Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

The recent Bassett-Holt debate on divorce and remarriage “except for fornication” placed the issue on whether or not the second marriage must be terminated. Holt said one must cease that error of which he repents – identified as the adulterous relation of the second marriage; while Bassett said the “adultery” of Matthew 19:9 (et al) was only the “adulteration” of the first covenant: divorce plus making a second covenant. He said the noun “marriage” was sexual in its nature, but the verb “marry” was not. Holt replied that the “whoso” of Matthew 19:9b (“whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”) would be a previously unmarried man, hence no covenant breaker. He noted the immediate context (vv. 10-12) where “not to marry” (verb) was related to “made themselves eunuchs” by sexual self-containment. He also cited 1 Corinthians 7:9 “better to marry (verb) than to burn,” obviously with passion.

Bassett contended a married couple cannot commit adultery with one another; but Holt cited the basic principle of Romans 7:2-3 which says the second marriage is adulterous “so long as he (the first husband) liveth.” Bassett said this was only an “analogy,” but Holt replied each facet of the analogy is still true. Holt also used Mark 6:17-18 to say the marriage of Herod and Herodias was adulterous. When Bassett said it was only incest, Holt replied that incest involved uncovering “the nakedness of thy brother’s wife” (Lev. 18:16). He also used a chart which supplied Mark 6:17-18 names to Romans 7: “For the woman which hath an husband (Herodias) is bound by the law to her husband (Philip) so long as he liveth. . . So then if, while her husband (Philip) liveth, she (Herodias) be married to another man (Herod), she shall be called an adulteress.”

Bassett used 1 Corinthians 7:24 as though it was saying “abide” in whatever marriage relation one has when converted; but Holt showed the context limited this statement to things indifferent, as circumcision (v. 18) and slavery (v. 21; cf. vv. 10-11). Bassett said “loosed” (27b) meant “divorced,” and v. 28 said if such an one marry he has not sinned. Holt said the context (vv. 25-26) deals with never married people. (See “virgins” “so to be,” cf. Rev. 14:4, rft.) He also pointed out that to divorce and remarry are the two elements Bassett had said made the sin of adultery. The above is a sample of only one facet of the discussion – studying the contents of Matthew 19: et al, to see what Jesus taught during his personal ministry.

But there is an entirely different facet to this discussion. Here, as in other studies on the subject, there is a recurring difference in concepts regarding the application of Christ’s personal ministry teaching to today. Bassett seems to think since Jesus lived under Judaism, and used “the law and the prophets” in his teaching, that he taught nothing applicable to this dispensation – except “eternal moral principles.” There seems no fixed rule for identifying such “eternal moral principles.” What about “born again” (Jn. 3:3) or “tell it to the church” (Matt. 18:17)? He said morals never change -except polygamy (or something else?). He felt Jesus’ teaching must be viewed as Jews of his day would apply it. I would say “as Jesus applied it,” in his efforts to prepare them for the soon coming kingdom (Matt. 4:17).

Yes, Jesus began with “the law and prophets” but taught with authority, “not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:29). Revelation of God’s will was progressive, with its “starlight, moonlight” ages leading to the “sunlight” of perfection in Jesus Christ. Bassett and others like him seem to think if a teaching of Jesus “differs” with the law of Moses it violates inspired Scriptures, and is in conflict with Jesus’ statement: “I came not to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 7:15). The “fulfill” of that verse refers to substance that Christ gave to O.T. shadows; the spiritual reality of what began in physical types; the filling out or expanding of things only prefigured in Moses’ law. Among many fine statements in Expositor’s Greek Testament (on Matt. 5:17) we read, “He fulfills by realizing in theory and practice an ideal to which O.T. institutions and revelations point, but which they do not adequately express.” No contradiction here.

When Pharisees came, tempting Jesus with a question about divorce, he cited “leave, cleave, one flesh” from Genesis, saying, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matt. 19:3f). They counter by citing Deuteronomy 24: 1f where Moses regulated some legal aspects of divorce. But Jesus said, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. ” Compare Acts 14:16; 17:30; Romans 2:4; 9:22. The polygamy, idolatry, and yes, the divorce “suffered” in O.T. times (as a parent patiently seeks to train an erring child) is no standard for the sunlight age of Christianity. “From the beginning it was not so” does not say contradiction; it says God had higher and more noble things in mind even as he led his children through a training period. The “except for fornication” of Matthew 19:9 had not previously been enunciated, but it is inherent in the “cleave” and “one flesh” of Genesis 2:24.

Jesus taught the “sunlight” standards during his personal ministry. In John 14:26 he told the disciples the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance “whatsoever I have said unto, you.” Hebrews 1:2 says God “‘hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” and that which was first spoken by the Lord “was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (2:3). Long after the establishment of the church Luke wrote his “gospel” to declare the certainty of “those things which are most surely believed among us” (Lk. 1:1-4). They were things “that Jesus began both to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). We shall be judged in the last day by “the word that I (Jesus) have spoken” (Jn. 12:48). The teaching of Jesus reaches back to “the beginning” and to his rapport with the Father (vv. 49-50).

The message of God through Moses and other prophets are a sort of sketch over. which the Master painted in full glorious whole truth. If some should ask where did the apostles write what Jesus taught in Matthew 19 would suggest they look at Matthew 19, written after Pentecost, by the apostle Matthew, directed by the Holy Spirit.

One more quote from Expositor’s (on Matt. 5:17): “Therefore, in fulfilling he necessarily abrogates in effect, while repudiating the spirit of a destroyer. He brings in a law of the spirit which cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom which realizes prophetic ideals, while setting aside the crude details of their conception of the Messianic time.” The message of the moonlight age must be interpreted in the light of the message of the Son. It is a serious mistake – it could have eternal consequences to seek to escape the message of the Son by reading it in the light of the moon.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 293-294
May 21, 1992

By Tom M. Roberts

One of the saddest events of Peter’s life must have been that split second of time when, after denying Jesus three times as was prophesied, it was recorded, “And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly” (Lk. 22:61,62). However, this failure of Peter was equally true of all the apostles during the time of Jesus’ arrest, trial and subsequent crucifixion. The Lord had spoken of them: “All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad” (Matt. 26:31). They must have been totally demoralized.

Not fully understanding the Jesus came into the world to die, the apostles tried to avoid danger and, when Jesus was arrested, even Peter “followed afar off” (Lk. 22:54) and warmed himself at the enemy’s fire (v. 55). Nothing much is said of the activities of the twelve during these days except that they were together (Lk. 24:10,33) for awhile and then went to their own homes (Jn. 20: 10). When they met together, they met secretly, fearing for their lives (20:19). Peter went fishing (21:3), along with others, even after the resurrection, not understanding what was to follow.

Thomas will forever be called “the doubter” because he would not believe the word of the brethren who had first seen the Lord after the resurrection (Jn. 20:24ff). His walk was not by faith (2 Cor. 5:7), but by sight.

It is nothing short of amazing that the disciples, who were petty, quarrelsome, jealous, doubting and materialistic during the ministry of Jesus, and who were scattered and confused by his death, could become the bold and aggressive evangelists revealed to us in The Acts. What an amazing transformation! Surely we can find some kind of lesson for ourselves in this metamorphosis from this anxious, disillusioned band of secluded disciples as they emerged on Pentecost and beyond as the fearless and dedicated proclaimers who were ready to die for Jesus Christ. One of the themes of Luke is the heroic labors of the men who went to prison and (with most of the twelve) to death, “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (Acts 5:41).

Rush to Judgment

We should be wary of being hypercritical of the vacillation in the lives of the apostles before they understood fully about Jesus. It should be remembered that we have the advantage of the complete revelation of prophecy and its fulfillment in a way that was not true of the apostles until Pentecost and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

I have often heard lessons about the disciples sleeping in the Garden while Jesus poured out his heart to God. Yes, they should have remained awake, as we often should be better than we are. But Mark tells us that Peter, James and John, who were there in the Garden, were “greatly amazed and sore troubled ” (14:3 3), their ” spirit willing, but the flesh weak” (vs. 38). Luke gently adds that they were “sleeping for sorrow” (22:45). Without attempting to excuse them, we need to ask, “Would we have done differently?”

Again, they pressed Jesus to establish the kingdom, thinking it to be like that of David and Solomon, even after the resurrection (Acts 1:6). Previously, they had quarreled about who was to be the greatest in the kingdom (Matt. 20:21f, et al). Yes, Jesus had taught many parables about the nature of the kingdom and that “my kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36). But, before we begin to criticize too harshly, let us remember that we have the advantage of New Testament definitions and examples of the spiritual nature of the kingdom which were hidden to their view. Their temerity, however wrong, is understandable in the light of their limited view of fulfilled prophecy before Pentecost. But before we rush to judgment, we should realize that we are often timid, scattered, confused, petty, quarrelsome, etc. and we have had the fullness of the Gospel all of our lives. The knowledge of Jesus after the resurrection and after Pentecost forever changed their attitude and provided the impetus for an onslaught of evangelism that “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). 1 know why the apostles were hesitant before Pentecost, but what is our excuse? Why aren’t we turning our world upside down?

I heard a story once about a flea that rode on an elephant’s back across a bridge. When they got to the other side, the flea boasted, “Boy, we really shook that bridge, didn’t we?”

Unlike the apostles, we are not shaking anything. They were turned from cowards into heroes; from holding fearful, secret meetings to preaching on Jerusalem’s main street; from being fearful of their lives, to willing to die and rejoicing for the opportunity. This great theme from The Acts, the aggressiveness of the Gospel, should serve as a fire in our hearts and inspire us to zeal unseen in our times. Notice how bold the apostles became.

Aggressiveness of the Gospel

The first gospel sermon (Acts 2) did not take place on a side street, in a darkened alley, with whispers and innuendoes, fearful lest the dignity and decorum of the occasion of Pentecost be upset. Boldly, Peter and the eleven spoke out at a location large enough to accommodate thousands. They made a bold affirmation that what was seen and heard was a fulfillment of prophecy, that Jesus was the Christ and that the listeners were guilty of his murder. A fearless call for repentance went forth that was reminiscent of the prophets of old and the command to be baptized in the name of Christ was issued to every person. The apostles were totally convinced of the rightness of their cause, that there was only one right Way, that all were lost who believed differently, and it didn’t bother them that some considered them bigoted and narrow-minded. How different is this occasion from that when Peter denied Jesus and the twelve were scattered. Three thousand precious souls were baptized into Christ for remission of sins because the message now had messengers equal to the task.

Pentecost must have been a bombshell in the midst of the temple hierarchy. This pesky Jesus had been put to death and now a claim of resurrection was being made! The multitudes were being stirred again and political chaos was at risk. Fearing what was taking place, the high priest and his cohorts arrested the apostles and put them in jail (4:1ff). The Sadducees, taking the lead, and being in the company of no less than Annas, Caiaphas, his kinfolk, the rulers, elders and scribes, must have made an impressive sight. How would you like to stand before the Supreme Court, the President, congressmen, and power brokers? Would it make you just a little nervous? Would we temper our message to fit the “dignity” of the occasion? Peter said, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him cloth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (4:10-11). What an assembly! What an occasion! What a message!

Was the high priest converted? No. Was he angry at what he heard? Yes. Did the apostles care? No. Did they stop preaching? No.

Soon, the high priest had all the apostles arrested and put in jail (5:17ff). But an angel of the Lord opened the gate and the apostles went into the temple itself with their message about Jesus. Being re-arrested, they were undaunted and said, “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things” (29-32).

Was the high priest converted? No. Was he angry? Yes. He had the apostles beaten and charged them not to preach in the name of Jesus. They simply rejoiced that “they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (v. 41).

Stephen was martyred for the cause of truth, and Saul consented to his death (8:1). This was followed by a “great persecution against the church.” Did they retreat? Did they quit telling about Jesus? No. “They therefore that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word” (8:4).

Later, Ananias taught Saul (9:1ff) who himself became a fearless and dauntless preacher, taking the gospel to kings and nations of Gentiles. Herod killed James and put Peter in prison, “but the word of God grew and multiplied” (v. 24).

Tradition, for what it is worth (very little), has it that all the apostles died a violent death except John. Some of this has grown from Jesus’ comments in John 21:18-23 concerning Peter’s future as compared with that of John. Regardless, our proposition is clearly established: the bashful and fearful apostles became fearless and bold preachers, aggressively taking the word of God into every nook and cranny of the Roman world (Col. 1:23). This dramatic change took place in their lives when they fully understood that Jesus was risen from the dead and that discipleship in the kingdom is conditioned upon the proper use of our talents (Matt. 25).

Brethren, can we not learn from this change? Is it impossible for us to be aggressive and turn the world upside down in our day? Certainly we must not confuse contentiousness and belligerence with aggressiveness. But having said that, we must learn to develop a bolder attitude of taking the gospel to those who need it, recognizing that not all will be converted, that not all will appreciate our work, that many will hate us, maybe even persecute us. But it would be a blessing, indeed, if we could experience the joy, like the apostles, of suffering dishonor for the Name.

Here is a theme from Acts worthy of our consideration: Are we as aggressive with the gospel as we ought to be?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 296-297
May 21, 1992

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Frequently, we hear from brethren who seemed bent on freeing us from the shackles of “legalism” or “phariseeism,” as they perceive it. To these people, viewing the New Testament as a rigid standard for moral and religious conduct makes one a “legalist,” the chief of sinners, a pharisee of pharisees, without love and having no mercy in the world. So, these folks are trying to restructure brethren’s thinking on how to view and apply the New Testament so as avoid “legalism.”

Frankly, if one wants to charge me with “legalism” (“strict, literal adherence to law”(1)), then I will plead guilty as charged. I unashamedly take the “legal” (“authorized or permitted by law”(2)) approach to religion. Contrary to what some think, the New Testament is a system of law with ordinances (or commandments) to obey or rules to be followed. No, I do not believe one can earn his salvation by law or any other means. Even if one were to do all things commanded, he still would not have a right to boast of having earned his salvation (Lk. 10:17). Still, the Bible does teach strict and literal adherence to God’s law.

Freedom from the law (of Moses) enjoyed in Christ is not freedom from all law, contrary to what some would have us believe. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christians are not “without law toward God, but under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). While we are not justified by “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27 with context), Christians are subject to the “law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). They are expected to be doers of it. They will be judged by it (Jas. 2:12), to the point that if they offend in one point, they are guilty of all (Jas. 2:10). It was the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that freed us from “the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

Since the early days of Christianity, there have been heretics, assuming for themselves a superiority in spirituality. They believe that they experience a degree of fellowship, knowledge, and love that lifts them above a system that burdens one with commandment or rules keeping. The gnostic influence upon some in the early church produced such heretics. First John was likely written to counter this heresy. It is evident, from reading I John, that these folks considered their superior (?) knowledge of God (gnostic means “knowing one”) and love for him and his children as lifting them above a system that burdened people down with commandments and rules. John had to remind them of what is required of true fellowship, knowledge, and love. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:6-9). “Now by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, ‘I know him,’ and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in him” (2:3-5). “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (5:2,3).

A more recent device for relieving the burden of strict commandment keeping is the “love and mercy” rule. While professing respect for divine law, some would set it aside by their method of applying law to life. We are told that since God’s law is really based on “love and mercy” (who among us would deny this) that we can know that our application of law is wrong if it does not show proper love for God and mercy toward our fellow man despite what the law may say. Sounds good, so far, doesn’t it? Who can be against love and mercy? So, as we are told, the Pharisees really had a great respect for the law and wanted to do what the law said, “Do no work.” The Pharisees, being the conservatives that they were, really wanted to do God’s will. Why, then, were they wrong in condemning those who “worked” on the Sabbath in the New Testament? Of course! It was because they did not apply the “love and mercy” rule. Unlike the man killed in the Old Testament for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, those condemned by the Pharisees were acting out of love for God and mercy toward their fellow man rather than rebellion. You see, according to the “love and mercy” folks, they could work if they did it out of a heart of love and mercy, even though the law said , “do no work.”

By applying this rule, we can solve (?) other pressing problems. What if a couple has been married several times without having divorced for fornication? The Bible seems to say that they are committing adultery (Matt. 19:9) and that Christians must quit committing adultery (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Applying the law strictly would create an undue hardship. It would mean that this couple would have to separate and then live celibate. Their children would be without both a father and mother. Would not “love and mercy” demand that we have compassion upon them? Then our application of Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that says they must dissolve the adulterous relationship must be wrong. Why? Because it would be unloving and uncompassionate to break up that “home.” After all, the law rests upon love for God and mercy toward our fellow man. Still sounds good, doesn’t it? So, the conclusion to the whole matter is that love and mercy are the overriding considerations in applying God’s commandments regardless of what the text of the commands may plainly say.

Now that we have our rule of application firmly established (?), let’s get on with applying other points.

God’s law plainly says, “You shall not murder” (Matt. 5:21). A dogmatically conservative legalist might read that and think that murder is wrong under any circumstances. However, the “love and mercy” rule puts it in a different light if one kills out of love for God and mercy toward man. After all, is that not the underlying principle upon which divine law rests? So, euthanasia or “mercy killing” must be ok. If not, why not?

God’s law plainly says, “And the man that commits adultery with another man’s wife, he that commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:10). The New Testament also forbids adultery. A legalist would probably think that such fooling around with the neighbor’s wife is always wrong because he takes the text for what is says. Being fallible in his application, and unwilling to invoke the “love and mercy” principle, he would likely be too harsh.

For example, a brother’s wife becomes permanently ill and must be put into a nursing home. His neighbor, about the same time loses his mind and must be institutionalized. The couples have been good friends for years. Both the good brother and his neighbor’s wife are still young with needs to be fulfilled. So, since their partners can no longer fulfill those needs, they turn to each other. Now, remember, they are only doing it out of love and compassion for the other. Do you think that would work?

God’s law says “You shall not steal” (Rom. 13:9; cf. Eph. 4:25). Hurricane Hugo recently did much damage in South Carolina. Suppose a brother, envisioning himself as a modern “Robin Hood,” had looted the damaged stores and homes of the rich and given it to the poor and needy. Remember, he knows what the Bible says about stealing, but he has also heard about the “love and mercy” rule of application. Should he be held accountable for his stealing?

Brethren, seriously now, we should take a long look at the consequences of adopting a rule of application that allows us to set aside plain Bible statements in the name of love and mercy. The results are staggering. It is just situation ethics in a different garb.

Oh, yes, what about those who did certain things on the Sabbath day and were defended by Jesus, but criticized by the Pharisees? “Do no work” did not forbid all activity on the Sabbath. Even the Pharisee recognized this fact (Matt. 12:11-13). The things Jesus and his disciples did were not the “work” prohibited on the Sabbath or they would have sinned. The “work” was what we call working for a living or occupational work. It is much like the word was used by Paul. He accused some of “working not at all,” yet they were busy-bodies (2 Thess. 3:11). They were not inactive, yet they were “working not at all.” He defended the right of preachers to “forbear working” (1 Cor. 9:6) even while they were very busy preaching the gospel. None of those defended by Jesus violated either the “spirit” or the “letter” of the law. Not once did Jesus, say, “I know they may have worked on the Sabbath, but. . . ” They were guiltless because they did no work on the Sabbath, despite what the Pharisees said.

Endnotes

1. Webster’s New Reference Library and Encyclopedia.

2. . Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 291-292
May 21, 1992

By Wallace H. Little

The Jews allowed the Sabbath to be the end itself, rather than as Mark records Christ in saying, it was to serve man (Mk. 2:27 – “the Sabbath was made for men, not man for the Sabbath”).

J.C. Briney was the major figure saving the Missionary Society from extinction. At the 1906 convention, he wanted to speak in support of the missionary society, but opposing any other organizations like it, or extensions from it. The “Young Turks” who controlled the program, and who were promoting a “going onward,” refused him the platform. His protected and nourished “pet,” the missionary society, devoured him. Watching, others saw the horror as recognition of that spread across his face.

Organizations built by men have often so enthralled their builders and joiners that they will ever permit themselves to be sacrificed for the welfare of that organization, believing this is right. Many early Russian communist leaders were “eaten up” by the monster they created when Stalin came into full control. In their last writings/speakings, they stated they believed their sacrifice (death) was right and appropriate so that the organization could live and function.

In any organization, watch for the subordination of men (and women also, obviously) to the organization itself. This includes local churches. If that happens, either the system itself is basically wrong, or that man is applying it improperly. This latter is always true in the case of God’s institutions (marriage and family; government; the church).

“. . . One generic evil of an organization of any kind is that people who have identified themselves with it are prone to make an idol of it. The true purpose of an institution is to serve as a means of promoting the welfare of human beings. In truth, it is not sacrosanct but is ‘expendable.’ (*) Yet in the hearts of its devotees, it is apt to become and end in itself, to which the welfare of human beings is subordinated and even sacrificed if this is necessary for the welfare of the institution. The responsible administrators of any institution are particularly prone to fall into the moral error of feeling it to be their paramount duty to preserve the existence of this institution of which they are trustees (and the functions they perceive as right and proper for it – whl) . . . ” (Historian Arnold Toynbee, from “An Historian’s Approach to Religion,” Essentials and Non-Essentials in Religion, p. 268).

(*Toynbee was writing from the standpoint of man-made religious organizations, not God’s church. It is doubtful he even knew that New Testament Christianity existed. So he saw the evils in man-made religious organization as if they applied universally, as with any secular organization.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, p. 277
May 7, 1992