Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

(Editors Note: Last week there was published the first part of a speech which I recently gave on Congregational Cooperation, to which speech Reuel Lemmons responded orally. Since I knew that Lemmons was to comment upon my speech, some special attention is devoted to his position on cooperation, and to some articles, which he has written which, have relevance to the subject upon which we both spoke. The remainder of my speech follows.)

The Point of Disagreement

I think Brother Lemmons and I are in agreement that it is unscriptural for Churches of Christ to cooperate by functioning through any kind of human organization, whether the work involved is benevolent, educational or evangelistic. About a decade ago, Brother Lemmons said:

“Some three or four years ago we expressed the opinion on this page that certain brethren would allow the issue of church support of a private enterprise to be fought out on the orphan home level, where highly emotional values can be brought to bear, and where they can, and do, over shadow reason; and that later, when these brethren thought the time was ripe, the pitch would be made to put the college in the budget upon the basis that church support of a private enterprise has already been proven. The low rumblings of the gathering storm have been heard for some time now, and more recently there have been some flashes of lightning!” (Firm Foundation, May 2, 1961.)

This correct prophecy shortly preceded the nationwide circulation of Batsell Barrett Baxters tract soliciting church contributions for David Lipscomb College. Lipscomb even now is soliciting gifts from congregations of $350,000 “or more” per year. (The Lipscomb Review, Fall Quarter, 1971). The mere fact that Brother Lemmons opposes churches cooperating through a human institution presupposes the fact that he agrees with me that there is a pattern regarding congregational cooperation taught in the New Testament, for if there is no divine order, there can be no disorder! And Brother Lemmons thinks it is disorderly (unscriptural) for churches to cooperate through the board of a college.

Brother Lemmons is even in agreement with me that it is unscriptural for congregations to cooperate in benevolent work through a board of directors. Brother Roy Lanier raised this interesting question in the Firm Foundation a few years ago: “If it was sinful for brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why is it now right to activate the universal church in forming a benevolent society?” (Feb. 26, 1957.)

Recently Brother Lemmons wrote a good article on the prohibitory nature of Gods silence. He was speaking about what he called “The Music Question,” but his remarks are relevant to our subject today too. Regarding the nature of Gods silence, Brother Lemmons said:

“We believe this principle to be a righteous one. We do not see how anyone really serious about restoring the faith and practice of the first century church can afford to be presumptuous in any area where God has not authorized us to go. This principle has its application in many areas other than the instrumental music area. Because God has not specifically prohibited a missionary society many assume it is all right to have one. Others feel that since God is silent about a super-structure for the pyramidal organization of congregations into a super church machine it is all right to have one. Others feel that Gods provision for congregational church government excludes by its very silence such organizations. To be consistent one would have to apply the authority of God in areas of silence to the instrument question as well as to the church government question. By what logic can one be free in one area not specifically prohibited and bound in another area just as free of specific prohibition.. If the silence of God is enough to forbid the use of the instrument why is not the silence of God enough to forbid the creation of other institutions to do the work of the church? If the lack of any Divine directive is grounds for excluding something from our worship why is not the same lack of Divine directive grounds for excluding nonscriptural organizations from our work9 … if we are bound to interpret the absence of a direct command as a prohibition, many of our own projects are suspect…. Before there can be any degree of unity between the elements that remain we must honestly deal with the question of the authority of God in areas of silence.(Firm Foundation, June 20, 1972.)

Brother Lemmons and I are in agreement that it is unscriptural for churches to cooperate through the board of human organizations, whether the organization is a missionary society, a Bible college, or an orphan home. Incidentally, this position obligates Brother Lemmons to oppose church contributions to the boards of about 20 or 25 of the benevolent institutions catering to Churches of Christ for support.

The issue of the “one-man-missionary society” has now been relegated to a rather minor issue. Operations like that of Don Carlos Janes made them become very unpopular among brethren. The basic disagreement that Brother Lemnons and I have on the subject of congregational cooperation pertains to the sponsoring church, and I therefore propose to devote the remainder of my time to a discussion of that aspect of our subject.

Sponsoring Churches

I just read a lengthy quotation from Brother Lemmons regarding the prohibitory nature Of Gods silence. Let me begin this section of our discussion by calling to your attention the fact that the New Testament is also silent regarding sponsoring churches. Would this fact not also preclude sponsoring churches, just as Brother Lemmons argued that Gods silence excluded human organizations to do the work of the church? Now let me call to your attention some facts pertaining to what a sponsoring church is, when the sponsoring church idea began, from whence it came, and its effect.

Definition: In 1953, G. C. Brewer said: “In sponsoring a missionary, a church simply underwrites his support. It is, therefore, responsible to the missionary for the amount that it takes for his maintenance, and it is also responsible to any brethren, who may be willing to help support the missionary, for the missionarys soundness, for his Christian character, and for his qualifications as a missionary. This whole idea was born because of a very sad condition that existed in the brotherhood forty or fifty years ago.” (Gospel Advocate, Aug. 27, 1953.) The sponsoring church stands between the missionary and his supporting churches, with obligations toward both, and the “whole idea” originated, said Brother Brewer in 1953, 40 or 50 years ago. More about this later.

Origination: William Banowsky tells us where the sponsoring church idea originated. He said it came from looking at denominationalism.

“The absence of an organized missionary society among churches of Christ created several unique handicaps in selection and preparation of qualified missionary workers. Since no official board existed, congregations were free to select and send . . . The lecturers (at ACC–CW) came to desire a missionary procedure, which would more effectively involve the hundreds of small congregations. But they also sought a program whose scope would be more far-reaching than even the best, but isolated efforts of any one large congregation. They could not resist the temptation to shop about and contrast their plight with the obvious strong points in denominational machinery. Thus, they sought for some practical, scriptural means of brotherhood-wide co-ordination without creating an agency for brotherhood wide control … At the Abilene Lectureship, a momentous biblical principle governing missionary methods was articulated and recommended as a remedy for this brotherhood predicament. The principle was described as intercongregational- cooperation without ecclesiastical organization. It greatly expanded the scope of the churchs evangelistic opportunities and led logically to recognition of the special role of the sponsoring congregation as compared with the part to be played by the smaller participating churches.” (The Mirror of a Movement, pp. 273, 274, 313.)

The sponsoring church idea resulted from shopping about and looking at the “strong points in denominational machinery,” and caused brethren to differentiate between sponsoring churches and “the smaller participating churches.”

Effect: What was the result of the inauguration of the sponsoring church concept? Among the effects, according to G. C. Brewer, was the following: “When the Herald of Truth broadcast of Abilene, Texas was proposed, I told the brethren who were soliciting help for the venture that it would put the Lords people before the world as a denomination and this program would be the Church of Christ Hour just as distinctly as we have a Catholic Hour or a Lutheran Hour. The brethren said they would avoid this by calling it the Herald of Truth. This they have done, but they have not avoided the error I feared . . . The greatest grief of my soul as I face eternity is the fact that brethren have seemingly almost universally denominationalized the church. God have mercy on us! ” (Autobiography, pp, 119, 139.) The sponsoring church idea was borrowed from denominationalism, it originated among Churches of Christ about 1900, and it has denominationalized the church.

In order that you may see that the sponsoring church concept has activated the church universal through a single agency, consider this fact. During the first fifty years of the existence of the missionary society, it only handled a total of $860,500.00. U. H. Garrison, The Reformation of the Nineteenth Century, p. 347.) Yet the Herald of Truth, with contributions from more than one-tenth of the churches in the world, in a single year recently announced an annual budget of $2,239,250.00. The Herald of Truth proposed to spend for the brotherhood in one year nearly three times what the missionary society spent f or the brotherhood in its f first fifty years!

The earliest reference I have been able to find among Churches of Christ concerning a sponsoring church was a discussion in Indiana in 1839, but the brethren decided to abandon the idea and created the Indiana State Missionary Society instead. Around 1867 the brethren in Texas were accustomed to holding State Meetings during which a church would be chosen to act as a “receiving, managing, and disbursing evangelistic committee,” to use Carroll Kendricks term, The Austin elders first served in this capacity, the Dallas elders sometimes served, though the Sherman elders served more frequently than any others. At the request of John T. Poe of Texas, David Lipscomb in 1885 commented on this sponsoring church arrangement thus:

“We developed (in a long series of articles) from Scripture that each church kept the direction of its own contribution under its own control through its messengers. So keeping the church and Christians close to their work. They could fully realize that it is their own work. Is this the case with the Sherman arrangement? We may think these are small and indifferent matters. But if a great amount of money is placed under the control of one church, it gives it undue power. It takes the work from the control of, and removes it from the contact of those who raise the means to sustain it.” (Gospel Advocate, 1885, p. 97.)

In 1890 the occasion arose for David Lipscomb to make further comment regarding sponsoring churches, at which time he said:

“I have never published, or approved without publication, the assumption of the elders of one church sending out a man to induce members of other churches to divert their means from their own church treasury, and to take it from the direction of their own elders, and place it under the direction of that one church. I have never approved concentrating the control of all the means and preachers of the state under the authority of the elders of one church. All such concentration of power is destructive of the activity and the true liberties of the church. It tends to exalt the elders of the one church and degrade and dishonor those of the others . . . The whole movement is an effort to concentrate in a few hands the control of the activities and means of the churches. All such courses are subversive of Gods order. ” (Gospel Advocate, 1890, p. 295.)

In 1910 a proposal was made to evangelize Western Tennessee by having the churches of surrounding states to send their funds to the Henderson, Tennessee elders. So Lipscomb said:

“Now what was that but the organization of a society in the elders of this church? The church elders at Henderson constitute a board to collect and pay out the money and control the evangelist for the brethren of West Tennessee, and all the preachers are solicitors for this work. This very same course was pursued in Texas a number of years ago. The elders of the church at Dallas were made the supervisors of the work, received the money, employed the preacher, directed and counseled with him. For a number of years they employed C. M. Wilmeth. He then dropped out of the work and the Texas Missionary Society took the place. Other experiments along the same course have been made. All of them went into society work … All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses is wrong. Gods power is in Gods churches. He is with them to bless and strengthen their work when they are faithful to him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to a faithful discharge of other duties. But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds as well as in giving them.” (Gospel Advocate, March 24, 1910, p. 364.)

Conclusion

I have alluded to about all the instances of the sponsoring church concept in practice among Churches of Christ up until 1910, or at least about all the instances known to me. The sponsoring church type of “joint action” in congregational cooperation was but little used, until recently, among Churches of Christ. In the past, the practice met stout opposition among some of the stalwart brethren, and I oppose it today on the same grounds as did they back then. Precisely, I charge that the sponsoring church type of “joint action”:

1. Unscripturally activates the church universal through a single agency. Yet the only functional unit found in the Bible is a congregation.

2. Constitutes an unauthorized federation of churches.

3. Is contrary to the New Testament pattern of congregational cooperation.

4. Involves a perversion of the elders office, function, and authority.

5. Violates the independence, autonomy, and equality of congregations.

A few years ago, Brother Bill Humble preached a fine sermon in Kansas City, which covered some of the same points as those upon which I have touched in this paper. I shall borrow and close with his conclusion: “The end does not justify the means. Gods work must be done, but Gods work must be done in Gods way!” And to that fine statement, I only add my hearty, Amen!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, pp. 3-7
January 25, 1973

By Don R. Hastings

It was a very cold day the last Sunday in February 1969, in Saratoga, Arkansas. The wind was blowing hard and the sky was a dreary gray. The ground was covered with a light frost that morning, which made walking a difficult task.

I had begun preaching for the Negro brethren in October 1968. They did not have a preacher and were unable to support one. Therefore, through mutual agreement, I began preaching for them. We met at 9 a.m. in order that I might have time to get back and teach a Bible class and preach for the congregation, which was supporting me for my work as an evangelist.

As I got up and began to get ready for services, I thought of the hardship that would soon be facing me. The hardship was the coldness of the church building. It would not be properly heated. The overcoat, which I wore over my suit, would remain on me throughout the entire service and still I would be cold. As I preached, my breath would freeze. Although I knew this would happen, I wanted to preach for them because I felt as Paul did, ” . . . for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:16).

As I drove up to the building a few minutes before 9 a.m. that Sunday, brother John Olden came walking toward the church building. As I proceeded to enter the building, I thought about the great faith, and the great love for God. this man must possess. The hardship of preaching in a cold building was nothing compared to the sacrifice and effort that this child of God had made in order to worship his Creator with Gods sons and daughters.

What was so amazing about seeing this brother at services that morning? It was not because he was present. In fact, it would have been unusual if he had not been present. The amazing thing was that this brother, in the Lord, had walked nearly two miles through the woods, without even the benefit of walking on a road or a path. In spite of the distance, the coldness, the treacherous ground, and his age (you see, he was probably 80 years, or older), this brother was present with the saints. He loved God with all his heart and demonstrated that love in his life.

Oh, how foolish our excuses must appear to Him who sacrificed His life for us. Now, what was your excuse for not assembling with the Lords children in order to worship Him? You have an automobile to ride in, and it has a heater. Why were you late for services? This brother had to have left his house around 7 a.m. to arrive before time for worship service.

Are you willing to pay the price of discipleship? Are you willing to deny yourself and take up your cross and follow Him? (Matthew 16:24). -4722 Lark Ridge Circle

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, p. 2
January 25, 1973

By Keith Sharp

I have before me a pamphlet written by Brother Athens Clay Pullias entitled Where There Is No Pattern. Brother Pullias contends there is no revealed pattern for us to follow in the matters that have divided the church in the last twenty years. An entire generation of Gods children has been raised on such teaching. The result is the attitude expressed by J. P. Sanders, graduate of Abilene Christian College, who flatly declared concerning the Bible, “Nowhere, nowhere, do I find a consistent diagram or blueprint of what life should be or what the church should be.” (Restoration Review, March 1967, p. 51) This leads to a vital and timely question: Is there a divine pattern for the church?

We must surely realize our need for such a pattern. No reputable contractor would attempt to construct a building without a blueprint. Even the most talented seamstress realizes the need for a pattern. This is because the tasks they undertake are difficult. Of how much more infinite difficulty is the task of the church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth”? (1Timothy 3:15)

Indeed, concerning mans entire relationship to God, Jeremiah could cry in all truth, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). You need divine guidance.

And we can know assuredly there is such a pattern. Paul commanded young Timothy: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1: 13). The word “form ” means “an example, pattern . . . the pattern to be placed before one to be held fast and copied, model . . . “” (Thayer) This is a plain declaration that there is a pattern. This form, according to the inspired writer, consists of “words, which thou hast heard of me.” These are apostolic words. But, the apostles words are Gods words, received by revelation from the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:9-13) These words were written down by the apostles and constitute the New Testament, which we can read and understand. (Eph. 3:1-6) The term “sound” is defined thus: “to be well, to be in good health  true and incorrupt doctrine.” (Thayer) These are words that are conducive to spiritual health. Being the words of God, they are true. (John 17:17) But we dare not corrupt them.

If one were to add a pinch of arsenic to wholesome wheat flour, death would result. If one adds a pinch of opinion to the wholesome apostolic words, damnation will result. (Gal. 1: 6-9) Thus, the divine blueprint for the church consists of the sum total of everything the New Testament says about the church, nothing more or less. Equipped with this pattern, we “may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:17, ASV)

The aged apostle enjoined an obligation to this pattern. He commanded Timothy to “hold fast” the form. The words “hold fast” mean to “keep,” “retain ” or “be consistent with.” Under the Old Covenant, if one brought into service to God that which was unauthorized, punishment was swift and severe. (e.g. Lev. 10: 1-2) Under the New Testament we must “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (by His authority, Col. 3:17) lest we be without God (2 Jno. 9-11) and thus lose our hope of life eternal. (Rev. 22:18-19)

Indeed, there is a divine pattern for the church, the New Testament. Will you not lay aside human opinion and by faith be conformed to the divine pattern ? -Pruett and Lobit

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 13
January 18, 1973

By Bill Reeves

One of Max Kings “big guns” is Rom. 4:13. “According to Paul, a promise was given to Abraham that he and his seed would inherit a world.” A-33 . . . he did not look for inheritance in the Jewish world, but rather the Christian world . . . This truth is manifest in Heb. 11:8-16.” A-34 “This city he looked for, which hath foundations was the – heavenly Jerusalem – Heb. 12:22. or the Jerusalem which is above (Gal. 4:26). This is the new heaven and earth promised to Abraham and his seed, of which the Jewish world (old heaven and earth) was a forerunner. The New Testament saints, born of Abrahams spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3:13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13).” A35

To this King adds Matt. 5:17,18, making Jesus say that the “heaven and earth” of that passage refers to the passing away of Judaism in A. D. 70, at which time “all things would be accomplished.” Also, the “heaven and earth” of Matt. 24:35 apply to the “Jewish world” (as he calls it for convenience sake  oh, how he plays with words!) to pass away in A. D. 70. He sees the word “world” in Rom. 4:13, and so he gets “earth” out of Matt. Ch. 5 and Ch. 24, “land,” “country,” and “city” out of Heb. 11 and 12, and “world” out of Eph. 3:21 (KJV!), and runs them all together into his fanciful theory. Lets analyze these texts.

(1) Rom. 4:13. The Greek word here for “world” is kosmos. We do not read in Genesis of a promise stated in this style, but the context of Rom. 4 makes it clear that the reference is to his becoming the father of many nations in a spiritual sense. See especially vv. 16-18. See Gal. 3:29. The faith of the gospel is for all the world (Phil. 1:27; Mk. 16:15). Abraham, then, inherited the world as his spiritual children, for in his seed (Christ) all the world can be blessed, and the church is made up of all nations. Paul did not say that Abraham would inherit “a world.” Thats Kings lingo. Abraham inherited the world as Jesus inherited the nations (Ps. 2: 8; Heb. 1: 2). Abraham was made a father of many nations in that he was the father of the faithful, of those with faith in Christ. They were spiritual progenitors. Thats why Gal. 3:29 is so!

(2) Matt. 5:17,18. There is no “world” (kosmos) in this text. Jesus did not say that heaven and earth (Greek, GE) would pass away when all things were accomplished. King sees the word “earth,” which is somewhat suggestive of “world,” and away he runs with it! What does a context matter to him? Jesus is saying that his purpose in coming to the earth was not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. Furthermore, he says, until that is accomplished it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or one title of the law or prophets to fall. See Lk. 16: 17. Or, to put it another way, as long as heaven and earth stood, that law would be fulfilled without the least particle of it going unfulfilled. He came to fulfill it, and fulfill it he would, and heaven and earth would not pass away first! If the law was not fulfilled till A.D. 70, Christians were under it until then, and Paul says, “no” (Rom. 6:14).

(3) Matt. 24:35, Here Jesus speaks, not, as King does, of a “world” (kosmos), but of the same earth (GE) as in 5:18. The physical heaven and earth are temporary; they shall pass away (Kings spiritualizing to the contrary. He says that he does not know “what the destiny of this physical world is that were living in”), but Christs declarations are not temporary, but are absolute of fulfillment, irrespective of time and temporal things. That is Christs point, but King plays with the word “earth,” and equates it with his “world” of Rom. 4:13.

(4) Matt. 5:5 is also cited by King and referred to his “Christian world” of A. D. 70. He says, “The residence of Gods people today is in the new earth promised, which is just as spiritual as everything that belongs in it. Of this earth and this inheritance, Jesus spake in Matt. 5:5…” A-26 Jesus is speaking of no such invention! The 37th Psalm (vv. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34) shows that the expression “inherit the earth” means to benefit from its physical blessings. The beatitudes refer to a specific class of people and to what benefits they have because they are that class of people.

(5) Heb. 11:8-16. The Hebrew writer was no “A.D. 70 Advocate.” He tells us to follow Abraham in seeking for a “city” (residence) which is heavenly. (King wishes it said: “spiritual!”). Here (on this earth and in this life) we do not have an “abiding city,” or

permanent residence. We seek after the one that is to come. (Heb. 13:14). It is in the “Fathers house,” in. 14: 2. King equates the word “city” (of Heb. 11:10, 16) with “heavenly Jerusalem,” which is his perfect state of things as of A. D. 70. King is the only authority for that! The Hebrew writer is contrasting a heavenly country with the earthly one in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived as strangers and sojourners. One was on earth; the other in heaven. Thats where Peter says that the eternal inheritance is reserved “in heaven” (I Pet. 1:4).

(6) Heb. 12:22. “The tense of the verb are come shows that he was speaking of things that were transpiring at the time he wrote the Hebrew letter.” “But ye are come … present tense! And we have the new world today.” Brother King needs to check the Greek text; it is not present tense, but what is even worse for him the perfect tense! They had already arrived at that “city” (the heavenly Jerusalem) at the time the Hebrew writer wrote! “Are come” is not present tense; if present tense, it would read “are coming,” and that is precisely what King advocates: that something was presently coming and would arrive in A. D. 70! The Hebrew writer used the perfect tense, as he did in v. 18, and tells the Hebrews that they had already arrived and were there. The perfect tense in the Greek emphasizes action in the past with present consequences. The Hebrew Christians did not pertain to the Old Covenant, but they did (already) to the New! Thats the point of the inspired writer. King plays with words and makes “are come” are coming, and hopes we will not see the difference. Paul made the brethren come to the “city,” and King makes the “city” come (just a little later on) to the Hebrew brethren. Berrys Interlinear, as does the NASV, reads: “you have come,” which is the clearest way to express the perfect tense in English.

Heb. 12:22 is present perfect tense, and, by contrast, in. 14:3; 2 Tim. 4:18; and 2 Pet. 1: 11 are future. How King would like for the four texts to all be in the same tense!

(7) Gal. 4:26. The Jerusalem of this passage, as that of Heb. 12:22, are the same and refer to the New Covenant. Of course Christians had arrived, having arrived at the New Covenant of Christ. Of course perfection was there found (Heb. 10: 13). Thats where they pertained. To go back to the Old Covenant would have been apostasy and perdition. Thats the inspired writers point. But King would like for Gal. 4:26 and Heb. 12:22 to say “new heavens and new earth,” which phrase applies to the redeemed as viewed in heaven and in eternity, but not upon this earth. The New Testament views the saved as the kingdom of heaven now, on earth, and pertaining to the heavenly Jerusalem, and it also views the saved throughout eternity as the heavenly or eternal kingdom. King rejects this N.T. concept completely!

(8) 2 Pet. 3:13. Future tense, Brother King! The Hebrew Christians were already arrived at the heavenly Jerusalem City, but were looking forward to “new heavens and a new earth.”

(9) Heb. 8:13. King says: “He nailed it to the cross to this extent: that he came to fulfill it and when he died upon the cross he did that and then Heb. 8:13; it took some forty years before the whole thing was completed.” “The New Testament saints, born of Abrahams spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3: 13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. (Heb. 8:13).” A-35 King cites Ps. 102:25-28, and says, ” Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment: does not this figure of speech sound familiar? See again Heb. 8:13; Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Could Paul and David be talking about the same event? The author believes so.” A-41 (Heb. 8:13). The words ready to vanish away are very significant in this passage, showing that the old dispensation continued several years after the cross. Its final end came with the fall of Jerusalem … and this event marked the passing of heaven and earth.” A-184, 185 “This natural body, receiving its death blow at the cross and beginning then to wax old and decay (Heb. 8:13), became a nursery or seed-body for the germination, growth, and development of the spiritual body by means of the gospel. Thus, out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity, that became fully developed or resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning of Pauls statement, It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. ” A-200

The word “decayeth” (KJV of Heb. 8:13) is imperative to Kings argument. He cannot use Berry here, or the ASV or NASV. They do not say “decay,” and his fanciful theory needs a putrifying body for a period of time. But there is no decaying process of a dead body anywhere in the Greek word of this text, or in the context. Notice the Greek text here: to de palaioumenon kai geraskon. Berry gives this literal word-for-word translation: “But that which grows old and aged.” The ASV says: “But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged.” The NASV reads: “But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old.” Palaioumenon, according to Thayers Greek Lexicon, means, “to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated,” and the second Greek word under consideration, geraskon, means, “to fail from age, be obsolescent.” The Hebrew writer does not say that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete and growing old, but that whatever (neuter) is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear! Thats his point; such is true of anything like that. It is a statement of general application. Thats why the neuter is used: “that which,” or “whatever.” And, theres no decaying in the word!

Now, notice Ps. 102:25-27. There is no direct reference at all in Heb. 8: 13 to this passage. There is a similar phrase there, and King jumps on it to make a play on words! The phrase “wax old” in Ps. 102:26, in the Septuagint (Greek version of the O.T.), is from the first of the two words noted above, meaning become old, or grow old. No “decaying” in Psa. 102 nor in Heb. 8! Even the KJV, in Psa. 102, does not say “decay” for the same word which appears in Heb. 8:13.

The Hebrew writer indicates that God considered the Old Covenant as obsolete in Jeremiahs time! When did God say that He would make a new covenant? Back in Jeremiahs time! What did God do to the first covenant when He said that? He made it old. What about anything old and obsolete? It is near to disappearing. This is what Heb. 8:13 is talking about! “When God announced a new covenant he proclaimed the insufficiency of the old, and the promise of a new covenant carried with it the promise of the abrogation of the old.” (Vincent Is Word Studies in the N. T., p. 1135).

The Hebrew brethren would be foolish to abandon the New Covenant for one done away! The Jews for six centuries knew, from Jer. 31: 3 ff, that the Old Covenant was in the aging process, and therefore would be abrogated in time. King gives the Law a “decaying” process six centuries too late! -Rt. 3

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, pp. 9-11
January 18, 1973