Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Maryland: “In your ‘That’s A Good Question’ column, would you give an exposition of 2 Tim. 2:25, Gal. 6:1, Col. 4:6 in relation to rebuking sin? When one is accused of being ‘harsh’ and ‘too strong’ these passages readily come to mind. How do they fit in with 2 Tim. 4:2, Tilus 1:13; 2:15?”

REPLY:

The passages in question are:

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:25). “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

“Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6).

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15).

A part of our querist’s difficulty is that he imagines reproof and rebuke are out of harmony with meekness. Meekness is not weakness. Christ was meek and gentle (2 Cor. 10:1), and his reproof and rebuke was performed sharply (Matt. 23). This is not a contradiction. Nine verses before Paul said to instruct “in meekness,” he scathingly denounced Hymanaeus and Philetus as purveyors of “profane and vain babblings” (Cf. 2 Tim. 2:16-18; and 2:24,25). In the Colossian letter there is subtle sarcasm directed at a form of Judeo-Gnosticism (Col. 1:28; 2:2, 3); yet, in this letter Paul says speech should be with grace “seasoned with salt.” Some foods require more or less salt than others. Salt has different reactions on different foods. Salt makes bland foods sharp and softens pungent tastes.

Jude says, “And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Vss. 22, 23). Pulling one out of the fire requires quick and decisive action that may upset the one that is being snatched, but it is the spirit of compassion that impels one to pull another out. Why snatch something from the fire you care nothing about? Similarly, Paul says, “that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” This indirectly implies that not every man is to be answered in the same way. Some require a different approach than others. The hearer’s attitude and posture should determine the measure of our words. Jesus is a classic example of this. To some he was short and curt; to others he was more patient and deliberate. A child requires discipline of varying measures. This is determined by the seriousness of the offence and the child’s attitude. Our discipline of our children does not show lack of love if the situation demands strong punishment.

Though I am not giving an exposition of each particular text in question, one suggested by our querist has the difficulty within it. Look again at 2 Tim. 4:2–“reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” Some would say that it is not possible to reprove and rebuke with longsuffering. The idea is to continue in reproof, rebuke, and exhortation and to do so with patience, longsuffering. Paul would not urge us to do the impossible.

Our attitude is to be one of meekness. “The spirit of meekness” is the attitude of meekness. “It is the quality of the man whose anger is so mastered and so controlled that be is always angry at the right time and never at the wrong time. It describes the man who is never angry at any personal wrong or insult or injury he may receive, but who is capable of righteous anger when he sees others hurt and injured” (Barclay).

To be “soft” when sharpness is needed is as big a sin as being harsh when gentleness is needed. I am not an infallible judge of temperance in word and speech. Let every man speak the truth with a pure heart. Be motivated by love for God, for truth, and for all men. The nature of your speech should then take care of itself.

Truth Magazine XX: 28, p. 434
July 15, 1976

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: In 1863, Moses E. Lard, one of the “second generation” Restoration Leaders wrote a tribute at the death of Allen Wright, another preacher of that era. Lard said “the Churches always managed to keep Brother Wright poor, very poor.” From this point Lard gave a “sermon” to the readers of his Quarterly. Speaking of the brotherhood he said,

” . . . (they) tell me they do not believe in making preachers rich. Neither do I. But, brethren, I do believe in making them comfortable, in supporting them this side of want, and in affording these faithful men the means of schooling their children well. Is this right? But why, pray, do you not believe in making preachers rich? Do you think it would hurt them? You cannot say it would; for you have never made one rich, to know. Suppose before you longer preach your doctrine with so much confidence in its truth, you test it by making at least one preacher rich. Hitherto you have kept them all poor; let us now have at least one exception to your rule. You are satisfied that it works well both ways. Preachers are not at all satisfied that you are right in what you say, neither will they be until, by making at least one of them rich you convince them that you are so. Do you think it would hurt you to be rich, or hurt your children to educate them well, and thereby enable (hem to move in genteel circles? Of course you do not. How then can you imagine that it would your preacher, or injure his children to make him rich? You tell me it would cause him to neglect his calling. But how do you know this? You have never made one rich, to have the point tested. Would making you rich cause you to neglect your calling? Why then should you think it would cause the preacher to neglect his? The closer you stick to your calling the richer you grow. Think you not, if the preacher, too, could grow daily richer by sticking to his calling, that he would not stick to it close indeed. But the difference is, that the closer you stick to your calling the richer you grow, while the closer he sticks to his the poorer he grows. Is there not something wrong. But tell me truly, faithful brother, do you preach this doctrine really believing it. Is it really so that you do not believe in making preachers rich, and that, too, because it would hurt them and cause them to neglect their calling? Or is not this a mere plea to shield your own purse? Beware” (Lard’s Quarterly, September. 1963, Volume One, pp. 37, 38).

Truth Magazine XX: 27, p. 13
July 8, 1976

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

There is in existence today a sacred institution purchased at the cost of the blood of Christ. That institution is the church. We dare not treat it lightly nor cast contempt upon it. The church has existed for nineteen hundred years and has grown remarkably in the past decade or so. If it continues to grow it will do so because of our loyalty to the Work. We cannot compromise what the Bible teaches abo ut the church. We must demonstrate the distinctiveness of the true church in contrast to denominational bodies. We must hold the church forth to a desperate world, a world desperate for salvation from sin. Without arrogance we proclaim it as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Our up-coming generation wants us to tell it “like it is.” They are tired of hypocrisy. In the several articles that follow, this writer, on the basis of the authority of the Bible, will be presenting the nature, the work and mission of the New Testament church. Our aim is to present the unvarnished truth of God as it relates to that Divine institution. Whether people receive it or reject it, we will still govern our actions according to truth. This writer is not a man pleaser. I am a servant of Christ, charged with the responsibility of preaching the Word (2 Tim. 4:1-2). God being our helper we will “tell it like it is” so you can know the truth relating to the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Church” Means “Called Out”

One cannot correctly understand the nature of the church without knowing how the term is used. However, in this writing we are more concerned with what the church is, i.e., the true idea behind the word rather than the usage of the word. If the word “church” is allowed to mean what it does mean, then many erroneous ideas of the term can be eliminated. While it does not fall within the scope of this writing to deal with the unscriptural ideas some have about the church and what it is, we do call attention to the word from which “church” comes, i.e., the Greek word ekklisia.

The word “church” is translated from ekklesia. This word is derived from kaleo, meaning “to call” and the prefix ek, meaning “out of”. Therefore, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says that the term means “the called out.” Thayer further says that the word means “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly” (pp. 195-196). It is used in both a secular and religious sense. In a secular sense it referred to an assembly of citizens called together by a herald for the purpose of performing legal acts. It is used in this way in Acts 19:30, 39-41. This word is applied to religion by inspiration. God’s ekklesia is the church. It is an assembly of citizens who are called by the Gospel for the purpose of glorifying God (Heb. 12:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Thess. 2:14; Eph. 3:21). Hence, the church is the called out assembly of God. It has reference to God’s gathering, to His body politic, whether actually assembled or not. The Corinthian church was composed of people “called to be saints” (1 Cor. 1:2,9). Peter describes God’s people as “called out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). These “called out” ones may be actually assembled as in 1 Cor. 11:18, or simply refer to those living in a certain area (1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11).

The Church Local and Universal

The church has both a local and a universal connotation. Let us look at the universal aspect first. In this sense the church is composed of all the redeemed the world over (Acts 2:41-47; Eph. 5:23). This is a saved relationship between Deity and the individual who is saved. The writer of Hebrews refers to this as “the general assembly and the church of the firstborn . . .” (12:23). To this relationship the Lord adds the saved (Acts 2:47). The church is composed of baptized believers (1 Cor 12:13; Acts 2:41,47). The church in the universal sense has no organization on earth. Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23). There is no earthly head. Rather than function universally the members of the body function as individuals through the local church. They do this on a collective basis. While the church is organic in character, it is wholly spiritual (Heb. 12:22). There is absolutely no legislative body or governing council with earthly headquarters in connection with the church universal. The only functioning arrangement for members of the church is the local church. We should keep in mind however that the church is not a body of local churches. It is a body of baptized individuals.

The scripturally authorized government of the church is the local church with its elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23). Regardless of its size the local collective is the largest and smallest unit of function. As an entity it has specific function, i.e., it has a mission or a work to perform. This is what makes the local church functional in nature. It therefore has organic entity. It is not just an organization, it has organization. The plural use of the church in the local sense in the New Testament demonstrates the local church’s reality and distinctiveness. “The churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16), or “churches of Judaea” (Gal. 1:22) demonstrate this point. The local church therefore has identity with reference to location (Gal. 1:2), membership (3 Jn. 9-10), and as to function (Phil. 1:1; 4:15-16). There is congregational or collective activity involved. The local church is therefore a relationship of saints who have a common faith, a common salvation and a common relationship with God. They band together in collectives for the purpose of performing tasks assigned to the church.

Understanding what the Bible teaches about the “church of the living God” is essential to our faithfulness to God. Our life in the church will be determined by our concept of it. A true concept is possible only if it coincides with God’s teaching in Divine revelation.

In this article and the ones to follow we desire to present fundamental facts relating to the church. These are presented for our study and thought. We hope to clearly present these facts so that they cannot be contested. Your alternatives are clear: either accept them or reject them. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Truth Magazine XX: 27, pp. 428-439
July 8, 1976

By Mike Willis

In the January issue of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett again attempted to prove that a divorce which occurs for an unscriptural reason does not prohibit remarriage in the sight of God. The first part of this January article was filled with testimony from members of the Lord’s church who were divorced for reasons other than fornication and remarried who had been “persecuted” by congregations which believed such relationships were adulterous. Inasmuch as the testimony of humans does not constitute Bible authority, I am not going to respond to this section of Garrett’s article. The fact that some have suffered the consequences of their sins does not alter the fact that what they did was sinful. I experienced the same types of tuggings of my heart when I read these testimonies as when I read Must The Young Die Too? Just as the murder is right, neither does pathetic stories prove that adultery is right. (Must the Young Die Too? does not try to prove that murder is not sinful.) Both are heart rending but neither can alter the Lord’s law.

One thing seems to have been accomplished in my first article: I did prove that the phrase “living in adultery” is scriptural (cf. Truth Magazine, XIX:53, November 20, 1975, pp. 11-14). Regarding the concept of “living in adultery,” Garrett asserted in his June issue,

“Needless to say that we do not read of living in adultery in the Bible, and, if one stops to think about it, it is one of those expressions that is sheer nonsense” (p. 102).

However, in my reply, I cited Col. 3:5-7 as proof that one can “live” in adultery to proof that the concept is a biblical one. As a rejoinder, Garrett wrote,

“One might point to Col. 36-7 where Paul lists several sins, such as immorality and covetousness, and then sayst ‘In these you once walked, when you lived in them,’ and come up with the idea of living in adultery. This would be alright, for this refers to practicing these particular sins. But our people do not use ‘living In adultery’ In this sense, for they apply It to people they believe to he ‘unscripturally married'” (p. 204).

At least we have gotten Garrett to admit that “living in adultery” is scriptural terminology. Now, I need to get him to see that the application of the term can include those who are having sexual relations with someone other than their scriptural mate. Brother Garrett, we are charging that every time a person participates in sexual intercourse with any partner other than his scriptural mate, he is practicing adultery. If the relationship is continuous, he can scripturally be described as “living in adultery.”

In the latter part of his article, the editor of Restoration Review listed four points which he thought proved his contention that a person who has divorced and remarried without the sin of sexual unfaithfulness being the cause of the divorce has the right to live with the second companion. Since these four points are the heart of his article, my reply shall center on them. Here is Garrett’s first point:

“1. All people who are legally married are indeed married and therefore cannot he guilty of adultery in their relation with each other.”

In this argument, Garrett argued that adultery is “sexual intercourse outside marriage” and, since, these people are married to each other they cannot possibly be guilty of “adultery.” The problem with this is in the statement “all people who are legally married are indeed married.” That simply is not true! As proof, consider the following evidences:

1. Rom. 7:2-“So then if, while her husband liveth, she he married to another man, she shall he called an adulteress

2. Mt. 5:32-“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

3. Mt. 19:9-“And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her which Is put away doth commit adultery.”

You can read similar statements in Mk. 10:12 and Lk. 16:18. Each of these passages reveal that adultery was committed in the act of sexual intercourse with one to whom the party was married. Garrett’s first point is obviously in conflict with the revealed word of God.

Garrett’s second main point was this:

“2. Adultery is a God-designated sin, but ‘Living in Adultery’ is a man-designated sin, and therefore is no sin.”

Previously, I have proven that “living in adultery” is scriptural terminology to describe persistence in the sin of adultery (cf. Col. 3:5-7). Garrett even admitted this. Jesus Himself is the One who labeled marriages of the nature previously described as “adultery.” I think, therefore, that I am on safe ground in using the terminology which He employed. Lk. 16:18; Mk. 10:12; and Mt. 5:32; 19:9 all reveal that any person who remarries following a divorce which occurred for some reason other than fornication is guilty of adultery. Since God inspired the Bible, I think I am safe in labeling those involved in these marriages as guilty of “adultery.” This is a God-designated sin!

The third point of Garret’s article is as follows:

“3. Sins committed in divorce and remarriage are not as reparable as are many other sins.”

Garrett was trying to offset the arguments used against him regarding the necessity of repentance; he said,

“You bear it said that if a man steals a horse and then repents, he ought to return the horse; if he steals another man’s wife and then repents, he ought to give the wife back. In short, one ought to quit sinning when he repents, whatever it is. But it is not so simple as that. A horse is mere property, a thing, something easily negotiable. When a man ‘steals’ another inan’s wife it is far more than possessing another’s property. He sleeps with her, and Paul says when this happens he becomes one body with her (1 Cor. 6:16). An old relationship has been broken and a new one begun. If the man lives with her without legally marrying her, her husband might take her back and forgive her, like Hosea did. If he marries her, it becomes more complex, certainly after many years when there are children and even grandchildren. To pull that old bromide on such people, ‘If one steals a horse, etc.,’ is to he asinine and ridiculous. Returning property or money is one thing, but to demand measures that wreck still another marriage and still another family is something else” (pp. 204-205).

No one has ever said that one sin is as easy to correct as any other sin. When one commits murder, he can never restore the life which is lost. Although he repents and seeks forgiveness, he might still be put to death for his sin. Similarly, the marriage broken for unscriptural reasons might be unable to be reconciled. To such situations, Paul said, “And unto the married I command, yet Dot I, but the Lord, Let Dot the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11). In the event that reconciliation is impossible, Paul commanded the Christian to live a single life. Garrett does not believe the plain statements of scripture when they contradict his own ideas!

In this section, Garrett also said, “The person whose life is strewn with a string of broken marriages can come to Jesus like any other sinner. Jesus will take him as he is, forgive his past, and sanctify his present marriage, teaching him that repentance means that he will quit his sin of divorce and remain married this time” (p. 205). Brother Garrett, where can I read in my Bible where Jesus ever said that He would “sanctify” air adulterous relationship? I think that is a man-designated idea and not God-designated! By the way, would it make any difference on which side of baptism the life was “strewn with a string of broken marriages” for God to accept the sinner? Does God have one marriage code for unbelievers and a different one for believers’! Or, will God accept and “sanctify” the present marriage of the penitent Christian?

In his final point, Garrett wrote,

“4. Divorce is not an unpardonable sin.”

No one has said that it was, Brother Garrett! We have simply said that one must cease committing the act of adultery before God will forgive him. Please do not misrepresent us.

Conclusion

Again, we have noticed how Brother Garrett has distorted the scriptures to teach what God has riot revealed. Let me remind you of what James wrote. He said, “For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not commit murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (Jas. 2:11). The point being made by James is that the same God gave all of the commandments; if a person rebels against any one commandment, he has rebelled against the very same authority which gave any and all of them. Thus, the man who under one given set of circumstances will rebel against one commandment will, under similar conditions, rebel against any other commandment revealed by God. Leroy Garrett has rebelled against the revelation of God on a number of points such as marriage, divorce, and remarriage, instrumental music, institutionalism, etc. Not only has he personally refused to accept God’s revelation on these subjects, he has also made fun of those of us who do accept God’s revelation. Such a person is a transgressor of God’s law and unworthy of being considered a teacher of the law.

Truth Magazine XX: 27, pp. 426-428
July 8, 1976