Truth Magazine

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

By Jamie Sloan

The Bible class teacher came to “rejoice in the Lord always” of Philippians 4:7. He emphasized “Rejoice always. ” As he looked into the sober faces of those who were seriously seeking an understanding of the will of heaven, he began to rebuke them for their failure to “‘rejoice and be happy.” The class seemed bewildered, unconvinced of their sin, but faced with a biblical injunction that somehow must be understood and applied. They felt, with Job, “. . . But your reproof, what doth it reprove?” (Job 6:25)

Then, too there are those Old and New Testament passages that promise “happiness.” “He that giveth heed unto the word shall find good; And whoso trusteth in Jehovah, happy is he” (Prov. 16:20). And, do we not usually give “happy” as a synonym for “blessed” in the beatitudes? Are these passages obligating us to an eternally light-hearted outward demeanor? Does “happy” really mean “happy-go-lucky”? Is a serious and sober facial expression an indictment of one’s trust in the Lord and proof of a failure to count your blessings? These questions illustrate that we need some light shed on this subject – some words need defining and some biblical conclusions need to form our concept of “joy” and “happiness.”

The bulletin of the “Positive Mental Attitude Church of Christ” typically begins in this fashion: “We just want to praise the Lord for the wonderful service we had Sunday at PMA, and for the great joy and love that flooded our assembly, and for the presence of the Holy Spirit that so vibrantly filled our hearts” (ad nauseath). These brethren believe that average is the unpardonable sin and that rebuke is the sin that “it is a shame to even speak of.” Surely to them Jeremiah must have been mentally ill, Amos was an inexcusable radical, and Paul should have never written 1 Corinthians.

I charge that these folks have not discovered the real joy and happiness that is described in the New Testament. It does not mean to be favored by circumstances in this world so that our lives are pleasant and joyous. It does not always manifest itself in outward feelings of joy, pleasure, happiness, etc. It is not the universal emotion required in every situation. Paul says to “rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15). Surely no one would accuse the Lord of failing to rejoice and be happy while he is in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary. He is not failing to “count his blessings”!

I believe some of us, while we are in our prime of life with perfect health, an abundance of material blessings, and the absence of opposition and persecution, tend to see joy and happiness in too mundane a way. Peter prepares Christians for persecution in 1 Peter 4:12-16. They are not to be surprised by it (v. 12a) and they are to rejoice because of it (v. 13). Does he mean to enjoy the experience, to laugh and shout with great exultation? Hardly. The joy and blessedness here is a mental evaluation and appreciation of the effects brought about by bearing up under the suffering. It is a privilege that comes to us as a result (v. 14); and there is glory for God in the experience (v. 15). Then, at the end when his glory is revealed, “ye may rejoice with exceeding joy” (v. 13b). William Barclay says about “joy”: “. . the characteristic of this word is that it most often describes that joy which has a basis in religion and whose foundation is God. It is not the joy that comes from earthly things or cheap triumphs over someone else in rivalry or competition. It is a joy whose basis is God” (The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, p. 55). “Happy” and “happiness” have likewise been abused. The concept is not one of “feeling of pleasure and contentment because of favorable life circumstances.” When we substitute “happy” for “blessed” in the beatitudes, we may actually be directing attention away from the meaning of the passage. There is a blessing placed on the “poor in spirit” in Matthew 5:3. That blessing is that “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” So, in all of them. Again, Jesus places a blessing upon those who are persecuted (vv. 10-12). He tells them to “rejoice and be exceeding glad” (v. 12). But, again, this does not mean to enjoy the experience. We are not “spiritual masochists.” The suffering Christian is to glory in the greatness of his reward in heaven, and the identity with the great men who have suffered before (v. 12).

I am thankful for the favorable circumstances that have characterized my life to this point. However, I must not conclude that I have the “right to the pursuit of happiness.” I my need the lessons that adversity and pain teach more than I “need a bed of roses.” When I count my blessings, I wonder if such suffering would even be on my list, must less at the top (Acts 5:41).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, p. 404
July 7, 1988

By Wayne Greeson

(Editor’s Note: Brother Greeson is an attorney, Christians are to obey the government because it is orqualified to write on this subject both from a legal and dained by God and to disobey the government is to biblical point of view.) disobey God (Rom. 13:2). “Therefore you must be sub ject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’s sake” (Rom. 13:5).

The presence of a copy machine in church buildings has become commonplace. While the copy machine has become an excellent tool, at the same time it has provided for some a convenient means of stealing the fruits of the labors of others. It has become a common practice in some congregations for Bible class teachers to purchase one class workbook and then use the copy machine to make multiple copies of each lesson to pass out to the students in the class. Other similar abuses of the copy machine abound. Instead of buying class books, magazines or other books and materials, the copy machine is used to make copies and “save money.”

A Lack of Common Courtesy

The attitude of those who use the copy machine to make multiple copies of another’s material displays a distasteful lack of common respect and courtesy for those who wrote and published the material. An author spends many hours preparing his or her material. The commitment to publish material usually includes not only much time but also considerable expense.

The initial investment to print and publish a book can be substantial. The publication of a vast majority of books, workbooks, magazines and publications prepared by and for members of the church is generally a money-losing proposition. There are no Christians raking in huge profits from the sale of their books or materials. Instead, good Bible class material is often published at a sacrifice by Christians seeking to help other Christians in their study of God’s Word.

Because class workbooks, magazines, and other books costs money to write, produce and distribute, these materials are priced so that those who wish to use them might share a small portion of the cost. When one uses a copy machine to avoid paying his fair share of the costs of producing written materials, what he is doing in effect is placing a greater financial burden on the authors and publishers. How little regard or consideration this shows towards those who have spent many hours and dollars that we might have good Bible class material. Brethren, this ought not to be.

The Copyright Law

Making multiple copies of published materials is not only discourteous, but it can be against the law. Christians should have the utmost respect for the laws that govern our nation. Paul instructed, “Let every soul be subject unto the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). The laws governing the rights of authors and the use of published material (including written, audio, visual works) are found in the Copyright Act. There seems to be a lot of ignorance concerning the copyright laws and when the use of certain published material is a violation of these laws and when it is not a violation. While some simply ignore these laws and copy whatever they want, others have gone to the other extreme and failed to recognize the “fair use” provisions of the law.

What Is Copyright Protected Material?

Under the Copyright Law not every printed or published material is protected by law. For material to be copyrighted, it must first meet some very basic and simple guidelines. When material is placed before the public it must bear a copyright notice. This notice is to include the names of the copyright owner, the year of publication and the symbol @ or the word “copy” or “copyright.” It is not necessary to register with the Copyright Office for material to be copyrighted. Registration is only necessary when an author seeks remedies for copyright infringement.

A copyright owner acquires the exclusive rights to reproduce copies of the copyrighted work; prepare derivative works; distribute copies of the work by sale, rental, lease or lending; publicly display or perform the work if it is a visual work.

If a written, audio or visual work is placed before the public without the proper copyright notice, then it is not copyrighted nor is it possible to copyright the material as an afterthought. Under the law, once material has been put out publicly without a copyright notice, it has entered the public domain and is available for copy or publication by anyone.

However, just because some material prepared by Christians does not bear a copyright notice and is not protected by the copyright law, does not necessarily mean other Christians should freely and indiscriminately copy such material. Whether or not certain materials are legally copyright protected, does not excuse Christians from recognizing a higher standard of respect and courtesy towards the rights of others.

Fair Use

While the rights of a copyright owner are exclusive, they are not absolute. Some believe wrongly that it is illegal to copy any portion of copyrighted material for any purpose. There are some circumstances under which the copying, quoting and/or using a copyright material is permissible. This permissible use of copyrighted material is called “Fair Use.”

One “fair use” of copyrighted material is the use of excerpts for the purpose of critique or review. Recently a Christian reviewing a denominational publication wrongly indicated he could not cite the publication because it was copyrighted. One does not violate the copyright laws by quoting or using selections from copyrighted material, when the purpose is to examine or review the material. This means that if I write a review of copyrighted material of the Catholic church, of institutional brethren or even my own brethren, I am not violating the law when I quote or use excerpts from their material.

One can imagine the problems if portions of copyrighted material could not be used in critical reviews. An author could use his copyright to prevent critiques or reviews of his material or his doctrine that he did not like. He could cry copyright violation and intimidate or harass reviewers he did not like. Fortunately, this is not the law.

Another important “fair use” of copyrighted material concerns teachers and preachers. In preparing to teach a class, the law allows a teacher to make a single copy of research of one chapter from a book, a single article from a periodical, a short story or poem or a chart diagram, cartoon, drawing or picture.

One copy for each student may be made of certain copyrighted material following certain guidelines. The material must be brief, no more than 250 words of a poem, and no more than 1,000 words or 10 percent of a story, article or essay. No more than three items may be copied from the same collective work or volume during one class term. Further, no more than nine instances of multiple copies are to be used for one course during a class term. Copying a work to be used in several courses is not fair use of the material and a teacher cannot copy the same item from one term to another.

Some uses of copyrighted material is prohibited regardless of permissible uses. Compilations or collective works created by copying copyrighted material is prohibited. The most important prohibition is particularly important for Christians and churches to note: Making copies must not substitute for the purchase of books, periodicals, or reprints. This is specifically applicable to the duplication of “consumable” materials such as class workbooks.

Don’t Forget God’s Law

Making multiple copies of published material such as class workbooks, magazines and books is not only against the civil law, it is also against God’s law. When one makes copies of published material, he is not just “saving money” for himself, he is also taking money from others who worked to publish that material.

Authors and publishers who have worked investing their time and money to publish material have a right to be paid for their work. The Scriptures repeatedly teach “the laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18; 1 Cor. 9:14; Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15; Matt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7). The failure to pay one for the work he has performed is theft and an offense against men and God (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15; Jas. 5:4).

The law of Moses clearly states, “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. 20:15; Lev. 19:11; Deut. 5:19). The penalties for theft required a two to five-fold restitution (Ex. 22:1,4). God’s prohibition against theft is still in force under the new covenant of Christ. “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there by any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself” (Rom. 13:9). The apostle Paul warns that thieves shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10).

For a preacher or Bible class teacher to pass out xeroxed copies of a class workbook or commentary and then teach from the Scriptures is hypocrisy and a sad fulfillment of Paul’s warning. “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” (Rom. 2:21)

Brethren, please do not misuse the copy machine. Do not violate the laws of men and God and show some courtesy to those brothers and sisters in Christ who sacrifice to provide Bible class materials. “Let him that stole steal no more” (Eph. 4:28).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 400-401
July 7, 1988