Truth Magazine

By Aude McKee

As we continue our review of Olan Hicks’ tract on divorce and remarriage, we ask you to note some things he said in a paragraph that begins on page 5:

Rightly Dividing

After determining precisely what the text says, the next vital step is to make sure we apply it in harmony with apostolic example, that we give it the meaning they demonstrated. Here again the traditional position errs from the right course. It has long been standard among us to divide the testaments at the cross and to recognize that the new testament gospel began to be preached on Pentecost day in Acts 2. Examples of its terms being executed therefore, are not to be found before the cross. But being unable to find any examples in which the apostles thought of Matthew 19:9 the way the Council of Trent did, advocates of that tradition have turned to incidents before the cross and offer these as “examples” to support their theory. Usually the words of John the Baptist to Herod are cited, or the case of the Jews of Ezra’s time. But John was killed in Matthew the 14th chapter, and the words of our text occur in the 19th chapter, five chapters after John’s death. Thus that incident could not possibly be a case of these words being applied. The Jews of Ezra’s time, of course, are even farther away from being an example than that, since that incident occurred hundreds of years before Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 19:9. Neither incident is a case of a marriage being disallowed because fornication was lacking as the cause for a prior divorce. These are not examples of Matthew 19:9 being applied any more than the thief on the cross is a case of the great commission being executed. In both cases the incident took place before the words being considered were spoken. The simple truth is, there does not exist in scripture a single case, anywhere, of a marriage being “nullified” because fornication was not the cause of a preceding divorce. When we come over this side of the cross where the apostolic example is found, we see evidence that is altogether to the contrary. We find the gospel first being preached to the Jews, a nation which had been living under the law of Moses. This law, ironically, permitted divorce and remarriage for many causes (Matt. 19:3-8). But when these people asked the apostles, “What shall we do?” not a word was said concerning destroying any present marriages nor living celibately thereafter, as far as the divine record states. Peter simply replied, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:38). It is clear that repentance of former sins and a spiritual washing in baptism was sufficient. This is as far as our pattern goes. Neither the Council of Trent nor current enforcers have the right to give further elaboration as to what is “in the eyes of God,” and add into this pattern what is not supplied by the Holy Ghost. As J.D. Bales observed, “The Law of Christ is not Retroactive” (Firm Foundation, 6-13-78).

Olan wants an example of the teaching of Matthew 19:9 being carried out. Will he reject the clear meaning of Matthew 18:15-17, and the application of the passage to present-day circumstances, because he can find no example of its application after the cross? Olan is trying to make a new law!

He says that when Jews asked, “What shall we do?” in Acts 2:37, Peter didn’t say a word about destroying present marriages. “Peter simply replied, `Repent and be baptized . . . .”‘ We wonder, what does our brother think “repent” means? Those who followed the command to “repent” changed their minds about every action, thought and word that was contrary to the law of Christ! To those who might have been engaging in unlawful intercourse, the word “repent” covered that just like it covered lying, stealing and all other sins. According to Olan, these people could repent of adultery and keep on committing it – well, not exactly, because he wants to define adultery as divorce and remarriage: So the repentance would involve simply deciding not to divorce and remarry any more. Then the couple unscripturally divorced and remarried could go on sleeping together with God’s approval.

The very reason that there is adultery (Matt 19:9) in some marriages is simply because there is no marriage in God’s sight. God does not join two people who have no scriptural right to marry, any more than He “adds to the church” someone who has no scriptural right to be so considered (Acts 2:47). A person could come before an assembly, confess his faith in the risen Lord, and be immersed in water with the preacher saying, “for the remission of sins,” but the Lord knows whether or not he has met the terms of pardon, and it is only the Lord who applies the blood. If a man affirmed that the Lord would add a person’s name to the Lamb’s book of life simply because a local church added the name to their roll book, he would be totally in error. Just so, for a man to affirm that God recognizes a piece of paper issued by a civil court, dissolving a marriage because the couple disagreed over what breed of dog to buy, is just as ridiculous. In order for a person to be “added to the church,” God’s terms of pardon must be met. Just so, in order for what “God hath joined together” to be “unjoined,” God’s terms must be met! His terms are stated in these words: “Except it be for fornication” (Matt. 19:9). The clear import is simply this. If a marriage is dissolved and the reason for the putting away was not fornication, then any subsequent sexual activity, on the part of either one is labeled adultery by the Lord. It matters not whether the sexual activity is “one night stands” or activity made socially acceptable by another marriage, the result is the same before God.

Another very clear example among the apostles is that of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 5 he cites a case of incest among them, involving the defilement of a marriage. In chapter 6 he mentions that others of the Corinthians had been “adulterers” (6:9-11): There is no question that people guilty of adultery, or marriage violation, were among those to whom Paul wrote this letter. But the procedure by which they were rehabilitated was exactly the same as that which Peter gave at Pentecost. “And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” The teaching of tradition insists that, following repentance and washing, former adulterers are required by the demands of repentance, to “become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” and finish their lives without a mate. But Paul takes the opposite position. As we read on here, we find him in chapter 7 taking up matters they had written him about, particularly marriage. His first statement on the matter is, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Remembering that this was written to people among whom Paul had just cited the existence of former adultery, it is clear that this command cannot be harmonized with the tradition established at Trent, namely that former adulterers are not capable of entering a valid marriage but are consigned to permanent celibacy. Here is a clear indication that Paul did not view the matter that way. And again, one must choose between inspired scripture and human opinion.

Let us impress on the minds of our readers that Olan’s position from beginning to end depends on his definition of “adultery.” His definition is, the act of divorcing and the act of getting married. And so, when he comes to a case of conversion, the repentance involved simply means that the person, regardless of how many marriages and divorces he may have had, just agrees mentally that he will not do that anymore. If a person is allowed to define Bible words to suit his purpose, then I suppose there is nothing in this world that could not be “proven” right! The closest that Olan has come to finding his definition of the word “adultery” is Thayer’s statement that the Greek word is used figuratively in Greek writing “to usurp unlawful authority over the sea” and then the examples he gives are all outside the Bible! Mr. Vine agrees with Thayer when it comes to the literal meaning of “adultery”: “Denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another” (Vol. 1, pp. 32-33).

How could the Corinthians have been “washed, sanctified and justified”? Why, by obedience to the gospel (Acts 18:8). This obedience included repentance (Acts 17:30), which meant they had to have a change of mind about committing the sin of adultery. When did Jesus say the adultery occurred? Read Matthew 19:9: “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” (Emphasis mine, a.m.). We have heard it said, “You have to have help to misunderstand,” and it seems that is what Olan is determined to give. But it is going to take more than a far-out definition of “adultery” to accomplish the task! The “fornication” in Matthew 19:9 must be understood literally, and so the “adultery” in the passage must be understood literally, also.

Every position Olan takes is colored by his definition of “adultery,” in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul said, “. . . to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ” This verse must be understood in the light of everything the New Testament teaches regarding marriage, divorce, remarriage, adultery and fornication. With his definition of “adultery,” Olan can say to all the divorced people in the world, “Go out and get you another husband or wife in order to avoid fornication.” But Jesus said that if the former marriage was not broken for the cause of fornication, then any subsequent sexual relationship was adultery. That has to be understood and taken into consideration when reading 1 Corinthians 7, or any other New Testament passage dealing with this subject.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, pp. 71-72
February 3, 1983

By Irven Lee

It was several years ago that I saw a comic strip which pictured a little boy’s asking his mother, “Why did we get daddy?” Many children have not been blessed by their fathers as they should have been. We are being reminded in newscasts now that many little ones are being abused by the very people who should love and protect them. Some are neglected; some are brutally beaten; some are sexually assaulted. A nation is very sick spiritually when many helpless children need protection from their own fathers. Unbelief, drugs, and ungodly forms of entertainment have in some cases destroyed the part of man that is in the image of God, making him into a “natural brute beast” (2 Pet. 2:12 KJV).

A child should find a wonderful place of refuge in the presence of his father. He has a right to feel very secure in his arms. Food, clothing, shelter, and other essential things that money can buy should be considered the responsibility of the man who begat them (1 Tim. 5:8). A man who will not provide these things has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. It seems evident that there are many thousand men who cannot be depended on to meet these basic needs. Such men are not likely to read articles like this, nor do they read and meditate on the law of God.

Money is not the only thing that a man should provide for his children. If it were, he would not be missed if he died leaving a large insurance policy for his family. Children do not know how to use money, so if that is all they have from their father they are poor instead of rich. They can be destroyed both physically and spiritually by an ample supply of cash (Matt. 19:23, 24; Mk. 10:23-26). A good father may be a real blessing to his children in teaching them to restrain themselves and to have wisdom in the use of money. The young certainly need to be taught to earn. Citizens who prefer stealing, begging, or arranging for tax money for all their needs are unworthy of the food they eat. (See 2 Thess. 3:10.) One generation that will not work tends to bring up another generation in its own likeness.

Proper discipline is a prerequisite to righteousness. It is not a joyous experience to receive or to administer the chastening, but the peaceable fruit of righteousness is a wonderful thing to see (Heb. 12:5; Prov. 13:24; 22:6). Bringing up a child in the way he should go is not just a matter of wise use of the rod of punishment. There is need for teaching the wisdom of the past and the revealed will of God so that each generation may not make the same old mistakes that have characterized the past. Instruction may be given morning, noon, or night (Dent. 6:6-9). The wildest elements in America today are ignorant of things people have learned in past experiences, and of the revealed wisdom of God. They perish through lack of knowledge. The failure of a father to teach is a serious and inexcusable failure.

Israel’s history in the early period of its national existence gives an impressive example. “The people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the Lord, that he did for Israel . . . . All that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim” (Judg. 2:7-11). Think how different the story would have been if the people had taught their children as earnestly as Moses asked them to do as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.

Fathers should win their children’s respect through their good examples and through their loving patience as they spend time with them. Children need to be guided into the company of worthy companions. Souls are involved (1 Cor. 15:33). Children are to be guided and trained just as they are to be fed and clothed.

A man has reason to rejoice if he has a pleasant, profitable, and challenging occupation, but he should also know that his position as a father can be just as pleasant, profitable, and challenging if he will put time into this work with precious material. Children are a heritage of the Lord (Psa. 127:3). Failure as a father can bring sorrow beyond measure. Success is possible (Prov. 22:6).

Fathers should provide training, chastening, physical needs, worthy examples, proper environment, and a family name of which their children will have no occasion to be ashamed.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 70
February 3, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Are overhead projector charts authorized by the Scriptures? If one or two people conscientiously oppose their use, should the elders and preacher cease using them for fear that they will be guilty of “offending” a brother (Rom. 14:21; I Cor. 8:13)?

Reply: The use of overhead projectors is an effective method of teaching. It is in the same category as black boards, cloth charts, song books, baptistries and tracts. They are all expediencies – means and methods. It cannot be shown that their use violates any Scripture. If a critic objects to overhead projector charts, but at the same time approves of a black board, he is inconsistent because both are in the same category. Elders have the responsibility of feeding the flock (Acts 20:28) and, in providing spiritual teaching, they should employ the best and most effective methods available.

As to “offending the conscience,” a few brethren need to do some studying in this area. They do not understand what is involved in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8. If they have an opinion that some method used by the church is wrong (usually because they do not like it), it is easy for them to object on the ground that it “offends” their conscience. They completely miss the point of Paul’s teaching. In neither Romans 14 or I Corinthians 8 is Paul saying that we must give up anything and everything that “hurts the feelings” of some objector. The local church would be in a mess if every grumbler is pacified by discontinuing some effective means of teaching. This would mean that the local church would have to cease having Bible classes or using individual containers at the Lord’s Supper because somebody says he is offended by their use. It is time that some objectors learn the real meaning of Paul’s teaching.

The weak brother in both passages is not the one who merely has his feelings hurt. The idea in Romans 14 is that a stumbling block is not to be put in a brother’s way. This would be an occasion for him to fall (v. 13). In the Roman passage Paul is dealing with a brother who was weak in faith (v. 1) and could only eat herbs (v. 2). If such were influenced to eat meat by a stronger brother, even though he believed it was wrong to eat it, he would be led to sin (v. 15). To grieve a brother in this instance is not merely hurting his feelings. The next sentence says, “Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.” The word “destroy” means “ruin or loss.” To offend a man’s prejudice or notions is not to destroy him. Rather, his ruin or destruction would result from him being encouraged to do that which would lead him to sin. And, it is interesting that usually the member in the church who is offended or who has his feelings hurt about something, is the last one to admit that he is weak. Who is the weak brother referred to by Paul? He is the one who could not conscientiously eat meat because he considered it unclean. He was not to be given an occasion for falling (v. 13). This lesson is illustrated in verse 21, “It is not good to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.” Please note that the verse does not say that we are to refrain from anything that merely hurts the feelings of a brother. The “offense” is that which would make him sin.

The word “offense” as defined by Webster is “a cause or occasion of sin: stumbling block” (Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 586). Thayer explains the Greek word proskomma (stumbling-block): “i.e. an obstacle in the way which if one strike his foot against he necessarily stumbles or falls; trop. that over which the soul stumbles, i.e. by which it is impelled to sin” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 547).

The lesson that we as Christians are not to do anything that will cause a brother to sin is also the one taught in 1 Corinthians 8. At Corinth there was the situation of eating meat sacrificed to idols. The weak brother in this case was a converted brother who was still susceptible to Pagan influences. He could not eat meat that had been dedicated to an idol. As he grew spiritually in Christ, he might come to realize that there was nothing in an idol. Until then, the brother strong in faith should not eat meat if it would cause the weaker brother to follow his example and thereby sin. This is why Paul wrote in verse 13, “Wherefore if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore.” This is afar cry from merely hurting the feelings of some grumbler who dislikes some method being used by the church.

Sometimes a disgruntled member, in order to have his own way, will attempt to exert pressure on the elders and preacher by threatening to leave the congregation because some method does not suit his fancy. This attitude denotes spiritual immaturity. Brethren who object to such methods of teaching as the use of overhead projectors should first be taught and admonished. They should be shown that the use of such is an expediency like a song book, black board, Bible classes or individual containers at the Lord’s Supper. They should also be made to realize that they have no right to bind their opinion or encroach upon the liberty of others who favor their use. Brethren who object to such methods usually do not consider the desires of others. They selfishly think only of their own dislikes. Elders and preachers should not be intimidated by such childish actions. If a few are disgruntled and leave because they are “offended,” this is better than having the unity of the congregation disrupted and an effective teaching program thwarted. If they leave the congregation, they leave because their own personal whims were not satisfied. Such brethren have not been destroyed – made to sin.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 69
February 3, 1983

By Tom M. Roberts

The gospel accounts tell us that Jesus faced the prospect of crucifixion with much dread and agony of spirit. Matthew states that Jesus was “sorrowful and sore troubled,” “exceeding sorrowful,” and prayed that, “if it be possible, let this cup pass away” (Mt. 26:37ff). Luke adds that He was “in an agony,” that He prayed at length and that His “sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.” Without question, this is language that dramatizes the inner feelings of Jesus as He anticipated the hours that faced Him. Yet, with all due respect to the suffering and death that would be His, there seems to be an incongruity between the attitude exhibited by Jesus as He faced death and the attitude that Scripture and Jesus Himself tells us that should characterize the disciples who face death.

Consider these scriptures. “Be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28); “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (v. 39). Again, “Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations” (James 1:2) and verse 12, “blessed is the man that endureth temptation.” Revelation 2:10 puts it clearly: “Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold the devil is about to cast some of you into prison that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.” Disciples should not shrink back from death itself and the apostles themselves left the council of the Jews “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer . . .” (Acts 5:41).

My point is that there seems to be a disparity between the attitude Jesus exhibited when He faced death and the attitude that is recommended when we face death, yes even a death of suffering. Was Jesus not able to face death with the same equanimity that He suggests for us? Are we being expected to be more noble in the face of suffering than He? No! To ask such a question is to answer it. Jesus did not and does not expect something of us that He was not willing to bear. It is this fact and the seeming incompatibility between this fact and the obvious dread of Jesus as He faced death that has led me to understand something about the cross and the death of Jesus on it that might escape us without due consideration. I believe you will agree with me as we study together and both have a deeper appreciation of not just death on the cross (a common event) but the “shame of the cross” (Heb. 12:2), a situation unique to Him.

Consider The Nature Of Deity

I believe the reason why the cross and its death held so much more dread than death should seem to hold for even us is that Jesus knew He was going to the cross to be treated as a sinner and to have to hang on the cross as though He carried the guilt of all humanity. This treatment was not only abhorrent to Jesus because of His holiness and purity but also because He would have to be treated by Jehovah, His father, as a sinner would have to be treated, “having become a curse for us” as Paul put it in Galatians 3:13. We cannot appreciate the character and attributes of God without realizing just what this meant to Jesus. Jehovah is described in the Bible in the absolute sense of holiness, goodness, perfection. As Habbakkuk said, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil” (1:13). It is said of God that He cannot lie, that He swears by Himself since He can swear by none greater (Heb. 6:13-18), that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and the source of all good. At the same time, God hates all kinds of evil (Psa. 45:6-7; Prov. 6:16f; et al). Reflect on this as it relates to Jesus’ death on the cross and it becomes doubly significant. You see, God was going to have to treat Jesus, His own son, as though He had sinned! Nor can we overlook the fact that Jesus Himself is truly God and has the same holiness and purity as well as hatred of sin. When this is driven home, it becomes evident that there is much more to the death of Jesus than death alone. In fact, I believe that the agony that faced Jesus was directly connected to his forthcoming treatment in two senses: first, that he would have to be treated as a sinner – a condition abhorrent to Him; secondly, that He would be treated as a sinner by God, His father, between whom existed perfect unity and harmony in sinless perfection. In the light of this knowledge, how much more poignant and pitiful is the cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46).

This is in keeping with all that the rest of the Bible teaches about the suffering and death of Jesus. One Scripture that comes readily to mind is Isaiah 53 which is filled with prophecies of the Messianic death of Jesus. Some phrases that leap out of the text at us are: “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted” (v. 4); “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed” (v. 5); “The Lord hath lain on him the iniquity of us all” (v. 6); “He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due” (v. 8); “Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him . . . when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” (v. 10); “He shall see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied . . . he shall bear their iniquities” (v. 11) and “was numbered with the transgressors yet he bare the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (v. 12). The writer of the Hebrew letter also adds: “Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears (cf. Mt. 26:37; Mt. 27:46) unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear . . . ” (Heb. 5:7). All of these Scriptures and much more indicate that Jesus feared the cross but not because He feared death itself. He feared and dreaded the cross because on it he would be treated as though He were stained with the sins and transgressions of all mankind. His father would have to turn away from Him as though He were being separated from His own son by sin (Isa. 59:1, 2; Ezek. 18:4). Herein lies the shame of the cross. Herein lies the agony that Jesus anticipated. The first three chapters of Romans reveal the sorry plight of mankind as he plunged deeper and deeper into the morass of sin. There was nothing that he had not done. There was not depth to which he would not plunge.

A crude but fitting way of illustrating how God must feel toward sin and how Jesus must have dreaded to be regarded as a sinner by his father lies in the true story of a neighbor boy of my family. Years ago at Halloween, it was the practice of some boys to go around the community turning over outhouses. These toilets were simple buildings erected over pits that were dug into the ground to be used as cesspools. The pranksters thought it the height of joking to turn over these outdoor toilets. Can you imagine how one of these boys must have felt the dark night that, after turning over the outdoor privy, he made a misstep and fell into the cesspool beneath? Try to imagine how he must have felt to be covered with all that filth! Imagine how his father would have felt to have observed his son covered with this corruption. This is a crude illustration, indeed, but it aptly brings to mind to some extent how Jesus must have felt to be covered (not actually, but metaphorically) with the sins of mankind. He was treated as though He were the murderer, the fornicator, liar, homosexual, atheist. He had to hang on the cross suspended before the God of heaven, His own Father, in that sinful condition. No wonder that God turned away from Him. He had to treat His own Son as though He were a sinner and deserved to die a cursed death.

Brethren, consider if you will that this is the very thing that Jesus dreaded as He prayed in the garden. He knew that shortly He would stand before God as though He were the rankest sinner, as though He were dripping with the sins of all mankind accumulated from Adam until the end of the world. To us who are more or less accustomed to being a sinner and to some degree calloused to sin, this might not seem such a dreadful thing. But to one who is holy, pure and good in the absolute, it is quite another thing.

Why Accept This Shame?

The disciples on the road to Emmaus after the resurrection of Jesus were asked, “Ought the Christ to have suffered these things?” (Lk. 24:26). From our vantage point this side of the New Testament, we can state with conviction that only by Jesus being willing to go to the cross and suffer the shame of it could man hope to have eternal life. But by how much more does our knowledge of the true shame of the cross elevate our appreciation of His sacrifice. Jesus loved us enough that He was willing to stand before His Father as though He were guilty mankind and be our substitute. He endured this shame as a sinner that we could become sons of God. How deep are the riches of Christ and the wisdom of God! How deep is our debt! Is it any wonder, then, that because Jesus was willing to suffer the shame of the cross that “God hath also highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father” (Phil. 2:9-11).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, pp. 67-68
February 3, 1983