Truth Magazine

By Marc W. Gibson

One of the greatest events a person is privileged to witness is the union of a man and a woman in marriage and the beginning of a new home. It is a time of happiness and joy. Much thought, through, needs to be given before and after the wedding to the great responsibilities involved. Many take their marriage and their home too lightly. Too many marriages end in divorce, homes are broken up and children are neglected. God will hold us responsible for how we fulfill (or not fulfill) our obligations. If we follow his instructions, we can be successful and happy. If we do not, heartache and disaster will lurk around every corner.

Marriage

From the very beginning of time, we learn that it was not good for man to be alone. Therefore, a woman, a helper comparable to him, was made for him (Gen. 2:18-23). When God joined the first man and woman in the first marriage relationship, it was said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This is the institution of marriage: a man and a woman leaving all others to cleave to one another, being joined together by God. Any other joining, such as a man with a man or a woman with a woman is an abomination before God (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27). God set the pattern when he joined one man and one woman.

It is God’s plan for a man and a woman to be married for life. Jesus admonished, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). This is a warning we should heed. An individual is bound to his mate for life by the law of God (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39).

What about divorce? A divorce for any reason other than for the cause of fornication is sin and any subsequent remarriage is adultery (Mk. 10:1 1-12; Lk. 16:18; Matt. 5:32; 19:9). God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). It is a breakdown of the beautiful union he joined. It is sickening to hear of the number of divorces today and the carnage they leave behind in confused children, broken hearts, and lost souls. God will not tolerate any divorce unless it be for the cause of fornication. There are many today who live in adultery with mates they have no scriptural right to. They need to repent and cease that adulterous relationship. Some may be in a position where they cannot marry again. Jesus said these would be hard sayings for some, but that the kingdom of heaven must be first in our lives (Matt. 19:11-12). Let us respect and follow God’s revealed will. Sin can have hard consequences, but heaven is worth it all (Matt. 6:33). Do you agree?

Who can many? The one who has never married, has lost a mate to death (Rom. 7:2-3), or has divorced his or her mate for the cause of fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) has the scriptural right to marry. This is God’s revealed will on this question. We cannot add nor subtract.

Sex

The sexual desire of a man and a woman must be fulfilled in the marriage relationship (1 Cor. 7:2-5). Also, marriage is the only relationship in which sexual desires can be fulfilled. I say this not to be a prude, but because it is God’s law. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Fornication is all forms of sexual immorality. Sexual intercourse between two unmarried people is fornication, and this sin will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). Adultery is a form of fornication and refers to sexual relations of a married person with someone other than his spouse. This will also cause one to lose his soul if not repented of and stopped (1 Cor. 6:9-11). With peer pressure, easy access to birth control, and the general immorality of the world, it is hard to resist this terrible temptation of Satan. We need to do whatever is necessary to “flee fornication” (Gen. 39:7-12; 1 Cor. 6:18). Instead of living with guilt or an unwanted child, make up your mind (and teach your children) to keep the precious gift of virginity for the person you marry.

The Home

When a man and a woman unite in marriage, they unite their lives. God described it as becoming “one flesh” (Matt. 19:5-6). I believe this involves more than just the sexual relationship. They become one in mind, purpose, will and direction. If this type of relationship is never formed or developed, the marriage is in serious trouble. A husband and wife have certain obligations toward one another that work for a successful home. A home is more than just the house you live in. As someone once said, the home is where the heart is. Is your heart in your home?

The husband has the God-given responsibility to be the head of the home. The husband is the head of the wife, but not as an iron-willed dictator. Paul compares the headship of a husband to the headship of Christ over the church (Eph. 5:23). If men would care for their wives as Christ cares for the church, we would see a lot of happy, content wives. Husbands are told to love their wives even as their own bodies (Eph. 5:25,28). A godly husband will nourish and cherish his wife, making her feel important and loved. He would do anything for her, even give his life for her. Husbands are you treating your wives right? A man is to take care of and provide for his household, for “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). A faithful man will also bring up his children in the “training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

The wife is taught to be in submission to her husband as head, respecting him in that position God gave him (Eph. 5:22, 33). This is easily and happily done when the husband loves her as he ought. The home breaks down when either party refuses to work with the other as God directs. Women are to love their children (which includes discipline) and take care of the home (Tit. 2:4-5). If you think this is unimportant, look at what has happened to our society in general and our children in particular. Much of the crime and social problems we have today have their root in bad homes.

Children should obey their parents. If not, they disobey God (Eph. 6:1-4). Children should be the objects of love and care and be treated as human beings. They should never be the victims of physical or mental abuse.

If all parts of the marriage and home work together as God directs, there is harmony and happiness. If sin has caused heartache in your home, do what you can to correct your own life and influence godly change in your loved ones. Even the most godly people will sometimes have to endure heartache and sadness because of sin that touches close to home. Keep your eyes focused on God and heaven. The toils and the troubles of this life will seem as nothing when we get to the end of the way.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 9-11
December 2, 1993

By Ron Halbrook

J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911) was recognized in his own time as an excellent Bible student and scholar, and his works have been often reprinted and consulted throughout the years. We are not to think of men above that which is written, but McGarvey’s works are helpful study tools for those who search the scriptures daily (1 Cor. 4:6; Acts 17:11). McGarvey ‘s commentaries have been kept in print and thus made available to brethren, but he also provided a wealth of material in journal articles which are not so easily accessible today. He also wrote individual chapters in scattered books which are hard to find. I have enjoyed and benefited from locating such materials from time to time on a wide range of subjects, and have published some of them in the Guardian of Truth through the years (“True Progress,” Truth Magazine, 4 October 1979, pp. 631-33; “A Devotion on Christ’s Death,” TM, 4 December 1980, pp. 773-74; “Church Government,” GOT, 15 October 1981, pp. 648-51; “The Prayers of Jesus,” GOT, 20 August 1992, pp. 498-500; “Prayer for Those in Authority,” GOT, 1 October 1992, pp. 596-97; see also “The Witness of the Spirit,”Faith and Facts, July 1984, pp.249-58). McGarvey wrote a fair amount of material on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and I am trying to make that material available to brethren by reprinting it as I locate it from time to time.

When he comes to the relevant passages, McGarvey directly addresses the subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in his commentaries on Matthew and Mark (Cincinnati: Chase and Hall, 1875) and The Fourfold Gospel or a Harmony of the Four Gospels (authored jointly with Philip Y. Pendleton; Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1905). He wrote a number of journal articles on the subject including several in The Apostolic Times, one of which has been recently reprinted from the 8 February 1877 issue (“Legalized Adultery Again,” GOT, 15 July 1993, p. 438). The Los Angeles Daily Times for 18 August 1902 carried a synopsis of a sermon by McGarvey on “Divorce and Remarriage” (“Church Conclave Ends at Santa Monica. ‘Divorce and Remarriage’ Discussed by Prof. M’Garvey”), and McGarvey added a few observations about that sermon in a report published in the Christian Standard of 20 September 1902 (“The Convention at Santa Monica”), both of which will be reprinted. It will be clearly seen that McGarvey argued that those who are in unscriptural marriages “are living in adultery” and must “dissolve their guilty relation” as the fruit of repentance. McGarvey repeatedly argued that the innocent party to a scriptural divorce had the right to marry another mate, as he did in an article entitled “Divorce and Marriage” (Christian Standard, 6 January 1906, p. 9), which also will be reprinted.

The Restoration Plea and the Marriage Question

In restoring the New Testament pattern of faith and practice, brethren were generally united during the 1800s in their teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. David Edwin Harrell, Jr. has surveyed restoration literature of the period and says that “the generally accepted standard” on divorce is summarized in the following quotation from one of the periodicals, “There is no release then to husband or wife from the marriage contract unless the other party has been guilty of fornication” (Quest for a Christian America: The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866, 1966, p.197). The claim of “desertion” as “a just cause for divorce and remarriage” was rejected by and large.

In general, the churches were probably more diligent in enforcing their code of morality in this area than in any other. Cases abound in the early church records of members being excluded for “bigamy,” “having two husbands living,” and `marrying a man who has a living wife,” as well as such sins as “adultery” and “fornication” (Quest, p. 197).

Even when the division was developing over missionary societies, instrumental music, and worldliness in the churches, Harrell found that “the prevailing opinion in all wings of the church was that divorce was scripturally forbidden except when one party was guilty of adultery” (The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ 1865-1900, 1973, p. 319). Typical excerpts from journal discussions are provided by Harrell, as in the following examples:

When asked about the responsibility of divorced people who were converted, David Lipscomb replied: “I see no way, if they desire to become Christians, except to separate and live as God’s law directs.”

The deep general prejudice against divorce was well expressed by a contributor to the Christian Standard in 1899: “As horrible and debasing as polygamy is, it is no worse than this society-corrupting and soul-damning poison of divorce and remarriage for every cause.’ These two are both instruments in the devil’s hands for corrupting and destroying men’s souls, hindering the progress of the gospel, depopulating heaven and filling hell” (Social Sources, pp. 319-320).

Little by little the most liberal churches relaxed the practice of church discipline on a wide range of matters, including the sins of unscriptural divorce and remarriage. “By the 1890’s the most liberal element of the church had clearly discarded the literal biblical regulations on divorce” (Social Sources, p. 321).

McGarvey on Marriage in His Commentaries

Although McGarvey was inconsistent by rejecting instrumental music while accepting missionary societies, he was clearly very conservative in maintaining a literal approach to the Bible on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. This does not mean that we must regard his every comment as law and gospel, nor that he was always perfectly consistent, nor that he never changed on any point. In fact, as McGarvey continued his studies, he clearly changed on at least one significant point. In one of his earliest published statements on the subject, he surmised that the guilty party in a divorce for fornication might be permitted to marry again. As will be shown in this article, he unmistakably corrected that assumption in print.

In his commentary on Matthew and Mark published in 1875, McGarvey commented on Matthew 5:29-30 (“…it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”), “The imagined pleasure of indulgence is con-fronted with the final and eternal consequences in hell, while the self-denial which refuses to indulge is stimulated by the promise of eternal life.” He continued by commenting on verses 31-32:

It is perfectly clear that Jesus here prohibits divorce except for the single cause of fornication. For this cause it is implied that divorce may rightly take place…. In no part of the New Testament is there any relaxation of the law here given. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians vii. 10-15 contains no such relaxation, but merely furnishes directions for a Christian woman who, contrary to the law here given, is abandoned by her heathen husband.

The second husband, in accepting her hand, pronounces against the act of the first husband. But her second marriage is adultery, and her first husband, by divorcing her, indirectly causes her to commit this crime.

The second marriage of the divorced woman is pronounced adultery both on her part and on that of her new husband; that is, her marriage while her first husband still lives. (see Romans vii. 2) Whether the man who puts away his wife because of fornication, or the woman who leaves her husband for the same crime, is at liberty to marry again, is not made so clear. It is clearly implied, however, that the marriage bond is broken; and it is almost universally conceded by commentators and moralists that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again.

It is much to be regretted that in many protestant countries the civil authorities have practically set aside this law of Christ by allowing divorce and remarriage for a variety of causes. No man who respects the authority of Christ can take advantage of such legislation (pp. 55-57).

In the same commentary, McGarvey addressed Mat-thew 19:3-9, including the following comments:

Third, from these premises the conclusion follows (verse 6) that what God has thus joined together man shall not put asunder. Of course, God who joined them together may put them asunder by prescribing the conditions of lawful divorce, but man has nothing to do in the case except to obey God’s law. Any act of divorce, therefore, or any legislation by State or Church on the subject, inconsistent with the divine law, is open rebellion against the authority of Christ.

Whether it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put away on account of fornication, is neither affirmed nor denied. No doubt such a woman is at liberty to marry again if she can, seeing that the bond which bound her to her husband is broken (pp. 163-65).

The following observations are in order. McGarvey admits that the right of the guilty party to marry a new mate cannot be affirmed from the text of scripture, which means that there is no positive divine authority for that position. McGarvey himself said in opposing instrumental music in worship, “The loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is for warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, exterminating, against everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament” (Bro. Hayden on “Expediency and Progress,” Millennial Harbinger, April 1868, pp. 213-19, see p. 219). Consistency with this premise eventually led McGarvey to correct himself later.

He surmises that the fact that the marriage bond is broken is sufficient grounds for the divorced fornicator to take a new mate, but this overlooks the important point that all divorced people remain under the constraint of divine law. In other words, even when their marriage is dissolved, they must look to God’s law to know what God permits them to do. The innocent party is given positive divine authority to many another person, but the guilty party is not.

It should also be noted that McGarvey was forty-six years old when the commentary on Matthew and Mark was published. It seems clear from some things said in his articles that he soon corrected himself, and there can be no doubt that he had corrected himself by the time he wrote The Fourfold Gospel. At the age of seventy-six, he published the fruit of his mature studies and concluded that, “The innocent party to such a divorce can marry again … the guilty party could not.”

In The Fourfold Gospel published in 1905, McGarvey and Pendleton made the following comments on Matthew 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.

The law of divorce will be found at Deuteronomy xxiv. 1-4. Jesus explains that this law was given by Moses on account of the hardness of the people’s heart; i.e., to prevent greater evils (Matthew xix. 8). The law permitted the husband to put away the wife when he found “some unseemly thing in her.” But Jesus here limits the right of divorce to cases of unchastity, and if there be a divorce on any other ground, neither the man nor the woman can marry again without committing adultery (Matthew xix. 9). Such is Jesus’ modification of the Old Testament law, and in no part of the New Testament is there any relaxation as to the law here set forth. It is implied that divorce for unchastity breaks the marriage bond, and it is there-fore held almost universally, both by commentators and moralists, that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty party could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong (pp. 241-42).

In commenting on Matthew 19:3-9, McGarvey refers the reader to his comments on 5:32, although he adds the following thought:

Jesus went back to the original law propounded by God and recorded by Moses, and shows from it…. That by it the pair become one flesh, so that a man is as much joined to his wife as he is to his own body. Now, since a man can only be separated from his parental relations or from his own body by death, which is an act of God, so it follows that the superior or similar relation of marriage can only be dissolved by the act of God. Thus Jesus draws the conclusion that no man or body of men, whether acting in private, civil or ecclesiastical capacity, can dissolve marriage otherwise than according to the decrees of God (pp. 538-40).

Both commentaries say that the marriage bond is broken by a divorce for fornication, and “that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again.”

Although McGarvey surmises in the first commentary that perhaps the guilty party could also marry a new mate, he repudiates that view in the later commentary when he says, “Of course the guilty party could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong.” Some brethren have wondered whether this latter statement might have been an insertion made by Pendleton, contrary to McGarvey’s view. It is very evident that this is not the case. The “Introduction” to The Fourfold Gospel makes it clear that McGarvey is “the senior editor,” and Pendleton is “the junior editor” (p. vii.). Occasionally, the junior editor would record in a footnote his dissent from McGarvey’s view (see p. 85 for the first instance).

“Legalized Adultery Again” Again

While discussing the McGarvey material, I would like to shed additional light on a brief point made in one of his articles. Some of our readers may wonder what was the background of the question McGarvey addressed in paragraphs three and four of his article “Legalized Adultery Again” (The Apostolic Times, 8 February 1877; reprinted GOT, 15 July 1993, p. 438). After writing an article on “Legalized Adultery” (which I am trying to locate), McGarvey received several follow-up questions, including this one:

“If the husband leave the wife without sufficient cause, and marry again, does this adulterous life, on his part, give the wife a scriptural ground for divorce and the right to marry again?”

I think there can be no doubt that it does; for in this case adultery is unquestionably committed by the husband, and this, according to the Savior’s teaching, justifies the wife in contracting another marriage.

Did he have in mind such things as the modem no-fault divorce and similar modem accommodations for people to break up their marriages for frivolous reasons, followed by a “waiting game” to see who will commit adultery first? Or, did he have in mind the case of man who wrongfully divorces his wife against her will and in spite of her protests and efforts to effect reconciliation, and who then commits adultery against her sometime later? No, these were not the questions troubling brethren back then. No-fault divorce was unheard of until the 1970s. These recent questions spawned by the constant liberalization of American divorce laws are discussed in the following articles: Weldon Warnock and Jim Deason, Searching the Scriptures, November 1985, pp. 535-36 and March 1986, pp. 60-62; Marshall Patton and H. E. Phillips, SS, February-April 1987; Ron Halbrook, “Divorce and Remarriage: No Waiting Game,” GOT, 18 March 1993, pp. 168-69. What then was McGarvey discussing?

The study of American history reveals a common and repeated practice during the 1700s-1800s which destroyed many homes, fitting exactly the question posed to McGarvey. A man (or woman) would leave his (her) mate with a new lover, with or without a divorce, then move to another community and marry. For instance, consider the case of the seventh President of the United States.

Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) came to Nashville, Tennessee in 1788 and boarded with a widow named Mrs. John Donelson. Mrs. Donelson’s daughter Rachel was the Mrs. Lewis Robards, and she and her recently reconciled husband were also living in the Donelson home after a period of estrangement because of their personality differences. When Jackson and Rachel grew too fond of each other, Jackson found it necessary to move out because of Lewis’ suspicions, and Lewis soon returned to Kentucky without his wife. After a while Rachel joined her husband in Kentucky but soon decided to return to Tennessee. Jack-son showed up on her doorsteps and escorted her back to Nashville, and later on to Natchez, Mississippi when they heard her husband was planning to come for her again.

Jackson journeyed to Natchez again and married Rachel in August 1791. Lewis Robards was granted a divorce two years later on 27 December 1793. The Jacksons’ legal problems were resolved when they rewed on 17 January 1794. Jackson’s contemporaries, biographers, and historians have argued over whether Andrew and Rachel thought Lewis had all the evidence he needed to divorce her, and did divorce her, before their marriage in 1790, but one thing is beyond dispute. “For the rest of his life, Jackson remained sensitive to the charge that he prevailed upon Rachel to desert her husband. He was sensitive to the charge because, to a large extent, it was true. Nor was Rachel entirely innocent” (Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson, 1966, p. 31). Even in those early days of our republic, such immoralities did not preclude a man from becoming President.

These oft repeated scandals in American society on marriage, divorce, and remarriage provide the backdrop for such questions as the one submitted to McGarvey. This all too common practice of people deserting their mates to marry another without the pretense of divorce occasionally generated discussion among Christians. Some brethren believed that that person’s adulterous life did not give his or her mate a scriptural ground for divorce nor the right to marry again. “Some preachers argued that there was no biblical right to remarry, even when a person had a proper reason for divorce, but this view was generally challenged” (Harrell, Social Sources, pp. 319-20). Some brethren simply believed there was no ground for divorce and remarriage. McGarvey later published an exchange of views with a brother who held that position (“Divorce and Marriage,” Christian Standard, 6 January 1906, p. 9, see above).

McGarvey was subject to err like all of us, but he truly left us a wealth of Bible study materials on a wide range of subjects which can be very helpful to us if used cautiously and properly, like the writings of any man. Just as the Bible is sometimes misquoted and misused, the writings of Bible scholars like McGarvey are sometimes quoted out of context and perverted. Such ought not to be. Some brethren close their eyes to commentaries and religious journals, imagining themselves to be “independent thinkers” a few notches above everyone else, but there is an unbecoming arrogance to such self-sufficiency and isolationism.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 13-15
December 2, 1993

By Bobby Holmes

This book not only advocates the right of women attending church business meeting but it also teaches that it is the only scriptural way it can be done! This book includes a special essay by Joan Rieber, wife of Ney Reiber, gospel preacher in North Carolina. I greatly respect both Ney and Joan and count them as personal friends as well as a brother and sister in Christ, but I do disagree on the conclusion she reached on the subject of women attending business meetings of the local church where leadership roles are exercised (decision making). I do not know brother Trefethen but I have talked to the Riebers about this article and they are aware of this presentation. I have assured them that I will send them a copy of this article and also one to brother Trefethen. Brother Reiber tells me that he knows brother Trefethen personally and that he is a very sincere and honest person. I have no doubt about this and I pray that none will look upon this as any kind of personal attack on anyone. There are too many times that this happens and I would never be party to anything of that sort. The material was published and presented to the public and I felt that someone should deal with it in an objective public way which is what I have tried to do in this article.

I have not read of any voice being raised in objection to the material this book contains, thus here I am. I believe the devil is constantly trying to undermine God’s plan for his people and their service to him. He tries to alter it a little here and a little there. This amounts to an adulterating (contamination) of God’s way and the result is sin! Please read carefully what I have written.

Perhaps you would be wise to first read a copy of the above book that is under consideration in order to properly understand what is being presented. (It is available from Guardian of Truth Bookstore: 1-800-428-0121.) I realize that this view is not a new one (women attending church business meeting) and that it has been advocated by different people in different centuries, but time doesn’t make something right or wrong. Only God’s word determines authority in religion for those interested in serving him. Again, please read what I have written in the light of God’s word and make your decision based on that alone. Rememberwe shall all give account before our God. Let us study.

This book is “laced” through with the term “decision making process.” This simply defined, without the “double-talk” means taking on a “leadership role.” I will prove this as we go along. The overall theme of this book is clearly outlined on page 3 in paragraph 4, ” a call for allowing on increased role for women in the decision making process of local churches” (emp. mine, b.h.). I believe the truth of the matter is contained as the writer continues by saying, “This position happens to coincide with what some feminists might also believe, but that does not mean that I believe in the Feminist Movement.” I might also add that I do not oppose all the ideas of the Feminist Movement (equal pay for equal work, etc.) but I do oppose their attempt to place themselves in leadership roles in the home and church. This is what this book is advocating! Look past the “veil” of the constantly used term “decision making process” used to allow women in business meetings either with or without elders. The book clearly forbids elders from excluding women from even their meetings.

There is some “double-talk” on page 96, paragraph 1 about “private meetings” where the writer says, “There were never any private meetings that made decisions for (instead of) any local church in the New Testament. But there were private meetings to discuss the word of God and the work of the church.” I don’t really understand what the writer is talking about when he says (“instead of “). The church business meetings that I have attended for the past forty-three years have been to discuss either the word of God or the work of the church in one area or another. Thus, business meetings, according to this book, would have to include women as decisions are made “for” the local church regarding the work of the church and the work of God. This “double-talk” continues on page 97 as the writer concludes from Acts 20:17-38 that this private “elders meeting” was to receive “instructions to the elders on their work as shepherds, telling them to feed the flock and protect it from wolves, or false teachers, who would arise even from their own number (18-30)” (page 97, paragraph 2). At the bottom of that page and continuing into page 98 he affirms (rightfully so) that elders may meet privately to discuss the work of the local church. In that first paragraph on page 98 he says, “interestingly, however, no decisions were made ‘for’ the Ephesian church by the elders at this private meeting.” Do we really believe that a decision was not made to “feed the flock” and “keep the wolves” out? Look at the statement dear soul! What is inferred is that they must have a congregational meeting (including the women) and “discuss and `decide these things. There would of necessity be the need of a “congregational meeting” in order to get a “consensus” (actually permission) before any decisions could be made (page 39, paragraph 2).

Lest you think I have misrepresented his position, our author continues on page 36, paragraph 7: “If inspired men needed the presence of the whole church before any congregational decisions could be made, can there be any leaders in churches today who have more wisdom or more decision-making power than the apostles?” (emp. mine. b.h.) He states on the bottom of page 24 that the only time that an example can be found of a small group making a decision for the local church was Diotrephes in 3 John 9-10. He continues in the first paragraph of page 25, “Any individual or small group that make its private decisions binding on the whole congregation falls into the category of ‘loving to have the preeminence among them’ and needs repentance.” He states on page 58, paragraph 3, “The flock must listen to and be convinced by the teaching of leading men (including elders) when they instruct saints from the word of God.”

Our author states on page 35, paragraph 4 that the elders in Acts 15:6 only came together to “consider” the subject at hand and not to decide anything. Mr. Thayer says on page 173 of his Greek-English Lexicon that the word “consider” as used in Acts 15:6 means: “to see about something (A.V. to consider of), i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it, Acts 15:6” (emp. mine, b.h.). Can any honest student of God’s word believe that these elders and apostles did not make a decision but had to wait on a “congregational meeting” to get a “consensus” (approval) before they acted? If we can’t reason better than that, then may God help us for we are in darkness!

Lest you think I have misrepresented his position, our author continues on page 36, paragraph 7: “If inspired men needed the presence of the whole church before any congregational decisions could be made, can there be any leaders in churches today who have more wisdom or more decision-making power than the apostles?” (emp. mine. b.h.) He states on the bottom of page 24 that the only time that an example can be found of a small group making a decision for the local church was Diotrephes in 3 John 9-10. He continues in the first paragraph of page 25, “Any individual or small group that make its private decisions binding on the whole congregation falls into the category of ‘loving to have the preeminence among them’ and needs repentance.” He states on page 58, paragraph 3, “The flock must listen to and be convinced by the teaching of leading men (including elders) when they instruct saints from the word of God.”

I have a question at this point. What if some of the flock refuse to listen and be convinced? Do these elders have any authority to enforce what they taught? If not what is their function in the light of Hebrews 13:17 and other related passages?

He states on pages 49-50 that elders making decisions in matters of expediencies can lead to “dangerous consequences” since this is what happened in the “Boston Movement” where elders made decisions in the realm of “expediency” regarding “who one could date or marry, what house you may buy, whether you move to another city.” So  our writer concludes that since this could have “dangerous consequences,” the solution is to have the “congregational meetings” to decide matters of expediency. But the same danger exists in “congregational meetings.” In fact, it was the members that were led by their group leaders that put pressure on people in these areas and not the elders. In fact, the elders were gradually pushed aside in the decision making until they became but ‘figure-heads.” Does this sound familiar? Godly elders will be watchful of such things and prevent them from happening instead of causing them.

A misuse of Luke 22:25-26 is found on page 56, paragraph 3, as he seeks to remove authority from the eldership over the flock. He states, “But the authoritarian rule of governors and commanders is out of the question because of Luke 22:25-26, where the word ‘chief’ is from the same Greek word. Jesus said the ‘chief’ (hegeomai) does not rule over others in his kingdom the way the Gentiles rule. Therefore, we must look to other aspects of the word to find the application to elders.” Certainly, no one is to “iron-rule” over God’s people. This is why the Holy Spirit forbids the “lording it over” God’s people (1 Pet. 5:3).

Our writer states on page 2, paragraph 4: “A growing number of preachers, teachers, and ordinary saints are realizing there is a pattern for decision making (emp. mine, b.h.) in the local church … and that the churches they worship with are not following it” (emp. mine, b.h.). One page 5, paragraph 2 he states, “The method local churches use to decide matters of congregational judgment has been established by God in a clear New Testament pattern, and we must follow that pattern” (emp. mine, b.h.). Page 6, paragraph 2 he continues, “But if God has spoken on the matter, then only his method of congregational decision making (leadership role, b.h.) is correct, and all others operate without divine authority” (emp. mine, b.h.). His conclusion is summed up on page 91, last paragraph by saying, “All women and some men are restricted from leadership roles in the local church by several Bible passages yet they may still participate in discussing and deciding the affairs of the congregation under qualified male leadership. Women may (and should) attend and participate in congregational business meetings, as long as they are in subjection ‘as also saith the law’ and as long as they do not ‘teach or usurp authority over the man” (emp. mine, b.h.). The writer does not seem to understand that when women attend church business meetings and help decide the affairs of that local church, she takes part in a leadership role! She is in a leadership role as well as any of the men in this instance. If not, why not?

Again: I have a question, could a woman speak before the “whole church,” providing she did it “in subjection” as she does in the “congregational meetings”? If our author says she cannot, I want to know why not? She is allowed to speak before the “whole church” in “congregational meetings” in “discussing and deciding the work of the local church” so why cannot she stand before the entire church and speak as long as it is “under the ‘leader-ship’ of the men” ? If our author says she can speak before the “whole church” as long as she is in subjection “as also saith the law” (page 91, paragraph 3) then he has “arrived” at where this position is leading him and others. God forbid!

On page 59, paragraph 3 he states, “Elders are charged with watchful care and concern for the spiritual well-being of every member of the flock. They must pay close attention to the spiritual needs and problems of the group, both collectively and individually, to see that the needs are satisfiedand the problems are dealt with” (emp. mine, b.h.). Brethren, how can they when they are not allowed to do so without a “congregational meeting” to get a “consensus”? Such is the “double-talk” over and over.

We need to read again 1 Timothy 2:12. Thayer says (page 84) that the word “usurp” as used here means “to govern one, exercise dominion over one.” Thus the word “usurp” carried with it the idea of “governing” or “do-minion.” In church business meetings there is a “governing” or “dominion” over the affairs of the local church, and when women became a part ofthis process they are violating God’s word!

Lest you think you have misunderstood what kind of decisions that women are to help make in these business meetings, he lists some on page 5, paragraph 2. “We (men and women in business meeting) must make decisions in areas where no specific revelation has been given. The support of preachers, but which ones? For how long? With how much money? In what location?” Page 4 of the book is spent discussing “power.” In paragraph 1 he states, “decision making processes (leadership role, b.h.) attract so much concern and controversy because they determine the distribution of a commodity that is highly esteemed among the majority of mankind. Power. The power to make decisions and control the affairs of others is highly sought after …” (emp. mine, b.h.).

Readers, you just heard the bottom line of it all. It is an attempt to introduce women into the position of decision making and controlling the affairs of the local church. Why else would a woman desire to attend a church business meeting but to have part in a leadership role? Certainly, women and all others need to be kept informed as to the decisions that are made, but a neglect to do this does not authorize the violating of 1 Timothy 2:12. In paragraph 4 he states, “God has also allotted decision making power in the spiritual realm …” Indeed he has and in his majestic wisdom he has made it clear where it is. Read again 1 Timtohy 2:12! This is why women are not permitted to stand in the pulpit and preach, stand before a mixed group of men and women and teach, or stand before a mixed group and lead singing. There are those who would love to do so, but God has forbidden it!

He states on page 2, paragraph 4, “A growing number of preachers, teachers, and ordinary saints are realizing there is a pattern for decision making in the local church … and that the churches they worship with are not following it. While we hear words about following the pattern and having authority for all we do, we often see something different in practice.” He goes on to say in paragraph 5 that there are two major reasons for this problem. The first is ignorance. He says that the practice of “excluding many or most of the members” is believed by many to be only a matter of “expediency.” This may be believed by some, but all I have known understand that women do not attend church business meetings because they wish to obey God’s word (I Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 14:34). Expediency has nothing to do with it!

He says the second reason is “over-reaction to the mistakes of the Feminist Movement.” Again, God-fearing women will submit to his instruction and remain in the role he has placed them in — that of subjection. Call me a male chauvinist if you desire. I have been called by worse names. In fact, the Feminist Movement says the same of the apostle Paul. The fact is that God gives three reasons why women are to be in subjection and not in leadership roles. (1) Man was formed first (1 Tim. 2:13); (2) woman was deceived, not man (I Tim. 2:14  This does not excuse man but rather indicates that he knew what he was doing when he ate of the forbidden fruit); and (3) after going through the “chains of authority” (I Cor. 11:3) the Holy Spirit goes on the subjective role in verse 9. You may choose to argue with God on these points. It is your choice!

Let me assure you that I believe in total equality in Christ (Gal. 3:28). “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” However, this changes nothing when it comes to leadership roles, and when women enter a church business meeting and help in making decisions concerning such things as to what preacher will be supported, where, how long and so forth, she is in a leadership role! You can slice it any way you want to or fly it under any flag you care, but it doesn’t change the fact that she is out of place in her role as a woman.

Churches can and should take into consideration the suggestions of women that are passed on for consideration. These can be taken up and discussed and decided upon in the business meetings, but she is to have no part in the “decision making process” (actually leadership role). God has forbidden it! The decisions as to what preacher to support, how much, where, when, etc. are to be made by the elders of the local church, and in the absence of elders the men serve in decision making as an expediency! Some churches have their business meetings (with or without elders) and never inform the membership as to the decisions that have been made. This is wrong! An informed membership works together in a harmonious way.

Sister Rieber points out that some churches permit women to teach high school and college level classes of mixed sutdents. This is clearly wrong! It violates 1 Timothy 2:12. Priscilla helped her husband teach Apollos the word of God  this isn’t a thirty-second cousin to a woman teaching a mixed class, preaching or attending a church business meeting! These items place people in leadership roles! Can’t we see that? Priscilla taught with her husband in a private setting!

The reference on page 94, paragraph 3 that says, “both male and female saints are told to come together ‘to provoke each other to love and good works cannot be applied to the “decision making process” (leadership role) that is being “peddled.” It is forbidden by God! Again, on page 94, paragraph 4 she states, “One of the responsibilities I had to accept was attending the assemblies of the ‘whole church’ to discuss and decide the work of the local church” (emp. mine, b.h.). Her conclusion is reached on page 95. The last paragraph says, “There are also scriptures that prevent the exclusion of even one woman from congregational assemblies” (Acts 6:2-5; 15:12,22). First, “congregational assemblies” are not under consideration here. It is in business meetings that decisions are made regarding the work of the local church. There is no proof from these scriptures that women had any open part in the decisions made. It simply states “it pleased the whole multitude.” Surely the women can give her input, but that is an entirely different matter than taking a leadership role in “discussing and deciding the work of the local church” (page 94, paragraph 4). In Acts 15 the apostles and elders came together to discuss and decide a subject of eternal importance (Acts 15:1-6). Our author says the “multitude” was made up of “the apostles and elders on one hand and the Judaizing teachers on the other,” but Paul tells us in his account of this meeting when he wrote Galatians that these false teachers were not allowed to speak (Gal. 2:1-5). Verse 22 states that the decision that was made on this day “pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas …” in order that others might also know of this binding decision not only for the local church there but also in Antioch. Yes, the local church made a decision as to who to send on this journey, but one will have to “read into” the verses to get a congregational meeting where the women joined in openly to decide who would go. The text simply states that it “pleased the whole church.” Some-times we are so anxious to “see” something in a verse that we wind up seeing nothing at all.

Think about this! A “men’s business meeting” functions in the absence of elders as an expedient means to exercise leadership, which requires the same decision making process as in an elders meeting. The inclusion of women participants in business meetings thus violates her role given in 1 Timothy 2:12 just as it would if she was a part of an elders meeting. Are we to understand that women are to attend elders meetings? If she is to be in meetings to “discuss and decide the work of the local church,” then she has placed herself in a leadership role. Is she to be allowed into the elders meetings that are to “discuss and decide the work of the local church” (page 94)? If these decisions are to be made by the “whole church” including women, then for what purpose do the elders serve? Brethren, we are drifting! No, we have drifted! this is a renewed effort to undermine the organization of the local church as God designed it! Don’t be deceived!

Our author uses several “syllogisms” in his book. A “syllogistic” argument is good, but it must be a true syllogism. It is made up of a major premise and a minor premise. If both of the premises are true (and properly formulated  pkw) then the conclusion will be true. However, if either of the premises is false then the conclusion is also false. Some of our brother’s syllogisms are flawed and others are simply “sillygisms.” Let me give him one that I do not believe he will agree with, and yet he teaches it in his book. (1) Major premise: Women not only can but should attend meetings of the “whole church” where discussions and decisions are engaged in. (2) Minor premis: Women are allowed and encouraged to speak publicly in these assemblies of the “whole church” as long as they remain “in subjection.” (3) Conclusion: Women may speak publicly to the “whole church” as long as they are “in subjection.” How about it brethren? Are you ready to buy that? If I have correctly stated the proposition of belief the author of this book is advocating, then the conclusion cannot be denied! Women preachers are ahead in the Lord’s church!

In conclusion, I am not minimizing the need and worth of women in the Lord’s church. In some places the greatest spiritual strength comes from godly women and in some places I am convinced that the cause of Christ would fail in that area were it not for them. This does not change the teaching of God regarding the God-given place he has assigned them. Thank God for our godly mothers, daughters, sisters and wives. Let us look upon them with the great respect they deserve, but let none of us let down the “vanguard” of God on the woman’s place. There are many today who are pressing for women to fill the pulpits. Some denominations already have them and some in the “liberal camp” are already at it. The things discussed in this article point to a direction forbidden by God. Let us be satisfied with “doing God’s work in God’s way.” Thank God for his godly women! May their tribe increase.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 16-19
December 2, 1993

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Withdrawal of fellowship from brethren is an issue about which there have developed diverse views. In some communities, the issue is a burning one and in other communities, it is hardly, if ever, practiced. When it does occur, there are varigated reactions to it. Some close to the one withdrawn from often find some flaw about the process or some obscure fact that in their opinion did not receive appropriate attention. Others believe that it is presumptuous to withdraw from another and that such an act is, in fact, an act of arrogance of the first degree.

Some congregations are so concerned about the behavior in other congregations that they feel that those congregations are not withdrawing as they should. In this context, they proceed to withdraw from those congregations because they are considered to be unsound. It is in this context, no doubt, that the question being considered in the article was asked.

Question: Can one congregation withdraw fellowship from another congregation?

Response: A definition of terms is needed for clarity and communication in the response. Withdraw is a commonly used term among the brethren. And in like manner, so is the term fellowship. Both of these terms need consideration so that each of us will be able to interact. One needs to know what I mean when I use the terms in order to have a benchmark against which to compare my comments, observations, and arguments in relation to the teaching of the Bible. Otherwise, there could be gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding about what is said.

Several words in the New Testament are used in relation to not keeping company with sinful brethren or avoiding them. It will be most fruitful for us to consider these terms with their specific meanings in given contexts. One word stello is translated withdraw in 2 Thessalonians 3:6. It originally had the sense of bringing together the sails of a ship or boat. Vine points out that in the middle voice it “signifies to shrink from a person or thing.” In this sense it means to avoid. It is used one other time in the New Testament (2 Cor. 8:20) in which passage it had reference to Paul’s conduct by which he wanted to avoid blame in the way in which the contribution to poor saints was handled.

Another term used is sunanamignumi which literally means “to mix up with or to have . . . signifies to have, company with” (Vine). Thayer basically gives the same sense. He also states in the reflexive and metaphorical sense it means “to keep company with, be intimate with, one.” This term is used in the following passages: 1 Corinthians 5:9,11; 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

Another term that needs consideration in this context is fellowship. Probably, there are senses given to this term which are unwarranted and, no doubt, lead to erroneous inferences about relationships. A commonly used term in the English translations, this term is actually from three different Greek nouns. Koinonia means to share in common and is translated sometimes as communion, fellowship, and communication. Another term in the original text is metoche which means partnership and is translated fellow-ship. A third term is koinonos which means a partaker or partner. It is translated partner, partaker, fellowship, and companion. The verbs having this sense are koinoneo, to have fellowship or to communicate, and sunkoinoneo, to have fellowship with or to communicate with. According to Thayer the verbs convey the idea of joint participation, jointly sharing, being a partner, a companion, or an associate.

Basically, fellowship is to be in communion, partner-ship, joint sharing, close association, and sharing in common. When two practice the same things, and share the same things, they can be said to have fellowship. Sometimes, the notion of fellowship is used to mean something like a mist that surrounds or envelops people who are together or in close proximity. One fellowships when one participates jointly. On one occasion, I was accused of fellowshipping error when I went to hear a preacher whom I believed taught error when he spoke at a neighboring congregation. After the services, I engaged the preacher in discussion trying to point out to him his error; this discussion lasted almost two hours. He did not believe I came to support him in his teaching; in fact, he asked me why I was there and my discussion with him sharpened why I took the occasion to hear him. However, a fellow preacher of the gospel said that I had fellowshipped error. He admitted that nothing I had participated in was error, except my being in attendance. From the meaning of the term fellowship in the scriptures, it is obvious that I had done nothing wrong.

One fellowships that with which one agrees or in which one participates as a partner or sharer. Light has no fellowship with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14) because what one is the other is not. There is nothing in common, no sharing. To have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness is to participate in doing them (Eph. 5:11). To have communion or fellowship with an idol is to worship an idol (1 Cor. 10:20). To have communion with the body and blood of Christ is to partake properly of the Lord’s supper, consisting of bread and fruit of the vine. To believe and practice what is taught is to have fellowship with the teacher who taught (Gal. 6:6). When the Philippians sent to assist Paul in his work, they had fellowship or partner-ship with him in that work (Phil. 4:15). If one were to engage in the sinful deeds that another does, then he is in fellowship or partnership with him and his sins (1 Tim. 5:22). When one shares flesh and blood such as another has, they are partakers or fellows in that respect (Heb. 2;14). Through fiery trials that bring sufferings to Christians because they so suffer because doing right as did Christ, they become partakers or have fellowship with his sufferings (1 Pet. 4:13). One is the partaker of the evil deeds of another when one encourages or aids that person in the doing of the evil work (2 In. 11). A person distributing to the necessity of saints is sharing with them, fellowshipping (Rom. 14:23). When Gentiles obeyed the gospel, they became partakers with Jews in their spiritual things because they had obeyed the gospel and when Gentiles shared with Jewish brethren their means, they were partakers with them in carnal things (Rom. 15:26,27). These passages are especially instructive and informative in relation to the meaning of fellowship.

One fellowships that which he believes and does, as well as those who do likewise. God intends for his people to be separated from the practice of sin and unrighteousness. In fact, saints are told, “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 6:17-7:1). To do otherwise is to fellowship defilement of the flesh and the spirit.

“Right hands of fellowship” is an expression Paul used to indicate that when he laid before James, Peter, and John his ministry to the Gentiles, which they accepted and were convinced that the gospel was for the Gentiles also, they signified their participating in the gospel’s proclamation by extending a token of their agreement, their right hands (Gal. 2:9). “Right hands of fellowship” is a metaphor indicating that they were engaged in the same gospel work, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. The extending of the right hands was not the fellowship but the sign of what they shared together, the proclamation of the gospel.

It should be most obvious that one fellowships that in which he shares or jointly participates. If a person is a thief and another does not steal, they have no fellowship in that deed. If one were to endorse another’s thievery, he would become a partaker in his evil deed. One who teaches error fellowships all those who so teach or if one endorses error taught, he becomes a partaker of the false doctrine (2 In. 9-11). If one by physical assistance or means aids another in the preaching of the gospel, he fellowships the gospel (Phil. 1:5). One who obeys the Christ by that obedience is in fellowship with the Son and if in fellowship with him, then one is also in fellowship with the Father and the Holy Spirit (1 In. 1:1-3). But if one walks in darkness, he cannot say that he is in fellowship with Christ because he is light and in him is no darkness at all (1 Jn. 1:6-7).

Understanding what fellowship is will be most helpful in understanding the withdrawal talked about in the scriptures. If one has not participated in the sin, he cannot withdraw from it because he is not in it. However, he can avoid doing the sin and endorsing those who practice it. He can refrain from mixing up with, or being intimately associated with sinners such as adulterers and false teachers.

A study of passages in context that deal with the concept of withdrawing or not keeping company with should be most helpful and informative in arriving at what the scriptures really teach on the subject. The objects of such withdrawal should be carefully noted also.

Paul instructed the Corinthians not to company with those brethren who were fornicators, covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or extortioners; they were not even to eat with them. This latter activity would indicate an intimate association which they were not to have with such brethren. He did not exclude company with non-believers guilty of similar sins (1 Cor. 5:10). The relation between brethren is such that having company with those who practice such sins as detailed above would indicate some approval and not condemnation of their behavior.

The Corinthians were instructed to “put away the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). Put away is translated from exairo which is derived from ek from, and airo, to take up or remove. It is used also in Ephesians 4:31 in reference to putting away bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, railing, and malice. One is to remove from close, intimate association and company those who are willful, continuous sinners lest one appear to endorse their behavior or demonstrate that they are not concerned about the aberrant behavior.

A case of gross fornication was practiced among the Corinthians and they had tolerated it, not doing anything to indicate their disapproval of such behavior. Paul instructed them that in the assembly they were to deliver such a person to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Coming face to face with the withdrawal of their association with the sinner was designed to have the effect metaphorically of his subduing the flesh in order that his spirit might be saved. By this means, they would put him away from among them (1 Cor. 5:2). If he later attended an assembly, there would be no fellowshipping of him unless some one endorsed him. But this having been publicly delivered to Satan at an assembly was visible evidence that they in no way endorsed him in this sin.

That brother or brethren who walked not after the teaching of the gospel as delivered by Paul were those from whom the Thessalonians should shrink or whom they should avoid (2 Thess. 3:6). They were not in any way to give the appearance of approving or being undisturbed by disorderly behavior of brethren. Accordingly, they were to have no company with such an individual to the end that he might be ashamed (2 Thess. 3:14). But, on the other hand, they were not to count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thess. 3:15). To admonish him there would have to be some means of contact but the context in which this occurs makes clear the disapproval of the behavior. There was to be no association or company that would leave an impression of unconcern or endorsement.

It should be observed that there is instruction for both the individual and the assembly of brethren. Whatever may or may not be done in assembly, the individual Christian has a responsibility in relation to brethren in sin.

It is appropriate to point out that individuals are the ones to be withdrawn from or with whom no company is to be kept. There is no instance in the New Testament teaching or practice for one congregation to withdraw from another congregation. In fact, let us observe what such action might bring about in relation to God. Generally, Sardis was a congregation that did not perfect works before God. However, there were a few who did not defile their garments and accordingly “shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4). Suppose the congregation at Sardis had been withdrawn from and, therefore, one would have no company with a member of that congregation, in that event one would have condemned one whom God praised. Certainly, one ought to want to fellowship one whom God fellowships.

The congregation at Thyatira had certain sinners within such as fornicators and false teachers (Rev. 2:20-24). But there were some there that did not engage in or practice such teaching as is condemned; they “know not the deep things of Satan” as some were wont to say (Rev. 2:24). If the congregation at Thyatira had been withdrawn from, then one would find himself condemning some whom God commended. It is clear that individuals are to be withdrawn from and not congregations.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 5-7
December 2, 1993