Truth Magazine

By Amos Davenport

Joshua and Caleb were men of faith and action. Their report was an enthusiastic “Let us go up and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.” The other ten spies said, “We be not able to go up against the people for they are stronger than we” (Num. 13). The ten may have been correct in their comparison of the physical strength of the two groups of people, but theirs was a report of excuses rather than faith and action. All twelve of the spies knew that, since the days of Abraham, God had promised to give His people the land. They had recently seen the divine intervention and providence of God in their deliverance from Egyptian bondage and the giving of the Law from the Holy Mount. Joshua and Caleb believed “our God is able” and seemed anxious to see the power of God demonstrated once ‘again. The congregation believed the report of the ten. So God determined that only Joshua and Caleb, from the number of men ,of military age when Israel left Egypt, should be among those receiving the promise.

If human wisdom was to dictate the actions of Israel, there was no desirable option open to them. This they were to learn soon after making the decision to follow the report of the ten. They could not go back to Egypt, the Red Sea was in the way. Even if they did go back, this would mean a return to bondage. They could not stay in the wilderness for very long because they did not have an adequate supply of food or water. They had elected not to go up and possess the land of promise. So, they were completely dependent upon God to care for them, whichever report they believed and followed. In any case their care would be contrary to human wisdom and reasoning. They were cared for as they wandered aimlessly and hopelessly in the wilderness for forty years until a new generation could be raised up that would have the faith to go up and possess the land.

This was written for our learning; will we learn from it? If we are looking for excuses the devil will provide them. If we are interested in an increased faith, God has already provided the means for increasing it. Have we become so caught up with big things, and so enamored with mass communication, the printing press, radio, television and huge auditoriums that we have forgotten that souls are saved one at a time? While we are devising ways of spanning continents with the gospel on the air waves, our next door neighbor may die and go to hell. While some congregations take pride in how many preachers they help to support, there is absolutely no plan for the future of the work at home. Although we are willing to drop a few dollars in the contribution basket on Sunday morning to assist the work elsewhere, are we willing to miss a ball game, a television program, or a “party” to reach the local lost? The present crises in fuel shortages and unemployment could very well be the things that will increase spirituality, if we will but use the additional time and manpower made available by them to the honor and glory of God. Although we may very well have fewer dollars to give into “the treasury” we may have even greater opportunities to give of ourselves, our time, and cur energies. The Lord has no use for our money anyway, except as it is converted to energy and effort to reach the lost.

Already many manufacturing plants are laying off employees by the thousands. What are members of the Lord’s church doing with this additional time? Are you using some of it in studying with your neighbor, friend or fellow employee? Would you knock on that neighbor’s door and invite him to attend the services with you? Would you begin a Bible study in your home and invite him to attend? Would you set up a study in his home? If you do not feel competent to teach the class, no doubt you know someone who will teach it. Would you enroll him in a correspondence study? Brethren, when possible, let us plan the “special efforts” around those times when some have additional time to spend in advertising and participating in those efforts to strengthen ourselves and reach the lost. I am convinced many among us with ability, interest and zeal, merely need a little direction or encouragement to become involved in these things. There are many Joshua’s and Caleb’s in this land and around the world. Their cry -still is, “Let us go up and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.” Unfortunately, they are still far outnumbered by those who “bring an evil report.” Which will characterize us action or excuses?

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, p. 456
May 29, 1975

By Howard See

In a recent, late-night television interview of a snake handling preacher from East Tennessee, the text of Mark 16:9-20 was attacked as being spurious. This was an effort to try to offset the teaching in Mark 16:18, “‘They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them . . . .” The attack on the genuineness of the passage is reminiscent of sectarian arguments in an effort to offset the teaching on baptism being essential to salvation in verse 16. Even if it could be shown that this portion of Mark’s Gospel is spurious, it would help neither those who want to offset Mark 16:18 nor those who wish to offset Mark 16:16. There are other passages that teach that signs and miracles followed the early Christians to confirm the word, just as there are other passages which teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Neither is it necessary to claim that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious in an effort to offset the practice of handling snakes, drinking poison, etc., as applying to Christians today. There are other passages which teach that the miraculous gifts of the spirit were to cease, fail and vanish away (cf. 1 Cor. 13:8). History also confirms that the miraculous signs did cease. It was interesting to note that when a caller pointed out that these miraculous signs were to cease, fail and vanish away, that the host of the show did not give the preacher an opportunity to make a reply.

In regard to the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20, it needs to be be first pointed out that the authenticity of this passage (i.e. the historical accuracy and correctness of its teaching) has never been questioned by scholars. The only question that has been raised as to its genuineness pertains to whether or not it was written by Mark and whether it should be considered a part of Mark’s original manuscript. Since the accuracy and correctness of the teaching cannot be successfully denied, for the passage to be attached to the close of Mark’s Gospel does not render it any less valuable even though some other Apostle or inspired writer should have been its author.

The basis of the spurious argument.is twofold. First, it is claimed to be spurious because the passage is omitted from the Vatican and the Sinaitic Manuscripts. These being two of the older known manuscripts (the Sinaitic dating in the fourth century, around 340 A.D.; the Vatican manuscript also dating in the fourth century, probably around 350 A.D., some think as early as 325 A.D.) and since Mark 16:9-20 is omitted, it is argued that the passage was not a part of Mark’s Gospel. Jerome and some fourth century writers are also quoted to say that the passage was absent in some of the Greek copies of their day. Second, it is said that there are words and phrases found in Mark 16:9-20 that are not found in the rest of Mark’s Gospel. From this it is concluded by some that this passage was written by someone other than Mark. A thorough examination of these arguments, however, will not only show that the passage is authentic in all its details, but will also show that there is no real reason to doubt that it was also written by Mark.

The genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 may be seen from the following:

1. The facts stated in Mark 16:9-20 are mentioned in the Gospels (cf. Luke 8:2; John 20:1-8, etc.) and the promise concerning the signs was fully verified by miracles practiced by the Apostles and Christians as listed in the book of Acts. Heb. 2:4 and other passages further confirm that such signs did follow the believers.

2. Mark 16:9-20 is found in nearly all of the other Ancient Manuscripts. These include the Alexandrian (dated around 450 A.D.) which is next to the Vatican in accuracy and importance.

3. Justin Martyr quoted from Mark 16:9-20 about A. D. 160. Among other second century writers quoting this passage are Irenaeus and Tatian. It was also quoted by Hyppolytus and Dyonisius of Alexandria in the third century. All of these lived and wrote from one hundred to two hundred years earlier than the earliest existing manuscript was written or before Jerome indicated that the passage was not found in some of the Greek manuscripts of his day. The words of Irenaeus indicate that the passage was part of the Gospel of Mark in the second century and that Mark was regarded as its author. .He stated, “But Mark, in the end of his Gospel, says; and the Lord Jesus, after that he had spoken to them was received up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God.” It is therefore apparent that this passage was a part of the Gospel of Mark and was written by Mark.

4. It is interesting to note that all of the ancient versions of the New Testament contain Mark 16:9-20. This of necessity emphasizes that the passage was a part of the Greek text from which these translations were made. Among these versions are the Peshito Syriac, the Old Italic, the Sahidic and the Coptic. All of these existed long before the Vatican and the Sinaitic Manuscripts and long before Jerome. It is altogether unreasonable to argue that since it was omitted from these two manuscripts that it is spurious since all of the Ancient Versions, including those that existed long before these two manuscripts, included it as a part of the text of Mark’s Gospel.

5. Further it seems highly improbable that Mark would have so abruptly closed his Gospel at the end of verse 8. The first eight verses of Mark 16 discuss the resurrection of Christ. Verses 9-11 discuss the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. Verses 12-13 discuss the Lord’s appearance to two disciples on the way to Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:1335). Verses 14-18 discuss the appearance of Jesus to the eleven, state the commission which Jesus gave the disciples to preach the gospel state the conditions of salvation, and promise signs for confirming the Word as being the truth of God. Verses 19-20 of Mark 16 speak of the ascension of Christ and affirm that the Lord confirmed their word with signs as he had promised. What more logical way would there have been for Mark to have brought his Gospel to a close.

6. The same two manuscripts that omit Mark 16:9-20 also omit other passages of scripture. Notably among these are John 7:53-8:11. These same verses are omitted in both manuscripts. Yet those who argue that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious because both manuscripts omit these verses, never argue that John 7:53-8:11 is spurious. When it is remembered that the Monks were using the pages of the Sinaitic Manuscript to light the Monastery fires when Dr. Constantin Tischendorf found them in the “Monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai” in 1844, there seems to be a rather rational explanation as to why this and other passages were not found to be a part of the Manuscript.

7. The forty-seven translators of the Authorized Version, or the King James translation put Mark 16:9-20 in the text. Further the one hundred and one translators of the American Standard Version put Mark 16:9-20 in the text. Dr. Phillip Schaff, who served as president of the American Revision Committee said of Mark 16:9-20, “The section is found in most of the Uncial and in all the existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries as far as examined; and Irenaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing Manuscripts, quotes verse 19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark. A strong intrinsic argument for the genuineness is also derived from the extreme improbability (we may say impossibility) that the evangelist should have intentionally closed his Gospel with `for they were afraid’ ” (Companion to the Greek New Testament, page 190). Alexander Roberts, also an imminent member of the American Revision Committee said, with emphasis, that the author of Mark 16:9-20 was surely “one who belonged to the circle of apostles,” and that it “is inserted, without the least misgiving, as an appendix to that gospel in the Revised Version” (Companion to the English New Testament, page 63).

We have noted that some attempt to argue that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious and was not written by Mark since there are words and phrases found in these last twelve verses of Mark 16 that are not found in the rest of Mark’s Gospel. It has been observed that there are no less than seventeen words and phrases in this passage that are not used elsewhere by Mark. In response to this argument, J. W. McGarvey observed that Prof. John A. Broadus, a Baptist of Greensville, S.C., published in an article in the Baptist Quarterly for 1869, a list of exactly seventeen words and phrases used by Mark in the twelve verses immediately preceding Mark 16:9-20 that are used nowhere else by Mark. Yet critics of Mark 16:9-20 never question the authorship or genuineness of these twelve verses. McGarvey emphasized that the fact that the same argument could be made against the preceding twelve verses “is at once a surprising fact and a startling exposure of the fragile foundation on which this famous critical structure has been erected. It shows that the same use of the Greek Concordance which led to the origin of this criticism, if pushed a little farther, would have smothered it in its birth, and would have saved some distinguished critics from being detected in a flimsy though pretentious fallacy” (Commentary on Mark, page 380). McGarvey applied the same test to the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Luke and found that there are nine words found in these verses which are used by Luke nowhere else in his gospel. Not only so, but four of these words are found nowhere else in the New Testament. However, none of the critics of Mark 16:9-20 never question the authorship or genuineness of authorship of Luke 24:42-53. Other examples of this kind could probably be found in the New Testament. These are sufficient however, to show that this reasoning on the part of the critics is shallow sophistry. That which is spurious is their argument, not the text of Mark 16:9-20. It is evident, therefore, that the voice of scholarship negates the spurious claim. There is absolutely no reasonable basis to claim that Mark 16:9-20 is anything other than the inspired word of God and that it was written by Mark as a part of his Gospel.

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 454-455
May 29, 1975

By Guthrie Dean

Not only does the Bible present the realities of God and Satan, of the church and the world, of good and evil, of the broad way, and the narrow way, of heaven and hell, but it also repeatedly contrasts temporal things and eternal things. I wish to call your attention to a brief study of some of the contrasts mentioned in the New Testament.

In 1 Jn. 2:15, we are admonished, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” When Satan was tempting Christ, he said to the Lord, “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me” (Matt. 4:9). Jesus reminded Martha, who was cumbered about much serving, “Thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her” (Lk. 10:41-42). Material things can be taken away from us. The rich man was overly concerned about “my fruits,” “my barns,” and “my goods.” The Lord stepped in and told him, “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?” (Lk. 12:20). Jesus taught, “And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things” (Lk. 12:29-30). If we get our priorities straight, He will provide the necessary things. He promised, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness: and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). In the parable of the sower, the Lord said that those represented by the seed which fell among the thorns are such as hear the word, “And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful” (Mk. 4:19). We are warned that “the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 Jn. 2:17). For this reason Christians should set their affection “on things above, not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2). “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18).

There are spiritual things required of all children of God. In admonishing brethren to add to their faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity, Peter stated, “For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall …. Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Pet. 1:9-10, 12).

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 452-453
May 29, 1975

By Robert Jackson

(NOTE: The following three articles are by Robert Jackson who has preached in the Nashville area for nearly three decades. He presently works with the Riverside Dr. church. His observations on recent trends in liberalism are especially interesting since he has been watching the movement develop for twenty-five years. His articles reflect history in the making and are history themselves; each was written at the time of a specific event: the first in 1973, the second in 1974, and the third in 1975. We appreciate the opportunity to print them here in this special “Nashville” issue of Truth Magazine. His remarks illustrate the point that he and others have been making throughout the years of the current digression: When the New Testament pattern is thrown overboard, the ship of Zion is left without chart or compass. Anything can happen.)

“The Highland Situation” by Brother B. B. Baxter

The church received a letter from Brother Baxter dated October 1, 1973. Space will not permit me to notice everything that he had to say, but we will sum it up as briefly as possible.

(1) “I shall be glad to try to answer them, as best as I can. ” Brother Baxter admitted that they had received several questions in regard to the Herald of Truth and the Highland situation. He now says he is ready to answer them the best he can. This is exactly what we have been trying to get them to do for years. Just give us a Bible answer for the arrangement such as the Herald of Truth by the Highland Church. I am made to wonder if he will call all of these who now ask questions about the Herald of Truth “Antis.”

(2) Problems. Brother Baxter seems to think they mishandled the firing of Brother E. R. Harper. It is his own personal feeling that Brother Harper should have been retired with honor and with adequate income for life. He then lists other problems such as: the influence of the Radio-Television committee upon the elders. In other words, the committee has the oversight of the elders. This should cause them some concern! The influence of some is soft on the charismatic, Holy Spirit gifts issue. This, of course, should cause him some concern. It seems that they are waiting for a decision about these problems.

(3) The real problem: Don’t drop the contribution. I think Brother Baxter really brings out his true concern when he makes a plea for the elderships not to drop the program. I wonder if he would tell us whose program it is? If it is Highland’s, why would other churches drop it? Let Highland tend to its own program. Other churches have no business supporting the work of Highland unless it can be considered a “mission work.” Surely,; this large church is not On the mission list. If they program belongs to the other churches, why doe-c Highland have the oversight of it (1 Pet. 5:1-3)? Elders; are told to oversee the flock among themselves.

(4) Our attitude. Brother Baxter said their attitude would be one of “watchful waiting.” I am sure this will be the attitude of many. How long will they wait? We are waiting for someone to give chapter and verse fore such being a scriptural arrangement in the first place. Our attitude will be, “We shall see what we shall see!”

“3 Church `Splinters’ Trying for Unity”

The above headline is quoted from the Nashville Tennessean, Wednesday, June 12, 1974, page 11. Their following is quoted from the same article, “The editor is Leroy Garrett who is working in ‘Unity Forums’ to draw members of the Churches of Christ, members of their Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and independent Christian Churches into dialogue sessions.” Well, here we are! Now I wonder what some of the churches of Christ in this city will do. Will they go along with the movement promoted by Brother Garrett? Will they be: ‘Anti” the proposal? It is getting quite close for some, is it not? In fact, it looks like the showdown is at hand. I have felt for some time that such a movement would be made, but I would have never guessed the man leading the movement would have been Brother Garrett. In a case you have forgotten, Brother Garrett is the main who led the movement in this city several years ago which taught that it was a sin for a local church to have a local preacher. Now, he has jumped the fence and gone all the way to accepting people who use instrumental music in worship. What a jump!

I wonder what some of the churches in this area will say if one of the following plans of unity is suggested: (1) The Christian Church and Disciples of Christ give up the Missionary Society and accept the sponsoring church plan. (The only difference between them is th at the Missionary Society is under a Board of Director’s and the sponsoring church is under the eldership of is local church.) (2) The churches in Nashville who favor the sponsoring church and church support of colleges, etc. accept the use of instrumental music if the others give up the missionary society. (Really, they are already united for there is no difference. There is no Bible authority for either.) It is our plea at the Riverside Drive church of Christ for churches to be organized work, and worship with Bible authority. This is our plea for Unity.

Greater Nashville Area Campaign for Christ

The church at Riverside Drive received some advertisement about the “Greater Nashville Area Campaign for Christ.” No doubt this effort will be received by the majority of churches in this area as a great and wonderful work-without considering if such is in harmony with the Word of God. This is what I am concerned about at this time. Is such an effort in keeping with the Scriptures? Remember that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). The church must act by the authority of Christ-by the authority of His Word. The church of Christ does not have the right to change a law that God has made, nor make a law that God has not made. Keep this in mind as we note a few things:

(1) Under the oversight of the Radnor elders. The letter stated that this work is being done under the oversight of the Radnor elders. Question for the Radnor elders: Is this your work or the work of other churches? If this is the work of Radnor and her elders, then where do they get the authority to bring other churches under their oversight to do Radnor’s work? If it is the work of other churches, then where do the elders at Radnor get the authority to oversee the work of those other churches? In fact, where do the Radnor elders get the authority to oversee anything other than the work at Radnor? Listen carefully to what the apostle Peter had to say about this issue: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Pet. 5:2). The Radnor church acts contrary to the Word of God when she takes the oversight of the work of other churches. If the elders of the Radnor Church can supply the scripture for taking the oversight of the work of other churches, then I hope she will step forth and show where it is. Will she do it? We shall see what we shall see!

(2) No stopping place. You would think that brethren would learn from past departures that there is no stopping place. If we can do this without Bible authority, then we can add instruments of music to worship. We can, as some have, build gyms, etc. This lack of respect for God’s Word is what led to the movement that is now in our city that asserts that some can speak “in tongues” and perform miracles. What does Radnor tell these brethren when they say we do not need Bible authority for such action? What will Radnor tell them if they ask for Bible authority for her present action in this “campaign”? It is indeed a shame that brethren let their zeal act without knowledge.

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 451-452
May 29, 1975