Barnes church of Christ

How much can one write about, “For God so loved?” The inspired writers wrote twenty-seven books; some very short and others much longer, but all of them reveal the love of God. A preacher friend of mine of years gone by was asked to preach on love and he preached over a hundred sermons. If memory serves me correctly, he was finally asked to preach on another subject. You can rest assured I will not write a hundred articles on the subject, “For God so loved.”
Can you write about “redemption” and not write about “For God so loved?” Not if you have “redemption” as it is revealed in the New Testament in mind. The very words which follow our subject spell “redemption:” “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” Just what does the word “redemption” mean? When Peter writes of our “redemption,” he says it was “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18-19). The Greek word used here is “lutroo” and it means: “to release on receipt of ransom.” The “ransom” paid was “the precious blood of Christ.” We were held captive to sin, in that we were in bondage to sin; we were a servant to sin as we had yielded ourselves freely to obey it. Of course, to get the full picture, we must understand that we came into the world as an innocent baby, having no sin, and we stayed this way until we reached a time in life when we understood the difference between right and wrong and we chose sin. Then, we were separated from God; thus, we were in need of “redemption!” We needed to be brought back; a “ransom” needed to be paid so we could be released from the wages of our sins, and what are the wages of our sins? Let Paul answer this question: “For the wages of sin is death; … “ (Rom. 3:26) and that is eternal death! Eternal death is eternal separation from God! Hear Paul once more: “In whom (Christ, frw) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). However, the Greek word Paul used here is not the one Peter used. Paul used the Greek, “apolutrosis,” which means: “a releasing effected by payment of ransom.” However, if you look closely you can see the word used by Peter within the word used by Paul. “Redemption” is the releasing effected by the payment of ransom and the ransom paid is the Son given in the words: “For God so loved!”
When we think of the cross, the death of Jesus upon the cross, we must see “For God so loved, that he gave his only begotten Son.” The death of Jesus is proof of God’s love! It is proof of God’s love while we were yet sinners, enemies of God; without hope and separated from God. The only thing in front of us was eternal death! If we were able to look here, there, and everywhere, we would have seen no answer for our state of being lost! There was nothing, there was no one; there was no ransom to be paid no matter where we looked. But thanks to God, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.” There is our redemption; there is the ransom which affected our release from the bondage of sin.
How many times have you read Philippians chapter two? However many times it is, it is not enough! “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (2:6-8). It is doubtful that we fully understand these words, but here is God’s love revealed in its greatest, in its most powerful words! How do we understand God in human flesh? Yet, in that human fleshly body flowed that “precious blood,” which was “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot!” Yes, our redemption is seen in the one who was “in the form of God… but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross!”
What is our answer to such love? Is it indifference? Is it luke-warmness? Is it half-heartedness? Do these words sound like: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10)?

— Frank R. Williams

How beautiful are the words under which we write: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” Not only do we have the greatest “love,” but we also have the greatest “gift:” “he gave his only begotten Son.” Countless multitudes have thrilled at the reading of these words. They express the greatest being’s loves of lowly mankind, so much that “he gave his only begotten Son!”
As one reads Hebrews, the writer addresses the subject in these words: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (the Son God gave, frw) also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:14-16). The Son God gave was the incarnate Word, which was made flesh (John 1:1, 14). To help us understand the subject even more, read the words of Paul as he wrote to the Philippians: “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:7-8). This is what the “golden text” means when it reads, “he gave his only begotten Son!”
Now, let us look at this one who “humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Go with me to Gethsemane, when Jesus “began to be sorrowful and very heavy” and he speaks to Peter, James, and John: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” He then goes “about a stone’s cast” beyond them, there falling to his face, he prays: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matt. 26:39). Keep in mind, these are the words of the Son, the “Son” which the God gave: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” Just how agonizing was this? It helps our understanding to know, that Jesus prayed the same thing three times! Yet, this is only part of it! Luke will help our understanding, as he wrote: “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). It is safe to say, never did flesh and blood ever pray in more “agony” and more “earnestly!” A few words are in order to help us see into the “agony.” It is the Greek, “agonia,” and means: “of severe mental struggles and emotions, agony, anguish.” Physically, it expresses “gymnastic exercise, wrestling.” Adding it all up, this word reveals Jesus’ inner “struggle for victory!” Yes, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” And in his victory, God has given us the opportunity to be victorious!
If I might just here, without being offensive, say just a few words about the word “chance?” Sometimes we hear one say, we have the “chance” of salvation. The word “chance” means: 1) the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled; 2) luck or fortune; 3) a possibility or probability of anything happening; and 4) an opportune or favorable time; opportunity. Let us all understand our salvation can be predicted, understood, and controlled! It started with the words: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” Then, it is your responsibility! How do you respond to the love of God? How do you handle the fact that you have sinned and come short of the glory of God? (Rom. 3:23). How do you handle God’s requirements in order to be saved: believe (Heb. 11:6), repent (Acts 17:30), confess (Rom. 10:9-10), and be baptized (1 Pet. 3:21)? You see, it is not a chance, but opportunity; predicted, understood, and controlled; as it is all revealed in the inspired gospel of Christ, God’s power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).
Yes, the greatest words in the Bible, “For God so loved!” In this love God made salvation possible through the death of his Son upon the cross! There is “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;” the price of redemption! (1 Pet. 1:18-19).
So, what does God’s love mean to you? Is it in vain? What about the “precious blood of Christ,” is it in vain? Jesus still says: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

— Frank R. Williams

The above words are the greatest words in the Bible! Of course, all Bible readers know where they are found in the New Testament and they are the opening words in what is called, “The golden text of the Bible.” There may be someone who would debate the claim made here, but just what words would be greater?
The full text reads: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). We have in these words the greatest being, “God;” we have the greatest positive force, “love;” we have the greatest number of people, “the world;” we have the greatest gift, “his only begotten Son;” we have the greatest opportunity, “he that believeth:” we have the greatest eternal punishment, “perish;” and the greatest eternal reward, “everlasting life.” No wonder this verse has been called the “golden text of the Bible!”
As great as this text is, there are some who abuse and misuse it! Like any other verse, it is generally wrong to take one verse as though it reveals the whole subject. The words, “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” are often preached as if “believing” is all that is necessary to salvation. It must be understood that no one verse gives all that is required of the lost in order to be saved. When reading the New Testament, like when reading other things, the writers use what is a form of speech called synecdoche, where a part of something is used for the whole, or where the whole is used to stand for all the parts. Here are two examples: first, “Their feet are swift to shed blood,” the word “feet” is used for the whole person in Romans 3:15; second, “Hath not my hand made all these things?” where the word “hand” is used for the power of God in Acts 7:50. So it is with the word “believeth” in John 3:16, it is a part for all that is required in order to be saved. “Believeth” does not exclude “repentance,” (Acts 17:30), “confession” (Rom. 10:9-10, Acts 8:37), and baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 2:21), but would in fact, include all that is required on the part of the one who is lost to be saved.
Now, let us return to the opening words of the text: “For God so loved the world.” God “so loved” us when we were lost; as Paul wrote: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). But, this does not tell the whole story either, as Paul continued: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10). Therefore, God “so loved” us when we were lost and enemies of God! Yet, there is more! We had no hope, no expectation of ever being saved without the love of God! Thus, the greatness of the words, “For God so loved!”
This love which God demonstrated and which is expressed in the words, “For God so loved,” is often called unconditional love. There is a certain truth in this, yet, man has greatly misunderstood and even abuses the subject. It is common to hear these todays, “I love my children unconditionally.” This may be spoken after expressing the idea that God loves us unconditionally; and we should have the same kind of love for our children. Well now, just what is this “unconditional love?” God loved us when we were lost, and when we were his enemies, and certainly this is unconditional love! However, it is not approving love! God never approved our sins! God will never save us in our sins! Thus, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” was to save us from our sins; but after we repented of our sins! Therefore, unconditional love is a love which never approves of sin, but love the person who sins!
No, God “so loved” us that he provided the means whereby he could forgive our sins; not that we could continue in our sins! There is the greatness of his love.

— Frank R. Williams

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