Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

One night I dreamed I died and went to heaven. I heard songs, and was asked to join the huge group that was singing. There were 1000 sopranos, 1000 altos, 1000 tenors, and one bass — me. We reached a crescendo, which called for as much volume as we could muster. Right in the middle of it the conductor stopped and said, “Brother Blackford, pu-leez, a little softer on the bass.

Well, that didn’t really happen. But sometimes I sing too loud. Sometimes I sing the wrong verse when everybody else is singing something different. I hate it when that happens. And those times when I sing too loud seem to always happen when I’m singing the wrong verse! I enjoy singing, but I’ve got to stay in my place and sing with the group.

When I was younger and much of a dreamer, I imagined what it would be like to be the conductor of a huge orchestra and chorus. I never made it, but I have done something that far exceeded those dreams. There is scarcely anything more rewarding than directing the hearts and voices of children in vacation Bible school! Their bright eyes, smiling faces, enthusiasm and volume (!) do more for me than being an orchestra conductor could ever do. Children who are eager to learn and unashamed to sing of their faith are worth more than gold.

Another opportunity a few years ago reminded me of some of our heavenly benefits. I returned to my hometown to direct 17 grandchildren as they sang at the funeral of their grandmother. It hadn’t been long since we had done the same at their grandfather’s funeral. Surely, the angels couldn’t have sung any sweeter. 

One of the most touching and memorable occasions was when I spoke at the funeral of a little girl. It was difficult to keep my composure as children sang the cherished children’s hymn, “Jesus loves me, this I know.”

Singing fits many occasions. We sing when we are sad, and we sing when we are happy. Paul and Silas sang after having been beaten and imprisoned unjustly (Acts 16). “Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise” (Jas. 5:13). In John’s heavenly vision he saw victorious saints singing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev.15:3). Some were depicted as singing “a new song” (Rev. 5:9; 14:3).

Those who miss heaven will miss one of the greatest joys for having chosen the sounds of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the song of victory.

One of the reasons we sing today is to encourage people to obey the gospel. It is difficult to understand why anyone would reject the invitation. It is the strange mercy of our God that he continues to linger while “sweetly the tones are falling.” We sing a number of hymns that express in words better than we could the need and urgency for you to obey the gospel. I often wonder how anyone could resist. But ever so often there is a breakthrough. And perhaps at the next worship service, as we sing, there will be a tender heart that is touched by the message and will break out of the bonds of sin and declare their faith in Jesus Christ. Will it be you?

P.O. Box 3032, State University Arkansas 72467 rlb612@aol.com

By David Dann

The New Testament opens in the book of Matthew by introducing, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ” (Matt. 1:1). Matthew’s opening statement is followed by a lengthy list of names, that establishes a direct family line from the patriarch Abraham to Jesus Christ. 

Anyone who has even casually read the Bible knows that it contains numerous genealogical lists, the first of which is found as early as Genesis 4. In fact, there are so many genealogical lists in the Old Testament that we are often tempted to rush through them or even skip over them altogether, rather than take the time to patiently try to pronounce the various names included in the list. Why does the Bible include these genealogies? Since the Scriptures are a product of the mind of God (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), our Creator must have had some purpose for including them in the inspired text. And, the great frequency with which they occur further points to the importance and necessity of their inclusion. But, what exactly is that purpose, and why are they necessary? 

Bible Genealogies

1. Are an evidence of the historical authenticity of the Scriptures. While many may view the genealogies recorded in the Bible as boring and tedious, they actually serve to support the historical integrity of the Scriptures. For example, Genesis 5 contains the genealogy of Adam all the way down to Noah and his sons. The genealogical record of Genesis 5 contains important details, as well as the various ages of the patriarchs mentioned. We live in an age in which it is popular to dismiss the early chapters of the book of Genesis as nothing more than mythical poetry. But, the genealogies are present as a testimony to the historical authenticity and accuracy of the Genesis record. The genealogies serve to show that the men mentioned in Genesis are real individuals who lived real lives and fathered real sons and daughters, who in turn, raised real families of their own. The history of the nation of Israel recorded in the Old Testament is replete with detailed genealogical records. One cannot simply discredit the historical accuracy of the Old Testament without having to grapple with the fact that the Israelites were able to carefully preserve these detailed genealogies.

2. Help to establish an accurate chronology of events. We know from secular history that approximately two thousand years have passed since the coming of Christ. Secular history and archaeology also affirm that roughly two thousand years elapsed from the time of Abraham to the time of Christ. In Luke 3:23-34, Luke presents a genealogy of Jesus in which he includes 55 generations within the period of time falling between Abraham and Christ. If each generation spans about 40 years, we have approximately 2000 years from Abraham to Christ. Luke continues his genealogical record from Abraham all the way back to Adam, which covers twenty generations (Luke 3:34-38). Since Genesis 5:1-32 provides the ages of those mentioned in Luke’s genealogy, we can estimate the time from Adam to Abraham to have been no more than a few thousand years. It is possible to cover this span of time with only twenty generations due to the fact that the ages of the patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5 often exceed nine hundred years. Since we know that the earth is only five days older than Adam (Gen. 1:1-31; Exod. 20:11), we can be sure that the earth’s age should be referenced in the context of thousands, rather than billions, or even millions, of years.

3. Were necessary in order to keep the Law of Moses. The law of the Old Covenant that God gave Israel at Mt. Sinai made it necessary for the nation of Israel to keep careful genealogical records. One of the key components of the Law of Moses was the Levitical priesthood. God instructed Moses saying, “And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest’s office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death” (Num. 3:9-10). The only way the Israelites could keep the Law of God was to make sure that the priests were descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. And, the only way to be make sure of that was to keep genealogical records. Because of this, we should not be surprised that God commanded Moses to make a careful record of the families of the Levites (Num. 3:14-39). Correct genealogical records had to be maintained in order to ensure that the priests were selected from the proper tribe and family. 

4. Are not important under the New Covenant. The only genealogies recorded in the New Testament are the two genealogies of Christ found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, respectively. These genealogies are necessary in order to show the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the family line of Christ. However, the New Testament includes no other genealogies beyond these. There is no longer a need to keep track of the families of the priests, since the priesthood and law have been changed (Heb. 7:12). Genealogical records are conspicuously absent throughout the New Testament. We do not have genealogical records of the apostles and evangelists of the New Testament, nor do we need them. In fact, the apostle Paul warned Titus to “avoid foolish questions, and genealogies”(Tit. 3:9). He gave similar instructions to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:4). Under the gospel, genealogies are of no spiritual importance, since we are to “rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).

Conclusion

The genealogical records presented in the Bible serve an important purpose in unfolding the story of mankind’s redemption, and in upholding the historical accuracy and validity of the Scriptures. Before you skip over those    genealogies, remember that God put them there for a reason, for “his work is perfect” (Deut. 32:4).

2 Wesley St. #5, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8Y 2W3 www.preachthegospel.com

By Joshua Gurtler

A young preacher in the south preaches a sermon on a common error taught by brethren today. Following the sermon, he is pulled aside by an older member of the church and instructed, “It’s OK to expose one’s error as long as you don’t mention his name.” When the evangelist pointed out that teachers of error were named throughout the New Testament, the member said, “True, but this was only done by apostles. And you, sir, are not an apostle.” (See Mike Willis’ multi-part series entitled “You Are Not An Apostle” beginning with the March 2, 2000 issue of Truth Magazine.)

A young preacher in the southwest delivers a lesson in which he discusses a common error taught on divorce and remarriage and exposes one prominent teacher of this doctrine. Following the lesson, on more than one occasion, the young evangelist was publicly castigated to the point of tears and severely threatened that from now on he speak to no man concerning this teacher of error. These members included deacons of that church.

Though the aforementioned events occurred to my brother and me, similar situations are being replicated by brethren all over our great land. In regards to the mentioning of a current teacher of error, a brother recently told me, “I think this brother has been beaten into the ground enough. Isn’t it time for a little relief?” Another brother told me he no longer wanted to hear me mention the doctrine and names of brethren in error. He said “listening to brothers bash other brothers in Christ is not encouraging to me.” Can you imagine Timothy telling the apostle, “Paul, I think we’ve beaten these poor Judaizers into the ground enough, isn’t it time for a little relief?” Or the disciples to Jesus, “Lord, listening to Jewish brethren bash their brothers is not encouraging to us.” Such would be unheard of in the Holy Writ, but is commonplace in the church today. In this regard, do we see approved apostolic examples for exposing error, the teacher of such, or both? If so, we then have the authority to warn others, as Paul said, “Let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. For many walk, of whom I have told you often (my emphasis jg) and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:16-18; 4:9). 

Exposing Error

The Scripture is replete with examples of exposing damnable heresy. This fact is abundantly clear to all good Bible students based on just one epistle. Paul’s letter to Corinth is full of examples in this regard (1 Cor. 1:12, 13; 5:1; 6:1; 8:7). Let’s bear in mind that Paul was not a member of this autonomous church to whom he was writing. Rather he was, as we are authorized, to lovingly, albeit harshly, expose and rebuke them concerning their present condition.

Exposing The Teacher And His Error

Even though good students of the Scripture are also privy to this fact, far too many church leaders and Bible teachers are either ignorant of, or have been deluded into thinking that Christians are forbidden from warning others about an errorist and his heresy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Notice the following teachers exposed by our Lord and other New Testament disciples.

• Matt. 15 and 23 — The Pharisees for binding traditions.
• Mark 6:18 — Herod for having his brother’s wife.
• Acts 13:8-10 — Elymas for withstanding teachers of the truth. 
• 1 Timothy 1:20 — Hymenaeus and Alexander for blasphemy.
• 2 John 9 — Diotrophes for refusing the apostles doctrine.
• 2 Timothy 2:17 — Hymenaeus and Philetus for error concerning the resurrection.
• Revelation 2:14 — Those in Pergamum for holding the teaching of Balaam.
• Revelation 2:20 — Jezebel for teaching people to commit acts of immorality.

Exposing The Teacher Himself

Although we have just as much scriptural justification for exposing the teacher of error alone as we do the previous two categories, Christians who do such are oftentimes opposed and exposed for this practice. This is commonly done by other Christians who will correct us for naming the errorist and then turn around and expose and name us to others in the process (Rom. 2:21-23). Such has been my experience. Let’s examine some teachers that were named without mentioning the error.

The Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod (Mark 8:15; Matt. 16:6)

In warning his followers about the teachers of error, Christ warned, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod.” Matthew includes also the Sadducees. What did their leaven, influence, and doctrine consist of? We, of course, know this from Christ’s subsequent teaching and it is quite possible that the disciples knew it as well. But the fact remains that there were certain situations that Christ deemed it important to expose the teacher without exposing his error on the same occasion.

The Party of the Circumcision (Phil. 3:2) 

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!” The NASB says, “. . . beware of the false circumcision.” Vine says this expression comes from the Greek katatome meaning concision or mutilation. It is understood that Paul was making reference to the Judaizing teachers who bound circumcision and other particulars of the Old Law. We know that was their teaching and no doubt the brethren in Philippi did as well. This does not, however, change the fact that Paul exposed this group of teachers to the Philippians alone without mentioning their error.

Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15)

The final example we wish to look at is the Apostle John where he warns the church at Pergamum concerning the Nicolaitans whose teaching was held by some of the members there. Who was this group of teachers and what did they teach? I have an idea. Many faithful brethren have varying ideas, and no doubt you do as well. Who is correct? Since there is no other mention of this group outside of history and tradition, and since John named not the error but only the group, it is impossible for us to ascertain exactly what they taught. Because John named not the doctrine of this group but the group itself, he made evident the fact that certain situations call for the exposure of the teacher without mentioning the error, with the goal of the saving of souls in mind.

While the Scriptures teach us to expose teachers of darkness and their error, let us not lose sight that it also teaches us to speak “the truth in love,” letting our “speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt that you may know how you ought to answer each one” and to “become all things to all men that I might by all means save some” (Eph. 4:15; Col. 4:6; 1 Cor. 9:26). Though the mockers may scoff and the heathen may rail, let us continue to expose that which is wrong in the hopes of snatching but one from the fire which will burn with an eternal fervor.

2520 Tallapoosa St., Notasulga, Alabama 36866

By Eric Keiper

In 1831, a remarkable event occurred in two cities in the state of Kentucky. Alexander Campbell’s “Disciples” were meeting with Barton Stone’s “Christians.” The purpose of their meeting was to bring the two separate restoration movements together as one. On Christmas weekend of 1831, the first meeting took place in Goergetown, Kentucky. It was followed immediately by another meeting in Lexington, Kentucky on New Year’s weekend. Garret describes it as a “festive occasion with the spirit of Christmas and New Year’s in the air, along with the dream of a united church.” 

At first, one might think that this unity was an easy proposition. It’s true that the Campbell and Stone groups both believed in the Bible as the only source for religious authority. In fact, Raccoon John Smith appealed in his closing comments at the Lexington Meeting, “Let us then, my brethren, be no longer Campbellites or Stonites, New Lights or Old Lights or any other kind of Lights, but let us all come to the Bible, and to the Bible alone, as the only book in the world that can give us all the Light we need.” 

However, the task of achieving unity was much greater than one might imagine. To many, their differences would seem insurmountable. Let’s just look at a few. One might guess already that there was disagreement over the name of believers. “The Stone movement was adamant in wearing the name Christian . . . while Campbell followers preferred Disciples.” There was a “rather serious conflict between Stone and Campbell over the doctrine of the pre-existent Christ. ” “The Christians had an ordained ministry and a higher concept of the ministerial office . . . The Disciples were actually anti-clerical . . .” “The Christians . . . were emotional even to the point of using the mourners bench . . . the Disciples . . . were more rational in their approach . . . and rejected the mourners bench.” “While they were both immersionists, the Christians did not emphasize it like the Disciples did, believing that one could be saved without being immersed and that it was not necessary to Christian communion.” “The Disciples served the [Lord’s] Supper every first day, the Christians observed it on an irregular basis . . .”  “The Christians had a broader view of the ministry of the Holy Spirit . . . The Disciples were inclined to limit the Spirit’s influence to the word . . .” “While both were unity conscious, the idea of uniting all men in Christ was predominant with the Christians. The Disciples were more concerned for a restoration of the ancient order.” 

Today, we look at these points of difference and may be aghast. Some may not be aware that such differences existed. Others, may be surprised that such a great gap could exist between two groups who claimed to use the Bible as their only guide. One can look at this list of differences and see the formation of points of doctrine that we believe today. However, note that neither side had all the truth. They benefitted greatly from coming together. Both were able to throw aside error and learn from each other. This was because they came together upon the foundational plea of both groups, “the Bible only.” 

How did such unity take place. Well, it was “fragile” at the outset. But, in the next 30 years it grew together toward the unity of the faith. One of the most important attitudes that permitted this to happen was a deep desire for unity. It was a commitment that guided brethren with carefulness in the teaching of God’s word and in diligent love towards one another. When Raccoon John Smith rose to speak at the close of the Lexington meeting he exemplified this careful attitude in all he did. “Smith arose with simple dignity, and stood prayerful and self possessed, before the mingling brotherhoods. He felt, as no one else could feel it, the weight of the responsibility that rested on him. A single unscriptural position taken — the least sectarian feeling betrayed — an intemperate word — a proud, unfraternal glance of the eye — might arouse suspicion and prejudice, and blast the hope of union in the very moment it was budding with so many promises. Every eye turned on him, and every ear leaned to catch the slightest tones of his voice.” Do you see the carefulness that brought unity? Do you see the diligence that allowed each group to see the good in the other and cast away their own error? It was an attitude of love combined with a commitment to be unified. I am aware of no better example than Raccoon John Smith at the Lexington meeting to keep the words of Ephesians 4:2-3. “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” 

Do you ever wonder why we lack in the unity department today? Perhaps, we’re not implementing the principles that unified the Restoration Movement — scriptural principles. 

 Perhaps, now, we go about purposefully causing suspicion and prejudice among brethren. Perhaps, now, we are filled with pride, giving “the unfraternal glance,” and toss flippant “intemperate words” towards brethren. Make no mistake about the truth of God’s Word! When we re-    embrace “lowliness,” “meekness,” “longsuffering,” “forbearing love” as we work to the unity of the faith, then we’ll have unity. Maybe with careful words and tempered demeanor we can see the good in one another and cast away our own error. Maybe with humility, love, and truth we can be the answer to the Savior’s prayer, “that they may be one.” 

May we all draw from this pivotal point in our history and learn from the good example of faith. References: The Stone Campbell Movement, Revised and Expanded, Garret, Leroy, 1997, College Press,185. As quoted from Williams, “The Life of Elder John Smith,” 183, 193-194.

2032 Wrens Nest Rd., Richmond, Virginia 23235-3664