Truth Magazine

By Michael McClary

(Brother McClary is one of the elders of the Ellettsville church.)

Preacher training is nothing new for the Ellettsville, Indiana church of Christ. Brother W.H. Krutsinger lived, preached, and taught a preacher training school in Ellettsville in the 1800s. He edited a religious paper called The Ancient Landmarks. We have a copy of volume one, number one, dated September 1879. This preacher training program was conducted for about twenty-five years and a good number of preachers came from this school, including such men as A.G. Freed, later of Freed-Hardeman College; W.M. Davis, long-time front page editor of the Firm Foundation; and Fred Rowe, publisher of the Christian Leader, to name just a few.

A Complete Program

The Preacher Training Program at Ellettsville is a very complete program. It is designed to teach young men how to study, memorize, deliver lessons and sermons, do funerals and weddings, do research on various religious topics and begin a library and filing system. The program is lead by Johnie Edwards and his son, Johnie Paul Edwards. Many of you already know that these two men are two of the best preachers in the country and both are in demand for meeting work all over the country. They have the knowledge, zeal and patience to handle this type of preacher training. We at the Ellettsville church love and appreciate them very much and give them our heartfelt thanks for all the work they do. The training program is the most helpful tool any young man could receive who is interested in proclaiming God’s word. It is not only essential for the men in the program, but it is also very good for the local church here in Ellettsville. Here are some reasons why:

Strengthens The Local Church

When we hear how many hours of hard work these men put into learning God’s word, it makes us work harder to learn. These young men, and we had a dozen of them in 1993 and have ten in the 1994 session, study hard and it is great to see them develop so rapidly. The program helps all of us “grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord” (2 Pet. 3:18).

Encourages Other Young Men

Knowing how hard all the men in the program work encourages the local church to do the same. As Joshua was “encouraged and strengthened,” so are we (Deut. 3:28). It sure is encouraging to a local church to see a young man grow from hardly being able to stand before a group, to speaking the truth with zeal and poise.

The Need For Gospel Preachers

The program helps the local church see the need for gospel preachers. There is a great shortage of good, sound, gospel preachers today. We need to help men to be able to say, as did the apostle Paul, “so, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel ” (Rom. 1:15). Men must be ready to preach and our program does that very thing. Our young men preach about every week in the area. They were afforded a rare opportunity of preaching in a gospel meeting last year, and more are planned for 1994. Hardly a week goes by without a local congregation who needs a gospel preacher calling.

Helps In Converting The Lost

The young men preach here at Ellettsville different times when brother Edwards is away preaching in gospel meetings. They have been taught to always teach the plan of salvation at the close of every sermon. This enables folks the opportunity of learning what to do to be saved. Romans 10:13-17 teaches that preaching, hearing, believing and obeying are essential to being saved. The young men do this so very well.

Encourages The Local Church

The fact that we have so many young men interested in preaching and doing the Lord’s will sets a good example for others. It has had a good effect on a number of other young people. The church, where the young men preached in a gospel meeting recently, saw a profound influence on the young people as well as the older ones in the church. There is still power in good influence (Matt. 5:13-16). Christian living is taught by these preachers, not only in the preaching but by their lives. Many of these young men are still in high school or work full time, yet, still find the time to study and do all the work demanded by our Preacher Training Program. We are thankful to God for all of this work.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 8, p. 5
April 21, 1994

By Marc Shotts

For what saith the scripture about sin? This is a question that mankind needs desperately to ask. Nations have turned away from the word of God to the wisdom of men, searching in vain for answers to the problems sin creates. As in all things, the answers to our problems may be found by drawing near to God and his guiding word which the Psalmist described as “a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psa. 119:105). Consider what the scriptures says about sin:

God’s Definition of Sin

God delivered his definition of sin by the hand of John who wrote, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4). The scriptures indicate clearly that sin is a violation of God’s law. Man may sin, or violate God’s law, in many different ways. We may sin in what we say. David said, “I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue” (Psa. 39:1). Sin may also be committed in our thoughts. Jesus taught, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). We can also sin in deed or action. Paul penned, “I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed” (2 Cor. 12:21). Sin may also be found in not doing what we know is God’s will. James wrote, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17). Any action or thought not in harmony with the will of God, is by God’s definition a sin.

God’s Attitude Toward Sin

God’s attitude toward sin is dramatically revealed in the scriptures. In the book of Proverbs, Solomon reveals God’s attitude toward sin by writing, “These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him” (Prov. 6:16). Later he recorded, “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 12:22). Zechariah wrote, “Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord” (Zech. 8:17). God’s inspired writers revealed that God hates sin and views it as an abomination. “Hate” can be defined as “to feel animosity or hostility toward; a strong feeling of dislike; detest.” The definition of “abomination” is “an extremely disgusting thing.” God views sin with strong feelings of hostility, disgust and dislike.

God’s attitude toward sin may be seen in the way he describes it in the Scriptures. Sin is described as a putrefying disease (Isa. 1:2-6), a heavy burden (Psa. 38:4), defiling filth (Tit. 1:15, 2 Cor. 7:1), a binding debt (Matt. 6:12-15), darkness (1 Jn. 1:6) and a blemishing stain (Isa. 1:18).

Consequences of Sin

What saith the scriptures about the consequences of sin? Sin produces earthly consequences such as disease, broken homes, and sorrow. God revealed by Solomon that “the way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15). But, the greatest consequence of sin is the death of the spirit. Paul declared, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). The death which Paul speaks of is not physical death for “it is appointed unto men once to die” (Heb. 9:27). As physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body, spiritual death is the separation of the spirit of man from God. The prophet Isaiah cried out to the people of his time, “Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:2). John wrote, “Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20;14-15). The second death John described is the death of the spirit, separation from God in torment forever, the greatest and final consequence of unforgiven sin.

No Sin Today?

The attitude of many is that sin no longer exists. This attitude is displayed when things which the scriptures say are sin are renamed and declared no longer to be sinful. An example of this can be found concerning the sin of homosexuality. People today say homosexuality is caused by genetics, or simply an “alternative lifestyle.” Anything but a sin! Many who claim to be religious have recently said that homosexuality is no longer a sin. Openly homosexual preachers and members are accepted, and some denominations have changed their creeds to allow the sin of homosexuality. The attitude of no more sin can also be seen when sins such as murder (abortion) is called a “choice or right,” alcoholism is called a “disease,” pre-marital sex (fornication) is called a beautiful expression of sexuality. It seems that society no longer considers any-thing a sin.

The most worrisome aspect is that many members of the church are also relaxing their attitudes toward sin. Members of the church are openly engaging in or tolerating sins such as unscriptural marriages, false teaching, fellowshipping error, immodest apparel, mixed swimming, dancing, absenteeism, materialism, social drinking, impure speech, improper entertainment and such like. Even those in the church who believe these things to be sins are not speaking out against them as God requires. God proclaimed by His prophet Isaiah, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20)

How Should We Deal With Sin?

Paul told Timothy, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come” (2 Tim. 3:1). These perilous times were to be characterized by the increased sinfulness of the times (2 Tim. 3:2-5). Timothy was then instructed to continue in the things which the scriptures taught (2 Tim. 3:14-15). Paul shows the value of the scriptures by writing, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Paul encouraged all Christians to take up “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). The weapon Christians must use to combat sin is the word of God. The need for preaching and teaching, which without blinking or apology, exposes sin and its consequences is great in our society and even in the church. God has provided the weapon, but needs loyal soldiers who are willing to combat sin wherever it may be found.

The answer to society’s problems will never be found in the wisdom of man. The downward spiral of morals in our time will continue unrestrained until greater numbers of people once again begin to ask, “For what saith the scriptures about sin?”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 8, p. 8-9
April 21, 1994

By Harry R. Osborne

Are you shocked by the rapid movement of our society to an approval of behavior previously rejected as immoral? Are you ready to accept the label of “narrow-minded, religious-right bigot” when you stand for values of morality? Anyone reading or watching the news events of the past few months has seen the pace of movement away from biblically defined values of morality. It has been almost unbelievable to me how many ungodly concepts have been pushed in such a short time. Worst of all, however, is that there has been no major uprising from the people of this country to reject such rank immorality.

Time magazine (24 May 93) had a cover with the picture of a teenage boy and girl with the heading, “Kids, Sex & Values.” The story inside documented and defended the demise of moral codes in sexual conduct. The article was entitled “How Should We Teach Our Children About Sex?” The main concentration was on the topic of sexual activity among teenagers and sex education in the public schools. However, it overlooked the obvious facts regarding the issue.

The article did correctly relate the symptoms of the problem. Among the statistics and statements included were the following:

”By the time they are 20, three-quarters of young Americans have had sex.”

 “One-fourth of teens contract some venereal disease each year.”

 “Kids are continuing to try sex at an ever more tender age; more than a third of 15-year-old boys have had sexual intercourse, as have 27% of 15-year-old girls  up from 19% in 1982.”

 “Teenagers typically watch five hours of television a day  which in a year means they have seen nearly 14,000 sexual encounters.”

”Many social scientists argue that there is nothing wrong with increased sexual expression among teens.”

”There is a fishbowl full of condoms in the nurse’s office, help yourself.”

The fact that sexual activity, pregnancy, abortions, and venereal disease among teenagers is increasing was noted in the article. What was the reason given? Who is responsible for such a tragedy? I could not believe the answer given in the article by Joycelyn Elders, President Clinton’s Surgeon General and one of the leading advocates for condom distribution in schools. Here is what this high government official said:

We’ve spent all our time fighting each other about whose values we should be teaching our kids. We’ve allowed the right to make decisions about our children for the last 100 years, and all it has brought us is the highest abortion rate, the highest non-marital birth rate and the highest pregnancy rate in the industrialized world.

How in the world can anyone seriously make such a charge? Our problem with the huge increases in such statistics does not go back a hundred years. It can be traced directly to the permissiveness of the so-called “sexual revolution” of the past few decades, especially since the 1960s. That was the decade when people like our current President were organizing marches where such thoughtful slogans as “Make love, not war” and “Turn on, toke up and tune out” advocating free love and drug use were in vogue. After refining their ethical code at such bastions of morality as Woodstock, they began to help institute the liberal sex education curriculums presently cursing our public schools. The fact is that all of the rates Elders mentioned have gone and continue to go up with the introduction of the explicit sex education curriculum in the schools.

A study commissioned by Planned Parenthood in 1986 showed that teens who have a sex education course that discusses contraceptives have a 50% higher sexual activity rate than those who have a sex education course omitting contraceptives or who have not had any sex education (American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV and Birth Control, Louis Harris & Assoc., 1986, p. 50).

Despite the fact that repeated studies confirm these findings, we hear an increasing cry for such sex education in Texas schools. The attempt to introduce a mandatory sex education program for kindergarten through 12th grade has become a monthly effort in the state legislature. Our governor has repeatedly stated her support for school based clinics to hand out birth control devices in the schools without parental consent. Any thinking person can see that many of the places with the highest teenage pregnancy, sexual activity and venereal disease infection rates are the same places that have the most explicit sex education courses and birth control distribution in the schools.

Where will these attempts to reshape accepted values and behavior lead? They will not only result in increased physical problems (disease, pregnancy, etc.), but will cause a further weakening of families in this country. Since the family is the basic institution of society, its weakening will inevitably lead to the destruction of our society. When values are not taught and exemplified in the home, they will not be respected or practiced in daily life. As the family goes, so goes the nation.

This analysis is not unique to this writer. The fact was stated long ago in these words: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Whether it be that the ungodliness naturally eats away the strength of a nation until it crumbles under its own valueless weight, or whether its destruction be the result of God intervening through providential action, the result is the same. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). That is so for individuals, but it is a principle true for nations as well.

The righteous standard of God regarding sexual conduct is stated simply in the following words:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also fore-warned you and testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us his Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 4:3-8).

What is the difference between sexual morality and immorality? The Hebrew writer said, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). God provided for lawful marriage as the only place wherein a man and woman can rightfully be joined in a sexual union for mutual fulfillment and procreation (Gen. 2:20-24). Fornication is condemned as a sin against God and one’s own body in that it violates the purpose for which the sexual aspect of mankind was created (1 Cor. 6:18-20).

Efforts to use public schools and tax dollars to demolish the standard of morality declared in the Bible may alter the values of many in this country, but they will not change the will of God nor the effects of disobeying such. If we are to endure as a nation, we must stand up to the current efforts to reshape moral values and go back to the standards given by God in the Bible. As Christians, we must speak up in an effort to let government and school officials know that we oppose the efforts to introduce ungodliness at our expense. We must also warn our children against the evils being accepted today and teach them God’s standard for morality. Silence is not an option!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 7, p. 18-19
April 7, 1994

By Paul K. Williams

In recent years a new argument has been put forth by those who teach that a divorced person, regardless of the reason for his divorce, has the scriptural right to marry again without sin. Since these people have used several other arguments through the years, I am very suspicious of any new argument they come up with. They remind me of the Christian Church preachers trying to justify the use of instrumental music in worship. Every so often they come up with a “new” argument, usually from the Greek language, which is supposed to revolutionize our thinking about instrumental music. It is clear to me that they are motivated by a desire to justify their practice, not to find what the scriptures teach. They have been driven off of every argument they made in the past, but instead of abandoning their unscriptural practice they look for new arguments. Those who seek to justify remarriage for the unscripturally divorced person have been met on their past arguments, but instead of abandoning their false doctrine they have found a new argument! You can excuse me for being suspicious of it.

The New Position Stated

The arguments is found in the book Marriage and Divorce by John L. Edwards, first published in 1985 and a revised edition published in 1990.1 can paraphrase the position like this:

The Greek word translated adultery in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 sometimes, in other places, means some practice other than sexual unfaithfulness to a marriage partner. The Greek verbs translated “divorces” and “marries” another are present participles, and that means the adultery in the verses must take place at the same time as those actions. Since the sex act comes after the second marriage, the word adultery in these verses cannot mean the sex act. Since it does not mean the sex act, it must mean the breaking of the marriage covenant. Therefore the act of divorce is adultery. You do not commit adultery by having sex in the second marriage. The only sin is the divorce, which you can repent of and receive forgiveness for. The second marriage is not a sin.

Here are some quotes from Edwards: “Therefore, the action of adultery is at the time of the divorce and the remarriage. It is the action of divorcing a faithful wife for the purpose of marrying someone else” (p. 52). (My comment: This is like saying forgiveness of sins comes before baptism [See Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38]. Edwards makes the adultery take place at the time of the divorce and before the remarriage. In Matt. 19:9 Jesus makes both necessary to the committing of adultery. “Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Edwards cannot solve this contradiction.) Other quotes from the book say the same thing: “. . . it is the act of destroying the marriage that is adultery, according to Jesus” (p. 55). (My comment: Whatever “adultery” means in the first part of Matthew 5:32, it means in the last part. The last part says, “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” This man had no part in destroying a marriage, yet he commits adultery. Edwards’ definition won’t work.) “Jesus was speaking against divorce for married people and not marriage for divorced people” (55). “Adultery is committed if one divorces a faithful spouse (this action is adultery)” (61). “To marry someone after they are divorced is not a sin in and of itself. THE SIN WAS GETTING THEDIVORCE.” (64) “WE CONCLUDE THAT ADULTERY IS THE BREAKING OF A COVENANT ” (56).

The Greek Lexicons Speak

There are many problems with this position. One of the greatest is that the new definition is contradicted by all the standard lexicons (dictionaries) of New Testament Greek. In the 1992 Hicks-Smith Debate, J.T. Smith showed that Thayer and Vine (the two best-known Greek authorities) both define “adultery” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 to mean the sexual act.

J.H. Thayer’s lexicon defines moichao to mean: “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with.” He then lists Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 under that usage. In fact, he lists every New Testament passage using the word as having that meaning. Later he notes that the word was used by Greeks in a figurative sense and gives some instances from secular writings. But the only usage of this word in the New Testament means to have unlawful intercourse with another’s spouse.

W.E. Vine first defines the noun moichos. He says it “denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another.” Then he says of moichao, “used in the Middle Voice in the N.T., is said of men in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; of women in Mark 10:12.”

Neither Thayer Nor Vine Hints That “Adultery”

Has a Figurative Use In Those Passages.

Hicks had no real reply to what Thayer and Vine said. He did not try to quote other Greek lexicons to contradict them. He simply said they were wrong because the tense of the Greek words “divorces” and “marries again” requires the action of adultery to be committed at the same time, not afterward. He and Edwards (who moderated for Hicks in the debate) are aligned against every reputable Greek lexicon. Their desire to justify the remarriage of unscripturally divorced people has caused them to brush aside these authorities, and even the standard English translations of the Bible. On page 51 Edwards quotes Matthew 5:32 as “. . . anyone who divorces his wife, except for fornication, makes her adulterated.” So he rejects the lexicons and the standard translations of the Bible!

The Figurative Use of “Adultery”

It is well-known that the word “adultery” is used figuratively in the Bible. Such verses as Jeremiah 3:8-9 abound. “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. And it came about because of the lightness of her harlotry, that she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.” Such us-ages are easy to understand because they carry the basic meaning of sexual unfaithfulness to one’s spouse. Since Israel and Judah were in a relationship to Jehovah as wives to a husband, when they went after other gods they were acting the same as wives who go after other men. The stones and trees were idols. Judah was giving her love to idols instead of to God; therefore she was committing adultery.

It is easy to see that the basic definition given by the Greek lexicons, that adultery is sexual intercourse with the spouse of another, continues as the meaning even when the word is used figuratively.

When Edwards writes, “WE CONCLUDE THAT ADULTERY IS THE BREAKING OF A COVENANT” (56), he makes a crucial error. His definition is incomplete. Adultery is the violation of a covenant, of course, but of a specific covenant by a specific act. Adultery is the violation of the covenant of marriage by sexual intercourse with someone else. Figuratively, adultery is the violation of a covenant which can be paralleled to marriage by a relationship with a for-bidden party which can be paralleled to sex. In Matthew 5:28, adultery is committed in the heart with a woman. There the lustful desire is counted as the act completed as far as guilt is concerned, but there are two parties involved in the heart of the man. Figurative adultery, like literal adultery, requires two parties.

In the Old Testament instances where God’s people committed adultery against him, they did it by going after other gods. Mere disobedience to God’s covenant is not called adultery. It was adultery when they committed deeds which could be paralleled to an unfaithful spouse having sex with someone not their spouse.

The Meaning in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32

Therefore, Edwards’ contention that divorce alone is adultery violates the use of the word in the Bible, and is now what Jesus said. It requires divorce and remarriage to produce adultery because adultery is sex with another than your spouse. The man makes his wife an adulteress by divorcing her because when the next man marries her he commits adultery, obviously with her, which makes her an adulteress. J.W. McGarvey comments on Matt. 5:32  “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 free herself by contracting another marriage, and this other marriage to which her humiliating situation drove her made her an adulteress.” McGarvey was being true to the meaning of “adultery” in his comments. He recognized that she cannot be an adulteress without committing adultery with someone else. This is true whether the adultery be actual sex or a figurative use of the word (Bro. McGarvey was a Greek scholar. He saw nothing in the tense of the words “divorces” and “marries another” which requires the action of “adultery” to take place before the man . goes to bed with his new wife.)

The adultery committed by the man in Matthew 19:9 required two acts: divorce for a cause other than fornication and remarriage. The product of that is adultery. Those two acts are not adultery. They result in adultery. The parallel with Mark 16:16 is obvious. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Both acts are necessary to the result. And the two acts are not salvation, but salvation is the result. Divorce is not adultery. Divorce and remarriage are not adultery. He who divorces and remarries commits adultery. Adultery is the result of divorce and remarriage. When an unscripturally divorced man marries another woman, he commits an unlawful sexual act whenever he has sex with her. This is what Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 clearly teach.

“Divorce is not adultery. Divorce and remarriage are not adultery. He who divorces and remarries commits adultery. Adultery is the result of divorce and remarriage. When an unscripturally divorced man marries another woman, he commits an unlawful sexual act whenever he has sex with her. This is what Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 clearly teach.”

GuardianofTruth XXXVIII: 7, p. 16-17
April 7, 1994