http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1212
Situationism
Human beings throughout history have been susceptible to a desire to be
freed from the dictates of higher authority. Most people wish to be
free to do whatever they choose to do. This attitude runs rampant among
the baby-boomers, whose formative years occurred during the 1960s.
Expressions that were commonplace at the time included “Do your own
thing” and “Let it all hang out.” These simple slogans give profound
insight into what was really driving the counterculture forces at that
time. Underneath the stated objectives of love, peace, and brotherhood
were the actual motives of self-indulgence and freedom from
restrictions. This ethical, moral, and spiritual perspective has
proliferated, and now dominates the bulk of American civilization.
The Israelites at Mt. Sinai provide a good case study of this. Their
unbridled lust manifested itself when they cast aside restraint.
Awaiting the return of Moses, they “sat down to eat and drink, and rose
up to play” (Exodus 32:6)—“play” being used euphemistically to refer to
illicit sex play (cf. Genesis 26:8) [Harris, et al., 1980, 2:763;
Clarke, 1:464]. The drinking and dancing (vs. 9) apparently included
lewd, even nude, party-like revelry, with the people being “naked” (KJV), “broken loose” (ASV), “unrestrained” (NKJV), or “out of control” (NASV—vs.
25). The “prodigal son” was gripped by this same “party on” mentality.
He went to the far country to party, to live it up, and to “let it all
hang out.” There he indulged himself in riotous, loose living—totally
free and unrestrained in whatever his fleshly appetites urged him to do
(Luke 15:13).
Despite all of their high and holy insistence that their actions are
divinely approved, and the result of a deep desire to do Christ’s will
and save souls, could it possibly be that those within Christendom who
seek to relax doctrinal rigidity are, in reality, implementing their
agenda of change simply
to relieve themselves of Bible restrictions?
Is it purely coincidental that the liberal preachers have been eager
and willing to accommodate the clamor for “no negative, all positive”
preaching? Is it completely accidental and unrelated that many voices
are minimizing strict obedience under the guise of “legalism,” “we’re
under grace, not law,” “we’re in the grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996), and
we are “free to change” (e.g., Hook, 1990)?
No, these circumstances are neither coincidental nor unrelated. They
are calculated and conspiratorial. The religious change agents have
breathed in the same spirit that has led secular society’s psychological
profession to view guilt as destructive while unselfish, personal
responsibility is labeled “co-dependency.” They have embraced the same
subjective, self-centered rationale that secular society offers for
rejecting the plain requirements of Scripture in order to do whatever
they desire to do: “God wants me to be happy!”; “It meets my needs!” The
spirit of liberalism has taken deep root in the country and in the
church (see Chesser, 2001).
FREEDOM IN THE BIBLE: JOHN 8:12-59
The Bible certainly speaks of the wonderful freedom that one may enjoy in Christ. But biblical freedom is a far cry from the
release from restriction, restraint, and deserved guilt
touted by the antinomian agents of change. With sweeping and precise
terminology, Jesus articulated the sum and substance of what it means to
be
free in Christ. In a context in which He defended the
validity of His own testimony (John 8:12-59), He declared the only basis
upon which an individual may be His disciple. To be Christ’s disciple,
one must “continue” in His word (vs. 31). That is, one must live a life
of obedience to the will of Christ (Warren, 1986, pp. 33-37). Genuine
discipleship is gauged by one’s persistence in complying with the words
of Jesus.
Freedom in Christ is integrally and inseparably linked to this emphasis upon
obeying
God. While it is ultimately God and Christ who bestow freedom from
condemnation upon people, they do so strictly through the medium of the
written words of inspiration (vs. 32). The “perfect law of liberty”
(James 1:25) is the law that gives liberty to those who are “doers of
the word” (James 1:22). These same words will function as judge at the
end of time (John 12:47-48).
It thus becomes extremely essential for people to “know the truth” in
order for the truth to make them free (vs. 32). What did Jesus mean by
“the truth?” “The truth” is synonymous with (1) the Gospel (Galatians
2:14; Colossians 1:5-6—genitive of apposition or identification), (2)
the Word (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 4:2), (3) the Faith (Acts
14:21-22; Ephesians 4:5), and (4) sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10-11). In
other words, “the truth” is the content of the Christian religion. It
is the New Testament—the doctrines of the one true religion (cf. James
5:19). For a person to “know” the truth, he or she must both understand
it and submit to it. Christ’s teachings must become the supreme law of
daily life. The servant must both know his master’s will and act in
accordance with that will (Luke 12:47).
The freedom that Jesus offers through obedience to His truth is noted
in His interchange with the Jews over slavery. Those who sin (i.e.,
transgress God’s will—1 John 3:4) are slaves who may be set free only by
permitting Christ’s words to have free course within them (vs. 34-37).
This kind of freedom is the only true freedom. Genuine freedom is
achieved by means of “obedience to righteousness” (Romans 6:16). Freedom
from sin and spiritual death is possible only by
obedience to God’s words (vs. 51).
Nevertheless, these Jews—though they were believers (vs. 30-31)—were
unwilling to obey Christ’s will and function in a faithful manner as
Abraham had (vs. 39). Consequently, Jesus labeled them children of the
devil (vs. 44). They were not “of God” because they were unwilling to
“hear” God’s words, i.e.,
comply with them (vs. 47). Though they
believed, they would not
obey
the truth. “Indignation and wrath” awaits those who will not “obey the
truth” (Romans 2:8). J.W. McGarvey summarized the interpenetration of
freedom, obedience, and knowing the truth: “Freedom consists in
conformity to that which, in the realm of intellect, is called truth,
and in the realm of morality, law. The only way in which we know truth
is to obey it, and God’s truth gives freedom from sin and death” (n.d.,
p. 457).
SITUATIONISM AND THE GRAIN FIELD: MATTHEW 12:1-8
“But what about that time when the Pharisees reprimanded Jesus’
disciples for picking grain and eating on the Sabbath? Was not that
incident a clear case of Jesus advocating freedom from the ‘letter of
the law’ in order to keep the ‘spirit of the law’? Was not Jesus
sanctioning occasional violations of law in order to serve the higher
good of human need and spiritual freedom?”
A chorus of voices within the church is insisting that the report of
Jesus’ disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8) does,
indeed, advocate Christian “freedom” (i.e., freedom from law) and its
priority over rule-keeping (e.g., Clayton, 1991, pp. 21-22; Collier,
1987, pp. 24-28; Lucado, 1989; Woodruff, 1978, pp. 198-200). Abilene
Christian University professor David Wray wrote in reference to Jesus:
“He healed and allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. Jesus
then used ‘theological reflection’ to help his followers understand
that
people take priority over rule keeping and legalism” (1992, p. 1, emp. added). Richard Rogers claimed: “Jesus taught…that people took priority over
the rules” (1989, p. 14, emp. added). Compare these statements to the one made by Randy Fenter: “It is not
what we follow, but
who
we follow; not a set of values but a Person. ...Are you committed to a
set of Christian values, or are you committed to Jesus Christ who died
for you?” (1993, p. 1, emp. in orig.). Frank Cox claimed that Jesus had
“the power to
modify or change the rules of Sabbath observance. Sabbath observance must
bend to human needs” (1959, p. 41, emp. added). Another writer insisted that “there are occasions when
necessity outweighs precept,
as Jesus himself indicated in Matthew 12:1-5” (Scott, 1995, p. 2, emp.
added). Still another writer claimed that Jesus was suggesting that “the
Sabbath commandment was
optional if inconvenient” (Downen, 1988, emp. added).
Interestingly enough, these remarks are insidiously reminiscent of the
very ideas promoted by the most theologically liberal sources
imaginable. Joseph Fletcher, the “Father of Situation Ethics,” wrote
that “Christians, in any case, are commanded to
love people, not principles” (1967, p. 239, emp. added). He referred specifically to Matthew 12 when he said that Jesus was “ready to
ignore the Sabbath observance” and that He “put his stamp of approval on the
translegality
of David’s action, in the paradigm of the altar bread” (pp. 15,17, emp.
added). Fort Worth First United Methodist Church minister, Barry
Bailey, stated: “Instead of putting the Scriptures first we should put
God first” (as quoted in Jones, 1988, 1:8). This sort of humanistic
inclination constitutes a great threat to the stability of the church
and the Christian religion. It undermines the authority of Scripture,
and further fosters the shift to emotion, feelings, and subjective
perception as the standard for decision-making (see “The Shift to
Emotion” in Miller, 1996, pp. 52-63).
It never seems to dawn on those who promulgate the “love Jesus vs. love
law” antithesis that they are striking directly against the Bible’s own
emphasis. Their contrast is not only unbiblical, but borders on
blasphemy. Was the psalmist “legalistic” when he declared to God, “Oh,
how I love Your law!” (Psalm 119:97)? Was he “idolatrous” or guilty of
“bibliolatry” (book-worshipping) when he declared: “How sweet are Your
words to my taste; sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalm 119:103)?
Over and over again, he affirmed his
love for God’s Word: “…Your commandments, which I
love” (vss. 47-48); “I
love Your law” (vs. 113); “I
love Your testimonies” (vs. 119); “I
love Your commandments more than gold” (vs. 127); “Your word is very pure; therefore Your servant
loves it” (vs. 140); “I
love Your precepts” (vs. 159); “I
love Your law” (vs. 163); “Great peace have those who
love Your law” (vs. 165); “I
love them exceedingly” (vs. 167). He claimed that God’s words were
his delight (vss. 24,35,70,77,92,143,174),
his hope (vss. 43,49,74,81,114,147,166), and
his life (vs. 50). He even stated: “I opened my mouth and
panted for, I
longed for Your commandments” (vs. 131; cf. vss. 20,40).
The fact of the matter is one cannot
love God or Jesus
without loving and being devoted to
Their teachings.
That is why Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”
(John 14:15). “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who
loves Me” (John 14:21). “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word” (John
14:23). “He who does not love Me does not keep My words” (John 14:24).
John echoed his Savior when he said: “[W]hoever keeps His word, truly
the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him”
(1 John 2:5), and “For this is the love of God, that we keep His
commandments” (1 John 5:3). How ludicrous and contrary to the essence of
deity to place
in contrast—to pit
against each other—God
and God’s laws. This is a bogus, unscriptural juxtaposition. It is not a
matter of either/or; it is both/and. To minimize one is to minimize the
other. Those who do so are surely in the same category as those of whom
Paul spoke: “…they did not receive the
love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10, emp. added).
It likewise does not seem to dawn on those who espouse the “rules must
bend to human necessity” philosophy that they are insulting the God of
heaven—He Who
authored the rules. Does it even remotely begin to
make sense that God would author a law, tell humans they are obligated
to obey that law, but then “take it back” and tell them they do
not have to obey that law if it is “inconvenient,” or if it is in conflict with “human need,” or if necessity requires it? And
who,
precisely, is to make the determination as to whether God’s law in a
particular instance is “inconvenient”? Surely not man—since “it is not
in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). And
which people in all of human history
ever found conformity to God’s laws “convenient”? “
Every way of a man is right in his
own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2, emp. added; cf. 16:2).
Imagine parents telling their children that it is the will of those
parents that the children obey the following instructions: “Do not
steal, cheat, or lie.” Then imagine those same parents additionally
stating: “But kids, if any of these requirements are inconvenient, or if
your friends ask you to go help them steal a car, or if you feel you
must cheat on a test to insure graduation, hey, ‘people take priority
over rules,’ so if you must, feel free to ignore these requirements.”
Those parents who take this approach to parenting inevitably produce
lawless, undisciplined, unruly, irresponsible children. In fact, those
parents eventually find that their children
do not love them!
THE MEANING OF MATTHEW 12:1-8
Many commentators automatically assume that the charge leveled against
Jesus’ disciples by the Pharisees was a scripturally valid charge.
However, when the disciples picked and consumed a few heads of grain
from a neighbor’s field, they were doing that which was perfectly
lawful (Deuteronomy 23:25).
Working would have been a violation of the Sabbath law. If they had pulled out a sickle and begun
harvesting
the grain, they would have been violating the Sabbath law. However,
they were picking strictly for the purpose of eating immediately—an
action that was in complete harmony with Mosaic legislation (“but that
which everyone must eat”—Exodus 12:16). The Pharisees’ charge that the
disciples were doing something “not lawful” on the Sabbath was simply
an erroneous charge (cf. Matthew 15:2).
Jesus commenced to counter their accusation with masterful, penetrating
logic, advancing successive rebuttals. Before He presented specific
scriptural refutation of their charge, He first employed a rational
device designated by logicians as
argumentum ad hominem
(literally “argument to the man”). He used the “circumstantial” form of
this argument which enabled Him to “point out a contrast between the
opponent’s lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that
the opponent and his statements can be dismissed as
hypocritical” (Baum, 1975, p. 470, emp. added). This variety of argumentation spotlights the opponent’s
inconsistency,
and “charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged
reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by
self-interest” (Copi, 1972, p. 76).
Observe carefully the technical sophistication inherent in Jesus’
strategy. He called attention to the case of David (vss. 3-4). When
David was in exile, literally running for his life to escape the
jealous, irrational rage of Saul, he and his companions arrived in Nob,
tired and hungry (1 Samuel 21). He lied to the priest and conned him
into giving them the showbread, or “bread of the Presence” (twelve flat
cakes arranged in two rows on the table within the Tabernacle [Exodus
25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-6]), to his traveling companions—bread that
legally was reserved
only for the priests (Leviticus 24:8-9; cf.
Exodus 29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31; 22:10ff.). David clearly violated the
law. Did the Pharisees condemn
him? Absolutely not! They revered
David. They held him in high regard. In fact, nearly a thousand years
after his passing, his tomb was still being tended (Acts 2:29; cf. 1
Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, 1974a, 13.8.4; 16.7.1; Josephus,
1974b, 1.2.5). On the one hand, they condemned the disciples of Jesus,
who were
innocent, but on the other hand, they upheld and revered David, who was
guilty. Their inconsistency betrayed both their insincerity as well as their ineligibility to bring a charge against the disciples.
After exposing their hypocrisy and inconsistency, Jesus next turned to
answer the charge pertaining to violating the Sabbath. He called their
attention to the priests who worked in the temple on the Sabbath (12:5;
e.g., Numbers 28:9-10). The priests were “blameless”—
not guilty—of
violating the Sabbath law because their work was authorized to be
performed on that day. After all, the Sabbath law did not imply that
everyone was to sit down and
do nothing. The Law gave the right,
even the obligation, to engage in several activities that did not
constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. Examples of such
authorization included eating, temple service, circumcision (John 7:22),
tending to the care of animals (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4;
Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15), and extending kindness or assistance to the
needy (Matthew 12:12; Luke 13:16; 14:1-6; John 5:5-9; 7:23). The
divinely authorized Sabbath activity of the priests
proved that
the accusation of the Pharisees brought against Jesus’ disciples was
false. [The term “profane” (vs. 5) is an example of the figure of speech
known as metonymy of the adjunct in which “things are spoken of
according to appearance,
opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Dungan,
1888, p. 295, emp. added). By this figure, Leah was said to be the
“mother” of Joseph (Genesis 37:10), Joseph was said to be the “father”
of Jesus (Luke 2:48; John 6:42), God’s preached message was said to be
“foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and angels were said to be “men”
(e.g., Genesis 18:16; 19:10). Priestly activity on the Sabbath gave the
appearance
of violation when, in fact, it was not. Coincidentally, Bullinger
classified the allusion to “profane” in this verse as an instance of
catachresis, or incongruity, stating that “it expresses what was true
according to the
mistaken notion of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (p. 676, emp. added)].
After pointing out the obvious legality of priestly effort expended on
the Sabbath, Jesus stated: “But I say to you that in this place there is
One greater than the temple” (12:6). The underlying Greek text actually
has “something” instead of “One.” If priests could carry on
tabernacle/temple service on the Sabbath, surely Jesus’ own disciples
were authorized to engage in service in the presence of the Son of God!
After all, service directed to the person of Jesus certainly is greater
than the pre-Christianity temple service conducted by Old Testament
priests.
For all practical purposes, the discussion was over. Jesus had
disproved the claim of the Pharisees. But He did not stop there. He took
His methodical confrontation to yet another level. He penetrated
beneath the surface argument that the Pharisees had posited and focused
on their
hearts: “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire
mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless”
(12:7). In this verse, Jesus quoted from an Old Testament context (Hosea
6:6) in which the prophet of old struck a blow against the mere
external, superficial, ritualistic observance of some laws to the
neglect of heartfelt, sincere, humble attention to other laws while
treating people properly. The comparison is evident. The Pharisees who
confronted Jesus’ disciples were not truly interested in obeying God’s
law. They were masquerading under that
pretense (cf. Matthew
15:1-9; 23:3). But their problem did not lie in an attitude of desiring
careful compliance with God’s law. Rather, their zest for law keeping
was
hypocritical and unaccompanied by their own obedience and
concern for others. They possessed critical hearts and were more
concerned with scrutinizing and blasting people than with honest,
genuine applications of God’s directives for the good of mankind.
They had neutralized the true intent of divine regulations, making void
the word of God (Matthew 15:6). They had ignored and skipped over the
significant laws that enjoined justice, mercy, and faith (Matthew
23:23). Consequently, though their attention to legal detail was
laudable, their
misapplication of it, as well as their
neglect and rejection
of some aspects of it, made them inappropriate and unqualified
promulgators of God’s laws. Indeed, they simply did not fathom the
teaching of Hosea 6:6 (cf. Micah 6:6-8). “I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice” is a Hebraism (cf. Matthew 9:13) [McGarvey, 1875, pp. 82-83].
God was not saying that He did not want sacrifices offered under the
Old Testament economy (notice the use of “more” in Hosea 6:6). Rather,
He was saying that He did not want sacrifice
alone. He wanted mercy
with sacrifice. Internal motive and attitude are
just as important to God as the external compliance with specifics.
Samuel addressed this same attitude shown by Saul: “Has the Lord as
great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice
of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than
the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Samuel was not minimizing the
essentiality of sacrifice as required by God. Rather, he was convicting
Saul of the pretense of using one aspect of God’s requirements, i.e.,
alleged “sacrifice” of the best animals (1 Samuel 15:15), as a smoke
screen for violating God’s instructions, i.e., failing to
destroy
all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). If the Pharisees had understood these
things, they would not have accused the disciples of breaking the law
when the disciples, in fact, had not done so. They “would not have
condemned the
guiltless” (Matthew 12:7, emp. added).
While the disciples were guilty of violating an injunction that the
Pharisees had made up (supposing the injunction to be a genuine
implication of the Sabbath regulation), the disciples were not guilty of
a technical violation of Sabbath law. The Pharisees’ propensity for
enjoining their uninspired and erroneous interpretations of Sabbath law
upon others was the direct result of cold, unmerciful hearts that found a
kind of sadistic glee in binding burdens upon people for burdens’ sake
rather than in encouraging people to obey God genuinely.
Jesus placed closure on His exchange with the Pharisees on this
occasion by asserting the accuracy of His handling of this entire
affair: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (vs. 8). In
other words, Jesus affirmed His deity and, therefore, His credentials
and authoritative credibility for making accurate application of the Law
of Moses to the issue at hand. One can trust Jesus’ exegesis and
application of Sabbath law; after all, He wrote it!
CONCLUSION
Matthew 12 does
not teach that Jesus sanctions occasional violation of His laws under extenuating circumstances. His laws are
never
optional, relative, or situational—even though people often find God’s
will inconvenient and difficult (e.g., John 6:60; Matthew 11:6; 15:12;
19:22; Mark 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:23). The truth of the matter is that
if the heart is receptive
to God’s will, His will is “easy” (Matthew 11:30), “not too hard”
(Deuteronomy 30:11), nor “burdensome” (1 John 5:3). If, on the other
hand, the heart resists His will and does not desire to conform to it,
then God’s words are “offensive” (Matthew 15:12), “hard,” (John 6:60),
“narrow” (Matthew 7:14), and like a hammer that breaks in pieces and
grinds the resister into powder (Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 21:44).
The mindset of today’s situationist is not new. We humans do not
generally regard rules and regulations as positive phenomena. We usually
perceive them as infringements on our freedom—deliberate attempts to
restrict our behavior and interfere with our “happiness.” Like children,
we may have a tendency to display resentment and a rebellious spirit
when faced with spiritual requirements. We may feel that God is being
arbitrary and merely burdening our lives with haphazard, insignificant
strictures. But God would
never do that. He has
never placed upon
anyone
any requirement that was inappropriate, unnecessary, or unfair. As the
Israelites were engaged in their final encampment on the plains of Moab
prior to entrance into Canaan, Moses articulated a most important
principle: “[T]he Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes…
for our good always”
(Deuteronomy 6:24, emp. added; cf. 10:13). God would never ask us to do
anything that is harmful to us. He does not restrict us or exert His
authority over us in order to make us unhappy. Quite the opposite! Only
God knows what, in fact, will make us happy. Compliance with His wishes
will make a person
happy (John 13:17; James 1:25),
exalted (James 4:10),
righteous (Romans 6:16; 1 John 3:7), and
wise (Matthew 24:45-46; 7:24).
Those who wish to relieve themselves of restriction will continue to
invent ways to circumvent the intent of Scripture. They will continue to
“twist” (2 Peter 3:16) and “handle the word of God deceitfully” (2
Corinthians 4:2). They will exert pressure on everyone else to “lighten
up,” loosen up, and embrace a more tolerant understanding of ethical
conduct. But the “honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15) will “take heed how
[he] hears” (vs.18). The good heart is the one who “reads...hears...and
keeps those things which are written therein” (Revelation 1:3,
emp. added). After all, no matter how negative they may appear to
humans, no matter how difficult they may be to obey, they are given “for
our good.”
The Bible simply does not countenance situation ethics. Jesus
always admonished people to “keep the commandments” (e.g., Matthew 19:17). He did so Himself—
perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26). And He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who
obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9, emp. added).
REFERENCES
Baum, Robert (1975),
Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898),
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Chesser, Frank (2001),
The Spirit of Liberalism (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs).
Clarke, Adam (no date),
Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Clayton, John N. (1991), “Creation Versus Making—A Key to Genesis 1,”
Does God Exist?, 18[1]:6-10, January/February.
Collier, Gary (1987), “Bringing the Word to Life: An Assessment of the
Hermeneutical Impasse in Churches of Christ; Part II: ‘The Scholarship
Movement,’ ” Paper presented to the Christian Scholars Conference at
Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, July.
Copi, Irving (1972),
Introduction To Logic (New York: Macmillan).
Cox, Frank (1959),
Treatises of Luke (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Downen, Ray (1988), Personal letter, Joplin, MO, September 7.
Dungan, D.R. (1888),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Fenter, Randy (1993), “Person or Principles: To Which Are You Committed?,”
The Christian Caller, 19:48, Golf Course Road Church of Christ Bulletin (Midland, TX), December 1.
Fletcher, Joseph (1967),
Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Hook, Cecil (1990),
Free To Change (New Braunfels, TX: Cecil Hook).
Josephus, Flavius (1974a reprint),
Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Josephus, Flavius (1974b reprint),
Wars of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jones, Jim (1988), “Methodist Minister Opposes Move Toward Bible’s Primacy,”
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 24.
Lucado, Max (1989), “When Religion Goes Bad,” Audiotape of a sermon
presented at the Oak Hills Church of Christ, San Antonio, TX, October
29.
Lucado, Max (1996),
In the Grip of Grace (Dallas: Word).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date),
The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Foundation).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875),
Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
Miller, Dave (1996),
Piloting the Strait (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications).
Rogers, Richard (1989), “Encouraging Things I See,”
Image, 5/1, January.
Scott, Buff (1995), “Wayne Jackson Rides Again!,”
The Reformer, 11[6]:2, November/December.
Warren, Thomas B. (1986),
The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Woodruff, James (1978), in Thomas B. Warren’s “Charts You Can Use in
Preaching, Teaching, Studying on Divorce and Remarriage” (Jonesboro, AR:
National Christian Press).
Wray, David (1992), “Future Directions for Religious Education,”
Directions in Ministry, 1[4]:1, College of Biblical Studies, Abilene Christian University.
