Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In reviewing these articles by Leroy Garrett, I have become progressively impressed at how wide-spread our differences are. I think the article presently being reviewed will demonstrate the utter incompatibility in our ways of approaching the Scriptures. In perhaps the most significant statement of this series, the editor of Restoration Review wrote, “I do not accept the view of patternism.”1 No little attention needs to be given to such a statement. If Garrett denies patternism, he denies that there are any patterns of organization, work, worship, etc. Paul wrote, “. . . but where there is no law, neither is there violation” (Rom. 4:15). Where there are no patterns, there can be no violations; therefore, God has given no rules with reference to the church if there are no patterns.

The consequences of no patterns are far reaching. With reference to the organization of the church, if there are no patterns, any kind of organization is legitimate. Thus, though we may not prefer any of these organizational arrangements, the papacy, synods, councils, associations, mother church, sponsoring churches, etc. are not unscriptural organizational arrangements. With reference to the worship of the church, if there are no patterns, any acts of worship are legitimate. Therefore, although we may not prefer any of these types of worship, using light bread and water as emblems in the Lord’s Supper, observing it monthly or annually and on any day of the week, counting beads in prayer, using “holy” water, using choirs in singing, accompanying our singing with mechanical instruments of music, etc. are no unscriptural forms of worship. The only reason why we do not use these forms of worship is our own prejudices, if there are no patterns of worship. My brethren, remember that where there are no patterns there can be no violations of those patterns. Garrett has categorically stated, “I do not accept the view of patternism” and, therefore, puts himself in the camp of those who deny rules for the church. In former years, such a position was called antinomianism; I know of no reason why it should be called anything else today.

Denying that there are any patterns, Leroy Garrett certainly has no appreciation for the assertion that the churches of Christ “are a true representation of the primitive church in name, organization, doctrine and practice.” Thus, he wrote,

“In no way have we abused the scriptures so grossly than in our claim that we are a true representation of the primitive church ‘in name, organization, doctrine and practice.’ The Sunday morning assembly especially illustrates this abuse of the scriptures. We can only conclude that it is a rip-off, being hardly a faint likeness of what it claims to emulate. Moreover, it is in some instances a rank denial of what the scriptures reveal as crucial in the corporate worship of the early church.

“The rip-off comes when any of us presume to be the church to the exclusion of all other believers. We are only playing the counterfeit role when we claim to be the exact reproduction of the primitive church at work and worship, when in fact we take as many liberties with what is actually in the scriptures as the next people. No group today is the New Testament church in the sense that it is an exact likeness of what the scriptures reveal-if for no other reason because the scriptures yield no one, composite picture of what that church was. We all choose what we like, and then reject the other fellow because he selects things that we neglect.”2

To illustrate the way in which we “ignore some of the things practiced by the primitive churches,” although we claim to have restored the New Testament church, Garrett cited the following items: (1) the love feast, (2) speaking in tongues, (3) deaconesses, (4) holy kiss, (5) kneeling in prayer. For,one who writes so extensively about abusing the Scriptures to boldly assert that the early church had a love feast and deaconesses-matters concerning which biblical students are quite unwillingly to categorically assert existed-is rather ludicrous. The other matters have been treated frequently enough that they deserve no reply. Garrett is obviously grasping for straws to prove his untenable position.

On the other hand, he denied that the five acts of worship, which we say were the acts of worship of the New Testament church, form a pattern at all. (I would surely have expected for Garrett to admit that all of the early churches prayed and studied God’s word; however, no such admission appeared in the article.) Thus, regarding the collection, Garrett wrote,

“There was almost certainly nothing like our `Sunday morning offering’ and probably no collection at all in the assemblies, except perhaps occasional gestures toward the poor-though it cannot be proved that this was done ‘at church.’ The collection in 1 Cor. 16:2 was provisional, which means that they had not been doing this before Paul asked them to and probably did not continue it after he came and took the money away. It was for a special emergency. Besides, it was laid aside at- home, not in the assembly, as most every Greek scholar will point out.”3

In reply to what Garrett wrote, I would like to quote the comments of the Calvinist commentator, Charles Hodge on 1 Cor. 16:2,

“Every one was to lay by himself, i.e. most commentators say, at home, par’ heauto. Compare pros heauton in Luke 24:12; see also John 20:10. The direction then is that every one should, on the first day of the week, lay aside at home whatever he was able to give, thus treasuring up his contribution. To this interpretation it may be objected that the whole expression is thus obscure and awkward. ‘Let every one at home place, treasuring up what he has to give.’ The words do not mean to lay by at home, but to lay by himself. The direction is nothing more definite than, let him place by himself, i.e. let him take to himself what he means to give. What he was to do with it, or where he was to deposit it, is not expressed. The word thesaurizon means putting into the treasury or hoarding up, and is perfectly consistent with the assumption that the place of deposit was some common treasury, and not every man’s own house. If Paul directed this money to be laid up at home, why was the first day of the week selected? It is evident that the first day must have offered some special facility for doing what is here enjoined. The only reason that can be assigned for requiring the thing to be done on the first day of the week, is that on that day the Christians were accustomed to meet, and what each one had laid aside from weekly gains could be treasured up, i.e. put into the common treasury of the church. The end which the apostle desired to accomplish could not otherwise have been effected. He wished that there might be no collections when he came. But if every man had his money laid by at home, the collection would be still to be made. The probability is, therefore, Paul intended to direct the Corinthians to make a collection every Lord’s day for the poor, when they met for worship.”4

Garrett’s position regarding the collection has been answered on a number of occasions. First of all, no one has said that 1 Con. 16:1-2 gives the exclusive pattern for spending the funds of the church; therefore, his comments about the purpose of the collection at Corinth are beside the point. Secondly, we know that churches had funds from which they carried on their programs of work (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8). Thirdly, the passage in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 was given to the churches in Galatia as well as to the one in Corinth, thus, leading one to believe that this was a universal practice of the early church. Fourthly, the passage in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 is the only passage which shows how and when the churches raised funds. Thus, it constitutes the pattern: for raising church funds (and not for spending them).

If 1 Cor. 16:1-2 does not furnish a pattern for the raising of funds for the church, there is no pattern. If there is no pattern, there can be no violation. Thus, the church could begin business enterprises to raise its resources. Hence, the pie suppers, rummage sales, and full-fledged business enterprizes entered into by denominations would not be unscriptural. Brethren, are you ready to admit these things?

Regarding the singing, Garrett said,

“There was probably no congregational singing as we practice it, if at all, though they may have chanted to each other antiphonally (back and forth), as an early historian indicates. They did have solos, for any brother that ‘hath a hymn’ was encouraged to sing it (1 Cor. 14:26). None of the scriptures about singing are related per se to the assembly, but to the personal life of the believer, and they call for addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,’ which is hardly a description of congregational singing. So, If we can’t establish congregational singing, we cannot establish a musical accompaniment. It is likely, however, that if a brother in the early church chose to ‘sing a psalm’ (Col. 3:16), he might well have used one of the many instruments available in that day, especially if he were a Jewish believer,.,for a. psalm to him meant playing as well as singing. The Selahs in the Psalms were probably the cue for a musical interlude. The Jewish. brother, If not the Gentile, would be inclined to ‘Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp!’ as Psa. 150 would instruct him. So, in giving his psalm to you in either his home or at the assembly he would likely accompany ft or intersperse it with melodious touches of the harp or the gentle sounds. of a lute.” 5

In reply to this, let me begin by showing the authority for congregational singing. Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 show that singing was for one another; a person speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs demands some kind of gathering. 1 Cor. 14:26 shows that singing was a part of the congregational worship of the church inasmuch as this entire chapter of 1 Corinthians was dealing with the congregational assembly. Brother Garrett is flagrantly in error when he wrote, “None of the scriptures about singing are related per se to the assembly. .: . .” Now, if Garrett believes that instrumental music meets God’s approval, we shall wait to see his proof. The proof from the word psalmos has been answered many times before. I remain appalled at how authoritatively our brother speaks regarding things which outstanding biblical scholars say cannot be positively known such as his comments on selah in the psalms.

After denying patternism, Garrett turned right around to assert a pattern of mutual ministry rather than having a preacher working with a congregation. He said,

“Conspicuously absent would be `the minister’ or `the pastor, a position that we have taken more from our religious neighbors than from the scriptures. The primitive churches were nourished by the elders or shepherds of the flock (Acts 20:28), while evangelists were out breaking new ground for the Lord.”6

Brother Garrett, you cannot have both ends of an either/or proposition. Either there are no patterns or there are. If there are no patterns as you said, the “pastor system” is not unscriptural. (For a refutation of Garrett’s anti-located preacher ideas, see the Humble Garrett Debate. )

Conclusion

Actually, my brethren, Leroy Garrett has the old denominational concept of the church as illustrated by this quotation:

“When I sit with the saints on Sunday morning in a typical ‘Church of Christ,’ my view of things is rather simple. These too are God’s people, I say to myself, They are my brothers and sisters and I love them. But in saying that I realize that God also has some children at the other churches in town, not because they’re Methodists or Baptists, but because they too have been saved by ‘the bath of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit’ (Tit. 3:5). Even if I am non-instrumental music by preference, I realize that the kingdom of God does not consist of such matters. And I allow no one to deceive me into believing that ‘we have restored the primitive church’ in the way we worship. I would have to smile at that, for in a lot of ways I know we haven’t, and that others have done better at this In some areas than we have.” 7

Garrett sees no differences in the churches of Christ and the denominations. This is the theological basis from which he advocates his mini-ecumenical movement. I know of no better passage to describe what has happened to Leroy Garrett than 1 Jn. 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.” Our position differs so radically from that of Leroy Garrett that I cannot understand how he continues to worship with the churches of Christ. Garrett thinks and acts more like the denominationalists than he thinks like us; I cannot understand why he does not go ahead and pitch his tent with them-unless it be that he is bent on taking us with him!

(Note: Once again the editor of Restoration Review attacked the errors of the churches of Christ. I cannot help wondering whether the Christian Church preachers abuse any scriptures! Surely when a man shoots only at those whom he calls his friends and never at the enemy, :someone must eventually ask, “Could this be a wolf in sheep’s clothing?” Indeed, Garrett is!)

Footnotes

1 Leroy Garret, “The Word Abused … The Sunday Morning Rip-Off,” Restoration Review, XVIII (October, 1975), p. 145.

2 Ibid., pp. 142, 145.

3 Garrett, op. sit., p. 143.

4 Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapists: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974 edition), pp. 363-364.

5 Garrett, op. sit. 6 Garrett, op. sit.

7 Garrett, op. sit., p. 146.

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 7-9
January 22, 1976

By H. L. Bruce

Bondage is mentioned in many ways in the Bible. The Christian is Christ’s servant. The union of marriage constitutes a bond. A servant of sin is described as a slave to sin, etc.

The word as used in 1 Cor. 7:15, merits considerable study and inquiry. What is the bondage under consideration? Bro. R.L. Whiteside thought that the marriage bond was the indication. Consequently, he reasoned, the person under consideration who was not under bondage when the unbelieving companion left him because of his faith, was as free as if he had never been married. As a result, the party thus abandoned was at liberty to remarry (see The Gospel Advocate, Nov. 11, 1937).

In 1947, in the Houston Lectures, bro. Roy Lanier, Sr. concluded that the bondage was a personal one in which the unbelieving would subject the believer. He said, “If the unbeliever makes such unreasonable demands, let him depart rather than be in such bondage to him; such bondage we owe only to the Lord” (Houston Lectures, page 37).

Yet another view was expressed by brother Harvey Floyd. Bro. Floyd’s view is that the Christian, when placed in the dilemma of either renouncing Christ to satisfy his companion or loosing her, that he has two alternatives. If he renounces Christ, he is in bondage to sin. If he remains faithful to Christ, at the expense of losing his companion, he is free from said sin. Consequently, he is not under bondage to sin on the one hand, on the other, he would be! Therefore, the Christian’s obvious alternatives would be either to be in bondage in sin or, to be in no bondage to sin in the service to Christ (see Spiritual Sword, Vol. 6, no. 2).

Still another view was expressed by bro. Maurice Barnett in the following, “The point Paul makes is verse 15 then is that if the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the believer, because of their faith, then the believer is not obligated from God to fulfil their responsibilities toward their spouse. The subject is one of whether they are to serve the other, not of whether they are `bound’ or not. They are released from marital RESPONSIBILITIES” in such cases.” (The Pear Ridge Bulletin, Vol. 1, no. 22, May 29, 1963).

I believe that all admit that the word “bondage” is the key word to an accurate understanding of the text. If the bondage is marital bondage then the marriage bond is loosed. If, however, it is some other bond, it is quite dangerous to apply it to the marriage bond, and even more so to say that one is authorized to contract another marriage. As a matter of fact even if the marriage bond is thus spoken of as broken, where is the passage which authorizes the person thus released to precipitate another union during the lifetime of the previous mate.

The word “bondage” as here used is a very interesting word. It .comes from the word “douloo” which Thayer defines to “make a slave of-reduce to bondage-to subject to.” (page 158). Please note how it is used in some other texts: “. . . they should bring them into bondage. . .” (Acts 7:6); “. . . ye became the servants of righteousness . .” (Rom. 6:18); “. . . and became servants of God, ye have . . .” (Rom. 6:22); “. . . I brought myself under bondage to all . . .” (1 Cor. 9:19); . . . were held in bondage under the rudiments . . . (Gal. 4:3); “. . . not enslaved to much wine . . . .” (Tit. 2:3); “. . . of the same is he brought into bondage . . . ” (2 Pet. 2:19).

The word “bondage” in verse 15, is not of the same design and strength as the word “bound” in verse 39. Here the apostle says, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” In this text the word “deo” is the word for “bound”. It means to “bind or tie together . . .” “to bind-to fasten with chains” (See Thayer, p. 131). It is used in this connection in: “. . . except he first bind the strong man. . .” (Matt. 12:29); “. . . bind them in bundles to burn . . ” (Matt. 13:30); “. . . Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19); “. . . the Jews took Jesus and bound him. . .” (Jno. 18:12); . . . which hath an husband is bound by. . .” (Rom. 7:2). “. . . . Art thou bound unto a wife? . . .” (1 Cor. 7:27). (see The Pear Ridge Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 22).

Many other passages of scripture could be brought forth to help in further indication of the obvious contrast. But these are sufficient. The word “bound” in verse 39 is speaking of a “tie”. The word “bondage” in verse 15 indicates’ servitude. The person escapes the servitude unto which he would be subjected if he would cling to an unbelieving companion to the forfeiture of his faith. Yet to say that one is free to contract another marriage is to extend privileges not contained in the text. The person is free in Christ. He is free from the servitude of sin in his decision to serve Christ. He is free from servitude that would otherwise be involved in relinquishing his faith in pursuit of an unbelieving companion. However to state that he is completely released from his marriage and at liberty to take another mate is to take a position not merited in 1 Cor. 7:15. (Next week: Aliens, Adultery, and Alternatives.)

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 6
January 22, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Last week we tried to focus the problem for the discussion of the following weeks. We want to study the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. This is one of the misunderstood subjects in religious matters today. Last week, however we pointed out that this is not a problem peculiar to modern times, but that many of the epistles in the New Testament were written to correct misimpressions concerning the Law of Moses. It is our prayer that our lessons may correct some misunderstandings, and clarify some hazy points in the minds of those who study with us.

It is very apparent, from our lesson title; what shall be the nature of our lesson. I believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that men; in this dispensation, are not living under the Law of Moses, but rather, we are living under the Law of Christ. According to Scriptural usage of the terms faith or belief, one cannot believe a proposition unless there be evidence for belief. A conviction not supported by evidence is but an opinion. Mine is a belief, for the Scripture abounds in evidence showing that we are not under the Law of Moses today. The Scriptures also command that one be ready to give an answer concerning the reason of the hope and the faith in him. This we shall try to do in this lesson.

Is the Old Testament Inspired?

There are many people who believe, and many who teach, that all an individual has to do in order to go to Heaven is to keep the Ten Commandment Law. Yet those individuals could not produce Scriptures to prove such a belief to save their lives. The Law of Moses was done away, as we shall study presently.

However, there is one point upon which clarification needs to be made before we begin studying these various passages showing that the Ten Commandment Law is not yet binding. There are some people who think that if one teaches that the Law of Moses was done away after it was in effect for a given period of time, and that it served its purpose and was done away, that this one is saying that the Old Testament was uninspired. There were some people who felt exactly this way in New Testament times. When Paul- wrote to the Galatian brethren, in Chapter 3, and told them that salvation was by the promise culminating in Christ, and not by the Law of Moses; they asked, “What then serveth the law?”

Friends, I believe the Old Testament is inspired just as strongly as any of these advocates of the theory that we are yet living under the Ten Commandment Law. In fact, I am quite confident that I hold a much stronger view of inspiration than do most of modern denominationalists. Denominationalism has become greatly affected by the studies of higher criticism, which in nothing but Modernism. In fact, the Old Testament Scriptures themselves teach that the Old Testament Law was temporary. Further, the New Testament teaches us that the Old Testament Law was done away. The individual who teaches that the Ten Commandment Law is still binding must therefore disregard the teaching of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus said, “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (Jno. 5:46,47). Jesus said that the man who does not believe the Old Testament will not believe the New. It is showing a lack of faith in the Old Testament to argue contrary to its teaching. It teaches that the Law of Moses was to be done away. So those who argue that we are yet under the Old Testament are the ones who do not believe the Old Testament. They also must be unconscious of New Testament teaching, some of which we shall have occasion to study later.

Are We Under Any Law?

One other clarification needs to be made before we proceed further. Simply because one does not believe that the Old Testament Law, the Ten Commandment Law, is still binding; does not mean that one can violate the laws against killing, lying, stealing, adultery, which are stated in the Law. Almost every commandment in the Ten Commandment Law, is restated, in substance, in the New Testament. Jesus not only forbade killing, but he made a stricter law. He said, “Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, thou shalt not kill: and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matt. 5:21,22). This is the law that I believe. to be binding upon us today. It is even stricter than the Old Covenant.

Let us notice one other instance in which the basic content of the Ten Commandment Law is restated in the New Testament. Each time it is enlarged. Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27, 28). The Law said one had to commit the actual, overt act to be guilty. But not so with the Law of Christ. One is not to kill, or hate his brother today, not because it was a part of the Ten Commandment Law, but because it is a part of the Law of Christ. One is not to commit adultery or to look on a woman to lust after her, not because Moses’ Law forbade and condemned adultery, but because Christ’s Law prohibits it. Every commandment of the Ten Commandments, save one, is restated in substance in the New Testament. We are to follow the Law of Christ, rather than the Law of Moses.

The Passing of the Old Covenant

Let us notice now, an instance in which the Old Testament plainly declared that there would come a time when it would be done away. This quotation that declares the Law is to be done away is found in Jer. 31:31-34, and Paul quotes it in Hebrews 8:7-13: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt. For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, From the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more.” To this quotation, Paul added, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.”

Paul therefore used these statements from Jeremiah’s prophecy to show that the Old Covenant was done away. Therefore those who maintain that the Old Testament Law is still binding upon men today deny the teaching of the Old Testament itself. Paul said the first Law was faulty; therefore a second was given.

There are many other passages in the New Testament that declare that this Old Covenant was abrogated. In the book of Ephesians, Paul said that the Law was a barrier, a wall, between the Jews and the Gentiles. Remember that the Law of Moses was given only to Jews, and that it excluded the Gentiles. Therefore the Law separated these two classes of people. But Paul taught that no longer did this barrier exist. Now both Jews and Gentiles had a right to the promises of God. “Wherefore remember, that once ye the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Eph. 2:11-17).” He spoke of the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, which of course, means the Jews and the Gentiles. He said that there previously was a barrier between the two, so that the Gentiles had no hope and were without God in the world. But now this barrier has been taken away. What is the barrier or what was the barrier between Jew and Gentile? Friends, I do not have to guess as to what the barrier that Paul said was taken out of the way is. According to Paul, the barrier is the Law of Moses; It is the “law of commandments.” What happened to the “law of commandments?” It was done away.

“For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh, for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph. 2:14-18).

Paul so clearly taught in the Ephesian passage that the Old Testament was done away in Christ, that one will need help from some modern denominational teacher of error to misunderstand his message. This Law was done away in order that all men might be reconciled unto God in one body, the church. Paul emphasized that these racial barriers were broken down in Jesus Christ, when he said, “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female, for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Jesus indicated that there was a change of law by His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, as we have already observed. John, as he recorded events in the life of Christ, commented, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jno. 1:17).

Conclusion

So one who does not believe that the Old Testament Law was temporary, and is therefore abrogated, must reject the teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. Yet we studied last week how the danger of intermixing Judaism with Christianity is as much a problem today as it was in New Testament times. It is our humble prayer that by our studies we can help correct some of the misimpressions of men, and clarify and exalt God’s teaching concerning the relationship existing between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ.

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 3-5
January 22, 1976

By Clifford L. Sheffield

David declared in the 23 Psalm, “He leadeth me beside the still waters, He leadeth me in the path of righteousness for his name’s sake.” David cried in Psalm 61, “Hear my cry, O God, attend unto my prayer, lead me to the rock that is higher then I.” Again, I hear David as I read Psalm 5:8, when he said, “Lead me, O Lord in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face.”

I hear John in John 10:1-4, “Verily, verily I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber but he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.,He goeth before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know his voice.”

Can’t you hear Jesus in Matthew 23, when you read, “But, woe unto you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites: for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men for ye neither go in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Verses 15 says, “For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte and when he is made ye make him twofold more the child of hell then yourselves.”

We love to talk about denominations and we can really ‘beat them over the head and we will turn right around and do a bit worse than they because we claim to know better, but example proves us just as foolish. For instance, a week or so ago I accompanied two of the brethren to a Gospel meeting and heard a marvelous sermon. The preacher really told the Baptist and every one else about part-taking of the Lord’s Supper once -a month,, semi-annually or annually and there was no way anyone could have failed to understand that the Lord’s Supper should be taken upon the first day of the week. He encouraged them to throw away their manuals and creed books and to return to the Bible. Then, he completed his message by saying “Now Friday is payday and I want all of you to bring in your collection before you spend it. We will be taking up a collection Friday night.” Now, the same Bible that told the Baptist to take the Lord’s Supper upon the first day of the week says to lay by in store and give upon the first day of the week, not on Friday night.

My mind was soon turned to Isaiah 3:12: “O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Jesus said in John 16:10, “If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my father’s commandments and abide in his love.” His love is conditional and based on that “If.”

My question is based on Matthew 15:3, “why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition.” Be aware that verses 8 teaches, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me but in vain they do worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.”

Brethren let us be the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart not with eye service, as men pleasers (Eph. 6:6). The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance (Rom. 2:4).

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 2
January 22, 1976