Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

One cannot help but be a little bemused by the outcry in various papers against “scholarship.” It is quite fashionable now to assail that terrible “ivory tower preacher, elder or editor” who will not come down to earth to “us common folk” and “just preach the gospel.” Granted, there may be some who will fit that ignominious category and justly deserve our taunting and badgering- but just what constitutes this “pseudo-scholarship” that we must be on guard against? Who will step forward with the infallible criteria by which we can all judge “true” scholarship and “false” scholarship? Is it a matter of vocabulary? Does it involve subject matter? Or is quantity of footnotes the ominous sign of defection from “proper scholarship?” Before we set out to ostracize every innocent “preacher-boy” who may inadvertently use an occasional “exegesis” or “apocalyptic” or “ignominious” or every older preaching brother who gets a new set of commentaries on the Greek text and has the audacity to use them – let us at least make an attempt at identifying the enemy.

I would suggest that it is somewhat naive to begin suddenly dispensing with scholarly studies in the word of God. Every man, woman or child who picks up his or her Bible in an attempt to learn the will of the Lord is a scholar. There is no dedicated preacher, elder or editor who is not a scholar. And yet we find good men prefacing their articles almost apologetically, “Now, I am no scholar . . . ” Preposterous! It is a dangerous disposition to be voicing abroad that “scholarship” is suspect and not to be trusted. This is the height of folly and, ultimately, the exaltation of ignorance. Of course not every individual who attempts to understand the word of God and then write down his conclusions for the world to examine is going to be correct, trustworthy and full of wisdom. But that has always been in the case and not a phenomenon peculiar to this time and place. Perhaps some of the criticism is more reflective of a low view of reader intelligence and perception than a high view of the truth of the gospel.

What, I think, must be understood is that not everyone in the body of Christ is going to have the same tastes and needs. We all have different backgrounds, educational experience and levels of spiritual maturity. When we begin to speak in behalf of “the rest of the brethren” we ought to take these things into account. Regardless of what publication one picks up he will encounter at least three kinds of articles: 1) those “above his head;” 2) those “right at his level;” 3) those somewhat “below his level.” No writer can write on three or even two of these levels at once and I would dare say that one’s efforts are probably going to be on all three of these levels to differing audiences. The point is this: there is no sure way to gauge what the optimum level may be for everybody. The best we can do, I suspect, is simply to write . . . and let our efforts find their audience – if any. And ultimately it is the editor who must resolve this tricky question of what is fit for publication and what is not.

We do not need less scholarship . . . we need more. And it is the responsibility of every child of God to be a diligent student of the word. No, we do not need a return to the “scholasticism” of the middle ages that obscures the will of God, but before we give “scholarship” a bad name let us seriously and rationally consider the direction of our thinking. Promoting a convenient superficiality in lieu of good, honest scholarship is to provide fertile soil for the seeds of false doctrine. There is meat and milk in the word. We cannot afford to dispense with either.

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 2
January 29, 1976

By Bruce Edward, Jr.

One cannot help but be a little bemused by the outcry in various papers against “scholarship.” It is quite fashionable now to assail that terrible “ivory tower preacher, elder or editor” who will not come down to earth to “us common folk” and “just preach the gospel.” Granted, there may be some who will fit that ignominious category and justly deserve_ our tauting and badgering- but just what constitutes this “pseudoscholarship” that we must be on guard against? Who will step forward with the infallible criteria by which we can all judge “true” scholarship and “false” scholarship? Is it a matter of vocabulary? Does it involve subject matter? Or is quantity of footnotes the ominous sign of defection from “proper scholarship?” Before we set out to ostracize every innocent “preacher-boy” who may inadvertently use an occasional “exegesis” or “apocalyptic” or “ignominious” or every older preaching brother who gets a new set of commentaries on the greek text and has the audacity to use them- let us at least make an attempt at identifying the enemy.

I would suggest that it is somewhat naive to begin suddenly dispensing with scholarly studies in the word of God. Every man, woman or child who picks up his or her Bible in an attempt to learn the will of the Lord is a scholar. There is no dedicated preacher, elder or editor who is not a scholar. And yet we find good men prefacing their articles almost apologetically, “Now, I am no scholar . . . ” Preposterous! It is a dangerous disposition to be voicing abroad that “scholarship” is suspect and not to be trusted. This is the height of folly and, ultimately, the exaltation of ignorance. Of course not every individual who attempts to understand the word of God and then write down his conclusions for the world to examine is going to be correct, trustworthy and full of wisdom. But that has always been in the case and not a phenomenon peculiar to this time and place. Perhaps some of the criticism is more reflective of a low view of reader intelligence and perception than a high view of the truth of the gospel.

What, I think, must be understood is that not everyone in the body of Christ is going to have the same tastes and needs. We all have different backgrounds, educational experience and levels of spiritual maturity. When we begin to speak in behalf of “the rest of the brethern” we ought to take these things into account. Regardless of what publication one picks up he will encounter at least three kinds of articles: 1) those “above his head;” 2) those “right at his level;” 3) those somewhat “below his level.” No writer can write on three or even two of these levels at once and I would dare say that one’s efforts are probably going to be on all three of these levels to differing audiences. The point is this: there is no sure way to gauge what the optimum level may be for everybody. The best we can do, I suspect, is simply to write . . . and let our efforts find their audience – if any. And ultimately it is the editor who must resolve this tricky question of what is fit for publication and what is not.

We do not need less scholarship . . . we need more. And it is the responsibility of every child of God to be a diligent student of the word. No, we do not need a return to the “scholasticism” of the middle ages that obscures the will of God, but before we give “scholarship” a bad name let us seriously and rationally consider the direction of our thinking. Promoting a convenient superficiality in lieu of good, honest scholarship is to. provide fertile soil for the seeds of false doctrine. There is meat and milk in the word. We cannot afford to dispense with either.

Try Teaching with Tracts

from Truth Magazine Bookstore Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952

Special Series of Studies announced for Miami, Florida

“What Is The Church of Christ” 7:45 p.m. Saturday

“Lessons from Restoration

History” 10:00 a.m. Sunday

“The Spirit of Restoration” 11:00 a.m. Sunday

“Standing for the Truth” 3:00 p.m. Sunday

YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED

“Lessons From the Past” will be the general theme of a series of special studies to be presented by the Southwest Church of Christ, 1450 S.W. 24th Avenue, in Miami, Florida, February 13, 14, and 15, 1976 with Ed Harrell to be the speaker and evangelist.

Topics to be discussed and time of meetings are as follows:

“The Concept of Restoration” 7:45 p.m. Friday

Edible Commentary

By E. M. Zerr. The only commentaries on the whole Bible by a member of a church of Christ. Six volumes on entire Bible, $32.50. Each volume $5.95.

(66)

By Ron Halbrook

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).

The gospel points out the goal God has appointed, or the “one hope.” Hearing and believing in the reality of this goal or “hope,” we burn inwardly with a desire to obtain it. We are moved in life by this “hope” within us. Which hope does Paul refer to: (1) the “hope” which is offered and appointed as our goal through the gospel, or (2) the burning “hope” within us which inspires our daily living? The question is worth raising that we may see the hope which burns within us (subjective hope) is based upon the goal which God has appointed for us (objective hope). Little will be gained by arguing over precisely which one Paul meant. If he means the hope burning within the subject or person, he immediately implies the real object or goal which the person desires to reach.

No Hope Without Christ

In Eph. 2:12, Paul refers to the Gentiles before the coming of Christ and the Gospel Age. They were “without Christ . . . having no hope.” This does not mean they did not entertain various hopes, for they did. But instead of letting God appoint the true object of hope, “when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful … changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man … changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:21-25). “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections” and did not commit “the oracles of God” into their wicked hands (Rom. 1:26; 3:1-2). The Gentiles, as a whole, did not look to God and so He did not give them His word (“oracles”) which pointed to Christ as the hope of the world.

Thus for many generations the Gentiles “walked according to the course of this world, . . . were by nature (i.e., by nature of the way they walked) the children of wrath,” and “their foolish heart was darkened” (Eph. 2:2-3; Rom. 1:21). Living in this darkness, they had no idea what a wonderful hope God was preparing in Christ; it was all a hidden mystery to them. Even the Jews did not realize that God planned to offer hope in Christ to the wicked Gentiles. This had “been hid from ages and from generations,” but now God has fully revealed “what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles.”

And what is “this mystery” which is now uncovered, no longer hidden, no more a mystery? “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 2:26-27; see also Eph. 3:4-6). What a wonderful blessing! But those who refuse Christ still have no hope (Jn. 12:48; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Called In One Hope

“Even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” Paul said. We have been called. Our calling – “the divine call,” “the invitation to enter the kingdom of God” – offered and pointed us to but one hope. When we obeyed the gospel, we made that one hope-and it alone-our hope. The Christian must “know what is the hope of his calling,” (Eph. 1:18)-“the hope to which God calls’.’ him. The calling, the divine invitation brings this hope to the Christian. We are called with a` holy calling, we are offered a glorious hope, and we make that hope our own. (Quotations from Greek-English Lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich, p. 436).

How does God call us-strange voices in the night, physical sensations like chill bumps, emotional feelings, sudden ‘ideas which pop into our mind, unexplainable impulses, better-felt-than-told experiences? None of these! The Ephesians had been called (Eph. 1:18; 4:1; 4:4). How did they learn the will of God and learn to trust in Christ as the basis of hope? Paul says that they trusted in Christ “After that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation” (Eph. 1:13). How do we obtain “salvation,” “sanctification of the Spirit,” and “belief of the truth?” “Whereunto He called you by our gospel” (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

God’s call is in the preaching of the gospel. Our answer is in obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22).

The Reality of This Hope

The Christian’s hope is not merely empty wishing. It is not what scorners call a silly “pie in the sky”-like a child’s dream, wishing for all the toys in the world.

Vincent, in some of his comments, emphasized “not . . . the thing hoped for, but the sentiment or principle of hope which God’s calling inspires” (Word Studies). When the Ethiopian official heard God call him through the preaching of Christ, he obeyed the gospel. When he came “up out of the water” of baptism, “he went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8). Hope was burning within him.

Is this wonderful hope within us blind and empty, a gushing sentimentalism? Is the gospel of Christ a fable and the goal we seek in him without reality or basis in fact? The truth is that eyewitnesses saw Christ after he rose from the dead! Therefore, “we have not followed cunningly devised fables” (2 Pet. 1:16). “Though the way we journey may seem often drear, WE SHALL SEE THE KING SOMEDAY,” as the song says. “It doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn. 3:2).

God is. The Bible is the word of God. Christ is the Son of God. There is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.

Lenski emphasized the reality of that for which the Ephesians hoped, “The Ephesians are personally involved, yet this basis of unity (hope) stands even apart from them” (Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles). Thus the hope within us has a true basis outside of us. God offers a real hope. Seeing the (objective) hope God offers, the Christian lives by (subjective) hope. THE TWO ARE INSEPARABLY BOUND TOGETHER. Our hope is not mere wishing; it involves adopting for OUR GOAL that which God offers AS A REAL GOAL.

Effect of Hope

After affirming that “we shall see” Christ and “be like him,” John states the effect of this hope. “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:2-3). Hope inspires us to live a godly course of life. The gospel call is a divine call, its hope is true. Just as John said, Paul says we should “walk worthy of the vocation (calling) wherewith ye are called” (Eph. 4:1-2). The worthy walk includes lowliness, meekness, patience, and love.

The effect Paul most emphasized in Eph. 4 is unity. Sharing one hope draws us together like seamen in a storm-tossed ship . . . facing the same dangers, sharing the same ship, seeking the same shore. This binds us together in holy unity. “How can Christians contend in an angry manner with each other, when the hope of dwelling in the same heaven swells their bosoms and animates their hearts?” (Barnes’ Notes)

But What Is This Hope?

What is this hope we have in Christ, to which we are called, which is a hope of reality, which has wonderful effects on our living? We do not hope for the Son of God to be born, to die, and to be raised; that already happened (1 Cor. 15). We do not hope for new revelations of the gospel; God revealed it in its entirety (Jude 3). We do not hope for remission of sins; we already have it by obeying the truth (Acts 2:38; 1 Jn. 1:7). “Hope that is seen is not hope” (Rom. 8:24).

We are “joint-heirs with Christ;” we shall receive the inheritance: “if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” We await “the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope” (Rom. 8:17-25). Christ shall “come to be glorified in his saints …. when He shall appear, we shall be like Him” (2 Thess. 1:10; 1 Jn. 3:2). We are “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our saviour Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). At the end, Christ will destroy death, deliver up “the kingdom to God,” AND “SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE LORD” (1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:15-18).

Followers of R. H. Boll, Hal Lindsey, Ellen G. White, the Armstrongs, the (so-called) Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others tell us we are living before the time of Christ’s kingdom among men on earth (MILLENIUM). They claim Christ must come back to earth before that the establishment of that kingdom. They do not realize it is already here and Christians are already in it (Col. 1:13). When Christians accept the premillennial hope, they have accepted another, false hope. They get so engrossed in these theories that they are not content to dwell with those who keep the “one hope.” Beware lest ye be led away and fall (2 Pet. 3).

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 13-14
January 22, 1976

By Guthrie Dean

Every Sunday morning the Madison church of Christ has a program over one of our local television stations. And every Sunday morning Brother Ira North, their preacher, has them to flash his name on the screen as Doctor Ira North. Everyone else on the program is referred to as Brother, Sister, or simply referred to by name. Only Ira is Doctor.

I always think of Jesus’ statement in Matt. 23:6-12 when describing the Pharisees of His time who “Love the uppermost rooms at the feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren . . . .” In the case of the Madison church, however: “One is your Rabbi, even Ira; and all ye are brethren.” I challenge anyone to deny that the verses under consideration apply to Brother North’s vanity. He is a living model of a modern-day Pharisee.

The name Rabbi means: “Rabbi, my master, teacher, doctor, Matt. 23:7,8; 26:25,49, et al” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon). I am not opposed to education. It could be that I have gone to school about as many years as Brother North has, but that is not the point. To use the recognition of such degrees of learning as a preacher’s title in the church is just as inexcusable as the Baptists and Methodists who call their preachers “Reverend,” and “Doctor.” Brother North cannot use Matt. 23:9 to condemn the Catholics for making a religious title out of “father,” when Brother North himself makes a religious title out of “Rabbi,” of verses 7-8, and applies the same to himself, even in the church!

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary tells us that “It is the spirit rather than the letter of this that must be pressed; though the violation of the letter, springing from spiritual pride, has done incalculable evil in the Church of Christ. The reiteration of the word ‘Rabbi’ shows how it tickled the ear and fed the spiritual pride of those ecclesiastics.”

Matthew Henry writes: “It was but a little before Christ’s time, that the Jewish teachers, the masters of Israel, had assumed the titles of Rabbi, Rab, and Rabban, which signifies great, or much; and was construed as Doctor, or My lord . . . Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi, or Master, by way of distinction from other people; it is not agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel . . . .”

Adam Clarke states: “These rabbins were looked up to as infallible oracles in religious matters, and usurped not only the place of the law, but of God himself.” Look out, Brother North.

Of “Rabbi,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “In Christ’s time a new title of honour for the Jewish doctors …. The threefold counsel shows the intensely anti-prelatic spirit of Jesus. In spite of this earnest warning the love of pre-eminence and leadership has prevailed in the Church to the detriment of independence, the sense of responsibility, and loyalty to God.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: “RABBI: A term used by the Jews of their religious teachers as a title of respect, from rabh, `great,’ so `my great one’ . . . Jesus forbade its use among His followers.”

Matt. 23:6-12 condemns the spirit that will prompt one to want to be exalted above his brethren in the church. And those same verses condemn anyone who will use the terms father, master, Rabbi or doctor as religious titles to distinguish them from the brethren.

Brother North, I know I am properly applying these verses, for right in the middle of the argument Jesus says: “for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” Does that not make all brethren equal? Then where does your Doctor title come in? It comes in only as the Pharisees used it and as Jesus condemned it. This is too plain to miss.

We need to be more like the man in Job 32:21-22: “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.” James 2 is also on the same subject: “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons . . . . But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors” (James 2:1,9). So if I don’t call you Doctor, Brother North, that does not mean that I do not love you. I do. But I do not exalt you above any other brother in the church. So you will just have to leave your handle at the door when you come into the assembly.

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 12
January 22, 1976