Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

The next pair of spiritual gifts in Paul’s catalogue in 1 Cor. 12:8-11 concerns prophecy and the discernment of spirits. A study of “prophecy” is particularly relevant today, not only because of the Charismatic Movement, but also with respect to the conviction of many sincere brethren that Paul’s discourse regarding the veil in 1 Cor. 11 is applicable today among sisters. This conviction usually hinges upon a specialized definition of prophecy and the nature of prayer in the context. Whatever “prophesying” meant in 1 Cor. 11, it certainly has the same meaning in 1 Cor. 12-14 and thus may be properly classed among the charismata. We have already established that these gifts are supranormal, supernatural endowments of the Spirit.

Gift of Prophecy

According to Thayer, prophecy is “discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving, and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events.”(1) Although the “prophet” often foretold the future, “he was more a `forth-teller’ than , a `foreteller.'”(2) Summarizing, Charles Hodge suggests, “To prophesy, in Scripture, is accordingly, to speak under divine inspiration; not merely to predict future events, but to deliver, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, the messages of God to men, whether in the form of doctrine, exhortation, consolation, or prediction.”(3) We can gain some insight into the role of the New Testament prophet by examining his Old Testament counterpart. The essential meaning of the word “prophet” readily is seen in Exodus 4:16; God told Moses that Aaron would be his “spokesman . . . a mouth.” As a prophet, Aaron was a “mouth” for the reluctant Moses. A prophet of God would then be a mouth of God. Homer Hailey suggests that when God raised up a prophet, “He would put His words in the prophet’s mouth and that the prophet would speak them in His name (Deut. 18:9-22).”(4)

King David’s activity illustrates well the role of the prophet: “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2). As a prophet under the inspiration of God, David taught, sang, and prayed (cf. Psalms 22, 64, 66, 119). The remainder of the Old Testament is replete with examples of prophets who testified, “The word of the Lord came unto me” or “Thus with the Lord.” Clearly, their claim to prophecy was a claim to inspired speaking. Turning to the New Testament, we find that the exercise of this gift was no different. From 1 Cor. 14 we learn that the gift of prophecy involved direct teaching, prayer, and the singing of psalms (vss. 26-33); seen in the context of the nature of prophetic activity one can better appreciate Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 11.

But despite the clear testimony of Scripture concerning the meaning of “prophecy,” “prophesy,” and “prophet,” many still persist in suggesting that “prophesying” can mean (in the case of men) “reading and commenting from the inspired writings, giving one’s own thoughts as best he can without inspiration,” Hence uninspired teaching, or (in the case of women) “quietly following in one’s own mind someone else’s prophecy (teaching)’, prayer, or song.” From a purely Scriptural standpoint, this is a highly untenable position bordering on the absurd. Prophecy was spoken activity and inspired activity at that; nowhere in the Scriptures is there the least hint that “prophesying” can mean anything less than speaking by the direct inspiration of God. An objection is sometimes raised to the effect that “since there were some false prophets, this proves that prophecy does not always mean inspired speaking.” This can only charitably be called an argument. The very claim of false prophets was that their message was inspired by God; the true prophet had God’s words in His mouth, the false prophet did not. This was the basis upon which a prophet’s words were evaluated (Dent. 18:15-22; Jer. 28); if his words came true, then he was considered a “prophet,” an inspired speaker from God.

Prophecy and the Veil

Three times in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul calls for “silence” in regard to the exercise of an oral spiritual gift. The first time, he prohibits speaking in tongues if there be no interpreter present (vs. 28); the second time, he prohibits the prophets from constantly interrupting one another (vs. 30). The third time, Paul prohibits women from exercising their spiritual gifts at all in the assembly (vs. 34). Each of the prohibitions deal with the cessation of vocal spiritual gifts; we need not wrest the temp “silence” here to mean “behave with quietness or tranquility” or “partake of a reserved and submissive demeanor”! Quite literally, Paul means to “Shut up!” The first two prohibitions prevent the use of the gifts in specified circumstances, but under no circumstances does he allow the women to exercise their gifts in the assembly. Understanding the prophetic work makes it easy to understand why the prohibition was given; women had the equal power as men to perform their gifts (cf. Acts 21:9). But in accordance with God’s order (see also Eph. 5:22-24; 1 Tim. 2:8-15) they had to refrain from speaking in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:3-10). On this point we quote at length from Ron Halbrook:

“When the nature of the prophetic work is understood, one can appreciate the problems that arose at Corinth regarding the women’s role. Seeing she was empowered to speak just as man was, she reasoned that she could arise and lead the assembly just as the man did. The same Spirit who empowered her guided Paul to remind her that miraculous gifts do not set aside the ordered relations God ordained for man and woman. Seeing she was empowered to speak just as man was, she reasoned that she might appear with her head uncovered’ whenever praying or prophesying just as he did. God had empowered and authorized her to speak, but did not approve of her speaking with her head uncovered’ anymore than speaking in the church.’ 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is written to show that the principle of order for man and woman is not to be set aside while ‘praying or prophesying.’ The same God who authorized the latter, ordained the former.”(5)

The same man or woman who “spoke by inspiration (prophecy)” in 1 Cor. 11 also “prayed by inspiration (also prophecy).” This is not a case of inspired speaking and uninspired prayer. The two inspired acts are. linked inseparably in the Greek.(6) Thus we submit that Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 11 regarding the use of the veil has no relevance today because the exercise of those gifts which the instructions regulated has passed away.

The Pre-eminence of Prophecy

In 1 Cor. 14 Paul establishes that prophecy is a greater gift than that of tongues. Verses 2-6 suggest that the upbuilding of the whole assembly is God’s de sign; the prophet is always in a position to edify the church — the tongue speaker is not, except he interpret. Thus prophecy is more functional and much more to be desired (vss. 18, 22, 29, 31, 39). One may legitimately question the distinction between “prophecy” and the “word of wisdom” mentioned in vs. 8, since they apparently concern the same function. The most reasonable difference seems to be that the possessor of the “word of wisdom” would be more exclusively concerned with the utterance of those general truths about the church’s mission applicable to any church, while the prophet would be more concerned with the immediate needs and specific situations of the local assembly of which he is a part. The role of the prophet seems limited to divine revelations of temporary significance, proclaiming what the church needs to know and do in special circumstances. His message was one of edification, exhortation, and consolation (1 Cor. 14:3; cf. Rom. 12:8), sometimes including prediction (Cf. Acts 11:28; 21:10ff.). Some prophets were “itinerant (Acts 11:27ff., 21:10), but there were probably several attached to every church (Acts 13;1), as at Corinth.”(7)

Discernment of Spirits

The discernment of spirits was quite obviously complementary to the gift of prophecy. In the Old Testament, the danger of false prophets was stressed (cf. Dent. 13;1-8), as well as in the New Testament (cf. Matt. 7:15; 22, 23). This gift enabled the possessor to discern between false and true testimony, judging the claims of divine inspiration (1 Cor. 14:29). We can sympathize with the early church; these brethren had no completed, available standard for reference (1 Cor. 13:8-13). “Not to one inspired person did God reveal it all, but to this one, to this one, to that one, some teaching and revelations given through apostles and some through prophets and other inspired persons. Orally it was delivered in one congregation partially, and then in another, to one group of people and then to another.”(8) A prophet addresses the assembly; who is to say whether his message is froze heaven or hell? he who possesses the gift of discernment is able to determine just that.

We can better understand then the admonitions of Paul (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19-21; 2 Thess. 2:2) and the warnings of John (1 Jn. 4:1) for the threat of damning error from the invasion of false teachers was an everpresent danger to the flock. The discernment of spirits was necessary among the early Christians who faced the problem of “false brethren brought in privily.” We would do well to equip ourselves for the same task today by conscientious study and devotion to the word.

We have thus seen the purpose of these two gifts as they relate to the functioning of the early church. It would be a serious mistake to redefine “prophecy” in an unScriptural way in order to fit it into an unnatural system of practice based upon 1 Cor. 11. Prophecy and discernment were both supernatural charismata made operative through the work of the Spirit, a specific work which He no longer performs in this dispensation of time. Let us understand their former functions and purpose and rejoice in the fruit of their activity: the completed revelation of God.

Endnotes

1. Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Marshallton, Delaware: The National Foundation for Christian Education, n.d.), p. 554.

2. Homer Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 16.

3. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to Corinthians (New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1858), p. 207.

4. Halley, loc. cit.

5. This reference comes from an unpublished graduate school paper in the possession of this writer.

6. We refer the reader to any standard Greek grammar for Paul’s use of the participles in 1 Cor. 11:4, 5. The participles are in the present tense in their verbal quality, and nominative, singular, masculine (feminine in vs. 5) in their adjectival quality. Participles are “verbal adjectives” and consequently the verb or-action and the noun or class specified, are influenced by the participle. The force of these participles in the text is shown in the following translation: “every-praying-or-prophesying-woman (or man) when she (he) prays or prophesies.”

7. W. G. Putnam, “Spiritual Gifts,” The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962), p. 1213.

8. Frank Pack, Tongues and the Holy Spirit (Abilene: Biblical Research Press, 1972), p. 121.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, pp. 106-108
December 19, 1974

By Ron Halbrook

July 4-6, 1974, the 9th Annual Unity Forum was held at Scarritt College in Nashville, Tennessee. Leroy Garrett proposed this forum while at Bethany College nine years ago; the forum moves from. campus to campus. The writer understands that the forums are usually held at some college which has historic connections with the effort to restore New Testament Christianity in America, but Scarritt is Methodist.

This year’s theme was “Free to Be One.” An effort was made to use men from differing backgrounds, including James L. Barton, Claire E. Berry, A. A. Boone, Ed Neely Cullum, Fred Hall, Roland K. Huff, and Robert Neil, all of Nashville; David Bobo of Indianapolis, Indiana; Pat Boone of Beverly Hills, California; Hall Crowder of Gallatin, Tennessee; Frank Allen Dennis of Cleveland, Mississippi; Robert O. Fife of Johnson City, Tennessee; Max Foster of Arkansas City, Kansas; Edward Fudge of Athens, Alabama; Leroy Garrett of Denton, Texas; Perry Gresham of Bethany, W. Virginia; Thomas; Langford of Lubbock, Texas; F. L. Lemley of Bonne Terre, Missouri. Each is associated with the Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, or churches of Christ, except Pat Boone now.

The United Church

David Bobo (“The Nature of the United Church”) said the Restoration Movement started well, but then had “steering problems.” “Restructure on simpler lines” is the solution; since “the New Testament does not give a standard blueprint for all churches,” each congregation should “design its own structure with emphasis on simplicity.” The early church was not guided by “patternism.” Phil. 1:1 suggests “city-wide organization,” and “benign monarchy (`monarchal bishops’) is better than the tyranny resulting from the “dogma of local autonomy.” Our approach to doctrinal division needs restructure in the united church. We agree on baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “essential.” Beyond that, we need both “freedom” and “unity” in the Spirit. “Literalists” lack the “sine qua non for the united church:” tolerance. “Unity in the Spirit” is found “beyond our disagreement over the letter or doctrine.” We must “make room for all . . . sincere expressions of worship,” as well as doctrine (including differences on “the Genesis account, inspiration, resurrection, the virgin birth”). After all, “Who can pontificate answers?”

Unity of the Spirit

According to Pat Boone (“The Unity of the Spirit”), we have “unity on Jesus, not doctrine.” The way to solve “clashes” and contradictions in scripture is to take what John says over other writers; “the beloved disciple” knew the Savior best. 1 John was read extensively to emphasize that one who acknowledges Jesus has come in the flesh is a child of God. But when Pat read, “Every one who loves is born of God,” he hesitated, then mused, “I can’t grapple with that; it is too broad for me, so I’ll just go on.” Pat was sorry to note that whereas the thief on the cross was not baptized, “We think we must convert people who are more dedicated than we are.” Jesus is “dealing with these people” because the Spirit is “not bound” by the word.

Pat’s wife and daughters spoke. One daughter was having her car gassed up when a young man drove up next to her and said, “I love Jesus.” She said she did, too, then asked, not knowing the boy, “How did you know I did’!” He answered, “We have the same Spirit,” and drove off.

Faith and Opinion

F. L. Lemley presided on the panel which discussed “How Do Faith and Opinion Relate to Unity and Fellowship’!” The first speaker was Edward Fudge. A key point urged by Ed was, “Fellowship and unity, therefore, do not mean the same thing.” (This and other quotes of Ed’s speech taken verbatim from tapes. Cf. William R. John, “Equating Fellowship ..with Being One in Christ,” Truth Magazine Sept. 12, 1974, p. 11.). “Unity” is a “state of being,” sharing “oneness” in Christ. But “fellowship” does not mean that “oneness” which is unity in Christ; it only means sharing or _”joint participation” in certain, actions.- Therefore those who are one in Christ (“unity”) may or, may not have “fellowship” in specified activities. Not sharing in a certain action (because it would violate one of the party’s conscience), does not exclude sharing in mutually-approved, actions “nor does it necessarily affect their essential oneness in Christ as members of his body . . . .” in short, lack of “fellowship” does not affect “unity” in Christ.

Unity in Christ “is manifested only by fellowship on a local basis in this congregational capacity and on an individual basis by the brotherly acceptance of others who are joined with Jesus.” “The relation of faith and opinion to unity and fellowship boils down it seems to me to this: how do brothers and sisters in a given assembly, one already in Jesus, deal with one another when they have differing consciences and scruples concerning the will of the Lord’!” Ed offered Romans 14 as the solution.

A groundwork was laid to the discussion of Romans 14 by defining “faith” early in the speech. It is used (1) “objectively” in Jude 3, (2) “subjectively” in Romans 10:17, (3) and in Romans 14:22-23 of “conscientious persuasion,” “binding on self and not others,” “personal conviction.”

Two basic rules guide (those who have “unity”) in seeking “fellowship.” First, one should never violate his conscientious persuasion or personal conviction, while seeking fellowship with others. Second, others who do not have the same scruple should submit to it anyway in cases where they are seeking fellowship with one who has the scruple. In every case, it must be understood that one who “violates his conscience, even if his conscience is wrong in forbidding a thing, sins.”

“Brothers who are separate because of honest differences involving congregational practice, cannot come together regardless of how much they love each other, until the impediment is removed for a clear conscience… I refer specifically to honest scripples over such issues as instrumental music in the assembly, congregational support of various institutions and societies, methods of cooperation, use of Bible classes, the number of containers used in the Lord’s Supper.”

So Romans 14 guides in dealing with these issues. Issues like instrumental music may separate brethren in regard to “fellowship” (sharing in the act of worship), but such practices are not sin (i.e., do not separate one from his “unity” in Christ).

The “impediment” spoken of is not an impediment to unity with Christ, not an objective sin, not a violation of “the faith” as used in Jude 3 (see Ed’s definition of faith). Rather, it is an impediment to fellowship in a given local church–a matter of “conscientious persuasion,” “personal conviction,” “binding on self and not others” except as necessary in specific cases to share with the man who has the scruple.

Ed does think those without the scrupple must bow to it rather than force a man to violate his personal conviction in specific instances where fellowship is sought with that man. On the other hand, the man with a “personal conviction” that instruments in worship are sinful, cannot consider the one who uses it as cut off from God. When Ed relates what God has “revealed explicitly” about the condemnation of sinners, “I’m not judging a brother.” But in many things like instrumental music and similar issues, God has not spoken expressly. We, cannot relate what God says about the destiny of sinners to these issues.

In the question period, Ed responded to Steve Wolfgang’s request for clarification by saying when one uses instruments and another does not, they have “disor un-fellowship, but not disunity.” They do not have fellowship in one act of worship, but they do have oneness, life, or unity in Christ. Gene Frost asked if one who does not use the instrument moves into a town that has only a church that uses it, should he consider the church heretical. Ed said he was “not sure,” which seemed to mean not necessarily; it would apparently depend on circumstances other than the mere use of instruments. In persuing this with Brother Frost and others after the formal program, Ed indicated such a church would have to give up the instrument to receive the brother, or else become heretical. (Note: According to Ed’s underlying concepts of “fellowship” and “unity,” the church was in unity with Christ before the man came, apparently would have to relinquish the instrument when the man came, but then could resume using it after his departure-all the while maintaining oneness, life, and unity in Christ.) Under Frost’s prodding, Ed conceded the church would be heretical if it had previously driven people off rather than relinquishing the instrument. In other words, Ed sees divisiveness as the objective sin and not merely worshipping with the instrument. (This has consistently been his position through the years.)

The second speaker on this panel was Thomas Langford, who said Ed’s speech left “very little to disagree on.” In rejecting “patternism” and “blueprintism,” he observed that “the faith” is not the correct interpretation of various issues, such as , instrumental music, Sunday schools, and missionary societies. He said there is no explicit, specific “warrant or condemnation” of these things in scripture. He opposes Sunday school classes, yet says all such issties involve “deductions and inferential truths” or “human reasoning.” Therefore, he not only believes such matters stave no effect on “unity” in Christ, but also none on “fellowship.” Langford pointed out to Fudge that some passages use unity and fellowship to mean the same thing, so he did not accept Fudge’s strict distinction. Fudge admitted that point in the question period, but told Langford he would “retain my distinction” as basically true.

Freedom

Ed Culluni presided during the discussion of “What Freedom in Christ Means to Me.” Max Fosters “freedom” began when he left the church he had worked with and was disfellowshipped. Freedom meant rejecting the New Testament pattern on church organization, giving women a public role, and participation in denominationalism. In their ultra-liberalism, Foster admitted his “free church” was dwindling. Fred Hall of the ultra-liberal Belmont church in Nashville. found freedom in “a supernaturally imparted love.” Christ “deals with me personally and tells me what to do and when to do.” James L. Barton of the First Christian Church in Nashville joined the chorus of glittering generalities; freedom is a fact, frightening (“regimentation is secure”), and fantastic. Even Ed Fudge was moved to ask what they all meant by their “law of love.” Barton told him, “If someone is not keeping a commandment of the Lord, I should help them learn it.” (Very good, until we get down to specifics. That’s just the problem with much of the questioner’s teaching, as well as the respondent’s teaching, in this case.-RH)

Heritage

“What Does Our Historic Heritage Mean to Us in Relation to Unity and Fellowship?” was answered by Perry Gresham of Bethany College. This notable among the Disciples of Christ gave an eloquent address comparing initial efforts in Jerusalem and in the American Restoration Movement. The general principles stated and the simplicity of his approach made Gresham’s speech a highlight to this writer. He spoke of “the time,” “the place,” and “the power,” then asked why not let now be the time again, here the place, and God the power. Of course getting down to specifics and applications is something else. For instance, he constantly spoke of “the winds of God sweeping through our lives” as on Pentecost, whatever that means apparently a liberal rationalization of the miraculous work of the Spirit in Acts 2. The “wind” had swept through men like Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside, and Robert Fife, he claimed. Such nebulosity moved one observer to comment, “I never saw so little said in such a pretty way.”

More on the United Church

Robert O. Fife of Milligan College answered the question, “What Will the United Church Be Like?” It is already united in Christ; we simply need to “develop bridges in our own persons, to re-establish fellowship.” Differences over “open membership, missionary societies, instruments of music, Herald of Truth, multiple cups, millennial views” do not deny “the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus” and “ought never be treated as heresy.” Those who are separated over such issues can hold “sincere conviction,” yet should “begin somewhere along the spectrum” in coming closer together. Individuals can quietly work to form bridges in four areas.

“These four dimensions” for bridge-building, include (1) the “inter-personal” — “enrich the unity through friendship and association,” visit “schools” representing different views, read and write for “journals” of different groups, participate in different “conventions and lectureships.” (2) The intro-congregational-seek fellowship, at least in some areas, “with a congregation whose doctrine or practice I do not fully approve,” not in compromise, but in showing acceptance of “those `in error’ ” and in trying to “help” them. (3) The intercongregational differing “congregations support one another” in some activities such as “subsistence program(s) for the needy,” “evangelizing metropolitan centers,” “share Vacation Bible School `across the lines.’ ” (4) The extra-congregational-Christian Churches and churches of Christ doing some things “together beyond the realm of the worshipping congregation” such as “support the work of Juan Monroy in Spain . . . . Herald of Truth …. the Institute of Church Origins at Tiibingen . . . . Shiloh in New York City . . . . the Christian Service Center of Chicago . . . .”

More on Freedom

“The Blessings and Perils of Christian Freedom in Our Time” by A. A. Boone (pentecostal; Pat’s father; recently disfellowshipped in Nashville), Hall Crowder (premillennial), and Frank Allen Dennis (ultra-liberal) was an appeal for unity of those who agree and disagree with their views. – Along the same line, the printed program said, “No one asked to surrender any truth he holds or endorse any error on the part of others.” Leroy Garrett’s premise is that in Christ and by the Spirit members of the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and churches of Christ are united regardless of “any truth” or “error” which separates them outwardly. Therefore he constantly commended those who are “non-instrumental,” or “non-class” or “one-cup,” for “staying among those people” which share such convictions, yet are working for broader concepts of unity.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, pp. 104-106
December 19, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Indiana: “Is it scriptural to change a mid-week meeting service from group singing to Bible study or a Preacher Training Class under a stumbling block objection? The stumbling block consists of a family that feels their presence is not bound at the monthly singing service on Wednesday or Thursday night but is bound for Bible study or a Preacher Training Class scheduled instead. Since this is a stumbling block to them, is it scriptural to change the service under this pretense after studying with the family and showing them they are bound to attend the assembly unless providentially hindered? I realize the mid-week service could be changed to all preaching or studying, but can the above stumbling block objection be scripturally used as “the reason?”

REPLY:

What? Is “group singing” not “teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16)? It is a spiritual service because it consists of “spiritual songs.” This family’s feeling is capricious, arbitrary and self-serving. Truly, their reasoning, if not their sincerity, is suspect at best and weird at worst! There is nothing in the Bible nor in a “stumbling block objection” that says one household’s excuse for forsaking an assembly is to dictate the worship program of the church. Continue to study with them. Do not waste your time in endless wrangling that tends toward strife. Live an example before, them.

Stumbling Block Scriptures”

“Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” (Rom. 14:13). This passage is probably one our querist had in mind. It tells brethren who differ over a matter of indifference not to condemn one another (Rom. 14:5, 6, 13). Both are received and accepted of God (Rom. 14:3, 4). But singing is not comparable to the eating of meats or the esteeming of days. It is not something which a church may regard or disregard. It is necessary for a church to develop its talents and abilities in praising God in song.

“It is good neither to eat flesh or drink wine nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom. 14:21). Remember, Paul is discussing matters of personal insignificance in the context. He is not saying brethren must succumb to the whims of every brother. He says, if necessary, abstain and refrain from those contextual inconsequential items that trip, offend, or weaken a brother. He does not say, “Put away an authorized function of the church if some brother decides to use it as a pretense not to do what God has commanded.” Will attending a special singing service cause one to stumble?

“Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Cor. 8:13). This text is dealing with “things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols” (1 Cor. 8:4). If a brother is “emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols” while he considers it to be in honor of a god, he sins and so do you by leading him to do it against his weak conscience (1 Cor. 8:7-12). If this family in question is “emboldened” to attend a singing service, will they sin when they do? No, hence, the text is not applicable.

Conclusion

If every scruple of every saint had to be bowed to, the church could not function. Suppose a family argued they were not preachers, therefore, they did not have to attend a “Preacher Training Class.” Should we disband the class for them? I know brethren who feel that no Sunday evening or mid-week service is essential to attend, and they do not attend. Shall we do away with those worship periods lest they sin by not attending? On and on we could go. Teach such people. Pray for them, but do not engage in contentious shouting matches that demean the gospel and embitter the soul. They are babes. Be patient with little babies, but do, not pet them. Too much acquiescent petting spoils babies, both the physical and the spiritual kind.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, p. 103
December 19, 1974

By John McCort

Brethren sometimes fall into the trap of taking passages out of context and misapplying them in a zealous attempt to disprove false doctrines. When trying to disprove false doctrines, we should use our utmost discretion not to twist passages and draw conclusions that are not there. One misapplied passage exposed can seriously damage an attempt to teach an individual the truth.

Brethren have misapplied 1 Pet. 3:4 in an attempt to prove that the spirit of man is immortal. Although I firmly believe in the immortal nature of man, 1 Pet. 3:4 is not the passage to use in trying to establish that point. This passage has been widely used by brethren both in written and public debate. A close examination of the passage reveals nothing about the immortality of man’s spirit.

I Pet. 3:4 states, “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” (KJV) The American Standard translation states; “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Some brethren have made the argument that the word “incorruptible” (aphtharto) literally means “immortal.” This word is used to describe God in 1 Tim. 1:17, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal (aphtharto) . . . .” They then draw the conclusion that since God is immortal and Peter says that woman are to have the immortal apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, that it logically follows that man possesses an immortal spirit.

The key to understanding this passage is determining what gives the spirit the immortal quality in this passage. Is Peter saying in this passage that all mankind possesses this much to be desired incorruptible spirit? No!! In the previous verse (vs. 3) Peter states, “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, or wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.” Peter is contrasting the outward man with the inward man. The emphasis of the woman when she becomes a Christian should not be on adorning a body which will soon be wrinkled and ugly. The Christian woman is to emphasize the adorning of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit. Peter is not saying that all men have an incorruptible spirit, but that the meekness and quietness are what give the spirit the imperishable (immortal) quality; a quality which only Christian women possess. Certainly a loud and aggressive spirit in a woman would not be described as “incorruptible” or “immortal.” Since a meek and quiet spirit is incorruptible (immortal), then a loud and aggressive spirit (in a woman) would likewise be corruptible (mortal). The Phillips translation of the Bible expresses the thought very lucidly, “. . . in the imperishable quality of a quiet and gentle spirit . . . .”

The word spirit in 1 Pet. 3:4, according to the scholars, has no reference to the immortal part of man but rather refers to the disposition or temperament of man. A. T. Robertson states, “Pneuma (spirit) is here disposition or temper (Bigg), unlike any other use in the N.T.” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. 6, p. 109) Lenski comments, “Without the incorruption of a meek and quiet spirit the hidden man of the heart would be filled with a vain, proud, self-assertive spirit, the mark of an unregenerate heart. Pneuma is to be understood in the ethical sense of temperament or character.” (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Peter, John, And Jude, p. 131)

Lest I be misunderstood, I want categorically to state that I believe in the immortality of the soul. I believe there is a host of passages to establish that doctrine. I do not believe, though, this passage should be used in defense of this position.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, p. 102
December 19, 1974