Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Issues about marriage are of great interest. This is not astounding because marriage is co-extensive and basic to the human family. Likewise divorce and remarriage are topics of real concern. Questions related to these have been dealt with in this column.

Question: The querist whose question is the subject of this article stated as a background to it that he basically affirms the “conservative” position on the marriage-divorce-remarriage issue. He then asks, “Is the Christian/non-Christian marriage question an acceptable one to ask?” He had posed this question: “Should a Christian, who is scripturally unmarried, marry a non-Christian?”

Response: It must be clear what the question really is. I could understand the querist to ask “May a Christian marry a non-Christian?” The first section of this response will focus on this sense. The presupposition he sets is that neither party has an impediment in so far as God’s law is concerned. Should is interpreted to mean may. Certainly he could imply that should has the meaning of must. With these understandings expressed, the response to the question follows.

Marriage as announced by God in the beginning needs first to be addressed. When Eve had been made and presented to Adam, God said, “And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:23-24). Jesus made reference, to the account in Genesis 2 when he was questioned about marriage by the Pharisees. He makes clear whose statement is related in Genesis 2:24.

The Pharisees raised this question: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matt. 19:3) His response was couched initially in a question: “Have ye not read, that he who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh?” (Matt. 19:4-5) He then added this statement, “So they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). God joins a male and a female. Because one is male and the other is female, they shall leave mother and father and cleave to one another and the two shall become one flesh.

Essentially marriage is a joining of a male and a female. To be within the law of God it is a male and a female that are to be joined together. When a male and a female decide to leave mother and father and to cleave to one another and consummate this, God declares this to be marriage according to Jesus.

May one be a Christian and the other an unbeliever? This is the issue before us. The response is in the affirmative. Amplification of this response is now given.

With this response some strongly disagree. They sometimes argue that a Christian cannot marry an unbeliever because that would be an unequal yoke which God condemns (2 Cor. 6:12-7:1). Exactly what does this Scripture say? A Christian or believer cannot be yoked unequally with an unbeliever or non-Christian. The term unequally yoked is heterozugeo which is compounded from heteros, one of a different kind, and zugos, a yoke which couples two things together. It is used metaphorically in this passage. It is yoking together two of different kind.

A believer must not couple himself/herself with an unbeliever in practices which partake of the unbeliever’s iniquity, darkness, portion, and temple of idols. Rather the believer is not to participate in the sinful acts unbelievers do; he is to be a temple of God, doing righteousness, walking in light and being in concord or agreement with Christ. Were a believer to leave these and practice iniquity, or unrighteousness, idolatry or serve Belial (the Devil or Satan), he would be coupled with unbelievers unequally. Should this be the case, the believer is instructed to do this: “Come ye out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 6:17-7:1).

A fair exegesis of the passage calls for Christians not to engage in sinful acts which characterize unbelievers. They are to cleanse themselves from all defilement both of flesh and spirit and perfect holiness or purity of behavior in the fear of God.

Is marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian such an unequal yoke? Let us appeal to the Scripture for the answer to this question. To believers married to unbelievers Paul gave the instruction not to leave them (1 Cor. 7:12-13). If marriage of a believer to an unbeliever is within itself an unequal yoke, the instruction is to come out from it and be separate. However, Paul instructed believers married to unbelievers to remain with them. It is evident, therefore, that such a marriage is not of itself an unequal yoke. One is unequally yoked as a Christian when one engages in idolatry, unrighteousness, and agreement with Belial. Marriage is not within the purview of Paul’s instruction in 2 Corinthians 6.

Some say that if Paul had the right to lead about a wife that is a believer, then all Christian can only have a believing companion (1 Cor. 9:1-5). Paul is not dealing with what is the right things to do but rather is considering what he had a right to do. He claimed for himself the right to do what other apostles did. One must not take this text dealing with a right and bind it to say that this is the only right thing to do. Certainly one may be married to a believer. He claimed this right also.

Some also say that the instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:39 shows that a Christian must not marry a non-Christian. Paul says, “A wife is bound so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” The instruction given was under the “present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). He was not setting forth commandments but his judgment under the circumstances (1 Cor. 7:25). He concludes his judgment statements in 1 Corinthians 7:40, “But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” Statements between verses 26 and 40 convey his judgment under the circumstances then current.

Although he gave his judgment, he was guided by the Holy Spirit in the expression of it. He used the Spirit’s words in the expression of what he taught (1 Cor. 2:13). One can rely on the judgment in that what he says does not contradict the will of God. He says, “. . . I think I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40).

Paul advised a young unmarried woman not to marry under “the present distress” but also said that if marriage does occur there is no sin (1 Cor. 7:36). But he said it would be better not to marry (1 Cor. 7:38). One might choose for good reasons not to do the “better” thing. However, this would not be a sin. Of right things to do, one might be better.

To use 1 Corinthians 7:39 to argue that a Christian should not marry a non-Christian is to lift it from its context and to give it a meaning that was not intended. This passage cannot be properly, contextually, and exegetically used to argue that marriage by a Christian to a non-Christian is sinful.

Now let us consider the sense of should in the question to refer to what is best. Make no mistake about it: It is far better for a Christian to marry another Christian. We strongly urge young Christians so to do. However, should they marry a non-Christian one cannot charge them with sin only on that account. Scripture does not teach such is a sin.

The querist inquired whether a Christian should marry a non-Christian. It would be better that one marry a Christian. Many trials, tribulations, and heartaches can be avoided by so doing.

On the other hand, a Christian married to an unbeliever can lead, by a life consistently lived in harmony with the will of God, to the conversion of the unbeliever (1 Pet. 3:1-6). One so married must diligently follow Christ and not be led into apostasy.

If it is sinful within itself, and therefore prohibited for a Christian to marry a non-Christian, then their children would issue from an unholy or unsanctified union. However, the word of God declares otherwise (1 Cor. 7:14). Such a choice of a marriage companion is not the better course of action but according to Scripture, it is not a sinful course of action within itself.

One can cite instances when marriage to a non-Christian by a Christian may have resulted in apostasy for the Christian. This is a tragedy indeed. On the other hand, one can cite instances when the non-Christian is led to Christ. Even Christians married to one another may apostatize. Individual circumstances differ. I strongly urge a Christian to marry another Christian. This is decidedly the better way.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 105-106
February 20, 1992

By Johnny Stringer

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28).

Just how extensively is this principle to be applied? Are there no limitations to the “all things” that work together for our good? Many apply this statement without limitations, but to do so leads to some strange conclusions. If a dog over in Mongolia digs a hole, does that hole benefit you or me? It is a thing, but is it included among the “all things” which work together for our good? I do not believe so. I believe we would be just as well off if the dog had never dug the hole.

It seems clear that the term all is limited by the context in which it is found. For example, when Paul said, “All things are lawful,” we must understand that the “all things” did not include drunkenness, murder, and adultery. Some people who say “All things are lawful” may mean to include those things, but in the context of the Bible, the writer must not have meant to include them, for they are prohibited in the Bible. Similarly, I am convinced that the “all things” of Romans 8:28 are limited by the context. The dog’s hole in Mongolia is not the kind of thing under discussion in the context of Romans 8:28.

Paul proceeds in verse 29 to elaborate on verse 28. The connection between the two verses is seen in the word for at the beginning of verse 29. In verses 29-30 Paul summarizes the things God has done which culminate in our glorification. God is doing many things for us, and all these things are working together for our good. The “all things” working together for our good are the things God is doing toward our ultimate glorification. These are the things under consideration in the context. Paul speaks of our glorification in the past tense because it has occurred in God’s plan or purpose. Such usage of the past tense is also found in Genesis 17:5, Joshua 6:2, and Isaiah 53:4-8.

Comforting Assurance

Paul’s purpose in this passage is to give assurance. The assurance is only for those who love God (v. 28), and loving God involves obedience to him (1 Jn. 5:3). Having stated that God is working things out for the ultimate good – the glorification – of those who love the Lord, Paul proceeds to assure that God will carry out his purpose.

We can find wonderful comfort in the assurance Paul gives in this passage. We can feel secure in the knowledge that no one has the power to defeat God’s purpose for those who love him (v. 31). Moreover, we should realize that if God was willing to give his Son to die for us, he surely will continue to work toward our glorification, giving us all the things that he purposed for us – if we continue to love him (v. 32). Then Paul points out that if God has justified us (acquitted us of our sins and declared us to be not guilty), no one can charge us with sin and bring about our condemnation. Jesus died for us and there is no force that can cause us to be lost if we avail ourselves of his intercession (vv. 33-34).

Finally, Paul assures us that God’s love toward us is constant and unfailing (vv. 35-39). We may go through many tribulations and hardships, but we can be comforted by the knowledge that God still loves us. Things may not be going well for the present, but we can be confident that he is still working toward our ultimate glorification. As we endure suffering and hardship, it may not seem that we are winning a glorious victory, but regardless of how things seem, we are “more than conquerors”; for after the suffering, the glory will come (vv. 35-37).

Verses 38-39 assure us in majestic language that no power or force whatever can cause God to quit loving those who love him. If we lose our souls, it will not be because any of the forces listed in these verses caused God to quit loving us and therefore withdraw our salvation. Rather, it will be because we renounced him and his blessings. This passage does not say anything about what we can do. We can renounce God and salvation if we choose; God does not force his blessings on anyone. But so long as we love him, he continues to work toward our ultimate glorification as promised in Romans 8:28-30.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, p. 111
February 20, 1992

By Lewis Willis

Parade Magazine in the Akron Beacon Journal (7-14-91), contained a brief article entitled “Unflattering Portrait.” The substance of the article was a statement Senator Mark 0. Hatfield (R., Ore.) recently entered into the Congressional Record regarding the current status and real-life circumstances of American children. (All of the emphasises are mine, LW).

As good as the 1980s were for the military, what has happened to the children of this country? Many of the key measures of children’s well-being dramatically indicate that the 1980s were a terrible decade. Child poverty, violent deaths among teenagers and births to unmarried teens all increased substantially.

One American child in five now lives in poverty. Another one in five lives with a single parent. By the year 2000, both numbers will be one in four. If current trends continue. . . Every day, 135,000 children take a gun to school. Every 32 seconds, a 15to 19-year-old woman becomes pregnant. Every 55 seconds, a child is born to a mother who does not even hold a high school diploma. And, finally, every 14 hours, a child the age of 5 or younger is murdered.

The information above was presented by a politician – not a preacher! I don’t know how it affected you, but it was deeply disturbing to me. The children referred to are the next generation of Americans. From these will be converted the next generation of Christians. History and Scripture say that this kind of situation does not improve – it gets worse. “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).

We certainly should realize that 135,000 guns in the classroom means that no teacher is safe in that setting. It also means that the children in that room are not safe either. It has been alarming to hear of the violence associated with a current movie. Even an Akron teenager was shot in the stomach upon departing from the movie about gang life. Whether the movie prompted the shooting or not, the young man’s assailant had a gun at the movie where your children might have been. Two 14-year-old boys murdered a 50-year-old man in Cleveland last Sunday. They shot him! Senator Hatfield said that a child the age of 5 or younger is murdered every 14 hours in America. If that is true today, what do you suppose it might be 20 years from now? And, if it strikes terror in our hearts now, we will scarcely be able to express our terror 20 years from now. America, to its shame, has the highest incidence of crime of any nation in the world – and it gets worse every day. Parents are having to admit that “my kid” committed the crime, or was the victim of one of these crimes. Most of us are inclined to think that “it won’t happen to me and my family.” However, every day it is happening to more and more American families. It could be yours or mine next.

It is going to require a massive teaching effort to turn this situation around. We cannot expect that government, the schools or social organizations are going to do the teaching. In fact, not even the Church will succeed in doing all the teaching that needs to be done to change the direction our nation is going. The required teaching is going to have to be done on the most basic level of society -parents are going to have to accept their responsibility and both teach and discipline their children to live by the proper standards that assure success and safety in society. Of course, it is our conviction that the Bible is that standard. It is the only thing that will change America’s course.

The responsibility for this teaching is found several places in the New Testament. The “aged-women” are told to “teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5). Paul also gave this instruction: “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bare children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). Raising children properly is not just a woman’s responsibility – it is also a responsibility of men. Men are to provide for their own house, and if they do not, they have denied the faith, and they are worse than infidels (1 Tim. 5:8). No man has provided for his household who does not teach his children how to act. And that is true no matter what kind of house you provide for them to live in, or how good the food is you provide. Paul said, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). When parents – both father and mother – address themselves to teaching and training their children, they will succeed in raising them as they should be raised. But it will not happen until they do what they are supposed to do.

Elders are told their children must be faithful (Tit. 1:6) and in subjection (1 Tim. 3:4). Deacons are men who are “ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim. 3:12). Through the years we have recognized that these are essential qualifications of elders and deacons. However, can we not see the advantage if all of us will raise our children by the same guidelines and discipline as they are to use? If their families are better because they have been raised properly, so will ours be better if we will do the same thing. It is foolhardy to think I can neglect my parental duty and still succeed as a parent. Parents are your eyes open?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 130, 151
March 5, 1992

By Fred A. Shewmaker

A short time ago a quarterly publication called The Word of Truth arrived in my mail box. It was marked Volume 32, Number 3 and dated April, 1989. Also on the masthead there is the statement, “Set for the Defense of the Gospel.” The name caught my attention because for nearly nine years I conducted a radio program which was called “The Word of Truth” program. The statement of position also was of special interest because above the space reserved for addressing on the back page of every issue of the local bulletin, which I now edit, the words “For the Defense of the Gospel” appear. As to why the April, 1989 issue was just recently in the mail, your guess is as good as mine.

While scanning the articles, it was observed that all, except two very short ones on the back page, were uncredited. However, in the publisher’s statement Given O. Blakely is listed as the author and Editor. One of the articles is entitled “The Basis for Divine Authorization. ” The second sentence of that article is “The position which I have deliberately chosen to reject states, ‘Only what is authorized may be used in the worship of God. “‘ This is not a new attitude. It is an attitude as old as Cain (Gen. 4:3; Heb. 11:4; Rom. 10:17). Nadab and Abihu displayed the same attitude (Lev. 10:1-3). Cain, Nadab and Abihu are not the kind of people with whom one would expect to find a defender of the gospel.

The third sentence of the article also is revealing: “Even matters of opinion, I am apprized, ‘must be authorized by the Bible.”‘ The thing this reveals is that the author is capable of failing to deal fairly with an issue. He does not identify his appraiser and treats the matter as though the person is typical of all who hold the position the author is disavowing. Such is not the case and treating it as though it is, falls short of fairness. If a person holds an opinion, he believes something he has not been able to prove by a proper use of the Scriptures. However, his belief may be provable by the Scriptures and, if the person who holds it ever discovers the proof, it will at that point cease to be an opinion and become a part of his faith.

“Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). (This does not apply only to doubting, as many have contended. Doubt is specified, but the statement here quoted is a general principal/truth upon which the preceding specific argumentation is based and therefore is not limited to or by the immediate context.) This is not the only biblical example of an appeal to a general principle/truth being employed to support specific argumentation. The Bible does not authorize the use of anything in the worship of God that is only a matter of opinion. Our worship must not be based upon individual, majority or unanimous opinion, but rather must be based upon faith.

Another example of the author’s carelessness about fairly representing the position his disavows is the first sentence of paragraph three: “It became clear that this view proclaimed a perception of Godward activity that required specific Divine approval for every action directed toward him.” By this the author equates “only what is authorized” with “specific Divine approval,” but the two are not equal Holding the view that “only what is authorized may be used in the worship of God” leaves the door wide open for general authorization. To deal fairly with the matter of authorization, one must consider both its general and specific forms.

In paragraph 4 the author writes, “I suppose that what God has ‘sanctified’ is authorized – or what is declared to be ‘acceptable’ – or, what He is said to ‘receive’ – or, what is ‘approved’ by Him, or, what is ‘lawful.’ My analysis of the concept of Divine authorization shall be built around these revealed terms.” This is made very interesting when the author entitles the sixth division of his article, “Scriptures Portray Unauthorized Things Being Accepted by God.” Think about that! He supposes “what is declared to be ‘acceptable'” is authorized. Does not his supposition also demand that what is unauthorized be unacceptable? If not, why not? And does not that make the title of his sixth division mean Scriptures portray unacceptable things being accepted by God?

It does not get better. In his sixth division, regarding the woman who anointed Jesus (Matt. 26:6-13), the author asks, “Was her deed commanded by God? Was there any hint of it being commanded by Him?” Remember he supposes “what is lawful” is authorized, but now in division six he asks, regarding the woman anointing Jesus, “Is there anyone among us that would say that it was authorized?” Regarding the woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears (Jn. 12:3ff), he also asks, “Was this a response to the command of God? to the command of Jesus? to a principle set forth in the law? Was it authorized?” Before we deal with these questions, let it be noted, they only underline the author’s mistaken idea that the view he is disavowing requires specific authorization. Gentle reader, what those women did was either authorized or unauthorized and therefore according to the author’s supposition either lawful or unlawful. Indeed, the author in effect has said what they did was unlawful. Then he writes, “And yet it was unquestionably accepted by Him.” The author has put himself in the position of affirming that Jesus accepted unlawful acts, in the face of the fact that Jesus said he would tell those who practice lawlessness to depart (Matt. 7:23).

It is claimed that Lot “asked something that was certainly unauthorized – that he might find refuge in a little city (Gen. 19:2 1). ” This claim is a full-blown flight into fantasy. It was commonly understood by the ancients that God would grant the request of the righteous when they prayed for their welfare. Bildad told Job, “If you would earnestly seek God and make your supplication to the Almighty, If you were pure and upright, Surely now He would awake for you and prosper your rightful habitation” (Job 8:5,6).

The article asks the reader to “Take something that was specifically commanded by God – that meat be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth (1 Tim. 4:3-4).” However, a brief reading of the passage makes it plain that it is not specifically commanded. The fact that God gave meats for food does not constitute a command to utilize them for food. The author pointed out that “Jesus ‘purged’ or cleansed all meats (Mk. 7:19). ” Are we to believe this constitutes a command to eat dogs, cats and rats? There is a difference between allowing and requiring. When one believes it is a sin to participate in a thing which God allows that makes it a sin for him to participate (Rom. 14:23), but it does not render his giving thanks to God unauthorized.

The article claims, “One of the classic examples of this principle (God receives one with a faulty and unauthorized attitude) is found in the book of Exodus.” The reference is to Exodus 32:7-14. It is assumed that when God said, “let me alone,” He commanded Moses and that Moses immediately violated God’s command. As assumptions go, this one may seem more plausible than many, but it is still an assumption. Keil and Delitzsch render God’s statement as a request: “now therefore suffer Me, that My wrath may burn against them . . .”

The author’s stated objective was “to show that the human law that states what is done must first be authorized by God, does not have its source in Scripture.” As the preceding considerations show the stated objective was riot attained. The source of the idea that “what is done must first be authorized by God” is such passages as Matthew 16:18; 18:18; Colossians 3:17, etc. Calling this idea a “human law” has as its source the author’s prejudice against it.

Another appeal was made to the incident of the “woman of Canaan” (Matt. 15:21-31). First, this is an appeal to a time when the Old Testament was still in force. Second, it is assumed that Gentiles were not authorized to make requests. However, Romans 2:12-16 along with 4:15 and 1 John 3:4 indicate that, although Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law, they were under law to God and had the privilege of doing that which is right in the sight of God.

Biblical proof is based upon Bible facts. The article was too long on personal assumptions and too short on Bible facts to be seriously considered a presentation of “The Basis for Divine Authorization. ” Our faith must come from the word of God (Rom. 10:17), not from what we might like, want, suppose or assume regarding selected passages while ignoring other possible explanations of those passages. Proof simply cannot be churned out of suppositions and assumptions.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 103-104
February 20, 1992