Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 5

Editorial

Good!

“He who sincerely believes that ‘it makes no difference what order is observed in the Lord’s day worship’ relative to ‘the Apostles teaching and fellowship, the breaking of the loaf and the prayers’ of Acts 2:42, should not raise trouble with any congregation if they observe them the order named” (Ira C. Moore in the Christian Leader, May 5, 1931).

That this is good reasoning, sound logic, a firm stand on safe and unquestionable ground, and a manifestation of the spirit of unity and charity, no honest Bible student will deny. Any man is to be commended for taking such a stand. And any church that says “it makes no difference what order is observed in the Lord’s day worship, and yet refuses to worship “as it is written in Acts 2:42 when there are brethren among them who conscientiously believe it wrong to worship in any other order, commits a sin against their brethren (see Romans chapter 14) and consequently against our Lord who died for us. (see Matthew chapter 25).

But the inconsistency of Bro. Moore’s stand is seen in the fact that in his home congregation, where he serves as both Elder and preacher, the cups are used. He must admit that “On that night when doomed to know, The eager rage of every foe, That night in which He was betrayed,” our adorable Lord “took a cup (poterion, a cup, a drinking vessel) ” and gave it to His disciples, and “they all drank of (ek, out of) it; and that Paul delivered the same to the “church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:2), and made it binding on them (1 Corinthians 11:23-29).

Robert H. Pfieffer, Curator of the Semitic Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, answering the question, “How many drinking cups were used in celebrating the Lord’s supper, as revealed in Matthew chapter 26, Mark chapter 14, Luke chapter 22, and l Corinthians chapter 11?” say “One.” And with the rule of logic, “The expression of the one excludes all others,” staring Bro. Moore in the face, he is very inconsistent. I cannot and will not, deny that the use of one cup is Scriptural, and so “he should not raise trouble with any congregation if they observe” the communion “as it is written” in the above-named passages.

But worse than all this, he writes for the “Leader” as its chief Editor, and criticizes, in a manner very unbecoming to a Christian, and condemns, as “trouble-makers,” “fault-finders,” “mote hunters.” etc., all who insist that the Scriptural manner of procedure must be observed in partaking of the Lord’s supper. May God help us to be consistent.

J. D. Phillips

---

Special Interest

---

Tidwell - Arceneaux Debate

This debate was conducted at Gallatin, Texas, March 15-18, between Brethren J. E. Tidwell and E. Arceneaux, on the Sunday School Question.

Bro. Arceneaux affirmed for two days: “The Scriptures teach that the class system of teaching as practiced by my brethren and me is scriptural.”

Instead of Bro. Arceneaux confining his efforts to prove his proposition by the Bible, much time was consumed by telling how he had offered to affirm, “It is scriptural for qualified men and women to teach the word of God in classes any day in the week.” And, how that Alva Johnson had refused to deny it. He said, “Until this day I have never been able to get one of them to sign it. They will neither affirm, nor deny it.”

However, he finally admitted, that when the Bible commands a thing to be done, and does not give the how, it is left up to us to do it in the way we think best; but if the how is revealed, it would be wrong to do it in any other way. Then, he reasoned from Matthew 28:19, that God’s command to “teach,” without stating how, permitted us to teach in any way, unless the class system is forbidden. He then asked, “Where are the scriptures that forbid the class system?” Bro. Tidwell replied, “It is not my place to produce the scriptures that forbid it; it is your duty to produce the scriptures that authorize it, and when I am in the affirmative, I’ll produce the scriptures that forbid it.”

He made a great many assertions and asked a great many questions, but the proof was lacking. The most of his attempted arguments were the usual ones produced by the class advocates, such as, “If the woman can’t teach, she can’t sing, as singing is teaching.” However, it was an easy matter for Bro. Tidwell to show the kind of speaking Paul had in mind in 1 Corinthians 14:31. He talked about the woman that has no husband; the “Apostolic Way”; the contribution, etc. Again, he was reminded that he had obligated himself to prove by the Scriptures the authority for his class teaching, and that such reasoning did not prove his proposition. He referred to some of the things that Bro. Tidwell’s brethren engage in, which he believed to be without authority, and asked for the authority for these things, but the moderator called his attention to the fact that we were not discussing Gunter College, papers, wine, nor cups; but the “class system.” Bro. Tidwell informed him that we may grant these things to be without authority, but that does not prove his proposition.

Bro. Tidwell affirmed for two days: “The Scriptures teach that the class system of teaching as practiced by Bro. Arceneaux and his brethren violates the Scriptures, and is therefore, sinful.” Bro. Tidwell showed that all religious assemblies, mentioned in the Bible, were taught, undivided, one speaking at a time, and that always by a man. Hence, opposed to Arceneaux’s practice. He showed from 1 Corinthians chapter 14, that Paul said, “As in all the assemblies of the church, let your women keep silence”. Hence, Arceneaux would have to admit, if he allows his sisters to teach in an assembly that they violate this command, or else, the said assembly was not an assembly of saints.

The results of the debate were gratifying; quite a number of the brethren were made to realize the force of the truth, and seemed to take on new life. It was reported after the debate at Teague, Texas, by the class folks, that Tidwell had enough, but they have another report to make. Tidwell not only met him again, but will meet him anytime the occasion warrants it.

​Bro. E. E. Jinkins moderated for Arceneaux, and the writer for Bro. James Tidwell.

Yours for the truth,
H. K. Tidwell

---

Articles

---

Our Young People - Number 2

Their Character: “Keep thyself pure” (1 Timothy 5:22). “If a man therefore purge himself from these (wicked deeds), he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts; but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Timothy 2:21-22). With these truths from God’s eternal word, we can see the importance of purity of life, and thus a character that is above reproach.

Certainly, every boy and girl, who are striving to live the Christian life, desires an outstanding character, but let me inform you that you cannot dream yourself into a good character; neither can you buy, borrow, nor beg one. You build or mar that good character by the habits you form. It has been said, “Your character is the sum of all your habits.” Hence, the importance of forming good habits, for a habit once formed is difficult to quit. You will never be ashamed of a good habit, but a bad one will cause many a blush of shame to mantle your brow. While you are of tender years is the time to form the good habits, that go to make up and adorn a beautiful Christian character, which is a strong fort in this life and very essential to the life beyond.

Pure religion exists not merely in imagination, but in reality; not in words and arguments merely, but in deeds and actions (James 1:27). Purity of life is demanded of God, and all who would be acceptable to Him must keep themselves pure. Hear Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart.” Again, we read from the prince of Books, “Call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” In order for our actions to be pure, our thoughts must be pure. We should crowd out the evil thoughts with pure ones, for “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” The heart then is the fountain head of the life we live. “Whatsoever things, are pure - think on these things” (Philippians 4:8-9).

There is nothing that can or will excel a true Christian character. Dear boys and girls, you are building some kind of a character today, and why not build the kind that will stand the test when the flood gates of God’s wrath are poured out in the day of Judgment? “Ponder the path of thy feet; let all thy ways be established” (Proverbs chapter 4). True, it requires an effort; (everything worthwhile does) but it is the noblest work that can engage the attention of anyone. Act not for the small space of time allotted you here, but for eternity!

We would have all to regard Christian character as an asset much more secure in yielding returns than any earthly possession. It is power, influence, it makes friends - true friends; draws patronage, support and opens a sure way to honor and happiness. When we contemplate any pursuit of life, course of study, amusement, pleasure, or any course of life, we should ponder well what effect it may have upon our character. Take Jesus into your life; read His blessed word, and let it direct your course of life. Always remember: There is an All-Seeing Eye watching you. You cannot hide from God.

Our character should be such that will command the respect of others. I am reminded of an incident, when a mechanic injured himself while working on my car, which brought forth come rough language, but he immediately asked me to pardon him. I told him that I did not ask any man to respect me more than God. He never cursed in my presence again.

​Start now to form the habit of doing good for evil; learn to control your temper, and to bridle your tongue. Do not become discouraged if some snub you, and “Think it strange that you run not to the same excess of riot with them, speaking evil of you.” I know by experience.

“Shun evil companions,
Bad language disdain,
God’s name hold in reverence,
Nor take it in vain.
Be thoughtful and earnest,
Kindhearted and true;
Look ever to Jesus,
He’ll carry you through.”

I am interested in our young people, and my prayer is that they may grow into useful and strong men and women in the Lord.

Yours in Christ,
Homer A. Gay

What We Teach and Why - Number 2

In our first article, published in the April issue, we showed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the fundamental principle of the Christian religion. Therefore, when we build upon Jesus Christ as the foundation, we know it will stand the test.

In our next we wish to show that a man, in order to please God in any act of obedience, must have unbounded faith in Jesus as the. Son of God, for it stands to reason that no man is going to obey Him in Whom he has no faith. Hear Paul in Hebrews 11:6, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Faith is the main spring of all acceptable service to God. It purifies the heart; it works by love, and when it is perfected by obedience will give eternal life in Heaven. Faith is the basic principle of the great scheme of human redemption, but “faith alone” will not save.
We must not overlook the importance of repentance, or a reformation of life as a prerequisite of salvation in Christ. John taught the necessity of it. Christ taught it. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, told those Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and they should receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).

Next, we teach that the penitent one must confess Christ before men (Matthew 10:32). And in Romans 10:9-10, Paul says “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” We notice in this that we are not to confess our goodness, nor our feelings, but our faith in Christ. We learn, too that this confession is to be made with the mouth, before men, and unto salvation.

Last, but not least, in the plan of redemption from sin, we teach the necessity of baptism to the individual who has taken the above steps, because Christ and the Apostles taught it. Baptism is a burial, a planting, a covering up, going down into and coming up out of. Baptism symbolizes the burial and resurrection of Christ. Christ died, was buried, and the third day arose from the dead. So, we too, die to sin; we are buried with Him in the watery grave, and arise with Him from the watery grave to a new life. See Romans 6:4.

Again, baptism is likened to a birth. Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Ye must be born again.” Born of what? “Born of water and the spirit.” “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Hence cannot be saved without baptism. See John 3:5.

​Next, when the sinner has been taught these sacred commandments and has complied with them, he is then born into the family of God, and are as Peter says “New born babes” in Christ. “Wherefore, laying aside all malice, and all guile and all hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” (1 Peter 2:1). James says, “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the en-grafted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:2). Again, Jesus said unto the Jews who believed on Him, “If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32). Therefore, we teach that in order for new born babies in Christ, to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth - in order for them to grow up to manhood and womanhood in the Lord - they must desire, receive, and continue in the words of eternal truth, as is recorded in the Bible.

Brotherly yours,
G. B. Harrell
(to be continued)

Why Talk of Dividing the Communion Cup?

Does the word teach a division of the cup used in communion? If so, where? Let us study the Scriptures as recorded by Luke. Beginning with Luke 22:14. It reads thus:

14. “And when the hour was come He sat down and the twelve apostles with Him.

15. And He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17. And He took the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves.

18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come.

19. And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.

20. Likewise also the cup after supper saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood which is shed for you.

I should be clear to all that verse 17 was during the supper (the Passover) where the dividing was to be done, but not in verse 20. Cup in verse 17 was the supper cup, but in verse 20 is the communion cup, a different institution, a new institution that is in the New Covenant. Verse 17 is the last supper. That of verse 20 the first communion cup or cup of fellowship. There was to be no more division but rather all were to be united in one communion or bound in communion in it in a joint participation as the Savior suggests in the prayer “That they may be one.” John 17:11-23.

Verse 19 of Luke chapter 22 is where the Lord began the description of the New Testament institution. We learn this from verse 20, where it states “likewise also the cup after supper” showing both were after supper. Then again Paul in delivering it “as that which he received from the Lord,” 1 Corinthians 11:25-26, begins with the 19th verse of Luke chapter 22. After he had disposed of the supper idea that was being practiced by a divided body, he restated the communion as he had once delivered or a joint fellowship, as the Lord had instituted it “on the night in which He suffered,” Luke 22:19-20 and made no mention of the supper cup in Luke 22:17.

From the foregoing, why should we be hearing so much discussion on how to divide the communion cup? It Is very evident that the question requires more and a closer study than it has yet received by those of us that are now discussing it. The Apostolic Way once said, “it was an untaught question.” It now seems it was not far wrong in the statement. I shall follow this with another article and endeavor to show that 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:25, and Mark 14:24 teach no dividing of the cup of the communion.

Yours against division but for unity,
James T. White

Divorce and the New Covenant

I have a letter from a brother in Oklahoma taking exceptions to my article on Divorce. He thinks we should not regard our Savior’s teachings on the subject, and declares that the first four books of the N. T. belong to the Old Testament.

I am familiar with, and in accord with, the teaching that the Kingdom of our Lord began on the day of Pentecost. But I regard the teaching of Christ as preparatory to citizenship in that Kingdom. Jesus was preparing his disciples for charter membership in the Church.

The Sermon on the Mount was not any part of the Law of Moses. It is a radical change from the Law of the Flesh, and looks to Spiritual regeneration. Its Beatitudes are revolutionary, and its commandments heart purifying. Matthew 5:21-48.

The Law and the Prophets were until John, and since then the Kingdom of Heaven is preached. The Biography of Christ does not even describe his worship in the Temple, because “The hour cometh, and now is (Jesus says) when they that worship the Father, worship in spirit and in truth.” John 4:23, Luke 16:16.

On the point of Divorce, Jesus is careful to show that His teaching was different from that of Moses, who permitted divorce, because of the hardness of their hearts. But it is not a matter of hardness of heart to put away a Fornicator. Paul shows that fornication makes a person “one with the harlot.” 1 Corinthians chapter 6.

Jesus did not come to patch up an old system, or put new wine into old bottles. The foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner Stone, was laid before Pentecost, and the Church began to be built on the foundation, on Pentecost. Christ’s life, and His teachings are the epitome of the Christian system.

In the time of the late war, a Christian brother was contending against war, and quoted the Sermon on the Mount. His opponent replied that “another construction could be put on those teachings.” Our brother replied that Christ did not explain them, but He lived them. His life is the best commentary of the New Testament.

Christ instructed His apostles, and told them to go and disciple the nations, “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them.” The Holy Spirit was to bring to their remembrance whatsoever He had taught them. So we are to live the “disciple” life as they learned it.

The Lord took the Law of Moses away, and nailed it to His cross, but I protest against taking away my Lord, and laying Him in the tomb again. He is my resurrected Leader, and I hope to follow Him, for ‘He left us an example, that we should walk in His steps.

​Jesus said, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man.” “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.”

Paul Hays

False Doctrines Exposed - Number 2

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the worm. 1 John 4:1.

“But there were false prophets also among the. people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies. 2 Peter 2:1.

“But though we or an angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8-9.

“Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15.

You can see from the foregoing scriptures that Christ, John, Peter, and Paul warned us to beware of false doctrines. There is only one way to test any doctrine. This is to apply the Word of God. I have heard a story of two men who were guessing at the number of feet a pile of lumber contained. While they were there, a third came along. They asked him to guess. Instead of doing this he drew from his pocket a rule and began to measure the pile. Then there was no more guessing because by the use of the standard they knew exactly the number of feet the pile contained. Likewise, there is no guessing concerning doctrines if they measure up to the perfect standard which Christ has given us. Paul says that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Now, as I said in my first article, this is exactly what I intend to do. I shall expose and correct them by the Word of God.

We shall now examine the subject of “unconditional election and reprobation.” As the words “elect,” “elected,” “ejection,” “reprobate, and “reprobates” are Bible terms there must be a Bible doctrine concerning them. We shall try to find what this is.

“Elect” means to choose: hence, the elect of God are God’s chosen. God has elected persons, families, nations, and bodies, in the different ages of the world. However, by giving the subject a careful study, we learn that the very elect of God have to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, Philippians 2:12 and in many instances they have transgressed God’s holy law and have fallen far from the grace of God.

But to understand the subject better, we inquire, “Who were the elect and for what purpose were they elected?” When we have learned this we may be able to see what effect, if any, their election had upon their final destiny. “Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth, I have put my Spirit upon him. He shall-bring forth judgment to the Gentiles, he shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street, a bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench. He shall bring forth judgment unto the earth.”  Isaiah 42:1-3. Please read Matthew 12:17-21 and you will readily see that Isaiah had reference to Christ Himself. Surely, all will admit that Christ was not elected to secure his own salvation, but to be the Savior of men. It is also contained in the scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion a Chief Cornerstone, elect, precious, and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:6. Here Jesus is represented as the Elect Cornerstone of the Church on whom all are to believe to their salvation.

However, it is in the election of men as individuals that we are interested. Abraham was elected of God to be the father of the faithful in whose seed all families of the earth were to be blessed in Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:16. As Abraham had more sons than one, it was necessary that an election take place in his family for Isaac and Ishmael could not both be the father of the family from which Jesus, the promised seed, should come. Hence, God said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called - Genesis 21:12 and Romans 9:7 Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob, and they both could not be the father of the royal family. So God said, “Thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, my friend.” Isaiah 41:8. Jacob had twelve sons. Judah was elected. So you can see that election has been a necessity all the way from Abraham to Jesus, the promised savior, not to benefit the elected exclusively, but to benefit the world through them.

I think that all of my readers can see that the ones chosen here were elected for leaders and not for their own good. Moses was chosen to lead the children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage. Psalm 106:23, and Aaron was elected as his speaker (Psalm 105:26) but the Philadelphia Confession of Faith teaches that men are elected to salvation and that being so elected it is impossible for them to be lost. On the other hand, it teaches that another class are elected to damnation and that it is. impossible for them to be saved.
If you want to silence the defenders of this hell born doctrine, just ask them if non-elect infants are lost if they die. An answer either way ruins them. If they say that they are not lost, down goes their beloved doctrine and if they answer “yes” they make Jesus Christ a liar and a false teacher. (Matthew 19:14).

I should like for some Baptist to tell what Christ meant in Matthew 18:11. “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.” Now will someone tell us who He came to save since they (the Baptists) teach that it is impossible for the elect to be lost and equally impossible for the non-elect to be saved. So you see that Christ did not teach this awful doctrine which had its origin with the devil.

Let them also explain 1 Peter 2:9-10. Peter says in the ninth verse “But you are a chosen (which means elected) generation.” And in the tenth verse, “Which in time were not a people; but now are the people of God.” What will they do with this?
In closing, I will ask this question: If it is impossible for a certain class to be saved, what do the following invitations mean?

“Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden.” Matthew 11:28-30.

“And whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely.” Revelation 22:17.

​“Blessed are they that do His commandments that they may have right to the tree of life.” Revelation 22:14.

Brotherly,
O. B. Perkins
(to be continued)

Queries

1. Is it wrong to have a Pastor for the church on salary?

A1. If by “a Pastor” is meant “the Pastor,” or “our Pastor,” or “our Minister,” or “the located Evangelist” of the pastor system, it is just as right for a church to have one as it is to have one (the Pope) over all the churches he can get; but there is no Bible for such, and it is of Antichrist, and began to work even in the days of the apostles of Christ. And I have never seen any attempt to sustain the system from a Bible standpoint. H.
 
2. Is it wrong to have the class system and women teachers in the church?

A2. In brief, the same may be said of ‘the class system and women teaching in the church - it is of Antichrist; there is no Scripture to sustain either; and while the “class system” is very modern (almost as modern as the “classrooms as annexes to the church-house or in it), yet the woman as a teacher in the church, as a heresy, began the days of the apostles, as Paul points out. H.
 
3. Is it wrong for a Christian to put away his companion for any cause and marry again so long as they both live?

A3. This is a mooted question, much discussed pro and con. And in such cases I always advise safety first.” One should think more of his eternal interests than of anything else - father, or mother or wife, or children, or houses, or lands.

Eternity is a long time, and no pleasure or profit in this life should be permitted to separate us from God. Matthew 5:31-32 reads: “It was said also that whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a letter of divorce; but I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except on account of fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever shall marry her who has been put away commits adultery.”

This, with others in this connection, is the teaching of Christ as contrasted with that of the ancients, such as Moses. And this has been taken quite generally as the teaching of the church of Christ as making it right for a Christian to put away by divorcement the unfaithful companion. And this is my view of it. H.
 
4. Is it wrong for a Christian to marry outside the one body?

A4. Another mooted question where I advise to “look before you leap.” Worldly ties or sectarian ties constrain to evil. The likes and dislikes are radically different if one is a real and not a nominal Christian; then how can they walk together. Environment shapes destinies. The wrong, as I see it, is not in the marrying, but in the temptations to evil that are likely to result from such a relationship - a pull to the world. H.
 
5. Is it wrong for a Christian to vote and hold office in Satan’s kingdom?

A5. Here again we see the Christian seeking and enjoying the wrong environment. And the warmer his love for these things the colder he will be towards the church and its work. He must be of the world while in the world, and as such, a nominal Christian only, you cannot tell the world from the church. He is not willing, as were the early Christians, to pay the price for a “mansion” (John chapter 14) prepared by his Lord and Master. Listen: “The Christians would not attend the Roman temples nor worship the Roman gods. They refused to mingle with the crowds and enjoy the cruel shedding of human blood at the gladiatorial combats. They would not enlist as soldiers; they refused to fight, even to protect their own persons. In short, they were the pacifists of their day.” (Epochs of World Progress, p. 141) The early Christians while in the world were not of the world. H.
 
6. Is it wrong for a Christian to belong to the different lodges in the world?

A6. And here again we see the same danger to the Christian. He simply cannot stand by the church of Christ as he should and be thus entangled in the things of men. He simply cannot serve Christ in these institutions, giving glory and honor to Him in the church. H.
 
7. Is it wrong to have more than one cup in the communion?

​A7. It is wrong to have “more than one cup in the communion” if the Bible precept and example is our guide. One is all I find there. H.

Singular or Plural

A friend of the OLD PATHS ADVOCATE and the message it carries suggests that we should change the name to Old Path (singular) Advocate since “Paths” in its name has reference to the path (singular) of righteousness, or ‘the way of holiness” (Isaiah 35:8-10). Many others have been puzzled over the use of the plural, “paths,” instead of the singular, “path,” in the passages which we have chosen as our motto: Jeremiah 6:16 and Isaiah 58:12. So I take this means of putting an explanation of the matter before the brotherhood.

That the word “paths” in our text really is a path of righteousness, no one, I presume, will deny. But why is the plural used? I answer: it is simply a reproduction in English of an Aramaic and Hebrew idiom. All languages have idioms which if taken literally when reproduced in some other language, are liable to bewilder the minds of students. God’s name, as it occurs in Genesis 1:1 is Eloheem, a plural word. Yet, “The Lord (Yahweh) our God (Eloheem) is one Yahweh” (Deuteronomy 6:4)! “The first day (tee mia) of the week (sabbatoon),” of Acts 20:7 is literally “the first of the sabbaths.” the plural “sabbaths” being used for the singular, “week.” In Genesis 8:4 “mountains” is put for the one mountain, of Ararat. In Genesis 19:29 mention is made of “the cities” in which Lot dwelt; while Genesis 21:7 shows that Lot dwelt in only one city - Sodom. (For a thorough discussion of this matter, see “Hermeneutics,” by Professor D. R. Dungan pp. 300-301 under “Synechdoche.”)

​We wanted our motto to be worded just as inspiration worded it, so we retained the plural “paths,” but this must be understood in the singular sense for “the old paths” is “the good way.”

J. D. Phillips

That Last Day

“With yet one day to live, and only one,
I wonder what the task I’d set upon?
The fancy comes that I would rush to tell
The countless lost, beware, beware of hell.
And I should pause, the while I sped along
To seek another’s pardon for some wrong.
I think I’d waste no time on selfish deeds,
But labor only for my spirit’s needs.
No vain illusions then I’d have of-fame,
I’d see the cheapness then of worldly fame,
So that last day allowed on earth to me
I’d live for Him Who His blood did shed for me.”

With apologies to,
Edgar A. Guest