EditorialThings That Should Be SaidOne can take the American Standard Revised Version, the New Testament in Modern Speech and Smith’s Bible Dictionary, and prove to any rational mind that it is unscriptural to use more than one container when observing the supper of the Lord. One can also take the Authorized Version of the Bible and prove beyond question that we may use a hundred containers if we want to. J. A. Bradbury In the Apostolic Way, October 1, 1921 By “containers” I suppose our brother means cups, for the bugbear “container” is now used in that sense to dodge what Paul says about “the cup (Greek: POTERION, a cup, a drinking vessel) of blessing” (1 Corinthians 10:16). I am glad to know that he admits that the American Standard Version (perhaps the best, from the standpoint of scholarship, there is) and the Modern Speech New Testament are against the use of cups in the communion. But how our brother can fail to see that “the cup” of the King James Version cannot mean “two or more cups” is beyond me. But Bro. Bradbury thinks “the cup” is authority for “two or more cups”. But he knows that “a cup” in the revisions excludes the use of “two or more” cups. “The cup” in the King James Version is translation of TO POTERION in the Stephens Text, and the translation is correct. But that TO (the) is an interpolation has long since been proved by the weight of hundreds of ancient MSS., among which is Codex Vaticanus. They simply have the word POTERION, which, according to all lexicographers, means “a cup”, the absence of the article “the” and the grammatical form of POTERION requiring the addition of the indefinite article “a”, to make the full sense of the Greek Text. So, after all, Bro. Bradbury has no authority for the use of cups! J. D. Phillips
0 Comments
EditorialThe Sign of the Covenant“This cup is the New Diatheke (Covenant and Last Will and Testament) in My Blood.” - Messiah (Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25). When God made a covenant with His people that He would not destroy the world again by water, as He did “in the days of Noah,” He put “the bow in the clouds” as “the sign of the covenant,” saying to the people: “And there shall come to be the bow in the cloud, and I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living soul in all flesh that is upon the earth. And Elohim (God, the Creator) said to Noah, ‘This is THE, SIGN OF THE COVENANT which I establish between Myself and all flesh which is upon earth’.” (Genesis 9:16-17). The word “covenant” here is a translation of the Hebrew word Berith and the Greek Diatheke is the word used by the Septaugint as its equivalent. It means a covenant, or agreement, between two parties. Sometimes it has the extended meaning of Last Will and Testament. So, when we see the “bow in the cloud,” after a rain, it is a sure indication that Yahweh (the Deliverer) will not destroy us by water, as He did the disobedient Antedeluvians. Truly, then, “the bow in the clouds” is “the sign of the covenant.” The New Covenant, or Testament, was ratified by the “blood of the Lamb” (Revelation chapter 7). Of the wine fin the “cup of blessing” (1 Corinthians 10:16), Christ says, “This is My blood which ratifies the agreement” (Matthew 26:28. See Goodspeed and Thayer). Of the cup, containing the wine, Jesus says: “This cup (touto poterion) is the New Testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25). The clause “this cup”, as noted above, is from totou poterion in Greek, and the demonstrative touto shows the reference to be to a definite literal material cup, or drinking vessel. The verb “is” is a coupla, and is a translation of estin in Greek, and denotes a metaphor. The Hebrew and Greet substantive, to be, is not expressed when dealing with matters of fact. So “the cup” on the communion table containing the wine is a “sign”, or token, of the New Covenant, while the wine in the cup is said to be Christ’s “blood which ratifies the Covenant.” Bishop Lightfoot’s observations on this are worthy of very serious consideration. He says (Works, vol. 2, p. 260): “The confirmation of the Old Covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats (Exodus chapter 24 and Hebrews chapter 9), because blood was still to be shed: the confirmation of the New was by a cup of wine, because under the New Covenant there is no farther shedding of blood. As it is here said of the cup, This cup is the New Testament in My blood; so it might be said of the cup of blood (Exodus chapter 24), That cup was the Old Testament in the blood of Christ: there, all the articles of that covenant being read over, Moses sprinkled all the people with blood, and said, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath made with you; and thus the Old Covenant or Testimony was confirmed. In like manner, Christ, having published all the articles of the New Covenant, He takes the cup of wine, and gives them to drink, and saith, This is the New Testament in My blood; and thus the New Testament was established.” The word “communion” means, literally, a joint participation. By all drinking out of the one cup (Matthew 26:27) we have a communion, or joint participation, and thus we signify, not only our covenant relationship with Messiah, but, also, our fellowship with each other. “Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love; The fellowship of kindred minds Is like to that above.” So, then, as the wine-cup is passed from the lips of one saint to those of another, we “proclaim the Lord’s death”, and signify our covenant-relationship with Him, and with each other. “There is one cup for the uniting of His blood” (Ignatius, Ad Philad, First Century). J. D. Phillips
EditorialScriptural Baptism“The Greek - that marvelous tongue, so flexible and fitted for accurate expression, used of the Holy Spirit in the giving of the New Testament” (Boll) - has a family of words expressive of the action of Baptism, as taught in the New Testament. Beginning with the root word - BAPTO - we have: BAPTO, ‘dip’; EMBAPTO, ‘in-dip, dip in’; BAPTIZO, ‘dip-ize, immerse’; BAPTISMA, ‘dip-ism, immersion, submersion’; BAPTISMOS, ‘dipping, immersing’; and BAPTISTES, ‘dipist, immerser’ (a term applied to John the harbinger, because he immersed people. Matthew 3:1-7). Therefore, the idea of sprinkling or pouring for Baptism is out of the question. Furthermore, the Greek for sprinkle is RANTIZO, meaning ‘to scatter a liquid in small drops’. The word for pour is CHE or CHU, meaning ‘to move a liquid by gravity, from a container’. Hence, the Scriptures, correctly translated, read “immerse,” instead of “baptize”; “immersion,” instead of “baptism”; and immerser”, instead of “baptist.” See The Emphatic Diaglott, The Living Oracles, and the first edition of The Bible Union Translation. Sprinkling and pouring for Baptism originated in the ranks of Roman-ism and were borrowed from them by many Protestant parties. So they have no higher authority than “the man of sin” and “son of perdition” and iniquity, the chief minister of “the falling away” or the great apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:1-7) or “Mystery Babylon” (Revelation 17:1-5). The fact that we are baptized “into (Greek: EIS) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18), thus changing our state or relationship, is positive evidence that Baptism is essential to salvation from sin. So also the fact that Baptism is “for (Greek: EIS, “in order to obtain” - Thayer, Feyerabend, and Goodspeed) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 compare Matthew 26:28) is positive evidence that Baptism is essential to the remission of sins, or salvation from sin. And, too, the fact that we are “baptized into (Greek: EIS) Christ” (Galatians 3:27) and “into (EIS) His death” (Romans 6:3) where He shed His blood (John 19:36) assures us of the necessity of being baptized. Furthermore, Jesus puts baptism between every sinner and the Kingdom: saying, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). In the expression “born OF water” we have in the Greek EK - out of - showing that a person must voluntarily go under the water, and come up out of it. So the Eunuch “came up OUT OF the water”, when he was baptized. See Acts 8:36-38. I exhort every unbaptized person who see this to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16) - before it is too late! “If weak be thy faith, why choose the harder side?” J. D. Phillips
EditorialMusic, Baptism, Cups“The Greeks certainly understood their own language, and the Greek church could never find any authority in the word ‘psallo’ for adopting a musical instrument in worship - not any more than they could find authority in ‘baptidze’ for the adoption of sprinkling for baptism!” (Daniel Sommer, in Apostolic Review). And “the Greeks certainly understand their own language” enough to know that when Jesus “took a cup (POTERION, a drinking-cup, wine-cup)”, He took a literal, material, cup, or drinking vessel, and hence Thayer and Robinson in their excellent Lexicons of the Greek New Testament, say POTERION is used properly, that is, literally, here (Matthew 26:27), and Thayer says it is “this cup containing wine” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 15, on Luke 22:20). John Chrysostom, an “Ante-Nicene Father,” wrote in Greek for Greek-speaking Christians, and he says of the wine, “that which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side” (24th Homily in 1 Corinthians). Justin Martyr confirms Thayer and Chrysostom, for he says, “A cup of wine and water are then brought to the president” (Apol. I pp. 82, 83). Ambrose backs them, too, for he says, “wine is put into the cup.” In Alexander Campbell’s celebrated work, ‘“Campbell on Baptism,” there is a chapter devoted to a consideration of the Greek preposition EK, which governs the genitive case. Bro. Campbell showed that EK means “out of,” and hence it is said of Jesus that when He was baptized of John in Jordan, He “came up OUT OF (EK) the water,” thus showing that baptism is an immersion, or burial, in water, and an emerging from it. So also when Paul says, “Let him drink of (EK, out of) the cup (POTERION, a cup, a drinking vessel)” (1 Corinthians 11:28), he says, EK TOU POTERIOU, “out of the cup.” EK (out of) is a preposition governing the genitive case, and Thayer says; “EK with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks, EK TOU POTERIOU,” out of the cup, or drinking vessel. Hence, the Greek Church, the church of Christ, or any other church, cannot find authority in the Greek Scriptures for the use of more than one cup in each assembly. The Greek Christians of the post-apostolic and the Ante-Nicene age knew this, for we read: “For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to (show forth) the unity of His blood” (Ignatius, A. D. 30-107). “We receive of one loaf and of one cup” (Ambrose, died A. D. 307). We hope that Bro. Sommer will finally see this, too, for we certainly need him in our fight for the primitive faith. J. D. Phillips
ExplanationNo August IssueCopied from the September 1, 1932 Volume 5 Number 9 issue of the Old Paths Advocate We were very sorry that we could see no other alternative but to miss the August number of the Old Paths Advocate, and there was just one reason - a lack of funds. We do hope the readers and friends of the paper will not allow this to happen again, but unless you go after subscriptions and donations in earnest immediately it will be inevitable. Brethren, we are more than glad to have your articles and reports for publication, but we sometimes wonder if you appreciate the Old Paths Advocate enough to solicit subscriptions and donations while out in the field. Times are hard, it is true, but subscriptions can still be obtained if we go at it in the right way. H. L. K.
EditorialSlander is of the DevilThe Devil’s name in Greek is Slanderer, the Greek word itself being Diabolos meaning, literally, Through-caster, slanderer. It is from diabolloo, which means to cast aspersions because of (the accusative form of THROUGH), slander, Diabolos is often used as a name of Satan, as the Slanderer of the Saints, as in Job 1:9. “Slander, a false or malicious report; verbal defamation” (Webster). Jesus said to the slanderous Jews: “Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the works of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). There is entirely too much slander in the Brotherhood. Last summer, while in Indiana, I heard it boldly declared that Bro. R. H. Boll, Editor of the Word and Work, was teaching “the second chance theory of Russelism.” This report is false - it is a slander! I do not agree with Bro. Boll on several things, but I hate to see him slandered. A jealous and envious spirit is evidently behind it. Bro. Daniel Sommer has been slanderously misrepresented because of his opposition to Bible Colleges. Many brethren say: “He does not believe in education.” The whole body known as the “church of Christ” has been slanderously accused of not believing in doing mission work. This accusation is made by those who advocate Missionary Societies to do Church work. This is a wicked slander. We have been unmercifully slandered because of our opposition to Sunday Schools. Many brethren say: “They do not believe, in teaching the Bible to children.” Some have gone so far as to say: “They think it is wrong to teach the Bible!” The fact about it is, we believe in teaching the Bible to all classes of mankind just as strongly as anyone on earth. The Commission says: “Go, disciple all nations”' - and we believe it. But, as other brethren oppose a Missionary Society as a means of preaching the gospel to the heathen, so we oppose a Sunday School society to teach people in the homeland. We insist that the church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15-16) and that the work be done through it, thus preserving “the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3) and giving God the “glory through the church”' (Ephesians 3:21): for it is through the church that “the manifold wisdom of God” should “be made known” (Ephesians 3:10). Some good honest brethren have been maliciously slandered on the cup question. They have been represented as saying that the “drinking vessel alone is the cup of the Lord”! Nothing is farther from the truth. We teach, and so did the primitive church, that it takes both a drinking vessel and the fruit of the vine to constitute “the cup of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 10:21). Brethren, let us leave all slander with the Devil, where it belongs. God shall bring all things into judgment, and all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire. I am glad that we who stand on the truth do not need to resort to slander to uphold our teaching. “Strong is the truth and mighty above all things, and will prevail.” Homer A. Gay
|