Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

The first instance we find record of any person’s speaking in tongues after the ascension of Christ is recorded in Acts 2. First, let it be understood that the Bible says nothing of speaking in “unknown tongues”. However, it does use the terms “other tongues” and “kinds of tongues”, but never “unknown tongues”.

Notice now Acts 2:1-13: “And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and so-journers from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What meaneth this? But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine.”

You will notice on this occasion that the apostles received the Holy Spirit. The purpose of their reception of the Holy Spirit was to enable them to speak in tongues which they had never learned. The 17 nationalities of people were present. God wanted them to be taught the gospel. Hence, a miracle was performed upon the apostles, so that they were enabled to speak in languages that these foreigners could understand. Notice in verse 11, the people said, “we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.” The employment of this language was perfectly intelligible to the hearers. Let it never be said that the apostles had learned all these various languages through the process of natural education. Such was not the case. They that spoke were all Galileans. They spoke in languages which they had never learned. They did this by miraculous means. It would be profitable for us to discuss this phenomena in connection with the so-called tongue-speaking of today.

From the passage we have already read it should be apparent that speaking in tongues was speaking in a language, but, have you ever attended a religious service today in which the people who “receive the Holy Spirit” and who received the power to speak in tongues, spoke in an intelligible language? Could any person from any other land have understood what they were saying? Did they speak in French, German, Spanish, Greek or Hebrew? Thy certainly did not. The point that we are trying to make is that people who claim the power to speak in other tongues today do not do the same thing that people who spake in tongues in New Testament times did. Modern-day speaking in tongues is nothing more than a conglomeration of unintelligible jabber. You find no such practice in the New Testament.

A second reference to speaking in tongues is found in Acts 10:46. The apostle Peter had been directed to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile, and had preached the gospel to them. Then the scripture says that the Jews “heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” These Gentiles were speaking in tongues. On the day of Pentecost, the power to speak in tongues was given ire order to enable the Jews to teach those whose language they had never learned. On this occasion, power to speak in tongues was given to show the Jews that the Gentiles also had a right to the gospel of Christ. You will remember that the Jew felt that a Gentile was but a dog, and later they criticized Paul for preaching to the Gentiles. The scripture says that after they saw the signs done by the Gentiles, “they held their peace and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:28).

In 1 Cor. 12:1-10, 30, Paul discussed nine spiritual gifts. “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that when ye were Gentiles ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led. Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord but in the Holy Spirit. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. For to one is given through the Spirit the Word of wisdom and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; and of healings, in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits: to another divers kinds of tongues: and to another the interpretation of tongues:”

He says that there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. The enumerated gifts are as follows: “the word of wisdom”, “the word of knowledge”, “faith”, “healings”, “workings of miracles”, “prophecy”, “discerning of spirits”, “divers kinds of tongues” and “the interpretation of tongues”.

As we have previously studied, the spiritual gifts were all a part of the miraculous demonstration accompanying the preaching of the word of God prior to its completion in the written form. After that which was perfect was come, namely the written revelation, that which was in part, namely the spiritual gifts, was done away. Furthermore, in Mk. 16:17-20 we find speaking in tongues listed as one of the signs that was to follow believers. They were to cast out demons, speak in other tongues, take up serpents, drink any deadly thing, and lay hands of the sick. By the same token that we know the handling of serpents and drinking deadly things are not perpetuated, we also know that speaking in tongues was a temporary power, and no man today has that ability. The Holy Spirit gave power to the early disciples to speak in tongues which they had not learned. This, as the other miracles was to confirm the word spoken. once the word was confirmed, that miracle, as well as the others, was discontinued. If you doubt that to be true, get any person who claims the power to speak in tongues, choose any language, of which he has not studied, and ask him to speak that language. The utter impossibility of his doing so will be absolute proof of the fact that he does not have divine power, and if he begins to speak some senseless jabber, you know immediately that he does not have the power to speak in a language which he has not learned, or he would do that instead.

In summary of our series of lessons on miracles, let it be understood that God has the power to perform miracles. He has the power to work miracles today, should He have chosen to do so. But it has never been a question of whether God has the power to work miracles, but always has been a discussion of whether God is working miraculous happenings through finite beings this day. Miracles were for a temporary purpose. They served their purpose and were done away when that which is perfect came.

Truth Magazine XXI: 15, pp. 230-231
April 14, 1977

By Cecil Willis

Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Arguments

No study of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine of Christ would be complete unless it considered and answered the various arguments used by the Witnesses to prove that Jesus was a created being rather than being Jehovah God. Hence, in this article, I propose to consider the major passages and arguments used to prove that Jesus is a Created being.

1. Rev. 3:14. The King James translation of this verse is as follows: “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses use this passage to prove that Jesus was the first created being. The Greek word from which “beginning” is translated is arche; the proper understanding of its usage in this context is essential to the true understanding of this verse. `Arche always signifies `primacy’ whether in time: beginning, principium, or in rank: power, dominion, office” (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 479). Rather than bearing the meaning that Jesus was the first Created being, arche signifies Jesus’ primacy in rank-that He has power, dominion and office.

Regarding this very point, William Barclay said,

“This Is a phrase about which we must be careful, for, as it stands in English, it is ambiguous. To say that Jesus Is the beginning of creation could mean, either, that He was the first person to be created, or, that He was the moving cause of all creation, He who began the process of creation and Initiated the work of creation, as R.C. Trench put it, `dynamically the beginning: There is no doubt at all that it Is the second meaning which is Intended here. The word for beginning Is arche. In early Christian writings we read that Satan was the arche of death, that Is to say, that death took its source pad origin in him; or that God Is the arche of all things, that Is, that all things find their beginning and origin fn God” (The Revelation of John, Vol. 1, pp. 177-178).

Lenski said, “By no means does this title mean that the Lord is first creature created by God; He is the uncreated Son of God who is as eternal as the Father” (Interpretation of Revelation, p. 153). A.T. Robertson added, “Not the first of creatures as the Arians and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works . . . .” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. VI, p. 321).

With these comments before us, we have no difficulty in understanding the reason subsequent translations have translated the passage as follows:

. . . the origin of God’s creation. . .” (Williams, Beck and Goodspeed).

. . . the One through whom God began to create. . .” (Twentieth Century New Testament).

. . . the prime source of all God’s creation. . .” (New English Bible).

. . . the origin of all that God has created. . .” (Today’s English Version).

. . . the Source of God’s creation. . .” (New American Bible).

. . . the ruler of God’s creation. . .” (New International Version).

This passage, therefore, rather than confirming Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine assaults it. It places Jesus above God’s creation either as its ruler or as its origin.

2. Col. 1:15. This passage describes Jesus as “the first born of all creation” (pratotokos pases ktiseos). Witnesses assert that “firstborn” implies a time when Jesus did not exist. That this is pressing a figure of speech beyond its intended limits is evident from the following explanations of the phrase:

“The main ideas then which the word involves are twofold; the one more directly connected with the Alexandrian conception of the Logos, the other more nearly allied to the Palestinian conception of the Messiah.

(1) Priority to all creation. In other words it declares the absolute pre-existence of the Son. At first sight It might seem that Christ is here regarded as one, though the earliest, of created beings. This interpretation however is not required by the expression itself. The fathers of the fourth century rightly called attention to the fact that the Apostle writes not protoktistos (created first-mw) but prototokos . . . . Nor again does the genitive case necessarily imply that the prototokos Himself belong to the ktisis, as will be shown presently. And if this sense is not required by the words themselves, it is directly excluded by the context. It is inconsistent alike with the universal agency in creation which is ascribed to Him in the, words following, en ajto ektisthe to panta, and with the absolute pre-existence and self-existence which Is claimed for Him just below, autos estin pro panton . . . . .

(2) Sovereignty over all creation. God’s first-born is the natural ruler, the acknowledged head, of God’s household. The right of primogeniture appertains to Messiah over all created things …. In its Messianic reference this secondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word prototokos, to that from this point of view prototokos pases ktiseos would mean `Sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture: . . . Nay, so completely might this idea of dominion by virtue of priority eclipse the primary sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some of its uses, that it is given as a title to God Himself by R. Bechaf on the Pentateuch, fol. 124.4. . ..” (J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 146-147).

“The description of Christ as prototokos pases ktiseos in Col. 1:15 obviously finds in the hoti clause of v. 16 Its more precise basis and explanation: Christ is the Mediator at creation to whom all creatures without exception owe their creation . . . Hence prototokos pases ktiseos does not simply denote the priority in time of the pre-existent Lord. If the expression refers to the mediation of creation through Christ, it cannot be saying at the same time that He was created as the first creature” Mittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VI, p. 878).

“The word ‘firstborn’ is prototokos. The Greek word implied two things, priority to all creation and sovereignty over all creation. In the first meaning we see the absolute pre-existence of the Logos. Since our Lord existed before all created things, He must be uncreated. Since He is uncreated, He is eternal. Since He is eternal, He is God. Since He is God, He cannot be one of the emanations from deity of which the Gnostic speaks, even though He proceeds from God the Father as the Son. In the second meaning we see that He is the natural ruler, the acknowledged head of God’s household. Thus again, He cannot be one of the emanations from deity in whom the divine essence is present but diffused. He is Lord of creation.

Translation. Who is a derived reproduction and manifestation of the Deity, the invisible One, the One who has priority to and sovereignty over all creation” (Wuests Word Studies, Kenneth S. Wuest, “Colossians,” p. 183).

Again, we see that the very words of the text, rather than proving Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine assaults it. This passage asserts Jesus’ scavereignity over and priority to God’s creation.

The next verse in this context confirms this exegesis of “firstborn of all creation.” “For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him.” All created things came into existence through Jesus Christ. That statement could not be true if the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine is so. Because they teach that Jesus is a part of Jehovah’s creation, they run into trouble with this verse. How could Jesus have created Himself? Jesus, according to their doctrine, is a created being; this passage asserts that all of God’s creation came into existence through Jesus. Hence, their doctrine demands that Jesus have created Himself. When the translators of the New World translation came to this verse, they exercised unwarranted license with the text; indeed, they plainly perverted it. Here is their rendering of this passage:

“He Is the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; because by means of Him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through Him and for Him. Also, He is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist” (Col. 1:15-17 in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

The blatant addition of “other” on four different occasions in this passage is the most obvious perversion of Scripture to justify doctrinal beliefs which I have ever seen.

3. Phil. 2:6. In Paul’s discussion of Jesus’ humility in Phil. 2:5-11, we read: “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be -grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Though this passage obviously teaches the deity of Jesus Christ because “He existed in the form of God,” by the time the Witnesses are through with this passage, it has been twisted to say that the idea of being on an equality with God never occurred to Jesus or, if it did occur to Him, it was quickly dismissed from His mind. On the basis of this passage, Witnesses teach that Jesus, as a created being, never tried to make Himself equal to Jehovah; He never led a rebellion against Jehovah to usurp His throne. Hence, they translate v. 6 as follows: “Who, although He was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that He should be equal to God” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

The issue on this occasion centers around the proper definition of harpagmos. Thayer,, comments on this passage by saying: (Christ Jesus), who, although (formerly when he was logos asarkos) He bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opposite to morphe doulou) Yet did not think that this, equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained” (p. 418 on “morphe” as referred to in his comment on harpagmos).

Wuest states the same facts more completely; he said,

“We must now consider carefully the word `robbery.’ The Greek word has two distinct meanings, `a thing unlawfully seized,’ and `a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards.’ When a Greek word has more than one meaning, the rule of Interpretation is to take the one which agrees with the context in which It is found. The passage which we are studying is the illustration of the virtues mentioned in 2:2-4, namely, humility, and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. If our Lord did not consider it a thing to be unlawfully seized to be equal with God in the expression of the divine essence, then He would be asserting His rights to that expression. He would be declaring His rightful ownership of that prerogative. But to assert one’s right to a thing does not partake of an attitude of humility and self-abnegation. Therefore, this meaning of the word will not do here. If our Lord did not consider the expression of His divine essence a treasure that it should be retained at all hazards, that would mean that He was willing to waive His rights to that expression if the necessity arose. This is the essence of humility and of self-abnegation. Thus, our second meaning is the one to be used here. Translation. Who has always been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of Deity, and who did not after weighing the facts, consider It a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, to be equal with Deity (in the expression of the divine essence” (Wuest’s Word Studies, 11, p. 64-651).

Similarly, A.T. Robertson added,

“The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won” (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 444).

Once again, we are faced with a passage of Scripture which is used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ to prove that Jesus was not Jehovah but which, when correctly interpreted, proves the Deity of Jesus Christ.

(Concluded Next Week)

Truth Magazine XXI: 15, pp. 227-229
April 14, 1977

By C. W. Scott

The Old and New Testaments of the Bible both teach that the only hope of men and women for salvation from sin and wickedness is through and in Christ Jesus, the Savior. The lost must look to Christ for redemption from sin because it is His blood that constitutes the purchase price for their forgiveness. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many, unto the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Reconciliation of the sinner to God along with his or her pardon are made possible for all men through the suffering and death of Christ but these constitute but a few of the many blessings to be obtained and enjoyed by the believing, obedient and trusting followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

We sing the fine old hymn, “Count your many blessings, name them one by one and it will surprise you what the Lord hath done.” Truly, how fine it would be if all of us would take the time to do just this every once in awhile. The writer doubts that we could really name every blessing materially and spiritually ours to enjoy. However, it would be most stimulating for one to deliberately reflect upon the blessings that individual Christians enjoy of “the spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

The apostle Paul opens his letter to the saints and Christians in Ephesus with the reminder that it was God that had blessed them and that all spiritual blessings were in Christ. It is possible that some of them did not know this! And there are, certainly, many people today (good and sincere people too) that have not learned that spiritual blessings are to be enjoyed or had only in Christ. The voice from heaven instructed the apostle John to write, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord” (Rev. 14:13). In order for men to die in the Lord they must first live in the Lord. And before they can live in the Lord they must first get into Jesus Christ. Men and women desirous of enjoyment of all spiritual blessings in Christ should be equally concerned about the conditions and terms that will place them in Christ where these blessings may be obtained. The New Testament clearly outlines the course every seeker after spiritual blessings must take.

Some of the Ephesian Christians had been worshipers of Diana prior to their conversion to Christ: They had given “Diana of the Ephesians,” as she was named, credit for the blessings of life that had been theirs to enjoy. The apostle Paul wanted them to know that they were now “In Christ” as his disciples and true followers and all their blessings were theirs in the new relationship with Christ. There were none to be enjoyed out of Christ.

Paul’s personal gratitude is expressed in the words of Ephesians 1:3,4, “Blessed be the God and Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” There was a time when Paul recognized God as His Father in Heaven but in the period of His life when he was known as Saul of Tarsus, he did not believe that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the Savior and Redeemer promised by the prophets. Saul believed that the Jesus that was nailed to the cross was an impostor and those that followed him were deceived and they themselves were worthy of death. Saul, whose name was changed to Paul after his conversion to Christ, declared some time later that his initial role was that of “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious.” Paul further states that he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. 1 Tim. 1:14-16 reveals, “And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.”

The apostle Paul was grateful unto Jesus Christ for his redeemed position because it was Jesus who died and shed His precious blood and making his pardon and salvation possible. Paul was also thankful to God the Father for his granting all the good things that he was enjoying. He could affirm knowingly as did James, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (Jas. 1:17).

Paul and the Ephesians both were greatly blessed of God. Material and spiritual blessings had been given them in abundance no one can question. But they were no more blessed than all obedient followers of Christ today. Men may appropriate the benefits of the Saviour’s death unto themselves upon the same terms and conditions that were accepted and acted upon by those of the First Century. Those in Christ in 1976 are still being blessed by “All spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Those out of Him and who have not through faith and obedience to the Lord’s commandments cannot and do not share in the blessings enjoyed by those who have accepted the way and wisdom of Jesus Christ.

Does some one inquire, “How may we get into Christ where these blessings may be obtained?” The answer is the same that the Apostle Peter gave to the inquiring Pentecostians who had been directed to believe in Christ, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). About 3,000 persons on that day believed and obeyed as instructed and were baptized into Christ. In Christ, having put on Christ, one must then obediently remain in Christ, living after His example, worshipping and serving God according to the directions set forth in the Savior’s last will and testament.

Truth Magazine XXI: 15, p. 226
April 14, 1977

By Philip S. North

When the sin of adultery is committed, what is the first thing that begins to develop in our minds (Christian or non-Christian)? I personally find in my own experiences that too many people in this day and age have tendency to point the finger of shame at the woman per se. Such is no more right than to teach and preach that God is dead or that the Bible is a fraud. Many high moraled individuals, Christians or simply “good people,” will agree that the act of premarital sex is wrong, sinful, looked down upon by any person who honors God’s commandments, and therefore should not be loosely classified in the category of, “Well, they do love each other.” Thus, these types of people will agree that sex outside the bonds of marriage is adultery, as we read in no uncertain terms in Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honorable in all. and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” That is fine, my good reader. I will go with you all the way to your grave and my grave both because that is what the inspired word of God instructs. However, can one be right in pointing the sin of adultery at the woman (or girl) only? Just what does God’s word have to say about such judging of adultery?

So often, the man develops the outlandish thought that after he has “gotton what he wanted,” he can then proceed to straighten up, smile, and in a feeling of accomplishment (?), walk away from the woman as though nothing really happened at all. Friend, if that is your conviction, then you are as wrong as can be. First of all, God is not in any way, shape, form, or fashion, a respecter of persons (Prov. 24:23; Jn. 7:24; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17; Jas. 2:1) In no way whatsoever is God like such. We can thereby sensibly conclude that God judges all people alike, by His same law, be a person male OR female. If a man commits murder, he stands in the eyes of God condemned just as much as when a woman does likewise. The same thing holds true of theft, drunkenness, profanity, etc. God judges both of the sexes alike who are of an accountable mind to be responsible for their actions. However, look what else the Bible has to say on this matter.

In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul gives mention to a multitude of sins, and the very first sin that is condemned is adultery. “So what?” you may say. Well, loon what Paul said in 1 Cor. 6:15: “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? Know ye not that he (he, my friend-not she-PN) which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, with he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but, he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” It is many times argued the difference between fornication and adultery. Whichever way that you as the reader wish it to be, it is still (fornication and adultery) the act of sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage, whether an individual is single and engaging in such, or whether the individual is “going out” on his or her marriage spouse. The above verses did not sound one iota to this writer that Paul was condemning the woman only! 1 Cor. 10:8, we see where Paul again says, “Neither let us (us-plural; more than one-PN) commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” Paul was referring here to the Israelites in Numbers 25. They committed adultery with the daughters of Moab, and just such many met instant death. Was it just the daughters of Moab that died? Hardly, friend. It was the men who were condemned, as well as the women.

I also wonder how many people have recalled the old, trite saying which says, “It takes two to tango?” Have you ever thought it that way? It is just as true as your own mother and father. It takes two to sin. TWO!! Yes. I am remembering homosexuals, but I speak specifically here of man and woman. So often, I hear (and I am sure, not alone) people come out with one-sided remarks such as the following: “Look at that immoral girl; she has a man in her apartment. She does not deserve to breathe. That prostitute! She will surely have hex part in the lake of fire.” Yes, dear reader, she will; but so will all the men that commit the act of premarital sex with her. They are not immune to the punishment of the Lord either.

What am I “driving at?” I am not excusing the girl from the act of sexual intercourse outside of the bed of marriage, but I am not excusing the man either. The same expecially goes for God. He will punish both! The next time we take the prejudiced, snobbish idea that a woman is immoral when she engages in adultery, just remember that it takes the man to make the filthy act complete, and that he stands just as guilty and just as condemned in the eyes of God (Rom. 3:10,23). “It takes two to tango” is the old saying, and certainly applies to the act of pre-marital sex. Let us take care lest we become chauvinistic of immoral women, with reference to sexual intercourse outside marriage. Let us keep the record straight!

Truth Magazine XXI: 14, pp. 221-222
April 7, 1977