Truth Magazine

By Wayne Greeson

Roy Deaver, in a recent article in Firm Foundation, attempts to prove that the church as a collective body may provide benevolent assistance to those who are not Christians using Galatians 6:10 and 2 Corinthians 9:13. The last two articles reviewed his arguments on Galatians 6:10. The second passage Deaver used to support his position that the church may provide financial assistance to those who are not Christians is 2 Corinthians 9:13.

“All” in 2 Corinthians 9:13

Deaver writes, “Paul refers to the great contribution and makes specific reference to ‘. . . the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all. . . .’ We stress the ‘unto all.’ The contribution under consideration went to saints, but it was not restricted to saints. ‘Unto all’ is the translation of the Greek eis pantas, a preposition used with a form of the Greek word pas. . . . we have listed five parallel constructions (he lists only four including 2 Cor. 9:13, wg) involving a Greek preposition used with the word pantas (all): (1) Acts 5:11, epi pantas; (2) Galatians 6: 10, pros pantas; (3) 1 Thessalonians 3:12, eis pantas. Our opponents have always admitted. . . that the first four (sic) instances clearly and obviously refer to persons who are not Christians. ” Therefore Deaver concludes that “unto all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 must refer to those who are not Christians.

Deaver’s argument contains a large unmentioned assumption which he carefully avoids. Deaver’s argument assumes that the Greek pantas meaning “all” always refers to those who are not Christians. Thayer indicates that pantay is a general pronoun which refers to “all of a like kind” not all humanity, and the context determines the kind (Thayer, pp. 492-493). Below are listed four passages using the Greek pronoun pantas in which the “all of a like kind” are saints! (1) Acts 2:44, “And all that believed were together. . . “; (2) Ephesians 4:13, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith. . . “; (3) Galatians 2:14, “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before all. . . “; (4) 1 Timothy 5:20, “Them that sin rebuke before all. . . “

Putting “All” In Context

We must first understand the context of Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 9:13, “The liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all,” to understand of whom Paul is speaking. Repeatedly, Paul explicitly says the contribution he was preparing to carry to Jerusalem was for “saints.” The money Paul took to Jerusalem was. . . . . . raised for “saints” (1 Cor. 16:1-3)

. . . to be contributed to “saints” (Rom. 15:26)

. . . to minister unto “saints” (Rom. 15:25)

. . . to be accepted by “saints” (Rom. 15:31)

. . . a contribution for fellowship with saints (Rom. 15:27)

Paul was one of the chosen messengers of the contributing churches entrusted to carry their contributions to Jerusalem “for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (2 Cor. 8:18-24; Rom. 15:26). Yet Deaver would have us believe that Paul lied and breached the trust of the churches who sent him by delivering the contribution of the churches not only to saints, but also to those who were not saints! Who shall we believe, Roy Deaver or the Apostle Paul?

When Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, he had already discharged his responsibility to the churches by delivering their contribution to Jerusalem. In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul explained to whom he had delivered their contribution. Again, repeatedly Paul explicitly says the contribution he delivered to Jerusalem was given to “saints. ” The contribution Paul delivered to Jerusalem. . .

. . . ministered unto “saints” (2 Cor. 8:4)

. . . provided fellowship with “saints” (2 Cor. 8:4)

. . . supplied equality between “saints” (2 Cor. 8:13-15)

. . . ministered unto “saints” (2 Cor. 9:1)

. . . supplied the needs of “saints” (2 Cor. 9:12)

. . . caused “saints” to glorify God (2 Cor. 9:13)

. . . caused “saints” to pray and long for givers (2 Cor. 9:14).

Paul confirms throughout 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 that he had delivered the contribution to the needy saints in Jerusalem. What presumption for Deaver to come along and assert Paul delivered the contribution to those who were not saints! Deaver tries to squeeze non-Christians into the Greek pronoun pantas, “all, ” in 2 Corinthians 9:13, not by a sound examination of the context but in order to justify his practice and false doctrine.

The Fellowship Of The Contribution

Paul wrote of the Corinthians’ “liberal distribution unto them and all.” The meaning of the word “distribution” excludes the possibility that “all” refers to non-Christians. Thayer defines koinonia, translated “distribution” in the King James Version, as a “benefaction jointly contributed, a collection, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship. . . for the benefit of one, 2 Cor. 9:13. . . ” (Thayer, p. 352). Vine bluntly says, “The verb does not mean to distribute; hence R.V. ‘communicating.’ Similarly koinonia, fellowship, communion, is translated ‘distribution’ in 2 Cor. 9:13. . . ” (Vine, pp. 327-328).

In 2 Corinthians 9:13 Paul was commending the Corinthians for the demonstration of their contribution of fellowship “unto them and all.” One writer explains, “The collections that Paul brought to Jerusalem were a tangible expression of fellowship in the churches. The collection has a religious overtone in 2 Cor. 9:13: ‘by the generosity of the fellowship (koinonias, RSV ‘contribution’) for them and for all other.’ For it arises out of the one gospel that unites Jew and Gentile, and belongs to the same spiritual and material giving and taking of which Paul speaks in Rom. 15:26” (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 642). The benevolence of the New Testament church is always exalted beyond the mere gift of money and explained as a matter of fellowship between Christians (Rom. 15:27; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13).

If Deaver asserts that “all” refers to non-Christians, will he accept the consequences of his position? If “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to those who are not Christians, then the church can and must have fellowship with those who are without! Yet the Apostle John wrote, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. . . ” (1 Jn. 1:7). The New Testament is clear, just as the Christian’s fellowship in doctrine, worship and work involves a spiritual sharing only with other Christians, likewise, the benevolence of the church is also matter of fellowship shared only with other Christians in need.

“All” Refers To All Saints Outside Jerusalem

To whom is Paul referring in 2 Corinthians 9:13? Lenski writes, “The saints are seen glorifying God ‘also for the single-mindedness of (your) fellowship with them and with all,’ i.e., for your spiritual fellowship and communion. It is this fellowship of the Corinthians which extends not only to these saints, who are being helped at present but to all God’s saints, whether they are helped or not” (Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 1185-86). This Greek scholar and commentator indicates that Paul refers to two groups in 2 Corinthians 9:13, first, to “them,” the needy Jerusalem saints and second, to “all,” all of God’s saints everywhere. His comment indicates that the “all” must be saints because the nature of the Corinthians’ contribution was a matter of fellowship!

Deaver might rightly come along and say, “So you found a scholar who says “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to all of God’s saints. What does that prove?” One commentator standing alone might not prove much, but I challenge him to find just one conservative commentator (who is not in his camp and trying to prove his doctrine), who says that 46all” in the verse refers to those who are not Christians?

While Deaver is searching, I will add the following commentators to Lenski, all of whom generally agree with Lenski that “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to all saints beyond the needy saints at Jerusalem: David Lipscomb, A Commentary On The N. T. Epistles, Vol. 3, p. 125; Moses Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, Oct. 1864, p. 66; Filson, The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10, p. 379; Plummer, A Critical & Exegetical Commentary On The Second Epistle of St. Paul To The Corinthians, p. 267; The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 1202; Bengel, Bengel’s N. T. Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 317; F.W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Corinthians, p. 220; Tasker, Tyndale N. T. Commentaries, The Second Epistle Of Paul To The Corinthians, p. 129; Bernard, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 3, p. 94; Meyer, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, pp. 610-611; Lang, Commentary On 2 Corinthians.

I have not been able to find one commentator, who comments on “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13, who says that “all” refers to those who are not saints. Now, I recognize that human scholars and commentators are not divinely inspired and are fallible. But remember, these commentators have no vested interest, no false doctrine to prove or false practice to support in commenting on this passage.

The virtual unanimity of scholars on 2 Corinthians 9:13 speaks volumes of Deaver and his camp twisting the Scriptures to their destruction in their attempt to justify a practice they cannot find authority for in the New Testament. Neither Galatians 6:10 nor 2 Corinthians 9:13 provides authority for the church to provide benevolence to those who are not Christians. We pray that Deaver and others will stop misusing these passages and stop their unscriptural practice of providing benevolence to those who are not saints.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 201-202
April 3, 1986

By Mike Willis

Well over ten years ago, the Guardian of Truth called attention to the grace-unity movement which was having some influence among us. The doctrine was discussed and several men among us who were propagating it were exposed. Some might think that the movement is dead and will have no more influence among us.

Let me assure you that the grace-unity movement is not dead. Our liberal brethren are fighting a life-and-death battle among themselves over whether or not unity with the Christian Church is possible. Several of their more influential men, including such names as Reuel Lemmons, Rubel Shelly, and others, are advocating a unity-in-diversity with those in the Independent Christian Churches. The movement to fellowship Independent Christian Churches is only a temporary stopping place in route to moving into the mainstream of modern Protestant denominationalism.

Those who have left the moorings of Bible authority have moved further and further into denominationalism. They themselves do not know how far to go and where to stop. For example, Carl Ketcherside began by going to the Christian Churches and not singing with the instrument, because at that time he still believed it was sinful. Before long, he was singing with the instrument and condemning those of us who preached that using mechanical instruments of music in worship was sinful. As his departure from the word of God progressed, he began writing about denominational people as “brothers in prospect” and now he considers them brethren. A similar journey away from Jesus could be described in Leroy Garrett, Edward Fudge, Bruce Edwards, and many others.

Major Tenets of the Grace-Unity Movement

What are the major tenets of the grace-unity movement? Given below are some of them:

1. Unity-in-Diversity. The grace-unity movement asserts that the only way unity can be attained and maintained is through unity in diversity. They argue that we can no more think alike than we can look alike. The unity-in-diversity brethren state that we have unity with the Christian Church by recognizing that we are different in our beliefs about using mechanical instruments of music in worship and by accepting each other in spite of this difference.

This kind of unity is not “of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). Paul did not try to maintain a unity-in-diversity with the Judaizers; instead the Judaizers were charged with preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9) and brethren were told to “cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Gal. 4:30). John did not recommend a unity-in-diversity with the Gnostics of his day; instead he charged that they had gone beyond the doctrine of Christ and did not have God (2 Jn. 9-11). Those who were faithful to Christ were commanded not to bid them Godspeed lest they become partakers in their evil deeds. Yet, the unity-in-diversity brethren tell us to accept those who have corrupted the worship of the Lord’s church by introducing mechanical instruments of music in worship. The unity which they preach is a different unity than what is revealed in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit.

The unity which they preach is a unity which requires those who oppose instrumental music in worship to compromise their convictions. Those who favor using mechanical instruments of music in worship make no changes whatsoever; they continue to use their instruments of music in worship and preach that it is right to use them, although they are not used at some unity forums lest brethren should be alarmed at where the movement is headed. Those who oppose instrumental music in worship are told to quit preaching that a person sins and brings himself into a state of spiritual condemnation when he uses mechanical instruments of music in worship. He must give up his conviction that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is a sin which will cause one to lose his soul.

2. Fellowship Without Endorsement. Recently, we have been treated to several treatises on fellowship which try to distinguish levels of fellowship. One might be in the fellowship of God but not in the fellowship of other saints. We have been told by some of our grace-unity brethren that those in the Christian Church are in fellowship with God but that they cannot join with them in the fellowship of worship (because it would violate their conscience).

Does fellowship imply endorsement? Leroy Garrett says, “No.” The Bible says, “Yes.” Paul mentioned that James, Cephas, and John “gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). The “right hands of fellowship” from these leading men indicated that they approved the gospel which Paul was preaching. Yes, the right hands of fellowship meant endorsement. In fact, inviting a Gnostic preacher into one’s home in such a manner as to aid his work and increase his influence resulted in “bidding him Godspeed” and becoming a partaker in his sins (2 Jn. 9-11). The unity-in-diversity brethren are flatly contradicting the word of God when they teach that we can receive those who introduce mechanical instruments of music into the worship of the church without endorsing that which is sinful.

3. Essentials and Non-Essentials. The grace-unity movement unscripturally distinguishes essentials from nonessentials. Everyone of us recognizes that there are essentials and non-essentials in the Bible. Paul placed eating meats sacrificed to idols (Rom. 14-15) in the latter category. Whether or not one decides to marry is placed in that category (1 Cor. 9), as are also whether or not a preacher is supported, meeting in an upper room, etc. However, there are other things which are essential, such as the deity of Christ, the Lordship of Christ, the resurrection, etc.

The grace-unity brethren work to reduce the essentials to a bare minimum. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside reduce the essentials to seven facts and one act which they call “gospel.” The other items are called “doctrine.” With reference to the “gospel,” all of those brethren who can no more think alike than they can look alike must learn to think alike! Rubel Shelly’s list of essentials is the seven ones of Epheiians 4:4-6; however he quickly points out that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is not a violation of the seven ones.

Brethren who reduce the “essentials” to a bare minimum are forced to go through the commandments of God and decide which are “essential” and which are “non-essential.” Surely they would be so kind as to tell the rest of us what criteria is used to distinguish an essential from a non-essential. Their subjective and arbitrary lists are worthless. Is God’s commandment to “flee fornication” an essential or a non-essential? How can we tell? Brethren, I have no desire to join hands with those brethren who put themselves in the position of becoming a judge of the law of God, distinguishing which of God’s commands must be obeyed and which do not have to be obeyed (Jas. 4:11-12).

4. Who Is A Christian. As the grace-unity movement continues its evolution, more and more the question is raised regarding who is a Christian. Leroy Garrett recognizes Christians in all denominations, regardless of whether or not they have been baptized. They may even be modernists, embracing evolution and denying the virgin birth of Jesus! Rubel Shelly says that one is a Christian so long as he is baptized in order to obey God. (The Baptists who deny that baptism is for the remission of sins teach that one is baptized in order to obey God.) The grace-unity movement loosens what God has bound as the conditions for becoming a Christian.

The Lord Himself said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). 1 will not tell a man that he is saved before and without being baptized. I will not recognize as saved anyone who has not complied with the Lord’s conditions. We dare not loose what God has bound (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

How Much Love And Tolerance?

The grace-unity brethren preach love and tolerance. However, when they speak of those who oppose their unity-in-diversity, they become filled with venom. Those who oppose the unity-in-diversity movement are “close minded,” “sectarian,” “legalists,” “would be popes,” etc. Their publications are on the “gutter level,” contain “smut,” and are “slander sheets.” Those who oppose the grace-unity movement are not invited to the unity forums because “they do not have the right attitude” and are “knuckleheads.” I continue to marvel that the tolerant are so intolerant of the intolerant! To the preachers of tolerance, I say, “Physician, heal thyself!”

Are ill-will and malice toward those who call for book, chapter and verse tenets of the grace-unity movement? One could draw the conclusion that this was so from reading their journals. When these brethren write about denominational folks, they are described in glowing terms – they are so full of the Spirit, they are scholars, etc. When speaking of Christians who call for book, chapter and verse authority for everything we do, they syternatically attack us with such derogatory terms as “keepers of the orthodoxy,” “watch dogs,” “legalists,” “would-be popes,” etc. The heart of these brethren is exposed by their words. These brethren have much more in common with the denominations than they do with the Lord’s church. They are bent on reshaping the Lord’s church into a denomination!

Conclusion

Brethren, beware of these false teachers. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. They preach love and tolerance, but they are full of venom, bitterness, and intolerance. While we continue to oppose the grace-unity movement, let each of us resolve to work for the unity of the Spirit in every way that we can.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 193, 214-215
April 3, 1986

By Ronnie Westmoreland

One would think living in such a nation as this, that people would be constantly thinking and preparing for the future. We prepare our food that we eat; we prepare our clothes and other things for a trip that we have planned; this nation prepares its troops for the defense of itself. But it seems that the two most important events in our lives are the two that little or no preparation is made for, at least by the majority of the people of this nation. The two events that most often catch people unprepared are death, and the judgment that will certainly follow (Heb. 9:27). “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

At a funeral, the statement that one hears so often is, how well he or she had been doing, or it seemed to happen so suddenly. Yet, James 4:17 teaches us, “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” One never knows what the day in which we are living will bring forth, but we do know that death and judgment are coming. So it looks like we would be preparing each day as if it were to come that day. Being prepared is something that is taught throughout the Bible. Jesus tells us what we must do in order to prepare for judgment through His word. Since it is His word that will judge us in the day of judgment (Jn. 12:48; Rev. 20:12), then we should listen to Him.

The Bible declares what we must do. Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” One must believe. “But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). “1 tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3,5). One must confess Christ before men. “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32). One must be baptized. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16; see also Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:1-6, 1 Pet. 3:21). Revelation 2:10 says, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” These are the things in which we should be always ready. We should be living each day as if it were our last, because it just may be.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, p. 200
April 3, 1986

By Hayse Reneau

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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 (Matt. 19:3-9).

The Pharisees ask Jesus two (2) questions. Jesus answers them in turn. To the first question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus says “No.” “What God has joined together let not man put asunder.” Note: When the Lord says don’t do something, the transgressing of His law constitutes sin (1 Jn. 3:4). Isn’t this true? If we say “Yes; but, not in all cases.” This puts one in the position of those who say sin separates one from God, but not necessarily all sin separates one from God. Such puts one in the foolish position of speaking for God. Unless God has made an exception, mere man has not been given the prerogative of doing so! It necessarily appears obvious that a mutually agreed upon separation does not come into this category; for it does not constitute one “putting asunder” the other one as the term denotes. Christians, in a godly attempt to maintain their vows, have discovered how much they need and love their mates by this practice.

Also, in Acts 5:29, we read, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” No situation is exempted from this truism. In my opinion, if marital circumstances produce a condition forbidding obedience to God and if it cannot be changed, one has no choice but to extricate himself from these circumstances. Likewise, a life-threatening situation would seem to be a justifiable reason for departure. Of course, there are thousands of “exceptions” which men have added to Christ’s one exception, as people seek to get out of marital arrangements they have gotten themselves into. Rather than suffer a little “hell” here on earth to avoid eternal torment, people have become a law unto themselves, marrying and divorcing indiscriminate of what God says. With such God is not well pleased.

Jesus then answers the second question, and warns that one who has put away his wife except for fornication enters a second sin should he remarry: Adultery. If he has put away his wife for fornication, his remarriage is not adultery.

Mark omits the second question asked by the Pharisees, and says Jesus and His disciples went into a house where the disciples “asked him again of the same matter” (i.e. the same question the Pharisees asked the second time). He answers them in essentially the same manner as Matthew records His answer to the Pharisees, adding that His saying applied also to a woman who might put away her husband for any reason other than fornication.”

I may be wrong but I fear some suppose that the terms in the heading are insignificant; that a state “divorce” issued by a heathen court is the important thing. With this erroneous conclusion it is presumed that a marriage partner who has “put away” the mate for some (any) cause except fornication has committed no trespass unless and until a state “divorce” is sued for according to state laws (this was not even a practice in the time of Christ!). Of course one must comply with the law of his country (Rom. 13). However, this has no bearing on the subject the Lord addresses. As we look at the meaning of these terms (“put away,” “put asunder”) we see that Christ’s command, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder, ” is broken when a mate is put away for some other reason than the one Jesus states.

1. Apoluo. Put away: To let go; to let loose; to send away (Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon) This word in the perfect tense and passive voice is translated “divorce” in Matthew 5:32, meaning the “dismissed woman.”

2. Choridzo. Put asunder: To sever; to disunite; to disassociate one’s self; to withdraw; to depart (op. cit.).

The term: “bill of divorcement”‘ (Matt. 19:7; Deut. 24:1-4) is from apostasion, and refers to the Jews’ practice of placing a document in the hand of the woman which would show for her benefit that she was not a deserter.

Do people really appreciate what the Lord signified when He said, “Wherefore they are no longer two but one flesh”? I’m afraid not. From R.C.H. Lenski’s Interpretation of Matthew 193-9 (pp. 729, 730), I quote:

“(Vs 6) In order still more to impress the point regarding what God made of marriage at the time of creation Jesus adds: ‘Wherefore they are no longer two (like father and son, mother and son) but one flesh.’ The physical sexual union consummated in marriage actually makes ‘one flesh’ of the two. And it ought to be self-evident that, therefore, this union is to be permanent. But since this is vital for the question brought up by the Pharisees, Jesus states this deduction (oun) in so many words: ‘What therefore, God yoked together, let man not divide apart.’ When persons are involved, a neuter such as (6) makes the reference abstract and general and thus stronger: ‘anything’ joined together by God. The aorist is generally considered timeless, yet here it marks time antecedent to the main verb and is thus in place for this reason. In connections such as this the English prefers the perfect, ‘has yoked together.’ The implication is that any man who divides what God has thus by his own creation united into one, flies into the face of God and his will a serious opposition, indeed. How indissoluble marriage is according to God’s own creation is thus made clear. Did these Pharisees never read these words of Scripture and think on what they obviously declare?”

Every Christian who is concerned for souls and alarmed over the moral decay in America continues to be shocked by the climbing divorce rate as reported in newspapers (the local newspaper recently reported 4 divorces granted; 2 pending, 2 marriage licenses applied for on that day). While it is needful (for the sake of our soul) to sympathize with those who jeopardize their eternal welfare in not fulfilling their marriage vows to God and their mate, we can in no wise excuse it.

The Jews “tempted” Jesus with their question. There is implication that they knew what God had said originally, and what Moses had written and why. They ask, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The answer he gave is “no!” In verse 9 Matthew tells us He gave one (1) cause: “Fornication. ” God has “a few things against” those who would cast a “stumblingblock” (skandalon, “a cause or occasion of sinning) before others. The church at Pergamos was charged with “holding the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel to . . . . commit fornication” (Rev. 2:14). In Matthew 5:32, the one who puts asunder the mate for anything other than fornication puts a stumblingblock before the mate and “causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery.” The world doesn’t believe this, and some brethren have too much of the world in them, for some seem to think Jesus answered, “Yes, it’s lawful to put away your mate for any cause.” That is what worldly people are doing!

In His answer Jesus used the broader term when He warned, “What God has joined together let not man put asunder.” Don’t walk away from; don’t send away; don’t sever what God has joined together. When one ignores God’s warning in this, sin results, before a suit is filed before a heathen court. Sorrow alone over what is done will not fix it.

Much complaining is often done about consequences, whenever God’s condemnation of our belief and practice is unacceptable to us. Nevertheless, God’s truth must be accepted; and whatever necessarily results from that truth must likewise be received, whether we like it or not, or whether it seems reasonable to us or not. Observe: baptism for a believer in order to have forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) presents consequences which are unacceptable to many people: “If that is correct,” I have been told, “it means my momma and daddy are going to hell, because they were not baptized.” Also, people who have “put asunder” their mate for “every cause” other than that allowed and have remarried, often having children born into that union, have argued about the consequences of how they can now please God. Repentance of sin demands ceasing that unlawful relationship: “But what about the innocent children?” “But we love each other!” Nevertheless, if the thief would serve God acceptably he must cease stealing, and those living in adultery (Col. 3:5-7) must cease. (Read Ezra 10:1-5.) People, who accept the truth are willing to accept whatever consequence goes with this truth. We can feel sorrow for the position truth puts the impenitent in; but we cannot change it. Solomon wrote: “Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15).

All written comments I have seen from brethren on this have dealt with the right of remarriage granted unto one who had put away his/her mate because of fornication, or denial of the right to remarriage, without sin, unto the guilty party or one who has dismissed the mate for reasons other than adultery. However, knowing how Jesus answered the Pharisees’ first question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” with, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”: It seems to me that this has to be dealt with before we get to the sin of adultery encountered by remarriage of those who believe that indeed it is lawful to put away the mate for “every cause.” Am I correct? Beloved, these things are set forth in an unbiased manner, for the sole purpose of Bible study. I have no one in mind to condemn or justify. Can it be studied without bias, traditionalism, or what the world may think about it or practice? I hope so.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 6, pp. 178-179
March 20, 1986