Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Living in a society which marries in order to divorce and divorces in order to marry, we should expect that this low view of marriage would spill over into the church. What Jesus taught about marriage is disregarded in this society to the extent that half of all marriages end in divorce. Without regard to the legislation of God, men enter marriage. We should expect that some would want to accommodate the Scriptures to those who have shown no regard for what God legislated concerning marriage.

Jesus revealed God’s law regarding marriage in Matthew 19:9. He said,

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.

The clear teaching of this passage seems obvious: (a) The one who divorces his mate for some reason other than fornication and marries another commits adultery; (b) The one who marries a person who has been divorced commits adultery; (c) The one who divorces his mate for fornication and remarries does not commit adultery. Adultery must be stopped in order for one to go to heaven (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Consequently, those who are committing adultery (as is the case in a marriage following the divorce for some reason other than fornication) must break the sinful relationship in order to go to heaven.

Some have not been content with this teaching. Consequently, they have undermined the teaching of Matthew 19:9 in these ways: (a) redefining adultery to mean “divorcing and remarrying”; (b) limiting the application of Matthew 19:9 to Christians; (c) combining (a) and (b). When adultery is redefined to mean “divorcing and remarrying,” those guilty of divorcing their mate for some reason other than fornication and remarrying are told to repent of “divorcing and remarrying, ” resolve never to “divorce and remarry” again, and stay married to the present mate. This position was reviewed in the last issue of this paper. Those who limit the application of Matthew 19:9 to Christians tell those unbelievers who remarried following a divorce for some reason other than fornication and who desire to become Christians to stay married to the mate they are living with at the time they become Christians. Those who combine (a) and (b) say that those Christians who divorce for some reason other than fornication and remarry should repent of “divorcing and remarrying,” resolve never to “divorce and remarry again,” and stay with their present mate. In this article, I want to examine the position that limits the application of Matthew 19:9 to Christians.

James D. Bales: Not Under Bondage

In 1979, James D. Bales issued his book Not Under Bondage which affirms that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to nonChristians. Already the influence of this book is being felt among brethren who oppose church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church, and church supported recreation. Bales wrote,

Christ’s legislation had reference to two people in the covenant who are married, but not with mixed marriages. Paul legislated on a different category of marriages, i.e., the mixed marriages. Neither legislated on marriages in the world (Not Under Bondage, pp. 40-41).

Hence, the alien sinner is not bound by Matthew 19:9. Christians should not be concerned about the marital status of any non-Christian they try to convert because he is not obligated to obey Matthew 19:9.

If Bales Is Correct, Then . . .

If brother Bales is correct in his understanding that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to non-Christians, there are several conclusions which follow:

1. There is no marriage law which applies to non-Christians. He stated that non-Christians live under “the law written on the heart (Rom. 2:14-15). ” However, brother Bales did not define what the law written on the heart was. He did not give us the details of that law, neither can he. Rather, the vague and ambiguous law “written on the heart” reduces God’s law governing non-Christians to every man’s conscience. A man is married or not married based on whether or not he thinks that he is.

2. What should be done with aliens who refuse to live according to the law written on the heart? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter a polygamous relationship later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his polygamous marriage? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter a homosexual “marriage” later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his homosexuality “marriage”? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter an incestuous marriage(1) later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his incestuous marriage? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter a communal marriage later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his communal marriage? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter an adulterous marriage(2) later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his adulterous marriage?

If brother Bales states that the non-Christian does not have to cease his polygamous, homosexual, incestuous, communal, and/or adulterous marriage in order to be saved because the law of Christ does not apply to non-Christians, let him go on record in this regard. The law of Christ is no more or less retroactive to the one sinner than the other. However, one should clearly recognize that whatever rule applies to one of these sins applies to the others as well.

If brother Bales states that the Bible specifically condemns polygamy, homosexuality, incest, etc., he will also take note that it condemns adultery (1 Cor. 6:9). If he states that adultery is not a part of the law “written on the heart,” let him produce the “law written on the heart” in order that we can see whether or not it is part of that law. His arbitrary, subjective assertions are insufficient.

3. Matthew 19:9 cannot be used to authorize a divorce for fornication for non-Christian marriages or mixed marriages. Brother Bales’ doctrine that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to unbelievers and Christians in a mixed marriage is a two-edged sword. If that is the case, then a Christian cannot divorce his unbelieving mate for fornication and marry again, as Matthew 19:9 authorizes. In the case of a Christian who is married to a non-Christian who commits fornication against him but is content to dwell with him (the non-Christian does not want a divorce, he just wants to play around every once in a while), the Christian cannot put away his unbelieving mate for fornication and remarry. Rather, he must be content to dwell with her. Furthermore, in a marriage of two unbelievers, the innocent unbeliever could not put away the unbeliever guilty of fornication and remarry because Matthew 19:9 does not apply to them. If brother Bales states that two unbelievers can divorce for fornication and remarry, he needs to produce the passage from the law “written on the heart” to prove that they can; otherwise, we are left with his arbitrary assertion to that effect.

4. Non-Christians could not be guilty of adultery. If non-Christians are not governed by God’s marriage law, how could they commit adultery? Adultery refers to a sexual relationship with someone other than one’s wife. If God’s marriage law does not apply to non-Christians, how could it be violated? Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 6:9 indicates that adultery was committed by non-Christians. Hence, the marriage law must have been applicable to them.

5. The doctrine leads to nonsense. Suppose a Christian divorced his mate for some reason other than fornication and married an unbeliever. The unbeliever is not bound by God’s marriage law but the Christian is. Hence, if the Christian divorces his mate for some reason other than fornication and marries again, he commits adultery when he enters the sexual relationship of the marriage. However, the unbeliever is not bound by Matthew 19:9. When he enters the sexual relationship of the marriage, adultery is not committed. Hence, two people engage in the one sexual relationship; for one the relationship is adultery and for the other it is not. This is nonsense.(3)

Examining The Evidence

Let us see whether or not brother Bales can prove that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to the non-Christian. Brother Bales states that in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 Paul interpreted Matthew 19:9 to limit “whosoever” of Matthew 19:9 to two Christians in a marriage (p. 27).

I accept the Spirit’s harmony of Matthew 19:9 with 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. Christ’s legislation had reference to two people in the covenant who are married, but not with mixed marriages. Paul legislated on a different category of marriages, i.e., the mixed marriages. Neither legislated on marriages in the world (p. 41).

Let us examine this thesis.

1. Matthew 19.9. The teaching of Matthew 19:9 was spoken by Jesus to “great multitudes” from the coasts of Judea and beyond Jordan (19:2-3). The ones who asked the question were Pharisees whose motive was to tempt Jesus (19:3). Surely these are the men of whom Paul said, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Hence, these Israelites were neither Christians nor saved. If the teachings of Matthew 19:9 applied to these unsaved non-Christians, they should also apply to unsaved non-Christians today.

The word “whosoever” also universalizes the passage. Jesus said, “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.” Compare these other passages which use “whosoever”:

Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin (Jn. 8:32). Does this apply only to Christians?

Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely (Rev. 22:17). Does this invitation only extend to Christians?

The word “whosoever” points to the universal application of the law of Christ.

Furthermore the law of Christ is addressed to every creature of every nation (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-15). Paul applied the same gospel to all men everywhere (Acts 17:30). This stands in contrast with the law of Moses which was given to the house of Israel (Deut. 5:1-5). The law of Christ cannot be broken into separate parts to be applied as one judges best to different groups of people. The gospel is one gospel – a unit to be applied to all men everywhere. If one is going to divide the gospel into parts to apply to different people in different situations, he should give us the criteria he uses to make these divisions in the gospel. How does he determine which verse applies to Christians and which applies to non-Christians? Does “thou shalt not kill” only apply to Christians? Does “honor thy father and thy mother” apply to both? By what criteria do we determine which parts of the gospel apply to non-Christians? The truth is that the gospel – all of the gospel – applies with equal force to all men!

2. 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. This discussion revolves around one’s understanding of this critical passage. Here is what the passage says:

And unto the married I command, yet not 1, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak 1, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

From the text, brother Bales draws the inference that Paul limits the application of Matthew 19:9 to two married Christians when he writes “unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord.” By the statement “but to the rest speak I, not the Lord” Paul refers to Christians married to non-Christians to which Matthew 19:9 does not apply. Then he adds that neither speaks anything regarding two unbelievers in a marriage.

The text is divided into these categories:

a. The unmarried (vv. 8-9). Paul advises the unmarried and widows not to marry in view of the present distress. Nevertheless, he does not forbid marriage. In the event that these people should decide to get married, Matthew 19:9 would apply to them.

b. The married (vv. 10-11). Brother Bales is correct in referring the teachings of Matthew 19:9 to the personal instruction of the Lord which Paul here applies. The law of the Lord was: (a) Let not the wife depart from the husband; (b) Let not the husband put away his wife; (c) If she departs (chorizo: to divorce), let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.(4)Like Luke 16:18, Romans 7:3-4, and 1 Corinthians 7:39, this passage does not consider the “except for fornication” clause of Matthew 19:9.

c. The mixed marriages (vv. 12-15). The discussion of these verses is applied to Christians married to non-Christians. The law is the same for mixed marriages as for all other marriages.(5)(a) “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not . . . let not the husband put her away” (7:12; cf. 7:11) and (b) “the woman which hath a husband . . . let her not leave him” (7:13; cf. 7:10). This coincides with the teaching of Matthew 19:9.

However, the question which Paul is addressing is different from the one which the Lord addressed. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus was answering the question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (19:4) Paul is answering the question, “Is the Christian obligated to divorce his non-Christian mate?” This question is based on the Old Testament command that the Jew not marry a non-Jew and the obligation to put away the foreign mate in the event that such a marriage had occurred. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, this commandment was enforced by the people of God (Ezra 9:1-3; 10:3,11,44; Neh. 13:23-31). The Corinthian Christians apparently asked Paul if they were obligated to put away their non-Christian companions. Paul responded saying, (a) “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (7:14) and (b) the children of such a marriage which before had been unclean are now holy (7:14). Hence, the Christian should not put away his unbelieving companion.

The Lord had not directly answered this question while on earth. The Lord could not have answered the question because the Old Law specifically instructed what Jews who were married to non-Jews were to do in such marriages. The New Law changed this ordinance completely. Hence, Paul said, “To the rest speak I, not the Lord” (7:12).

Conclusion

There is nothing inconsistent in these verses with the command of Matthew 19:9. There is nothing in these verses which demands that Matthew be applicable only to the marriage of two Christians. Hence, neither the context of Matthew 19 nor I Corinthians 7:10-15 demands that Matthew 19:9 be applied only to two Christians. The teaching of Matthew 19:9 is not limited to two Christians; it applies to all of mankind.

Endnotes

1. By incestuous marriage, I refer to a marriage such as Herod was in when he married his brother Philip’s wife; John the Baptist said, “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mk. 6:18).

2. I refer to a marriage entered after a divorce for some cause other than fornication.

3. Brother Bales sought to answer this objection on pp. 191-193 of his book by saying, “An unbeliever is not free to marry a believer who is not free to marry. . . . ” This leads to the conclusion that the unbeliever must learn God’s law of marriage to conclude whether or not his prospective mate is free to marry. Suppose he goes ahead and marries anyway. Would he then be obligated to break the relationship should he decide to become a Christian? If so, then God’s law of marriage does apply to him. If not, then the one sexual relationship can be acceptable for one party but not acceptable for the other in the eyes of God.

4. This assumes that the divorce is not for fornication. In a divorce not for fornication, the parties are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. This constitutes inspired commentary on the application of Matthew 19:9 in a divorce not for fornication. The two are to remain unmarried. When this advice is given today, some protest stating that one is teaching celibacy, practicing penance, under the influence of Catholic dogma, etc. Nevertheless, Paul’s inspired commentary was “remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.”

5. The exception which Bales would take to this is based on his understanding of “not under bondage.”

(The next article will discuss “not under bondage.”)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 386, 405-407
July 7, 1988

By Robert C. Welch

“I have traveled over the nation and somewhat over the world and have visited many churches, but I want to know whether or not you are ecumenical.”

That is a hard question to answer with just a yes or no. Too many things are involved and too many ideas exist as to what the word means. Perhaps you need to explain just what you mean.

“First, then, let me ask if you belong to a world wide organization or denomination.”

There are churches of Christ like this congregation scattered over the nation and over the world. But they are not part of denomination or organization. Each congregation is complete and autonomous. No function of worship, work or government, depends upon, or is connected with, another congregation. If you ask about my personal relationship, I belong to Christ, as do all others who have been born again; thus all of us are subjects of his kingdom, or members of his body, making up his ecclesid or church. In this last sense I am ecumenical or universal. But if you refer to the congregation or church wherein I worship and work, it is not ecumenical; that is, it is not a part of a denominational organization.

“Do you not think that all the churches and all those who believe in Christ are in the one church universal?”

That is the thinking of most of those who belong to Protestant denominations. But it is not a biblical concept. Roman Catholics have traditionally held that they are the universal or ecumenical church. In recent years they are not so strongly stressing that, but are yielding to the usual denominational idea. The fact is the Bible teaches that not all who say they believe in Christ are actually acceptable to him. In that great sermon on the mount he said: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:21-23). So the field of your ecumenism. is narrowed. Only those who are staying within the word (versus iniquity) in what they do make up the Lord’s people.

“But you did not deal with my question about all denominations making up the whole of the church. Is not each denomination a part of the world wide or ecumenical church?”

That is not the way it is presented in the Bible. Jesus gave a parable of the vine and its branches for the disciples, and our, benefit. In its application he says, “I am the vine” (John 15:5). Then he says to those disciples, “Ye are the branches” (v. 5). Lest they and people today think that because the plural is used this includes the denominations he goes on to specify what the branch is: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6). The branches are not denominations. The branches are disciples. They are to abide in Christ; not to be in a denomination which in turn is in him. The Bible says nothing about denominations. They are the product of man’s doctrine, one of those works which the Lord condemns in Matthew 7:21-23, the passage we cited earlier.

“I have been reading where some churches of Christ and some Christian Churches have been getting together to study about having unity; are you not even that ecumenical?”

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that two or more churches are to have unity unless they are to become one congregation. As has already been said, one congregation has no organic or organizational connection with any other. This notion of ecumenicity is the denominational concept of a federation of churches, and has no basis in Bible teaching.

As a Christian, I may go about among other Christians and churches of Christ, having fellowship or partnership with them in worship and work. There is nothing said in the Bible, however, which gives me the right to make any arrangements for some connection between the congregation of which I am a member and some other congregation, because no such organic connection is provided.

– Reprinted from the Northern Kentucky Light

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, p. 389
July 7, 1988

By J.F. Dancer, Jr.

During the week of March 7 1 heard a debate in West Point, Mississippi, where Darrell Holt defended churches making donations to institutions such as Magnolia Bible College. Brother Holt made the following arguments in the defense of his position: (1) The Bible teaches in four ways: (a) example, (b) implication, (c) direct command, and (d) expediency. He further said that “expediencies” were not spelled out in the Bible, that they were left up to the judgment of men. Since Jesus commanded teaching (Matt. 28:18,19) and we have an example of early Christians teaching (Acts 8:4) and since Magnolia Bible College teaches the Bible it is expedient for churches to make donations to it. And, (2) Paul taught daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9,10). Churches supported Paul while he was teaching in this school. Therefore, it is scriptural for churches to send donations to Magnolia Bible College for the support of men who are teaching the Bible daily in that school.

Roosevelt Johnson pointed out that while it is true that Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus for two years, it is an assumption that he was supported by the church while he did so. And, even if churches did support him while he taught in the school of Tyrannus, it is an assumption that they sent donations to the school for this to be done. He said that he (Roosevelt Johnson) taught a Bible class in the Mississippi University for Women at Columbus and that the church supported him as he did that but that did not mean they made a donation to the University for his support. His point was well made in that they sent the support to him!

It was also pointed out that in order for something to be expedient in the first place it has to be lawful and that brother Holt had not shown a church donation to a human institution was lawful. Brother Johnson pointed out that an expedient is simply an aid or method and that the Bible authorizes us to use aids and/or methods in carrying out the commands of God. But the command authorizes the aid and/or method! Thus, an expediency can be authorized by either an approved example, a necessary inference or a direct statement or command, but an expediency does not authorize anything!

In order to show it is expedient for churches to send donations to Magnolia Bible College, one must show it lawful for churches to make donations to human institutions. The church is to teach the Bible (1 Tim. 3:15). Individuals must go forth to do that teaching (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 8:4). They have the right to be supported by a church or churches as they teach or preach the Bible (1 Cor. 9:14; 2 Cor. 11:8). So far as I know few folks deny this. This authorizes churches to use an expedient method or aid to get the money to the preacher. But it does not authorize them to make a donation to a human institution so it (the institution) can pick a man to support, decide upon his salary, and then support him. This is not a matter of a church using an expediency but simply of a church making a donation to an institution that uses expediencies to support a man to teach the Bible in one of their classrooms.

To give a preacher a check for his support would be an expediency. To send this check to him via the United States Post Office would also be an expediency. It would also be expedient for the church to arrange an “electronic transfer of funds” from their bank to the bank of the man they are supporting. This is simply a church using means and/or methods (aids) in getting the support to the preacher. All such is authorized by the authority of the church to support a man as he teaches or preaches. But to make a donation to a human institution and then allow that human institution to choose the man, decide upon his support and then use some means and/or methods to get that support to him is another matter and is not authorized by the Scriptures. Brother Holt affirmed Magnolia to be a human institution but failed to show authority for church donations.

Maybe one of those in authority at Magnolia Bible College could do a better job showing where the Bible authorizes churches to send donations to them in order for them to do their work. If their work is based upon “assumptions” (assuming Paul was supported churches when he taught in the school of Tyrannus and assuming the. churches sent the support to the school instead of to Paul) and upon the idea that “the Bible teaches by expediency,” they need to take another good look at it! And if this is what they are teaching the men they are “training to preach” churches would do well to examine them well before giving them support or providing them a pulpit from which to preach. If brother Holt didn’t fairly represent Magnolia Bible College, will they do it themselves?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 387-388
July 7, 1988

By Larry Ray Hafley

Whether man acknowledges it or not, God possesses three relationships to him. These are: (1) Creator and Sustainer, (2) Redeemer and Savior, (3) Judge and Executioner. The Bible’s fabric is woven on the loom of this sacred trio. Nearly all major themes of Scripture have these facts as their foundation, if not their substance. Try your hands at disputing and disproving it if you doubt or deny it.

I. Creator and Sustainer

When God reproved his people, when he warned and admonished them, he often appealed to his office as Creator and Sustainer to justify his majesty and mastery and to humble the defiant (Isa. 40; Psa. 73; 90; 139). Paul’s awesome and fearful condemnation of the alien mind is justified “because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful. . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more (rather) than the Creator” (Rom. 1:21,25).

We live in a world of unbelief. Men, like animals, go about their pursuits with no thought of their origin, let alone their destiny. Men and societies generally conduct themselves in accord with the concept they have of their nature. Again, in Romans 1, the degradation of body and soul did not commence until men cast God out of their thinking “and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man” (Rom. 1: 18-32). It should not, therefore, be surprising to us today when we see, hear and read of the ungodliness, unrighteousness and gross, blatant immorality that surrounds us. Our society is merely reaping the harvest of its philosophies. Entertainment mediums and worldly life styles simply reflect the road and route men will travel when they have no respect or regard for their Creator and Sustainer. If we are the offspring, not of God, but of blind, random, aimless, mindless evolutionary processes, then our behavior will have no base, nor root, no anchor.

The only way to lead men from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God, is to cause them to know that God is their Father, their Support, and that in him “we live, move and have our very being. ” The man or nation that does not admit it cannot be led to repentance.

II. Redeemer and Savior

Closely linked to the view of Creator and Sustainer is that of Redeemer and Savior. Man recognizes his need for salvation. His level of consciousness concerning deliverance, however, is inextricably welded to this ideas of himself. Liberal theology seeks for redemption from human miseries, i.e., ignorance, poverty and disease. The religion that will not begin with God rather than man, with the spirit rather than the flesh, with the mind rather than matter will always strive for man’s needs, the flesh’s desires and matter’s preeminence.

Consequently, Paul’s appeal to humanistic, heathen pagans often began with “God that made the world and all things therein” (Acts 17:24). Scripture reveals that man cannot aspire to the gospel’s “eternal life” until he is cognizant of his position before his Creator and Sustainer (cf. Acts 14:15-17). The summons to repentance falls on uncircumcised hearts and ears when the audience does not know God as its author, father and provider. Preaching to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers avails nothing until, or unless, their minds comprehend the true nature of “The Unknown Go (Acts 17:18ff.). So, in a world where man is the consequence of accidental evolution, the preaching of the cross is foolishness. Those “whose God is their belly” can only respond to a gospel that is of the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes and the pride of life. Spiritual socialism breeds and feeds in the warm climate of atheism and humanism. To see God as Redeemer and Savior, one first must see him as Creator and Sustainer.

III. Judge and Executioner

“There is one . . . who is able to save and to destroy” (Jas. 4:12). “And fear not them which are able to kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matt. 10:28).

What has the carnal mind of unbelief to fear? It is oblivious to a judge and an executioner. It is unaware of a reckoning before a bar of justice. It is blind to the stroke of an executor, one who is sufficient to carry out the sentence of a judge. Do you not see the fiber of our fabric braiding and interweaving itself? If man knows no Creator, he knows no Redeemer; if he knows no Redeemer, he knows no Judge.

Conscience and societal mores are the only judges that unbelief acknowledges. But what of conscience, what of society does he have to dread or fear? If he can numb his conscience and escape society’s clout, he avoids execution?

One’s care or concern for judgment is only as deep as his reverence for his judge and executioner. There are potential flaws and weaknesses in all courts of justice. (a) A judge may be bribed. (2) A judge may be prejudiced for or against. (3) A judge may be deceived. (4) A judge may neglect the execution of his verdict. (5) A judge may be reversed. (6) A judge may have the government, on which his jurisdiction rests, overthrown. (7) A judge may die before he can carry out the sentence of his court. (8) A defendant may escape from his captors and avoid judgment. With these possibilities, the unbeliever faces odds in his favor. It is only when he sees his Creator’s true power and his Redeemer’s real love that he is able to tremble before the unquenchable, consuming fire of Divine Judgment and certain execution!

It is not by coincidence that Psalm % exalts God as Creator, Redeemer and Judge. (1) “The Lord made the heavens.” (2) “Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: bring an offering and come into his courts. . . the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.” (3) “He shall judge the people righteously . . . for he cometh to judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.” This is the course Paul pursued. (1) “God that made the word . . . giveth to all life and breath and all things . . . and (2) now commandeth all men everywhere to repent (thus accepting him as Savior); (3) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world.”

The assurance, the guarantee of judgment is the empty tomb. Objector: “So, God created the world. What then?” Reply: “You must repent.” Objector: “But why should I repent?” Reply: “Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world.” Objector: “How do I know there will be such a judgment?” Reply: “Whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

Summation

Our task, then, is to show men their Maker, point them to their Savior and confront them with their Judge, Jury and Executioner. It is a domino relationship with eternal consequences. It must be preached with reason, force and passion. “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech” (2 Cor. 3:12). “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 398-399
July 7, 1988