Truth Magazine

By P.J. Casebolt

When I began preaching in the late 40’s, divorce was not as prevalent in society and in the church as it is today. Among preachers of my acquaintance in the Ohio Valley, most held that Matthew 19:9 set forth the only exception for divorce/remarriage, i.e., fornication.

One preacher, brother Ross Swindler of Parkersburg, West Virigina, held the position that ‘ Matthew 19:9 was under the law of Moses, and that there was no cause for divorce/remarriage. But, his position was not generally known, advocated, or held by other brethren.

In the winter of 1950-5 1, brother Kenneth Adams, of the Lynn Street congregation in Parkersburg, preached in a meeting for the old South Side congregation where brother Swindler was located. During that meeting, brother Adams preached one night on the subject of divorce/remarriage, espoused the position held by brother Swindler, and brother Swindler publicly endorsed the sermon.

This account is brief, and not intended to reflect upon brethren Adams or Swindler. Both were good friends of mine, and both were held in high esteem by brethren in general. I’m simply trying to chronicle the evolution of the divorce/remarriage problem as it pertained to that geographical area of the brotherhood.

The very next day I went to brother Adams’ study at the Lynn Street church building and talked with him at length concerning his new position. I did not go with the intention of converting him, but I could see some inconsistencies in his position, and wanted to clarify them for my own benefit. And,,though I do not believe my visit had anything to do with it, within a relatively short time, brother Adams reversed his position, reverting to Matthew 19:9 as the only exception for divorce/remarriage.

Shortly after brother Adams preached his “no cause” sermon, brother L.J. Keffer of Paden City, WV, came to Williamstown (where I was located), for a meeting. He announced that he would preach one night on divorce/remarriage, and many of the same brethren who had heard brother Adams attended the meeting, including brother Adams himself.

Brother Keffer not only took exception to the “no cause for divorce” position advocated by brother Adams, but added a second cause for divorce/remarriage based on the “unbeliever” clause in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

About this time brethren learned that brother Keffer was involved in a marriage relationship which corresponded to his position on 1 Corinthians 7:15. A few of us had also heard of the “Fuqua position” via the Vindicator, but Texas seemed a long way off, and our geographical area had not been influenced to a great extent by brother Fuqua’s position.

During this skirmish in 1950-51, one old preacher safely remarked that the divorce problem reared its head about every twenty years, but when it blew over, most brethren settled back to the position which hinged on Matthew 19:9 as the only cause for divorce/remarriage.

It has since occurred to me that a new generation enters the. marriage relationship about every twenty years, and maybe the old preacher had a point, though he may not have known why. Or, maybe he did.

The Hinge

When the enemies of Jesus requested a watch to guard his tomb they knew that his cause hinged on a resurrection of the dead. If they could prevent even an apparent resurrection (a body whisked away by his disciples), then the death and burial of Jesus would mean nothing without a resurrection to go with those two events. All hinged on the resurrection.

When Martin Luther encountered James 2:24, he knew that his doctrine of “faith only” hinged on this passage. One or the other had to go. Luther decided to reject not only James 2:24, but the entire epistle of James as “spurious.”

When the advocates of the sponsoring church concept of cooperation came face to face with Philippians 4:15,16, they knew that either their system or the passage in Philippians had to go. All hinged on whether or not an approved apostolic example was binding. They decided to keep their sponsoring church concept, and reject the apostolic example principle.

With the same swipe of Jehoiakim’s penknife, these brethren cut out Acts 20:7 as the exclusive time for observing the Lord’s supper, because this passage contains only an approved apostolic example. It didn’t seem to matter that the apostle Paul commands us to observe an approved apostolic example (Phil. 4:9).

In my judgment, the entire matter of divorce/remarriage hinges on Matthew 19:9. Others must think so too, given the efforts to either neutralize or eliminate it altogether.

Even as Jesus said to Satan, “It is written again. . . ” (Matt. 4:7), so must we hear all that is said on any subject. Marriage is not even the primary subject under discussion in Romans 7:1-4, much less divorce. Neither is divorce/remarriage the theme of the passage in 1 Corinthians 7.

Given the epidemic of divorce/remarriage and its effect upon the church, it is tempting to take a position that would rule out divorce for any reason. It is also tempting to find a cause to keep people from marrying in the first place, if that would solve the divorce problem. But, it is never right to “do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8).

Personally, I’m not willing to pay the high cost of trying to escape the force of even one verse of Scripture (e.g., Matt. 19:9), much less face the consequences of eliminating the first four epistles of the New Testament. Some claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not a part of the new covenant (in order to eliminate Matt. 19:9), while others stop short of that position, claiming that Matthew 19:9 applies only to God’s people, and not to the alien sinner.

Too much hinges on Matthew 19:9, and when you break this hinge, the whole gate falls. When the gate falls, you may as well remove the entire fence.

Even if we do not go so far as to remove the whole fence, someone else in the next generation will, either post by post, strand by strand, or by a stampede. The epidemic of sundry and conflicting positions on divorce/remarriage within the past two decades is evidence that the gate is off the hinges, and the whole fence is in danger of being trampled down.

I do not want to be caught in that stampede, nor do I want to be found anywhere near it when the Lord comes.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 75-76
February 2, 1989

By Andy Alexander

Where did we learn about sin? Where did we learn right from wrong? The most likely answer that one would expect to hear is that we learned about sin and right from wrong from the Bible, the Word of God. And, that’s exactly right. If it were not for the inspired Word, we would not have a standard of right and wrong. Our souls would be stained with sin and we would be separated from God with no hope, if it were not for the Bible which describes sin and vividly depicts the destiny of the sinner (1 Jn. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:8). Upon realizing that we are all sinners and we need the forgiveness of those sins to receive the crown of life that is awaiting those who are faithful, where do we go?

Nature. No, a look at the history of man will reveal that nature only leads to idolatry. Sun worship and moon worship are forms of idolatry that come from only looking to nature. It is true that the heavens declare the glory of God, but only to those who have learned of him from another source (Psa. 19:1).

Human Wisdom. No, the best that human wisdom could do was erect an altar to “The Unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Paul taught the Corinthians that “the world by wisdom knew not God” (1 Cor. 1:21). Earthly wisdom will not lead us to God.

Feelings. This is it some will surely say. “I can feel when I’ve been saved.” But, are feelings an appropriate guide? Jacob was deceived into believing his son Joseph was dead. He had all the hurt, pain, and anguish that accompanies the loss of a loved one. But, did his feelings change the fact that Joseph was alive and well (Gen. 37:29-36)? We have a warning from God against trusting our feelings. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). Well, where do we go to find out if we are saved, if our sins are forgiven?

Since we learned about sin from the Word of God and we are the ones who have left God and are in need of reconciliation, then we should go to the Bible to find the answer to our question. From studying the Bible, we learn that belief in Christ and repentance are necessary conditions in our journey back to God. Belief gives us the strength we need to live a faithful life to God and repentance is needed to help us in our future struggle against sin, but what about the sins in our past life? How do we rid ourselves of these stains? That same Word that informed us about sin and gave us the information concerning how to live in the future also declares to us what we must do to have our past sins forgiven.

Paul was a penitent believer when he tarried in Damascus waiting to be told what he must do (Acts 9:1-11). But, his sins still had not been forgiven some three days later. In Acts 22:16, after Paul had seen the risen Savior and been praying for three days, Ananias told him, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Denominational preachers would have Paul saved on the road, still in sin. Now that is an impossibility.

The blood of Christ saves man from sin (Heb. 9:14,22). However, man must appropriate that atoning blood. And this is done when a penitent believer is baptized into Christ. No one could say it as plain as the apostle Paul, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).

Have you obeyed the gospel of Christ or have you stopped short of complete obedience based on the advice of man. We must take all God says concerning salvation and be willing to obey his every word, because it is by his Word that we will be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 71
February 2, 1989

By Bill Dodd

About twelve years ago as I was preparing to move from a rural congregation, a lady who owned a grocery store where I had done a good bit of buying asked me this question: “Are you going to be promoted as a result of the move?” Her denominational concept would naturally prompt her to ask such a question. We may tend to sigh at such a question, but I wonder if members of the Lord’s church do not have some carnal notions about climbing the “corporate ladder.”

Some Corporate Steps?

First, there is sometimes the clamoring on the part of some preachers to locate with a congregation that has size and reputation (cf. Rev. 3:1). In other words, some preachers must package themselves pretty much like the man trying to climb the corporate ladder in the business world. He must have the right car, right clothes, the right wife, and an acceptable number of children. He must live in the right neighborhood. The foregoing things listed on the part of some preachers are comparatively innocent when you weigh them against some of the political maneuvers these preachers pull.

There Has To Be Difference Between Using Talents And Using Brethren

Brethren, God’s people are responsible for using their talents (cf. Exod. 4:2; Matt. 25:14-30; Lk. 12:48). According to

these Scriptures, if one has the ability to write, speak, debate, or use any talent that would advance the Kingdom of God, he should not hide those talents under a bushel. Perhaps some talented men have held back for fear of being accused of wanting to become a “big” preacher. What is the answer to the problem of some being too bold to advance self and the problem of some being too timid to use his talents? The answer is that we need to make sure that our motives are proper in using our talents for the cause of Christ, and not for self-aggrandizement (Matt. 23:5-8; Mk. 10:37-45). Let all brethren forget about rank in God’s army. There are no ranking officers. Incidentally, this reminds me of something about an attempt made back in the sixties to arrange a debate between Batsell B. Baxter and James P. Miller. Baxter replied to the young preacher who was trying to arrange the proposed debate: “Why do the generals always have to do the debating; why cannot some of the debating be done by the sergeants?”

Conclusion

There is no corporate structure in God’s kingdom; hence, there is no ladder to climb. Jesus said that we are “all brethren.” He also said, “The greatest shall be your servant.” The truly great are concerned about serving and not about being served.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 73
February 2, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38). “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:8). “If we deny him, he will also deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12; cf. Lk. 12:9).

Ashamed Of Christ?

Of what is there to be ashamed? Shall we be ashamed of his selflessness? Shall we apologize for his humility, courage, faith, devotion, piety, meekness, gentleness? The Son of God, “though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). He divested himself of equality with God, “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5-11).

Shall we be ashamed of his lowly birth? He was conceived in poverty and born in obscurity. He was “as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Isa. 53:2,3).

Abraham Lincoln was born in abject destitution. Is his greatness tarnished because of his humble origins? No, it is enhanced by it. So, it is with Jesus. Yet, it is different in this sense: Lincoln had no choice in his birth, nor in his deprived circumstances, but Christ did. He chose to humble himself. He emptied himself of eternal, immortal glory and splendor and voluntarily elected to sink in the depths of indigence where he had no place to lay his head. Is that the substance of which shame is born?

Shall we be ashamed of his love, of his willingness to patiently endure cruel insults, aspersions and innuendoes designed to slander his person, slaughter his character and slur his mission? He who made the worlds was refused by his own creation. Man, the work of his hands and the desire of his heart, turned against his Creator, Sustainer and Savior. Spitting vile invectives, they spurned him. Shouting lies in hypocrisy, they ignominiously crucified the Lord of glory. Taunts to come down from the cross to save himself were ignored. His weakness was the strength of their salvation. His foolishness was the wisdom of the ages and of prophetic sages. His shameful death was their glorious life. Despising the pain, suffering and shame, while gasping for breath and writhing in anguish, he begs and pleads, not for his own release or relief, but for his tormentors – “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). I ask you, is this a cause for which shame is the result?

Ashamed Of His Words?

Just which of Jesus’ words should one be ashamed? “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28)? This, and numerous comparable utterances, is no reason for shame. But what of his threatening words of condemnation and judgment? Are they to be hidden and denied? No, for they, too, are words of love, grace and mercy. When a parent warns his child, “If you go out into the street, I will spank you,” he is not a monster seeking to arbitrarily restrict and deprive his child of pleasure. Rather, he recognizes the dangers and is protecting him from injury and death. Truly, he chastises those whom he loves (Heb. 12:5-11).

Our Lord’s message is ‘one of grace, hope, peace and love. Juvenile, street corner hucksters hawk their wares of popular psychology with pseudo-words of compassion, positive thinking and self-esteem. “You are wonderful; feel good about yourself.” The Son of God, however, told us we have no reason to rejoice in our sins which have blinded, impoverished and enslaved us. The way up is down, he declared (Lk. 18:14). The way to riches is poverty of spirit (Matt. 5:3). The way to be great is in the pathway of service (Lk. 22:27; Matt. 20:26-28). The way of love is the course of obedience and sacrifice (Jn. 14:15; 15:12-14). The way to life is the road to denial of self and, if necessary, to death (Lk. 9:23-25). Certainly, “Never man spake like this man” (Jn. 7:46).

We have all spoken words of shame and disgrace. On their death beds, men have recanted idle, irate words of hatred and spite. Some have repented for believing, accepting and following the erroneous doctrines of others. But on the cross, Jesus did not bewail and bemoan his teaching; he did not need to alter or apologize for anything he had said. And no disciple of the Master has ever had to hang his head in the hour of death and express regret for having believed and obeyed the words of the Son of righteousness.

In view of the undimmed dawn of an unfading eternity, can you put your finger on a line of Jesus’ words which signal shame? By those words we shall be judged (Jn. 12:48). By those words we shall be damned or delivered. “O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me” (Psa. 25:2). “In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness. . . . Let me not be ashamed, O Lord; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed and let them be silent in the grave” (Psa. 31:1, 17). “For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 10:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 69
February 2, 1989