Truth Magazine

By H. L. Bruce

Bondage is mentioned in many ways in the Bible. The Christian is Christ’s servant. The union of marriage constitutes a bond. A servant of sin is described as a slave to sin, etc.

The word as used in 1 Cor. 7:15, merits considerable study and inquiry. What is the bondage under consideration? Bro. R.L. Whiteside thought that the marriage bond was the indication. Consequently, he reasoned, the person under consideration who was not under bondage when the unbelieving companion left him because of his faith, was as free as if he had never been married. As a result, the party thus abandoned was at liberty to remarry (see The Gospel Advocate, Nov. 11, 1937).

In 1947, in the Houston Lectures, bro. Roy Lanier, Sr. concluded that the bondage was a personal one in which the unbelieving would subject the believer. He said, “If the unbeliever makes such unreasonable demands, let him depart rather than be in such bondage to him; such bondage we owe only to the Lord” (Houston Lectures, page 37).

Yet another view was expressed by brother Harvey Floyd. Bro. Floyd’s view is that the Christian, when placed in the dilemma of either renouncing Christ to satisfy his companion or loosing her, that he has two alternatives. If he renounces Christ, he is in bondage to sin. If he remains faithful to Christ, at the expense of losing his companion, he is free from said sin. Consequently, he is not under bondage to sin on the one hand, on the other, he would be! Therefore, the Christian’s obvious alternatives would be either to be in bondage in sin or, to be in no bondage to sin in the service to Christ (see Spiritual Sword, Vol. 6, no. 2).

Still another view was expressed by bro. Maurice Barnett in the following, “The point Paul makes is verse 15 then is that if the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the believer, because of their faith, then the believer is not obligated from God to fulfil their responsibilities toward their spouse. The subject is one of whether they are to serve the other, not of whether they are `bound’ or not. They are released from marital RESPONSIBILITIES” in such cases.” (The Pear Ridge Bulletin, Vol. 1, no. 22, May 29, 1963).

I believe that all admit that the word “bondage” is the key word to an accurate understanding of the text. If the bondage is marital bondage then the marriage bond is loosed. If, however, it is some other bond, it is quite dangerous to apply it to the marriage bond, and even more so to say that one is authorized to contract another marriage. As a matter of fact even if the marriage bond is thus spoken of as broken, where is the passage which authorizes the person thus released to precipitate another union during the lifetime of the previous mate.

The word “bondage” as here used is a very interesting word. It .comes from the word “douloo” which Thayer defines to “make a slave of-reduce to bondage-to subject to.” (page 158). Please note how it is used in some other texts: “. . . they should bring them into bondage. . .” (Acts 7:6); “. . . ye became the servants of righteousness . .” (Rom. 6:18); “. . . and became servants of God, ye have . . .” (Rom. 6:22); “. . . I brought myself under bondage to all . . .” (1 Cor. 9:19); . . . were held in bondage under the rudiments . . . (Gal. 4:3); “. . . not enslaved to much wine . . . .” (Tit. 2:3); “. . . of the same is he brought into bondage . . . ” (2 Pet. 2:19).

The word “bondage” in verse 15, is not of the same design and strength as the word “bound” in verse 39. Here the apostle says, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” In this text the word “deo” is the word for “bound”. It means to “bind or tie together . . .” “to bind-to fasten with chains” (See Thayer, p. 131). It is used in this connection in: “. . . except he first bind the strong man. . .” (Matt. 12:29); “. . . bind them in bundles to burn . . ” (Matt. 13:30); “. . . Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19); “. . . the Jews took Jesus and bound him. . .” (Jno. 18:12); . . . which hath an husband is bound by. . .” (Rom. 7:2). “. . . . Art thou bound unto a wife? . . .” (1 Cor. 7:27). (see The Pear Ridge Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 22).

Many other passages of scripture could be brought forth to help in further indication of the obvious contrast. But these are sufficient. The word “bound” in verse 39 is speaking of a “tie”. The word “bondage” in verse 15 indicates’ servitude. The person escapes the servitude unto which he would be subjected if he would cling to an unbelieving companion to the forfeiture of his faith. Yet to say that one is free to contract another marriage is to extend privileges not contained in the text. The person is free in Christ. He is free from the servitude of sin in his decision to serve Christ. He is free from servitude that would otherwise be involved in relinquishing his faith in pursuit of an unbelieving companion. However to state that he is completely released from his marriage and at liberty to take another mate is to take a position not merited in 1 Cor. 7:15. (Next week: Aliens, Adultery, and Alternatives.)

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 6
January 22, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Last week we tried to focus the problem for the discussion of the following weeks. We want to study the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. This is one of the misunderstood subjects in religious matters today. Last week, however we pointed out that this is not a problem peculiar to modern times, but that many of the epistles in the New Testament were written to correct misimpressions concerning the Law of Moses. It is our prayer that our lessons may correct some misunderstandings, and clarify some hazy points in the minds of those who study with us.

It is very apparent, from our lesson title; what shall be the nature of our lesson. I believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that men; in this dispensation, are not living under the Law of Moses, but rather, we are living under the Law of Christ. According to Scriptural usage of the terms faith or belief, one cannot believe a proposition unless there be evidence for belief. A conviction not supported by evidence is but an opinion. Mine is a belief, for the Scripture abounds in evidence showing that we are not under the Law of Moses today. The Scriptures also command that one be ready to give an answer concerning the reason of the hope and the faith in him. This we shall try to do in this lesson.

Is the Old Testament Inspired?

There are many people who believe, and many who teach, that all an individual has to do in order to go to Heaven is to keep the Ten Commandment Law. Yet those individuals could not produce Scriptures to prove such a belief to save their lives. The Law of Moses was done away, as we shall study presently.

However, there is one point upon which clarification needs to be made before we begin studying these various passages showing that the Ten Commandment Law is not yet binding. There are some people who think that if one teaches that the Law of Moses was done away after it was in effect for a given period of time, and that it served its purpose and was done away, that this one is saying that the Old Testament was uninspired. There were some people who felt exactly this way in New Testament times. When Paul- wrote to the Galatian brethren, in Chapter 3, and told them that salvation was by the promise culminating in Christ, and not by the Law of Moses; they asked, “What then serveth the law?”

Friends, I believe the Old Testament is inspired just as strongly as any of these advocates of the theory that we are yet living under the Ten Commandment Law. In fact, I am quite confident that I hold a much stronger view of inspiration than do most of modern denominationalists. Denominationalism has become greatly affected by the studies of higher criticism, which in nothing but Modernism. In fact, the Old Testament Scriptures themselves teach that the Old Testament Law was temporary. Further, the New Testament teaches us that the Old Testament Law was done away. The individual who teaches that the Ten Commandment Law is still binding must therefore disregard the teaching of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus said, “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (Jno. 5:46,47). Jesus said that the man who does not believe the Old Testament will not believe the New. It is showing a lack of faith in the Old Testament to argue contrary to its teaching. It teaches that the Law of Moses was to be done away. So those who argue that we are yet under the Old Testament are the ones who do not believe the Old Testament. They also must be unconscious of New Testament teaching, some of which we shall have occasion to study later.

Are We Under Any Law?

One other clarification needs to be made before we proceed further. Simply because one does not believe that the Old Testament Law, the Ten Commandment Law, is still binding; does not mean that one can violate the laws against killing, lying, stealing, adultery, which are stated in the Law. Almost every commandment in the Ten Commandment Law, is restated, in substance, in the New Testament. Jesus not only forbade killing, but he made a stricter law. He said, “Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, thou shalt not kill: and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matt. 5:21,22). This is the law that I believe. to be binding upon us today. It is even stricter than the Old Covenant.

Let us notice one other instance in which the basic content of the Ten Commandment Law is restated in the New Testament. Each time it is enlarged. Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27, 28). The Law said one had to commit the actual, overt act to be guilty. But not so with the Law of Christ. One is not to kill, or hate his brother today, not because it was a part of the Ten Commandment Law, but because it is a part of the Law of Christ. One is not to commit adultery or to look on a woman to lust after her, not because Moses’ Law forbade and condemned adultery, but because Christ’s Law prohibits it. Every commandment of the Ten Commandments, save one, is restated in substance in the New Testament. We are to follow the Law of Christ, rather than the Law of Moses.

The Passing of the Old Covenant

Let us notice now, an instance in which the Old Testament plainly declared that there would come a time when it would be done away. This quotation that declares the Law is to be done away is found in Jer. 31:31-34, and Paul quotes it in Hebrews 8:7-13: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt. For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, From the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more.” To this quotation, Paul added, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.”

Paul therefore used these statements from Jeremiah’s prophecy to show that the Old Covenant was done away. Therefore those who maintain that the Old Testament Law is still binding upon men today deny the teaching of the Old Testament itself. Paul said the first Law was faulty; therefore a second was given.

There are many other passages in the New Testament that declare that this Old Covenant was abrogated. In the book of Ephesians, Paul said that the Law was a barrier, a wall, between the Jews and the Gentiles. Remember that the Law of Moses was given only to Jews, and that it excluded the Gentiles. Therefore the Law separated these two classes of people. But Paul taught that no longer did this barrier exist. Now both Jews and Gentiles had a right to the promises of God. “Wherefore remember, that once ye the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Eph. 2:11-17).” He spoke of the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, which of course, means the Jews and the Gentiles. He said that there previously was a barrier between the two, so that the Gentiles had no hope and were without God in the world. But now this barrier has been taken away. What is the barrier or what was the barrier between Jew and Gentile? Friends, I do not have to guess as to what the barrier that Paul said was taken out of the way is. According to Paul, the barrier is the Law of Moses; It is the “law of commandments.” What happened to the “law of commandments?” It was done away.

“For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh, for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph. 2:14-18).

Paul so clearly taught in the Ephesian passage that the Old Testament was done away in Christ, that one will need help from some modern denominational teacher of error to misunderstand his message. This Law was done away in order that all men might be reconciled unto God in one body, the church. Paul emphasized that these racial barriers were broken down in Jesus Christ, when he said, “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female, for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Jesus indicated that there was a change of law by His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, as we have already observed. John, as he recorded events in the life of Christ, commented, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jno. 1:17).

Conclusion

So one who does not believe that the Old Testament Law was temporary, and is therefore abrogated, must reject the teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. Yet we studied last week how the danger of intermixing Judaism with Christianity is as much a problem today as it was in New Testament times. It is our humble prayer that by our studies we can help correct some of the misimpressions of men, and clarify and exalt God’s teaching concerning the relationship existing between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ.

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 3-5
January 22, 1976

By Clifford L. Sheffield

David declared in the 23 Psalm, “He leadeth me beside the still waters, He leadeth me in the path of righteousness for his name’s sake.” David cried in Psalm 61, “Hear my cry, O God, attend unto my prayer, lead me to the rock that is higher then I.” Again, I hear David as I read Psalm 5:8, when he said, “Lead me, O Lord in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face.”

I hear John in John 10:1-4, “Verily, verily I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber but he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.,He goeth before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know his voice.”

Can’t you hear Jesus in Matthew 23, when you read, “But, woe unto you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites: for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men for ye neither go in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Verses 15 says, “For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte and when he is made ye make him twofold more the child of hell then yourselves.”

We love to talk about denominations and we can really ‘beat them over the head and we will turn right around and do a bit worse than they because we claim to know better, but example proves us just as foolish. For instance, a week or so ago I accompanied two of the brethren to a Gospel meeting and heard a marvelous sermon. The preacher really told the Baptist and every one else about part-taking of the Lord’s Supper once -a month,, semi-annually or annually and there was no way anyone could have failed to understand that the Lord’s Supper should be taken upon the first day of the week. He encouraged them to throw away their manuals and creed books and to return to the Bible. Then, he completed his message by saying “Now Friday is payday and I want all of you to bring in your collection before you spend it. We will be taking up a collection Friday night.” Now, the same Bible that told the Baptist to take the Lord’s Supper upon the first day of the week says to lay by in store and give upon the first day of the week, not on Friday night.

My mind was soon turned to Isaiah 3:12: “O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Jesus said in John 16:10, “If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my father’s commandments and abide in his love.” His love is conditional and based on that “If.”

My question is based on Matthew 15:3, “why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition.” Be aware that verses 8 teaches, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me but in vain they do worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.”

Brethren let us be the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart not with eye service, as men pleasers (Eph. 6:6). The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance (Rom. 2:4).

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 2
January 22, 1976

Kept By the Power of God:

A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away

by I. Howard Marshall

One of the recent publications which has been raising a furor in evangelical circles is this book by I. Howard Marshall. In the “Forward,” Clark H. Pinnock said,

“The form of the book is simple and straightforward. The author does exactly what is needed to be done. He conducts a historical-grammatical investigation of all the Scriptural materials which treat the subject of apostasy and falling away, and produces ample evidence to support his thesis that the security of the believer is conditioned upon his faithfulness to Jesus Christ. It is simply not possible to maintain that the warnings in the Bible against turning away from the truth describe an imaginary or hypothetical danger. They are addressed to us all, and we all must heed them. Dr. Marshall’s case rests on solid exegetical foundations, and is not to be set aside on dogmatic or a priori grounds. It is very common in this area of doctrine to hear people arguing from election or predestination, or Irresistible grace so as to reach the opposite conclusion. But this will not do. To the word and to the testimony. Unless Dr. Marshall can be refuted exegetically, he cannot be refuted at all. The evidence of Scripture cannot be cancelled by the systems of men” (p. 9).

Pinnock has well analyzed Marshall’s book in this foreword. Marshall’s book systematically examines all of the passages in the New Testament pertinent to the possibility of apostasy and to the security of the believer. In his examination of these passages, Marshall demanded that presuppositions from Calvinism cannot be allowed to influence the verdict of the scriptures themselves. He charged that Calvinists generally prove [he doctrine of perseverance from election or irresistible grace and not from the scriptures themselves. Thus, he called for a reexamination of the scriptures. Beginning with Old Testament and Jewish backgrounds, Marshall proceeded to examine the pertinent passages in the Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, epistles of Paul, Hebrews, catholic epistles and Johannine literature to see what the scriptures themselves say about the possibility of apostasy.

In his conclusion, Marshall said,

“In our study we have found repeatedly that the way to persevere Is simply-by persevering. The believer is not told that he is one of the elect and therefore cannot fall away, nor Is there any particular character of his faith which indicates that he is the kind of person who cannot fall away. He is simply told to continue in obedience and faith and to trust in the God who will keep him from falling. He perseveres by persevering. Perseverance is not some particular quality of faith or something to be added to faith, but the fact that faith continues” (p. 208).

Thus, Marshall has denied the Calvinistic doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. Calvinists, consequently, are not very impressed with Marshall’s book. James M. Boice, “pastor” of the Tenth’ Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, reviewing the book for Eternity magazine, said,

“The express purpose of this expanded doctoral thesis by a lecturer in New Testament exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, is to go beyond the Calvinist-Arminian stalemate on matters of backsliding, perseverance, apostasy, free will, and irresistible grace. But this is just what it does not do. It certainly does not go beyond Calvinism. It merely abandons it” (October, 1975, p. 52).

Marshall’s book is well worth the price that it costs. However, I felt that the author used too much space in considering the options suggested by modernism in his book. I cannot see that those who do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God have much concern about what the Bible says on any subject so far as their faith is concerned. Their faith does not rest on the scriptures. Notwithstanding this minor criticism, the book is well worth your purchase price. That other students of the New Testament reach the same conclusion regarding the possibility of apostasy as we do is encouraging.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 13-14
January 15, 1976