Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

We are hearing a great deal about “collectivities.” That is a big word that might need defining for us country folks. I could not find it in the Bible, so I had to go to Webster’s dictionary for the meaning. Webster says that “collectivity” means “the quality or state of being collective.” That definition did not help a bit until I looked up “collective.” Webster defines that word to mean “of, as, or characteristic of a group; of or characteristic of individuals acting together; common to several or many; as, the collective effort of the students.” Now we can see what a collectivity is. It is individuals acting together.

But well-meaning brethren are telling us that individuals may not scripturally act together in teaching the word of God, other than in the local church. Such would be an unscriptural collectivity, we are told. It seems their objection is to the pooling of money of two or more individuals to teach the Bible. Apparently, they do not oppose the collective action of energy, labor and time – just money.

A brother may spend a whole week in research and in writing an article for a religious journal (a collectivity of workers and writers), but not a dime may be sent to the same religious journal to promote its welfare. Pshaw! This is the most convoluted logic I have ever seen. The sin becomes the collective action of money rather than the time and labor expended together.

You brethren who oppose individuals acting together to teach the Bible are going to have to quit using someone else’s journal to present your views on the scripturality of collectivities. You are utilizing an individual collectivity to oppose an individual collectivity. Some consistency! In fact, you must quit writing anything for anybody else’s religious paper in order not to violate your own rules. You must start your own paper, write all the articles, do all the work, and then you will have individual action. The only alterative to this is to write exclusively in church bulletins.

As to the scripturality of collective action of individuals teaching the Bible, the home is a good example of such. Both father and mother may work collectively to teach their children the word of God (Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). In so doing, they may want to use a tutor or a Bible department of a high school or college in furthering their child’s knowledge of the Scriptures. While the child is studying science, history and English, he also has the opportunity to study about God and the Lord Jesus Christ. The school is a business – educational business – collectively working together in both secular and religious education. Of course, the “collectivity” brethren cannot agree with one another about the school. Some say the school wherein the Bible is taught is a collectivity and others say the school is not a collectivity. If the school is not a collectivity it is the biggest operation of everybody doing his own thing that I know anything about, anywhere.

We see collective action in the case of Aquila and Priscilla. When Apollos was erroneously preaching the baptism of John, Aquila and Priscilla “took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). This–was collective action. Paul and Silas engaged in collective activity in praying and singing together while they were in jail at Philippi (Acts 16:25). Peter and the six Jewish brethren were collectively involved when they went together to the house of Cornelius in order for Peter to preach the gospel. These examples should settle the matter, but they most likely won’t for some brethren who only see collective action when dollars and cents enter the picture, except when a debate is involved. The Jenkins- Willis Debate was conducted in an individual collective arrangement and the opposition to that has been as quiet as the thief in the night.

Brethren, the same passage that allows us to use our energies and time to work together in a collectivity is the same passage that allows us to use our money in the same work. I stand amazed at the number of issues that are continually created which alienate and polarize brethren. Some are afflicted with “issue-itis.” Seems like Romans 14 does not have a place anymore in our relationship and treatment of one another. All issues are made to appear to be the most emergent situation since the Jerusalem conference.

In the midst of some trying to crystalize every disagreement that arises among us (such as collectivities, Sunday night communion, weddings in the meetinghouse, Bible colleges, woman’s covering, women teachers and several other things), we have, to some degree, lost sight of the great and pressing need to preach the gospel to the lost.

Certainly, real and threatening issues to the faith must not be ignored, but every point of disagreement, regardless of how small it may be, does not deserve the limelight of our attention. The time is way past due that conservative brethren join hands in love and respect for one another and in the words of Jesus: “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest” (John 4:35).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 145
March 3, 1983

By Lewis Willis

So you had better hold on to your wallet! You know, the Lord surely has changed. He used to be concerned about souls and spiritual things. Now, if you listen to Roberts long enough, all He ever seems to be interested in is money. Everything that God says to Roberts and his buddies involves sending money. He never seems to have enough. A current country music song tells about the big bucks baseball and football players make and it speaks of the preachers who are always asking for money for the Lord. The song says to send the Lord’s money to the preacher’s mailing address!

These money grubbing preaching have bilked the public out of so much money that every new campaign is looked upon by the world as funny. They supposedly represent the cause of the Lord. However, with very little effort to conceal their disgust, comedians have made them and religion the brunt of their humor. I think I can safely say that God doesn’t find it very funny!

The latest, most preposterous, fund raising effort comes from Oral Roberts. The Cleveland Plain Dealer (1/18/83) reports that “millions of letters” are being sent out to “his hundreds of thousands” of “prayer partners,” seeking more money. You will recall that in 1981 he reported seeing a vision of a 900-foot-tall Jesus standing over his City of Faith Medical Center. That “vision” in 1981 “generated millions of dollars in donations.” It is not particularly surprising that he suddenly had another contact with the Lord with the same purpose in mind.

His latest encounter with Jesus (which was far more pleasant than the one he’s going to have with Him at the judgment) was a seven-hour conversation. Now I know you’re not dumb – everyone knows you’ve got to be very special to the Lord for Him to take seven hours with you. Oral Roberts is a very special person – if you don’t believe it just ask him! The newspaper article says Jesus appeared to him “and told him God had chosen Roberts to find the cure for cancer. . . and other dread diseases.”

Many people are unaware of the magnitude of the undertaking which has Roberts in such dire financial straits. A few years ago, he decided to raise funds to build City of Faith Medical Center at his headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This consists of a 60-story diagnostic clinic, a 30-story hospital and a 20-story research center – a total of 110 stories of medical facilities under the supervision of a “faith healer.” This is roughly equivalent to delivering control of the Lord’s church into the hands of atheist, Madeline Murray O’Hare.

Some younger people do not know the Oral Roberts’ history. He has not always been a successful T.V. evangelist. He used to go into towns virtually unnoticed by the press. He got his start as a tent-meeting preacher. He traveled all over this country, putting up his tent on vacant lots, preaching and inviting all the sick people of every town he was in to come out to be healed. Every time he could get someone to say he had healed them, he publicized it till he and his listening audiences began to believe it. As he grew in popularity and power, he changed his approach. Today, instead of having people line up to be healed, he builds 110 stores of medical facilities and has them line up to be treated by doctors. Every treatment room on every floor of his 110 story facility cries out that Oral Roberts is a fraud! If he could heal people then, he can heal them now. The fact that they’re laying in a hospital bed under the care of a doctor proves he no longer has the power to heal or he never had it to begin with. Take your pick! If he can still do today what he did years ago, all he needs is a 9 x 12 room with a canopy covered sidewalk for the line of sick folks waiting to get into the room. Such a departure in approach from healing line to hospital bed might seem strange, but it is rather understandable. You were not invoiced by his accounting department for the services he rendered in his “healing line.” But, you can be certain you will be invoiced for his medical service in Tulsa. What has happened here is he has begged people to build him a facility which will perpetually enrich him. Unfortunately, millions will be too blind to see that. If American industry could figure a way to implement his tactics successfully, unemployment could be solved in a minute.

“The financially troubled project” has to have a new transfusion. And, wouldn’t you know Jesus was on the spot, ready with a quick solution. I know this is so, Oral Roberts said it was! These millions of “prayer partners” have been told that the Lord wants them to give $240.00 each ($20.00 per month for one year – I wonder if he accepts VISA or Master Card?). Roberts quoted the Lord as saying: “Tell them this is not Oral Roberts asking (for the $240.00), but their Lord.” Now let me think, when the Lord asks something of us, what do we call it? Is it a command, or is it optional? Oral Roberts’ devices makes Judas look like the Lord’s best friend.

Hold on to your chair! I hope this doesn’t shock you, but the Lord has spoken to me too and He told me that Oral Roberts is a liar! Actually, what He said is that He has revealed Himself to man (1 Cor. 2:11-13). The Lord further told me that that revelation will make man perfect, furnishing him unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:15-17). His revelation is said to be “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), providing us with “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). That revelation also told me about false teachers being among us, making merchandise of us (2 Pet. 2:1-3). It tells us to try the teachers with that revelation to determine who the false prophets are (1 Jno. 4:1). Finally, the revelation tells us that God is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34), that is, what He says to one of us, He says to all of us. And, God did not tell me what Oral Roberts said He told him. Roberts said God showed respect to his person and the Bible says He doesn’t do that. What the Bible says is, “Let God be true, but let every man be a liar” (Rom. 3:4). So, I tested what Roberts said with the Bible and Roberts came out on the short end of the stick! The Ephesian church tested some of its teachers and “found them liars” (Rev. 2:2). I tested Roberts and got the same result.

One of our members told me Roberts’ claims ought to be subjected to technical analysis to establish their truthfulness. I know he’s not opposed to technical procedures – he’s building 110 stores worth of technical facilities. This member volunteered to pay the costs of a polygraph test on Roberts any time he would be willing to submit himself to it. He can even take the test in Tulsa! All he has to do is express his willingness to do so. The following letter was mailed to him under date of January 25, 1983, asking if he is willing to take the test:

Dear Mr. Roberts:

Your conversation with the Lord regarding your selection to find the cure for cancer and other dread diseases, has received broad press coverage in this country. In our area, almost every television and radio station, as well as most newspapers, have noted the incident in some manner. Unfortunately, many of these reports have been “tongue-in’cheek” in nature and they have given the enemies of the Lord occasion to blaspheme. His Name and Cause have been subjected to ridicule by skeptics who perceive this as but another, though very dramatic, fund raising scheme.

I am aware that the Lord and His Apostles were looked upon skeptically by their peers. However, insofar as possible, they sought to eliminate as much skepticism as they could. Due to those efforts, Luke noted that such notable miracles as the resurrection were established “by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). The miracles of the Apostles were “manifest” in such a way that the Jews announced, “we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16). Inasmuch as your recent seven-hour conversation with the Lord is so widely doubted, may I suggest that every possible thing be done to establish its validity? Many technical advancements have been made since the days of Jesus which could help in establishing the truth of your conversation. Such things as polygraph tests are used by law enforcement officials to determine facts in their investigations. May I suggest such a test be taken at your earliest opportunity, with the results being broadly circulated, to quieten those who speak against the Lord? A member of this church has offered to pay all costs of such a test upon your expression of willingness to submit to it. We will make all arrangements with the independent agency that will administer it.

I realize that such actually amounts to the proving of your integrity. However, when your integrity is established, the force of your declaration is greater. If millions of dollars are sought to build a technical center such as you are building, a simple technical test could quickly establish that such is of God and not of Oral Roberts alone.

The church here has had live, call-in radio broadcast on the air in Akron for almost five years. We have a rather large audience for each Sunday morning’s hour long broadcast. I would like to invite you to join us on the air for a discussion of this matter. A trip to Akron would not be necessary. From your home, you could talk with us by telephone. We are on the air from 8:05 until 9:00 A.M. Akron time. Though this would be a non-paid interview, in the interest of Truth, I solicit your favorable response to our invitation.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding these two matters, at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely

(Signed) Lewis Willis, Evangelist

However, you might heed this advice: Don’t try holding your breath until he agrees to take a lie-detector test. I was just thinkin’ – the monument to his memory on earth, and the lying schemes with which it is being built, will prove to be, in part, at least, his curse when he stands before God in the judgement.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 143-144
March 3, 1983

By Dan King

When Paul addressed his second letter to the Christians at Thessalonica, he did so in the midst of feverish excitement. Some measure of this excitement may be explained by what he had written in his first letter. In writing about the second coming of Christ and other matters having to do with the end of the present order of things, the apostle evidently touched upon a tender spot for some of his readers. They were people who enjoyed delving into the future and so were crazed by these delightful tidbits, some to the point that it was all they cared about. Paul had talked of Christ’s coming with His saints (3:13); he told them not to be concerned about their departed love ones who had died in the Lord, since they would also share in the resurrection when Christ came again in glory (4:13-18); and he had warned of the sudden doom of the wicked at the return of Jesus on account of their lack of preparation (5:1-11, also 23). Either Paul was misunderstood about these matters, or else someone had maliciously circulated a rumor or letter suggesting this return, about which he had had so much to say, was imminent (1 Thess. 3:6-12). However it happened, a number had apparently forsaken work to become dependent upon the church for their survival (2 Thess. 3:6-12). This may have been the first case of people becoming frenzied about the subject of eschatology or “last things,” but history on this count has repeated itself many, many times.

This matter of the “Man of Sin” has itself proven a thorny question about which much ink has been spilled and many long and tedious arguments made. That is true in spite of the fact that Paul intended his remarks to settle the matter for the brethren at Thessalonica. With the language of a removed future, he spoke of the arrival of a figure upon the scene of history whose dark shadow would fall upon the church and remain there until the very coming of Christ. Who this person was (or is to be) has troubled expositors throughout the centuries. Many elaborate theories have been spun to reply to the question. It is the purpose of the present article to pursue the inquiry, noting the various possible identifications and concluding with what we deem to be the appropriate answer to the problem. We believe that it has too often been the case that students have been overly concerned about hurting the religious feelings of someone else and too little concerned with making the right choice among the alternatives. We shall try not to fall prey to that temptation in the present study. It is not our desire to injure the sensitivities of others, either, but the truth ought to be of paramount importance on this issue as on all others which touch the faith once delivered to the saints.

Preliminary Comments

In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul warns that Christ will not come until the appearance of the “Man of Sin” or “Son of Perdition.” He also specifies that his coming is to be attended by a falling away. The term apostasia is used by him to refer to this event. It is the Greek equivalent ofour term “apostasy” and the word from which our term derives. It appears that there is obvious and intentional connection to be made between its usage here and in 1 Timothy 4:1 where Paul writes that “in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons . . . .” There is little likelihood that he would have in mind two separate apostasies, even though it is true that in 2 Thessalonians 2 only the “Man of Sin” is mentioned. The “Man of Sin” figure is himself merely a single feature of a much larger phenomenon which Paul alludes to as “the falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3). The fact that apostasy has occurred makes his appearance possible in the first place and allows it to continue and even prosper in the second.

We may summarize the outline of what Paul has to say about the “Man of Sin” and his arrival with the following:

(1) He arises out of the great apostasy or rebellion (v. 3).

(2) He is a person; more specifically, a man (v. 3).

(3) He is an object of worship and veneration by his own wish (v. 4). In this way he compares favorably with the person described in Daniel 11:36, though the two are not the same.

(4) He sits in the temple of God boasting his own godhood (v. 4).

(5) His appearance is encouraged by the “mystery of lawlessness,” already at work in Paul’s own time (v. 7).

(6) He is only revealed after that which restrains is removed (v. 7). When mentioned in the abstract, the neuter, impersonal, “that which” is used. When mentioned in personification, the masculine gender, “he who” is used. In all probability this refers to the principle of order which restrains the working of evil. So long as that order which God ordained remains intact, he is hindered from making his appearance.

(7) He is not overthrown until the parousia (“coming” or “presence”) of Christ (v. 8). Whether this is to be taken as referring to the second coming of Christ or of some “return” for purposes of judgment is a question answered differently by different writers. Mention of God’s coming judgment upon the Jews in I Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the accompanying use of the word parousia in v. 20 of the same chapter has led to speculation that in both cases he means the same thing. But parousia in v. 20 has no obvious connection with what Paul describes in vv. 14-16. Moreover, the excitement at Thessalonica was not over the fall of Jerusalem and collapse of the Jewish state, but had to do with the return of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead in Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:13-18; 5:1-10, 23-24). The idea that the fall of the Roman Empire is under consideration has even less to be said on its behalf.

(8) His own “coming” (parousia) is “according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (v. 9). Fake miracles thus characterize the reign of the “Man of Sin.”

(9) His continued success in keeping followers in his control and under his spell is based upon the “working of error,” lies, and the carnal desire to enjoy the pleasure of unrighteousness (vv. 10-11). False doctrines, and those who love to believe them and are devoid of the love of truth, are what sustain him and his position.

The expression “Man of Sin” is replaced in some of the ancient manuscripts by “Man of Lawlessness.” Some exegetes have concluded that this is the preferable reading, being that it seems to fit in better with v. 7-8. But lawlessness is failure to conform to the law of God and this is what sin is (I Jn. 3:4). I, therefore, fail to see that there is a great deal of difference which of the two possible readings is elected. The other phrase used to describe this person, i.e. “Son of Perdition,” is both textually and definitionally secure. The meaning, as Moffatt’s translation bears out, is “the doomed one.” Hell is his eventual place.

Paul’s first motive for introducing the discussion of this figure is also worth noting here. He attempts by introduction of the “Man of Sin” to wean the Thessalonians away from the idea of absolute immediacy in dealing with the subject of “last things.” Christ will not come “except the falling away come first.” For him it becomes a simple matter of God requiring more time to fulfill a prophetic forecast than imminency will allow. Thus, if it may be shown that this prophecy has seen its realization, then nothing has remained from the time of its fulfillment to the present hour that would hinder the return of the Lord.

What makes difficult our efforts at specifically identifying the one under consideration is the fact that no one of the views which has been put forward is able to take every part of the prophecy literally. This is not at all odd in dealing with prophecy for it is regularly filled with symbolism. But to many people the very fact that a view requires some close study and a text does not yield its meaning upon first glance gives them the impression it is somehow less legitimate than it would be otherwise. In the case of the “Man of Sin” one soon finds out that no one can take -literally every part of what is found here and that everyone must learn to live with the essential, though at times complicated, nature of biblical prophecy.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 140-141
March 3, 1983

By Aude McKee

Olan Hicks, in his tract on divorce and remarriage, gives considerable attention to 1 Corinthians chapter 7. We reproduce the second paragraph on page 8:

But someone will ask, what about verses 10 and I1? Is it not an order to remain unmarried if one separates from a mate? No. She has the option of being reconciled to her husband. But the key, which many overlook, is the fact that verse 10 says this is intended to be applied “to the married.” The conflict comes when this instruction is taken out of that category 4nd forced into application to the divorced and other categories than the married. The inspired apostle here said that Jesus spoke this for married people. He, by the Holy Spirit, gave a different instruction “to the unmarried and widows” in verses 8-9, as well as to the “loosed” in verse 28, and other categories. We ought to accept this position of interpreting what Paul said.

Instead of this being a passage favorable to Olan’s position, it destroys it. Who are in the “unmarried” category? Scripturally, those who have never married, those who have been married but their mates have died, and those who have put away a mate for the cause of fornication and have not formed another relationship. How does Olan define the “unmarried” group? Those who have never married, those who have been married but their mates have died, and those who are divorced! This passage in 1 Corinthians 7 teaches that a husband is not to leave his wife and a wife is not to leave her husband. But if either of them does, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. Now, if this passage is harmonized with Matthew 19:9 (as it must be), then if either the husband or the wife puts away the other for the cause of fornication, then that person (the one who did the putting away) would not be bound to remain unmarried.

In verses 8 and 9 of this chapter the Holy Spirit said that if the unmarried and widows could not contain, they were to marry, “for it is better to marry than to burn.” But again, this must be understood in the light of who is “widowed and unmarried.” Why the wife or husband who puts away (with the exception of Matt. 19:9) is to remain unmarried or be reconciled. If every passage is given the consideration it deserves, then the Holy Spirit’s teaching becomes simple.

Verses 27 and 28 must be handled in the same way that is, by harmonizing other passages that have a bearing on the subject. How can a man be loosed from a wife? The Bible says there are two ways this is accomplished. First, by death, and Romans 7:2-3 teaches this clearly. The second way is by the wife being guilty of immorality (Matt. 19:9).

Olan also pays his respects to verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 7. He says: “His (Paul’s, a.m.) ruling of verse 15 that the believer who is deserted by an unbelieving mate is `not under bondage in such cases,’ would have to be negated to say that this person is under bondage to remain celibate for the rest of earthly life.” In other words Olan is saying that 1 Corinthians 7:15 teaches that a Christian who is deserted by an unbeliever has the right to remarry. The difficulty is, this view flies up in the -face of the other plain teaching of the chapter. Verses 10 and 11 deal with situations where there is no immorality involved and in such cases “remain unmarried or be reconciled” is the command. Then observe the verse immediately following verse 15: “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” If we take Olan’s position and say that the deserted partner is free to remarry, then we have the Lord teaching that remarriage would contribute to the unbeliever’s conversion!

It is almost always the case that once men misunderstand a scripture passage, it then becomes necessary to take the uninspired pen also to some other Bible verses, because a disharmony with several statements of Paul, particularly in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians. His command at verse 2 that every man be allowed to have his own wife and every woman be allowed to have her own husband, must be modified to read, “except those guilty of marriage violations.” What he says at verses 8-9 concerning the unmarried and widows, that if they cannot contain they must be allowed to marry, would have to be changed to, “only if they are not guilty of previous marital infractions.” His ruling of verse 15 that the believer who is deserted by an unbelieving mate is “not under bondage in such cases.” would have to be negated to say that this person IS under bondage to remain celibate for the rest of earthly life. At verse 28 Paul said that one who is “loosed from a wife,” does not sin in marrying, but we must add, “provided he did the divorcing and provided it was on the ground of fornication.” Here are four express statements, absolutely clear in what they say, and all given without any hint whatever that they might not apply to some, but according to the traditional concept we must not accept a single one of them exactly as it is written, let alone all four of them. And why? Because they seem to conflict with what men think Jesus meant in Matthew 19:9.

Let’s suppose that an unbelieving husband has deserted his wife, who is a Christian. Now the lesson of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is simply this: if the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the believer because of her faith and determination to serve the Lord, then the believer is not under obligation to fulfill what otherwise would be her responsibilities to her husband. Some of these responsiblities are set forth by the Spirit in verses 3-5 of the chapter. She is “free” from her marital obligations, but certainly nothing is said about her being at liberty to marry again. This has been added by those who want to escape the limitations placed on remarriage by the Lord in Matthew 19:9.

Another point we feel needs to be made is in regard to the “burden” imposed by the Lord’s instructions. We seem to get the impression that Olan is saying the limitations are too great for a man to bear if he can’t marry again after an unscriptural divorce. But what about a man whose wife (say in her early 30’s) develops a mental disease and she is confined to an institution the rest of her life. Are we supposed to try to twist some scriptures so the husband can divorce his wife and form another relationship? Are we to feel so much pity that we will torture God’s Word so the man can find relief? We say to Olan, and all the rest of us, that the answer to the marriage problem in America and around the world, lies in a renewed investigation of God’s regulations regarding that relationship, and a sharp increase in respect for the Lord’s authority.

In his tract on divorce and remarriage, Olan Hicks accuses those who teach that the word “adultery” in Matthew 19:9, means “unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another” are guilty of “forbidding to marry.” We reproduce paragraphs 2 and 3 from page 10:

A Mark of Apostasy: Perhaps the most objectionable feature of this tradition is the fact that it simply means a great many people must be forbidden to have a mate at all. They are judged to have become ineligible to ever participate in marriage relationships again. And this is held to be unchangeable, regardless of their repentance or any other consideration. Once placed in this category, they must remain forever so, as long as they live on the earth. Thus, instead of respecting the divine will which from the beginning noted that “it is not good that the man should be alone,” we wind up with two categories of people, those who may have mates and those who may not have mates.

It would be hard to imagine a more serious indictment that could be brought against a doctrine than to identify it as a feature of the great apostasy of the last times. But this doctrine is so identified in the scriptures. Paul, in predicting the great falling away, that some would give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils and speak lies, specified two features that would characterize that departure as “forbidding to marry” and “commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). It is biblical to regulate marriage. Urging people not to sin against marriage is, in fact, the content of what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9. But forbidding them to have a mate at all as a consequence of having committed that sin, is a different thing altogether. This is a human judgment, not a Bible teaching, and is identified in 1 Timothy 4 with having departed from the way of God entirely.

We hope our readers will open their Bibles and examine the passage in 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Our brother has made a “serious indictment” (as he says), but the thing that makes it so serious – it just isn’t so! Now it is true that there are certain religious groups that forbid marriage to certain individuals. The Catholic Church, for example, forbids their officials to marry from the Pope down to the parish priests. We certainly agree that the passage in 1 Timothy would have application to them. But to apply it to those who teach that adultery means what the Greek scholars say it means, is indeed a radical position. Those who read the tract must look deeper than emotional appeals such as this.

But to get right down to the real issue, the statement in 1 Timothy 4:3, “forbidding to marry” would have application only if the person under consideration was forbidding that which the Lord allows. The Lord does not allow a second marriage when the first one was terminated for some reason other than fornication (Matt. 19:9), and those who say that He does are adding to God’s word.

I do not know who came up with this position now being taught by brother Hicks, but whoever did certainly covered a lot of ground. By defining “adultery” as “the act of divorcing and remarrying,” then just a number of false positions taken by preachers over the past years are encompassed. One brother argued a number of years ago that alien sinners are not amenable to God’s law of marriage. And so whatever relationships a person may have formed before obeying the gospel didn’t count. He could keep whatever wife he happened to have when he was converted. Olan’s position takes care of all who may have believed this.

Then there have been those who believed that when a couple were unscripturally married, the first time they went to bed a sin was committed, but from then on it was not adultery. So all they had to do was repent of that one act and they could remain together. Olan’s position takes care of all who have believed this.

And there have been those who took the position that baptism “washes away sin” and so baptism would take care of any divorce and remarriage (not realizing that Acts 22:16 has to do with sin and not husbands and wives). Those who believed that idea would have Acts 22:16 read: “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy first husband (wife).” But Olan’s definition of “adultery” makes it great for all those who hold that position.

Also there have been those who. propagated the idea that since the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 were not repeated after the cross, they are not binding. The teaching that Olan does on Matthew 19:9 certainly makes it comfortable for these folk.

There are those who teach that the guilty party of Matthew 19:9 has the same right of marriage as the one who does the putting away. Of course, Olan’s definition of “adultery” opens the way for those who believe this.

Surely whoever came up with this idea that Olan is teaching must have had an IQ bordering on the genius area. The only thing wrong with the position – it just isn’t so! Matthew 19:9 still reads: “And 1 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. “

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 138-139
March 3, 1983