of “assembly” in James 2:2 and of “churches” in 1 Cor. 14:34. It is my understanding from a study of the words involved in these two verses that the local assembly of the saints in worship is truly meant by the two examples. But frankly, I have always had misgivings about using Matthew 18:20 as additional proof of what an assembly is. If I understand scripture correctly, anytime two or more people get together to do anything of a religious nature (sing, study, etc.) it is supposed to be in the “name of Jesus” (Col. 3:17). Yet surely we are not trying to say that every occasion is an assembly when two or more gat kler (an assembly such as James 2:2 and 1 Cor. 14:34). Hoping to clarify one step further, I do believe in an assembly such as that found in James 2:2 as being a group assembled in the name of Christ and even that Christ is among them (by faith-Eph. 3:17). But so is it also true outside of the worship assembly of the local congregation. It cannot be that Matthew 18:20 is teaching what might constitute an assembly.

In truth, what Matthew 18:20 is is another example of the witness of God for the purpose of establishing a religious fact. Read the context of verses fifteen through twenty. First, Jesus reminds the twelve apostles-the only ones to whom he is presently speaking-of the principle of establishing a fact by two or more witnesses. After drawing upon their memory of this, our Lord went on to say: “Verily I say unto you (the 12 apostles, mtr), Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be (or have been, mtr) bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be (or have been, mtr) loosed in heaven.” Here Jesus was preparing them for a change of laws: from that of the Old Covenant to the New Testament of Christ. It was to be by the work of these twelve men that this loosing of the old law and the binding of the new law of Christ would be accomplished. For such a radical change in religious emphasis, certainly the world should have a basis upon which to determine whether to believe or disbelieve any given message these men delivered. So, referring to the principle of witnessing, whenever two or three of these men—the twelve apostles–were gathered together in Jesus’ name, the world was to rest assured that Jesus was with them. That is, these men were going to do and speak only what Jesus would have them do.

Remember now, the authority of the twelve apostles was established by the testimony of the works they did by God’s power (Mark 16:16-20; John 3:2). The world must first accept this fact. But when this is established, the formula of Matthew 18:15-20 was to insure the validity of every message these men would give the world. When we examine the actions of the apostles as the years went on, the principle becomes clear. For example, Peter, by his actions, supported a false principle (Gal. 2:9-14) and caused others to follow his example. But he acted alone and was rebuked before all. On the other hand, when the subject of circumcision was discussed in Jerusalem, various people were heard, but it was by the witness of Peter and James that the truth of the matter was established (Acts 15:6-32). And so it was, whenever two or three of the apostles gathered together to bind and loose what had been determined in heaven, the Lord was with them.

So it was on this basis that the great commission was given to these men (Mark 16:15-16). It was on this basis that the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to these twelve men (Acts 1:2-8; 1:26-2:4). The binding and loosing was through these men as the Holy Spirit was leading them into all truth (John 16:13-15). The instruction of two or three gathering together and the Lord being with them in Matthew 18:20 was refering only to the two or three of the apostles establishing truth. An additional observation is that it was here where God affirmed to all following ages that Christianity was established consistent with divine principles. This assurance was necessary because if such was not so, room for rejection of the new testament would exist.

We have presented these comments not only to correct an apparent misuse of a passage, but to present the profound import of the message of Jesus. We find that if we properly used the passage it is an important point to bring to light in a discussion with one from a Pentecostal denomination. And it is important when the inspiration of the scriptures, especially the New Testament, is being attacked by the modernist of today’s religious circles. And so, we do pray that what has been written herein will be of benefit and is correct. We invite your comments on the matter.

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 300-301
May 12, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

Much of what we write, preach, and teach falls short of any practical help to the Christian on a day to day basis. It is a good man who can translate words on paper or words taken from the air into profitable godly living. Ultimately, all scripture must find practical application in the life of the Christian. “All scripture is given …that the man of God might be complete, throughly furnished unto every good work.” It is not enough just to “know” the word of God the way we know the multiplication tables or American history. Scripture is “profitable” for debating, for teaching, for rebuking sin, but God’s word is first for us to change our lives and personalities into the image of Christ’s.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom.12:2). “When ye received the word of God …ye received it …as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ . . . that he would grant you . . . strength with might by his spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith . . . and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:14-19).

We can see the practicalities of our Lord’s teaching time and again. Matthew 5, often called the Sermon On The Mount, deals in practical application of God’s word. Even the beatitudes, which to many merely seem to be pious sayings, begin with the word “blessed” or “happy.” Jesus is proclaiming that only the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart can ever be truly happy. Only those who hunger and thirst after what is right will ever receive any fulfillment and lasting peace of soul. In a world (and a church) torn with hatred, misery, and depression, these words of our Lord must find practical meaning (5:1-16).

Jesus took the truth and brought it into the living of those he taught. “It is .not good enough to be just as good as the Scribes and the Pharisees,” Jesus intimated. “You have to be complete and balanced in truth as God is perfect or you have no part in the Kingdom.” It is not enough to be free from the charge of premeditated murder. There is no merit before God for never having killed a man. Godliness is to be free from the hatred, evil and hurtful intent, and the contempt that gives seed to the fruit of murder. The man who hates in his heart is a murderer in the eyes of God (5:17-22).

One may feel justified before God because of his faithful and religious attendance to duty. But, if the relationship of the Christian and his brother is severed because of sin, and no effort is put forth towards reconciliation, our real duty goes wanting. Man’s relationship with God is predicated in part on man’s relationship with his fellow man (Matt. 5:23-26; Jas. 3:9-18).

The ship of faith, from “stem to stern,” gives us answers in how to live, how to think, how to respond to a hostile world. A man may have unlimited talents, intellectual attainments and accomplishments, comeliness and grace before men, power and influence, but if he is lacking in the fundamental ability to make a God-like response to each problem, trial, and temptation-his life is vanity (1 Cor.13). This is basically what is wrong with the man who is a scholar before he is a disciple. Scholarship is only a means to an end. With the “knowing” must come the ability to relate the knowledge to living. As Solomon put it, “let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments and live. Get wisdom. Get understanding: forget it not” (Prov.4:4,5).

Take a look at your life. Are you miserable as a Christian? Something is wrong that needs to and can be corrected. Do you feel like you are in constant competition with your brethren? Something needs to change. Are you always depressed, hemmed in by hurt, suspicious and resentful of others, or the victim of an “unconquerable” sin? The Lord has the answer for you, if you have the trust in him to take it.

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 299-300
May 12, 1977

By John McCort

The most popular argument used to justify instrumental music in worship is an argument drawn from the word “psalms” (psalmos) in Eph. 5:19. The argument made is that in the Old Testament psalms were sung to the instrument of music. It is claimed that the instrument of music is inherent in the singing of psalms. Several authorities can be produced which state that psalms (psalmos) were to be sung to the accompaniment of an instrument of music. (See Vine & Thayer on psalmos.)

Let us momentarily assume that their argument is correct, that the instrument of music is inherent in the word psalms. If this is true then it would be sinful, if not impossible, to sing psalms without an instrument of music. Immersion is inherent in the word baptism. Would it not then follow that it would be sinful, if not impossible, to baptize without immersing? Since all are commanded to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19), would it not also follow that all singing psalms would be required to play an instrument of music? If the instrument of music is inherent in the singing of psalms, then the instrument of music is not optional to the singing of psalms; it is demanded. Where is the authority for one person to play an instrument of music for all of the congregation, if the instrument is inherent in the singing of psalms?

1. Psalmos In The New Testament

Examine how the word “psalm” is used in the New Testament. Luke 20:42–“The Book of Psalms”; Luke 24:44–“written . . . in the Psalms”; Acts 1:20–“The Book of Psalms”; Acts 13:33–“The second Psalm”; 1 Cor. 12:26–“Everyone . . . hath a psalm”; Eph. 5:19-“Speaking . . . in psalms”; and Col. 3:16–“Admonishing . . . in psalms.”

The instrument of music is not mentioned in connection with the reading, speaking, or singing of psalms. In the Old Testament the instrument of music had to be named in addition to the word psalm. (Psa. 81:2, 98:4; 149:3) Since the instrument of music had to be named in addition to the word “psalmos’; this demonstrates that the instrument of music was not inherent in the word.

2.Psallo and Psalmos

Both psallo (making melody, Eph. 5:19; sing, Rom . 15:9) and psalmos come from the same root word “psao.” Psao means to “rub, wipe; to handle, touch.” (Thayer, p. 675.) Psallo is the verb form of psao and psalmos is the noun form. Psallo, in its virgin definition, merely means to pluck, twitch, or twang. The object of the pluck, twitch, or twang must be named in context. No object of the pluck is inherent in the word psallo. Sometimes the word psallo is used to describe the plucking of a carpenters string or the plucking of a hair. One cannot pluck (psallo) without something to pluck. Thus, there is no object inherent in the verb psallo. It is true that in the Old Testament the word psallo is often used to describe the strumming of an instrument of music. It is important to note that when the instrument of music is the object of the strum (or pluck), it is always named in addition to the word psallo. Psa. 98:4-5: . . . break forth and sing praises (psalate) for joy, yea, sing praises. Sing praises (psalate) unto Jehovah with the harp (en kithara).” Psalte is translated “sing praises” and the harp (kithara) is named in addition to the word `psalate” demonstrating the fact that the instrument of music is not inherent in the word psallo.

Note the parallel between psallo and baptizo. Baptizo, defined, means to immerse, submerge, plunge, dip, etc . . . There is no element inherent in the verb baptizo. The New Testament speaks of baptizing in water (Jn. 3:23), baptizing in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11), and baptizing in fire (Matt. 3:11), demonstrating the fact that no element is inherent in the verb baptize. Likewise, psallo merely means to pluck, twitch, or twang with no element or instrument being inherent in the word psallo.

In Eph. 5:19 both psallo and psalmos are used. “Speaking one to another in psalms (psalmois), hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody (psallontes) in your hearts to the Lord.” Notice that the object of the psallo is named. “Singing (adontes) and making melody (psallontes) in your heart (en kithara . . . .” The object of the psallo is the heart. Compare Psa. 98:4, “Sing prases (psalates) . . . with the harp (en kithara)” with Eph. 5:19, “. . . making melody (psallontes) in your heart (en kardia).” In Eph. 5:19 the “psalloing” is done in the heart. In Psa. 98:4 the “psalloing” is done on the harp.

Psalmos is nothing more than a noun form of the verb psallo. What would hold true for psallo would also hold true for psalmois. Let us momentarily assume that the words baptize and baptism are used in the same passage. Let us further suppose that the command is given to baptize with water. If the noun baptism were used in the same passage, then the baptism would be water baptism, to the exclusion of all other forms of baptism. The verb baptize describes the action and the word water is the element used in the action of baptizing. When water is specified as the element, this automatically excludes all other elements in that context. Water baptism would automatically exclude that baptism from being a baptism in fire or Holy Spirit baptism. The element water is not inherent in the word baptize, but when water is specified as the element, this automatically excludes all other elements. Baptism is nothing more than a noun form of the verb baptize. If the word baptism were used in the same passage as the phrase, “baptize with water,” the word baptism would automatically mean water baptism. The element water would automatically be transferred from the verb “baptize” to its noun form “baptism.” Would not the word baptism automatically mean water baptism to the exclusion of all other kinds of baptism in that particular context?

There is an inescapable parallel between psallo and baptizo, and between psalmos and baptisma. In Eph. 5:19 the object of the psallo, the heart, is specified. This automatically excludes all other kinds of “psalloing” (such All Things as plucking a carpenter’s string, plucking a harp) in this particular passage in the same way that the phrase pertaining to Life “baptize with water” automatically excludes all other kinds of baptizing. Psalmos is the noun form of psallo and thus the object of psallo is naturally transferred to psalm os in the same way that the element water, in the phrase “baptize with water,” would be transferred to its noun form “baptism.” Thus the instrument of music could not be included in the word psalm os since the object of psallo, the heart, has already been specified in the passage.

When the scholars define the word psalm os as being “a psalm being sung to the instrument of music” we must realize that they are giving the applied definition of the word rather than its virgin meaning. The instrument of music is not inherent in either psallo or psalmos. This can be illustrated by Thayer’s definition of the word Baptizo. “2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water;” he cites Mark 7:4. But, the ELEMENT, WATER, IS NOT INHERENT IN THE WORD BAPTIZO. The instrument of music is not in the word psalmos anymore than the element water is inherent in the word baptimos. This demonstrates that the scnolars sometimes give the applied meaning of a word rather than its virgin definition.

None of the translators have ever translated the word, psallo, in the N.T. as meaning to play an instrument of music or of even meaning to sing and play. Nowhere in the New Testament is instrumental music ever authorized in worship to God. This article has not attempted to deal with the historical evidence against instrumental music, how to establish Bible authority, or any of the other arguments against instrumental music in worship. I have merely attempted to deal with one small argument that is raised in defense of instrumental music.

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 298-299
May 12, 1977