STS Jun 1974

Volume 15 June, 1974 Number 6

THE GRACE OF GOD

The Bible teaching of God's grace is a much misunderstood subject. This has always been so withthe denominational world and now is true with a goodmany in the body of Christ.

Simply defined grace is God's unmerited favor toman. God bestows his grace but man must receive thegrace of God. Denominationalists have the idea mandoes nothing to receive the grace of God, that is, God's grace is received unconditionally. Some even teach that men are saved by grace alone. Some in the churchare so close to this position that it is hard to read fromtheir pen that which does not have the denominationalsmell of grace. Thus, there is the need to considerwhat the Bible has to say.

GRACE PROVIDES A SACRIFICE

God's grace provides a sacrifice for man in Jesus Christ. Man could not save himself. "The world bywisdom knew not God" (I Cor. 1:21). Jesus Christ "bythe grace of God should taste death lor every man"(Heb. 2:9). The death or blood of animals could not atone lor sins (Heb. 9:11-12; 10:4). Jesus Christ reveals God's grace. "And the Word was made flesh,and dwelt among us, ... full of grace and truth. Graceand truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:14,17).

GRACE PROVIDES A REVELATION

God's grace has provided man with a revelation, andsince man has not merited it, the revelation is of God's grace. Paul calls it the "gospel of his grace" and "the

word of his grace" (Acts 20:24, 32). To ignore therevelation of God's grace is to ignore God's grace.

The gospel revelation is often called God's grace. "Imarvel that ye are so soon removed from him thatcalled you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). Paul said he was called of God "byhis grace" (Gal. 1:15). "For by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8). Paul and Barnabas "gavetestimony unto the word of his grace" (Acts 14:3). Thebrethren in Achaia had "believed through grace" (Acts18:17). Paul told Roman Christians they stood in thegrace of God (Rom. 5:2) and said Corinth stood in thegospel (I Cor. 15:1). Men have access into grace (Rom.5:2). Men are under grace, not the law of Moses (Rom.6:14-15). Grace reigns through righteousness (Rom.5:21) which is made known through the gospel (Rom.1:16-17).

GRACE TEACHES

Paul said, "For the grace of God that bringethsalvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us thatdenying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should livesoberly, righteously and godly, in this present world"(Titus 2:11-12). The grace that teaches is the gracethat is revealed, and that which is revealed is the gospel.

The gospel is the revelation of God's grace. All that one knows about God's grace is revealed in the gospel.What the gospel has not revealed is not a part of the grace of God. Since the gospel does not reveal instrumental music in the worship of the New Testament Church, one can not say that God's grace will take care of those who use it. Since the New Testament revelation of grace does not include humandenominations one can not claim God's grace for those in them or for himself in fellowshipping sectarianism.

GRACE MAY BE SEEN

In Acts 11:23 when Barnabas came to Antioch, therecord says, "And had seen the grace of God." What hesaw was the results of God's grace — men saved by God's grace in obedience to the gospel and added tothe church by the Lord.

GRACE TO BE RECEIVED

While God's grace has appeared to all men, it must be received. Men can reject God's grace. Paul told Corinth not to receive the "grace of God in vain" (2Cor. 6:1).

God calls men to gospel obedience by his grace (Gal.1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9). Men are called to obedience by thegospel (2 Th. 2:14). This call is out of darkness intolight (I Pet. 2:9).

In order to be called by grace one must believe thegospel. We are saved by grace but it is "through faith"(Eph. 2:8). Our access into God's grace is "by faith" (Rom. 5:2). We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Ourfaith comes from hearing the "word of God" (Rom.10:17). If one will not believe the gospel revelation ofgrace, he can not be called by God's grace.

To receive God's grace, faith alone is not sufficient.One must work righteousness. Grace reigns "through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ ourLord" (Rom. 5:21). Peter said, "God is no respecter ofpersons: but in every nation he that feareth him, andworketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34-35). The kind of work performed is not human works of which one can boast (Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5) butrather the work assigned by God (John 6:28-29). Whenone does that work commanded of God, he is still an"unprofitable servant" (Lk. 17:10) and his salvation isstill by God's grace, but that grace must be acceptedupon the conditions set forth in the "gospel of the grace of God."

There are the works of the law of Moses referred to in Rom. 4:4-6 and these works men can not be saved by (Rom. 2:28; Gal. 2:16). Paul says men can not be justified by the works of the law. He does not contradict James when he says men are justified by works of faith (Jas. 2:14-26). Denominational minded people have never seen that Paul and Jamesdo not contradict each other since Paul is considering the works of the law of Moses and James is considering the works of faith.

SAVED BY GRACE

Paul says of the Ephesians, "For by grace are yesaved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it isthe gift of God: Not of works, lest any man shouldboast" (Eph. 2:8-9). How were the Ephesians saved bygrace?

(1) The Ephesians "heard the word of truth, the gospel of your (their) salvation" (Eph. 1:13). (2) After hearing, Paul said, "ye believed" (Eph. 1:13). (3) Their repentance is evidenced in burning theirbooks of curious art (Acts 19:19). (4) We learn they "confessed" (Acts 19:18). (5) The Ephesians were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5).

Paul affirms they were "saved" (Eph. 2:5, 8). When they heard the truth of the gospel, believed it, repented of sins, confessed their faith, and were baptized into Christ, Paul says they were "saved by grace."

PERSONAL EVANGELISM (3)Its effectiveness

Public proclamation of the gospel is effective in the saving of souls. To deny this is to deny a method usedby the Lord and his apostles, and to defy common experience even in our day. The message of truthfaithfully delivered with power, persuasiveness andlove will always do good. Yet, while we recognize thatfact, we must also consider the great power in theperson to person confrontation where one individualleads another into an understanding of the will of Godand urges him to obey it. This too has great effectiveness.

We think too much, perhaps, in terms of converting"the masses" without considering that masses aremade up of single units. Multiplied thousands inJerusalem obeyed the gospel while the truth wasbeing taught publicly and from house to house. Yet itssaving work was being confined to that city. It took apersecution to scatter the masses to other places.Once more, man's calamity became God's opportunity, for the scattered forces did not go underground tonurse their wounds. Rather, they went "everywherepreaching the word" (Acts 8:4). Wherever a Christiangoes, there must go his faith and his determination tospread the knowledge of the word of God.

Many congregations had their beginning because ofsome dedicated Christian who moved to a place whereno New Testament church was located and who,rather than finding something "nearly" like it, set out to teach his family, friends and neighbors the truth. My brother, or sister, if you are having to move to anarea where no faithful church of the Lord exists, thenYOU may become the means of doing what has notalready been done there.

Harris J. Dark, long-time mathematics professor aswell as gospel preacher, made this observation on theeffectiveness of personal evangelism:

"Suppose I relate a story to just one other

person, then two of us know it. Let each of us

tell another and that makes four. If each of the

four tells another, obviously eight will have

heard. Do you know how many times that

would have to be repeated in order for every

person on earth to hear the story? Only thirty

times, following the first! If I tell another

person, each of us another, and so on, after the

message has been communicated thirty-one

times it will have been heard by 2,147,483,648.

If we allow an entire month for one person to relatethe story to one other person, it can cover theearth in thirty-one months. Can we do that well with our modern methods and devices? To be generous let us say that it will take an entire yearfor each one to teach another. At that rate we can include all the people on earth in thirty-oneyears. How long will it take at the rate we are goingnow? If we assume that there are already as many as 500,000 Christians in the world we canreduce the number thirty-one to twelve, hence therequired time to twelve years! Remember that in accomplishing this, one half of the earth's population would not have to teach any one,another fourth only one person each, and no onewould need to teach more than twelve others!" (Ancient Faith in Conflict, Philippians - the Church and Evangelism) In contrast to that, think of acongregation of 300 members which reports thatten have been baptized for the year. That means ittook thirty members for every one converted. If thetruth were known, most of these would be the resultof the work of the preacher and maybe two or threeothers. Certainly it is to be admitted that all hearing the gospel will not obey it. We are only responsiblebefore God for the effort. But how many cannot evensummon the courage to hand a tract containing a good gospel sermon to a friend or relative. Members will walk right past a tract rack well supplied with valuable items without ever a thought of finding just the right one to help meet theneed of an acquaintance they know to be lost. Askmembers to seek out people to take a Bible correspondence course and see how many you get? Ifit succeeds at all, will it not be due to the zealousefforts of only a few? And perish the thought of tryingto set up a Bible study in MY home to try to teachmy neighbors the gospel!

Several years ago a young woman taught a neighborgirl the gospel. On Sunday morning where I was preaching, when the invitation was offered, twopeople stepped out and came forward. I knew theneighbor girl needed to become a Christian but thethought crossed my mind, "I wonder what Betty hasdone, why is she coming forward with her?" After abrief exchange with the girl I turned to Betty andasked "Why have you come forward?" "Oh", she said,"my friend was a little bashful and I told her I wouldcome with her." That's what I call "bringing in the sheaves." There is no joy to compare with having adirect part in leading a lost soul to the Lord.

Personal soul winning has its rewards here, but thegreatest rewards are in the world to come, both forthe teacher and the taught.

"If we work upon marble, it will perish; if we

work upon brass, time will efface it; if we rear

temples, they will crumble into dust; but if we

work upon immortal minds, if we imbue them

with principles, with the just fear of God and

love of our fellow man, we engrave on those

tablets something that will brighten to all eternity." (Daniel Webster)I close this series of articles by quoting something Iclipped out of a bulletin published several years ago by

A. O. Raney when he was preaching in Tucumcari,New Mexico. These words from his eloquent pentroubled me when I read them and have haunted me since, when I know I have not done my best in tryingto reach the lost. I fervently hope they will trouble myreaders as much and to the end that all of us will remove all alibis and excuses and truly seek the lost."IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN — Of all sad words spake by men . . . the saddest are 'It mighthave been.'

If I had only known, my friend, how short yourtime of life would be, how I would have hastened to speak to you of God, and of Christ,and of the Gospel, and of your soul-need. I walked before you in the shining garments ofChristianity: a soul saved, a spirit redeemed, alife purified. You wandered in sin: lost, bewildered, doomed. Yet in you there was still so much good, so much grace, so much of the likeness of the God who made us both that I loved you deeply. I know that you were aliento God only because you did not know how tofind him. You were in sin only because you didnot know how to attain righteousness. You were lost only because you did not know theSavior. I knew. I knew because someone who loved ME told me these things. I knew, and Imeant to tell you, because I loved you. But Iwaited too long. If I had only spoken the words that were in myheart, I might have led you to Christ. But there seemed to be plenty of time. You were soalive, so vital, so strong. Surely the wordscould wait awhile. Surely I could safely waitfor that illusory 'more convenient season',which somehow always seems to be tomorrowand never today. So I waited, even though Iwas aware, not only of your need, but of yourhunger as well. I waited — while your eyesbegged for the Bread of Life, with eloquenceyour lips were embarrassed to frame. I waited,intending, and while I waited, your life slippedaway and you were dead — without Christ. Istill see you in the darkness of my sleeplessnights. I see you as a ragged beggar beside thehighway of life; supplicating hands uplifted tothose rich in God's blessings, asking an almsthat, if given would have made the giver no poorer, but would have made the poorimmeasurably richer. As I hurry by, I say tomyself, 'tomorrow I must take time to givethat poor man something!' But, alas, tomorrow he is not there. If only I had not waited, whatgood I might have done! IT MIGHT HAVEBEEN! If I had spoken some word of love, kindness, or encouragement; some gentle exhortation to constancy in faithfulness to God, — if I had reached out thesteadying hand of help, I might have kept mybrother from straying. I behold you there, aprodigal in a far off country of sin, and myheart is sad. I see you yonder, in Temples ofhuman idolatry, and my spirit is crushed. I see you, who once walked with me in the footprints of Jesus, running eagerly after foolish little men vainly building their Towers of Babel of the finite stones of human presumption. I see, and my soul weeps in sorrow. What in the world could have happened, my brother, to drive YOU to suchthings? 'We took sweet counsel together andwalked unto the house of God in company!' (Psa. 55:14). Who hath seduced you, my brother? Then, slowly but with certainty, understanding dawns. Nothing DROVE you away and no one SEDUCED you. You just drifted away. Little by little without even noticing it till you were lost in the darkness of man's devices. You drifted. I stood by and letyou drift. And I KNEW the truth that could firm you, steady you, save you. I knew, but Iwaited — embarrassed to speak out while youwere near enough to hear. Now I speak. Now Icry aloud, but now you will no longer hear.Now, after it is too late, I cry out to my lostfriend, to my lost brother. Alone and unheard,I speak the words which might have madetheir lives so different, so good, so worthwhile.I speak and stormy winds of discord whip thewords away into nothingness. I cry out, and even the echoes of my words die in the distances which separate us. O, my guilty soul!O, my grieving heart! How can I know eitherpeace or rest? The restless nightmare returnsagain and again to haunt me. And I wonder, Ifearfully wonder, if someone in Hell will raiseup accusing eyes and cry out my name in blame for their torments. Surely not you, myfriend! Surely not you, my brother! Yet it maybe. It may even be that I, so sure of mysalvation, may in justice have to stand withthem in the flames and give everlasting tongueto the sad lament of the damned: 'IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN!' How can I face God's judgment without fear? How can I explain to God the wasted opportunities, and fruitless hours, whichcannot even explain to myself? I cannot waitlonger! I must tell my friend while he yet lives. I must tell my brother while he yet wavers!"

"SALVATION" WORDS: "JUSTIFY" DIKAIOO "JUSTIFY," IN

THE GREEK WORLD

In the Greek New Testament, one of the words usedto denote human redemption is the very dikaioo, "Ijustify, make righteous." This verb is widely used innon-Biblical literature. New Testament uses of the word do not necessarily parallel those of Greekliterature in general, but basic denotations of the wordare found both in Biblical and in non-Biblical writings.

ETYMOLOGY AND COGNATES

The common root of the "justify" words seems to bedike, which is derived from a term that would suggest"way," "manner," "direction," "custom." It is interesting to note that the goddess Dike stood besideZeus as the representative of the principle of Law.

The various "justify" words in the New Testament are all cognates of the "righteous" words; that is, fromthe same root we derive "justify," "make just," "makerighteous," "justification," "righteousness," etc.

THE IDEA OF LAW

At the very foundation of Greek life from as nearlyas the eighth century BC was the idea of Law, inreligious, political, and ethical relationships. A dikaios man was one who conformed to established legalnorms. He would also be one who fulfilled his obligations both to men and to the gods. Dikaios became a leading term in lists of ethical precepts.

TO MAKE RIGHTEOUS

The Greek writer Pindar uses the verb dikaioo, "I justify," in the sense of "sovereign validation." (See Greek uses of the term in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, pp. 211ff.) Plato says that thenomos (law) makes a dikaios (righteous) man.

In classical literature dikaioo passes from the legalsphere to a more general area where it denotes "toregard as fair or right." It is doubtful that the term isused in this sense in the New Testament.

The legal sense of the term is seen in a personal wayin passages where the meaning is "to secure justice forsomeone." Similarly, the term may be used negativelyin the sense of "condemn, punish someone."

In the New Testament it is almost always possibleto detect the legal connotation of "just," "righteous,"etc.

It is not uncommon to hear men who promotedepartures from the New Testament pattern for thechurch talk lovingly about "restoring New TestamentChristianity." They cling to the word "restoration" asif they were the world's foremost advocates of "the ancient order of things." Some time ago we heard oneof our far out brethren lecture a gaggle of preacherson how we ought to "restore" what he believes to bethe long-neglected "love and justice" of the firstcentury Christians, but at the same time he thought we ought to give less attention to "doctrine." He apparently thinks we have restored too much of thelatter. He went on to explain that, in his view,restoring "love and justice" would involve the churchmore in concern for social justice among the oppressedpeople of the nation and move the church to do more(or did he say all?) of the welfare work now being doneby the federal government.

This is very likely the same kind of murky thinking

T. B. Burnett had in mind nearly a century ago whenhe wrote: "Every now and then some progressivescribe inadvertently uses the phrase, 'our plea for therestoration of primitive Christianity.' If they go on 'restoring' fiddles and organs and boards and societiesand pastors and programs and conventions and lectureships and holy days, and forty other thingsthat have no place in Christianity, the apostles willnot know the thing when they get it restored" (Gospel Advocate, about 1895).

Some today who claim to be "restoring" New Testament Christianity are building and promoting child care societies, homes for unwed mothers,recreation halls, summer camps, sponsoring elders,and "forty other things that have no place in Christianity," as the work of the church. Some havesuggested that a better term for these brethren would be "borrowing." Instead of restoring New TestamentChristianity they are borrowing denominationalclaptrap. They have borrowed these things from theBaptists, the Methodists, and the Salvation Army.Some are even borrowing from the latter-day Pentecostals. Such men are turning the restoration intodenominationalism. When they get done, if they everdo, what they have left of New Testament Christianitycould be put in a teacup with enough room left for acup of tea.

2212 Malibu Drive Brandon, Florida 33511

QUESTION: I enjoy learning from your articles inSEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. I have two questions which have bothered me for a while and Iwould like your thoughts on:

1. Matt. 12:1ff, especially verse 4, says that David did that which it was unlawful for him to do. It is taught by some here that Jesus 1) approved this unlawful deed 2) thereby admitted that he (Jesus) alsohad done an unlawful deed 3) was Lord of the Sabbath,therefore he set aside the Sabbath law at this point, sodid not sin 4) approved our setting aside any N.T. lawif something more important is at stake. The proofthat this must be so is 1) that when we are on our wayto worship according to N. T. command and we see anaccident and someone's life is in danger, we shouldhelp the need and ignore the command and 2) if we aretaking a sick person to the hospital, we should ignorethe speed limit (God's command is to obey) and obeythe more important need. — H.K.E. (Ed. Note: Two more questions were submitted by our querist — one a P.S. — both of which will be answered later. — M.E.P.) ANSWER: The text under study reads as follows:

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath daythrough the corn; and his disciples were an hungred,and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. Butwhen the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold,thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon thesabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not readwhat David did, when he was an hungred, and theythat were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawfulfor him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priest? Or have ye not read in the law,how that on the sabbath days the priests in the templeprofane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say untoyou, That in this place is one greater than the temple.But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lordeven of the sabbath day" (Matt. 12:1-8).

Before attempting to answer and comment on theabove questions and observations, some very basicand fundamental principles need due consideration. Tothese we first give our attention.

Since the word of God is truth (Jno. 17:17) and truth never contradicts itself, the word of God is harmonious. One rule in the word of God can never be set at variance with any other rule in the word ofGod. Every rule and regulation of the Almighty must

necessarily, in all instances, so mesh one with theother as to produce perfect harmony at all times (1Cor. 14:33).

General rules have exceptions. Some things takeprecedence over others. This is axiomatic. The rules ofGod are no exception. There are times and circumstances under which general rules must yield tohigher law. When in our text (v. 7) Jesus said, "But ifye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned theguiltless," he was reproving the Pharisees for their violation of this fundamental principle. They shouldhave known that the traditional rules which they weretrying to enforce (not of God in the first place, butsimply their own additions to the law) were against ahigher law of God — the law of mercy — in harmony with which the Sabbath was established in the first place: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mk. 2:27). Hence, their rules were in error.

While our Lord did not argue this point in answering the Pharisees, he did state the truth aboutit (Matt. 12:7; Mk. 2:27). He answered the Phariseesfrom their own point of view showing that their rules(had they been of God) were subservient to a higherlaw. Thereby he justified his disciples and condemnedthem. Furthermore, in verse five he gave an example,which even the Pharisees approved, that involved action on the part of priests that could be justified onlyon the grounds of general laws being subservient tohigher law. A further study of our Lord's use of thelaw of "mercy" (Matt. 9:13) and the original law (Hos.6:6) from which he quoted, corroborates the above position.

Now we turn to the questions of our querist andanswer them in the order submitted. We shall also point out some things concerning the application ofthis fundamental principle.

Yes, our text implies approval on the part of ourLord of David's act (1 Sam. 21:1-6), which undernormal circumstances would have been unlawful. This approval was made on the basis of the fundamentalprinciple set forth above.

No, Jesus did not admit that his disciples "had donean unlawful deed." The truth cf the matter is that the disciples were not in violation of the Sabbath. The lawallowed them to eat of the grain as they passed through the fields: "When thou comest into thyneighbor's standing grain, then thou mayest pluck thecars with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickleinto thy neighbor's standing grain" (Deut. 23:25). ThePharisees defined the Sabbath law so as to make the action of the disciples servile work, which was forbidden in the law (Ex. 20:10). They defined the lawin this instance, and in many others, far beyond itsoriginal intent. Such definitions were really additions,and were called by Jesus "traditions" which make voidthe word of God (Mk. 7:13). Hence, the disciples onlyappeared to be in violation of the Sabbath because ofthe Pharisees' perverted views of it.

No, the expression "Lord of the Sabbath" does not

imply that Jesus could set aside the Sabbath,

disregard it, and do with it as he pleased. It does mean

that as one who instituted the Sabbath, he knew what was involved in keeping it. As Lord of the Sabbath, heupheld it, and condemned every violation of it. Heknew no sin (1 Pet. 2:22). Only under circumstancesdemanding respect for higher law could the generallaws of the Sabbath be set aside, e.g., the case of thepriest (Matt. 12:5). Jesus never violated the Sabbath.He kept it perfectly.

Concerning the statement that Jesus "approved oursetting aside any N. T. law if something more important is at stake," I think perhaps it can bestated more clearly and more in harmony with theword of God by saying that Jesus does approve our setting aside any general law to be applied undernormal circumstances, when circumstances become such as to demand respect for a higher law. The examples given by our querist illustrate this point.

A word of caution is in order. We ought never to setaside God's regulations Under normal circumstances inthe name of benevolence or mercy. God does haveregulations under which such are to be administered.These regulations can be set aside only under circumstances that are exceptional, urgent,demanding, and when the imperative necessities oflife are at stake. We need to keep our equilibriumand never enforce one to the neglect of the other. God's primary objective is the welfare of man bothfor time and eternity. His infinite wisdom and grace has made every provision for the realization of thisobjective. We, however, must be careful to respect his provisions — not improvise some of our own.

What is moral is "what you feel good after" andwhat is immoral is "what you feel bad after" seems tobe the attitude of the situationist. Joseph Fletcher, chief advocate of situationism, says nothing is right orwrong — it just depends on the situation. He and hiscohorts say there are no rules that must alwaysgovern under every circumstance. It is right to tell"white" lies and engage in "white" thefts, fornication,killing, etc. Rules may be cast aside when love can bebetter served — necessity nullifies law. In spite of the situationist's rule against rules, he has a rule. Hisrule is that we are to "love persons and use things." One should always do the loving thing.

Supporters of this view are not reluctant to try tojustify their position by scripture. Probably the strongest "scriptural" arguments that are made are the cases of Jesus' disciples eating corn on the sabbathand David's eating the showbread (Mt. 12:If).

Situationists make a similar mistake as that of the

Pharisees — only worse. There is irony in Jesus'

question ("Have ye not read?"). The Pharisees took

pride in their knowledge but had not read

(understood) one of scripture's most common

incidents. Jesus did not break the law nor endorse

violations of it, for: 1) Sin is transgression of the law

(1 Jn. 3:4); 2) Jesus committed no sins (Heb. 4:15).

When the disciples plucked corn they did not break the Law. They only violated the Pharisees' misconception of the Law. Obviously, the Pharisees "had not read" (and neither had Mr. Fletcher) of thehumane provisions made in the Law for wayfarersand sojourners: "When thou comest into the standingcorn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the earswith thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle untothy neighbor's standing corn" (Deut. 23:25). "Eat thyfill, but pocket none," an old English proverb, isundoubtedly based on this passage. Jesus' disciplesdid .not practice situationism, but were engaged incarrying out Christ's will, who was "Lord of the sabbath" (Lord: "one having authority over; institutor; governor."). No man on earth today is "Lord"over circumstances where morality is involved — noteven Joe Fletcher. We must submit to the one Lord (Eph. 4:5).

In David's case Jesus specifically says that what hedid "was not lawful" (Mt. 12:4). Eating the showbreadviolated a condition of the Law (Lev. 24:9). David liedto obtain it (1 Sam. 21:1-6). Jesus did not approveeither act. To so infer is to make Jesus approve aviolation of the Law and thus approve sin. Jesus' message to the Pharisees was this: "Your position iscontradictory and inconsistent. You accuse my followers for lawfully plucking corn on the sabbath butyou approve David who did what was unlawful. You condemn the innocent and acquit the guilty." Under nosituation did Jesus approve lawlessness. Consequently, Joe Fletcher is left standing in a worse

predicament than the Pharisees. He believes both Jesus and David violated the law, but that it was"O.K." because of the circumstances. In reality,under this system it is nearly impossible to be wrong.Fletcher admits that his views are almost devoid of the concepts of "guilt, sin, repentance, and forgiveness." The redemptive work of Christ at Calvary is nullified. These views are greatly influencing our society and many are unaware that it is occurring.

Another consequence of situationism would be thatAdolf Hitler was not wrong for murdering millions ofJews. By being able to give more jobs to the Germans(his beloved countrymen) and greatly improving theeconomy, who could doubt that he did the "lovingthing?" At least many Germans thought so. Each manbecomes his own god under this doctrine.

The "new morality" can be summed up with thephrase, "the end justifies the means." Paul was accused of this once. He said the man who says "Letus do evil that good may come" (the end justifies themeans) has a just damnation (Rom. 3:8).

It may be that I would feel driven to do the wrongthing in a given circumstance. I would be no lessguilty. But Fletcher would come out "smelling like arose" by justifying himself. John Montgomery said itwell: "We plead with Professor Fletcher . . . to cease the irresponsible practice of sticking his thumb intosinful human situations, pulling out the plum of moralself-vindication, and saying, 'What a good boy am I!' "

Situationists find great sport in citing some condition that appears to be a dilemma and demanding that one of two equally wrong and unpleasant alternatives be chosen. They overlookthe always possible third alternative of doing right.They forget the faithfulness of God who promises away of escape in time of temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). The situationist's "way of escape" is to go ahead andcommit the "lesser" sin and tell yourself it was "O.K."Some escape.

H. A. Dobbs gives an illustration: "When my son was 4 years old he asked: 'Daddy, would you ratherjump off a 44 story building without any clothes on orbe shot in the head by an automatic pistol?' "Thanks a lot', I answered, 'but for my part I'd rather eat chocolate pie.' " Sometimes the situationist has to be dealt with accordingly. Even when I have to make atough decision in moral matters, I must rememberthat I am not the standard. There is one thing Goddoes not promise — that the right choice will be the easiest one to make.

In his book, Situation Ethics, Fletcher captures youremotions with a sad story about Mrs. Bergmeier whowas separated from her family at the Battle of theBulge and imprisoned in the Ukraine. During those months she learned that her husband (also a POW)had been released from another camp and had locatedall the children in Berlin. There were two reasons whythe Russians would release a prisoner: the need forextensive medical treatment or pregnancy. She persuaded a German guard to impregnate her and wasreturned to Germany as a liability. The family wasre-knit and they all loved her and the child for it.

Fletcher justifies this case of adultery because ofthe "good" that came. But in so doing he violates hisrule! One becomes so emotionally involved with theBergmeier family that the guard is forgotten. Mrs. Bergmeier treated the guard as a "thing" and not as aperson! Without regard for his family or him she deliberately used a fellow human being! No one canreally claim to love another when he works againstthat person's eternal welfare.

Fletcher forgets that an all wise God might have Hisown way of freeing a woman from a prison camp —if she doesn't lose her "cool," her patience, and her concern for fellow humans (I Cor. 10:13).

McCLOSKEY'S NEW TESTAMENT - [CIRCA - 1860]

"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of theScripture is made by private interpretation." (Mc-Closkey's has a foot note that flatly denies that theScriptures should be expounded by anyone's private judgment.)

R. F. WEYMOUTH'S MODERN SPEECH TRANSLATION

"But. above all, remember that no prophecy in scripture will be found to have come from the prophet's own prompting; . . ."

FERRAR FENTONS TRANSLATION [CIRCA 18851

"recognizing, in the first place, that no prophecy ofScripture ever emanated from personal effort."

ROBERT D. WEEKES' THE NEW DISPENSATION -1897 "understanding this first of all, that no prophecy ofthe Writing came of one's own interpreting,..."

KENNETH S. WUEST'S TRANSLATION -1961

"knowing this first, that every prophecy of scripturedoes not originate from any private explanation (heldby the writer),. . ."

GEORGE SWANN'S TRANSLATION -1947

"Know this first, that no prophecy of scripturecomes from one's own unloosing it."

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION 1950

"For you know this first, that no prophecy ofScripture springs from any private release."

RHEIMS VERSION - 1914

"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." (Thefootnote denies that the scriptures are to be taught by anyone's private judgment.)

YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION - 1862 "this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth comeof private exposition, . . ."

CHALLONER RHEIMS REVISION - 1941

"This, then, you must understand first of all, thatno prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation"

ALFORD'S REVISED NEW TESTAMENT -1869

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture cometh of private interpretation."

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION 1973

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation."

CONCLUSION

From the various words used by the above translators; i.e., "came about", "cometh", "is made",doth come", "springs from", "originate", "emanated", or "impulse" ... I suggest that we have made ourpoint. Peter was dealing with the matter of the sourceof Scripture (where it came from), and not with man's use of it on earth.

May I illustrate? When we stoutly affirm that "Godis" ... we could just as well state it ... "God exists". Now then, in the King James Version, of II Peter 1:20 . .. which is copied by so many other translators, whenit reads . . . "no prophecy ... is of any private interpretation" ... if we substitute the word "exists" for the word "is" ... then note the change of meaning:"no prophecy . . . exists of any private interpretation". This would stress the thought thatGod's Word could not exist, had it not come fromthe Holy Spirit, speaking through the human writers.

In any event, it is just such unfortunate renderingsas this, that sometimes seem to support false doctrine.It is well for us to become aware of such.

707 Salem Avenue

Rolla, Mo. 65401

JAMES N. GRUSHON, 622 Elm St. No. 6, West Bend, Wisconsin 53095. At the beginning of March, 1974, I began work with the church in West Bend. The congregation consists of 20 members with anywhere from 35-40 in attendance on Sunday morning. Within the last month and a half there have been 3 baptisms. Thepotential of growth is very good. I am now receiving $375 a month support. This is not enough to sustain life. There has been effort made to find support with very little success. If anyone is able tohelp, HELP!

ROBERT WAYNE LA COSTE, Route 3, Box 144, Cooper, Texas 75432. After laboring three years with the brethren here in Cooper, I am moving to work with the church in Refugio, Texas. While inCooper there have been 75 restored and 20 baptized. The church has grown numerically as well as spiritually. To God we give the glory. I recommend the Cooper church to any preacher of truth.You may contact the elders c/ o W. B. Gunter.

A. O. SCHNABEL, 130 N.E. 160th Ave., Portland, Oregon 97230. It has been my pleasure to watch the 160th Avenue church in Portland grow spiritually and physically. During the eight years Ihave worked with them we have developed a fine educational program and have had a part in a daily radio "talk" broadcast for the last six years. The church has appointed fine elders and is providing full financial support for preaching. This is the only self-supporting church in Portland. Late this summer I plan to begin working with the Seminole church in Tampa, Florida. All correspondence after May, including orders for my book, Has God Spoken?, should be sent to me in care of Seminole Church of Christ, Rome Ave. & Wishart Blvd., Tampa, Florida 33603. At the time of this writing the church here in Portland has not obtained areplacement for me. Anyone interested who feels he is adequately qualified to work with them in their programs is invited to contact the elders.

DONALD R. GIVENS, 2710 21st Ave., S., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. One college student was baptized here recently. Being from denominational background, he commented upon first attending services that he "never knew there was a church like this." We are glad to report that Larry Boswell is interested in moving up here to work WITH me in the gospel. There is plenty ofwork, home Bible studies, correspondence courses, Civic Centre Bible discussions, small churches needing help, etc. to keep several preachers very busy. Brother Boswell must raise full support to come to western Canada where he is so badly needed. He attended Florida College for three years and has done some preaching. Can you help on his moving expenses or monthlysupport? If so, contact him directly at: 2020 Kayewood, Denton, Texas 76201 or phone (817) 387-6051. He needs to settle this soon as he needs to get his Canadian Immigration papers in order.

TERRY PARTAIN, P.O. Box 511, Frostproof, Florida 33843. I have resigned from working with the church in Frostproof effective July 1 and will be available for a new work. I have worked with thechurch here three years. Three have been baptized. Attendance has fluctuated. Contributions have increased from an average of $50-70 a week to $150-180 a week.

CLARENCE BECKETT, 121 Custer Road, Newark, Ohio 43055. A new congregation has begun meeting in Newark, Ohio at 136 South 29th Street in the 100F Hall. We started with four families and 10

members and average about 20 at each service. Services on Sundays are at 9:30, 10:30 and 6 and on Tuesdays at 7:30. For further information call (614) 522-5413 or 345-7079.

MRS. SHIRLEY STRICKLIN, 3625 West Central, Missoula, Montana 59801. In July my family will be moving to Missoula, Montana as my husband's work requires it. We would like to get incontact with faithful Christians in that area who would be interested in forming a congregation completely committed to the authority of the scriptures. Please contact us at the above addressor phone 549-7297.

TO AUSTRALIA LESLIE DIESTELKAMP. On February 19, four days after returning from a preaching trip to Nigeria, I received an enthusiastic request from the 77th Street church in Birmingham,Alabama, asking that I consider going to Australia for an indefinite period of work. Consequently, the Lord willing, my son, Roy, now of Chester, Virginia, and I shall both go this summer. I plan to go byway of the Philippines for two weeks of work, arriving in Australia about mid-August. Our work there is to be of an itinerant nature, traveling much among many congregations over widely scattered areas. In fact, we were selected for this very work because both ofus are single, thus enabling us to travel a great deal with a minimum of difficulty and cost. We do not intend to be together a great deal, but to split up for greater usefulness, though we shallplan to be together part of the time as occasion requires and permits. The 77th Street church is providing all of our support and travel funds. Most of the churches with which we shall work in Australia are very small, and often isolated by great distances fromother faithful people. Temporarily either of us may be addressed after midsummer here, c/ o Max Burgin, Lot 43, Ferny Creek, Vic. 3786, Australia.

DEBATES Walton Weaver of Pine Bluff, Arkansas met Irvin Barnes of Harrison, Arkansas in debate May 13-17 at Mountain Home, Arkansas. The discussion concerned the scripturality of Bible.classes, women teachers in some of these classes and the number of containers in the Lord's Supper. Brother Weaver defended Bible classes, women teachers in some classes and a plurality of containers for the fruit of the vine. We regret that this announcement reached us too late for publication prior to the debate.

Cecil Willis and Jesse Jenkins will meet in debate in the Houston, Texas area September 23, 24, 26, 27 at a place to be announced later. The debate concerns collective actions of Christians in teaching the Bible in college Bible departments and publishing companies. This is a live issue and getting livelier in some places. Both of these men are able and this bids fair to be an excellent and profitable study.

PREACHERS NEEDED

McROBERTS, KENTUCKY. The church at McRoberts is looking for an older brother to replace William H. Sowder who is moving in June to work with the church at Clintwood, Virginia. The churchcan furnish a house with utilities and can provide most of the support though some outside support is needed. McRoberts is situated in the heart of the Appalachian coal fields of southeasternKentucky. Average attendance is about 55. If interested please contact Manuel Hampton, Box 32, McRoberts, Ky. 41835 or phone 1606) 832-2795.

SUMTER, SOUTH CAROLINA. The Woodland church in Sumter desires a full-time preacher Tom Swilley presently labors with the church until a full-time man is secured. Partial support is available plus moving expenses. Presently there are 30-40 meeting. If interested please contact Tom Swilley at (803) 798-0758 or writethe church at 3370 Broad St. Ext., Sumter, South Carolina 29150.

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA. The Lower Richland congregation is seeking a gospel preacher to work with them after Gary White leaves in June. Most of the support will need to comefrom other sources. If interested contact James Wilsford, 2523 Pleasant Ridge Drive, Columbia, SC or call (803) 776-6381.

PALMETTO, FLORIDA. Since Daniel L. Tam is leaving thework here to move to Cincinnati, Ohio, the church in Palmetto is looking for another evangelist to work there. Full support is supplied with a house and partial utilities. Those interested may write the church at 420 9th Ave., W. Palmetto, Florida 33561 or call Verl Fielding (813) 722-6889, or Don Galloway at either 7475422 or 746-3121.

MACON, GEORGIA. In spite of many discouragements brought on by false teachers, the Bloomfield church in Macon is still holding up the banner of truth. They are meeting temporarily in ameeting room at Howard Johnson's Motel at the intersection of I475 and Highway 80. Services on Sundays are at 10, 11 and 6:30 and at 8 on Wednesdays. Brethren traveling through that area areinvited to stop and worship. Macon is a city of 150,000 people with good job opportunities in a pleasant climate. Any preacher desiring to move where a man is badly needed and who will have the loyal support of brethren who have been through the fire and have come out stronger and more determined than ever to uphold the truth, would do well to consider the work in Macon. Outside support would have to be secured for the present. A faithful man in life anddoctrine is

needed. Interested brethren may contact Redmon R. Gainey, 2521 Locksley Dr., Macon, Georgia 31206 or phone (912) 788-5016.

ASHLAND, OHIO. The church in Ashland needs a full-time preacher. There are 20 members. The church is able to supply $75 a week support with the rest having to come from other places. The church is at peace and has its own building. A good personal worker is needed. Persons interested should write the church at P.O. Box 647, Ashland, Ohio 44805 or call Wilbur Bland at (419) 325-2467.

JERRY CHANDLER, 2311 Pontiac Dr., Tallahassee, Florida 32301. A new congregation has begun here called the Capital City Church of Christ. We are presently meeting at 4042 Apalachee Parkway (U.S. 27) three miles east of the Capital. This is the second conservative church in Tallahassee. Permanent property is being sought. Let us know of friends or relatives who live in our area, specifically the eastern side of Tallahassee. All the men are sharing the responsibilities according to their capabilities.

JAMES P. MILLER. 1111 Hickory Lane. Cocoa, Florida 32922. On April 1, 1974 I entered the Shands Teaching Hospital at the University of Florida, Gainesville. As many of you know by this time, surgery was performed and a fatty tumor was successfully removed on Wednesday. April 10. I am very grateful to the Lord we serve and to brethren over the land who prayed as the surgeon worked.

On Tuesday following the surgery, I was afforded the opportunity to speak to all the doctors in the neurology department. This was indeed a rare and wonderful occasion. How wonderful it is to be a child of God as you fight for your life. I have made a remarkable recovery. The doctors sent me home toCocoa without any medication and the prognosis is for a complete and 100 per cent recovery with better health than I have known for the last several years.

To my faithful wife and to hundreds of brethren who prayed, who phoned long distance, who came to he near to aid, or who wrote of your concern, I can only say thanks and to express an even strongerfaith than ever in our heavenly Father who does all things well.