Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

This issue of Guardian of Truth features a discussion between Tom Roberts and Vance Trefethen on the proposition that the Scriptures require the whole church (including the women) to be involved in the decision making of the local church. The contention which brother Trefethen affirmed in his book Confusion or Consensus was this: “There is no pattern for men-only business meetings and a clear pattern for congregational (men and women) decision-making assemblies” (12).

Brother Trefethen asserts that the Holy Spirit revealed that a congregational assembly, including both men and women, should make the decisions in the local church and that men-only business meetings and elders holding a “secret decision-making session” are without the approval of the Holy Spirit (17).

I am aware of several congregations that encourage their women to attend the business meetings, some allowing them to speak and others not. The practice is sure to be the focus of more attention as the influence of the feminist movement spills over to affect more and more Christians. It is already affecting our liberal brethren. The ultra liberal Bering Drive congregation in Houston, Texas issued a “Report on Women’s Participation in Public Worship” on March 5, 1989 which said,

On July 31, 1988, the elders presented a statement to the Bering Family concerning the use of spiritual gifts by both men and women, expressing our conviction that it is scriptural and appropriate for sisters as well as brothers to serve in Sunday morning worship roles of ushering, greeting visitors, receiving the offering, reading Scripture, leading prayers, leading singing, and serving communion (quoted by Alan E. Highers, “The Winds of Change,” Spiritual Sword [January 1991], p.

Brother Highers continued to relate that the Cahaba Valley church in Birmingham sent a letter to its members stating that “women may minister not only to women, but also to men.” They followed this up by announcing in 1990 that the church would be appointing deacons and said, “Deacons will be male and female.” Their intention was that by 1994 women would be “speaking to the assembly in sermon.” The 1989 Nashville Jubilee had some women speaking in assemblies with men present.

The 1990 Preachers’ and Church Workers’ forum at Freed-Hardeman University featured Robert Randolph, a pulpit minister for the church at Brookline, Massachusetts, and Lynn Mitchell, one of the elders at Bering Drive in Houston, defending an expanded role for women in the church. Randolph openly stated that he had no problem with women serving as elders.

I cite these incidents, not to attribute them to brother Trefethen, but to introduce this discussion of the women’s role in the local congregation. You need to take the time to read this debate between these two brethren. The issue is not likely to disappear.

More Communication Needed

on East European Mission Work

Steve Wallace

Since the opening of the Iron Curtain many brethren have participated in teaching efforts in one or more of the former Communist countries. While we are of course happy to hear of the churches that have been planted in various places, we feel that, in at least some cases, more good would be accomplished if there had been communication among interested parties. This is especially true when a brother or group of brethren involved in mission work are limited in the time that they can spend at a given place. No matter where the Gospel is preached or how effectively it is done, the results of any effort may be limited by its duration. Also, surely all brethren who have worked for any time in Eastern Europe have been awed by the masses of people in any given city compared with the number of brethren involved either full-time or part-time in evangelizing these fields. In light of this, we must use our time in these efforts wisely. Again, better communication among interested parties will lead to a combined wiser use of time. It is hoped that the following points will lead to more communication among those involved in evangelizing Eastern Europe or any other field of labor.

1. Deciding where to go.

The following questions may help in determining a field of labor:

a. If it is a city where no one you know of has been, do you know someone who has worked in the country the city is in?

b. Is a place in a proven fruitful field opening up due to a brother’s plans to return to the U.S.?

c. If you have a choice between several places, are there any available figures on how many responses there have been relative to the amount of time brethren have spent working in each place?

d. In critically examining this article in preparation for its publication, one brother who has spent many years in foreign work made a suggestion that fits under his heading. I include it here for your consideration. He said that he does not put too much emphasis on response as he does on the need for the gospel in a given place.

e. Checking around for literature is something that is always helpful but especially so if you are limited in the time you can spend in a mission field. Are tracts available in the language of the country in which you are planning to work?

2. Planning an extended stay.

While the logistics of such a move alone can be formidable and time consuming, please do not forget to widely publicize your plans so that as many brethren as possible are aware of where you are going and for how long. This will help others considering foreign work to know your plans in case you need a co-worker or, in the event you do not need a co-worker, such brethren can cross your new location off of their list of prospective fields of labor. Further, letting brethren know how long you plan to stay may help those making long-range plans. I have known brethren who planned for over two years before moving to Eastern Europe. Given the necessary information, such brethren may make plans to replace you in your work after your time there is completed.

3. Staying for shorter periods.

Many brethren who have labored in Eastern Europe and in other fields have been limited in the time they can stay, usually to somewhere between three and six weeks. Experience has shown that, by itself, an effort of such length rarely results in a church being established in any given place. While we are all happy to hear of any effort to preach the gospel, would it not be more expedient to the Lord’s cause in such cases to arrange to be part of longer effort in a given place in conjunction with other brethren? If you are unable to spend a long time doing missionary work, it may be expedient to let others know of either your plans or your availability. In this way, others can possibly make plans to follow you in the work in some field, or you might follow someone else.

If the above advice sounds good to you, why not try to plan as far ahead as possible and circulate the news of your plans? Such preparation will make the chances better of a church being established as result of your efforts.

4. Avoid a spirit of competition.

After weighing all possibilities, what if you choose a field of labor that is different from the one or ones chosen by other brethren with whom you were hoping to work? One thing that should be avoided is a spirit of competition. The field of our labor is the world (Matt. 13:24,36-37; Mk. 16:15). In light of this we must respect the decision of other brethren as to where in that field they choose to labor. Let us bid such brethren God-speed in their chosen work and glorify God that they are working in the spreading of the gospel (Gal. 2:9; 1:23-24). Let there be no strife between us; for we be brethren (Gen. 13:8).

In conclusion, it is hoped that this article will prove helpful to brethren planning to do foreign evangelism and lead to the furtherance of the gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 3-4
August 18, 1994

By Marc W. Gibson

You have probably heard someone say, “The Bible says, `Do not judge! ‘ when their ungodly words and/or practice is questioned. Their reference is to Matthew 7:1, but their use of this scripture is actually a misuse due to their misunderstanding of the context. Context is important in studying any passage of scripture. Consider some thoughts on this passage.

I do not believe Jesus is condemning all judgment in this passage, but rather warning against hypocritical judgment. He warns all of us in verse 2 that judgment goes two ways, toward another

person and back to us, “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” This is a basic principle of life: A person is expected to uphold in his own life the judgment that he applies to others’ lives. If you are not willing to live up to your own standards, then do not use them to judge another:

“Judge not, that you be not judged.”

It is hypocritical to attempt to diagnose someone else’s problems when you have not, or will not, diagnose your own. As Jesus stated, “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?” (vv. 3-4) Jesus is not condemning the concern about the speck in your brother’s eye, or even the judgment you apply to determine it is there (“… but judge with righteous judgment,” Jn. 7:24). Jesus is condemning the judgmental attitude that does not apply the same standards to itself, and thus overlooks its own faults.

The remedy for this problem is stated by Jesus in verse 5, “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.” There is nothing wrong with trying to remove a speck from our brother’s eye (see Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20), but let us first be sure we are not burdened with the same “specks and planks” of sin. Paul reminded the Jews of these same truths when he wrote, “You, therefore, who teach an-other, 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” (Rom. 2:21-24).

Hypocrites apply teaching and judgment to others but not to themselves. If this be the case with you, “Judge not, that you be not judged.”

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