Truth Magazine

By David Dann

The apostle Paul writes of the Lord’s “intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10-11). The New Testament makes clear to us the fact that God has a plan for the church. In fact, each lo- cal church is on a special mission from God. We find that every church is to be involved in the work of evangelism, edification, and benevolence (1 Thess. 1:8; Eph. 4:11-12; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 5:3-16).

However, it is not enough to haphazardly approach these God-given tasks with the attitude that the “end justifies the means.” We must realize that there is a “pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13) which must be adhered to as we strive to do the Lord’s work. We must be zealous to do the Lord’s work, but we must also be zealous to do it in the way that the Lord has prescribed. It is important for us to be aware of some dangerous practices that are a threat to our ability to carry out God’s plan for the church. Some threats to God’s plan for the church are:

1. Confusion over the “local church” and the “universal church.” The Scriptures use the word “church” in two dif- ferent senses. The Bible uses the word “church” to refer to the spiritual body of Christ that is made up of everyone who has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, whether living or dead (Eph. 4:4; 3:14-15; Col. 1:18). However, the word “church” is also used to refer to each local congre- gation of the Lord’s people meeting together to worship and carry out the Lord’s work (Acts 13:1; 1 Thess. 1:1). According to Paul, the local church consists of “saints in Christ Jesus . . . with the elders and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). The New Testament clearly sets forth the pattern by which each local church is to organize itself and properly func- tion as a collective body. On the other hand, the universal church has no physical organization, and never functions as a collective unit as far as the Scriptures are concerned. Man-made schemes that encourage thousands of churches to act on a brotherhood-wide level make a flawed attempt to activate the universal church. These brotherhood schemes.

2. Centralized control and oversight of the work of a plurality of churches. According to the New Testament pattern, each local church is responsible for implementing and overseeing its own spiritual work. The local church stands alone as the largest functioning body of Christians in a given area. As for the role of elders in controlling and overseeing the work of local churches, the apostle Peter instructs these men to, “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers” (1 Pet. 5:2). It is im- portant to notice that the elders are not told to shepherd several different flocks (churches), or the work of many different churches. They are only authorized to shepherd the church which is among them. In other words, each church is autonomous and independent of all others. Man-made schemes, such as television and radio programs, which solicit contributions from several churches, and place the control and oversight of the work of many churches under the eldership of a single church constitute a departure from the New Testament pattern. These schemes seek to centralize control of the work of many churches, which not only threaten God’s plan for each church, but is also a determined step toward denominationalism.

3. Failure to make a distinction between the work of the church and the work of the individual. Some insist that the local church, as a collective body, is authorized by God to do whatever an individual Christian is authorized to do. In other words, if an individual Christian can support and operate a college, then the church can do so as well. Or, if an individual Christian has authority to contribute to an orphans’ home, then the church has authority to do the same. However, the New Testament makes a clear distinc- tion between individual action and the collective action of a local church. While instructing Timothy with regard to the care of Christian widows, Paul writes, “If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows” (1 Tim. 5:16). Paul draws a clear line between the work of “any believing man” (the indi- vidual) and the responsibilities of the church. While there are many worthwhile activities we may involve ourselves in as individual Christians, we must remember that God has a special plan for the church. Confusion concerning the work of the individual and the work of the church creates a threat to God’s mission for the church.

4. Recreation and social activities sponsored by the lo- cal church. Many churches have followed after the popular denominational trend of promoting social activities and recreation for their members. A good number of these churches have spared no expense in building facilities such as gymnasiums, “fellowship halls,” and “family-life centers,” to help them meet the social needs of the member- ship. The Lord’s money is used not only in providing such facilities, but also to cater to the various social activities that are regularly promoted by the local church. However, God’s plan for the church is spiritual in nature. In fact, the New Testament knows nothing of the church involving itself in social and recreational activities such as we see today. “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). God’s plan for the church is placed in jeopardy when the church chooses to involve itself in recreational and social activities.

5. A misunderstanding of, and misapplication of “fel- lowship.” The term “fellowship” is one that is used in the New Testament to mean, “sharing together,” or “joint par- ticipation.” Some churches attempt to justify the practice of organizing and paying for social activities based on the assumption that such will provide a great opportunity for “fellowship” among the members of the church. But, ac- cording to the Scriptures, fellowship is a term that refers to spiritual activity, rather than social activity. Concerning the spiritual nature of fellowship, the apostle John writes, “That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The Scriptures never speak of fellowship with regard to social activities, dinners, or entertainment. While the Lord’s supper is referred to as “fellowship” (1 Cor. 10:16), the Corinthian brethren were sharply rebuked when they attempted to turn that “fellowship” into a social event (1 Cor. 17-22). God’s plan for the church is often compromised when brethren broaden the concept of fel- lowship to include social activities.

6. Supporting human institutions to do the work of the church. Some churches wish to carry out the work of evangelism through supporting a man-made plan such as a sponsoring church arrangement. Others seek to provide for the work of edification by financially supporting a Bible college. And still others seek to do their part in benevolence by donating sums of money to support orphans’ homes and homes for the aged. According to the New Testament, God’s plan is for each church is to carry out its own work in all of these areas (1 Thess. 1:8; Eph. 4:11-12; Acts 6:1-

7). If the local church can dispatch its responsibility in any area by simply sending funds to a human institution, then there is really no need for the church at all. However, God has given the church a special mission, and he expects the church to be faithful in carrying out that mission. It should be sufficient to note that if God wanted the church to work through human institutions then he would have provided instructions concerning this type of work. He has provided none. When a church supports human institutions to carry out its work, God’s plan for that church is severely threat- ened, if not entirely discarded.

Conclusion

“I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Lord did not ask for the opinions of men when he set forth the New Testament pattern for the work of the church. Each local congregation has the God-given responsibility to carry out its work according to his plan. Are you helping or hindering the progress of that work?

By Tom M. Robert

One of the wonderful things about the preaching of Jesus (in addition to its wisdom, grace, perfection and relevance) was that it was always open and aboveboard, public in nature, not hidden in back rooms and secret conclaves. Knowing that he had the “words of eternal life” (John 6:68), Jesus proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom openly to the multitudes: “. . . I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing” (John 18:20). In his journeys, Jesus “went through the cities and villages, teaching . . .” (Luke 18:22) in such a fashion that multitudes heard him (Mark 2:13).

From the beginning, Jesus in- tended that the message of grace be free, uninhibited, unbound, and unfettered by human authority. No man or group of men has the right to limit the spread of the gospel; it has been certified by Jesus’ authority as the son of God and com- missioned to the world (Mark 16:15-16; Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49). It is an eternal message, to all men of every race. It cannot be fettered by creeds. Its authority cannot be diminished by synods and councils. Translation committees cannot alter the original inscriptions. Private interpretation, in which efforts to teach “another gospel” are waged, are condemned (Gal. 1:6-9). Private and secret groups which seek to subvert or change the definition of truth and who often invoke secrecy and personal privilege will be exposed. Cloaks of darkness cannot hide the light of the gospel.

The message of the cross was not given to a select few within the sanctum sanctorum, to be reserved for the “clergy” and kept from the “laity.” John related that “the common people heard him gladly” (John 12:37). Even on those occasions when Jesus taught his disciples (apostles) privately, it was to give them understanding so the mes- sage could be fully declared later. “Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops” (Matt. 10:27). The parables, though concealing truth from prejudiced hearts, were open to those seeking to know the truth. Jesus, when asked why he used parables, explained:

Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand . . . but blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear (Matt. 13:11-16).

The apostle Paul made mention of some minds that were blinded to truth, but it was of their own doing, not the re- sult of the message: “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them” (2 Cor. 4:3-4). In fact, it is God who “commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (v. 6). The same God who commanded physical light to spring into being (Gen. 1:3) is the same God who sheds spiritual light throughout the world by the power of his word. Without physical light, life on earth would die; without spiritual light, mankind will perish in sin. It is unthinkable that anyone would try to keep people in darkness from the light of the gospel of Christ. Yet, in reality, there are those who attempt to hinder the free knowledge of truth.

Clergy Interference

Certain religions establish a “clergy” and “laity” dis- tinction that is foreign to New Testament Christianity. “Clergy” refers to an ecclesiastical hierarchy imposed on religious bodies by which some men are elevated in rank above others. “Laity” defines the rest of people who are ranked beneath the authority of the clergymen. Not only is this system foreign to New Testament Christianity, it is antithetical to it. The New Testament teaches a brotherhood of believers in which each Christian is a holy priest (1 Pet. 2:4-10). Only Jesus is a high-priest over other priests (Heb. 7:20-27). The only structure given to the church of the Lord is that revealed in Philippians 1:2: “bishops, deacons and saints.” A “bishop” is a spiritual overseer (also called an elder, presbyter, and shepherd: 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Acts 14:23; 20:17-38). The work of a bishop is a place of service, not an office of rank. How different is the life of Jesus Christ (who is our High Priest and Chief Shepherd) from those who wear expensive garments of silk and tapestry, with jewels on their fingers and tiaras of diamonds on their head, demanding rank, superior- ity, privilege, and prestige. In contrast, Jesus washed the feet of the disciples and taught that “those who would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven will be servant of all” (Luke 22:24-26).

But the greater danger lies not in the elevation of men to superior rank in religion; these clergymen demand the right to interpret scripture for the lesser laity, “let’s just keep this among us boys!” Declaring that they stand between God and the lower laity, the clergy claim the right to give or withhold Scripture as part of the sacerdotal system of exclusive priesthood. Note this excerpt from an address by the cardinals of Rome to Pope Pius III, which is preserved in the National Library of Paris, folio No. 1068, Vol. 2, 650-651 (via The Sower, Vol. 5, No. 1, Yuma, AZ):

Of all the advice that we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the mat- ter, namely, to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is the book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it.

Not only do they lay claim to control the Scriptures, but they also lay claim to the right to dispense grace as representatives of Christ. Thus, “sacraments” are given or restricted, depending on the decision of the clergy, “the good ol’ boys.” By this sacerdotal system, millions are held in spiritual bondage for fear of losing “grace” through displeasing the clergy who stand between them and God.

Protestant Creeds

Not to allow Catholics to get one step ahead of them, Protestant churches likewise use the “just among us boys” error in its creedal systems. No denomination can exist without a creed. Thus, denominations form synods, coun- cils, committees, and conferences which formulate the creeds distinctive to that particular religious body. Creeds form barriers from one denomination to another and to be a part of a specific denomination, one must accept the authority of the creed which denominates that body. The Methodist Discipline makes Methodists, not Baptists; the Lutheran Catechism makes Lutherans, not Catholics; the writings of Mary Baker Eddy make Christian Scientists, not Unitarians; the Watch Tower Society makes Jehovah’s Witnesses, not Episcopalians; the Book of Mormon (and other writings of Joseph Smith, et al.) makes Mormons, not Sabbatarians, etc.

Jesus condemned human creeds: “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, and in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matt. 15:8-9).

The apostle Paul condemned division (“denominational- ism” means “division”) when he said, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He further rebuked that church for allowing division based upon following certain men: “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say that, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (vv. 11-13).

How long will it take us to learn that “just among us boys” is an attitude that violates the will of Christ, causes division, permits creeds to multiply and destroys the unity of believers. What right does any man or group of men have to decide among themselves what doc- trines to bind upon others?

Among Churches of Christ

Are those of us who are members of the church of Christ immune from this syndrome that seems so much a part of human practice? By no means! Just as the apostles themselves had bad attitudes about themselves and about their superiority, we can fall prey to the “good ol’ boy” system of thinking. “Just among us boys” describes an attitude of heart that elevates a few above others, that expects privacy and privilege to excuse their error, that extends special treatment to those “within the club” and expects reciprocation. Those as- sociated with Truth Magazine are not beyond this failing if we fail to watch ourselves. If we become so enamored of ourselves that we expect anyone to accept what we say simply because we say it, we have been bitten with the “bug.” If we should come to believe that we speak for the brotherhood, or a segment thereof (which we do not, nor do we seek to do so; each writer speaks only for him or herself), we have the “virus” of spiritual elitism that leads to denominationalism. If we should come to expect prefer- ential treatment from others so that we are above criticism or biblical review, we have fallen ill to the syndrome. If we think we are the “inner circle” of the sanctum sanctorum, expecting privacy to cover our error, we are as guilty as the Pope of Rome, the Lutheran Synod or the Baptist General Convention of promoting denominationalism. Let there be no mistake: “just among us boys” is another word or phrase that denotes an attitude that compromises truth, seeks to cover sinful beliefs and doctrines, and expels from the “in- ner circle” of religious superiority those who disagree.

“Just among us boys” describes those who whisper and gossip among themselves about those who oppose them but who will refuse like cowards to discuss and debate like concerned brethren. “The boys” have been known to whisper around and get gospel meetings canceled, seek to stop a church from hiring a certain preacher with whom they disagree, and tear down a reputation of a fellow Christian without once discussing an issue or meeting face to face with the brother in question.

“The boys” will demand their right to teach error pub- licly and then hide behind Matthew 18 if one does not come to them personally before exposing their sin. Of course, they expect the privilege to expose individuals with whom they disagree without going to them (those in the institutional churches, Christian Churches, denominational bodies, etc.).

“The boys” will expect the right to go across the coun- try and around the world teaching error but will criticize those who oppose them as self-seeking opportunists who are trying to make a name for themselves, who are jealous, who do not respect congregational autonomy and who lack brotherly love.

“The boys” demand the right to teach error and remain in fellowship with brethren everywhere. The “brothers” of “the boys” are willing to extend fellowship to those who teach error in direct contradiction of Scriptures: 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:6-9, etc. You see, it is not enough to avoid evil practices (Rom. 1:18-31). The Scripture also condemns those who “approve of those who practice them” (v. 32). Yet there are those “among the boys” who teach egregious error about adulterous marriages and their “brothers” are willing to associate with them, use them in gospel meetings, support them, and condemn those who oppose their error.

“The boys” have an attitude that they can spread error across the Internet among discussion groups yet plead special privilege or “privacy” and demand that no one be allowed to review their error. After being chastised by one brother quite severely for “violating his privacy” by quoting from his material in a discussion group on the Internet, I was vindicated after the fact by that entire discussion being sold publicly on a CD in a bookstore. It is a strange definition of “privacy” to discuss issues among hundreds and claim immunity as a private discussion. As a child, most of us played a game of “Tag” and would say, “King’s X” if we wanted to be immune from being “tagged.” “The boys” want to use “King’s X” after teaching error because they don’t want to be tagged! Others of this mind-set will teach a group of young men or a Bible class in a home and urge them to “keep our discussions private.” They especially don’t like tape recorders. Tape recorders have an uncanny way of being exact about what has been taught!

“The boys” want to be treated with dignity, love, and gentleness. They decry the spirit by which one brother reviews another’s error. But their desire to be treated with dignity, love, and gentleness (which is usually afforded them) is returned by caustic criticism toward “journal- istic jingoism,” “watchdogs,” “buzzards,” brotherhood supervisors,” etc. One thing is clear: let a brother teach that an adulterous marriage is okay and he will be treated with dignity, love, and gentleness by his “brothers.” But let someone expose the error of adulterous marriages and those who are willing to fellowship that error and he will be boiled in oil!

“The boys” like to “toss out an idea” and be seen as “original thinkers” who are tired of the old “church of Christ traditions” and want to introduce something new. It is often heard, when these “new ideas” are being explored that we are just “thinking out loud to see where this will go” and asking for input from other original thinkers as “iron sharpens iron” (Prov. 27:17). Of course, when they meet a fellow with a “forehead like adamant” (Ezek. 3:9), they become mighty unhappy!

“The boys” want to spread their doctrine of fellowship with error, compromise and unity in diversity in every way possible: a network of religious papers, college campuses, gospel meetings, private discussion groups, via the Inter- net, and house to house. But they don’t want to extend the same privilege to those who oppose them. Those who oppose them have bad attitudes, ulterior motives, are dis- honest, are not trustworthy, have a network, and do all this without love. Yet I have noticed that any amount of love, however great and real, is never enough for the man who is determined to teach error. Love him as you will. When you oppose him, you don’t love him, in his estimation. Isn’t is exceedingly strange that false teachers are always so full of love, and those who oppose false teachers are so full of hate? Did you notice this oddity? Folks, it is not a lack of love that is our problem. Did Paul not love the brother in Corinth that was to be disciplined? Did Paul not love Peter when he withstood him to the face? Did Jesus not love the apostles when he rebuked them for wanting special seats in the kingdom? One of the biggest lies ever told by the Devil (and used by false teachers) is that it is a lack of love that motivates every person that opposes error! But one thing is sure: I love my brethren too much to keep my mouth shut and let them teach error without hearing about it. I love truth too much to keep silent. I love the church too much to allow it to be led into digression without some effort on my part.

In short, “the boys” don’t like to be questioned, chal- lenged, put to the test. They want the right to go about “hither, thither and yon” teaching what they like to whom- ever they like without having to face the consequence of their actions. The Pope would like to spread Catholicism without examination, too. But with dignity, love, and gentleness, we will oppose him.

The right attitude to be found in gospel preaching is that demonstrated by Jesus. Teach the truth plainly. Put it on the housetops. Spread it to the world. Yes, preach the gospel from a heart full of love, but don’t be more dignified that the Savior. Don’t be more timid than the inspired writers. “Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Col. 4:5-6).

By Bobby L. Graham

This question often comes from honest people, wondering why some of us do not use mechanical instruments in the worship of the Lord. It is a fair question that demands a fair answer.

All worship of God is limited by whatever divine instruc- tions have been given for our guidance. God has always prescribed what constitutes acceptable worship of him under every dispensation that he has made with mankind. We must conform our efforts to his will and seek never to impose our own wills upon his. A lesson learned from the very first instance of worship recorded in the Old Testament — that of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 — is that we must act by faith in God, based on what he has spoken, if our wor- ship is to please him (Heb. 11:4). The same lesson can be learned from the Mosaic dispensation, in the case of Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire to the Lord in Leviticus 10. Whatever God has not sanctified as acceptable to him in worship is unauthorized and constitutes will worship.

We also learn from the New Testament that worship can be will worship — worship established by one’s own will (self-directed worship). Paul spoke about this in Colossians 2:23. The Lord himself declared that worship based upon the doctrines and commandments of men is offered in vain (Matt. 15:8-9). Because no instruction from God under the New Testament shows the use of any music besides sing- ing to be acceptable in worship, a person adding any other kind of music is doing so on the basis of human desires and pleasure, not the expressed will of God. Will worship fails to meet God’s approval, as seen in Colossians 2:23.

New Testament regulations for worship are those that apply to God’s people under the new covenant of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). Old Testament regulations like those during David’s day have no relevance or application to people in the Lord’s church. To use the Old Testament is to burden oneself with the entire Mosaic Law, according to Galatians 5:1-4, including its insistence upon animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. To accept part of the Old Testament practices but refuse others, in the absence of any such direction from the Lord to do so, is to make one’s own thinking superior to God’s thinking and to fall from divine grace.

In spite of David’s use of the instrument or the encour- agement to use such, as in Psalm 150, the New Testament instructs the Christian to sing and make melody in his heart to the Lord. The heart of the worshiper is the instrument that is employed in acceptable worship, and its melody is the only melody that the Lord stresses (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

In view of biblical teaching along the lines discussed in this study, it is important to ask for New Testament teach- ing that authorizes the use of the mechanical instrument of music in worship to God. Anyone using such ought to be willing to provide New Testament justification for its use. Where is that teaching found in the New Testament? If it can be produced, then we should all practice it. If it cannot be found, then all should omit its use in order to please the Lord, which is the very essence of worship.

By Donnie V. Rader

Is marriage important? How you answer that question has everything to do with how you approach marriage, commitment to it and even di- vorce. In that marriage is a divine institution, it goes without saying that it is important. Another obvious fact is that the world’s view of marriage continues to decline.

The Sunday Tennessean (June 6, 1999) had an article on the front page entitled, “Importance of marriage declines.” The article stated:

Divorce has become so common in Tennessee that almost two-thirds of all new marriages involve either a divorced bride or groom, and 38% of weddings are between two divorced persons, a new study shows.

The report released by the conservative Tennessee Family Institute, is based on marriage data from the past 20 years.

Research analyst Roger Abramson, who wrote the report, said the numbers reflect a societal shift toward placing less importance on the institution of marriage.

“The institution of marriage generally is in a weaker state now than it was (20 years ago) because people don’t view marriage as the commitment they once did,” Abramson said. “We now have a state with a significant group of people where families are torn apart for no other reason than they just want to.”

. . . But information from the National Center for Health Statistics has for years been used to predict that about half of new marriages will end in divorce.

Tennessee’s divorce rate of 6.3 per 1,000 people is the eighth-highest rate in the country, according to an NCHS study, and state statistics show a growing number of Tennesseans are getting married for their fifth and sixth time.

The attitudes reflected in these studies affect God’s people too. We live in a world that shapes and molds the weaker ones to be like it (Rom. 12:1-3). Thus, it behooves us to teach continually about the importance of marriage.

Marriage Was Created By God

Marriage is not a creation of mankind, but of God him- self. In the very beginning God saw that it was not good that man should be alone and he thus said, “I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Gen. 2:18). So, God created Eve from his rib and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (v. 24). This principle, stated in the garden, was quoted by Paul (Eph. 5:31) and Jesus himself (Matt. 19:4-6) when teaching on marriage.

This institution, called marriage, was planned and de- signed by God. Being the author of it, God set the laws that are to govern this relationship (Gen. 2:24; Rom. 7:2-3).

The Purpose of Marriage

The importance of marriage is clearly seen when we understand why God created it. What is the purpose of marriage?

1. Companionship. When God saw that it was not good that man should be alone, he made a wife for him (Gen. 2:18-24).

2. Legitimately bearing children. It is possible to have children without the honor of marriage. However, to do so involves sin. When God created marriage in the beginning he said,  “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply . . .’” (Gen. 1:27-28).

Paul said, “Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14).

3. For sexual relations — to avoid fornication. Lest man behave as an animal and seek to fulfill his desire with any who would be willing, he designed marriage for the lawful sexual union. Paul wrote to the Corinthians,

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own hus- band. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor. 7:2-4).

The same apostle wrote to the Hebrews saying, “Mar- riage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).

Marriage Is Not Important If . . .

There are several ways that one may not honor marriage as God intended. Marriage is not important if . . .

1. There is sex before marriage. Premarital sex is not uncommon. Earlier in this decade the Tennessean reported that 63% of today’s teenagers see nothing morally wrong with sexual relations before marriage. That’s scary! That means that 63% of the people our teenagers associate with see nothing wrong with sex before marriage.

The Hebrew writer said that the marriage bed (sexual relations in marriage) is undefiled. However, the fornica- tor (pre-marital) and the adulterer (extra-marital) God will condemn (Heb. 13:4). Those who commit fornication, not only violate an emphatic prohibition, but have no respect for marriage.

2. Adultery is committed. When a married person goes outside the realm of marriage for sexual relations, his mar- riage is not important to him at all. We have already noted that Hebrews 13:4 says God will condemn such a person. Jesus taught that this unfaithful act gives the innocent party the right to put his mate away and remarry another (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

3. One divorces without a scriptural right. When asked if a man could divorce his wife without a cause, Jesus re- sponded with four reasons why the answer was “no” (Matt. 19:3-6). Paul taught the same in 1 Corinthians 7:10-13. Jesus gave only one scriptural cause for divorce: fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). When a person divorces for any other cause, they do not honor marriage or God’s law.

4. One remarries without a scriptural right. Jesus said, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, com- mitteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). The only one who has a right to remarry (in the case of divorce) is one who has put his mate away for the cause of fornication. All others commit adultery when they remarry.

The strictness of God’s law tells us that he views mar- riage as important. If his law would allow divorce for any cause, or remarriage in any divorce, it would indicate a lesser view of marriage. The very article we cited above suggests that frivolous divorce and remarriage is a sign that marriage is not important.

5. You are not the mate you ought to be. It is not only those who commit fornication or divorce who view mar- riage unimportant. Those who stay together and are never unfaithful to their mate could be guilty too. Those who do not work at making their marriage the best it can be, do not think marriage is important. If it is, they would change!

Husbands who view marriage as important seek to love their wives as themselves (Eph. 5:22-28), be understanding, honor their wives and treat them as the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Wives who think marriage is important strive to love their husbands (Tit. 2:5), be submissive (1 Pet. 3:1-6), and have reverence for their husbands (Eph. 5:33).

We know marriage is important to God. We know that marriage is not important to the world. How do you view marriage?