Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 11

Editorial

The 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

---

Special Interest

---

Old Paths Advocate

I am delighted with the above title for our paper. For about thirty-six years I have, in my freebie way, been trying to point out the Old Paths to my fellowmen. The Old Paths mentioned by the prophet in Jeremiah 6:16, Jeremiah 18:15, are evidently the Paths (commandments) as given by Moses to the children of Israel. See Malachi 4:4.

Moses gave the first covenant, and the subsequent prophets were teachers under that covenant, and as such, were exhorting the Jews to faithful obedience to it. The Jews were like many people of today - some faithful and many unfaithful.

We are under the covenant of Christ, as revealed in the New Testament. We, too, are to be faithful to Christ, and the only way to do this is to be faithful to His teachings and the teachings of the apostles. Paul, an apostle, says, “Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.” (Philippians 4:9).

Considering the conversions as recorded in the Book of Acts, which occurred as the result of the preaching of Peter, et. Al., we learn that faith, repentance, confession of Christ before men, and baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, for the remission of sins; were the conditions of salvation to those who came to Christ. Hence, we are to preach this apostolic plan to the alien sinner, and are to exhort him to faithfully obey the same, for obedience to these commands puts one into covenant relationship with Christ - makes him a child of God - a member of the Church of Christ, and an heir of salvation eternal.

But let it be remembered, that when one has obeyed the above, he has but enlisted in the army of the Lord. All of the battles with Satan and sin are ahead of him, as also are the victories to be won. The number of victories won depends on his faithfulness and zeal in the cause of Christ. Revelation 11:1, we have:

“Rise and measure the temple (church) of God and the altar (worship) and them that worship therein.”

The word of God is the “measuring reed” by which the church, the worship, and the worshipers are to be measured. All three must come up to the standard in order to be true and faithful servants of Christ. We are yet living m that measuring period. Our faith in God’s word is being tested and proved, and I am thankful to know that there are yet a few faithful preachers left, who are demanding “a thus saith the Lord” (command or example) for each item of worship. Hear Paul”

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And in the next chapter he exhorts to preach the word, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, etc.

​God’s word being inspired is a perfect guide m the absolute sense, and we as faithful servants must so teach and preach. We dare not change that word, nor the work and worship authorized by it. To do so is to incur the anathema of God. This is my idea of faithfulness. Here I stand; who is with me in this stand? No one can take this stand and advocate the Sunday School women speaking in the public assembly, nor a plurality of cups in the communion service.

W. T. Taylor

Keeping the Record Straight

(Phillips - Hayhurst Debate Number 2)

At the close of the first session of the above debate, some of Bro. Hayhurst’s followers felt so keenly their defeat that they failed to control themselves, manifesting a very ugly spirit, which was a plain admission to all observers that their man was just failing to cope with the situation and to deliver the goods, and thus needed help.

After the first and second sessions of the debate it was to a great extent a repetition of arguments, and I shall try to avoid this in the report.

Hayhurst contended that if Jesus took a literal cup, Matthew 26:27, that the disciples had to drink (swallow) a literal cup, for He told them to drink it, hence it would be impossible to drink the cup of the Lord, if the literal cup has anything to do with it.

Phillips replied, that according to Hayhurst’s reasoning, the Lord took the wine without a vessel, but that the Bible says that He took a cup (Poterion - a drinking vessel), and told them to drink of it, which contained the “fruit of the vine” Matthew 26:29. He further showed that Thayer says, “We drink the cup by drinking what is in the cup.” So says N. L. Clark.

Hayhurst then took up drinking of the rock, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, contending that they could take water away from the rock in vessels, and then drink it, and still be drinking of the rock, hence just so with the cup.

Phillips replied that Paul teaches that the rock spoken of in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, was a SPIRITUAL drink. “The rock followed them, and that rock was Christ. But if they had put some of the water in other rocks, and drank of them, they would have drank of rocks, and just so with taking the wine out of the cup and putting it into cups; it is drinking from cups, hence we should have CUPS of the Lord.

Hayhurst contended that the 3,120 at Jerusalem, all met together in one body to break bread, and that it would take 30 gallons of wine to serve them and that they could not wait upon them in a day, hence they must have used more than one cup.

Phillips showed that the Bible says, “they broke bread from house to house” (Acts 2:46). Hayhurst says they all met together to “break bread” - great men do differ. He further showed that Hay­hurst’s Jerusalem assembly would have to have a 30-gallon cup to contain the wine while thanks are given and a loaf of about ten feet square. Furthermore, Paul says, “Ye may all prophesy one by one”. Allowing that 1,200 of the number were men, and that they may all speak one at a time, there being no time limit, each should speak 15 minutes, would make 300 hours. This together with the songs, prayers, speaking in tongues, and the communion, must have caused them to put in quite a BUSY DAY on Sunday. Hayhurst left Jerusalem.

Hayhurst referred to Acts 16:32, where the Jailer and his house is mentioned, as an example of met­onymy, contending that the Jailer's house was baptized, while out of the house.

Phillips showed that the Bible teaches thus, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house… And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, (not house, but family) straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” Hence the family, or “his” was spoken of as “house” while in the house, and while being baptized as “his”, or family.

Hayhurst then went to Jacob’s well for refuge, contending that “drink of the cup” and “drink of the well” are parallel, because the same phraseology is used. Reasoning that they took the water out of the well into other vessels, and by drinking from them they still drank from the well.

Phillips showed that if Hayhurst be right in this contention, he would be compelled to take a rope and bucket, draw the wine out of the cup, and then serve it in other vessels, as it would be impossible to drink from the cup for which thanks had been offered. He would be compelled to have two or more cups, for he has one that he cannot drink of. Phillips then showed the difference in “drink of the cup” and “drink of the well” as “he rode the train” and “he rode the stick-horse.” No one would think of picking up the train as he would the stick-horse. Neither, would they think of picking up the well to drink from it, or of drawing the wine from the cup as in the case of the well. Thus, showing that the two cases are not parallel.

Of the wine alone being the "cup of the Lord", Phillips reasoned: Jesus says, "this is my blood" and "this cup is the New Testament". How can wine alone represent both the blood and the Testament? No answer by Hayhurst. If the fruit of the vine alone is the cup, why object to the individual cups? No answer to this.

Homer A. Gay
(Continued)

---

Articles

---

An Appointed Hour for Worship

Is any particular hour on the First Day of the Week, the only acceptable and only appointed hour for worshiping the Lord?

There was an hour appointed for the Passover feast at which Jesus instituted the feast of His remembrance, Luke 22:30. According to the Old Law, the Passover was to be observed at even, or between the two evenings (margin Exodus 12:6). In view of the fact that the Old Law was taken out of the way, and that the beginning of the day has been changed from sunset to sunrise, should we not look for something different in the new dispensation, concerning the time for the observance of our memorial feast? Since the Jewish Passover was to be observed at even, or between the two evenings, our Passover feast (the Lord’s Supper) ought to be observed between the two mornings (or two sunrises). One of the principles we are to remember is His death. Christ, our Paschal Lamb, was nailed to the cross in the morning, Mark 15:25, but He did not die until the time of the offering of the evening oblation, Matthew 27:45-50, which was about three o’clock in the afternoon. He was buried at even, Matthew 27:57-61. When He arose, it was with the Sun on the First Day of the Week, and He sanctified the whole day as the Lord’s Day.

Jesus met with Mary Magdalene in the early morning. Moreover, He was present in Emmaus, and broke the bread with the disciples in the afternoon. Later, in the evening, at Jerusalem, the disciples were already assembled together, when Jesus became visible standing in their midst. On all these occasions, He showed Himself unto them.

Beginning with the resurrection, the first Lord’s Day was a day of activity. The second Lord’s Day continued so. John 20:26. Pentecost, when the kingdom was opened, came on the First Day of the Week, and was a day of great activity in the Lord. Acts chapter 2, (Leviticus chapter 23). The congregations at Corinth and Troas worshiped on the First Day of the Week, 1 Corinthians 11:20, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7, Acts 20:11. Paul the apostle assembled with the Trojans on that day, the First Day of the Week, beginning to depart on the morrow, the second day of the week. That memorable meeting began in the day, extended to midnight, then the breaking of bread, and a long talk until the break of day - the mor­row - the second day of the week. Because of the special visit of Paul, who, after his departure would see them all no more, this meeting lasted so long. Special conditions may be complied with, “within the law.” We may not go beyond what is written. 1 Corinthians 4:6. The afternoon meeting in Emmaus terminated abruptly after the breaking of the bread, Luke 24:29-35, cf. Matthew 26:26-30. At Troas the meeting was interrupted, when the young man fell down from the third story window, but was resumed after he was restored. It lasted until daylight. Here the breaking of bread took place after midnight. Acts 20:7-11. Hence, we have examples of abrupt termination, interruption and resumption, and lengthy extenuation. To some extent the meetings were regulated according to circumstances.

Evident it is, that the entire Lord’s Day is holy. Every hour is sanctified. How can we do less than give special honor to our Lord the full day?

By faith let us be active like Mary and in the early morning seek our Savior. In the Spirit, we may behold our arisen Lord. By faith let us walk with him on the way to the village, and constrain him to tarry for the breaking of the bread. By faith let us journey to the New Jerusalem (His assembled church), there again to worship our glorified Emmanuel. There we shall meet Him assembled with His disciples, with whom we shall receive a blessing. Anon we may tarry, talking of all his wondrous works until the day dawn, and our Day Star, now high in our hearts, shine as the glittering Sun.

​Is any lot happier? Is any life as full of joy peace, or restful pursuits, as the Christian Life?” Could any thought be more ignoble than forsaking the assembling of ourselves together? Could any soul be more treacherous as to sell such a cause to the world for gratification of self, for gold, or power, or fame?

L. L. McGill

Unity

As I have been only a listener for some time, and noticing the different factions that have arisen among, us since the days of Alexander Campbell, I have wondered if there is a way by which the unity for which Christ prayed and Paul preached (John chapter 17 and 1 Corinthians chapter 1) can be brought about.

As I understand the matter, the first division among us since the development of “Mystery Babylon” (Revelation chapter 17), began in St. Louis, Missouri, many years ago over the use of mechanical musical instruments in the worship. After the division, those who were conscientiously opposed to the use of the instrument were termed the “church of Christ” and those who favored the instrument were called the “Christian Church.” It was admitted by all that the use of the instrument was a non-essential, and hence those who forced it upon the church against the conscientious scruples of the objectors were guilty of dividing the church.

I have read “The Apostolic Way” for years, and enjoyed the good articles by able men showing the Sunday School to be a human invention, and one that supplants the church as “the pillar and support of the truth.” I wondered why the great Christian Brotherhood could not see the sin and folly of such an institution. Those who forced the Sunday School upon the church are responsible for all the division that has followed. They have made a law where God has made none. We have made no law, but are satisfied with what the Bible says, and hence we are not responsible for any of the trouble over this innovation. They who favor it say we can worship acceptably and do the whole will of God without it.

About the time the WAY had grown to be a power for good, and people all over the United States and a few foreign countries were being convinced that the Sunday School system is wrong, another question bobbed up amongst those who oppose the Sunday School History is again repeating itself, for those who favor the use of more than one cup in the Communion say one is scriptural. No one will deny that one cup for each congregation is scriptural. We should be as willing to give up the use of cups for the sake of unity as we want the organ advocates and the Sunday School advocates to be. Why not? Is it not just as necessary to have unity on this question as any other?

There are now two issues over the cup question, among the non-Sunday School brethren: some want "two or more cups" and oppose the use of individual cups, while others favor and use the individual cup.

It is contended that “the fruit of the vine” only is “the cup” of Matthew 26:27. Yet most brethren say it must be in one vessel BEFORE thanks, but AFTER thanks it may be divided into two or more vessels just so the individual cups are not used! But if “the fruit of the vine” is “the cup’’ AFTER thanks, why is it not “the cup” BEFORE thanks? If the wine is really “the cup,” why is it necessary to have it in one vessel before thanks?

But that “the cup” is not the wine only is apparent to anyone who has even the crudest conception of the meaning of English. In speaking of drinking a cup of coffee, we say, “He drank a cup.” Here the vessel is put for its contents - the coffee. It is the figure of, metonymy in which the container is put for the thing contained. See Williams’ “Composition and Rhetoric”, p. 220. See any authoritative work on Rhetoric. Write the authorities on the use of language. It is universally admitted by the world’s best authorities on language that the word “cup” in Matthew 26:27 is used literally, i.e., it refers to an actual literal, material cup. See the booklet, “The Cup of the Lord”, by J. D. Phillips, Montebello, California. See the same work on the use of the word “cup” as a metonymy, in such passages as 1 Corinthians 10:21, 1 Corinthians 11:27, etc.

​In all the references to the loaf and the cup, it is “the loaf” (or bread), “that loaf”, “one loaf”; “the cup”, “that cup”, etc. - always in the singular. If you will consult the early history of Christianity you will see that the Christian writers of the Ante-Nicene period speak of the cup in the singular, and often say, “one cup”. They speak, too, of wine being “poured into the cup”, thus showing their use of the word “cup” to be a literal one. Hence, I believe that Jesus used one cup, and Paul bound the same number - one - upon us (1 Corinthians chapter 11). And hence, if we would practice as the church did from its beginning on down through several centuries of its purest age, we, too, will use but one cup in each assembly. We cannot be responsible for the division over the matter, for our practice has never been called in question. We have the only ground of unity on this matter. Hoping that this article will be edifying, I am, yours for a closer walk with God.

James F. Thomas

Why I Favor Individual Cups in The Wine Service of The Lord’s Supper

Because it is one of only two ways that I know of that is absolutely decent. The other way would be for each one to have a spoon to take their portion where there is only one container.

Now, if I should place a vessel of wine upon my table and drink from it, and then hand it to my guests for them to drink, no doubt some at least would excuse themselves and pass it on, for the reason it would be an indecent act. Not one would stand with me and contend it to be a decent act. But these same persons would tell me our Lord acted in this very way in the wine service of the communion and fastened it upon his followers as the only valid way to observe it. And by so teaching make our Lord’s teaching contradict itself, for he says, “Do all things decently,” 1 Corinthians 14:40.

How could such (forty or fifty persons drinking from one cup) be absolutely clean when it has been observed saliva from the lips of a participant sticking to the glass when removed? Things like this (too filthy to drink after) may occur at any one-cup communion service. These facts alone should be sufficient to cause any one to realize the Savior never required any such practice.

​“No fellowship,” you say, “without all drinking from the same cup.” Then you never had fellowship with Christ in this - you never drank from the cup he did. No one drinks from but one cup if a hundred are served, but if the blest wine is in it, and he drinks it “discerning” the Lord’s blood, he is blest in the act.

Brotherly,
A. J. Bond

Remarks

If Brother Bond feels disposed to urge the use of Individual Cups on the churches of Christ, we assure him that this paper is ready to divide time with him and to furnish equal space with any other journal that he can induce to take up the matter. But we do not intend to furnish all the space and the audience, or readers. Do this and we shall be glad to meet you “at the drop of the hat.” Let us get both sides before the readers of both sides of the question.

​The man who must make the Son of God INDECENT by the thing He advocates, is hard up for a theory to support. Any man who does not know that they drank from the same cup and each with his hand dipped his sop (morsel) into a common dish, would better read up on the subject before he attempts to class such a practice as a filthy one. And we will attend to your “individual communion” with your “individual cups” to a finish when you see fit to enter the arena as “a fair field and no favors.”

H. C. Harper

Is It Wrong for Christians To Vote?

I maintain that it is wrong, and will give my reasons for so believing. Christians are not of this world (John 15:19, John 18:36, Colossians 1:13). Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world, and one cannot be a Christian unless he is in the Kingdom.

Someone is ready to ask if Christians do not and may not go to the law for protection. Yes, for he has a right to do so, seeing that Paul did. To illustrate, an Englishman comes to the U. S., he is not a citizen of the U. S., but must abide by the laws, and has a perfect right to appeal to the laws for protection. The same is true of the Christian; he has a right to appeal to the law for protection, but no right to help, make the law, or to vote. He should abide by the laws, unless the laws conflict with the laws of Christ.

A Christian may be in a kingdom, without being a part of it; e. g., a Christian may go to France to live, and be no part of the French Government. Again, I am in the house, but no part of it. Hence, a Christian has no right to vote in a government, of which he is no part. Could an unnaturalized foreigner vote in the U. S.? No. Why? Because he does not belong to the U. S. The same is true of a Christian. He belongs to but one kingdom, and that kingdom is Christ’s. A Christian cannot belong to two kingdoms at the same time.

​Will a Christian be lost if he doesn’t vote? I have not voted in twenty-six years, and if I am doing wrong, I want to know it. What command have I violated? What example have I not followed? But if I have violated neither command nor example in refusing to vote, is it not safe to not vote? If safe to not vote, then it is not safe to vote. If wrong for Christians to vote, the church should be taught on this question. I am as much opposed to Christians voting as I am the use of cups in the communion.

W. H. Purlee

Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet

Where did Jesus wash the disciples’ feet? Was Judas Iscariot at the Lord’s Supper? To get this matter well in hand, turn to and read carefully the following chapters: Matthew chapter 26, Mark chapter 14, Luke chapter 22, and John chapters 12-13. In order of time we find three distinct suppers: One, with Simon the leper at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, John 12:1-8), One, the Passover supper (Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:17-20), and at the conclusion of the Passover supper, Jesus instituted “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20-26, Matthew 26:26-30).

Judas Iscariot was at each of these suppers John 12:4, Matthew 26:14, Mark 14:10, Luke 22:3-4, as to the first: Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17-21, Luke 22:14-15, as to the second: Luke 22:19-21, as to the last supper, where it is plainly shown that Judas was with them during the Lord’s Supper.

But did not Judas go “out” (John 13:30)? Yes, he went out after the supper in Simon’s house in Bethany (John 12:2, John 13:2, John 13:21-30) “two days before the Passover” (Matthew 26:2-7), when the disciples thought he was bidden by Jesus to buy what they had “need of against the feast” (John 13:29), to bargain with “the chief priests and elders” (Matthew 26:3-16), “and they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver” (Matthew 26:13, Mark 14:3-11). And after he made this bargain, “Then came the days of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed” (Luke 22:1-7), disciples now make ready, and Jesus sits down with “the twelve,” and eats the Passover at the appointed time (Matthew 26:19-20, Mark 14:16-18, Luke 22:7-18). The Lord’s Supper immediately followed this, and Judas was yet with them (Luke 22:21). “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives” (Matthew 26:30); and Judas soon fetched his “band” (John 18:1-14, Luke 22:47-54, Mark 14:43-53, Matthew 26:47-57), and Jesus was led away. Judas had been pointed at the supper in Simon’s house as “He it is to whom I shall give a sop (morsel), when I have dipped it.” (John 13:26). At the Passover supper, he had been pointed out as “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish” (Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20).

It was from the supper in Simon’s house at Bethany “two days before the Passover” that Judas went to “The chief priests and elders to covenant with them for the betrayal of Christ” (Matthew 26:1-14, John 12:2, John 13:2); and it was from this same supper that Jesus arose “and began to wash the disciples’ feet.” (John 13:5). And this washing “the saints’ feet” (1 Timothy 5:10) is a “good work,” classed with bringing up children, lodging strangers, etc. (1 Timothy 5:10).

​The supper at which Jesus washed the disciples’ feet came “before the Passover” but the supper instituted by Christ came after the Passover. (John 13:1, Matthew 26:26). When anyone practices “foot washing” as a church ordinance, he does so without one scintilla of Bible evidence.

H. C. Harper

Shall Christ or Caesar Have the Preeminence?

The Christian is to be in subjection to the laws of the land in which he lives as long as such laws do not keep him from following Christ. It is right that we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but can you imagine the apostle Paul forgetting the need of the churches and the need of preaching the Gospel of Peace, in order to fight in the wars of Rome? No! He surely would not have gone about killing his brethren in Christ, simply because they disagreed over some international dispute. If America and England were at war, it would not be the duty of a Christian, as I see it, to bombard English cities and kill defenseless women and children. Could a Christian consistently help spread propaganda of hate against everything British, and make more strife and bitterness, because the multi-millionaires and war lords would have it so? We are told to do good unto all men.”

It is true that Christ cast out those who sold and bought in the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers, but this was an ecclesiastical matter and not a political issue. Jesus did not go into the Roman senate or even into the Jewish Sanhedrin to make any reforms. The whip of small cords could hardly be classed as a weapon of war. (Matthew chapter 23).

“The powers that be” are “ordained of God, but that does not mean that there should be a union of Church and state, or a mixing of political and church matters. (Romans chapter 13). God created both the ox and the ass, yet under the law of Moses they were not to be worked together.

The thought of loving one’s enemies, naturally did not appeal to many of the Jews, for they were longing for a Messiah who would free them from the Roman bondage, and restore again the kingdom to Israel as it was under the reign of David or Solomon. They did not feel like loving their Roman oppressors.

Christ taught the love of one’s enemies, and the Jews thought a doctrine of that sort would bring them in still greater bondage to Rome. Caiaphas, the high priest, said: “Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” They were afraid that the Romans would come and take away both their place and their nation if they let Jesus alone, so they crucified the Lord of Glory. The very thing, however, which they had hoped to avert by putting Christ to death, came upon them about forty years later when the Romans under Titus, destroyed Jerusalem, and laid waste the land of Judea.

Some may feel duty bound to force Christians to go to war for fear that the nation will be weakened through a lack of patriotism, but when the issue is clear cut as to whether one is to go to war against the dictates of his conscience, or serve Christ with a good conscience, the thing to do, is to let the “Prince of Peace” have the preeminence. When the apostles were forbidden to preach any more in the name of Christ, they said: “Whether we are to obey you rather than God, judge ye, for we can but speak the things we have seen and heard.”

The question is sometimes asked: “What would you do if the country was invaded? Should not a man protect his own family?” It is not so much a question of what I would do. I might do the wrong, thing, but resistance under an extreme test would be far different than saying beforehand: “I will not turn the other cheek and would not advise others to do so.”

The conscientious objector may be called a coward and a traitor, but how inconsistent to consider the man a patriot and a hero, who puts on the uniform, simply because he is too yellow to object. One who will die rather than weaken on a principle which is vital and fundamental, is not a weakling. Was there anything contemptible about the three Hebrews who would not bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image in the plain of Dura? Why should not the man who dies as a martyr for Christ in some prison, be as long remembered as those who die on Flanders fields?

​It is easy to go with the crowd, but it is a different thing to tell people to love their enemies when the chant of hate is the popular song, and when the multitude is ready to mob the man who dares to lift his voice against war.

Frank Judy

A Kindly Criticism

 Dear Bro. Baxter:

You write many things that I heartily approve and enjoy, and if there be something that you say occasionally that I cannot endorse, that is no more than I could say of other good brethren.

Your recent article on “Individuals Giving to Colleges” contains some things which are open to criticism, in my judgment. I think you fail to properly distinguish between Individual and Cooperative church work.

The church, in its cooperative capacity, is a divine institution, whose ministry includes the care of the poor saints. It was not the intention, defined in the Scriptures, that the church should support either secular men, or secular institutions, or secular work.

As an individual Christian, I pay taxes to the secular government, work at secular trades, contribute to secular schools, subscribe to secular magazines, participate in neighborly gatherings, employ unconverted men, assist worldly petitioners with my bounty. I do none of these things through the church, in its cooperative capacity.

You cloud the issue by showing that our contributions are all Individual, even when given through the church, in its cooperative capacity. It does not touch the issue to say that the New Testament church contributions were for a specific purpose, unless you show that some of their contributions were for secular purposes.

You are rather dogmatic, and assuming the very thing to be proved, when you affirm that there is nothing wrong in asking the elders of the church to help advertise and support secular institutions. It is presumptuous to teach that the church is to seek the “respect” and “praise” of men by leaving its ordained sphere to participate in the secular enterprises of individuals or institutions.

It is beside the mark to show that John Smith, of Smithville, Texas, got his name in the paper by contributing fifty dollars to an Orphan Home, and thus robbed the church of “respect” and “praise.” John Smith could have given in such a manner that ‘his left hand would not have known what his right hand did’, and still have given Christ the glory in the church.

I might cloud the issue by showing that all a Christian does is as a member of Christ’s body, including the secular things named in the body of this letter. But it would be as legitimate to put ice cream on the Lord’s table, on the ground that all a Christian does is church work, as to argue that the church may support secular work, in its cooperative capacity.

If Christ meant nothing distinguishing, as to church work under cooperative leadership, then we may undertake a wholesale oversight of things religious, educational, benevolent, financial, judicial, agricultural, pharmaceutical, intentional, musical, architectural, and political?

Why divide the church of God over untaught questions? Why not practice the things we agree about, and stop all this foolishness? Some of the editors of the Advocate have been advocating “hands off”, when it comes to the church advertising and begging for individual and secular enterprises. Lend a hand, and don’t try to undermine a laudable effort for peace.

​Now forgive my directness. I was one of the first students to enter the first Bible School, and I am now in my sixty-fifth year. My age and experience give me a right to speak. I love you and want you to serve the Lord with understanding and wisdom and success. I am not a partisan.

I am your brother in Christ,
Paul Hays

The Parable of the Tobacco Seed

Then shall the Kingdom of Heaven be likened to a grain of tobacco seed, which, though exceedingly small, being cast into the ground, grew, and became a great plant, and spread its leaves, rank and broad, so that huge and vile worms formed a habitation thereon. And it came to pass in the course of time, that the sons of man looked upon it, and thought it beautiful to look upon, and much to be desired to make lads look big and manly. So, they put forth their hands and did chew thereof, and some it made sick and others to vomit most filthily. And it further came to pass that those who chewed it became weak and unmanly, and said, “We are enslaved and cannot cease from chewing it.” And the mouths of all that were enslaved became foul; and they were seized with a violent spitting; and they did spit, even in the ladies’ parlors and in the house of the Lord. And the Saints of the Most High were greatly plagued thereby. And in the course of time it came also to pass that others snuffed it and they were taken suddenly with fits, and they did sneeze with a great and mighty sneeze, in so much that their eyes were filled with tears, and they did look exceedingly silly. And others cunningly wrought the leaves into rolls, and did set fire to one end thereof, and did suck vehemently at the other end thereof and did look very grave and calf-like; and the smoke of their torment ascended up like a fog. And the cultivation thereof became a great and mighty business in the earth; and the merchants waxed rich by the commerce thereof. And it came to pass that the professed saints of the Most-High defiled themselves therewith, even the poor who could not buy shoes nor bread, nor books for their little ones, spent their money for it. And the Lord was greatly displeased' therewith. But with one accord they exclaimed, “We cannot cease from chewing, snuffing and puffing; O, ye professed followers of the Lord Jesus. Christ, will ye be the slaves of a nasty poisonous weed? When the Good Book says, “one is your Master even Christ.”

A selection from the writings of
​ H. C. Welch