Truth Magazine

By Steve Curtis

“Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scripture might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). Paul’s statement to the Romans is as equally important to us today. Many great lessons can be learned from a study of the Old Testament and its characters.

One character who makes for such an interesting study is Naaman (2 Kgs. 5). Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, is described as being great. As for the character of Naaman, he was honorable and a mighty man of valor. However, there was one major flaw in the life of Naaman, something which neither his position nor his character could overcome. He was a leper.

Naaman Was A Leper

To understand how big a flaw this was, one must know something about leprosy. Leviticus 13 enlightens us. Here leprosy can be described as follows:

vv. 1-3  a swelling scab with a bright spot which was turned white and eaten into the flesh

v. 8  a disease which spreads over the body v. 10  has the appearance of raw flesh

v. 18  a sore described as a boil

vv. 42-44  causes hair to fall out

v. 8; 47-59  is contagious

No matter what position Naaman had achieved or would achieve, he had a dreaded disease. It would be comparable to someone in our society contracting AIDS. Ask anyone today if they would like to be C.E.O. of the largest business in America, but in order to take this position he would have to contract AIDS. How many people do you think would desire this office? How many people would want to be a commander of an army if it meant being a leper as well?

Like Leprosy, There Is No

Man-Made Cure For Sins

As we consider this man Naaman, what lessons can we learn from this story? First, the characteristics of leprosy can be related to those of sin. During the days of Naaman there was no man-made cure for leprosy. Neither the king of Syria nor the king of Israel could cure Naaman of his leprosy. He had to go to the prophet Elisha who told him what the will of God was (2 Kgs. 5:3-7).

Today, there are no man-made cures for sin. However, the sad thing is that there are those who believe in man-made cures. Many turn to the pope, priests, reverends, and preachers for their cure of sin, but the cure does not lie within man’s power.

Suppose some doctor has medicine which will destroy the AIDS virus and those tormented with this disease are searching for this medicine which will save their life. As they are searching, some man approaches them saying he is a doctor and he has the cure, the miracle medicine Ro1AIDS. How many suffering from this dreaded disease will be cured if they take this medicine? Sure, it might relieve them of their heartburn and gas, but they will still die from the effects of AIDS. Or, suppose another man comes along claiming to be a doctor and tells these people all they have to do to be cured from their deadly virus is to go to the pharmacy of their choice and select the medicine of their choice. Do you think many people will be cured from their AIDS obeying these instructions? This scenario fits a description of the religious world around us. Because of men like Billy Graham, many people are going to die in their sins, believing they have received a man-made cure for sin.

The cure for sin lies solely within the power of God. It is by the grace of God that men are saved (Eph. 2:8). Through God’s grace, Christ came to this world and shed his blood on the cross. Here is the cure, Christ’s blood. John says in 1 John 1:7, “But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Both Leprosy and Sin Will Destroy The Body

Secondly, sin is just as loathsome and defiling as leprosy. It would be a horrible sight to see someone’s body being eaten away with leprosy. Just think how often we bathe, brush our teeth, put on deodorant, etc. Being Americans, we are basically a clean people. How many wives would be concerned if their husband failed to bathe for a week, or a month, or a year? Would parents be concerned if their children were not clean? Of course they would. Parents know that “cleanliness is next to godliness.” Why then do some ignore sin in their lives?

If the spiritual effects of sin could be seen, men would see just how loathsome (utterly disgusting) sin is. They would see sin eating away at their flesh and their soul and it would be avoided like we avoid contracting leprosy, AIDS, or any other disease. There are many who do not comprehend the filth of sin. Many simply ignore it. Others make “sport” of sin (Prov . 10:23). The word of God refers to these people as being foolish (Prov. 14:9). A fool does not respect anyone or anything, including God and sin. There is a reason why such a person is called a fool. One may choose to ignore sin, but when contaminated by it, ignorance will not rid the curse. Naaman could have tried to ignore his leprosy, but it would not have taken it away.

We know that coming into contact with the blood of an AIDS victim will threaten our life. We will take heed and will not ignore this fact because of the dire consequences it holds. Why then are some Christians today ignoring those things which, if we come in contact with them, will promote ungodliness, lead to sin, and destroy our spiritual well being? This attitude can be seen in different areas. One example is dancing.

Dancing seems to be harmless. Some refer to it as exercise. Others look at dancing as a social function which promotes friendship, acceptance, and memories to last a lifetime. This is Satan’s way of disguising his weapons. He hides the fact that dancing promotes wantonness, that is lasciviousness, a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19) He conceals the fact that sin will destroy the soul just as a disease destroys the body. Ask any honest, healthy teenage boy or any responsible parent what will be promoted when a young lady and a young man, enclosed in the arms of one another, move their bodies back and forth to the sway of music, in a dimly lit romantic atmosphere. Will it promote friendship? Will it promote acceptance among a peer group? Will it create memories to last a lifetime? The answer to these questions might be yes, but does that take away from the fact that dancing promotes ungodliness? No! Would the same boy avoid coming into contact with the AIDS virus or leprosy? Would the same parent ignore their son coming into contact with a deadly disease? Certain not. It is easy for them to see the dangers of life threatening diseases. Why is it not as easy for some to see that sin is a threat to their spiritual life?

The devil has many things in his arsenal of sin. Beware of his weapons which lure, entice, and disguise his death threat (Rom. 6:23). The lure of a “social” drink of intoxicants is only a temptation to sin (1 Pet. 4:3; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Beware of “stylish” dress and mixed swimming which disguise the sin of immodesty, a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19). Beware of “petty” gambling, the office pools, the football cards, the lottery, all of which contaminate the soul and lead to death. As Naaman’s position and character did not bring him comfort for his leprosy, whatever benefit we obtain from participating in sin, whatever position we achieve in this life, and no matter how great our character is considered to be by men, these will not bring comfort to our soul for our sins (Prov. 13:15).

Like Naaman, We Must Overcome

Self To Obey God

When Naaman learned of the proper source for the cure of his leprosy, we can find another lesson. Naaman received the message from Elisha to go and dip in the Jordan seven times and his flesh would be restored (2 Kgs. 5:10). What were Naaman’s choices in this matter? He could either obey and follow instructions which would bring the cure, or he could follow his own ideas and still be a leper. At first, Naaman’s reaction was to follow his own desire. Notice 2 Kings 5:11, “Indeed, I said to myself . . . (Behold, I thought  KJV).” Naaman thought he could do as he pleased, but he was wrong. He thought other rivers were just as good. If not better.

How many people make the choice Naaman made when it comes to obeying God? Behold, many people think the pope will tell them words by which they will be saved. Behold, many people think they have nothing to do to be saved, that somehow God will operate on them directly. Different people believe differently concerning what is necessary for salvation. Behold, what men think has no authority when it comes to religion (Prov. 14:12; Matt. 28:18).

As mentioned earlier, salvation from sin only comes through the blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7). Only when one comes in contact with the blood of Christ will he receive the cure for sin. This is the point of baptism (Rom. 6:4). Baptism is a watery burial into the death of Christ. It was at Christ’s death that his blood was shed, and when we are buried into his death, we contact his blood. In Naaman’s case, he could have chosen any number of rivers and number of times, but it was only when he dipped in the Jordan River seven times that his leprosy was cured and his skin cleansed. In man’s case, it is possible to choose any number of methods to receive “salvation,” but it is only when we are buried in water, contacting the blood of Christ, that we will receive the cure of sin and truly be cleansed.

The majority of you have already made the choice to obey God’s will concerning the subject of salvation. In order for us to grow, let us bring the application a little closer to home. Considering some things previously mentioned, suppose when it comes to social drinking of intoxicants (wine with meals, sipping at a social function, being in another country and “having” to drink alcohol, etc.), a person says, “Behold, I think . . .” Based upon his own reasoning, can a person come to a conclusion which will transform the social drinking intoxicants from a sin to a matter of judgment? Of course Satan will say, “Yes, he can.” He would have also told Naaman he could dip in any of the rivers. He will tell the alien sinner he can be baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Or, if the alien sinner does not like water at all, he can just accept Jesus as his personal Savior. The reason the devil will say yes is because he knows the alien sinner will still be lost. His weapon still has its force. The same goes for consumption of alcoholic beverages. You can call it “social drinking” or “sipping,” but the devil knows it is still drinking intoxicants, a sin. The only difference is that he has successfully concealed how loathsome it is.

The same holds true for all sin. Dancing can be called the prom, or exercise, or a social function, but it does not take away from the fact that it promotes ungodliness. Naaman had to realize the only cure for his leprosy was obedience to the will of God. Friends, when it comes to dancing, it is a sin. If a soul is contaminated with this sin, it will be destroyed as much as the body would be if it was contaminated with leprosy or AIDS. Do not let the devil hide the loathsomeness of sin. Recognize it by name and “avoid it like you would the plague.”

If Naaman would have failed to overcome his pride, he would have never received the cure for his leprosy. Pride goes before a fall (Prov. 16:18). Unless some learn to humble themselves, they are never going to rid themselves of the curse of sin.

Certainly we can all benefit from the study of the Old Testament (Rom. 15:4). Why not select one of your favorite characters and use him or her as an opportunity to grow personally or for a Bible study with your family?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 10-11
August 18, 1994

By Bobby Witherington

“Surely he heath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:4,5).

Isaiah has often been called “the Messianic Prophet.” And for good reason. For no prophet said more about the coming Messiah (Christ) than was said by Isaiah. Moreover, the 53rd chapter of Isaiah is often referred to as “a Messianic chapter.” Again for good reason. For this chapter, from beginning to end, said much about the then coming Messiah  including facts pertaining to his lineage, his being rejected of men, facts pertaining to his death, his burial, and the vicarious (substitutionary) nature of his death. Surely any honest, intelligent person who reads this chapter and then reads “the four gospels” (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and learns about the prophecies which were fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus (some 750 years later!) has to conclude that the Bible is divinely inspired of God. The mathematical improbabilities of all these prophecies being accidentally and coincidentally fulfilled in the life and death of one person are simply too incredible for one to reach any other conclusion than the fact that the life and vicarious death of Jesus was divinely planned centuries in advance, and then divinely fulfilled in every particular!

There is simply no way to overstate the magnitude of the glorious life and vicarious death of Jesus. However, it is possible to misstate the effects of Christ’s atoning death. In fact, this is often done. Especially by those who believe in modem, miraculous divine healing of the physical body. It is common for such people to read Isaiah 53:4,5, and then conclude that the effects of Christ’s death were two-fold: (1) that he died to make atonement for our sins, and (2) that he died to heal our bodies. As documentation, please note the following statements: “But is Divine Healing in the Atonement? We believe it is. We do not believe it is merely accidental; but firmly believe it is part of the work of salvation which Christ died to bring” (Does God Heal the Body To-day?, by C.H. Jack Linn, p. 15). “Again all Christians should expect God to heal their bodies today, be-cause Christ died to atone for our sickness as well as for our sins” (Bodily Healing and The Atonement, by T.J. McCrossen, p. 16).

So there you have it. It is said that “Christ died to atone for our sickness as well as for our sins,” and Isaiah 53:4,5, along with Matthew 8:16,17, are cited as proof. In fact, this constitutes one of the strongest arguments made by modem “faith healers” in support of their position and their practice. So we ask, did Jesus really die in order “to atone for our sickness as well as for our sins”? If the answer to this question is “yes,” then we must expect the body of every physically ill sinner to be made perfectly well the moment his soul is converted! In-deed, what a tremendous this-world incentive for physically sick sinners to be converted!

“Proof Text” Examination First, let us consider the alleged proof as set forth in Isaiah 53:4,5: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and … with his stripes we are healed.” “Faith healers” say that the verb “borne” (from the Hebrew nasa) is used in a vicarious or substitutionary sense. They then turn to Matthew 8:16,17 wherein we read of those whom Jesus “healed” as being in fulfillment of that “which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.” And, presto! they conclude that physical healing is included in the atonement.

However, this argument (based upon their conclusions from Matt. 8:16,17) poses some insurmountable problems. For example, the atoning work of Jesus was accomplished in his death. “. . . While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). “. . . Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Peter said you were “redeemed … with the precious blood of Christ … ” (1 Pet. 1:18,19). However, the healing work of Jesus (recorded in Matt. 8:16,17) took place among Jewish people, while the law of Moses was still in force, and some three years before his death! At the time when the miraculous healing of those mentioned in Matthew 8:16,17 occurred the atonement had not taken place, for Jesus was still alive. Of course, we would not minimize the significance of the miraculous works of Jesus (including his miracles of healing the sick), for these were the works which both proved that he is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30,31), and that he had “‘power … to forgive sins” (Mark 2:1712).

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.”

You will please notice the vicarious nature of our Lord’s suffering. He was not wounded for his transgressions; he was not wounded for his iniquities, nor was he healed by his stripes. What he endured he endured for us. Also you will please observe that he was not wounded for our cancer, heart disease, stomach problems, etc. Rather, he was “wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities.” In essence, Jesus bore the punishment which we deserve because of our sins. He, as a divine sacrifice, became our substitute, and bore the penalty in our stead. Moreover, in saying “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” the prophet referred to the chastisement he received but which we deserved, and which he endured in order to procure “our peace.” Be-cause of our sins we were alienated from God (Isa. 59:1,2), but through Christ’s death he “abolished … the enmity,” and made it possible for both Jews and Gentiles to be reconciled unto “God in one body” (Eph. 2:15,16).

“But,” some will say “we are `healed’ by his stripes, so that proves that the removal of physical diseases was included in the atonement.” Our first inclination in response to this statement is to simply ask, “Why then do many sick people remain ill after they obey the gospel?” They receive the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38), but they are not relieved of their heart disease, diabetes, emphysema, etc. Moreover, they retain their pacemakers, they remain bald, they continue wearing glasses, they keep their false teeth, and (if they can afford it) they keep paying their health insurance premiums. Nevertheless, Isaiah said we are “healed by his stripes.” However, on closer scrutiny we learn that the word “healed” is sometimes used in a spiritual sense. For example, the Psalmist petitioned God, saying, “Lord, be merciful to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against you” (Ps. 41:4; cf. Ps. 147:3; Jer. 3:22). Furthermore, lest there be any doubt as to the nature of the healing involved, the Holy Spirit mentioned the sufferings of Christ and then referred to Isaiah’s prophecy, saying, “Who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). When we, through gospel obedience, “died to sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), we were “made… alive together with Christ”

(Eph. 2:5; cf. Rom. 6:3,4), and thus were enabled to “live for “righteousness.” And in that process were “healed.” Peter, an inspired apostle, clearly showed that the healing provided by the death of Christ was spiritual in nature. Jesus, in his atoning death, bore our sins. He did not bear in his body our toothaches, our cancers, our heart diseases, etc.

Conclusion

The salvation of the soul is vastly more important than the well being of the body (cf. Matt. 10:28). Hence, it is a grievous mistake to place our physical needs and our spiritual needs on the same level. Furthermore we can read of numerous faithful Christians who suffered physical illnesses (2 Cor. 12:7-10; Phil. 2:25-30; 1 Tim. 5:23; 2 Tim. 4:20), but who were not miraculously healed. Of course, we believe in praying for the sick (2 Cor. 12:7-10; Jas. 5:14,15), and we do pray for the sick, that in the wonderful providence of God they will be made well. But we do not make outlandish (and unscriptural) claims concerning modem day miracles. Nor do we believe in perverting Old Testament prophecy so as to make hardened sinners believe that their lies and lusts are no worse in the sight of God than their bursitis and rheumatism. Jesus died for our sins. He did not die for our kidney stones. Consider ye well! a

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 15, p. 12-13
August 4, 1994

By Brooks Cochran

Once in a Bible class someone asked a question concerning the dedicating of children to God. They knew that infant baptism was not taught in the Bible; but at the same time wondered if it would be wrong to have a special service, or at least part of the regular Sunday morning service be used, in which parents dedicate their child to the Lord much like Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:11. In reply I made the following observations that needed to be considered.

1. Where is the Bible authority for such a practice? Denominationalists have been creating special worship services for years. They have special services for most any occasion. But the Bible is silent upon the matter of having a special service in which parents dedicate themselves to raising their children to be obedient to the Lord and/or dedicate their children to the Lord.

2. There is no need for such a service. This is true mainly because fathers are commanded to “bring” their children “up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The wife, being in subjection to her husband, is to “guide the house,” “love” her “husband,” “love” the children, “be discreet, chaste, keepers at home” . . . “that the word of God be not blasphemed” (1 Tim. 5:14; Tit. 2:4,5). Seeing that children are brought up to fear, serve, respect, and obey God ought to be as natural to the husband and wife as eating three meals a day. Why have a special service or make a big production out of something that is the duty and responsibility of the home and not the church?

3. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a couple does make a vow of some sort and have a special service in which they dedicate their child to God and his service. What is going to happen when that child grows up and decides that service to God is not part of his or her plans? Who should be held accountable for breaking the vow? Remember, though parents are to teach and train the child, that child is still a free moral agent with a will of its own!

Rearing children is a very serious responsibility and obligation. It is one that is not to be taken lightly. If parents want their children to have a proper respect for God, then they had better demonstrate that respect in their lives before the eyes of their children. Our children are much smarter than we think. They soon learn from the home environment what is important in the lives of their parents! Parents should forget about such foolishness as having special dedication services for their children and start living as Christ would have them live so the child can see Christ in the parent!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 4
August 18, 1994

By Warren R. King

Few subjects stir the emotions like the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. It cuts to the core of our most intimate relationships and touches virtually every family to some degree.

For these reasons, many refuse to discuss the issue at all. Others search for easy and painless solutions to complicated and often sinful situations. Neither approach serves the cause of truth.

The Ideal vs. Modernism

Most Christians are aware of God’s ideal plan for marriage. From the early chapters of Genesis we learn: (1) that we are created in God’s image, on a higher moral plane than the animals, (2) that God ordained the marriage relationship, (3) that marriage is between a man and a woman, (4) that to marry is to “cleave,” implying a life-long commitment, and (5) that in marriage we can enjoy the richest blessings of companionship and sexual fulfillment.

This biblical ideal stands in sharp contrast to the modern view of marriage. Basing their ideas on humanist philosophies (atheism, evolution, moral relativism, etc.), many view marriage as a relic of antiquity  a product of societal evolution. Others are attempting to redefine the very concept of marriage, in an effort to justify homosexual and lesbian relationships. Still others view marriage as a curse  an unwelcome hindrance to a carefree and self-gratifying lifestyle.

In view of these perceptions, we are not surprised to find that divorce, to many, is a readily accepted alternative to a “bad marriage.” Having long since abandoned biblical authority, they feel free to divorce and remarry at will.

The real heartbreak, however, comes in knowing that many Christians are following the same path. Few do so by an outright rejection of biblical authority. Most seek to justify divorce and remarriage on more sophisticated grounds, arguing a variety of different views from a variety of different passages, but all having the same result: the loosening of God’s plain law on divorce and remarriage.

Matthew 19:9

A pivotal New Testament text on the subject is Matthew 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 whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” In this passage Jesus considers two possible scenarios. The outcome of either one is an adulterous relationship.

The first scenario is simple. Whoever (Christian or non-Christian) shall put away (send away, boot her out) his wife and marry another, commits adultery. The only exception to this rule is the putting away of an unfaithful spouse. In such a case, the one who puts away the unfaithful spouse is free to remarry without being in adultery.

The second scenario is equally simple. Whoso (Christian or non-Christian) shall marry a person who has been put away (sent away, booted out), commits adultery  no exception.

One would seem hard-pressed to find any loopholes in such plain language, but multitudes attempt it. Their efforts range from the absurd to the plausible, yet all seek to do an “end-run” around God’s simple law. This is not to say that all such are dishonest. It is simply to say there are two types of seekers in the world: those who are seeking truth, and those who are seeking an excuse. At all costs, we must be numbered among the truth-seekers. Searching for an excuse to justify an unlawful relationship is a sure sign of a hardened heart.

Denominational Objections

When preaching the simple truth on Matthew 19:9, one may be accused of being factious or contentious. Some, indeed, are guilty of preaching truth with a bad disposition. The answer, however, is not to stop preaching truth, but to preach in meekness (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

Similarly, one may be accused of not showing enough love, but again the solution is not to cease preaching the truth. In fact, love rejoices in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6); thus, we should speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).

Others admonish us to preach only the positive, inspirational aspects of marriage  but faithful preaching of the gospel demands warning and rebuke as well as exhortation (2 Tim. 4:2). Considering the current trends, warning on this subject is needed everywhere, and rebuke is needed in many places.

We are also told not to judge, and objectors quote Matthew 7:1. The same objectors fail to consider the next four verses (which clarify the subject as hypocritical judging), or the plain command of Jesus in John 7:24 to “judge righteous judgment.”

Objections Based on Matthew 19

Some claim that nothing is said in Matthew 19:9 about the guilty party remarrying.

On the contrary, a guilty party who puts away his innocent wife is forbidden to remarry per the first scenario. A guilty party who is put away is for-bidden to remarry per the second scenario. So much for the guilty party.

Others claim that Jesus is simply clarifying the Mosaic code on divorce and remarriage, implying that it is not a part of the gospel; however, the context strongly suggests otherwise. The Mosaic law gave permission for divorce under certain circumstances because of the hardness of their hearts (vv. 7-8). The code which Jesus offered in verse 9 is clearly on a higher plane and more restrictive than the Mosaic code (note the disciples’ surprise in verse 10).

Still others find solace in verse 11: “All men cannot receive this saying.” They interpret this phrase to mean that not everyone is able to abide by the teaching of verse 9, thus Jesus nullified his own law. Such absurdities are characteristic of those searching for an excuse. Again, the context suggests that in verse 11 Jesus is commenting on the subject of celibacy, not the Law of verse 9.

Some would say that “whosoever” is not really referring to the whole world, but only to Christians. The implication is that non-Christians are free to divorce and remarry at will. Some of this persuasion believe that non-Christians are not under any law; others believe that non-Christians are under a general moral law. Both teach that non Christians are not subject to the law of Christ. In response, consider: (1) Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18), (2) the gospel is addressed to all (Mk. 16:15), (3) the words of Christ will be the standard of judgment (Jn. 12:48), (4) disobedience to the gospel will be the basis of punishment (2 Thess. 1:7-9), and (5) God at one time tolerated ignorance, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

Objections Based on 1 Corinthians 7

Quoting from verses 17, 20, and 24, some argue that individuals who are in an adulterous marriage upon be-coming Christians, are justified in staying in that relationship. The immediate context, however, is clearly focused on non-sinful options: single vs. married, married to an unbeliever vs. married to a believer, circumcised vs. uncircumcised, slave vs. free. By no stretch of the imagination can these verses be used to justify a sinful relationship (shades of Romans 14!).

Others focus on verse 15, stating that “not under bond-age” means that an abandoned spouse has a right to remarry. Besides contradicting the simple law of Christ in Matthew 19:9, this view forces a definition on the word “bondage” (Greek, douloo) which is nowhere else found in Scripture, de-spite its very common usage. In the context, Paul is not referring to the marriage bond (Greek, deo  vv. 27, 39; Rom. 7:2), but to a virtual slavery, by which a committed Christian woman might feel compelled to chase after the husband who has deserted her.

Objections Based On Definitions

On the concept of forgiveness, some argue that God is able to forgive all sin, even adultery. Certainly, no one disagrees with this. But the implication is that individuals who have violated God’s law on divorce and remarriage simply need to ask forgiveness. Nothing more, they say, is required. Notice, however, that forgiveness is always conditioned on repentance. Whether a non-Christian (Acts 2:38), or a Christian (Acts 8:22), repentance is required  and while the technical definition of repentance involves a change of mind, the practical definition involves a change of behavior (Matt. 3:8), including any restitution (Lk. 19:8) or altering of current life-style (Ezra 10:1-4). Some of the Corinthians had been adulterers. They became Christians and were justified (implying forgiveness), but they were also sanctified (implying right-living  1 Cor. 6:9-11). Some today want the justification without the sanctification.

The term “adultery” is often misused. Some view it as a one-time act, rather than an on-going condition. Of course, one act of unfaithfulness would certainly qualify as adultery, but an individual who is in an adulterous marriage is in a perpetually adulterous condition as long as their rightful spouse lives (Rom. 7:2-3). Furthermore, Paul argues that it is possible to “live in” adultery, implying a perpetual condition (Col. 3:5-7).

Another abuse of the concept of adultery confuses the metaphorical use of the term with the literal use. Quoting from Jeremiah 3 and James 4:4, we are told that adultery may include virtually any sin, from abuse to drunkenness. Such sloppy exegesis is a violent twisting of the Scripture. Jesus is not speaking metaphorically in Matthew 19. We have no right to so interpret it.

A simplistic concept of the marriage “bond” has led to some sinful relationships. These view marriage as no more than a covenant between two people. If it is broken for one, they argue, it is broken for both; thus, the guilty fornicator can remarry. But the marriage bond is not so simple. God has done the joining, and God makes the rules for loosing. A guilty fornicator who has put away his innocent spouse, or a guilty fornicator who has been put away, cannot remarry. To remarry is to commit adultery (see earlier arguments). Regardless of our understanding of “bond,” he is in adultery simply because God said he is. To reject such a plain statement is to reject Christ’s authority.

Miscellaneous Objections

Others argue that because some people commit adultery in their hearts (Matt. 5:28) and are allowed to continue in fellowship with the saints, therefore those who commit the physical act of adultery should be allowed to continue in fellowship. Besides ignoring the plain thrust of 1 Corinthians 5, this position overlooks the fact that we are only able to judge others by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-20).

Emotions are often appealed to in such discussions, especially if children are involved. Children are, indeed, the most pitiful victims of divorce. This is one reason we should preach so boldly on the sanctity of marriage. Yet, many who did not hesitate to break up their families to please themselves, refuse to do so to please God. Such individuals need to read Ezra 10. Humane arrangements can be made to provide for children  but we cannot simply ignore God’s word with an appeal to emotion.

Finally, some say that making things right is simply too difficult. Jesus responds, “There is no man that hath left … wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting” (Lk. 18:29-30). Many of your brothers and sisters have made difficult decisions  including the decision to die for the Lord. After all, where the kingdom is involved, is any decision really too difficult?

Indeed, divorce and remarriage is an emotional and difficult issue. But death is also emotional. The second coming of Jesus is emotional. The judgment is emotional. Eternity is emotional. Heaven and hell are emotional. We must make a choice  but we will endure the very real consequences of that choice forever.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 15, p. 18-20
August 4, 1994