Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In our last article we studied a case of non-conversion. Two weeks ago we studied the conversion of the three thousand (Acts 2). So this week we would like to invite your attention to the inspired statement of the conversion of the Samaritans. The city of Samaria was located approximately thirty-six miles north of the city of Jerusalem. During the the time when Israel was divided into the ten tribes and the two tribes, into Israel and Judah, Samaria was the capital of Israel. The Samaritans in our Lord’s day were of mixed origin. They were not of pure Jewish lineage. They were part Assyrians, and part Jewish. So the Jews had nothing to do with Samaritans. So bitter did the Jews feel toward the Samaritans that if they needed to go from Judea to Galilee, rather than pass through Samaria which lay directly between these two provinces, they would cross the Jordan River, go north on the east side of the River, passing through Perea, and then cross the River again to enter Galilee. They did not want to become “contaminated” with those “filthy” Samaritans. But the blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ taught the disciples of the Lord that the Samaritans had as much right to the blessings of the Gospel as did the Jews.

Occasion of Phillip’s Preaching

In studying the conversion of the three thousand, we were studying the beginning of the church in the city of Jerusalem. After the disciples had tarried in the city of Jerusalem for a while, seemingly instigated by the plain, hard preaching of Stephen, a great persecution came upon the earth. “And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad through the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him. But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison” (Acts 8:1-3). The persecution became so intense in Jerusalem that it became necessary for the disciples to depart from Jerusalem, as we learn from the passages just cited. But when the disciples left Jerusalem, they left to go elsewhere preaching the word. Acts 8:4 says, “They therefore that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.” This persecution made possible the dissemination of truth elsewhere.

It is always unfortunate, disappointing and sad to see it necessary to discontinue services in any locality, whether the discontinuance be due to persecution which necessitates fleeing, or to the disciples taking up residence in another locality. But the departure from Jerusalem actually culminated in the preaching of the truth, and the establishment of churches in many other places. The gospel being preached in Samaria was directly due to the persecutions in Jerusalem.

One of the Jerusalem members of the church who departed was a man by the name of Philip. The Scriptures declare: “Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed unto them the Christ” (Acts 8:5).

Philip’s Preaching

Philip preached to these Samaritans the only message that could bring them salvation. He preached unto them “Jesus.” There are many preachers in this land who purport to be preaching “Jesus,” but actually who do not understand exactly what it means to preach Jesus. Sometimes people criticize certain kinds of preaching and declare that preachers ought just to preach Jesus and say nothing about this or that. It takes the same kind of preaching to save a person now as it did to save the Samaritans. Philip did not travel to Samaria to proclaim a message to these people that was unimportant. What Philip preached was necessary to their salvation.

To preach Jesus is to preach about Jesus, personally. One is not really preaching Jesus who fails to speak of His divine nature, His official character, His sacrificial death, His atonement for our sin, His burial, and His bodily resurrection, His ascension into heaven, His exaltation and intercession, His supreme Lordship, and His judicial return. To eliminate any of these essential facts about Jesus personally is to preach less than what the Bible teaches one should preach about Jesus.

To preach Jesus implies that one must preach the Gospel in it’s fulness and finality, as it relates to both saint and sinner. Some people in the church misunderstand the Gospel. They think the Gospel consists only of the commandments necessary to making one a Christian. But the Gospel consists of all Jesus’ teaching, both to members of the church, and to those who are not.

In this passage which says that Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed unto them the Christ much more is implied in this preaching than one might suppose. To preach Christ is to preach about Him, but also to preach what He taught. Preaching Christ is as inclusive a term as the cross. In Phil. 3:18, Paul said, “For many walk, of whom I have told you before, and tell you now, even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.” To be an enemy of the cross of Christ does not mean that one literally opposes the pieces of wood upon which our Savior died, but to be an enemy of the cross is to be opposed to all that is symbolized by the cross, namely the whole Gospel system. To preach Jesus is to preach all that is contained in the Gospel system, which is what Philip proclaimed to the Samaritans.

We are further told what it means to preach Christ when we read what the Samaritans believed. Faith comes by the presentation of testimony. They believed what Philip preached unto them. So in Acts 8:12, 13 we read: “But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” We are here told three things that are included in preaching Christ, and are consequently necessary to one’s salvation. Philip preached (1) things concerning the kingdom of God; (2) things concerning the name of Christ; (3) things about baptism. All three of the things that the Scriptures specifically say that Philip preached, men today would have us to minimize or eliminate. To preach about the kingdom is to preach about the church. One is preaching Christ when he preaches about the government, birthdate, law, name, worship, or any other truth the Bible declares about the church. When one teaches that Christ died to buy the church (Acts 20:28), and therefore one can only get the benefits of Christ’s death by being in Christ’s body, the church, he is preaching Christ.

And when one preached that there is salvation in no other name than Christ’s he is preaching Christ. Peter said, “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The difference between wearing the name of Christ and wearing some man’s name, or some name of human origin, is the difference between salvation and damnation.

Another doctrine that this man of God declared to the Samaritans was the commandment of baptism. Philip went to Samaria and preached one thing unto these people. He preached Christ. But when they believed what he preached, they were baptized. Read again Acts 8:12, 13. Now, how did they learn that they should be baptized? It was through the preaching of Christ. Many times Gospel preachers have been told that they should preach Christ and quit preaching so much the commandments of Christ, one of which is baptism. Baptism is a part of preaching Christ. Hence, one might as well urge one to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, but say nothing about it, as to suggest that a preacher preach Christ but say nothing about baptism, for to do either is an impossibility.

The Effect of Philip’s Preaching

Before we proceed to notice the actual response to Philip’s preaching, let us first notice tha agencies employed in the conversion of these people. God had a part in the conversion of these people. There had never been a person saved, but that was saved through the agencies, or the media through which God works. But God’s part in the conversion of the Samaritans was the same as it is in the conversion of every other person. God operated on Cornelius, but through Peter. God operated on the heart of the Eunuch, but through Philip. And in this instance the Holy Spirit is operating or working on the heart of the Samaritans, but the agency of God in this instance is Philip. There is not one single instance in which the terms of pardon are revealed to a sinner but through a preacher of the Gospel, or through study of the word of God. This is in full accordance with Paul’s declaration in 1 Cor. 1:21: “For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe.” God’s agency is preaching.

But just as there has never been a sinner saved without the operation of God’s agency, so also has there never been a sinner saved without the agency or function of the sinner being fulfilled. What is the responsibility of the sinner? It is plainly stated in this record of the conversion of the Samaritans. “And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ. And the multitudes gave heed with one accord unto the things spoken by Philip, which they heard, and saw the signs which he did” (Acts 8:5, 6). The agency of the sinner in his own conversion is clearly seen from Peter’s words to the Jews gathered on Pentecost. Acts 2:40 reads: “And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” The responsibility of the sinner is to give heed to the preaching of the word of God. It is not enough just to listen to the words of the preacher, but one must be noble as were those in Berea. In commending the Bereans, Luke said, “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

The sinner has the responsibility to give his ear to the preaching of the word of God, One who is so prejudiced or indifferent that he is not willing to listen to the preaching of the Bible cannot be saved. He must “give heed” to the words that are spoken. But this is not enough. One of the troubles with the religious world today is that too many people are willing to let someone else make their decisions for them. They accept as truth anything they are told. It is our constant plea that people search the scriptures daily whether these things be so. I am not trying to hide anything. If what I preach is not the truth, do not obey it, but please inform me wherein it is false in order that I might correct it, and also be saved. But if after investigation, you find it is the truth, believe it and obey it.

How did the conversion of the Samaritans occur? A preacher carried the gospel of Christ unto them (Acts 8:5). They heard his preaching. They gave heed unto it (Acts 8:6). They believed the things preached by Philip (8:12), and believing them, they obeyed the commandments (8:12). They believed what Philip preached about the church, about the name, and about the necessity of their being baptized. Hence they were baptized into the church, and began wearing Christ’s name. This action was what saved the Samaritans. These are the same requirements that will save us if we are ever saved.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, pp. 771-773
December 9, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Nigeria: “Are Christians ambassadors of Christ today:”

REPLY:

What is an ambassador? Hodge says, “An ambassador is at once a messenger and a representative. He does not speak in his own name. He does not act on his own authority. What he communicates is not his own opinions or demands, but simply what he has been told or commissioned to say. His message derives no part of its importance or trustworthiness from him. At the same time he is more than a mere messenger. He represents his sovereign. He speaks with authority, as accredited to him in the name of his master” (Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 146).

Apostolic Ambassadors

Macknight says, “Christ was God’s chief ambassador and the apostles being commissioned by Christ were his substitutes (ambassadors–LRH). The same obedience, therefore, was due to them in matters of religion, as to Christ himself.” Paul identified himself as “an ambassador” of the gospel (Eph. 6:20). The apostles were, as Macknight correctly comments, the ambassadors of Christ. There are none like unto them today. Why is this so? First, to hear an apostle of the Lord is to hear the word of the Lord (Lk. 10:16; 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Thess. 2:13). Second, to speak contrary to the apostles is to be accursed, cut off (Gal. 1:8, 9; Cf. Acts 3:22, 23). One who will not hear the apostles is simply “not of God” (1 Jn. 4:6). Can anyone say the same about his teaching today as to its source?

The apostles were special messengers and ministers. They were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13). They were the ones who preached the gospel with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven (Acts 2:4; 1 Pet. 1:12). The apostles were clothed with power from on high. They were Christ’s witnesses (Lk. 24:46-49; Acts 1:8; 10:39-42). In a very real sense, the apostles were in a class by themselves as witnesses or ambassadors of Christ (Jn. 15:26, 27; Acts 1:21, 22). The apostles were “ministers of the new testament” (2 Cor. 3:6). Paul speaks of “this ministry,” or “our gospel” (2 Cor. 4:1, 3). It was theirs in that it had been committed unto them. Therefore, Paul could say, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5) It seems impossible to apply such language unto one other than an apostle. As the glorious Old Testament law was given, the countenance of Moses shone. So, God shined in the hearts of the apostles to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).

After describing the apostolic function as being in Christ’s stead (2 Cor. 5:20), Paul says, “We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1). Note the separation of Paul and the workers with God from the Corinthians. The Corinthians had received the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1, 2). This is equivalent to the grace of God (2 Cor. 6:1). As the gospel was committed to the apostles, they were ministers, witnesses, ambassadors. For one to be what they were, the gospel the grace of God, must be similarly committed. Will any say that he speaks with the voice, the authority, of an apostle? If not, then he is not the same as they were. In short, he is not an ambassador as they were.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, p. 770
December 9, 1976

By J. David Powlas

Have you ever wondered what would happen if the apostle Paul were to send a letter to a congregation of our “progressive” brethren asking them for support? After giving this matter much thought, I have written what I believe would be their reply to his request:

Dear Brother Paul,

We appreciate your interest in preaching, as was shown by your letter to us. However, we regret that we are unable to provide support for you at this time. To avoid any misunderstanding about this, we are listing the reasons for our decision.

(1) It has been brought to our attention that you wrote a letter to brother Timothy. This, in itself, is certainly not wrong. However, our source informs us that you stated in this letter that you were against helping widows. Brother Paul, aren’t you being a little narrow-minded?

(2) We have heard reports that all of your support is sent directly to you. This sounds very much like the common practice of those backward ‘antis’ who are constantly dividing faithful congregations. You aren’t one of them, are you, Brother Paul?

(3) Word has come to us of your speech at Mars Hill in Athens. We admire your wanting to straighten out those Greeks, but, we think you went about it in the wrong way. Really, brother Paul! Don’t you realize the harm you could have done by calling their worship ‘ignorant’? After all, we don’t want to hurt their feelings. They may be as honest and sincere as we are.

(4) We have read a letter from Brother Peter in which he mentions you. This is very suspicious! Isn’t he the fanatic who came up with that ‘speaking-as-the-oracles-of-God’ garbage? How ridiculous! Why, we don’t even have authority for our church building!

(5) The Corinthian brethren have told us about your opinion of ‘fellowship’ meals. They said that you designated ‘houses’ as the places for ‘eating and drinking’. Now, isn’t that going a bit too far? If it is wrong to eat in the church building, how else can we edify one another?

(6) In your letter, you said something about preaching ‘Jesus and Him crucified.’ That type of preaching is suitable for other churches, but not for us. We want a preacher who will keep us informed about all of the current social developments. In this day and age, preaching Jesus just isn’t practical. Surely, you know how people get tired of hearing the same thing over and over.

These are the reasons why we can’t help you at the present time. But, don’t be discouraged! When you have studied these matters and have changed your mind, we will consider sending some money to your congregation.

As we have previously stated, we would like to help you, but we can’t at this time. After all, we do have an image to keep up in our community. Besides, if we support you, we will have to delay paving the church parking lot. Now, you wouldn’t want to hinder the Lord’s work here, would you?

Yours in Christ, The Elders

Truth Magazine XX: 48, pp. 765-766
December 2, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

“Astrology and The Bible” is the title of an article in which John R. Hawkins, a member of the American Federation of Astrologers, undertakes to find evidence that the Bible supports astrology.

The following is an excerpt from his essay:

“One of the most interesting events of all was the birth of Christ: (Matt. 2:1) wise men came from the east to Jerusalem to visit King Herod and to see who was born King of the Jews. Notice in verse 2 they say, ‘for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him.’ (Num. 24:17) The new translations have this correctly rendered, stating astrologers rather than wise men. Astrology was a well-known science in the East and astrologers were the ones to study the stars in heaven. In verse 7, Herod privately called the astrologers and made a special note as to what time the star appeared. This was very important to Herod’s plans. He knew the astrologers came from the East, taking a long time . . . perhaps a few months to 21/2 years . . .

“Here we find astrologers taking a very prominent position at Christ’s birth and later protecting the Great King by not informing Herod as to His whereabouts.”

This line of reasoning is designed to leave the impression that the world owes a great debt to astrology. To read this section of Mr. Hawkins’ article without turning to Matt. 2 and carefully studying the Biblical record, one might think that astrology prevented King Herod from murdering the Messiah in infancy.

I hasten to point out that we cannot be absolutely certain that the “wise men” who visited the baby Jesus were astrologers. The Greek word magoi is rendered “astrologers” by some translators but such a rendition is not , unanimous. Moffatt translates it “magicians.” J. W. McGarvey says the word “designates an order of priests and philosophers.” Macknight says the wise men were “heathen philosophers.” The Greek word magos is translated “sorcerer” in Acts 13:8 and applied to a false prophet.

Even if we grant that the “wise men” were astrologers, the Bible does not indicate that astrology enabled them to locate Jesus, and it certainly was not astrology that prompted them to go home without notifying the wicked Herod of the location of the child who was born King of the Jews.

The star which the wise men saw was no ordinary star. It guided them in the direction of Jerusalem and .,hen seems to have disappeared. When they left Jerusalem for Bethlehem, “lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy” (Matt. 2:9,10). This could not have been a star in the sense of a natural luminous body, for such a star would not move before men then stand over a given house so as to clearly distinguish it from other houses in the same village. McGarvey stresses this point: “A child, looking at a star near the horizon, may imagine that it hangs over a certain house; but when it walks up to that house it finds that the star is as far off as before and is hanging over another house. The star of the magi stood over the house where the child was until they came up and entered the house, thus preventing them from entering the wrong house and finding the wrong child.” Everything in the text points to a miraculous star-a supernatural light designed to guide the wise men to the supernaturally-born Jesus.

“Evidently we have here another of the many Bible miracles which modern science is unable to explain. Undoubtedly this miraculous appearance, which is called a star, aroused the curiosity of the wise men to such an extent that they followed it for many miles until finally it pointed out the exact place where they wished to go” (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 81).

Granting for argument’s sake that the wise men were astrologers, how could they know through astrology that this star signified the birth of the King of the Jews rather than some other important person? If they could learn through the socalled science of astrology that this particular star signified the birth of the King of the Jews, why could they not also learn through the same science that Bethlehem was the place of that birth? Why did they have to ask Herod, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?”

It definitely was not astrology that caused them to go home another way. “And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way” (Matt. 2:12). That was special revelation from God! The fact ‘hat God spoke to these men in a dream is not necessarily an endorsement of their character or their pursuits that gave them recognition as “wise men.” Note a similar case in Gen. 20:3.

“It is most in harmony with all of the known facts of ,he history to suppose that when the star appeared a direct revelation was made to the magi which led to all of their subsequent movements. The child was in this revealed to the shepherds of Bethlehem, to Simeon and to Anna; and in this way the magi were instructed not to return to Herod, but to go home by another route” (McGarvey). I must not overlook the cleverly placed reference to Num. 24:17 by Mr. Hawkins. He throws in the reference as if there is no question that the prophecy of Balaam about the “Star out of Jacob” applies to the star which the wise men saw in the east. The Star to arise out of Jacob was Jesus who was the seed of Jacob, not the miraculous star that led the wise men to Jesus. In Rev. 22:16 Jesus spoke of Himself as “the bright and morning star.” This is a figurative use of the word “star” and has nothing whatever to do with astrological predictions.

Whether the wise men who visited the child Jesus were astrologers, or magicians, or philosophers, or kings, there is nothing in Matt. 2 to suggest that we should study the stars to learn about what God expects of us, or that we should begin the day by reading our horoscope in the newspaper to see what is in store. It was God, not the pseudo-science called astrology, that prevented the murder of the Messiah in infancy.

Astrologers want us to think we can know our personal future if we will only consult someone who is in a position to give professional advice. (And the palm readers and fortune tellers say about the same thing.) But the Bible says, “ye know not what shall be on the morrow” (James 4:14).

Truth Magazine XX: 48, pp. 764-765
December 2, 1976