Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader/Tom O’Neil

On Tuesday afternoon (February 2) over 200 brethren from across the country gathered at a Luby’s Cafeteria in Tampa, FL to honor brethren H.E. Phillips and Connie Adams for their work and service to God and brethren through the pages of Searching the Scriptures. Both brethren were taken by complete surprise. They came to the restaurant thinking they were meeting Tom O’Neal and this writer for dinner. After all were seated, Tom read a piece written by Polly Phillips and then read a tribute to both men. Roses were given to Polly Phillips and Bobby Adams in appreciation for their work and supporting role with the paper. Then, plaques were given to these two former editors of Searching the Scriptures. Below are the words that were read at the appreciation dinner.

In Gratitude to Elwood and Connie Dr. Luke records in Luke 17:11-19 of Jesus healing ten lepers, but only one Samaritan leper returned to give glory to God. Jesus raised the question, “Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?”

From this text every preacher in this room has preached a sermon on the sin of ingratitude, which is one of the most common sins of our time.

You and I do not want to be guilty of this sin toward two very beloved brethren, so we have assembled here this evening in Tampa to express our thanksgiving to two brethren who have given us their time, talents, money and lives to provide us a medium through which we might be Searching the Scriptures.

For every person present this evening, there are, no doubt, thousands of others around the world who would love to be here to show in a small way their appreciation to brethren H.E. Phillips and Connie W. Adams for their “work of faith and labor of love” over the years in editing and publishing Searching the Scriptures for 33 years.

These two brethren could not have done the outstanding job they did with the paper without the help, love and sup-port of the first ladies of Searching the Scriptures. The first first lady was fighting for her life while her husband put the first issue together in motel room in northern Florida. We are happy she is here tonight, and we salute Polly Phillips for her behind the scenes contribution to the paper. The second first lady, Bobbie, came on board when her husband took over as editor and was a stablizing influence until she went home to be with her Lord. The third first lady (Bobby) appeared on the scene when she married the editor of Searching the Scriptures and was around when the paper was with dignity laid to rest at the end of last year. We also are glad she is with us tonight and salute her for her contributions to the paper.

Searching the Scriptures was given birth by H.E. Phillips and the late James P. Miller when the church of our Lord was fighting to keep the Lord’s church separated from the human institutions of men. There were many storms and many battles to be fought, but Searching the Scriptures always did so with dignity and honor. Under honorable, fair and dignified circumstances, any number of those of us who wrote for the paper over the years would meet error and use the Scriptures to put it to flight.

These two brethren provided a medium through which brethren around the world could search what the Scriptures said, discuss what the Scriptures said, and yes, even debate what the Scriptures said on any Bible subject. These brethren were not afraid of open, fair, and frank discussion of the word of God. Such earned them the respect and admiration of brethren upon the continents of earth and the islands of the seas.

I have known these two brethren well for over 30 years. The three of us met in Atlanta at the time Elwood turned the paper over to Connie. I know the feelings expressed by them in that meeting toward each other and toward me, and I toward them. These feelings have only grown stronger since then. I know the fervent prayers that were prayed those two days. With them the only thing that matters then or now is truth. And with them the only things that determines what is truth is a “thus said the Lord.”

They are not, and have never been, ashamed or afraid of plain, old fashioned book, chapter and verse preaching and writing. This is what has made Searching the Scriptures one of the most respected and largest circulated journals among us.

I want to thank each of you for giving me the opportunity to write over the years. Others, I am sure, join me in this expression on their behalf. I want to thank each of you for what you have contributed to my life. It is hard to think of life without thinking of the four men who have contributed so much to my life, and they all four were writers for Searching the Scriptures; H.E. Phillips, Connie W. Adams, James P. Miller and Roy Cogdill.

There is a host of brethren, many whom already sleep in Jesus, who started out with you as readers, that are appreciative of your sacrifices and labors. Souls have been saved, Christians edified, churches built up in the most holy faith as a result of your labors. And I expect there will be those in generations yet unborn that will find a Searching the Scriptures and will, by the lessons in it, draw other men to the Savior of men.

On behalf of brethren everywhere who would like to show you their appreciation for your labors, Donnie V. Rader has designed a plaque for each of you on which he wrote, “In appreciation for your sacrifice and labor of love to serve God and brethren through the pages of Searching the Scriptures.”

Elwood, will you and Connie please come forward at this time so Donnie can present these to you?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 6-7
March 18, 1993

By Robert Wayne La Coste

The Apostle Paul was willing to “suffer all things lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Cot. 9:12). The servant of the Lord possessed this attitude about truth. He was well aware of the value of truth. Truth is in-dispensable to our salvation. Jesus said one must know it to be “made free from sin” (Jn. 8:32). Paul echoes this sentiment when he wrote how it made the Romans “free from sin and the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18). Therefore God desires that all men “come to a knowledge of it that they might be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). Truly as Peter wrote, “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

Satan knows the value of truth and hat’s why he has many ways to hinder it and keep it from the hearts f men. We only mention a few in his brief discourse.

Lying

There appears to be a dangerous trend relative to telling the truth these days. In the past several years it has been common to hear folks talking about “one’s perception” of a mat-ter. It has even been said, “One man’s lies is another man’s reality. It just all depends on your personal perception of the matter. This type of mentality is not far abreast from Such statements as “that’s just your own interpretations” It even smacks Of the days of the judges, when every rnan “did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 11:6).is not to be able to discern (perceive) truth from error. He often judges er roneously based on very superficial and subjective evidence. Of course the definitive standard to assist us in every walk of life where judgments must be made is the gospel of God’s Son. God’s word directsas from every aspect of our living from the cradle to the grave. By it we discern the good from the evil, the false prophet from the teacher of righteousness and a lie from the truth (I Jn. 2:1; 4:6): As we sharpen our spiritual senses by the sword of the Spirit, so we may discern truth from error (Het). 5:12-14), may we never fall in-to the snare of “personal perception.” Solomon said that “whosoever trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). Sure, it is true we will have some perception on any given matter, and from this perception we will make a judgment. Let’s just make. sure our perception and subsequent judgment coincide with the righteous judgment of God. No man is allowed his own personal private perception when it doesn’t harmonize with obvious facts. If facts are presented and you believe it a lie and I believe it the truth, either the facts are in error or we are in error. It can’t be both!

Judging “righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24) is not an exercise perfected overnight and only with time and experience can it be our spiritual treasure. By following God’s mind as our guide, we shall not fail.

Prejudice

When one is confronted with a statement or action of another, howwe perceive it to a great degree depends on how our mind has been taught or programmed. Many hear the gospel preached constantly. They know it is the truth but prejudice; i.e a prejudgment has been existent for sometime and this hinders them from acceptance.

Therefore, if a man’s heart has not been taught right and he hears the word of God, quite often there is a changing of the Word so there will be harmony between the preconditioned mind and the word. This is a Colossaltragedy. When one recognizes that he has been taught wrong on a matter, the mind of man should be changed, not the revealed mind of

God. This is the situation in the parable of the sower, often also called the parable of the soils. As the soils (hearts of men) are under discussion, we might do well to call it that; This type of heart or soil is somewhat like the first one Jesus mentions. “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart” (Matt. 13:19). The word of God never has a chance to be planted because the person cares not to even try to understand it. His heart is cluttered with other “seed” that has been sown there, so the pure seed is never even given a chance. “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up,” is the type of soil that hinders truth from being sown in that person’s heart. The solution is t4 treat the soil, recondition it and make it ready to receive the pure seed. Without that reconditioning, sowing is futile.

Hypocrisy

No sincere person likes one who is “two-faced.” Have you ever met an individual that was “schizophrenic”? This is one who is one person at one time and then another person on a different occasion. It is literally defined as “split-personality.” In the spiritual realm, when a person is righteous part of the time and then unrighteous, then back to righteous, we term that as being hypocritical. The “hypocrite” during Shakespeare or Moliere’s day was an actor! On the theatrical stage, one was portraying a fictitious character. Everyone knew that in “real life” this actor was not this clown or king or whatever he was pretending to be.

When people pretend to be Christians or put on an act, this manner of life is wholly detrimental to the cause of the Lord and to truth. People see in this person that truth is not really important to them and if it isn’t important to them, why should any-one else really take it seriously? Jesus wanted his disciples not to reject truth because of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. He wanted them to do as they said, but Jesus did not want them doing as they did. Jesus said the Pharisees “say, but do not” (Matt. 23:3). In that same chapter therefore Jesus calls them hypocrites no less than seven times and in closing wants to know how they shall escape the damnation of hell? (Matt. 23:33) There is no escaping God’s punishment for hindering God’s truth. Because of such hypocrisy in the early church, the apostle said that “the name of God was being blasphemed” (Rom. 2:24). You and I need to make sure that as people look at our lives, our lives “becometh (makes comely, i.e. beautifies) the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:27).

Division

Why does God hate division or discord? (Prov. 6:19) The same reason he hates divorce! (Mal. 2:16) In both instances, there is a separation taking place of an entity God has created. The church belongs to Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). He prayed for and died for his church (Jn. 17:20-21) “to be of the same mind and judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). A united people is a formidable foe against any would be adversary. However , “a house divided against itself will not stand” (Matt 12:25).

Satan knows the power of a united people. This is why he does all he can in his power to divide the body of Jesus Christ. Dividing means conquering! No physical family, nation or local church will be existent for long where division reigns. How the Devil loves it,

The disgruntled Christian who figures the local church would do better following his ”wisdom” than anyone else’s, places himself in the fore ground and seeks the preeminence. This ”Diotrephes” (3 Jn. 9) is going to rule or ruin. I-fe always does the latter. Such a Christian is nothing more than a “patsy” who has played into the Devil’s hands. With the tools of arrogance, pride and envy, Satan uses, of all people, the Christian, to destroy Christians! This is nothing new. Satan used Jesus’ own apostles to betray, deny and destroy the Lord Jesus! Satan yet ”sifts” the Christian as wheat (Lk. 22:31). We must determine in our own hearts that we will not be the devil’s tool. We must have a resolve that truth will not suffer because of us. “Woe unto that many by whom offences conieth” (Matt. 18:7).

Compromise

“Preacher, you need to lighten up. Give a little, just preach the gospel and leave others alone” Today, those who would dare to preach the whole counsel of God are under fire to compromise in their preaching. Many churches never hear lessons on denominational error, marriage, divorce and remarriage, social drinking and dancing or the issues that have divided brethren on the work of the church, the PMA (positive mental attitude) brethren would hinder the truth with their spirit of compromise if we let them. I understand full well we are to “preach the truth in love,” but love for whom and what? Our first love (Rev. 2:4)is the Lord and his word. His word is absolute truth and when it comes to this truth, there is no room for compromise. We should only “feel good about ourselves” when we have fully “reproved, rebuked and exhorted with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). The tickling of ears and the scratching of backs keeps from being said what needs to be said concerning many matters that relate to our soul and its salvation. Iris never an easy task, but God forbid we should ever place convenience over conviction. Maybe that’s the problem. Too many have little or no conviction and it is in this seedbed that compromise blossoms, blooms and bears!

Brethren, a watered-down, soft- soaped “positive only” gospel is not the kind of gospel Paul preached. It is “another gospel” and those who preach it have the curse of God upon them (Gal. 1:6-9). Brethren, keep your eyes and ears open. Men are parading themselves as gospel preachers, when there are many things they won’t preach which are gospel! Some of these same ones advocate “unity in diversity” and hinder truth by being more interested in the quanthy of their membership, rather than the quality! Compromise on important matters of truth may build church numbers, but it doesn’t save souls.

It is a serious matter to have a part in the cutting of the only life line that God throws to the sinking souls of men. Truth is that lifeline. Let’s help ”throw out the life line.” If a man is drowning, you don’t throw him a thread, and neither if hunting elephants do you take a B-B gun! The souls of men will need all the truth if they are to be what God expects of them. Gospel preachers will need all the truth to expose error for what it is. There should be no cost too great, no sacrifice too demanding for the cause of truth. Truth can save man here and deliver him eternally to God, but it will take all the truth to accomplish that noble task.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 16-17
March 18, 1993

By Mike Willis

Men constantly are writing biographies about the great deeds which someone has done. A browsing of the biographical section of the library will expose a person to many biographies, sometimes extending into multiple volumes, about men unknown to us. The Holy Spirit summarized the life of Barnabas in these few words: ‘For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith” (Acts 11:24). That is a good tribute for a life well lived.

Who Was Barnabas?

Barnabas is firs; introduced to us in Acts 4:36-37 when he sold a piece of property and brought the money received from it and laid it at the apostles’ feet for distribution among the poor. Later, Barnabas is mentioned as the man who introduced Saul of Tarsus to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27), When news that the church at Antioch was preaching to Grecians was received, the apostles were concerned enough to send Barnabas to Antioch to cheek out the situation. Barnabas was so well received at Antioch that, when the church decided to send money to relieve the destitute in Judea, he was one of the men selected to deliver the funds to the elders at the various churches in Judea. The Holy Spirit set Barnabas apart with Saul to go on the first missionary journey in Acts 13. He participated in the so-called Jerusalem conference (Acts IS) and later ~vent on a missionary journey with John Mark (Acts 15:37-39). We know much more about Paul than Barnabas, but we do know enough to see some lessons from his life.

The Traits of Barnabas

7. He was a good man. To say that a person is good is to affirm that his life is morally pure. Barnabas was nor a thief, drunkard, fornicator, etc. He did not habitually walk in sin. All men stumble into sin from time to time, as did Barnabas, but his general demeanor of life was to abstain from all kinds of evil. That is what being good implies.

Being good implies more than the avoidance of sin. It also implies the positive doing of that which is right. One could not say about the priest and Levite who passed by the man who fell among thieves, in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, that they were good (Lx. 10:25-37). They could see their fellow man suffering and do nothing to relieve that suffering. Barnabas was a good man in that he not on- Iv abstained from evil, but also did good deeds, such as that recorded in Acts 4: 36-37 when he sold his property and gave the money to relieve the suffering of the poor saints.

2. He was full of the Holy Ghost (Acts 11:24). This is not saying that Barnabas had special power from God to work miracles. Rather, it, is used in the same sense as Ephesians 5:18 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” A person is full of the Holy Ghost when he is led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:18). To the degree that a person’s life is full of the things of this world which root out devotion to God, he is no; ‘full of the Spirit.” Sometimes we see men who are so involved in sports, work, accumulating wealth, Barnabas: He Was a Good Mao, .and other such like things ;dint God is effectively rooted out of their lives. These men are not “roil of the Spirit.” When we say that Barnabas was Moil of the Spirit” we describe a life which is fully sin-rendered w the obedience of God.

3. He was; full of faith (Acts 11:241. In order to be described as one full of faith, Barnabas had a deep faith in God. The writer of Hebrews said, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to Cod must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them than diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). We must conclude that Barnabas had a deep faith in God. Second, Barnabas had a deep faith in Christ. He believed and obeyed the gospel. He acknowledged that Jesus was his Lord and lived in obedience to him.

Thirdly. Barnabas hid a deep faith in his fellowman. When others were afraid to have anything to do with Saul of Tarsus who wished to he identified with the church in Jerusalem, Barnabas took him aside, talked to him, became convinced of his true conversion, and subsequently recommended him to the h n4 (acts -27), liana., when the work in Antioch was greaser than t could do alone, Barnabas went to Tarsus to brine Say) to assist in that work. He had faith in Saul.

On the first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas took his cousin John Mark with them. for some reason. John Mark turned back at Perga [Acts ‘ 3:13). When time came for the second journey, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul refused. The disagreement: was so strong that Barnabas and John Mark -cent one e ay. and Paul and Silas went another. Barnabas’ faith in John Mark was justified. He did his work well so that Patti later could write, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for be is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Tin, 4:’ 1). Barnabas’ faith in his fellowman was commendable

The Fruits of His Life

I. He was a liberal giver (Acts 4:36-37). He sacrificed to give to the Lord as witnessed by his selling his property and laying the funds received at the feet of the apostles for them to use to distribute to the poor. Stingy men never accomplish much for the Lord.

He was concerned for the souls of men. Barnabas was willing to leave the comforts of his home to preach the gospel at Antioch, the various cities of the first missionary journey and in his travels with John Mark. He made sacrifices to convert the lost. He had a perception that the gospel was to he taken to the whole world and was willing to be used in disseminating the message. Consequently, he was active in bringing many souls to Christ.

He was a “son of consolation” (Acts 4:36). The text tells us that the apostles changed Joses’ name to Barnabas which means “son of consolation.” Just as Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter because he could see the rock-like character in the man, the apostles could see the good consolation which Joses gave and called him Barnabas. He had the ability to cheer and encourage his brethren. He was not a man who discouraged any good work done in a local congregation, with such words as “It’ll never work” or “We’ve tried that before.” Barnabas had an ability to stir men to greater service.

Barnabas was free from jealousy. When Saul first began working with Barnabas, the Scriptures referred to the pair as “Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2,7). After the events on the island of Cyprus, the pair were referred to as “Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:43,46; etc.). Commentators are generally agreed that the leadership in the group changed from Barnabas to Paul. Sometimes when strong men work together a spirit of jealousy interferes with their work. One is envious of the abilities of the other and bitter words follow. Barnabas was free from this evil spirit.

Someone has said that the most difficult chair to fill in an orchestra is “second fiddle.” The conductor has no trouble filling the chair of “first fiddle” and maybe even third and fourth fiddle. However, few people want to be second fiddle. Barnabas knew how to accept the role of second fiddle without bitterness and animosity.

Conclusion

A few years ago, a good brother and friend preached on Barnabas and said that he hoped that when he died men could say about him what was said about Barnabas — “For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” I have remembered his words for six years now and find myself feeling the same way. I hope that when I come to the end of my way and am lying in a coffin that my children can lean over into the coffin and say, “For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” I feel confident that, if these words can be truly said about me, that 1 soon shall hear these words from my Father, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). (The idea for this lesson was taken from several sources, including Simple Sermons For A World In Crisis by W. Herschel Ford.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 7, p. 2
April 1, 1993

By Ron Halbrook

Man’s ability to justify his sins is amazing. “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). In their efforts to justify divorces and remarriages of every description, men have come up with the following concept. When two people cannot get along and they decide to break up their home in the absence of adultery, it is a sinful tragedy, but the result is that they are both free to marry new partners. Some people would add that after such a divorce, both parties are free to marry new partners only after one of them commits fornication. (After already having repudiated their marriage, and waiting for one or the other to fall into immorality, by some mental gymnastics one party puts away the other a second time!)

Still other folks argue that after such a divorce, when one party finally commits fornication, the other party alone is free to marry someone else. (This too requires the mental gymnastics of a person putting away a second time for another cause the mate whom they have already put away!) According to some of these inventions of men, if the first party enters an adulterous marriage after the separation, his bed of adultery can be transformed into the bed of honor-able marriage by the hocus-pocus and mental gymnastics of his original mate.

How long is he guilty? Until his first mate says, “I don’t want to be bound to that adulterous partner.” That is when that man stops committing adultery (Glen Lovelady in [J.T.] Smith-Lovelady Debate on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage [Brooks, KY: Searching the Scriptures, 1976], p. 69).

The mere words of his first mate sanctify the adulterous marriage.

Such cases, scenarios, and variations might be multiplied endlessly, but they all share the common fallacy of “the waiting game.” They all share the concept that all remarriages, regardless of the circumstances, can be justified by waiting. A person can put a stumbling block before his mate, wait for her to fall over it, and then proclaim himself free to enter another marriage. He could do this again and again, just so he tries to “do better” each time. Or, a person in an adulterous marriage can wait for his mate to say some words which free him from the adultery while allowing him to stay in the very same marriage. Such a theory would allow him to move from one marriage to another again and again if he could get the last mate to say the magic words after each new remarriage.

The Teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:32

Jesus prohibited and precluded every possible variation of “the waiting game” in divorce and remarriage.

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matt. 5:31-32).

Let us notice briefly what the law of Moses said and how men misuse it. Then, we will examine more closely what Jesus said.

During the Mosaic Age, when God tolerated polygamy, he also tolerated divorce for a cause short of fornication: uncleanness or shameful indecency (Deut. 24:1-4). The severe limitations and restrictions placed upon such a divorce discouraged it, but it was permitted temporarily “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matt. 19:8). Some very liberal minded Jews perverted Deuteronomy 24 to justify divorce for any and every cause, and some like-minded brethren today misuse the passage in the same way. Jack Freeman claims, “God was allowing . . . divorce if she burned the toast or the biscuits. . He did under the Law that he gave through Moses” (Marriage Series, No. 1, North Las Vegas Church of Christ, Las Vegas, NV, 1988). Maurice Estes claims, “Divorce for any cause under the law of Moses dissolved the marriage,” even for such flimsy excuses as wife going about “with her hair undone,” and this established “the right of both parties to remarry” (Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: The Scriptures Speak [Morro Bay, CA: Meco Foundation, Inc., 1979], pp. 5-8).

That is the kind of foolishness Deuteronomy 24 was designed to eliminate. This misuse of the Law of Moses is utilized today by some brethren to twist Matthew 5:32 to justify freeing both parties for second marriages no matter what the cause of the divorce. Some brethren profess that both parties are free to marry new mates only if the divorce was caused by fornication, but they end up allowing people to stay in adulterous marriages formed after divorces which were not for fornication. Maurice Estes perverts both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ to argue that “there must be today the same understanding of the effect of a scriptural writing of divorcement: that it frees both parties to remarry” (Ibid., p. 6).

All such arguments lend themselves to “the waiting game” fallacy. It does not matter how or why the marriage breaks up, regardless of how flimsy the excuse, as soon as either party remarries, the other is considered free to remarry. The bottom line is this: All cases of remarriage following divorce for any and every cause can be justified with the help of “the waiting game,” some mental gymnastics, and a little hocus-pocus.

A Rule, One Exception, No Waiting Game

The Law of Christ embodies a rule with one exception. The rule is, “Whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to commit adultery.” The man who divorces his wife for any and every cause will be responsible for her subsequent adulterous marriage. This man will be held accountable to God for causing his wife to fall into sin. That does not exonerate her from guilt in forming and maintaining an adulterous union. In the case presented by Jesus, a subsequent marriage is assumed as is evident from his reference to the one who marries “her that is divorced.” The subsequent marriage is clearly held to be immoral, adulterous, or impure in God’s sight, contrary to the claim that God recognizes or approves every marriage which is legal according to human law (Heb. 13:4). The rule announced by Jesus forever prohibits and precludes people breaking up their marriage and waiting for their mate to commit adultery, as a pretext for claiming the right to select a new marriage partner!

The exception has the following force. “Whosoever shall put away his wife for fornication is not responsible for her subsequent adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. ” Again, Jesus assumes the case of a second or subsequent marriage and condemns it as adulterous, but the man who divorced her because of her immorality is not the cause of the sin she commits when she remarries. The claim that she is living in adultery in the subsequent marriage until her original mate says he releases her is ludicrous, the vain imagination and wicked invention of men attempting to create loopholes in divine law. Waiting for her former mate to say hocus-pocus will not resolve her adultery. If that would suffice, John could have easily resolved the incestuous adultery of Herod and Herodias by getting Philip to say he did not want her back anyway. John told Herod in no uncertain terms, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4).

J.W. McGarvey summed it up well in his excellent commentary on The Fourfold Gospel (p. 242):

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 . .. and in no part of the New Testament is there any relaxation as to the law here set forth … and it is there fore held almost universally . . . 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.

God’s law on marriage is one man for one woman for life, with only one exception. The exception is that an innocent partner can put away an immoral mate, and marry another person without committing adultery. No theory of man, including “the waiting game,” can nullify or alter one iota of God’s law.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 8-9
March 18, 1993