Truth Magazine

By John McCort

There has been a great deal written on the subject of divorce and remarriage in the last few years. The divorce rate continues to spiral upward and, thus, the church has been plagued with more and more problems connected with divorce. I fear that in the coming generation a major battle is going to be fought in the church over this issue.

In the course of discussing issues, there are key passages which need to be studied. Occasionally passages will be misapplied by even those who believe the truth on the subject in general.

In the case of marriage and divorce, I feel that 1 Cor. 7:10-11 has been misapplied and misinterpreted. Many brethren have taken the position that 1 Cor. 7:10-11 does not refer to divorce but to merely to separation. The passages reads, “And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”

Focus on the word “depart.” It is the same word that is used in Matt. 19:6 for “put asunder.” Jesus said, “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder.” The subject in Matt. 19:6 is divorce, not separation. Why would the word mean divorce in Matt. 19:6 and only separation in 1 Cor. 7:10-11?

Paul instructs the wife that if she departs from her husband, she is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. Two people who are merely separated are still married. The woman in 1 Cor. 7:10 could not be separated and unmarried at the same time. Thus, divorce must be the subject of 1 Cor. 7:10-11.

I do not believe that 1 Cor. 7:10-I1 teaches that divorce for any cause is permissible. In fact, the passage teaches quite the opposite. Paul states very emphatically, “Let not the wife depart from her husband.” Paul reinforces the strength of the statement by saying, “But and if she should depart let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled. . .” (7:11). Paul was teaching that if a married couple divorces for causes other than fornication (Matt. 19:9), they must remain single. Paul is not saying that divorce for any cause is permissible as long as remarriage does not follow but, if a couple makes the mistake of divorcing for unscriptural causes, then they are not allowed to remarry. Jesus also stated in very clear terms, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder.”

Jesus teaches that divorce is wrong, except where fornication is involved. He said, “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. 5:32). The divorce itself is wrong because, in effect, divorce sets the other mate free. We have no control over whether our mates remarry or not after the divorce. If our mates do remarry, the Bible says we have caused our mates to commit adultery. God holds us partially accountable for the remarriage because we have given our mates the freedom to remarry.

Jesus also taught, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). When does the putting asunder take place? Does it take place at the time of the divorce or in the subsequent remarriage? I think the answer is obvious. Jesus taught that the divorce itself is wrong. Many brethren have taken the position that we can divorce for any cause as long as we do not remarry and when the former mate remarries (and thus commits adultery), then we are free to remarry. The Scriptures do not bear this out. In Matt. 19:9 and Matt. 5:32, there are four people who commit adultery: the two mates who divorce and the two they remarried. Nothing is said about the first couple who remarries committing adultery; the other couple is free to remarry without adultery.

Many brethren have tried to justify separation for any cause. I will admit that there might be a few isolated, extreme cases where separation is justified but I do not believe the Bible gives authority for doing so. In fact the Bible teaches against separation.

The Scriptures teach that each mate has a physical responsibility to the other mate. We are not to withhold sexual privileges from each other (1 Cor. 7:5). When we separate, we are doing exactly that. During a long separation, the same thing happens that happens during a divorce; both mates are tempted to commit fornication. If we separate from a mate and the mate commits fornication, I do not believe we are completely guiltless in the matter; we have contributed to the fornication.

Some brethren have used 1 Cor. 7:5 as a justification for separation for any cause. The passage reads, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” The passage clearly says not to defraud each other. Periodically we might consent not to have sexual relations for spiritual reasons that we might give ourselves to prayer and fasting. He instructs the couple to come back together again so they will not be tempted to commit fornication. This kind of temporary sexual separation is a far cry from Martha storming home to mom and dad for a month because she and Jack had a fight. Nothing is said about marital incompatibility in 1 Cor. 7:5. Nothing is said about either mate leaving home. The only thing taught is that sexual separation for spiritual reasons for short periods of time is permissible.

The question is usually raised, “What about the drunk who beats his wife and children and is not fit to live with. Must a woman live in unlivable and intolerable conditions?” This kind of extreme situation is not very common place in the church. Separations mainly occur because a husband and wife are squabbling and can not get along. If an extreme case occurs, then separation is the only answer but not because the Bible teaches the validity of separation. For example, David ate the shewbread in an extreme emergency even though it was not lawful for him to eat it. In an extreme emergency, I might forsake the assembly on the Lord’s Day to aid and assist someone who had a car accident. Cases like this are so far and few between that they are hardly worth considering. Most of the time, these extreme hypothetical situations are raised to justify unauthorized practices in the absence of Scripture.

The Bible does not teach or authorize that a couple may divorce or separate for any cause. Many times these unauthorized divorces and separations are a respectable smokescreen for those who are attempting to circumvent their marriage vows to stay with their mates until death. I believe that if brethren would take away the easy option of divorce and separation from squabbling, bickering couples, that the couple might be forced to work out their problems which they otherwise would not have worked out and thus avoid the tragedy of needless divorce and separation.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 40, pp. 648-649
October 9, 1980

By Steve Willis

Many religions and religious teachers are calling the decade of the 1980’s the “Decade of Destiny” (Pat Robertson on the 700 Club TV program). In a new advertising campaign, Hal Lindsay, premillennial author of The Late Great Planet Earth, is pushing a new book: The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon. Essentially, Lindsay is updating many of the statements found in Late Great (as he calls it).

We should here say that we do not pretend to know when the Lord may or may not return. Should he come during the 80’s decade, none would be happier than me. Also, if any or all of Lindsay’s political predictions come about, so be it. It is evident by examining a few points made by Lindsay that he is on the wrong track spiritually, whether or not he may be right politically. Lindsay’s “countdown” scenario goes something like this:

1. There should be a rebirth of Israel. He claims that this occurred in 1948. One should note that the Israelites are not keeping the Mosaic Law as a majority; most are agnostics or atheists. This also ignores Jesus’ statement that their house would be left desolate (see Matt. 23:37-39).

2. There should be an Arab-Moslem confederacy. He points to the OPEC alliance as a fulfillment of this. The passages that support his claim are missing, for they describe events that took place during the fall of Ancient Israel to both Assyria and Babylon.

3. There should be a rise of Russia as a world power. Russia is not mentioned by name in the scriptures and it is doubtful whether it is mentioned at all. A nation to the north of Israel is described as an enemy of Israel. This description is very broad (see Ezekiel 38, 39), and the context seems to describe all of God’s enemies as one nation.

4. There would be a rise of China as a world power. He points to Red China as the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the Kings of the East. Again the identification of China is suspect; remember that both Assyria and Babylon were to the east of Israel, and had to attack from the north.

5. There should be a rise of a New Roman Empire. This empire would be led by the “anti-christ” – a man Lindsay believes is alive today and is about to come to political power over Europe. Actually the passage that mentions this fourth world power, says that the kingdom of God would be established during the time of that kingdom. Rome was the fourth kingdom (after Babylon, MedoPersia, and Greece) and Jesus established the kingdom which was not of this world during that time; He built the church. It is easy to see that the concept one has of the kingdom of God (and His son Jesus Christ) greatly affects the way one views whether the prophecy has been fulfilled or not. Many were expecting a physical kingdom in Israel, and they tried to take Jesus by force to make Him that king. Jesus would not have it for He established a spiritual kingdom. Some today are still looking for a physical kingdom Lindsay is.

Besides the physical reign of Jesus on earth, Lindsay teaches many other false doctrines: that Jesus will return twice (one time is the so-called “Rapture”); that the church is not the kingdom promised of old-time; that “this generation” in Matt. 24:34 is the generation of today not the one in Jesus’ time; and that all one needs to do to be saved is to pray for forgiveness (you will never see a gospel preacher in the Bible tell a non-Christian to do this – see Acts 2:38).

As a political book, Lindsay’s latest effort may have some insights. As a study of Bible prophecy, he practices eisegesis (putting ideas into a passage), not exegesis (gathering ideas out of a passage).

Another disturbing point is the avoidance of upsetting his Jewish readers with the fact that Jesus is not only Lord and Messiah, He is the Son of God! This was evident as well in the movie version of Late Great; Lindsay wore the six-pointed star of David (or, Solomon – depending on which tradition is followed), the same emblem which is on modern Israel’s flag. In the movie, Lindsay never called Jesus the Son of God, merely, “the prophet Jesus” an identity which some Jews will accept. In the book, Lindsay tells them frankly that it was Jesus the Nazarene whom the Jewish nation helped “pierce, and that it is this same Jesus who is the Messiah (Christ, or annointed one).” But he does not offend their belief by telling them what Jesus affirmed in John 5, where many Jews were angry with Jesus because He made Himself out to be equal with God. Blasphemy! – if it were not true. I do not doubt that Lindsay believes in Christ’s divinity, but Jews and Gentiles alike must believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) and the Son of the living God (see Matt. 16:16).

It is exactly upon this confession that Jesus built His church, the kingdom of heaven. If the 1980’s prove to be the end of time, it will not be to establish a kingdom, but to deliver “up the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power . . . . The last enemy that will be abolished is death” (1 Cor. 15:24, 26).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 40, pp. 647-648
October 9, 1980

By Jimmy Tuten

Crossroads’ initial concept of “Total Commitment” is most commendable. How she seeks that “Total Commitment” is another matter, and this I do not endorse! Our Lord did indeed “make it abundantly clear that following him involved an absolute decision, a complete surrender a total commitment” (Chuck Lucus, At The Crossroads, May 6, 1979). I will show that in spite of the fact that Crossroads has never “advocated in any way neglecting one’s wife or children in order to be involved in evangelism, or any other activity of the church” (Chuck Lucas, Gospel Advocate, May 24, 1979), her program has resulted in just that! The proponents of the “Crossroads Total Commitment Philosophy” have in the past made an overt demand of one’s time. Activity has been misdirected, witnessing and sharing have been overly stressed, and psychological pressures with spiritual overtures have repeatedly been applied. Rigid schedules have been set up for new converts which have resulted in frustration, agonizing conflicts and failures. In short, they are isolated from everything that might disrupt this rigidness. Herein lies the cultic aspect!

Brother Lucas admitted to me, as I sat across from him in his office several months ago, that “such was rumored,” but went on to state that he knew of no specific instances of such. My reply was, “I will be happy to supply you with a specific instance.” He did not ask for it. The evidence is too great to deny. These brethren failed to understand that sensitive people can be destroyed by overplaying the guilt syndrome. This is a far cry from “exhorting with many other words” (Acts 2:40). You simply do not use grace as a club to drive home guilt.

In my own words, I will describe a typical situation as personally related to me and confirmed by various articles, etc.: “Sue, you missed `quiet time’, last night. Do you think you did the right thing?” “No, but I have been going to church every night this week, and Timmy has been crying for me. Too, my husband is quarreling about my being gone so much. He is accusing me of being a “religious freak.” “Sue, do you love the Lord?” “Yes.” “Do you think you are doing the best you can do?” “No.” “Who should come first, the Lord, or your family?” “The Lord.” “Can you be a better Christian?” “Yes.” “Can you do it by staying at home with your family and failing to witness?” “Well, no. But . . . .” And on it goes. This writer would like to suggest that this Crossroads’ concept of spirituality, based on this display of achieving total commitment, is contrary to the Biblical concept. The true Biblical motivation for total commitment is that “we have died with Christ” and “our life is hid in Him” (Col. 3:3; Rom. 6:10). Our teaching (or, “witnessing,” whatever that means) is a fruit that glorifies God; it is not the gospel. The whole life of the Christian glorifies God (1 Cor. 6:20). Glorifying God is not confined to one area. When our fictional “Sue” proportions her obligations with priorities, stays home in order to fulfill her duty to her family, she is glorifying God! It would be a sin if she did not. Crossroaders must understand that our lives are not the gospel, but rather the fruit of the gospel.

The tactics that are used to motivate those who are attracted to Crossroads cause most of them to feel guilty about just about everything in life. This guilt feeling comes when it is discovered that one cannot live up to the expectations required of them. Why cannot those who are involved in this movement see that spirituality is not confined to a program of work measured by standards that are human? Crossroads people do indeed “measure themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12). One would think that brother Lucus thinks that the “tie that binds” is time, i.e., no time to doubt! The narrow concept of Christianity on the part of Crossroads is seen in that her people practically live at the building.

Conclusion

What has happened at Crossroads was bound to happen. The institutional brethren have been taking water from “broken cisterns” for a long time (Jer. 2:13). They are dying of spiritual thirst. The denominational ring of much of the uncertainty of convictions on the part of so many demonstrates this factor. Oh, yes, there are some strong voices among them (the number is growing) crying in the wilderness of liberalism. But they are trying to destroy fruit when they should be dealing with the root! The new vocabulary of Crossroads (“soul talks,” “prayer Partners,” “quiet time,” etc.) is sectarian to the core as far as appeal goes. Is the new language of the liberals in general any better? What about their, “crusades for Christ,” “Fellowship halls,” “revivals,” etc.? I wish brethren could learn that one cannot rise higher than the standard he follows. Once you depart from objective truth (the Bible) into subjective reasonings (“what’s wrong with it?” or “I don’t see anything wrong with it”), you wander in a maze. When you yield to denominational techniques to get your message across and others go further than you envisioned, it is time to look back and see where it is all coming from. I am sickened when I recall the “don’t tell them who you are, it might scare them” philosophy displayed first on the Fifth and Highland Herald of Truth several years back and now all around us.

The eliminate the negative emphasis of recent years has even spilled over into the minds of conservatives. Now many of them do not even accentuate the positive, but certainly mess with “Mr. In-Between.” It is no wonder that Crossroads’ Campus Advance (winning souls for Christ) reverses the process of conversion, i.e., they do not convince young people on many Scriptures for this is an uphill battle. They stress surrender of wills and then what the Lord’s will is (their Total Commitment Concept). We had better stop the mellowing down of our preaching (even us conservatives) and cease the uncertain sound that rings forth from our pulpits. “A rose is still a rose” no matter what you call it. Campaigns for Christ, Crossroads Philosophy, they are all the same, except in degree and expression. They come from the same muddy waters. “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them our cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 40, pp. 645-647
October 9, 1980

By Mike Willis

The church here in Dayton conducts an hour long talk show each Lord’s day as a result of which several have been converted. Several years ago, a man called in and expressed agreement with the what I was teaching regarding the topic being discussed. He stated that he would be at worship that morning. When the invitation was offered that morning, he came forward to confess his sins and pray for forgiveness. He was back that evening. Inasmuch as his cousin was a faithful gospel preacher, I called him to tell him the good news. He remarked, “There is one thing you can count on when my cousin is restored and that is that he is going to fall away again!” At the time, I thought that was a rather harsh, unloving statement. However, he knew his cousin better than I did. He never returned to our worship services. Later I visited him and found him drunk and crying in his beer.

Many others have had contact with others who, like Reuben, might be described as “unstable as water” (Gen. 49:4). They are “unstable souls” (2 Pet. 2:14). Occasionally, we see unstable souls in our contact with both Christians and non-Christians. Let us notice the characteristics of the unstable.

Characteristics of Unstable Souls

1. They are double-minded. James commented on certain unstable souls as follows: “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” (Jas. 1:6-8). Later, he pleaded, “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double-minded” (Jas. 4:8).

What is a double-minded man? The word dispuchos literally refers to a “two-souled” person. Thayer defines the word to mean “wavering, uncertain, doubting; divided in interest” (p. 153). I think one of the best ways of demonstrating what a double-minded person is like would be to illustrate it. Israel certainly demonstrates the trait of the double-minded. When Elijah lived, Israel was vacillating between the love and service of Jehovah and the love and service of Baal. Elijah said, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kgs. 18:21). That is an example of a double-minded group of people.

The New Testament alludes to other double-minded people. The man who seeks to serve both God and mammon is a double-minded person (Mt. 6:24) the man who sought to eat at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21) was a double-minded person; the lukewarm person is a double-minded person (Rev. 3:15). They are double-minded because they have two interests which are in conflict with each other; they are attempting to do the impossible – to serve both of them at the same time.

In commenting on the usage of “double-minded” in Jas. 1:8, the commentaries describe the characteristics of this unstable soul:

The petitioner must not shift backwards and forwards between faith and doubt, like a tumbling billow of the sea. He must not swing like a pendulum between cheerful confidence and dark suspicion. It must be his fixed persuasion that God is, and that he is the Hearer of prayer. He must expect an answer to his supplications, and be ready to mark the time and mode of it; else he may rest assured that no answer will come. Transient emotions are not religion. It is the men and women within whom faith is the dominant power who take the kingdom of heaven by force. God is all simplicity himself, and he gives with simplicity; so he can have no sympathy with an unstable, double-souled man. A mind that continually vacillates in its choice will be prone in the end to fail in both the purposes between which it has hesitated. Certainly it will not obtain that Divine wisdom which every human heart so greatly needs for the exigencies of adversity. Steadfast faith, and that alone, will give a man singleness of eye, make him strong to keep hold of the angel of the covenant, and draw down upon the richest blessings of gospel grace (C. Jerdan, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XXI, p. 10).

This double-minded, two-souled disposition creates instability. One cannot be depended upon who is constantly fluctuating between opinions.

2. They are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. The unstable person is one who is so insufficiently grounded in the word of God that he is constantly being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. The perfect (mature) man was contrasted with the child in faith by Paul; he described the unstable child as follows: “. . . that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14). False teachers are able to deceive the ignorant and unstable (2 Pet. 3:16).

That a goodly number of brethren are “children” in reference to the faith is evident from statements which I have heard regarding several churches. As faithful gospel preachers commented regarding specific churches, they remarked that the stand which a given church would take regarding church support of human institutions or the sponsoring church arrangement would largely be determined by the preacher who preached there. Frankly, that is not much of a compliment to the members of any church which can be so described; it simply reflects that they are “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.”

Some preachers are the same way. Sometimes a man will send in an article denouncing a certain position as false. By the time this article comes off the press, he sends in an announcement stating he has changed his position. The man begins to send articles to periodicals aligned with his new position attacking his former position. Within a few months, he has changed his position again. What does he do? You guessed it; he immediately starts pounding out articles retracting his retraction and denouncing the position he took in his retraction. A few months later, he will likely want to retract his retraction of his retraction and begin pounding out articles attacking the old position. Such a man is of no use to the kingdom of God. He is tossed to and fro, carried about by every wind of doctrine, and unstable in all of his ways.

3. They jump into things without forethought and do not persevere. In the parable of the sower, Jesus described the stony ground hearer as one who “hath not root in himself” (Matt. 13:20-21). He heard the word and “anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.” This is an unstable soul.

I have seen many people just like this. They are the kind who jump into things immediately; they seem to be a fireball of enthusiasm at the beginning. However, before they get started going very well, their enthusiasm has waned. Their attention is turned to something else; they are gone. They will spend their lives hopping from one thing to another because they do not have root in themselves.

Hence, an unstable character is marked by these traits: (a) he acts out of passion; (b) he is stroingly influenced by what others think about him; (c) he is constantly fluctuating; and (d) he has a divided allegiance.

Christian Maturity Is Marked By Stability

In contrast to the unstable souls, the mature Christian is characterized by stability. A man can count on the mature Christian’s faith to remain constant regardless of the nature of the attack which is launched against it.

1. A mature Christian is rooted and grounded in his commitment to Christ. He is rooted and grounded in love (Eph. 3:17). His love for God is first and foremost in his life (Matt. 22:37). Hence, the stable Christian is not the kind of man who must decide anew whether or not he is going to serve Christ everytime some major or minor problem confronts him in life. He has made his commitment to Christ and will be faithful to it.

2. A mature Christian is rooted and ground in the faith. The mature Christian has made it his business to learn the revelation of God in order that he can discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:11-14; cf. Col. 1:23; 2:6-7; 2 Thess. 2:7). His knowledge of God’s word enables him to recognize false doctrine (2 Jn. 9-11) and stand opposed to those who bring it (Rom. 16:17-18). When false teachers trouble a congregation, the mature Christian can be counted on to be standing for the truth for he is rooted and grounded in the faith.

3. The mature Christian perseveres through the temptations and trials of life. Every man will be confronted with problems of life. Some brethren use their problems as an excuse for not faithfully serving the Lord. The mature Christian is not that way. He perseveres through the problems of life. James compared the manner in which the faithful Christians stands during the trials of life to the manner in which Job and the prophets endured affliction with faith in God (5:7-11). You recognize the kind of men which I am describing. If one of their children becomes ill, they will nevertheless be faithful to God; if they lose their job, they will be faithful to God; if one of their children becomes rebellious, they will maintain their faith in God. They persevere in the faith.

Conclusion

A stable person is one on whom you can rely. He will be faithful in attendance. You know that if he is not present at the services, something is wrong; he is either sick or has sickness in the family, some unforeseen trouble has come up, or he is out of town. He is stable in doctrine. He can be appointed to teach a Bible class without fear of what he will teach. A mark of Christian maturity is stability. Are you a stable Christian or are you an “unstable soul” (2 Pet. 2:14)?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 40, pp. 643-645
October 9, 1980