Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Last week we set out to study a few of the cases of conversion recorded in the book of Acts to see how they coincide precisely with the commandments we have seen to be enjoined upon us by the direct commands of the Lord. We want to see that those of whom the Bible speaks as having obeyed the Lord did the same things that we must do to be saved. We have studied the themes of faith, repentance and baptism now for quite some time, and at the present we are devoting ourselves to a study of some cases of conversion to see that these individuals did believe, repent and were baptized.

Last week we studied the conversion of Saul the persecutor, later called Paul the Apostle. It was seen that he did exactly the same things that you and I are to do. He believed, repented and was baptized.

Now we want to consider the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, as recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Inasmuch as the Eunuch lived under the same law as that under which you and I live, and will be judged by the same authority as will you and I, when we notice the things that he did by divine sanction, then we may learn those things that you and I must do.

The Background

“But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip saying, arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the same is desert. And he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship; and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet, Isaiah” (Acts 8:20-28). For one to understand exactly what was happening in the Scriptural account of this man’s conversion, it would. be best for him to know just a little about the geographical background of the lesson. In the first part of the eighth chapter of Acts, Luke tells us about the terrible persecution that was wrought upon the church in Jerusalem. So great was this persecution, that it was necessary for all the people, except the apostles, to leave the city of Jerusalem. But the marvelous part about this tragedy of the persecution and dispersion of this great church in Jerusalem is that they turned what seemed to be tragedy into good. Rather than being discouraged by their scattering, they went everywhere preaching the word.

One of the members of this congregation at the time of this scattering because of persecution, went to a town about thirty-six miles to the north of Jerusalem, called Samaria. The Scriptures say, “And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ” (Acts 8:5). This preacher, Philip, is the same one who told the Ethiopian eunuch what to do to be saved. He was preaching in Samaria at the time that the angel appeared to him and told him to go to the south, unto the road that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza.

The eunuch had been to Jerusalem to worship according to the law of Moses, and was returning to his native land, which was quite a distance south of Palestine, even south of Egypt. On his return home, he was riding on the road that went from Jerusalem to Gaza. The angel appeared to Philip and told him to go down to this road. Gaza was a small seacoast town, somewhat to the southwest of Jerusalem, So as the eunuch made his journey back home, God sent this preacher, Philip, and had him intersect the eunuch on this Jerusalem-Gaza road, and there teach him what he must do. The merciful providence and wisdom of God is seen in that even though. the preacher arid the sinner were quite a distance separated, yet they were brought together, in order that the eunuch might be taught..

The idea of many denominationalists is that all that one had to do to be saved is to be a religious person, but one sees that the eunuch was obviously very devoted to that which be thought to be right. It was no easy matter for one to make the long, slow journey from Ethiopia. to Jerusalem to worship God, but his sincerity motivated him to be on his way. But in spite of his sincerity and his religious life, still there was much that be needed. This man was living as though Moses’ law was the one by which he was to be judged, unconscious of its replacement by the law of Christ. He was a religious man, but religiously wrong, in spite of the contentions of so many today that would say that any religious life will save one.

Furthermore, in the conversion of this sinner, it should be noticed that there, was a miracle wrought in connection with this man’s salvation. But there was a vast difference in the purpose of the miracle performed in connection with his salvation, than in the purpose that men would have us believe miracles are for today. What was the miracle? It was simply the divine appearance of the angel to Philip to tell him to go unto the south, unto the way that goetb down from Jerusalem to Gaza, and preach to the eunuch. Upon whom was the miracle performed? It was performed upon the preacher instead of upon the sinner. God did not perform any miracle upon the sinner to save him, or to show him that he had been saved, but the miracle done in connection with his salvation was to show Philip where to go to preach to this man. The plan was the same. Paul says that, “It pleased God through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe” (1Cor, 1:21). So the miracle was to bring the preacher to the sinner, in order that by the preaching, the eunuch might believe, obey and be saved by it.

But to go back to !he text to see what the eunuch did to be saved: “And the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? and he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is, so he openeth not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: His generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other? And Philip opened his mouth and beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus” (Acts 8:28-35).

The Message

One thing that we readily learn from this passage of scripture is the value of using the Old Testament passages to establish the fundamental faiths of the system of Christianity. When Philip sought to preach Jesus to this man, he began by pointing back to the prophecies written centuries before which looked forward to the Messiah. The Old Testament prophecies are the strongest proofs, to my mind, of the deity of Christ, and when linked with the resurrection of Christ from the dead, these historical proofs prove without doubt that Jesus Christ was not man, but was God in the flesh.

The scripture we just cited says that Philip began from this passage in Isaiah and preached unto him Jesus. Here we have a chance to learn what it means to preach Jesus. We may learn what it includes and what it excludes; what it involves and what it omits. So many times we hear people say, “I wish that preacher would preach Jesus, and leave this or that alone.” Frequently, they say that one should not preach about the church, but should just preach Jesus, or they should not preach so much about the name, for after all, there is nothing in a name. Or they will say, “I wish he would just preach Christ and quit preaching on baptism.” The trouble with these people is that they do not know what preaching Christ means.

What does it mean to preach Christ? In this same eighth chapter of Acts, we find a record of where this same preacher, Philip, went down to the city of Samaria, and “proclaimed unto them the Christ” (Acts 8:5). Now Philip preached what everybody thinks that a preacher ought to preach today, and so it is. We should preach Christ. But what did Philip preach? The Scripture leaves us without doubt as to what he preached, for it tells us exactly: “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” (Acts 8:12), What does it mean to preach Christ? It means to preach about the kingdom or the church; to preach the name of Christ to the exclusion of all others; and to preach baptism.

As Philip answered the inquiry of the eunuch as to whom the prophet Isaiah referred when he pictured the suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53, Philip stated that he was speaking of Christ? This Old Testament prophecy was the starting point that Philip used to preach to the man the Christ. But what did he preach to him, when he preached to him the Christ? This is a very easy question to answer, for we know what the eunuch did after Philip preached unto him. Certainly he did what Philip told him to do, and Philip had only told him those things that were included in preaching Christ. What did the eunuch do? He was baptized; “And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:35-39).

The Scripture says that Philip preached unto the eunuch Jesus, and then immediately after he had preached to him, the eunuch upon arriving at water, asked what hindered him to be baptized. So to preach Jesus is to preach baptism.

The Baptism

But let us also notice how this man’s baptism occurred. The Scripture says that they came unto a certain water, they both went down into the water, and Philip baptized him, then they both came up out of the water. Is this the way that your baptism occurred? If not, it follows that you just have not been baptized. Many people come to a bowl of water, and have some church official sprinkle a few drops of water on them, and then they call that baptism. In the light of this passage, and of all other passages in the New Testament, sprinkling or pouring cannot be baptism.

As they were riding along in the chariot, they approached, came Dear, or came unto this certain water, then they commanded the chariot to stand still, Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water (it would be rather absurd and ridiculous to see the preacher and the candidate try to go down into the amount of water that those who sprinkle and pour for baptism use). and while in the water, Philip baptized the eunuch.

Denominational preachers for many years made the argument that Philip could not have baptized, or immersed, the eunuch, for the Bible itself says that they were in a desert, and there could not have been enough water to immerse a man in a desert. But there is just one thing wrong with this argument. The Bible does not say they were in a desert. It says that they were on the road that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert. It was the city of Gaza that was desert, or deserted, and not the whole country.

But regardless of the geographical data, to those who honor and respect the Bible as authentic, Philip and the eunuch came unto a certain water great enough for both of them to go down into it, and to baptized, or immerse the eunuch in it. In fact the Bible states that they did precisely that. It takes an unbeliever in the Bible to make an argument stating that they could not have come to enough water to baptize a man, for the Bible says that they did.

The action of baptism should be definitely determined after reading this passage, They came unto, went down into, and came up out of the water, Can you say this of sprinkling? Or of pouring? Do you come unto the water, go down into the water, and then come up out of it? If not, then you have not been baptized according to New Testament authority.

The “New Creature”

But notice furthermore flow the Scriptures describe the eunuch after he had been baptized. It says that he went on his way rejoicing. He had every reason to rejoice. Now he could know that he had done what God would have him do. In the sixteenth chapter of Acts we have the record of the conversion of the Philippian jailer. He believed, repented and was baptized. The scripture says that after he had done these three acts that he rejoiced, just as did the eunuch. The Bible says of him, “And he took them (that is Paul and Silas) the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God” (Acts 16:33,34). Paul, whose conversion we studied last week, was blinded and fasted from the time that the Lord appeared to him, until Ananias came to him and told him what to do to be saved. After arising, and being baptized, he took food. He rejoiced. It is altogether fitting and proper that one rejoice as did these individuals after they obey the gospel, for they then know that they have obeyed the Lord.

Conclusion

What did the eunuch do to be saved? He heard the gospel preached to him. He believed it, and obeyed it. He believed, repented, or changed his mind about living under the law, and was baptized for the remission of his sin. You can be saved the very same way, and in no other way. We plead with you to accept the invitation of the Lord, and obey these commandments.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 691-694
November 4, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

(1) One may extol the virtues of morality, bravery, kindness, and humility but be possessed of none of them. One may excoriate the vices of intemperance, cowardice, harshness, and arrogance but be polluted with all of them.

(2) Are you familiar with the expression, “Be not deceived?” Even casual students of the Bible recognize it. Wherever and whenever you find the expression, be prepared to confront an absolute truth. When the Spirit says, “Be not deceived,” He is saying, in our language, “Do not make auy mistake about it; here is the way it is; what follows is the truth and any other idea is wrong.” The statement is doctrine’s way of securing rapt attention, for a certain fact is to be set forth. See 1 Cor. 15:33 and Gal. 6:7, 8.

(3) We may also learn from the term, “Beware.” It was a favorite word of the Master—“But beware of men” (Matt. 10:17); “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Saducees” (Matt, 16:6): “Take heed and beware of covetousness” (Lk. 12:15). Where and when do we use the word, “beware?” It is always in the face of crisis and danger. It is never used lightly. One must beware of a Cobra bite not of a mosquito. No one picks up a sign saying, “Beware, Wet Paint!” But we are quick to warn, “Beware of fallen rock.” So, let us not take the term lackadaisicallv when we find it in Scripture. It is a word of exclamation and of extreme peril; so, beware when you see the word, “beware.”

(4) “Blessed is the man that walketb not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners. nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful, But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night’ (Psa. 1:1, 2). Upon what do you meditate in your mind and conversation? Is it sports, soap operas, the stock market, materialistic plans? What? If so, you are not the one who is “blessed,” “O how love I thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psa. 119:97). Is it yours?

Truth Magazine XX: 44, p. 690
November 4, 1976

By Luther Blackmon

I think it likely that few, if any of jis, have the ability to examine our own motives and conduct with absolute fairness and honesty. Burns, the Scotcb poet, recognized this fact when be expressed the desire that we might have the gift to “see ourselves as others see us.” This might not be flattering, but I dare say it would make most of us more humble. However, the important thing is not so much how others see us, but how God sees us. And be sure that God sees us as we really are. A pious air and ontward show may conceal our sins from the multitudes for a time, but they are only a transparent veneer through which God sees a wretched hypocrite.

There are several reasons why it is difficult for us to examine ourselves without partiality. One is our inclination to measure ourselves by others. The man, for example, who lacks the moral courage to turn his back on the world and obey the gospel, can always find a convenient hypocrite to hide behind.

The unfaithful Christian who no longer finds happiness in the fellowship of the saints, and who finds church attendance boresome and tiring, can always find some brotber who beats his debts or takes a few drinks. Then he begins to look at all Christians through this shabby specimen and derides that church attendance can add nothing to his righteous life. If we must compare ourselves with others, why not pick the. best ones? This is seldom, if ever, done for two reasons. (1) It would not serve our purpose. (2) One who is sincere enough to make such a comparison as this would not long be out there with the devil’s goat. They are measuring themselves and comparing themselves among themselves.” and “are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).

Again we hesitate to sound the depths of our own souls because we fear the results. In this we are like the man who refuses to submit to physical examination, because he fears the diagnosis, as if refusing to face the truth could cure the disease. I am, convinced, from my own past experience, tbat many members of the church could not live with their consciences if they should, in all honesty and candor, search their own hearts in the light of truth. Man at his best cuts a sorry figure when measured by God’s standard of righteousness. And man is seldom at his best.

Once more, we shrink back from an impartial self-examination because of our pride in our own strength. Human vanity is a powerful influence. It takes more spiritual and moral courage than some people can ever muster to say, “I was wrong.” However if we but knew it, man is never really strong until his strength gives way to the strength that comes from above . .. . . . for my strepgtb is macle perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Cbrist may rest upon me. Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

Truth Magazine XX: 44, p. 690
November 4, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From the Republic of the Philippines: First of all let me state the following; Division in the churches of Christ, originated in your country (&.S.A.). The issues are purely American principles. I mean, as far as I know, the churches of Christ in the United States are the only ones who are practicing these issues, the church’s money, how it is to be used. Now, my questions are:

1. Is there a division between the so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ churches of Christ here in the Philippines?

2. Are they who are members of a certain congregation (the so-called liberals) to be condemned in the judgment though they are not practicing and will not be practicing beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6)?

3. Is there a pattern for us to follow in congregational cooperation in helping the needy and spreading the gospel?”

Reply:

Comment On Opening Remarks

Our brother’s opening remarks need some clarification. Yes, historically, division in churches of Christ “originated” in the United States, but “the issues” are not “purely American principles.” The issues are purely New Testament principles. Anywhere the Lord’s people are located, the use of the church’s money is an issue. There may not be digression and division as there is in America, but it is an issue. “How?” you ask. By the very fact that it is part of New Testament teaching, it is an issue. That Scripture implies “church money” and that it was used and is to be used, makes it an issue wherever and whenever Christians congregate and commune.

The division “originated in the United States,” but New Testament teaching and practice regarding the church’s money and how it is to be used did not originate in the United States. Our brother confuses these two items and mixes them as one. Thus, he concludes, “The issues are purely American principles.” Again, division “originated” in this country, but New Testament principles and practices concerning “church money and how it is to be used” was originated by the Lord, revealed by the Spirit and propagated by the apostles.

1. Answer to First Question: Yes, there is division among churches of Christ in the Philippines, Unless our brother is extremely isolated, it is inconceivable that he could ask this question for information’s sake. His other inquiries are evidence that he is aware of division.

2. Answer to Second Question: This question is difficult to answer because it begins with a premise. which is denied in the last segment of the sentence. If a church does not go beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6), it is not a liberal church.

The judgment will be on an individual basis. Congregations, as such, will not be condemned in the judgment. Individuals will be (Matt. 25; Gal. 6:9; Rev. 2:18-23). Churches are judged by the Lord in this life (Rev. 2:5; 3:1-5), but not all individuals in a “dead” church will be lost (Rev. 3:1-5). The Lord did not tell the saints at Sardis to stay where sin was advanced or where false doctrine could not be exposed. He did not tell them to leave, but other passages require this course (Phil. 3:16, 17; 4:9; Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn. 9-1 Eph. 5:11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 5:20).

Some churches are termed “liberal” even though they do not engage in any open and overt unscriptural action. “We don’t support human organizations; we don’t send money to another church to oversee and do our preaching work; we don’t use the church’s money for entertainment; so, why are we called liberal?” This is their lame lament, their plea for pity. But the question is, do they oppose or applaud the above mentioned practices? Do they preach against institutionalism and the sponsoring church brand of ecclesiasticism? These are crucial, critical questions. Preaching the whole counsel of God, reproving and rebuking error, and exhorting men to walk in the word is a part of soundness. Our querist mentioned “a certain congregation.” Perhaps, he has one in mind. If so, does it actively and aggressively deny liberal doctrine and digression? Does it use liberal preachers or their sympathizers in its evangelistic labors? A church may be liberal or loose because of what it fails to do, by reason of what it refuses to “earnestly contend” against (2 Cor. 10:35-, Jude 3). There is no greater enemy to the cross of Christ than those who refuse to extinguish error and expound truth.

3. Answer to Third Question:

Preliminary Thoughts to Ponder

If there is no pattern to follow in congregational cooperation, how can a church say it is not going beyond that which is written (1 Cor. 4:6)? If there is no pattern in spreading the gospel, how can brethren 11 make all things according to the pattern” (Heb, 8:5)? if there is no pattern, then there is no perversion, no law, no guide. If that is true, men are free to do as they please without fear of divine censure or judgment. Can you name any other areas of work and worship in the church of the Lord where there is no pattern? If what was done in the New Testament does not constitute a pattern in cooperation and preaching the gospel, can we not also say that what they did with respect to giving and taking the Lord’s supper does not comprise a pattern” If you can deny the pattern of evangelism and cooperation in the work of the New Testament church, why cannot I deny the plan for giving and the taking of the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2)?

The New Testament Pattern

The New Testament pattern of congregational cooperation in “helping the needy and spreading the gospel” is a compilation of all that the Bible says about those activities. Accordingly, we shall notice several texts.

1) In Evangelism: The “church of the Thessalonians” “sounded out the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:1, 8). The “church which was at Jerusalem . . . sent forth Barnabas” (Acts 11:22). The Philippian church “sent once and again unto my (Paul’s) necessity” (Phil. 4:15,16). This work was that of “giving and receiving.” It was the “care” of the church at Philippi for Paul (Phil. 4:10). In each of these citations, each church acted, but each worked separate and independent of the other.

“Here, too, we see the simple manner in which the church in Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no ‘missionary society’ in evidence, and none was needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized the church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold of apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord’s manner of doing things” (Guy N. Woods, Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, Published by The Gospel Advocate Company, 1946, p. 341).

In 2 Corinthians 11:8, Paul said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” Two or more churches sent “wages” unto Paul. The ending of these churches, so far as each one was concerned was a separate act. Observe that Paul, not a local church. was the recipient of the “wages.” There was no sponsoring church which served as the disbursing and dispensing agent of other churches. In the New Testament, churches were never joined or harnessed as a unit to evangelize.

2) In Helping The Needy: In Acts 6, the Jerusalem church ministered to their neglected widows. In 1 Timothy 5:16, Paul charged the church to “relieve them that are widows indeed.” So, local congregations have benevolent responsibilities.

Acts 11:27-30 describes a need in Judea which arose because of a “great” famine. There were “constant unfruitful seasons” (Life of Claudius, by Seutonius, quoted in New Testament Documents-Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce, p. 119). “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:29,30). The Antioch disciples did not send relief unto a sponsoring, overseeing church, nor to a Judean Relief Organization. What they did we ought to do when similar circumstances arise.

“The relief was sent, we are told, ‘to the elders . . .’ We might call them pastors. They had charge of the congregations in all their church affairs and attended to the services, the teaching, and the spiritual oversight . . . Here Luke speaks of the elders in Judea” (Lenski, ‘comments on Acts 11:27-30, pp. 462, 463). “Unto the elders, either those at Jerusalem, who could easily forward the supplies to the destitute elsewhere, or those in Judea at large, whom the messengers visited in person, The latter idea presents itself very readily from Judea, just before . . .” (Hackett, comments on Acts 11:30, p. 142). The relief was sent to the brethren in Judea, i.e., unto the elders of the brethren in Judea. Each church had elders, so the relief was sent to the elders of the respective churches in the province of Judea.

Romans 15:25-27,31; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, tell of the “contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.” At least five churches assembled their “alms” and “offerings” (Acts 24:17). This was by “order” of the apostle Paul and was performed with “zeal” (1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 9:2). Each church chose its own messengers who brought the gift of that church unto Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:19-23). There was no intermediary, sponsoring church or agent to oversee the work. Churches simply laid aside a contribution for the needy saints in Jerusalem, selected men to take the contribution, and sent them to Jerusalem with the gift.

Guy N. Woods’ Comments On 2 Cor. 8:18-21

“In line with the fact that our lesson today deals with the autonomy of the church, we point out that the contribution here alluded to was raised wholly without the high pressure organizational methods characteristic of today. There was no organization at all; the churches, in their own capacity, raised the funds, and they were gathered by brethren specially appointed for the purpose. This is the Lord’s method of raising money, and it will suffice in any case. There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people today to do. Two practical lessons follow from this section: (1) The simple means used to raise these funds; (2) honest measures followed to avoid suspicion” (Guy N. Woods, Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, Published by The Gospel Advocate Company, 1946, pp. 340, 341),

Truth Magazine XX: 43, pp. 684-685
October 28, 1976