Truth Magazine

By Dorval L. McClister

The Elder’s Children

Much has been said about the children of elders. Must he have two or more children in order to qualify, or may he qualify if he has one faithful child who is a Christian? A discussion of this subject will depend upon how one looks upon the word “children” as it is used in the New Testament. It seems clear to me that all passages such as 1 Timothy 5:10; Luke 18:16; 20:28-31, apply to a single child in the same way they apply to a plurality of children. In Titus 1:16 it states that he must have “faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” If the word children means more than one, and the man must have more than one not accused, would he be qualified if he had one accused of riot or unruly? Many questions arise on this subject, and if a man is convinced that he cannot serve because he has one faithful child then he should not serve or express his desire for the work. The question to be answered is one that has to do with his ability to raise up a child or children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Does raising up one child prove this ability? If he has the ability to raise up one such child, does he have the ability to raise up 2, 5, 11?

Another question that generates much comment is, “what about the child of an elder who, upon reaching adulthood, turns to a life of unfaithfulness and quits attending the services? Should the elder resign? Should the elder be asked to resign?” These are questions which require some study. There is no doubt that such unfaithfulness of the son or daughter will cause many to look upon the elder and say, “You didn’t do your job, you’re not fit or qualified to be an elder.” An elder under such circumstances will often choose to resign under the impression that he is thought by others to condone the actions of the child and has failed to set the proper example. If an elder under such circumstances chooses to resign, let him do so. However, there may be another side to such reasoning. We often quote from Ezekiel 18:20 – “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son . . .” We apply this against the false teaching of Calvinism, but is this the only application? A son or daughter may turn from the faith, but this does not prove that the parents are the cause, nor does it prove that the parents condone the sinful practice. We have the tendency to impute the guilt of a child upon a parent, but we have no such right. If a child of God turns from the faith, does this reflect upon God his Father? Furthermore, if the elder resigns and the child later repents, could the elder be reinstated? If the qualification of an elder is based upon the requirement that his child remain faithful to the Lord as long as the child lives, then we really don’t know whether or not we have any qualified elders. If a child becoming unfaithful means that the elder has been proven unqualified, then it means that he has never been qualified.

It would be well to study each individual case where the child of an elder becomes unfaithful. Does the elder defend the child or condone the practice? Has the elder rebuked the child? Some people will use the Proverb that states, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). This is a proverb, and should never be pressed beyond a proverb. It does not teach the impossibility of apostasy; it states a general rule of which there are exceptions (1 Tim. 4:1).

Ordaining Elders

As we have noticed, Paul instructed Titus to “Ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). However, Paul did not instruct us as to what Titus was to say nor what procedure was involved in ordaining elders. The original word kathistemi which is translated “ordain,” simply means to appoint, or set a person in a place or position of authority (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine). As these words are used in the New Testament, it is clear that some form of action was required by which these men would be recognized as elders. This was, evidently, a very simple procedure, and nothing akin to the present-day denominational concept of ordaination of preachers and priests with all the ecclesiastical vesture, liturgy, pomp and ritual.

It is my conclusion that two things should be accomplished in the appointment of elders and both eventu4lly blend into one thought. Whatever is said by the one who is apppointing the men (and in the New Testament those who appointed the elders were evangelists), it must be emphasized first that these men accept the responsibilities placed upon them and recognize their place and function of overseeing the flock. I always have the men to stand, usually in front and facing the assembly. Then a few remarks to the effect that these men standing before you have been selected by the church to serve as elders, and they stand before you recognizing their responsibilities from this day forward. Whatever elaboration may be deemed necessary is left to the speaker, but one thing essential is to establish that at this moment they accept their responsibilities and will perform the work of elders in this congregation. While the men remain standing, I also request that the entire congregation arise to their feet in recognition of them as the elders of the church. In this simple way the men selected have recognized their position and responsibility before the entire church, and the members have recognized them as the elders. This is followed immediately, while all are standing, by fervent prayer on behalf of the men appointed.

What About Laying On Of Hands?

I can see nothing accomplished in a symbolic jester of laying hands upon the men selected to serve as elders. In the days of the apostles, and by the hands of the apostles, miraculous gifts were imparted. It is my conviction that no one other than the apostles could impart spiritual gifts. Titus was instructed by Paul to ordain (appoint) elders in every city. Yet as Titus could not impart spiritual gifts, it would seem clear that Titus did not lay his hands upon those whom he appointed as elders of the church. Even if an appeal is made to Acts 13:1-3, we still have a case involving the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. It is my personal belief that the practice of laying hands upon another today would be empty of any real meaning, and is not necessary in appointing elders in the church.

Unity Of The Elders

Serious problems can arise within the eldership of the local church when there is dissension and disunity among the elders. The elders should discuss every problem and reach an agreement before any statements are made. When a statement is prepared to be read before the church or to be printed in the bulletin, each elder should place his signature upon the statement. An elder must also be careful in giving answers to individuals. If an individual questions one of the elders concerning a matter which involves a decision by all the elders, then take the question or problem to the other elders and decide upon the answer. People will at times go to the elders individually hoping to receive two or more answers to their question. Avoid any possibility of contradiction by discussing such matters with all the elders involved. The church will have more respect for their elders if the elders speak in unity.

Elders Lording It Over

Elders are warned against formulating their own rules and imposing them upon the Lord’s people. It seems to be an easy matter for elders to fall into this error. Watch carefully and make certain that as elders you do not demand something God has not demanded, nor make laws where He has made no laws.

On the other hand, there may be occasions when turmoil and dissension swells up and elders may have to make some decisions based primarily upon wisdom, opinion, and righteous principles in order to minimize or eliminate a serious threat to the welfare of the local church. As elders you may have to decide who to allow to speak before the church and who not to allow. You may need to cancel a meeting or a business meeting in order to avoid confrontation of factions. It may be deemed wise to change the time of assemblies or cancel a Sunday night service. As elders you may need to counsel some on the subject of immodest apparel or make a decision on the use of the church building. You must make certain that all things are done decently and in order. You must uphold morality and withstand the wolves that would enter in. As elders you must protect the flock, but you must give attention to accusations of lording it over the flock. This is a serious charge and it will grow unless it is settled. On most occasions such accusations are only chants of one or a few disgruntled members who have not been allowed to have their way and sway over the elders. However, the elders must sit down with the accusers and determine if there is scriptural grounds for the accusation. Wherever the guilt falls, it must be corrected publicly.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 173-174March 17, 1983

`Hang In There Like A Rusty

Fish Hook”

Larry Ray Hafley P.O. Box 1187 Pekin, Illinois 61554

An elder in the church where I preached in Alabama used to offer the advice stated in the title of this article. It is sound counsel. Tenacity is greatly needed in the church today. There is a fine line between stubborness and “stick-to-it-tiveness.” However, “bullheadedness” can wait for another theme. For now, we shall be content to discuss “hanging in there like a rusty fish hook.”

Jesus, Our Example

No one ever exhibited greater stedfastness than our matchless Master. His discouragements and obstacles were numerous and diverse. His own received Him not. His familiar friend betrayed Him. His enemies resorted to treachery of every kind. They were ruthless and relentless in their attempts to destroy His mission of mercy. Still, He perservered. When death, “even the death of the cross,” loomed before Him, He met it without flinching or fleeing. “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour” (Jn. 12:26). Surely, no one ever had greater cause to abandon ship than did our Lord, but He held a straight course through the tempestous waves of death and sailed into the harbor and haven of life. Thus, He stands on the everlasting shore beckoning us to the calm waters of life eternal. “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life” (Jas. 1:12).

Reasons To Quit?

Brethren you have known and loved turn and spurn you; children become rebellious and incorrigible; a husband or wife refuses the overtures of human and Divine love and seeks to drag you down with them; a loved one contracts a horrible disease and dies by degrees; an accident, so useless and needless, claims the life of the dearest on earth to you; financial ruin envelopes your purse and your health begins to fail; in your agony, you writhe and cry and hear only the echo of your own misery; you look around and the wicked prosper while your life appears bankrupt, devoid of meaning and purpose – are these your reasons to quit?

If any of the above items of depression describe you, do not forget that they also, in part, describe the fears and frustrations of Job, Joseph and David. But they did not quit! They did not give up or give out. They clung to the lowest rung of the ladder of life, but they hung on. They overcame. By prayer, by reflection and meditation on the word of God, they remained true and faithful. And you can, too. Consider Him who is invisible, who endured such contradiction of sinners. Contemplate the great cloud of witnesses who say you can make it as they made it despite

the trials, troubles and tribulations that threaten to consume you. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith” (1 Jn. 5:4).

Remember This

One second after you are dead, it will not matter. What will not matter? Nothing will matter. Whether men and brethren were good or bad to you, whether your were healthy or sick, whether your were rich or poor, whether others succeeded when you failed, whether loved ones lived or died, whether life was fair or foul – none of these things will matter! What will matter is your soul and your relationship to God (Mk. 8:36, 37).

Suppose you do cave in? Suppose you do renounce and denounce faith in men and God? What then? What will be gained? Will it make you prosperous? Will it restore your health? Will it make your enemies into friends? Will it bring back the dead? No, it will avail nothing at all. Denying the Lord will not bring you any advantage. Turning from God will only insure more misery, torment, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and everlasting shame and contempt, without hope of release or relief.

Knowing this, you have only one real alternative = “Hang in there like a rusty fish hook!”

Dudley Ross Spears Route 1, Box 121 A, Alvaton, Kentucky 42122

After The “End” What?

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:24, , “Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” The millennialists imagine that when the Lord comes, He will establish His kingdom and reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But you will note from the context here that the kingdom is to be delivered up to the Father when the “end” comes.

Christ is now reigning in heaven on David’s throne and when He returns it will be to give up the kingdom to the Father -not to establish an earthly millennial kingdom. Question: how could Christ deliver back to God what does not exist? That is the dilemma the millennialists face. They cannot fit the end of 1 Corinthians 15:24 into their imaginary millennial reign of Christ on earth.

15 Guardian of Truth – March 17, 1983 (175)

By Harold Fite

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines the “social gospel” as “a movement in American Protestant Christianity, esp. in the first part of the 20th century to bring the social order into conformity with Christian principles.”

The purpose of the social gospel is the improvement of living conditions and social problems. Its method is the application of “Christian principles” to social problems. The main thrust of the Social Gospel, therefore, is to alleviate the social inequities of the world. The “Church” becomes the instrument by which and through which the thrust or emphasis is made.

When the primary purpose of the gospel of Christ is diverted from the saving of the soul to the betterment of the physical man on earth, a social gospel has been created. Churches that believe, support, practice and proclaim it become nothing more than social institutions.

In the latter part of the 1800s this country was beset with many social problems. The influence of the common man on religion was reflected in the growing social consciousness of religious leaders. They began to offer solutions to the social injustices of that day. By making social injustice the main topic and purpose of the gospel of Christ, the social gospel was born in this country, and has continued to grow.

Today denominational leaders are concerned over the social and moral effects of unequal distribution of wealth; bleak and revolting slums (which prompts essays on “the dignity of man”); unemployment and oppression of racial minorities, etc. Churches have been involved in Urban Renewal and Housing, fair labor laws, and all types of social welfare agencies – some of which are subsidized by the government. Churches are adding trained counselors and other specialists to their staffs to perform a variety of functions in which religion and social work are combined.

These social programs of churches reflect the “whole man” concept. They see the necessity of meeting the whole needs of the whole man. It is a fusion where religion is interpreted broadly enough to embrace the individual’s physical, psychological and social rehabilitation along with the spiritual.

While the Social Gospel has been popular among denominations for many years, only since World War II has it found any appreciable acceptance among churches of Christ.

Brethren who are rather liberal and loose in their approach to the Bible have learned that the social gospel and social programs will draw more people than the pure gospel of Christ. To gain numbers (and keep them), appeal is made to the flesh. Through this method it is hoped the spiritual man will be strengthened (as if games, food and frolic can strengthen the inward man). One cannot substitute carnal and fleshly means for the Word and expect real spiritual strength to follow. A congregation can grow in number, but not in the “strength of his might.”

Churches of Christ are now putting elaborate kitchens and gymnasiums in their buildings. Church sponsored youth camps, retreats, and encampments are commonplace.

Schools, colleges and hospitals have been built and supported from congregational treasuries. Day-care centers, hobby classes, talent shows, nursing homes, homes for unwed mothers, boy scout troops, bowling teams, basketball teams, softball teams, track meets, skating parties and various social welfare programs are being supported by local churches under direction of their respective elders.

Seminars are conducted on such subjects as “The Problem of Aging”; “Family Relations and Child Development” (to teach children about themselves and how to reach out to others); “Marriage Enrichment” for couples, etc. Many in these churches have come to look on the church as an institution responsible for the social welfare needs of man. It is evident that a great percentage of churches of Christ (especially city churches) have accepted the “whole man” theory – that the church is responsible for the social, mental and physical development of the individual (a theory borrowed from secular education psychology).

Because of all these social projects, churches and colleges operated by brethren, are offering courses to equip men and women for these various ministries on the congregational level. Churches of Christ now have “Youth Ministers” (hired mainly to see that the young people’s social needs are met). “Medical Missionaries” and “Counselors” who do not primarily deal with matters pertaining to religious faith and practice, but with a variety of psychological and social adjustment problems, are also receiving church support.

Not one of these programs, or all combined, will save one soul! How many young people in these churches would remain if all these programs were removed and these churches went back to just being New Testament churches?

Where are the Scriptures which authorize churches involving themselves in recreational pursuits and setting themselves up as social services agencies?

Brethren generally opposed the social gospel concept forty years ago. There are those who opposed it then, but have completely embraced it now without saying as much as “excuse me.” Was N. B. Hardeman wrong in 1942 when he said, “It is not the work of the church to furnish entertainment for the members. I have never read anything in the Bible that indicated to me that such was the part of the work of the church. I am wholly ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction.” Was B.C. Goodpasture in error in 1948, when he wrote in the Gospel Advocate, “For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church.” If brethren were in error in opposing the social gospel then, all need to repent and embrace it now. But if they taught the truth then, it remains truth today, and those of the contrary part need to repent and turn to that truth.

The church was purchased for a higher purpose than the pampering of the body. Its purpose is eternal (Eph. 3:10, 11), having to do with the culture of the soul. To direct it into social gospel channels is to denominationalize it; to drain it of its strength; and to destroy its uniqueness. The physical (recreation), mental and social development of the child is the work of the home – not the church!

I agree with Roy H. Lanier, Jr. when he wrote, “if any man can come forward with Bible teaching for churches to get into the recreation business, I would welcome him with open arms. If men and churches cannot find such Bible teaching, I strongly plead that they get back into scriptural work for which they have explicit Bible teaching.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 172-173
March 17, 1983

By Irvin Himmel

The lessons of the old Testament are for our learning (Rom. 15:4). A study of characters who lived in ages past can be both profitable and interesting. Naaman lived in the days of Elisha the prophet. His story is related in 2 Kings 5.

Naaman was captain of the Syrian army. Syria was Israel’s neighbor to the north. Although he was considered great, honorable, and mighty in valor or courage, Naaman was afflicted with a dreaded disease of leprosy.

The Syrians had gone oft in companies and raided the Israelites. In one of those hostile attacks they had captured a little maid. The girl became the servant of Naaman’s wife. One day she remarked that if he could he in Samaria with the prophet of God, Naaman could be healed of his leprosy.

In time, Naaman went into the land of Israel, and after some confusion he appeared before the prophet. When the Syrian arrived with horses and chariots, Elisha sent a messenger, saying, “Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.” Naaman was full of anger and reacted according to the emotion that flooded his heart.

Despite his being noted for courage, Naaman lacked humility – a characteristic necessary for any man who seeks God’s blessing. Naaman was wroth because he expected the prophet to come out, stand, call on the name of the Lord, strike his hand over the place, and thus recover the leper. He said, “Behold, I thought. . .” His mistake was in supposing that God should operate according to Naaman’s plan. He expected show and ceremony.

Many people in our times are like Naaman in attitude. They expect God to conform to their plans. They stumble at His simple commands in their zeal for ceremony and elaborate schemes. They will either have their way about things or die and to go hell.

Naaman argued that if it was necessary to dip in a river he should at least be permitted to choose the river. After all, water is water, and Abana and Pharpar, rivers in his own country, appeared better and cleaner than the muddy Jordan. Overlooking the fact that the difference was in God’s choice in the matter, and ignoring the command given through the prophet by the messenger, “he turned arid went away in a rage.”

Before we become too harsh in censuring Naaman, let us ask ourselves if we have not acted in much the same way at times. The New Testament commands baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Has anyone ever scoffed at baptism and argued that it is non essential? The Bible calls baptism a burial followed by a resurrection. Has anyone ever chosen to ignore Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12, reasoning that sprinkling and pouring will suffice, and either would be much more convenient than immersion? Has anyone ever turned away, perhaps even in a rage, when it was insisted that God means exactly what the Bible says?

Naaman’s servants reasoned with him, reminding him that if he had been asked to do some great thing he would have complied. But think how simple and easy the command of God was! The mighty Syrian captain humbled himself and dipped seven times in Jordan, according to God’s will, “and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.”

The waters of Jordan did not cleanse Naaman. God did it. But God would not cleanse him until he obeyed. When a person is baptized today, the water does not remit his sins. It is God who forgives sins. But God has not promised remission of sins until one obeys in baptism. As God used water to test the faith of Naaman, water is used to test our faith now. How strong is your faith?

Let us learn from Naaman that it pays to comply with God’s requirements. Let us humble ourselves, trust and obey the Lord. Our eternal salvation is at stake.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 171-172
March 17, 1983

By Aude McKee

Today in our examination of Olan Hicks’ tract on divorce and remarriage, we reproduce a portion of it that begins on page 10:

Some have contended that Paul, in Romans 7:2-3, indicated that God binds the two mates together in a marriage for as long as they live, without recourse, and declares a second marriage to be a state of adultery. This again represents a careless misreading of the text. This passage does not mention what a MAN may or may not do, only the WOMAN. It does not mention what is required of either under the GOSPEL of Christ. It simply says that the woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. It does not say BOTH are bound by the gospel or not bound. “Both” isn’t mentioned and “the gospel” isn’t mentioned, only the woman and the law. This is obviously a reference to the fact that under the law of Moses, the woman did not have the right of divorce, only the husband did. At the time the book of Romans was written Jewish converts to Christianity were still governed in civil matters by the law of Moses. Thus the woman who divorced her husband would be exercising an option not given her by the law and would therefore be legally declared “an adulteress” in a second marriage. Paul merely used their knowledge of this law to illustrate a point about how they were made free from the law of Moses to “be married to another, even him who is raised from the dead” (vs. 4). This is not a text on new testament regulations concerning divorce and remarriage.

In responding to what Olan has said about Romans 7:1-4, 1 have to say that in all my born days I never heard anything like that before! We want our readers to notice several things in the passage. First, the letter to the church in Rome was written probably in the latter part of the 50’s. The law of Moses had been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), and Jesus died, you remember, in the 33rd year of His life. So more than 20 years after the inauguration of the New Testament and the establishment of the church, the Holy Spirit had this letter penned. In verse two the Spirit used the present tense. “is bound” if the husband is alive and “is loosed” if the husband be dead. Olan’s argument reminds me of the way Jehovah Witnesses deal with the passage in Luke 16:19-31. By the time the Witnesses get through with that passage, you can’t believe a word in it, and that’s about what Olan has done with Romans 7:1-4. The fact is, in 58 A.D. a woman was bound to her husband as long as he lived, and at that time she was free from the law of her husband if he was dead. And friends, the law of the Lord has not been changed from 58 A.D. till 1980 A.D.!

A second thing we should observe is that Jesus, while he was on earth, took people back to the original law of God concerning marriage. In Matthew 19:4, He said, “Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (two) shall be one flesh?” This, of course, destroyed the idea of divorcing and remarrying, so those present on that occasion ask, “Why did Moses then command to give’ a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” Jesus then replied, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ” Now Olan would have us believe that the Holy Spirit, in Romans 7:1-3, is taking us back to the hardness of heart allowances that Moses provided. Ah no! Romans 7:1-3 is God’s law concerning marriage and the Spirit uses this law to illustrate how the Law of Moses died when Jesus died (Col. 2:14). Just as a woman becomes dead to the law that bound her to her husband when he dies, so the Jews became dead to the law of Moses when it died at the cross. And to continue the illustration further, since the man was dead, the wife was free to remarry and would not be guilty of adultery if she did so. Therefore, since the Jews were dead to the law of Moses (as a result of its death), they were now free to be “married” to someone else – Jesus Christ, and in that relationship bring forth fruit unto God.

Now is the time to say something about God’s law of marriage to which reference was made in the paragraph above. To save space we will give the scripture references and hope that our readers will give close attention to each one. First, note the origination of marriage in Genesis 2:18-25. His arrangement called for one woman for one man and the permanency of that relationship can be seen in verse 24. This is God’s marriage law.

Then notice Mark 10:2-12. The person who reads carefully will observe that the arrangement is a permanent one, and if either the husband or the wife puts the other away and marries again, adultery is the result. This is God’; marriage law. ‘

Now turn to Luke 16:18. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. ” This is God’s marriage law.

Then that brings us to Romans 7:1-3. Turn there and read it again. Doesn’t it harmonize perfectly with the verses listed above? Why, of course. This is God’s marriage law.

Turn now to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. The wife or the husband is not to depart (put away) the other, but if they do they are to remain unmarried or be ! reconciled. The harmony is beautiful! This is God’s marriage law.

Last of all open your Bible in the same chapter (1 Cor. 7) to verse 39. Here we are told, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. ” What law is this by which the wife in this passage is bound? Why, by the same one by which the woman in Romans 7:2 was bound! Good reader, This is God’s marriage law. When Olan was commenting on the Romans 7:2 passage he said, “This is obviously a reference to the fact that under the law of Moses, the woman did not have the right of divorce, only the husband did.” The parallel between the statement in Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 is certainly evidence of what we have been repeating – this is God’s marriage law.

But someone is certain to say, “The law of God concerning marriage says nothing about a divorce and a remarriage. It simply states that a man and woman are bound to each other as long as they both shall live.” That’s exactly right! But it must be remembered that the one who makes the law has the right to make an exception to the law. For example, God said, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Are there any exceptions to this law that all men must die! Yes, God that made the law has also made an exception. In 1 Corinthian 15:51, we are told, “Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye . . . . ” The exception to the dying law is that those who are alive at the second coming of Christ will escape – not the judgment but simply the dying.

Is there an exception to the married till you die law? Yes, and the exception is found in Matthew 19:9. Putting away for fornication is the exception to God’s marriage law.

Almost all of four pages of the tract written by Olan Hicks on divorce and remarriage are taken up with the “Summary.” In this he treats us to his thinking on “grace” and “legalism.” But after all his talking about the love of God, the sacrifice of Jesus and human judicial concepts, we still remind him that his entire arrangement falls flat on its face because he has not given the word “adultery” its proper definition. Adultery is not a divorce paper or a marriage license! Adultery is “unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another.” So, the adultery does not take place when the divorce decree is granted, or when the couple say, “I do,” but when they go to bed together! This means that if the divorce and remarriage was not in harmony with the teaching of Matthew 19:9, the new relationship produces the sin of adultery every time they have a sexual relationship.

Now, how can the couple caught up in a situation like this get forgiveness? If either of them is not a Christian, God’s plan is simple. The unbeliever must believe, (Heb. 11:6; John 8:24) first of all. Second, he must repent of his past sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30), and repentance means to have a change of mind about sin. Naturally, the change of mind (repentance) will cause the person to make a sincere effort to change his life. This would include ending the relationship that was producing the adultery. Third, the person must be willing to confess his faith in Christ and that before men (Rom. 10:9-10; Matt. 10:32). Finally, to be a child of God, the person must be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).

But suppose a person who is a member of the Lord’s church gets involved in an unscriptural marriage, what steps must he take to be back in fellowship with God? Step one is to repent. Peter told Simon (who had sinned as a Christian), “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). Now the man in our illustration was guilty of going to bed with a woman to whom he had no right. He was guilty of the sin of adultery every time they had a sexual relationship. Therefore, for him to comply with the teaching of the Spirit in Acts 8:22, he would have to have a change of mind (repent) of that sin. The change of mind, of course, would result in a change of conduct on his part. In other words, he would stop committing the sin!

It will also be observed that a second step is included in the inspired instructions Peter gave to Simon. That was to pray to God for forgiveness. And then yet another thing we must do as erring children of God is to confess our sins. John said, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). To summarize, the person who has never been a Christian must believe in the Lord, repent of his sins, confess his faith in Christ, and be baptized for the remission of sins. On the other hand, the person who is an erring child of God must repent of his sins, confess those sins, and then pray to God for forgiveness.

The only people who are able to lay hold of the grace of God are those who are humble enough to obey God’s instructions! The author of the Hebrew letter said, “. . . He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9). As I read brother Hicks’ tract (especially the summary) I get the distinct impression that he is saying that God, in His mercy and love, would never have made a law that would cause some people to live the remainder of their lives without a mate simply because they did not make their first marriage work. This sort of approach to a subject reminds me of the man who argues that he can’t conceive of the God of mercy and love making a law about being baptized for the remission of sins that would keep his good and godly deceased mother out of heaven.

While we are talking about impressions, I seem to get the idea that Olan feels that living without a wife is too great a sacrifice to ask of a fellow in order to go to heaven. But it was Jesus Himself who said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it began to mock him, saying, this man began to build, and was not able to finish. . . So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26-33).

In Matt. 5:29-30, Jesus said, “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is better for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

Now, after you have read those two passages carefully, we urge you to observe what follows immediately after the “cast out your right eye and cut off your right hand” statement by Jesus. “It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:31-32). Again we say immediately after speaking of the sacrifices a person might be asked to make in order to be a faithful Christian, Jesus brought in this matter of divorce and remarriage. Would Olan have us believe that simply repenting of the act of getting a divorce is comparable to plucking out your right eye or cutting off your right hand? But when you see a person removing himself from an unscriptural marriage and living without a wife the rest of his life because he did not put away his first wife for “the cause of fornication,” then you see a man casting out his right eye and cutting off his right hand! One thing Olan, and all the rest of us, need to learn is -heaven is worth any sacrifice we might be called on to make.

This series has gone on much longer than anticipated when we began reviewing brother Hicks’ tract. We do believe every argument he made has been given consideration, and, we think, answered from the ward of God. We hope that nothing said in this series will be taken by anyone as an attempt to impugn the motives of brother Hicks. We do not doubt that he sincerely believes the doctrine set forth in his tract, but we just as sincerely believe he is in error. Also, before we wind up this review we want it understood that we have sympathy for all who have been caught up in an unscriptural divorce and remarriage. But sympathy cannot alter God’s way of getting the situation remedied. If a person has been guilty of horse stealing, lying, cursing, or whatever, the only way to get right is to repent and that will motivate a change of conduct. The horse stealing, lying, or whatever, will have to stop. And so it is with adultery. The repentance will mean that the person will stop committing the sin, and the sin of adultery is committed every time the person has a sexual relationship with someone to whom he (she) has no right.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 169-171
March 17, 1983