Barnes church of Christ

The words “silence” and “biblical authority” have been much debated as early as the second century. Tertullian (150-222) wrote of those who claimed that “the thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted.” Tertullian responded with, “I should rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.” (Tertullian. 1995. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.) Martin Luther (1483-1546) the great reformer taught that “whatever is without the word of God is, by that very fact, against God.” But Luther, like so many, would see his view change; later he wrote: “Nothing ought to be set up without scriptural authority, or if it is set up, it ought to be esteemed free and not necessary.” (bold added). Still later in life, he became known for, these words: “What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and Scripture for it” (Newman, A. H. 1902. A Manual of Church History. Vol. 2. Chciago, IL: The American Baptist Publication Society.) Sadly, Luther’s view of “silence” authorizing has been the majority thinking through the years and continues today!
A very clear case of silence forbidding is seen in Jesus being the high priest! In order for Jesus to be anointed high priest, the Law of Moses had to be removed. The text reads: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (13) For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. (15) And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest” (Heb. 7:12-15). The Law of Moses “spake nothing” about one becoming priest “out of Juda;” therefore, no one could serve as priest who was of the tribe of Juda, so long as the Law of Moses stood. In order for Jesus to be high priest, “there is made a necessity a change also of the law;” for “it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda!” The law of Moses was silent about all tribes, other than Levi, being priests. Therefore, the silence of the scripture forbids anyone from being a priest who was not of the tribe of Levi and for anyone becoming a high priest who was not of Aaron. The silence is seen in the words, “of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.”
In the Old Testament a riveting case is seen when Nadab and Abihu “offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not” (Lev. 10). The “strange fire” is fire which the LORD was silent about. Here is the story: “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not” (Lev. 10:1-2). Nadab and Abihu were operating in the area of silence, which God had “commanded them not!” The word “strange” implies unauthorized and in this case, it was unauthorized fire. One might reason, isn’t fire, fire; isn’t one fire just as good as another? In our minds, yes; but God is to be obeyed! When the LORD said use a certain fire, it was the only fire authorized! The LORD did not have to say, Nadab and Abihu, there are ten fires over there, you may not use fire number one, two, three, etc.. You see, the LORD did say that all other fires were forbidden to be use, when he said a certain fire is to be used.
So, when one of the “ambassadors” of Christ wrote: “singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19), his silence about all other kinds of music forbids them! It is totally unnecessary to name every forbidden thing, when the named authorized thing will take care of it. The same thing is true of baptism. When the inspired writers used the Greek word “baptizo,” which means “to immerse,” they forbid sprinkling and pouring; as these words are not in the word “baptize;” therefore, they fall in the area of silence and are forbidden!
Let us be like the noble folks of Berea who “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). You see, living in the area of silence is to live in the area of the forbidden!

— Frank R. Williams

In this final article in this series addressing the subject to authority, attention will be called to a number of things for which there is no law stating, it shall not be done! In other words, it might be said, “There is no law against it; therefore, if done, one has not violated the law.” It is so important when studying “the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9), that we understand it is not a teaching of “thou shalt nots,” but a teaching which one must abide within!
Have you ever thought there is no command to use only unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper? There is no law commanding that only fruit of the vine be used in the Lord’s Supper? Even when Paul writes what he was delivered in First Corinthians chapter eleven, he used the words, “bread” and the word “cup;” therefore, we do not have an explicit command as to unleavened bread, and fruit of the vine! Yet, throughout churches of Christ there is little disagreement on this subject. No, for the night Jesus was betrayed he used unleavened bread and fruit of the vine; thus, through implicit teaching we reach the conclusion that within “the teaching of Christ” we are only authorized to use these items in the Lord’s Supper.
It is this implicit authority that forbids taking the Lord’s Supper on any other day than “the first day of the week.” This has been noted in earlier articles, by implication no other day is authorized within “the teaching of Christ!” Take the subject of instrumental music in worship of God. There is no explicit commandment not to use instrumental music in worship of God in the New Testament. What we have is this: “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). If we are looking for a “Thou shalt not use instrumental music in worship of God;” you are not going to find it! This is not the nature of “the teaching of Christ!” Yet, it is not authorized! It is not within “the teaching of Christ;” therefore, it is not within the fellowship of Christ! By implication, one reaches the conclusion “singing” is authorized in Ephesians, but instrumental music is not authorized as it is not found in “the teaching of Christ!” There is no explicit authority, no implicit authority, neither is it something allowed by any account of action approved by the apostles of Christ for instrumental music in worship of God!
Just before Jesus’ ascent from this earth, he said to eleven men who would be his ambassadors: “All power (authority, frw) is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). That authority is in his teaching, wherein also is fellowship with him! Paul wrote the Corinthians: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by 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 perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment “ (1 Cor. 1:10). The only way the churches of Christ can obey Paul’s words, is to abide in “the teaching of Christ!” In the earlier years of the history of the churches of Christ in America, these words were heard: “In faith, unity; in opinion, liberty; in all things, charity!” There is, just as Paul wrote, “one faith,” and that “one faith” is “the teaching of Christ” and the only way we can have unity is to abide within “the teaching of Christ” which is that “one faith!” In order to do so, we must understand both explicit and implicit authority and approved action by the apostles of Christ.
It is Christ who has the authority; he has all authority and he is head of his church; and we are the church who is subject to him. If we do not know how he authorizes what his church may do, we have no hope of unity! Our ability to reach the lost with the gospel is greatly diminished and we have failed him! How can we ever be the church of which Paul wrote we must be: “the fulness of him that filleth all in all?” (Eph. 1:23).
One last thought just here. If I give my son some money and send him the store and tell him to buy bread and milk; is he authorized to buy a bar of candy? I did not tell him not to buy a bar of candy, but he has no authority to buy a bar of candy. By telling him what to buy, I have also told him what not to buy. All things not in the authority are unauthorized! Silence does not authorize in such areas!

— Frank R. Williams

Is there a law against taking the Lord’s Supper on Monday, Tuesday, etc.? Yes, if we correctly understand the authority of Christ. In an earlier article we addressed the items which constitute the Lord’s Supper as revealed by the apostle Paul in First Corinthians chapter eleven; but we did not study the issue of when the authority of Christ authorizes the Lord’s people to take the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, in this article we will do so!
The church being established on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection, as recorded in Acts chapter two, and knowing that Pentecost always was on the first day of the week; the first worship of the church took place on the first day of the week. Luke wrote: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:41-42). This is the first worship of the body of Christ. The words “breaking of bread,” is the Lord’s Supper and part of the “apostle’s teaching” which is “the teaching of Christ,” and the saved continued in it. Therefore, the first time the Lord’s Supper was taken; was on the first day of the week, Sunday. Remembering the words of Jesus to the disciples as he introduced his own memorial, he said, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29); and in Acts 2:42, he was doing just that! It must be noted that the authorized day for the saved to take of this memorial, according to “the apostle’s doctrine,” is the first day of the week!
Here attention is called to a statement recently posted: “In the New Testament, however, it is granted by all Bible students that there is never an explicit law stating that every Sunday and only Sunday is the day that the Lord’s Supper must be taken. Unlike the Old Testament, we never read of a mandated day of the week that the Lord’s Supper must be taken.” Please understand, as has been pointed out in earlier articles that an “explicit law” is not required in order for a thing to be part of “the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9). Also, keep in mind, in order to have fellowship with Christ one must “abideth in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). This does not require an “explicit” command, as not all of “the teaching of Christ” is a series of commandments! Within “the teaching of Christ” there are implicit teachings, which in earlier the article have been proven to be just as binding as “explicit” commandments/statements. It is so important that the student of the New Testament, when studying “the teaching of Christ,” not to expect a series of commandments as in the “ten commandments,” for “the teaching of Christ” is not such!
With the above in mind, let us move to Troas, where Luke wrote: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). So, here is an example of the church once more coming together and “to break bread” “upon the first day of the week.” Within “the teaching of Christ” the Lord’s Supper was taken on the first day of week! Let it be noted that within “the teaching of Christ” there is authority to take the Lord’s Supper “upon the first day of the week,” and there is no authority to take the Lord’s Supper upon any other day. When a day is identified, it is not necessary to say, “thou shalt not take the Lord’s Supper on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, nor Saturday, in order to forbid these days. Therefore, if one desires to have fellowship with Christ, and that fellowship is within “the teaching of Christ,” then, the “Lord’s Supper” must be taken only upon “the first day of the week;” as this is the only day within “the teaching of Christ” thus, the only day authorized.
No “explicit” command is required! By implication “the teaching of Christ” requires the Lord’s Supper be taken upon “the first of the week.” Now, we all understand that Monday, Tuesday, etc. is not “the first of the week;” therefore, there is no authority within “the teaching of Christ” for these days. It is also most important that we understand, that there is no fellowship with Christ when taking the Lord’s Supper on any other day, but “the first day of the week!” This is true as the Lord’s Supper and “the first of the week” abide within “the teaching of Christ!”
Finally, “the teaching of Christ” does explicitly state that “fellowship” with Christ “abideth in the doctrine of Christ!” It also explicitly states that there is no “fellowship” with Christ for those who “abideth not in the doctrine of Christ!” So, we ask, is there a law against taking the Lord’s Supper on Monday? Yes, as it is not within “the teaching of Christ!”

— Frank R. Williams

The subject of authority is at the heart of Christianity; it is the center of the debate as to what the church is authorized to do; thus, all activities, both worship and work, must go through the authority! The authority for the churches of Christ is “the teaching of Christ,” though it may be defined in different ways.
One might say the New Testament is the authority for the body of Christ! However, here one must understand that not everything written in the New Testament is part of the authority of Christ. It must be remembered that Jesus lived and died under the Law of Moses! Therefore, as the four gospel accounts are read, this must be kept in mind. At times Jesus is addressing subjects as they relate to the Law of Moses and at other times he is addressing what will be the New Testament – his teaching.
Even in “The Sermon on the Mount” there are things which were pre-New Testament Law and would not apply today. Though they are not without principle today! Take Jesus’ words as he taught about prayer: “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10). It was right for those who lived while Jesus lived upon this earth to pray, “Thy kingdom come,” however, why would we today pray for a kingdom to come that has already come? As Paul wrote of the Colossians” “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13). Clearly the Colossians were in the kingdom; therefore, the kingdom had come. Thus, we should not pray for the kingdom to come, but it is right to pray: “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”
Jesus also addressed the subject of fasting, saying: “Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly” ” (Matt. 6:16-18). Clearly he is addressing fasting as it related his time, under the Law of Moses, but as noted in an earlier article, the early church also fasted when appointing elders (Acts 14:23); so it is authorized, as something allowed, in the authority of Christ. In Jesus’ remarks, it is a very personal activity, not to be seen of others. In fact, Jesus said they were to “anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast.” However, this was not the case when the church was appointing elders. Due to the seriousness of the event, they prayed and fasted; meaning they did not eat, but they gave themselves to prayer and to the appointing of elders! They understood this is a most solemn event of the local congregation; as the local church is appointing men who will lead them in fulfilling their obligations to Christ! So, is there authority for the church to fast? Yes, but there is no command, no obligation, and no one’s spirituality is to be measured by fasting. What we really need is more praying! If prayer goes through meal time, then, we have also fasted!
However, the vast majority of “the sermon on the mount” may correctly be called “Pentecost Pointers!” Meaning Jesus is teaching things that are to have there beginning on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two. Take the words: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3). The “poor in spirit” are those who humble themselves, who have a humble disposition, and are expressed in the words of Jeremiah: “O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). It is total surrender to the will of God; as it is an emptying of self-will! No one can enter the kingdom of “God’s dear son” without being “poor in spirit” and those who have such, “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Therefore, it is easy to see that one must use the words, “New Testament,” with care! For all that is within the New Testament, the twenty-nine books, is not part of the New Testament of Christ as Jesus used the words when he said: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28)! And this is true even of some of the teaching that Jesus did himself! In conclusion of this article, is there a law against it? Yes, if it is not within “the teaching of Christ” the churches of Christ have no authority to do it!

— Frank R. Williams

Is there a law forbidding “cornbread and buttermilk” to be used in the Lord’s Supper? If one is looking for a “Thou shalt not,” the answer is “no!” Read the New Testament through and you will never read the words, “Thou shalt not use cornbread and buttermilk in the Lord’s Supper.” So, let’s take this one more step, is there a law forbidding the use of “instrumental music” in worship of God? If you can answer the first question, then, you can answer the second question!
However, before dealing with either subject, let us show that Jesus taught by implication. Implication is a teaching where the hearer is forced to reached the implied conclusion! Jesus taught by implication when he said of God: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Jesus never said, therefore; but he left it for those who heard him to reach the implied conclusion. So, what is the implication which Jesus taught? He taught implicitly that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were alive as he spoke!
Let us notice another case where Jesus taught by implication. Matthew records the event: “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit called him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? (Matt. 22:41-45). First, notice that Jesus never answered the question, but left it for those to whom he spoke to reach the implied conclusion. Thus, Jesus taught implicitly! But, what is the implied answer? David’s LORD is both his son according to the flesh, but also God, as in “the Word was made flesh” in John 1:1, 14. The Jewish leadership did not like this implication!
The person who desires to teach that we are free to take the Lord’s Supper on any day of the week, because he is unable to read, “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s Supper on Monday, Tuesday, etc; or you are ONLY authorized to take the Lord’s Supper upon the first day of the week,” fails to understand how things are authorized in “the teaching of Christ.” (This subject will be addressed in another article.) It is just this, “the teaching of Christ” authorizes! In its authority it commands, it forbids, and it allows. One must get all the parts (the teaching) from each passage that addresses the subject in order to get all that is authorized. In the case of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus and the disciples were eating the Jewish Passover which included unleavened bread and fruit of the vine; it is here that Jesus took the bread (unleavened) and said: “Take, eat; this is my body” then, he took the cup (fruit of the vine) and said: “Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” His conclusion was: “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt. 26:26-29). It must be noticed Jesus put this in the kingdom, as he says, “my Father’s kingdom!” Paul in writing to the Corinthians refers back to this event and writes: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (I Cor. 11:23-26). Therefore, we have the Lord’s Supper! Nothing else is authorized! As given by Paul, we are to have a prayer and eat the bread while remembering the Lord’s body, then, a second prayer and drink the fruit of the vine while remembering the Lord’s blood. There is the Lord’s Supper and nothing else is the Lord’s Supper! Nothing else is authorized; therefore, there is no authority to use “cornbread and buttermilk,” nor anything else, as everything else is forbidden!
Is there a law against “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper? Yes! “The teaching of Christ” is a law which forbids all things not authorized; as John wrote “he that abideth in the teaching of Christ!” The Lord’s Supper and all that is the Lord’s Supper are clearly stated by the apostle Paul in First Corinthians chapter eleven; the apostle does not allow us to take cornbread and remember the body of Jesus and drink buttermilk and remember the blood of Jesus! By the law of nature, there is nothing in cornbread to remind us of the body of Jesus, just as there is nothing in the buttermilk to remind us of the blood of Jesus! However, by the nature of unleavened bread there is a remembrance of the body of Jesus and the fruit of the vine there is a remembrance of the blood of Jesus.
In “the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9) cornbread and buttermilk are forbidden as they are not within “the teaching of Christ!” One must go outside of “the teaching of Christ” in order to use cornbread and buttermilk in the Lord’s Supper! There is a law against it; it says loud and clear, “Thou shalt not” use cornbread and buttermilk in the Lord’s Supper to the person who desires to hear; just as Jesus said: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

— Frank R. Williams

As a new generation arises there will be a few who see themselves as “lights” to the church and it is their duty to reinvent Christianity! They are sure that the older generation missed a few points and it is their solemn duty to restore true Christianity! Never mind that these subjects have been debated over and over; point after point has been met in debate and truth triumphed! Christianity as revealed in “the teaching of Christ” stood the test, and men and women who loved the truth stepped forward and obeyed it.
These precious souls came out of denominationalism while giving up family and friends; some lost jobs and the respect of the community in which they lived. They were treated as traitors! Why? Because they held truth as the “polar star” that was to guide them in this life to eternal life. They possessed a godliness that humbled them before God: “For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8). But the word “godliness” needs a little attention just here as it is much misunderstood. It is the Greek “eusebeia” and means: “reverence, respect, piety towards God” (Thayer). “Piety” means: “the state or quality of being pious.” The point is that “godliness” refers to a person who reverences God in obedience! Obedience is “profitable” in this life and the life “which is to come!” Of course, this brings us to the subject of truth, of law!
Part of this reinventing of Christianity is heard in the words, “If there is no law against it, then, there is no violation.” There is nothing new in this thought! Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) looked at the New Testament in this way; and he is, of course, well known. On the other hand, Ulrich Zwingl who lived at the same (Jan. 1, 1484 – Oct. 11, 1531) believed that if it was not authorized, explicitly or implicitly, then it was not lawful. He is much less known! Much of Christendom is divided between these two camps today and there is nothing new in it! It is just an old teaching resurrected from the dust bins of history!
Some twenty-nine years ago I wrote a series of articles entitled, “Cornbread and Buttermilk.” The point of these articles was if we are looking at the authority of Christ as “Thou shall not” type of law, then, there is no law against using “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper. Why “cornbread and buttermilk?” I just happen to like “cornbread and buttermilk!” This sums up the thinking of many then and now; if there is no law against it, then, there is no violation of the law to use “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper! It is a gross misunderstanding of the authority of Christ! It forbids as it authorizes!
Jesus said: “All power (authority – exousia) is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). Just how does Jesus exercise this authority? Is it through a series of “Thou shalt not” statements, or is it what we are authorized to do through explicit and implicit statements and accounts of action? Some things we are free to do, but not commanded to do. For instance, there are “accounts of action” of the early church fasting when elders were appointed (Acts 14:23). It should be noted that they prayed and fasted; there is no spiritual edification in going without food, but if one is praying, and or studying the word of God, then, there is spiritual edification.
The same thing is true of brethren who sold land and brought the money to the apostles (Acts 4:36-37); this is an account of action, but there is no command, either explicitly or implicitly given for brethren to sell their land. In fact, Peter said to Ananias, “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power (authority – exousia)” (Acts 5:4). At the same time, brethren were/are free to sell land and other goods and if they so choose, they could/can keep the money, or they could/can give all, or any part of the money to the Lord (church) to be used the work of the church. As they give they are to keep in mind, they should give “as God hath prospered him” and remember: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (1 Cor. 16:2 and 2 Cor. 9:7).
It should be noted that in giving, we have both explicit and implicit authority! When Paul wrote the church in Corinth, he wrote: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1). These words follow the order given in verse one: “as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” Therefore, the explicit, “upon the first day of the week,” which implicitly means every “first day of the week” as every week has a first day!

— Frank R. Williams

Bowker reports that 1,052,803 books were published in the U.S. in 2009, which is more than triple the number of books published four years earlier (2005) in the U.S. (Bowker is the world’s leading provider of bibliographic information). In 2013, there were 28 million books in print in English. Truly, if Solomon were living today, he could still write: “of making many books there is no end” (Ecc. 12:12). Yet, in much of the world, the words “The Book” identifies but one book, the Bible.
It is the Bible that answers the questions which no other book can answer. We are still learning about the universe in which we live, but what was its beginning? “The Book” still reads in its opening statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1). The question that generally comes before us: “How can something come from nothing?” Here is how one person deals with this subject: “One such religious notion is the story of creation: once upon a time there was nothing, and then, miraculously, there was something. But is that the only possibility? Why couldn’t there always have been something? If there never was a transition from nothing to something, it follows that there was no creation and, therefore, no creator—personal or otherwise.” (Did the Universe Come from Nothing? Reality Check – Victor Stenger, Vol. 20.4, Dec. 2010). As a matter of fact, the opening statement of “The Book” reveals that there has always been “something,” that “something” is God! There was a “transition,” but it was from God, the Creator, to the creation. Thus, all that exists, all that may be identified by the five senses, is the result of creation and creation is the result of the action of God: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” “The Book” has the answer to questions which scientists and philosophers are unable to answer without the Bible.
The second question, where did man come from? Man gives us three general views: 1) The Recent African Origin Model; this model was given a huge boost in 1987, when a paper published in the scientific journal Nature, Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution, rocked the palaeoanthropology world. It showed that part of our genome, inherited only through mothers and daughters, derived from an African ancestor. This female ancestor became known as Mitochondrial Eve. 2) The Multiregional Model, puts forward the parallel lines of evolution in each inhabited region of Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia, glued together by interbreeding across the human range. And 3) The Assimilation model, under this view, Neanderthals and archaic people like them were assimilated through widespread interbreeding. This meant that the establishment of modern human features occurred via a blending of populations rather than a rapid replacement. It is seen that no agreeable answer is forthcoming through Human Science, but “The Book” answers that God made man in “our image, after our likeness” and then revealed more: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Gen. 1:26; 2:7, 21-22). Then, in harmony with man’s beginning, “The Book,” reveals man’s end: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7).
Yet, strikingly “The Book” reveals that man is responsible to his Creator! As Solomon summed up life, he wrote: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecc. 12:13-14). Then, Jesus said to those who lived during the “age of Christ,” even those who reject him, are yet answerable: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
The created is answerable to the Creator! “The Book” answers questions that cannot be answered in any of the many books written by man, out of the mind of man! It is good that the Bible is the most sold book, as a conservative estimate is that in 2005 Americans purchased 25 million Bibles! Yet these questions come face to face before us; how many read it, how many really study it, then, how many really obey it?
Sadly, only few obey the word of God! Only those who abide in “the teaching of Christ” are truly abiding in Christ (2 John 9). My friends are you abiding in “the teaching of Christ?”

— Frank R. Williams

The question before us in this series of articles is, did the apostles of Christ know that Jesus was not resurrected? Yet, they preached he was resurrected anyway, but if they knew he was not resurrected, there must be some compelling reason. Think about it, what reason did the apostles have for preaching a resurrected Jesus, when they knew he was not resurrected?
On the first Pentecost after the death of Jesus, Peter with the other eleven apostles said: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). You can almost see Peter pointing his finger right at them as he speaks! But, just what did he say? If they crucified Jesus, and they did; and God made Jesus “both Lord and Christ,” and he did; Peter was preaching a resurrected Jesus! This was only fifty days after the crucifixion, and if Jesus was not resurrected, and the apostles knew it; then, they had to come up with this elaborate, unbelievable, story of the resurrection in this short time! But if so, why did they do so? Keep in mind, the people, only fifty days earlier had cried out, “Crucify him” (Mark 15:14). Would the same people now favor those who preach “Jesus,” the same one they had cried out, “Crucify him” only a time earlier? Would they now believe this “fairy tale” resurrection which even the preachers of it knew was false? Yes, about 3,000 of them did believe, having their heart “pierced thoroughly” by the words spoken and they cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). They were now convinced they had crucified the Christ and he was now resurrected!
Yet, the question remains, did the apostles know it was all a lie? But why would these men, part of which had a business of fishing, Peter, Andrew, James and John (Matt. 4:18-22), and another, Matthew, being a tax collector, which they gave up; gain by promoting this lie? Would they be favored with the majority of the people, with leaders of the Jews, or would they gain financially? The 3,000 who obeyed their teaching on the day of Pentecost was but a small part of the total number of those in Jerusalem, which some have set at over two million seven hundred thousand! Then, just how well did things go? In Acts chapter five they sure were not favored, as the high priest and the Sadducees were all “filled with indignation, “and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison” (Acts 5:17-18). This was only the start of their difficulties! They were taken again, but what had they done between the two events? Luke wrote the chief priest said: “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (verse 28). Yes, between the first arrest and the second, these men had filled Jerusalem with the preaching of the resurrected Jesus! If they knew it was all a lie, why would they do this? Then, they are now commanded not to teach “in this name (Jesus)!’ So, what is their answer? In a very clear voice, they said: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (verse 29). With prison before them, they declared to the high priest, we are going to obey God, not you! But, if they knew it was a lie, why?
But, it did not stop here! Next Stephen, though not an apostle, is stoned to death (Acts 7:59). Now, think about this, enter Saul: “And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts 8:1-2). Looking on are the apostles, they see those they have converted by their teaching, but, if they know it is all a lie, how can they stand by while their converts are being persecuted by Saul? Then, one of their own is put to death by Herod in Acts chapter 12. Did the other eleven finally come to their senses and stop this lie?
No, they knew it was not a lie, but divine truth! They had seen the resurrected Jesus and this is why they no longer went fishing, but were preaching the resurrected Christ! This is why they said: “We ought to obey God rather than men!” This is why they were willing to die, it was not a lie, but the truth; Jesus was in fact resurrected from the dead and he lives! And so they preached it!
This is what they knew! This is why they preached: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Friends, here is the means of your salvation! Yet, it remains for you, as Peter said: “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40).

— Frank R. Williams

It was early the first day of the week, in fact, it was just beginning to dawn toward the first day of the week, when women started their journey toward the sepulcher where the body of Jesus at been placed. As they neared the sepulcher it was at the rising of the sun. They talked about the large stone which sealed the tomb and how it was to be moved, as they knew they could not do so.
As they approached the tomb they were surprised to see that the stone had been moved; the sepulcher was open! As they entered into the tomb, ”they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him” (Mark 16:5-6). The key words are, “he is risen!” Meaning, he is resurrected! The question at the heart of this series of articles is this, did the apostles know that Jesus was not resurrected, yet preached that he was anyway?
It is a well-known fact; many people through the years have believed a lie! People have even been willing to die, while believing a lie. However, it is wrong to put the apostles of Christ in this same category! Why so you ask? The apostles, at first did not believe that Jesus was resurrected. This was pointed out in the first article, so just one reference will be noticed here. Luke wrote, when the women told the apostles that Jesus had been resurrected: “And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not” (Luke 24:11). Then, there is this point, Jesus had told the apostles before his death about his resurrection; and he told the apostles: “But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee” (Matt. 26:32). Did the apostles believe he would be resurrected? No, they did not! They did not go to Galilee after his death. In fact, notice what the angel tells the women: “And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you” (Matt. 28:7). Why did the angel have to tell the women to tell the apostles to go to Galilee? Had they believed in the resurrection of Jesus, they would have already been in Galilee, but they did not go. Thus, proving they did not believe he was going to be resurrected! So, what changed their minds? Or, did they just decide to believe a lie and start preaching a lie?
So, at the time Jesus was put to death, the apostles did not believe he was going to be resurrected! They did not prepare for his resurrection, as they did not obey him. Then, even after some of them had seen Jesus alive, at least one, Thomas, still did not believe Jesus was alive! Here is a good place to point out, they were not busy preparing a story about Jesus being resurrected, as they were a group of men without any hope. Their hope of a king and kingdom, died with Jesus. Their hope was buried in the tomb with a dead man, in whom they had placed their hope and in who their hope died! So, why in only fifty days, were they in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was resurrected?
We have already seen that the Jews had made sure that no one could come by night and take the body of Jesus, as they sealed the tomb and put forth a guard. They knew that Jesus had taught that he was going to be resurrected in three days. It may be the case that they understood this point better than did the disciples, as the disciples gave no credence to it at all. So, here we are asking the question, did the apostles know that Jesus was not resurrected, but after fifty days went out and preached a resurrected Jesus anyway?
Did the apostles know it was a lie, but preached it anyway? Did they have anything to gain by doing so? Did they think it would make them popular? It is easy to answer these questions, as all one has to do is look at Jesus. Did he gain anything by being Jesus? Just look at the cross and there is your answer! So, did the apostles of Christ know the story of the resurrection of Jesus was a lie, but they preached it anyway? What did they have to gain by doing so? Did they gain favor with the Jews? Did they enjoy favor with the Romans? Did they become wealthy?

— Frank R. Williams

Jesus of Nazareth stood before Pilate and heard him say: “I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it” (Matt. 27:24). “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him” (Matt. 27:27-31). Here Jesus died!
It was Joseph, a counsellor of Arimathaes, a city of the Jews; who went unto Pilate, “and begged the body of Jesus he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid” (Luke 23:50-53). Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, joined Joseph in this burial (John 19:39). As these two men buried Jesus there were women who followed them in order to know where the body of Jesus was buried (Luke 23:55). The reason for their action was that they planned to return to the sepulchre on the first day of the week with “prepared spices and ointments” (Luke 23:56). Therefore, these women made their way to the sepulchre as it was yet dark, but light was seen coming up “upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning” (Luke 24:1). As they walked toward the Sepulchre they talked among themselves as to how the large stone covering the entry way into the sepulchre would be rolled away (Mark 16:3). To their amazement, as they reached the sepulchre, the women saw the stone was already rolled away; so they entered “into the sepulchre” and “saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted” (Mark 16:5). The body of Jesus was not there! Matthew informs us the “young man” was an angel (Matt. 28:5) and he said: “Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him” (Mark 16:6). It is with these words that the challenge to the apostles of Christ begins!
Did the apostles know that Jesus of Nazerath was not really resurrected? But that his body had been taken away. This was the story put forth by the Jews at the time: “And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day” (Matt. 28:12-15).
Let us look at the words, “if this come to the governor’s ears.” What is the subject of these words? The subject is, “while we slept.” If word reached the governor’s ears that the soldiers fell asleep while on guard duty, a penalty would have to be paid by the soldiers. Whatever the penalty would have been, the Jews said they “will persuade him;” meaning, persuade him not to take action against them! Now, we must understand, the body of Jesus was missing; it was missing while the guards were on duty; it was missing while the guards were not asleep, as this was to be their excuse for it being stolen. So, what happened to the body of Jesus? Did the apostles of Christ know it had actually been stolen?
Never mind for the moment, how the body was stolen with guards on duty, and a false story had to be concocted up by the elders of the Jews. Answer this question: Why would the apostles, who did not believe Jesus was going to be resurrected and who did not go to Galilee as Jesus had told them to do; at the last moment determine to fake a resurrection? Then, these same men would for the rest of their lives, put their lives in danger, indeed, tradition says, they were put to death (James was put to death in Acts 12) for preaching the resurrected Christ; while all the time knowing that it was all false!
People will die for what they believe, but how many will willingly die knowing what they are teaching is a lie?

– Frank R. Williams