Truth Magazine

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

By Irven Lee

Thousands of parents have turned to private schools to help deal with the serious atheistic influences that reach children through many public schools. Evolution, sexual freedom, rejection of parental authority over their children and efforts to break down faith in God are dangers from which parents seek to protect their children. Alcohol and other drugs present physical dangers, and unholy behavior on the part of the untrained present dangers to character (1 Cor. 15:33).

Parents also hope for more positive things in the private school. It is good to avoid the evil influences, but it is also very helpful to find the wholesome influences of a good environment and effective teaching of truth that builds faith in and knowledge of the right way of the Lord.

The value of the private school depends very much on the faculty. These teachers need to be strong characters who give much thought to what they should accomplish. There are people who are not unbelievers and they are not immoral, but neither are they strong characters with great faith and strong convictions that would enable them to have a good influence on their pupils.

The effectiveness of the private school in training children also depends on the quality of the student body. Children and young people influence one another. If a school allows itself to become a reform school for the depraved young people, it ceases to offer the wholesome environment for which it may have been established. There is a place for the reform school, but it is not the school started by Christians to provide a safe place for training their children. A basket with many rotten apples is no good place to keep good apples.

A school where Christians teach and where children from good homes attend can and usually does maintain higher academic standards than schools where many teachers and pupils live by lower moral standards. The people who are righteous know more of the value of life and the reasons to attain higher goals. As righteousness exalts a nation it also blesses a school or home (see Prov. 14:34).

We need not expect to find perfection anywhere. Neither the teachers, the students, nor the parents are perfect. Parents who are very careless about their own lives and their teaching of their own children need not expect too much from the schools. Home is the place of special responsibility for training children. Excellent private schools can do much to aid worthy parents who are determined to train their children to be Christians. There is no substitute for mothers and grandmothers like Eunice and Lois, and for fathers who bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 1:3-5; 3:14,15).

Schools have in many cases taken themselves too seriously and have looked with longing eyes to church treasuries for help. Churches are not in the school business. It is not wrong for schools to exist and function, but they must operate separate and apart from the church. They certainly do not become wrong if board members, teachers, and patrons are Christians. If churches give to schools they will in turn be dominated by the schools.

Many religious people of various denominations have seen special needs for schools that would not work against their efforts to train their children. In such schools the religious teaching may be seriously in error even if their teaching does fight humanism and other forms of evil. It is amazing how modernism, worldliness, and humanism can influence them who claim to be Christians.

Race conflicts have led to the building of many private schools. In certain communities public schools hardly have a chance to provide an environment that is morally safe. Some private schools at best offer academic excellence with some effort to maintain moral decency. Each community has its own problems and its own advantages. We do not all face the same degree of danger.

Parents, if you take your children out of school to teach them at home, please understand that you have undertaken a difficult task which calls for much thought and constant effort. If reading, writing, and simple arithmetic were the only important needs the job could be done more easily. Even these basic needs will not be met very well in many homes. Teaching is a slow and tedious process. There should be excellent Bible teaching at home wherever the children are or are not sent for other training.

So many children do not have loving parents who are concerned about their spiritual welfare. We may learn enough from the world about us to realize that many children are abused rather than loved, protected, and properly trained. The only references to God they hear may be in the constant flow of blasphemy from parents and others about them. Even the orderly existence of our nation is threatened by this element of society who are drug addicts and alcoholics with animal like behavior. Our property is not safe and we are even in physical danger from such neighbors. Think of their helpless children who have such animals for parents.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 6, pp. 182-186
March 20, 1986

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. As indicated in the previous article, Deaver attempts to support his doctrine by creating a “rule” under which he can “find” authority for the church to provide benevolence to non-Christians by inserting the church, via his rule, into Galatians 6:10.

“Deaver’s rule” is as follows: “All passages which authorize the performance of an act – based upon the peculiar grounds of one’s being a Christian – are passages which apply with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian. . . . If Galatians 6:10 authorizes individual Christians to render physical assistance (benevolence) to a deserving, needy, non-Christian, then Galatians 6:10 authorizes the church to render physical assistance (benevolence) to a deserving, needy, non-Christian.”

Confusing Individual Action and Church Action

“Deaver’s rule” of interpreting New Testament instructions fails in the final court of appeal, God’s Word. The principle he boldly asserts is void of scriptural support or proof. His argument runs in a circle. He tries to prove the validity of his rule by analogy, arguing that “we” use many passages to individuals as authority for the church to act, then he uses his rule to “prove” that instructions to individuals are also instructions to the church!

In Deaver’s attempts to prove his rule by analogy with the use of passages to individuals, he constantly confuses the difference between individual responsibilities and congregational responsibilities, when it fits his argument. His argument fails to admit and recognize that some responsibilities belong exclusively to individual Christians, some responsibilities belong to both individual Christians and the church.

Deaver writes, “If each individual sings the church sings. . . . Is there any way for a congregation to accomplish any authorized work excepting as this work is accomplished in and by and through its individual members?” and “. . when each individual of a local church fulfills his responsibility, the church likewise fulfills its responsibility.” Deaver uses several examples to illustrate his point but he focuses and expounds on Ephesians 5:19. “As, Ephesians 5:19 authorizes the church to sing, it authorizes the individual Christians to sing. The terminology – ‘speaking one to another’ – is just about as individual as you can get! “

Deaver’s argument is as subtle and deceptive as it is false. It is not true that the local church is acting every time each individual acts. Under Deaver’s argument, if every member of a congregation is involved in a secular business, then the church is involved in secular business. If every member is involved in political lobbying, then the church is politically lobbying. Just because every member sings, it does not follow that the church is singing. If each member sat in his or her respective home and sang, the church as a collective group is not singing.

Deaver is right that the only way a congregation can accomplish any authorized work is through the agency of its members, but this proves nothing with respect to his argument. A congregation can only use individual members as its agents for work authorized by God. The use of individual members as agents to carry out authorized congregational work does not authorize a congregation to act where God has only authorized individuals to act. If so then congregations can run businesses and lobby in the political arena.

Contrary to Deaver, Ephesians 5:19 standing alone does not provide authority for congregational singing. Clearly, Ephesians 5:19 is an instruction to individual Christians, not to the church. While Ephesians 5:19 does not provide authority for congregational singing, other New Testament passages clearly do provide authority for such (i.e. 1 Cor. 14:15, v. 23, “when the whole church comes together in one place”).

Again, Deaver conveniently confuses the responsibilities of individuals and the church in a vain attempt to support his rule that passages to individual Christians also apply to the church. The command to sing is given to individuals in certain New Testament passages such as Ephesians 5:19 and congregational singing, thus it does not support “Deaver’s rule.”

Further, Deaver fails to consistently apply his rule that authority for individuals to sing is authority for the church to sing. Under his “Question/Answer” column of the November 26, 1985 issue of Firm Foundation, Deaver responded to the queston, “Is it wrong for a congregation to have a singing group that travels about?” Within two paragraphs Deaver draws a line and distinguishes between Christians, as individuals singing and traveling, and the “church” singing and traveling “by and through its individual members.” Deaver says “there is nothing wrong when people who love to sing get together to sing. And, there is nothing wrong with traveling. James says: ‘Is any cheerful? let him sing praises’ (Jas. 5:13).”

By Deaver’s own rule since James 5:13 “authorizes the performance of an act – based upon the peculiar grounds of one’s being a Christian -” then James 5:13 applys “with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christians. ” Thus, one would expect Deaver to be consistent with the application of his rule and say that James 5:13 authorizes a congregation to have a singing group that travels about. Unfortunately, Deaver applys his rule only where it suits his argument, in debates against “antis.” Deaver flatly says that a singing group representing a congregation has “no scriptural right to exist.”

Could it be that Deaver does recognize the distinction between authority to act for individuals and authority for the church acting as a collective? Deaver writes, “We need to stress that so far as concerns scriptural worship, God demands congregational singing” (emphasis added). And how does Deaver scripturally proves this distinction between individuals singing and the congregation singing? Certainly not by Ephesians 5:19 which “is just about as individual as you can get” (Deaver, July 9, 1985). Deaver proves that the New Testament authorizes only congregational singing in worship by citing Hebrews 2:11-12, “In the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praises” (Deaver, November 26, 1985). Therefore, according to Deaver, individual Christians have authority to sing under the individual instruction of James 5:13 and a church as a collective has authority to sing in assembly under Hebrews 2:11-12.

Just as James 5:13 provides authority for individual Christians to sing, but does not provides authority for the church to sing in assembly, likewise, Ephesians 5:19 provides authority to individual Christians to sing and does not provide authority for the church to sing in assembly. That authority is found elsewhere in the New Testament. Thus, Deaver’s main analogy by Ephesians 5:19, to prove his rule that New Testament passages to individual Christians can be applied to the church acting as a collective, fails.

Deaver’s Rule Violates Bible Principles

Deaver’s rule is clearly a contrived rule, a man-made doctrine used in a vain attempt to create a scriptural proof-text from Galatians 6: 10 in order to support a practice not found in the New Testament. The rule violates one of the most basic principles of Bible hermeneutics, determine to whom the author is speaking. When we read the Bible command, “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. . . ” we understand that the command was given to Noah and not to you and me. When we read the Bible command, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” again we understand by the basic Bible principle of interpretation that God is not speaking to Christians today.

Deaver’s rule proposes to ignore to whom the author is speaking when we read commands in the New Testament which are “based upon the peculiar grounds of one’s being a Christian.” Whether the author is commanding the church or individual Christians is an unimportant distinction under Deaver’s rule. Paul instructed Christians, upon the peculiar grounds of their being Christians, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (Eph. 4:28). According to “Deaver’s rule” this command applies with equal force both to the church and to the individual, therefore, congregations must obey this command to individual Christians and go into business to raise money for those in need. To see the absurdity of ignoring the distinction of whether the author is speaking to individual Christians or the church, simply substitute the church in the following passages which concern individual Christians: John 15:5; 1 Corinthians 7:2-6; 1 Thessalonian 4:3; 4:11.

Deaver’s rule violates the silence of God. God’s silence in the New Testament concerning the use of instruments of music in the worship forbids their use. Likewise, God’s silence in the New Testament concerning church benevolence to non-Christians forbids such action. Deaver violates God’s silence in Galatians 6:10 by attempting to insert church benevolence, by way of his rule, in a passage that is clearly an instruction to individual Christians.

Finally, Deaver’s rule presumes to encroach upon the sanctity of the verbal inspiration of God’s Word! “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . . ” and has been delivered to us “. . not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches. . .” (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Cor. 2:13). For this reason we are admonished, “Every word of God is pure. . . . Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6). Deaver’s rule proposes to add to God’s Word by adding the church in every passage in the New Testament directed to individual Christians and “based upon the peculiar grounds of one’s being a Christian.”

Since Deaver admits that Galatians 6:10 is a command to individual Christians, the only way he can get the church in the passage is to add it via his rule and thus add to God’s Word. If the apostle Paul based an argument and his confidence upon the singular noun “seed” in God’s Word instead of “seeds” in Galatians 3:16, then who will presume to add “the church” in Galatians 6:10 where individual Christians are instructed? If Jesus relied upon the very words of Scripture even to the tense of a verb (Mt. 22:23-33), then why does Deaver attempt to add collective singular noun (“church”) in Galatians 6:10 which contains only distributive plural pronouns (“we” and “us”). (A distributive plural pronoun refers “to each individual or entity of a group rather than collectively” and a collective singular noun “denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit” [American Heritage Dictionary, pp. 384, 261].) As one old preacher summarized the subject of the inspiration of God’s Word, “God said what he meant and meant what He said.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 6, pp. 174-175March 20, 1986

CORRECTION

Typographical errors creep into Guardian of Truth in spite of the fact that I personally read every article four times before it is printed. These are generally allowed to pass without comment unless serious misunderstanding is caused thereby. Recently brother Wayne Greeson reviewed an article from brother Roy C. Deaver. On p. 14 of the 20 March issue, I printed

The command to sing is given to individuals in certain New Testament passages such as Ephesians 5:19 and congregational singing, thus it does not support “Deaver’s rule.”

A line was omitted. The article should have read as follows:

The command to sing is given to individuals in certain N.T. passages such as Ephesians 5:19 and congregational singing is authorized by N.T. passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:15. Ephesians 5:19 is not authority for congregational singing, thus it does not support “Deaver’s rule.”

I apologize to brother Greeson for this error.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, p. 280
May 1, 1986