Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Some have argued, “The differences over divorce and remarriage are just like our differences over the war question. One may interpret ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to mean that man cannot participate in the military, especially in time of war. Those who participate in the military or war, from this point of view, are guilty of murder. We tolerate these differences regarding ‘murder,’ placing them in the category of opinion. In the same way, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ is interpreted in many different ways and we should tolerate these differences as well, so long as ‘gross immorality’ (who gets to decide what is “gross immorality”?) is not committed.”

This is basically the argument presented by Jerry Bassett in Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (145-148) and by others in magazine articles and sermons. Similar arguments for unity in diversity have been made with reference to mechanical instruments of music in worship, sponsoring churches, missionary societies and many other apostasies. The argument is that we practice unity-in-diversity on the military question, covering, funerals in the church building, and several other matters; therefore, we should practice unity-in-diversity on mechanical instruments of music in worship, institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and divorce and remarriage.

Here is the argument stated in chart form:

The War Question and Adultery Are Parallel

“Thou Shalt “Whosoever shall put away his wife,

Not Kill” except it be for fornication, and shall

(Exod. 20:13) marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away

doth committ adultery” (Mat. 19:9).

We agree to differ We should agree to differ on these

on the military question. points:

1. Alien is not amenable to God’s law of divorce and remarriage.

2. Stay married to one married to at time of baptism or restoration.

3. The adultery of Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing.

4. The guilty party in a divorce for fornication may remarry.

5. Desertion by an unbeliever gives Christian right to remarriage.

This argument assumes the very point under discussion that entering the military or going to war is parallel to divorcing for some reason other than fornication and remarrying. Let us begin by stating that if brethren truly believe the two are equal in all essential elements, they should be consistent in treating the two alike.

How We Treat the War Question

We receive into our fellowship both those who believe that one should be a conscientious objector and those who believe a man can participate in the military and serve as a policeman. We receive into our fellowship both those who have conscientiously abstained from participation in the military and serving as policemen and those who have served in the military (even during wars) and as policemen.

To Be Consistent

1. Receive the teachers of loose doctrine on divorce and remarriage. If our differences over the war question are equal to our differences over divorce and remarriage, we need to forthrightly announce to the church, that we are opening the fellowship of the congregation to those who teach that a person may divorce for any cause and marry another, just as we accept the pacifist and the man who believes that funerals should not be conducted in the church building. Are you ready to receive into your fellowship those who teach one can divorce for any reason and remarry, like Olan Hicks? Are you ready for your pulpit to be filled by those who teach that the guilty party in a divorce for fornication has a biblical right to remarry?

2. Receive those who have divorced for reasons other than fornication and remarried. If the two are equal, as this argument implies, those who believe they are equal need to forthrightly announce that they will open the fellowship of the congregation to those who have divorced for whatever cause and subsequently married another, just as they accept the pacifist and the man who believes that funerals should not be conducted in the church building. They need to welcome into their fellowship the deacon who was guilty of immorality with the wife of another one of your deacons, causing two divorces. After the two adulterers who destroyed two homes in violation of Matthew 19:9 have subsequently married, the church is logically compelled to receive them into their fellowship. The two can sit beside their grieving, innocent mates and pass the Lord’s supper to each other. Brethren, are you ready to accept them into your fellowship? If not, you mustface the fact that you do not really believe that the issue of divorce for causes other than fornication followed by remarriage is like the war question.

Brother Ed Harrell wrote about the divorce and remarriage issue, “A local church has every right to restrict its fellowship to those whose marriages conform to the restrictions of Matthew 19:3-12; I have never worshiped in a congregation that did otherwise. I believe that a Christian has the right to mark as a false teacher every person who disagrees with him about marriage and divorce” (“Response to Dudley Ross Spears [3],” Gospel Truths [March 19911, p. 5). Brethren, I cannot make such statements about the war question. I do not believe that a local church has a right to restrict its fellowship to those who are conscientious objectors or to those who go to war. I do not believe that a Christian has the right to mark as a false teacher every person who disagrees with him about the war question. Nor do I believe that most of those who argue that divorce for reasons other than fornication followed by remarriage is parallel to the war question would consent to these being done. Their practice negates their argument,- one should either bring his practice into harmony with his argument or give up his argument. I hope that these brethren will give up their argument, for it is unsound.

Examining the Argument

Now, let us consider the argument itself. The parallels which I see are these: (a) Both are moral issues; (b) men are disagreed over the issue; (c) both are individual matters. But these same arguments can be made about the issue of homosexuality. Those who consider the parallel with homosexuality arguments “unrealistic” need to be aware that homosexuals among churches of Christ who have not been accepted into fellowship have organized their own congregations in several larger cities. They argue that there ought to be room for mutual tolerance, acceptance, and fellowship. Notice the parallel to the earlier points: (a) Homosexuality is a moral issue; (b) men are disagreed over the issue; (c) homosexuality is an individual (not a congregational) matter. One can just as consistently argue that homosexuality should not be made a test of fellowship as to argue that divorce for any reason other than fornication followed by remarriage should not be made a test of fellowship. Adultery is just as sinful as homosexuality. The similarities cited above do not prove that either practice is sinful or that fellowship should be extended or withdrawn.

Here the similarities end. In these important respects the matters are not parallel: (a) Service in the military and police force is a matter of authorized liberty which allows room for differences of conscience; divorce for some reason other than fornication and marriage to another is utterly and directly condemned by Jesus as sinful, thus leaving no room for different practices on the matter (scriptural proof is cited below). (b) Jesus himself equated adultery with unlawful divorce and remarriage to another mate. There is no place in all of the Scripture where participation in the armed forces or police force is equated with “murder, ” though it may be so equated in the individual’s conscience. Hence, participation in the military and police force is a matter of authorized liberty which should be governed by the principles revealed in Romans 14, i.e. settled by individual conscience. Sinful matters such as homosexuality or unlawful divorce and remarriage, which Jesus called the sin of adultery, are not under discussion in that chapter. Such sins are discussed in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 John 9-11, from which Scriptures we must go to learn how to treat those guilty of sin.

Is Participation in War A Violation of “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?

From the Bible, we can see that “Thou shalt not kill” did not mean “Thou shalt not participate in any occasion of taking life.” Through the study of the Mosaical Law, we can learn what “Thou shalt not kill” prohibited. The Old Testament law demonstrates that “Thou shalt not kill” was not intended to condemn participation in war (Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 7:2), manslaughter (Num. 35:9-34), protecting oneself from a thief (Exod. 22:2), or capital punishment (Deut. 22:22). When properly understood, “Thou shalt not kill” means “Thou shalt not commit murder.” Because participation in warfare is not a violation of “Thou shalt not kill,” it can properly be a matter under discussion in Romans 14 – matters which are authorized but not required, matters which may be settled for each person in his own conscience between him and the Lord alone.

Sinful Divorce and Remarriage Is Equal to Adultery

Jesus is the one who equated adultery with divorcing one’s mate for some cause other than fornication and marrying another.

These Are Equal

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and

(Exod. 20:14) shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her

which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

Jesus said so!

Where did Jesus say that participation in all occasions of taking life is murder or anything which correctly interpreted leads to that conclusion? It is true that attitudes such as hatred and bitterness, often associated with war, are directly condemned by Jesus, but whether or not a person can participate in some phase of the military without having such attitudes is a question which must be settled within that person’s conscience alone.

Who Said These Are Equal?

“Thou shalt not kill” (Exod. 20:13) Protecting oneself

Manslaughter

Capital punishment

Participation in military or as a policeman

Jesus did not say so!

These are men’s opinions.

A Better Parallel

A better parallel for this argument based on “Thou shalt not kill” would be this: “Are abortion on demand and adultery parallel?”

A More Accurate Chart:

Are Abortion on Demand and Adultery Parallel?

“Thou shalt not kill” (Exod. 20:13). “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

We agree to differ on abortion on demand. We should agree to differ on these points:

1. Alien is not amenable to God’s law of divorce and remarriage.

2. Stay married to one married to at time of baptism or restoration.

3. The adultery of Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing.

4. The guilty party in a divorce for fornication may remarry.

5. Desertion by an unbeliever gives Christian right to remarriage.

Are you ready to accept this conclusion?

Abortion on demand is a violation of “Thou shalt not kill.” It is a matter in many respects parallel to “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Our society has accepted both abortion and easy divorce and remarriage as acceptable forms of behavior. God has condemned both. Some are preaching that men should be tolerant of a person’s choice to obtain an abortion, and others are saying that we should be tolerant of a person’s choice to divorce for causes other than fornication and marry another. Both are (a) moral issues; (b) matters on which men disagree; (c) individual, rather than congregational, issues. We can just as logically accept the one as the other. My brethren, are you ready for this?

The argument that we should practice unity-in-diversity on the divorce and remarriage question because we have practiced unity-in-diversity on the war question is false. It mixes the war question, a matter of authorized liberty for the individual conscience (similar to eating of meats) with the issue of sinful and unscriptural divorce followed by remarriage (which Jesus called “adultery”), a matter of sin. The Scriptures give two patterns for fellowship: (a) in matters of sin, fellowship must not be extended (1 Cor. 5; 2 Jn. 9-11); (b) in matters of authorized liberties, we must receive one another (Rom. 14:1-15:7). We would err to treat matters of authorized liberty as if they were sin – withdrawing from those who disagree with us over the covering, weddings and funerals in church buildings, or participation in the military. Similarly we err when we treat matters of sin as if they are matters of authorized liberty – receiving into our fellowship those who practice homosexuality, adultery such as that Jesus described in Matthew 19:9, or perversion of the work and worship of the church.

Let’s not mix apples and oranges – matters of authorized liberties and sinful conduct.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 18-20
January 2, 1992

By Randy Cavender

In our society, most people are concerned about their rights. Individuals say that they have the right to do anything they desire, sometimes caring little who they hurt in the process. It seems that many have this attitude in the religious world also. They surmise that since we are constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom that we can believe anything that suits us. Consequently, it makes no difference what the Lord has said, as long as they can do what they want. When Jesus was at the wedding in Cana of Galilee and the wine supply was depleted, Mary, the mother of Jesus, told her son about it. We find in verse 5, “His mother said to the servants, ‘Whatever he says to you, do it'” (Jn. 2:5). The Colossians were taught, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). We need always to keep in our minds that Jesus is who we must follow and heed the advice of Jesus’ mother to the servants, “Whatever he says to you, do it.” What are some things that Jesus expects of us?

In Matthew 16:24 Jesus said, “if anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). If one is going to follow Christ, he will have to deny himself. There will be no more of this “my rights” attitude. We will voluntarily lay aside our wants and wishes and transform ourselves to obey the commandments of the Lord. If one is to please God, he will have to deny himself, by himself. But many have not done this! They simply do what they want in religious matters, failing to recognize Jesus as their Lord. Since Jesus said, “Let him deny himself,” a Christian’s will should simply do it!

Furthermore, Jesus taught that we should follow his example. “I am the light of the world. He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (Jn. 8:12). Are you walking in the footsteps of Jesus? Do you look to the Son of God as your example in life? Many use the excuse that we cannot do this. But apparently Jesus thought differently, for he expects us to do as he has done (Jn. 13:15). Peter also teaches us that we should follow Christ (“leaving us an example, that you should follow his step,” 1 Pet. 2:21). Are you following the example that Christ has left for you? Do you make the effort to be Christlike in your life? Remember, this is required of us. Therefore we should do it!

Finally, we shall discuss another command that apparently troubles many people, i.e. baptism. When Jesus gave the Great Commission, he told his disciples to teach the gospel to all nations. He then taught them that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). We also have example after example in the book of Acts that teaches us how people were converted to the Lord and one will find that baptism is in every account! It amazes me that so many affirm that one does not have to be baptized to be saved. Sometimes they claim to have already been saved without it! But why? Why do people try to get around a plain commandment of God? It seems to me that pride has kept some from doing all that God has said to do. Let us remember that if we fail to obey fully, we will be lost. Therefore what Christ has commanded, let us do it!

Let us stop questioning why the Lord has given us things to do. Let us simply with love for our Lord obey his every command. Therefore, “whatever he says to you, do it” (Jn. 2:5).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 24, p. 745
December 19, 1991

By Johnie Edwards

Tongue speaking in the Bible was the ability given one to speak in a language he did not know and had not studied. A careful reading of Acts 2:1-11 will show that the apostles of Christ were given this power. The feast of Pentecost brought “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) to the city of Jerusalem. These people being from all over the Jewish world spoke different languages or tongues. The apostles were Galileans and did not know the language of all of these new comers to the city of Jerusalem. The apostles were enabled by God to know and speak in the languages of those present. “We do hear them speak in our tongues. . . ” (Acts 2:11).

But what about today? Tongue speaking today is not available as it was in the first century. The apostle Paul told the Corinthians, “But whether there be tongues, they shall cease” (1 Cor. 13:8). After the Word of God was completed by the end of the first century, tongue speaking was no longer needed. Once God is finished with a thing, he takes it out of the way! (1 Cor. 13:8-13)

Paul said, “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19). Paul is saying, “If no one understands his speech, it is of no value.” This is the reason it is written, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church: and let him speak to himself, and to God” (1 Cor. 14:28). It can be seen as you read 1 Corinthians 14 that the main theme is that of understanding. Folks today who claim to speak in tongues will go to 1 Corinthians 14 and claim they are just speaking in an unknown tongue while speaking to God. This is their answer when we ask them what they are saying or why can’t we understand what is being said! Often, the so-called tongue speaker will admit that he does not know what he is saying. It is just an “unknown tongue.” But, please observe that the word “unknown” is not in the real text. The word is italicized; meaning it is not in the original Greek text. So, in 1 Corinthians 14, we are just dealing with tongues or languages as in Acts 2.

Speaking in a tongue not understood by the hearer becomes unfruitful. The reasons this is so:

1. He speaketh not to men. “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him” (1 Cor. 14:2). If a person talks to me in a language I do not know, it is of no value. God knows but not me! People today who claim to speak in tongues, do not really speak any known language at all!

2. It does not edify others. “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself” (1 Cor. 14:4). If one is speaking to a group it should be to edify the whole group, not just the one speaking!

3. One is speaking into the air. Paul said, “Even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the air” (1 Cor. 14:7-9). If the call of the sleeping soldier is a sound he does not know or understand, he sleeps on and makes no preparation to fight.

4. The understanding is unfruitful. “For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14). Why pray a public prayer in a language no one understands? What profit is it to the audience?

5. No one can say “Amen. “The word “Amen” simply means “I agree.” As the apostle Paul said, “How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing his understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Cor. 14:16) If the hearer does not know the language he cannot say “Amen” because he does not know whether he agrees with the prayer or not.

6. The unlearned will think one is mad. “If therefore the whole church be come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?” (1 Cor. 14:23) If a person is unlearned in the language being spoken, to him it is as if he were among a group of mad people! He does not understand what is going on.

Tongue speaking even when it was being done in New Testament times was to be done “by two, or at the most by three, and then by course; let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God” (1 Cor. 14:27-28). God commands and expects that “all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:39). No wonder Paul said, “I had rather speak five words with my understanding . . . than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 24, pp. 750
December 19, 1991

By Norman E. Fultz

The radio talk-show guest was discussing the evil effects of hard rock music. Lyrics promoting Satanism and glorifying suicide were specified as areas of concern. A caller took issue with the speaker and referred to him as a religious fanatic. The show’s guest quickly responded with, “I’m not a religious fanatic. I hate religion. I’m a Jesus fanatic!”

Admitting sympathy with much that was said about the evils that can be purveyed with music, the speaker’s response nonetheless gave reason for pause. How con one be a fanatic for Jesus, yet hate religion? Jesus’ followers practice, a religion, Christianity. The speaker’s statement reflects a misconception widely held-claiming to love God while disavowing formal religious practices. It is akin to confessing the Lordship of Jesus while affirming that doctrine is unimportant (2 Jn. 9-11; 1 Tim. 1:10; 4:16). To such folk, Christianity is something completely divorced from religious practice. Theirs becomes a bumper sticker Christianity – “Honk if you love Jesus.”

Very likely, what is opposed is the ritualistic performance of external religious actions which are cold, heartless, lifeless forms and rote reciting of prayers professionally written by the clergy as well as many prevalent religions that are completely unbiblical. Surely much that is practiced in the name of religion is without divine authority. It has ever been so. Cain offered what he wanted God to have instead of what God required (Gen. 4:3). Perhaps sincere in what he did, nonetheless his works were evil (1 Jn. 3:12), and God rejected his offering. Every instance of idolatry is an example of religion without divine sanction. Even engaging in divinely sanctioned practices but without proper motive and from corrupt lives led God to reject the worship of some in the days of the Old Testament prophets (Amos 5:21-25).

It is possible to be religious but wrong. The Jews who stoned Stephen were devoutly religious, even zealous for God (Acts 7). But zeal can be without knowledge (Rom. 10:2). Saul of Tarsus, the man who became the great apostle Paul, diligently applied himself in the Jews’ religion (Gal. 1:13-14), a religion based more upon tradition developed by their religious leaders from the institutes of God than the simple keeping of divine instruction. What he practiced, he did in good conscience (Acts 23:1), but he was wrong. And Cornelius, sterling in character, deeply devotional and prayerful, was unsaved even though religious (Acts 10:3; 11:14). It is even possible for one to be a “Jesus fanatic,” yet be unacceptable to him if one’s practices are outside the realm of divine authority (Matt. 7:21-23). Much that is done in the name of religion today has no basis in divine authority, the Bible. Worship of God authorized by the doctrines of men is vain worship (Matt. 15:9).

True religion must be based in truth, God’s word (Jn. 17:17). Acceptable service must directed thereby.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 24, p. 741
December 19, 1991