Truth Magazine

By S. Leonard Tyler

A series of holidays is approaching, and for the most part we expect to enjoy and appreciate them. They afford the working class (which most of us are) a time for relaxation, recreation, visitation, or whatever. Everybody needs some time off from the regular routine of things to re-vitalize his mind and body. In fact, it is good that holidays come around once in a while for a vacation.

Man has right to set aside a day or week for a national holiday or season. He has the prerogative to dedicate it to some person or event worthy of national recognition. Man must also prescribe the law by which this is to be commemorated and all citizens, everything else being equal, have the privilege of sharing in the celebration. Holidays give relief, rest, recreation and needed vacations. We should use them wisely.

Holy Days

Man does not have the prerogative to establish Holy Days nor to make laws to govern divine appointments. This prerogative belongs only to God. Holiness is predicated of God and only through His divine appointments can anything be holy unto Him. Man can become holy only through complete commitment to God’s Will. If and when man speaks for God without instructions from God, he speaks presumptuously and usurps the authority of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-2) to his own alienation from God (2 John 9). A presumptuous voice is and has always been denounced as fatal in the Bible (please read: Num. 15:30-31; Deut. 18:20; Ps. 19:13; Matt. 15:3, 9; 2 John 9:1; 1 Peter 4:11).

Christ is the absolute, all sufficient and only mouthpiece and mediator between God and men (Matt. 28:18; Heb. 1:2; 1 Tim. 2:5). His word is revealed in the New Testament (Heb. 7:12, 22:28, 8:6-13, 12:25). If the New Testament teaches it, it must be accepted regardless of any other voice (Acts 4:19-20, 5:19). If the New Testament does not authorize it, it must be rejected with the same determination and confidence. Notwithstanding, there are many religious festivals and holy days celebrated without Biblical authority. These are man made and traditionally bound but have no scriptural foundation (Matt. 15:3, 9). Any individual or group conforming to traditional practices and doctrines of men, should not even claim the Bible as their complete and only standard of measurement.

The Roman Catholic Church has established and celebrates many religious festivals and holy days. However, she does not accept the Bible as her complete authority. She boldly, blatantly and confidently refutes, denies and rejects the Bible as a sufficient and final guide. She vehemently denies that one can even understand what is revealed in the New Testament. The Roman Church must explain it and claims infallibility in so doing.

Mr. Richard Brennan translated Mr. L.C. Businger’s History of the Catholic Church with a sketch of the Church in America by John Gilmary Shea and on pages 101 and 102 he states,

“The seven most important festivals of our Lord are his Nativity, or Christmas Day; his Circumcision; his Manifestation to the Gentiles or Epiphany; his Resurrection or Easter Day; his Ascension into heaven; the Descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost or Whitsunday, and the feast of his Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, or Corpus Christi. Christmas was celebrated certainly as early as the year 140 (Think, the last apostle died about 95 A.D. SLT.), although at that time it was kept on the sixth of January, together with the festival of the three kings.”

He states that in 340 Pope Julius I, ordered a thorough research to establish a definite date and accepted December 25, 340. This was some 245 years after the death of the last apostle and the completing of the New Testament.

We might also note: Not a single one of these seven most important festivals are taught or were kept by Christians in the New Testament as the Roman Church prescribes and keeps them. Any doctrine coming from the Roman Catholic Church is just as human as coming from any other religious denomination. Human traditions and commandments are just as human coming from one human as they are coming from another human or any conclave of humans. The Roman Catholic Church assumes the prerogative and usurps the authority to speak just as authoritatively as the New Testament. Listen to their own questions and answers.

29. From whom alone can we know the true sense of Holy Scripture?

We can know the true sense of Holy Scriptures from the Church alone; because the Church alone cannot err in interpreting it.

30. May no one, then, presume to explain the Scripture contrary to the interpretation of the Catholic Church?

No; for this would be as if he understood the Scripture better than the Holy Ghost, who inspires the Church with the true meaning of it.

31. But is the meaning of the Holy Scriptures not clear in itself, and easy to be understood by every one?

No; for the Holy Scripture is a Divine and mysterious book .

32. Is it not, then, true that the Bible and Traditions, both infallibly interpreted by the Church, are the right Rule of Faith.

33. Is it enough to believe only those doctrines which are contained in the Holy Scriptures?

No; we must also believe Tradition – i.e., those revealed truths which the apostles preached, but did not commit to writing.

34. Can the Church also suppress holy days? As she has full power to institute holy days, so she has also a right to suppress them . . . (Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion, from the German of Jospeh Deharbe, S.J., pp. 79-80, 215).

The Roman Church tells what the apostles did not write and she also interprets what they wrote – And No Questions, Please! Yes, the Roman Church claims absolute authority over all people religiously. There is no wonder, to me why many in the Catholic Church are rebelling and hold strong aversions to the infallibility of the Church and its Pope.

The Roman Church can have whatsoever she wants. She calls the names and sets the standards by her own self-acclaimed but pseudo-right. You can only answer “Yes Sir,” and submit to her commands.

Holidays? Well and good, so long as they are used in right living for good.

Holy days? Never! Unless they are ordained and revealed in the New Testament.

Therefore one may keep a holiday as a holiday by visiting, giving gifts, eating turkey, hunting eggs, trick or treat, or whatever within reasonable bounds.

Holy days belong to the Lord and must be ordained by Him. If anything is ordained of God for His people, the New Testament must authorize it.

Paul wrote the Galatians, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid ofyou, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain” (Gal. 4:10). It is one thing to keep certain days or eat certain foods for one’s own pleasure and fancy but essentially another to bind it upon the Lord’s church as a religious observance (Rom. 14:5-23).

Man needs faith sufficient to accept God’s appointments as all-sufficient and to observe them with his whole being, soul, and body, with complete confidennce and fulfilment. “Faith which worketh by love” is what counts with God (Gal. 5:6). Herein peace, unity, accomplishment, joy and salvation are all enjoyed without the disruption, division and heartache brought about through commandments and traditions of men (Matt. 15:3, 9; 1 Tim. 6:3-6). Herein is salvation’. What more can one expect? Religion is not for carnal, selfish fun and for frolic. It is to bind one back to God (2 Cor. 5:19; Eph. 2:16). Saving faith moves one to commit himself completely to God’s way with absolute confidence and contentment.

The first day of the week is fhe,Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). The early disciples met, partook of the Lord’s supper, gave of their means, and worshipped .God (1 Cor. 11:23-31; Acts 20:; 1 Cor. 16:2). This is the/time, the first day of the week, that the Lord’s people met to commemorate the Lord’s death until he comes again (1 Cor. 11:26).

Why is not the Lord’s way /sufficient? Holy days belong unto the Lord. Man dare not invade the Lord’s prerogative to establish and bind holy days upon the Lord’s people (2 John 9). Man can make, design, and observe holidays but Holy days belong unto the Lord.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 14, pp. 234-235
April 5, 1979

By Keith Sharp

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matthew 5:31-32).

Certainly this is a time when our news is filled with disturbing reports. Who can read of soaring inflation, threatening recession and climbing taxes without at least a twinge of anxiety? But one news item, often overlooked and relegated to the back pages of the newspaper, is far more disturbing to me than even the aforementioned crises, worrisome though they may be. Since 1960, the comparative rate of divorces to marriage in our nation has just about doubled-from about one divorce for every four marriages (which was certainly bad enough) to around one divorce for every two marriages. The grossly immoral practices of the American people stand in stark contrast to the pure teaching of the Master. What did Christ teach about divorce in the Sermon on the Mount?

The Master’s reference quoted in v. 31 is a direct allusion to the law of Moses (Deut. 24:1-4). Whereas Moses simply regulated an existing evil to mitigate its effects, Christ restored God’s original intention for the marriage relationship.

The first thing to notice is that in the old Mosaic dispensation the word adultery is not mentioned in the matter of divorce, for the good reason that under the law of Moses the punishment for adultery was death. Anybody under that law who was found guilty of adultery was stoned to death, so there was no need to mention it. The marriage had come to an end; but it was not brought to an end by divorce but by punishment by death . . . .

The whole object of the Mosaic legislation in this matter was simply to control divorce. The position had become entirely chaotic. This is what was happening. In those days, you remember, the men generally held a very low and poor view of women, and they had come to believe that they had a right to divorce their wives for almost any and every kind of frivolous and unworthy reason. If a man, for any reason whatsoever, was anxious to get rid of his wife, he did so. He brought forward some trumpery excuse and on the basis of that he divorced her. Of course the ultimate cause of it all was nothing but lust and passion. It is interesting to observe how, in this Sermon on the Mount, our Lord introduces this subject in immediate connection with the subject that went before it, namely, the whole question of lust . . . . The Mosaic legislation, therefore, was introduced in order to regularize and control a situation that had not only become chaotic, but was grossly unfair to the women, and which, in addition, led to untold and endless suffering on the part of both the women and the children.

In the main it laid down three great principles. The first was that it limited divorce to certain causes . . . . All the various excuses which men had been using and bringing forward were now prohibited. Before he could obtain a divorce a man had to establish that there was some very special cause, described under the title of uncleanness. He not only had to prove that, he had also to establish it in the sight of two witnesses. Therefore the Mosaic legislation, far from giving a number of excuses for divorce, greatly limited it. It dismissed all the frivolous, superficial and unjust reasons, restricting it to one particular matter.

The second thing it enforced was that any man who thus divorced his wife must give her a bill of divorcement. Before the Mosaic law, a man could say he no longer wanted his wife, and could turn her out of the house; and there she was, at the mercy of the whole world . . . Therefore, in order to protect the woman, this legislation provided that she should be given a bill of divorcement in which a statement was made that she had been dismissed, not because of unfaithfulness, but because of one of the reasons which had been discovered. It was to protect her, and the bill of divorcement was handed to her in the presence of two witnesses whom she could always call in case of need and necessity. Divorce was made something formal, something serious, the idea being to impress upon the minds of those people that it was a solemn step and not something to be undertaken lightly in a moment of passion when a man suddenly felt he disliked his wife and wanted to get rid of her. In this way the seriousness of marriage was emphasized.

Then the third step in the Mosaic legislation was a very significant one, namely, that a man who divorces his wife and gives her a bill of divorcement is not allowed to marry her again . . . . The whole force of that enactment is again exactly the same; it is to make these people see that marriage is not something you can walk in and out of at will. It tells the . . . husband that, if he gives his wife a bill of divorcement, it is a permanent enactment (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, I, pp. 254-255).

What was the situation among the Jews in Jesus’ day?

In all matters of Jewish law there were two schools. There was the school of Shammai, which was the strict, severe, austere school; and there was the school of Hillel which was the liberal, broad minded, generous school. Shammai and his school defined some uncleanness as meaning unchastity and nothing but unchastity. `Let a wife be as mischievous as the wife of Ahab,’ they said, `she cannot be divorced except for adultery.’ To the school of Shammai there was no possible ground of divorce except adultery and unchastity. On the other hand the school of Hillel defined some uncleanness in the widest possible way. They said that it meant that a man could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner by putting too much salt in his food, if she went in public with her head uncovered, if she talked with men in the streets, if she was a brawling woman, if she spoke disrespectfully of her husband’s parents in his presence, if she was troublesome or quarrelsome. A certain Rabbi Akiba said that eh phrase, if she find no favor in his sight, meant that a man might divorce his wife if he found a woman whom he considered to be more attractive than his wife.

Human nature being such as it is, it is very easy to see which school would have the greater influence. In the time of Jesus divorce had grown easier and easier, so that a situation had arisen in which girls were actually unwilling to marry, because marriage was so insecure.

When Jesus said this, He was not speaking as some theoretical idealist . . . . He was seeking to deal with a situation in which the structure of family life was collapsing, and in which national morals were becoming ever more immoral (William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1, pp. 149-150).

Actually, both schools of Jewish thought were wrong on the meaning of the term “uncleanness.” The word meant “shame, filthiness, anything unclean (any defect found in a woman . . .)” (William Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, p. 653). It certainly could not refer to adultery, for the guilty party was to be put to death in -a case involving adultery (Deut. 22:22). Nor did it refer to anything that might happen to displease the husband. “The words suggest some immodest exposure or failure in proper womanly reserve” (Cambridge Bible Commentary.) However, the important point in this: Jesus was speaking at a time when marriage as an institution was on the verge of collapsing. Divorce was easy and often practiced. Young women put off or turned away from marriage because it was so uncertain. The situation was virtually identical to that existing in America today!

How did Jesus deal with this critical situation? Did he relax God’s law of marriage? Did he look for ways to excuse the prevalent immoral practices? No, emphatically not! Rather, he restored both marriage as an institution and the woman as a person to the lofty plane upon which God had originally placed them.

In Matthew 5:31-32, Christ deals with the effect of unscriptural divorce upon the innocent party. To fully understand his statement, it should be studied in the light of other New Testament passages which deal with this subject (Matt. 19:3-12; Mk. 10:1-12; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:1-3; and 1 Cor. 7:10-16). Christ replaced Moses’ law concerning divorce and remarriage with his own. It was God’s original plan that one man and one woman live together as husband and wife throughout life (Genesis 2:21-24; cf. Matthew 19:4-6). Because of the hardness of heart of the Jews of his day, Moses, in enacting civil legislation, relaxed God’s original intent for the marriage tie (Matt. 19:7-8; Mk. 10:4-5). But, even at that time, God hated divorce (Mal. 2:13-16). Jesus restored the marriage relationship to the high plane of permanence God intended for it from the beginning (Matt. 19:3-6).

Two great truths emphasize the holiness God intended for marriage. God never commanded anyone to divorce who was rightfully married in any dispensation, although He, even now, allows divorce and remarriage for one cause. Any time a marriage is dissolved for any reason other than death, at least one of the marriage partners has grievously sinned. Three essential facts touching the permanence of the marriage relationship are taught in Matthew 5:32.

The first one to notice is that fornication on the part of one’s mate is the only grounds for divorce and remarriage. Some take the rather novel view that “fornication” pertains only to unlawful sex involving those who are unmarried and that the grounds for divorce is premarital sex on the part of one’s mate, not infidelity to the marriage vows. The lexicons are, however, in agreement that “fornication” includes adultery in some cases and specifically cite Matt. 5:32 as one of those cases (cf. J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 532; W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, II, p. 125; W.F. Arndt (F.W. Gingrich, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 699). This view is unacceptable because it makes incontinence before marriage a more serious breach of the marital convenant than infidelity to the vows once they have been entered into. “Fornication” in Matthew 5:32 refers to adultery on the part of one’s mate after the marriage has been contracted and is the only God-ordained grounds for divorce and remarriage.

The second key fact is that, if a man (the same principles of divorce and remarriage apply to the woman-Mark 10:12) divorces his wife for any cause other than fornication, he makes her an adulteress. Does this mean by the very fact she has been divorced she is an adulteress? This, of course, would be grossly unfair to the innocent party, who did not want the divorce in the first place and perhaps did all she could to prevent it. It would make even a single divorcee an adulteress. The Lord’s statement assumes that the put away woman will marry again. This is, of course, the case in the overwhelming majority of divorces.

The man who puts away his wife for a cause other than fornication puts her in a position where she is tempted to remarry, which would be to commit adultery (Matt. 19:9). Should she fall, he must bear the guilt for having placed a stumbling-block before her (Matt. 18:6-7). Often people say they will divorce and remain single. In the first place, few have the strength to remain single for long, although, under the stress of a bad marriage, they might think they will (cf. Cor. 7:9). Also, the person who divorces his mate is putting a stumbling-block before his partner she might not be able to overcome. It is a far better course to work out one’s troubles.

The third great fact is that the person who marries one put away also commits adultery. This was perhaps spoken in the Lord’s day because of those who seemed simply to be waiting to marry a woman as soon as she was divorced. (Which, by the way, is often the case now.) The statement is just as true today. If third parties would observe this injunction, perhaps the loneliness of separation would allow the divorced ones to soberly reflect upon their own mistakes and be reconciled. But remarriage hopelessly complicates matters.

God created woman and instituted marriage on a lofty plan. Sinful men degraded woman to a slave and marriage to polygamy and easy divorce for any cause. Moses made divorce more difficult and protected the interests of woman. Christ elevated both woman and marriage to their original positions of honor.

Marriage is a God-ordained relationship for a life-time. Woman is the help meet of man, an heir with him of eternal life. This is where all Christians must place both marriage as a relationship and the woman as a person both in their thinking and practice. Our nation, the church, our children and our souls are at stake.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 14, pp. 232-233
April 5, 1979

By Earl Robertson

What was the nature and character of the government of the early church? Was that government universal or local? Was it diocesan and hierarchical in function? These questions must be considered in a discussion of church organization.

Christ “is the head of the body, the church” and is, therefore, the One to whom every member must submit (Col. 1:18). However, in the early church we read that under divine guidance they “ordained them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). This reveals clearly that each congregation had the same need for government. These churches had only recently been established and Paul was returning to Antioch to report what God had done with them. On the return trip they visited these churches and at this time ordained elders in every church.

The fact that each church had elders not only emphasizes mutual local need but it also restricts the oversight of local government. Peter says, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof . . .” (1 Pet. 5:2). In this, the apostle names the realm of oversight: “among you.” This nominative and the participle “taking the oversight thereof” makes definite the flock for which those elders were responsible. These congregations, like the one at Philippi, had “saints . . . with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). Early church government was not diocesan or hierarchical; it was local-limited to one congregation. The early churches were not tied together in government; they each were independent and autonomous. They functioned without outside control or interference!

This is the way it was then! But, like so many other things, some churches seemingly no longer believe this because, they do not practice it. Often we see one church (the elders) running the affairs of another congregation. Whether this sinful action is within the same city, county, state, or nation is immaterial. The fact that the actions of one eldership are limited to that one congregation of which they are members makes all Bible students know that they cannot exercise oversight within another congregation. Yet, some audaciously run the affairs of other churches-especially if they are giving support to a man to preach at that other congregation. The Bible makes plain that each eldership is limited in its oversight. Popish behavior among elders God condemns and brethren should say so!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 14, p. 231
April 5, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

The way to keep the church pure and true to the New Testament is to keep Christians informed. In October, 1959, the following series was preached at the Franklin Road Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee: “Give Us a King” by Harris J. Dark, “Contending for the Faith” and “The Organization of the Church” by Charles M. Campbell, “Speaking As the Oracles of God” by Irven Lee, “The All-Sufficiency of the Bible” by E.L. Flannery, “Divisions, Who Is Responsible?” by James P. Miller, “According to the Pattern” by Stanley J. Lovett, “Church Cooperation” by Cecil B. Douthitt, “The Glorious Church and Its Purpose” by Curtis Porter, “The Care of the Needy” by Herschel Patton, “The Individual Christian’s Responsibility” by Bennie Lee Fudge, and “When Should One Change?” by James A. Allen. The result of such teaching is that Franklin Road does its own work to this day without donating its funds to benevolent societies, colleges, and corporations which build apartment complexes. Reading these lessons as a teenager helped me greatly and I am glad to see that they are back in print (published by Norris Book Company of Russellville, Alabama and available through Truth Magazine Bookstore, Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952).

In an age of immorality, much of it defended by preachers of situation ethics, sound teaching is needed on the home in God’s plan. Several of the preachers named above have gone to their reward, but Brother Irven Lee and his good wife are continuing to labor on earth in behalf of the eternal gospel. The Knollwood Church of Christ of Xenia, Ohio believes that gospel preaching purifies the souls and lives of people. On the call-in radio program paid for by the church, Brother Lee was interviewed 26 November, 1978 regarding what the Bible says about the home and family, then the audience was invited to ask questions. From 29 November through 3 December Brother Lee spoke at Knollwood on “Problems Young People Face,” “Unwanted Children,” “The Woman’s Liberation Movement and Other Sinister Forces That Would Destroy the Home,” “Why Are There So Many Divorces?”, “I Am Bored! What Can We Do?”, and “Man’s Place in the Home.” On the same days Sister Lee taught a morning class for women on “A Good Foundation,” “Partners in Marriage,” “Accepting Parenthood,” “Parents and Teenagers,” and “The Broken Home.” Dozens of copies of Brother Lee’s 205 page book on Good Homes in a Wicked World and tract on Preparation for Marriage were distributed to those who attended these lessons. (His 196-page Preaching in a Changing World and tracts Do All Roads Lead to Heaven? and Friendly Letter on Benevolence are also excellent, as are her books Stories About Jesus and Stories About God’s First People for young children.) We commend the Lee’s for their good work in the gospel; they may be addressed at P.O. Box 866, Hartselle, Alabama 35640.

We have noticed recently that other churches are having special series on “Calvinism,” “Grace, Unity, and Fellowship,” “Morality,” and other such subjects. We must be vigorous and aggressive in preaching the gospel to the lost so that the church may grow, while also preaching vigorously and aggressively to the church so that it may be pure! There is no room for Ephraim’s.Idols in hearts and lives that are filled with the gospel of Christ.

Their Pride Is Their Shame

In the October 1978 North Carolina Christian, a journal supposedly fighting the idols of liberalism, Jim Stutts enthusiastically reported concerning Houston, Texas,

Joe Schubert, minister of the Bammel Road church, preaches beneath a basketball goal each service. Joe encourages those seeking to reach the community for Christ to build a “multipurpose” building rather a monastery! The multipurpose building can be used for worship, fellowship, recreational activities, visual presentations – all geared toward reaching the lost. This congregation is one of the fastest growing in the brotherhood, setting a brotherhood record contribution last year of $1,104,000.

The choice seems clear enough, doesn’t it? We can build meeting houses on the “monastery” model, i.e. designed exclusively for the spiritual work of worship and teaching, ,or else build gymnastic cathedrals! That which gives these brethren the most pride ought to be their greatest shame “ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned” (1 Cor. 5:2). The Lord’s church is`to be “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15), not a “multipurpose” organization to provide “the community” with social and recreation services. All the way from Texas, we can hear the Bammel Road brethren citing in unison, “I am not ashamed of the multipurpose building, with its basketball goal for reaching the lost, for this indeed is the very power (of God – omitted from best manuscripts) unto salvation!” That is Ephraim 1:16.

If the North Carolina Christian fairly represents the enemies of Ephraim’s idols, they need no friends. Their worst enemies are their best friends.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 14, pp. 230-231
April 5, 1979