Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

For the past two weeks we have been writing on the theme of “who should be baptized?” It was plainly seen from the book of God, and also from the book of reason, that only an individual with the ability to be taught, to understand the gospel of Christ, to believe in Christ as the Son of God, and to make confession of their faith in Christ with their mouth, should be baptized. This eliminated the practice of baptizing infants.

Inasmuch as there was a variety of opinions as to who should be baptized, we diligently and sincerely sought the answer from the Bible, and believe that we have a clearer understanding of that problem now, than before. But there is an equally wide diversity of opinion as to how one should be baptized. Men are at variance as to what constitutes the act of baptism. What is the action of baptism is the problem to which We have addressed ourselves.

“Modes” of Baptism

The words “baptism” and “baptize” have come to be used rather carelessly in our society. We use them to signify thoughts that they never conveyed in their original sense. Words are nothing more than means of expressing thoughts. When one uses the word baptize, the individual or individuals to whom he may, be speaking might have a number of different conceptions. In other words, the word baptize is used in different senses and to refer to different acts.

When one is to be baptized today, he usually is given his preference of three acts. Sometime ago, I attended a denominational meeting. After the visiting speaker finished his lesson, the local preacher extended, the invitation to those in the audience to come down to the front and “Join the church -of their choice, and be baptized as you please.” He meant that you might become a member of any of the several denominations that you might choose, or’ that you might select ‘the particular “mode of baptism” that you preferred. By the different “modes of baptism,” denominationalists mean that you might be baptized by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. You may obey the Lord’s command by being buried in the water, by having water poured upon you, or by having just a few drops of water sprinkled on you, according to most denominationalists.

Inasmuch as we have mentioned the different “modes of baptism,” it might be well for us to make a timely observation regarding the expression. Actually there is no such thing as a “mode of baptism.” In Ephesians 4, Paul said, “There is one body and one spirit, even also as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is above all, through all, and in you all.” Paul emphasized that there is but one baptism. Yet men speak of the different “modes of baptism.” The Bible knows nothing of “modes of baptism.” It only speaks of baptism, period. It seems to me that we all ought to be able to recognize and admit how many one is, and if we do that, we must denounce our choice expression, “The different modes of baptism.” If an act is baptism, it is not a mode of baptism, and if it is a mode, it is not baptism.. So Paul said that there is but one baptism. If that expression means anything at all, it means that two of these acts commonly called baptism, are not baptism at all. Our problem in this lesson is to determine which is baptism, and which is not. If sprinkling is the one baptism, then pouring and immersion are not, for there is “one baptism.” If pouring is the one baptism, then sprinkling and immersion are not. If immersion is the one baptism, then sprinkling and pouring are not. There is but one! So you see all this speaking about the different “modes of baptism” is the language of Ashdod. It is nothing but deception.

One point that has always been rather puzzling to me is this. These denominational preachers very readily and plainly inform their audiences that it would be perfectly all right for them to be sprinkled if they should choose to be, but as yet, I have not found a single preacher who was himself sprinkled. What is good enough for you is not good enough for them. Another preacher told me one time that he had been looking for eighteen years for one of these preachers who teach and preach and practice sprinkling who had been sprinkled, but had failed to find a single one. I am not affirming that there are no preachers who were sprinkled for baptism, but I never have met one. It seems that even though they tell others that God does not care whether you are sprinkled or immersed, they just do not want to take the chance with their own souls. They will take the chance with yours though, and tell you that it would be all right with the Lord.

Often times people will argue that sprinkling is baptism. They know that it is baptism for the dictionary says so. If you will look in the dictionary you will find the word baptize defined like this: “to dip or immerse in water, or to pour or sprinkle water upon, as a religious rite” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, fifth edition). But friend, is this a true definition of the word as it was used by our Lord? When he gave the command for the apostles to go teach the word of God, and told them to baptize those that received their word, did HE tell the apostles to sprinkle or pour water upon them, or to immerse them? Was not the Lord sufficiently plain in what He said? Why the difference between the dictionary’s definition and the Bible’s? Here is the difference and the reason why: the dictionary defines a word as it is used at present. Today a large number of the people think the word “baptize” means to dip, pour or sprinkle, and therefore the dictionary says this is a definition of the word. It does not define the word in its original meaning, but in its acquired definition. If we should continue to use the word baptism, and should say that it refers to a certain kind of fishing rod, and enough people used the word that way, it would mean that the dictionary would have to give this as one of the meanings of the word baptize. No argument as to the meaning of the original word baptize can be made from the dictionary.

The Original Meaning of “Baptize”

The word “baptize” was not an English word, originally. It is a Greek word that has been Anglicized. For a true definition of the word one would not look in an English dictionary, but in a Greek dictionary. One must look at a Greek lexicon to find actually the act referred to by the Lord when He commanded the disciples to baptize those that responded to their teaching. One may find what this Anglicized Greek word has come to mean in the English language by looking into an English dictionary. This is the reason that one finds baptism defined as sprinkling, pouring, or immersion in Webster’s dictionary. This definition certainly did not come from the original word itself.

Let us now notice the definition of the word baptidzo5, the Greek word from which our English word, “baptize” is derived. The greatest of the Greek scholars define the word as “an immersion,” and only as that. The word cannot mean to sprinkle or to pour. But that you might not have only my word for this, let me now cite some of the great Greek scholars. Mr. Robinson, who was not a member of the Lord’s church, but was a member of a church that practiced baptism by sprinkling and pouring said, baptidzi means “to immerse, to sink; for example, spoken of ships, galleys, etc. In the New Testament, to wash, to cleanse by washing; to wash one’s self, to bathe, perform ablution.” Liddell and Scott said that haptidz6 meant “to dip in or under water, of ships, to sink or disable them.” Baptism6 means “a dipping in water, ablution.” Baptistas, the word for Baptist (as in John the Baptist), meant “one that dips, a baptizer, the Baptist.” Henry Thayer defined the word translated “baptize” as “to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge,. . . to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water . . . to wash oneself, bathe, overwhelm. Baptisma (means) New Testament immersion, submersion” (Taken from T. W. Brents, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, pp. 266-272.) 1 have in my possession the definitions given by over one hundred separate Greek scholars as to the original meaning of the word translated in our common English versions of the Bible, baptize, and not one of them defines it as anything except immersion, a dipping, plunging, submerging, submersion, emerging, to cover up, to overwhelm. They all say that the word is such that it could not be translated by sprinkling or pouring. It just so happens that the Bible in so many words tells us what the act of baptism is, and we are going to note those passages separately in later articles. But we are trying now to show that the word cannot mean anything except immersion, and we have suggested proof from over one hundred separate Greek scholars proving this to be true.

Why Some Do Not Immerse

Briefly, let us now notice some of the reasons why men began practicing some act other than immersion and calling it baptism. Tt is almost universally conceded by all authorities that immersion was the only act of baptism as recorded by the New Testament.

There are several different reasons offered for using sprinkling as a substitute for immersion. The first time anyone was ever sprinkled, of which we have any record, was in the year 251 A. D. Nov’atian was the schismatically chosen bishop of the church at Rome. Practically all during his tenure as bishop of that church, there was controversy as to whether he should be recognized as bishop or not, for he had been sprinkled, and not immersed. At the time that Novation was sprinkled he was very sick, and not expected to live. Therefore, lest he should die unbaptized, and outside the church, it was decided that he should be sprinkled. In other words, sprinkling was first practiced because it was more convenient. Others prefer sprinkling because it does not necessitate having so much water, and a baptistry can be eliminated. Too, it is more convenient in baptizing their babies to have them sprinkled, rather than immersed. This is the primary reason why sprinkling is so popular today. Do you think, though, that God is well pleased with this “substitute baptism” just because it is more convenient for man? Man must do what God said do, exactly as God said do it, or suffer the consequences.

Some time ago, a man told me that he was glad that he could feel that he had a God big enough to overlook such a minor detail as how he chose to be baptized. Men speak of choosing the church of their choice, and being baptized as they please just as though the Lord had neither choice nor preference in the matter. The man that does not do the commandments of the Lord as the Lord said do them, has not obeyed him at all.

Men sometimes say that sprinkling inust be acceptable by the Lord for it would have been impossible to have baptized three thousand people, by immersion, as the Scripture implies was done on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Sometimes these people will say that there was not enough water in Jerusalem to immerse three thousand people, but now geographical finds have silenced this claim. Now they say that there was not enough time to have immersed that many in one day. Yet this too must be invalidated, for there have been many modern day instances in which preachers of the gospel have immersed people rapidly enough to have assisted in immersing three thousand in one day on Pentecost. There were twelve apostles. Men today have baptized sixty people an hour, or one a minute. At that rate, the twelve apostles could have immersed the entire group in about four hours. Still, there is nothing in the Scripture that would forbid some of those who were just baptized from assisting in the baptizing of others. These arguments just do not prove what their exponents would have them prove.

Conclusion

The fact remains that the word used by our Lord, when he told the disciples to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” means that they were to be immersed. It is Dot enough to replace the Lord’s command with those things that you and I had rather do, or with something that might be more convenient for us. The Lord will accept nothing short of complete obedience, and to sprinkle or pour as a substitute for immersion, is not to obey the Lord’s command. It is our prayer that those of you who have substituted what you had rather do for what the Lord said do, will repent of it. The faith that saves is the faith that obeys!

Truth Magazine XX: 37, pp. 579-582
September 16, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

Form the U.S.S. Saratoga New York “What is hades?”

Reply:

The King James Version (KJV) of the Scriptures has muddled the understanding of many regarding the words “hades” and “hell.” The KJV translates “hades” as “hell” and “grave” (Lk. 16:23; Acts 2:27; 1 Cor. 15:55). The word gehenna or “hell,” the place of everlasting punishment, the take of fire and brimstone, is not the same as hades, but the KJV uses the word “hell” to translate both. The American Standard Version (ASV) makes the distinction clear between “hades” and “hell.” A comparison of the texts which use “hell” in the KJV and the ASV will serve to clarify the issue.

“Terms Explained”

“Sheol is a Hebrew word which is used numerous times in the Old Testament and is translated hell 32 times in the KJV. The ASV translates it by the word hell 14 times. Contrary to popular opinion, this work does not refer to what we mean when we use the word hell. Tlie word sheol has reference to the unseen world where the dead above and is equivalent to the Greek word hades (ISBE). There is no idea of unconsciousness, punishment or “hell” in the word.

“Hades is transliterated in the ASV but is never translated hell, but it is translated Hell in the KJV which causes considerable confusion in the minds of people. Thayer (an eminent Greek scholar) defines the word to mean the unseen world which is the realm of the dead. It occurs four times in the gospels (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Lk. 10:15; 16:23).

“The Greek word hades and the Hebrew word sheol are equivalent. A study of two passages will demonstrate this. The Psalmist predicts in Psalms 16:10 that the Christ’s soul would not be left in Sheol. This passage is quoted in Acts 2:27 and the sheol is rendered by the word hades. When Luke, the inspired writer of Acts, quoted the Old Testament word sheol, he used the word hades to translate it. (Another example is seen by comparing Hos 13:14 and 1 Cor. 15:55-LRH). Thus the two words have the same meaning.

“There is no idea of the punishment of hell in either term, though the wicked are tormented in hades (Luke 16:19-31). Christ now has the power over death and hades (Rev. 1:18) and will cast both of them into the lake of fire at the judgment (Rev. 20:14).

“The Term Gehenna”

“This word occurs some 12 times in the New Testament and is uniformly translated hell. It refers to the eternal punishment (Matt. 18:8,9; Lk. 9:47,48). This word is a transliteration from the Hebrew ‘Valley of Hinnom’ and refers to a place of refuse where once children had been burned to Moloch (2 Kings 23:10). It was a buring place of punishment. to Jews (Jeremiah 7:32).

“From this study of the words, one can easily see that there would not be so much confusion had the original words been uniformly translated by the appropriate words. The word gehenna occurs in the following passages: Mat. 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk. 9:43,45,47; Lk. 12:5; Jas. 3:6. The word Hades occurs in the following passages and is translated hell and grave in the KJV: Matt. 11:23~ 16:18; Lk. 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; 1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,t4” (Clinton D. Hamilton).

The Rich Man, Lazarus, Jesus, and Hades

The rich man in Luke 16:23 died. His body was buried in a grave on earth. Still. the sacred narrative says, “In hell (hades) lie lift up his eyes, being in torments.” Lazarus, the !)eggar, died, “and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom,” where he was “comforted” (Lk. 16:22,25). There was “a great gulf” which separated the rich man and Lazarus. It was “fixed,” impassable (Lk. 16:26).

When Jesus died, His body went to the grave of Joseph of Ariniathea (Matt. 27:57-60). Jesus’ soul went to hell, or hades (Acts 2:27, 31). Now, are we to suppose that Jesus was “tormented” in hades? The Bible says, according to the KJV, that He went to “hell” as did the rich man (Lk. 16:23; Acts 2:27). Remember that “hell” as hades, not gehenna-hell, the place of eternal punishment. See the ASV. Jesus had told one of the thieves on the cross, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.” So, “paradise” is a section of hades. It is the place where Lazarus’ soul was located. It is a place of comfort and pleasure. The other compartment of hades is a place of torment. It is called tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4), which means “a place of punishment.” This is the segment of hades where the rich man’s soul was deposited.

“In Hades then, the receptacle of all the dead, there are rewards and punishments. There is a paradise or an Abraham’s Bosom, and there is a tartarus, in which the evil spirits are chained, and the spirits of wicked men engulfed. Hence, the rich man in tartarus, and Lazarus in Abraham’s Bosom, were both in Hades. Jesus and the converted thief were together in Hades, while they were together in Paradise” (Alexander Campbell).

Truth Magazine XX: 37, p. 587
September 16, 1976

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

I have before me a booklet written by various authors entitled, Teaching The Bible. The introduction and first chapter deal with the Bible class situation. A stand is taken in opposition to this practice among churches of Christ. The authors of these two sections use the prejudicial expression “Sunday School” throughout with the same effect that a person would use “anti”. I know of no sound brethren who defend the modern “Sunday School” arrangement with its organization apart from or within the church. We stand opposed to any organization larger than or smaller than the local church doing the work assigned to the church. What we do defend are Bible Classes which do not constitute another organization. The Bible Classes we defend are functional arrangements of the collective under the oversight of the respective eldership. If and when the class arrangement becomes an organization with its own laws, treasury or officers within or without the local church, I too, will oppose it.

Delos V. Johnson, in his introduction says that “the Sunday School occupies a central role in the teaching programs of most churches”. Unless he is talking about the liberal churches, I deny this. I cannot speak for the liberal churches. I can certainly say that I do not know of a single conservative church that has a modern “Sunday School”. If Brother Johnson knows of one then let him inform us of such. What he should have said is that “the Bible Class arrangement occupies a central role”. I repeat: conservative churches reject the “Sunday School Organization” method of teaching. That the booklet uses “Sunday School” to mean the modern “Sunday School” is obvious from reading G. B. Shelburne’s section (first chapter), “Teaching The Bible Without Sunday Schools.” Shelburne identifies his “Sunday School” concept as the one that originated with Robert Raikes, an Englishman, in 1780. He applies this to the Bible Class arrangement. He should know that there is no parallel between the two.

The booklet likewise opposes women teachers (p. 6). It is interesting that on page two in the introduction, 2 Timothy 2:2 is appealed to as an authority for instructing teachers to teach. But observe that this passage authorizes women to teach as well. The passage says, “and the thing that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also”. The term “men” is translated from the Greek anthropos, which is defined as “a human being, whether male or female” (Thayer, P. 46). He further says, “with reference to the genus or nature, without the distinction of sex”. Another definition reads as follows: “generally of a human being, male or female, without reference to sex or nationality” (Vine, Vol. III, p. 33).

This demonstrates that men (male or female) are required to teach. In the case of John 7:22, the context identifies the sex as male. In this passage anthropos may be used to refer to man, excluding women (Thayer, p. 45). The context of 2 Timothy 2:2 does not contextually identify the sex as male. Therefore anthropos is used without distinction of sex, male or female.

Those who argue that women cannot teach Bible classes in the church building cannot find room or sphere in which a woman can obey 2 Timothy 2:2, as it pertains to the work of a local church.

The only chapter dealing with the subject at hand is chapter one, and as suggested it is written by G. B. Shelburne, Jr. of Amarillo, Texas. He offers four arguments against Bible Classes and Women Teachers which he labels “Scriptural Objections To The Sunday School”. First, he says, “We believe that the New Testament sets forth a definite law of procedure for all public teaching assemblies of the church: men only as teachers, speaking one by one to all of the learners in one group, with the women in silence”. He cites two passages: 1 Corinthians 14:31-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

The Corinthian passage has no bearing on Bible classes today for the simple fact that it is dealing with spiritual gifts in the whole assembly and is to be taken with chapters 12-13. This passage simply does not apply to group or private teaching without removing it from its context. It has reference to the “whole church” coming together in “one place”. Furthermore, the women of 1 Corinthians 14 applies to the wives of the prophets. Weymouth’s translation (The New Testament, In Modern Speech, third edition, 1909) renders “let your women keep silence” (KJV), “let married women be silent” (p. 467). Verse 35, where the husbands are referred to, further confirms this conclusion. And then there is the word “silence”. This word means to “keep silence, hold one’s peace” (Thayer, P. 574). It means in verse 34 exactly what it means in verse 28 and 30. Absolute silence! This is not the way “silence” is used in 1 Timothy 2. The silence of I Corinthians 14 would forbid a woman to sing in the assembly. Remember, when one sings, he teaches and admonishes (Col. 3:16).

The heart of his argument on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is that it “does not say that a woman may teach as long as she does not do it ‘in such a way as to usurp authority over the man’ ” (p. 7). He is mistaken in this. Look at the passage: “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be silence”. Basically there are two things of significance in this passage: (1) Silence, and (2) teaching over the man.

Women may teach (Acts 2:18; 18:26; 21:9; Tit. 2:34). “Silence” must therefore be qualified. She certainly is not to remain silent in the assembly in the sense of being restricted to utter a sound. She is commanded to sing, and singing involves teaching and admonishing (Col. 3:16).

On the word “silence” in this passage, Thayer says, “quietness” (Gr. heschia), “descriptive of the life of one who stays home doing his own work, and does not officially meddle with the affairs of others” (p.. 281). Vine says (Vol. 111, p. 242), “tranquillity arising from within, causing no disturbance to others.” The context therefore does not mean absolute silence, but rather a tranquil, quiet life. This is not restricted to the assembly and therefore one cannot possibly throw in 1 Corinthians 14, for the “silence” here does not apply, as suggested above.

With reference to “teaching over the man”, it should be observed that: (1) “Teach” means “to teach or speak in public assembly” (Bagster). To “deliver didactic discourses” (Thayer). There is more involved than simply to impart knowledge. (2) “Over the man” is a prepositional phrase modifying “to teach” and “to usurp”. The two latter expressions qualify “over the man”. Women can teach and have authority over some people (Tit. 2:3-5; 2 Tim. 1:5). But she cannot have authority over the man.

Shelburne’s second objection to Bible Classes is: “We find no divine authority to deviate from the procedure for teaching services of the church that is set up by command and example in God’s word”, (p. 8). This objection is meaningless for the simple fact that he has not demonstrated from the Scriptures that “one man” is to speak in one assembly which is undivided. In other words, he has not offered a valid objection to the Bible Class arrangement!

His third argument is as follows: “those who occupied the office of public teachers in the early church are listed along with apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11), and those who occupied these offices were men”. This is presented as an argument against women teachers. What he overlooks is that there were women among the prophets in New Testament times. “. . . Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts 21:8-9). The writer cannot say that all who occupied the office of a prophet were men. Away goes his contention!

The final argument made in the booklet is simply this: “we believe that the apostles set up a norm for the church for all time” (p. 8). The conclusion is that “the Spirit did not guide them into the use of classes and women teachers in public teaching services of the church”. This writer certainly agrees that the apostles set up the norm for the church. Furthermore, I agree that women cannot teach in the public or worship service of the church. However, we have already established that women can teach in the Bible Class arrangement within the framework of the local church and in other places as long as she does not teach over the man.

Shelburne then offers some “Difficulties and Dangers Involved In The Sunday School” (p. 8). I do not see that these have any bearing in the Bible Class arrangement. As suggested above, as long as the Bible Class arrangement is kept as a functional arrangement of the local church, these dangers simply do not exist. He simply cannot take the dangers associated with the denominational Sunday School and apply them to the Bible class situation under the eldership of the local church.

The booklet concludes its objection to Bible Classes and women teachers by saying, “There Is a Better Way” (p. 10). Applying the Sunday School to the Bible Class arrangement, the author says, “the early church, to which this system was unknown, had the greatest success and the most phenomenal growth that the church has ever known”. However divided groups were not unknown to the early church. Remember, the issue centers around place, i.e., a plurality of classes under one roof. One can teach from “house to house” (Acts 20:20) and even two arrangements under separate roofs would be scriptural. But when the two classes come together under one roof, this arrangement becomes sinful, we are told. To put it another way, the objection is in opposition to a divided assembly, i.e., a group smaller than a previously assembled group retiring to another section of the building. The contention is that this constitutes another organization through which the church does its work.

The New Testament does teach that it is scriptural to conduct Bible Classes among several groups at the same time and that it is scriptural for a group to retire from a previously assembled meeting of the church. Space will permit only one example. Look at Acts 15:4-6 and observe that the controversy over circumcision at Antioch necessitated taking the matter up with the church at Jerusalem since those who introduced the issue were from the church there (vv. 13). When Paul, Barnabas and certain other brethren arrived in Jerusalem, “they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders” (v. 4). After the church met to consider and discuss the matter, the apostles and elders “came together for to consider of the matter” (v. 6). Thus from a meeting of the whole church at Jerusalem (including the apostles and elders), the apostles and elders divided and separated themselves in order to reconsider the matter among themselves.

Conclusion

The booklet under review, Teaching the Bible, is not the strongest defense of the non-Bible Class and women teachers’ position that this writer has seen. Since the booklet has no publisher stated in the foremat I assume it is published by Gospel Tidings. You may obtain a free copy of the booklet by writing them at P.O. Box 21, South Houston, Texas 77587. I believe that in this writing with space permitting, we have given the booklet a fair review.

Truth Magazine XX: 36, pp. 560-570
September 9, 1976

By Denny A. Diehl

I was recently conversing with a Christian who had seven years previous ‘put on Christ.’ We were talking concerning denominational doctrines and the use (or misues) of the Greek language by some groups when translating. He was amazed that I had been a Christian for a period of four years and prior to that I had had virtually no Biblical teaching, but yet I was acquainted with these things. (Allow me to state that I am not trying to compliment myself because I am quite aware of my intellectual shortcomings.) It has been apparent to me in the short time that I have been a part of Christ’s church that many Christians are complacent with studying the Bible only twice a week (if then) and are not concerned with pressing on to a greater understanding of the Truth that has set us free from sin.

Dull Of Hearing

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews faced this same situation. He was writing to the Hebrews how that Christ was “a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:10). “Concerning him” he had “much to say,” but to his dismay it was “hard to explain” because they had become “dull of hearing” (Heb. 5:11). The word that is translated dull is nothros. It means ‘sluggish,’ ‘obtuse,’ ‘slow moving in mind,’ and ‘mental listlessness.’ It can be used of a person who has the imperceptive and lethargic nature of a stone (Wni. Barclay). These people had become lazy in their responsibilities to themselves and to God. ‘You have become’ shows that they had not always been in that state of dullness. There probably had been a time when these Hebrew Christians had searched the Scriptures with diligence, rejoicing in their new-found faith. They had had their attention aroused and their thoughts exercised when they had first heard the preaching of the gospel, but since that time it had become commonplace to them and had long ceased to be exciting to them. They had become spiritual sluggards. Turn to Proverbs 24:30-34 and read: “I passed by the field of the sluggard, and by the vineyard of the man lacking sense; and behold, it was completely overgrown with thistles, its surface was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down. When I saw, I reflected upon it; I looked, and received instruction. ‘A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest,’ then your poverty will conic as a robber, and your want like an armed man.” This passage has spiritual application for the person who has become ‘dull of hearing.’ When we forsake the command given in 2 Peter 1:5,10, in that we are to be “applying all diligence” and “be all the more diligent” then we are like the man who is ‘lacking sense.’ Our spiritual lives will be ‘completely overgrown with thistles’ and ‘covered with nettles’ so that the ‘stone wall’ of the gospel that has protected us from “the corruption that is in the world” (2 Pet. 1:4) is ‘broken down.’

Brethren, how this is true of us today. Christians who have had the seed of the gospel sown in their hearts (Matt. 13:22), but because of the thorns of worldly worry and deceitful riches that were there to choke out the word, they became unfruitful (dull of hearing), and then their ‘poverty will come as a robber.’ But this all arises because Christians become ‘dull of hearing.’ They are tired of hearing the same old gospel preached, and studying the Bible has become a burden to them; they have left their first love (Rev. 2:4). The love of the truth has grown old and slipped away and the writer of Hebrews describes the results of that person in 6:4-8.

You Ought To Be Teachers

The writer substantiates his charge against them in v. 11, when he writes in v. 12, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for some one to !each you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” How many Christians are there in the world today who have not “increased in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10) since they were “like newborn babes, longing for the pure milk of the word, that by it” they “may grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:22). Brethren, we have an epidemic on our hands of spiritual drowsiness. Don’t let the contentment of ‘a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest’ overtake us, but let us receive “the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

‘For by this time you ought to be teachers’ is another way of saying: Consider how long you have been Christians, how long you have been partakers of the Divine Truth, and consider the growth that should have been accomplished on your part by now, even to the point that you should be helping others to a deeper understanding of the Truth.

Let us examine the situation. Most probably among these Hebrew Christians were some who had been called to the Lord on that first Pentecost 30 some years before when “Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them” (Acts 2:14) the gospel of Christ. “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). And it says that “they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). A little later “Peter and John were going up to the temple” (Acts 3:1) when Peter healed a man “lame from his mother’s womb” (Acts 3:2). This gave opportunity for preaching and because of it, “many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (Acts 4:4). Here we see that “the disciples were increasing in number” (Acts 6:1) to the extent that, as is seen in chapter 6 of Acts, it was easy to get lost in the crowd. Later, “a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts 8:1). This left a small church behind in Jerusalem, but it was attended by the apostles, and such men as Barnabas and Paul (Acts 9:27), Silas (Acts 15:22), and an eldership which included James, the Lord’s brother (Acts 15). Now, if there ever was a church in which a Christian could just sit back and let the leaders do the work, it seems that this would have to be the one. It certainly would have been easy to let the apostles, elders, and teachers do all the preaching and studying of God’s word. Even though we can see them starting out with great enthusiasm after their conversion related to us in Acts 2, it is understandable how they could lose it, when it is taken into consideration all the talented men that were serving the Lord in that congregation. With all the training that they had available to them, they should have, at least by this time, been teachers, How many are there of us who fall into this category? How many are there of us who have not taken it upon ourselves to study God’s word because it is easy to let the preacher, elders, and teachers do it for us? How many are there of us who are called upon to teach a class (or should be called upon, but because of our lack of knowledge we are not) but have to refuse because we are not, by this time, teachers.

You Need Some One To Teach You

Instead of teaching the word by the time that they should have been ready, they were, in fact, in “need again for some one to teach” them “the elementary principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12). Spiritual slothfulness not only prevents progress in the Christian’s spiritual life, but it produces retrogression. These Hebrew Christians had failed to do what Peter commanded: “Supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; and in your knowledge, selfcontrol, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, Christian love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or shortsighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins” (2 Pet. 1:5-9). This was the condition of the Hebrews; after they had believed in Christ, they failed to grow into Christ. A person can lose recollection of knowledge unless he uses it. They had been stagnant for such a long period of time that they needed some one to sit down with them and tutor them through “the elementary principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12).

These ‘elementary principles’ are the rudiments or the foundation which must be laid for the person to become a disciple of Christ. The word used here for elementary is stoicheia. “In grammar it means the letters of the alphabet, the ABC; in physics it means the four basic elements of which the world is composed; in geometry it means the elements of proof like the point and the straight line; in philosophy it means the first principles with which the student begins” (Win. Barclay). The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was deplored at the condition of these Christians. They had been Christians for years and still needed to be taught those basics with which a person begins his spiritual life. Let us draw a picture: Imagine a normal man, 30 years of age, sitting in a kindergarten class still learning his ABC’s. It would certainly be funny if it was not so pathetic. Here is a person who after 25 years has still not taken it upon himself to learn. Do we have any Christians who are 25 spiritual years old who are in the same condition?

The Jews said to Jesus, “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world’ ” (Jn, 6:31-33). When the children of Israel were being led out of Egypt by Moses, they came to the wilderness of Sin. It was at this time that God gave them manna from heaven. “There was a layer of dew around the camp. When the layer of dew evaporated, behold, on the surface of the wilderness there was a fine flake-like thing, fine as the hoarfrost on the ground. When the sons of Israel saw it, they said to one another, ‘What is it?’ For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, ‘It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.'” (Ex. 16:13-15). God was providing for their physical sustenance, just as He is providing for our spiritual sustenance, with bread from heaven. We have the bread that gives life, but we have to use it. Bread cannot penetrate into our system by osmosis, it has to be eaten and digested; so it is with spiritual bread. It will not do anybody any good when this ‘bread of life’ just sits on a shelf or a table; it has to be used. Look what happened when Moses told them to use up the manna. “They did not listen to Moses, and some left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and became foul” (Ex. 16:20). When bread is not used, it spoils. The manna bred worms because it was not used-are there any worms in your Bible? Have you checked lately?

Brethren, let us grow up in the word, “let us press on to maturity” (Heb. 6:1), and “grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2). May God give us the strength to take the advice of the proverbist when he says: “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat” (Prov. 13:4).

Truth Magazine XX: 36, pp. 567-568
September 9, 1976