Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Sometimes a question is asked that involves more than the language of the text about which it is raised. Such is the nature of the question which is being answered in this column. It of necessity also involves the larger context and a generalization that the apostle makes and from which he develops an argument. One must be careful to follow carefully what the writer has in mind and how he arrives at the conclusion which he considers to be decisive.

Question: Regarding Romans 7:2. Can it be clearly shown that the “bond” here described is a dual bond to law and to husband, or is the law merely the instrument binding the wife to the husband?

Response: Paul says the law is binding on one so long as he lives. This generalization was one that he knew his readers would accept. He knew this because they were not “ignorant” (not knowing). He states, “I speak to mean who know the law” (Rom. 7:1). Then Paul proceeds to illustrate the truth of the generalization from an example with which they were well aware. A woman who has a husband is bound by the law to the husband while he lives but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband (Rom. 7:2). However, while the husband lives and she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. On the other hand, if the husband should die and she is joined to another man, she is no adulteress (Rom. 7:2-3). The language of these verses is most emphatically clear and the readers would not have any problem understanding it. Nor would they have a problem in accepting it as stating what is true and uncontroverted.

It should be noted that the woman is discharged from the law of the husband when he dies (Rom. 7:2). That law no longer has any dominion over her. In this case, she is free to be joined to another man and in this instance would be no adulteress. On the other hand, the dominion of the law of the husband is binding on her while he lives.

In chapter six, Paul had made a statement which he did not develop or argue as to why it was true. Note the language: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). However, in chapter seven he argues why they are not under the dominion of sin but under grace. He stated the generalization which we previously examined and the example of a woman’s being married which was an incontrovertible one. Having done this, the apostle demonstrates how the generalization has an application to their not being under the law of Moses but are now under grace.

“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ: that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit unto God” (Rom. 7:4). They died to the law by the body of Christ. Consequently being released from the law of Moses, they were free to obey Christ who has been raised from the dead. How were they freed from the law of Moses? They died to it by the crucified body of Christ. According to the generalization expressed in verse one, law has no dominion over one after he dies. Having died with Christ, they are free from the law of Moses. This point in verse four can be easily overlooked unless one pays very close attention to the precise language: “Ye were made dead to the law through the body of Christ. “They are dead: therefore, the law of Moses no longer has dominion over them. Grace now has dominion over them.

When they lived according to the flesh under the law, it had dominion over them. Now that they are dead to the law, it has no dominion over them. In the illustration of the woman in a marriage, she was free from the law of the husband when he died. The surviving spouse was not bound in this illustration. But in the application of the generalization that one is bound by law so long time as he lives, Paul says the woman is not bound to the law of her husband after his death. In the application of the generalization to the Romans’ case, they are not under the law of Moses because they are dead to it through the crucified body of Christ. This shift in the applications is important to note.

From the preceding comments and Paul’s argument, one should not conclude that the law of Moses survived their death. The Scriptures are too clear on this for anyone to come to this conclusion. Make no mistake, the law of Moses was abolished on the cross (Col. 2:14). It, as the middle wall of partition separating Jew and Gentile, was broken down. Christ having abolished it (Eph. 2:14-15). In abolishing the first covenant, Christ took it away that a second one might be established (Heb. 10:9). On this basis also, it is no longer binding. What we need to do in Romans 7 is to follow carefully the argument and not twist it to say what it does not.

We need to look further at Romans 7 as the apostle develops a vital point. When they were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were exposed or revealed by the law wrought in their members to bring forth unto death (Rom. 7:5). Now, however, being discharged from the law, having died to that wherein they were held, they serve in newness of the spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Rom. 7:6). But from this one must not conclude that the law is sin (Rom. 7:7). God forbid such a thought. One can know sin by what the law said. Apart from the law, sin is dead (Rom. 7:8).

Specifically, the querist is interested in whether the bond in Romans 7:2 is a dual oneto law and to husband. The response must be in the negative because verse two says that if the husband dies, the wife is discharged from the law of the husband. The bond is to the husband, his law. He does not have here under consideration specifically the law of Moses but the relation of the husband and wife to one another while both live and in the event the husband dies. In the latter case, the woman is discharged from the law of her husband, and she is under no bond to him.

The querist further asks, “is the law merely the instrument binding the wife to the husband?” The joining of the husband and the wife is that by which the wife comes under the dominion of the law of the husband. In Paul’s argument, he does not consider the law as the instrument of binding. Rather the relation is that which established the law of the husband over the wife.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 15, p. 5-6
August 5, 1993

By Mike Willis

In the last two issues of this paper, I have been reviewing the concept that Jesus did not have inherent power to work miracles. In the first two articles, I examined the passages sometimes cited to prove that Jesus did not have inherent power to show that, rather than affirming that Jesus did not have inherent power to work miracles, they show the oneness of the Godhead. In this last article of this series, I want to examine one miracle which shows that Jesus had omnipotence, omniscience, and holiness while he was on earth. All three of these can be seen from one of his many miracles  the miraculous draught of fish when Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James and John to be his disciples. Here is the text:

And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, and saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, 0 Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him (Lk. 5:1-11).

The miracle occurred while Jesus was preaching beside the Sea of Galilee. The crowd was so great that he needed a pulpit. Jesus requested that Peter allow him to use his boat as a pulpit. Peter quickly agreed to Jesus’ request since this was not his first acquaintance with Jesus (he was one of those introduced to Jesus by John the Baptist [Jn. 1:40-41], and Jesus had previously healed Peter’s mother-in-law [Lk. 4:38-39]).

Jesus’ Omniscience

After completing his preaching, Jesus instructed Peter to move his boat into the deep water and cast down his nets. There were two things uncommon about Jesus’ instructions: (a) The usual time for fishing was night (note the four had worked all night, 5:5) and (b) it was the wrong place (usually the nets would have been cast into shallow water). What did the son of the carpenter from Galilee know about fishing? Nevertheless, Peter responded, “Master… at thy word I will let down the net” (5:5).

How did Jesus know where were the fish in the Sea of Galilee? His way of knowing where were the fish in the Sea of Galilee was not natural, i.e. that he was a superior fisherman. He knew where they were because he was the omniscient God! On another occasion he knew exactly where a fish would be that contained a coin in its mouth and instructed Peter to catch that fish and pay their taxes with the coin (Matt. 17:27). He knew where individuals would be and what they would be doing at this or that particular moment in time (Mk. 14:13; Jn. 1:48-49). He knew the thoughts and hearts of men (Lk. 5:22; In. 2:25). Peter truly was correct when he said about Jesus, ‘Lord, thou knowest all things” (Jn. 21:17). Indeed, Jesus retained his omniscience while he was on earth.

Jesus’ Omnipotence

Not only was Jesus omniscient, he was also omnipotent. This is displayed in this miracle by his directing the fish into the net of Peter. He who created the fish of the sea directed them into the nets of Peter. He who had the power to calm the winds and waves, turn five loaves and two fish into enough food to feed a multitude, and walk on water, also manifested his omnipotent power by controlling the fish in the Sea of Galilee on this occasion.

Jesus’ Holiness

When Peter saw the miracle which Jesus performed, he reacted as men generally act in the presence of God. He said, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man” (Lk. 5:8). Peter is not said to have been more sinful than any of the other apostles. Instead, he recognized that he was in the presence of God. He reacted to being in the presence of God the same as did Isaiah when he was given the vision of the throne of God. Isaiah said, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isa. 6:5). He reacted like Manoah (Judg. 13:20) and John (Rev. 1:17). Man generally thought that he could not see the face of God and live (Exod. 33:20 and cross references). Not only did Peter recognize the holiness of Christ while on earth, so also did the demons. They referred to him as the “Holy One” (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34; remember that “the Holy One of Israel” was a favorite expression of Isaiah to refer to God).

Nevertheless, some are saying that Jesus laid aside his holiness when he became a man. What proof could one give to show that Jesus laid aside his holiness? The only way that I can think of to show that Jesus laid aside his holiness when he became a man would be to cite an example of sin in his life. This would certainly prove that he was not holy. Will those who deny that Jesus retained his holiness while on earth join the enemies of Christ in citing examples of his “sin”? Of course not! This brethren respect the word of God too much to affirm that there was ever sin in Jesus’ life. In the absence of sin, which all admit never occurred, then Jesus was always holy! He never gave up his absolute holiness!

Conclusion

This simple record of the miraculous draught of fish, a miracle with which we have been familiar since childhood, is enough to show that Jesus retained his omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness while on earth.

We may not understand how Jesus could be truly God and truly man while on earth, even as we cannot under-stand how any miracle is performed, but we can believe and teach what the Bible says. Let us emphasize those passages which show the unity of the Godhead and let us emphasize those passages which affirm that Jesus retained his divine attributes while on earth. May God bless our study of the nature of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 15, p. 2
August 5, 1993

By Al Sandlin

Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men” (Prov. 22:29). “Mean men” in this passage are obscure men; men of no significance in wisdom and power. This passage teaches us that there are many fringe benefits in exercising diligence in one’s business.

The first benefit that comes to mind is that a command of God has been kept. Ecclessiastes 9:10 says, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.” Then we find in Romans 12:11, “Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord.” Paul said in Colossians 3:23-24, “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.” Even our business or secular occupation is encircled by Christianity. The more diligent we are in our secular work, the more pleasing we are unto him who provides our daily bread.

King Solomon observed the “industriousness” of Jeroboam and thus appointed him as a ruler. 1 Kings 11:28 says, “Now the man Jeroboam was a valiant warrior, and when Solomon saw that the young man was industrious, he appointed him over all the forced labor of the house of Joseph.” Whether we are business owners or in the employ of a business, it is our obligation to be diligent because we are, after all, working for the Lord (Col. 3:24). Those who are in power in a city, county, state, or nation look at the performance record of a prospect before filling an important position. When a person of proven ability is found, then he/she “will stand before kings.”

The parable of the talents in Matthew 25 demonstrates the pleasure of God in those who are diligent with that which has been entrusted to them. The two servants who exercised diligence had this said to them in verses 21 and 23, “Well done, good and faithful servant; thou halt been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” Jesus spoke this parable concerning the kingdom of heaven of which Christians are a part. Our King is looking at those who are hard working, industrious, assiduous Christians for one purpose — to make them rulers over many things. Does it strike you as odd that God wants to use people who are busy to give them even more responsibilities? That’s the kind of people he needs as rulers in his church upon the earth (elders) and rulers in the home (fathers and mothers). Throughout the Bible God rewarded diligence for things that are right and good. At the judgment those who have been diligent in secular work and in the kingdom will be rewarded.

Another benefit of diligence in business is that personal, self-satisfaction that one has when he has done his best. Proverbs 10:4 says, “He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich.” One who would provide well for his family must indeed be a person of diligence. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 5:18-20, “Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God. For he will not consider the years of his life, because God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart.” As diligent servants in the kingdom of heaven, God would have us to rejoice with a sense of fulfillment in that which we accomplish here “under the sun.” A key ingredient in that contentment, however, is to be ever thankful to God for his blessings which enable us to discharge our responsibilities. Notice that Solomon was careful to give God the credit in the above cited passage. “This is the gift of God,” he said. Diligence is rewarded by God here and hereafter. “There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. This also I have seen, that it is from the hand of God” (Eccl. 2:24).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 15, p. 6-7
August 5, 1993

By Kevin Autry

On December 11 1968 an unwanted child was delivered in a hospitals Florida,,, The child. was quickly placed into the hands of social workers who then gave him to an adoption agency: A young, married couple who were unable to leave children of their “own adopted the child.” This was just #or years before abortion became legal.

On August 27, 1973 another unwanted child was born. Roe vs Wade had made abortion legal in 1973, but the mother had the child anyway. This child was also given to an adoption agency. She to was adopted.

I was the first child and my sister was the second. Maybe our biological mother was some scared teenager who made a mistake one night. Maybe she was a career woman who felt we might be inadvertent for her. Nonetheless, she made a decision to let her unwanted children live.

I deeply resent those who would deny my right to exist. Despite the fact that my natural, mother did not want live. I shall have a right to live. I also serve a purpose in this world. Without me, my parents would have no son and my sister world have no brother.

Other lives have been touched by me as well. A two old girl drowning in a pool would have died if I had not been walking by. A young man in Memphis might have carried out his threat to commit suicide if I had not been there to talk him out of it.

It is not my purpose to be boastful. I am attempting to show haw an `unwanted’ child has made a different in the world.

Figures by the Alan Guttmacher Instituite show that there were 1.6 million abortions in the United States in 1990 alone. Of all the pregnancies in 1990, 24.6 percent ended in abortion. Since Roe vs. Wade 28 million unborn children have died.

How many o these children could of made a difference? How many couples unable to have children of their own might have had their dream come true. How many of these children might have been President, or congressmen’ or judges? How many might have been famous writers or artists? World class musicians? Men of peace like King or Ghandi? Might one of them have become a doctor wh’o discovered cure of aids or cancer?

This mass genocide. of unborn children must stop, President Clinton’s removal of abortion restrictions and his support of the Freedom of Choice Act must be opposed. Lives depend an it.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 15, p. 7
August 5, 1993