In This Issue

• DAVID’S SON IS DAVID’S LORD
• ASSUMPTION, ASSUMPTION, AND MORE ASSUMPTION
• DO YOU KNOW…?
• MORE INFORMATION...

DAVID’S SON IS DAVID’S LORD

After Jesus had put all His opponents to silence, He asked some questions of His own: “’How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” Therefore David calls Him “Lord;” how is He then his Son?’” (Mark 12:35-37). Matthew adds, “And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore” (Matt. 22:46).

The Jews universally recognized Psalm 110, from which Jesus quoted, as Messianic. And they were right about that! They also recognized that the Messiah would be a descendent, a “son,” of David. And they were right about that, too. Many Scriptures were clear in that regard.

But, they had a problem. Since they were right about the Messiah being “the son of David,” and also about Psalm 110 being Messianic, how can the Messiah be both David’s son and David’s Lord?

The point Jesus was making is central to Christianity. Jesus was showing that the Old Testament Scriptures recognized both the Deity and the humanity of the Messiah. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day recognized the humanity of the predicted Messiah, but they had missed the point of His Deity.

One reason Jesus’ Deity was rejected by many individuals then, and now, is a misunderstanding of the Oneness of God. There is one Lord or Lordship, one God or Godhead. But the Bible clearly indicates in both the Old and New Testaments that there are three distinct “Persons” or “Beings” who possess that Lordship, Godhood, or Deity. Jesus gives us some insight in His prayer to the Father in John 17:22 when He prayed that all His followers “may be one, even as We are one.” Jesus was not praying that all Christians would be one person. He was praying that they may all have unity in all essential areas. And this is the kind of unity or oneness that exists in the Godhead. The Father, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in matters of spiritual truth.

This truth is fully developed in the New Testament, but it was quite clearly taught in the Old Testament as well. The Deity of the Messiah is clear in Psalm 45:6-7. God the Father says to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” Therefore God, Your God has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” The prophet Isaiah at least three times spoke of the three manifestations of God—the Father, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit. See Isaiah 11:1-2; 42:1 and 48:16. The Messiah says, “The Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.”

--Clarence R. Johnson

ASSUMPTION, ASSUMPTION, AND MORE ASSUMPTION

We recently received a bulletin, which contained an article entitled “Sponsoring Church Arrangement”. The writer defines the arrangement: “A sponsoring church arrangement is when a congregation takes on a particular work in evangelism or benevolence and other congregations or individuals assist in that work.” He contends: “We have New Testament precedent for this arrangement in evangelism and benevolence”. This arrangement that he refers to is one of the innovations that has led to division in the Lord’s church. Those believing such have brought upon themselves the designation of liberal. They have taken liberties with the Scriptures that they have no right to do. Such an arrangement is not found in the Scriptures! Congregations are not equal in size, but they are equal in their obligation and responsibility in practicing evangelism and benevolence to the extent of their ability. The sponsoring church arrangement violates the pattern of truth and creates centralization that finds one church or churches becoming superior to others in receiving funds from other churches to finance their projects. Though evidently innocent in the minds of some overzealous brethren, they have nevertheless promoted their programs to the dividing asunder of the Lord’s people. What this preacher says is a New Testament precedent for the arrangement constitutes nothing but assumption. Webster defines assumption: “5 a: the supposition that something is true. b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted”. His article is filled with assumption rather than evidence from the Scriptures. He refers to an example of benevolence in Acts 11:27-30. The passage speaks of disciples sending relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea. “Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul”. He assumes the elders were the elders in the church at Jerusalem and that they received the relief, and that they then in turn distributed it to the other churches in Judea and in so doing became a sponsoring church. Can’t one see that this is entirely assumption? The Scriptures speak of churches in Judea. (Gal. 1:22, I Thes.2:14) When the passage speaks of the relief being sent to the elders, how can one assume that the elders of the churches in Judea were not the ones to whom it was sent? By so doing, the autonomy of the local church is respected and one group of elders is not above another. Elders are to feed the flock which is among them and take the oversight over that flock alone. (I Pet. 5:1-3) He further states: “Luke tells us that these two returned to Antioch ‘from Jerusalem’. (Acts 12:25) There is nothing in the inspired record that tells us that Paul and Barnabas went personally to all the churches of Judea.” The fact that they returned from Jerusalem and that the Scriptures do not mention them personally visiting the churches of Judea is proof to him that the Jerusalem church was involved in a sponsoring church arrangement. More assumption that denies the pattern of truth that God has given to the church to follow and the meaning of church autonomy.

The article further states: “Since evangelism and benevolence go hand in hand, that which can be done in benevolence, can be done in evangelism. In other words, if one church can send money to another church to do a work of benevolence, then, the same can be done in evangelism.” This again is something that he assumes without authority from the Scriptures. He is under the assumption that one assumption makes another one right. There is no authority for one church receiving funds from churches and distributing such to other churches whether it is in benevolence or evangelism. Furthermore, it is assumption to say that if it can be done in benevolence, it can also be done in evangelism. We do note that other churches could help a church with needy saints. Rom.15:25-27, I Cor. 16:1-2, I Cor. 8, 9 and other passages relate to help being sent to the poor saints in Jerusalem. This was a later contribution than that mentioned in Acts 11 and is not to be confused with it. However, in both occasions there is no evidence of any church receiving funds to sponsor any other work whether it is in benevolence or evangelism.

The writer labors to find a sponsoring church in Philippians 4 where he argues that Philippi channeled other congregation’s funds to Paul. This was not so! Philippians 4:15-16 speaks of Philippi alone sending to Paul at Thessalonica, while Paul says he received support from other churches at Corinth (II Cor.11:8-9). Furthermore, Paul credits only Philippi for the funds he received in Macedonia. If Philippi were a sponsoring church, why aren’t those other churches mentioned? Some more assumption rather than truth.

To the credit of the writer, he disowns the Herald of Truth, which he now calls another organization. But he fails to see that The Herald of Truth was begun in a sponsoring church arrangement, which was an unscriptural arrangement in the beginning. Brethren want their pet projects and they keep on assuming justification for them that is not found in the Scriptures. Beware and don’t be deceived by assumption!

--Bobby K. Thompson

DO YOU KNOW…?

[Editor’s Note: This short article is from the Road Creek bulletin, Elkhorn City, KY. It has been slightly adapted to reflect its use for this congregation. By the way, this editor doubts the “fact” that a duck’s quack does not echo. We’ve seen that theory reproduced many times in emails, but we doubt that it is factual. That, however, does not detract from the value of the following message. –CRJ]

Did you know that the average life of a major league baseball is seven pitches? Did you know that a duck’s quack does not echo? What does that have to do with the price of gasoline, you ask? Nothing.

But here is something else I read that may be of more interest to you. Did you know that thirty-five percent of the people who use personal ads for dating are already married? Say what? If you find that astonishing, read on.

Do you know that we live in a society where households headed by unmarried partners grew by almost 72 percent during the past decade? According to the July 2001 ‘Family News’ by James Dobson, households headed by single mothers increased by more than 25 percent. And listen, those led by single fathers grew by almost 62 percent. Did you know that? Would you have even thought it?

Thirty-three percent of all babies were born to unmarried women, compared to only 3.8 percent in 1940. Dr. Dobson goes on to say that other studies reveal that cohabitation increased by close to one thousand percent from 1960 to 1998. Did you know that?

There is even a sadder twist to all this. Did you know that the divorce rate is actually higher by a small margin among so called “born-again” Christians than for those who profess to have no faith at all?

For years, we at the Susquehanna church of Christ have bemoaned the high rate of divorce in this country. We often preach that marriage is a lifetime commitment.

We at this congregation are committed to keeping God and His word in the equation! God created the institution of marriage! God joins man and woman together in the bonds of matrimony. God intends for them to stay together until separated by death, (Romans 7:2). Infidelity is the only exception to the rule according to Jesus, (Matthew 19:9). Jesus said that man is not to separate what God has joined together, (Matthew 19:6). God literally hates divorce, (Malachi 2:16).

Divorce is caused by wrong attitudes toward God and what his word teaches. Did you know that divorce not only destroys homes but also condemns souls?

We pound the podium when we say that marriage is only between a man and a woman! Why? Why are we so serious about this? Our culture is abandoning God’s teaching on the matter more now than at any other time. I shudder to think where this will wind up if we don’t get back to God’s will in the matter.

--Wendell Ward

The teeth may be FALSE, but let the tongue be TRUE.

MORE INFORMATION...