Truth Magazine

By H.L. Bruce

The fact that God has taught on a theme should arrest our will and propensities to a complete deference to His teachings. His truth is exceedingly important! Our will is so insignificant! His truth’s majestic! Our propensities mundane! We. are wholly inadequate to direct, design and pursue the way of life of our own merit. Jeremiah expressed it this way, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Isaiah told Israel, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).

In Israel, men were not authorities. They were not qualified to be. They were inadequate. Their need for Divine guidance was more than evident. Their tendency to stray was ever present. In evidence of this we read, “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doeth not know, my people doeth not consider” (Isa. 1:3).

The limitations of men in the field of authoritative adequacy are pretty well unvaried. If men of our time had the ability to chart their own course through life and into the life beyond, then the death of Christ and the giving of his will was unnecessary.

It is necessary for all of us to prostrate our will before the Divine throne in acceptance of the judgments which God gave through His sinless Son before we can ever be acceptable in heaven’s sight. We must be brought low and realize our ineptness before God, and lay the accommodations of our own will along with the servitude to all human passion on the altar that we may perceive the avenues of Divine justice in God’s restrictions and expressed favors toward men.

The apostle Peter exhorted, “Humble yourselves, therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:6). The truth as revealed in the will of God, should be the course of our objectives at all times. It is by the truth that the soul is purified (1 Pet. 1:22), that men are made free (Jno. 8:32), in which we are to walk (3 Jno. 3); and by which we will ultimately be judged (Jno. 12:48). God’s word is truth Ono. 17:17). In view of this the teachings of the scripture on any subject, and upon all doctrines taught, should arrest our most careful and submissive thought.

Today we need to take time to become informed, and to inform others, or, else suffer the results of the consequence of Divine displeasure. In many areas of neglected warnings and study, God’s people have suffered irreversible consequences. Popularity, pride, prestige and acceptance among men, of every sort, is at times best served through the avoidance of controversial material. Such unholy objectives can but passively occupy the mind of the one who is a defender of the truth and a contender for the faith. We cannot allow our personal likes, dislikes or the disposition to please men to subdue our need to subject our will to the will of God’s designated Potentate. The apostle Paul expressed his attitude and need in these words, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Therefore, all dispositions to please self, friend, foe, relative or brother must be removed from the will of him who profits from deep drinking of God’s eternal truth. Every man should be influenced to thus subdue self.

The moral code revealed by inspiration, in God’s volume constrains our will to the specifications there in contained. The one who follows the works of the flesh, . . . shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:1921). One of the accomplishments of God’s grace is that we, through it, are urged to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world (see Titus 2:11-12).

It is obviously proper for concern to be expressed with regard to any subject upon which God has taught. The subject of divorce is within this scope. It should be our desire to exercise all actions and do all instructions only in accord with what God has expressed in his revealed will for us. We should never allow our emotions, sympathies or practices to take the lead in the formulation of views and expression of thought.

There are some dangers that we would all do well to by pass: (1) We could merely give detatched advice in vague generalities which could but faintly be interpreted as either corrective or instructive in nature. (2) Laws could also be made which bind beyond Divine restriction. (3) Looseness can be expressed and encouraged which give liberties beyond authorized proclamation.

We need to be explicit and neither make nor break laws. The weighty and momentous question is, “What is God’s Law?” God has revealed it to us through His Word. But we must study, search and investigate it that we may understand and apply the instruction contained therein. When souls of men are involved and eternal destiny is in the balances the gravity of the thought is inescapable.

In everything we do we must have both divine sanction and legal right. The requirements of both God’s law and civil law are in harmony. The Bible teaches that to reject civil law is to waiver at God’s ordinance (see Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Marriage, according to Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:1-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Rom. 7:1-4; et al, involves the leaving of parents, cleaving to companion, becoming one flesh, with both civil and Divine sanction.

The Divine purpose of marriage is also revealed in God’s Word. Fornication is avoided, companionship established and the human race equitably populated through a union between man and woman that was designed by God to abide throughout life (1 Cor. 7:2; 6:17-18; Gen. 2:18; Matt. 19:5-6; Rom. 7:1-4).

God, in His Word, has been very precise as to conditions and circumstances under which a marriage may terminate. There is the expressed implication in the fact when two people take each other for life companions that death is the determining factor in marital cessation. This is the consideration in Matt. 19:6, where Jesus taught, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” To this the Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul agreed in the illustration of Romans 7:1-4; where he said, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

To this Jesus made exception in Matt. 19:9; 5:32. There He taught that if the companion be guilty of fornication that the innocent party has a right to put the guilty party away and exercise personal license to remarry. Liberty is not expressed or implied to the guilty party to either disengage his marriage, because of his personal guilt, or to benefit thereby by the contract of another marriage. If so, where is the Bible text that so indicates?

According to the Bible the person who has a right to remarriage is the one whose companion has either died or been put away for the specific guilt of fornication. (Please read Rom. 7:3-4 and Matt. 19:9 in reverential and Godly fear in view of the time when we must all stand before Him who shall judge us according to His word.)

There is a line of erroneous reasoning, which bypasses the need’ for Divine authority. This doctrine teaches that if a married person is guilty of fornication that he has thus dissolved his marriage, and if he has dissolved his marriage that he is not married; being thus not married he is in no sense bound to his former companion; consequently may remarry.

That line of rationality, however accommodating and desirable it may be … however many problems, if true, it may solve, is hardly short of expressed subterfuge and is wholly lacking in either Divine expression or implication.

A person cannot, by the authority of Christ, teach the guilty party that God, Christ or the Holy Spirit has extended any such liberties. The reason that such cannot be done is quite simple: There is neither page, paragraph nor line in the entirety of God’s revelation that so indicates.

According to God’s Word people who have never had a companion have a right to take one (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5-6). If one’s companion has deceased, the remaining companion may, with God’s approval, remarry (1 Tim. 5:16; Rom. 7:3-4). Or, if one’s companion is guilty of fornication, the innocent party has a God-given right to put him (or her) away because of this, and elect to remarry'(Matt. 19:9).

But, the Bible no where teaches that the guilty is extended the license and accomodation, due to his own guilt, to be free and thus remarry. Such conclusion depends exclusively upon rationality and speculation.

Even the reasoning is fallacious. The fallacy is in the form of a “non-sequitur” line of thought. Webster defines “non-sequitur,”. . .It does not follow: an inference that does not follow from the premise; specifically a fallacy resulting from a simpler conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from a transposition of a condition and its consequence” (7th edition, page 574).

There you have it: It simply doesn’t follow that because a person has been immoral, ungodly and messed up his life by committing fornication, that the Lord has authorized or extended license to him to remarry.

The erroneous “non-sequitur” reasoning is relied heavily upon by those who conclude that “living in adultery” is not the idea of Matt. 19:9. “Committeth adultery” is from a Greek verb in the present indicative active which indicates progressive action in the present time; continuous, or linear, action in the present time, is the idea (see Essentials of New Testament Greek, by Ray Summers, page 11).

Also William H. Davis had this to say, “Continued action, or a state of incompletion is denoted by present tense-this kind of action is called durative or linear. The action of the verb is shown in progress, as going on” (Davis’ Grammar, page 25). Sometimes it is argued that since punctiliar, or point action has been expressed through the present verb form that the adultry of Matt. 19:9 is a one time affair. Such reasoning is faulty and depends upon the same erroneous reasoning as just mentioned. To be more explicit, IT SIMPLY DOESN’T FOLLOW that because in some isolated instance the present indicative active form is so utilized that such is the precise case in Matt. 19:9.

Another indication that adultery on the part of one who has remarried, utilizing his own guilt, is something that is continuous, consequently lived in, can be seen in that the time element of one being bound and resultant guilt, as per Rom. 7:3-4 is so long as her husband is alive.

My friends, IT SIMPLY DOESN’T FOLLOW THAT A PERSON MAY REMARRY AS A RESULT OF A BROKEN MARRIAGE DUE TO HIS OWN GUILT. It simply doesn’t follow that because punctilious action MAY be expressed by a present verb form in some isolated case that it WAS so utilized in Matt. 19:9.

It does follow, though, that as long as an innocent companion lives the other party has no right, with Divine sanction to another mate.

This is a grave matter. Souls are involved and all views held by men cannot be right. Many are wrong: the consequences of which leave many in adultery while being taught erroneously that they, through their own guilt could remarry. It is absolutely necessary to lay aside all prejudice and pride and humbly submit to God’s will in order to go to heaven. The divorce question herein discussed is important and should be neither ignored nor taken lightly. Those guilty of adultery will not go to heaven impenitently. It is a distressing thought to even consider standing before God, in judgment and contemplate the disappointment of the adulterers who were led to believe that they are innocent, by those extending liberties which God never extended. “For our God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:28). Next week, 1 Corinthians 7:15-Issue and Perspective.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 8-10
January 15, 1976

By James Sanders

Everyone nowadays has some scheme or plot for setting things aright. He knows what is wrong and how to correct it. Colleges, for example, are filled with students who have found the solution to the world’s woes. And yet – these same students usually cannot even find their razors in the morning. Even churches are not without assault. Every congregation has those who have nothing to offer but criticism. “The personal work program will never work.” “No need to have a meeting – no one would come anyway.” “The only way we’ll ever solve our problems here is to hold a few funerals.” And on it goes. Nothing is right and everything is wrong.

In the political sphere there is even more turmoil. Just about everyone knows what is wrong with the country and how to remedy it. But come to think of it, I cannot recall a time when it was ever right. There have been times when it was right for you and you and you – but never all at the same time. Perhaps rather than trying to remedy something we should be trying to make out with what we’ve got.l Some time ago, I ran across a new solution to the war in Indochina. It seems Paul Lindstorm, a denominational preacher in Illinois, has discovered a new work for a church. Lindstorm announced that unless the then President Nixon took action by the middle of May to free American prisoners – he with his elite commando unit of 105 American volunteers and thirteen foreign mercenaries would storm the Communist POW camps and release the prisoners themselves.2 You read it right. Won’t we ever get Church separated from State? Preachers (in some cases even gospel preachers) are in politics more than the politicians are. Everything is in chaos. The world is just like an insane asylum. There is not a person in it who will admit that he is crazy.

Problems and solutions – how should the Christian view them? Is there no balm in Gilead (Jer. 8:22)? “In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him” (Ecc. 7:14).

Our devotion to the Lord must not vary. It cannot be affected by outward events and circumstances. In the day of prosperity (and it is but a day), we are to be joyful. With gladness of heart we are to serve Him. And in the day of adversity (and that too is but a day), the servant of the Lord must consider. There is a judgment to come which will rectify all seeming irregularities. We must be patient for greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world (1 Jno. 4:4b). “The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof” (Psa. 97:1). This world belongs to Him who made it. This is my Father’s world.

Of personal calamities, let the servant of the Lord again consider: “Difficulties are God’s errands; and when we are sent upon them we should esteem it a proof of God’s confidence – as a compliment from Him.”3

1. Donald Day, The Autobiography of Will Rogers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1949), p. 292.

2. “World Scene,” Christianity Today, May 12, 1972, p. 48.

3. Henry Ward Beecher.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 7-8
January 15, 1976

By Norman E. Fultz

Almost never is there an abundance of workers for any facet of service in the Lord’s church, and filling the vacancies is therefore not an easy task; and the persons charged with the responsibilities of making assignments do not have enviable tasks, for they are often the object of criticism because of some of the assignments made. The question of whom to use in public service or teaching roles is a live one in most congregations. Since various factors are involved, some are often used whose use is of questionable wisdom. It is a common practice in too many congregations to use, both in the public worship periods and in the teaching programs, some members who are plainly unfaithful. Their use often results in sneers and ridicule against the church as a whole.

But, someone querries, who are the unfaithful? There are several factors that may be considered. Unfaithfulness in attendance is by no means the only barometer, but certainly should not be ignored. Hebrews 10:25 is still in the Bible. General unfaithfulness in daily living is a fact often unchallenged in some who are used in the work of the church. Paul advised the Philippians, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ . . .” (Phil. 1:27). The New International Version renders the passage, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” But unfaithfulness might better be understood by considering faithfulness. Faithfulness encompasses continuing in the doctrine of the apostles (Acts 2:42), of Christ (2 Jn. 9), holding the traditions of the apostles (2 Thes. 2:15). It signifies being full of faith and living a life harmonious to the word of faith. Unfaithfulness is a failure in this regard.

What possible reasons could one give for using the unfaithful? Sometimes the person involved is a prominent person in the community and a nominal member of the church. The use of such prominent citizens is prestigious. Or the use of some who are unfaithful may be brought about by pressure exerted by some influential members, themselves not as spiritual as they should be and who because of friendship with and sentiment toward the unfaithful appeal for his use. In still other instances, the unfaithfulness may not always be known by the faithful. There always have been hypocrites.

When objections are raised about the use of those in question, in an effort to justify their use, it is argued that their use may encourage them to become faithful. But there is another side to that coin. Their use might just blind them to their own unfaithfulness – “After all, I must not be too bad since they still use me?” Or their use might encourage less diligence from others who see them being used in spite of their unfaithfulness

In an attempt further to justify the use of some who are not faithful, the question is often sneeringly raised, “Who is to make the judgment since no one is perfect?” Admittedly there are some problems, but let us not forget that we do have a standard. And there is such a thing as one who is spiritual (Gal. 6:1), one who is faithful (2 Tim. 2:2), and one who holds fast the faithful word (Tit. 1:9). Let us therefore be wary lest we create an irreverent situation by making use of some who ought not be used (Psa. 24:3-4). And, like it or not, someone does have to make judgments.

Some “not-so-hypothetical” situations can illustrate the awkwardness caused by using the unfaithful. Suppose a fellow who engages in social drinking is a Bible class teacher. What can be expected of him when questions arise from the class regarding the use of intoxicating beverages by the child of God? Or suppose a fellow who does not know what a night service of the church even looks like is making the announcements. He admonishes everyone to be back for the evening and midweek service, but everyone knows he has no intention of being there when he says it. Or what about the teacher of a class who frequently forsakes the assembling of the saints trying to adequately instruct the class which has progressed to Hebrews 10:25? Or the person who lets every ball game, horse show, or other amusement come between him and the services of the church trying to drive home a lesson on “seeking first the kingdom” (Mat. 6:33)? Not only does the use of the unfaithful create an air of awkwardness, but must surely be laughable to some members and to aliens and repugnant to God.

Whom then should we use? Well, I have known a few coaches of basketball teams through the years, and it seems fairly standard procedure for them to make use of the team members who show up for practice and who follow the rules calculated to keep them in proper shape. And I have even known of a few instances where some players who did not feel like they needed the practice had their uniforms taken away from them or where they were penalized by having to warm the bench for a few games. But there are some Biblical principles we might profitably notice, negatively and positively.

There are some things that do not determine who should be used. Physical age of the child of God should not prohibit. Gideon was “the least” (probably meaning the youngest) in his father’s house; but God could use him to deliver Israel from Midian (Judges 6:15); and Samuel was a child when God first spoke through him (1 Sam. 3:1-18); and do not forget the four Hebrew children of Daniel 1-2. On the other, hand, Moses was eighty when God called him from the burning bush to go and deliver Israel from Egypt (Acts 7:23,30). One’s educational standing need not deter. Of Peter and John it is said, “they were unlearned and ignorant me” (Acts 4:13), but of Paul that he had “much learning” (Acts 26:24). Yet all accomplished much in the Lord’s cause. Furthermore, material .possessions are not a determinant. Gideon’s family was poor in Manasseh (Judges 6:15); but Abraham was “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2), and both of them made the honor roll of Hebrews 11.

There are some things, though, that should determine who is used in the public service of the church. Since there are some that are spiritual (Gal. 6:1; Rom. 8:5-8), some who are faithful (2 Tim. 2:2), some who are learning (Heb. 5:12-14) and growing (1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18), let these be used. The service of the Lord should be conducted by those whose lives reflect His teaching, not by those whose use make the church a laughingstock and a reproach.

It would be well for us to remember that we can “be a vessel of honor, sanctified, and meet (fit or useful) for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” But to do so, one must “purge himself” of those things that are dishonourable (2 Tim. 2:20-21).

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 6-7
January 15, 1976

By Cecil Willis

This week we want to begin another line of thought to pursue for the next few issues. Beginning with this lesson, we would like to suggest some thoughts concerning “The Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ.”

Definition of “The Law”

Inasmuch as we shall be mentioning “the Law” and “the Gospel” for the next few weeks, it will be best for us to understand what the Bible means when it speaks of “the Law” and “the Gospel.” By the Law, the Scriptures ordinarily mean the Law of God which was given by Moses atop Mount Sinai. The Law is to be taken to mean the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments as well as the so-called “ceremonial laws.” Some people have divided the Law of Moses, so as to make Moses the author of the ceremonial laws which governed the worship under the Old Covenant. We will investigate this particular point more thoroughly in the coming weeks. In this lesson we are just trying to define the terms, and somewhat present the problem for discussion. In Galatians 3, Paul speaks of the Law, so as to define that of which he is speaking without doubt and beyond dispute. He says, “now this I say: a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannual, so as to make the promise of none effect” (Gal. 3:17). What is the Law? It is that which came 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham.

According to one widely-used chronology of Biblical events, the promise was made to Abraham in about 1921 B. C. The Law of Moses was given in 1491 B. C., which is exactly 430 years after the giving of the promise. Thus; the Law which was 430 years after the giving of the promise is the Law that God delivered unto the people through Moses at Mount Sinai. Then 40 years later, after their wilderness wandering, the people entered into the promised land. They entered about 1451 B. C., according to the same chronology. The Law of Moses, which included both the Ten Commandment Law and the so-called “ceremonial law” is spoken of as “the Law.” So when we refer to the Law, we are referring to the Ten Commandment Law, or the Law of God as delivered by Moses.

Definition of “The Gospel”

It is our purpose to study the relationship existing between this Law, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we mean that system by which God had purposed from eternity to save fallen man. It is referred to as a promise in some instances. In fact, Paul says, “Now unto Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to they seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). Before making any comment on this passage, let us refer to the Old Testament scriptures and see this promise of which Paul speaks:

“Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:1-3). This is the promise. The promise is that in Abraham, or in the seed, the posterity of Abraham, shall all nations of the earth be blessed. Well, to what did this promise refer? Paul tells us precisely of whom the promise spoke. “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). So this promise made to Abraham is that in Christ Jesus all nations of the earth are to be blessed. This is the good news of salvation, hence this is the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel means good news, or glad tidings, and the good news is that Christ died that men and women of all nations might be saved.

So God’s plan of salvation is called the Gospel, and it is also called the Promise. Furthermore, the Gospel is also called the Faith. Some people read the Bible, and think that every time the word “faith” occurs it is talking about believing, and they think because the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith, they have found Scriptures proving their false doctrine of salvation by faith only. But many times, when the word “faith” occurs, it is not speaking of believing at all, but it is speaking of the system of faith, the Gospel, or of the fulfillment of the Promise made to Abraham. Let us notice some instances of such a usage:

In Rom. 3:28, Paul says, “We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” Paul is saying, that one is justified by the Gospel, and not by the Law of Moses. Some people use this passage in an effort to prove that salvation or justification comes by faith only, but to so use it is to misuse it.

Again Paul says, “But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed…. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:22, 24). Here the term “faith” is used to refer to the system of faith, or the Gospel.

One other passage will have to suffice. In Jude 3, the writer says, “Contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” We are not exhorted in this passage to contend for believing, but to contend for the system of faith. So the Gospel may be called “the Gospel,” “the Promise,” or just “the Faith.” We shall be using these terms considerably in the weeks that lie ahead.

Judaism and Christianity

The problem of intermixing the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ is not a problem peculiar to our day. During the New Testament times, one of the greatest dangers confronting the church was that of mixing Judaism with Christianity. This is more understandable in New Testament times, than it is in our day. Yet I am fairly confident, that there was not much more mixing of the two then, than there is now. Those people in New Testament times had just come out of Judaism, and therefore it was rather difficult for them to leave all of their Jewish concepts, and to replace these with Christian concepts. As a nation, the Jews had lived under the Law of Moses for fifteen-hundred years. This made it all the more difficult for them to give up their Jewish beliefs overnight. An effort was made on the part of some to Judaize Christianity, and to Christianize Judaism. So considerable writing and preaching was done to show that this would not work.

One of the intentions of the Roman epistle is to give the people to whom it was addressed an insight into the relationship existing between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. Some in Rome obviously thought that they could be saved as were those who lived under the Old Testament Law. So Paul wrote to correct this false impression. The Galatian epistle was written because some of the members of the church were on the verge of going back to the Law, and even already some of them were intermixing the Law and the Promise. So Paul writes to teach them that Christianity is a religion separate and independent from Judaism. The Hebrew epistle has a similar intention. Certain ones of the Jews that had been converted to Christianity were getting a little discouraged. So Paul wrote to them to encourage them to continue in the Faith, and to warn them of going back to the Law. These brethren were being severely persecuted by their former Jewish brethren and this persecution had something to do with their retreat toward Judaism. Paul rebuked them for giving up, saying, “Ye have not resisted unto blood, striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4). The indication is that there was great danger that they were going to have to shed some blood because of renouncing Judaism, but he said you are giving up before you even shed your blood. So one can readily see that this problem of intermixing the Old Testament and the New Testament laws was a problem confronting the church.

It is likewise a tremendous problem in the world today. There are probably as many false doctrines taught because people do not understand the relation of the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ as any other misunderstanding we might mention. Some denominations exist as separate bodies simply because they want to intermix the Gospel with a touch of Judaism, and this touch of Judaism is often a rather heavy touch.

There are some individuals today who try to bind the carnal act of circumcision, and to say that it is an obligation upon these living today under God’s Law. This sounds rather absurd to virtually all religious was a part of the Old groups are violating the groups, because circumcision Covenant. But these religious same principle.

There are some organizations that keep the Sabbath Day. They do not meet upon the First Day of the week as the New Testament church did, but they meet on Saturday. Why? Because they try to bind on people today a portion of the Law of Moses.

There are some religious organizations which burn incense in their worship. Why? Not because of any commandment found in the New Testament, the Gospel of Christ, but merely because it was a part of the Law of Moses. They mix the two laws and come out with a conglomeration that is not distinguishable as either Christianity or Judaism, but is a mixture of both.

The vast majority of religious organizations use mechanical instruments of music in their worship service. They sometimes resent others inquiring as to why they use their instruments. Many, many times individuals have asked me why the church of which I am a member does not have a piano or an organ to accompany its singing. I take no offense at their inquiry. In fact, I welcome it. But let someone ask them why They have an instrument or music to accompany their singing, and when they search the New Testament for the authority for it, and fail to find it, they become offended. Usually, they reply by saying, “Well they had mechanical instruments of music in the Old Testament, didn’t they?” To which one must reply, “Certainly so,” but it just so happens that we are not living under the Old Testament Law. Friends, with all respect for the people who do this, this is but another attempt on the part of man to intermix Judaism and Christianity. Instruments of music are no part of Christian worship, but were a part of the Old Testament worship.

There are others who think a preacher or a “priest” has to make intercession for the sinner, and that they have to make confession to some man in order to get their sins forgiven. Under the Old Testament, the priests had to offer the sacrifices, and they did stand between God and the sinner. But not so in the New Testament. Christ is the High Priest, and each Christian is a priest, so each person can pray to God for forgiveness. This is another example of mixing the two systems.

So it is apparent that this was as much a problem in New Testament times than it is today.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 3-5
January 15, 1976