Truth Magazine

By S. Leonard Tyler

Dishonesty is distasteful, despicable, detested and even hated by most people but lies., at least dormant,.if not digging, within the secrets of every man’s heart. Is it not characteristic of most of us to shift, squirm, imply,, by, pass, overlook, shun. or out-right lie about certain acts, duties, feelings or intentions? Would you not classify such as dishonest? This should impress us with the pertinence of our study. Behold, dishonesty may well lie smoldering within your own heart ready to flame-up and destroy. Dishonesty as any impurity does not dictate every thought and act, but along life’s way somewhere it sends forth its venom and the work is started.

What Is Dishonesty?

“Dishonest implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). “The reverse of honesty; lack of probity or integrity; disposition to lie, cheat, or steal; fraud or thefts; a dishonest act” (The New Century Dictionary). W.E. Vine in his New Testament Words gives, “Dishonesty; aischune . . ., shame, so the R.V. in 2 Cor. 4:2 (for A.V., `dishonesty’), is elsewhere rendered `shame,’ Luke 14:9; Phil. 3:19; Heb. 12:2; Jude 13; Rev. 3:18” (p. 318).

Dishonesty, to me, is an attitude or disposition of self-centeredness, exaltation of one’s own wisdom, pleasure, desire, judgment, imagination and ambitions as the standard for life without due consideration or appreciation otherwise for right or wrong, good or evil. It is an attitude without regard to right principles or even truth itself. Oh yes, the degree of pressure or environmental circumstances determine whatever consideration is given but not what is right or wrong, good or evil. Morton Hunt wrote an article entitled, “How Honest Are You?” which appeared in Ladies Home Journal (Vol. XCVI, No. 5, May 1979); I wish all could and would read it. He deals with the practical, general and practiced concept of honesty. He also raises many challenging and staggering questions as well as giving some alarming statistics. He well establishes our point of view as to the general guilt, destructive consequences and prevalent need for some cure of dishonesty.

Too many pick up towels, linens, etc. out of motels, cram expense accounts, pick up little things in stores, forget income or overload the deductibles on tax returns, add to damaged cars in accidents- to save the $100:00 deductible, not mentioning “not at home”‘responses when certain people appear at the door or when the phone rings. In these, we need to watch out lest we teach our children to lie. Some lie in order to climb a little higher on the social ladder (what about in business, politics, doctors’ placebo pills?). Others manifest just plain pretentious false action, and on and on we could go. Our society has certainly become dishonest.

Honesty And Dishonesty Are Opposites

The wise approach to out study, it seems to me, is to look at the positive side, honesty. Since dishonesty is the opposite of honesty, one should settle his own mind as to honesty. Opposites.’ are’ not definitions but antonyms contrary in tendency or character or meaning. A definition is “a statement of the essential nature of anything; a formal statement of the meaning or signification of a word, phrase, etc.” (The New Century Dictionary). What. is it to be honest or dishonest?

0 . Thayer in his Greek-English. Lexicon Of The New Testament (p, 322) gives, “Kalos (prob. primarily `sound,’ `hale,’ `whole;’) . . . beautiful applied by the ,Greeks to everything so distinguished in form, excellence, goodness, usefulness, . . ” and gives “(c) beautiful by reason of purity or heart and life, and hence praiseworthy, morally good, noble . . . .” W. E. Vine in his New Testament Word Study under Honest, lists “Semnos” in Phil. 4:8 translated in A.V. “honest” and “Euschemonos” as rendered “honestly” in Rom. 13:13; 1 Thess. 4:12.

Therefore, an honest heart is open and receptive to truth and right and will, to the extent of its ability, properly appropriate all the knowledge with genuine sincerity to ascertain and accept the right conclusions. It is uncontaminated with selfish, prejudicial opinions or calloused biases and earnestly seeks to find and walk in the right ways of life.

An honest heart can be ignorantly wrong but can never knowingly continue in the wrong. An honest or dishonest heart is characterized by attitude – not knowledge, accomplishment not right or wrong. An honest heart acts upon and within the bounds of the knowledge possessed with sincerity and confidence that such action is good and right. The understanding may be faulty but in ignorance one acts honestly. This is following one’s conscience. What one feels or thinks, according to his knowledge, is proper and right must dictate his action, if he is honest. However, his doing such does not make it right. “What makes right?”, you may ask. The proper standard of established Truth. In spiritual matters, God’s word, the Bible, is that standard of authority (Jn. 12:48; Jn. 3:4; 2 Jn. 9). Let me illustrate.

Paul Is An Example

Paul persecuted Christians; he laid waste the church of our Lord and gave consent to Stephen’s death, but he was honest (Acts 8; 23:1). He thought God wanted him to do exactly what he did, i.e. “many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9-11); notwithstanding, he was wrong. Thinking a thing to be right does not make it right, regardless of how honest one may be. Paul tells his own story in 1 Tim. 1:11-16. He said, “I was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” Ignorance does not justify, excuse or make right any more than unbelief in this statement. However, if and when one acts within the bounds of his own knowledge, thinking that to be right, he acts honestly. But remember, when one learns truth, honesty demands that he accept it. Paul did that with readiness of mind and heart and fully committed himself to Jesus Christ and, whom He once ignorantly persecuted, he now lovingly and faithfully proclaimed as both Lord and Christ (Gal. 1:13-24).

God’s truth establishes what is right spiritually (2 Pet. 1:3). Jesus told those who would abide in His word, “Then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jnp. 8:31-32). Paul was honest and gladly gave up all things “for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” (Acts 22:16; Phil. 3:8).

Felix And Agrippa Examples

Felix with his wife Drusilla heard Paul reason upon “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” Felix trembled, and answered, “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee” (Acts 24:25). He wanted money and the convenient season never came. Dishonesty is deadly and unending.

Agrippa with Bernice, in great pomp, heard Paul’s appeal and responded, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28). His heart was not open to truth and he declined the Lord’s invitation. Paul pleaded, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds,” to no avail.

The Parable Of The Sower

Jesus explains the parable of the sower who sowed seed upon different kinds of ground. (1) The wayside hearts hear but make no pretentions to obey. The Devil comes and snatches the word out of the heart. (2) The rocky ground hearts hear and receive the word with joy but lacking of root depth, fell away (dishonesty reigned). (3) The thorny ground hearts receive and go forth to be choked out with cares, riches and pleasures of this life. These seek self-fulfilment of fleshly desires and the word is cast aside. They loved unrighteous more than the righteousness of God (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The good ground hearts, “the honest and good heart,” receive (believe and obey) and produced fruit with patience. These are the people who with open eyes, ears and hearts hear the voice of the Lord with understanding and their lives were changed. They are the converted because they received the word of the Lord (Matt. 13:18-23; Luke 8:11-15; Luke 6:46; James 1:21-25).

Dishonesty Within The Ranks Of The Believers

Ananias and Sapphira planned together to deceive in the gift of their possessions. Peter asked, “Why hath Satan filled throe heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” (Acts 5:1-11). Here is demonstrated God’s disposition toward dishonesty. We might well take notice and beware of the consequences. These fell dead.

Simon the sorcerer thought he could buy the power of God with money. Peter told him that his heart was not right with God. He responded to the reproval and asked for their prayers (Acts 8:13-24). These cases are relevant to our time of prosperity and ability to give liberally and cheerfully without pretentious cravings or deceitful ambitions. Christians are to purpose in their hearts and give according to prosperity. What kind of hearts do we have?

All hypocritical action is dishonesty. “Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth” (Eph. 4:29). Gossipers, evil speakers, tattlers or any bitter, wrath and anger prompted clamor is dishonesty at work, but “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Eph. 4:25-32; Col. 3:8-9; 1 Pet. 2:; Matt. 12:34). Dishonesty is too often manifested in repeated stories.

Dishonesty Among Elders, Deacons, Preachers, And Teachers

Paul told the elders of Ephesus that after his departure grievous wolves would enter not sparing the flock, “also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). False doctrine is just as damnable when taught by an elder as by a grievous wolf. It is not who teaches but what is taught. No one has the prerogative to speak for the Lord. His word is revealed. “If any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

John complimented the Ephesians for trying certain false apostles and finding them liars (Rev. 2:2). He also branded Diotrephes with dishonesty because he was seeking the preeminence and “prating against us with malicious words” and would not receive faithful evangelists nor even allow others to receive them without casting them out of the church (3 John 9-10).

Peter and Jude portray so vividly dishonest teachers. Peter impresses us by saying, “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,” and even deny the Lord. Jude identifies “certain men crept in unawares . . . ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness .. . . walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage” (2 Pet. 2; Jude). These were ungodly and dishonest but were teaching with great swelling words. Jesus says, “All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mk. 7:23).

Dishonesty is a condition of heart and must be guarded against all the days of one’s life. Dishonesty will destroy one’s character, steal his integrity, and strip him of all worthy confidence and trust. It is truly a destroying attitude and a terrible condition of heart and will ultimately destroy the soul. No wonder Solomon said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Jesus said, “How can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (Matt. 12:34-35). Keep thine ownself honest before God.

QUESTIONS

1. Define dishonesty.
2. Cite some examples of dishonesty which might appear insignificant to the world or even to some who profess to be Christians.
3. What makes the difference between an honest heart and a dishonest heart.
4. Does the Bible give any examples of those who were honest and sincere but wrong?
5. What was God’s attitude toward those who had obeyed the gospel and disobeyed by being dishonest in some form?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 386-389
June 14, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

During the week of April 16-20, Mike Willis met Mr. Eddie K. Garrett in a debate. Mr. Garrett is a Primitive Baptist. The debate concerned unconditional election and limited atonement.

The Disputants

Mike Willis, Editor of Truth Magazine, is a young gospel preacher. This was his first formal debate. Frankly, I was a little concerned about Mike’s lack of debate experience, but my fears were quickly dispelled. Mike was totally prepared. He had volumes of notes and charts which he used with devastating effect. Brother Willis is a sharp, incisive thinker on his feet. This is absolutely essential in debate. One might think that this is simply another “we whipped the sox off them” report and review, but if you think so, secure a copy of the debate tapes and see for yourself. Mike was fair and courteous, a gentleman at all times, as was Mr. Garrett.

Eddie K. Garrett is a wily veteran in debate. He has had approximately 25 debates. He is kind and gracious. However, his doctrine was no match for the truth of God. Garrett is unusual in that he generally attempts to give answers to questions that are put to him. He does not fulfill his ditty as a negative speaker. He ignored, by actual count, 80% of Brother Willis’s affirmative material. This is typical of denominational debaters.

The Audience

The Primitive Baptist building was packed nearly to capacity every night. Chairs had to be set out the last night. The audience was exceedingly well behaved. A good spirit prevailed. At least a dozen or more gospel preachers attended during the debate. Christians out numbered the Baptists three to one. Primitive Baptists came from as far away as Cincinnati and one Missionary Baptist preacher attended the last two nights. The old, worn out objection against debates because they “gender strife” was again put to rest. There were no ugly, unkind incidents.

The Debate

I will not attempt to debate the debate. There were several points of interest, though, that it might be well to discuss. Mr. Garrett is a Calvinist. He believes that God elected certain ones to salvation without regard or respect to conditions and that Christ died only for these elect ones. He says he does not believe in unconditional reprobation, but one of the high points of the debate was Brother Willis’s ability to show that this is precisely what Mr. Garrett must believe. In Rom. 9:13, Mr. Garrett argued that “Jacob have I loved” referred to God’s unconditional election of Jacob to salvation. Mike clearly showed that “Esau have I hated” must mean that God unconditionally damned Esau. Further in Romans 9, Mr. Garrett contended that “vessels of mercy . . . afore prepared unto glory” meant that God had unconditionally elected certain ones to salvation. Mike showed that the parallel expression, “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” must mean that Gc)d unconditionally elected certain ones to eternal damnation. If not, why not? Mr. Garrett made no attempt to escape the obvious force of this conclusion. He denied that he believed it, but all could see the consequence of his position.

In reply to a question, Garrett said, “God does not desire to save every one.” Willis charted the statement from 1 Tim. 2:4 and the one from 2 Pet. 3:9 to the effect that God “will have all men to be saved,” and that He (God) “is not willing that any should perish.” Mike pressed the point time after time. Garrett made no response. He simply continued to say that God does not will to save every one.

In response to a question, Mr. Garrett said that Primitive Baptists do not teach their children the song, “Jesus Loves Me.” We knew they could not and be consistent with their doctrine, so I wrote a parallel, Primitive Baptist version entitled, “Jesus Hates Me.” Below is the chart of the two songs:

How Do You Know Which Song You Should Be Teaching Your Children?

Jesus Loves Me (To Be Sung To Elect Children)	Jesus Hates Me   (To Be Sung To Non-Elect Children)
Jesus loves me! This I know,   For the Bible tells me so; Little ones to Him belong, They are weak, but He is strong.	Jesus hates me, this I fear   From the Calvinists, this I hear Non-elect ones don’t belong, They are weak, but He is strong.
Jesus loves me when I’m good,   When I do the things I should, Jesus loves me when I’m bad, But it makes him very sad.	Jesus hates me when I’m good,   When I do the things I should, Jesus hates me when I’m bad, But it makes him very glad.
Jesus loves me! He who died,   Heaven’s gates to open wide; He will wash away my sin, Let His little child come in.	Jesus hates me! He who died,   Hell’s gates are open wide; He will damn me for Adam’s sin, Let his non-elect come in.
Jesus loves me! Loves me still,   Tho I’m very weak and ill; From the shining throne on high, Comes to watch me where I lie.	Jesus hates me! Hates me still,   Tho I’m very weak and ill; From His shining throne on high, Comes to watch me while I die.
Yes, Jesus loves me,   Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes, Jesus loves me, The Bible tells me so.	Yes, Jesus hates me,   Yes, Jesus hates me, Yes, Jesus hates me, Eddie K. Garrett tells me so!

 

Now, if any Primitive Baptists want to use this in conjunction with their doctrine, that will be fine with me. I would like to have some royalty money from it, but I will waive that just so it can be included in Primitive Baptist songbooks.

Mr. Garrett said he could sing, “Amazing Grace.” He read the first verse of that great and grand old song: “Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now I’m found, was blind, but now I see.” So, I went back into the song writing business for Primitive Baptist churches, and Mike read a parallel which is consistent with the doctrine of unconditional election: “Limited grace how sour the sound that ignored a wretch like me! I once was lost, and I still am, was blind, and still can’t see.”

Mr. Garrett called us “Campbellites,” “blind Pharisees,” and said we were “mixed up in the head.” He spoke of “hook-nosed, pot bellied Jews,” and used other equally complimentary terms. Some of our brethren who are a little squeamish about “indelicate” language ought to “write up” Mr. Garrett, Mike did not retaliate in this manner. He was strong and his scriptural arguments struck with great force. For this, some few might wish to condemn him, while they ignore the “sweet” words of Mr. Garrett.

Mr. Garrett appealed to prejudice. Again, this is par for the course with denominational debaters. He talked about how Mike’s position sent sweet, old Methodist grandmothers to hell. He said that Mike’s doctrine would condemn all Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, American Indians before Columbus, people during the dark ages, etc. He said that what Willis preached would “split hell wide open.” Mike’s response was to the Bible. He cited John 8:24, Hebrews 11:6, and Mark 16:16. Mr. Garrett said that idolaters would be saved because their worship indicated that they feared God. He said that infidel Jews and Indians who worshipped “black stumps” would be saved. Mike cited 1 Cor. 6:9, 10 and Gal. 5:19-21, along with the verses cited just above. Further, Mike showed that according to Calvinism, most of those people that Garrett was so worried about were probably not elected anyway. No matter how the Methodist grandmother lived, no matter how sweet she was, she would be lost because God hated her and did not elect her! It was not a pretty picture, but Brother Willis painted it in all its stark reality. It was a vivid contrast to the doctrine of the Lord to which Mike appealed.

Conclusion

Much more could be said, but enough. Ron Halbrook, Morris Hafley and Gary Kerr assisted in the debate. Gary was especially helpful with his handling of the charts. Even Mr. Garrett commended his splendid ability.

The debate exposed many to truth and error for the first time on a visible plane. Brother Willis was a living embodiment of 2 Cor. 10:3-5. More plain, pungent, penetrating preaching such as he did in the debate is needed. It is our prayerful hope that some will see, believe and obey the truth as a result of the teaching done in the debate.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 378-379
June 7, 1979

By Tom Wheeler

Kathy Kay Davidson, a faithful Christian, devoted mother of two young girls and devoted wife of Doug Davidson (the faithful gospel preacher working with the German School Road church in Richmond, Virginia, passed suddenly from this life early Saturday evening, April 14, 1979. Kay had not been seriously sick. In fact, there was no hint that she had a serious physical problem. She just sat down in a chair and passed from this life. An autopsy revealed that she had an aneurysm on the brain. It had been there since birth but had allowed her to live twenty-six years.

The autopsy was completed on Monday. Tuesday, Kay’s body was ready for viewing in Richmond. A large number of people came to the funeral home to pay their last respects to Kay here upon the earth.

Wednesday was a travel day. Kay’s parents, Doug’s parents and Doug’s youngest brother Jeff had come from Marion, Indiana to be with Doug and his two little girls during this very difficult time. Paul Smith of West Lafayette, Indiana had also traveled to Richmond to help Doug in any way that he could. Wednesday they all traveled to Swayzee, Indiana (a small town near Marion). Kay’s remains were placed in the Rybolt Funeral Home where more than five hundred people signed the register on Thursday. The line was so long that no doubt many came who did not sign. There were so many flowers they could not be properly displayed.

A memorial service was held on Friday at 2:00 p.m. The owner of the funeral home said that it was the largest funeral he had ever had in twenty-three years. Tom Wheeler preached the sermon at this service. Four close friends, brothers and sisters in Christ, sang four appropriate songs. Afterward, the remains were moved to the Garden of Memory. A short service was held before Kay’s remains were placed in their final resting place. Gene Tope made some very timely remarks at this service.

The large number of people who showed they care attests not just to the fact that Kay’s husband is a preacher but to the kind of person she was. To meet her was to love her. She was pleasant, outgoing but modest, and had a great ability to let people know that she cared. Kay was dedicated to God, committed to heaven and devoted to her husband and children. As far as man can tell, she was a faithful child of God and we have a confident expectation to see her in heaven if we remain faithful.

Doug’s present plans are to return to Richmond and continue his work. He will, of course, have double duty to perform as he not only continues the most important work on the face of the earth but, at the same time, tries to be both a father and mother to his two young children. We commend him for his determination and pray that he will have many years to devote in faithful service to God.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, p. 378
June 7, 1979

By J. T. Smith

In order for us to have a clear understanding of the subject, we need to define the word “adultery,” find out from the Scriptures what conditions constitute an adulterous situation, and how one may “live in adultery.”

The word “adultery”is from the Greek word moicheuo and its basic meaning is “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 417). However, in the Old Testament, the word “adultery” was used to describe every kind of illicit sexual act, as the word was used in “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” in the ten commandment law. According to Young’s Analytical Concordance (p. 368), the word “fornication” is used only five times (Ezek. 16:15, 26, 29; 2 Chron. 21:11; Isa. 23:17) in the Old Testament. In every one of these cases, the word was used to describe a spiritual condition.

Unless we are going to take the position that a single man cannot look upon a single woman to lust after her, and commit adultery with her in his heart, we are forced to the conclusion that the word “adultery” is used in the New Testament to describe those who are unmarried as well as those who are married. Jesus said in Matt. 5:28, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Also, in 2 Pet. 2:14 Peter said, “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin . . .”

In an effort to answer this argument, one of the respondents in a discussion I had on the West Coast took the position that “the definition of a word determines the meaning, not its usage in the context.” I will allow you, the readers, to determine whether or not this person’s conclusion is valid.

There are a number of passages I would like for us to consider in our discussion of this subject. In Matt. 5:32 Jesus 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.” Again, “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” (Mat. 19:9). Then in Mark 10:11-12 we read, “And he said 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.” Finally, in Luke 16:18 Jesus’ statement is recorded, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

In all of these passages, Jesus plainly points out that if one puts away (divorces) his spouse, for any reason other than fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery. And the one who marries the “put away one” (whether she is “put away” for fornication, a word which includes every kind of illicit sexual act, or for some other reason) commits adultery.

Another passage of scripture that I would like for us to consider that mentions one being in adultery is Rom. 7:2-3. Paul said, “For the woman which hath an 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.”

The word “commits adultery” is a present active indicative word in the Greek language that describes continuous action. Thus, since Jesus allows freedom from the “marriage bond” with the right to remarry for only two reasons (fornication, Matt. 19:9; death, Rom. 7:2-3), then those who divorce and remarry for any other reason “commit adultery.” And as we noted above, this is not just a “one time act.” It involves continuous action. Every opponent that I have met in debate on the subject of divorce and remarriage freely admits that those who divorce, without the cause of fornication being involved in the divorce, when they remarry are nothing more than “legalized adulterers.”

In commenting on the expression “called an adulteress,” in Romans 7:2-3, Moses E. Lard said, “To render it, as in the E.V., `she shall be called an adulterous’ is without warrant. The apostle does not mean to tell what the woman shall be called, but what business she is in. She will act the adulteress.” Hence, as long as she continues to commit the act of adultery, she is living in that condition.

Sometimes the question arises, “Why would the guilty party, the one put away for fornication, commit adultery when she remarries? Isn’t the marriage bond broken when adultery is committed and one is put away for fornication – thus the guilty party loosed also? If so, the guilty party would not be ‘living in adultery’ when she remarried. Although this human reasoning may sound good, there are a number of things wrong with it.

In the first place, the-word “marry” is being equated with the word “bound.” But they are not equal. The word “bound” is from the Greed word dedesai and means, “to bind by a legal or moral tie, as marriage, Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39” (Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 89). One can be bound and not married, or he can be married and not bound. Herod’s case is an example of one being “married” (according to the laws of the land) but not “bound” by God (Mark 6:17-18). In Rom. 7:2-3, we find an example of one who was “married” to another but was still “bound” to her first husband. Thus, according to the above definitions, the antithesis of “bound” is “loosed,” and the antithesis of “married” is “divorced.” Therefore, I can tell a person who has “put away” his mate for the cause of fornication that the Lord has “loosed” him so that he is free to remarry without committing sin. However, Christ nowhere indicates that the wife is released form “her obligation” to the law of her husband.

Christ’s teaching in Matt. 19:5-9 points out that there is both an “obligation” to “leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife” and both are “restricted” from having any sexual relations with anyone else. Thus the one who is put away for fornication is loosed from the obligation of “leaving and cleaving,” but is not released from the restriction of having sexual relations with another. If so, where is the passage that shows that release. I know she is released from the leaving and cleaving to the one to whom she was married. For, the Lord granted him, because of her fornication, the right to remarry. Thus, their mutual agreement to “leave and cleave” is dissolved by God with the God-given right of the one doing the puttting away to have a wife.

Again somene may ask, “What about 1 Cor. 7:27-28 which says, ‘Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned . . . ! Who are those who are loosed?” Yes, Paul said those who are “loosed” may be married. But who is loosed? The one who has never been married, or one whom God, not man, has loosed. As we have already noted, God only looses the one who puts his (her) spouse away for fornication, and the one whose spouse has died. All others are “loosed” by man and not by God; and if they marry they sin.

In Col. 3:5-7 we read, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupicence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” The word “fornication” in verse 5 is the general word for illicit sexual acts and when used by itself in a context would include adultery. Thus, we learn from the above passages that anyone, whether alien sinner or Christian, can “live in adultery.” To deny this is to deny what the Apostle said, Who, then, is willing to do it?

QUESTIONS

1. What is the basic meaning of the word “adultery”?
2. Is the word “adultery” ever used in the Scriptures in a way different from the basic meaning given by lexicographers?
3. How do you determine the meaning of a word?
4. What are to two reasons given in the Scriptures for one being “loosed” so that he may remarry without sin?
5. What kind of action is involved in the Greek language for present active indicative?
6. What was Moses E. Lard’s comment on the expres sion “called an adulteress” in Rom. 7:2-3?
7. If the innocent party is “loosed” to be remarried without sin, why isn’t the guilty party “loosed” to remarry without committing sin?
8. What is the antithesis of the words “marry” and “bound”?
9. What two things are imposed on those who decide to contract a lawful marriage?
10. Which one of the two things mentioned in answer to question no. 9 does God release the “guilty party” from, and which one does He retain?
11. How would you answer the question, is it possible for one to “live in adultery”?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 376-377
June 7, 1979