Truth Magazine

By J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911)

Since the publication of my recent article on the unscriptural marriage of divorced persons, I have received a number of communications from different parts of the country, expressing approval of what I have written, but calling for additional light on the subject.

One brother propounds the following question:

“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.

Another brother suggests an inquiry as to the proper method of proving the charge of adultery, when preferred as a ground for divorce. Certainly no man can be permitted to divorce his wife on a charge of adultery unsupported by valid proof. Suspicion, or his own unsupported assertion, is not sufficient. The elders of the church must be satisfied that the charge is true, and the grounds of their decision must be such as to place the fact beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. If, in a suit before the civil courts, the charge of adultery is perferred, and is proved to the satisfaction of a jury, this is ordinarily sufficient evidence, and no further inquiry need be made, except when there is good ground to think that a fair trial in court has not been held.

When this charge is not preferred before the courts, but the divorce is obtained on other grounds, the plan-tiff holding, however, that this crime has been committed, it is the duty of the elders to decide on the truthfulness of the charge and act accordingly.

The responsibility of the preacher who performs the ceremony is an unscriptural marriage, is also made a subject of inquiry. A marriage of a member of the church to a divorced woman once took place in a church where I was an elder. The elders learned from common rumor, some week or two in advance of the wedding, that it was to take place, and they promptly gave the man the proper advice and warning; but he persisted, and was excluded from the church. The preacher who performed the ceremony was a member of the same congregation, and was waited on to know why he had made himself a party to the sinful transaction. He solemnly asserted that he was ignorant of the fact that the woman had been divorced, and on this statement being made to the congregation, he was excused. A preacher who lives in a city, or in a place of common resort for wedding parties, is constantly liable to be led unwittingly to participate in such marriages, and it becomes him to be on his guard. It is very easy, as a general rule, to learn the facts in the case, and when a stranger proposes to be married to a widow, who is also a stranger, the inquiry should always be made whether she is a divorced woman, and, if so, the grounds of her divorce.

Again, I am asked, whether a couple, who are known to be unscripturally married, but who come with letters of commendation from a sister church, should be received into the fellowship of the congregation. Without hesitation, I answer, no. In such a case it is known that the church granting the letter has done wrong in so doing, either intentionally or through ignorance, and if we receive the parties we are participating in the wrong. When a church letter is presented, it furnishes prima facie evidence of Christian character, and it must be accepted in the absence of conflicting evidence; but when the congregation into whose fellowship admission is sought, knows to the contrary, or has good reason to suspect the contrary, she must go behind the letter and judge for herself as to the reception of members into her body.

I hope there will be re-awakening of consciences among preachers, church officers, and church members, on this important subject. The church cannot afford to be stained with the guilt of adultery. If she dares thus to become defiled, her Lord will repudiate her as an unclean thing, and the world will scorn her as a painted hypocrite. It is a shame to Protestant churches that the law of Christ on this subject is more scaredly regarded and more strictly enforced by her whom we sometimes call “The Mother of Harlots,” than by our-selves! Let us be abashed and humiliated, until we reform, and can lift up our heads and declare that the Protestant world has returned to the Word of the Lord on this vital element of social and religious life. (Reprinted from The Apostolic Times 8 Feb. 1877.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 22
July 15, 1993

By Olen Holderby

I know that much has been said lately on this subject, especially in the gospel papers; and, I very well may not have read them all. However, I shall run the risk of being repetitious in order to say some things that need to be said.

This writer is convinced that many problems which con-front brethren today are caused and propitiated by the claim, “We all cannot see the Bible alike.” Many of us have for years found this claim to be quite common in regard to our religious neighbors. When such people could think of no other answer, we expected to hear, “But, we do not all understand the Bible alike.” In recent years this same claim is being heard more and more from the lips of our own brethren. To this writer such a claim sounds like a page out of a denominational publication; and it ought to be returned to its source. It seems that such a claim is made in an effort to bolster the idea that we must have “unity-in-diversity.” If the claim is true, the alternative would at least be acceptable. But, is the claim true?

Before seeking an answer to his question, I wish to make it plain that I am not speaking of things indifferent within themselves as discussed in Romans 14. Rather, I am speaking of things commonly referred to as “doctrinal” matters, things upon which God has legislated. Some have misused Romans 14 in applying the principles there to doctrinal matters. I will not be dealing with Romans 14 in this article; however, I must insist that in order to so use Romans 14 one has to stretch both his imagination and the Scripture. If there was just one place in the “doctrine of Christ” that endorsed the idea of “unity-in-diversity,” it, no doubt, would have been produced long ago. But, no such place exists.

Now, let us go back to the statement, “We cannot all see the Bible alike.” Several reasons (or arguments) shall be offered to show that such a claim is absolutely false.

 

1. The Old Testament prophesied of the simplicity of God’s way. “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good” (Isa. 7:15). This is, as all may understand, a prophecy of the forthcoming Saviour; and that Saviour is our example (1 Pet. 2:21). Again, “And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein” (Isa. 35:8). Did the prophet accurately reflect upon God’s way here?

 

2. God created man and in his own image (Gen. 1:26-27). As Creator of man God well knew man’s limitations; and he knew the capabilities of man. God had this knowledge before he gave the gospel. The gospel came from the mouth of God (2 Tim. 3:16). The question is, could God give a gospel that all men could understand alike? If we say “no,” we question the wisdom, the knowledge, and the power of God. So, our answer must be in the affirmative. The next question is, did God give a gospel that we all can under-stand alike? Dear reader, if you say “no,” you question the mercy, the justice, and even the love of God for man. So again, the answer must be in the affirmative. Remembering, then, that God created man in his own image, and that God gave the gospel for man, to claim that “we cannot all understand the Bible alike” is an insult to the Almighty!

 

3. Paul called God’s giving of the gospel a “revelation” (Eph. 3:3). Of this word (apokalupsis) Thayer (p. 62) says it means, “a laying bare . . . a disclosure of truth, . . . concerning divine things before unknown.” W.E. Vine con-curs in this definition, but adds, “an uncovering . . . of `the mystery,’ the purpose of God in this age, Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3 . . . an expression of the mind of God for the instruction of the church.” Brethren, think about these definitions. We have all preached the gospel as the revelation of God to man. If the gospel is the revelation of God to man (and it is), it has to uncover, to make known to man the purpose of God for this age, it has to make known God’s mind for the instruction of the church. If the gospel does not do that, it is not a revelation from God to man. Once revealed the revelation must be understandable in order to be a revelation.

 

 

4. We are commanded to understand this revelation. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words), whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:3-4). How can anyone read these verses and then say, “we cannot all understand alike”? Would God command us to do something which we cannot do?

 

 

5. God’s revelation to man is a complete revelation, containing all information necessary for our understanding and direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17). This revelation contains “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). Again, I say, we must remember that God created man and knew exactly how to express his will so that man could understand. God implied that all men could understand the gospel when he commanded that the gospel be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15). Further, God implied that all Christians could understand the gospel when he instructed that our lives conform to the gospel (Phil. 1:27; Rom. 12:2). Further implication for the same thing is implied in the command to study (2 Tim. 2:15). Yes sir, “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psa. 119:130).

 

 

6. God has made our salvation contingent upon our understanding of his revealed will. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (in. 8:32). We are to obey the truth to purify our souls (1 Pet. 1:22); but, how can we obey that truth if we cannot understand that truth? Paul said that Timothy had “known the holy Scriptures” from the time he was a child (2 Tim. 3:15). This would, of course, make reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. It seems to this writer that Timothy had things harder to be understood than what we have today; yet, he understood them. If we cannot understand that by which we are going to be judged (in. 12:48), how can we prepare for the judgment?

 

 

6. Certain easily-understood instruction could not be followed if we cannot understand what God wants of us. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. 1:10). How could any number of people know that they were speaking the same thing, and speaking the truth, if they could not understand? How could they be of the same mind? How could I “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (Rom. 16:17) if I cannot understand that doctrine?

 

 

6. Limitations which God’s word places upon us forces the conclusion that we must understand his word. Consider again 1 Corinthians 1:10; we must speak the same thing and be of the same mind. The familiar statement of 2 John 9 further illustrates this point. If I cannot understand the doctrine of Christ, how can I know whether I am in or out of that doctrine?

 

 

6. Paul says that “we walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7); and “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6). “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). If there is no word of God there can be no faith; and I cannot please him without that faith. If I cannot understand God’s word, what happens to my faith? We can understand that if we operate in the realm of silence, we operate without faith; but, is this any worse than operating with a faith that is based upon a perversion? In what do I really trust? No longer can I say, with Paul, “I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith.” For my faith in him to be real, effective, and acceptable I must understand his word.

 

Still Folks Do Not Understand

All of that, you say, is well and good; yet many do not understand, and you wish to know why. Jesus spoke of an evil heart that did not understand (Matt. 13:15); not because they could not understand, but because they had an evil heart. Prejudice, envy, and jealousy all may preclude an understanding (Acts 17:5,32; 13:40-45). Stephen gave “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” as being at fault (Acts 7:51). Jesus, perhaps, assigned the reason for most not understanding, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). And, what causes one to not know the Scriptures? The answer comes bouncing back  a failure to honestly and sincerely study the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15). When an open and receptive heart comes to God’s word, he can understand God’s word. Yes, effort is required, sometimes much effort. Not only do some people learn more quickly than others, some have farther to go than others. But, every accountable person upon God’s earth can under-stand God’s word; and every group of such persons can understand God’s word alike! If this is not so, there really is no standard at all.

The claim that “we cannot all see the Bible alike” can-not be used to justify “unity-in-diversity.” And, since we can all see the Bible alike, there is no valid reason to plead for “unity-in-diversity.”

May God help us all to have room in our hearts for an understanding of his word; for, if we do not the consequences could be terrible, both in this life and the one to come. Gr

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 12-13
July 15, 1993

By Carl McMurray

“Therefore He was saying, `What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree; and the birds of the air nested in its branches.’ And again He said, ‘To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of meal, until it was all leavened”‘ (Lk. 13:18-21).

In the above verses Jesus compares his kingdom to two everyday occurrences in order to illustrate different characteristics of that kingdom.

In the first illustration the kingdom is likened unto a mustard seed. This small seed, about the size of a pin head, grows into a plant large enough for the birds to nest in. The words are similar to our modern day sayings about acorns and mighty oaks. The lesson is clear. From modest and humble beginnings, the gospel of the kingdom can grow to have a tremendous effect. Whether we are speaking of the kingdom’s humble beginnings in Jerusalem and subsequent world-wide spread, or whether we are speaking on a more personal level of the growth changes brought about in one’s life as he humbles his heart to God and is “lifted up” in service, it makes no difference. The changes are still tremendous in the world, in a community, or in one’s life. We can-not escape the potential for growth that is present in this illustration and we need to beware the efforts of Satan to discourage us by whispering, “Nobody’s interested” or “They’re going to do it anyway, why fight it?” We need to keep planting kingdom seeds.

In the second illustration, the kingdom is likened unto leaven or yeast. He comments on the spreading power of the yeast throughout the meal. We note that even though its work is unseen, it is nevertheless very effective. We are forced to see once again the power for growth and spreading influence of the kingdom. In the first parable the growth was observable while here it is unseen. In the first, birds came and nested in its branches, while here no more meal is added to the amount. Both of these are different aspects of the kingdom. Sometimes growth is natural and visible, while sometimes it comes about more slowly through unseen influences such as example, love, conscience or friendship.

There are two things, however, that seem to be present in both cases that catch one’s attention. In both cases there is growth. Growth means change, which is uncomfortable for many people. We like our “ruts” and our traditions. But growth also means maturity and strengthening and wisdom. The kingdom (or church) should be maturing as our faith grows season by season. Greater wisdom should be available to every congregation as the work progresses. Though our standard, the gospel, is unchanging, our methods of evangelism, our class curriculums, our gospel meetings can and should change to be more effective in getting Christ’s message out to a “changing” society. Just like the “brush arbor” meetings and millennial teaching of the 19th century were laid aside as we grew and learned, so other activities that become outdated or need correcting should be addressed. On the one hand, to be more effective in reaching out to a lost world, and on the other hand to keep perfecting our teaching so as to always be upholding the light of the first century gospel. Jesus shows us that whether by visible results or hidden influences, kingdom growth is inevitable.

The second obvious thing I see, however, brings the parables home to me. I notice that in both cases, before there could be growth, there was someone involved in the process. In the first “a man” took the seed and sowed it. In the second “a woman” took the leaven and hid it. In both cases, the seed and the leaven would have been useless if they were just left alone to grow by themselves. Someone had to get involved. Remember, Jesus did not say simply that the kingdom was like seed or leaven. He said it was like seed, sown and growing. And it was like leaven, hid-den and growing. It is the whole picture that represents the kingdom. The seed and leaven (gospel?), the growth, and the man and woman (Christians?) are all part of the picture.

Are you part of this picture of Christ’s kingdom? As the song says, “There is much to do, there’s work on every hand, the cry for help goes ringing through the land,” and again, “There is room in the kingdom of God, my brother, for the small things that you can do.” God has done his part in giving us a Saviour. Mercy and peace need now to be taught in his name. Will you help . . . by your faithful attendance? By your spiritual worship? By your encouraging words? By your purposed and liberal giving? Will you teach a class? Will you serve in any number of ways that are available in the kingdom today, and by your action sow the seed or hide the leaven? May God bless you in your every effort.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 25
July 15, 1993

By T. Doy Moyer

We live in an age of non-controversy. People don’t want to discuss things that are controversial. The shift in recent years has been toward “positivism.” “Don’t say or teach anything that has a negative tone to it. Let’s just be positive and make people feel good.” The trends in denominationalism show this attitude, as churches have become more and more social in their approach to the world. The new “mega-churches” cater to everyone, including those who don’t care about God. Churches have apostatized as they have become more concerned with making people “feel” good, instead of trying to save souls. Never step on toes or preach things that could offend hearers. Doing such just turns people off. (See Matt. 15:1-17 to see what Jesus thought about this.)

Sadly, the trend in denominationalism has become well-accepted by many disciples of Christ. Many have bought the techniques of pop-psychology. Instead of taking the approach toward teaching people that Jesus or the apostle Paul took, we promote the “Dale Carnegie” approach and refuse to call sin. Whatever the cost is, we are determined that we will not make enemies. This is the basis of the “peace at any price” ideas. Consequently, we have those among us, who say things very much akin to the things Isaiah had to deal with: “Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits” (Isa. 30:10). Teachers speak falsely, cater to itching ears, and the people “love to have it so” (Jer. 5:31; cf. 2 Tim. 4:2-4). As long as we don’t get controversial, we can keep our jobs and keep the peace.

I don’t know many people who really enjoy controversy for its own sake. Who likes to agonize over something that is a source of contention? I would not try to promote controversy for its own sake. But at the same time, the fact of controversy is something we had better understand. It is a fact that those who care about the Lord and his cause will have to get involved in controversy. The Lord could not avoid it (Matt. 22-23); and neither could his disciples (Acts 15). Today, as in the first century, what the Lord wants are disciples who are brave enough to enter the battlefield and contend for the faith (Jude 3). “For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Those who engage in controversy are generally criticized for doing so. Call into question a particular teaching, or deal with something in a straight-forward manner, and the next thing we know we are mean and unloving. Those who refuse to enter the battlefield then might complain that the ones who fight the battle are doing it for their own reputations, to promote themselves. I suppose the same could have been falsely said about Jesus or Paul. If you want to get someone upset at you, just deal with an issue in a straight-forward manner. Question something that he engages in and see the sparks fly. Ask for answers and you’re a troublemaker.

What is it that divides? Often when an issue comes up, people want to avoid discussion about it by saying, “That’s just another one of those issues that can splinter and divide brethren into thousands of little groups.” Does the fact that there is potential division mean that we must avoid the subject? We are afraid to discuss virtually anything these days. Issues like the deity of Christ, divorce and remarriage, different aspects of the Lord’s supper, and many other subjects must be studied. It seems, though, that just to bring them up for study is looked down on. I don’t know what the problem is in studying such issues. The Bible deals with them. Why should we be so afraid to? When a person says that “those issues can divide,” is he asking that we do not teach on them? Is the only way to keep the issue of divorce and remarriage from dividing brethren not to teach on it? Should we avoid teaching on the Lord’s supper because some brethren are so touchy about that? Talk about splintering! Before long, we’ll splinter teachings down so that we can’t address anything. We’ll just have to give up preaching truth altogether in favor of ear tickling. That way we can make friends and keep from upsetting anyone, except those who love the truth. (Can’t please anyone can we?)

I don’t believe that issues divide per se. Attitudes are what divide. For example, the issues of circumcision was not what divided brethren in the first century. Rather, it was the differing attitudes toward the issue that divided. If we can just get brethren to be rational and calm as they face certain issues, then there would not be nearly as much division. However, instead of trying to calmly study out an issue, the moment a question is brought up we get angry and irrational. We become unwilling to put our beliefs to the test and prove our convictions. The easiest thing to do then is just divide and say the other side is at fault for bringing up the issue. It is easier to get mad and indict motives than it is to think out and think through difficult questions. Giving an answer demands thought and study. Is it that we don’t want to do that?

The only way that we can “speak as the oracles of God” is to put our beliefs to the test (I Jn. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:11). Truth has nothing to fear. We don’t have to be unkind and cranky about it. But we can engage in honorable Bible study together over any issue and not have divisive attitudes about it. This is not to say there will never be a division. But we dont have to cower in fear and refuse to talk. We can’t pass over our responsibility to contend for the faith by letting others do all the work. “I don’t like controversy” is no excuse. Who does like it? It would be wonderful if everyone voluntarily believed and taught the very same things with complete conviction. The only way to make that possible is through Bible study, which will often involve controversy as people think through their positions. I may not agree with someone, but I can respect him much more if he will try to study the issue and give honest answers.

In the end, the “non-controversy” attitude will backfire. Such an attitude will allow for false teaching to run like wild-fire through the ranks of God’s people. Then, we might all be in union with each other, but we’ll all go to hell together also. The aim of the gospel is to save souls. When the gospel is perverted, it means the loss of souls. Therefore, lets take up the sword of the Spirit and preach the truth without compromise, understanding that the wisdom from above is “first pure, then peaceable (Jas. 3:17). Division is not the goal. No one wants that. We an want unity; but we want it to he true unity, not a compromised union. Thus., its time that we exercise our senses and dig into the issues that trouble us. Do so with the attitude of finding truth, and our efforts will he rewarded. Though controversy is often unpleasant, it makes for better understanding and the greater knowledge of the things of God. “Those divisive issues” dont have to divide, if well approach Gods word and each other with proper attitudes, determining that whatever God says is his word and we will submit to it. Will true disciples do any less?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 23-24
July 15, 1993