Truth Magazine

By Jerry Crolius

We must accept that it is impossible for finite man to fully comprehend an infinite God. Man, in his finite thinking, is limited by time and space. Therefore, he cannot fully understand how God can do such things as be present everywhere at the same time, know the future, or create the world from nothing. Man believes such things because the Bible teaches them, but he does not fully understand them.

Likewise, man has difficulty understanding fully how God became a man; or how three persons are one God. How do three persons possess completely and perfectly all the same attributes and qualities of one Deity? Or, as some think of the question, how can three equal one? The following discussion does not provide an answer to every question we may have about this subject, but it is intended to provide the extent of understanding God has revealed to us in his Word. We must be satisfied with that much, and believe what God has said.

Three Persons In One God?

Have you noticed that man’s greatest problems often stem from his tendency to assume as true things that are not necessarily so? For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses assume that when the Bible speaks of “one God,” it is referring to one person. That is an unprovable assumption!

The Witnesses tell us that Jesus cannot be God because, after all, the Father is God, and there is only one God.(1) But if the Witnesses would look a little more deeply into God’s Word they would find that the idea of “one” as applied to Deity includes more than just the finite mathematical idea of “one and only one.” It also includes the idea of unity. In other words, the biblical idea of one Deity is more than just a numerical oneness, but also a unified oneness. Therefore, the phrase “one God” does not prevent a plurality of persons in the one unified Deity.

To prove the above point from the Scriptures, notice that the Hebrew word for “one” (achad) used to describe God is also used to describe the unity of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24), the unity of the Tabernacle curtain (Exod. 26:6,11), and the unity of Israel (Ezek. 37:17).(2)

Similarly, the Greek word for “one” (heis) in the New Testament often refers to unity and uniqueness. Paul the planter and Apollos the waterer are “one” (1 Cor. 3:8), the multitude of the believers is “of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32), Jesus prayed that we may be “one” even as he and the Father are “one” (Jn. 17:22).(3)

There is only one Deity, but is that one Deity one person? Where does the Bible say so? No, instead the Bible says in John 1:1 that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Notice that the Word was “with God, ” present with and united together in one mind and purpose with Deity – and was himself Deity. There is only one God, but where does the Bible say that our one God is only one person?

We don’t have any trouble understanding that we are “humanity.” No one would insist that because there is only one humanity (Acts 17:26) there is only one person who can rightly be called human! No one would insist that all humans are not inherently equal in essence and nature! Let me suggest that in this sense there is one Deity. And there are three persons who are equally Divine. Why should that be so difficult for us to accept?

These three persons are infinitely and intimately united together in one mind and purpose! They are the “Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” into whose name (singular) we are baptized (Matt. 28:19). They are the “us” of Genesis 1:26 that said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” They are the three that worked together to reveal God’s Word as the Father spoke through the Son (Jn. 8:26-28; Heb. 1:1-2) and the Son spoke through the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:10-16).

The Witnesses’ false doctrine on the Deity of Jesus Christ stems from their determination to impose on the Scriptures a false assumption that limits the meaning of the “oneness” of Deity to a numerical oneness of persons. The Bible teaches that there is one and only one Deity, but that three persons are intimately united in the one Deity, and all three are equally Divine. The Witnesses’ unwillingness to accept this plain truth leads them to blasphemy. We must accept what the Bible says about God’s oneness and Jesus’ Deity without forcing our own ideas on the Scriptures.

But Isn’t Jesus Subordinate To God?

In their attempt to show that Jesus Christ is not Deity, the Witnesses cite many passages in the New Testament that depict Jesus as subordinate to or in subjection to the Father.(4) They reason that since Jesus is depicted as a man in subjection to God, then Jesus cannot be God.

First, we have shown above that it is presumptuous and unscriptural to insist that only one person be Deity. Second, the Witnesses commit the logical fallacy of converse accident (assumption that what is true in a special case is true in every case).(5) It is illogical to assume that because Jesus was not equal to God in his special role as man’s redeemer, he must by nature be unequal to God and is therefore not God. That is not a necessary or valid conclusion. Third, and most important, their position assumes that the nature of the inequality of the man Jesus with God the Father was a matter of Deity. Jesus’ humanity and subordination to the Father has no necessary bearing on the question of whether or not he was in essence and by nature Deity. It is purely an assumption to conclude that it does! Let the Bible explain in what way Jesus, in his role as redeemer, was not equal with the Father!

The sense in which Jesus gave up his equality with the Father rests on the statement that he emptied himself of “the form of God” and took upon himself “the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6-7). But what does that statement mean? We are told in John 17:5 that Jesus was living in glory with the Father before the world began. Jesus made himself unequal to God by willingly giving up the glory he had with the Father and humbling himself to the role of a servant. Where in this does the Bible say Jesus gave up his Deity? It says he gave up the form of God; it says he gave up his glory! That is all we may say!

God the Word became the man Jesus of Nazareth in order to be tempted in all things even as we are and yet commit no sin, and then offer himself up as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. To fulfill his role as man’s redeemer, God the Word placed himself in a subordinate position to God the Father. This act had nothing to do with giving up his inherent nature as Deity. Deity can do whatever Deity wants to do! In fact, it is ludicrous to insist that Deity stop being Deity, just because we don’t understand how Deity could become a man.

The Witnesses point out that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, and then assume this means he could not be Deity. Their doctrine is pure assumption without any basis in Scripture. It is the result of man imposing his finite thinking upon an infinite God, with apparent disregard for the truth God has revealed about himself on the matter.

Naturally, the New Testament speaks of Jesus Christ most often in the context of his human relationship to other men and to God. Jesus has a God – the Father – just as all men do; he prays to God the Father just as all men are supposed to do; he obeys the Father just as all men are supposed to do; he declares the Father to be the one true God to the exclusion of all false gods, just as all men are supposed to do. Jesus is in subjection to the Father because he is a man! And all men are supposed to be in subjection to God! Thus, Jesus’ subjection to the Father as a man has nothing to do with determining whether or not he is Deity. The Scriptures plainly assert that the Word was, is, and always will be Deity, regardless of whether or not we are able to completely understand just how God could be a man.

Similarly, God the Father’s relationship to the man Jesus is that of God to man. He commands Jesus, sends Jesus, gives authority to Jesus, raises Jesus from the dead, and places him in an exalted position in the heavens at his right hand. But, again, these examples of the Father’s authority over Jesus in no way have any bearing on whether or not Jesus is Deity.

The point for us to understand is this: All statements in Scripture referring to the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be viewed in terms of Deity’s relationship to man, not in terms of the equality or inequality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Deity. The Bible declares they are all Deity and that is enough. References to the Father’s authority over Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not in any way reflect upon their Divine relationship of equality, but only reflect upon the relationship between the roles they took upon themselves in their plan for man’s redemption.

The Scriptures teach that Jesus was and is in every aspect Deity. He gave up the “form of God” to take the “form of a servant.” He then arose from the dead and returned to the glory he had with the Father before the world began (Jn. 17:5). Jesus was Deity in heaven, was Deity on earth, is Deity now, and will forever be Deity (Heb. 13:8).

Let the following passages speak and let their truth be accepted. John 1:1 says that “in the beginning the Word was with God and the word was God”; Colossians 2:9 says that in Jesus “dwells all the fulness of Deity bodily”; Philippians 2:6-8 says that Jesus did not hold on to “equality with God”; Revelation 22:13 describes Jesus as the “Alpha and the Omega,” the “first and the last,” and the “beginning and the end”; John 8:58 speaks of Jesus as the eternal “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. The writer of Hebrews 1:8 calls Jesus “God.” We will look in detail at many of these passages in the next article.

Endnotes

1. Should You Believe In The Trinity? (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989) 12-13.

2. H. Wolf, “achad, ” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981) 30.

3. K. Bartels, “One,” New International Dictionary Of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 724-725.

4. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 18.

5. Copi, I, Introduction To Logic (New York: MacMillan), 1982, 107.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, pp. 200-201
April 2, 1992

By Tom M. Roberts

In this second of a series designed to encourage a deeper consideration of the themes to be found in the Book of Acts, we want to consider the faithfulness and accuracy of the apostles in carrying out the “marching orders” given to them by Christ when he gave to them the Great Commission. No greater call to duty has ever been issued. No greater response has ever been registered than the successful response of the apostles as they took the message to the entire world in their day (Col. 1:23). No greater failure of the modern religious world exists than our failure to agree on the message of the Great Commission and to take it to our world. The confusion in our modern world concerning the plan of salvation would suggest that there is no basis for exact preaching concerning salvation when, in fact, The Acts presents the clear precedent for every age to follow. One can hear everything today from Universalism to the individual predestination of Calvinism, with all the shades of doctrines in between. A veritable cacophony, a babel of preaching, fills the air waves and pulpits of the land, confusing the untaught and detracting from the clarity of the biblical message. Can we not be sure of what the Lord intended when he spoke so poignantly concerning the mission of the apostles after his departure? Are we to be cursed to wonder forever about the grand theme of Justification or can we not learn from apostolic preaching what Jesus intended?

It is one of the themes of the Book of Acts that the apostles had a clear vision of the Great Commission and that New Testament Christianity was founded upon a faithful proclamation of that saving message. Luke provides a valuable connection between the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus and the history of gospel preaching in the first century. His inspired record provides the assurance that we, too, can understand the intent and purpose of the Great Commission which was spoken to the apostles but which embraced every responsible person from then until the end of the world.

The Great Commission

The synoptic Gospels give us the record of what we have come to call the Great Commission (as opposed to the Limited Commission given only to the Jews, Matt. 10:5); only John omits it.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matt. 28:18-20).

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mk. 16:15, 16).

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Lk. 24:46-47).

If we understand that the different accounts by Matthew, Mark and Luke are not antagonistic to each other, but harmonious accounts by different men who wrote to give us the cumulative total to revelation, we can see clearly what the apostles saw. None of the accounts is disparate from the others, but they fuse and merge into a single message.

From these three accounts, we observe the following ingredients: (1) Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. (2) Upon this authority, the apostles are sent forth, beginning at Jerusalem, (3) teaching all nations who will (4) believe, (5) repent, (6) be baptized, (7) receive remission of sins (be saved), (8) be further taught all that Jesus said.

This is a simple outline of the Great Commission but one that can be easily compared to the gospel accounts. Is it understandable? Can it be preached in its pure form today? Are the doctrines of Universalism, justification by faith alone, preach the man and not the plan, Pentecostalism, etc., compatible with Jesus’ message? Has anyone ever faithfully preached the Great Commission?

Did The Apostles Understand It?

In the light of so much confusion about the plan of salvation today, we raise the question, “Did the apostles understand and correctly proclaim the Great Commission gospel?” If they did not understand it, being so closely associated with Jesus and later endowed with the Holy Spirit, there might be some justification for the lack of unity among us. If we can show that the apostles either did not understand or that they taught widely conflicting doctrines about salvation, we can give up any semblance of unanimity without feeling guilty. But, on the other hand, if it can be demonstrated that the apostles not only understood what Jesus divulged to them but that they faithfully adhered to this message, we must realize our obligation to this same faithful proclamation. Thankfully, Luke does not leave us in the dark, but shows throughout his marvelous work that all the first century preachers clearly understood Jesus’ commission and that they harmoniously taught this message throughout the Roman Empire. One of the themes of the Acts is how the gospel went “unto the uttermost parts of the earth” (1:8).

Examine the Record

Our examination begins in chapter two. True to his promise, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1ff) upon the apostles “to teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (Jn. 14:26), and to “guide you into all the truth” (16:13). Thus, the apostles were not comfortless (orphans), but had the power of the Holy Spirit. Who can doubt that they truly understood the Great Commission as they addressed the multitudes in Acts 2 or that they realized they were at the “beginning” (Acts 11:15) of the gospel, fulfilling the Great Commission? As they spoke to the “devout Jews” from all around the world, they asserted the authority of Jesus (“Lord and Christ,” 2:36), taught faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, and continued teaching (2:40,42) after the conversion of 3000 souls.

Could anyone ask for a clearer chronicle of the Great Commission?

If the apostles understood it and preached it, why can’t we also teach it today? Are we not obligated to do so? As Paul said to Timothy, a second generation preacher of the gospel, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

But did Paul teach the same gospel as the other apostles? It is affirmed that he did, because he received his message from the Lord, even as the original twelve: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11, 12). Also, the others apostles knew what he preached, giving him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9), and accepting the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles as being the same as preached to the Jews (Acts 15). All the apostles preached the same gospel and Paul even warned that those who preached “another” gospel would be cursed of God (Gal. 1:6-9).

No, there were no dissenting voices among the apostles, no denominational creeds, no church manuals, no catechisms written by church councils. The simple message of the cross was preached by one and all alike. Men and women of honest and good hearts (Luke 8:15) obeyed the message (Acts 2:41) and were saved, being added to the church (Acts 2:47).

All the rest of Luke’s records throughout Acts attest to the same harmony and oneness. Only when Judaizing teachers attempted to bring in the “law/gospel” did something different appear, but Heaven spoke against it and all the apostles concurred (Acts 15).

In Acts 8, the story of the Samaritans and Simon illustrate the Great Commission gospel. Philip proclaimed Christ (v. 5), they heard the message, believed in Jesus, repented (gave heed, v. 6), and were baptized.

In this same chapter, the Ethiopian showed the Great Commission in his conversion. He heard Philip concerning Christ (v. 35), and was baptized.

Acts 9, 22 and 26 relate the conversion of Saul (Paul) and it deviates not a whit from previous cases of conversion. Paul heard from Christ himself that he was a sinner, believed in Jesus (9:5), repented (9:9), and was baptized (9:18; 22:16; 26:19).

The Gentiles came into Christ through the Great Commission (remember that it was to be preached to the whole world). Acts 10 records the conversion of Cornelius and though legalistic Jews tried to void the message, it prevailed (Acts 15). Cornelius heard the message (10:33; 11:14), believed(15:9), repented (11:18), and was baptized (10:48). Peter noted that what happened to Cornelius was like that which happened to the Jews “in the beginning” (11:14).

Shall we omit the first European converts: Lydia and her household and the jailer and his household? In both instances, they heard Christ proclaimed, believed and were baptized.

The Corinthians of Acts 18, “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (v. 8).

In no case before us from the book of Acts has there been shown any deviation from the Great Commission. Isn’t it wonderful to know, every time that you preach the gospel, that you are taking your place in the company of faithful men and women through the ages who have been true to the Great Commission? Faithful preaching is Great Commission gospel preaching. Faithful preaching is preaching like it is revealed in The Acts. Luke does us a great service in making so plain in his record that the apostles fully understood the message of Jesus and with it conquered kings and nations. We can enroll ourselves in no nobler task than that of preaching the gospel of the Great Commission.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, pp. 208-209
April 2, 1992

He that deviseth to do evil shall be called a mischievous person (Prov. 24:8).

There are people who make mischief their business. They ponder, plan, and plot wicked deeds. They are “inventors of

evil things” (Rom. 1:30).

The burglar studies how he may break into a house undetected. The murderer carefully devises a scheme for killing someone without leaving a trail of evidence. The con artist deliberates on ways to milk some trusting soul. The rapist reflects on plans for locating and attacking his victims without getting caught. The common thief figures a variety of angles and approaches by which to steal. Big operators in such fields as prostitution and pornography hire expensive attorneys to research legal loopholes and study avenues of evading prosecution.

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). That which was true of mankind in general in Noah’s time is all too true of so many in our own time. Not all sin is premeditated, but so often the wicked person “deviseth mischief continually” (Prov. 6:14).

Bible Examples

1. King Saul. Motivated largely by envy, Saul concentrated on harming David (1 Sam. 18:6-9). He offered David his daughter Michal in marriage, asking for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines as payment in place of dowry. “But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.” The plan failed, for David and his men slew two hundred Philistines rather than one hundred (1 Sam. 18:20-27). Saul sought to smite David with a javelin, but David escaped. He sent messengers to watch David’s house and slay him in the morning. Michal helped David to escape (1 Sam. 19:10-17). Fleeing from place to place to stay out of the reach of Saul, “David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischief against him” (1 Sam. 23:9). Saul’s evil designs against David failed because God was with David.

2. Haman. An Agagite and enemy of the Jews, Haman became prime minister of the Persian rule. Haman devised a wicked plot for exterminating the whole Jewish race. Esther, a lovely Jewish woman who had become the queen of Persia, risked her life to expose Haman’s wicked plan. Esther approached the king “and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews” (Esth. 8:3). The decree enacted under Haman’s influence was offset by another royal decree.

3. Greedy Leaders. The prophet Micah addressed certain nobles or leaders among the Israelites who devised mischief to enrich themselves, “Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and. take them by violence, and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:1,2).

These covetous men lay awake at night pondering evil plans. “Their wickedness is planned and deliberate . . . for instead of retiring at night to sleep, they lie awake scheming and devising evil plans” (H. Hailey).

4. Sanballet, Tobiah, and Gesham. These men were foreigners residing in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the time that Nehemiah arrived to rebuild the wall of the city. They thought up every scheme they could to stop the work on the wall. “. . . It grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel” (Neh. 2:10). They scoffed at the effort and insinuated that the Jews were making plans to rebel against the Persians (2:19). They resorted to mockery (4:1,2) and threatened to fight against Jerusalem (4:8). Later, as the work on the wall progressed, these enemies of the Jews urged Nehemiah to meet with them in the plains of Ono. Nehemiah knew their wicked design and refused to go. He said, “They thought to do me mischief” (6:2).

5. Chief Priests and Scribes. These leaders among the Jews during the days of Christ’s ministry studied and consulted with each other about plans for slaying Jesus. “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priests . . . And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him” (Matt. 26:3,4). The chief priests agreed to pay Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus (Matt. 26:14-16). These same leaders later “sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death” (Matt. 26:59).

These are few of the many examples in the Bible of people who could be called mischief-makers. God considers as abominable a “heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” (Prov. 6:18).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, p. 181
March 19, 1992

By Bobby L. Graham

Has there ever been a time when more diverse thinking existed on the subject of marriage? It would appear that the once nearly unanimous teaching of brethren on this subject has been disrupted by concepts and theories conceived in the womb of necessity and born under conditions of convenience. The lack of genuine conviction of the reality of those ideas expressed is often seen in the posture of some in raising doubts and promoting questions about biblical teaching relative to marriage. They seem content to raise questions and elicit doubts and then back off with the excuse that they are merely studying the matter and their convictions are not yet formulated. The testing of the winds of thought and opinion seems to be the purpose of such operations. Brethren, it is far past the time for men of courage to stand up for what is right on these matters by calling in question the weaknesses in the positions of error.

Because of the extensive review superbly done by brother Weldon Warnock in this very journal, this writer shall not attempt to deal with all details identified by him. Some errors remain so glaring, however, as to demand the spotlight of truth be once again focused thereon. Such is the limited design of this article.

Marriage in God’s Moral Scheme

In some instances God’s original intent for marriage, set forth in Genesis 2:24, has been described as the divine ideal; in others, as merely the first installment of teaching about marriage. Remember, however, that the principle stated in the passage was given to regulate those made by the Lord for each other in that relationship appointed by him. Recall also that every later reference to the same arrangement conformed to the same ideal (Mal. 2; Matt. 19; Rom. 7; 1 Cor. 7; and others). The statements in praise of the marital relationship as the source of one’s fulfillment of those desires implanted by God must also be kept in mind (Prov. 5). Paul’s insistence on marriage as God’s means to prevent fornication in 1 Corinthians 7 places it squarely in the moral government/law originating with God and rooted in his character. Fornication, whether committed by a married person or an unmarried one, is an undermining of the moral teaching of Scriptures regarding marriage and its purpose. Marriage is God’s moral solution to the problem of sexual desire. Marriage then becomes part of God’s moral law, to which all moral beings are amenable. That all – those accepting God’s will and those refusing his covenant – are subject there to is easily seen in those indictments of Scripture against both classes respecting the sins here identified – fornication and adultery (Rom. 1:29,31 – covenant breakers and fornicators; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). While it is difficult to know precisely all that God told mankind about his moral law from the beginning, it can be discerned that marriage was a part of it by his condemnations of marital perversions. If this be not the case, by what authority does any alien marry? How could God recognize marriage between the alien and the believer?

The Role of Deuteronomy 24 in Christ’s Will

Some have recently asserted that the details of Deuteronomy 24 must be given a place in the teaching of Jesus, just as the principle of Genesis 2:24, for both were used by him in explanation of his will. Closer examination of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19, however, reveals that Jesus did not cite Moses, but the Pharisees did. When Jesus explained Moses, he presented him as permitting putting away, not directing it, and regulating it as a practice already existing for the protection of the woman involved. He further demonstrated the correct procedure for us to follow in his reaffirmation of the ideal of Genesis 2, what had been true from the beginning (what Moses permitted was not then, nor had it ever been, the divine ideal) and giving it weight over the Mosiac permission/limitation. By following Jesus’ procedure, we too will conclude correctly: one woman and one man for life. Only when the correct procedure is used will one conclude the correct position.

Invented Definitions

When people have something to prove, they will find a way to do so. One wanting to show that people cannot “live in adultery” and that adultery need not prevent future marriages has to deny what relevant passages say or use different definitions for the words used. The meaning of the word for “adultery” has been woefully changed in recent years by people who ought to know better. There is not a standard reference work in existence, to this writer’s knowledge, that will undergird their change. Instead of letting it mean the sexual activity involving one who is the spouse of another, some have changed it to mean breaking the covenant of marriage, whether in mind, in bed, or at the courthouse. There is not a shred of evidence that such is the meaning of the word. Word etymology will not suffice to determine meanings of words at a particular time in linguistic history, as has been attempted by some of the proponents of the new definition of “adultery.”

Brethren, when a person has to carry his own glossary with him to prove his idea, it becomes evident that the idea is his, not the Bible’s.

Jesus presented the will of God in his teaching on marriage. He never referred to the operation of civil law as such in his teaching, but the operation of divine law, in regard to marriage, putting away, fornication, or adultery. Additional error is taught when the legal intricacies of civil law are imposed on the teaching of Jesus. While people should abide by civil law in this field if divine law permits, the procedures and operations of civil law do not determine what marriage is, what putting away is, what adultery is, or when any one of these has taken place. Only God’s will is decisive in any of these matters.

May God’s will always determine our every attitude and action in this area of life, as in all areas. It is to him that all shall give account, by him that the faithful shall be blessed, and by him that the wicked shall be punished.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, pp. 180-181
March 19, 1992