Truth Magazine

By Jefferson David Tant

Immodesty, lust, adultery, deceit, drunkenness, murder. Not a very pleasant listing of words, is it? And some might wonder why we would put immodesty and murder in the same category. The reason is that all of the words listed belong in the same narrative, and are listed in the progressive order of events, beginning with immodesty and ending with murder. You should recognize the story of David and Bathsheba from 2 Sam. 11-12:25.

Do women realize the power and influence they exercise over the thinking and actions of men by way of sexual attraction? Surely this is well illustrated by the sad story of Israel’s great king and his beautiful neighbor. Who knows the reasons for Bathsheba’s displaying herself immodestly within the view of David? But we can see that this action, however innocent it may have seemed to her, brought forth sin, sorrow and death, and its consequences reached into the distant future for the king of Israel. From his rooftop, David was able to look upon Bathsheba while she was bathing within his view. Her beauty and lack of discretion contributed to lust within David’s heart. Their resulting adultery caused a child to be conceived. To cover the sin, Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, was recalled from the battlefront, as David sought to provide opportunity for others to think that the child was by Uriah. But this loyal subject and soldier refused to go into this wife while his comrades were on the battlefield. David then got Uriah drunk so he might go to his wife, but Uriah still refused. David finally sent a sealed message by Uriah to his captain on the battlefield, which caused Uriah to be placed where he was certain to be killed. Who would ever have thought that such a vile deed would have come from such an “innocent” beginning? But such is the way of the world – both then and now.

We truly live in an age that worships at the feet of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of sexual love. The manifestations of this sex-worship are evident and plentiful. We have an increase of “living together” arrangements, an epidemic of venereal disease, one million illegitimate pregnancies among teenagers each year, a flood of pornographic literature and movies, and a vast expanse of bare skin. They all go together, and to try and determine which came first would result in a “chicken-or-egg-first” type of debate. But there may be some substance to the idea that the trend towards a more revealing style of dress in previous years has in turn created an atmosphere that has fostered a decline in moral standards everywhere.

Question: Is the Bible teaching on modest apparel relevant to this age? Yes, if we believe in an all-wise, all-powerful and all-knowing God. Therefore, God had the ability to design laws and commandments and principles suited to all men of all nations of all time (Matt. 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23). Man’s nature has not changed, and a reading of the Bible will reveal the same emotions, passions and human attributes that men have today. Therefore, what God teaches through the Bible is relevant. And it is obvious that it needs to be made relevant to those who profess to be Christians today who adorn themselves in their shorts, mini-skirts, swim suits, low necklines, tight outfits and see-thru styles.

Biblical Principles. Governing Dress

Nakedness has always been a symbol of shame, beginning with Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:7. The aprons they made for themselves might well have covered about as much as a modern swim-suit, but God was not satisfied with this, as he made for them “coats of skins” (Gen. 3:21) to clothe them. Nakedness was also used as a symbol of spiritual shame (Isa. 47:3, Rev. 3:18). Note that you can have clothing on, and still be naked in the Biblical sense. The word is used in the sense of “thinly-clad” in such passages as Job 22:6 and James 2:15-16. According to this, you are “naked” in many of the modern costumes that are accepted as normal attire.

God has said, “In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works” (Tim. 2:9-10).

“Modest” from the Greek means “well-arranged, seemly . . . .” Thus dress is to be orderly, in good taste, and in such fashion as to cause a women to be respected, to be thought highly of. Some argue that “good taste” is reflected in whatever the current fashions are. That may be true to a certain extent, but custom can go beyond the principles of godliness, and the Christian is told to “be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). With this attitude, we are not so eager to ape the fashions of this world and justify ungodliness just because “everyone else is doing it.”

“Shamefastness” is “a sense of shame, modesty, reverence, the ability to blush.” This is more akin to our modern use of “modesty” which is defined as “. . . not forward; shy or reserved. Behaving according to a standard of what is proper or decorous; decent; pure; now especially, not displaying one’s body.” In keeping with this definition, can one honestly defend many modern styles? To put it plainly: Girls (young or not so young), would you be embarrassed for a man to walk into your room and see you in your underwear? If you have any shamefastness at all, your answer is “Yes.” Then why not show the same attribute in public and refuse to wear the shorts and halter and otherwise revealing costumes that so many try to defend? Does the fact that the name of one is shorts and the other is underwear make the difference between modesty and immodesty? Honest, now.

Clothing indicative of shamefastness is opposite that type which is a bold display or which is forward in nature. This rules our clothing which exposes and emphasizes the private parts of the body and which therefore tends to produce unwholesome thoughts. If you could hear some of the comments the men and boys make concerning the girls who pass by in tight outfits, shorts, low-cut blouses and the like, surely it would bring a blush. Such clothing may be considered lascivious (encouraging lewd or lustful thoughts or emotions), and is condemned as a work of the flesh in Gal. 6:19-21.

Our text in 1 Timothy also uses “sobriety,” which indicates “soundness of mind, self-control . . .” and “good judgment, moderation . . . especially as a feminine virtue, decency” (Arndt and Gingrich). Here is clothing that is moderate, kept within bounds, restrained, in keeping with good judgment.

When these unchanging principles are destroyed, immodesty results, and sin comes. But when one seeks to conform to God’s standards rather than those of the world, modesty will be sought, rather than shunned, and godliness will be practiced rather than worldliness defended.

The Results of Immodest Clothing

Even the world recognizes the significance of the emphasis on sex in clothing. In the first place, it tends towards exhibitionism. “The women on the beach whom the men can’t help watching are . . . the ones with figures who want men to watch them and are bold enough to show this in their manner . . . . But one complication is that some people have a greater-than-average urge to make the opposite sex loop at them, by means of clothes or the lack of them. Certain of these people know it. Others of them don’t admit it, even to themselves” “Dr. Spock Talks With Mothers,” Ladies Home Journal, Sept., 1955, pp. 26, 28). “Women no longer wince at revealing their bodies in this `naked era,’ deliberately adapting their clothes for the purpose of attracting the male, and to call a spade a spade, often to get men hot and bothered” (Woman! The Dominant Sex, p. 115). Mary Quant, the well-known fashion designer and mother of the mini-skirt: “Mini-clothes are symbolic of those girls who want to seduce a man . . . .” Whether the mini-skirt itself is in or out of style at any particular time is not the point. The point is that that particular garment is but one symbol of the whole idea of the sexual revolution.

Another problem is that such clothing is recognized as contributory to crimes. “Some rapists, Dr. Hoffman points out, are harmless until their inhibitions are freed by drink or dope. Others however, need only the sight of a scantily clad female to trigger sexual violence. `And the way some girls run around the streets today,’ Dr. Hoffman says, `is practically asking for it”‘ (“How to Protect Your Family,” Cosmopolitan, Jan., 1962, p. 47). We could go on with page after page of similar quotes, including a comprehensive survey conducted among the Police Departments around the United States, concerning the sharp rise in sex crimes against women in the last several years. Ninety percent of the officers responding related sex crimes to immodest styles of clothing. And these officers are not the psychiatrists sitting in their ivory towers giving forth their lofty philosophies, but the men who have to deal with crime and its victims in the streets day after day. A major city’s vice squad commander agreed with others that husbands and fathers have “some responsibility to uphold sensible standards” in clothing for their families, because men know more clearly what may be provocative. These officials suggested the sex crime rise might be slowed by responsible action of school officials, employers and proprietors, designers and manufacturers, entertainers, religious leaders, writers and advertisers.

Such clothing also sends a message. In a discussion with a group of young people, the question was asked why girls (and boys) go around with shirts or blouses unbuttoned to a daring extent and wear otherwise suggestive clothing. The consensus was that it was done for advertising purposes. In the police survey, 76% of those responding said a girl is more likely to “involve herself in immoral behavior by the subjective effect” of wearing daring clothing. It also sends the message that they no longer care what God thinks, for if they did, they would never appear in public in clothing that is purely of, by, and for the world. They no longer care about themselves, for they have given up self-respect and care about personal safety. And they no longer care what effect they have on others, having no concern that their unchaste display may create lust in the heart of some youth who is growing into manhood, but still lacks the maturity of self-control.

Why is it that many places, including U.S. Military installations around the world, prohibit the wearing of shorts and halters and like clothes in public? Why are such styles prohibited in prison? When I visited an inmate in prison recently, I was interested in the regulations concerning clothing posted in the visitors room. No shorts, no halters, no low necks, etc. Do you really have to guess at the reason? See Matthew 5:28 for a clue.

I want to share with the readers part of a letter I received from a teenaged girl after she had read something I had written on modesty. “How some of the girls I know who call themselves Christians can wear the clothes they do, I just don’t know. Some of them don’t know better and some of them do . . . . I don’t know about all of the parents but I know some of them think their teenage girls are justified in the way they dress and act. It really bothers me that the parents and preachers and class teachers don’t talk about modesty . . . . When I think of all the Christian girls I know of going around in Hip-hugger jeans and midriff blouses, and mini-skirts and body shirts, it really bugs me. From the teenagers’ point of view, I’ll tell you some of the arguments I’ve heard: (1) “The latest fashionis and I just don’t want to look different.” (2) “All of my friends will think I’m crazy.” (3) “My boyfriend will drop me fast if I dress like that” (modestly). (4) “No one’s ever told me it was wrong.” (5) “The preacher has never said a thing to me about my short dresses.” (6) “My parents say it’s alright, so Do you see the main ingredient in such reasoning? It is dressing to please others, rather than dressing to please God! It is seeking to be “fashioned~according to this world” rather than dressing in a way “which becometh women professing godliness.”

The Bible describes two types of clothing: the attire of a harlot (Prov. 7:10), and modest apparel (1 Tim 2:8). If you honestly consider the matter, it should take no intellectual giant to figure out in which category to place the miniclothes described by their creator as “symbolic of girls who want to seduce a man.”

What this all leads to finally is just plain sin. Do we really want to dress like, act like, and be like the world? Or do we want to “walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called” (Eph. 4:1). Do we not desire to be that “elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out .of darkness into his marvelous light . . . . Beloved, 1 beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; have your behavior seemly among the Gentiles; that, wherein they speak against you as evil-doers they may by your good works, which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:9-12).

When all is said and done, do we want the approval of the world or of God? The final reward of heaven or hell will depend upon our answer.

QUESTIONS

• Is it possible for one to be naked, in one sense, and still have clothes on?
• Can the Christian go along with the world in dress fashions, so long as it is generally accepted?
• Does a Christian bear any responsibility for the thoughts and actions of others?
• If shorts and halter and like apparel are not im modest, what would it take to be immodest?
• “Seemly, the ability to blush, shy or reserved, decent, pure, not displaying one’s body, moderation,” are all words which describe what?
• A sure way to keep out of heaven is to engage in what works?
• Is it possible for the Christian’s manner of dress to set him or her apart from the world?
• Is there any hint that God may have been displeased with clothing that humans wore?
• Should Christians be careful about things which may lead to sin?
• What responsibility do we have to follow Christians who dress immodestly?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 370-373
June 7, 1979

By T. G. O’Neal

An older preacher friend told me several years ago that fornication was the most often committed sin. I am inclined to agree. An article I read in the Nashville Banner, Sept. 9, 1973, page 11, said the Playboy Foundation commissioned The Research Guild, Inc. to make a survey, the results of which were published in Playboy, October, 1973. Those surveyed were 2,026 in number over seventeen years of age; 982 were men, 1,044 were women. Seventy-five percent of the single women surveyed said they had sexual relations before they were 25; 32% of the married men under 25 said they had sexual relations since married with someone besides their wife, and 24% of married women said the same thing. Current statistics if available would not show an improvement.

Added to the practice of sin, now there are some preachers who are giving their voice to the sanction of fornication and adultery. While they would deny that they favor adultery or fornication, their voice or pen says otherwise. Concerning the. exception of Matt. 19:9, Leroy Garrett said Matthew “inserted that exception on his own, and that Jesus never said it” (Restoration Review, November, 1978, quoted by Mike Willis in Truth Magazine, Vol. 23, page 93).

Some brethren on the West Coast have started a paper called “The Bible Forum” which they say is “dedicated to the open discussion of Bible subjects.” It either had a short life or is way behind schedule for I only have received three copies, the last being November, 1977. All three copies are devoted to a discussion of marriage and”the truth J.T. Smith and H.E. Phillips have taught. The “editorial staff” consisted of Bob Melear, Kenneth Cheatham and Glen Lovelady. Glen Lovelady in his debate with J.T. Smith charged that the exception of Matt. 19:9 is “an addition” to the word of God, and is “what the copiest added” (Smith-Lovelady Debate, pp. 176-177). Also, in this debate Lovelady raised the question of whether “the latter part of Matthew 19:9 is considered by the translators to be an interpolation of copyist” (page 23). By his implication, he cast doubt upon the genuineness of the text. This is what nearly all of us who have debated Baptist preachers have run into with them on Mk. 16:9-20. True, some manuscripts do not contain the latter part of Matt. 19:9, but then there are probably just as many that do. The translators believed there was sufficient evidence to include it. The whole point of this is to get away from what Jesus said.

Olan Hicks has recently come out with a book called What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, which should be called “What Hicks Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” for it does not teach what the Scriptures says. Hicks charges brethren who teach the truth on Matt. 19:9 with a “need to remove the glasses which have been provided for us by the Catholic Church” (p.26), that the truth we teach “comes from the Vatican, not from the apostles” (p.29). He charges brethren with teaching “tradition” and not the Bible.

Whether they are willing to admit it or not, these men are giving comfort to the idea that the put-away fornicator can remarry without committing sin.

Definition

What is fornication? Vine defines it as “illicit sexual intercourse” and that “it stands for, or includes adultery” (Vol. 2, p. 125). Thayer says “of illicit sexual intercourse in general . . . used of adultery” (p. 532).

What is adultery? Vine defines it as “denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another” (Vol. 1, pp. 32-33). Thayer defines it as “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (p. 417).

Webster defines “illicit” as “not permitted; improper, unlawful” (p. 413). For a thing to be unlawful implies a law somewhere to which one has not complied. Now, what is the Law that says sexual intercourse with one to whom one is not married is sinful? It is God’s law, for man’s law says such is neither illicit or unlawful.

Fornication is a general term including all unlawful sexual activity. Lesbianism and homosexuality would be included here as well as adultery. Adultery is a more specific term used in reference to unlawful sexual contact with the husband or wife of another.

New Testament Teaching

In view of what men are teaching, we need to look at New Testament teaching and a good way to do this would be to look at some specific passages.

(1) Matt. 5:32. Beginning in verse 31, Jesus said, “It hath been said, 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.” Here Jesus said the man that puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery unless he puts her away for fornication. The one who marries her who is put away commits adultery. That is not “the traditional view” or what some preacher said, that is what Jesus said.

(2) Mk. 10:11-12. In this passage Jesus said, “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.”

God’s law given to man “from the beginning of the creation” when “God made them male and female” said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain 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” (vs. 6-9). God’s law, even before the church and before the law of Moses, was for “a man” to “cleave to his wife.” When this was done no longer were they “twain, but one flesh.” “God hath joined them together.” God joins a man that leaves mother and father to his wife. This passage does not teach that God joins a man, who up and leaves his wife, to another woman to be his wife. Jesus said the man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. The putting away of a wife is a sinful action and the marrying another is a sinful action, but it is not until he has sexual relations with her that he commits adultery. He has no right to her, it is unlawful for him to have her and every time they cohabit they commit adultery. The first act is adultery and the last one, even if twenty-five or fifty years later, is still adultery. Time does not change the unlawful to the lawful.

If a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. That is not the teaching of Catholicism or the traditional “Church of Christ view”; that is what Jesus said. All of the cases of Mary leaving Ed to marry John, even with the approval of the preacher and the elders will not change what Christ said. God will not change His will just because Hicks, Lovelady and others are teaching error any more than he will because a Baptist preacher is teaching error.

(3) Mt. 14:3-4. Matthew records, “For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. For John said -unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.” Observe Herod “had” a woman by the name of Herodias, but she was not his wife. He “had” his brother’s wife. He “had” Philip’s wife. John said what we had done was not lawful. According to whose law? Here is one who is not subject to the law of Christ, for the gospel of Christ had not yet been preached, yet he- was not acting according to the law. God’s law said Herodias was Philip’s wife but Herod “had” her. Herod “had” her but God still had her joined to Philip. This shows God does not loose a wife just because man does. The court can say Mary is not longer Ed’s wife and can marry John, but God did not say that.

(4) Luke 16:18. Jesus said, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” It is plain from this passage Jesus said he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. All of the human wisdom of earth will not explain it away. Then Jesus said that the man that marries the woman put away commits adultery. Jesus said the man that puts away his wife commits adultery when he marries another, and the woman commits adultery when she marries again. Thus, four people commit adultery. That is what Jesus said.

(5) Rom. 7.-2-3. By the Holy Spirit Paul wrote, “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 free 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.” Paul said a woman with a husband “is bound . . . to her husband so long as he liveth.” The way “she is loosed from the law of her husband” is “if her husband be dead.” If her husband is not dead, she is not loosed from him; she is still bound to him. If she is married to another while her husband is alive `she shall be called an adulteress.” The expression “shall be called” in this verse is from the Greek “chrematizo” and is also used in Acts 11:26 where the text says “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” This word means to be divinely called. God called the disciples Christians and God calls a woman an adulteress who is married to another man while her husband liveth. From this passage we learn that a woman can be “married” to another man while having a husband. It should be obvious that the term “married” is not used in the sense of married in the sight of God or that God has joined these two together when at least one of them has a mate.

(6) Matt. 19:9. Jesus said, “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.”

I have waited until this point in this article to introduce this passage. Previous passages noted in the article state the general law of marriage “from the beginning.” However, this passage states the “exception” given by Jesus. True, it is the only passage that says “except for fornication,” but if Jesus said it once, it is the truth. Are we willing to do away with everything taught just one time in the Bible?

Christ said, “whosoever shall put away his wife . . . and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The exception Jesus gave was where the putting away was “for fornication.” If one puts away a wife but not “for fornication” or if one puts away a wife “for fornication,” Jesus said, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “

Brother Hicks says in his book on page 25 that “everything said in the passage is addressed in the first line to this kind of case, the married man who divorces a wife who was faithful to him and marries another. It is not addressed to other situation . . . .” I deny it; that is not so. Brother Hicks needs to read the verse. There is more than one case in the verse.

Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The “whosoever” is party number one, and “his wife” is party number two. The number one party, “whosoever,” marries “another” which is party number three in the verse. When party number one marries party number three without putting party number two away for fornication, Jesus said he “committeth adultery.” But even this is not all the verse says. Jesus continued by saying, “And whoso (which is party number four) marrieth her which is put away (which is party number 2 of the verse) doth commit adultery.” If party number one puts away his wife (party number 2) and then the two of them marry, you have four people committing adultery, if party number one did not put away his wife for fornication, despite what Brother Hicks and others say. If party number 2 is put away by her husband for fornication, and all remarry, then only two people are living adultery, the put away fornicator and her “husband.”

In the beginning of this article, I was careful to define “fornication” and “adultery” as being “unlawful or illicit sexual intercourse.” Part of Brother Hick’s problem, in an effort to get around what Jesus said, is that he does not know what adultery or fornication is. He has people guilty of such without having “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Observe what he says about Matt. 19:9 on page 28: “Does the adultery Jesus spoke of occur when one puts away his wife and marries another, or does it occur later when he cohabits with the second wife? How can we insist that it is the latter when Jesus specifically said it is the former.” Notice Brother Hicks has a man (1) putting away a wife and (2) marries mother, which in his second “wife,” and he says Jesus said he commits adultery before he cohabits with her. If a m; n has no right to put away his wife, and does so, his action is sinful but putting away or divorcing a wife is not adultery or “unlawful sexual intercourse.” When he “marries” another, standing before a justice of the peace or a preacher and saying some words will in the eyes of the law of the land make him married, but whatever ceremony is said is a sinful action upon his part for he has no right to her, but this legal ceremony is not the sin of adultery. He commits the sin of adultery with her every time he cohabits with her. On page 29, Brother Hicks says “the two actions,” “putting away” and “marrying another” is what “consists of” adultery.

Twice in verse 9 Jesus used the term “marry” or “marrieth” but he used it in what we would call an accommodative way. Each time he used the term, he said the parties involved “committeth adultery.” These people committing adultery were not married in the sight of God, unless God joins together those committing adultery. One may be “married” in the sight of men or the laws of the land, but when God looks at them, God says they “commit adultery.” Does God sanction by joining together those committing adultery?

Other Errors

In addition to what has already been said in this article, there are a few other errors that need to be noticed.

(1) No reason for any divorce. Reacting to the extreme of divorce for any reason, there are those that have gone to the opposite extreme and have said there is no reason for any divorce. While it may be true that few divorces are “for fornication,” it is true that Jesus did give this as the reason. When there is the reason, one has the right to exercise the right. The fact that many people do not follow what Jesus taught does not give one the right to ignore what Jesus did say.

(2) No alien subject to God’s marriage law. This is commonly been called in recent years the “Fuqua Position” but I doubt he originated it. The position stated says that alien sinners, those outside the spiritual relationship described in the New Testament as being “in Christ” do not live under the law of God as it pertains to marriage, divorce and remarriage. Therefore, before becoming a Christian, one could have married and divorced any number of times, but when they learn the truth and obey the gospel, they are to live with the one to whom they are married at the time of gospel obedience.

However, the Bible does not teach this idea. Writing to Gentiles in Corinth, Paul said “such were some of you” referring to the sins of fornication and adultery, but said ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). How could they have been fornicators and adulterers if they were not living under God’s law pertaining to marriage before “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8)? If they were not under the law, they could not have violated the law. Among some sins Paul said the Colossians “walked” and “lived in” was the sin of “fornication” (Col. 3:5-7). If these Gentiles were not under God’s law from the beginning concerning marriage, how did they get to be fornicators?

(3) Not living with husband or wife, free to marry. Another error that is being taught is the idea that when a man puts away his wife, they are no longer married, thus free. Then the theory says that those free are able to enter into marriage. Glen Lovelady affirmed in debate with J.T. Smith that “the Scriptures teach that the put-away adulterer can remarry without committing sin” (Smith-Lovelady Debate, p. vi, and pp. 159-242). This is what the late Brother Lloyd Moyer advocated in his tract entitled “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” when he said on page 3, “When a marriage is thus dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty, nor is the guilty any longer married to the innocent. No marriage exists. Where no marriage exists, the parties may marry someone else . . . . Where is the passage or passages which teach that the guilty person whose marriage has been destroyed cannot be married again. They are not married. What law would prohibit those not married from getting married?” (all emphasis is Moyer’s, T.G.O.).

The Holy Spirit said, “The woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth . . . . so then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress . . .” (Rom. 7:2-3). Jesus said, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Lk. 16:18). The teachings of Lovelady, Moyers, Hicks and others will not set aside what the Holy Spirit said. Preachers would do well to preach the word and quit trying to justify the guilty.

QUESTIONS

1. What are two very common sins discussed in this article? (One might gather articles and clippings from papers showing how common these sins are.)
2. Define “fornication” and “adultery.”
3. In what way does adultery differ from fornication?
4. What two people did God say a man should leave in order to be Joined to his wife?
5. Of those whom God joins together, what is man not to do?
6. Are people married if God has not Joined them together?
7. Is it possible for two people to be married legally in the eyes of men but not married in God’s eyes?
8. What reason did Jesus give for one to put away his mate and marry ‘a second time without committing sin?
9. What “reasons” does the state in which you live give for divorce? How many more reasons is this than Jesus gave?
10. Can unrepentant fornicators go to heaven?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 362-365
May 31, 1979

By Dennis C. Abernathy

I have been asked to write this article on the subject of “pornography”, which I am glad to do. In this article we shall not deal with a huge list of “statistics” and draw from that tabulation the conclusion that we have a problem with pornography! Really, all one has to do, is live in our society, to know that we face a grave danger in the form of pornography. Pornography is not something that people indulge themselves on in secret (or it is not a thing done in a corner) in today’s world!

Today we hear a great deal about pollution. The polluting of the air, water, the land, etc. We are in trouble! If we can believe the experts, man has so befouled his environment that now he is faced with a self-induced calamity. The pollution of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live upon is a most sinister threat to our health and happiness, and we had better be concerned about it! Former President Nixon warned: “We have become victims of our own technological genius.”

But while the world’s best minds grapple with the problem of air and water pollution, a far more lethal type of adulteration has descended upon us. And, ironically, this contamination arouses only slight concern compared to that of our physical environment! We are talking about “inner pollution”, or pollution of the heart and mind.

Consider the man who puts up a beautiful fence around his yard, yet his yard looks like a garbage dump. Also the man who beautifies the outside of his house, yet the inside is a total wreck! Yet, what about the individual who wages the fight against air and water pollution, yet all kinds of filth and defilements are found lodging in his heart?

From a moral standpoint, our country has reached the “open sewer” stage. Anyone who would argue the point need only investigate the average news stand or glance at the entertainment pages of their local newspaper. To read reports from those who have made a thorough investigation and appraisal of the “adults only” books, movies, etc. is shocking indeed. Even more shocking than that is, the fact, that this form of contamination is accelerating at an unbelievable pace. It seems that the adult movies, plays, books etc. are competing with each other to see just how far they can go! One New York critic, after seeing an off Broadway play, wrote: “After this, what can there be for an encore?”

With the onslaught of this form of corruption, has come a burgeoning rate of crime which is now almost beyond anyone’s power to stop or even check. I am made to wonder what our beloved America will be like when my little girls are adults!

The printed page, movies (in theaters and on television screens) and much of the music of today have a tremendous influence on the attitudes, manners, and morals of their recipients.

Just here, I think it would be good to give a definition of Pornography. Porneia is the Greek term for sexual uncleanness of all kinds, including fornication. Grapho means to write or picture. So you can see that we are talking about obscene books and films sold in the adult book store. It includes many of the adult magazines found in the drug stores and on the news stands. Many of the movies in the theater and an increasing number of shows piped into our homes via the TV screen are pornographic.

In the case of the printed page, censorship for all practical purposes, is non-existent. The most lurid and obscene literature imaginable is now freely circulated, obviously protected by the nation’s highest courts. Listen! We are speaking about Hard-Core pornography, not just the “girlie magazines.” It is almost hard to realize how lewd and vicious some of this trash really is.

Although these publications carry the Adults Only warning, any thinking person knows this is only a ridiculous attempt to justify their existence. Where is the evidence that adults are not demoralized by these publications (any person with any knowledge at all know they are affected irregardless of age), and of course all control is lost the moment the purchase is made. There are no laws to keep such material out of the hands of young people once they are sold. If you do not believe teenagers and even pre-teens are reading this obscene material, you had better wake up in a hurry!

I am told (and let me tell you this; I believe it) some of the photographs in these publications are too vile to describe—and most are posed by young people. Certainly, they must be influenced very strongly by drugs, etc., for few people, however depraved, would even do such things much less allow themselves to be photographed in the act!

To the person whose mind is obsessed with sex, who knows little about history (and cares even less), or whose god is the “almighty dollar”, the moral decline of our nation means little. Yet any sensible, and right thinking person, knows and realizes that obscene literature, movies, TV, etc., encouraged by permissive courts, can fatally weaken our nation! This fact is not only underscored by history; it is affirmed by the conduct of those who have abandoned the morals of the past. Today we are witnessing a callous indifference toward patriotism, and a total lack of respect for our rich heritage, and toward God Almighty and His Holy Word! Many of the young people today solve their problems by painting daisies on car doors; by carrying their “Make Love, Not War” placards, and etc. These are the fruits of an inner pollution problem! A pollution, I might add, that we cannot survive. “For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” (Prov. 23:7).

The Source Of The Worst Pollution Is In The Human Heart

Jesus said, “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which came out of him, those are they which defile the man (Mk. 7:15). He then goes on in verse 18 to say: “. . . Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all those evil things come from within and defile the man.” My dear reader, the Lord is saying that one’s conduct (speech, dress, etc.) is but an evaluation of his heart! “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” (Matt. 12:34-35). In other words, if a man fills his heart with corruption, it will be that which flows out of his heart. That is why the Bible says, “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” (Prov. 4:33).

This is the point of attack made by pornography. It affects one’s heart or mind. It warps one’s concept of what is right and good. It awakens, kindles, and inflames the vilest forms of lust, which lead the individual down the road of degradation and ruin. Note the following illustration:

“A teen boy stops by a drug store for a snack before going home. As he passes the magazine rack he notices a section of magazines displaying nude and semi-nude women. He stops and begins to shuffle the sports magazines, but his eyes are concentrated on the pornography. Passions he hasn’t known before begin to stir within his mind. Curiosity arouses, but he hesitates to reach for any of the alluring magazines. Something seems to warn him of the evil before him. For the moment he refuses to go so far as to pick up one of the pieces of trash, but he has become careless. He has allowed to lodge in his mind pictures which have appealed to lust.

This carelessness continues for several days until one afternoon at the same magazine rack the boy gets bolder, bold enough to not care who is looking, bold enough to get one of the magazines in hand and look through it closely. Eventually, he has scanned the pages of all the nude magazines. The figures are fixed in his mind. He thinks about them at school. He thinks about them on a date as he makes advances to the girl. He talks about them with his buddies. He feeds his thought processes on them as every female he sees becomes the object of hidden lust. He is bolder now having stifled any warning of danger.

Boldness leads to habit. The boy’s collection of pornography grows as he manages from various sources to buy the foul print. He is introduced to all types of sexual experiences. Through the literature he becomes acquainted with perversion in all its vile forms. Thoughts are not enough. He constantly seeks companions to fulfill his lust. On and on it goes until things happen he never imagined when he first started the downward trail. His mind is a moral sewer. His body a deceased wreck. His future is dark. He is a slave to the lust he only played with at first!”

When people ignore what God’s word says about purity of heart—when they leave God out of their lives, they are on the road to ruin. Hear Paul to the Romans: “Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . . God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper . . . . and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:24-32).

Phillipians 4:8

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence, and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” How can one obey this injunction of Paul, while filling his mind with pornography (whether it be in the form of dirty books and pictures – in the theatres or on the TV – or through the dirty and suggestive lyrics of many of the songs today)? We must cultivate proper and pure thinking and leave no room in our hearts for that which is base and vile.

Young people, heed the danger flag before you dabble with pornography. There is nothing good that can come from it. Do not be deceived. There is too much good and wholesome literature – too many good and wholesome things God has given us – for us to degrade ourselves with the trash and filth coming from depraved minds. “Keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22).

If you are a sinner, purify your heart (Acts 15:9; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Pet. 1:22). It is through obedience to the faith (the gospel) that one’s heart is purified. Have you obeyed God? Have you had your sins washed away (Acts 22:16)? Why not resolve to do that today?

Are you a Christian, but have gone back into the world (the mud and mire – the pollution of sin)? It is a low state indeed (2 Pet. 2:20-21; 2 Pet. 1:4). You need to repent of your sin and seek forgiveness at the hand of God (Acts 8:22; Jas. 5:19-20).

This is the way for the Christian, under God, to combat moral pollution in his own life. We must start with ourself. We as parents must educate our children against the dread disease of pornography. What do your children read? What do they watch? What records do they listen to? Do you know? Do you care?

We cannot cleanse the whole world. God’s people have almost always been outnumbered, outvoted, outwitted and outraged by the pollutants which have taken over the minds, morals, and wills of wicked men. But we can begin with our own household. We can teach our children the truth concerning pornography and we can do all in our power to eliminate it from their daily activities. Also, we can confess our sins to God, and we can be sure our own hearts are unpolluted.

Yes, the great battle is not with water and air pollution, but, with those things that pollute the heart and mind of man.

QUESTIONS

1. Define Pornography.
2. Discuss the importance of air and water pollution as compared with heart pollution.
3. How do you view the moral condition of our country today and how has pornography played a part?
4. What are the main sources of pornography?
5. Does pornography affect only young people?
6. What is the source of pollution?
7. Quote and explain some passages of Scripture concerning the heart.
8. The battle against pornography must start where?
9. How would you refute the “artistic value” arguments presented by the porno pushers? Is pornography simply an “artform.”
10. Will we be judged according to our deeds? Does this include our thoughts? How does pornography affect the thoughts and intents of our heart?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 359-361
May 31, 1979

By Johnny Thompson

I was going to the prom! I thought about it for days, and then decided to go. After all, I would be a senior but once. So why not?

I well knew that informing my parents would be most difficult. I was a minister’s son who had been taught all my life the problems and dangers involved in the modern dance. I decided to tell them at breakfast.

“Dad,” I said, “since I am a senior, I have decided to go to the Senior Prom.” I waited for his reply, but there was only silence. I expected my father to take me to task severely. I thought certainly that mother would cry. But still there was silence, a terrifying silence. Then my father replied, “So you are going to the prom?”

“Yes sir,” I said, “after all I’ll be a senior only once.” He looked at me and then hung his head. Then he said words I’ll never forget: “Son, your mother and I have tried to teach you for the past sixteen years what is right and what’s wrong. We’ve done our best to bring you up as a Christian young man. But you’re right Son, you are a senior. You are almost grown. So if you have decided to attend the Senior Prom, go ahead, but please remember this: if the Lord should come and find you there, please tell Him that you came because You wanted to, not because We sent you.”

Those sobering words shook me into reality. I then knew that this was a temptation that I must overcome. I must not go! I have never regretted not going, but continue to thank God that I was given the strength to throw my influence, fully behind the church and its work in the community. Remembering this temptation, I take encouragement from James 1:12, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, p. 359
May 31, 1979