Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

Certain brethren have defended the concept of unity-in-diversity by claiming that the written Word should not be approached as a legal document. Some have said that the New Testament is a book of principle, not a book of law. It is true that the New Testament stands in contrast to the law, that legal system given by Moses. It is also true that our salvation does not rest upon perfect obedience to law; we are not saved by meritorious works. The most religious Christian must depend upon the shed blood of Christ to remove the stain of sin from his soul. Furthermore, the written New Testament is not in the form of law, at least not in the form of human civil law. It is written in the language of the common man, and intended to be read and understood by the use of common sense. Otherwise, most of us would be dependent upon theological lawyers to explain its meaning to us. It is not written, as is civil law, with the intention of closing every possible loophole. The man who understands the intent of the law, but still seeks a loophole, has transgressed already in his heart.

These facts notwithstanding, it can be clearly established that the written New Testament is a book containing law. It contains history, it contains prophecy, but it also contains law. In the Great Commission, Jesus told the Apostles to teach all nations “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. . .” (Matt. 28:20). A command is not a suggestion or a piece of friendly advice. It is a directive from a person in authority to a subordinate, which the subordinate must obey or suffer penalty. One of the definitions of law is “a commandment or a revelation from God.” So any commandment of God is a law of God. Jesus commanded the Apostles, but did the Apostles in turn, acting as Christ’s agents, command us? Paul said, “the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Since Paul had no authority above that of the other Apostles, we can necessarily infer, that the things which all the Apostles wrote in the New Testament are the commandments of the Lord. Certainly the inspired prophets such as James and Jude, working under Apostolic authority and having received their gifts through the laying on of Apostolic hands, were also able to act as Christ’s agents in delivering commands. This being established, it follows that the entire written New Testament consists of “the commandments of the Lord,” which is equivalent to saying that the New Testament consists of the law of the Lord.

The New Testament contains much teaching which is not in the form of direct commands. Paul delivered relatively few direct commands, yet He said that all of His inspired writing consisted of “the commandments of the Lord.” Logic and common sense tell us that there are only two ways, in addition to direct command, by which the Lord may command us. These are approved example and necessary inference. We know that the Old Testament taught in these ways. We learn from 1 Cor. 10 that the Old Testament teaches us by example. Jesus used necessary inference to teach the truth of the resurrection from the Scripture (Matt. 22:31, 32). So any truth taught in the New Testament, whether in the form of direct command, approved example, or necessary inference is in the broad sense a command, or a law, of God.

Having seen that the New Testament is a book of commandments, or laws, of God, we must now ask ourselves whether it is important that a Christian keep these commandments. Perhaps, as some seem to imply, being a Christian, saved by grace through faith, exempts one from the necessity of keeping God’s commandments. Or, perhaps the Christian is not subject to the penalty of the lawbreaker. In that case, though the New Testament consists of law, it is not binding law insofar as the Christian is concerned. I believe that all brethren would agree that love for Christ is necessary in order for a Christian to be eternally saved. Jesus said in John 14:21, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father . . . .” He continued in verse 23, “If a man love me, he will keep my words.” 1 John 2:4 says, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Where do liars spend eternity? Rev. 21:8 tells us that they shall have their part in the lake of fire. Paul delivered certain commands, in the name of the Lord, to the Thessalonians. He then said, “And if any man obey not out word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). Rev. 22:14 says, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” So it seems that whether or not a Christian keeps God’s commandments is a serious matter, and has an effect upon fellowship with his brethren and upon his final destiny.

The word “command” or “commandment” in the New Testament is not limited to those items contained in the Ten Commandments of Moses, nor is it limited to moral precepts. The following things are specifically identified as commands in the New Testament: to love one another (John 15:17), to withdraw from the disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6), to work and to eat our own bread (2 Thess. 3:12), to remain married to one’s spouse (1 Cor. 7:10), to be baptized (Acts 10:48), for a woman to be in subjection (1 Cor. 14:34), to repent (Acts 17:30), to keep the teachings of the Apostles (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Pet. 21:21; 1 Tim. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:2). The commandments of God cannot be divided into essential and non-essential. They include those things which we may classify as gospel and doctrine, morals and religion.

But some seek to escape the force of this truth by saying that the New Testament is a book of principles, not a book of laws. A principle is. defined as “an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct.” What is that but a law? It is further defined as “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Here we begin to see the point. The New Testament may be accepted as a law or a rule of conduct, so long as we keep it general. We can then say that if a man has faith, shows love, practices justice toward his fellows, etc., he is a keeper of God’s commandments, even though he ignores or rejects the greater part of the specific commandments. We must then ask how one can distinguish a principle from a law, so as to blind one and not the other. We have already noticed that some of God’s commands are very broad and others are very specific. What about baptism? That is a specific command and the method of obedience to this command is very specific. If the New Testament is a book of principles, not laws, then perhaps the specific action of baptism is merely an illustration in other ways. To insist on one specific action of baptism would be to change the New Testament from a book of principle to a book of law. The same could be said of the Lord’s Supper. The principle is that we should remember the Lord’s death. The specific time and method of remembrance are legalistic details. Perhaps we could remember His death better on some Lord’s Day by viewing a collection of great paintings of the crucifixion. Do I hear an objection? Then it must be admitted that the New Testament is a book of laws as well as a book of principles. The “book of principles” argument is used very selectively to support some particular innovation of which some brother is fond. Few would be willing to apply it consistently.

The great truth which should be presented concerning the New Testament is that it is a book of law, but it is not merely a book of law. It is written to regulate our conduct, but more basically, to regulate the thoughts of our hearts. It is a book which reveals Christ, the gift of God’s love, and, thus, is designed to remold the intellect, the emotions, and the will of man. The obedience demanded by the New Testament is, in some cases, as specific as the obedience demanded by the Law of Moses. But the emphasis is now upon the underlying attitudes and motivations. If there is no love, if there is a grudging spirit, then the most perfect outward obedience is totally nullified. If, on the other hand, one’s heart is right toward God, there will be no reluctance to follow the pattern laid down by Christ and the Apostles, even to the most specific details.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 213-214
March 27, 1980

By Mike Willis

In recent years, the divorce rate in America has continued to skyrocket. The number of people being divorced is rapidly growing in such proportions that many of those with whom we associate and whom we try to convert to the Lord have been divorced and remarried. Christians are, consequently, forced to deal with the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage as it relates to leading people to Christ who are in second and third marriages. In addition to that, as the world has become more inclined to divorce and remarriage, members of the church have become more involved in divorces and second and third marriages. Because of this influence of our society upon us, we need to understand what the scriptures teach regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage.

One of the real dangers which faces Christians is the tendency to have its moral standard dictated to it by the world rather than reaching its conclusions about morality from the Bible. At the present, the morals of America are in a transition period. Things that ‘were. considered immoral a few years ago are now accepted and blatantly practiced. We see this happening with reference to homosexuality, gambling, drinking, fornication, and other sins condemned by God’s word. The warning which Paul gave in Romans 12:2 is therefore quite apropos for a discussion of marriage, divorce and remarriage. In Rom. 12:2, Paul wrote as follows: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” We have got to be careful that we do not allow what the society around us legislates and accepts become our moral standard with reference to marriage, divorce and remarriage. We must not be conformed to this world but rather we must be guided by the revelation of God.

The fact that we must not allow society around us to govern what we teach on marriage, divorce and remarriage has been shown to us repeatedly in some of the work which gospel preachers have done in societies where polygamy is accepted. As they went into those cultures with the gospel and taught people what the Bible said about marriage, they were forced to teach what the scriptures taught about one man being married to one woman for life. No doubt it was painful for some of those who were involved in polygamous relationships to break those associations. However, God’s standard of right and wrong could not be determined by what any particular culture taught at any given time. Rather, the revelation of God went against the grain of that culture; they were forced to teach the truth of the Scriptures relative to marriage regardless of who was hurt or suffered because of past disobedience.

We who are in America today are going to have to be careful that we do not allow our culture to determine what we preach on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Some in our culture are looking at the number of divorces and loosening the standards which they teach on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Because that is happening on such a wide-spread basis, it is imperative that we go back to the revelation of God to find out what the scriptures teach on marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Jesus’ Teaching on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it–was not so. 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. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be – eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it. (Matt. 19:3-12)

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they swain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 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 10:2-12)

These parallel statements of the question which the Pharisees asked Jesus contain the most detailed teaching which Jesus gave with reference to the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. We need to examine the teaching of Jesus in this section to find out what was taught.

The Historical Context

The question which the Pharisees came to ask Jesus was, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The question is certainly as pertinent to twentieth century man as it was for first century Jews. If that same question were asked in today’s society, practically every person in the land would say, “Yes, it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.” Our society has become so liberal in its divorce laws that we presently have what is called “no-fault” divorce – divorce which can be granted without placing blame on either party. A person just has to state that he and his wife have irreconcilable differences and that they no longer desire for the marriage to exist in order to obtain a divorce. Then, the persons freed by these divorces go out and remarry. They are accepted by society and, unfortunately, by many in the church as if their marriage was approved of God. Because of the present-day situation being so nearly like what it was in Jesus’ time, we need to notice His answer to the question posed by the Jews.

The Jewish schools of that day were divided into two opinions over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. ` There Moses wrote that a man could put away his wife for uncleanness. The school of Hillel interpreted uncleanness to be virtually anything. For example, they believed that if a man found another woman that was more appealing to him than the one to wham he was married, he could divorce his wife and marry someone else. On the other hand, the school of Shammai, interpreted uncleanness to refer to some act of lewdness. Thus, they were divided into two groups along these lines. The question which they presented to Jesus, undoubtedly, was going to cause a conflict with one group or the other. No doubt, this was the reason that they came to Jesus and asked that question, tempting Him (Mk. 10:2).

Jesus’ Answer

In Jesus’ reply to the question which He was asked, He referred the Pharisees to the book of Genesis. There He said,

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh, Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God bath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:4-5).

There are several things learned from this quotation by Jesus which need to be observed. They are as follows:

1. God’s arrangement of one male and one female shows God’s desire for the marriage relationship: There are a number of sins which exist today, and in societies of the past, which are shown to be sin from God’s positive arrangements in creation. We see, for example, that homosexuality is sin by the fact that God made a man for woman and a woman for man. God did not make a second Adam for Adam or a second Eve for Eve. Had He wanted the homosexual relationship, He would not have made Eve for Adam but would have made another Adam for Adam. Hence, the divine disapproval of homosexuality is seen by the original provision of God and also in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27. Furthermore, we also see that other relationships such as polygamy, polyandry and successive fornication relationships are all disapproved of God for the simple reason that they are no more what God originally intended than homosexuality is.

2. We see that marriage involves leaving father and mother, cleaving to one’s wife and becoming one flesh. Those who are contemplating marriage would do themselves a favor if they would study each one of these ideas. Young married people need to leave father and mother. Untold numbers of arguments have existed in marriages newly formed because of arguments relating to the in-laws of one or the other of the people in the marriage relationship. Secondly, the person ought to cleave to his wife. He ought to try to become as intimate with her as he possibly can.

3. They shall be one flesh. Of course, this refers to more than the sexual relationship. It refers to the manner in which personalities and goals and intentions in life are merged in the two people.

We see the divine sanction upon this relationship in the statement, “What therefore God hath joined together . . .” God unites the man and his wife. That is important to observe because some leave the impression that if man decides to break a relationship, he can break it regardless of what God thinks about it at all. Consequently, we have such things happen as a man and woman being married to each other in a relationship which God considers to be adulterous (see Rom. 7:1-3). Hence, in order for a marriage to be acceptable to God, it must be a marriage that is meeting God’s approval. Man’s tampering with marriage is a violation of the Lord’s will. Hence, we need to give some more attention to this area of study. (Continued next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 211-213
March 27, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

The Madison (Tennessee) Marcher for 19 September 1979 reported that the “Sunday School Round-Up” the previous week was a success with 3,349 attending. The “Round-Up” was a drive to increase attendance at Sunday morning Bible classes by inviting everyone to “the annual Treasure Hunt and Sunday School outing” which followed the services. Among “the two hundred and seventy-five prizes” given away were a puzzle, a new lamp, country hams, a Bible, and “the grand prize” – a new ten-speed bicycle donated by Ira North. Appropriately, the Bible was not the grand prize. Actually, the grand prize should have been the city ham – Ira, that is.

Getting back to country hams, all these prizes would have sweetened the pot when Editor Ira wrote his “Come Home” article to the “Antis” a few weeks ago in the Gospel Advocate. All seriousness aside, the smell of country ham in the church kitchen – now that’s a home coming that would be mighty tempting! I think I will mark my calendar for the next rodeo . . . circus . . . er, round-up, that’s is.

Oh, I forgot to give the Scripture authorizing all these shenanigans in the name of religion. Checking the bulletin again, I find Ira did quote the following passage in his weekly editorial: “Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Yes, Ira said that the church can at times “nauseate the Lord” and make “Him sick at His stomach” because brethren forget the necessity for observing the Bible as “the standard” in all things. It would appear that Ira says that the Lord is so disgraced and disgusted by Madison’s carnival atmosphere that He has decided to have nothing to do with the place.

Speaking of getting sick at the stomach, try to bear with me for this last announcement from the Ringmaster’s editorial:

From every practical standpoint, we appreciate the fact that the church has emerged from the days and conditions of penury, and is shining its light in premises that we deem more worthy of the One these temples are supposed to honor. But what is the true value of architectural masterpiece so designated – and all of the attendant beauties and distinctions – if the central figure and purpose be not Jesus Christ and His healing power for a sin-sick world?

I think this means that another thing about Madison which disgusts Christ is that they have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars for premises” which include temples, architectural masterpieces, and gymnasiums with the silly notion that Christ is at the center of it all.

By, the way, Cecil Wright says that Madison is “conservative to the core” with”its “super salesman and promoter”. preacher (Gospel Advocate, 6 September 1979, pp. -566-67). Guy N. Woods, North’s co-editor in the Gospel Advocate, assures us that North is “in every instance. . . as anxious as I to maintain” purest New Testament teaching (GA, 4 January 1979, p. 2). No doubt, conservative-to-the-core Woods means that he and North are equally anxious to hunt treasure, eat ham, and perform gymnastics in the name of the church purchased by the Savior’s blood. We hereby offer brother Woods an invitation, embossed in twenty-four carat gold, to publish in our column the Bible authority for all this. R.S.V.P.

Preaching the Fundamentals

Brother Roy E. Cogdill was scheduled for September 1979 gospel meeting with the Knollwood church of Christ in Xenia, Ohio, but sickness intervened to deny us the privilege of hearing his fundamental lessons on The New Testament Church. Since brother H.E. Phillips was to speak at about the same time at the Thayer St. lectures in Ajcron, he was able to rearrange part of his schedule so as to preach at Knollwood. His lessons were some of the best we have ever heard, concentrating on such fundamentals as The Bible as God’s Word, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Youth’s Need of God, The Importance of the Family to the Church, Be Thankful, and The Judgment. These excellent lessons – as well as the ones at Thayer St. on Imputed Righteousness – were taped and can be ordered from The Spoken Word, P.O. Box 127, Greenville, Indiana 47124.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 210
March 27, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

Often when people refuse to hear and obey, or just flatly reject, the teaching of God presented by a faithful proclaimer of the Word, they seem content to say, “Well, that’s just his idea, and mine is as good as his, and after all I know a preacher who doesn’t agree with that anyway.” Such a conclusion is reached, not by a thorough investigation of what he has taught in light of the inspired record, but by what “seems” to the person to be good. There is, in the world today, too many who reach their conclusions about religious matters by what their “favorite” preacher says about it, or what they “think” is all right, or they can see no “wrong” in. While this is not the proper way to reach the scriptural and, thus,, right conclusion, some in the church seem perfectly content to “follow suit.”

This is of great concern to those who stand firmly for the faith, and they regret to see those who one time stood for the truth (or apparently did) turn aside to something else. But, we need to remember that it is not us that they have rejected and refuse to follow. The record of Israel, when Samuel became old and his sons did not rule honestly and righteously in Israel, illustrates this quite well. The people came to Samuel and said, “Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not rule over them” (1 Sam. 8:5-7). The same principle is true today when people refuse to hear the word of God and follow Him. Samuel thought that it was he who-Was-being rejected, when actually it was God. Jesus said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16), and, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (Matt. 10:40).

People need to realize that it is not simply a matter of taking what someone, preacher or whoever, says about it, but being certain that they take what the Lord says about it. They need to realize that when they refuse to hear the truth, even reject God’s word, it is not simply a matter of refusing to hear the preacher, for he is just a messenger of the word. On the other hand, when one accepts the teaching, he needs to realize it is not the message of the preacher (if he is faithfully proclaiming the word) but it is the will of God, and obey it as such. For after all, our obedience is to be from the heart (Rom. 6:17, 18), and unto God (Matt. 4:10) to be accepted. We need to study diligently the word of God so that we not reject him, lest we be lost eternally (John 12:48).

God’s word is true regardless of who preaches it or fails to preach it, and regardless of who believes it, or fails to believe it. We will be judged by it in the last great day (Rev. 20:10-12). Let us be certain that we rely more upon God’s word, and not upon men (1 Cor. 4:6), and understand that when we fail to listen to His word that we reject Him!!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 209
March 27, 1980