Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Five essential items constitute scriptural baptism. They are: (1) Element; (2) Agent; (3) Action; (4) Subject; (5) Design. We shall consider these properties as they are described and defined in the New Testament. We are not concerned with the doctrines or opinions of any man. We shall not seek to set forth any partisan or denominational view of the issues involved. Examine the material in light of the Bible and compare it with your own belief or that of the religious body with which you are identified.

The Five Parts

(1) Element. One may be baptized in any number of things. In the Bible, we learn that baptism is in water. “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water . . . . and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36, 38) “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized” (Acts 110:47)? John’s baptism was in water (Matt. 3:13-16; Jn. 3:23) The New Testament reveals that baptism is in water in passages such as Ephesians 5:25, 1 Peter 3:20, 21, and others, but, perhaps, there is little dispute of this point. Observe, please, that we are agreed on this fact because of our mutual acceptance of the text of Scripture.

(2) Agent. Who is the agent, the administrator, the baptizer? In Holy Spirit baptism, Jesus is the baptizer (Matt. 3:11). However, in water baptism, men are the agents employed. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). Men are to teach and men are to do the baptizing. “They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38). John the Baptist and Jesus’ disciples baptized people (Jn. 3:23; 4:1, 2). The apostle Paul baptized people (1 Cor. 1: 14-16). Again, there is little dispute of this conclusion. Men, mankind, are the ones who perform water baptism. Why do we agree to this conclusion? We acknowledge the simple statements of the word of God; thus, we stand united in and on the truth. Can we not follow this procedure regarding the final three aspects of our study?

(3) Action. At this juncture, we may entertain the first hint of controversy. However, we shall overcome potential disagreement by adhering to the plain witness and evidence of the Bible. What is the action of baptism? Is baptism an immersion, a burial, or is it sprinkling or pouring? “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there” On. 3:23). Would one baptize in a place “because there was much water there” if he were sprinkling or pouring water on the people? “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water” (Matt. 3:16). Does this imply sprinkling, pouring or immersion? “They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water. . . ” (Acts 8:38, 39). What action is best described by the verses above, sprinkling, pouring or immersion? Paul said that “we are buried with him by baptism” (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Baptism is likened unto a planting, a burial, and a resurrection (Rom. 6:5). If you had no preconceived ideas regarding the action of baptism, what would you most likely conclude from the verses cited? Surely, then, we can agree, as we did on the first two sections, on the action of baptism. The Scriptures, as they did before, should determine our view of the action of baptism.

(4) Subject. Who should be baptized? When is one a candidate for baptism? What qualifies one to be baptized? First, one must be a sinner. Those baptized in the New Testament were people who had sins that needed to be forgiven (Acts 2~23, 36-38; 22:16). Where baptism and salvation or its equivalent are mentioned, baptism always precedes salvation (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Obviously, before one can be saved, he has to be lost in sin. So, one must be a sinner before he can be scripturally baptized. Second, one must be taught the truth before he is baptized. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). In every case of New Testament baptism, the people were first taught, then baptized (Acts 2:37, 38; 8:5, 12; 8:35-39; 16:14, 15, 30-34; 18:8; 19:1-5). Third, one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Rom. 10:9, 10). “When they believed … they were baptized” (Acts 8:12, 36, 37). “And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Fourth, one must repent before baptism – “Repent, and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). The jailer in Philippi and Saul of Tarsus manifested their repentance before they were baptized (Acts 16:30-33; 9:9, 11; 22:16). Fifth, one must confess with his mouth that Christ is Lord (Rom. 10:9, 10). “And the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God … and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36-38). One must meet these terms before he is a suitable object and subject of New Testament baptism.

(5) Design. What is the aim, the object, the purpose of New Testament baptism? Remember, we shall answer the question by appealing to the word of God. There are numerous, diverse responses from the creeds and churches of men, but we are going to be guided by the I Mile. But, first, why was Christ’s blood shed? Jesus said it was “shed … for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Now, if you were asked for the design, the purpose, for the shedding of the blood of Jesus, you could correctly say that it was shed “for the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38, the apostle Peter said that one is baptized “for the remission of sins. , , Would you deny that the precious blood of our Lord was shed “for the remission of sins”? No! By the same token, then, you will admit that baptism is “for the remission of sins.” Suppose I said that the Lord shed His blood because we are already saved; or, suppose I said He poured out His blood to show that we were saved before His death on the cross? You would not like it if I advocated that. Well, baptism, like the shedding of the blood of Christ, is “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38). Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Ananias, a preacher sent of God, told Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). On two occasions, Paul said that we are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Peter said that “baptism doth also now save us” (I Pet. 3:21). What do you say?

Conclusion

These are the five components of New Testament baptism. Does your belief, teaching, practice and experience correspond to these essential ingredients?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 561-562
September 15, 1983

By Garreth L. Claire

Among the major religions of the world there is a variety of books and writings which they appeal to as authoritative. In the world there are approximately thirteen major religious movements, there are also about 15,000 different branches and sects of these thirteen major ones. In the material to follow I want to identify the thirteen major religious bodies and list the sources of their religious authority, I also will show the claim that the Book of Books makes for itself.

In this short outline following I will show the sources of authority for the major religions of the world;

Major Religion	Sources Of Authority
1. Hinduism	The Rig-Veda The Upanishads (5 divisions) The Bhagavad-gita
2. Zoroastrianism	The Yasna   The Vendidad
3. Taoism	The Tao The King   The Writings Of Kwang-Tze
4. Confucianism	The Shu King   The Shih King (4 divisions) The Lun Yu The Chung Yung The Meng-Tze
5. Jainism	The Ayaranya Sutra   The Sutrakritanga The Uttaradhyayana
6. Christian Science	Science and Health
7. Shinto	The Kojiki   Selected Materials
8. Mormonism	The Book of Mormon   The Doctrine and Covenants The Pearl of Great Price
9. Sikhism	The Japji   Asa Ki War The Rahiras
10. Buddhism	The Vinaya Pitaka (Mahavagga)   The Sutta Pitaka (3 divisions) The Dhammapada (Way of Virtue)
11. Mohammedanism	The Koran (19 divisions)
12. Judaism	The Old Testament (39 divisions, books)   The Apocrypha (4 divisions)
13. Christianity	The Bible (66 divisions)

With regard to the charting of all Christianity as appealing to the Bible, I have made this temporary concession in order to include all major religions. That many so called sections within Christianity do not subscribe to the whole teaching is well documented by the regular writers in this good magazine; consequently I will not labor on this particular point but will go on with my subject.

The various religious movements differ widely in their beliefs with regard to nearly all subjects: religious, moral, ethical, and social. Since so much difference does exist we must look to either a God of total confusion or seek to establish a plurality of gods with independent followers practicing sometimes totally opposite philosophies. If we are to establish this simple consistency, we will of a necessity have to appeal to something authorative. Of all the writings of so called holy men there must be some source of total global brotherhood taught that all men of all nations may embrace to dispell religious disorder.

In order to establish religious order for humanity we must first rind a Vivine Being capable of this order. There can be no doubt about the God revealed in the Bible and His ability to rill this great void among the peoples of the earth. If the Bible is really the word from God then we can begin to understand Him from an appeal to it and it alone. God cannot be denied by the intelligent man when he B. observes the heavens (i.e. the Universe), his own physical makeup, the rotation of the earth, the tides as they go out and as they return, the function of the world of botany, and many other great and wonderful things that man cannot fully understand or explain.

Since so much in the world is beyond the understanding of mortal man, he must find answers to the questions that plague him daily. The answers are to be found in God’s Book, the Bible. Why do we suggest the Bible out of all the available sources in the thirteen major religions of this world as the only acceptable and authorative source for all mankind? Simple, the Bible addresses itself to every need that man has in all avenues of life: social, moral, ethical, religious, etc., everything that is needed is provided in it. There is no subject that is not addressed by God for man’s betterment. This cannot be said for the other books among the major religions of the world. Some of the books of the major religions teach that men are to be divided into a castes system, others teach agressive conquest in the name of their god (i.e. military agression), while the Bible teaches brotherly kindness, love, love of neighbor, etc. The Bible is a Book for unifying the world under the one true God, the God who reveals Himself through its pages. The God of the Bible is consistent through the whole of it; He can be understood; He is a God of love not a God of hate or vengeance, God is Love. Now that we have established a source of authority, let us proceed to examine some questions that are universal in their scope.

1. Is thg Bible a reliable book for man’s need of a God who is equitable toward all nationalities of men, black, white, yellow, brown, red, etc.? Let us allow the Bible to answer the question. John 3:16 says, “for God so loved the world (i.e., its entire human population) that He gave His only begotten Son. . . . ” In Romans 1:16 Paul writes, “. . . the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone (regardless of national origin) that believeth.” In Titus 2:11 Paul further writes, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men . . . . ” There can be no question on the basis of these passages and others that God is without prejudice, everyone may come to Him and be benefitted.

2. Is the book God gave to man complete, or do we need additional books of authority to guide us? This question is as important as any question mankind may ask, for if it isn’t we could justify other writings as safe guides in things religious and moral. Since we have established the authority of God and His right let us examine His Word for the answer to this question. Let us now observe some Scriptural references that will enlighten us:

A. In 2 Peter 1:3 the apostle writes, “According as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness . . . .” You will notice from the context here that all things that pertain to life is ours through the knowledge which has been made possible through the Word of God. We need nothing else to guide us but this Book, God’s Book; in it is everything we require for living in the world and for living acceptably before God.

Again in 2 Timothy 3:16; Paul writes, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Paul goes on to suggest that the Scripture may make the man of God perfect and completely furnish him for all things necessary to accomplish good works.

From the two passages of Scripture we are able to grasp a fact that cannot be disputed, the Bible is complete and requires no further additions or changes of any kind. In consequence of this fact, we need not seek further authority in religious endeavour from the books of other major religions of the world. It is evident though that the other religions of the world should appeal to the Bible and the Bible alone as their source of authority. If the major religious movements mentioned elsewhere in’this article would appeal to the Bible alone their whole concept would be changed religiously.

3. Does the Book of authority which God has given to mankind address itself to the problems of life in this world? Once again we appeal to the Book itself:

A. The Bible addresses itself to the relationship between God and man (Prov. 1:7; 1 Cor. 6:20; Josh. 24:15; etc.).

B. The Bible addresses itself to the relationship that should exist between mankind and his children (Heb. 12:7; Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; etc.).

C. The Bible also gives instruction to children regarding the proper relationship they should sustain to their parents (Col. 3:20; Eph. 6:2).

D. The Bible gives instruction to man as he should react to the man/company which employees him (2 Thess. 3: 10; 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Tim. 6:1, 2; etc.).

E. The Bible also gives man instruction regarding his attitude toward his government (Rom. 13: 1; 1 Pet. 2:17; Matt. 22:21; 1 Tim. 2:1, 2; etc.).

F. The Bible gives instruction on how husbands and wives should dwell together (Col. 3:19; 1 Pet. 3:7; etc.).

G. The Bible gives instruction on how to use our financial resources (Phil. 4:15-17; Gal. 6:6; 2 Cor. 9:7; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 1 Tim. 5:8).

H. The Bible gives instruction on how man should conduct himself toward and within the church of Christ (Heb. 10:25; Matt. 6:33; 2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 5:12).

I. The Bible addresses itself to our neighborly relationship in a very direct manner also (Eph. 4:25; Matt. 22:39; Gal. 6:10; James 1:27; etc.).

As we suggested, the Bible gives man instruction in everyday life, God leaves nothing out of his instruction Book. As a direct result of this fact, again we need no other books of authority to guide us in any area of “life.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 559-561
September 15, 1983

By Lewis Willis

I doubt that any single thing has had the impact on society that equals the influence of television. Most Christians would like to think that they are immune to these things. However, if we think the church has not felt the effect of television, we’ve got our heads in the sand. No longer is it valid to ask, “Has television influenced the church?” A more correct question is, “How large a percentage of us are affected by it?”

We usually discuss the influence of television on our children. Is anyone so naive that they do not acknowledge the influence of television on the parents? It is an unquestionable fact that almost as many television programs are heard by Christians (?) at the Sunday evening worship hour as there are sermons that are heard. When parents absent themselves from the worship to watch TV, guess who is sitting there watching it with them? And, I do not refer to the Lord! Susie, Betty, Billy and John – you- get the picture. Those precious treasures which are our children are imbibing the way of the world instead of the right ways of the Lord.

I heard a startling statement recently. A fellow said, “I grew tip in the 50’s and television was my babysitter.” I would like to think that he was being dramatic. But he probably meant just exactly what he said. “Go watch television” is the instruction too many parents have given to their children so that the parents can take a nap, cook a meal, go shopping or hold down a secular job. Instead of loving their children and talking or listening to them, the television is turned on and we listen to it. Naturally, everyone must be quiet that not one single line of dialogue is missed. Toys, grades and boyfriends will simply have to be discussed later – provided the kids don’t fall asleep before the TV is retired for the evening. These beautiful, impressionable minds are feeding on the godless philosophy and defunct morality of Hollywood. Surely no one believes that this doesn’t affect our children.

I think most of us would like to conclude that they’re watching Captain Kangaroo, Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers or Bugs Bunny. It might be revealing, however, if we would ask what’s happening with J.R. on Dallas or what the Dukes of Hazzard are up to these days. More of them will ask you, “Who is Mr. Rogers?,” than “Who is J.R.?”

What parent doesn’t like to hear his kid singing? He learns “Snap-Crackle-and-Pop” jingles, “Tootsie Roll” jingles and “Hubba-Bubba-Bubble Gum” jingles. But, do you remember your delight and amusement when that three or four-year old sang you a “Budweiser” commercial? Of course, they learn this at Bible Class and not television, right?

No plan of attack has been as successful as Satan’s attack on the family. Too many examples of his success can be cited, even among God’s people. No, especially among God’s people! We have been lulled to sleep by something we would like to think is innocent, when honesty demands that we designate it insidious, dangerous and Satanic. Is everything on it bad? Certainly not! Is everything on it good? Certainly not! Obviously, we’re not likely to eliminate television sets from our homes, so let us at least try to be selective about what we and our children watch.

We would all be well-advised to consider the influence of sin in our lives. “A little leaven leaventh the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). He was discussing a different “leaven” than TV, but Jesus warned, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6). Paul said, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). He also said whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Fathers are to bring up their children “. . . in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Finally, Paul enjoins upon all Christians, “. . . keep thyseif pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). 1 was just thinkin’ – would one be more likely to protect himself from evil and maintain his spiritual purity while watching TV or while studying God’s word? I’ll not insult your intelligence by answering that. Following is a poem by Jerry Johnson that every Christian should consider.

TV Spiritual Suicide

Think how wonderful our nation

And how peaceful it could be

If each prayed and searched the Scriptures

Much as they tuned in TV.

It’s amazing and appalling

How the Lord is so denied –

Many have exchanged their Bibles

For that so-called TV Guide.

Murder pictures – children watching,

Programs often base, obscene.

Many juvenile delinquents

Can be traced back to the screen.

Pastors many are bemoaning

Small attendance Sunday nights,

Careless members, home and watching

Special programs, or the fights.

Surely this must grieve the Master,

All this tendency to crime,

As He notes ‘the wasted hours’,

How and what we do with time.

With this grip upon our nation,

Midnight hour, so very nigh,

Yet we lull to sleep our conscience

‘Mid a ‘Rock-Roll’ lullaby.

Spiritual suicide is certain

If continued in this way.

How we need to search the Scriptures;

More and more we ought to pray.

There would be tremendous difference

(To this you may not agree),

But our greatest Spiritual Robber

Is none other than TV.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 557-558
September 15, 1983

By Ron Howes

In recent years one of the most interesting approaches to the study of Matthew 19:9, has been an attempt to suggest that the grammar of the compound complex sentence, necessarily infers the right of the guilty party to remarry. In a previous article we reviewed Lewis G. Hale’s arguments in this regard.(1)

Other authors to have made this claim in print are Maurice Estes, in the tract Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, God’s Answer to Man’s Problem,(2) and Guy Duty (deceased) in the book Divorce and Remarriage, A Christian View, put out by Bethany Fellowship.(3) In my discussions with those of that persuasion over the years it is my opinion that every one holding that the guilty party may remarry has either consciously or subconsciously made this same logical error.

Essentially what they are doing is turning the “except for fornication” phrase into a floating modifier. Note the following excerpt from Duty:

a. 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.

b. Except it be for fornication, whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

c. Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery, except it be for fornication .(4)

Duty summarizes his argument thus:

“This translation gives the true sense of Christ’s divorce law. Jesus said the remarriage of the divorced woman would be adulterous, except for fornication.”(5)

The argument has everything necessary to make good print. It is ingenious, intriguing, and convincing. It lacks only one major element, and that is that it is not true. The authors in question have pitched their tent on unsound soil.

Any freshman in a college English course knows that modifiers may “float”. However, they may only float so far. You will note that we have referred to Matthew 19:9 as a compound, complex sentence. What we mean is that there are really two complete sentences here linked by the conjunction and. Within limits, modifiers may float around in a sentence, as long as they do not become too detached from their object; that which they are modifying. Modifiers, may not, under any circumstances be taken out of the sentence in which they are found. For purposes of a grammatical analysis, Matthew 19:9 is actually two sentences, not one. The use of the conjunction “and” is a literary device to avoid short choppy sentences; very common in spoken communication.

To illustrate our point that indiscriminately moving a modifier around in a sentence is unfair, allow me to do with Acts 2:38, what Duty et. al., have done with Matthew 19:9.

a. Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

b. Repent ye, unto the remission of your sins, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

c. Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ; and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit, unto the remission of your sins.

The parallel is legitimate and the switching of the modifier around in the sentence an exact duplication of Duty and others’ attempts. Acts 2:38, like Matthew 19:9 is a complex, compound sentence (actually, two sentences linked up by a conjunction for literary or spoken effect). Ond can easily see that the entire meaning and intent of the speaker can be grossly misrepresented by these lame attempts to “float modifiers.” It is an illegitimate way to establish your point.

To bolster our claim that “except for fornication” cannot be moved out of its position in the sentence to modify anything else, we called upon several university English departments for their opinions in our 1979 Truth Magazine article. Subsequent to the printing of that material, I was encou raged by brother O.C. Birdwell and others to expand the survey and publish the results. This we have done.

The legitimacy of a survey of the type we conducted is measured against several criteria. First, does the question the survey asks, fairly represent the issue under discussion? Secondly, do the scholars queried, represent a legitimate source of investigation? Thirdly, were those asked, sufficiently disassociated from the discussion to reply in a nonprejudiced manner? Fourthly, were enough scholars polled so that a true cross-section of opinion devoid of sectional or regional bias, could be attained.

First, our survey question. We asked . . .

“In your scholarly opinion, grammatically speaking, what does the phrase ‘except for fornication’ modify in the compound sentence:

“whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.”

Specifically, does the phrase “except for fornication” modify the first clause, the second clause, or both clauses? Also, would you please diagram the sentence, and include any comment you wish to make.”

As you can see, we asked both a specific and a general question, allowing our scholars some latitude in answering rather than just having a “yes” or “no” response. Significantly, most of our scholars responded with just a “yes” or “no” answer.

Second, do the scholars queried represent a legitimate source of investigation? We chose in this poll to question College and University English Departments. A few Greek departments did respond, and some of the English professors addressed themselves to the Greek Text. The text of Matthew 19:9 has been translated so regularly and uniformly for the last 500 years that we decided to survey English departments.

The legitimacy of the Greek text is a subject that has been adequately addressed by other studies. Note the fine work on this question by Mike Willis.(6) The only significant translation in the last 500 years to reject the Westcott and Hort reading is the NIV.

Third, were the responses unbiased? Within limits, we may answer this question yes. Two members of the Lord’s Church were included in our survey. One was a professor at Abilene, and another was a professor at Bowling Green State University of Ohio. The reader may judge from where these are listed in our results tabulation whether their responses unfairly influenced our figures. For the rest,. there is a reasonable mix of religious and nonreligious institutions, with the vast majority being secular institutions.

Fourth, what about regional bias? I do not believe that regional bias is a real factor in this survey. But, to offset that factor we chose to send out our questionnaires at random. The only qualification being that the university or college in question have an accredited English department.

The Results

We sent out 110 of our questionnaires. We received 33 responses of three general categories. Category I were those who believed that “except for fornication” could be used to modify the second clause, thus making the remarriage of the guilty party possible. Category 2 was made up of those who stated their belief that the phrase “except for fornication” did not belong in the text, in agreement with the NIV. Hence, a neutral category. Category 3 was made up of those who responded that the phrase “except for fornication” modified only the first independent clause. Category 4 were responses who declined to state an opinion, or answer the question as put.

Categories

In category 1, we received one response from the Humanities department of Grand Canyon College, Phoenix, Arizona.

In category 2, we received two responses. One from Baylor, and one from the University of Utah at Salt Lake.

In category 3, in agreement with our position, we received twenty-four responses from: University of Pennsylvania, Adelphi University, University of Colorado, East Tennessee State, Bemidji State, Brandeis University, Emory University, American International College, Baylor University, Clemson University, Dartmouth College, Drake University, University of Dayton, North Dakota State, University of Evansville, Abilene Christian University, Creighton University, Atlantic Christian College, Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Boston University, Miami of Ohio, Wellesley College, University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University.

In our last category, of those choosing to respond to the questionaire, but giving no opinion, we had five: Department of Greek, Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Purdue University, Bowling Green State of Ohio, University of Masschusettes, University of Kentucky at Lexington.

Tabulations

Reduced to percentages, the opinions of the scholars responding take jon an ominous weight for those who believe that they can “float” the “except for fornication” phrase in Matthew 19:9, to make it appear that Jesus is justifying the remarriage of the guilty party.

Of those choosing to respond, 15 percent had no opinion, whatsoever, or chose not to state it for personal reasons, 6 percent of those responding believed that the phrase “except for fornication” did not belong in the text (what we choose to call the NlVposition); 3 percent believed as do brother Estes, and Mr. Duty and others that you may float the “except for fornication” phrase to justify the remarriage of the guilty party; 73 percent responded that the phrase could not be moved.

Now, let’s interpret the statistics, subtracting those who had no opinion or denied the text, leaves us with 25 responses and the following breakdown. With 24 of 25 expressing an opinion on our question, 96 percent denied the conclusion of Mr. Duty, Lewis Hale, Maurice Estes, and any other who choose to go into print with a conclusion that can only be based on a breaking of the laws of grammar and misapplication of the words of our Lord.

Conclusion and Afterthoughts

I wish that we had the resources to poll not 110 Universities, but 1000. We didn’t, and others may criticise our efforts because of the limited number of responses that we received. Universities do not have to respond to private questionaires, and response is voluntary.

The results however are significant for a couple of reasons. Rather than trying to interpret what a dead scholar meant 150 years ago, we asked a pointed, extremely specific question, to living scholars – most without a biblical orientation. Their nearly unanimous response is a factor that anyone challenging the conclusions of this survey will now have to answer. We invite another survey, by those of the opposition, and look forward to reading the results.

Have we proven anything? Yes, just a minor point of grammar, that should put a wrinkle in the attempt of anyone henceforth to speak as a grammarian on this passage. A copy of this survey can be obtained from the author, at cost of duplication and mailing.

Endnotes

1. “Reviewing Lewis Hale,” Truth Magazine, Volume 23, pg. 792.

2. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Meco Foundation, Cayucos, California, 1980.

3. Divorce and Remarriage, A Christian View, Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2nd Edition, 1980.

4. Ibid., pg. 50

5. Ibid., pg. 51

6. “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (1-3),” Guardian of Truth, Vol. XXIV, Nos. 13-15.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 555-557
September 15, 1983