As we have seen, Hermeneutics is not a biblical word but is commonly used
relative to understanding the Bible. It describes the process, by which we gain
an understanding of what the Bible writers were saying in their own time and
what that means for us now; it is gaining an understanding of the mind of God.
But, hermeneutics can mean different things to different people, depending on
what sort of process they follow and the presumptions they have formed. For
instance, beginning with a Calvinist theology will force one to interpret scriptures
to harmonize with all Calvinist theology. Catholics will interpret scripture in
keeping with Church doctrines and traditions. The same is true when originating
from Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Adventist or even a modernist’s perspective.
The Pharisees were masters of intricate man made rules and a dependence
on the opinions of long dead Rabbis. Gnosticism, both Jewish and Pagan,
changed with the individual teachers but all had fallible human wisdom as the
source; their reasoning was based on faulty premises. See Colossians 2:18-23, I
John 4:1. People manufacture all kinds of intricate ways to make scripture say
what they want it to say. Instead of beginning from the basic position of what
does the Bible actually say, one begins with preconceived beliefs. Thus, the
meaning “hermeneutic” will change from person to person. It has been said that
“if you will tell me your hermeneutic, I will tell you what your doctrines are.” This
may generally be true. It could as well be said that “if you will tell me your
doctrines, I will tell you what your hermeneutic is.” Thomas Olbricht, correctly
said, “The word hermeneutic means whatever the person employing it wants it to
mean,” Restoration Quarterly, Volume 37, Number 1. However, none of this
says that we cannot reach an honest and clear understanding of the Bible. In our
study, we must approach the scriptures to find out what they are saying instead
of trying to force preconceptions and prejudices on the text to hear only what we
want to hear. Remember what Jesus said about the Jews in Matthew 13:13-16.
What is called the “New Hermeneutic” among churches of Christ is not new. It
is a liberal attempt to abandon the verbal record in favor of broad applications not
found in the Bible texts. In other fields, this difference of positions might go by
some other names. The new hermeneutic borders on, even overlaps, Humanism
and Antinomianism; the first founded the “feel good” society, the second holding
to an opposition to law. In approaching the U.S. Constitution, there are two
points of view called “strict and loose constructionists.” The first insists on a
close following of what the Constitution says, trying to adhere to what the writers
meant by their words. The loose constructionists want a freer interpretation, the
“spirit” of the Constitution, that virtually amounts to a “rewriting” of the document.
The first is conservative, the other liberal.
In literature, there is Deconstruction, a theory linked to the philosophical
writings of Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man; in turn it is somewhat based on
previous philosophers such as Hegel. The following explains the theory:
“Deconstructive theorists share with formalists and structuralists a concern for the
work itself rather than for biographical, historical, or ideological influences. Like
formalists, deconstructionists focus on possibilities for multiple meanings within texts.
However, while formalists seek to explain paradox by discovering tensions and ironies
that can lead to a unified reading, deconstructionists insist on the primacy of multiple
possibilities. Any given text is capable of yielding many divergent readings, all of which
are equally valid and yet all of which may in some way undermine and oppose one
another.” Literature: Reading, Reacting, Writing, Harcourt, Brace College Publishers,
third edition, page 2046.
Notice that with Deconstruction, there is no concern with “biographical,
historical or ideological influences.” On the other hand, the latest “new
hermeneutic” may insist that the Bible speaks only to the cultural and social
norms of the time it was written. They reason that since we have a different
culture and varied societies today, the rules of the first century Bible must be
changed or ignored to fit modern times; we must be “relevant” to our present
society. Such theories allow for multiple interpretations based on the reader and
not the text; anyone and everyone is right. These theories share that much in
common.
In modern theological circles, what is called, “The New Hermeneutic,” as such,
began with theologian Hans George Gadamer, who was born in 1900. But, the
basic philosophy did not originate with him. Rather, he codified the work of
Wilhelm Dilthey, Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Bultmann:
“In Gadamer, the hermeneutics of Ames and Ernesti has turned 180 degrees. The
fullest statement of his thought appeared in 1960. In his view, not only is the recognition
of an author’s meaning an impossibility, but so is the association of what a text now
means with what it once meant to its author. Instead, the meaning of a text lies in the
subject matter, the thing meant, which is independent of both the author and reader; yet
it also is somehow shared by both. Thus the meaning of a text always goes beyond
what its author intended, and the true sense is an unending process which is never
exhausted or captured by an infinite line of interpreters! Thus there remains no yardstick
for determining which interpreter is more nearly correct if both happen to hit upon
conflicting interpretations at the same moment in time. There is neither anyone nor
anything that can validate the interpretation in this sad state of affairs: not the author, not
his words as he intended them: not even what the text meant in the past!” Walter C.
Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology, page 30.
What we are presently facing in new hermeneutic theories is not just viewing
scripture from multiple angles, but brushing away most of the Bible as having no
application to our modern society. They are not just adding or switching
expedients but rather they are changing the specific rules of God. Within just the
past few decades, our “new hermeneutic” theories have had a profound
influence, one way or another, on churches of Christ. Larry Chouinard says it
this way:
“New trends in linguistic studies have attempted to make the Bible
intelligible and relevant to modern man. Taking up where Bultman leaves
off, the hermeneutics of J. Robinson and a host of German scholars reflect
a new understanding of the nature and function of language. Attempting to
understand the “new hermeneutic’ is no easy task. The exponents of the
movement essentially call upon the interpreter to enter into dialogue with
the text in order to be subjectively confronted by language and events from
a different historical context. When the language from a biblical context
touches one’s life in a meaningful way, it becomes truth for that person. As
Thiselton points out, the “new hermeneutic’ is more concerned with
understanding the New Testament “more deeply and creatively’ than to
“understand it correctly.’ One wonders if the proponents of the “new
hermeneutic’ would dare to apply the same linguistic principles to their own writings.”
Larry Chouinard, Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice, Kearley, Myers, Hadley,
eds., pages 211-212.
So, the attitude is not to understand the Bible correctly, but rather to have a
“mental and emotional creativity.” From that standpoint, the new hermeneutic is not
new. It is the heart and soul of untold numbers of departures from the Faith going back to
Bible times.
Nothing has been any more a product of imagination than the allegorical
approach to scripture that appeared with such men as Origen in the late second
century; he was followed by other like minded teachers in the school at
Alexandria, Egypt. Much of the conflict that prompted Church Councils through
the centuries following Origen was due to the philosophical differences on how to
understand the Bible. The allegorical approach is still very much alive today.
Others have said that everything must be interpreted from the point of view of
Jesus as the Word of God, i.e., the Bible is not the word of God, but the Word of
God. Notice how “word” is capitalized or not. With the small “w,” reference is to
the written scriptures, the rules, commandments of God. With the capital “W,”
emphasis is on Jesus as the “Word of God.” Along with this little switch of
capitalization came the slogan of the 1960s, “Preach the Man and not the plan.”
That means, just preach Jesus as Lord and never mind about His rules, which
ignores the fact that one cannot preach the Man without preaching His plan.
Others have insisted that everything must be viewed through the person of the
Holy Spirit, i.e., the theologians particular interpretation of the Holy Spirit and how
they think that factor is to be applied.
Yet, others emphasize “love,” or at least their view of what love is, as the
guiding principle by which everything is interpreted. For these individuals,
Scripture is filtered through some preconceived philosophy or principle, defined
by a purely human wisdom or internal feeling. Every one of these approaches
has one thing in common:get rid of any rules and open the Bible to any
interpretation desired.
World War II and its aftermath had a tremendous effect on society as a whole.
People developed a view of the world, and their place in it, that had not been
there before. Society in general deteriorated in its morals, religion, views of
family, women’s roles, and many other things; society changed drastically. Along
with that came a change in thinking toward Bible authority, how to view vital Bible
doctrines, church work and worship, etc. Some just became “tired” of the old
paths and wanted changes made in the way we worship, the songs we sing, who
can be in leadership roles in the church and too many other things to count.
Others grew tired of the controversy that raged in the decade of the 1950’s and
wanted something that would give them peace at any price. For an excellent
overview of the effect K. C. Moser had on churches, especially beginning with
1960, see the article by John Mark Hicks on “K. C. Moser and Churches of
Christ: an Historical Perspective,” in Restoration Quarterly, Volume 37, Number
3. Moser had contended for his grace/faith/unity doctrine since the 1920s but
finally found fertile ground late into the institutional controversy of the 1950s.
Moser, as much as any other, sparked the “preach the man and not the plan” era
that is hand in glove with the new hermeneutic.
W. Joe Hacker, Jr., in Pulse, Winter, 1990, page 3, explains more of the
philosophies behind the “new hermeneutic” in the following comments:
“Evolutionary or existential, the result is the same. For the evolutionist the scripture
must fit into his model of a changing world evolving ever upward with man at the top of
the stack. His view of scriptures is through glasses colored with a false view of the
universe. God is defined in terms of the progress of religious thought through the
prehistoric periods up to this modern insightful age of the physical and social sciences.
The existentialist is looking for feeling, meaning, autonomous relationships,
meaningful levels of communication which seem always to be born of crisis.
For him, the Bible is not the word of God but contains the Word of God.
“In both cases, the basis of interpretation rests upon a philosophical presupposition
which redefines the nature of God, the universe, and man. With these new definitions in
hand, there follows a new hermeneutic. The Bible is interpreted to accommodate the
evolutionary or existentialist society with man in the foreground and the Bible in the
background. It is often presented as though truth is the exclusive discovery of this
generation of mankind.
“Social reform movements since the second world war have produced an
increasing cadre of psychologists and sociologists who inhabit every level of society
today. The behavioral sciences have a place in the ordering of the earth by man, just as
the natural sciences do. The problem occurs however when those trained in
communications, business, sociology and psychology dress their secular view of man in
Christian robes. Show me a man’s hermeneutic and I will tell you his theology.
“The changing of the church to a generation acclimated more to higher
levels of education, to more sophisticated levels of society, and to higher
echelons of business often leads to a demand for a new hermeneutic and
more stylish homiletic in the name of church growth, sophistication and
relevance. The question of change can easily become an obsession, often
at the expense of the changeless aspects of the gospel.”
There is nothing at all new about these latest hermeneutic theories. The
approach is subjective, i.e., scripture is filtered through the prejudices, wants,
fears, philosophies and preconceptions of the reader. Whether it is couched in
the form of a philosophical discipline or is but an echo of those people of whom it
was said in the Old Testament, “each man did that which was right in his own
eyes,” the result is the same. When one cannot find justification for something
he wants to do in a present framework, he simply changes the rules. One man’s
“truth” is as good as any other man’s “truth.” With the “New Hermeneutic,” the
reader has as much right to say what truth is as does the Bible. Truth in one
period of history is not truth any longer as each generation and society must
interpret scripture in keeping with its own society at the time. Here is what
Thomas Olbricht says in a paper presented at the Christian Scholars Conference
at Pepperdine University, July 19-22, 1989,
“Our traditional approaches to scripture have likewise been challenged
at the grass roots level through a number of concerns, such as divorce,
drugs, Aids, homosexuality, and women’s rights ... The intuition has been
that older approaches to hermeneutics do not help in getting closer to God
and each other, nor do they help us sort out puzzling questions in regard to
family breakdowns, divorce, and woman’s roles. So in some manner,
interpretation of the scripture must be repositioned so as to provide more
help ... Perhaps the most widely accepted view among certain front runners
in Dallas, Fort Worth, Abilene, Nashville, San Antonio, and Searcy is that
the scripture is not a constitution or code book, as envisioned by the old
hermeneutic, but is a love letter from God.”
No, problems with family breakdowns, divorce, women’s roles and many other
things, are upon us because the people with those problems are not following
what God said in His book, the Bible. Changing or redefining the rules will not
solve the problems nor bring people closer to God; that will only take them further
away from God. The fault has not been with “older approaches to hermeneutics”
but rather with a failure to apply what God evidently says. There has always
been an attempt to justify multiple divorces and remarriages for any cause. Such
attempts are perversions of scripture, but the “new hermeneutic” tries to lay down
yet another basis for that justification, i.e., there is no need to argue about what
Matthew 19:9 says, just ignore it to begin with! The problem with drugs, disease,
and the like, is not with the scriptures. The problem is with self-willed people doing their “own
thing.”
Saying that the New Testament is just “love letters” from God is not new. The
late Carl Ketcherside wound up with the Christian Church and here is what he
said in almost identical words as those reported by Olbricht:
“The apostolic epistles are not a pattern or blueprint. They were never intended to
be. There is a difference between a love letter and a blueprint,” Carl Ketcherside, The
Twisted Scriptures, page 173.
So, we aren’t surprised to read from the same Scholars Conference
mentioned above, that Allan McNicol says:
“We must shift our view of the nature of the hermeneutical task for the church. It is
not to find the authoritative facts or doctrines in Scripture; or even to find the original
meaning of texts. Rather, acting on the basis of our theological center is the
gospel/ordinances, which God has provided as channels of grace for the spiritual growth
of the community, we should be concerned to see that our theology and communal life
conforms to that norm ... When we read the Bible in this light, maybe we can at last
overcome the tendency to read it as a body of facts, a blueprint, or as a rule book for
playing the ecclesiastical game.”
The late Hal Hougey, in his 668 page book published in 1997 and titled, The
Quest For Understandable Hermeneutics, demonstrates how fuzzy his thinking
was by the following comments about direct commands, p. 8:
“Some commands are exclusive (alternatives forbidden), while others are inclusive
(alternatives acceptable). For example, Acts 2:38 commands repentance and
immersion in the name of Christ. But to obey this command does not exclude prayer,
communion, or godly living. Baptism does not exclude godly living:nor vice versa. On
the other hand, the command to immerse does exclude sprinkling for baptism. Usually,
but not always, simple logic, good sense, and context will indicate when commands are
inclusive or exclusive.”
His book is full of such reasoning. He says commands are, by his definition,
either inclusive of alternatives or they are exclusive of alternatives. He uses Acts
2:38, repentance and baptism, as an example of what he’s talking about. The
word “alternatives” refers to choices that can substitute for one another; you can
do one or the other or both. He says that repentance and baptism does not
exclude prayer, communion and godly living. But, that must mean that they are
included as alternatives that are acceptable. That would mean that prayer,
communion and godly living are alternatives to repentance and baptism; you can
do one or the other. That is convoluted thinking in the extreme.
Hougey also denigrates examples and necessary inferences: the former is
inadequate and ambiguous, while the latter is only a “tool of human invention,”
page 102. That leaves only specific commands as authority, and, as noted
above, these may have “alternatives.” He says on page 74:
“There are no explicit commands or precepts dealing with such theological
questions as the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, the plurality of elders, a
general church treasury, or congregational autonomy. Nor are there commands or
precepts dealing with such moral issues as abortion, drug use, euthanasia, suicide,
polygamy or slavery. Most Bible-believing people have strong convictions on these
topics today. Biblical examples may be very helpful to decide on a course of action in at
least some of these, by applying general principles illustrated in the examples.”
What is the conclusion to be reached from such premises? Simply, we can
eat the Lord’s supper any day of the week, have just one elder as well as many,
do what we will about the use of money and have any kind of super
organizational structure of churches that we wish. We may add to that the liberal
views on the other items he mentions. Yet, how will he apply general principles
illustrated in examples without using the process of necessary inference?
Hougey meets himself coming back because his book is loaded with inferences
that he wants us to accept. Every argument involves premises and a conclusion,
which is an inference! If it follows correctly from proper premises, it may be a necessary
inference.
In the Restoration Quarterly, Volume 8, Number 4, Roy B. Ward wrote on the
subject ““The Restoration Principle:’ A Critical Analysis.” At the close of his
article, he says:
“The more difficult problem is that of hermeneutics. How is the exegeted text to be
applied to the contemporary situation? The traditional Restoration hermeneutic involves
a logical system of “commands, approved examples and necessary inferences.’ This
approach ought to be subjected to critical analysis. These categories are not set forth as
a hermeneutic within the text of the NT, but rather they are derived from a certain logical
system imposed from outside the text. The question should be raised as to whether or
not this logical system is consonant with the nature of the NT itself. And the
presuppositions of this hermeneutic should be discovered and clarified.”
Ward could not be more wrong. The approach he rejects is inherent in
understanding human language, regardless of what national language that might
be. Further, God teaches us how to understand His word, in His word. It is
profusely exemplified by the Lord and then by His Apostles and is so clearly
taught in Scripture that one must work hard to keep from seeing it.
A more recent offering on our subject is by Tim Woodroof in his book, A
Church That Flies, A New Call to Restoration in the Churches of Christ,
published in 2000. He says on page 12:
“The purposes we can articulate for the church : borrowed as they are from a prior
generation and a radically different world: seem narrow and rote. In quiet and reflective
moments, we question whether those goals are worthy of the sacrifices required. Many
of us are no longer willing to pour the best of ourselves into the preservation of
nineteenth-century modes of worship or doctrinal positions that, in our hearts, we no
longer accept or believe to be central. Jesus did not die, nor do we want to live, to
ensure that buildings not have kitchens or that music remain congregational and
acappella or that a woman never make announcements in church.”
Notice the conclusions reached by his premises. Instrumental music, solos
and quartets, even musical bands, a role for women in public worship and most
anything else in the liberal agenda would be acceptable under this approach. He
continues on page 14:
“Having gotten the restoration bit between our teeth, it was hard to know where to
stop. How many cups did early Christians use for the Supper? Was the bread they
used one loaf or bite-sized pieces? Where was the biblical authority for a Sunday
School or cooperative support for children’s homes or a Missionary Society? Did early
churches build church buildings or hire located ministers? Was it proper to erect family
life centers and hold marriage seminars and feed hungry people who wouldn’t sit still for
a Bible lesson? ... It was precisely over such questions that Churches of Christ have, for
the past hundred years, reasoned and debated and argued. To the outside observer,
all this frenzy about ancient patterns and modern practice seems obtuse and even
absurd. What such an observer would fail to understand is the critical assumption we
were making even as we split over these theological hairs.”
One thing that Woodroof, and those like him, overlooks is that his appeal in
the above matter would condemn the first century churches along with the
Apostles. In the first century, divisions, parties, errors and disputations
abounded on every hand. Brethren argued moral and doctrinal differences: the
nature of the resurrection, the nature of the Christ, the Lord’s supper, the second
coming of Christ, divorce, remarriage, believer/unbeliever unions and dozens of
other things. Did the Apostles deal with these issues and correct them, or did
they just brush them aside, tell brethren that those things do not matter and just
love the Lord? The answer to that is obvious.
Timothy was instructed to remain at Ephesus to see that no one taught a
different doctrine from what Paul had taught them, I Timothy 1. He was warned
about teachers of error who would lead brethren astray. He was commanded to
reprove, rebuke and exhort as a deterrent to those who preferred error. These
and many other things identified Timothy as a good minister of Christ Jesus,
nourished in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine he had followed, I
Timothy 4:6. Such instances in Scripture could be multiplied. Woodroof’s
solution? Since there is disagreement on so many things, dump the rules and
find something else.
And, what is the basis for Woodroof’s current position and contention? It is
clearly seen in this statement from him on pages 141-142. Notice that his
conclusions are based on feelings, not evidence:
“Call me slow. Or perhaps just gullible. But it has taken me a long time to honestly
face some of the assumptions that are foundational to our particular enunciation of the
Restoration Plea: assumptions about pattern and blueprint and dispensationalism and
change, assumptions about what it means to be “faithful’ and how to define “obedience,’
assumptions about the nature of the church and what is central to the task of being
God’s people ... To tell the truth, my heart knew something was wrong years before my
head caught on. I have never been comfortable with the sectarian rhetoric of the “one
true church.’ Our exclusivism and isolationism seemed to me to stem from equal parts
arrogance and insecurity. The “identification’ issues that were so critical to others never
resonated very strongly with me:probably because I grew up in mission churches
(primarily New Zealand) and was exposed to predominantly Christ-centered preaching
(my father’s) ... But my concerns had been felt rather than reasoned...”
I was confronted several years ago by a “conservative” preacher who
disagreed with me on divorce and remarriage, as well as three other items.
When he explained to me how he had come to his conclusions, in every instance
he started with what seemed fair and sensible to himself, not what the Bible said.
His approach was purely subjective. But, we can find such attitudes even in the
first century.
With every innovation since the Missionary Society, those who champion
these causes have to leave behind a “thus saith the Lord” and by verbal
gymnastics redefine terms and twist scripture. Or, as one brother told me in
1960, “We don’t have to have Bible authority for everything we do!” His
subsequent apostasy was no surprise.

Love
For many writers we have already looked at, “Love” is the only principle
underlying all scripture and so it is supposed to counter the need to conform to
rules. I stated at the beginning that the new hermeneutic was not new. Among
brethren, it has been around for a long time. In The Search For The Ancient
Order, Vol. 2, p. 296, Earl West writes about Daniel Sommer. Shortly after
Sommer was baptized in 1869, he entered Bethany College. West writes:
“The first disappointment that Sommer felt with the brotherhood came during his
student days at Bethany. He noticed that there were two classes of disciples in the
church. One class believed that the Bible was a revelation to the saint and sinner. The
other believed it was only a revelation to the sinner. The rule with the latter class was
that God gave a revelation to tell the sinner how to become a Christian, but beyond that,
the rule was “love God and do as you please.’ There were no laws governing the
church, and in the final analysis, sincerity alone was sufficient. President W.K.
Pendleton was a champion of this point of view.”
W.K. Pendleton was also a major champion of the Missionary Society,
instrumental music in worship and every other liberal trend among brethren at the
time. The “disciples” who took the just “love God and do as you please” attitude
made up the apostasy that was fast forming. Our current crop of advocates of
the same position will wind up in the same place. Some, like Rubel Shelly and
Max Lucado, have already arrived there, taking the same rationalist position that
R.C. Cave did over a hundred years ago.
But, we can go back further than all this to find this position. As we have seen,
a perverted view of love characterized the Gnostics in the first century. The
apostle John dealt with this in his first two epistles. He also answered current
views with the same statements. The following quote from Thomas Olbright
explains the position of Augustine in the fourth century; it is true that love is at the
core of revelation as we will see shortly, but it must be kept in its proper
relationship with God’s rules:
“The work of Augustine (354-430) in his De Doctrina Christiana in some measure
set the agenda for works on hermeneutics. In the first book, Augustine divided the task
of preaching into discovering the message out of Scripture, then teaching it. The focal
point of Scripture, Augustine declared, was love (charitas). Every aspect of Scripture
must therefore be interpreted according to whether Charitas is thereby commended,”
Restoration Quarterly, Spring, 1995.
To get a good look at current attitude on this point, the following quotations are
typical of this position:
“The first thing to remember about authentic religion is that it is always relationship
oriented. As opposed to seeing Christianity as a plan or system, Scripture reveals that
everything reduces to two great commandments about loving God and neighbor. It is
love for God that keeps one free of the world's pollution; it is love for neighbor that makes
one sensitive to people in distress. Addictive approaches to religion pile up good works
and try to win acceptance; true religion accepts God's gracious love and passes it on to
others,” Rubel Shelly, LoveLines, Vol. 26, Number 37, September 13, 2000.
“The apostolic epistles are not a pattern or blueprint. They were never intended to
be. There is a difference between a love letter and a blueprint,” Carl Ketcherside, The
Twisted Scriptures, page 173.
Thus, love is separated from God’s commandments. In recent days, Tom
Couchman, a Deacon in a church in Colorado, presented much the same
position. He did this in a sermon before a large, accepting, audience. In the
course of his sermon of 10/17/99, taken from the tape, he insisted, in addition to
the vision of “love” God and neighbor we just looked at, that the only pattern in
the New Testament is Christ! He asserts that such things as church organization
and autonomy, worship, kind of music, church treasuries, work, social versus
religious activities, as well as other things are all somewhat taught in the
Scriptures but what is said in the Bible about them is actually confusing and
inconclusive.
Looking at his position, there is no doubt about his hermeneutic. It’s almost as
though he took his position out of Hougey’s book, that of Cecil Hook or Carl
Ketcherside, at whom we will later look. The similarities between them are
compelling. It is quite similar to Hougey’s statement in his book, p. 74:
“There are no explicit commands or precepts dealing with such theological
questions as the weekly observance of the Lord’s supper, the plurality of elders, a
general church treasury, or congregational autonomy. Nor are there commands or
precepts dealing with such moral issues as abortion, drug use, euthanasia, suicide,
polygamy or slavery.”
All of the above magnify what they call “love” as that which overrides or even
removes rules. As we have seen, a major argument used by them is based on
Matthew 22:36-38 and is said to prove that their concept of “love” overrides all
other considerations. So, let’s take a closer look at that section of Scripture.
When asked concerning the greatest commandment of the law, Jesus replied
that it was love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind, and the second is like
it, love your neighbor as thyself: “On these two commandments hang the whole
law, and the prophets.” But, since the whole law of Moses, and the prophets, hung”on these two commandments, did that mean the Jews didn’t have to obey
the commandments of the law of Moses or the prophets? Was every
commandment to be ignored or treated of little or minor value? “Jews, believe
what you want to about the Law as long as you are honest and sincere and have
an emotional passion for God and neighbor.” Is that it? The answer is obvious.
Of course not! God didn’t put up with that from the Jews! Jesus did not say that
if you “love” God and your neighbor, you can ignore the law and the prophets or
that other things do not matter! Here is just a sample of the many passages
from the Old Testament that clearly insist on strict observance of the Law.
Deuteronomy 5:32 says:
“Ye shall observe to do as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not
turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall walk in all the ways the Lord your God
hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye
may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.”
This passage from the law “hung” on loving God and neighbor. Did the Jews
still have to obey this edict from the Law? Certainly! Was the set of rules
nullified by loving God and neighbor? Certainly not! The problem in this issue is
that the liberal “new” hermeneutic miserably fails to understand plain statements
of Scripture.
The scribe that had asked Jesus the question, answered Jesus very carefully,
discreetly, Mark 12:33:
“...to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the
strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings
and sacrifices.”
This was the scribe’s statement and he did not mean that somehow the Jews
could have just ignored whole burnt offerings and sacrifices and only, somehow,
loved God and neighbor instead, perhaps as one of Hougey’s “alternatives.” The
scribe got the point Jesus made that just the outward act of going through
offerings and sacrifices was not enough; loving God and neighbor was “much
more” than just sacrifices. Offerings and sacrifices meant nothing unless offered
with the whole heart behind them. But, they still had to make the offerings and
whatever else God told them to do!
The Jew had robbed God’s law of it’s essential elements, making it just a cold
set of rules by which they thought they could earn salvation by perfect works,
Romans 4:1-8, 9:31. Matthew 23:23 says:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and
cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and
faith; but these ye ought to have done, and not left the other undone.”
Luke 11:42, the parallel account of this passage, adds “love of God” to the list
of justice, mercy and faith. But, please notice that Jesus was not condemning
them, per se, for tithing mint, anise and cumin. In fact, He said, “these ye ought
to have done and NOT left the other undone.” No matter what commandment of
God we are talking about, it must be obeyed with a view to justice, mercy, faith
and love of God or it is just an empty rule and one goes through vain motions.
On the one hand, the Jews had rejected justice, mercy, faith and love of God in
an attempt just to keep the law perfectly. The present liberal movement among
us is going to the opposite extreme in trying to hold to what they consider to be
justice, mercy, faith and love of God without following God’s rules. They make
the like mistake that the Jews made, only going to the opposite extreme, and are just
as wrong as were the Jews!
Love, along with justice, mercy and faith, is a motivating factor in all that we
do. In I Corinthians 13, Paul illustrates this by such things as giving all one’s
goods to feed the poor and giving his body to be burned. If one does such things
without love as the motive, the doing of those things are vain and empty. Is it
necessary as a Christian to help the poor? Yes. Must one be willing to lay down
his life in the service of Christ if necessary? Yes. But, doing any of these things
without love being involved has no profit. Romans 15:1-3 says:
“Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please
ourselves. Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good, unto edifying.
For Christ also pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that
reproached thee fell upon me.”
Some bear the infirmities of the weak out of selfish motives and not from love
for the other. The hypocrites of Matthew 6 gave alms and prayed to be seen of
men; they did these things to please themselves. Jesus said that the applause of
those who saw their outward actions was all the reward they were going to get.
Alms giving and prayer were both essential elements of being a servant of God,
but were empty without the proper motive.
II Corinthians 9:7 says that when we give, we are not to give grudgingly nor
out of necessity “for God loveth a cheerful giver.” A disciple must not give of his
means just because he thinks he must do so and doesn’t want to look bad before
other Christians. He must give gladly and willingly. This is what Paul said about
the Macedonian churches who “first gave their own selves to the Lord,” II
Corinthians 8:3-5. Were they obligated to give? Certainly! Would they have
disobeyed God if they did not give as instructed? Certainly!
The same points could be applied to Romans 13:8-10. Love of neighbor
permeates the other commandments. The one who loves his neighbor does not
steal from him, nor covet what he has, nor kill him, etc. The liberal authors listed
above take the phrase “love your neighbor as yourself” and define that to suit
themselves. They obviously mean by “love God,” an intense emotional feeling.
However, we must use Bible definitions in order to understand Bible teaching.
There is a general use of a term that can be seen with such words as
“believe,” or “faith.” These words, in some passages, may include repentance
and baptism so that one is not a believer unless he has repented and has been
baptized. Just so, “love” may include other specific rules, but one does not love
his neighbor unless he adheres to the specific rules. A person might have a
great emotional feeling toward God but still must be baptized to have the
remission of sins. Believing in the existence of God, even full confidence in God
and praying to God, is not enough.
Cornelius illustrates these facts, Acts 10. He had a faith in God, was prayerful,
gave alms to the people and was much loved by them because of his goodness.
He certainly loved his neighbor and, as far as he knew, loved God. Yet, HE WAS
NOT SAVED! He had to start where everyone else must, hear and obey the
gospel, Acts 11:14.
The Law of Moses forbad showing respect of persons between the poor and
the mighty, Leviticus 19:15. In the verses following verse 15, the Law forbad
talebearing, hating your brother, holding a grudge and other such things. Verse
18 closes with, “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” They had to follow the rules
that defined the meaning of loving their neighbor. The phrase shows the underlying motive for
the rules, Romans 13:9, governing personal relationships.
Just “love” God and “love” our fellow man and everything works out with God’s
blessings is the same concept held by universalists. They say that God loves
man so much that he just couldn’t condemn anyone; hence, there will be no
eternal punishment for anyone regardless of how wicked a person has been.
This is not to say that love is without emotional content. Romans 12:10 says that in love of
the brethren, “be tenderly affectioned one to another” and as in the previous verse, “without
hypocrisy.” But, it means much more than affectionate feelings.
Love gives to the good or betterment of the other party. God demonstrated
this:God so loved the world that He gave .... John 3:16. This is true of all
relationships. However, it takes on a little different meaning in considering our
love toward God. There is no love of God without obeying His commandments!
Look at the evidence:
“Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his
commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his
commandments are not grievous,” I John 5:2-3.
“And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that
saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in
him; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected.
Hereby we know that we are in him; he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to
walk even as he walked,” I John 2:3-6.
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he
that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself
unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt
manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, if
a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come
unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words;
and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me,” John 14:21-24.
This is not all. The very action of calling on God in prayer requires the same
rule:
“Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have boldness toward God; and
whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do
the things that are pleasing in his sight,” I John 3:21-22.
“And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if we ask anything
according to his will, he heareth us,” I John 5:14.
These facts were well known even in the Old Testament and Jews of Jesus’
time showed that they understood this. John 9:31 says that one must be a
worshipper of God and do His will in order for God to hear his prayers. For these
new hermeneutics advocates to negate God’s rules by using our love of God to
do so perverts the meaning of love in the Bible and will take one further away
from God. In Wineskins, September/October, 2001, p. 27, Randy Harris, a
Professor at Abilene said it this way:
“Second, in this postmodern world, the coming generation is not going to
understand love for God in terms of getting it all right, but rather experientially and
relationally. If all we have to offer is arguments for church government, weekly
observance of the Lord’s Supper, a cappella music, and baptism for remission of sins,
we have no future, for they are not interested. Their interest in authentic relationship in
the church is not fed by such arguments.”
Thus, the professor tells us, love for God has no relationship with baptism for
the remission of sins, the most basic of the above list of items. I have no doubt
that a large number of people are interested only in emotional feelings,
entertainment and having their own way. They will get rid of anything God has
said if it gets in the way of what they want. That is the real foundation of new
hermeneutics; it is an attempt to find a way to “justify” their own desires.
The New Hermeneutic and Unity in Diversity
Like the “new hermeneutic,” unity in diversity is not new. In the latter half of
the nineteenth century, Union Theological Seminary was rapidly sinking into
theological liberalism of the worst kind. Some of the most liberal theologians in
the country were professors there. Philip Schaff was one of them. He is best
known for his authorship of the History of the Christian Church in seven volumes. In Volume
7, page 49, he comments:
“Nor should we overlook the important fact, that the differences which divide the
various Protestant denominations are not fundamental, and that the articles of faith in
which they agree are more numerous than those in which they disagree. All accept the
inspired Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith and practice, salvation by grace, and we
may say every article of the Apostles’ Creed; while in their views of practical Christianity
they unanimously teach that our duties are comprehended in the royal law of love to
God and to our fellow-men, and that true piety and virtue consist in the imitation of the
example of Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all. There is then unity in diversity as well as
diversity in unity.”
This is classic “new hermeneutic” and it clearly shows the fact that it is the
same as “unity in diversity.” Notice all the identifying marks, even the appeal to
“love” as the principle motive. But, it was not new even with Schaff. Merle
D. Aubigne wrote his History of the Reformation in the early part of the nineteenth
century. He says on page 393, in a section discussing unity in diversity:
“There are two tendencies which equally lead us into error. The one exaggerates
diversity, the other exaggerates unity. The essential doctrines of salvation are the limit
between these two courses. To require more than these doctrines, is to infringe this
diversity; to require less, is to infringe unity.”
His solution is what he considers the “essential doctrines of salvation” and is
the same as the position of Schaff. The phrase defines the position and the
position identifies the phrase for what it is. Whenever one finds the above
arguments used, he can immediately know it is the liberal view of unity in
diversity. And, the arguments have not changed in several hundred years.
“Unity in diversity” is the result of a liberal hermeneutic.
“Unity in diversity” insists that there are only a few initial facts that we must
believe and after that, we can disagree on Bible teaching but still must have
fellowship one with another, “new hermeneutic.” That is, we must believe in God
and Jesus as the Christ, though just what we believe about the person of Jesus
of Nazareth is of no consequence. We, also, must believe that Jesus died for us
and rose again. With, perhaps another item or two, that’s the list. After that,
doctrinal matters are of no consequence to fellowship. Unity in diversity
advocates may pride themselves that they still hold to conservative doctrinal
positions, as a matter of personal belief, but they just will not make an issue of
any of them; if someone else wants to take a differing position, its alright and
fellowship is maintained. Up until a short time before he died, Ketcherside would
speak in meetings with Christian Churches but would not sing when the
instrument was used. He still, personally, felt it was not scriptural to use the
instrument in worship. However, it was alright for the Christian Church people to
use it and he would still have fellowship with them and encourage them in their
beliefs. But, he changed even that practice before he died and eventually sang
with the instrument along with the rest, the natural conclusion to his hermeneutic.
The next generation to come, having been introduced to an unscriptural unity
in diversity at the present time, will go even further; creeping departure will soon
become galloping apostasy. Once one abandons revelation as an absolute
standard of truth that must be followed, there is no stopping short of complete
modernism with eventual abandonment of the Bible, altogether. It is a pattern of
conservatism digressing to extreme liberalism that’s been seen in many religious
groups, even some churches of Christ.
I have heard this unity in diversity position for quite a long time on the divorce
and remarriage issues, Creation and other subjects. Some preachers have
insisted they personally believe that the only Bible reasons that would allow
remarriage of an individual is divorce for fornication or the death of the spouse.
But, if someone else takes a diverse position, no matter how liberal, how wild,
they will not make an issue of it nor break fellowship with the other. Another says
that he personally believes that God created the universe, the earth and
everything in it in six literal, consecutive days, but if someone else believes that it
took multiple millions of years by a slow evolutionary process, he will make no
issue of it; he will continue to defend and shelter the other. This attitude is
expressed on any number of Bible subjects.
There have been quite a few individuals who have taken the unity in diversity
route; we have already looked at some of them. K. C. Moser had such a
profound effect on brethren that there is no way to determine, this side of
judgment, just how much damage he did, just how many disciples he took with
him into apostasy. But, we certainly see the effects of his work.
Another “sleeper” is Cecil Hook. Several years ago, he published his book,
Free in Christ, which was sent free of charge to anyone who wanted it. 1993 saw
its seventh printing; thousands of copies have made the rounds. He praises Carl
Ketcherside and LeRoy Garrett which tells us where he’s coming from. It’s
interesting to note just how much resemblance there is between what Hook wrote
with what we are hearing out of other brethren today. There are current
statements and positions even from “conservative” brethren that are almost
verbatim out of Free in Christ! A second volume by Hook followed that one, titled,
Free to Speak. In the second volume, he went even further in his propagation of liberalism.
A.T. DeGroot of the Christian Church said in his 1960 book, The Restoration
Principle, page 139:
“It is one of the insights of devoted biblical scholarship since Thomas Campbell’s
time to see that loyalty to Jesus Christ takes precedence over and gives meaning to a
Christian use of the New Testament. The New Testament is itself the record of a
fellowship created by loyalty to the accepted Messiah and Savior, a fellowship which
transcended differences of worship methods and ethical interests, so long as an
increasing embodiment of the will of Christ was ever the goal of the companions of the
Way ... His (Thomas Campbell, MB) spiritual descendents in convention assembled in
Denver, Colorado, in 1938 found no difficulty or incongruity in taking fellowship in the
World Council of Churches, which has as its creed the words “Jesus is God.’”
DeGroot identifies the heart of the Unity in Diversity scheme. I deny that
Thomas Campbell would approve of the union of his so-called “spiritual
descendents” with the World Council of Churches. Yet, that is the ultimate end of
the Unity in Diversity doctrine. We will look at more of this shortly.
As we have already seen in this chapter, both new hermeneutics advocates as
well as unity in diversity lock on “love,” along with mercy, justice and faith, as
factors that override law. Hook does this as well. He contends that the greatest
thing is love, the only creed is Christ, if “love” comes in conflict with law, then law
must give way, man’s own judgment determines what laws of God will be obeyed
or not, etc. He claims that though the Law condemned false witnesses, Exodus
20:16, and Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they lied, Acts 5:1-11, “the
Bible gives record of other persons who were dishonest and were not punished,”
page 29. In fact, Hook’s position is identical with the “situation ethics” of some
years ago, as well as the old: “the end justifies the means.” He attempts to find
authority for that position in the Scriptures. Among his arguments are the
following on pages 29ff; these are typical of his reasoning.
(1) “Rahab lied and deceived in protecting the spies (Josh. 2:1f). Yet she is
listed among the heroes of faith for that very reason ... Heb. 11:31.”
What are we to conclude from Hook’s argument except that it is alright to lie as
long as we are honest and sincere in doing it, that the end justifies the means!
Hebrews 11:31 says that “By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them
that were disobedient, having received the spies with peace.” Nowhere does
God commend Rahab for lying! The commendation came regarding how she
treated the Israelite spies, not for lying. James 2:25 says that she was justified
by works “in that she received the messengers and sent them out another way.”
Joshua 6:25 says that she was spared “because she hid the messengers.”
Where does it say she was a “hero of faith” for lying to the king about the location
of the messengers and that God approved of it? This is indicative of how Hook
handles scripture.
(2) Hook insists that David and his men entered the Tabernacle when hungry
and ate the showbread, which was lawful only for priests to eat, and God
approved it, Matthew 12:4ff. No, he’s wrong again. (I deal with this instance in
detail in another Chapter). It was the Jews who did not condemn David for what
he did. Jesus was only turning the inconsistency of the Jews back on them. If
the Jews did not condemn David then they should have no criticism of the Lord’s
disciples plucking grain to eat as they walked through the grainfield. The text does not
say Jesus approved what David did. David still broke the law and Jesus said so.
(3) The priests “profaned” the Sabbath by offering sacrifice and were guiltless,
Matthew 12:5. Thus, one could break the law of the Sabbath under certain
circumstances and it’s alright with God. No, Hook is wrong again. Even though
it was “work” that the priests did on the Sabbath, it was by God’s command that
offerings were made on the Sabbath, Numbers 28:9-10. That is why they were
guiltless. The work of Priests on the Sabbath was excepted from the “no labor”
rule. That did not mean that anyone could disregard the Sabbath law on
whatever basis they wanted. Again, Jesus is turning the obvious back on the
Jews. They had made the restrictions of the Sabbath so tight that they would
have to condemn the Priests for offering sacrifice on that day.
Another argument Hook makes that’s like this one is the fact that circumcision
was performed on the Sabbath, that “the law of Moses not be broken,” John
7:22ff. However, the same God who gave the Sabbath command and priests
sacrificing on the Sabbath, also said that male infants were to be circumcised on
the eighth day after birth. That was a crucial time for circumcision. If the eighth
day fell on the Sabbath, then it was done on the Sabbath as God directed. But,
there is no basis for ignoring the Sabbath law with impunity because of these
instances. There is no basis for Hook’s assertions in any of these passages.
Hook doesn’t understand the Sabbath any more than the Jews did. He gives us
a conclusion as follows, page 32:
“If, in a specific instance, our efforts to keep a law hinders or prevents the principles
of justice, mercy, faith, or love, then the higher principle must take precedence. The
principle is greater than the law intended to promote it.”
None of the instances Hook points to were violations of the Sabbath law to
begin with so there were no principles of justice, mercy, faith, or love that had to
take precedence over the law. Keeping God’s instructions never hinders justice,
mercy, faith, or love. Hook makes them separate from Law when they are not.
See the preceding material on the subject of love and the commandments of
God.
In this unity in diversity issue, much discussion has revolved around the
identity of false teachers. Hook argues that only evil minded, covetous
individuals, intent on deception, can be tagged as false teachers. If a man is honest
and sincere, regardless of what he believes and teaches, then he is to be retained in
fellowship, and even encouraged. They rely on II Peter 2:1ff as evidence.
This puts us right back to the position that as long as a person is honest and
sincere then he is alright with God and we must accept him. That destroys the
Bible as a standard of truth:anything goes!
Let’s explore II Peter 2:1 and some other passages so we can understand
what is being said. Peter said:
“But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there
shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the
Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
It’s clear that “false teachers” in this instance is the same as “false prophets,”
being two ways of saying the same thing. “False Prophets” comes from a single
compound noun, pseudoprophetes. The word itself does not indicate any
inadequacy of ability nor is it necessarily a commentary on his character; other
words have to establish that. The same is true of “false teacher,” from
pseudodidaskolos. He is a teacher of what is false. Hook says in Free in Christ,
page 64, that “false” is an adjective that modifies “teacher” and must refer to the
bad character of the teacher and has no reference to what he teaches. That is
bare assertion and completely untrue. Of course, these particular false teachers
spoken of by Peter were of bad character, but they were false teachers because
they taught false doctrine; they brought in destructive heresies. The Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains by Louw
and Nida, defines the “false teacher” as follows:
“33.250 pseudodidaskaloi, ou m: one who teaches falsehoods - false teacher,
teacher of what is a lie. ... and in the same way “false teachers will appear among you’ 2
Pe 2.1. In rendering pseudodaskaloi, it is important to avoid an expression which will
simply mean that a person pretends to be a teacher and is not. What is important here is
that the individual teaches what is not true.”
The claim by Hook, and others, that “false” is just an adjective that modifies
“teacher,” as though it is only a comment on the bad character of the teacher, is
not true. The original term is a compound noun, a single word. The character of
this false teacher can only be determined by other terms in the passage. The
same can be said about “false prophets.” Louw and Nida say about that term:
“53.81 pseudoprophetes, ou m: one who claims to be a prophet and is not and thus
proclaims what is false - “false prophet.’ ... “many false prophets will appear and fool
many people’ Mt 24.11.”
Pseudoprophetes, false prophet, is found twice in the Septuagint Old
Testament:
“For from the least of them even to the greatest they have all committed iniquity;
from the priest even to the false prophet (pseudoprophetes) they have all wrought
falsely,” Jeremiah 6:13.
“And hearken ye not to your false prophets (pseudo-prophetes), nor to them that
divine to you, nor to them that foretell events by dreams to you, nor to your auguries, nor
your sorcerers, that say, ye shall by no means work for the king of Babylon: for they
prophesy lies to you, to remove you far from your land,” Jeremiah 34:9-10.
These were false prophets because of what they taught. Notice that the
character of the false prophets is not the issue. Seeing that when Peter
mentions false prophets that came in among the people, we can find out from the
Old Testament just what these individuals were like. Was it a matter of bad
character or what they did that was most disturbing? Let’s look at some
passages:
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and
my people love to have it so.....” Jeremiah 5:31.
“Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I
sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them:
they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought,
and the deceit of their heart,” Jeremiah 14:14.
“Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord,
and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their
lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall
not profit this people at all, saith the Lord,” Jeremiah 23:32.
“For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them,
saith the Lord,” Jeremiah 29:9.
These are but some of the passages on the subject. Notice that the emphasis
is on what the false prophets did. They taught error and drew the people away
from God. From this, Peter later said that the false teachers would bring in
destructive heresies.
Homer Hailey, in his Commentary on The Minor Prophets, page 18, says
under the heading of “False Prophets”:
“Along with the true there arose also false prophets (see Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 28).
These flourished from a very early period in the nation’s history to the time of the close of
the Old Testament writings. The false prophets fall into the two general classes,
mercenary and political; some prophesied for money, others for political favor (see Mic.
3:5, 11). Oftentimes the false prophets were nationalistic:that is, they defended the
national practices and rulers through ignorance; but whether false through ignorance or
self-will, they and their messages were no less severely denounced by the true
prophets. Albert C. Knudson has well said: “An ignorant conscientiousness may be
quite as dangerous to a community as deliberate wickedness.’ When opposed by false
prophets, the true prophets rise to their greatest heights of zeal and fearlessness.”
Brother Hailey said that there were prophets who were honest and sincere, but
they were still false prophets who did much damage! Notice also brother Hailey’s
reference to “true prophets” as versus “false prophets.” Who was a true prophet
except those who spoke the will and word of God, Deuteronomy 18:19-22. True
prophets spoke the word of God and false prophets did not speak the word of
God. The difference is drawn in Jeremiah 23:16, 28, that shows the true prophet
speaking out of the mouth of God and the false prophet from his own thinking:
“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that
prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not
out of the mouth of the Lord.”
“The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let
him speak my word faithfully...”
The same can be said for “false teachers” as versus “true teachers.” Those
who speak “visions of their own heart” are false teachers, regardless of their
character. The only test we have to determine the difference between the two is
the word of God spoken faithfully! The comments of brother Hailey in the above
quotation are echoed in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume
4, page 2466, article on “Prophesyings, False”:
“There were, however, false prophesyings from men who honestly believed
themselves to have a message from Jeh. The prophecies from self-deceived prophets
often led the people astray. The dream of national greatness was substituted for the
voice of Jeh. It was against such prophesying that the true prophets had to contend.”
Bible emphasis is that the false prophets prophesy falsely, as the false
teacher speaks error. False apostles were to be tried, tested, Revelation 2:2.
Did it mean that, in testing them, you only need to find out if they are sincere or
not? If they aren’t sincere, then they must be false apostles. They were false
apostles because they were not apostles and whatever they taught was false.
Paul said he would have been a false witness if he testified that Jesus had been
raised from the dead if He actually had not been raised, I Corinthians 15:15;
that’s how Paul identifies a “false witness” in this instance. His honesty or
dishonesty as a witness would not have changed that. A “false witness” means
nothing without false testimony.
I have known of a couple of “gospel preachers” in the past who preached the
truth, but were dishonest and deceitful. They lied, defrauded, stole and many
other ungodly things. Were they the ones who were the “classic” false teachers
because of such a bad character, even though what they preached was the
truth? I also know of “leading” brethren who defended, protected and covered up
for these men because they were “sound” on the current issue of the time. But,
this is turned around today so that someone can preach doctrinal error that will
damn people to hell but because he is a nice guy, doesn’t cuss, chew, drink,
steal or any other bad thing, we must defend, protect and cover up for him just
because his character is “good”; he is not a false teacher! I have known of
preachers and other brethren through the years who destroyed churches, caused
others to be lost and yet were so very sincere in what they believed and taught.
They did it honestly, but still brought destruction and division.
In II Peter 2:1, the word “heresy” refers to false teaching, false doctrine.
Heresy couldn’t refer to the attitude and character of the teacher but what the
teacher taught and the result of his teaching. So, let’s see if we have this
straight: if these false teachers and false prophets teach error, causing
destructive heresies that will damn others eternally, it is alright, they are
acceptable to God, provided they are honest and sincere in what they believe.
Or is it that destructive heresies result only from dishonest teachers? If this is so,
then it appears to me that we should quit trying to instruct others in regard to
correct church organization and work, worship, divorce and remarriage and a
host of other things. Instead, we should just teach people to be honest and
sincere and let them believe, practice and teach whatever they want! Of course,
that is exactly the “new hermeneutic” and “unity in diversity” doctrines that have
plagued us for so long!
This unity in diversity position is wonderful indeed for every teacher of error.
You can just believe, practice and make converts to whatever doctrinal position
you want and you can still enjoy the warm fellowship and shelter of brethren!
Some just do not like the tag of “false teacher.” Well, call them what you
like:false teacher or teacher of false doctrine:the consequences of their teaching
will be the same in either case.
Those who defended continued fellowship with the pious unimmersed in the
nineteenth century used arguments familiar to us today. It was said then, and
now, that each person decides by his own conscience what is truth; that loyalty to
one’s self is loyalty to God; that no person is completely right on every Bible
passage and so cannot criticize any other person who thinks differently. The
subject of the pious unimmersed was thrown into Romans 14, as all unity in
diversity advocates must do, so that others had to accept any person as a
brother regardless of his belief. Anyone who opposed having an open fellowship
with the pious unimmersed was called a hobby-rider, alarmist, legalist, Pharisee,
and other like terms. We have always gotten the same labels thrown at us by
those who want to do something not authorized in Scripture. F. D. Srygley, in the
Gospel Advocate way back in August of 1890, said:
“To put the whole thing in its simplest form, the theory is that any man who is right in
spirit or motive will be accepted of God no matter what the outward form of his conduct
may be. It puts man’s salvation wholly upon the ground of his own honesty, and taboos
the idea that anyone will be damned who has the spirit of obedience, no matter how
grave may be his mistakes as to the letter of God’s commandments. Much has been
said against rationalists, but in my judgment they have done no more than follow this
spirit-and-letter buncombe to its legitimate, logical consequences. The point is, does
God require man to conform his life to an external standard, or does he leave him to
determine his own course by an internal light? Is man guided in religion by revelation
from without, or by a spiritual light and nature within himself? Did religion originate in
miracle, and is it perpetuated by teaching, or is it innate with man in principle, and
developed by evolution? Those who talk flippantly about keeping the spirit of a
command while sneering at the letter of the law, or the exact thing commanded, are but
the logical premises of which rationalists are the necessary conclusion, whether they so
understand and intend or not...”
Outside of the letter written by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, Acts
15:19-29, the two letters to Thessalonica are, chronologically, were the first New
Testament epistles written. What Paul had taught them while he was with them
about the second coming of Christ, and what he wrote to them in I Thessalonians
5, was misunderstood and misapplied. Their error prompted the second letter a
few months after the first. In II Thessalonians 2, Paul corrects them on the
subject. He warns that they “be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be
troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of
the Lord is just at hand; let no man beguile you in any wise...” He gives other
instruction and admonitions and closes in II Thessalonians 3:14, saying:
“And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no
company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed.”
They were capable of understanding revealed truth in what Paul told them and
nothing else would do!
But, then it is asked, “haven’t you ever been wrong about some Bible teaching;
haven’t you ever had to correct some position you had formerly taken; are you
saying that you think you have always been right about everything?” Of course,
that’s like the old weak-kneed, liberal cry that the church shouldn’t discipline,
withdraw from, anyone because we all sin at some time and so shouldn’t judge.
That argument fails to understand the difference between those who sin and
repent as compared with those who will not change when they have sinned.
Those who refuse to repent must be disciplined. Titus 3:10 says that “a factious
man, after a first and second admonition avoid.” Likewise, some people will hold
to error regardless of the efforts to change them. That’s different from those who
are willing to change when their error on some subject of passages is pointed out
and time is given for them to study it for themselves. But, what shall we say
about Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado or a host of others whose errors have been
brought to their attention, exposed publicly, and yet they will not return to the
truth? Or, is it that one must go as far from the truth as they have gone before a
teacher of error is to be rejected? I have no evidence to doubt the honesty and
good character of Shelly and Lucado, Hook or Moser. With the position of far too
many, we would have to accept, defend and promote these men because their
character was and is good.
It’s obvious that there are disagreements on nearly every Bible subject, all
over the world, even among brethren. It is said that if one person has a right to
be wrong at any time, then everyone has a right to be wrong as well; perhaps
everyone has a right to be wrong all of the time on everything. On this basis, we
are told that there is no absolute standard of truth but only one’s perception of
truth, wherein each person has a right before God to his own perception of what
is truth. Again, this is the same old “believe what you want to believe as long as
you are honest and sincere.”
As we continue to study, we may find our understanding has been incorrect.
At that point, we are under obligation to God to make the change. This is clearly
seen in the many places in the New Testament where Paul and other inspired
men corrected errors of every sort, speaking and writing sternly by the authority
of Christ, even rebuking some, exposing others. Look at I Corinthians as an
instance of this. But, Hook says, page 66, op.cit.:
“Neither side at the Jerusalem conference were false prophets; nor was the sincere
Apollos, who was in error on a major doctrine through lack of information. Great
teachers and reformers of the past, though they may never have gained some
necessary doctrinal understandings, cannot be denounced as false teachers. They
were honest searchers even, as I trust you and I are.”
Hook doesn’t know anything about the character of the teachers who came to
Antioch from Jerusalem, whether or not they were honest seekers after truth. If
they were honest and sincere, they should have been accepted and allowed to continue
their teaching, by Hook’s standards. Why then did Paul and Barnabas have such a heated
contention with them? Hook also says on page 66, op. cit.:
“We are in error when we castigate someone who differs from us in his sincere effort
to know and do the will of God. He is doing all that you or I can do:his best. He is in
error on some things even as you and I are in error on some things. The only brothers
we have are brothers in error, someone had observed.”
Hook condemns Paul and Barnabas with these words. It was wrong for them
to oppose those teachers of error from Jerusalem as they did because these
teachers were honest seekers after truth, according to Hook! Yet, Paul and
Barnabas pursued the matter all the way to Jerusalem, determined to get it
straightened out according to the will of God and no other way.
No doubt Apollos was honest and sincere. But, he was also very wrong and
had to be corrected. Also, what would have been the judgment about Apollos if
he had rejected the truth after being taught correctly?
Certainly, time may need to be allowed for someone to repent of whatever
their error may be, doctrinal or moral. In the church at Thyatira, Revelation 2:18,
was an ungodly prophetess, called Jezebel, who was being tolerated by the
otherwise commendable church. The Lord says:
“And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her
fornication.”
Time had run out and now there would be a reckoning, punishment would be
administered. We see this in several of the churches of Asia in Revelation 2-3 as
we have already seen in Titus 3:10. Even someone who is terribly wrong may be
given time before he is avoided; admonition is administered and time is given for
the person to repent. But, there is still a time limit. Thus, Paul said to the
Thessalonians:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the
tradition which they received of us ... And if any man obeyeth not our word by this
epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be
ashamed,” II Thessalonians 3:6, 14.
Did Paul expect them to understand what he had written to them? Certainly! Could they
make the distinction between truth and error, realizing that what they had been taught in his
presence and what he had written to them was the truth? Certainly!
Notice, also, the last sentence of the quote from brother Hailey. It can well be
said today that when we are opposed by teachers of error, that those who stand
for the truth “rise to their greatest heights of zeal and fearlessness.” But, this
especially enrages the defenders of these teachers of error and they jump even
moreso to their defense, doing everything in their power, using every ungodly
tactic at their command to smear the opposition. Lies, deceit, political
maneuvering and more, all become common. We have seen this through the
controversies of the last half of the nineteenth century and since then to today.
I Corinthians 1:10
We will continue discussing unity in diversity, but at this point let’s look at it in
light of I Corinthians 1:10. Paul says:
“Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all
speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be
perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
Since this is in the name of Christ, it is a command that must be obeyed,
which was possible for the Corinthians, and for us today.
Carl Ketcherside did say some things that are true and worth our taking notice.
He says in Twisted Scriptures, beginning on page 66:
“God no more expects all of His children to be exactly alike than I do my children.
Nor does he “tighten the screws’ on them to enforce conformity any more than I would
twist the arms of the members of my physical family. The truth is that His revelation
teaches us we are different from each other, and it is because of this we are able to fulfill
His purpose and carry out His will upon the earth. Mere likeness in every detail would
make this impossible. A man is able to be one flesh with his wife, not because they are
alike, but because they are not. Oneness is not exact likeness.”
He then lists several items that show there was “unity in diversity” among
brethren in the first century. I will simply note the items in order, along with their
purpose rather than quote all of what Ketcherside says about each point.
[1] In the early church, there was a diversity of gifts, I Corinthians 12:4-7.
Various spiritual gifts were given to different individuals; not everyone received a
spiritual gift nor did all those who did receive a gift have the same one.
[2] There was a diversity of functions, Romans 12:4-5, I Corinthians 12:19.
Members of a local church have different abilities that they are to use to the
fullest. Men and women have different functions.
[3] There was a diversity in understanding, I Corinthians 3:1-2. Some were
still babes in understanding and had to feed on the scriptures in order to
undertand and grow to spiritual maturity.
[4] There was a diversity of knowledge, I Corinthians 8:2-11. This is
essentially the same point as point three.
[5] There was a diversity of customs, I Corinthians 9:19-23, 10:32-33.
Different societies have different customs. There was a difference in social
customs of Jew and Gentile. The Gentile was not obligated to become a Jew.
[6] There was a diversity of opinions, Romans 14. There is a whole area of
things that are matters of personal choice, including decisions on expedients of
generic authority.
All of this is quite true. However, Ketcherside then leaps to the conclusion that
there can be an unlimited diversity in worship, work, organization and belief, etc.,
because diversity exists in the above areas. That is only assertion, completely
contrary to fact.
I Corinthians 1:10 does not demand that we all be clones of one another. Nor
does it insist that there be no disagreements at all between the individual
members at Corinth. There can be disagreements that do not qualifiy as
divisions, schisms or heresies though there are some disagreements that do. I
Corinthians 1:10 is talking about instruction from God, in whatever way the
instruction is given.
The area of expediencies, (options allowed in carrying out specific instruction),
is a part of Paul’s instruction. We see this in his saying that something may be
lawful but not expedient.
In Chapter 11, there are detailed instructions about the Lord’s Supper that had
to be observed; they were matters that could not wait for Paul to arrive there,
verse 34, but had to be corrected immediately. Yet, there were then, and now, choices
regarding the Supper that could be made:time of day, geography and topography, number of
containers and other choices that were available.
When Paul says that they were to be of the same mind, judgment, speak the
same things and have no divisions, we can look at the things in the Corinthian
church over which they were divided. Start at chapter one and march through
the book and it is clear that the things that divided them, things where they did
not have the same mind and judgment nor spoke the same things, were matters
that Paul corrected with specific instruction.
Heresies appear when someone picks up some doctrine contrary to specific
revelation, or magnifies an expedient into a law and then insist that everyone
else follow their opinions. We can have a “unity in diversity” only in the areas
allowed by specific revelation and God is the one who tells us the difference.
Gospel and Doctrine
As already said, with both the liberal hermeneutic and unity in diversity
positions, it has been necessary for them to make a distinction between the
“gospel” and “doctrine.” By this, they identify the gospel as being just “the
basics,” “the fundamentals.” These have to do with belief in God, Christ,
repentance and baptism. That is essentially it. We have also seen that writers
such as Philip Schaff mean only by the fundamentals, a belief in God and Christ.
By this, Schaff insists that all denominations should have unity because they all
believe the fundamentals, are honest and sincere and love God and neighbor.
After that, they can believe and practice whatever they want and should still have
unity. This is why there is such an uproar out of unity in diversity advocates
whenever anyone condemns false doctrine and false teachers, fights error,
insists on an absolute standard of truth, etc. That’s too negative for them.
Ketcherside said, in The Divine Purpose, Page 148, under the heading of “The
True Pattern”:
“The gospel is not a system of doctrines to be believed, commands to be obeyed,
and promises to be enjoyed. The gospel is good news about a person!”
Ketcherside couldn’t have been more wrong. The distinction made between
gospel and doctrine has no foundation in fact. The gospel is far more inclusive
than these individuals want it to be. It is granted that belief in God, in Christ as
God and Saviour, repentance and baptism are all requirements to be found at the
heart of the gospel. But, that is far from being all there is to it.

The word, gospel, means good news. The verb, Uangelidzo, is translated as
gospel, good tidings, glad tidings and in many instances translated as simply
“preached,” as in “preaching the glad tidings.” It may refer only to glad tidings
about something other than what we consider to be the gospel. It is used in
Gabriel’s message to Zacharias, when informing the latter of the coming birth of
a son, John. Gabriel said that he was there to “bring thee these good tidings,”
Luke 1:19. Yet, as here, we must look to the context to determine the content of
the good news. The same can be said of the noun form, uangelion, as can be
seen by viewing the listing in a concordance.
THE KINGDOM: The very first thing we learn about the content of the gospel
is that it is the “gospel of the kingdom of God.” That is not the gospel coming
from the kingdom of God, but the gospel about the kingdom of God. Notice Luke
16:16 followed by Mark 1:14-15:
“The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom
of God is preached and every man entereth violently into it.”
“Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of
God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and
believe in the gospel.”
The gospel of the kingdom of God, the gospel of God and the gospel, all refer
to the same message. Matthew 4:23 says that Jesus went throughout Galilee
preaching the gospel of the kingdom, as does Matthew 9:35. In Luke 4:43, He
said that He “must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God” to other
villages, as also Luke 8:1.
The gospel that the Apostles were to preach was the same gospel. Jesus,
instructing about events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, said
in Matthew 24:14:
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony
unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Acts 8:12 says that Philip the evangelist “preached the good tidings
concerning the kingdom of God.” Jesus had told the Apostles to go into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature, Mark 16:15-16, and this involved
preaching the gospel of the kingdom.
The message was that the kingdom of God prophesied in the Old Testament,
the kingdom to be established in the first century was at hand. Colossians 1:13-
14 says:
“...who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom
of the Son of his love; in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
The purpose of the gospel was to take men from darkness to light, Acts 26:16-
18, I Peter 2:9-10. Since being translated into the kingdom is part and parcel
with being delivered out of darkness, then understanding the truth about the
kingdom is part of the gospel.

I have heard from several sources through the years that it is alright for a
Christian to believe in Premillennialism as a private opinion and we must still
have fellowship with him, defend and promote him because he has believed the
“fundamentals.” But, he hasn’t believed the “fundamentals.” Premillennialism is
false doctrine about the kingdom. It is a perversion of prophecy and its clear
fulfillment in the first century. It is an attack on the authority of the Lord who was
raised to sit on David’s throne, the kingdom throne. Premillennialism attacks
salvation itself. For one to believe Premillennialism is to deny the gospel of the
kingdom and thus to deny Jesus. If one does not understand the gospel, he
does not believe the gospel and if he does not believe the gospel, he cannot be
saved, Mark 16:16. And, no one has the right to fellowship and promote anyone
who denies the gospel of Jesus Christ.
THE CHURCH: Jesus purchased the church with his own blood, Acts 20:28;
his death was a fact of the gospel and vital to our salvation. We are baptized into
one body, I Corinthians 12:13; this is a command of the gospel we are to obey.
One meaning of the word “kingdom” refers to the people of God, the church, so it
is the gospel of the church in that sense. What the New Testament teaches
about the church, the body of Christ, the house of God, is thus directly related to
the gospel. If the sacrifice of Jesus is at the heart of the gospel, how can one
ignore as a part of that gospel His body and just what His blood did for us?
CREATION AND THE CREATOR: Revelation 14:6-7 says that the
“everlasting gospel” contained giving God the glory, worshipping Him “that made
the heaven and the earth and the sea and fountains of waters.” It’s not surprising
then, that we find Paul preaching the gospel at Lystra, Acts 14:11-17, and
including God the creator as part of the “good tidings,” the gospel. When Paul
preached the gospel to the Athenians, Acts 17:19ff, he said a great deal about
God as the creator of the earth and of all men. There were consequences of that
fact that reflected on their salvation. To believe or teach anything other than
what the Bible teaches about God and His creation is an attack on the gospel.
THE RESURRECTION: The resurrection of Jesus is also a center piece of the
gospel. That in turn directly relates to the subject of resurrection in general and
also the very nature of man. Jesus answers the Sadducees in Matthew 22,
saying “ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.” Hymenaus
and Philetus, II Timothy 2:17-18, erred from the truth saying the resurrection was
past. In I Corinthians 15, Paul argues the resurrection extensively. He begins
the chapter by establishing the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the heart
of the gospel he had preached to them. On the basis of the resurrection of
Jesus, he rebukes them because of their error in saying there is no resurrection.
Notice that the second coming of Jesus is also a part of his teaching here. It is a
long chapter with many arguments. Anything other than what the Bible says
about the resurrection is error and must be opposed; one cannot preach the
gospel and preach error on the resurrection.

LIFE AFTER DEATH: The fact of the resurrection goes hand in hand with the
existence of a soul and life after death. II Timothy 1:10 says that Jesus “brought
life and immortality to light through the gospel.” In II Thessalonians 1:6-10, the
second coming of Jesus, judgment and eternal torment are brought up in
connection with those who do not obey the gospel. Paul preached the gospel to
the Athenians in Acts 17 and spoke of the nature of God, resurrection and
judgment on an appointed day. No errors on any of these items can be tolerated.
THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL: Paul gives us information about the death of
Christ and its consequences, Colossians 1:21f:
“And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works,
yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy
and without blemish and unreprovable before him: if so be that ye continue in the faith,
grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye
heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven...”
It is necessary for us to continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast and not
moved away from the hope of the gospel in order for the value of the death of
Christ to do in our lives what God planned for it. He did His part and we must do
ours. This takes us to the subject of “the faith.” And that brings us back to such
subjects of error, departures from the faith, from the truth, from sound doctrine as
exemplified in passages like I Timothy 4:1-6 where some fell away from the faith.
They did not remain grounded and stedfast.
THE LORD’S SUPPER: I Corinthians 11:17ff has direct instructions about the
Lord’s Supper. The importance of it is that it represents the death of Jesus; as
often as we eat the bread and drink the cup we proclaim His death till he comes;
the subject of the second coming of Christ is found in our observing this. Doing it
in an unworthy manner brings condemnation. “Manner” refers to the way it is
done.
GALATIANS: Paul says in Galatians 1:6-9 that they had left the gospel of
Christ for a different gospel. Paul corrects them, especially in chapters 3-5. In
3:1-5, he rebukes them sharply for going back to the things of the law. He then
argues the difference between the Old and New Testaments. Those three
chapters identify what the Galatians had gone to when they left the gospel of
Christ for another gospel. All that Paul condemns are perversions of the gospel
of Christ! As he says in 5:4, if you seek to be justified by the law you are severed
from Christ and fallen from grace. The truth that the Bible teaches on the subject of the Old
and New Testaments is part of the gospel.
THE MYSTERY HID: In Galatians 2:11ff, Paul identifies the sin of Peter. He
walked not uprightly “according to the truth of the gospel,” Paul said. Showing
respect of persons as Peter did was related to the gospel message as a
perversion and had to be condemned. The mystery hid and now revealed is that
both Jew and Gentile had equal opportunity of fellowship with God and must be
accepted as brethren, Ephesians 2:11-22, 3:1-13. This is why Paul said in Romans 16:25-26:

“Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching
of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in
silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the
prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all
nations unto obedience of faith.”
PERSON OF CHRIST AND GOD: The teaching of the Bible is that Jesus is
God come in the flesh. Jesus declares it, John 8:24. Any error regarding that
must be exposed and opposed. I John extensively attacks the Gnostic errors on
the nature of God and Jesus, identifying specific arguments and answering them;
he called the Gnostics false prophets and liars. Was John the one in error for
doing such a thing? Certainly not! Even Bible teaching on the physical lineage
of Jesus is part of the gospel, II Timothy 2:8. Paul said a lot about the nature of
God to the people of Athens in Acts 17. Their errors had to be corrected.
SPECIFIC RULES: Paul lists in I Timothy 1:5-11, several things that are
contrary to the gospel:
“But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and
faith unfeigned: from which things some having swerved have turned aside unto vain
talking; desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say,
nor whereof they confidently affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it
lawfully, as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless
and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of
fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of
themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any
other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel of the glory of the
blessed God, which was committed to my trust.”
We have already looked at the difference between the Old and New
Testaments. But, notice especially the specific sins, which are listed in more
complete form elsewhere, such as Galatians 5:19ff, I Corinthians 6:9ff. Among
the sins that are contrary to the gospel is fornication. That has a direct relation to
Matthew 5:32, 19:9. What Paul is telling Timothy, and us, is that telling people
what is contrary to the gospel is part of preaching the gospel.
However, it should be understood that when the Apostles preached, specific
subjects were suited to the audience and occasion; not everything found in the
gospel was presented at any one time and place. On Pentecost, Acts 2, Peter
preached the gospel by inspiration. He discussed the fulfillment of prophecy, the
death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, along with His authority as Lord and even
brought up the throne of David that opened up the subject of the kingdom. But,
Peter didn’t have to discuss the existence of God, nor His creative power, nor a
number of other things because the Jews already believed those things. Too,
there were many other things Peter said on Pentecost that are not recorded,
verse 40.

When the audience was made up of idolatrous gentiles, as in Acts 14 and 17,
the content of the sermons were different. Yet, Peter and Paul both preached
the same gospel, thus, Galatians 1:23, 2:7:
“...but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of
which he once made havoc ... but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted
with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
... “
We must also take notice of the instructions of Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20.
The Apostles were to teach all nations, baptizing them and “teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” Recall the promise of the Holy
Spirit in John 14:26, 16:13. He would guide them into all the truth and teach
them all things. That is the entire New Testament.
The gospel in its entirety is the good news of the New Testament. Everything
God has revealed to us is good news and relates to our eternal salvation. We
can cross reference with the gospel numerous terms such as the truth, the faith,
the word, the good doctrine, etc. Then, consider that failure to comply with these
will bring sin and eternal death. To limit the gospel to just what some call “the
essentials” is an attempt to nullify the rest of the New Testament, open fellowship
between Christians and the world and allow false doctrines to be propagated
unopposed.

Phariseeism
This is a name that’s often thrown around, especially toward anyone who
insists there are rules to be followed. It is intended to prejudice, declaring that
anyone who disagrees with their liberal approach to the Scriptures is as bad as
the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned in such passages as Matthew 23.
In doing this, these critics emphasize only the tendency of the Pharisees to
make rules where God had not made rules and the Pharisaical perversions of the
Law. These critics take the Pharisee’s perversions to be what it must mean to
insist on obedience to God. They end up doing with the law the opposite of what
the Pharisees did. We will see that shortly.
The Law of Moses could not save, Galatians 3:10-14. It pointed one to
ceremonial cleanness, social acceptability and the like, Hebrews 9:9-15. It
covered ceremonial sins, social and relational sins by the offering of sacrifices
and other observances. There was provision for the cleanness of the flesh,
Hebrews 9:13, but not actual forgiveness of sins and, consequently, a cleansing
of the conscience, Hebrews 9:9-10. Of course, it also foretold by various means
the coming of the Christ who would bring redemption, as well as providing
information about the coming New Covenant, the Kingdom, and other things.
If one could have kept the law perfectly, then he could have claimed salvation
on the basis of perfect works; God would have owed him salvation, Romans
3:27-4:8. But, no one could keep the law perfectly. By the time an Israelite
reached the stage in life that he could make a decision about keeping the law
perfectly, it was too late. He had already sinned and his “perfect” record was
ruined.
However, this does not mean at all that the Law was bereft of spirituality and
that its purpose was one of a cold set of rules; any rules can be degraded to such
a state, even the New Testament. The Jews were the ones who made the Law
just a set of rules to be followed, to which they also added some man-made rules
of their own. Romans 9:32 tells us that they “sought it not by faith, but as it were
by works.” Jesus said of them:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and
cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy and
faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Ye blind
guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!” Matthew 23:23-24.
See, also, Luke 11:42 where it adds love to justice, mercy and faith. Though
we have looked at this subject under the section on “Love,” we will look at the basis of
the critics charge here though it repeats some of what has been said.
By way of background, Deuteronomy 14:22 says that they were to “tithe the
increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.” See also
Leviticus 27:30. Mint, anise and cummin were garden herbs of the least value.
The Jews would tithe anise seeds from their garden but be uncaring and ruthless
toward their brethren, indifferent to love of others, without faith or love in regard
to God. Their dedication was to the rules. Such tithing was easy compared to
the effort that would go into practicing justice, mercy, faith and love. But take
note! Jesus did not condemn them for tithing mint, anise and cummin. This was
included in the commandments of the Law. But, so were justice, mercy, faith and
love! These were things that gave meaning and life to existance and composed
the foundation all of the Law. So, keep in mind that Jesus said that they should
have tithed mint, anise and cummin, but only along with justice, mercy, faith and
love as the underlying motives.
As in Matthew 6, there was nothing wrong with fasting. Jesus not only fasted
but said His disciples would fast. There was nothing wrong with giving alms in
public places as long as the right spirit and manner was used. The same is true
regarding many other things.
God’s purpose for the Law was not that it should be just a cold set of rules to
be legalistically followed, just going through ritual motion. It had a spiritual
purpose. Romans 7:12-14 says:”So that the law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and righteous, and good ... For we know that the law is spiritual ...” We can see this also
in Romans 1:16-17:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a
righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, but the righteous shall live by
faith.”

This last phrase, “the righteous shall live by faith,” is literally “the just by faith
shall live.” It is quoted from Habakkuk 2:4. Being a quotation from the Old Testament,
we must conclude it is as much a teaching of the Law as it is the Gospel.
Faith was as much a necessary part of the Law as it now is of the New
Covenant. For that matter, faith was necessary before the Law of Moses. This is
Paul’s argument in Romans 3-4. The “faith of Abraham” was pre-Law. But, faith
was an essential element from the beginning, as seen in Hebrews 11. For a
fuller discussion of this subject, see Volume 2 of this series, “Reconciliation,” pp.
278-325.
Further, faith, then and now, does not negate obedience. The faith of Abraham
was an obedient faith just as was the faith of each individual cited in Hebrews 11.
After warning about an evil heart of unbelief in Hebrews 3:12, verses 17-19 say:
“And with whom was he displeased forty years? was it not with them that sinned,
whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter
into his rest, but to them that were disobedient? And we see that they were not able to
enter in because of unbelief.”
Notice that the disobedience was unbelief and the unbelief was disobedience.
Thus, faith would have been obedience. The Israelites failed in faith as seen by
their disobedience, rebellion against God.
Numbers 20 records the incident of the waters of Meribah. Moses was told to
speak to a certain rock which would then bring forth water. Instead, Moses
struck the rock with his staff and spoke to the people, taking equal credit for the
water. God said in verse 12, “because ye believed me not to sanctify me in the
eyes of the children of Israel,” that Moses would not be allowed to lead the
people into Canaan. Moses had not become an atheist. But, he had disobeyed
God.
Complete confidence in God is also an essential part of faith. This is seen in
Hebrews 11 as well. Abraham left his home land not knowing where he was
going; he offered Isaac fully confident that God would raise him from the dead.
That was more than just accepting God’s existence. The essential elements of
faith are acceptance of the existence of God as the only God, putting complete
confidence in Him and on these two facts, doing whatever he commands. The
Pharisees accepted God’s being and that was it. They put their confidence in
their own ability to save themselves by just perfect works. Romans 10:1-3 says
that they were ignorant of God’s righteousness and while seeking to establish their
own righteousness “did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God.” John 12:42-43
says:
“Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the
Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they
loved the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God.”
Though these Jews believed on Jesus, meaning they mentally accepted who
he was, it was not enough. It was no better than the demons of James 2:19 who
believed in the existence of God. And, they trembled. Yet, the Jews who
believed on Jesus would no more be saved than the demons. This is why, after
warning in Hebrews 9:17-19, which we have noted above, that Israel did not
enter Canaan when first planned because of unbelief/disobedience, he says in
Hebrews 10:1-2:
“Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any
one of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good tidings
preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them,
because it was not united by faith with them that heard.”
Endnote
Looking back over the last hundred and fifty years at the controversies among
brethren, a pattern appears. From the Missionary Society, instrumental music
and the pious unimmersed controversies, all those who opposed those errors
and innovations were charged with trying to divide the church and break
fellowship between brethren. It never fails that if anyone objects to an error or
innovation then he just has a bad attitude, is an alarmist, a legalist, a Pharisee,
an Anti, is only trying to cause trouble, or some accusation like these. If what is
taught is the truth, then it should be embraced. If it is error, then it needs to be
exposed as such.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This material is a chapter from brother Barnett’s book, By What Authority. The
book is available from The Preceptor Co., Box 22283, Beaumont, TX 77720.