Truth Magazine

By Weldon E Warnock

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

Concerning repentance of a remarried divorced couple brother Hailey states: “To demand that a remarried couple break their marriage covenant on the basis of repentance rests on the assumption that their marriage is ‘an adulterous marriage’ or ‘they are continuing to live in adultery.’ This has not been proved by scripture. The sin was in breaking the covenant by the wife (or husband) in order to marry another and not in a ‘continuous sexual adulterous condition.’ Therefore, repentance demands that they do not break such a covenant again” (pp. 71-72).

Implied in brother Hailey’s statement is that if a remarried divorced couple is living in adultery, then repentance would demand that they separate. He denies their marriage is adulterous, but that the sin for which they must repent is the breaking of the marriage covenant. If I can show by the Bible that they are living in adultery, then it is brother Hailey’s position that rests on an assumption and not mine. The following Scriptures prove that a divorced couple who has remarried without the cause of fornication is living in adultery.

1. Matthew 5:32. “But I (Jesus) say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” In this passage Jesus says whosoever marries her that is put away committeth adultery. “Committeth adultery” is a translation of the Greek word moichtai, 3 pers. sing. pres. ind. Being in the present tense, it has continuous, linear action. Jesus is saying, therefore, that whosoever marries such a put away person keeps on committing adultery. This one passage should settle the issue as to whether a divorced remarried couple could be guilty of an adulterous marriage.

To argue that Matthew 5:32 is referring to just citizens of the kingdom would have covenant people living in adultery when they divorce and remarry without scriptural cause, while excluding people outside of the kingdom of ever being guilty of such an adulterous state. Such is unreasonable, irrational and unscriptural. God’s children can live in adulterous marriages, but children of the devil cannot. Strange “logic”!

2. Matthew 19:9. “And I (Jesus) say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” As is the case in Matthew 5:32, “committeth adultery” (moichatai) is continuous action, an illicit sexual relationship in which a divorced remarried couple persists.

3. Mark 10:11-12. “And he (Jesus) saith unto them, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” !in both vv. 11-12, “Committeth adultery” is a translation of moichatai, indicating they keep on committing adultery.

4. Luke 16:18. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” In this text “committeth adultery” in the Greek is moicheuei, also 3 pers. sing. pres. ind. The act is continuous, and, hence, an adulterous relationship.

5. Romans 7:2-3. “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. . .” Not only would she be a covenant-breaker, but Paul said “she shall be called an adulteress.” As long as she remains married to another man (to whom she is not bound), she shall continue to be called an adulteress.

In 1 Corinthians 7:39 Paul states, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” The binding is concurrent with the living. To marry another while the marriage partner is living constitutes adultery, except for fornication.

6. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. “. , . neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.” The phrase, “such were some of you” shows past action, their former life-style. The verb “were” (hete) is 2nd per. pl. imperf., which represents an action as going on (continuous) in past time. Hence, some of the Corinthians were living in adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, thievery, etc., but when they were converted, they quit these immoral practices.

We have already shown that those who divorce and remarry without the cause of fornication are in an adulterous state, therefore, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, they must terminate such an adulterous relationship when they come to Christ. They may no more lawfully continue living together as husband and wife than homosexuals may continue to cohabit, drunkards continue to drink and thieves continue to steal. Repentance demands separation from sin. “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord; and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:17).

7. Colossians 3:5-7. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupisence, and covetousness . . . on the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” From this passage we learn that we can, among other things, live in fornication or sexual immorality. Paul said to “mortify” or “put to death” our members of the body which act as instruments of sin. Those unscripturally married fall into this category.

Brother Hailey wrote in reference to Matthew 19 that “Genesis 2 is appealed to by Jesus and incorporated in His covenant, but the alien is not under this covenant until he brings himself under it through the blood of Christ” (p. 72). Therefore, the alien can’t repent of violating Matthew 19:3-9 because he isn’t under it. Neither can he repent of violating Genesis 2 because he wouldn’t be under it, either according to brother Hailey. He wrote on p. 41, “Where in the Old Testament is there an appeal to Genesis 2 establishing a rule concerning marriage-divorceremarriage addressed to those out of covenant relationship with God?”

If the alien is not under Matthew 19 or Genesis 2, what marriage law is he under? How could an alien be a covenantbreaker without a law? Yet, brother Hailey declared that the sin is “breaking the covenant by the wife (or husband),” and that “repentance demands that they do not break such a covenant again.” Where does God say, or even hint, that this is all that repentance demands? Repentance entails a decision to quit sinning,, manifested by a reformation of life. If we are living in adultery by being unlawfully married, we terminate the sinful relationship. That is repentance!

The Meaning of Repentance

Repentance is a translation of the noun, metanoia. The verb form is mentanoeo. The Analytical Greek Lexicon defines these Greek words, “a change of mode of thought and feeling, repentance . . . practical reformation . * ‘ reversal of the past . . . to undergo a change in frame of mind and feeling, to repent . . . to make a change of principle and practice, to reform” (p. 266).

Thayer defines the verb, metanoeo, “to change one’s mind for the better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins” (p. 405). W.E. Vine says “that this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God.” Jesus illustrates its meaning in the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32. A person living in adultery must turn from his sin, and change his practice in coming to the Lord. This is the biblical principle to follow of the divorced and remarried who would come to God.

Repentance is emphasized throughout the New Testament. John the Baptist came on the scene saying, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus echoed the same message (Matt. 4:17; cf. Mk. 1: 15). The disciples of Jesus went out on the limited commission and preached that men should repent (Mk. 6:12). Our Lord said, “. . . except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3,5). Incorporated in the great commission is repentance (Lk. 24:47). Peter preached repentance on Pentecost (Acts 2:38) and Paul told the Athenians that God “commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). God wants us all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).

Examples of what repentance requires are found in the preaching of John the Baptist, recorded in Luke 3:10-14, 18-20. They reflect precisely the preceding definitions of repentance. After John told his audience to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Lk. 3:8), the people asked him, “What shall we do then?” He responded: (a) Those who had two coats were to give to those who had none (v. 11). (b) Those who had food were to do likewise (v. 11). (c) To the tax-collectors, John said, “Exact no more than that which is appointed you” (v. 13). (d) The soldiers were told, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages (v. 14). (e) To Herod, whose sin was reproved or exposed by John, he said, “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (v. 19; Mk. 6:18).

In all of these things, John urged them to do the very reverse of what they were doing, which, in each individual case, would be the fruit of genuine repentance. In regard to Herod Antipas, John told him he could not have Herodias because it not lawful for him to have his brother’s wife. McGarvey and Pendleton list three reasons why the marriage was unlawful: (1) The husband of Herodias was still living; (2) The lawful wife of Antipas (the daughter of Aretas, king or emir of Arabia) was still living; (3) Antipas and Herodias, being nephew and niece, were related to each other within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (The Fourfold Gospel, p. 371). We must also add, “Her union with Antipas was adulterous and shocking because the Mosaic Law clearly prohibited marriage to a brother’s wife while the brother was yet alive (Lev. 18:16; 20:21)” (Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, William L. Lane, p. 219).

Though the Herodians were not of Jewish stock, but Idumeans, they would be classified as at least nominal Jews at that time since the Idumeans were subdued by John Hyrcanus in 125 BC, and embodied in the Asmonean kingdom through an enforced circumcision (ISBE, Vol. 3, p. 1378). Some contend that the only unlawful thing about Herod’s marriage to Herodias was a violation of Leviticus 18:16 in taking his brother’s wife. To those who take this position I ask: Would Herod have been justified in taking his neighbor’s wife under similar conditions that he took Herodias? Would it have been right for Herod to take his neighbor’s wife, but wrong to take his brother’s wife?

David and Bathsheba

David and Bathsheba are introduced by brother Hailey as a case where repentance did not demand David giving up another man’s wife. He wrote, “The contention that Genesis 2:18-24 was recognized as law which demanded that the person who takes the wife of another must give her up as demanded by repentance is disputed in the case of David . . . . Surely no one would deny that David repented, yet he was permitted to keep the woman as his wife. Repentance did not demand that she be put away or that the two live apart for the remainder of their lives” (pp. 72-73). 1 offer the following objections to brother Hailey’s contention:

(1) David took the wife of a dead man. True, David maneuvered to have Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, killed (2 Sam. 11:15) in order to take Bathsheba for his wife, but David married her following Uriah’s death ( 2 Sam. 11:27). David was guilty of covetousness, adultery and murder. Because of these sins he suffered severe consequences. But was he guilty of taking the wife of a man who was still living? Obviously not!

Brother Hailey’s position is that an alien sinner may take a mate of a living spouse for any reason and under any circumstance and keep him/her. The sin, he says, is breaking the marriage covenant and not the remarriage. David’s example doesn’t prove his assertion.

(2) David was in covenant relationship with God and, therefore, he was not an alien. If the example of David and Bathsheba introduced by brother Hailey proves anything, it proves that covenant people may also take another person’s mate in marriage for any cause. How does David’s example, who was a child of God, establish the right for remarried divorced alien sinners to remain together? Brother Hailey states, “Will not the same God of loving-kindness and tender mercies forgive and blot out sins under a system of grace as He did under a system of law?” (p. 73)

Well, since God forgave David, his child, under a system of law, will he not forgive his redeemed child under a system of grace who takes another man’s wife? We don’t know what God will do, except what he says. We know what his law teaches (Matt. 19:3-9). That is all that we can and dare offer!

(3) David lived during a time when God made concessions due to the hardness of their heart. Jesus said, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (allowed) you to put away your wives . . . . And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:8-9). The issue is: What does Jesus allow, not what David did.

(4) David had several wives and concubines. His wives were: Michal (1 Sam. 18:27), Abigail (1 Sam. 25:42), Ahinoam (I Sam. 25:43), Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah and Bathsheba (1 Chron. 3:2,3,5), and several concubines (2 Sam. 5:13; 15:16). If brother Hailey’s argument has any merit that remarried divorced aliens may keep their mates because David married and kept Bathsheba, even after he repented, then polygamists (those with a plurality of wives) may also keep their wives because David had a plurality of wives. What is good enough for David is good enough for me doesn’t logically follow. If it does, then the Christian Church’s argument is permissible about instrumental music because they say since David played a harp in praise to God, we may also. They fail to distinguish between the two covenants.

At the bottom of page 73 brother Hailey asserts, “Nowhere did Christ or an apostle teach that repentance demands the breaking of a marriage relationship such as we have been discussing when one obeys the gospel.” This is true as far as finding a specific example. It is also true of polygamy. Where did Jesus or his apostles ever teach that repentance demands the breaking of a polygamous marriage? If no specific example can be found where the remarried divorced aliens broke a marriage relationship, and such proves that they may remain in the relationship, then silence also proves that polygamy is acceptable. The same could be said of homosexuality.

But God has spoken on the subject (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18), and it becomes crystal clear that divorce and remarriage for every cause, polygamy and homosexuality are contrary to God’s word, and those who are guilty of these things are living in sin. Repentance demands the thief return his stolen goods, the drunkard give up his bottle, the idolater to give up his idol, the homosexual to give up his man, the polygamist to give up his plurality of wives and the adulterer to give up his unscriptural marriage partner. All sin is to be abandoned and this is included in every passage that tells men to repent.

To ask God to give us examples to satisfy our own demands puts us in the position of be ing law-givers instead of doers of the law. Let us realize that God does not have to say something the way we want it said for it to be true. Our responsibility is to learn what God said and do it.

There will be pain in repentance, but Jesus said it is better to give up the lesser things of this life than to lose one’s soul in hell. “Wherefore if thy hand or foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting hell. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire” (Matt. 18:8-9).

Momentary sufferings, heartaches and disappointments will be forgotten in the comfort of God’s everlasting presence. Jesus declared, “Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting” (Lk. 18:29-30).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 368-371
June 20, 1991

By Mike Willis

The book of Philippians has been described as Paul’s most affectionate epistle. Writing to a church which he had established, Paul was personally acquainted with many of Philippi’s members. He showed the Philippians how to live with good spiritual attitudes in the face of bleak circumstances.

Philippians 4 contains several exhortations which give us direction in how to survive life, enduring trials and afflictions and enjoying its brightest moments to the fullest. When teaching on this chapter, I refer to these Scriptures as providing a prescription for good spiritual health. Whether my title is a fair assessment of the chapter or not, the lessons taken from these verses deserve our prayerful study. Consider some of these directives with me.

I. Rejoice in the Lord

In Philippians 4:4, Paul wrote, “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice.” This statement provides a key to good living.

1. A Christian should rejoice. There is no virtue in a crabby disposition. Some people have such a sour look on their face that one would think they had been sucking on a lemon. Unfortunately, some equate that disposition with Christianity because some misguided Christians think that abstaining from the world means that a Christian cannot enjoy life.

There is no sin committed in being happy, light-hearted, and jovial. A Christian without a sense of humor, who is always negative about everything, helps create a negative impression of Christianity. Christians are to “adorn the gospel” (Tit. 2:10). Not only must I teach my children what one must believe and obey in order to be a Christian, I must also live that life in such an attractive way that they too will want to be a Christian. That is less likely to occur when the gospel is hidden underneath a crabby disposition.

2. A Christian’s joy is “in the Lord.” How can a person be happy when life is so bad for him? The answer is this: “he rejoices in the Lord.” Notice Paul’s circumstance when he wrote this epistle. He was in a Roman prison, hoping to be released. Nevertheless, death at the hand of a Roman soldier lay as a distinct possibility. There was nothing about his physical circumstance which should cause him joy. One of the keys to happiness, then, is finding our joy in the Lord.

Much unhappiness is the result of having one’s goals and aspirations confined to this world. A man who aspires to being rich cannot be happy when he loses his money; a person who aspires to climbing the corporate ladder is disappointed when someone else is given the big promotion; the man who is trying to become rich by investing in stocks is crushed when the stock market crashes. Outward circumstance controls the mental state of those whose goals and aspirations in life are tied to this world alone.

Billy Graham was correct when he spoke about happiness not being tied to physical circumstance.

The happiness which brings enduring worth to life is not the superficial happiness that is dependent on circumstances. It is the happiness and contentment that fills the soul even in the midst of the most distressing of circumstances and the most bitter environment. It is the kind of happiness that grins when things go wrong and smiles through the tears. The happiness for which our souls ache is one undisturbed by success or failure, one which will root deeply inside us and give inward relaxation, peace, and contentment, no matter what the surface problems may be. That kind of happiness stands in need of no outward stimulus.

Paul expressed his joy in the midst of trials saying that he was “sorrowful, yet always rejoicing” (2 Cor. 6:10).

There always are occasions for rejoicing in the Lord. There is joy in what Christ has done for us. We can rejoice in his incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension to and rule at the right hand of God, revelation of God to us, etc.

In the Lord, there are occasions to rejoice in the good news of someone being baptized or restored (even as the angels of heaven rejoice, Lk. 15:7), of someone growing and maturing in Christ (Phil. 4: 1; 1 Thess. 2:19), of one’s own salvation and fellowship with the Lord (“Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven” – Lk. 10:20), of one’s hope for eternal life, of the progress of a local church with which we are associated, etc. These joys are ever present and independent of outward circumstance.

Recognizing the true source of joy, one can see why it is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It is cultivated and grown as one grows and matures in Christ.

Robert Rainy observed, “A great grief shuts out lesser griefs. When a woman has lost her son, will she grieve greatly for the loss of her purse? So a great joy keeps down the excess of lesser joys. A man will not be greatly concerned about winning or losing some game. He will be about equally glad either way. So he whose heart thrills with the joy of Christ will feel the pleasure and the pain of earthly things; but they will not master him, nor run away with him” (The Expositor’s Bible: Philippians 325).

I have attended churches which showed little or no celebration of joy when a person was baptized or a Christian was restored. Is the reason for such absence of celebration that their hearts are tied to other things than the things of the Lord? I wondered if that were so.

There are many unhappy Christians in every church. Much of that unhappiness may be tied to finding the source of our joy in something other than Christ and then being frustrated when that in which we hope does not come to pass. Is the absence of our joy a reflection of our too close attachment to the world?

3. Rejoice in the Lord always. The Christian’s joy in the Lord is abiding, not transitory and fleeting. The joy can be abiding because (a) there is no change in the Lord, the Source of our joy; (b) our relationship to him is not effected by outward circumstances (Rom. 8:31-39). Too often our joy is short-lived, tied to emotional ups and downs rather than being firmly rooted in our relationship to Christ.

R. Finlayson wrote in the Pulpit Commentary:

Ours, then, should be a deep and a perennial joy. Even under depreciation of earthly comfort, there should be more gladness in our heart than men of the world have in the time that their corn and their wine and their oil abound. God, in Christ, is more to us than corn, or wine, or oil; ay, more than the dearest earthly friend, and One who will never fail us; and therefore we may always rejoice (Philippians 176).

Habakkuk expressed it like this: “Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the nock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (Hab 3:17-18).

Consequently, the first pill to take in the prescription for good spiritual health is to anchor your heart to the Lord so that your heart rejoices in the Lord and continues that rejoicing throughout all of life’s circumstances.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 386, 407
July 4, 1991

By Larry Ray Hafley

Luke, “the beloved physician,” Wrote “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou has been instructed” (Lk. 1:4). Paul told Timothy, “But continue in the things, which thou hast learned and has been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14). There is an anchor of assurance, a concrete certainty about the truth of God. It needs no alterations or amendments. It is firm, sure, steadfast, certain (Eph. 4:14, 15; Heb. 13:8, 9). It liveth and abideth forever.

Contrast this with the flimsy, baseless, shifting sands of denominational dogmas and doctrines.

(1) Before 1910, Methodist doctrine said that some babies who died in infancy were lost, but since that time, when they revised their creed, all babies that die are saved. What of mothers who lost children in 1909? They had “no certainty” regarding their child’s eternal destiny.

(2) Mormons advocated polygamy in the 19th century. Then they switched. Some, though, are now again pleading for a plurality of wives. What of the next generation? Can they or can they not have many wives as Brigham Young did? They have “no certainty.”

Mormon doctrine long forbade blacks from entering their priesthood. But, alas, in the past decade, they received a “revelation.” “Presto,” blacks can now be a part of the Mormon priesthood. Despite Galatians 3:28 and James 2:1-5, the Mormons have had “no certainty” on this matter.

(3) Popes were not infallible in matters of faith and morals when speaking from the chair of papal authority until 1870. But in that year, scores of fallible men decided he was infallible. Suppose you were a Catholic in 1869, teaching against papal infallibility? Again, “no certainty.” The same is true regarding the bodily assumption of Mary, Jesus’ mother, into heaven. Before 1950, it was not an absolute fact of faith, but not it is they say. Remember meatless Fridays? Well, that is all you can do with the, for they are no longer bound as they were until 1970 or so. Make your own list of similar items, relics and doctrines. They all say “no certainty.”

As an example, consider the following quote: “The Roman Catholic Church must rethink its position on celibacy and the ordination of women if it hopes to boost membership of its declining priesthood, the National Federation of Priests’ Councils said at a meeting in Orlando, Fla.” (The Commercial Appeal, p. A-2, May 2, 1991).

(4) Remember when most churches refused fellowship to one who put away his mate for a cause other than fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)? Many Catholics and Protestants were summarily excommunicated for violating those plain passages. Now, though, multiple marriages and unscriptural divorces do not keep either a man or a woman from the pulpit, let alone the pew. What of those poor souls who were humiliated and embarrassed and kicked out of their churches years ago and who now see the pastors of those same churches in their same marital state? “No certainty” there.

The same can be said for homosexuality, women preachers and a host of modern sins. Before the 1960s, women were not bishops or preachers in most denominations and homosexuals were condemned as sinners in need of repentance. Now, it is different. Lesbian women can be pastors or preachers. This trend is gaining acceptance and will be a part of most denominations before too long. “No certainty” can be found on these issues.

And what does that portend concerning things that are ,sinful” today? Will they be “sanctified and meet for the Master’s use” tomorrow? What of drug use, abortion, pornography, euthanasia? Maybe later? Social drinking was once largely and widely condemned, but now Catholics and Lutherans use it openly, even at church functions. If social drinking is alright, what of social or recreational drug use – marijuana, cocaine? Oh, I know it is presently frowned upon, but what about later? There is “no certainty” about those practices, either.

(5) There is “no certainty” in some churches of Christ. Remember when denominational organizations, societies, and church sponsored recreation and gymnasiums were ridiculed as human additions and traditions? Now, those same brethren work out in fully equipped “church health spas.” Gospel preachers once reproved and rebuked the social, welfare gospel. Now, some promote and support it from church treasuries while they administer Day Care and Pre-School Centers. What will come next instruments of music in worship? Rummage sales, pie suppers, pancake breakfasts and car washes to raise money for the churches?

Worldliness, immodesty and unscriptural marriages were once denounced with great earnestness. And now? More and more there is less and less said about these things. Often, what is said is a defense or an excuse to be “like the (denomi)nations” round about us.

“No Certainty” Versus “Know the Certainty”

It is a case of “no certainty” versus “know the certainty of those things wherein thou has been instructed.” “It is high time to wake out of sleep,” and to “cast off the works of darkness,” and “make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:11-14). There can be no compromise with evil and error. “Awake to righteousness and sin not.” No personal sentiment for men can be allowed to obscure truth and stifle righteousness. If Scripture does not direct our sentiment, our human sentiments, feelings and opinions will color and control our view of Scripture.

If you have “no certainty” of faith and confidence in the “faithful word,” you will swerve and careen like a drunken driver and be “turned aside unto vain jangling.” As such, you will be like “children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14). Back to the Bible. Either you have “no certainty,” or you “know the certainty” of the things “thou hast learned and been assured of.” “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 385, 408
July 4, 1991

By Clarence W. Fell

Basketball, baseball, football, tennis, track, soccer, choir, band, karate, wrestling, boys club, girls club, PTA . . . the list is endless. Hundreds of things beg for our time. Consequently, we parents can unwittingly neglect to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).

If a family attends church services regularly, the children receive some biblical instruction. However, if we think scheduled services are all the instruction our children need we are sadly mistaken. Scheduled services are a nice compliment to our children’s biblical education but by no means all that our children need.

There are many opportunities and ways to teach children outside of scheduled service. I would like to suggest a method I enjoy using to teach my two little “angels.” I refer to it as spontaneous teaching because it is quick and unexpected. It seizes the opportunity of the moment without warning and is over almost as quickly as it began. Since children are notorious for their short attention span, this method is advantageous. Also, since this method is brief, it lends itself nicely to repetition and children do not soon grow weary of it because it doesn’t last long.

Caution: This is not intended to be an entire biblical education program for children. This method is suggested only as another tool, one among many that parents can use if desired.

Spontaneous teaching uses your child’s current activity or thoughts to make a spiritual point, briefly, on your child’s level, and then lets the child pursue the point further or drop it for the time being. If they want to pursue the thought then do so to their satisfaction and when they are satisfied stop. If your children gives you a weird, “What planet are you from?” look don’t think that a seed of knowledge was not planted. A child’s mind runs fast and changes direction quickly. Some of our strongest and most influential memories took only seconds to create.

The main advantage of spontaneous teaching is that you are using what is already in your child’s mind, he is already thinking of the subject, you are just pointing out a biblical connection. Since the thought is already in his mind you do not have to arrest his attention and insert a new thought – often against resistance. Don’t underestimate the value of brief thoughts strategically placed here and there.

How about some examples of spontaneous teaching to help clarify the method?

I find it easy to turn supper conversation into a spontaneous teaching opportunity. At supper the children eagerly bring up things that happened at school. These things often provide excellent opportunities for a brief point. When they talk about someone cheating on a test I ask them why it is bad to cheat. I ask them what God thinks about cheating. I ask them who is really hurt by cheating. Children are not stupid; they give good answers to such questions when encouraged a little.

Evening walks, trips to the park and other nature outings are good times to make brief comments about God. Consider the veins in a leaf, the singing of a bird, a worm sliding through the mud, all of these stir a child’s thoughts and give the parent an opportunity to make a brief point in favor of God. Ask your boy why God made worms? When he answers, “For birds to eat” or “To go fishing with” then comment briefly about how God provides for the birds (Matt. 6:26) and us too (Matt. 6:33).

Times of discipline can be good times to discuss Bible verses.

Bedtime is a great time for a brief Bible lesson. Almost every child on earth will do anything to stall turning off the lights. Take advantage of this natural phenomenon and teach them about God. Read them a brief Bible bedtime story. Take a moment to talk about their day and make points you think beneficial.

After Bible class and worship is another good time to briefly teach. Ask your children what they learned. This causes them to review the lesson, thus reinforcing it in their mind. I like to ask my children what they learned from the sermon. Sometimes I’m surprised at how much they really hear.

Life is full of spontaneous teaching opportunities. All that is required is that we learn to be aware of them. I enjoy using this teaching tool. I hope you can use it as one way to enhance your child’s biblical education.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, p. 373
June 20, 1991