Truth Magazine

By Dennis L. Freeman

If you will ask the above question with the same voice inflection that is used by the 82-year-old woman who advertises for Wendy’s all “beef” hamburgers, you may have more fun with it. This question came to my mind while giving consideration to an incident in the life of Jesus related to us in John 8:1-11 concerning the woman caught in adultery.

I have heard some say that Jesus dismissed and “forgave” her, thus showing the Lord’s tendency to “overlook sin” due to His benevolent grace. What such people are implying is that the Lord does not “condemn” anyone today living in an adulterous relationship (a relationship where one or both parties has never been freed from his former mate, yet have remarried-Mt. 5:32; 19:9), He simply “forgives” it on the grounds that they “sin no more” (Jn. 8:11), or in their words, that they have no other such affairs in the future-the one they are living in is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. That kind of reasoning and teaching puts words in the mouth of the Savior and makes Him say something that He was in no way implying in John 8:11. Let’s look at the account.

And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman; what then do you say?” And they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. ” And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she had been, in the midst. And straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” And she said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”

Verse 3 tells us they brought the woman to Him. But I must ask again, “Where’s the man?” These religious leaders (scribes, Pharisees, “hypocrites”) had “caught her in the very act.” It doesn’t take a mental giant to realize that if the woman is caught in the act, then so is the man! But, where’s the man? The discerning Bible student will also see that this woman was “set in the midst,” that is to say, in full view of all. This was a totally unnecessary and deliberately cruel act in their attempt to carry out “justice.” She should have been contained in chambers somewhere to await a fair trial. It was furthermore stated that “the Law of Moses commanded us to stone such a woman.” Actually, the Law of Moses commanded the death penalty for both parties involved (Lev. 20: 10; Deut. 22:22). Still, the man is noticeably absent from the scene. Verse 6 tells it like it is and reveals the true purpose for this charade. The whole situation was engineered to “tempt” or “test” Jesus-to put Him on the spot and discredit Him. But Jesus, undoubtedly aware of this, was probably asking Himself the question, “Where’s the man?” Could it just be that provision was made for his escape in that he was a part of this plot to discredit the Master? Maybe he was one of the very men standing by accusing this woman. Or maybe he was at home waiting to hear the outcome of their terrible scheme. Wherever he was, his absence shows us the true character and purpose of these religious hypocrites-to prove Jesus – wrong and themselves right at any cost.

The “testing” was in the fact that had Jesus said, “stone her,” He would have been acting as judge and jury, usurping authority over both the Jewish law of the right to fair trial (Deut. 19:15-19; Jn. 7:51) and the right of the Roman government to inflict punishment (Luke 23:1, 15; Rom. 13:14). Had He said, “you cannot stone her,” He would have negated the death penalty for this act altogether, thus being open to further attack for ignoring the Old Testament Law. The Lord’s wisdom, however, enabled Him to take care of all parties involved in this odious situation. In verse 7, Jesus gets to the root of the problem. “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” But, what is the sin? Some would say that Jesus is teaching that no one has the right to judge another person (especially another’s marriage relationship) because we all have committed sins in a general way. This writer thinks the “sin” in its context here is more narrowly defined than that, having precise application to these “accusers.” Their sin was that of trying to have this woman killed on the spot (a right they did not have) and, more devastatingly, their sin was in trying to discredit the Son of God Himself so as to lead the people away from Him and toward their own perverted way of thinking. What a coldly calculated and hypocritical plan!

One by one, they all withdrew, being convinced that Jesus was aware of their thoughts, their attitude of heart, and their foul plot to hurt Him. “Did no one condemn you?” Jesus then asked the woman. That is to say, “Were all these evil-minded people not willing to commit further sin by stoning you without a trial just to hurt me?” “Neither do I condemn you,” He adds. That is, “I am certainly not going to act in such a manner myself!” And then follows the verse that troubles some today: “Go and sin no more. ” The NASB renders this “From now on sin no more. ” Literally in the Greek it reads “From now (on) no longer sin.” That is, discontinue this life of sin in which you have been engaged. Stop your sinful habit. Make a clean break with your sinful habit. Amend your life from this point on! The simple statement of Jesus is a command to repent and to reform her life. It is a command to change her will and to restore her life to the condition it was

in before she began her adulterous relationships. Jesus says nothing about forgiveness because the divine Text says nothing to imply repentance (or even faith!) on the woman’s part. There is absolutely nothing here to imply Jesus’ overlooking this sin which could lead one to think He would ignore and forgive a sinful “marriage” relationship today that is not repented of and where lives are not restored to that purity that existed before the sinful habit took place. Such thoughts are read into the text and forcibly array this passage against other New Testament principles of repentance (and marriage, divorce and remarriage).

Those who promote the idea that God’s grace overlooks unrepented sins are “mistaken, not understanding the scriptures, nor the power of God.” This is true in many instances for the same reason that it was true concerning the Jews of Jesus’ day they were reading the Bible for confirmation rather than for information! To such watered-down, prejudicial thinking we surely need to ask the profound question: “Where’s the beef?”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 22, pp. 688-689
November 15, 1984

By Raymond Harris

The awesome responsibility for bringing children into the world should be carefully considered by all of the age and disposition to do so. With the coming forth of each generation, society is only twenty years from barbarism! Yes, twenty years is all the time we have to educate and civilize the infants born into our midst each year.

When these tiny “Bundles of Joy” come into our midst, they know nothing of our language, our culture or our customs. They must be taught to understand and communicate with others in their immediate environment. At birth the child knows nothing of our religion, our values or interpersonal relations. Unless they are taught (and caused to believe), they will never reverence God, accept the difference between right and wrong, or come to respect the person and property of others.

The infant is totally ignorant about Communism, Fascism or Democracy. We cannot “assume” that our offspring will instinctively or automatically agree with and share our political beliefs. They must be enlightened and informed as to the strength and weakness of all political systems, if they are to function intelligently as adults in a world largely controlled and influenced by a variety of political ideologies.

The newborn knows nothing of civil liberties, civil rights, racism or prejudice.

The newborn knows nothing about respect, decency, honesty, morality, manners, conventions and propriety.

Truly, each little bundle of “total ignorance” must be tamed and schooled and trained very carefully if civilization is to survive!

If the child learns to accept and obey the rules, it is a start.

If the child leans to love and respect his parents, brothers and sisters, and playmates, it is a start.

If the child is fortunate he will have parents and other teachers who will impress upon him the fact that certain things are always right and there are certain things that are always wrong.

If we succeed in pointing today’s toddlers in the right direction, we will survive for a while.

On the other hand, if our little ones grow up filled with selfishness, prejudice, rebellion and greed, we are doomed to a bleak future. If our little ones grow up indoctrinated with situation ethics, humanism and other Communistic inspired philosophies, God help us!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 22, p. 680
November 15, 1984

By Keith Pruitt

A few years ago, Ira North and his Madison bunch invited Kitty Wells and company to perform during the Big Day In May celebration. Thousands of non-concerned irreligious people attended, no doubt, to get their bellies filled, not with the Word, but with food and to hear the old country classics of Mrs. Wells. At that time, few thought that the music fair would spread to other congregations.

A few days ago, the congregation at East Alton received an invitation to attend a youth rally in Jacksonville, Illinois. At first one would pass it off as the usual garbage that hits file 13, but at second glance there was something in this invitation that would remind one of the above mentioned event at Madison. On Saturday, after lunch, a group named Time of Day is to perform. There is a footnote on the side to explain what this group is all about. It reads as follows: “Harding University presents Time of Day, a group of five musicians who will perform a repertoire of country and top forty songs.”

One could imagine all sorts of things from that bit of information. Maybe they’ll do Michael Jackson’s tune “Thriller” or one of the other current top forty songs like “Footloose.”

One can not help but weep over the foul odors coming from Zion. The unscriptural teachings propagated within the ranks of liberal minded brethren is giving the church the undeserved reputation of being a denomination. In fact, some people within those circles are preaching that very idea. Although he has tried to deny the statements, Rubel Shelly has taught such to be the truth. And perhaps to some degree he is right about some folks claiming to be members of the body of Christ. They think of the church as just “another denomination” and they act accordingly.

So why should this scribe be so upset and hurt over things that occur such as the above? For the same reason Jeremiah wept over the southern kingdom of Israel and Jesus pled for the same reason with Jerusalem. Souls are at stake.

There is some happy news in the midst of this sad chaos. In recent weeks, there have been many in the Alton area who have left these unfaithful brethren to return to the truth. As many as twelve in the last eleven months have come to East Alton from these congregations. May the glory be given unto God. People are willing to listen to the truth. They are tired of the ungodliness associated with the other camp.

As Joshua said in the long ago, Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 22, p. 678
November 15, 1984

By Tom Roberts

“It don’t matter to me,” asserts the words of a song, and with some Christians, it could be a theme song. I continue to be amazed at the lack of conviction among Christians about even the most fundamental teachings of the Lord, both of public worship and private life.

It is not at all unusual any more to hear of well-known preachers who have stood for a certain way of life for years suddenly changing and practicing something different. One president of a “Christian” college has left the church and joined the Presbyterians. Another was involved in an automobile collision that took another’s life, and the accident happened due to the fact that the preacher had been drinking. Some preachers who used to oppose liberalism are found to be leaders in liberal churches. A number who used to oppose church choirs now defend special singing groups and solos. Some simply refuse to take a stand on any controversial issue and will, like a chameleon, adopt the color of those around him at the moment.

But it’s not only preachers. It is amazing to see a lack of conviction among members of the church at large. We see members who will drift back and forth between liberal and faithful churches as though there is no distinction. Immodest apparel has been accepted without a whimper. Indecent movies are a way of life. Vile language is heard everywhere and defended because “everyone is doing it.” Drinking and gambling are not considered evil unless they “get out of hand,” whatever that means. Increasing numbers see nothing wrong with missing worship services to engage in recreational outings. Folks are more concerned with having a good time than service to the Lord.

Today’s greatest social sin is to have conviction about anything. A person with conviction is viewed as a fanatic, as narrow minded, and as an intolerant bigot. It matters little what subject is under consideration – to have conviction about anything is the one unacceptable, unpardonable crime. It is considered gracious to stand quietly and allow the Lord’s name to be defiled, to follow gutter language, to hear the unspeakable spoken. It is being broad-minded to be in the presence of those who drink and laugh at those who won’t. People refer to others as “sophisticated” who are able to allow any kind of profane and worldly speech or habits to occur in their presence without an objection.

Folks, do you ever object to anything? Does anything offend your sensibilities? Do you find anything at all religiously wrong or morally shocking?

The definition of conviction, as being used here, is: “a doctrine or proposition which one firmly believes . . . fixed belief.” When one has a firm belief about something, it is usually followed by a way of life consistent with that belief. Anything less is moral cowardice or hypocrisy.

We need people of conviction in the Lord’s church today. We need conviction about the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection, about scriptural worship, about faithfulness, about attendance, about language, about marriage, divorce and remarriage, about morals, about liquor, about evangelism, about the mission of the church and much more.

One can well understand how Elijah must have felt (1 Kings 19) when it seemed that all Israel had turned aside after Baal. He said “. . . and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.” Thankfully, God reminded him that there were thousands of others who, like Elijah, still served the Lord. At times like these, we need to remember that there are good men and women, faithful Christians around the world, who do have conviction. They are serving the Lord, drawing the line against evil, standing up and being counted for the cause of Truth. For each and every one of these, we thank the Lord.

But to those of you who read this who are drifting with the tide of compromise and who have been too week to stand with the Lord, let me urge you to be like Joshua, that wonderful warrior for Jehovah. he said, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord (Josh. 24:15). We cannot have conviction and do any less. Hey, where’s your conviction?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 22, pp. 683, 693
November 15, 1984