Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

A Review of the Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God by Homer Hailey

In this final portion of our review of brother Hailey’s book, we will deal with a variety of matters that has not been considered in the previous installments, at least as extensively as I desired, and reiterate in a brief, general way the things that are the crux of the issue. Let us notice first of all:

Abide in our calling. Brother Hailey wrote, “Furthermore, Paul said, ‘Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. . . . Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God’ (I Cor. 7:20,24); this included his answer to questions about marriage” (p. 66). If this passage proves that remarried divorced aliens may keep their mates after baptism, then it also proves that a polygamist may keep his several wives. The polygamist could say, “Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. “

Brother Hailey affirms that alien sinners are under the so-called universal moral law, “which has never been abrogated” (p. 49). Since this law allows polygamy, which brother Hailey says is “in harmony with his moral law” (p. 16), he cannot oppose or condemn, logically, plural marriages. The so-called universal moral law allowed polygamy. It has not been abrogated. Therefore, polygamy is now permissible. The consequences of his position clearly and conclusively upholds polygamy and concubinage. “Let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.” The Moslems, Mormons and other polygamists have been right all along if brother Hailey’s position is correct. In my opinion, this one thing alone should show that his reasoning is faulty.

Paul isn’t teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:20,24 that those who obey the gospel may remain in sinful relationships. Being circumcised or uncircumcised (vv. 18-19) and being a slave or a free man are not sinful conditions. These are cultural situations in which people may live the Christian life. It was not immoral for a person to serve as a slave. Paul is not approving slavery, but rather he is saying a slave is able to live as a Christian.

However, divorce and remarriage, without the cause of fornication, is sinful. Those living in such a relationship are living in adultery (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Col. 3:5-7). Brother Hailey denies “remarried non-believers, who through faith come to the blood of Christ, are living in an adulterous state” (p. 66), but the aforementioned passages teach otherwise. Having another man’s wife is sinful. Having another woman’s husband is sinful (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). Paul isn’t encouraging saints in 1 Corinthians 7:20,24 to live in sin. “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid” (Rom. 6:1-2).

No example of separation. “Also, there is no apostolic teaching or example of separation being demanded before baptism” (p. 68). Let me suggest that the demand for separation before baptism is in the same Scripture that demands separation for polygamous and incestuous marriages. If the relationship is morally wrong, we don’t need a specific Scripture or example that demands separation. We should automatically know that the marriage is sinful, and, hence, demands separation.

There is no apostolic teaching or example in the New Testament that specifically demands one give up bootlegging, playing the lottery, betting on horses, reading pornographic literature or engaging in mixed-swimming at the public pool, but there are principles that prohibit these practices. The same is true in regard to separation of those divorced and remarried without the cause of fornication.

Sinners can be forgiven. On pages 64, 65, brother Hailey devotes considerable space to establish that sinners can be forgiven. Words and phrases in the texts he quotes are put in bold face for the effect of emphasis. Seemingly, this is done to try to prove that all remarried nonbelievers who come to Christ may stay together, since they are forgiven. He sets forth the fact that sins may be remitted, blotted out, loosed, forgiven, and remembered no more. He states that we are justified by God’s grace and Jesus’ blood through faith, and that old things are passed away with all things becoming new.

To all of these verses introduced I wholeheartedly concur. But remember, they are just as applicable to the homosexual or the polygamist as they are to the remarried non-believer. God also forgives, blots out sin and cleanses the heart of his children. Does this prove that God’s children may continue in an adulterous relationship? Absolutely not! Neither may the non-believer. Repentance necessitates a turning away from sin to a life of righteousness and holiness.

The Corinthians were forgiven, loosed from the bondage of sin and had become new creatures in Christ, but they did not continue in the works of the flesh. They quit their sinful ways – “such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). God can and will forgive those living in an adulterous marriage, but they have to terminate their sinful relationship of cohabitation.

Not under bondage. Brother Hailey introduces 1 Corinthians 7:15 and contends “the Holy Spirit, through Paul, made an exception when he said that the believer is not under bondage (not bound, loosed, RSV) in certain cases” (p. 39). This is another exception for divorce and remarriage, he reasons, in addition to fornication (Matt. 19:9) for the believer. The fallacy in brother Hailey’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that he assumes the word “bondage” means the marriage bond.

The Greek word for “bondage” in the text is dedoulotai, 3rd per. sing. perfect, ind. pass. of douloo. Arndt-Gingrich define it to “make someone a slave (doulos), enslave, subject” (p. 205). Kittel says, “The basic meaning is to make a slave, ‘to enslave'” (Vol. 2, p. 279) . It is apparent, after reading the preceding definitions, that Paul did not have loosening of marriage vows in mind when he said, “not under bondage.”

When Paul spoke of being bound in marriage (1 Cor. 7:27,39), he used dedesai and dedetai, both from the word deo, and not douloo that Paul used in v. 15. It is odd that the apostle switched words in the same chapter if “bondage” in v. 15 is speaking of marriage also. The word dedoulotai (bondage) suggests that the believer was not a bond-servant to the unbeliever or a slave to man, even though the person was a marriage partner. C. Caverno wrote in regard to 1 Corinthians 7:15, “But Paul has not said in that verse or any where else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be married to someone else – To say that a deserted partner ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be remarried” (ISBE, Vol. 2, p. 866).

The tense of the word dedoulotai would not permit it to mean the marriage bond. The word is in the perfect tense. he perfect tense would mean the brother or sister had not been in bondage and is still not under bondage to the unbeliever. However, the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bond is indicated. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Alfred Marshall translates dedoulotai, “has not been enslaved.” One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved. (For a more extensive study of 1 Corinthians 7:15, read my tract, “If the Unbelieving Depart.”)

Universal moral law. “From the beginning God put man under moral law. The specific words in which the precepts of that law were expressed were not recorded and preserved” (p. 58). In his commentary on Isaiah, brother Hailey states, “It appears to this writer that God made a covenant in the beginning, or at some early date, which was not recorded and has therefore been lost to history” (p. 538). So, brother Hailey puts unbelievers under a law today that was not recorded or preserved, and has been lost to history.

Yet, this unrecorded, unpreserved and irretrievable law serves as a moral standard for people of the world, and by which they will be judged, according to brother Hailey. With all due respect, it seems to me that this whole concept of a universal moral law that supposedly began with Adam and ceases at the end of time is a product of human invention and imagination.

I can just as easily make a case for a universal religious law. Cain and Abel had a law of sacrifice by which they were governed, otherwise Cain’s sacrifice would not have been rejected and Abel’s accepted. Noah, a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5), after the flood built an altar and offered acceptable sacrifices to Jehovah (Gen. 8:20-21). Noah’s walking with God, building an altar and worshiping Jehovah indicate a divine standard.

When Abraham reached Shechem, he built an altar unto Jehovah (Gen. 12:6-7). lie also built an altar between Bethel and Ai (Gen. 12:8), and one at Hebron (Gen. 13:18). Abraham kept the commandments, statutes and laws of the Lord (Gen. 26:5). Melchizedek was a King of righteousness, King of Salem (which is King of peace), and the priest of the most high God (Heb. 7:2; Gen. 14:17-20). Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. How did Abraham learn this? Why did Melchizedek bestow blessings upon Abraham (Heb. 7:1-10)? They had revelation from God.

Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, and priest of Midian, “took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God” (Exod. 18:12). Where did Jethro learn about these offerings and sacrifices? Obviously, from instruction of Jehovah. Job offered burnt offerings according to the number of his sons, stating, “It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5).

Paul indicts the Gentiles, among other things, for not worshipping and serving the Creator. He wrote, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). He also wrote, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:28).

Could we not just as logically assume that men are also sinners because they are violating God’s universal religious law as we could assume men are sinners by violating God’s so-called universal moral law? I suppose I could also assume that the universal religious law came in along side of Adam’s transgression (Rom. 5:20), and it will remain in force until the end of time (1 Cor. 15:55-56). If brother Hailey can assume this for moral law, I can assume it for religious law.

Reiterations

In summarizing this review of brother Hailey’s book we have established the following things:

(1) Genesis 2:18-24 sets forth the foundation for marriage as to its origin, purpose, intimacy and permanency. Polygamy and divorce and remarriage for every cause are departures from this divine pattern. God conceded these departures in the Old Testament times because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt. 19:8), permitting all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16). He now commands men every where to repent (Acts 17:30). Jesus teaches that marriage is to be regulated by God’s original plan (Matt. 19:3-9).

(2) Matthew 19:9 is universal in its scope. It is “whosoever” puts away his wife and marries another, except for fornication, committeth adultery. Marriage is for unbelievers as well as believers. It is not a church ordinance, but is an institution that was inaugurated thousands of years before the church was established.

(3) The Gentiles before the cross were under law (Rom. 1:18-32; 2:14-15). This was, apparently, the law of the everlasting covenant (lsa. 24:5), or a “covenant of ancient times” (H.C. Leupold). Today, the Gentiles, and Jews, are under the universal law of Christ (Jn. 12:48; Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:47; Acts 3:22).

(4) Though unbelievers have not brought themselves under obedience to the covenant of Christ, nevertheless, they are accountable to it. The word “covenant” implies first and foremost the notion of “imposition, liability or obligation” (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, p. 255).

(5) Those divorced and remarried, except for fornication, are living in adultery. “Committeth adultery” is in the present tense, showing continuous action (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:10-11; Lk. 16:18). Paul teaches in Colossians 3:5-7 that we can live in adultery, though not with God’s approval.

(6) Repentance demands separation of an unscriptural marriage. It is not lawful for a person to have another’s husband/wife. Baptism does not wash away unlawful spouses. Adulterous marriages must be terminated.

(7) When we become Christians, we may abide only in relationships that are morally right. Sinful relationships, such as adultery, homosexuality and incest, must be ended.

(8) All sinners, regardless of how heinous the sin, may be forgiven. The blood of Jesus cleanseth from all sins, But we can’t persist in our sinful practices and expect to go to heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21). This includes unlawful marriages.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me state explicitly that I do not in any way accuse or imply that brother Hailey intentionally promotes or encourages divorce or promiscuity. Through sixty some years of preaching brother Hailey has preached (and taught in the classroom) holiness, godliness and purity of life. He has been outspoken against sexual immorality and all other works of the flesh. I have known him too long to be convinced otherwise. He is a man of integrity and honesty. However, on this issue before us I believe brother Hailey is honestly mistaken. Too, I believe the consequences of his position promote sexual immorality. I don’t charge him with believing or trying to defend adultery. I am simply saying that his arguments, pursued to their logical end, allow, permit and encourage sexual immorality. We believe his position to be false, totally unfounded by the Bible.

Before I began this review I wrote brother Hailey and told him that I was requested to review his book on marriage and divorce. As I expected, I received a kind and amicable reply from him. As brother Hailey and I would say concerning what we have written on this all important matter, “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Presently, intensive efforts are being made by some brethren to try to include in Romans 14 the divorce-remarriage question, such as espoused by brother Hailey and others. This attempt is a wresting of Paul’s teaching (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16), and a resuscitation of Carl Ketcherside’s nefarious doctrine of unity in diversity. Romans 14 deals with individual matters that are neither religiously nor morally wrong when conscientiously held or practiced by the individual. An adulterous relationship doesn’t fall into this category. Adultery was sinful yesterday, it is sinful today and it will be sinful tomorrow. How appalling it is of some brethren to have the inspired apostle Paul giving credence to immorality!

Brother Marshall Patton said it correctly on Romans 14 when he wrote, “Let no one conclude that every error of an individual nature falls within this area of tolerance. Obviously, sins of immorality, plainly revealed elsewhere, are not to be fellowshipped” (Answers For Our Hope, p. 309).

To classify under Romans 14 the position that alien sinners may keep their mates when they come to God, regardless of the circumstances, opens the floodgate for every ungodly and unscriptural practice that anyone can imagine. We cannot consistently oppose institutionalism or any other “ism,” while tolerating divorce and remarriage for every cause. It seems that whether many of us oppose or tolerate a false position depends on who it is that holds it. This should not be.

In the words of Micaiah, let us say, “As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak” (1 Kgs. 22:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 400-402
July 4, 1991

By Luke P. Flynn

Not too long ago, I happened to be speaking to a gentleman on the phone who claimed to be a Christian and a member of the Lord’s church. In the process of our conversation he had related to me his experiences while living in the South. He said that he was once called a _____ yankee. You fill in the blank. He then proceeded to say, “pardon my French.” Now I may not be the smartest person in the world, and I may not be bilingual, but I do not believe that bad language or a foul mouth has anything to do with French. As a matter of fact the word this fellow used didn’t sound like French at all to me and I’m not sure I should pardon it – even if it were French.

This “infamous” phrase is used a lot by many people – including, unfortunately, Christians who seek to excuse or justify their bad language. The use of bad language is always wrong whether it is in French, English, German or Swahili! James commanded us in his writing on this matter when he related sweet and bitter water coming forth from the same fountain not to use bad language. He said, “My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 3:9-12). We must refrain ourselves from the use of such language if we are going to claim Christianity.

Another problem that exists among our tribe is the use of euphemisms which are phrases or words of lesser expression or directness but have the very same meaning. Words such as Gee, Gee Whiz, Golly, Gosh, Heck, etc. are all derived from the words: God, Christ & Hell. Don’t take my word – please – look them up. “Sound speech that cannot be condemned,- that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you” (Tit. 2:8). We must be as serious and conscientious about our speech as we are in every other aspect of Christian living. When we being to look at profane words as though they are nothing we have developed a serious problem that needs immediate correction. Make no mistake, this is not the opinion of some half baked preacher. If we can’t see the evil involved then we are indeed blind, for even the world recognizes the use (or misuse) of certain words as profane and nasty. How can we honestly stand as adults and use such gutter language when we would wash our children’s mouths out for such speech? “Let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6). Think about it!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, p. 390
July 4, 1991

By John A. Smith

Negative Influence Of Their Peers

To overcome negative peer pressure the young person must begin with the right mental attitude.

1. Expect that it will come. Do not be so naive as to think that it will not affect you.

2. Determine to resist it. Without a firm resolve to resist the corrupting influence of others, you will get no place. Part of Joseph’s ability to resist Mrs. Potiphar’s advances came from his determination to say no (Gen. 39:8).

3. Counteract it. Find some positive step that you can take to counteract the influence of those who would have a negative influence.

A. Check it out.

1. Look at what’s going on – does it appear to be normal? healthy? right?

2. Listen carefully – are friends being honest? direct? or just a “sales pitch”?

3. Apply the “Trouble Rule.”

a. Does it break the law (moral or civil)?

b. Will it make someone I respect angry?

c. Will it harm a relationship or hurt someone’s feelings?

d. Will your friend only do “whatever” if you participate?

B. Make a good decision (and evaluate afterwards).

C. Act to avoid trouble.

4. Avoid it. Watch the situation in which you find yourself and avoid those where you know you will be tempted. Joseph successfully escaped the advance of his boss’ wife y not hanging around her and then running away from her Gen. 39:10,12).

How Can Parents Help?

Parents need to pay the price, take the time, and do whatever is necessary to know who their children have chosen as friends. This may mean a house crowded with young people, a back yard with well worn base paths or a r that becomes a taxi. But now honestly, is it not worth at small price? They are the only children that we will have. Your houses will be silent soon enough. The time will come later for a yard that resembles a new carpet. Cars can be replaced, but our children have only one soul.

We need to strive to be sympathetic with them. Remember that you were once a teenager yourself. Regardless of what your children might think, you were not born an old “foggy.” There was a time when you spoke as a child, understood as a child, and thought as a child (1 Cor. 13:11). Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians is appropriate for every parent: “warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all” (1 Thess. 5:14).

Parents need to be supportive and encouraging of their children. If you tell a young person that he is stupid, good-for-nothing, and untrustworthy, he will prove you right. Be a Barnabas to some young person. Be as Paul was to Timothy. Praise him. Comfort him when he makes mistakes helping him to remember that he serves a loving and forgiving God. Be quick to pick him up when he falls.

Young people are subjected to many pressures, yet none which cannot be overcome and conquered. Young people need good role models, encouragement, understanding, acceptance and patience. Sacred history records the biographies of many outstanding young people (Daniel; Joseph; Timothy; David; Josiah) all of whom faced and conquered obstacles and problems. Sometimes they fell down, but they always got up through God’s outstretched hand to continue faithful to the end.

God bless you in your youth!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, p. 397
July 4, 1991

By Anthony Wayne Goforth

Recently, a family left the congregation of which they had been members, under less than favorable circumstances. When their loving congregation, believing they should “have the same concern one for the other” (1 Cor. 12:25), sought to take steps to correct the matter, the family simply fled to another congregation where they were accepted. When their new congregation was contacted about the matter, and asked if someone from each congregation could sit down with this family to try to bring about repentance, the response was, “It’s none of your business; they are not your members anymore.” It was further stated that if the offended church were to discipline this family, they would be guilty of “practicing the sponsoring church concept in the area of discipline” since they were now members elsewhere. The sponsoring church is an unauthorized centralizing of funds under one eldership which oversees the work of many churches for them. However, God did authorize the local church to perform the works of evangelism, benevolence and edification (Eph. 4:11-13) of the which discipline is an essential part! Since the family was being disciplined for sins committed while yet members of the previous congregation, there is no parallel that can be drawn to the sponsoring church.

This real life scenario reflects some common problems and misunderstandings of church membership and discipline, both on the part of the individuals being disciplined, and of the congregations to which they may flee, asking that “asylum” be granted to them.

1. Errors on the part of the individuals. Those who would flee discipline have the old misunderstanding of “you can’t withdraw from me if I withdraw from you first.” Certainly, one may attend any faithful congregation he feels best meets his family’s needs, but if there are discipline problems left unresolved, these must first be corrected before moving on to another congregation. To fail to do so shows little concern for one’s own soul since sin remains unrepented and therefore unforgiven (Matt. 5:23-24). It shows little concern for the congregation from which one might flee as well. Correction needs to be made where the sin occurred, where it is known, and where its evil influence has been felt (Matt. 18:1518). One should be thankful if he is part of a congregation that loves him enough to discipline (Heb. 12:5-11). Instead, the attitude is all too often, “Then I’ll just go somewhere else.” And, if they look far enough, they will find some congregation that does not love their souls as much, and will accept them as they are, still in their sin, thus perpetuating the problem. Can you imagine an IRS agent notifying a person that because he had not paid his taxes, he was going to jail, only to be told by the tax evader,

“You can’t touch me, I now denounce my citizenship.” Such would lead to anarchy in the world, and in the church as well. It would virtually eliminate discipline all together. Now, one may be a citizen wherever he wishes, but if there are obligations left unresolved, they must first be settled before moving, or be sent back to correct it as in the case of Manuel Noreiga! This shows little concern for the congregation to which one might go. They are immediately brought into fellowship with an impenitent sinner, his thus becoming a “spot in their love feast” (Jude 12), thereby endangering the souls of the new members as well.

2. Errors on the part of the congregation which would accept those into fellowship who are being disciplined elsewhere. This can be a problem in areas where there are numerous faithful congregations. When problems arise, it is all too tempting for one to just move to another congregation and leave matters unresolved. And, congregations that do not encourage them to first “go and be reconciled” (Matt. 5:24) contribute to the problem. A local congregation is not a city of refuge (Num. 35). At least with the cities of refuge, one had to truly be innocent, or be delivered back for proper discipline. The second congregation in our illustration seems very much like the Corinthian church, being puffed-up over having gained a family in sin, rather than mourning over being put in fellowship with an impenitent sinner (1 Cor. 5:2, 6-8). If the erring brother of 1 Corinthians 5 had asked to be a member of Athens or Philippi, the two churches could have communicated about the man’s status without any violation of autonomy, regardless of which church initiated the communication. There is Bible precedent for communication between congregations without practicing the “sponsoring church” (cf. Rom. 16; Col. 4:13-17). Paul even instructed Onesimus to return to Philemon! And, there is even authority for asking of letters of recommendation from those seeking to place membership (2 Cor. 3:1). And, when one does ask to be identified with a group, must they immediately be accepted, even before the brethren can have a chance to talk with (Acts 9:26-27)?

May I suggest, that it does not suffice for the sin to be confessed only at the new congregation, but to the ones which were initially offended as well (Matt. 18:5). Otherwise, when we have fights with our spouse, all we have to do is to tell some stranger we are sorry and that should settle it! Often, we are too excited about the possibility of gaining new members to want to probe their reason for coming to us, or for leaving their previous group, which we have already established Bible authority for so doing.

Conclusion

Really, was the first congregation really guilty of the sponsoring church? Or, when members flee to another congregation to escape discipline and are accepted, is this closer to the Catholic doctrine of granting sanctuary?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 398-399
July 4, 1991