Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Do the Scriptures authorize using money out of the local church treasury to give members in order for them to pay their bills, or to loan them money for that purpose. I understand that money is not to be used from the church treasury for unauthorized works, as “fellowship” kitchens and benevolent institutions, but what about material aid to saints who are not needy or destitute; they just need to have their bills paid?

Reply: The Scriptures plainly declare what work the local church is to perform. It is threefold: (1) preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 3:14,15), (2) edifying the saints (Eph. 4:11-16) and (3) helping qualified needy saints (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 9:1). Other passages could be cited as to this threefold work. The Scriptures only authorize the local church to spend money out of its treasury to do the work that God has assigned it to do.

The treasury of the local church is often abused. Money is taken from it to be used for things which are not the work of the church. This is unscriptural. It is not scriptural to use money out of the treasury of the local church to provide “fellowship” halls, recreational facilities and to support human institutions because these things are not the work of the church. It is the work of the church to provide for its needy saints for whom it is responsible, but not to pay the utility bills and house rent for members who are not needy or destitute. The church may provide food, clothing and shelter for needy or destitute saints, but to loan money to members and pay their personal obligations is another matter. Banks are in the business of loaning money. The church is not in the banking business. When brethren object to using money out of the treasury to loan money to members so they can pay their taxes, rent or make house payments they are not manifesting a lack of love and concern. It is simply a matter of respecting the authority of the Scriptures. Furthermore, if one member expects the church to pay his personal obligations, why cannot all the members expect the same? What a precedent this would set! Even from a mere business point of view, the treasury would soon be depleted and the congregation would be unable to do the work that God has given it to do.

The unscriptural use of money contributed to the Lord’s work, leads to other problems. Not only will members take advantage of the church, but non-members will soon learn that a church is loaning money to its members and paying their bills, house payments and rent. The door is wide open for these non-members to take advantage of an opportunity, and also to pass the word to others that, “If you want a loan, taxes and bills paid, just become a member of the church of Christ!” This is a consequence of the improper use of the money that is contributed by Christians to do the Lord’s work. Simply because we feel sorry for someone’s unfortunate circumstances, in the area under consideration, does not give us the right to violate the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Brethren (elders, where they exist) must decide upon each individual case of benevolence, and what provisions are to be made for needy or destitute saints. But abuse is what we are considering, using money out of the treasury to pay taxes, rent, house payments and utilities for members who get themselves into a bind but who are not really destitute or needy. Any of us can get into such situations. Sometimes, however, a husband may approach the church for financial assistance (a loan for a stipulated amount of money), and yet he and his wife both work and own their own home. They are not needy or destitute in the true sense (we all may need something). Rather than imposing upon the church, they should make arrangements with family members, friends, the bank or individual members of the church. Individual brethren may, out of their own pockets, come to the aid of other members whom they deem worthy; but to use the money out of the treasury of the church to pay the personal obligations of brethren is to misuse it. Spending money out of the treasury of the church is a great responsibility. We should use extreme caution to see that it is spent wisely and according to the Scriptures.

Again, the obligations of the church and those of the individual should be kept distinct.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 421
July 21, 1988

By Aude McKee

Introduction:

I. History abundantly shows that any time men lose respect for the absolute and complete authority of God’s Word, there is no stopping place. As the Holy Spirit stated in 2 Timothy 3:13, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

A. As men first began their “progress” away from divine authority, their steps were “small.”

B. Eventually, enough of these steps were put together to carry the church from Jerusalem to Rome – from the church Jesus built to Catholicism!

II. In our last lesson we gave our attention entirely to Catholicism’s attitude toward authority. We noted these points:

A. Catholics claim the Bible is a Catholic Book.

B. The Scriptures are not inspired and are not infallible.

C. The Scriptures are not sufficient as a rule of faith and practice.

D. Traditions are an authority equal with the Old and New Testaments.

E. The common man is unable to interpret the Scriptures.

F. The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

G. Peter was given primacy – he was the first pope.

III. In this lesson, we notice some of the beliefs and practices of Catholicism that are outgrowths of their attitude toward authority.

Discussion:

I. Celibacy (Unmarried Church Officials).

A. The doctrine began in the 4th century. Celibacy was first enjoined at Rome by Gregory VII in 1073.

B. The Council of Trent made the doctrine official church doctrine with the following proclamation:

“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (Tenth canon, Council of Trent). The same Council decreed: “Whoever shall say that the clergy constituted in sacred order, or regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, may contract marriage and that the contract is valid, let him be accursed.”

C. In the past, the Church of Rome had imposed universal celibacy on all the “clergy” from Pope to Priest, and from the lowest deacon to the highest Bishop.

1. In Vatican II, pressure was brought by liberal bishops for relaxation of the celibate standards.

2. The law was relaxed only slightly and that for deacons. Men “of more mature age,” already married, were allowed to continue in the married state, but for younger men, the law of celibacy remained intact.

3. The Catholic Church’s attitude toward sex and women was expressed by Pope Paul, when in addressing the 13th Congress of the Italian Women’s Center in 1966, he said: “Conjugal chastity . . . through out the centuries has redeemed women from the slavery of a duty submitted to through force and humiliation.”

D. Bible teaching.

1. Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5. Catholic argument that Peter divorced his wife falls in 1 Cor. 9:5. Paul says he was “leading her about.”

2. The teaching in 1 Cor. 7 was in view of “the present distress” (v. 26).

3. Gen. 2:18 is as true today as it was in the beginning.

4. Note 1 Tim. 5:14. The Catholic Church commands certain women not to marry.

5. In the Lord’s church, a bishop must:

a. Be married (1 Tim. 3:2).

b. Have children (1 Tim. 3:4). Note: The Lord’s church and the Catholic Church are two different bodies. Christ rules his (Col. 1:18).

II. The Sacraments.

A. “A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. . . The sacrament gives the grace, which it signifies, by some inherent power attached to the outward sign by Christ Himself, or as theologians say, ex operato, that is, by performing the work which Christ has instituted” (Question Box, p. 747).

B. We notice each of the seven sacrament briefly:

1. Baptism.

a. Children must be “baptized” (because they are “born in sin”). “The teaching of the church is simply this: Baptism is necessary for children as well as for adults, in order that they may be saved.” “Every child born into this world has the guilt of original sin upon its soul. . . Original sin excludes from heaven unless forgiven. It is forgiven only by baptism. Hence when an unbaptized child dies it cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. . . The soul of the child will not go to heaven, it is true; but neither will it go to a place of torments; it will go to what is called the limbo of infants” (Ibid., pp. 1,5).

b. Baptism can either be by pouring or immersion. “Catholic teaching is that baptism by immersion was very common in Holy Church; but in the course of centuries baptism by pouring has become the common practice because it obviates numerous inconveniences” (Ibid., p. 4). Note the change and the reason for changing!

c. Baptism of desire can replace water baptism. “This brings us to the important point of baptism of desire. In case of necessity this baptism will suffice for salvation” (Ibid., p. 2).

d. Bible teaching on these points:

(1) Matt. 18:3; 19:14; 1 John 3:4.

(2) Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12. By their own admission the word “baptize” is from a Greek word meaning “to dip into water” (Ibid., p. 4).

(3) Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21.

2. Confirmation.

a. Catholics admit that this “sacrament” has no basis in Scripture. “It is not easy to decide when this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord, as Holy Writ does not clearly state it” (Ibid., p. 712).

b. This “sacrament” is defined thus: “A sacrament of the New Law in which a baptized person receives the Holy Ghost, is strengthened in grace and signed and sealed as a soldier of Jesus Christ. The minister in the Latin rite anoints with Chrism and imposes hands, saying, ‘I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 122).

3. Holy Eucharist.

a. “A sacrament of the New Law in which, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ are truly, really and substantially present, as the grace-producing food of our souls. Moreover, ‘it is very true that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and under each particle of that species; and whole under the species of wine, and under its separate parts'” (Ibid., p. 186).

b. Bible teaching:

(1) Jesus was alive when the Lord’s Supper was instituted (Matt. 26:26-30).

(2) “This is my body . . . my blood” is figurative language. (See John 10:9-11; 15:5. Was Jesus a literal door, shepherd and vine?)

(3) 1 Cor. 11:23-34. These Christians were eating bread and drinking the cup (v. 26) in memory of Jesus’ body and blood (vv. 24-25).

c. Beginning in 1415 (Council of Constance) the cup was withheld from the “laity” (see Mk14:23). Those who have attended a Catholic service more recently know this has been changed.

4. Penance.

a. “After hearing a penitent’s confession and before giving him absolution, a confessor (priest) must impose a penance. While such a penance rarely nowadays bears any real relation to the gravity of the sins confessed, it must be in some sense proportionate thereto” (Ibid., p. 397).

b. Bible teaching:

(1) Repentance (change of mind about sin) is commanded in the New Testament but penance is unheard of.

(2) Luke 13:1-5; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 8:22.

5. Extreme Unction.

a. “A sacrament of the New Law in which, by anointing with oil and the prayers of the priest, health of soul and (sometimes) of body is conferred on a baptized person who is in danger of death through sickness” (Ibid., p. 194).

b. James 5:14-15 is given as Bible authority. These elders of James 5 were married men (Tit. 1:5-6); they were not unmarried priests in the Roman Catholic Church.

c. Each church in New Testament days had a plurality of elders. So, “call for the elders (plural) of the church.”

d. These elders may have had the hands of the apostles laid on them (Acts 8:17-18) and thus been able to perform the miracle of healing (1 Cor. 12:9).

6. Holy Orders.

a. “A sacrament by which bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church are ordained and receive the power and grace to perform their sacred duties. In addition to the effects and sanctifying grace and sacramental grace, this Sacrament likewise imprints an indelible character upon the soul. Hence, one who is validly ordained priest cannot be deprived of his priesthood, even though he can be suspended from the exercise thereof; nor can he by his own free will, by heresy or apostasy, for example, lose the character imprinted on his soul” (Question Box, pp. 469,470).

b. By this “sacrament” a “layman” is changed into a “clergyman.” Now he has the power to bless anyone or anything, rule the flock, administer the “sacraments” and forgive sins! The Roman Catholic Clergy claims to possess powers even the Lord’s apostles never possessed.

7. Matrimony.

a. “The Sacrament of Matrimony is a contract between a man and a woman both of whom are baptized and free to enter into the contract, to live together for the purpose of begetting and rearing children and of cherishing one another in a common life.” “The marriages of the unbaptized are not sacramental” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 333).

b. In the past if a non-Catholic were to marry a Catholic, the Catholic Church required the non-Catholic to sign the following “prenuptial contract”:

I, the undersigned, not a member of the Catholic Church, wishing to contract marriage with the Catholic party whose signature is also affixed to this mutual agreement, being of sound mind and perfectly free, and only after understanding fully the import of my action, do hereby enter into this mutual agreement, understanding the execution of this agreement and the promises therein contained are made in contemplation of and in consideration for the consent, marriage, and consequent change of status of the hereinafter mentioned Catholic party, and I, therefore, hereby agree:

1. That I will not interfere in the least with the free exercise of the Catholic party’s religion;

2. That I will adhere to the doctrine of the sacred indissolubility of the marriage bond, so that I cannot contract a second marriage while my consort is still alive, even though a civil divorce may have been obtained;

3. That all the children, both boys and girls, that may be born in this union shall be baptized and educated solely in the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, even in the event of the death of my Catholic consort. In case of dispute, I furthermore hereby agree fully that the custody of all children shall be given to such guardians as assure the faithful execution of this covenant and promise in the event that I cannot fulfill it myself;

4. That I will lead a married life in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding birth control, realizing fully the attitude of the Catholic Church in this regard:

5. That no other marriage ceremony will take place before or after this ceremony by the Catholic priest.

In testimony of which agreement, I do hereby solemnly swear that I will observe the above agreement and faithfully execute the promises therein contained, and do now affix my signature in approval thereof.

__________________________

(Signature of non-Catholic party)

c. Some time back an article appeared in the newspaper entitled, “Pope Eases Marriage Bans.”

“The non-Catholic partner to a mixed marriage still must be asked to promise to place no obstacle in the way of education of children in the Roman Catholic faith. If, however, the non-Catholic advances serious objections of conscience, the Bishop is instructed to refer the case to the Holy See for judgment. The intention is expressed to rule on such cases in Rome in the ‘most fervid sense of charity.”‘ (Emphasis mine, A.M.) Not much “ease” here!

“In ordinary circumstances, both Catholic and non-Catholic partners should make their pledges with regard to children in writing, as in the past. But the local bishop is authorized to eliminate this requirement and to rule on whether reference to it should be made in the marriage contract.”

d. On October 31, 1979, I called the priest at the Catholic Church meeting at 1041 Central Ave., Knoxville, TN, and he gave me the following information concerning the requirements for a non-Catholic to marry a Catholic:

(1) The non-Catholic must be free to marry that is, not divorced.

(2) The non-Catholic must agree not to interfere in any way with the Catholic’s religion.

(3) The non-Catholic must have five or six (four months, another priest said) meetings with the priest prior to the ceremony.

(4) The Catholic party must sign a paper agreeing that the children born to the union will be brought up in the Catholic religion, and that all the children born to the union will be baptized as infants.

(5) When the Catholic party signs these papers, the non-Catholic party must be present and thus agree to the stipulations.

(6) The marriage must be performed by a Catholic priest.

III. Purgatory.

A. “The place and state in which souls suffer for a while and are purged (thus the name “purgatory”) after death, before they go to heaven, on account of their sins” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 437).

B. This unscriptural doctrine has encouraged other Catholic promotions:

1 . Indulgences (the remission of the temporal punishment due to those sins of which the guilt has been forgiven).

2. Enlisted people to engage in Crusades.

3. Contributed to extermination of heretics.

4. Used to raise money to build cathedrals.

C. Bible teaching: Heb. 9:27-28; Rev. 22:40-12; Eccl. 11:3.

IV. Veneration of Relics.

A. “The corpse of a saint or any part thereof; any part of his clothing; anything intimately connected with him. The veneration of relics can be traced at least to the middle of the 2nd century and was regulated by the Council of Trent, which directed that no new relics should be admitted without episcopal authentication” (Ibid., p. 448).

B. It is said that Rome has the comb of the rooster that crowded for Peter; bones of the apostles, wood from the cross, etc.

C. This is grounded in heathenism and superstition not divine authority.

V. Images.

A. “The images especially of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other saints, are to be had and kept in churches and due honor and reverence paid to them; not because it is believed that there is any divinity or power in them or that anything may be asked from them, or that any faith may be put in them . . . but because the honor shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that through these images which we kiss and before which we bow with bared heads, we worship Christ and honor the saints whose likeness they display” (Council of Trent).

B. Joe Malone, in “Why I left the Catholic Church” (p. 219) states: “Life Magazine, reporting the ceremonies in Ottawa, Canada, in June, 1947, at the Marian Congress, pointed out that a great procession of devout people knelt and kissed the foot of the giant statue of Mary ‘until the paint wore off its toes.”‘

C. Bible teaching.

1. Ex. 20:4-5; Rom. 1:21-25; Acts 17:29-30.

2. What about pictures of Jesus today?

a. Who knows what he looked like?

b. Did he have long hair (1 Cor. 11:14)?

c. Jesus left us what he wanted us to have to remind us (Luke 22:1920). Are the Lord’s arrangements sufficient?

VI. Maryolstry

A. Three basic false assumptions:

1. Immaculate Conception

“By authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of the Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved free from the stain of all original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful” (Ex cathedra declaration of Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1894).

a. This false doctrine was invented to escape the consequences of the false doctrine of hereditary total depravity.

b. See Matt. 18:3; 19:14; Ezek. 18:19-20.

2. Perpetual Virginity. “It is also a Catholic faith that our Lady remained a virgin throughout her life” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 548). See Matt. 1:24-25; 13:55-56.

3. Bodily Assumption.

a. Made an official dogma November 1, 1950.

b. “The modern movement to have the belief included as Catholic Dogma was started in 1863 when Isabella II, queen of Spain, asked Pope Pius IX for a papal ruling on the. matter. Catholic belief in the bodily assumption is based on the statement of Saint John of Damascus, born about 676, that her tomb, when opened upon the request of Saint Thomas, was found empty and the apostles therefore concluded that the body was taken up to heaven” (from a Vatican news release carried in the newspaper in the fall of 1950).

B. Mary is called the “Mother of God.” Prayers are made to her.

1 . “Mary is the Mother of Jesus, Jesus is God, therefore she is the Mother of God. . . . Mary is the spiritual mother of all living; Catholics venerate her with an honor above that accorded to other saints, but differently from the divine worship given to God only; they pray to her, and she in heaven intercedes with her Son, God the Son, for them” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 329).

2. See 1 Tim. 2:5 and John 14:14. Jesus is the only mediator and prayer is to be made to God in the name of Jesus Christ!

3. No special honor is accorded her in the New Testament. See Luke 11:27-28. The Lord honors. people for their obedience to his teaching!

Conclusion:

1. These teachings only scratch the surface of Roman Catholic Dogmas.

2. These help us to see how far men can go away from God when once they begin to delve into human wisdom.

3. We love our Catholic friends and neighbors and trust that these lessons will better to equip us to help them return to the truth that will free from sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 422-423, 435-436
July 21, 1988

By Mike Willis

In previous articles on the subject of divorce and remarriage, we have studied Matthew 19:9. That passage reads:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

From this verse we conclude: (a) Whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication and marries another is guilty of adultery; (b) Whoever divorces his wife for fornication and remarries does not commit adultery; (c) Whoever marries a person put away commits adultery.

This teaching has been undermined in recent years by redefining “adultery” to mean “the act of divorcing and remarrying” and by limiting the application of Matthew 19:9 to the marriage of two Christians. Both of these false doctrines previously have been examined.

1 Corinthians 7:15

Another false doctrine which undermines the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage pertains to a unique interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15. That passage reads as follows:

But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

James D. Bales’ book Not Under Bondage was published in 1979 and already its influence is being felt among conservative brethren. (For example, see the 18 October 1987 issues of Coburg Road Bulletin published by the church which meets at 1005 Coburg Rd. in Eugene, Oregon, in which Jerry Bassett took the same position as brother Bales.) In this book, brother Bales takes the position that Matthew 19:9 is limited in application to two Christians and that Paul legislates for a Christian married to a non-Christian in I Corinthians 7:10-15. Last issue’s editorial responded to this teaching of brother Bales. Brother Bales continues to assert that “not under bondage” refers to the marriage bond in 1 Corinthians 7:15, concluding that the Christian who is divorced by an unbeliever is free from the marriage bond and has the right to remarriage. Bales wrote,

The bondage from which the believer was freed if the unbeliever departed is the very bondage the believer is in if the unbeliever does not depart (p. 63).

Paul said desertion by the unbeliever so changed the believer’s situation that the believer was free, and since free this left the believer with the right to remarry if the believer so desired (p. 92).

Let us examine the doctrine that “not under bondage” gives the believer the right to remarriage in the event that the unbeliever deserts him.

If Brother Bales Is Correct. . .

If brother Bales is correct that desertion by an unbeliever frees the Christian, giving him the right to remarriage, the following are logical conclusions:

1. It is better to many an unbeliever. If a Christian woman marries a believer and he deserts her, she must “remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:11). However, if she marries an unbeliever and he departs, she is “not under bondage,” which Bales explains to mean that she is free to remarry. Hence, the Christian would be in a better situation, should a desertion occur, to have married an unbeliever than a believer.

2. If the unbeliever left because of a legitimate complaint against the believer, the believer would still have the right to remarriage. If a Christian man married a non-Christian woman but beat her unmercifully until she was content to depart, the Christian man would have the right to remarriage, according to the implications of brother Bales’ teaching.

3. The interpretation creates a double standard for two different Christians. If two Christian women married, one to a believer and one to an unbeliever, and both were deserted by their husbands, the one married to the believer would not be free to remarry but the one married to the unbeliever would be free to remarry (even if she was the cause of him deserting her). This creates a double standard, undermining God’s righteous judgment (Acts 17:30).

To Whom Does 1 Corinthians 7:15 Apply?

The interpretation given 1 Corinthians 7:15 by brother Bales makes the Christian not under bondage when he is deserted by an unbeliever for any reason. This is not the condition under discussion in the passage.

If brother Bales is correct in his conclusion that “not under bondage” gives the deserted party the right to remarriage, the application is limited to the believer whose mate left because of hisfaith in Jesus. The text is speaking about an unbeliever being content to dwell with, a Christian. Because of the present distress (v. 26) – a persecution aimed at Christians – some unbelievers would be unwilling to be subjected to mistreatment because they were married to believers. Consequently, they would not be content to dwell with their believing spouse. If “not under bondage” is understood to give the believer the right to remarriage when the unbeliever departs, it is limited to the departing under consideration in the text – departing because the mate is a Christian. The text cannot be used to give the believer the right to remarriage if the unbeliever departs for any other reason, such as him deciding he no longer wants to be married, character flaws in the Christian, marital conflicts, etc. If brother Bales is correct in his understanding of “not under bondage,” the most that could be concluded would be that there are two reasons for divorce which allow the person a right to remarriage: fornication and desertion because one is a Christian. If he is correct with reference to this latter point, the application is so rare that few such divorces would qualify to meet the exception. In twenty-three years of preaching, I have never met a Christian who was divorced because he was a Christian.

Does “Bondage” Refer To The Marriage Bond?

Having considered some of the consequences of brother Bales’ doctrine, let us look at the text. When Paul said the believer is “not under bondage” was he discussing the marriage bond, as brother Bales asserts?

1. The word “bondage” (Greek. douleo) does not refer to the marriage bond. When Paul speaks of the marriage bond, he uses the word deo, as in these passages:

For the woman which hath an husband is bound (deo) by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband (Rom. 7:2).

Art thou bound (deo) to a wife? Seek not to be loosed . . (1 Cor. 7:27).

The wife is bound (deo) by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39).

The word douleo carries a different connotation than deo, as seen from the following passages:

(1) Acts 7:6 – “they should bring them into bondage. . .

(2) Rom. 6:18 – “ye became servants to God”

(3) Rom. 6:22 – “and became servants to God”

(4) 1 Cor. 9:19 – “I brought myself under bondage to all”

(5) Gal. 4:3 – “were held in bondage under the rudiments”

(6) Tit. 2:3 – “not enslaved to much wine”

(7) 2 Pet. 2:19 – “of the same is he brought into bondage”

The word “bondage,” from douleo, is defined by the lexicons and other Greek authorities in this manner:

(1) Thayer: “to make a slave, reduce to bondage. . . 1 Cor. 7:15 to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter” (p. 158).

(2) Arndt & Gingrich: “make someone a slave, enslave, subject . . . be bound as a slave, 1 Cor. 7:15” (p. 205).

(3) Kittel: “to make a slave, to enslave. . . . In 1 Cor. 7:15 douloun expresses total binding by another” (Vol. 11, p. 279).

(4) “The situation called for a word of strong meaning (“enslavement”), but there is no indication in the history of the use of the word, or the context in which Paul is using it, specifically of the breaking of the marriage bond. Rather it speaks of the Christian’s liberty; they are not totally enslaved when married to unbelievers. Remarriage is not the scope of Paul’s language here” (R.L. Roberts, “The Meaning of Chorizo and Doulon in 1 Cor. 7:10-17,” Restoration Quarterly, VIII:3 [3rd Quarter, 1965], p. 183).

The evidence from the lexicons does not support the conclusion that the “bondage” of the text refers to the marriage bond.

2. The tense of the verb prohibits the verb from referring to the marriage bond. The tense of the verb dictates against the meaning given by brother Bales to “not under bondage.” Brother Bales would have on “not under bondage” from the moment that the believer is deserted by the unbeliever. The tense of the verb makes this impossible.

The tense of the verb is perfect. “The perfect combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist in that it denotes the continuance of a complete action” (Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the N. T. and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 175). The perfect tense of douleo looks back to the time of the marriage. The apostle is saying, “The believer was not bound and is not now bound.” The believer was never and is not now enslaved to the unbeliever. Why? Because marriage is not an institution of slavery.

If “not under bondage” refers to the marriage bond, we should be able to substitute the marriage bond in the place of “not under bondage” and the text express the truth. “Let the reader substitute the word ‘marriage’ for ‘bondage,’ giving the full force to the perfect tense [i.e., ‘has not been married and is not married’] and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as marriage will be readily apparent” (Wayne Jackson, “The ‘Pauline Privilege’ – So Called,” The Beacon [28 March 1985], p. 2). Hence, “not under bondage” does not and cannot refer to the marriage bond.

3. The text can be explained without applying the word “bondage” to the marriage bond. Here are the interpretations given to the verse by various commentators on 1 Corinthians 7:15:

(1) C.K. Barrett: “. . Ahe Christian brother or sister is not enslaved, that is, to a mechanical retention of a relationship the other partner wishes to abandon” (p. 166).

(2) J. Agar Beet: ”To be obligated to force oneself on a reluctant heathen husband or wife, would be a bondage inconsistent with Christian liberty” (p. 118).

(3) G.G. Findlay, Expositor’s Greek Testament: “the stronger vb. of this passage implies that for the repudiated party to continue bound to the repudiator would be slavery . . . . Whether the freedom of the innocent divorced extends to remarriage, does not appear” (p. 827).

(4) H.L. Goudge: “is not under bondage: To continue bound to a heathen, who wishes to repudiate the connection, would be slavery. Whether S. Paul by these words allows remarriage to the Christian may be doubted” (p. 56).

(5) Albert Barnes: “Many have supposed that this means that they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife of husband had gone away. . . But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle” (p. 119).

(6) Robertson & Plummer (ICC): “We cannot safely argue with Luther that ou dedoulatai implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by the heathen partner, may marry again. . . . All that ou dedoulotai clearly means is that he or she need not feel so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation” (p. 143).

(7) Cf. also Fred Fisher (pp. 108,109); H.A.W. Meyer (p. 161); James Moffatt (p. 84); S.T. Bloomfield (Vol. 11, p. 119); Henry Alford (p. 525; though taking many similar positions to those being reviewed, says, “the question of remarrying after such a separation, is here left open”).

Honesty demands that we note that some commentaries do hold that the verse allows the right to remarriage. Commentaries favoring the right to remarriage include the following: T.C. Edwards (pp. 174-175); Leon Morris (Tyndale Com.); Jean Hering (p. 53); Charles Hodge; John Parry (Cambridge Greek N.T., p. 113).

Not A Necessary Inference

The very best that could be argued from this text is that “not under bondage” may be inferred to mean that the marriage bond is broken and the party is free to remarry. This is not a necessary inference. Since “not under bondage” cannot be conclusively proved to mean that the deserted Christian is freed from marriage and has the right to remarriage, one is no more justified in preaching his inference that desertion frees the Christian to marry again than is the infant baptizer who preaches his inference that there were infants baptized in the household of Lydia, which authorizes infant baptism. Both are preaching an inference, but not a necessary inference. Such inferences are mere human opinions which should not be taught.

Conclusion

Men are injecting their own liberal views into the text of 1 Corinthians 7:15 to conclude that this passage authorizes remarriage for a Christian who has been deserted by his unbelieving mate for any reason. Such a view leads to illogical conclusions (see section “If Brother Bales Is Correct”). It is not a necessary inference from the text; rather, it is a mere human inference – an inference with which many respected scholars are disagreed. To begin preaching such a doctrine opens the floodgate to preach any and every inference, necessary or unnecessary, one can make from any text, undermining the plea for the unity of God’s people based on the restoration of the ancient order. Such preaching is a departure from book, chapter, and verse preaching which determines authority from command, example, or necessary inference. Consequently, we reject brother Bales interpretation of “not under bondage” in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 418, 437-438
July 21, 1988

By Weldon E. Warnock

“Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5:14-15).

The preceding verses raise several questions. What is the sickness? Is it physical or spiritual? Why call for the elders? What is the significance of anointing with oil? What is the prayer of faith? On what basis are the sins forgiven of those who are sick? Do these verses apply today? We will endeavor to briefly answer these questions.

Various Views

Several schools of thought are espoused as to the correct interpretation of these passages.

1. The Catholic position is that James is teaching extreme unction. They tell us that extreme unction is a sacrament through which the priest, by prayer and anointing with oil, gives comfort, strength and forgiveness to the soul of the dangerously ill. Unction means anointing or rubbing with oil and this anointing is called extreme or last.

But James said “call for the elders” – not the “priest.” Too, nothing is said about anointing those in preparation of death, but rather anoint those who are sick and the prayer of faith shall save them or make them well. The anointing was toward life, not toward death. Furthermore, the doctrine of extreme unction came along centuries after James penned his epistle.

2. Some claim that spiritual sickness is under consideration. In other words, the person is guilty of sin. But James says of the sick, “if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” The “if” indicates that the sick person may not be guilty of sin. However, the individual to be visited by the elders was sick. Hence, the sickness was not sin.

3. A few maintain that the sickness is weariness of heart. There are two Greek words translated “sick” in these texts. In v. 14 the word is astheneo and in v. 15 it is the word kamno. Though these words can mean “to be weary and despondent in spirit,” the thought there is physical illness.

Arndt and Gingrich define astheneo, “of bodily weakness be sick, and list James 5:14 under the definition (A GreekEnglish Lexicon, p. 115). Thayer says of the same word, “Specially of debility in health . . . simply, to be feeble, sick” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 80). Both lexicons define kamno, “to be sick, be ill.” We conclude that bodily, corporal sickness is intended.

4. A very prevalent view is that miraculous healing was the reason for calling the elders. Guy N. Woods wrote: “It seems quite clear from all the facts in the case that the elders contemplated here were miraculously endowed . . . and were thus enabled to participate in miraculous healing in the manner described” (James, p. 303). Concerning the “anointing” Woods said: “It appears quite clear here that the use of oil was symbolic, and not medicinal; and thus served as a token of the power of God by which healing was accomplished” (p. 301).

5. Another view is that James Is referring to ordinary prayer and the use of oil as a medical means or as a custom. H.E. Phillips wrote: “There is nothing in this passage that indicates the need for miraculous powers on the part of elders in performing their duty. The example which James gives points out the fact that the elders of the church were expected to visit those in need and administer to their needs, either physically or spiritually. . . . Oil was normally used for medicine and would not indicate a miracle in the use of it here” (Scriptural Elders and Deacons, p. 208).

Personal Conclusion

Of the five above positions, only the last two have any merit. The first one, extreme unction, is totally unscriptural. The second position, spiritual healing, is untenable as already shown. The third point, weariness of heart, does not meet the definition of the word “sick.” Of the latter two, it is difficult, if not impossible, to be absolutely sure which one is correct. However, the weight of the evidence makes number five more plausible to me. The reasons are:

1. There is nothing in the text that forces an interpretation of miraculous healing. Though there was a miraculous endowment of faith (1 Cor. 12:9), one has to assume that the “prayer of faith” is that particular gift. The “prayer of faith” could well be the “asking in faith, nothing wavering” (Jas. 1:6).

2. It is assumed that elders had the gift of healing. Nowhere is this taught in the Scriptures.

3. The context seems to favor ordinary prayer. Verse 16 states: “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” James then proceeds to give Elijah as an example of a man whose prayers were answered. If God heard Elijah, he will answer our prayers, even the prayers for the sick (v. 15).

4. The Greek word in v. 14 for “anointing” is “from aleipho and it is the word that refers to the common use of oil, while the word chiro (anoint) has reference to the sacred and symbolic. This is significant. Oil is used, therefore, by James in the common usage, meaning to “oil the body” or “rubbing the body with oil.”

Vine says that aleipho is “a general term used for anointing of any kind, whether physical refreshment after washing . . . or of the sick, Mark 6:13; James 5:14, or a dead body, Mark 16:1. ” He said that chiro “is confined to sacred and symbolic anointings.” James would have apparently used chiro instead of aleipho if the oil was only symbolic.

Olive oil was used widely in the biblical world for medicinal purposes (see Isa. 1:6; Lk. 10:34). Josephus relates that Herod was bathed in a vessel full of oil when he thought he was near death (Ant. 17,6,5).

“The principle taught here is that the elders should first pray that God will forgive and restore health and strength to the man, and that they should use ‘oil,’ or supply medical treatment as is necessary to the sick man’s recovery. . . . .This does not mean that elders are physicians, but they must provide either doctors or medicine that is needed” (Phillips, op. cit., p. 209).

R.C.H. Lenski wrote: “But the use of olive oil upon the body was not restricted to physicians; the Good Samaritan was not a physician, nor did he administer a sacrament. To rub the body with oil was a common practice” (The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James, p. 662). Elders as shepherds of the flock were to minister to the saints as the needs and opportunities arose and today is no exception.

Sins were not (and are not) forgiven or absolved by the elders (v. 15), but if the sick person has committed sins, God will forgive the sins if confession and prayer are offered (v. 16). Saving the sick (v. 15) is the physical healing or curing of the body. A.T. Robertson said: “By ‘save’ here James means ‘cure,’ as it often does in the Gospels (Mark 5:23; 6-56t- 8:35)” (Studies in the Epistle of James, p. 191).

5. The purpose of miracles were confirmatory (Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:3-4), and not accommodative. To say that elders were called by the sick in order to be miraculously healed changes the revealed purpose of miracles. Miraculous healing would then be accommodative instead of confirmatory.

Conclusion.

Admittedly, there are difficulties in the foregoing position, but I feel the evidence tilts the balance toward my conclusion.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 419-420
July 21, 1988