Truth Magazine

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.

I join brother Lovelady in expressing appreciation for the opportunity to openly study his affirmation that “the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.” I pray that all will clearly see God’s will as a result of this exchange and thus that the Lord will be glorified.

We want to get to the heart of the issue immediately. Does God give the “right” of marrying another to one who has been divorced because of fornication? The Pharisees who came to Jesus prefaced their question about divorce with the phrase, “Is it lawful. . . ?” Whether or not they sincerely cared for God’s will, they learned that Jesus would require a “thus-saith-the-Lord.” He appealed to Scripture (Matt. 19:4-6). By so doing, he let them know that God controls the “rights” regarding marriage. While we may sympathize with a man or woman who may not marry another, we must trust God to set forth his will in keeping with his infinite wisdom. No “rights” regarding marriage may be presumed. If persons who have been married have the “right” to marry another, it is because God has set forth the conditions of it. Otherwise, there is no “right”! The issue before us involves a basic question of biblical authority! Your position will reflect your approach to authority, how you deal with the silence of God in Scripture.

In Matthew 19:5-6, Jesus clearly affirms that the One who obligates married persons is God. He first says that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife” (Matt. 19:5). The word “joined” (from kollao) is in the passive voice (kollethesetai), indicating that the subject is acted upon. The next verse (6) tells us that it is God who acts to bind the two parties with regard to marriage. Another word is used to emphasize that it is God who does the binding (a form of sunzeugnumi: sun, with; zeugnomi, to connect or join with a yoke). This yoking takes place in the mind of God and until released by him, none may be yoked to another. The question is not whether we can rationalize that when one is freed from a marriage both are free because there is no longer a marriage. The question is whether God releases the fornicating person from being bound by law not to marry another and whether he is willing to make another bond or yoke in his mind joining that person to someone else. If so, we had best have some direct confirmation from God!

Paul firmly establishes the point in Romans 7. Verse I says that “the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives. ” Verse 2 adds, “For the women which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. ” The word “bound” is dedetai, a passive voice verb. That which “bound” her is “the law.” The Lawgiver is God. Who decides if she is loosed from being bound by the law? God alone can loose her. His law from the beginning has bound married persons and restricted them from marrying another until the death of their mates. He has made but one exception to that: the one who puts away his wife for fornication may marry another without being guilty of sin (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). God has released no other to marry someone else!

In response to brother Lovelady’s comparison, I would remind my brother that the Bible teaches that God expects certain physical consequences to attend killing one’s wife. We are not debating that, however. Perhaps the question should be asked if brother Lovelady thinks there are no restrictive consequences for the great sin of adultery? Apparently not. Nevertheless, this is not an issue of punishment. It is an issue of God’s authority and whether he has released the put-away fornicator to marry another.

Brother Lovelady assumes that Paul’s statements in Romans 7 do not apply to our discussion. He further assumes that the put-away fornicator is included among those Paul refers to as being “loosed from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27). Paul could well be referring to those who were loosed by the death of their mates or by their mates having committed fornication (or those who had never been bound). Certainly this verse does not provide another occasion for loosing than Christ allows elsewhere in Scripture.

Brother Lovelady assumes the thing he has to prove; that release from the constraint of law is granted to one because it is granted to the other. Paul said that “if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress” (Rom. 7:3). I can read that the Lord relieves the one who puts away a mate for fornication of the vile and disgraceful identification as an “adulteress.” Now, let us see the passage where the Lord relieves the other, who incidentally has already proven herself to be an adulteress.

The Lord’s role in restraining persons by law is further confirmed by the powerful statement of Malachi when he said, “. . . because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously,- yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal. 2:14). They had profaned “God’s holy institution which he loves” (Mal. 2:11). They had put away their lawful companions, the “wives of their youth,” to marry others and God “hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16). Notice carefully the point in this passage: God was “witness” to a sacred “covenant” to which he bound them (see also Prov. 2:17). When they violated the covenant with their wives, they offended God because God was party to the covenant. The passage ends with a call for justice with regard to the consequences of such evil (Mal. 2:17). Perhaps here were some of those “real innocent mates.” Let’s not confuse this discussion by failing to recognize that some men and women just simply surrender to their lusts and dishonor themselves (cf. Rom. 1:18-32) without their mates being party to it or responsible for it.

The right to marry is not a “human right” in the sense that persons are free to marry whomever they will. Certainly, brother Lovelady will agree that persons divorced for some cause other than fornication do not have the “human right” to marry others. That is because God has not freed them from the force of his law. They are not under civil law and they are not performing the duties of marriage. They are “married” only in the sense that God has them under the constraint of law. In addition, one who has never been married does not have the “human right” to marry one divorced for some cause other than fornication.

Neither is marrying a “human right” in the same sense that it is necessary to eat so that we may live or to work so that we may eat. The reasons are found in God’s original mandates concerning the permanence of marriage vows and his continuing governance of marriage by his laws. The Lord’s pronouncement that “if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thess. 2:10) has nothing to do with and is not restricted by the marital status of the individual. On the other hand, the privilege of marriage is very much restricted.

I must say, before concluding, that when one refuses to give authority for his position ii, honorable discussion, he is not acting in the same spirit Christ did in Matthew 21. Jesus knew the hearts of the chief priests and elders. I trust that my brother has not concluded that all of us (including you readers who disagree with him) are to the point where he should say to us: “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things?” If so this debate is over. I trust that it not the case. It is interesting, however, that he “understands that the New Testament does not deal with the put-away fornicator.”

I expect that if brother Lovelady could establish his proposition with Scriptures, all of us would be glad to accept and preach it. None of us enjoys telling a person that he/she is committing sin. Let us remember, however, that brother Lovelady will have to show from the Scriptures that God gives the put-away fornicator the right to marry another without sinning.

(Note: I have no disposition to debate what brethren have said on this subject. In fairness to brother McGarvey, however, I must ask brother Lovelady to read page 242 of Fourfold Gospel where McGarvey, in collaboration with W.K. Pendleton, said,

It is implied that divorce for unchastity breaks the marriage bond, and it is therefore held almost universally, both by commentators and moralists, that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty party could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong. For further light on the subject see Rom. vii. 1-3; 1 Cor. vii. 10- 16, 39. It is much to be regretted that in many Protestant countries the civil authorities have practically set aside this law of Christ by allowing divorce and remarriage for a variety of causes. No man who respects the authority of Christ can take advantage of such legislation.

This was published in 1905 and obviously reflects McGarvey’s conclusion after much more study. I hope that brother Lovelady will respond likewise.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 46-47
January 17, 1991

By Glen W. Lovelady

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.

Let’s begin at the end of brother Caldwell’s article. He didn’t want to talk about what others had to say, but he did make a note about brother McGarvey and I am convinced that he would have brought up the others if he thought that they had changed their opinion. I heard a professor say the other day, “When someone uses the word, ,obviously,’ it probably isn’t.” I believe we will find this to be true again as we investigate this reference made in the book, The Four-Fold Gospel, by McGarvey and Pendleton in 1905. I understand that McGarvey and Pendleton did not agree on this point, and that it was Pendleton who made this comment not McGarvey. In the preface of McGarvey’s 1892 New Commentary on the Book of Acts he states quite clearly,

My advanced age, and the many calls of duty which seem to claim the remnant of my active life, remind me that this is most probably the last effort that I shall make to improve a work. . .

Does that sound like he was intending to change his work in 1905? 1 think not. Your comment, “This . . . obviously reflects McGarvey’s conclusion after much more study,” would more likely cause him to turn over in his grave. Either way, I want you to know that I stand with McGarvey of 1875 and Whiteside of 1939 for their statements were based upon:

(I) What Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, that a putting-away for fornication breaks the bond between the two of them; and

(II) What Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, that one who is “loose from a wife” can marry without sin.

These two principles are all that we have to go by, and I shall fight for them until you brethren come up with “a direct confirmation from God, ” that states that the put-away fornicator is an exception to these principles and that he must live a life of celibacy. The statement of 1905 was based upon the opinion of Pendleton and it doesn’t hold water. You can start with the story of David and Bathsheba. According to the movie he got to keep her and later they had a son who became a great king of Israel. Maybe it’s only in the movies that people get away with murder or reap the benefits of their own wrong, but I think not.

Did any of you ever steal a piece of candy, a cookie, or even a watermelon? Did you reap the benefits of your wrong? What about the one who lied about his age so he could get married, or who got pregnant only to have a baby to love and care for? Did he reap the benefits of his wrong-doings?

We could ask about the rich people who get their wealth by “hook or by crook.” Answering these questions with a honest heart will allow you to see through this “law” of Pendleton, or whoever came up with it. I can still hear the people crying out, “Men and Brethren, what shall we do?” Pendleton cries out, “No one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong” but Peter stood up and said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you (guilty ones) for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:23,36,38).

Now nobody will got away with any wrong doing in this life for we must all stand before God at the judgment day and give an account (Rom. 14:10) and receive his just recompense of reward (Heb. 2:2). Let God deal with the put-away fornicator as he wishes, but let’s not jeopardize our relationship, fellowship and salvation over him. I pray to God that we will stop making laws for others (Rom. 14:4), that we will speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11), and that we will be satisfied with these two principles found in Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:27-28.

Based upon these two principles he has the right to remarry, so the responsibility of authority is up to you to come up with a passage that demands that some who are “loose from a wife” can’t marry. Trying to offset these two principles, you brethren have come up with many man-made laws and rules that are not found in the New Testament, such as:

(1) Only the innocent can marry, I mean “really innocent.”

(2) The guilty can’t remarry, for he has forfeited his right of marriage and thus must live a life of celibacy.

(3) “No one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong.”

(4) The guilty must be punished in this life.

I affirm that the innocent one can marry, but not because she is innocent, but rather because she is “loose” from a husband (Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:27-28). These principles apply to all, guilty or innocent.

I am doing all that I can to warn you brethren about this matter in the kindest way I know how. I love you and I want your fellowship, but I will not violate these two principles, because I don’t want to jeopardize my fellowship with God. You all have gone beyond a “thus saith the Lord,” to inflict this punishment upon him and in the light of 1 Timothy 4:3, 1 will have no part in it.

Brother Caldwell has charged me with presuming that the put-away fornicator is not found in Romans 7:14, and that he is found in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. Let’s just see who is doing the presuming. In Romans 7:14 we have a woman who marries another man while still bound to her husband. Does that sound like she is a put-away fornicator? No!

Now to 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. Paul says that if you are “loose from a wife,” you can marry without committing sin. Is the put-away fornicator “loose from a wife”? Yes! So you can see that I am not presuming anything. There is no put-away fornicator in Romans 7:14, and there can be a put-away fornicator in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, because he is “loose from a wife.”

In response to the reference in Malachi 2:11-17 and Proverbs 2:17, I find nothing there about a put-away fornicator and especially that he is bound to celibacy. If God wanted this as a call to justice, that would be fine with me, but we have no such passage to suggest it. And by the way brother Caldwell, I looked up in my dictionary the word “justice.” It defines it as “deserved punishment” (p. 435), so brother Caldwell is back trying to punish the put-away fornicator, even though he specifically stated that this was not the issue.

Brother Caldwell wants me to come up with a specific passage that gives the “right” for the put-away fornicator to marry another. I told him in the first article that the New Testament does not deal with him. It doesn’t say he can and it likewise doesn’t say he can’t. All that brother Caldwell had to say about that was, “it is interesting.” It is more than “interesting,” it is the truth!

The New Testament does speak about “the right” of one who is “loose from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27-28); he can marry until you come up with “a direct confirmation from God” saying that he can’t. Would the death of his former wife allow him to remarry? If not, when could the put-away fornicator marry without sin? If yes, would her death release two men (her former husband and her new husband)? These are questions that you brethren must deal with when you tamper with God’s word.

The New Testament does speak of an unlawful puttingaway that does not break the marriage bond. And it also speaks of a lawful putting-away that does break the marriage bond between the two of them.

The put-away fornicator must fall under one of these choices. Since he was put-away for fornication, he comes under Roman numeral two above, whether you know it or not, or whether you like it or not. His marriage bond (glue) is broken, destroyed, and obliterated; thus he is “loose from a wife.” He and anyone else who is “loose” from a mate can marry without committing adultery, and it is not left up to you brethren to decide differently or to prescribe his punishment.

Since God had joined them together (Rom. 7:2) and since God has released (unglued) the “innocent” from the “guilty, ” then that must mean that the “guilty party” is no longer bound (glued) to the “innocent party.” This comes under the heading of common horse-sense, implication, and necessary inference. Join your left hand to your right hand and then release the left hand from the right. Both are free from one another. See how easy that was and how uncomplicated it is? God joined the husband to the wife and they are joined together until God releases them from each other. Why must you brethren complicate this matter with your mental gymnastics and opinions? You agree that his bond is broken and that he is “loose from a wife,” but he can’t marry. Why not? Please explain your reasoning! We reason that he can marry only because he is “loose from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27-28).

The same goes for the man that killed his wife. I know that we are not debating his case, but they are the same and, if you can see the principles in this case, then you ought to be able to comprehend both.

The Put-Away Fornicator

The Man Who Killed His Wife

Both men have put asunder their marriage. Both deserve to be put to death. Both have lost their marriage, wife, family, friends, job, health.

– and “their sin will ever be before them” (Psa. 32:5; 38:1-12; 51:1-3). Both men will spend eternity in Hell unless they get right with God. Both men are “loose from a wife.”

Who are we to say they can’t marry if someone would have them? I can handle the consequences and penalties that result from sin. I just have trouble handling your man-made laws that force celibacy upon anyone who is “loose” from a mate. Where is your authority to force celibacy upon anyone who is “loose” from a mate in the light of 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, and in the light of 1 Timothy 4:3? You brethren better back off from the put-away fornicator and let him marry if someone would have him. You have set yourselves up as judge, jury, and executioners over these sinners and you have condemned them to celibacy, without a passage. God has left the door open for them to turn their lives around, have a marriage, and even to go to heaven. If he is fit for heaven he would be fit for marriage, if he is “Loose from a wife.”

You brethren need to consider the man who was taken back by his wife after an affair. What are the penalties and consequences for his affair? When you come up with the penalties and consequences for him, you will have the proper penalties and consequences for the put-away fornicator. I see no difference between the two of them, but there is a difference in the disposition of their wives. One wife forgave and took back her husband, while the other put him away for fornication and both had authority to do so.

If you have “a direct confirmation from God,” that forces celibacy upon the put-away fornicator, then this debate is over, for I shall not argue with God. Produce the passage and I will stop arguing this point. Thank you for hearing me out and I pray to God that you will consider these principles and make the proper application before it is too late!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 48-49
January 17, 1991

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.

Probably no subject matter is currently being discussed more among brethren than “Marriage/ Divorce/Remarriage.” Probably no topic has more current potential for stimulating division among brethren who differ over how we derive Bible authority and over what moral values and standards of conduct God will allow. Probably also no specific current issue in the debate over marriage-divorce-remarriage illustrates those differences more fully than the question, “Can a guilty putaway fornicator marry another without committing sin?” Brother Lovelady has argued this proposition for years and eminently represents the way the position is argued. These considerations led me to join in this discussion praying that all would be helped away from worldliness and division and toward heaven. I thank brother Willis and brother Lovelady for their respective roles in making this possible.

In his last article, our brother tells us fourteen times that he does not understand why we do not accept his affirmations. That is understandable. We apply totally different concepts of biblical authority (see my second response). Let us see, nonetheless, if we can help by considering four major points in this last response.

First, we must understand why anyone has a right to remarry. The position forthrightly declares, “The only reason why she can remarry is because she is no longer a spouse.” Such statements are simplistic and fail to take into account the larger issue, the full extent of God’s supervision of the marriage relationship. Marriage is more than a contract between two persons. It is a divine obligation placed upon two persons not simply by reason of their bond to one another but by reason of God’s expressed will. Marriage vows are nor simply made to one another but before God Almighty. If that were not true there would be no restriction on remarriage at all. Persons divorcing for any cause could remarry with impunity.

God’s law states that persons who divorce and remarry commit adultery (Lk. 16:18; etc.). One exception is granted by the Lawmaker . . . to the one who puts away a mate for the cause of fornication! The right to remarriage is a contingent right based upon direct authorization. Even infidelity does not in and by itself give anyone the right to marry another. God gives a right in this matter by declaring it. He does not declare it for the put-away fornicator. If we grant that neither person is the mate of the other (even in God’s sight) after a divorce for fornication, that does not grant that they have an automatic and unrestricted right of remarriage. For example, the person whose mate has died does not have the right to marry again simply because he/she no longer has a companion. That person has the right of remarriage because such is declared by God (Rom. 7:2), but even then only within certain limitations (1 Cor. 7:39). Herein lies a major difference between the position I hold and the opposing view.

Second, we must rely upon God’s expressed will rather than relying upon our own human reasoning. We have not, as charged, “established two methods of being joined” (read our statement carefully in Article 2). What we have done is to recognize two great scriptural affirmations: (a) that when two are married, God has “joined” them together (“bound with a yoke,” Matt. 19:6); and, (b) God has obligated them to his marriage laws (“bound by the law to her husband,” Rom. 7:2).

We cannot assume that both are freed from the restraints of law simply because of a divorce, even a “scriptural” divorce (Matt. 19:9). Such an assumption operates from human reasoning rather than from Scripture. Remember, under Israelite law God prohibited the remarriage of a woman to her former husband even though she was no longer married to anyone (Deut. 24:4). I know that illustration does not set forth Christ’s law but it does show conclusively that one’s reasoning is faulty if he argues that because a person is no longer a mate, he/she is automatically loosed from his/her obligation to God’s law regarding marriage.

Third, we must have an adequate view of what it means to be “bound” to a mate. “Bound” is from deo which is defined by Thayer as “put under obligation, sc. of law, duty, etc.” Scripturally, one is “bound” not simply to the mate but to the obligation of law and duty placed upon the person who made vows concerning that mate. In spite of the assertion to the contrary, God is involved (cf. Mal. 2:11-16; Prov. 2:17; Matt. 19:6). We are not married to God, but God regulates persons with regard to marriage by his law. That was our point on Romans 7:2. When death ends a marriage, the living is free not merely from the man but from the obligation of law and, therefore, can marry another because God has specifically authorized it. If those advocating the affirmative position here will see that, they will understand also why it is pure assumption to argue that the one “loosed” in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is the put-away fornicator. It will not be beyond them, then, to see that Paul is not adding additional reasons for remarriage in that text.

Fourth, we must properly interpret the texts dealing with our subject. Does Jesus plainly state that the “her which is put away” (Matt. 19:9b) is the “one who was put away not for fornication” (Matt. 19:9a)? No, he does not! Several points of grammar show that the phrase “except for fornication” which applies to the “putting away” in the first part of the verse does not apply to “her who is put away” in the second part. First, the second clause is an independent clause. That means that it does not depend upon the first to complete its meaning. There is no forced ellipsis implying or requiring that the phrase be applied to the second part. Second, the phrase “except for fornication” is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb “put away.” To modify “her who is put away” the construction would have to change and the phrase become adjectival. Third, in the Greek only one word, a participle, is used in the second part of the verse to refer to the person and it has no definite article or pronoun attached to it. Apolelumenen is simply “a woman who is put away.” The word is unrestricted grammatically by any former phrase. In other words, the phrase is not limited to the one put away “except for fornication.”

Beyond the fact that the structure of what is said will not bear out the claim, the consequence of such a position reduces Christ’s moral standard to a devastating absurdity. The person divorced for some cause other than fornication can never marry but the guilty fornicator may. In fact, being guilty of fornication becomes the only grounds on which a person divorced from a moral mate may remarry. According to this position one could marry a dozen different women with God’s approval if put away for fornication each time, but would have to live a celibate life if put away for any other cause. That view of fornication is the very opposite of Jesus’ sentiment toward it as expressed in this verse!

The position also says that “adultery is only committed when one is a mate to someone else” and that I should “accept the definition of adultery established by all scholars.” I believe we should let Jesus define adultery. He says, “whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Certainly, when a married person commits adultery it is against the mate. More important, however, it is against God’s law regarding marriage. When convicted by Nathan, David said, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:13); and, “Against thee, thee only have I sinned” (Psa. 51:4). I know that David was allowed to do things Christ does not allow under the gospel, but do not miss the point. David, when convicted, knew that he had sinned against God, not just a mate! The point is simple! If God has not released one from the Divine marriage law, then sexual activity with another is properly identified as “adultery” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

Beyond that, and in addition to the real point, I am not certain the definition of “adultery” is as clear to those holding that position as they think. If “adultery” always refers to a situation “when one is a mate to someone else,” are they wrong to apply Matthew 5:28 to both married and unmarried persons? Jesus said, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to looketh on a woman to lust after he hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Can the definition of “adultery” be extended in application to the unmarried in this passage? Peter appears to use the word similarly when he speaks of the “eyes full of adultery” in “those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness” (2 Pet. 2:14,10). If the word is used with an extended application to the unmarried in these verses, can it also be so used in other verses not circumscribed by the context?

As I have already indicated, I am concerned about the moral attitudes and values of members of God’s family. Such a position as that argued affirmatively here opens one more floodgate to the moral decay rushing all around us. But perhaps I am more concerned that basic rules of Bible study are not applied by those advocating this position and I am concerned about their apparent readiness to operate from what seems logical to their reasoning rather than from a solid foundation of Scripture. My prayer is that my part in this discussion has called us back to the certainty that our positions on this and everything else are founded upon the Word of God!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 54-55
January 17, 1991

By Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (1896-1979)

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psa. 133:1)

The book of Psalms has been appropriately called “the hymn book of the Bible.” There are more than twenty-five hundred verses in its one hundred and fifty chapters, and doubtless that many songs have been composed from them through the centuries and millenniums since their sentiments swelled in the bosom of Israel’s sweet singer.

Many of these verses were chanted in the worship of early Christians, and they will be sung in every generation wherever people are found worshiping God until we learn the “new song” in heaven, “when all the redeemed singers get home.”

To rob our modern productions of the sentiments and psalms of David would be, indeed, to impoverish our worship of praise.

A Song of Unity

Psalm 133 is a song of unity. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” There is nothing more stifling and stultifying to the emotions of the soul than strife and division. There is nothing more soothing and benefactions to the spirit than peace and unity.

Unity among brethren is like “the precious ointment upon the head,” in the psalmist’s refrain: The Easterns perfumed with fragrant oil. Unity perfumes the church and sweetens the atmosphere like the precious oil “that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments.”

Unity among brethren is like “the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion.” Lofty Hermon was far to the north, yet its fragrant dews descended upon the lesser hills of Zion, spreading over hillside and vale. So unity, as an emblem of grace and benediction, will make the church a center of fragrance and a fount of blessing.

The Unity of the Spirit

Exhorting the brethren to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” Paul outlines, in Ephesians 4:4-6, the basis of unity. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” The “unity of the Spirit” is the unity the Spirit teaches, or that results when the Spirit’s word is obeyed.

There is one God – unity in worship. A divided worship cannot be rendered “in spirit and in truth.” Wherever and whenever rendered, true worship must have the two elements – the right spirit and the right act; for God is one, and “seeketh such to be his worshipers.”

There is one Lord – unity in authority. Human authority in religion is wrong. Christ is Lord, and his word only is authority.

There is one faith – unity in message. The Spirit, which guides “into all truth,” does not impart conflicting messages. The gospel promotes unity; and where there is division, something else has been preached.

There is one baptism – unity in practice. Modes of baptism! As well talk about shades of white. There is no such thing.

There is one body – unity in organization. The church is one body. It is impossible to have “spiritual unity” and “organic” division. Unity is both spiritual and organic.

There is one Spirit and one hope – unity in life, in desire and expectation.

Thus Paul outlines the only basis of unity. Let the world cease their efforts toward amalgamations, federations, alliances, and unions, and adopt the divine standard and basis of unity – oneness in Christ.

The Prayer for Unity

The Lord’s prayer in John 17:1-21 was an ardent petition for unity. “May they all be one.” Jesus praying for the unity of believers! Yet it has not touched the heart of those who are promoting denominationalism in the world, nor even of brethren who sow discord and stir factions in the church.

Denominationalism is the misrepresentation of Christianity – a horrid caricature – and the authors of perversions in religion are enemies of Christ professing and even honestly thinking themselves to be his friends.

But “charity begins at home.” We cannot with good grace preach unity and practice division. “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Paul’s beseechment should not only be our preachment, but also our practice. The unity of Christians is the only hope of bringing the world to Christ. Jesus knew it, and therefore prayed that “they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (Gospel Advocate LXXII, 42 [11 Oct. 1930], p. 985).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 65, 79
February 7, 1991