Truth Magazine

By Donald R. Wilson

In the beginning, because it was not good for man to be alone, God took from the side of Adam his own flesh and bone to make for him a helper suitable for him. Then, as Moses wrote, “For this cause a man shall leave (abandon, forsake) his father and his mother, and shall cleave (be joined, bonded, cemented) to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:18-24).

Malachi later wrote that marriage is basically a covenant relationship witnessed by God. A covenant is more than a simple contract; a covenant is based upon solemn promises (vows) of loyalty and faithfulness. This covenant relationship is designed and governed by God, who declares the terms, responsibilities, and conditions. The sexual union of husband and wife affirms and perpetuates the bond of the “one flesh” covenant. That is why adultery is so destructive; it is dealing treacherously with the wife of thy covenant (Mal. 2:14-16).

“Whereas fornication is a general term for all illicit sexual intercourse, adultery is used specifically of unlawful sexual conduct in violation of the marriage covenant . . . In literal adultery, it is the marriage covenant which is violated” (Mike Wilson, Is It Lawful?, Chap. 15, “The Meaning of Adultery”). Every Bible lexicon I have checked agrees that adultery is the sexual sin that involves the spouse of someone.

Jesus taught, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery against her” (Mk. 10:11-12). Adultery is dealing treacherously with the wife of thy covenant. “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living . . . . So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress” (Rom. 7:2-3). Joining herself to another man while she still has a living husband is adultery because it is a violation of their marriage covenant; it is dealing treacherously with the husband of thy covenant. If a woman should put away her living husband for the cause of fornication, then she would not be an adulteress if she married another man. Her “first husband” is still living, but they no longer have a covenant relationship; he is no longer her husband before God. What appears to be an absolute statement in Romans 7:2,3 is not intended to be absolute.

Another illustration of an apparently absolute statement is this: “Every one who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity (fornication), makes her commit adultery.” Absolutely? In every case? No matter what she does or doesn’t do? Or consider the last part of the same verse (Matt. 5:32), “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Absolutely? In every case? What if her own husband married her again; against whom are they committing adultery? (See 1 Cor. 7:10-11.) Or what if she is the one getting the divorce for the cause of fornication? (She is still a “divorced woman.”) Or what if her husband died before she remarried, against whom would she be committing adultery? (I repeat, she is still “a divorced woman.”) Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery if either of them, before God, has a marriage covenant with another living spouse.

The Pharisees who confronted Jesus with the question of “rights” to put away their spouses were misusing the Scriptures; Deuteronomy 24:14 is not affirming rights to put away your spouse. Deuteronomy 24 is “case law “: when and if this and that happened, then the result is such and so. We are making the same kind of error when we make Jesus’ teachings deal primarily with “who has the right to remarry?” Jesus is primarily teaching the only cause for putting away your spouse and marrying another is if your mate is guilty of fornication (Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12). Jesus does not specifically state who may remarry! Only by implication, by our own human reasoning, do we conclude that “the innocent party has the right to remarry. ” Jesus’ actual statement is another example of case law: whoever does what I am describing to you is committing adultery (unlawful sexual conduct in violation of the marriage covenant).

1 Corinthians 7:27-28 deals specifically with who has the right to marry without sin. “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released (loosed, unbound, untied, divorced). Are you released from a wife (loosed, unbound, untied, divorced)? Do not seek a wife. But if you should marry, you have not sinned.” Are you bound in a marriage covenant with a spouse already? If not, you may marry without committing sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 464
August 1, 1991

By Andy Alexander

Just take a tiny little step away from God is the message that Satan has for the child of God. Satan knows that a Christian is not likely to take a large step away from God and so his endeavor is to get us to move just slightly in his direction. Once he gets us to loosen our feet and shift them in his direction then the next step is much easier and generally a larger step than the last.

This small step to larger step can be seen in the church of our Lord today. In the early fifties had Satan tried to get the children of God to accept women elders and preachers, his plea would have been flatly rejected. If he had tried to get brethren to build recreation centers or gyms, sponsor ball teams, or have banquets where admission is charged, all of these most likely would have been rejected. Yet by working gradually and by getting brethren to accept small departures from God’s word, he has been successful in moving the people of God a long way from God. The steps these erring brethren are taking in the nineties seem much larger than the steps taken in the fifties. From an orphan home to a sponsoring church arrangement seems small when compared with steps to women elders and instrumental music.

These small steps must not be taken. We must study God’s will and strictly adhere to every principle that God has revealed (Matt. 4:4; 2 Jn. 9). God’s word is complete and all that we need to be pleasing to God is contained within its pages (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Heaven will be filled with souls who were happy to follow God’s will on this earth and those who are not content to obey God in this realm will not have heaven as their home (2 Thess. 1:8-9).

We must have authority for all that we do in religion and we must firmly ground ourselves as well as our children in the faith of our Lord (Gal. 3:17). A “thus saith the Lord” must be a way of life for the child of God and this trust in God must be passed on to future generations (2 Tim. 2:2). The first step away from the will of God must be opposed by faithful Christians. Paul did not overlook the sin that Peter committed in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). Had those Judaizing teachers been left unopposed, no one knows how much harm could have been brought to the church in Antioch. Not only could Peter and others have lost their souls for committing sin, but many others would probably followed in their footsteps.

Jesus came to do the will of his Father and we are to follow in his steps (John 6:38). Let us watch our steps and be careful always to have a “thus saith the lord” for all that we do.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 452
August 1, 1991

By Robert Wayne La Coste

It would appear from the outset that Jacob and Esau were destined to have problems between them. The Scriptures reveal that even while in their mother’s womb, “the children struggled together within her” (Gen. 25:22).

Parental partiality didn’t seem to help their relationship either. The Genesis account continues. “And Isaac loved Esau . . . but Rebekah loved Jacob” (Gen. 25:28).

From their youth up they simply did not treat each other as brothers. Esau was a flippant personality that took important items for granted. For a small portion of food, he sold his birthright. Jacob, taking obvious advantage of his brother’s hunger, bought a valuable commodity for a little of nothing.

Finally, to add insult to injury, Jacob lied to his own father, telling the aged and infirmed Isaac that he was Esau, so as to receive his blessing before he died. In receiving such a blessing, Jacob was in essence made Lord over Esau in all things. The elder would be subject to the younger. The behavior of both sons, particularly to each other as brothers is without excuse. While it is evident that God’s decision was to choose Jacob over Esau (“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” – Rom. 9:13), let no one think that God condones the chicanery of any man.

Many years passed between these events and the time that Esau and Jacob would see each other again. It seems almost like poetic justice that, in view of how Jacob had treated his brother he similarly should be treated by his fatherin-law, Laban. His love for Rachel constrained him however, and she finally became his wife after additional years of service to Laban.

God blessed Jacob with many children and many possessions. He became a wealthy man with many flocks and herds (Gen. 32:5). He eventually departed from Laban and took his family and all his possessions nigh unto the land of Seir, the land of his brother Esau. He sent messengers unto Esau that he might “find grace in his sight.” The messengers returned telling Jacob that Esau was coming out to meet him with 400 men! Upon hearing of this, Jacob was greatly distressed. He was so afraid he made plans to divide his people, lest they all be smitten when his brother came (Gen. 32:1-8). Is it not all together possible Jacob was afraid because of what had happened in the past? He knew what he had done to his brother. He knew of Esau’s hatred for him and he knew he and his family would surely be at Esau’s mercy.

Jacob’s fear compelled him to pray to God to be delivered from the hand of Esau (Gen. 32:9-12). He could only wait for what appeared to be impending doom!

Upon the appearance of Esau, Jacob divided his family as he had purposed to do (Gen. 33:1-2). He bowed seven times as he approached the man who would surely be his executioner. Would Esau thrust him through with the sword? Would he capture Jacob and make him watch his wives and children tortured and killed for the horrible things early in life he had done to him? Would Esau make Jacob’s family watch as Esau tortured Jacob before them? The Scripture then reads that “Esau ran to meet him.” Perhaps he was running in great haste to take his revenge. Finally at last he would have retribution. But no, something else is about to happen! Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him: and they wept.”

What? How can this be happening after all the bad deeds, hatred and years that had come between them? How? Let’s make some appropriate observations and in these observations, dear reader, let us make our teaching relevant!

Isaac and Rebekah like all parents had their faults, but they were righteous people. Even righteous people make mistakes. It’s just that mistakes with the righteous are the exception and not the rule and when one looks at the lives of these two parents, such lives are evident. Therefore, even their children are not always going to be what they should be.

Sometimes similar actions exist with all the same feelings, and emotions that divide brethren of the Lord. Brethren, perhaps not even intentionally, will take advantage of brethren, lie, cheat or in some other way hurt them. It’s wrong and it’s sinful. However, have not both come from the same spiritual parentage? Have they not both become brother or sisters in the same way? All Christians who indeed are such, became such by being “born again of the water and of the spirit” (Jn. 3:5). Paul put it this way, “For ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27). Yes, by faith in Christ Jesus, we who were baptized into Christ became God’s children and consequently brethren.

In being properly taught the things of God, is there doubt they were taught the importance of family and brotherly kindness? What about the virtues of humility and selflessness? Though Jacob and Esau may have often forgotten at times these matters, they came back to them and as might be expected, to one another!

Brethren, we must do likewise. We must come together on the truth of God; that must forevermore also be our foundation! When there are barriers between God’s people, pray tell, who put them there? Surely the Father has not. We put them there and we must do all we can to take them away! I for one, have been greatly encouraged by the recent meetings of brethren both in Nashville and Dallas in an effort to do this very thing. It is my prayer that such meetings will continue. Of course, though I’m an optimist, I’m also a realist. There may never be the unity existent among brethren that once was existent, but at least we can try, yea we must try! If we do not at least try, then we have failed the Lord in one of the most serious of commandments ‘ “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Speaking of trying, how about the local church when problems arise? Should we not like Esau and Jacob at least try to reconcile our differences? I seriously doubt that our wounds could ever be greater than the ones Esau and Jacob inflicted on each other and yet they were still brothers. No power on earth could change that fact. It’s as though this fact helped them find a way. There was a day that finally came and a common ground of mutual understanding that finally was made manifest. No, it didn’t happen overnight, but Jacob and Esau found a way. It’s as though their brotherly tie surmounted and surpassed all obstacles! As they made their approach toward each other and as they finally laid eyes on each other and then embraced as brethren, the past seemed to vanish as though it had never happened. Even if Esau had vindictive plans in route to Jacob, even if his temper burned within him, it all melted at the sight of his brother Jacob.

Brethren, we can not live and dwell upon the past. It will make us bitter and cold to those we should love the most and finally we will quit serving the Lord all together, because after all, “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (1 Jn. 4:20)

It Does Take Two

Like man’s reconciliation to God, it takes action on the part of both parties. Of course, God stands ready at all times to have fellowship with man. God has shared the terms of reconciliation to man, thus showing his willingness to be one with him, but man must accept the terms of reconciliation by way of obedience.

If one brother wants to be reconciled and yet the other will not, then they will never be reconciled. Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, he ran to meet his father, and in turn his father met him on the road home. Surely, this must be our attitude. Brethren, we must be willing to meet each other half way and then go all the way with each other home! Home to the Lord. Home to the truth. Home, the most precious of places.

The story of Jacob and Esau like so many others of the past have been preserved by God “for our learning and admonition” (1 Cor. 10:11). What shall we learn brethren? More importantly, what shall we do with our differences? One day we must stand before the great judge of all the earth. What a difference in judgment there will be of those who at least tried to be a brother in God’s family!

The best way to be a proper brother or sister is to strive to be God’s son or daughter. When God is first and when his word is first in my heart and yours, then you and I will always, somehow, find a way!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 460-461
August 1, 1991

By Fred A. Shewmaker

If the Mosaical law did not give “instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), how was it possible for Zacharias and Elisabeth to be “righteous” and “blameless” (Lk. 1:6)? Not long ago it was necessary for me to address this question. Another person read my answer, and urged me to put it in an article. The following is that answer:

The word “righteous” is translated from the Greek dikaios. That is the same Greek word which is the Septaugint translators used to translate the original Hebrew word in Genesis 6:9. English translations render it “just” – “Noah was a just man.” It is the same Greek word used when the Gentile, Cornelius, also is called “just” (Acts 10:22). Thus we have one dikaios before the law of Moses was given, one dikaios who never was under the law of Moses and two who were dikaios under the law of Moses. This indicates being under the law of Moses was not the determining factor regarding whether one was or was not dikaios. Regarding those under the law in Romans 2:13 Paul writes, “For not the hearers of the law are just (dikaios) before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (dikaioo). Verse 14 addresses those not under the law of Moses, when they “do by nature the things contained in the law, . . . are a law unto themselves.” I take it that Noah, before the law of Moses was given, did the things which the law later required of the Israelites and Cornelius, not being of Israel nor under the law, nevertheless, did the things required by the law. Whatever is meant, it is certain none of these four were without sin (cf. Rom. 3:10-23; 5:12).

From Romans 3:19,20 please observe three purposes of the law: 1. “That every mouth may be stopped.” 2. “That all the word may become guilty before God.” 3. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” A fourth purpose of the Law is given in Galatians 3:24: “to bring us to Christ.” Another thing which needs to be considered is the plain statement in Galatians 3:21: “if there had been a law given which could give life, verily righteousness (dikaiosunee) should have been by the law.” It was not “by the law” because verse 22 states, “the scripture hath concluded all under sin.”

Now in Romans 1:16 and 17 observe where righteousness (dikaiosunee) is revealed. “For therein the righteousness (dikaiosunee) of God is revealed. . . . ” “Therein” refers back to “the gospel.” These verses also show “the righteousness (dikaiosunee) of God revealed from faith.” This brings us back to the point made in Galatians 3:24: “. . . the law was our school master to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified (dikaioo) by faith.”

From these considerations I conclude that “the holy scriptures” which Timothy had “known” “from a child” were the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They served the purpose of leading to Christ and by that means were “able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. It is not said that they afforded Timothy, or any one else, salvation. Now consider very carefully 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

There are several things which indicate the word “all” here includes the New Testament: 1. The Old Testament is not “profitable for” teaching “the principles of the doctrine of Christ” (Heb. 6: 1); “Repentance from dead works” (works of the law – cf. Heb. 9:14, 15 and 7-10); “faith toward God”; “baptism”; “laying on of hands”; “resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment.” This is not to say the Old Testament made reference to none of these things, but it did not make any of them clear “principles.” Therefore the Old Testament was not “profitable for” all doctrine. 2. In John 16:8, speaking of the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin.” Therefore the Old Testament was not “profitable for” all “reproof.” 3. Paul used “the truth of the gospel” to correct Peter at Antioch, not the Old Testament. Thus the Old Testament was not “profitable for” all “correction.” 4. Galatians 3:21,22 shows that “righteousness” is not by the Old Testament law and Romans 1:16,17 show righteousness revealed in the gospel. 5. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, . . : That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). If the Old Testament alone is under consideration, Paul here declares it sufficient to make “perfect” and “throughly” furnish “unto all good works.” If that is what he is meaning, he is contradicting 2 Corinthians 3:6. Giving “life” is a good work. It is the work of “the new testament” which the law could not do (Gal. 3:21).

There considerations lead me to the conclusion that “holy scripture” (2 Tim. 3:15) refers to the Old Testament. They also lead me to the conclusion “all scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) refers to both the Old and New Testaments.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 459
August 1, 1991