Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

The word “hermeneutics” has been generally left to the classrooms by brethren. Many know what is it, but not by that name! During the Florida College lectures this year, one of the speakers kept talking about the “new hermeneutic, ” and a friend standing near me, leaned over and said, “What is that?” I explained that it is just principles of interpreting the Scripture. After the speaker had made a few more references to it, my friend handed me a pencil and piece of paper and said “write it down.

Those who are calling for “a new hermeneutic” are simply saying that they do not believe that the methods of interpretation we have used are correct. The appeal to commands, examples and necessary inferences should be discarded and we should look at the example of Jesus and do whatever we think he would do in a situation. It seems strange to me that brethren would claim to follow the example of Jesus in some areas, but not accept his example in how to establish authority. If we are to follow the examples of Jesus, surely that would include his methods of teaching, or establishing authority.

In every temptation, Jesus appealed to the word of God. When the devil said, “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones become bread,” Jesus responded, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:3,4). When the tempter quoted Scripture, Jesus countered by saying, “Again, it is written. . . ” (v. 7). To the third temptation, Jesus said, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (v. 10). If I understand the examples of Jesus, he taught us to act only by the authority of God, to accept everything God said on a subject and that the practical application of Scripture is to show us how to worship and serve God. That does not sound like some subjective feeling of what God might want us to do in a certain situation.

Jesus used commands or statements of fact when he was asked about the Father’s will. When a lawyer asked him about what to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said, “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” (Lk. 10:26) The lawyer quoted God’s words and Jesus said, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live” (v. 28). When the Pharisees asked him about divorce, he quoted Genesis 2:24 and concluded, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). The Pharisees objected to his application of that passage and tried to circumvent it by appealing to what Moses had permitted, but Jesus insisted that the statement and his conclusions applied to everyone who married. The eunuchs did not “receive it” because they would not be considered subjects of marriage, but it applied to everyone else.

Jesus appealed to examples in the Old Testament and also taught his disciples to follow his examples. Certain scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, but he said, they had the sign (example) of Jonah, Nineveh and the queen of the South and those were sufficient to show them that they should listen to him. After his great display of humility, the washing of the disciples’ feet, Jesus said, “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet” (Jn. 13:14). This is not only an example, but a command to follow it!

Jesus also established truth through necessary inference. The Sadducees thought they had Jesus in a dilemma because of the woman who had been married to seven brothers, but Jesus said: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. . . But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching” (Matt. 22:29-33). The example in Exodus 3:6 had a necessary implication, which people could see. Again, in the latter part of the chapter, Jesus used a necessary inference, from a statement of fact, when he asked the Pharisees how he could be just the Son of David, if David had called him Lord (Matt. 22:41-46).

Yes, I agree that we should follow the example of Jesus, but that should include his example of respect for Scripture and the proper use of it. Jesus never told people to follow what they thought Moses might do under a certain situation; he quoted what Moses said! Those who tell people to do what they think Jesus would do are not following the example of Jesus.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, p. 462
August 2, 1990 

By Mike Willis

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more (Jn. 8:1-11).

This incident from the life of Jesus graphically portrays many of his divine attributes: his omniscience, ability to convict sinners of their sin, compassion, forgiveness, demand for righteous living, etc. We will do well to study what this text reveals to us about our Lord.

The Sin of the Woman

The woman was guilty of adultery. Adultery is one of the sins condemned in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14); it was punishable by death (Lev. 18:20). A promiscuous society may wink its eye at this sin, but not God. Adultery still is a sin, a work of the flesh punishable by eternal damnation (Gal. 5:19-21; Heb. 13:4). Whatever interpretation one puts on the series of events recorded in John’s gospel cannot conflict with these truths.

The woman was caught red-handed, “in the very act of adultery.” What an embarrassing situation she was in! In addition to being caught in the act of adultery, she also was dragged into the Temple and publicly exposed. She is not the only one who has been caught in adultery. Many unmarried fornicators are caught red-handed in their sin by an illegitimate pregnancy; many adulterers are exposed by a suspicious mate, This passage reminds us of the truth: “be sure your sins will find you out” (Num. 32:23).

Adultery is a sin with serious consequences. Under the law of Moses, an adulterer was to be put to death. Hence, this woman had committed a sin which could cost her life. Nevertheless, the lust of the flesh was so strong that she committed the sin, no doubt thinking that she would escape sin’s consequences. The same sin can destroy a marriage, alienate a person from his children, parents, brothers and sisters, bring public humiliation before the whole community, and scar children for life. Unrepented of, the sin also leads to eternal damnation. The lure of sensual lust is so strong that even Christians throw reason to the wind to fulfill the desires of inflamed lust.

Indeed, the adulterous woman was guilty of a terrible sin, a sin prominent in our own society.

The Sin of the Woman’s Accusers

In studying the woman taken in adultery, there is a possibility that we might not see the others who were caught redhanded in their sin, namely her accusers. The men who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus were hypocrites. This is seen from several evidences: (a) They did not bring the man with whom the woman was committing adultery; (b) Had their only interest been the enforcement of the Law of Moses, they would have carried out the judicial proceedings to execute both the man and the woman without bringing her to Jesus in the Temple; (c) The Scriptures plainly state that the accusers used the occasion to tempt Jesus (8:6).

Their main purpose was to find an occasion which would justify them in putting Jesus to death (cf. 7:1,19-20; 8:59). They had no interest in the soul of the woman guilty of adultery; they made no effort to bring her to repentance. Instead, they were interested in “using” the woman to accomplish their purpose of entrapping Jesus. When they were finished using her, they would discard her without concern for her soul.

These Jews were plotting the death of Jesus. While they manifested a sanctimonious righteousness at having found this woman guilty of adultery – caught in the very act, they were guilty of premeditating murder and were “caught in the very act” before the omniscient eye of Jesus. God is equally opposed to murder as to adultery.

Their plot was complex. When they asked Jesus whether or not the woman should be put to death, they intended to place him in a position in which they entrapped him regardless of which answer he gave. If he said the woman should not be put to death, he was in opposition to the Law of Moses. If he said the woman should be put to death in agreement with the Law of Moses, he could be accused before the Roman authorities which did not make adultery a crime punishable by death. Furthermore, Jesus would be usurping the role of a civil judge, either of the Jews or the Romans, in passing judgment; he steadfastly had refused the role of civil judge even as he refused the rule of an earthly king (cf. Lk. 12:13-14).

Jesus’ Answer to the Accusers

In giving answer to the accusers, Jesus faced several problems: (a) How can he join mercy and Law? He did not want to minimize the sin committed by the woman or approve her conduct. Nevertheless, he was interested in saving her soul. (b) How can he expose the sinfulness of the woman’s accusers, to bring them to a conviction of their own sins? (c) How can he save the woman’s accusers? Jesus’ answer manifests remarkable compassion and mercy in his effort to redeem the woman and her accusers. Jesus always worked toward man’s redemption, not his destruction.

In giving answer to the woman’s accusers, Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (8:7). This answer might he misinterpreted. If one understands Jesus to say that judicial punishment cannot be administered except by sinless men, he has misunderstood Jesus. Such as interpretation undermines the entire judicial system of every country and at every level. Such an interpretation would put Jesus in conflict with the Law of Moses which mandated that eyewitnesses be the first to inflict punishment inasmuch as their testimony is what convicted the guilty (Deut. 17:6-7). Jesus was not acting as a legal judge at all. He was working to redeem the woman’s sinful accusers. The accusers needed to be brought to repentance just as certainly as did the woman.

Jesus’ answer to the accusers called on them to focus their attention on their own sins, not on the sins of the adulterous woman. Jesus called on the accusers to judge themselves instead of the woman. By Jesus’ reply, the accusers were forced to admit that they too were guilty of sin (cf. Rom. 3:23). To the credit of the accusers, each one silently dropped the case and walked away, Jesus’ words apparently having pricked his conscience.

The accusers left because their purpose was thwarted. When they saw that they were unable to use the woman to gain their advantage over Jesus, they walked away with no concern for the woman’s soul and her salvation.

Jesus’ Answer to the Adulterous Woman

After the woman’s accusers had gone away, Jesus turned to the woman. He asked, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She said, “No man, Lord.” Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”

“Neither do I condemn thee” is not to be understood to mean that Jesus did not hold her responsible for her sin or that he approved her conduct. What the statement emphasizes is that Jesus did not come to the world to condemn the world, but to save it (cf. 3:17). “Neither do I condemn thee” are the words of grace – words extended to every sinner. The gospel’s message is that the Lord’s redeeming grace is offered to every sinner. Paul preached the gospel of grace saying, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Tit. 2:11-12). Because of God’s marvelous grace, we sinners can be forgiven, provided an opportunity to begin anew. What Jesus offered this adulterous woman, he offers to all of us. Redemption and forgiveness are the good news of the gospel.

“Go and sin no more” commands the woman to repent of her sins. The command to “sin no more” would demand strong resolution in view of the circumstances which faced the adulterous woman. She possibly faced a divorce. She faced her own feelings of bitterness brought on by the double standard in how she was treated in contrast to how the man was treated. She faced the temptation to bitterness brought on by the public exposure of her sins. Jesus’ demand, “Go and sin no more” was no “cheap grace.”

We wish we knew what became of the woman, but the Scriptures are silent as to whether or not she became a Christian and lived in obedience to the Lord’s word. From the record of John, we learn many valuable lessons regarding the Lord’s mercy, grace, love, and kindness. We also learn that we who confront sinners with their sins must avoid the sin of the woman’s accusers who showed no concern for the sinner’s soul. Like the Lord, let us work toward the salvation of sinners and not destroy those who have fallen into Satan’s snares.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, pp. 482, 501-502
August 16, 1990

By Andy Alexander

Our society is becoming increasingly hedonistic. Men and women are searching for ways to enjoy this life without any regard to eternity. One of the ways they have found to enjoy this life is by committing sexual immorality, such as homosexuality, fornication, and adultery. The wearing of immodest apparel, dancing, and viewing movies which portray all of these forms of sexual immorality are forms of lasciviousness which create lust in the minds of the viewer and if left unchecked will eventually bring death (Jas. 1:14-15).

Many have found that along with the uncontrolled fulfillment of their lusts comes some unpleasant and unwanted side effects. Various diseases (the most feared of which is AIDS), unwanted pregnancies, and divorces are some of the consequences which follow the fulfilling of these desires. Man’s answer to all of these diseases is to educate everyone, especially children, as to how they can commit these acts of immorality in a safe way. They have coined the phrase 4 ‘safe sex” and promoted this all over the country as the answer to all of the problems and consequences that come from the uncontrolled fulfillment of the lusts of the flesh.

God has provided for the lawful fulfillment of the desires that exist in men and women. Hebrews 13:4 states, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” 1 Corinthians 7:23 says, “But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.” This is the only form of safe sex because it is the only form with God’s approval. Any sex outside the marriage relationship is not safe because it is sin and sin will keep one out of the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21).

Children as well as most adults need teaching from God’s word on the subject of safe sex. Parents need to sit with their children and open God’s word and teach them the sanctity of marriage and the need for them to wait until they are married before engaging in the sexual relationship. Instead of feeding upon God’s word, most children are feeding from the trough of Hollywood via the television set and movies which openly advocate sexual immorality of every kind.

Following God’s law will end the problems that come from sexual immorality. Unwanted pregnancies, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, divorce and all the other ills that accompany these sins will cease if all will just simply obey God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, p. 487
August 16, 1990

By Kristiana Burk

The subject of modesty should be a topic of great importance. How should Christians adorn themselves? Are we, as children of God, pleasing our Heavenly Father with the way we dress?

People frequently use excuses to justify immodest apparel. The excuses, “It’s so much cooler to wear these clothes” and “The stores don’t sell anything else,” are used to justify the wearing of clothes which people know are wrong. True short shorts, halter tops, swimsuits, and things like that are cooler, but are you showing what you shouldn’t be showing? The excuse that stores don’t sell anything else is very poor. I find things constantly that are modest. Another excuse, “But Mom, everybody else does,” doesn’t make it right either. Being a teenager myself, I want everyone to accept me. In John 15:18-25, we find that to be an acceptable Christian, we will be different. That’s how our light will shine! Other verses, such as Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 6:22-23,26 show why we are different. Are you willing to risk your soul just to be popular? Are you risking it just to be cooler or because everybody else does?

Parents and others admit that very tight pants and short shorts are immodest. The same goes with halter tops and very short mini-skirts. The problem is, we make exceptions. Let me bring to your attention exceptions made in everyday life. Gym clothes in schools are usually short shorts and a T-shirt. Can’t you wear longer shorts to run in? Cheerleading is another example. In our society it’s not proper to do flips and jump around in a dress while in public or really anywhere else, but isn’t that exactly what you’re doing while cheerleading? During pep rallies, what do the cheerleaders do but a dance with provocative movements in short, skimpy skirts with nothing but underwear beneath, for the benefit of the football players and everyone else. Is that not sinful?

The same thing goes for swimming. There is nothing wrong with swimming – you’re just getting wet. The thing that makes swimming in mixed company wrong is the swim wear. A few years ago I argued, “But Mom, that’s what everybody else wears.” She pointed out that a swimsuit (one piece) was no different from wearing a tank top and underwear. My brothers and I were looking for lawns to mow, when the oldest one came and said, “Kristi, that lady came to the door with her bra on!” It turns out she had on her bikini, with a towel draped around her waist. Is it any different?

Lots of people love to swim – so do I. Parents, invest in your own pool so you can set your own rules. My parents bought a cheaper, above the ground, four foot pool. I remember the day we put it up our whole neighborhood of kids helped. We told them they could go swimmiing if they wore a one piece bathing suit and long shorts (the boys wore a shirt and shorts) and everybody loved it. It’s a good investment, parents.

The Bible teaches the immutability of God. In Isaiah 47:1-3 we find what God calls immodesty; “Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no longer be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal; uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen. I will take vengence, and I will not meet thee as a man.” Here we see that the uncovered thighs are called nakedness. If God never changes, then don’t you think he feels the same today? From the very beginning we can see that he demanded nakedness to be covered. In the beginning for Adam and Eve, he made robes. In Genesis 9:20-27 we find that it is shameful to be naked in public. Noah’s two sons, Shem and Japheth, covered their eyes so they wouldn’t see their father’s nakedness. Ham was cursed by him for seeing it and doing nothing about it. In Exodus 28:42, the priests were to have trousers from the waist to the thighs – this was to cover their nakedness. The definition of thigh, in the World Book Dictionary, is “part of the human body, from the hip to the knee.” Therefore, to “cover your nakedness,” the high, from the hip to the knee, must be covered.

As Christians, we are to love God and keep his commandments. We are to shine forth in the world. Yes, we’re to be different. It’s not easy, but as Paul said in Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.” We will suffer persecutions and trials, but think of the grand mansion and place by God’s side that awaits us. “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, pp. 481, 502
August 16, 1990