Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

God, being a rational Being, has a design or purpose in all that He does. It is a fact admitted by almost all, that the church is the product of God’s eternal purpose. Since God is the author of the church, we can therefore expect God to have certain purposes to be accomplished by the church. We want to study the New Testament to learn for what purposes the church is here. The church is not a “do-nothing” organization, although the inactivity of some members of the church might indicate that they think it is. It is to be an organization of action.

What is God’s purpose for the church? Is it revealed or not? If God has not told us what his purpose for the church is, man has no duty toward that purpose. If God had not specified what the work of the church is, then any work in which it engages will be permissible. But all admit there are some things the church cannot do. It cannot do wrong, and still have God’s sanction. So we must look into the charter of the divine organization. The New Testament will tell us what this New Testament organization is to do, and what it is not to do. The church does have a mission, and this mission is revealed!

Preach the Gospel

First and foremost, the church is an evangelistic organization. Its work is to preach the gospel. Numerous New Testament passages indicate that the church is to preach the gospel. This is plainly taught in 1 Tim. 3:15. God’s eternal wisdom is to be made known through the church. God’s plan to save man through the sacrifice of Christ, which was purposed before the worlds were founded, is to be declared to all men by the church. Preaching is the mission of the church (1) The church is God’s preaching agency. The church is God’s missionary society.

(2) The church is God’s sowing agency. In Matt. 13, we find the kingdom of heaven likened unto a man who sowed good seed. It is to the church that God has given the duty of spreading the seed throughout the world. And, in Luke 8:11, Jesus tells us that this seed is the word of God. It is the church’s duty to see that the word of God is sown into the hearts of men throughout the world

(3) The church is God’s sending agency. In Acts 11:22-23, we read, “And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch: who, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.” The church sent forth these preachers. In Acts 13:2-3, we have the record of a similar instance. It reads, “And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” The church sent away those gospel preachers, as instructed by the Holy Spirit.

(4) The church is God’s supporting agency. It is the work of the church to support the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Tim. 3:14-15, Paul says: “these things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” The church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” This expression means that the church – is that which stands under the truth It is that which supports, which holds up before the world, the saving truth of God’s word. We end numerous instances recorded in the New Testament in which churches served in this capacity. They were the pillar of the truth, in that they preached the gospel themselves, and they also supported the truth by financially supporting gospel preachers. Paul commends the Philippian church for their support of him in the gospel. He says, “And ye yourselves know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need” (Phil. 4:15, 16). So the church is God’s agency to support the gospel.

We see this same truth taught in the Revelation letter when the church is described as (5) God’s candlestick. In speaking of the seven golden candlesticks, John says “the seven candlesticks are seven churches” (Rev. 1:20). The candlesticks were lampstands, . or that which held forth the light. Jesus Christ is the light of the world. Jesus said, “When I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (Jn. 9:5). It is the work of the members of the church to see that the light of Christ shines upon all men. Jesus told his disciples to “let your light so shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).

The importance of this part of the work of the church is seen when we remember that Paul says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Jesus commands that we go forth and teach all nations, preaching the gospel to every creature. Paul says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). When members of the Lord’s church come to a full realization of the fact that people are lost and dying, yea, even on their way to hell, because they know not the gospel of the Lord Jesus, they will become increasingly more zealous in their effort to fill the world with the soul-saving message.

Edify the Church

It also is a part of the work of the church to build itself up. We are listing this as a second thing that the church is to do, but actually it is but a second part of the first part of its mission. Edifying the church is but another part of the preaching of the gospel. Some people want to make a drastic distinction between preaching the gospel to the alien sinners, and, in teaching the members of the church. But the work of the church, insofar as teaching is concerned, is to teach the gospel, both to those within the church and to those outside it. The church needs to have the gospel preached to it, the same as those without the church. Of course, the church needs different parts of the gospel preached than those outside the church. Those who are not members of the church need to be taught what to do to be saved, so that the Lord will add them to the church. Those who are members of the church need to be taught. how to live the Christian life, so they can remain in favor with the Lord. Paul was ready to peach the gospel to the saints in Rome. He said “I am debtor both to the Greeks and the Barbarians, both to, the wise and the foolish. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are in Rome” (Rom. 1:14, 15). Again he says to the Corinthians, “Now I make known .unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you” (1 Cor. 15:1). So the gospel was preached to the church.

One has not attained the full measure of his growth when he becomes a member of the church. Peter says, “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). In order for one to obey this command, instruction must be given to him. Listen to Paul’s comments concerning Christ’s provisions for our growth in Christ Jesus. “And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; but speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:11-16). So it is apparent, I trust, that the church must grow. And in order for it to grow, teaching must be done. So another part of the divine mission of the church is that it must teach. itself, so it may grow.

Care for the Needy

We also read that in the New Testament, the church had as a part of its work, the care of certain needy people. There were times when certain members of the church had not enough to live upon in one part of the world, and other brethren would send to their need. When a famine came upon the church in Judea, the brethren in Antioch, sent to relieve them. In Acts 11:2930 we read, “And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea, which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” Another such instance could be cited, showing that brethren sent to help other brethren in need, “that there might be equality.”

We have Bible authority for the church doing three things. It is to (1) preach the gospel to the lost, (2) edify itself, (3) and help the poor saints. This is the extent of the mission of the church as revealed to us in the Scriptures. The church being a divine organization, it has a divine mission. We have just noted the extent of its duty, insofar as divine authority reveals. We cannot go beyond these limitations.

Things Which Are Not the Mission of the Church

It has ever been a fault of man to try to improve upon the arrangements of God. The mission of the church has not escaped this effort of man. Man has tried to put the church under obligation to do a lot of things that the Lord never purposed that it do. (1) Some people try to put the church in the entertainment business. Parents often try to shift from themselves the responsibility of providing proper recreation for their children and give that duty to the church. But it just so happens that the Lord did not put the church here to be an entertainment bureau. Nor is it the duty of the church to provide the facilities for entertainment. (2) Others try to make it the business of the church to provide secular education., An individual or group of individuals decide to start an educational institution. Almost inevitably, they try to tie the organization to the church. They want the church to contribute to it, but it is not the mission of thechurch to provide secular education. (3) Some try to make a political organization out of the church. Many others try to make the church a political tool to accomplish what they want done. (4) Nor is the mission of the church, as given by God, that of operating some profit making business. Some people seem to try to make the church a business enterprise.

The mission of the church is not secular, political, or social, but spiritual. It is a mission given by God, consisting of the responsibility to preach the gospel to those within and those without the church, and to help the poor saints. None of its resources can be used for any other goal. This is its divine mission. The church is a divine organization, and consequently, its mission is likewise divine. Man must not attempt to make it otherwise.

Truth Magazine XIX: 10, pp. 147-149
January 16, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Indiana: “Is it wrong for some very fine and zealous ladies who are Christians to wear low neckline dresses and blouses? They believe it is wrong to wear shorts and short dresses, but they see nothing wrong in wearing a low neckline.”

REPLY:

In all matters of this kind, one must seek to be decent and pleasing to the Lord without being dogmatic with respect to personal opinion and private judgment or taste. I cannot pose as an authority on necklines. I do not know for sure what is regarded as “low,” but perhaps some principles will be instructive. If our querist had said “plunging necklines” instead of “low,” this may have assisted me in my reply, but I will do the best I can.

First, what standards do these ladies use to condemn the wearing of shorts and short dresses? It seems that the same scruples of conscience and conviction that guide them in one area would also direct them in another. What is there that is indecent about the exposure of the legs and thighs that is not also immodest concerning the breasts? It would shed light on this matter, perhaps, to hear these ladies’ objections to shorts and short dresses that would not also condemn their low necklines.

Second, The term “low” is a relative one. What does our inquirer mean by “low?” Is the term used as it is used in the fashion world? This seems to be the case as is seen by the reference to low neckline dresses and blouses. The degree of “lowness” has everything to do with a judgment in this instance. And it is obvious that we are here discussing that which involves a woman’s bosom and not her neck as such. Do the necklines dip low enough to reveal the curvature and cleavage of their breasts? I am not asking for information, but for consideration. If the answer to the above question is “no,” it would seem that the ladies are fairly safe in their apparel. If the answer is “yes,” then the girls will be hard pressed to justify their necklines while ruling out shorts and short dresses.

Third, if these ladies are truly “very fine and zealous” Christians, open lines of communication must be maintained with them. Do not hesitate to rebuke their immodesty, but be careful lest you attempt to make your personal value judgments every one else’s guide. Further, if you respect their demeanor and judgment in other areas of modesty and decency, is it possible that you are being overly critical in this matter? I am not making a charge. I am urging self-introspection.

Fourth, one does not need to be an expert on sex psychology to know that the bosom of a woman can be sexually stimulating to a man. Any dress, or lack of dress, that calls attention to the breasts of a woman is a stumbling block to men. It suggests that the woman is appealing to the man to notice her body for the purpose of lust and fornication. It lowers the virtue, influence and character of the woman in the eyes of those who are modest in their morals.

The partially bared bosom can be more sensually and carnally inflaming to a man than if the whole top half of her body were exposed. This ought to lead ladies to consider their discretion and decency when they contemplate low neckline attire. That all necklines termed “low” by fashion experts are immodest, I am unprepared to say, but that those which draw attention to the woman’s bosom are indecent, I am prepared to say.

I do not know if I have helped or not. I have tried to be discreet without being too naive. I have tried not be coarse or crude in frankly dealing with this question.

Truth Magazine XIX: 10, p. 146
January 16, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

An important supplement to the study of spiritual gifts is a discussion of the sometimes knotty problem involving Paul, Timothy and the elders of Lystra. The episode in mind involves two passages, 1 Tim. 4:14 and 2 Tim. 1:6, and raises the question of just who was responsible for imparting a spiritual gift to Timothy: Paul or the elders. The implications of this query for present controversy is quite evident and thus worthy of our attention as we close this series.

A Historical Perspective

In order to understand and appreciate the nature of some of the incidents in the lives of Biblical characters, we must cast ourselves back- into their historical context. Many symbolic gestures and rituals which occur in the Scriptural record are relatively meaningless to us simply because our culture has no such custom (cf. “holy kiss” or “feet-washing”). The “laying on of hands” is one of those kinds of gestures; full of meaning for the Biblical characters involved with it, but rather obscure ‘to those observing it from a sophisticated 20th century viewpoint. We must appreciate the context of the situation before we can even begin to understand the importance for those participating in such an occasion.

The act of the laying on of hands has always been a Biblical means of displaying honor, appointment or approval. In Gen. 48:14, we witness the patriarchal custom of “blessing” one’s sons which involved laying the hands upon the head. In Lev. 1:4, an integral part of a certain sacrifice involved the laying of hands upon the head of the burnt-offering. In a vivid example, Joshua was appointed successor to Moses as leader of the children of Israel in Num. 27:18-23. In this episode, Jehovah commanded Moses to take Joshua and “lay thy hand upon him and set him before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight” (Num. 27:18, 19). Likewise, the men chosen is Acts 6 to take care of the daily ministration for Grecian widows were set “before the apostles and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them” (vs. 6). In each of these instances, the particular sacrifice or individual involved was set apart for a particular honor, duty or responsibility in a “ceremony” which involved the “laying on of hands.” This act symbolized the respective sanctification for each individual without any peculiar connotation of the miraculous or special gifts. These examples establish the fact that the “laying on of hands” has at times historically meant something other than the impartation of spiritual gifts.

As we demonstrated in the first article in this series, only the apostles were able to impart these gifts. The incident in Samaria establishes this very important fact. Samaria had received the gospel, but as yet had not received any spiritual gifts (Acts 8:14-16). When the apostles Peter and John arrived, they laid their hands upon the converts who subsequently received such gifts. Simon the sorcerer saw how the gifts were administered and erroneously sought to buy the power to bestow them from the apostles. Further, in Acts 19, Paul laid his hands on the Ephesian converts and consequently they “spake in tongues and prophesied” (vs. 6). It is apparent then that no non-apostle (whether preacher, elder, deacon, etc.) could impart those gifts.

The Incident With Timothy

This incident involved the following items which must be correlated:

1. The laying on of the hands of the presbyters (1 Tim. 4:14).

2. The laying on of the hands of Paul (2 Tim. 1:6).

3. A spiritual gift (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).

4. A prophetic utterance (1 Tim. 4:14).

Any explanation of these events and their relation to each other must take into account two elements which cannot be so:

1. This episode cannot mean that the spiritual gift was imparted by the presbyters. We have already seen that the presbytery had no power to bestow such gifts. Further, Paul says specifically that it was through his hands (2 Tim. 1:6) that the gift was imparted. “With the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” does not imply that the elders themselves had anything to do with the actual impartation of the gift. A. T. Robertson comments, “Here again meta (with) does not express instrument or means, but merely accompaniment. In 2 Tim. 1:6 Paul speaks only of his own laying on of hands, but the rest of the presbytery no doubt did so at the same time and the reference is to this incident.”(1)

2. This episode cannot mean that the gift was bestowed by prophecy as an instrument or means of impartation. Again, the sense of the passage is “accompanied by prophecy.” In other words, something was said, inspired by the Spirit, in connection with this ceremony. William Hendriksen translates 1 Tim. 4:14 this way: “Do not grow careless about the gift that is in you which was granted unto you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” and comments, “In all probability this refers to what happened at Lystra on Paul’s second missionary journey. It was then that Timothy by the operation of the Holy Spirit had been amply endowed with this gift. Of this and of the character of his task he had been made aware through (dia) prophetic utterance of inspired bystanders. Moreover, all this was in association with (or accompanied by: meta) the imposition of the hands of the presbytery …. Paul’s own hands had also rested upon him (2 Tim. 1:6).”(2) This is not the only time prophecy is connected with the laying on of hands (compare Acts 13:2, 3).

A Harmony of the Passages

We must place ourselves back into New Testament times and realize that our early brethren utilized certain “ceremonies” in assemblies in which men were set apart to some particular office or duty (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:2, 3; 1 Tim. 4:14). These were very solemn, dignified occasions which an assembly of brethren would use both to edify themselves and to make the one set apart aware of his responsibilities to God. Evidently, this was just such an occasion which involved Timothy. Timothy, a young convert, took part in an assembly designed to teach him his responsibility, impart to him a spiritual gift and to make him conscious of the function of that gift (cf. 2 Tim. 1:6). As some spoke by inspiration (by prophecy), Paul along with the elders in that location laid his hands upon Timothy. Paul’s imposition of hands gave Timothy a spiritual gift; the elders’ imposition set forth their own encouragement and approval to the young preacher as he embarked upon his service to God.

Such “ceremonies” were edifying and meaningful to our early brethren. These were not “official ordinai:on” ceremonies; there was nothing inherently authoritativ:. in the actions of these elders. Rather, they afforded a congregation the opportunity to proclaim truth and to inspire and encourage those “set apart” unto a particular function. May we learn the value of using such occasions to teach and encourage each other in our own assemblies, finding appropriate symbols from our own culture to facilitate the meaning.

Endnotes

1. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), p. 581.

2. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957), p. 159.

Truth Magazine XIX: 9, pp. 141-142
January 9, 1975

By Donald P Ames

Sometimes we are accused of not believing in the Old Testament because we do not believe it is binding on us. Actually, merely to believe it is not binding on us today, is not one and the same thing as a total rejection of the Old Testament. To illustrate, most people do not believe God’s instructions to Noah to build an ark (Gen. 6) are binding on us today. Does this mean that they do not believe it has a part in the Bible? Certainly not! It simply means we recognize that God was giving specific instructions to Noah that are not applicable to us today since they were not intended for us. Nor does it violate Heb. 13:8, which affirms that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. God merely had a change of will regarding the rest of humanity. The same is true regarding the laws of the Old Testament. God never designed them for us, but rather for the Jews led forth from the land of Egypt (Ex. 20:1-2, Ezek. 20:10-12, Gal. 3:19). When Christ entered the world and fulfilled all that was written regarding Him, He abolished the law of Moses on the cross (Col. 2:14, Eph. 2:15-16, Gal. 3:2325, etc.) that He might establish a New Covenant (Heb. 8:8-13, 9:15-16).

But, if the commandments of the Old Testament are not binding today, of what value is the Old Testament? Should we discard it and go on as if it never existed? Certainly not, for God had a special purpose in it that also involved the New Testament as well. In fact, it would be literally impossible to understand the New Testament without the aid of the Old Testament in many instances. I would be unable to understand the reasoning of the order of Melchizedek and the priesthood (Heb. 7) were it not for the Old Testament. Of what value would the remarks regarding Jonah, Nineveh and the Queen of the South (Matt. 12:39-42) be without the aid of the Old Testament? And who would be able to understand the significance of the transfiguration (Matt. 17) without the benefit of the Old Testament; or for that matter, even the differences between the Jews and the Gentiles (Eph. 2:11f)? I am certain we all see a need for the Old Testament to understand much of what is recorded in the New Testament.

Wisely, someone has said that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Just as we need the Old Testament to comprehend much of the New Testament, the New Testament opens many of the mysteries of the Old Testament and furnishes us with proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures as well. As we go to the Old Testament and find in Christ the fulfillment of all that was prophesied concerning Him as the Messiah (Acts 3:18-24, 1 Cor. 15:1-4, Luke 24:44), we know indeed he was the one of whom they were talking. Also, as we see these things prophesied so far in advance and fulfilled in such detail, we are convinced that such could not have been recorded so accurately except the hand of God guided those who so wrote (2 Pet. 1:20-21, 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Again, the Old Testament demonstrates its value to us in great measure.

Without the benefit of the Old Testament, we would be at a loss to understand the origin of mankind and the flood recorded in Genesis-and referred to on many occasions throughout the Word of God. We would have no details as to the nature of the creation, and be completely in the dark on this important subject regarding the origin of man.

Paul also refers to the Old Testament as valuable evidence of God’s dealings with His people, and His displeasure when they did not obey His will (1 Cor. 10:113, Rom. 15:4). Certainly this shows He meant for us to study and be familiar with His dealings in the Old Testament as an example to us today.

No, the laws of the Old Testament are not binding on us because we are subject to the law of Christ instead (Matt. 28:18-20, Heb. 1:1-2, 5:8-9); but that by no means indicates the Old Testament has no value to us. Let us learn to value it for the purpose God intended, and not try to subject ourselves to a law never designed for us, but given only to the Jews for a limited period of time, and now abolished through the death of Christ on the cross.

Truth Magazine XIX: 9, p. 140
January 9, 1975