Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

We can give credit where it is due without thinking of men “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). If a man’s work must praise or shame him among his fellows, yet there are no grounds of boasting over his accomplishments (Prov. 31:31). For, “what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7, NASV). While fruit may abound to one’s account, yet the vineyard is the Lord’s alone (Jn. 15:1-10). He alone gives life, strength, and opportunities for our labors. If faithful service is rendered, still it is but that, for we are not masters but only servants. “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded ye, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Lk. 17:10).

The successes and failures of other brethren should serve to instruct us (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-12). The example of faithful service inspires – us to faithful service. Though this is a world of sin and sorrow, still there is room to share gladness and gratitude. We must constantly resist sin, temptation, and over-confidence in men. Still it is our privilege to express joy and thanks for dedicated men, sacrificial men, zealous men, “men that have hazzarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:26).

The restoration of erring brethren gives great cause for rejoicing, just as the conversion of a single alien sinner does (Gal. 6:1; Lk. 15:7, 10). When erring brethren are restored to faithfulness, souls are saved from death and a multitude of sins is hidden (Jas. 5:19-20). In Second Corinthians, Paul tells how discouraged he was by the shameful conduct of certain ones. But when Titus came and told him the Corinthians had cleared themselves in obedience to the truth, Paul was greatly encouraged! Titus “told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more . . . yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all . . . I rejoice therefore that I have confidence in you in all things” (7:6-16).

In Second Timothy 4, Paul’s discouragement is seen in that “Demas hath forsaken me,” “Alexander . . . did me much evil,” and, “at my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” Yet others were faithful co-laborers, retained Paul’s confidence, and were a source of encouragements to him. He looks to Timothy: “Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me.” Paul sent Tychicus on an errand “to Ephesus.” Some are named as sending greeting to Timothy, and he is to give greetings to others named by Paul. Above all, Paul retained his confidence in God who cannot fail, who “will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom.”

Above all, we too must learn to put our confidence in God, and “not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Still, each of us has influence for good or evil: we can encourage and edify, or discourage and destroy (1 Cor. 15:33; Rom. 14). Faithful attendance in worship provokes others “unto love and to good works”; “forsaking the assembling” makes hearts heavy and discouraged (Heb. 10:24-26). We are encouraged by those “steadfast in the faith,” discouraged by compromise, worldliness, and indifference (Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 5:9). Truly, “the kingdom of God is . . . righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17). If there are sorrows and sufferings to endure, there is also far greater joy fulfilled in the people of God (2 Tim. 3:12; Jn. 17:13). If we must rebuke those who err from the faith, we also must thank God for faithful saints who preserve in the blood sprinkled way!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, p. 658
October 16, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

In Luke 9:62, we find an interesting statement of the Lord. He said, “No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

This indeed is quite a charge, to say that one is “not fit for the kingdom,” and one could well involve himself in difficulty by making such a statement about some brethren. Nevertheless, it is true; and Jesus made no apology whatever for saying it. The inevitable conclusion then is that some are not fit (suitable) for the kingdom. It would do all of us well to do some soul searching, and determine whether or not the statement may apply to us.

There are not a few who fall into this category and will find themselves in it but too late, if they wait until judgment. Let us take note of a few who do not measure up to the Lord’s requirements, and who would find themselves in this group:

Those who do not put the kingdom first. There are any number of people who have been immersed, and who claim membership in some local church, but have not attended a single worship period for months, perhaps years. Is this putting the kingdom first? Not unless one starts at the bottom of the list! However, if and when such are asked about church membership, they very readily claim to be members of the Lord’s church. Those who put the kingdom of the Lord, His church, so far down the line in importance, in their plans, their love, and concern, according to Jesus’ statement and standard are “not fit for the kingdom.” Such brethren have “erred from the truth,” are “sinners,” “dead spiritually,” and need to be converted (James 5:19, 20). Peter says, in regard to such, “. . . the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness . . .” (2 Peter 2:20-22). They have gone weeks, months, and some for years, without assembling with the saints to worship God; thus, they have not commemorated His death, or communed with Christ, not given of their means toward the advancement of His Cause, and failed, not only to worship God, but to work in His kingdom. By no stretch of the imagination could one say that such are putting the kingdom first.

Those who engage in works of the flesh. Paul enumerates these (Gal. 5:19, 20), and this catalog of sins is repulsive even-to think about. Yet, we find brethren who have forsaken the Lord because of their love for such things, and are “not fit for the kingdom.” It is not necessary to engage in all 6f these to be guilty of sin; one is enough, and is too many if we want to remain in fellowship with the Lord, and be of value in His service.

Those who have turned aside to a perverted gospel. Though it may sound strange, or seem so, to some to say that members of the body of Christ have committed such an act, it is true nevertheless. Even in the days of Paul, he said of the Galatian brethren that they had fallen from grace. Too, in warning the Ephesian elders, he said, “Also of your ownselves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). Some today, far too many, have rejected the wisdom of God revealed in the gospel, and are teaching and practicing a perverted gospel, one devised by their own wisdom. And, though it may not be a written creed, it is one just the same. To do so is to place oneself in the group of which the Lord said, are “not fit for the kingdom.”

While others could be mentioned who are “not fit for the kingdom” by their own choice not to follow the teaching of Christ, and put Him first, it is hoped that these will prompt all to make a further application of such, and especially as such applies personally. When one finds himself failing in his service to God, he should not wait to make the necessary amends because his most valuable possession (the soul) is at stake.

It is heartening to know, however, that there are others, and the number seems to be growing, who indeed are “fit,” suitable for the kingdom and the Master’s use. These should be an encouragement to others to come out of their error, and work that which is right in the sight of God. It is also the duty of those who are faithful, and thus “fit,” to teach others the error of their way and lead them out of sin back to righteousness. May we ever be mindful of this responsibility, and fail not to discharge it faithfully. To do so is to convert the sinner from the error of his way, save the soul from death, and to save oneself. Are you “fit for the kingdom?”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 657, 667
October 16, 1980

By Earl Robertson

Religious people, devoid of the truth, have a solution for every objection they receive from others critical of their actions which have no Bible authority to support them. Their solution is merely, “I love you.” Or, “I love you; God bless you, brother.” This trite statement is no answer at all. It is subterfuge and shallow emotionalism. But people who do not have the truth and are not really concerned with having it, can work themselves into an emotional condition that any thing becomes acceptable to their conscience.

Paul wrote of the greatness and excellencies of love saying it never fails and endures all things. He stated that love “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6). The sphere of truth is the only realm in which real love can rejoice. When the truth is not being respected by one or a church, it makes no difference how much hugging, hand holding, crying, saying “I love you,” goes on. Such is not love! Men write of the many accomplishments of a church which have no truth authorizing them, but they rejoice in these many attainments anyway. The New Testament still says love rejoiceth not in iniquity, but in the truth. “Iniquity” is dative singular and means unrighteousness. Thayer says this iniquity is “opposed to the truth” (pg. 12). Any action, therefore, which is not circumscribed by the truth of God does not allow for rejoicing. But who among the emotionally charged believes what Paul wrote by the moving of the Holy Spirit? Their subjective feelings take precedence over the objective truth revealed by the Holy Spirit unto man. When one’s feelings can satisfactorily be accepted as the standard in faith and morals and the word of God brushed aside, it is cheap emotionalism. This is what some preachers and churches want; they are happy and rejoice in it! But real love, genuine, true love, does not rejoice in such, but in the truth – what is written. It takes so little to deeply satisfy some. We ask you to cease trusting your inner feelings as a guide and demand the word of God for your standard.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 40, p. 650
October 9, 1980

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