Truth Magazine

By Paul K. William

In Matthew 5:32 Jesus tells what happens when a man divorces his wife when she is not guilty of fornication, “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (NASB)

“Adultery” is defined in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as: “1. a. Violation of the marriage bed; sexual relation of a married person with one who is not his or her lawful spouse, whether unmarried (single adultery) or married to another (double adultery). In moral theology sometimes extended to irregular sexual intercourse gen.; in biblical use, idol-worship, idolatry (cg. Fornication).

It is easy to understand what Jesus was saying. J.W. McGarveys comments on this passage (Fourfold Gospel 242) clearly state what the ordinary Bi9ble student sees in this verse: “the mere fact of divorce did not make her an adulteress, but it brought her into a state of disgrace from which she invariably sought to fee herself by contracting another marriage, and this other marriage to which her humiliating situation drove her made her an adulteress.”

In his book Marriage & Divorce, John L. Edwards says that “adultery” in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 does not refer to sexual immorality. He says it means “the breaking of a covenant” (56). In my previous article “What Does Adultery Really Mean?” Guardian of Truth 28:208) I showed that Edwards was not being true to the meaning given in the Greek lexicons, and that he was not being true to the standard translation of the Bible. He has invented his own definition of the word and has had to retranslate the verses where the word is found.

In the next paragraph is Edwards translation of Matthew 5:32. Note that in his translation he does not use the meaning “breaks a covenant” to translate the words “commit adultery.” He had to find another word because to use “breaks covenant” would show that his definition cannot work. If we substitute Edwards definition (on p. 56 of his book) for the words in the Bible we get; “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her break a covenant, and whoever marries a divorced woman breaks a covenant.” That comes dangerously close to meaning real, old-fashioned adultery, doesnt it? How can the woman be caused to break the covenant when the man is the one who broke the covenant by putter her away? How can the second man break the covenant when he had nothing to do with her divorce? The only way is if the breaking of the covenant is the sexual act of adultery! So Edwards avoids this translation.

Here is how Edwards translates Matthew 5:32: “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for fornication, makes her adulterated, and anyone who marries the divorce woman is adulterated” (123).

No Greek dictionary that I know of allows the use of “adulterate” to mean “commit adultery.” Edwards is just making up his own meaning. But read his translation again. It doesnt even make sense. If you figure out how the divorced woman and the man who marries her are “adulterated,” please let me know! Edwards talks about “defilement” without guilt. How can one be defiled and not have guilt? His explanation is full of double-talk.

The best he can do with English translations of the Bible is to quote two translations which were made before the King James Bible was translated. The Tyndales Bible says, “But I saye unto you: that whosoever doth put awaye his wife (except for fornicacion) causeth her to break matrimony. And whoever maryeth her that is divorsed, breaketh wedlock.” But that is quite clear to me. ” Break matrimony” and “breaketh wedlock” refer to breaking the marriage vow by sexual intercourse with one who is not ones spouse. It if a delicate way of saying “commits adultery.” The “Great Bible” says, “But I saye to you: that whosoever doth put awaye his wife (excepte it be for forycacyon) causeth her to break matrimony. And whosoever maryeth her that is divorsed committeth advoutrye.” This does not help Edwards cause at all!

When I asked brother Piet Joubert to define the word “adultery” in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 he answered, “it means to divorce for a cause other than fornication and marry another.” But that definition will not work in Matthew 5:32. Suppose the man who marries the divorced woman was never marred before. He has not divorced and is not marrying again. The definition will not work!

Those who contend for a sexless adultery in Matthew 5:32 are in a hard place. It is no wonder that in the Hicks-Smith debate Olan Hicks refused to define the word “adultery” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. He talked all around the issue, saying what it did not mean but never gave the proper translation of the word. This clearly dishonesty and deception.

If someone teaches that adultery in these passages does not refer to sex, make that person define the word and then use the definition in both verses. He cant do it? The only definition that will work is the one given in all Greek dictionaries. Adultery is sexual intercourse of marred person with one to whom that person is not married.

The consequence of what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:32 is that the person who is put away, whether for fornication or any other cause, commits adultery (sexual immorality) when he or she marries again, and the person who marries the divorced one is committing adultery (sexual immorality) in that marriage. It is because we do not like the consequence that the new definition of adultery is being preached. Be careful, brethren. Listen to Jesus, even when it means that we must live a life without marriage. Make sure that in the judgment day you will be among those who have been walking in the light.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 5 p. 5
March 2, 1995

By Dwight McGee

I. God Lets Us Know That He Wants Us To Be Saved

We are specifically told through inspiration that God wants us to escape the damnation of hell and be with him eternally. The idea that God is unjust or unfair, and of a disposition to cast as many into hell as possible, is foreign to the teachings of the New Testament. We are told, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). Certainly none can stand in the face of God at judgment and accuse him of wishing the condemnation of his creation. The man who loses his soul does so against the wishes of his Creator. Paul said, “Or despises thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4) Let us take comfort that we serve a God who wants us to live eternally with him.

II. God Sacrificed His Son To Save Us

What would it take for God to prove to you that he wants you to be saved from your sins? What act would it take to convince you that he wants your eternal existence to be one of happiness and bliss rather than destruction and pain? Will the sacrifice of his Son not convince you? “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:16-17). The genuine purpose of this sacrifice was to secure your salvation. Surely this demonstration of love will confirm in our minds the resolve of God for our eternal good.

III. God Gives His Help In Our Salvation

God has promised his continual help in securing our salvation. After warning of the possibility of a child of God being lost, the word of God says, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye maybe able to bear it” (1 Cot. 10:13). Take courageyou are promised a victory if you will fight the good fight. Paul further states his confidence in the Lord, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phil. 4:13).

As you leave these words to face the battles of this day, take courage in the knowledge of your Great God who wants you to win the victory in this life, and he is helping you do it! May God richly bless your efforts to serve him.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 4 p. 12
February 16, 1995

By Keith Greer

Often times this world can be a cruel place. Who has lived life on this earth without facing difficulties or heartaches? Mankind will always have to deal with the three T’s: testing, tribulations, and trials. The Scriptures abundantly teach this to be so (1 Pet. 1:6, 7; 4:12-16; 5:9; 2 Tim. 3:12).

Each of us has our own burdens to bear. Some Christians seem to believe that God has placed them under a “protective umbrella,” where no unpleasantness can enter. Comforting, but not accurate! Life on earth is a package deal. We must take the good and the bad (Matt. 5:45).

What do we do when these times come upon us? Where do we turn in times of troubles? Many folks make the problems worse by turning to the wrong source for help. Did God leave us without hope or recourse? Can we face life’s problems and overcome them?

We can if we have some “anchors.” What is an anchor? “It is a source of security or stability” (American Heritage Dictionary). God has provided us some “anchors” to aid us in our journey down the uneven pathways of life. Do we know them? Do we use them? Do they work? Together we will endeavor to answer these questions.

1. The word of God. God’s word is inspired. Who created man? Who better understands man? Who could be a better counselor? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). “Profitable” means for our good. God’s word can equip us for every good work. Do we turn to his word in time of trouble?

2. Prayer. The Bible tells us to “pray without ceasing.” “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanks-giving, let your requests be made known to God” (Phil. 4:6). Do we tell God our troubles? Do we always think to pray? We have a special relation-ship with God, a Father and son kind of relationship. It is so sad that people in the world do not have this blessing. We have it and don’t use it! If we don’t turn to him we show a lack of trust and faith in him. Never underestimate the security of this anchor.

3. The church. Why are we called the “family of God”? Who better understands the struggles of my life as a Christian than another Christian? Read these passages: John 13:34, 35; 1 John 2:9-11; 3:15-18; 4:19-21. God commands us to love our brethren. When you are facing the onslaught that life can give you, whom do you turn to first? The person of the world or your brethren? Who is going to heaven? If we don’t care now, we won’t get the chance to care later!

4. The hope of eternal life. Why did Abraham leave his homeland? To offer Isaac on that altar? “… for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). He had his focus on something better! We need to keep “focus” on heaven. Read Philippians 3:12-16; 2 Peter 1:3,4. We are told by Paul to “lay hold on eternal life” (I Tim. 6:12). This is our most prized possession. Do not allow it to slip through your hands. Troubles are temporal!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 5 p. 1
March 2, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

If you refused to allow your child to serve the poison he had chosen from the shelf to his visiting friends, would you be “anti-choice”? If a policeman restrained your neighbor who had chosen to kill you, would the policeman be “anti-choice”? Would it be a case of the government violating your neighbor’s right to privacy and becoming involved where it had no legitimate business?

Unless you have a rather strange sense of personal liberty, your answer to the above questions is “NO!” Why? Because you understand that one cannot be free to choose to take another’s life. Government has a legitimate responsibility to protect human life. The cynical use of semantics to term that legitimate protection as “anti-choice” does not negate that fact.

Understanding this principle, it was amazing to me to hear the terminology thrown around during the political campaigns and media coverage regarding abortion. Those opposing abortion have been portrayed and sometimes labeled as “anti-choice.” During the vice presidential de-bate, we were even told that the government had no right to restrict abortion because a woman has a right to do as she wishes with her body.

That argument presupposes that the child within the womb is not a separate, living being, but a part of the mother’s body. The fact is that the child within the womb is genetically and, in many ways, metabolically distinct from the mother. For instance, how can a male child with a different blood type being pumped by a different heart under the direction of a different brain be called “a part of the woman’s body”?

Those knowledgeable in the medical fields of fetology and perinatology (specialties dealing with the development of the unborn child) have clearly shown that the unborn child is a separate life from the mother. Those favoring “abortion rights” conveniently ignore this fact. If they admit that two distinct lives are present, the need to protect human life must also be admitted. I say “human life” because genetically the child could only be human.

Since we are dealing with two distinct human lives, the so-called “pro-choice” label is seen as a rather hollow and evasive use of terminology. One has no right to choose to kill another innocent human being. The government has every right and even the responsibility to protect the innocent human life.

The mere ability one has to make a choice does not give that one the legitimate right to make the choice. We have the ability to choose to pick up a gun and shoot another person, but we do not have the legitimate right to do so. The Bible makes a distinction between us having the ability to choose certain actions and our right to do so.

Joshua 24:14-15  “Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

The people of Israel had the ability to choose whom they would serve as God, but the right choice was the Lord. Any other choice would have been wrong and would have led them to disastrous consequences. A similar choice is set before the people in Elijah’s day (1 Kings 18:21).

Hebrews 11:24-26  “By faith Moses, when he be-came of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.”

Again, Moses had the ability to choose sin with the world or afflictions with the people of God. However, he had no right to choose the path of sin for God condemned such. The right choice was to suffer with God’s people in doing that which God commanded. Moses made the right choice.

Those favoring “abortion rights” need to be less concerned with their right to choose and more concerned with making the right choice! They need to hear the words of God spoken to Israel long ago:

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live (Deut. 30:19).

As I was taking my boys to school a few days ago, I saw a bumper sticker which read, “Pro-choice IS pro-family.” The “choice” it was referring to is the choice to kill an innocent human life in abortion. It bothers me more than a little to see my children under the influence of people with little enough sense to put something like that on their bumper! How many families would we have if every woman exercised that “choice”? What we need to do is “choose life” and be unashamed to speak out against the assault being perpetrated upon unborn children and the perverted terminology used to legitimize it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 5 p. 8
March 2, 1995