Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

In the New Testament one reads about the church. For example, Paul wrote that the house of God “is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). When reflecting on his personal unworthiness to be an apostle, Paul acknowledged, “I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9). Who built this church which is mentioned, described, and discussed on the pages of apostolic writings? 

Neither Abraham Nor Moses

Abraham was a great and faithful man of God. Called of God to go into a strange land, he received special promises and became the head of the race that we commonly identify as the Messianic nation. Known as “the Friend of God,” he did not build the church.

Moses was divinely commissioned to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. He was their lawgiver. He was the writer of the first five books of the Old Testament. He led the people during the trying years of wilderness wanderings. His was an illustrious career, but he did not build the church of the New Testament. 

Neither Solomon Nor Elijah

Solomon was a famous king who expanded the kingdom of Israel into an empire. He built a fine palace for himself and his crowning achievement was the building of the temple in Jerusalem. However, Solomon did not build the church.

Elijah was a courageous prophet who lived during the divided kingdom. He rebuked the wicked king Ahab for troubling Israel. He is remembered especially for his contest with the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel. He and Moses appeared with Christ on the mount of transfiguration, but Elijah did not build the church. 

Not John the Baptist

Some religious people have argued that the church was established by John. Furthermore, some think that since John was called “the Baptist,”  the church should be called “the Baptist Church.” John was called “the Baptist” because he baptized, not because he was “a” Baptist religiously. And John did not start the church. John was already dead, according to Matthew 14, when the building of the church was still future (Matt. 16:18). John’s mission was to prepare the way for the Messiah. He was not sent to build the church.

Not Martin Luther

There is a church that wears the name of Luther; however, that church is not revealed in the New Testament. Martin Luther was not born until A.D. 1483. That is more than fourteen hundred years too late for him to have been the founder of the New Testament church. No matter how much we may admire Luther for his sparking the great Reformation in Germany, we dare not exalt him unduly. The church described in the Bible existed for centuries before Luther nailed his ninety-five theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral and broke away from Roman Catholicism. One may read about Christians in the New Testament but not about Lutherans. 

Not John and Charles Wesley

The Methodist Church traces its origin back to the Wesley brothers, but they lived in the 18th century. Methodism had its roots in the Church of England. King Henry VIII had separated the English or Anglican Church from the control of the Pope of Rome in 1534. It was about two centuries later that the Wesleys organized societies that developed into the Methodist Church. The church of the New Testament was in existence in the first century. It was never referred to as the Methodist Church. The Wesleys could not have been the builders of the church of the Bible. 

Not Alexander Campbell

Born in the late 18th century, Alexander Campbell was a 19th century religious reformer. His quest for truth led him from the Presbyterians into close union with Baptists and then to bitter controversies with Presbyterians, Baptists, and other denominational leaders. Campbell pleaded with people to return to the ancient order of things. He urged individuals and congregations to discard from their faith and practice everything that is not found written in the New Testament of the Lord and Savior. Some of his positions in later years did not measure up to his plea. Whatever one may think of Campbell and his efforts, he came on the scene much too late to be the builder of the New Testament church. He made no claim to being the founder of the church described in the Bible.

Jesus Christ

In Matthew 16:18, after Peter had confessed him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus said, “. . . And upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This passage clearly identifies Jesus Christ as the builder of the New Testament church.

Jesus “purchased” the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28). He paid the price that there might be a called out body of people, a redeemed race, a chosen generation. He “loved the church” and gave himself for it (Eph. 5:25). The church belongs to him. It does not belong to Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Elijah, John the Baptist, Luther, Wesley, Campbell, or any other man. The church is Christ’s own purchased possession; it is peculiarly his.

Jesus is “the head of the church” (Eph. 5:23). He became its head after being exalted to the right hand of the Father in heavenly places (Eph. 1:20-23). Since the church is the body of people belonging to Christ, he is “the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18).

It is the Lord who adds people to the church (Acts 2:47). Obedience to the gospel results in salvation, and the church is composed of the saved. Jesus taught that people must believe and be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:15-16). We are “baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Jesus Christ established the New Testament church through the preaching of the apostles. All who respond to the gospel by obeying from the heart are brought under his headship and become a part of the glorious body which is his church.

Men have built numerous religious bodies, but no man is capable of building what the Lord established. Man may build something and call it a “church.” However attractive it may be, no man-made church is equal to, a suitable substitute for, or as important as the church built by Christ.

2820 Hunterwood Dr., S.E., Decatur, Alabama 35603-5638

By Violet McDaniel

The family was the basic unit of society in all the cultures that provide the background for early Christianity. The family was united by common religious observances and economic interdependence. The family consisted of the entire household — husband, wife, children, and sometimes other relatives and slaves.

Jewish marriages show many similarities to Greek and Roman practices. The marriage was a contract between families. There were two stages: the betrothal (or “acquisition” of the bride) and the wedding proper (taking the bride into the husband’s home). The betrothal had the legal force of marriage and could only be broken by divorce (cf. Matt. 1:18-19). The bride was prepared by bathing, anointing, and clothing with special adornments. She was escorted from her father’s house by an accompaniment of song, dance, and musical instruments. Weddings most often took place in the evening followed by seven days of festivities.

Divorce was uncommon among the Jews, but divorce was permitted by the Pharisees in the N.T. Some allowed divorce for any reason that displeased the husband — even poor cooking. Others believed there must be a serious moral lapse such as adultery. But there was a different standard for women — a wife could never divorce her husband, though under certain circumstances she could force him to divorce her. Divorce required little formality. A simple oral or written notice was sufficient. In Rome or Greece, by the first century, marriage could be terminated by the woman as well as the man, but under Jewish law only the husband could divorce his wife. A woman’s dowry (the daughter’s share of the parental estate) was returned to her in case of divorce. One reason divorce was not common among the Jews was that divorce placed a stigma on both parties and was considered to be a violation of the biblical ideal.

Women were to be unobserved in public. The veil was one symbol that reflected this status in society. The veil was a requirement for every married woman. In addition to being a symbol of modesty and virtue, the veil also indicated a woman’s married status and subordination to her husband. In keeping with the idea that women were to be unobserved in public, men were not supposed to look at married women, converse with women in public, or even give a woman a greeting when they passed on the street. The oral law stated, “Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no, not with his own wife.” It was unusual for a Jewish teacher to converse with a woman in a public place. The rabbis taught that women were not to be saluted or spoken to in the streets, and not to be instructed in the law. Jewish women were not as restricted in public appearance as Greek women, but did not have the freedom of first century Roman women. 

Eastern women were discouraged from going out in public at all. As in any social custom, exceptions existed, especially among the royalty and the wealthy. Often, a woman had to help her husband in business. In addition, religious festivals were occasions when men and women mixed in public. Women who lived in the country were not as inclined to observe the strict law regarding the veil. These women were more free to go out in public as they helped their husbands in the fields and sold produce. Particularly at harvest time, women would help in the fields and also help crushing grapes and olives in the presses.

A Housewife’s Day

Mothers then, as now, would have been occupied with household chores and watching the children. A house in the first century in a village was small, probably a square, flat-roofed building made of dried mud bricks with the exterior being white-washed. In villages, houses were clustered around small courtyards where the women did the laundry, cooked over charcoal or wood fires, and the children played. The houses were clustered together for protection and efficient use of land, leaving the open fields for cultivation. In these courtyards were chicken coops, dove cotes, woodsheds, straw sheds, and other small storage buildings. Animals were kept in the courtyards: sheep and goats were raised for meat, milk, and wool; chickens for meat and eggs; donkeys for carrying heavy burdens.

The houses usually had only one room, but might have had a second floor where married children lived. The doorway opened directly on the street. If there were windows, they were cut in the walls and veiled by curtains. The floor was hard-packed dirt mixed with clay and ash to make it as hard as cement and covered with a few straw or leather mats. Furniture was sparse, probably only a few wooden stools and a low wooden table.

On the outside, a wooden ladder led to the roof which had a parapet about eighteen inches high built around the edge (Deut. 22:8). Rooftop areas provided useful space for doing chores, drying clothes and flax, and in the hot summer months for eating and sleeping.

A Typical Housewife’s Day

The family’s day began at sunrise with a breakfast of curds and bread. Women would go to the village well early, carrying a jug to get fresh water for the day’s needs. The women carried the heavy water pots home on their head or shoulders. The well was the center of village life. One or two days a week the marketplace would be packed with farmers and merchants selling their wares. On these days, the women would buy provisions for the week. There was also a street of shops where craftsmen made and sold their wares — the blacksmith, carpenter, matmaker, potter, and basket-weaver. 

The daily tasks of women included baking bread (first she had to grind the barley between millstones), spinning, weaving, mending, washing, and making cheese and curds from goat’s milk in a goatskin churn. Suppers were substantial, but simple: bread and wine, and sometimes dried, salted fish or boiled chicken. People had a variety of vegetables to eat including beans, lentils, cucumbers, leeks, and onions. For dessert they might have nuts, melons, figs, grapes, or pomegranates. They did not have sugar but used wild honey and thick grape or fig syrup for sweetening. In warm weather cooking was done in the courtyard. On cold and rainy days cooking was done indoors on a portable clay stove fueled with charcoal or twigs. At mealtime the family sat on mats around the cooking pots, using bread as scoops to get the food. Probably these same mats were used as beds each night.

Clothing: A woman used the distaff and spindle to make yarn or thread from raw wool or flax. Galilee was known for its fields of sky-blue flax and sturdy linen cloth was made from flax fibers. Dying the thread probably was done at home also, or could have been done by the town dyer. After she made the thread or yarn she had to weave the yarn or thread into cloth. The typical loom in the first century produced cloth about three-feet wide. In Galilee, looms were often wider and a garment could be woven in one piece (see John 19:23). Over a tunic a man would have worn a loose-fitting outer garment, or mantle. The wife made her own clothes also. She wore the same type of tunic as a man, but her mantle was fuller, with enough fringe to cover her feet. Most women wore head coverings. Both men and women wore sandals which they probably purchased from the local sandal maker. 

Education: In a traditional Jewish village girls were not given regular schooling, but a girl’s mother taught her what she needed to know so she would be able to fulfill her role as a wife and mother. Among the most important lessons were the rules that pertained to Jewish law and tradition, particularly the dietary laws. A girl also learned how to set the table and to decorate and purify both table and home for the Sabbath and special holidays such as Passover. In learning how to make these preparations, she learned the customs and history that lay behind them. Training for girls in home making was not taken lightly. Girls also learned how to master such skills as spinning and weaving, treating illnesses with herbal remedies, and helping with the delivery of babies. Girls were also taught to play musical instruments since music was permitted if it was connected with religious festivities.

Because of household responsibilities, the Jewish wife and mother was exempt from certain religious observances. She was not required to go to Jerusalem for the various feasts, to observe the daily recitation of the shema, or to be present at the reading of the law. All women did not choose to be exempted as we have the example of Mary attending the Passover feast with Joseph (Luke 2:41). A woman could go no farther into the temple than the Court of Women. In synagogue services, women were bystanders.

Conclusion

The first century Jewish man thanked God that he was not born “a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.” This was one element in a prayer of thanksgiving that was in the ancient Jewish prayer book. Teachings in the Talmud emphasized however that every individual possessed equality, dignity,  and self-worth. But in practice this equality was defined in terms of strict male-female roles. The home was regarded as the primary sphere of expression and activity for a woman and the public arena was reserved for men. The rabbis taught that these two spheres were separate but equal. Though women did much of the hard work, they had a low position, both in society and in the family. 

Jesus dealing with women, for example his readiness to speak to and help the Samaritan woman (John 4), contrasted strongly with prevailing attitudes. In the New Testament Jesus often referred to women in his parables and included them among his disciples. In the early church, women helped spread the gospel and prophesied. 

Although the life of the first-century Jewish wife seems oppressive to us, those women found great fulfillment in the role of wife and mother, and she was revered in her role. 

Sources: 

Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity.
Biblical Illustrator, Winter 1991.
Reader’s Digest, Great People of the Bible and How They Lived.
Reader’s Digest, Jesus and His Times.

5047 Kingsbury Dr., Pittsboro, Indiana 46167

By Daniel H. King Sr.

The doctrine of creation is not an obscure doctrine in Scripture. Although there are many biblical doctrines that are based upon just a few scriptural references, there are at least 75 references to creation in the Old and New Testaments. The first two chapters of Genesis contain the primary biblical information on creation, so they provide the basis of the biblical doctrine. The meaning of this simple narrative is truly straightforward. This portion of the Bible, however, has been the object of considerable speculation by various writers who have placed interpretations upon the text that have little to do with what the writer originally was trying to convey to his audience. Clearly, the meaning of Scripture as with any writing, has to do with how it would have been perceived and understood by its original audience. What any subsequent generation might force upon it, based upon its unique presuppositions and world-views, is a different matter altogether. Such things will change with the passing of the generations. But the author’s original intent ought to determine the meaning.

The Genesis account of creation, and with it the biblical doctrine of creation, has been the subject of such “rethinking” and “reinterpreting” over the years. This has elicited quite a number of approaches to the narration proffered by the author of the document. Consequently, there is much controversy on the interpretation of certain features of the chapters.  Still, certain basic truths stand out in such a way as to lie beyond legitimate controversy or quibble, or so it would seem. Let us begin by stating in uncomplicated language one of these points of a general interest, and then address those aspects of the chapters which require further scrutiny.

According to the first two chapters of Genesis, the entire process of biological creation appears to have been completed in a very short process of time. There is nothing in these chapters about eons or ages. Not one thing. There is no mention of protracted periods of time. Our author only speaks of evenings and mornings, and of the passage of a few short days which comprise a single creative week. It ends with a single Sabbath, not hundreds or thousands of them. In the present historic moment this may be the most controversial aspect of the chapter, even among professed creationists, for it flies in the face of so much of modern scientific theorizing about the origin of the universe. But the question whether the penman of Genesis wished his readers to believe this, based simply upon what he says about the matter, lies safely beyond dispute. According to this writer, the creation took only six days. When the seventh day came, creation was over.

This point appears to stand on its own merits. The text is so plain that little may be said to object to the conclusion that the writer of Genesis wanted his first readers to believe this basic fact. One may argue either that he does not believe it or that he cannot accept this to be accurate, based upon issues or information extraneous to Genesis, but he may not fairly claim that the early readers would have gotten any impression different from the one stated above in this little synopsis. As a liberal theologian, Dr. Gerhard von Rad, observed in his commentary on Genesis, “What is said here is intended to hold true entirely and exactly as it stands. There is no trace of the hymnic element in the language, nor is anything said that needs to be understood symbolically or whose deeper meaning has to be deciphered” (47, 48). According to Aila Annala, “Anyone who reads the Genesis story in Hebrew will find out quite soon that it is prose — a historical description of the beginnings. Something very typical for Hebrew prose are the many waw-consecutive forms in the beginning of the sentences (the repeated “ands” in the beginning of the sentences in many English translations). To make the creation story into a hymn is as difficult as trying to sing a couple of pages from a modern history book” (Creation Story: History, Myth, Hymn or Saga?). The writer has written what he has written; one ought to accept it or reject it. But one must not do it the injustice of attempting to bring those words into line with what one would have liked for him to have said based upon a modernistic interpretation of the events which he chronicles. 

The Spirit of Compromise

With the rise of modern scientific opinion, there has been considerable debate among Bible-believing conservatives regarding the length of the days referred to in the creation account. The debate, though, is only among religious conservatives, because modernist biblical scholars tend to take the “days” of Genesis at face value. As the quotation from von Rad shows, they believe that it means precisely what it says, namely, that the world was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. They simply do not believe it. They believe the writer was wrong. Liberal scholars read the account in Genesis 1-2 as outdated cosmology dreamed up by an ancient Hebrew bard who was attempting to answer the question, “Where did the world and all that it contains come from?”

Some evangelical scholars on the other hand, have interpreted the days of creation in such a way as to bring them into some semblance of accord with current concepts of geology. The temptation to do so is understandable (and thus to avoid a few of the major conflicts and more onerous contradictions between modern scientific theory and the Bible), but such attempts usually involve the imposition of a presupposed structure upon the interpretation of Scripture which the normal rules of biblical interpretation simply will not permit. 

Such “interpretation” is not only strained to the breaking point, but also presents itself as rather foolish to the scientific community. They view it as the struggle of religious zealots to retain some meager vestige of what they consider to be their “precious religious mythology.” They are not at all impressed with the effort. Those of us who take seriously the words of Genesis are not impressed either, for we view their attempt at striking a bargain with the Zeitgeist or “spirit of the times” as a traitorous sellout to contemporary culture. 

Their efforts are neither serious Bible study nor serious science. In the end, they make of themselves “men without a country,” so to speak. Evolutionists do not want them. Bible-believing Christians do not want them. But that is the way of the compromiser in every age. History provides us with many examples of this same mentality. The Judaizing teachers of Paul’s time were rejected by churches which stood steadfast in the faith, while also being rejected by orthodox Jews who could not accept the notion that Jesus was their Christ. This was the result, in spite of their attempted compromise: “As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:12). Faithful saints rejected them because of their compromise, as we must today    reject those who invent compromises with the present culture. Likewise, the “Christian” gnostics attempted a compromise between the Christian system and the multifaceted Gnosticism, which itself was a commingling of Greek and Oriental mysticism, religion and philosophy. In the end, they too, found themselves unable to please either group. Ultimately, they became what Francis Legge has called one of the “rivals of Christianity” (Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity From 330 BC to 330 AD). The Apostle Paul considered their efforts at defining true wisdom as pure folly: “. . . avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith” (1 Tim. 5:20, 21).

 How Long Were the Days of Genesis One?    

Our examination of this issue must necessarily begin with a study of the words chosen by the writer of Genesis to describe the temporal aspects of his narrative. Before we take a look at the words involved, though, a simple generalization is necessary. Most words in any language have a somewhat flexible range of meanings, and their meaning is not determined by a lexicon so much as by the context. In Genesis chapters one and two the word “day” (yom), which has the simple lexical meaning of “‘day’ as division  of time” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the O.T. 398) has a similar range of meaning as does our English word. It would be easiest to illustrate this point in the English usage. 

One may, for example, speak of “George Washington’s day” as an indefinite period of time (the context makes this clear), and this is how the word “day” is used in Genesis 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Here the author simply refers to the time when God made the earth and heavens, not a particular day. Many interpreters wish to understand “day” in all its usages in Genesis 1 in this way. There are immense problems with this approach, however, as we will demonstrate below. 

If a physician, on the other hand, prescribes medicine that is to be taken at one dosage the first day, at a reduced dosage the second day, and so on, he means something quite different when he uses the word “day.” Moreover, it might prove to be a huge mistake to understand his words other than the way they were intended. But the context of the term leaves nothing to the imagination and little room for interpretation. “Day” is clearly used in this latter way in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. All the usages in this chapter being of the same type and utilizing the identical descriptive, “there was evening and morning, a first day,” and so on, it is natural for the reader to imply that the same thing is meant in each and every instance. And it is very unnatural, if not ridiculous, to infer the existence of millions or billions of years either during the days or between the days of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1-2 we have to understand yom as literal, 24-hour days, for the following reasons: 

1. The creation days are delimited by the evening and morning, both of which in the Bible always mean literal evening and morning. Are we to believe that for half the period represented, say on the fourth day, the sun did not shine and that for half the period it did? By saying “evening and morning” the text implies a period of darkness and a period of light. Could plants have survived over such an extensive period of darkness?
2.  The first day, yom ehad, is, in fact, not called the first day in the Hebrew text, but “day one” or “one day.” In this particular instance we could speak of a “proto-day,” a day that was to be the measure of all coming days. It was not possible to use the order “first” yet, since there had not been any day before. It was not until after this “proto-day” that one could start talking about the second day, third day, and so on. 
3. Together with an attribute expressing order (e.g., the second, the third, etc.), yom is only used literally in the Old Testament. 
4. If the days were intended to represent longer periods of time, then why did the writer not use the word dor, which means a period of time and can be used in different contexts, instead of yom? Why did he not choose to employ ‘olam which means “a time hidden, indefinite, or unlimited” (B. Davidson, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon 601).
5.  The word yom in the Bible, and its plural form yamim, in approximately 95% of its occurrences has the ordinary literal meaning. Passages such as Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 are not meant to interpret the events of Genesis chapters one and two. Their purpose and the occasion of their usage are to show God’s eternity, that one day is comparable to a thousand years and a thousand years like one day to one who dwells beyond the realm of time. They do not propose to offer a new way of viewing the creation week. In fact, they have no connection at all with the creation story. 
6. With the word yom, always it is the context and the clues provided in the context that determines its meaning. And if the contextual evidence in Genesis 1 and 2 is not sufficient to convince the skeptical, Moses proceeded to tell us what he meant in other places in the Pentateuch. In his discussion of the Sabbath command he said, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them . . . ” (Exod. 20:11). He also wrote, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed” (31:17). These supplementary statements from the hand of the prophet clearly imply that the days of creation were ordinary days and that God rested on the seventh day rather than on the seventh era, for the Jews were required to rest for a day and not for an era. This is an excellent example of Scripture interpreting Scripture, which is Bible interpretation at its best.  
7. Psalm 33:6-9 says, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth . . . For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” According to the inspired writer of this psalm, when God spoke, the work of creating was done, and after that it merely stood fast. How is it possible to harmonize this bold declarative statement with an interpretation of the creation account which holds that God spoke merely to begin a process that took millions or billions of years to assume the form which it ultimately attained? 
8. Jesus declared the creation of man and woman to have been at the beginning of the creation, not toward the end. The Lord said, “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4). The parallel account in Mark 10:6 further clarifies: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” If the progressive creationists are correct, man and woman were brought on the scene much closer to the end of earth history than the beginning. But Jesus said,      “ . . . from the beginning of the creation God made them      . . . ” It was not at the end, it was at the beginning. It is easy to understand how the events of the sixth day of a 144-hour week might be viewed as “the beginning”; but it is difficult indeed to see how man’s creation 15-20 billion years after the “big bang” or original creation, and roughly 4.5 billion years after the creation of the earth, might in any sense be called “the beginning.” 

All these points taken together powerfully define the creative days as relatively short, not long periods of time. So we are left with no doubt whatever as to the signification of the word for “day” as used in Genesis 1. It means exactly what it says! It represents a normal, average, ordinary, twenty-four hour day — except that some very extraordinary things happened on those particular days!

In summary, it is plain from a simple reading of the chapter that these long periods of time are being read into the text and not out of it! One could never find these extensive periods in Genesis the first chapter without first believing this notion that the universe is billions of years old and then inserting them between the verses — not because they may be found in the word yom or somewhere else, but because they must be placed there in order to fit one’s preconceptions. 

2521 Oak Forest Dr., Antioch, Tennessee 37013

By Mike Willis

The Scriptures teach that God’s servants are to defend the truth. Consider the following texts:

But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel (Phil. 1:17). But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15).

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do (1 Tim. 1:3-4).

Throughout the ages, men have tried to deter the servants of God who were busy defending the truth against the assaults of unrighteous-  ness. Ahab accused Elijah as the “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17-18). Ahab hated Micaiah because he prophesied only evil against him (1 Kings 22:8). The false prophets who preached smooth things resisted Jeremiah because he preached the truth (Jer. 11:21; 23:25-26; etc.). Men have always opposed those who call men back to the word of God.

One of the marks of movement away from the Lord’s revelation is one’s reaction to the preaching of the word of God. John wrote,

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error (1 John 4:1-6).

When men react to the preaching of the truth by trying to silence the man who is preaching the truth instead of calling on the brother to repent who is preaching error, one knows that this is “the spirit of error.”

In the last decade we have had a sad spectacle to occur among brethren, a series of events that is a reflection of the spirit of our own age. As the influence of the world has spilled over into the church, we had to fight such issues among us as divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, and a unity-in-diversity approach to fellowship. Several books have been published among us on some of these issues including the following:  Homer Hailey’s The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God; Jerry Bassett’s Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage; Sam Dawson’s Fellowship: With God and His People.

Concerned brethren have risen up to reply to these false doctrines. Brother Weldon Warnock wrote a response to brother Hailey entitled A Review of Homer Hailey’s The Divorce and Remarried Who Would Come To God. Brother Ron Halbrook has published two booklets addressing these and other subjects entitled Trends Pointing Toward A New Apostasy and Understanding the Divorce and Remarriage Controversy. While a number have expressed appreciation for these answers to the false doctrines being taught, a rather strong reaction has come against the men who opposed the false doctrines. They are been branded as “jeremiad” zealots who have unmercifully attacked an aged warrior; radicals who are dividing the church; men who are without integrity; snarling dogs, and similar such vicious criticisms. These criticisms are aimed at conscientious brethren who were defending the truth against what even their critics identify as false teachings (although these critics nearly choke when asked to call those who teach those doctrines “false teachers”).

Another incident with remarkably similar results has occurred with reference to a discussion of the “days” of Genesis 1. Some brethren wrote articles and conducted lectureships or workshops around the country asserting that the days of Genesis 1 were long ages, in order to bring their interpretation of Genesis into harmony with late twentieth century “science.” When brethren replied to those preaching that the days of Genesis 1 were “long ages,” they were attacked as “troublers of Israel.” Mind you, those who preached what most admitted were false doctrines were not rebuked or condemned, only those who opposed them.

What is the long lasting impact of this criticism? Of course, none of us can know the future with certainty, but I can assure you of this one thing — these criticisms have the effect of discouraging younger brethren from opposing what they perceive as false doctrine! Who among us wants to have his name assaulted and slandered like those who have opposed the false doctrines of divorce and remarriage? Who would want his name attacked as has occurred toward brother Ron Halbrook who had the audacity to warn brethren about trends toward a new apostasy? The effect of this criticism is very clearly perceived: The critics have attacked those who are defending the truth and have thereby discouraged others from rising to the defense of the gospel in the future. Such criticisms stifle the defense of the gospel.

What will the future hold? As the spirit of liberalism continues to develop among us, these very critics who have been so vociferous in their criticism of others who opposed false doctrine are likely going to find themselves having to defend the truth against some issue facing the church in their area (provided that they live long enough). The very words that they have used to attack those who defended the truth against those who were teaching false doctrines on divorce and remarriage will be used against them.

The sadder thing, however, is this: The unity-in-diversity approach to fellowship that they preached with reference to divorce and remarriage will be applied to that future issue also, whatever that issue might be. I can almost hear the argument now on “baptism” at some future date: “Brethren have always disagreed throughout the restoration movement on the purpose of baptism. Brother Lipscomb and brother McGary debated the issue in the Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate. If they could disagree and continue in fellowship with each other, so also should we today.” If that argument has validity as a defense for an on-going fellowship with those who are wrong about divorce and remarriage, why won’t it work with those who are wrong about baptism? If the argument has any validity, it will work for both of these issues and a hundred more just like them. The ones who will be judged to be the “troublers of Israel” in that case will be those who are calling for an adherence to the teachings of Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, just like those who are judged to be the “troublers of Israel” today are those calling for an adherence to the teachings of Matthew 19:9.

We are being treated to a steady stream of dogma coming from sources who paint as villains those who stand for the truth against those who introduce unauthorized teachings and practices. Foy E. Wallace, Jr.’s role in opposing premillennialism, Roy E. Cogdill’s role in opposing institutionalism, and a number of brethren’s role in opposing Oral Roberts faith healing have been subjected to criticism. In all of these examples, those who stand foursquare for the truth are depicted as the “bad guys.” There is no doubt in my mind what impact such a characterization of those who rise to the defense of the gospel in the face of a serious threat of false teaching has on those who are developing their ideas of what it means to be a preacher of the gospel.

I remember distinctly the impact on my life that the reading of the biographies of men such as J.D. Tant, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Campbell, W.W. Otey, and other gospel preachers whose lives were extolled  by their biographers. What change would have occurred in my concept of what a gospel preacher’s work is had their biographers condemned them as negative, rancorous men? I am confident that holding such men up as esteemed brethren influenced in a positive way my understanding of the work of a gospel preacher in resisting false doctrines that face the church. What impact will occur when such men are contemned, belittled, and castigated?

Already a mind set has developed among us that identifies debating an issue of truth as a “work of the flesh” to be avoided. Those preachers who engage in public debates are less spiritual than those who refuse to participate. The end result of this mind set is obvious: We stifle the defense of the gospel! That is the result whether or not that is the intention of the critics of those who oppose false teaching.

When we effectively destroy the influence of those who stand up to resist false doctrines, the spread of false doctrine will mushroom. After all, there is no way to oppose it. You can’t preach against it or you may be branded as a jeremiad zealot and destroy your reputation among brethren. So, what do you do? You keep your mouth shut and bury your head in the sand while the false doctrine spreads. You will be counted an honorable brother who has done the cause of Christ much good, but the things you believe as fundamentals of the faith will soon become ancient relics of a bygone faith. If you think I am misrepresenting what has happened, visit a good restoration library and read through the pages of some of the journals that once were so welcomed among those who are now liberals.

If that is what we wish to happen among us, we are in a good position to have that occur. However, if we judge that would not be good for the cause of Christ, we need to be re-thinking our attitudes toward those who are courageous enough to lay their reputations on the line for a defense of the faith.

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com