Truth Magazine

By Frank Driver

The essence of organizational arrangements for the collective function of the people of God in performance of His service, like the content of the Gospel message, is simplicity. The apostle Paul feared it might become otherwise (2 Cor. 11:3).

The divine and heavenly ordinance for such organizational arrangement as above mentioned is elders in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), for function of oversight, (Hebrews 13:17, 1 Pet. 5:2, 3). This is simple but sufficient and effective. This is the full substance of the divine provision.

But man is not satisfied with this. He seeks improvement through the vanity of his own wisdom even when it displaces that of God’s. The consequence is that we now have among some churches of Christ an iniernational radio program overseen and controlled by elders in one church (Abilene, Tex.), and supported financially by elders in hundreds of churches, when the divine ordinance calls for elders in every church to have the same function. We have even had people ask us if the headquarters of the Church of Christ is in Abilene, Texas!

When something like this gets started, it usually goes into other areas of question. Now the Abilene church has a state representative in Denver and the elders of the church for which he preaches functions in a regional, coordinating capacity to strengthen the organization and its effectiveness in our area. There are also other such regional elderships throughout the zountry, functioning in this manner.

So we now have three levels of eldership after the order of man, rather than the one after the order of God: overseeing elders (Abilene, Texas), regional elders (state or area wide), and contributing elders (who send the money!). And all this in barely more than twenty years! One would have to deliberately close his eyes to avoid seein.g the ecclesiastical appearance of this arrangement.

The all-wise, infinite, and perfect God devised His own system of function and activity for His people, for all time. The changes of time through human wisdom and invention will not impose adjustments on the Author of the divine pattern.

Truth Magazine XX: 39, p. 610
September 30, 1976

By Luther Blackmon

Empedocles suggested that the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water were played upon the forces of love and hate, producing plants, and that these plants budded off animals. Some of our brethren think that my attitude toward the theory of evolution reveals a state of 11 staggering ignorance,” and that some of us are too lazy to study and try to understand this “unproven and complex theory,” and that we are trying to “smear” it because we “fear it.” I have said, “the theory of evolution is just as nutty now as in the days of Empedocles.”

I am aware of the research in the field of archaeology and paleontology, and, that many discoveries have been made since the days of Thales, Anaximander and Empedocles. But the chasm between living and nonliving matter, between the different “kinds” of animals and plants, and the total absence of any credible evidence that there has been any crossing between the “kinds” or, from one genus to another, render the theory just as “nutty” now as it was in the days of Empedocles. And any theory, whether in the swaddling clothes of infancy or hoary with age, that must begin with an assumption that billions of years ago lifeless matter (the origin of which is unknown) was acted upon by natural forces (resident or external, nobody knows) bringing forth life, from which all life both animal and vegetable had come, is just as nutty as that “earth, air, fire, and water were acted upon by the forces of love and hate.

Oh yes, much has been learned since the days of Empedocles. Many theories have been “postulated.” The pages of discarded and dust-covered books are filled with the bones of theories which once brought newfound joy to the hearts of scientists, but such men as Sir Arthur Keith still say, “evolution is unproved and unprovable, and the only alternative to special creation, which is unthinkable.” “Unprovable!” But they keep on trying. Perhaps “nutty” is Dot the word, but, there should be some word to describe the actions of a man who creates a whole race of people from one tooth which finally turned out to be a pig’s tooth, or, a man who is so determined to disprove Genesis 1 that he creates a hoax such as! the Piltdown Man and gets him into the hall of man in the museum.

Theories and scientists come and go but Genesis I remains the same. And if you won’t have Genesis 1, try Acts 17:24-25. When the last leaves of approaching winters have fallen upon the grave of the last theory, these passages will still read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” And, “God who made the world and all things therein-gave to all life and breath and all things.”

Let me say in the language of Josh Billings: “It ain’t what we don’t know that hurts us, but knowin’ too many things that ain’t so.” Ignorance is a blight, but there are some things worse.

Truth Magazine XX: 39, p. 610
September 30, 1976

By John McCort

The most popular argument used to justify instrumental music in worship is an argument drawn from the word “Psalms” (psalmos) in Eph. 5:19. The argument made is that in the Old Testament psalms were sung to an instrument of music. It is claimed that the instrument of music is inherent in the singing of psalms. Several authorities can be produced which state the psalms (psalmos) were to be sung to the accompaniment of an instrument of music. (See Thayer & Vine on psalmos)

Lei us assume momentarily that their argument is correct that the instrument of music is inherent in the word psalms. If this is true then it would be sinful, if not impossible, to sing psalms without an instrument of music. For example, immersion is inherent in the word baptism. Would it not then follow that it would be sinful, if not impossible to baptize without immersing? Since all are commanded to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19) would it not also follow that all persons singing psalms would be required to play an instrument of music? Where is the authority for one person to play an instrument of music for all of the congregation if the instrument of music is inherent in the word psalmos. (I wonder if one person could be baptized for the whole congregation?) What happens when a farmer is out plowing a field after a bountiful harvest and he feels like singing psalms of praises to God? Does farmer Brown have io jump down off of his tractor, run four miles home, and pick up his guitar before he can sing psalms? If instrumental music is inherent in singing psalms then playing the instrument would not be optional.

“Psalmos” In The New Testament

Examine how the word “psalm” is used in the New Testament.

Lk. 20:42, “The Book of Psalms”

Lk. 24:44, “Written . . . in the Psalms”

Acts 1:20, “. . . the Book of Psalms”

Acts 13:33, “. . . the second Psalm

1 Cor. 14:26, “Everyone . . . hath a psalm . . .

Eph. 5:19, “Speaking . . . in psalms . . .”

Col. 3:16, “. . . Admonishing in psalms . . .”

The instrument of music is not mentioned in connection with the reading, speaking, or singing of psalms, The translators must not have thought that the instrument of music was inherent in the singing of psalms. In the Old Testament the instrument of music had to be named in addition to the word psalmos (Psa. 81:2; 98:4; 149:3). Since the instrument of music had To be named in addition to the word psalmos this demonstrates that ,he instrument of music was not inherent in the word.

Both psallo and psalmos come from the same root psao. Psao means “to rub, wipe; to handle, touch” (Thayer, p. 675). Psallo is the verb form of the root psao while psalmos is the noun form. Psallo, in its virgin definition, merely means to pluck, twitch, or twang. The object of the pluck, twitch, or twang must be named in context. No object of the pluck is inherent in the word psallo. Sometimes the word psallo was used to describe the plucking of a carpenter’s string or the plucking of a hair. One cannot pluck (psallo) without something to pluck. Thus, there is no object inherent in the verb psallo. It is true that in the Old Testament the word psallo is often used to describe the strumming of an instrument of music. It is important to note that when the instrument of music is the object of the strum or pluck (psallo) it is always named in addition to the word psallo. Psa. 98:4-5, “. . . Break forth and sing (psalate) for joy, yea, sing praises. Sing praises (psalate) unto Jehovah with the harp (en kithara). Psalate is translated ” sing praises” and the harp (kithara) is named in addition to the word psalate demonstrating the fact that the instrument of music is not inherent in psallo.

Note the parallel between psallo and baptizo. Baptizo means to immerse, submerge, dip, etc. There is no element inherent in the verb baptizo (baptize). The New Testament speaks of baptizing in water (JD. 3:23), baptizing in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11), baptizing in fire (M at t. 3:11), etc., demonstrating the fact that there is no element inherent in the verb baptize. Likewise psallo merely means to pluck, twitch, or twang, and no element or instrument is inherent in the word psallo.

In Eph. 5:19 both psallo and psalmos are used. “Speaking one to another in psalms (psalmos), hymns, and spiritual songs, singing (adontes) and making melody (psallontes) in your hearts to the Lord.” Notice ilia! the object of the psallo is named. “Singing (adontes) and making melody (psallontes) in your heart (en kardia). Compare “Sing praises (psalates) . . . with the harp (en kithara)” (Psa. 98:4) with “. . . making melody (psallontes) in your heart ten kardia) . . .” (Eph. 5:19). In Eph. 5:19 the psalloing is done in the heart.

Psalmos is nothing more Than a noun form of the verb psallo. What would hold true for psallo would also hold ,rue for psalmos. Let us suppose. momentarily, that the words baptize and baptisin are used in the same passage. Let us further suppose that the command is given to baptize with water. The verb baptize describes the action and water is the element used in the action of baptizing. When the element water is specified as the element this automatically excludes all other elements because the element has been specified. When the command to “baptize with water” is given this would necessarily exclude all other forms of baptizing such as baptizing in the Holy Spirit, suffering, fire, etc. The element water is not inherent in the word baptize but when water is specified as the element this altioniatically excludes all other elements. Baptism is nothing more than a noun form of the verb baptize. If the word baptism was used in the same passage as the phrase “baptize with water” the word baptism would automatically mean water baptism. The element water would automatically be transferred from the verb baptize to its noun form baptism. Would not the word baptism automatically mean water baptism to the exclusion of all other forms of baptism in that particular passage?

There is an inescapable parallel between psallo and baptizo, and between psalmos and baptism. In Eph. 5:19 the object of the psallo, the heart, is specified. This automatically excludes all other forms of psalloing in this particular passage in the same way that the phrase “baptize with water” would automatically exclude all other forms of baptism in that passage since the element has been specified. Psalmos is the noun form of psallo and thus the object of the psallo is naturally transferred to Psalmos in the same way that the element water in the phrase “baptize with water” is transferred to baptism if the word baptism were used in that same passage. Thus the instrument of music could not be included in the word psalmos since the object of the psallo has alreal been specified in the passage.

When the scholars define the word psalmos as being a psalm sting to “the instrument of music” we must realize that they are giving the applied definition of the word rather than its virgin definition. The instrument of music is not inherent in either psallo or psalmos. This can be illustrated by Thaver’s definition of the word baptizo. “2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water.” He cites Mark 7:4. The only problem is that the element, water, is not inherent in the word baptizo. The instrument of music is not in the word psalmos anymore than water is inherent in the word baptism. This demonstrates that the scholars sometime give the applied meaning of a word rather than iis virgin definition.

None of the translators have ever translated the word psallo, in the New Testament, as meaning to play an instrument of music or of even meaning to sing and play. The silence of the Scriptures with regard to the instrument of music in worship is deafening.

Truth Magazine XX: 38, pp. 605-606
September 23, 1976

By Luther Blackmon

Sometimes I have suspicions that we call names out of spite and vindictiveness. Whoever does that advertises his littleness. But the person who says that we should never call names advertises his ignorance of the true spirit of the New Testament writers. Of course Luke could have said “there was a couple in Jerusalem, a man and his wife, who sold some property and misrepresented the amount they gave, and, for this the Lord killed them.” But for some reason he told us exactly who they were. And Peter said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost . . . ?” I think I know some preachers who are too nice to use the word “lie” . . . that is unless something is told on them personally. One preacher just said that he had no place in his vocabulary for the word “liar.” All I can say is that his vocabulary is not big enough and he is too sweet.

Peter said, “Judas by transgression fell that he might go To his own place” (Acts 1:25). Peter indicated that he had some doubt about Judas’ going to heaven. “What a terrible thing to say. He was judging the poor fellow.” I read an article once which made a feeble attempt to place Judas in a better light than that which is generally cast upon him. However, I doubt that even his champion hopes to meet him “over there.”

Paul tells us that “Elymas” was a “child of the devil,” an “enemy of righteousness.” He told Elymas that! Can’t you just imagine how mortified some of the sophisticated upper-crust would react to that kind of preaching today? I shouldn’t wonder if Paul would get “fired” right off.

John Mark turned back from the work and went not with Paul and Barnabas. Later Paul and Barnabas had such a disagreement over Mark that they split up. Luke says the contention between them was “sharp.” I have known many who said they would not for anything let their “unsaved” friends read a paper in which brethren are having a “sharp contention.”

Wonder if they tear out this chapter of Acts (15:39)? Later on Paul speaks very favorably of Mark. He had redeemed himself, and Paul held no grudges (2 Tim. 4:11).

Apollos preached an imperfect gospel in Ephesus, “knowing only the baptism of JohD.” Aquilla and Pricilla taught him better and he continued his work. Was it necessary to put this in the divine record? Evidently the Holy Spirit thought so (Acts 18:24~26).

Paul said that Peter acted the part of a hypocrite when he was come to Antioch.” Peter was human and made human mistakes and some of them are recorded for all succeeding generations to read, This one is found in Gal. 2:11-13. The word “dissimulation” means hypocrisy.

Paul said, “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world.” He said “Hymaneas and Alexander had made shipwreck of the faith.” Thiat Hymaneas and Philetus “had erred . . . teaching that the resurrection had passed already.”

There are times when gospel preachers ought to be like the old dentist. A young dentist moved to town and put up a sign: “Teeth Extracted Without Pain.” The old dentist put up one that read: “Teeth Extracted Regardless of Pain.” Sometimes it is necessary to name !he sinner as well as the sins. It hurts, but it should.

Truth Magazine XX: 38, p. 603
September 23, 1976