Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The conversation Jesus had with the woman at the well has been used as a model for evangelism, and well it should be. Some has apparently overlooked some of the important lessons from the conversation or glossed over them to highlight those items more in keeping with their agenda for evangelism. Let us study the work Jesus did in converting the Samaritan woman.

The Gospel Crosses Racial and Cultural Boundaries

After his early ministry in Judea, Jesus returned to Galilee passing through Samaria. Arriving in Sychar, he stopped at Jacob’s well at the sixth hour (noon if Jewish time; 6:00 p.m. if Roman time) and tarried there while his disciples entered the village for food. In the meantime, a woman from the city came out to draw water. Jesus asked the Samaritan woman for a drink. She responded, “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?” (4:9) The Jews had no association with Samaritans, consequently the woman was surprised that Jesus asked her for a drink.

Jesus responded, “If thou knewest the gift of God and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water” (4:10). The Lord was speaking of the water of life, the gospel which brings salvation to lost men. The woman was more interested in literal water so that she would not have to come to the well for water. Jesus told her of the living water: “. . . whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (4:14). The living water has the ability to satisfy every man’s need, to bring everlasting life to him.

From Jesus’ work with the Samaritan woman, we learn that the gospel is not limited to any one class of people, such as the Jews, the rich, the poor, the educated, or the uneducated. It is a universal gospel available to all men. We would do well to learn from our Lord not to confine our work of gospel preaching to white, middle class America. The gospel transcends every barrier erected by men.

Confrontation With Her Sin: Adultery

The woman desired the water of life and asked, “Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.” The woman could not receive the water until she repented of her sins. Jesus brought her face to face with her immorality. Because “he knew what was in man” (2:25), he could expose her immorality. Jesus said, “Go, call thy husband, and come hither.”

The woman responded, “I have no husband.” Jesus replied, “Thou hast well said, I have no husband: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly” (4:18). By this comment, Jesus exposed and condemned her violations of God’s marriage law and her adultery – her living with a man in an unmarried state.

There are some who advise that we should not made direct confrontation with a person’s sins in evangelism. We should teach the gospel and wait till later to show them their sins. To confront one with his sins, some say, assaults his selfesteem and is likely to drive him away from Christ. Jesus did not believe that was so, nor did John the Baptist (cf. Matt. 3:1-17). We cannot improve on the method of the Lord – to make direct confrontation of a man’s sins in an effort to bring him to repentance.

Because of the woman’s immoral life, some of us may have been tempted to pass her by as someone who would not be interested in the gospel. As a matter of fact, many of us would not have “wasted our time” on several of those converted in the New Testament, such as: Saul of Tarsus (he was too wrapped up in his own religion), the Philippian jailor (he had just given Paul a beating), Lydia (too committed to Judaism), Simon the sorcerer (he was only interested in deceiving people and being rich), etc. We should not presume to decide that any person is not willing to obey the gospel. Our job is to teach it, giving those hearing the gospel the opportunity to accept or reject it.

Confrontation With Her Sin: False Religion

The woman changed the subject from her immorality to talk about the religious differences between the Jews and the Gentiles. She said, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” (4:20). The bitter conflict between the Jews and Samaritans was well known. Having been excluded from participation in the rebuilding of the Temple during the Restoration of Israel (see Ezra and Nehemiah), the Samaritans instituted a rival worship on Mount Gerizim.

Jesus did not ignore the fact that this woman’s worship was wrong. He said, “Ye worship ye know not what” (4:22). Jesus declared that Samaritan worship was ignorant worship. He furthermore added, “salvation is of the Jews” (4:22). The only means whereby man could be saved was through the Messiah who descended from the Jews. Hence, Jesus repudiated Samaritan worship and directed the woman to “true worship.”

Some again would have us to avoid what they call “denomination bashing.” When visitors attend our worship services they studiously avoid preaching a lesson which might lead them to believe that “they worship they know not what” or to imply that salvation is given only to those who are citizens of the kingdom of heaven, the church of Christ. Jesus had not taken one of these personal work classes taught by some brethren which teaches us to avoid “denomination bashing.”

The Effect

Gospel preaching has the power to convert the heart of the good and honest. This woman became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and ran into the city to tell others whom she had found. Have some of us lost confidence in the gospel to produce this effect in men? Are we afraid that plain gospel preaching will drive away those who might have spiritual interests?

Jesus affirmed that the gospel cannot drive away the honest man who is sincerely seeking salvation. He said, “He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (3:21). Those who are driven away by the plain preaching of the gospel are those who “love darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (3:20).

Each of us needs to be careful to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), with “meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). Being careful to emphasize that we speak the truth because of a genuine concern for the sinner’s lost soul, we should not fear that speaking the truth will drive away sincere sinners! It does not have that power. It draws to God the good, honest, and sincere who are seeking salvation.

Conclusion

Let us emulate Jesus in taking the gospel to the lost, regardless of in what part of the world they be. Let us show men the “living waters” and call upon them to forsake their sinful ways, whether they be the sinful ways of immorality or false religion.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 354, 374-375
June 21, 1990

By Rodney Pitts

Most of the members of the churches of Christ are quite familiar with what Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 say. For the most part we can sum up the basic message of these verses from memory. The reason for our unique acquaintance with these verses is that they are the ones we always use in order to show that God has not authorized the use of man-made, mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church. We all know that you are supposed to be “singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” We teach, and rightfully so, that these verses say nothing about making melody by playing a piano, organ, or any other mechanical instrument when we praise God.

Yet, I wonder if, in all our zeal to combat these false doctrine, have we not often forgotten the basic message of these verses and how they should affect our worship to God? First, consider the part of the Ephesians 5:19 where God tells us that we should be “speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” This was not written to show us that we are not to “play” to one another, but was given to refer to a very special aspect of our worship in song. Colossians 3:16 describes this “speaking” as the act of “teaching and admonishing one another.” When we sing we should sing so as to lift up the brethren with our joyous words of encouragement. This cannot be done if we do not sing, or if we sing in such a manner that no one hears us, or with such a frown or look of displeasure that even if others did hear us, they would not be edified. Now I am not talking about having a wonderful voice, but about an attitude of praise and joy that can be expressed in our song. I should sing in order to teach and encourage you, while you do the same for me. Our love for our brethren should “bubble forth” in our song service and make this part of our worship a happy and uplifting time, rather than an “act” that must be endured until the Lord’s supper, or the preaching comes around.

Second, notice that Ephesians 5:19 also states that each one of us is to be “singing and making melody in your heart.” Again, I realize that this passage specifies and necessitates that the melody by which we sing is to be made in the heart and not upon a mechanical instrument of music, but is this all that it says? Paul, in Colossians 3:16, says that this singing is to be done with “grace in our hearts.” This i4grace” carries the idea of gratitude, favor, pleasure, and joy. Thus, God is here telling us that when we sing we should sing with an attitude of happiness and joy in our hearts because of our gratitude to God. In other words, our songs should pour forth from a heart that is filled with happiness and thankfulness.

Third, consider how this melody, or grace, is to be directed toward the Lord. Paul says that we are to sing with melody, or grace, in our hearts “to the Lord.” Too often it seems that people sing the songs of our worship without any direction or feeling behind what they are saying. The songs that we sing are not just words that we select and arrange so as to “sound good,” or to just “make a noise,” these are songs that are directed toward God. We should sing them just as though they are being said directly to God, because that is exactly what is happening! When you sing, “Oh Zion, Zion, I long to see they gates,” sing it “to the Lord,” because he is the one who needs to know that we want to be there. And brethren, when you can truly sing to the Lord in a way that you mean it, you will have no problem teaching and admonishing one another.

A music teacher once told me the story of how he was trying to teach some young new college students a song that had much the same sentiments as “God be with you till we meet again.” After singing it and getting all the fundamentals down, he noticed that there was something missing. To fill this void he told each of the students to sing this song as if they were singing it to their parents. For, he knew that most of these young people were far from home and missed their parents greatly. With that motivation in heart the students sang out with clarity and beauty as never before, because they truly wanted God to be with their parents until they met again. Brethren, let’s sing to God as pilgrims in search of the wonderful city, whose builder, maker, and love of our life is God. available in a hard cover binding. 582 pages.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, p. 335
June 7, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

Ron Halbrook met Jack Freeman in two debates January 15, 16, 18, 19, in North Las Vegas, NV and February 26, 27, March 1, 2, in West Columbia, TX. The propositions for both debates were:

The Scriptures teach that two people joined by God in marriage are bound for life, the only exception being that an innocent partner may put away a mate guilty of fornication and remarry (Affirm: Ron Halbrook; Deny; Jack Freeman).

The Scriptures teach that a person who is divorced by his mate for committing fornication is free to marry another (Affirm: Jack Freeman; Deny: Ron Halbrook).

The first debate was held at the North Las Vegas church of Christ and was well attended with perhaps 120 to 140 present each evening. The second debate was even better with a high of around 500 and a low around 350 present. All audiences were well behaved. Of course, most were Christians, though some “outsiders” did attend, especially in West Columbia. A non-Christian named “Judas,” mentioned as a friend by brother Freeman, was especially interested in the debate in Las Vegas and it surely helped him to see the truth. We did not, however, have a chance to meet him. Those “strangers from the covenants of promise” who attended in West Columbia were impressed by truth and by the appeal to the Bible.

People in the world who are starved for Bible teaching can be fed in such debates. Ron Halbrook’s strong, fervent cries for purity and godliness based on the Bible were encouraging to Christians and attractive to the lost. We err when we think that debates among brethren on so-called “brotherhood issues” will do no good in the community. ‘Internal squabbles” and “brotherhood fusses” are discussed in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Hebrews, but no Christians would hide those books from his neighbors, would he?

Personal Reflections

Ron Halbrook has been “closer than a brother” to me for many years. He has encouraged, corrected and helped me beyond my ability to express. I know of no preacher who works harder or longer hours than does Ron. He has a keen mind, but above all, Ron loves the Lord, loves the truth and wants to go to heaven when he dies. His earnest desire to live what he preaches is evident to all who know him. Though he speaks directly with candor and “great plainness of speech,” his kindness and goodness of heart is always present. Ron has the force and power of a blacksmith but the heart of a loving grandmother. This combined with truth, makes his efforts in the kingdom invaluable. One of the elders of the West Columbia church, brother Charles Alexander, said of Ron, “He, like the apostle Paul, knows nothing but ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified.”‘ What a tribute. Obviously, I believe Ron did an outstanding job in the debates with Jack Freeman. If you doubt it, order the tapes.

The Charts

Ron’s charts, and he has hundreds of them, are worth the cost of the debate tapes. Also, the second debate is being transcribed for publication by the Guardian of Truth Foundation. When it is being published, you must secure a copy for the charts if for nothing else. Brother Halbrook did his homework as his charts vividly demonstrate. Unfortunately, Ron does not have the time or the money to make copies for everyone, but the video tapes and the book will enable you to have copies. Some samples charts appear below:

Do We Forbid “To Marry?”

1. NO! Everyone has a right to marry and a responsibility to obey God’s marriage law (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:2)

2. God’s law forbids divorce without cause of fornication and marriage to another again and again and again (Matt. 19:9)

3. God’s law forbids a man to commit adultery, be divorced, marry another and do it all over again and again and again (Matt. 19:9)

Deserted Believer Not To Marry Another – 1 Cor. 7:15

1. Text does not say believer “may marry again” (Robertson, Word Pictures, IV, p. 128)

2. Not deal with “re-marrying after such a separation” (Alford, Greek Testament, 11:525)

3. “Freedom of remarriage” not suggested (Expositor’s Greek Testament, p. 827)

4. “Remarriage is not an issue” in text (G. Fee, 1st Epistle To Corinth, pp. 302, 303)

5. “In such cases remarriage is not approved” (D. Lipscomb & J.W. Shepherd, 1 Cor., p. 102)

6. Allows separation but “not . . . the privilege to marry another” (H. Leo Boles, Luke, p. 317)

God -vs- Satan

1. If you eat, “surely die” (Gen. 2:17) 1. If you eat, “NOT surely die” (Gen. 3:4)

2. Believe & “Baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16) 2. Believe and NOT baptized shall be saved

3. “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit 3. Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth

adultery” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) NOT commit adultery

Does 1 Cor. 7 Authorize

The Put-Away Fornicator To Marry Another?

Text Says This:	Not This:
Vs. 2 “Every man have his own wife”	Every man who wrecks his marriage & throws away his own wife by fornication or unscriptural divorce, get another wife!
Vs. 9 “Unmarried widows . . . better to marry than to burn”	Unscripturally divorced & put-away fornicator . . .better to commit adultery than fornication!
Vv. 27-28 A man “loosed from a wife” (free, never married) and “a virgin” (free, never married) may marry.	A man unscripturally divorced or a divorced fornicator may marry a woman in the same condition!

FORGIVENESS NOT REMOVE TEMPORAL CONSEQUENCES

1. Converted Murderer Not Escape Death Penalty (Acts 25:11)

2. Convicted Thief Not Escape “Due Reward” (Lk. 23:40-43)

3. Converted Prodigal Not Regain Money Wasted Gambling (Lk 15:13)

4. Converted Adulterer Not Free To Marry Another Or Continue Adulterous Marriage (Matt 19:9)

Cases Of Adultery

1. Simplest Case: A married man with another man’s wife (John 8-4)

2. Sin Upon Sin: A man divorces his wife and marries another (Matt. 19:9)

3. Sin Upon Sin: The put-away fornicator remarries (Matt. 5:32 read with exception)

“The remarriage of a man after divorcing his wife, or the remarrying of the divorced woman, is tantamount to adultery (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)” [Kittel, TDNT, IV:733]

Tantamount = “Equivalent in value, significance, or effect” (Webster’s 7th New Colleg. Dict.)

Effect = Gal. 5:19-21 (such things); Heb. 13:4

Adultery Defined By Use:

Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Involving Someone Under Constraint Of God’s Marriage Law

1. Married man with another man’s wife (Jn. 8:4)

2. Man puts away wife w/o cause and marries another (Matt. 19.-9; Mk. 1011-12; Lk. 16:18)

3. Woman put away w/o cause marries another (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)

4. Put-away fornicator marries another (Matt. 5:32 & 19:9 read with exception)

Argumentation

I will not attempt to debate the debates in this review. However, brother Freeman’ s main thrust was based on 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 4:3. He made no appeal with Scripture to show that a put away fornicator may “marry another,” though he erroneously asserted that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies the words, “marry another.”

Brother Freeman’s position would have Herod’s marriage to Herodias be or become acceptable. Brother Freeman denied it, but he could never be consistent with his proposition in so doing. Ron showed this inconsistency and brother Freeman felt the effects of it as did the audience. Contrary to some post-debate reports, brother Freeman did not argue in the debate that the marriage of Herod and Herodias was sinful because of incest. Had he so argued, the demands of repentance wuld have troubled him again as happened thoughout the debate. Brother Freeman acknowledged that a man could continue to “marry another” and “another” and “another,” even if he were put away for fornication a hundred times! He did not advocate this, but he admitted it could be done and be acceptable in God’s sight. Brethren, are you ready for that conclusion?

Ron was asked against whom a put away fornicator commits adultery when he marries another? His charts answered: that Jesus indicts the put away fornicator as guilty of adultery even though he is no longer married to the first mate.

Do Debates Do Any Good?

Letter From Vegas Drive Church

Brother Keith Greer studied under Jack Freeman for several years but over a period of time became doubtful of the things he was being taught regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. Following the first debate, the following letter was issued by the Vegas Drive church where brother Greer preaches:

To our brethren in Christ:

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. . . Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16).

For much too long we have been silent concerning where we stand on the issue of Divorce and Remarriage, and we do not wish to remain so any longer.

On January 15th, 16th, 18th, and 19th, a debate was held between Ron Halbrook and Jack Freeman at the Northside church of Christ. Many of the members of the Vegas Drive church of Christ attended the debate, and following the discussions, the men held a business meeting on Sunday afternoon, January 21, 1990. It was agreed upon by all of the men that we would send a letter to be read at the debate between Ron Halbrook and Jack Freeman in West Columbia, Texas. We want all of the brethren to know where we stand on these matters.

The scriptures teach that two people joined by God in marriage are bound for life, the only exception being that an innocent partner may put away a mate that is guilty of fornication and remarry. We at Vegas Drive affirm that the Bible teaches this to be true.

The scriptures teach that a person who is divorced by his mate for committing fornication is free to marry another. We at Vegas Drive deny that the Bible teaches this to be true.

We also want all to understand that we stand against the “two-law” doctrine of marriage that is being taught by many of our brethren.

1 Corinthians 7:15 does not teach that a Christian has other grounds for divorce or remarriage, and we cannot agree with those who practice and teach the doctrine of desertion.”

We do not agree with the position that Jack Freeman and the Northside church of Christ in Las Vegas hold concerning divorce and remarriage, and we do not want to be associated with what they are teaching. They do not speak for us, and we do not speak for them. We want all to know that we stand firmly on God’s word, nothing more and nothing less.

We hold no animosity towards the brethren at Northside. We love them, and would be only too happy to open up the Bible and study with them. We do not “count them as an enemy” but “admonish” them as a “brother” (2 Thess. 3:15).

The purpose of this letter is to let others know that there is a church in Las Vegas that is trying to stand upon the word of God. We want those brethren who come to our city to know that we are earnestly striving to teach and practice the truth.

May God bless you and keep you until the coming of his dear Son.

Yours in Him,

The men of the Vegas Drive Church of Christ

Yes, debates can be profitable. They can be an effective teaching tool. As with any medium, they can be mis-used, but the Halbrook-Freeman debates, thanks to Ron’s work, were a blessing to the cause of truth and righteousness.

Conclusion

Homer Walker and Glen Lovelady were able assistants to brother Freeman. Brother Walker who preaches for the Eastside Church in Las Vegas, was a great example of courtesy and kindness as a moderator and brother Lovelady was very efficient in handling charts and helping brother Freeman. We appreciate the kind and congenial spirit of both of these men.

Brother Harry Osborne was an invaluable aide to Ron. Harry has a brilliant mind and understands the arguments on the marriage issue as well as anyone. He worked and sacrificed many long hours to help Ron. Our thanks to the Alvin (TX) church for the support of Harry in allowing him the freedom to work in this effort. Also, Mike and Cecil Willis used their talents to assist Ron. Scores of others, especially the ladies of the West Columbia church, were a great help. The Lord will especially reward Donna Halbrook for her “open house” of hospitality. She was both a “Mary” and a “Martha.” Our love and gratitude goes to all the elders and brethren who worked so hard to help Ron in the great work that he did.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, pp. 331-333
June 7, 1990

By James W. Adams

B.C. Goodpasture, now deceased but for many years editor of the Gospel Advocate, was the most knowledgeable man about religious books that I ever knew. In 1944 while in a meeting at McEwen, Tennessee, I had occasion to have a short visit with him at his home in Nashville while purchasing some secondhand books. Among those bought was a new copy of John T. Brown’s Churches of Christ. Brother Goodpasture had found a hundred copies somewhere and bought them. I remember his telling me that, in his judgment, J.B. Briney’s article on “The Restoration Movement,” 114 pages of the large volume at the beginning of the book, was the best thing that had ever been written on the subject, and worth the price of the book. I bought the book and have found Briney’s article to be everything brother Goodpasture said it was. Among other things, Briney discussed at length the “Cooperation Controversy” of his time, involving the Missionary Society, that split the churches and produced two distinct groups among those historically identified with the movement to restore “the ancient order of things” in America: churches of Christ and the Christian Church (known also as the Disciples of Christ).

Churches of Christ have verified the fact that “history repeats itself” by floundering on the rock of “cooperation” and again producing two distinct, non-fellowshipping groups of people professing, in their collective existence as local churches, to be New Testament churches in which said “ancient order” has been restored: liberal and conservative (“anti”); institutional and non-institutional. This is quite strange since the word “cooperating” is not once found in English translations of the New Testament. The idea of “cooperation” may be found but not the word. In a “Special Issue” of the Gospel Guardian, in the early days of the present cooperation controversy, I called attention to two distinct uses of the term: “concurrent effort” and “joint effort.” I pointed out that “concurrent effort” of churches in a common endeavor is clearly taught and exemplified in the New Testament, but “joint effort” of churches is neither taught nor exemplified. Brother Roy H. Lanier, distinguished preacher and writer among our “pro” brethren, denied that concurrent effort of churches is in fact “cooperation,” hence charged us with opposing “cooperation.” In this, of course, he but contradicted no less an authority than Noah Webster, hence was obviously mistaken.

Later, brother Lanier, now deceased but then able and active, also took issue with me over the historical development of the Missionary Society. I had stated in articles and lectures, which he heard, that the cooperation meetings of churches in the early days of the “Restoration Movement” were forerunners of and led inevitably to the formation of the Missionary Society – that they were incipient societies. Brother Lanier affirmed this to be an error. He said that they existed as “alternatives” to the society, hence did not possess its fundamental characteristics. He recognized that the so-called “Sponsoring Church” arrangement for church cooperation was identical with the early “Cooperation Meetings,” but declared both to be opposed to the Missionary Society concept and were “alternatives” to it. In doing this, he felt that he had taken care of the obvious inconsistency of opposing the Missionary Society and defending the “Sponsoring Church.” Also, he felt he had proved that brethren had always accepted the cooperation of churches in a “joint effort” with control and oversight centralized in a single church and its eldership.

I knew then as I do now, that brother Lanier was wrong, but I have been impressed anew with the correctness of my conviction by reading again J.B. Briney’s analysis of the matter in the article to which reference has been made in this article. Brother Briney, keep in mind, was an ardent defender of the cooperation of churches in centralized control and oversight arrangements both in the “cooperation meetings” and the Missionary Society, so he cannot be regarded as partisan relative to the difference between me and brother Lanier in this matter. Briney found the principle in the early meetings and regarded the society as simply an inevitable next step in its application. He believed that the society was but an evolving to a higher plane of usefulness of the principle and necessity of “church cooperation” implicit in the early “Cooperation Meetings.” I only wish that space would allow the inclusion in this article of Briney’s lengthy and irresistible delineation of the matter.

However, every student of the history of churches of Christ in Texas knows that there were first “Cooperation Meetings.” One of the first was held at Mt. Enterprise, Rusk Co., Texas near where I presently live. Second, these meetings evolved into “State Meetings.” The last “State Meeting” in Texas resulted in the majority deciding to move on into a State Missionary Society and affiliation with the American Christian Missionary Society. This, along with the introduction of mechanical instruments of music, at Thorp Spring, Texas, created bedlam among the saints of Texas and divided the churches. The liberal element took most of the brethren and churches, and conservatives almost had to begin again. Why cannot our so-called “cooperative” brethren learn from history?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 355-356
June 21, 1990