Truth Magazine

By Tony Eldridge

What would life in America be like without movie theaters and video stores today? Dates, parties, and entertainment itself would totally change without movies. Though I am not advocating that Christians give up this pleasure, I am, however, strongly grieved at the irresponsible way many Christians view some movies without taking into consideration their soul’s condition. I would like to consider the one question, “Can we as Christians view these things and still be pleasing to God?”

First of all, let’s look at what the ratings mean to a child of God. Of course they are G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, and X. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has adopted these ratings to help in the selection of movies according to content. Rated G (general admittance) is usually suitable for young children. According to TV Guide, rated PG (parental guidance suggested) may contain one or all of the following: strong language, violence, nudity, sexual situations, and adult themes. PG-13 (under 13 not admitted without a guardian) may contain the same material as PG only more intense. Rated R (restricted) may contain the same material as PG, only even more intense. Rated NC-17 (no one under 17 admitted at all) is tailor made for soft pornography; and we won’t even discuss rated X since I hope that no child of God would ever try to justify that garbage.

To a Christian, those ratings shouldn’t mean too much. It is given by the world, for the world; and Christians shouldn’t let the world rate their morality. We have a God-given responsibility to guard the things that go into our minds and we will be judged based on his Word, not the MPAA rating system. I believe that it is foolish to justify a movie based on its rating alone. We must look at the content of a movie and see if it is contrary to God’s Will.

Let’s take an objective look at the content listed above as seen in the Bible. First of all, what does the Bible say about strong language? Ephesians 4:29 admonishes us to “let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” Its sister passage in Colossians 3:8 tells us to put off blasphemy and filthy language out of our mouth. The Bible makes it clear that profanity of any sort is considered a sin by God and there is no way around that! And let me add that there is no way a child of God can make it to heaven if he uses the Lord’s name in vain. Of all filthy language, this type should be most offending to the children of God. If you can sit in a theater and listen to his name used in vain with-out even giving it a second thought, you need to take a good look at your relationship with him.

How does the Bible view violence; the murders, revenge, treating enemies spitefully? They are all condemned by his holy Word. Romans 13:9 – “Thou shalt not kill”; Rom. 12:9 – “Vengeance is mine”; and Matthew 5:44 – “Pray for those who spitefully use you.” These verses should suffice to illustrate God’s view of violence.

One passage alone will take care of illustrating the Creator’s view of nudity, adult themes, and adult situations. 1 Corinthians 6:18ff says, “Flee sexual immorality . – . do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. . . T’ I believe that this command is obvious.

Now I know that Christians aren’t practicing these things when we view them on the silver screen, but I do want us to understand how God views them whether or not we participate in them. The question again is, “Are we sinning when we view these things?” People usually have one of two responses when you hold their feet to the fire concerning this issue. “We certainly don’t practice these things!” This is the favorite justification; however, it forgets the reason for the Gentile’s guilt. In Romans 1:28-32, Paul listed some of the same sins that we have already studied as being the same ones that led them from God. Among them, sexual immorality, murder, and violence. Notice verse 32: “. . those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. ” My friends, if you are paying to be entertained by things contrary to the Word of God, then you are worthy of the same punishment as if you did those things yourself!

Another justification given to view these movies is, “You might have a problem handling that, but not me.” Paul talks of people who can make such statements in 1 Timothy 4:2 – “having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” My friend, it is not to your credit if you can sit through a movie filled with garbage and walk out unaffected. If you can make a statement like that, I plead that you do what David did in Psalms 51:10 and pray, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” Jeremiah speaks of women in Israel who have forgotten how to blush (Jer. 6:15). And you, have you forgotten how to blush?

Plainly, I believe that we are sinning by watching these movies that contain such filth because we voluntarily subject ourselves to evil influences. Proverbs 4:14-15 says, “Do not enter the path of the wicked, and do not walk in the way of evil. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn away from it and pass on.” We must heed this warning as we choose the movies we watch. Verses 20-22 of Proverbs 4 admonish us to take these words to heart. The young man in Proverbs 7:6-9 flirted with what he knew was wrong simply by taking the path to the harlot and it ultimately led to his death. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 instructs us to, “abstain from every form of evil. ” Haven’t we more than proven that these movies contain evil?

If we haven’t shed the gospel light on this subject enough, let me encourage you to read Ephesians 5:1-17, for in it a Christian is admonished not to have fellowship with the works of darkness, but expose them. It’s all around us – theaters, TV, video stores. Be wise, walk circumspectly – but remember, on Judgment Day, you will stand before God, not the MPAA and if you are sinning against his laws, you will go to hell. Be careful in your entertainment, but have fun. And never forget who you are.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 289, 311
May 16, 1991

By Connie W. Adams

It is argued by some that if people in unscriptural marriages must sever that relationship upon obeying the gospel, that penance is being exacted rather than repentance. Brother Homer Hailey holds this view and has stated it clearly. I believe he is wrong about this.

The Catholic doctrine of penance imposes some penalty which must be carried out in expiation for sin and that is tied together with the doctrine of absolution granted by a priest who is thought to fulfill the extended role of an apostle in forgiving sin. The intricacies of this doctrine are not taught in the Bible and the attempts to defend it rest upon a misuse of the Scripture.

But the Bible does teach repentance. The word metanoeo, translated repent, literally means to perceive afterwards, implying change. It denotes a change of mind which results in amendment of character and conduct. John preached “Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8). On Pentecost those who had been guilty of the blood of the Son of God were told to “repent and be baptized” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Scriptural baptism was contingent upon genuine repentance. They could not undo what had been done, but they could resolve in their change of heart, not to be guilty of such a thing again. On Solomon’s porch Peter told his audience to “repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). Notice that the blotting out of sin was conditioned upon repentance. On Mars Hill, Paul made it clear that repentance is a universal mandate of God who “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Peter said God would have “all men to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

The doctrine that an alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ and that therefore in baptism all previous marriages are forgiven so that the one baptized may now remain with his present marriage partner, regardless of the cause of all previous divorces, is fatally flawed in that it nullifies repentance. In fact, if the doctrine is true, then the previous marriage state was not sinful anyhow, for sin is not imputed where there is no law. If no law, then there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15).

It is contended further that there is no such thing as “living in adultery.” But Paul wrote the Colossians and listed “fornication” along with other sins and then said, “in the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them” (Col. 3:5-7). In that same context he listed “inordinate affection” or unlawful lusts, a reference to homosexuality. Some had “lived” in that sin. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul showed that these sins of the flesh bad been removed by the “circumcision of Christ” when they were buried with him in baptism. Question: Was it required that these change their practice? Or did baptism purify the state in which they lived so that they could continue in it? What did repentance demand?

This doctrine raises all sorts of questions. If the alien sinner is not amenable to the law of Christ, then should he be a polygamist, upon what ground could it be argued that he must give up all his wives, but one, upon obedience to the gospel? Polygamy was tolerated under the law of Moses and under the “moral law” under which it is argued that alien sinners still operate until they obey the gospel. If a man can keep wife number three when his first two marriages ended in divorce without the cause of fornication, then why could not a polygamist keep three wives upon obeying the gospel? Where would repentance be in all of this? Would it be penance for the polygamist to give up these extra wives? Or would repentance demand it? I believe this is a fair question.

The gospel invitation is offered to every kind of sinner. Jesus came to “seek and save that which is lost” (Lk. 19:10). They that are sick need the Great Physician. Such passages as Colossians 3:5-7 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 treat a wide range of sinful conduct on the part of those described before they became Christians. The blood of Christ was able to cleanse every sin. It still is. But, baptism does not sanctify any sinful action or relationship. Murder is still murder whether before or after baptism. Drunkenness is sinful, before or after baptism. Homosexuality is sinful before or after baptism. Polygamy is wrong before or after baptism. Violation of God’s law on divorce and remarriage is wrong be f ore and after baptism. Baptism does not wash away wives!

Baptism is for those who have truly repented of their sins. What good does it do to baptize a man who is a thief who has no intention of giving up thievery as a way of life? What good would it do to baptize a murderer who is totally impenitent? What good would it do to baptize a p olygamist who has three wives and fully intends to keep them all? What good will it do to baptize a woman who has her third husband when the first two were not put away for adultery when she fully intends to remain in that condition? Ther e may be times when we do not know all the circumstances in the lives of those who present themselves for baptism. All we can do is be sure they know what God requires of a sinner for the remission of sins. I once refused to baptize a man who came forward during a gospel meeting in Richmond, Virginia and told me he wanted to be baptized. Why? Because he was clearly intoxicated. We talked with him after the services and offered to be of whatever help we could, but when he sobered up we saw no more of him.

Brethren, we have placed great stress on scriptural baptism and for that none of us should apologize. But there is a great need to stress Bible repentance. This is a prer~equisite to Bible baptism. Without it, baptism is invalid. I freely admit that we have to accept the word of those who say they understand what the will of the Lord is and that they are acting accordingly. But we have too many who are counted among the saints who have never made any change in life. Some have been converted to baptism but not to the Lord. True conversion involves a change of heart which is manifested in a changed life.

When James D. Bales wrote his book, Not Under Bondage, I wrote him that one of the errors of his position was that it denied repentance its fruit. That is the same error our brother Hailey has made and that is made by those who stand with him in arguing that the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ and that God’s marriage law only applies to those who enter the kingdom. No earthly priest can forgive sin, as is taught in Catholicism in relation to the notion of penance. But there is a high priest in Heaven who does forgive sin and when he forgives, he treats the forgiven sinner as if he had not sinned. But never forget that he forgives the genuinely penitent who have resolved to stop doing whatever is offensive to God. “Shall we continue insin that grace may abound? God forbid!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 272, 276
May 2, 1991

By Mike Willis

On 1 March 1991, one part of the Willis clan assembled in Houston, Texas to celebrate their parents’ 60th wedding anniversary. It was a joyous occasion; I appreciate my brother Don and sisters Sue Morris and Ouida Stover who worked to arrange the celebration. There were over 60 descendants from Onan J. and Wilhelmina Willis who gathered to observe their 60th anniversary.

Mom and Dad had seven children. The four sons (Cecil, Don, Lewis and myself) dedicated themselves to full-time gospel preaching. One of the daughters (Ouida) is married to Billy Stover, an elder at the Southside church in Pasadena, Texas and another daughter (Sue) is married to Forrest Morris, a deacon in the Alvin, Texas church. Aside from the children who were too young to be Christians, there were few non-Christians present in the 60 + who assembled that evening.

One of the most emotional parts of the celebration occurred when the family joined together to sing “Through the Years,” during which time the grandchildren and great-grandchildren marched in front of Mom and Dad and placed red roses in a vase. The singing was interrupted by tears of joy and happiness. Even now my eyes water as I recall the moment.

After this, each of the children paid tribute to his parents, recalling in his own way the memorable moments of his youth. These tributes were living proof of the statement in Proverbs 31 about the “worthy woman”: “Her children arise up, and call her blessed” (31:28). We laughed and cried together.

After each of the children had paid his tribute, Mom and Dad had some things to say. One of the statements from Mom has lingered on my mind through these several weeks since the celebration. When Mom spoke, tears were flowing down her check and her speech was broken by emotion, but she finally got out the words, “I’m the richest woman alive!”

To fully appreciate that statement, you must understand the relatively meager circumstances in which Mom and Dad live. They live in a modest, three-bedroom brick ranch in Woodlake, Texas where property values are low. They probably have very little in their savings account. Mom had no financial connotations in her statement that she was the “richest woman alive.”

Rather, she recognized as her treasure her faithful, Christian children. She has been blessed with longevity of life to see her children reach maturity, marry, and give birth to their own children. She has been blessed to see all of her children and most of her grandchildren become Christians. She has witnessed several of her grandchildren marry and have children of their own. She witnesses the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ being passed down in her family and recognizes this as the greatest of life’s blessings.

Mom’s statement, ” I am the richest woman alive, ” emphasizes in my mind the necessity of placing our values in the right places. Many who have much more money in the bank and are worth much more in wealth do not have the peace, joy and contentment which my parents experience.

I appreciate he indelible mark which my parents have made on our family by transmitting values to us. They told us to worship God and serve him daily and then showed us how to do it. My parents were not hypocrites. They never manifested pride and arrogance. Rather than being concerned with mere reputation, they were concerned about character.

I have been deprived of much of their company by preaching the gospel 1000 miles away from where they live for 24 years. Only in recent years have I recognized the sacrifice which was made that the gospel might be preached. My children barely know two of this earth’s greatest people — their grandparents. Were it not for the expectation of all of us sharing heaven together, the recognition of the importance of preaching the gospel to others, and the good which I have witnessed from the work which our preaching has done, I would so regret the choice to be away preaching that I might change my life. Having the choice of these goods not being accomplished were their sons to move, I doubt that Mom and Dad would encourage us to quit what we are doing to live nearby.

I pray that Sandy and I will be as successful as parents who have passed the gospel down to their children and grandchildren as Mom and Dad have been. The wise man wrote, “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22). Mom and Dad, thank you for the rich heritage.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 290, 311
May 16, 1991

By Weldon E. Warnock

The task of reviewing brother Homer Hailey’s booklet, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God gives me no satisfaction. He has been my good friend for about forty years, having first met him while I was a student and he was a professor at Florida College. I took every class, as I recall, that he taught.

Brother Hailey instilled in his pupils a deep trust in the providence of God, a devoted love for the Lord Jesus Christ and a humble reverence for the word of God. He made us sense the plight of Job, appreciate the fidelity of the prophets and feel the devotion of the psalms. Indeed, he is a gentleman and a scholar, respected by all who have known him.

However, the position brother Hailey espouses in the booklet under review necessitates a response because of its far-reaching consequences, viz., that alien sinners who have been divorced and remarried for any reason whatsoever may remain together as husband and wife after they are baptized. I believe they are living in adultery; brother Hailey says, “No”! If I am correct in my understanding of the Scriptures, then we have people going to the judgment guilty of adultery. Paul said they cannot inherit the kingdom of God (Gal.5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). This is why our difference is such a serious issue.

Our examination of brother Hailey’s treatise will be considered under the following headings: 1. Distinctive Differences; 2. The Universal Moral Law; 3. The New Covenant; 4. Repentance; 5. Medley of Matters.

Distinctive Differences

In this installment we will go through brother Hailey’s book and specify places wherein we disagree, or have serious concerns, at least in those regions of major significance. Some of these areas will be more fully developed as we proceed in this review. First:

Dangerous error. “Because of misconceptions of what I believe, and what I consider to be dangerous error of the generally accepted view of the subject, I hereby set forth the grounds of my position” (p. 9). On page 74, we read, “Some have closed this door (reclaiming fallen sinners, wew) by their traditional teaching, and not by the word of God.”

Obviously, if brother Hailey has the truth on divorce and remarriage, then those who differ with him would hold “dangerous error” and “traditional teaching.” But from my perspective it is not I who is the one guilty of a presumptuous doctrine. Who is advocating a “dangerous error” on divorce and remarriage will have to be decided by an honest evaluation of the positions espoused in light of the Scriptures.

What puzzles me is that, though we hold a view that is “dangerous error,” brother Hailey has been relatively quiet about it for 50 years (p. 9), and he has (4no intention to entering into or carrying on a discussion on the subject” (Preface). He has not done this on instrumental music, premillennialism, institutionalism, denominationalism, liberalism, etc. Why just on the divorce and remarriage issue? If the matter is “dangerous error” and “traditional teaching,” how can he remain silent? I realize one can become a hobbyist on any subject, but a thorough discussion of vital issues, such as divorce and remarriage, is imperative to help lead honest souls to truth.

Genesis 2:18-24. Brother Hailey wrote, “Genesis 2:18-24 reveals the divine origin, purpose, intimacy, and the divine intent for permanency of marriage. To this extent it expressed the moral law of God and is universal; it reveals the foundation of marriage for the human race” (p. 57). Yet, on p. 41 he says, “Where in the Old Testament is there an appeal to Genesis 2 establishing a rule concerning marriage-divorce-remarriage addressed to those out of covenant relationship with God?” Brother Hailey answers his own question on p. 57, as quoted above, in that he concedes Genesis 2 is the foundation of marriage for the human race.

Expressed in Genesis 2:18-24 is God’s marriage law for all mankind. Clearly and explicitly stated is that marriage is monogamic in form (one man-one woman) and indissoluble in nature. Man shall cleave (“to cleave, to adhere, specially firmly, as if with glue . . . to be attached to any one, to be lovingly devoted,” Gesenius, p. 185) unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.

On p. 12 brother Hailey says Genesis 2:24 “was probably added by Moses, for Adam could have had no concept of such at the time.” However, on page 41 he seems to contradict himself where he says, “Furthermore, the law of Genesis 2:18-24 was stated when God created Eve for Adam.” Genesis 2:23 has Adam speaking and v. 24 is apparently included in what Adam said. Lange suggests that v. 24 is “most closely connected with what precedes, and suits better here the mouth of Adam” (Vol. 1 , p.209). God spoke through Adam, seemingly, although Adam may not have understood all of its import. Verse 24 would, therefore, have been made known in Eden.

Polygamy and concubinage. “Polygamy and concubinage were within the scope of God’s marriage law thus far revealed” (p. 15). This was said in reference to Abraham having a plurality of wives and concubines and Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel as well as his taking two concubines. On p. 16 brother Hailey stated that “God has never regulated a practice that was wrong.”

The first record of polygamy is Lamech in Genesis 4:23. Kcil and Delitzsch commented, “Lamech took two wives, and thus was the first to prepare the way for polygamy by which the ethical aspect of marriage, as ordained by God, was turned into the lust of the eye and lust of the flesh” (The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, p. 118).

Polygamy was a departure from God’s law given in Eden, Jesus sets forth the basic reason why there were allowances and concessions on the part of Jehovah concerning what God had said about marriage originally – “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives” (Matt. 19:8). But notice in the same verse, Jesus said, “but from the beginning it was not so.” Vincent says, “The verb is in the perfect tense (denoting the continuance of past action or its results down to the present). He means: Notwithstanding Moses’ permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superceded, but continues in force” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 108). The concessions allowed under Moses were also permitted before Moses.

Paul says that God “in times past suffered (permitted) all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16) and that God passed over (showed clemency) those sins before Christ (Rom. 3:25). God did not ignore them but left them unpunished. On Mars Hill Paul said, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now (emphasis mine) declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30, NASB).

Therefore, polygamy and concubinage were concessions by God, hence, permissible among those of the Old Testament times. But does God concede the same to us today? May we have several wives and concubines, scripturally? Certainly not! The law of Christ prohibits it (Matt. 19:3-9). But those who teach aliens are under universal moral law, apart from the new covenant, cannot logically oppose polygamy and concubinage. They will have to quit condemning Joe Smith and the Mormons for having several wives.

Furthermore, there is no example in the Bible where men were told to give up their plurality of wives, when baptized; therefore, following the reasoning of brother Hailey, we would conclude they kept them and cohabited with them. He wrote that there is no example of a husband and wife separating before baptism (p. 68). A position that permits polygamy as its logical consequence has to be a false position.

A recent article in Christianity Today, entitled “Can Mr. Mombasa Keep All His Wives?” contains some interesting observations about polygamy in Kenya. The story reads:

When Ron Severns went to Oloombokishi in Kenya, East Africa, he found the church (denominational church, wew) struggling with a problem. . . . Most of the church’s male leaders had been converted as adults, already having two or more wives. .

Missionaries to Africa in the nineteenth century, struggling to find appropriate response to such plural marriages, had usually concluded that only one of the marriages could be valid . . . . One wife – usually the first – could be kept, and the others had to be sent away . . . .

This position always had its problems, however. . . Were the children to be deprived of one of their parents?

And what of the wife who was sent away? . . . . Dissolving second or third marriages put the church in the situation of causing pain and injustice rather than healing it.

Some say that baptizing Polygamists amounts to cheap grace and will set a poor precedent for the future . . . . Couldn’t the church’s teaching on marriage become an ideal that nobody practices? – Feb. 11, 1991

It would be interesting to hear how the brethren who claim divorced and remarried aliens may keep their mates when baptized, regardless of the circumstances, deal with polygamy.

Crucial point. “The Jews will be judged by the law they lived under; from the beginning to the end of history, men will be judged by the universal moral law of God which they rejected, and which sinners today continue to transgress; and those under Christ, the spiritual kingdom, will be judged by the law of Christ. This is a crucial point in our discussion” (pp. 29-30).

On pages 46-47, brother Hailey wrote that the universal moral law is the “law under which all the unregenerate people live and transgress today. . . . This law, though never codified in written form, was never abrogated.”

Granted, the Jews who lived under Moses will be judged by that law. Too, the Gentiles of the Old Testament cra will be judged by what Paul calls “a law unto themselves” (Rom. 2:14). Those, however, who live during the gospel dispensation will be judged according to Jesus’ word. Jesus clearly said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12.48). All are amenable to the gospel, the universal law of Christ (Mk. 16:15-16). (This will be considered more extensively later.)

If Gentiles were saved before the cross by living righteous lives in harmony with the dictates of the law written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15), why can’t they be saved in the same way today? If the blood of Jesus covered the sins of the faithful before the cross, why does not the blood of Christ cover the sins of those now (Jew & Gentile) who are faithfully following this so-called universal moral law that, allegedly, has never been abrogated? It seems to me this is a crucial point!

Brother Hailey makes “the law of sin and death” in Romans 8:2 the universal moral law, but this is an assumption. He declares, “when Paul speaks of it (universal moral law, wew), he refers to it simply as law or , as in Romans 8:2, ‘the law of sin and of death,’ that is, the moral law” (p. 35). In the first place, there is no universal moral law referred to in the New Testament, separate from the law of Christ, to which aliens are under today. If so, does it condemn polygamy? Wife swapping?

Iin the second place, “the law of sin and death” is apparently “the principle or rule of law and death.” It is the same as “the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom. 7:23). H.A.W. Meyer states that it is “the power of sin in us . . . so that sin and death are regarded as ruling over man” (Romans, p. 300). Bryan Vinson, Sr. interprets the law of sin in Romans 7:23 and 8:2 as “rule and control” (Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, pp. 139,144). Sanday & Headlam define the law of sin and death in Romans 8:2 to mean, “the authority exercised by Sin ending in Death” (Romans, p. 191).

Moral law exists now. “How do we know that the moral law exists now and will continue operation until the end of time” (p. 37)? Brother Hailey quotes 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 wherein Paul said, “the power of sin is the law.” Since this chapter is discussing the end of time, brother Hailey reasons, “what law is the power of sin tc, those at the end of time? It is not the Mosaic law, for no one, Jew or Gentile, would be under it because it has been taken out of the way (Heb. 10:9-10). It is not the law of Christ, for that makes us free and alive (Rom. 8:1-3). This leaves only the universal moral of Romans 5:12,13,20).” He also says, “Christ’s law cannot make dead” (p. 37).

The fallacy in the preceding argument is that the law of Christ cannot bring about sin and death. But this is not true. Consider Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:19-24), erring brethren (Jas. 5:19-20), fornicator at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1-13), Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), Judaizers (Gal. 1:6-9), Gnostics (1 John) and those who practice the works of the flesh (Rom. 8:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21). Sounds like to me the law of Christ, when violated, has the power of sin and death in it. Of course, we know it has the power to make us free and alive.

Not under law. Brother Hailey quotes Romans 6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law . . . but under grace. . . . Can this be said of a baptized believer today? If so, what law is he now not under? It cannot be the law of Moses for he was never under it. Is it the law of Christ? If, as some claim, he was already under the law of Christ, then he is free from that also and so is under no law at all” (p. 38).

He makes “not under law” the so-called universal moral law that the Bible nowhere indicates as being in effect, exclusive of the gospel, today. R.L. Whiteside correctly concluded, “This verse does not mean that we are free from all law. Grace predominates . . . . If we were under no law, we would be guilty of no sin . . . . This verse is a figure of speech in which the less is denied so as to emphasize the greater. We are not merely under law, but more especially under grace” (Romans, p. 137). Cf . Jn. 1:17 grace is emphasized over law under Christ.

Matthew 19:3-9 is addressed to Jews. “In considering Matthew 19:3-9, it should be carefully noted that Jesus is talking to Jews, men in covenant relationship with God . . . . Gentiles, people out of covenant relationship with God, are not under consideration” (p. 55). Though Jesus spoke to Jews, he was setting forth the marriage law for the gospel age. Moses’ law is not being regulated, but rather Jesus is restoring the sanctity, intimacy and permanence of marriage as it was instituted in the garden of Eden. It is whosoever (v. 9), not just covenant people.

Because Jesus spoke to covenant people under Moses’ law does not mean what he said just applies to covenant people under Christ’s law. If this is the case, then everything Jesus said is only applicable for covenant people because he came only to the house of Israel.

On page 35 brother Hailey states that the universal moral law was “revealed in its fulness (Col. 2: 10) by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant under Christ.” On page 46 he wrote “All the universal law . . . is included in the law of Christ.” Then Matthew 19:3-9 reflects the moral law on marriage, divorce and remarriage and aliens, as well as saints, are amenable to it. If aliens are not accountable to what Jesus said on divorce and remarriage, then they are not subject to the universal law, which is revealed in its fulness in the New Covenant.

To confine the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19:3-9 to citizens of the kingdom makes marriage a church ordinance, similar to the marriage sacrament of the Catholic Church. Marriage is a universal institution, having begun with our first parents and is recognized as a legitimate union among people of all races, nationalities and religions.

God joins together in matrimony unbelievers as well as believers and he breaks the bond on the same principle for the unbeliever as the believer. Otherwise, God has different guidelines for the heathen than he does for the believer. If there are different marriage laws for believers and unbelievers, we would like to know what they are.

Some of the preceding things we have responded to will be amplified and enlarged upon later, and, also, such things as “abiding in our calling” (p. 66), Herod and Herodias (p. 67), David and Bathsheba (p. 73), living in adultery (p. 56), etc., will be considered.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 273-276
May 2, 1991