Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

In one of Christ’s frequent disputes with His critics, the Lord made a little remark that is treated parenthetically in the American Standard Version. It is this: “and the scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35). The argument itself is not important for our purposes here, but the little off-the-cuff statement that He made about Scripture is of great importance.

We view the Bible the way we do, as infallible, because of such biblical points as this. When we are today insulted and attacked because our view of Scripture seems to some to be naive and out of date, we rest assured in the faith that our trust in it has the stamp of divine approval upon it. Holy Scripture not only claims inspiration for itself, but goes beyond mere inspiration to argue that this product of divine activity, once written, is also completely trustworthy.

1. Jesus our Savior clearly thought of the Book of Books as totally dependable. He believed it could stand the test of fair and honest examination. We know so because He said so. Those Jews with whom He took up His contention would not have dared to question this assumption. They agreed with it. They could only have done what they did – to try to silence Him by other means (as verse 39 indicates).

2. The apostles of Christ also treated the Bible with an appropriate attitude of reverence and respect. When Peter preached on Pentecost, he identified the ancient words of the prophet David with the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:25-33). Later, the author of Hebrews quoted from Psalm 95:7ff. and said those words were the words of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 3:?ff). They, thus, saw the words written in the Bible as the words of God Himself, not the words of mere men. Thus, they were not, like the words of mere men, susceptible to error.

3. Jesus also viewed a biblical answer as the solution to any refigious problem. His dispute with the Jews was settled, to His mind at least, by citing the Bible on his side of the issue. When the Devil misused the Word of God, though, the misapplication was refused as authority (Matt. 4:5-7).

4. Jesus saw the fallacious arguments of men as broken by Scripture. Far from the Bible being wrong, it was those men who refused to accept the truth-statements of God’s Word who were in error. It was this same faith which later inspired Paul to write, “Yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Let us today share the faith of Christ, not only in the God of the Bible, but also in the Bible itself. Much of the Bible had come through several centuries of history, having passed through many loving and some “not-so-loving” hands. But He still regarded it as “scripture unbroken.” We ought to do the same.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, p. 142
March 7, 1985

By Lewis Willis

At some point in every assembly of the church, some brother makes some announcements which are of interest to those who assemble. Usually these announcements consist of a welcome to our guests, an announcement of the hours of worship, a mention of the sick, possibly an expression of sympathy and such things as gospel meetings being conducted by area churches. The mention of these kinds of things is designed to elicit a response of some sort from those who hear the announcements.

One would think that such a thing would be more or less accepted and very little confusion would surround such a practice. However, in 25 years of preaching, I have observed a lot of controversy about this subject. Some of the questions are: Who is going to make the announcements? When will they be made? What will or will not be announced? I have attended many meetings where these things were discussed – sometimes hotly! I have heard brethren ask by what authority certain things were announced. For instance, by what authority do we announce the wedding of one of the members? It would seem that folks would finally come to realize that God did not legislate with reference to the practice under consideration. He would recognize that those of us who are members of the church have to have sufficient intelligence to obey the gospel and He apparently intended that we use that intelligence with reference to the practice of imparting information to each other such as is done with public announcements.

Throughout the Scriptures, we read of the gathering together of God’s people for worship. We read of their involvement with each other on a daily basis and how they treasured their association together. They shared a common faith (2 Pet. 1:2), and what happened to one of them seemed to happen to all of them. We are also aware that when these people came together, certain things were said that did not specifically pertain to acts of teaching. When Peter and John had healed the man at the gate of the temple, they were called before the leadership of the Jews and questioned to determine if charges might be brought against them for what they had done. The Jews determined all they could do was to threaten them not preach in the name of Jesus any more and they let them go. “And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them” (Acts 4:23). When Paul returned to Antioch after his first preaching tour, he “gathered the church together” and “rehearsed all that God had done with them” (Acts 14:27). It seems rather obvious to me that there was a practice in the early church of imparting important information to the church which it would benefit from knowing or which would arouse in them a reasonable response to that information. I should be greatly surprised in the early churches did not have announcements made to them that James had been murdered and that Paul had been imprisoned. I also suspect that announcements were made throughout the churches that Paul had been released. Specifically, these events had absolutely nothing to do with the acts of singing, praying, communing, giving and teaching. But while gathered together, reports were given about preaching and about the legal difficulties of the saints and I am rather persuaded some delight was experienced in knowing that some good things were happening to the disciples as well.

In fact, the principles set forth in the Scriptures teach that there are at least two responses that we ought to share with one another. They are happiness and sorrow. Paul wrote, “Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15). If the church is made aware of sadness experienced by some of the members, it can weep with them and possibly be able to support and encourage those members in their sorrow. Conversely, if the church is aware of some happiness being experienced by some of the members, they can rejoice with them and share their happiness. In spite of all of the charges and counter charges that are raised, most people understand that imparting information about the members has no other purpose than to inform so that we can react to each other as we are taught in the Scriptures to react.

My observation is that we have often been so afraid that we might do something that is wrong, that we frequently do not do some things that are right. We have been very careful to announce all of the sickness, the tragedy, the heartache and the death affecting the membership. And with these announcements, we have truly learned to weep with those who weep. We usually act as though we are afraid to announce the weddings, the births, the accomplishments and joys of the members. Are we afraid to rejoice with each other? Frequently people need someone to share their joy with as much as they need someone with whom to share their sorrow. We might want to be careful or we will become better weepers than we are rejoicers! The announcements can often leave us so depressed that it is difficult to focus attention on the worship in which we engage. There has to be a balance in these tings. Not all that happens to God’s people is bad. Some of it is good, and if we don’t want to be a people with a constant frown of distress upon our face, we are going to have to learn to share the good with each other as well as the bad.

It never had been right for the Lord’s church to divert its attention from its God appointed duty and spend its money to build fantastic fellowship halls and serve great feats to fatten the members. But, if brethren who recognize that unscriptural practice go out of their way to provide a social gathering that is right, I fail to see why it is wrong to announce it so that all of the brethren who wish to can participate in it. If some of the ladies are going to give a wedding shower, or a baby shower, in anticipation of the happy event, and the way they are doing it right, what principle of truth is violated if you tell everybody it in an announcement so they can participate if they wish? If we announce that a new baby has been born, why can’t we announce that the baby’s grandfather is 89 years old so that the members can remember him in some special way? IF we can announce the marriage of a couple, what principle is violated if we announce a 50th anniversary? Consistency says if you can do one, you can do the other. Yet many people have no problem with one, but have scruples of conscience about the other.

Now in all of these things that God leaves to our judgment, He expects that we use good judgment. Again, in some areas, we don’t have any problem decided what good judgment is. In announcing the names of those who are sick, we do not mention everyone who has had a headache in the past week, and everybody who had a tooth filled and everybody who stumped his toe. We just mention those who are sick enough that some specific attention might be needed from the membership. Nor are we going to announce everybody’s birthday. It would be a waste of time if we announced the 14th birthday of Jane and the 16th birthday of Tom. Also, it might be embarrassing to their mother if we announced that she will be 45 next Tuesday if she has been trying to convince everyone that she is 39! But, we can use good judgment in making a determination about that kind of thing. I announced a 40th anniversary recently and someone hastened to tell me that they did not agree with my going that and they thought it was wrong. I fail to see where the wrong is. If I had announced the 40th accident the couple had had, would there have been the same reaction? I think not. The information was presented so the brethren could rejoice with the couple over this significant achievement if they desired to do so. And that is exactly what the Scriptures teach us to do. I think that all of these announcements, good or bad, should be made without showing partiality among the members. I also think that the worship would not begin so morbidly if we would learn to balance these announcements of the bad with the good. I was just thinkin’, it might help if we would re-think this whole procedure.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 140-141
March 7, 1985

By Steve Wolfgang

The Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader for Saturday, 10-6-84 (p. C-8), contains a story which is triply tragic. The article reports the death at birth of an infant whose parents’ “religious beliefs dictated that they not seek a doctor’s help” during delivery. The parents, Shelbyville (KY) residents, are members of a religious group “with ties to Faith Assembly (which) shuns doctors and relies on divine intervention for medical assistance.” According to the AP news release, the couple’s “first child also suffocated during delivery in 1981.”

This incident is tragic not only for the most obvious reason (the death of an innocent child), but also for the fact that so many people allow themselves to be deluded by some charismatic preacher into gullibly believing things in the name of religion and the Bible which the Bible actually does not teach. Such cases as this not only give a false impression of biblical religion to the uninformed, but also provide grist for the mill of those who would increasingly involve the state in religious matters. (Parenthetically and ironically we note that some of these same crusaders for repression of religion breathe smoke and fire when religious people dare to express themselves politically.)

Surely people have a “right” to believe and practice whatever they please-within limits. Obviously, if one’s religious scruples dictate cannibalism, the public good is surely served by government restraint on the expression and practice of such activities. And so it is here should a parent’s right to believe take precedence over the right to life of an unborn child?

Before someone gets-too bent out of shape over the free-expression-of-religion dimensions of the case, we should think further about what seems to me the most ironic portion of this episode. The judge in this case reportedly said that “it was against his better judgment to dismiss the (reckless homicide) charges, but that he had no choice based on a (1983) Kentucky Supreme Court decision (which) – found that a child must be separated from its mother before it can be considered a victim of homicide.”

But think: If the mother had decided to abort the child (even a matter of weeks or days before birth), would this judge have said the first word about the deliberate slaughter of this innocent being? Certainly not if he is like so many others who profess righteous moral indignation over incidents such as this one, but who then hypocritically defend the “rights” of individuals to massacre a million and a half fetuses every year.

This is not written as a defense of false religion; nor is it meant to increase the anguish and pain of anyone facing such far reaching moral dilemmas as are bound up in these kinds of situations. But surely our nation’s values are distorted when a rare incident such as this makes headlines while virtually nothing is said of millions of abortions which are now occurring at the rate of one every thirty seconds (Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America, p. 187).

Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, p. 138
March 7, 1985

By Johnny Stringer

Jesus taught that marriage is permanent. In keeping with God’s original intent regarding marriage, He prohibited divorce and stated that all second marriages of divorced persons are adulterous (Mt. 19:3-9; 5:32; Lk. 16:18). He made only one exception to this rule: One is permitted to divorce his spouse for fornication, and when he does so, is free to remarry. Some, however, teach that even if he did not divorce his mate for fornication, a Christian is still free to remarry if he was deserted by his mate.

Erroneous Interpretation Of 1 Corinthians 7:15

Advocates of this view cite 1 Corinthians 7:15 as proof of their position. It says, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” They reason that if one is not under bondage, then he must be free to remarry.

Such an interpretation is obviously false, because it clearly contradicts the teaching of Jesus on the subject. The woman who was described by Jesus as being put away (Mt. 5:32; Lk. 16:18), would be deserted; yet, Jesus taught that she had no right to remarry.

Contextual Interpretation Of The Verse

It is necessary to consider the problem Paul was dealing with when he made the statement under discussion. Some of the Christians in Corinth evidently had spouses who were not Christians. They had been converted to Christ, but their mates had not been. They were concerned as to whether a believer’s marriage to an unbeliever was valid; and doubting the validity of such marriages, they wondered whether or not they ought to leave their unbelieving mates.

In verses 12-14, Paul showed that such marriages were valid, so that unbelievers ought to continue dwelling with their unbelieving mates. The Lord had not personally dealt with the specific matter of whether marriages between believers and unbelievers were valid marriages which were to be continued, but Paul would address himself to the subject (v. 12). Of course, when Paul spoke on the subject, he spoke as the Lord’s ambassador under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; hence, the authority of Heaven was behind what he said. The point of verse 14 is that the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is valid. This being the case, the teaching of Jesus applies to such a marriage, for His teaching had to do with marriages in general.

In making the point that the marriage between an unbeliever and a believer was valid, and that the believer ought therefore to continue living with the unbelieving mate, Paul hinted that some unbelievers might be unwilling to live with believers. He instructed the believer to dwell with the unbeliever if the unbeliever was pleased to dwell with the believer. Some unbelievers would not be willing to live with believers.

Because some unbelievers would be unwilling to live with believers, it was necessary to tell believers what to do if their unbelieving mates left them. This is the purpose of verse 15. Paul instructed them that if the unbeliever departed, they should let him depart. The believer should not try to force himself on the unbeliever who desired to leave.

Why should such instruction be necessary? Apparently, some Christians might have been inclined to force themselves on their unbelieving mates because of a deep sense of responsibility to fulfill their marital obligations. The Christian may have feared that if his mate left him, so that he could not fulfill his normal obligations to his mate, his failure to fulfill those obligations would be sinful. Paul, therefore, assured the saints that such was not the case. After saying to let the unbeliever depart, he alleviated their fear, assuring them that if the unbeliever departed, the believer would not be under bondage-that is, under obligation to fulfill all the normal marital duties.

Some interpret the statement that they are “not under bondage” to mean that they are no longer married. However, the word that Paul used in verse 15 did not refer to the marriage bond. He spoke of the marriage bond in verses 27 and 39; but the word he used in verse 15 was one which was sometimes used to refer to a slave bound to his master; it was not used to refer to the marriage bond. In fact, Paul could not be saying that the marriage bond is broken by desertion; for verse I I shows that the marriage bond is not broken by desertion. According to verse 11, if a woman deserts her husband, he is still her husband; she must either be reconciled to him or remain unmarried. The marriage bond, therefore, is not broken by desertion. Inasmuch as the marriage between an unbeliever and a believer is just as valid as any other marriage (w. 12-14), the truth taught in verse 11 applies to it as well as to other marriages.

We must remember the purpose of Paul’s saying that the deserted Christian is not under bondage. People today use this statement to prove that the deserted Christian is free to remarry. Paul was not trying to support that idea; whether the deserted Christian could remarry or not was not the problem he was dealing with. Paul’s purpose was to support the instruction that believers should permit unbelievers to depart; he was trying to overcome the reluctance of some to let unbelieving mates depart. His point, therefore, was the believers would not be guilty of a sinful neglect of marital obligations if their unbelieving mates departed, for they would no longer be bound to fulfill their normal marital duties. Paul did not say the deserted mate was free to remarry; and, indeed, such a notion contradicts the clear teaching of Jesus on the matter (Mt. 5:32; Lk. 16:18).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 137, 141
March 7, 1985