Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

So inquired a headline in the Houston Chronicle (November 14, 1996, p. 18A). “Sam Nunn and William Bennett . . . teamed up . . . to launch a commission to study what they say are social pathologies that imperil society.

“Nunn, a … Democrat, and Bennett, a leading Republican voice on moral issues said they are alarmed by signs of a nation succumbing to drug abuse, crime, pornography, and family breakups, among other problems.”

.. America is the most powerful and affluent and enviable nation in the world,’ Bennett said. . . . `It is also true that America leads the world in rates of murder, violent crime, juvenile crime, divorce, abortion, children born out of wedlock and consumption of cocaine and other drugs. Something is wrong.’

Bennett and Nunn want a panel to find out “why so many social institutions  schools, churches, families  have seemingly fallen into disrepair.” Sadly, “They said they saw no obvious remedies” for the problems that imperil our nation.

Yes, “Something Is Wrong”

Surface problems have been identified. The signs and symptoms of the diseases that are eroding our society have been labeled. Too often, “panels” and “commissions” attack the surface, the signs, the symptoms. They do not reach the core, the base, the heart of the malady that is destroying America.

The central malignancy that ails us is that of the heart. “Out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). An itinerant carpenter and preacher once said that “those things which proceed out of mouth come forth from the heart: and they defile the man. For out of the heart,” he said, “proceed” all the infirmities that corrupt individuals, undermine society, and threaten the nation (Matt. 15:18, 19). It is only after the heart is taught and trained that any disease can be treated and defeated.

As the heart is the root of man, so the hearth and home are the soul of society. For too long, the twin towers of heart and home have been indwelt by soulless spirits of unbridled lust and undisciplined “freedom.”

As the heart is the root of man, so the hearth and home are the soul of society. For too long, the twin towers of heart and home have been indwelt by soulless spirits of unbridled lust and undisciplined “freedom.” Indeed, “freedom” has been the cloak under which lust has satisfied and gratified its sensual self. But, as it was true three thousand years ago, so it is true today, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Fed, fat flesh, and starved, emaciated spirits encourage lust and endanger liberty.

Romans 1:21-32 and 2 Timothy 3:1-8 chronicle the elements besieging and besetting our nation. Nunn, Bennett, and their panel would do well to seek the wisdom that dealt with that wickedness. God is the doctor. His word is the remedy. Until men and nations turn to it, “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

It is sheer folly to decry the evils jeopardizing society on the one hand while government legalizes, funds, and promotes them with the other. In part, our society and government condones and encourages abortion, condoms avail-able at school, easy divorce, protection of the “rights” of pornographers to publish and peddle their product, restraints against the use of discipline, no condemnation of one’s sexual behavior, whether promiscuous fornication or perverted homosexuality, in the name of “privacy.” Yet, unless I am totally mistaken, these things are at the center of `the social pathologies (and behaviors) that imperil society” Nunn, Bennett, and their commission need to address this in-consistent feeding of the very things they say are destroying us.

As long as commissions and panels ignore the wisdom of God, and as long as they endorse government policies supporting that which they admit is imperiling society, I, like Nunn and Bennett, see “no obvious remedies” in sight.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 7
February 6, 1997

By Harry R. Osborne

A few days ago, I listened to a man on television who was publicly criticizing people who publicly criticize others. Does something about that strike you as a little inconsistent? It reminded me of listening to the terrorists a few years ago who justified the killing of innocent people in another country to protest the killing of innocent people in their country. I never could figure out the basis of that reasoning. Simply stated, the problem is that some people live by one rule, but judge others by a more stringent rule than that imposed upon themselves. The Bible speaks of such a practice and clearly condemns it. Notice this warning given by the apostle Paul in Romans 2:1-3:

Therefore you are inexcusable, 0 man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, 0 man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

In this context, the hypocrisy of the Jews is being examined by Paul. The Jews would have shouted “Amen” to the charges of sin Paul laid at the Gentiles’ feet in the first chapter. However, while they looked down their noses in disgust at the sinfulness of the Gentile world, the Jews were guilty of many of the same sins.

The Jews saw themselves as justified in their superior feelings because the law of Moses had been given to them. Even though they did not obey that law, they were proud of the fact that God had given it to them. Thus, Paul reminds them that hearing the law does not make one justified in the sight of God, but rather doing the law. The apostle sums up the state of such a people in this way:

Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law. You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? For “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written. For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision (Rom. 1:17-25).

Clearly, God condemned the Jews’ practice of judging the Gentiles by the standard of the law while refusing to live by that standard themselves. Such hypocrisy has al-ways caused the name of God to be blasphemed by those whose only view of the truth is through the lives of those professing to believe in God.

Jesus On Judging

It is the height of absurdity for us to condemn the wrong done by another when we are doing the same thing. Pointing our finger at another’s wrong will not excuse us from God’s judgment of our own wrong actions. Jesus had much the same thing to say about this in Matthew 7:3-5 when he said these words:

And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck out of your eye”; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.

The picture Jesus brings to our mind with this teaching is one in which each of us can readily see the absurdity. None of us wants a doctor with a 2. x 4 coming out of his eye to try removing a speck from our own eye. We would tell him to get his own eye problem fixed first. In the same way, if we are going to show the wrong in another’s actions, we must first correct our own.

This is the point Jesus makes in the previous two verses as well when he says, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matt. 7:1-2). Jesus is not saying that we should absolutely not judge by showing others about their wrongs. He is saying that we must avoid hypocritical judgment of others by condemning them while we are just as guilty, if not more so. In the same chapter, Jesus commands us to judge some to be false prophets by examining their lives (vv. 15-20). Such would not be possible if all judging is wrong.

Applying The Principle

It does the cause of Christ no small amount of harm when people with foul mouths and ungodly conduct take it upon themselves to instruct their fellow citizens about morality. The point may be true, but it is coming from the wrong source. Such actions make it appear that people who stand for Bible values are just a bunch of hypocrites.

The cause of Christ has suffered from a number of preachers who have taught the truth about various subjects, but failed to live them from day to day. Some have spoken in livid opposition to fornication and adultery only to practice such in their own lives. Some have proclaimed the truth regarding the need for personal honesty and integrity only to leave town with a load of unpaid debts to local merchants who came to view the church as a gathering of thieves. Such men need to correct their own lives before preaching to others.

The church of our Lord has been dealt untold damage by those who defend it as the one true church purchased by the blood of Christ, but manifest a half-hearted service as members of that body. When an outsider sees a member of the church going about his normal routine on Saturday and Monday, but “unable” to go to services on Sunday, they know how much that member really values the church. When a member of the church joins a group like the Masonic Lodge, alien sinners know that member does not really believe in only one way of salvation since Masonry teaches another.

Conclusion

When we contrast the actions of Paul and Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, we see the difference between right and wrong judging. Peter acted through hypocrisy on this occasion and stood condemned. Paul rightly rebuked him for such hypocrisy. Paul could effectively do this because he was not acting with the same hypocrisy as was Peter. Other cases in the New Testament show the same thing. We must oppose evil in the actions of others (1 Cor. 5:1-13). We must oppose the error taught by others and even name the false teacher (2 Tim. 2:16-18). However, we must be careful not to judge them while we are guilty of the same thing. This demands that we be constantly involved in self-examination (2 Cor. 13:5). It demands that each “be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). This we can do if we let our lives be guided and corrected each day by that word of truth.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 14-15
February 6, 1997

By Dan King

He had forsaken the blood of Jesus that had cleansed him of his sins, and had returned to wallow in the mire of the world … He had forsaken the promise and prospect of heaven itself!

Life takes a great many sad turns. There are certainly some very disheartening moments that come our way. No doubt one of the saddest is when we lose a friend, with little hope of ever regaining him. This is the situation when Paul mentions in his second epistle to Timothy (4:10), “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.”

Demas was not just a good friend, he was before a faithful Christian brother and an associate in the minis-try of the gospel. He is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as among those who traveled with Paul in his missionary journeying (Phile. 24; Col. 4:14). No doubt these men had worked closely together, had prayed together, laughed together, and wept together. Now Demas was gone. He had abandoned Paul and left him to his work alone. No doubt the Apostle felt a deep sense of emptiness when he left, the same feeling we all have when we are abandoned by someone about whom we care deeply. Too, he surely felt the inner craving to see him again  the identical yearning that we experience in the absence of friends of years gone by.

Unfortunately, Paul could not run after him. I believe he would have if it had been possible. But Demas had not merely left. He had “forsaken” Paul. And he had, in the course of doing so, not only forsaken Paul, but the Lord also. He had forsaken the church, which needed so desperately then, as it does now, able workers to share their talents in seeking the lost and encouraging the redeemed. He had forsaken the fellowship of saintly men and women. He had forsaken worship activities: his voice was not heard in the songs and hymns of praise, nor was his heart joined in the prayers of the people of God. He had forsaken the blood of Jesus that had cleansed him of his sins, and had returned to wallow in the mire of the world (2 Pet. 2:22). He had forsaken the promise and prospect of heaven itself! (I wonder now, looking back from his present perspective in eternity, if he thinks his grand transaction such a bargain as he did then?)

The Bible also defines the terms of his abandonment of the cause of Christ in the same verse: “having loved this present world. ” My curiosity is whetted at why this godly man chose to forsake Christ for “this present world.” Was he sick and tired of the persecutions leveled against the church and himself as one of its advocates? Undoubtedly he was, but did this cause him to leave? Was he fed up with the hardships of the work of preaching the Word? Was he tired of doing without; and had he made up his mind that he was going to get some of the material possessions that others had, and up till now he had done without? Could it have been the persistently low wages? Was he sick of the double standard that many brethren have for preachers? Was he tired of living in a “glass house” with everyone’s eyes on him? Was he fed up with the criticisms and petty “nitpicking” directed at him and his family by fellow Christians? Was it a woman? Had he met a girl who was for him “forbidden fruit” (the wife of another, or someone divorced with-out proper cause, etc.)?

It is interesting that Scripture does not give us the details or satisfy our curiosity on this matter. We are left wondering. But we would not be surprised to hear it was any of these things or even a combination of them. We have seen it played out so often under different circumstances and with different people as the main characters. Don’t permit yourself to be a Demas. The Lord’s people need you and will miss you if you go.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 6
February 6, 1997

By Donnie V. Rader

A clear and simple understanding of what the Bible says on divorce and remarriage is greatly needed. We are seeing more and more divorces. It is not an uncommon thing for there to be divorces in the family and in the church. We have people wanting to be baptized or place membership who are divorced and remarried. Some questions have to be answered. Is their marriage scriptural? If not, must they separate or can they continue in that relationship? Thus, we need to know what the text says.

Divorce and remarriage is a simple subject that has been made complex. What the Bible says on this subject is just as simple as what it says on baptism. Matthew 19:9 is just as clear and simple as Mark 16:16. Yet, both subjects become complex because of the human emotion and situations that cry out for a favorable answer from the word. In-depth studies on both subjects have become necessary when men pervert the simple text.

In this study we want to focus on Matthew 19:9. It is the first verse that comes to mind when we think about divorce and remarriage. This verse bears the burden of the study. John Murray said that Matthew 19:9 is “the most pivotal passage in the New Testament on divorce.” Martin Luther said, “Matthew 19:9 is a blunt, clear, plain text.”

Matthew 19:9 says:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away cloth commit adultery.

What The Text Says

About Divorce

A. Other texts on divorce state the blanket rule: divorce for any cause is wrong. God has always hated divorce (Mal. 2:16). When Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matt. 19:3), he responded by giving four reasons why the answer is no. (1) God made one man for one woman (v. 5), (2) A man is to cleave to his wife (v. 5), (3) The man and his wife are one flesh (v. 5), (4) God has joined them together (v. 6).

When answering a question sent by the Corinthians Paul stated that those who are married must continue in their marriage. Four times he affirms that they are not to divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-13). The parallel texts to Matthew 19:9 do not give an exception to the rule (Mark 10:11-12; Lukel6:18).

B. Only two texts mention an exception to the blanket rule. Those pas-sages are Matthew 5:32 (“saving for the cause of fornication”) and Matthew19:9 (“except it be for fornication”). The exception is when the divorce is for fornication.

C. Conclusion: there is one, and only one, scriptural cause for divorce  fornication. It is the only one authorized. This is true whether the person intends to remarry or not. Now, that’s simple! Anybody can see that.

What The Text Says

About Remarriage

A. Jesus makes a distinction in one who puts away and one who is put away. Some today tell us that it really doesn’t make any difference. The only difference that I know it makes is that Jesus made a difference. Look at the text: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry an-other, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Notice that Jesus makes a distinction between the one who puts away and the one who is put away. Now, that’s simple!

B. There are two parts to Matthew 19:9. Part A discusses the one who puts away. Part B discusses the one who is put away.

I learn two things from part A of our text. (1) One who puts away his mate (for a cause other than fornication) commits adultery when he remarries. (2) One who puts away his mate (for fornication) does not commit adultery when he remarries. Part B tells us that when the one who is put away remarries he commits adultery. There is no exception phrase found in part B of our text. It doesn’t fit there either textually or grammatically. Thus, this includes the one put away for fornication as well as the one put away for a cause other than fornication.

C. Conclusion: The only one who has a right to remarry is the one who puts away his mate for fornication. To know whether a particular person in a divorce has a right to remarry, simply find where he fits in the text. If the person in question put away his mate, he fits part A of the text. Now did he put her away for fornication? If so, he has a right to remarry. If not, he does not have that right. If that person is the one who was put away by his mate, he fits part B of the text. He does not have a right to remarry. Now, that’s simple.

The Order of the Text

There is an order that is implied in Matthew 19:9. The text says that a man may put away his wife for fornication and marry another. If he puts her away for fornication that tells us that the fornication must precede the divorce. Thus, the order is: (1) Fornication, (2) Divorce and (3) Re-marriage. It is not (1) Divorce for any cause, (2) Mate commits adultery, and then (3) Remarriage is justified.

The order of Matthew 19:9 is just as important as the order of Mark 16:16. (1) Believe, (2) Baptized and (3) Saved. It is not, (1) Believe, (2) Saved, and (3) Baptized. We cannot reverse God’s order.

Now, that’s simple!

We Must Have Bible Authority

A.We must abide within the authority of the Bible. We must do all things in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). To go beyond the doctrine of Christ means that we are out of fellowship with God (2 John. 9). The principle of Bible authority applies to the issue of divorce and remarriage just like it does to the work and worship of the church. If we affirm that someone has a right to re-many we must have Bible authority for what we say (1 Pet. 4:11).

B. Respecting Bible authority means that we respect the silence of the Scriptures. The silence of God is not permission to act. Rather the silence of God is prohibitive. Since our Lord was from a tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning being a priest on earth, Jesus was not permitted to be a priest on earth (Heb. 7:14).

To illustrate, God was silent about instrumental music. That silence does not give us permission to have it, but his silence would prohibit it. God was silent about using grape jelly on the Lord’s table. Does that give us per-mission to use it?

Let us not be found seeking justification for some remarriage on the basis of the silence of the Scriptures. Now folks, that’s simple.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 10-11
February 6, 1997