Truth Magazine

By Bobby L. Graham

The relationship of marriage is approved by God and controlled by him. Humans do not have the right to put asunder (separate) what God has joined (Matt. 19:6). The relationship of marriage is no more open to human change than is the worship of the church or the terms of admission into the church. Men are not permitted to alter God’s system in any respect (1 Cor. 4:6).

Satan has been successful, nevertheless, in enlisting into his army many who would attack the clear teaching of Scripture regarding marriage. Even brethren have submitted to his rule and have cooperated with him in his diabolical efforts. The contriving of marriage theories that are clearly false has been one of their chief contributions.

Jesus plainly expressed his will concerning marriage, divorce, and re-marriage in passages like Matthew 19:9: “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” Every one of these false theories considered below makes Jesus’ teaching void.

The Divorced Fornicator

According to some the divorced fornicator is free to marry in God’s sight. They claim that he is free because he is no longer bound to his mate in marriage. It is true that he is no more bound to his mate. If he were still bound, then the innocent partner would also be bound because the binding involves both of them, as is seen in Romans 7:1-3.

The absence of a bond to his former partner, however, is not the full picture. God has never given the fornicator the right to marry again. Where is the passage giving the right of re-marriage to the guilty party? It is not found in the New Testament. In the absence of such a passage authorizing his second marriage, he is not authorized to marry. Marriage is like all other aspects of the divine will in that God has fully set forth his will. Because the put away fornicator is never granted the right of re-marriage, he acts without divine authority when he marries again. He is just like the priest from another tribe, the priest offering strange fire, Cain offering another kind of sacrifice, the worshiper using his mechanical instrument under the new covenant, and the Mormon using water in the Lord’s supper. They all act without God’s authority (Heb. 7:14; 1 Cor. 4:6). When God says nothing to permit the divorced fornicator to marry, he acts apart from God’s law and classes himself as a lawless individual (Matt. 7:23).

If this theory were true, the fornicator could make his partner so miserable that divorce would take place. In this situation, he would have the right to remarry again. In other words, he could benefit from his own sin, or do evil that good might result, though the apostle Paul classified such a principle as dishonorable in Romans 3:8.

Adultery: An Isolated Act

Closely related to the previous theory is this one that views adultery as a one-time action committed in the consummation of a second marriage, with all succeeding acts sanctioned by God because they are part of the new marriage, which God accepts. Here again, if this theory be true, it encourages a low view of marriage for it makes it possible for one partner to commit adultery for an evil purpose and benefit therefrom. It would also mean that the innocent party is not married to the guilty one any longer. Would this not be the case if the act of adultery terminated the first marriage? If the guilty came back to his mate for later cohabitation, while the innocent did not know of the act of adultery, the innocent party would ignorantly commit adultery, fornication. The result of the theory is just as foolish as the theory itself is!

It is important to examine this idea of adultery as a onetime act. Will it bear the scrutiny of close examination and testing with the Word of God? If the theory be correct, then why does Romans 7:3 call the woman an adulteress after her marrying another man? If the first act of cohabitation were the only act of adultery, then the verse incorrectly labels her an adulteress. Why was the woman in 1 Corinthians 5 called the wife of the father, even after the first act of cohabitation, if that act broke the bond of marriage to her husband, freeing her to marry again? Why did John the baptizer call the woman in Mark 6:17,18 the wife of Philip after her marriage to her brother-in-law if that first act of cohabitation terminated her marriage? There is something wrong with the theory that makes these clear passages inexplicable!

While many contend that one cannot “live in adultery,” the-Bible says otherwise. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul said the Corinthians lived in adultery before becoming Christians by using the Greek imperfect tense, which signifies continued action in the past. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said one could live in adultery as he employed the Greek present tense, which signifies continued action. In Colossians 3:5-7 Paul indicated it is possible for people to live in fornication, which includes adultery. It is true that adultery is only one species of fornication, but the usage of Paul did not distinguish between the various kinds of fornication. He clearly referred to fornication in general, including adultery. After all, what is so special about adultery that it would be only a one-time act while other forms of fornication are continuous conditions?

The Unbeliever’s Status

Much ado has been made over the special status of one not a Christian. Efforts have been made to show him unamenable to God’s law on marriage. Some have contended that he is subject only to civil law. The absurdity of these ideas is seen in Jesus’ teaching on marriage when he returned to God’s original marriage law (Matt. 19). Here he identified God’s will relative to marriage as being superior to all later law, both civil law and kingdom law, for it preceded both of them. He did not indicate that God’s law is otherwise for unbelievers.

If Jesus’ statement does not apply to unbelievers, then their practices of polygamy, concubinage, and homosexual marriage are not wrong. If baptism sanctifies their present relationships, then their conversion to Christ does not require them to terminate those relationships. If not, why not? On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 conclusively shows that unbelievers are subject to law besides civil law and are guilty of sin besides the sin of unbelief. Those Corinthians were guilty of homosexuality, covetousness, and reviling, none of which was condemned or controlled under Roman or Greek law.

What is so magical about baptism that it can transform a sinful act/relationship into a righteous one? The act that was sinful before baptism continues to be such after conversion. Repentance requires a cessation of sinful practices. Has sexual cohabitation which is continued after conversion been repented of? Does not its continuance prove a lack of repentance? If baptism has such power, what would remove its power to make polygamy and homosexuality right?

The law of Christ in the New Testament is directed to all people, brings blessings and punishment to all people, and will be the basis of judgment for all. Why then would all not be subject to it?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 131-132
March 1, 1990

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote” Alexander Campbell, “Temperance Association, ” Millennial Harbinger, VI (September, 1835), 388-389.

During his early life, Alexander Campbell was firmly convinced that Christians should not create or belong to various reform societies. He wrote: “At the same time we have borne our testimony against Temperance Associations, Missionary Societies, and every other human institution. . . . There is not an infidel in America . . . who would not, could the Temperance Society banish one vice from the land, sound the triumph of human wisdom over the Christian Institution. They would boast that a human institution had done for the world what Christianity had not done – what the gospel could not do.”

Most of the early reformers firmly believed that the only way to reform the world was by making men Christians. That was their consuming passion. They had little time for the other crusades. They believed that the world would be a better place if more people became Christians and that a moral community which was not Christian was unthinkable.

Equally as interesting was their confidence in the superiority of God’s wisdom in all things. Could man devise a scheme for evangelizing better than that provided by God? Could man find a better way to make man moral than by the conversion of individual men? If one could think of something better, then he could boast of his achievement and God’s failure.

This issue goes to the heart of the philosophy of biblical literalism. It is important to do exactly as God directs because at stake is the glory and honor due to God. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God, if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ to whom be praise and dominion for every and ever. Amen” (1 Pet. 4:11).

Finally, Campbell’s statement is a good example of the rugged individualism of the Christian. The pressure on “good people” to join temperance societies was enormous by the 1830’s. But Campbell did not allow society to interpret morality for him; nor would he be pressured to conform just because others demanded it of him. He followed the teaching of the Bible and not the whim of man. One must sometimes stand against the pressure tactics of the world’s “righteous,” as well as the corruption of the worldly. – Ed Harrell

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, p. 134
March 1, 1990

By Brent Siota

There is too much assuming and asserting going around in the religious world today and not enough proving, proving by the Scriptures. There is even the assertion that we need no book, chapter, and verse for what we teach or do in religion; after all, they say, it’s the “spirit of the law” that counts (one example of an unproved, non-Bible assertion). But, if I am going to assert my belief in the Bible as the word of God and pattern for my life, is it not inconsistent for me to assume the authority for the things which I believe and practice? As it has always been true, error gives no proof, neither seeks it, “for every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved” (Jn. 3:20). In order to show that the need for Scripture for our every belief and practice is not just an assertion, let us look at some verses which prove this fact.

The Bible commands that when we speak in religious matters, we speak only what God has spoken. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles (utterances) of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). If there is not an oracle of God to back up what one says about a certain subject, then you can mark it down, that doctrine came from man, not God. The next time you hear someone preach, be like the Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). But, too many times the listener has to search the sermon, instead of the Bible, for Scripture. Can one say that one has “spoken as the oracles of God” when all that is heard are jokes and stories? Paul said, “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).

In order to be pleasing to God, one must have faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6). Where does one get this faith? “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10: 17). But, one cannot be said to have faith if he does not possess the “spirit of faith” as spoken of by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:13. “We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak.” So then it takes hearing, believing, and speaking the word of God to have the kind of faith which pleases God. If we hear, believe and speak things which are not found in the word of God, then we don’t have faith and we won’t please God. If we speak something in religion, then we must prove it by the word of God. Otherwise, it is a faithless, displeasing to God, doctrine.

Not only must we prove our doctrines by the Bible, but we must have authority (Bible) for what we practice. Jesus told the Devil “that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” (Lk. 4:4). The apostle John taught the same thing when he said, “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). If we live by, or abide in, something which is not found in Scripture, then we don’t have God. If we do something in religion, then we must prove it by the word of God. Otherwise, it is a faithless, displeasing to God, act.

The Bible also commands us to follow the example of those who taught and practiced only what God said. “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do” (Phil. 4:9). What do we see that Paul did? “And Paul . . . reasoned with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). He didn’t just assert that Jesus was the Christ, he proved it to the Jews with Scripture. Apollos did the same by “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28). Let us “follow” their example (1 Cor. 11:1).

Let’s take some examples of some proofless doctrines, and examine them in the light of the Bible.

Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort (Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, The Articles of Religion, No. 69).

What about this assertion?

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (Bible, Jas. 2:24).

Notice this statement from Jehovah’s (False) Witnesses:

Baptism does not wash away one’s sins (Make Sure Of All Things, p. 49; also see, The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 183).

What about this assertion?

Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins (Bible, Acts 22:16, Ananias),

Notice this cardinal doctrine of Mormonism:

We were . . . created in the image of our Father . . . and we did not have a physical body, as he does (Eternal Progression, Study Guide 4).

What about this assertion?

God is a Spirit (Bible, John 4:24, Jesus Christ).

What about the assertion that one may make a contribution into the treasury of the church any time he pleases? There is just as much authority for that as there is for a pie sale, which is none. The Bible teaches that the designated day for a contribution is “the first day of the week” (I Cor. 16:2). These are just a few examples of unproved assertions.

Realize the fact that Scripture may be offered as proof ‘ but not actually prove anything. The Devil quoted Scripture, but he perverted it (Matt. 4).

“All scripture . . . is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Any thing that we would ever need to believe or do to be pleasing to God can be found in the Bible. Be sure that you can “shew by the scriptures” everything that you believe, teach, and do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 116, 120
February 15, 1990

By Mike Willis

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. And it came to pass as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mk. 3:13-17).

The call of Levi or Matthew contains several lessons for us which remind us of our need for humility and consciousness of our own sins as we work to bring others to Christ. Let us study these lessons.

The Conversion of Matthew

Matthew was a publican, from among a group who were notoriously unscrupulous in the collection of taxes. John the Baptist had singled out the publicans as one group of the “generation of vipers” who were called to repentance. Luke relates this about John’s charge to the publicans, “Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you” (Lk. 3:12-13). The publicans were notorious for over-taxing the people and pocketing what was in excess of the amount the state demanded.

Because of their extortion and position as agents of Rome, the publicans were socially rejected, religiously excommunicated, and politically viewed as traitors. Nevertheless, their job was lucrative. When Jesus called Matthew, saying “Follow me,” he forsook his lucrative position to become the Lord’s disciple. What a contrast he makes with the rich young ruler who rejected Christ to cling to his possessions (Matt. 19:16-22). How many of us would walk away from a high-paying job to be the Lord’s disciple?

Becoming a disciple of Christ meant new pursuits, new goals, new morals, and new friends. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Certainly this was true for Matthew.

Having seen what Jesus had done for him, Matthew used his influence to introduce others to Christ. He invited his friends to a feast in honor of Jesus that they too might become acquainted with him. Matthew’s example of using his influence to bring others to Christ should be instructive to each of us. How many of us have opened our home to our neighbors and friends to introduce them to the Christ? When a new family visits where you worship, do you open your home to them to conduct a Bible study?

The Charge Against Jesus

When the Pharisees saw Jesus attend Matthew’s feast with publicans and sinners, they charged Jesus with sin saying he “eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners. ” The charge indicts Jesus with condoning sin and participating with sinners. Had Jesus joined with sinners in their conduct or bid them godspeed by his action, he certainly would have been guilty of sin (2 Jn. 9-11). However, that was not his purpose for being there. Some had placed the worst possible construction on Jesus’ actions. Some always will.

The truth is that Jesus was working with the publicans and sinners to bring them to repentance. Jesus did not turn his back on the social outcasts. He preached the gospel to the poor (Matt. 11:5) and ministered to the down and out. He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory” (Matt. 12:20). He had interest in the soul of the Samaritan woman who had five precious husbands and was living with one who was not her husband (Jn. 4). He saw the value of every soul; it was worth more than all of the world (Matt. 16:26).

We must never forget the preciousness of one soul, regardless of how marred and despicable it may have become because of the defilement of sin. The homosexual, with his incurable disease of AIDS, is still a soul in need of God’s salvation. A few years ago, I drove down a street in Nashville, Tennessee where I saw a “street person.” The woman was at least 50-60 years old, her gray hair was long and matted; she obviously was in need of a bath. Though her appearance was repulsive and still lingers in my memory, I remind myself that she has a soul even as I do and that she needs the Lord’s salvation just the same as does the banker in our community.

We need to be careful not to allow our view of such people to fall to the level of that of the Pharisees who saw such men as contemptible sinners. Jesus says these people are sinsick and in need of healing; the Pharisees only saw contemptible, unclean sinners which could not be touched without contaminating one’s self.

They That Are Whole Have No Need Of A Physician

Jesus’ response to those who condemned him for eating with “publicans and sinners” was this: “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Mk. 2:17). Who are “they that are whole” who have no need of a physician? The physician is Christ and the healing is forgiveness of sins. The Scriptures teach that none is whole and without need of a physician (Rom. 3:23).

However, there are some who imagine themselves to be so righteous that they do not think they have need of a physician (cf. Rev. 3:17). In the context, these were the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for associating with “publicans and sinners.” The great Physician cannot heal the man who does not recognize that he is sick and in need of healing.

Jesus Came To Call Sinners To Repentance

The calling of Jesus is a call for sinners to repent. There is a mistaken understanding of the ministry of Jesus manifested among some who labor tirelessly among the social outcasts. Some who work among the vilest of sinners issue no call to repentance. They conceive of the gospel as a ministry to the physical suffering of drunks, drug addicts, and prostitutes. They hand out food, treat drunkenness, provide housing, and pay for medical help. But they do little for the soul! Without denying the physical suffering of these sin sick souls, I remind you that the gospel is not aimed at ministering to physical needs, but to spiritual needs. Some have confused those who want help with those who want a hand-out.

The Lord came to call sinners to repentance! The gospel is not a “come as you are” party. Those who promise grace without repentance misunderstand the gospel’s call. Jesus condemned the man who showed up at the wedding feast without white garments (Matt. 22:11-14), condemning those who do not clothe themselves in righteousness.

What this means for mankind is this: homosexuals (even those with AIDS) can come to Christ, but they must quit committing homosexual acts; adulterers (even those who have violated their marriage vows by committing fornication against their mates) and fornicators (even those with VD) can come to Christ, but they must quit committing sexual immorality; alcoholics can come to Christ, but they must cease drinking; drug addicts can come to Christ, but they must quit using drugs. The call of the gospel is a call to repentance!

Conclusion

 

The gospel invitation is extended to every man. It gives each of us the opportunity to begin anew, to have every sin which we have committed washed away by the blood of Christ. Regardless of what wicked deeds we may have committed, we can be born again (Jn. 3:5), sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26), that we might be without “spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27). If God could save those “publicans and sinners” of the first century, there is reason to believe that he can save me!

 

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 130, 150
March 1, 1990