Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Last week we made some preliminary observations regarding our need for studying the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. We showed -that in many respects the society in which one lives determines the moral standard which he preaches. Of course, the scriptures demand that this not occur with reference to Christianity. Following that, we introduced the statement of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 19 and in Mark 10 to show what Jesus taught on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. In the first article, we presented the Jewish background from which this question was asked to make the observation that in many respects it was very similar to the way of life accepted in the twentieth century. Hence, the answer to the question which Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”, is one which should be determinative for what we should teach as on marriage, divorce and remarriage in today’s society.

In Jesus’ answer, last week we noticed that he referred the Jews to the original record of creation in Genesis 2. The fact that God made one man for one woman shows His divine approval of the marriage relationship and His intention that they live together for life. Hence, Jesus’ answer was that it was not lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. When this reply was understood to give that answer, the Jews then asked Jesus regarding Moses’ allowance of divorce. Hence, let us turn to notice Jesus’ reply to the question asked about Moses allowing divorce.

The Commandment of Moses

When the Jews heard Jesus say what He had said, they immediately questioned Him regarding the commandment of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-3. They asked Him why Moses allowed a divorce to be given if this was God’s original intention. Let us look at the Deuteronomy 24 passage and consider it in light of what Jesus said. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads as follows:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another’s man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was something that would aid women who had been put away by their husbands.

The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were giving to them. You can therefore understand why Jesus said, “Moses because of the hardness of your heart suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). Moses gave this legislation because of the hardness of heart which the Jews had and the manner in which they were treating their women. What Jesus was doing was reaffirming God’s original pattern of one man married to one woman for life.

Jesus’ Law

The law of Jesus is recorded in both Matthew and Mark.

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 (Matt. 19:9).

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

The law which Jesus gave seems to be abundantly clear, although several have clouded the issue by their unwillingness to accept the plain statements of scripture. Let us notice that law at this time.

1. “Whosoever shall put away his wife . . . and marry another committeth adultery. ” I have purposely left out the exception clause in order that we might get the general statement of Jesus. Jesus’ law is that marriage is to last for a lifetime. This is in perfect harmony with the rest of the teaching of scripture on this subject. Compare the following verses.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man (Rom. 7:1-3).

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39).

This passage teaches that the man who divorces and marries again commits adultery.

Adultery needs to be properly defined in order to be understood. The word is translated from the Greek word moicheuo. Moicheuo means “to commit adultery, have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife” (Thayer, p. 417). One needs to be sure that he has totally grasped the definition of adultery. I say this because some are redefining adultery to fit their preconceived ideas regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. Adultery is to have sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s wife. It is not the breaking of the marriage covenant. Some people have tried to imply that adultery is simply the breaking of the first marriage. Hence, what Jesus is condemning according to this view, is the act of divorcing. Although the act of divorcing might or might not be sinful (that is a totally different subject than what we are discussing), what Jesus means when He says “commits adultery” is “to have a sexual relationship with someone other than one’s divinely authorized mate.” Hence, what Jesus says is this: whenever one divorces his wife and marries another, every time that he has a sexual relationship with that person, he has committed the act of adultery! 2. “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ” This is the second part of Jesus’ law. The marriage relationship is so holy in God’s sight and so permanent that men and women separating for reasons unauthorized of God are not freed from those vows; consequently, any subsequent marriage is not recognized by God as being legitimate. Hence, both parties in a divorce that occurs for some reason other than the one exception which Jesus allowed are bound to their original marriage covenant. Either one of them who remarries is guilty of adultery in that relationship. Hence, if the husband put away the wife because she burnt the toast, neither the wife nor the husband can marry again without committing adultery. They are bound to each other in the sight of God and are obligated to remain separate or be reconciled with their mate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

3. Jesus allowed one exception to this law. He said, “Except it be for fornication.” In cases in which one party commits fornication against the other party, the innocent party has the God-given right to put away his mate and marry again.

There are some who treat these words as if they were not there. They teach that it is always sinful for a remarriage to occur even in the event that fornication is the cause of the divorce. If that were so, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have said “except it be for fornication.” By these very words, Jesus granted the right of the innocent to put away his fornicating mate in order to marry again.

Analyzing The Verse

Because there has been a good bit of controversy over Matthew 19:9, let us give rather extensive analysis of the relationship of the parts of this verse. The reading of the text in English and in Greek are put side by side.

lego de humin hoti hos an And I say unto you,

apoluse ten gunaika autou me Whosoever shall put away his

epi porneia kai gamese allen wife, except it be for fornication,

moichatai (kai ho and marry another, committeth

apolelumenen gamesas adultery; and whoso

moichatai). marrieth her which is put away

doth commit adultery (Matt. 19:9).

You will notice from the very outset that the last phrase of the text (kai ho apolelumenen gamesas moichatai) is in parenthesis indicating that there is some question about whether it belongs in the text or not. Before analyzing the relationship of the parts of the sentence, we ought to, first of all, set aside the question of whether or not it actually belongs in the text. The text used by the United Bible Society is in favor of deleting this, although it gives it a “C” rating on a scale of “A” through “D,” with “A” representing the best text. I am unable to understand exactly just why this reading is given. However, the texts which favor omitting this phrase are as follows:

1. Aleph. This is a fourth century text.

2. C. This fifth century uncial text has been corrected by at least three different subsequent readers. The third corrector of this text marked that this should be deleted as well. Hence, this fifth century text has been cited in favor of the omission, although we do not know the date of the corrector who marked that it should be omitted.

3. D. This fifth to sixth century text also omits this reading.

4. L. This is an eighth century text.

The only other texts to delete this important phrase are 1241 (a twelfth century minuscule text) and 1546 (a thirteenth century minuscule text).

In contrast to those which omit this phrase, the following texts have the phrase in one form or the other. (I mean by that, that there are some variant readings among the texts that do support including the phrase although they agree in the fact that the text should be included.) They are as follows:

1. P25. This is a fourth century papyrus manuscript.

2. B. Codex Vaticanus is a fourth-century uncial text of high respect.

3. C. The original writer of Codex C includes the phrase as well.

The list of less important uncial and minuscule texts which include this reading are as follows: K, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, 28, 700, 892, 1071, 1242, 1344, 1365, 1646, 2148, 2174, 078, 33, 565, 1009, 1010, 1079, 1195, 1230, 1253, 1216. Any one can see that the evidence in favor of this text is considerably greater than that which opposes it.

I think the quotation of the famed German commentator, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer needs to be inserted at this point. Meyer said that these words “are deleted by Tischendorf 8 following C, D, L, S, Aleph, . . . . But there is preponderating evidence in favor of the words and the homoeoteleuton might readily enough be the occasion of their omission. Moreover, there is no parallel passage verbally identical with this.” Hence, Meyer’s comment is that the preponderant evidence is in favor of including the phrase in question in the text. In light of the evidence cited in the United Bible Society text and in opposition to their suggested reading, I conclude that the text should read as presented in the Authorized Version.

All of this discussion about whether or not kai ho apolelumenen gamesas moichatai is part of the original text is rather academic when all is said and done. If these words do not belong in Matthew 19:9, they are nevertheless still contained in Matthew 5:32. As a matter of fact, the primary reason that the phrase is considered an interpolation by textual critics is the supposition that the scribes copying the verse inserted it from the parallel statement in Matthew 5:32. Hence, whether the phrase should be accepted because it appears in Matthew 5:32 or because it appears in Matthew 19:9, is immaterial. If it appears in the Bible in any place, men are obligated to accept it and obey it.

Frankly, I am convinced that the whole matter of criticizing the text has been injected in this study as a smoke screen to leave the impression that there is no evidence that the innocent party in an unscriptural divorce is obligated to live a celibate life or be reconciled to her husband. I realize that this is a judgmental statement, but I am convinced that it is true.

Having the text before us, let us now analyze it.

1. “And I say unto you (lego de humin).” The conjunction de contrasts the statement which Jesus uttered in the following words with one which is the Mosaical legislation. Hence, the contrast is between Moses’ legislation and what Jesus has to say. The word humin is a dative construction which is equivalent to the English indirect object.

2. Hoti. This is a rather general way of introducing a direct quotation. On this occasion it introduces two clauses which are direct objects of the verb lego (I say). The two clauses may be broken down as follows: (1) Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another one, except for fornication, commits adultery and (2) Whoso has married a woman who has been put away, commits adultery.

3. Hos an. This is the word that is translated whosoever. It is a relative pronoun which has its antecedent given in the following inserted descriptions.

4. Apoluse. To divorce. This is a subjunctive of the verb apoluo. It is modified by the exception phrase me epi porneia. Hence, the phrase “except for fornication” only modifies the verb apoluse; it does not modify the following verb gamese (to marry). The word gunaika (wife) is a direct object of the verb apoluse; it is modified by the definite article ten (the) and the pronoun autou (of him). Kai is the conjunction which ties apoluse and gamese together.

5. Kai gamese alrn (and shall marry another) must be considered with the preceding verb. These two words together are identically related to hos an (whosoever). It is “whosoever shall put away . . . and shall marry another.”

6. Moichatai. The verb moichatai is a present tense verb, the force of which is continuous action. The one in this relationship who has put away his wife for some reason other than fornication and has married another continuously commits adultery. It is the verb of the subject hos an (“whoever . . . commits adultery”).

7. The last phrase, the one which is called in question, is kai ho apolelumenen gamesas moichatai. The phrase ho apolelumenen is a perfect passive substantive particle which is translated “the having-been-put-away woman.” Hence, the force of this is as follows: The one married to the put away woman commits adultery. The verb moichatai is also in the present tense with the idea of continuous action. The man who is married to a having-beenput-away woman keeps on committing adultery.

The conclusion drawn from this rather detailed examination of Matthew 19:9 is not all that dramatic; it rather formally establishes what brethren have been preaching for years. It shows the following:

(1) That whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication and marries another is guilty of adultery.

(2) That whosoever has been put away and marries again is guilty of adultery. (Note: Some brethren believe that the innocent party in a divorce involving fornication must file the legal documents of divorce before he has the right to remarry. I am not fully convinced.)

(3) That the one who divorces his mate for fornication has the scriptural right to remarry.

There is nothing in this text that would in any way intimate that the guilty party in a divorce for fornication has the right to remarry. The guilty party has not “divorced his mate for fornication”; hence, he cannot meet the requirements of the exception clause. Consequently, he does not fit the exception which Jesus allowed; hence, any subsequent relationship into which he might enter is adulterous.

Parallel Statements

The statement of Jesus’ law, including the exception, occurs also in Matthew 5:32. We reproduce it here:

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.

The other account of Jesus’ comments regarding this new marriage law is given in Luke 16:18 and reads as follows:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Both of these scriptures simply reinforce what we have already stated as the divine law.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, pp. 227-230
April 3, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

Is This Liberalism?

In our 3 May 1979 column we reprinted Donald Townsely’s fine piece on the Difference Between “Liberal” and “Conservative” Churches of Christ. He specified ten differences pertaining to the church’s mission and organization, all of which reflect the deeper difference in concept of Bible authority. In all matters of mission, organization, worship, discipline, and doctrine, conservative churches strictly adhere to the New Testament rule of faith and practice. New Testament teaching in all of these matters is derived from direct statements or commands, approved examples of apostolic practice, and necessary implication from specific passages. In contrast, liberal churches are loose constructionists in the field of Bible authority. They practice many things for which no statement or command, no example, and no implication from Scripture can be produced.

Someone has handed me a copy of the 1 August 1979 Old Paths Advocate of Lebanon, Missouri. Under the heading “Who Are the Real Liberals and Conservatives?” the writer Billy Dickinson asserts, “Bro. Halbrook, of course, and those associated with him have accepted both the modern Sunday School with its women teachers and the individual communion cups, even though they do so without scriptural authority.” He finds himself nearly but not quite amused, reprints Townsley’s article, and adds to the list of liberal practices, classes and cups.

We had pointed out that additional organizations taking donations from churches, or churches which act as centralizing agencies for other churches, are violations, of the simple New Testament picture of local church autonomy. In the Bible, each church carried out its own work under the oversight of its own elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2). The Bible classes in which we participate are the work of each church, under the constant oversight of the local elders – including literature, subject matter, teachers, and every other significant detail! Brethren, is this liberalism?

Liberal churches have gone beyond the spiritual teaching mission of the church to include social, secular, and recreational programs (contrary to such passages as 1 Tim. 3:15-16). But our Bible classes offer the spiritual teaching of the gospel, nothing more, nothing less! Is this liberalism? Is it liberalism because women of greater maturity are permitted to instruct other women or little children, but never men (Tit. 2:4; 1 Tim. 2:12)?

Churches which put on plays, contests, and choral performances are going down the liberal road in worship. They pervert the simple New Testament pattern of worship: songs, prayer, gospel teaching, with the Lord’s Supper and collection on the first day of the week (Acts 2:42; 20:7; Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 10:16; 16:1-2). In partaking the Lord’s Supper, we eat but one loaf – the loaf of unleavened bread – “the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” We drink but one cup the cup of the fruit of the vine – “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” Is liberalism determined by the shape, the size, the color, the material used in making, or the number of containers? Are we liberal for using several small plates and vessels, rather than one large platter and bottle or pitcher? Some folks of the one-container persuasion send separate containers down opposite aisles. Is this liberalism, too? Some pour from one large pitcher or cup into three or four smaller receptacles for large audiences. When does it become liberalism – at 10, 20, 30 or 40 containers? How about enough containers for every two people to empty one? If that is acceptable, perhaps the line of liberalism is drawn when a person shares in the Supper by receiving his portion of the common loaf or cup in an amount which he can consume.

May we pass around a large bottle or pitcher from which each person can dip or pour in using his own smaller container? Those who split hairs can usually split the split hairs just as well. Have at it, Advocate advocates.

When our feelings about the receptacles incidental to sharing the Supper become so strong as to constitute law and gospel, idolatry is the result. The Pantheon of false doctrine includes both liberalistic and legalistic exaltation of human opinion.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, p. 226
April 3, 1980

By Irvin Himmel

In about the year 612 B.C., Nabopolassar, king of Babylon assisted by his son, Nebuchadnezzar, broke the power of Assyria by destroying Nineveh. Out of the ruins of the Assyrian empire emerged the Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar launched a series of three major thrusts against Judah, a weak and wicked nation, between 606 and 586 B.C.

The last three kings of Judah were Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin (Coniah), and Zedekiah. It was in the reign of Jehoiakim that Nebuchadnezzar brought Judah under Babylonian rule and succeeded Nabopolassar as Babylon’s king. Nebuchadnezzar carried some of the nobles of Judah into captivity, including the rebellious Jehoiakim. During the reign of Coniah, the city of Jerusalem was besieged, the temple stripped of its valuables, and about 11,000 captives were taken by the Babylonians, and among the captives were the king and his house. In the time of Zedekiah, the temple was burned, Jerusalem destroyed, and most of the remainder of the people taken captive.

Jeremiah the prophet lived during all these historic events. He stayed in Judah with some of the very poor people who were allowed to remain. He saw the once proud city of Jerusalem reduced to ashes. He witnessed the downfall of a nation that forgot God.

In the book of Lamentations, Jeremiah shows deep emotions as he describes the desolation of Jerusalem. “How doth the city sit solitary!” is his opening remark. He compares the city to a widow. “She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks.” He acknowledges that “Jerusalem hath grievously sinned . . . Her filthiness is in her skirts.”

Depicting the sad and empty condition of what had beers Judah’s capital, the prophet laments the total indifference shown by passers-by. The merchants who came near the ruins showed no sympathy. The shepherds whose tents were pitched in that vicinity were calloused toward the barrenness of the site. Jerusalem had fallen because its own inhabitants had been indifferent toward their sins. It is highly probable that many of the Jews did not care that God had brought Judah to its knees.

“Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (1:12). The prophet is grieved that others do not share his grief. Sorrow craves sympathy. Is there no concern that Jerusalem is desolate? Is there no warning for others who ignore God’s will? Is there no feeling of emptiness that a once thriving city has been completely emptied?

The Application

Jeremiah’s question can be applied appropriately to many things today.

1. The death of Jesus. Our Lord suffered terrible agony on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. He bled and died that we might be reconciled to God. Is this nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

2. The wickedness of the world. Sin abounds. Our modern cities are getting more and more like ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. The moral climate of America is steadily worsening. Immoral people are pushing their filth into the open like someone who dumps his garbage on his neighbor’s lawn. Is this wickedness nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

3. The lost condition of people out of Christ. We are promised no redemption from our sins apart from Jesus Christ. Multiplied thousands of people, old and young alike, have not obeyed the gospel. Many who are Christians make little or no effort to reach the lost with the gospel. Is this wretched condition of the lost nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

4. Digression in the church. Many congregations are no longer walking in the old paths. Brethren are following the denominations rather than the Lord of glory. Liberalism, worldliness, and lack of respect for the authority of the New Testament should make the God-fearing weep. Is all this digression nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

5. Divisions and factions. Some churches of Christ are hindered by schisms and splits. In many cases, preachers are at fault. Sometimes preachers set themselves above all others in the church, including the elders. They will force their way on the brethren or force a division. Is this spirit of factionalism nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

6. Broken homes. We live in an age when the sanctity of marriage is violated. Even among members of the body of Christ, divorces are becoming frequent. Husbands desert their wives; wives cheat on their husbands. Out of these broken homes come frustrated, emotionally disturbed, and confused children Is this breaking up of families nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

7. Indifference among God’s people. Many who say they are Christians are pleased to give the Lord no more than one hour per week of their time. Some are unconcerned about saving their own sons and daughters from worldly influences. Many will not really study the Bible. Some act as if they do not care whether the cause of Christ lives or dies. Is this indifference nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

Let us soberly reflect on the question of Lam. 1:12 and ask ourselves if we may not be rather like the people in Jeremiah’s time. Does this line of thought mean nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 219
March 27, 1980

By Bobby Witherington

The purpose of this article is not to point out at what age one becomes accountable and thus a fit subject for gospel obedience. With reference to this question, it is my conviction that the “age of accountability” is an intellectual age, and is not based upon a person’s previous calendar years per se’. Children, like adults, manifest great variation in their ability to grasp facts and to make intelligent decisions based upon a proper evaluation of those facts. So it is really impossible for one to sit in an editorial chair and issue a definite, no-mistake statement that a child becomes accountable to God and thus guilty of sin at such and such age.

The question, “when does one become guilty of sin,” insofar as this article is concerned, pertains to an intelligent, accountable individual. Some say “ignorance is bliss,” and contend that a person is guilty of sin only if he is aware of his transgressions. The logical conclusion to this would be to believe that man would be universally saved if he remained Universally ignorant of the existence of God and the requirements of His will. Others, however, contend that a person becomes guilty of sin when he transgresses the law of God (cf. 1 John 3:4). Obviously both divergent positions can not possibly be right – regardless of how strongly one may believe that it does not make any difference what a person sincerely believes.

In the 4th chapter of Leviticus there are four references to sins committed “through ignorance.” Herein the inspired writer mentioned four different people and/or groups of people and their sins committed “through ignorance.” “If a SOUL shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord . . .” (v. 2). “And if the WHOLE CONGREGATION of Israel sin through ignorance . . .: (v. 13). “When a RULER hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance . . .” (v. 22). “And if any of the COMMON PEOPLE (note: the marginal reference says, “people of the land,” b.w.) sin through ignorance . . .” (v. 27). Hence, it is evident that ignorance of God’s law did not prevent a violation of that law from being classified as SIN. Moreover, in three of these instances (vs. 13, 22, 27), the word “GUILTY” is used to describe the person or persons who sinned “through ignorance.” And in each instance God specified the offerings He required of those who became “guilty” because of having sinned “through ignorance” -offerings that were to be made when such sins became “known” (cf. v. 14) to those thus “guilty.” These facts necessitate that we draw two necessary conclusions: (1) A person can sin “through ignorance.” (2) When a person sins, whether, “through ignorance,” or presumptuously, he is “guilty” of sin, and must suffer the penalty that sin imposes (cf. Rom. 6:23) unless he, through compliance with God’s law, receives forgiveness.

With reference to WHEN one becomes guilty of sin, it is the same in the New Testament; namely, “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). The fact that the sinner may not know the “law” does not remove the guilt; it only lessens the likelihood of his seeking and obtaining forgiveness through compliance with the terms of the gospel of the grace of God. This sad fact is borne out in Matthew 25:41-45. Herein we note that certain ones, placed as “goats” on the Lord’s “left hand,” were condemned because of having committed sins (of omission), but of which they were ignorant – but that does not change the fact that the Lord said of such persons, “these shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46).

Bear in mind that a person is not guilty of sin because he is ignorant; he is guilty because he transgressed God’s law (I John 3:4). His ignorance is not that which separates him from God; rather this separation takes place because of his sin (cf. Isa. 59:1, 2). This is why the ignorant should not remain ignorant – and why those who know the will of God should TEACH others. A person, lost in the forest, does not rejoice because he does not know how to get out, nor does a person, trapped in a burning building, rejoice because he does not know an escape route. A person in sin is guilty; he is lost – his ignorance is not bliss; instead it serves to keep him lost and trapped in a state of guilt and doomed to eternal perdition.

In view of the fact that an accountable person’s guilt is determined by his transgression of God’s law, and is not nullified by his ignorance of the law; we exclaim, HOW IGNORANT IT IS FOR THE IGNORANT TO BRAG ABOUT THEIR IGNORANCE!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 218
March 27, 1980