Truth Magazine

By Garreth L. Clair

In this ninth lesson in this series we want to continue the study of terms used to define certain characteristics of the New Testament church. In discussing the two characteristics of this article, “a bride” and “a family,” we suggest that you first reread article number 8 (the last article in this series). As you will observe, the two characteristics in this study are important to a proper knowledge of the function of the ekklesia of God.

The Bride Characteristic

From the readings in Revelation 19:7 and John 3:29 it is apparent that the bride/groom concept is to be understood as similar to the relationship that Christ sustains to his church (i.e. his Bride). That the church is his bride is clearly seen when one compares the readings of Revelation 19:7 and that in 21:9-27. This concept is well described by John T. Hines in his commentary on the Revelation (pp. 266, 267).

“The reason given here for rejoicing is that the ‘marriage’ of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” The meaning is that the coming of the Lord to receive the prepared church is similar to a bridegroom coming for his bride. Marriage, as a symbol or illustration, is used four times in the New Testament, but each time to teach a different lesson – that is, some phase of marriage is used to illustrate a special feature of the relationship of saved people to Christ.

1. Romans 7:4 and Ephesians 5:22,23 show that the relationship of individuals, and the church as a whole, to Christ now is comparable to the natural relationship of marriage; therefore the saved are correctly represented as being spiritually married to Christ.

2. In Matthew 22:1-14 the idea of a marriage feast is presented, and saved people are represented as guests. Nothing in the parable represents the wife, for the reason that the parable is constructed to teach the necessity of proper character. This is better done by the idea of guests suitably dressed.

3. In Matthew 25:1-13 the lesson is sufficient preparation for the Lord’s coming in order to be ready. This is best presented by representing the saved as wise and foolish virgins. But in the parable these virgins are not the bride; in the application they represent the two elements of the church. Again, the bride is left out of the parable, yet the church is the bride or wife.

In our text the lesson is the joy of being prepared for that eternal home Jesus has prepared for his own. This is like the joy of a bride going to the home prepared for her. These are the lessons based upon marriage as a symbol, and must not be confused, for all of them are true.

The Family

From a number of passages of Scripture we are made aware of the family feature of the church, another characteristic of man’s relationship to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit within the church of Christ. From those passages found in Ephesians 3:15; 1 Timothy 3:15; Acts 16:31; 10:2; Romans 8:7; etc. it is clear that the family feature is another way God shows his relationship to the saved. Please observe the following ideas contained in the concept (perhaps others may also be found in the figure).

Since God looks upon his people as a family, we therefore possess certain characteristics (i.e., family traits):

1. In the first place the family is a very old family as is evident that it had its origin nearly 2,000 years ago in the city of Jerusalem according to Acts 2.

2. Secondly, the family of which all Christians are a part is to be a unified family in everything:

A. Ephesians 3:9: “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ” (in fellowship).

B. Ephesians 4:4: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (in worship of the only true God).

C. Ephesians 4:3: “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” (in spirit).

3. In the third place the family is a very large family according to Revelation 7:9. “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.”

4. In the fourth place the family of God is a family of great dignity as attested to by Paul in Romans 8:17: “And if children, then heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.”

5. In the fifth place the family of God has a future home of extreme beauty and grandeur:

A. John 14:1-3: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

B. Read also Revelation 21:9-27 (a description of that marvelous city of the children in God’s family).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 358
June 16, 1988

By Mike Willis

Living. in a culture in which divorce is the end of half of all marriages, Christians should expect that the problem of divorce would spill over into the church. As Christians have faced the problem of divorce among the membership of the local church, they have witnessed the devastation which it has wrought. Not all have turned to the Bible to let it guide them in reference to marital problems. Some have entered marriages without regard for what the Bible says. Some years later, those who entered marriages without regard to the will of God decide that they want to be accepted by God. Then, they consult what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage.

Some preachers, elders, deacons, and teachers have not been content to allow the Scriptures to mean what Jesus said. Consequently, they have reinterpreted the Scriptures to relax the standards which Jesus taught concerning divorce and remarriage. Such is the case with reference to the various views which have been espoused to evade the teaching of Matthew 19:9. There 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. “

The force of this passage is obvious to the average reader. The man who divorces his wife for some reason other than fornication and then remarries is guilty of adultery. Those guilty of adultery must cease the practice of their sin in order to go to heaven. Hence, the adultery must be stopped if one desires to go to heaven.

This teaching is much too strict for some people. Consequently, Matthew 19:9 must be reinterpreted to fit a less strict point of view. This has been done in two ways: (1) to redefine “adultery”; (2) to limit Matthew 19:9 to Christians. I want to consider the former of these positions in this article and the latter in next issue’s editorial.

The New Interpretation of Adultery

The meaning of “adultery” is rather obvious to any English reader. Nevertheless, efforts are presently being made to cloud the minds of men to make them think that determining the meaning of this word is difficult, if not impossible. In his recent book What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, Olan Hicks redefines adultery to mean “the divorcing of one and marrying another” (p. 149). He affirms that over the years the word has changed in meaning: “Primarily what has been lost in this revision is the basic idea of sinning against marriage by breaking it. The idea of betrayal of vows, of covenant obligations, has been replaced with the idea of a sinful sexual practice in the subsequent marriage relationship” (p. 155). In his chapter entitled “The Meaning of Adultery,” Hicks cited only one study by a Greek lexicon (Thayer) and he was in disagreement with the conclusion of that study. By redefining the word adultery, Hicks reaches the conclusion that repentance of the sin of “adultery” refers to the resolution that one will not break another marriage covenant. Hence, when the gospel is taken to someone who has divorced his mate for some reason other than fornication and remarried, the, message of Christ should be this: “Repent of having divorced your first mate, resolving in your heart not to break the marriage vows of this second marriage. To break this second marriage would result in your committing the sin of ‘adultery’ again. Consequently, you should live with this mate.”

Here we have two understandings of Matthew 19:9. (1) The one understands that “adultery” in Matthew .19:9 refers sexual immorality. The act of sexual immorality is committed when a person who divorces his mate for some reason other than fornication and marries again has sexual relations with his mate. In order for this person to be saved, the adultery (sexual immorality) must cease, thus demanding the breaking of the marriage entered by one who divorced his mate for some reason other than fornication. (2) The second interpretation states that the “adultery” of Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing and remarrying. The one who has committed “adultery” must repent of having divorced his mate and having remarried, resolving in his heart not to divorce and remarry again. He then not only can continue to live with the mate to whom he is married but is obligated to continue that marriage. Which of these understandings is correct depends upon the meaning of the word “adultery.”

What Do The Lexicons Say?

What is the meaning of the word which Jesus used that is translated “adultery” in Matthew 19:9? Does it mean “an act of sexual immorality” or “breaking a marriage covenant”? Let the lexicons define the word for us. What does the moich- root mean? Here are the definitions of the word and its roots by reputable scholars:

I. Thayer (p. 417):

1. Moichao: “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with . . . Matt. v. 32; xix. 9; Mk. X.11.”

2. Moicheuo: “to commit adultery; a. absol. (to be an adulterer): Matt. 5:27; 19:18; Mk. 10:19; Lk. 16:18;. . . . b. to commit adultery with, having unlawful intercourse with another’s wife: Matt. 5:28; . . . pass. of the wife, to suffer adultery, be debauched: Matt. 5:32 [19:9 marg. reading] . . . . By a Hebraisin (see moichalis) trop. meta tinos (gunaikos) moicheuein is used of those who at a woman’s solicitations are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols, Rev. 2:22.”

3. Moichalis. “an adulteress. . . a. pro. Rom. 7:3; ophthalmoi mestoi moichalidos, eyes always on watch for an adulteress, or from which adultrous desire beams forth, 2 Pet. 2:14. b. As the intimate alliance of God with the people of Israel was, likened to a marriage, those who relapse into idolatry are skid to commit adultery or play the harlot . . . ; hence, moichalis is fig. equiv. to faithless to God, unclean, apostate. Jas. 4:4; Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38.”

II. Moulton and Milligan (pp. 415, 416):

1. Moicheuo: “commit adultery on the part of the man . . . Matt. 5:28. “

2. Moichaomak “After the example of the LXX translators of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, this verb ‘commit adultery with’ is used in the NT with either sex as subject – Mk. 10:11 of the man, ib. 12 of the woman. . . .”

3. Moichalis: “To the examples of this late word, = ‘a married woman who commits adultery’ (Rom. 7:3), given by . . . we may add . . . . where the high priests are charged with having intercourse both with unmarried and married woman . . . . In the figurative use of the word in Jas. 4:4 Schmiedel . . . refers moichalides both to men and to women . . . . but the fem. moichalis ‘is alone appropriate in this sense, since God is always thought of as the husband. . . .”‘

III. Liddell and Scott (p. 974; note: this lexicon specializes in classical usages and rarely refers to the NT):

1. Moichao: “to commit adultery . . . Matt. 5:32. . .”

2. Moicheia: “adultery.”

3. Moicheuo: “to commit adultery with a woman, or generally, to debauch her. . . . intrans. to commit adultery.”

IV. Arndt and Gingrich (pp. 527-528):

1. Moichalis.- “adulteress. . . 1. Lit. Rom. 7:3 . . . ophthalmoi mestoi moichalidos eyes that are full of (desire for) an adulteress i.e., always looking for a woman with whom to commit adultery 2 Pet. 2:14. . . . 2. Fig., in a usage found in Hosea (3:1), in which God’s relation to his people is depicted as a marriage, and any beclouding of it becomes adultery. . . a: Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38. . . b. Jas. 4:4.”

2. Moichao: “cause to commit adultery. . . only pass. be caused to commit adultery, be an adulterer or adulteress, commit adultery, lit. 1. of the woman . . . Mt. 5:32; Mk. 10:12 . . . 2. of the man, who marries a divorced woman, Mt. 5:32b; 19:9 v. 1. or whom marries again after divorcing his wife 19:9. . . . Mk. 10:11. . . 3. of man or woman… whoever acts as the heathen do (i.e., takes part in idolworship), commits adultery. . .”

3. Moicheia: “adultery. . . adulterous acts Mt. 15:19 = Mk. 7:22. . . catch in the act of adultery Jn. 8:3.”

4. Moicheuo: “commit adultery . . . 1. of both sexes, w. ref. to the Ten Commandments … Mt. 5:27; 19:18; Mk. 10:19 . . . a. in some instances where m. stands alone Lk. 16:18a … b. has an obj. tina (gunaika) commit adultery w. someone. . . Mt. 5:28; 5:32; 19:9; Jn. 8:4. c. Rev. 2:22 is at least on the way to a fig. mng.”

V. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. IV, pp. 729-735):

1. Moicheuo: “to commit adultery… to be or to allow oneself to be, seduced, of the woman, to commit adultery …. Cf. also the NT quoting the 7th Commandment, Mt. 5:27; 19:18; Mk. 10: 19. . . . “

2. Moichao: “to commit adultery. . . fig. to adulterate . . . the NT only in the pres. stem of the med. and pass., to commit adultery’ . . . Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10: 11 . . .”

3. Moicheia: “adultery, illicit intercourse . . . Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:22; Jn. 8:3 . . .”

“In the Figurative Sense. The NT, too, used moicheuein fig. for religious unfaithfulness to God. . .Mt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38. . . Jas. 4:4. . . Rev. 2:2. “

VI. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (pp. 32-33):

1. Moichos. “denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another, Lk. 18:11; 1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4. As to Jas. 4:4, see below.”

2. Moichalis: “an adulteress, is used (a) in the natural sense, 2 Pet. 2:14; Rom. 7:3; (b) in the spiritual sense, Jas. 4:4; . . . As in Israel the breach of their relationship with God through their idolatry, was described as adultery or harlotry (e.g., Ezek. 16:15, etc.; 23:43), so believers who cultivate friendship with the world, thus breaking their spiritual union with Christ, are spiritual adulteresses, having been spiritually united to Him as wife to husband. . “

3. Moicheia: “adultery, is found in Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:3.

4. Moichao: used in the Middle Voice in the N.T., is said of men in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10: 11; of women in Mk. 10: 12.

5. Moicheuo: used in Matt. 5:27, 28, 32 . . .; 19:18; Mk. 10: 19; Lk. 16:18; 18:20; Jn. 8:4 . . . . in Rev. 2:22, metaphorically, of those who are by Jezebel’s solicitations drawn away to idolatry.”

VII. Analytical Greek Lexicon (p. 272):

1. Moichos. an adulterer.

2. Moichafts. an adulteress, Rom. 7:3; Ja. 4:4; by meton. an adulteress mien, lustful significance, 2 Pet. 2:14; from the Heb., spiritually adulterous, faithless, ungodly, Mat. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38.

3. Moicheia. “adultery, is found in Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:3.

4. Moicheia: adultery, Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21; et al.

5. Moicheuo: trans. to commit adultery with, debauch, Mat. 5:28; absol. and mid. to commit adultery, Mat. 5:27; Jn. 8:4 et al; to commit spiritual adultery, be guilty of idolatry, Rev. 2:22.”

VIII. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance (p. 28).

1. Moichos. adulterer.

2. Moichalis: adulteress, Rom. 7:2.

3. Moichalis. an adulteress, applied as an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections from God. . . Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38.

4. Moicheuo: to commit adultery with; Moichaomai, to commit adultery, to be guilty of adultery by causing another to commit it. . . Matt. 5:27, 28, 32; 19:9, 18; Mk. 10: 11, 12, 19; Lk. 16:18; 18:20. . . . “

Scholars Define Moich-

Scholar	Matt. 5:32	Matt. 19:9	Mk. 10:11	Lk. 16:18
Thayer: unlawful sexual intercourse	x	x	x	x
Moulton & Milligan commit adultery	(no specific references to any of these passages)
Liddell & Scott   commit adultery	x	(no other specific references to NT)
Arndt & Gingrich   commit adultery	x	x	x	x
Kittle   commit adultery illicit intercourse	x	x	x	x
W.E. Vine   unlawful intercourse w. spouse of another; adultery	x	x	x	x
Analytical Greek Lex.   commit adultery	x	(other passages not specifically mentioned)
Bullinger   commit adultery	x	x	x	x

Conclusion

These are the definitions given to the word by reputable Greek lexicographers. There is general agreement that the moich- root means “to commit adultery, to have unlawful sexual intercourse.” Even its figurative usage is derived from the concept that man is married to God and apostasy is unfaithfulness with another mate.

There is no reference to moich- referring to unfaithfulness to a contract or the act of divorcing and remarrying. No scholar was cited by Olan Hicks which so defined the word, in spite of his theory of divorce and remarriage relying so heavily on the word “adultery” meaning the act of divorcing and remarrying. Even if such a reference could be found, the lexicographers are generally agreed that the meaning in the texts before us – Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10: 12; Luke 16:18 – is “commit adultery, to have unlawful sexual intercourse. ” Adultery is committed in the bedroom, not the court house. It is not a legal act, it is a sexual act.

Should someone suggest that the word has some other meaning in these texts, we respectfully ask:

1. What lexicographers support your conclusion?

2. If no lexicographers can be found to support your conclusion, what Greek credentials do you have which make you an authority on the subject?

3. If an isolated lexicographer/Greek authority can be found who gives these words another definition, he still stands outside the generally accepted conclusions of the Greek authorities.

Conclusion

The lexicons are agreed that, when Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9), “adultery” referred to an act of sexual immorality. Inasmuch as adultery must be repented of, demanding the cessation of the sin (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11), those who are guilty of committing adultery (in the case of having put away one’s mate for some reason other than fornication and have remarried) must cease the committing of sexual immorality – they must break off their unscriptural marriage. All agree that the adultery must be ceased and the consensus of the Greek scholars is that “adultery” means “sexual immorality.”

Those who are trying to justify the continuance of a marriage entered after a divorce not for fornication cannot find that justification in the meaning of the word “adultery.” Rather, the scholars are agreed that the adultery of Matthew 19:9 is sexual immorality. That must be stopped in order for a person to go to heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 354, 372-374
June 16, 1988

By James W. Hester

As a whole, the denominational world accepts the above proposition verbatim. One would be hard pressed indeed to find a preacher among them who did not believe that Israel by some mysterious happenstance shall be saved. As to how this will come about, they differ; some could not tell you if they had to, yet believe that it will happen. And while Israel is heralded as God’s chosen people; they cry out for her restoration, and need of salvation. Multitudes stand in awe of her; she is both loved and feared. All eyes are fixed upon Israel, and all the things she does are viewed with great interest. Her shortcomings are never seen for she can do no wrong. You hear it said that we had better be good to Israel if we want the blessings of God.

But what is the meaning of Romans 11:26, as it is believed by many?

All Israel Shall Be Saved

Adam Clarke: “Shall be brought in the way of salvation by acknowledging the Messiah. . . In what way Christ is to come out of Zion, and what way or by what means He is to turn away transgression from Jacob, we cannot tell.”

Albert Barnes: “That is in this manner; or when the great abundance of the Gentiles shall be converted, then all Israel shall be saved. . . Shall be recovered from their rejection; be restored to the divine favor; become followers of the Messiah, and thus be saved as all other Christians. “

The Catholic Douay [Confraternity] (in footnote): “The Jews remain the people of God’s predilection, and will eventually be converted and saved.”

The Scofield Bible (in footnote): “During the great tribulation a remnant out of Israel will turn to Jesus the Messiah, and will become His witnesses after the removal of the church. Some of these will undergo martyrdom and some will be spared to enter the millennial kingdom.”

Dake’s Annotated Bible (in footnote): “This refers to the whole nation of Israel that will be alive in Palestine when Christ comes. It is at that time that all the rest of Israel will be gathered.

Notes by B. W. Johnson: “After the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, the Jews, as a people, shall be saved. That is of the Jews then living, the greater part shall be converted. The nation shall turn to the Lord.” Now note his comment on verse 28-32, “To this day He has preserved Israel, and yet purposes the salvation of the nation.”

E.M. Zerr: “It means that the Jews as a nation will give up its stand against Christ and acknowledge Him to be the Messiah of the scriptures.”

The Bible Handbook: By Joseph Angus, but revised, by Samuel G. Green, has this to say: “By and by Israel, as a whole, shall be converted to God.”

While we respect scholarship, yet appropriate for this time are the words of I.B. Grubbs in the preface of hiss Exegetical Analysis, of which we quote in part.

There is a sort of idolatrous worship offered at the shrine of scholarship that greatly interferes with mental independence in interpretation and the ready acceptance of conclusions that may be justified by the principles applicable in the case apart from the mere approbation of learned expositors. Exegetes should be consulted as aids and not quoted as authorities whatever may be their learning or the weight of their names. . . The unreasonable reverence for great names and the idolatry offered to learning which is so prevalent must be abandoned.

To this we say, well said and amen.

Other works could have been quoted, but may these few suffice for they seem to represent the thinking of the whole. Please note that all hold to a future event for the salvation of Israel. How do they do this? By the mis-use of some Old Testament Scriptures, many of which point directly to the New Testament age which we are now in. For this study, I request the reader to please open to Romans 11:25-27 and note:

The Bible, A Good Commentary

Looking now in Romans 11:26,27 we see that (1) All Israel shall be saved; (2) Saved in the same way [or manner] in which it was written; (3) The Deliverer shall come out of Zion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob; (4) And in compliance to God’s new covenant their sins would be forgiven. Abridged as the words of Paul are, as it is often also with prophecy, it is necessary to turn to Isaiah 59:20,21 where “it is written,” that Israel shall be saved to learn the condition of her salvation, and when it will take place. We quote from the [KJV]:

And the redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

In considering both the words of Isaiah and Paul, Christ is called both a Redeemer and Deliverer; and so he is. He was to come to Zion; and so he did. “I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies; my house shall be built in it” (Zech. 1:16). Isaiah in speaking of the establishment of the Lord’s house said, “And will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:3). Now let us note unto whom he would return.

In a special way and for salvation would he come unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob. His purpose in coming was to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15; Jn. 1:11, 12; Acts 13:38,39). Peter too, did emphasize conditional salvation for Israel, “Unto you first God, having raised up His son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities” (Acts 3:26). This took place on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Lk. 24:49; Acts 2:37-41). Jesus became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him (Heb. 5:9), as the angel had announced (Mt. 1:21; Lk. 2:11). And, as God would have all men saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4); the Redeemer had come for that purpose, just like the prophet said he would (Isa. 59:20); and like Jesus said must come to pass (Lk. 24:44).

It is astonishing how God can call things that be not as though they were (Rom. 4:17), and look down the stream of time and state volumes in few words, as he did in Isaiah 59:20,21. Note again verse 20: “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.” That some would reject, while others would receive the Redeemer is distinctly implied. Other Scriptures are plain: “Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (Isa. 53:1) Paul used this very Scripture, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom. 10:16). And too, John wrote, “That He [Christ) came unto His own and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” (Jn. 1:11,12). Thus, declaring that salvation came to the Jews on condition. “And ye will not come unto me that ye might have life” (Jn. 5:40). So, the very Scripture that Paul used to prove that “all Israel shall be saved,” proves that they will be saved on condition. Now let us notice verse 21 of Isaiah 59:

As for me this is my covenant with them: God’s part in the scheme of redemption – in turning men from transgression, is revealed in the covenant, “My covenant.” Moses was very plain: “God made a covenant with us in Horeb” (Deut. 5:1-3). This covenant they were to learn, keep, and do. This was a continuing covenant. The Hebrew writer tells us that the Lord did not regard them, “Because they continued not in my covenant” (Heb. 8:9). This is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34, where the prophet says, “For my covenant they brake.” When a covenant is not continued in, or broken, the provisions of that covenant are legally void. So, in finding fault with the first covenant the Lord God promised the second [the new]. And in compliance to its laws we have remission of sins, but the apostate who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing (for by it he was sanctified) and has insulted the Spirit of grace, has only a dreadful expectation of judgment (Heb. 10:29). However, unto the “covenant keeper,” Paul said: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead the Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20,21).

Now, were not the Jews of Paul’s day under the “new and everlasting covenant”? Is not this the covenant of promise spoken of by Isaiah and Jeremiah, in which their sins would be remembered no more? Certainly it is. Then, what is the problem that men have with Romans 11:26, “So all Israel shall be saved as it is written”? Written in Isaiah 59:20,21 and Jeremiah 31:31-34, and a few other places as well. Could it be in the term “all, ” all Israel shall be saved? Note: When God said, “I will make a new covenant, and in that covenant all shall know me” (Jer. 31:31,34), didn’t he mean that all who would continue in his covenant would know, or have a relationship with him, as he says: “I will be to them a God and they shall be my people” (Heb. 8: 10)? And in the prophecy of Isaiah 2:2,3, where it is said of the government of the Lord’s house that all nations shall flow into it, do not we understand that all nations would be invited or accepted in the Lord’s house (Mt. 11:28,29; Rev. 22:17)? And when Jesus said, “And if I be lifted up, from the earth, I will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:32), surely we understand that all men here are the ones who hear and learn (Jn. 6:44,45; Rom. 10:17; Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 28:24), having exercised their own free will. Likewise, “So all Israel shall be saved” as it is written; just like the prophet said, “when they turn from their transgression” (Isa. 59:20) and receive a blessing (Acts 3:26).

Dear reader, all Israel shall be saved, just like all Mexico shall be saved. “For God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34,35). If men only knew what the gospel is for (Rom. 1:16), and understand that now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2); that the promise that God made to Abraham, was not changed by the law of Moses (Gal. 3:16-18); having sealed the promise with an oath which cannot be changed. On this we have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us; which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast (Heb. 6:13-19). The hope of men, both Jews and Gentiles is in the gospel (Rom. 1:16). To the Corinthians Paul had preached the gospel; they had received the gospel; they stood in the gospel; they were saved in the gospel, on condition of their faithfulness (1 Cor. 15:1,2). And to the Colossians Paul wrote, “If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you have heard” (Col. 1:23).

In vain do the premillennialists look for a future age in which salvation will be granted to the Jew; neither can they expect another way or means of salvation for the Jew. This is a perversion of the word. It is dangerous to make a playground of the word of God; to imagine things not there; to have Paul saying things he did not say; that is, that in some future time the “whole” of Israel shall be saved.

A hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in (Rom. 11:25).

First we will note the hardening of Israel; the use God made of it and who was responsible for this hardening.

That God answers every man according to the multitude of his idols, and sends a strong delusion unto all who believe not the truth, is a fact clearly revealed unto man (Ezek. 14:1-9; 2 Thess. 2:10-12). Likewise, it is also equally true that man hardens his own heart by a repeated rejection of his word. A good example is found in the book of Exodus. In dealing with Pharaoh the Lord sent Moses and Aaron unto him with a message, confirmed by miracles, “Let my people go” (Exod. 5:1-2). Pharaoh refused, and it was said that God hardened his heart. In Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies we learn that three Hebrew words are used respecting the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. One implies his strengthening himself against all fear of alarm, stoutly resisting the warnings and motives urged upon him, and the terrors of God’s judgment. Another seems to point to his insensibility and want of conviction, as the same word is applied to the ear when not duly impressed with sounds, or to the eye when it becomes dim. Now, it cannot be imagined that the Lord God made Pharaoh evil for he was already evil. And every act of obedience imposed upon him, and every act of disobedience by him, God used to demonstrate his power, and accomplish his purpose, by heaping honor upon himself. Many were the times that God used bad men to carry out his will. Luke tells us that “Judas by transgression fell and went to his own place” (Acts 1:25). Now, the Lord did not make him evil yet he used him to carry out the inevitable.

The sectarians, as well as a few brethren, have attempted to establish a time for “all Israel being saved,” by crediting Paul with an argument which he did not make. A look into a few translations [mis-translations] will serve in verifying our point (Rom. 11:25).

The Emphasized New Testament (J.B. Rotherham): Until the full measure of the nations shall come in.

The New Testament in Modern Speech (Richard F. Weymouth): Until the great mass of the Gentiles has come in. Now get what is said in v. 26.

The Twentieth Century New Testament.- And then all Israel shall be saved.

The New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips): Once this has happened, all Israel shall be saved.

Others say the same; all affirming that the Jews would be hardened until all the Gentiles are saved, then all the Jews will be saved. Thus establishing a “when” time for the salvation of Israel. But dear reader Paul did not say that. Their translations are very poor commentaries. And, the “well loved” Revised Standard Version being among the sorry lot says: “Until the full number of the Gentiles come in.” To this Albert Barnes agrees, “It doubtless refers to the future spread of the gospel among the nations; to the time when it may be said that the great mass, the abundance of the nations, shall be converted to God. . . . Then he says, all Israel shall be saved.”

What Does The Bible Say?

We must never forget that the Jews are accountable to the same God; must obey the same gospel; be in the same body, and have the same hope. Their rejection of God, his plan to save them, destroys not the faithfulness of God. The decrees of the covenant are still intact (Rom. 3:34). So when Paul spoke of a “hardening in part,” he refers to the same class whom the Lord encountered in Matthew 13:13-17; John 12:39-43, and he himself in Acts 28:24-28, which the prophet did foretell in Isaiah 6. The words of Jesus in the above mentioned gospels, and the writings of Paul in the Roman letter well document the prophecy of Isaiah as belonging to the times of the New Testament. The hardening of the Jews would persist until the cities be wasted without inhabitant and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate (Isa. 6:11). In Daniel 9:26,27; as well as the Lord’s account in Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21, foretell of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of Judaism. This was the “Lord’s doings.” Titus, upon seeing the dead bodies, gave a groan, and spreading his hands to heaven, called God to witness that this was not his doings. We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or machine do towards overthrowing these towers? (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 12, Section 4, and Book 6, Chapter 9, Section 1).

In speaking of the end – the abomination of desolation; when they would see the Roman army surround Jerusalem, the Christians were to flee to the mountains (Pella) for safety. But this he said would not happen until the gospel had been preached in all the world (Matt. 24:14-22; Lk. 21:20-24). From this we learn that the Gentiles would have heard the word of their salvation, and come into the fold; or in the words of Paul, “The fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:25). That dear friend, is exactly what happened. The gospel had been preached universally, and this was the only way the Gentiles could come in (Col. 1:23), and this took place before Jerusalem fell.

More on the hardening of Israel: Where there is a hardening of the heart there is rebellion against God. When Pharaoh hardened his heart against the will of God, he oppressed God’s people. Likewise, when the Jews hardened their hearts in rejection of his word, they oppressed the people of God. Paul quotes David in Psalm 69:9, “The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me” (Rom. 15:3). Now who could convince the hardened Jew that he had ever reproached God, and all the rebellion and rejection of God he blamed the Son of God for? Yet that is what happened. When men do not like the truth of God when it is taught, they will hate the one doing the teaching, and think they are right in doing so. To the hardened Jew the gospel of Christ became a stumbling block (Rom. 11:9; 1 Cor. 1:23), and he continued in that condition, oppressing the church; afflicting God’s children and at last was restrained only by the destruction of Jerusalem; the temple; the end of the Jewish system, as the prophet said (Isa. 6:11,12). Jesus views this as “The days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled (Lk. 21:22).

Until the Fulness of the Gentiles Be Come In: Our beloved brother R.L. Whiteside in his Romans Commentary reminds us that “until” does not tell what will follow the event or events mentioned in the phrase it introduces, or governs. He refers to these examples: Gen. 8:5; 46:43; 1 Sam. 15:35; Jn. 5:17; and Rom. 8:22 (please read). Also, definition three of my large dictionary says, “Up to the time of; up to the time when; up to the time of some (occurrence).” One thing we know for certain, that the Gentiles were coming in – accepting the gospel, while the Jews were rejecting it and this continued to be so before and after the destruction of the Jewish system, and nothing changed other than the termination of the persecution of the Christians by the hardened Jews.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, pp. 338-341
June 2, 1988

By Dick Blackford

Due to its significance the editor of Guardian of Truth asked me to review this debate which occurred in Neosho, Missouri, near Joplin where the first Restoration Summit meeting took place in 1984. The summit was a unity meeting between fifty preachers of the Independent Christian Church (ICC) and fifty preachers from churches of Christ (institutional brethren who oppose instrumental music). Joplin is a stronghold for the Christian Church, being the home of

Ozark Christian College and College Press, a publishing house operated by members of the ICC. The debate took place April 12-15, 1988, between Alan E. Highers of the church of Christ and Given O. Blakely of the ICC. By this writer’s estimate, attendance ranged between 700-900 nightly.

The Propositions

The first two nights brother Highers affirmed, “The use of mechanical instruments of music as an element of Christian worship is without scriptural authority and therefore sinful.” Brother Blakely denied. The last two nights brother Blakely affirmed, “The employment of instruments of music in the singing of praise does not transgress the law of God, is harmonious with the faith of Christ and is inoffensive to God; hence, it is scriptural and in harmony with the word of God.”

Brother Highers denied.

The Basic Argument

Brother Highers emphasized that the issue is whether we abide within the authority of Christ. Colossians 3:17, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Matthew 4:4f were introduced to show that one must have authority for his practices and must not exceed what is written. Thus instrumental music was not authorized in the New Testament and could not be done by faith (Rom. 10:17). Blakely responded that “in the name of Christ” stands for his person or character, into which we are baptized, and that everything we do is to be done out of that relation ship and union with Christ. He said that life, not legality, is the point of Colossians 3. Highers showed from biblical usage (Acts 4:7f) and from Thayer’s definition that to do something “in the name” of another is to do it by that person’s power or authority.

Throughout the debate Blakely argued that the new covenant did not involve authority and that our problem was that we didn’t see God alike. He said Highers’ proposition did not employ proper nomenclature, was not apostolic or godly, and neither his propositions nor questions addressed reality. He repeatedly said there is no liturgy, no such thing as “acts” of worship pre-approved by God, no such thing as corporate worship, and that Highers’ proposition was devised by man’s wisdom, not God’s. He introduced the woman of Mark 14 who anointed the Lord in honor and devotion. His point was that she did this without scriptural authority, yet she was commended. Other Scriptures were used to make the same argument.

Blakely said there was no such thing as authorized worship and charged that such was creed making for no authority was needed. He charged that the “have I done it right?” syndrome is out of harmony with the new covenant and that such a concept comes from the law of Moses, not grace; that it is the person (Christ) not the deed that makes worship acceptable. He said worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to it; there are no regulations, no meticulous routine.

Highers produced several quotes from leading writers of the ICC, including Blakely’s father (Fred), Duane Dunning, Don DeWelt (all of whom were present and supporting Blakely in the debate), as well as Blakely himself, which showed unmistakably that they had taught that worship was prescribed, must be authorized, was corporate, and that there were “acts of worship,” thus regulated. He further showed that what these men taught was the very thing Blakely called “unscriptural and ungodly.” The footnote on Matthew 2:2 (ASV) was cited which indicated that the meaning of the word worship denotes “an act of reverence.” The case of the Pharisees (Matt. 15:9) was used to show that acceptable worship is inseparable from teaching and obeying the truth. Worship “in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24) showed that worship is regulated and that if Blakely’s position was correct then we may burn incense in worship, observe the Lord’s Supper on Monday, use tea and meat in communion, employ rosary beads in prayer, do a holy dance before the Lord, and handle snakes as a token of worship. Highers asked, “Does doctrine affect worship?” Blakely appeared to argue from a subjective viewpoint by saying that we don’t burn incense and offer animals because they “don’t blend with the reality that has been proclaimed by the gospel; they don’t comport with where we are in Christ Jesus.” But he did not say such practices were unauthorized or that it would be wrong to do so.

Highers pointed out that Blakely’s use of the woman’s unauthorized anointing of Jesus (Matt. 14) was an admission that instrumental music was an unauthorized act and conceded the arugments of all Christian Church preachers in the past who affirmed that the instrument was authorized. He showed it was contradictory to cite authority from the Scripture to show that no authority was necessary. Highers said the real significance of Blakely’s argument was that it implied that the woman could have acceptably observed the Sabbath on Monday or monthly, served as a priest, or offered a pig as a sacrifice. He asked, “Does her spontaneous act imply that she could violate the expressed will of God?

On the last two nights Blakely argued that instruments were used in the past (O.T.) with God’s approval and will be used in the future (heaven, Rev. 14) with God’s approval. Highers showed that this proved too much for it would allow incense and other parts of the law to be brought in, plus, if what is done in heaven is authority for what we are to do on earth then it would outlaw marriage (Matt. 22:30). He stressed that Blakely’s proposition used the present tense (“is . . . does. . . “) not the past or the future and that Blakely needed to prove it was acceptable now. Highers pinpointed the basic difference between them by showing that his position was that all actions that were without scriptural authority were sinful, whereas, Blakely’s position was that all actions without scriptural authority were acceptable. He noted that churches of Christ and Christian churches were united in the past but that the introduction of the instrument caused division. Further, that churches of Christ still occupy the same position of the pioneers who rejected the instrument when they said, “Let us speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.”

A chart was introduced by Highers which showed that Christian Church debaters in the past had argued that instrumental music was authorized. He charged that Blakely had broken new ground and had established a new hermeneutic which in effect admits that, (1) we do not have authority, (2) we do not need authority, (3) we will not give authority.

Observations and Implications

1. Borther Highers pointed out that brother Blakely has helped some of our brethren who thought the only difference between churches of Christ and the ICC was the instrument of music.

2. I could not help but recall that some denominations arue that there is no prescribed plan of salvation (no pattern), just a nebulous “acceptance” of Jesus as Savior. The ICC was arguing that there is not pattern for the worship of the church. And some of our institutional brethren argue that there is no pattern for the work of the church. Denominations add sprinkling and pouring to the plan of salvation; Christian churches add an instrument to the worship; institutional brethren add an institution to the work. Of course, God’s pattern for all of these is not found in one verse alone, but is found by taking all the New Testament says about each subject.

The Blakely-Highers Debate is a significant one. It will be available on audio and video tape after May 15, and in book form after August 15. This writer recommends that readers obtain a copy for a more detailed study than can be given in this review.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 353, 375
June 16, 1988