Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven (Matt. 7:21).

Three procedures are crucial in determining and doing the will of God: information, interpretation, and application. Error in any of these causes one to miss the mark. So, care must be exercised at each, juncture.

Information

All Scripture is inspired of God, able to make one wise unto salvation, and furnish the man of God unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-16). Therein is God’s complete and final revelation to man all the information needed to do God’s will (Jude 3).

Knowledgeable Bible students, good concordances, commentaries, good articles, good books or other helps may great assist us in finding the needed information, but we must accept only the Scriptures as divine authority. The noble Bereans had an open mind to receive help from those who preached to them, but they were careful to “search the Scriptures daily to see if the things were so” (Acts 17:11). Such is an excellent practice.

One needs all the information on a subject before deciding what God’s will is on that subject. One verse, one chapter or even one book seldom has all of the information needed. For example, the steps in becoming a Christian are put together by combining the information from several passages. The same is true of what God expects of us in worship to him and other aspects of his will.

Interpretation

After gathering information from the sacred text, one must correctly interpret it. Even though we often hear, “Oh, that is just your interpretation,” from some whom we try to teach, “interpret” is not a bad word. Brethren sometimes, out of frustration, reply, “We do not interpret, we just take what it says.” Perhaps it would be more profitable and accurate to ask such a person to show us wherein we have misinterpreted or mishandled the word of Truth. We also rightly deplore the Catholic idea that the Scriptures must be officially interpreted by the Church.

So, if, by “interpret,” one means arbitrarily giving the Scripture a meaning that suits him, then no one has the right to interpret. However, if by “interpret” one means determining the correct meaning in the light of context, word definitions, idioms, etc., then we must do a lot of interpreting. Words must be considered in the light of their definitions, contexts (general and immediate), historical settings, etc. For example, David said, “I prevented the dawning of the morning” (Psa. 119:147 – KJV). Did David keep the sun from rising? Looking up the archaic definition of “prevent” (to go before or precede) helps to understand that David simply meant that he got up before daylight. It took a little “interpreting,” but we now know what David was really saying.

“Oh,” but you say, “I still think we should always just take the words at face value without any interpreting.” It is not always that simple. Sometime ago, while visiting my hometown, I met a brother, whom I had known from childhood. He asked if I had heard that a certain married couple, whom we had both known for years, had been separated. When I expressed surprise, he said, “Well, it must be true, because last week during our meeting down at (he called the name of the place), she (the wife) came forward at the invitation song and the preacher said she had ‘left her first love.”‘ How could I argue with evidence like that? It is obvious that my friend accepted the words, at least in his mind, at their face value – without interpretation,

So, while no one has the right to interpret, or more correctly misinterpret, Scripture any way he chooses, everyone has an obligation to interpret correctly.

Application

After searching the Scriptures for information and correctly interpreting it, thus having a clear understanding of the teaching, one must proceed to application. He must translate his knowledge into faith and practice. He must apply what he has learned to situations at hand. For example, he reads that “lasciviousness” will keep one from the heavenly kingdom. He correctly interprets the term. Now, he must apply it to certain speech, gestures, clothing, etc.

We learn from the Scriptures that New Testament congregations were always autonomous. We must apply this principle to the structure of congregations today to see if we are in harmony with it.

It is important that we understand both principles and applications. It is my conviction, based on observation, that the same basic problems repeat themselves among brethren because of a failure to grasp both principles and applications. Some understand scriptural principles quite well, but have problems progressing from principle to present-day application with any degree of accuracy. They may believe the New Testament teaching of the autonomy of the local church, yet not see that “associations,” “conventions” and “sponsoring churches” violate the autonomy principle. They understand that the Bible commands “modest apparel,” but are hard pressed to name any specific clothing that should be considered immodest.

Conversely, some have learned, from applications they have heard teachers make, that certain things are right or wrong. So, they may vigorously defend certain practices while opposing things that are exact parallels in principle. Or they may oppose certain things while accepting parallel items. For “ample, some have heard so much preaching against certain immodest articles of clothing that they would not be caught in public wearing these items. Yet, let a new style come along that may be just as sensual as what they already accept as wrong and they are the first to wear the new thing – maybe even to church. Or they may be heard speaking and seen gesturing in a way that reflects as much immodesty of character as anything anyone has ever worn. They believe certain things are “immodest” without having really learned anything about modesty.

The failure to understand both principle and application spells trouble down the road. An analysis of the institutional controversy of the ’50s and ’60s illustrates this problem. Generally speaking, all sides of the institutional/sponsoring church controversy taught the same principles. It was rare to find a preacher who would not say that: (1) the church is sufficient to do all that God gave the church to do, and (2) the Bible teaches congregational autonomy. The differences arose over the application and/or misapplication of these principles. The divisive controversies of the 1800s and early 1900s had left most brethren with the deep conviction that churches of Christ should not support “missionary societies” nor use “the instrument” in worship. No preacher, on either side of the issues of the 1950s and 1960s, wanted to be identified as endorsing either the societies or mechanical instruments of music in worship. Most of them had heard from their youth that such innovations were wrong and to be avoided. However, many showed their lack of understanding of the principles that made the societies and instruments unscriptural innovations. They had learned the applications well but had failed to grasp principles.

They did not see that the principle that makes it wrong to build and maintain societies through which churches do their preaching work, also makes it wrong for churches to build and maintain benevolence societies through which churches care for the needy. They had trouble seeing that the same principles that make instrumental music wrong, also makes other innovations to the work and worship of the church wrong. While many held steadfastly to the principles, they did not apply the principles across the board. As the years passed, many have abandoned the principles. They have come to see that they cannot consistently hold to the principle of congregational autonomy while supporting institutions and “sponsoring churches,” so they no longer believe in the autonomy principle. Some have seen that they cannot maintain the principle that we must have command, example, or necessary inference for all that we do in religion while practicing many of the innovations (such as the many “ministries” and “ministers” not found in the New Testament) of the past few decades. So, many no longer make any pretense of holding to such a principle of authority.

This is why it is so vitally important for those who still have a deep respect for scriptural authority to spare no effort in fully collecting, properly understanding, and correctly applying the information contained in the Book. Once we understand the principles with their applications, we need to fully teach them. It is not enough to just teach scriptural principles without making clear and logical applications as we teach. Nor is it enough just to list the specific applications without making every effort to help folks fully understand the principles behind the applications. Let us learn skillfully to combine the two unto the edifying of the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, pp. 38, 55
January 18, 1990

By Irvin Himmel 

A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones (Prov. 17:22).

This proverb, like many others, draws a contrast. The difference is between a merry heart and a broken spirit. The former does good; the latter is detrimental.

Merry Heart

The heart under consideration is not the physical organ that pumps the blood. The heart which is brought into focus here is the mind – the heart which thinks, reasons, understands, purposes, and has emotions.

One’s heart is the center of his life. The tone of the heart (thoughts and attitudes) affects the whole life. If it is a merry heart, there is joy, cheerfulness, and pleasantness present. A cheerful outlook relates to the manner in which problems are handled, how well one does in his work, and the ability to get along with people.

A number of factors contribute to a joyful heart. The following are significant:

1. Peace with God. The heart may seem merry due to laughter and humor, fun and jovial conversation. However, there can be no deep spiritual joy in the heart without favor with God. The gospel of Christ is God’s remedy for sin and guilt. It shows us how to have peace with God. It reveals the way of salvation. One who has submitted to Christ through obedience to the gospel has good reason for true joy. To the saints at Colosse, Paul wrote, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful” (Col. 3:15).

2. Strong Faith. The New Testament teaches us to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). The child of God is given assurance of all things for which he is taught to hope by faith. And faith gives conviction of things in the unseen realm (Heb. 11:1). The joy that we have in Christ grows out of strong faith. Paul wrote to the Philippians about the “joy of faith” (Phil. 1:25). Many who profess religion have no real joy in their hearts because they are so weak in faith.

3. Active Service. Joy comes to the heart of the Christian who participates actively in the Lord’s work. There is diligence in Bible study, regularity in prayer, faithfulness in assembling with the brethren, earnestness in doing good, carefulness in righteous conduct, and unselfishness in service. The joy produced by this active participation is the delight of faith in action.

4. Contentment. Paul wrote, “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (Phil. 4:11). Again he mentioned that “godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Tim. 5:6). The person with a merry heart has learned to make the best of his situation, whatever his circumstances.

A merry or joyful heart does good like a medicine which is just the right prescription. A cheerful disposition is a valuable asset.

Broken Spirit

A broken spirit has the opposite effect of a merry heart. It dries up the bones, which is a way of saying that it saps life and paralyzes hope.

“The spirit is the power of self-consciousness which, according as it is lifted up or broken, also lifts up or breaks down the condition of the body” (F. Delitzsch).

There is a definite relationship between one’s mental attitude and his bodily health. Many illnesses are not due to organic causes at all. “They are the results of our attitudes rather than the ills of the body. . . A person who always dwells on the negative aspects is a pessimistic person in all he does and thinks. However, it is foolish to attribute all ills to ‘a broken spirit.’ A broken arm is a broken arm despite any mental attitude you may have about it. Any amount of thinking will not replace a good cast. But the merry heart not only prevents many problems, it also helps to cure them” (Chas. W. Turner).

The following are some of the causes of a crushed spirit:

1. Bringing the future into the present. We need to learn to live one day at a time. Jesus said, “Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:34, NASB).

2. Burden of guilt. An individual who feels the heavy weight of sin pressing down on his soul may be broken in spirit. He needs to turn to the Lord for forgiveness.

3. Gloom. Some folks live on despair and misery. They make others around them miserable. They always look on the dark side of things. In gloom there is no merit. Dejection and melancholy break the human spirit.

‘Nothing has such a direct tendency to ruin health and waste our life as grief, anxiety, fretfulness, bad tempers, etc.” (A. Clarke).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, p. 45
January 18, 1990

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Several times in what we identify as Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians (there probably was a previous letter, 1 Cor. 5:9), the apostle spoke of having firsthand information concerning their problems and questions. For example, those of Chloe’s household had reported contentions in the church (1 Cor. 1:11), the brethren had written to Paul (1 Cor. 7:1), and Paul had visited with Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17-18). In chapter seven, Paul specifically responded to their written inquiries about domestic relationships. Among Christians today, assertions have been made by different ones who think they find justification in this chapter for second marriages in cases other than those described in Matthew 19 and Romans 7.

The “Present Distress”?

First, their letter and Paul’s answer were written in the midst of a “present distress” (v. 26) when Christians who married could expect “trouble in the flesh-” (v. 28). Paul was concerned that the cares of married life might keep some from serving the Lord “without distraction” (vv. 32-35). He, therefore, cautioned against marrying. Some have discounted much of the apostolic instruction in this chapter because of those circumstances. It should be observed that when Paul appealed to the “present distress,” the issue was only whether to marry or not and, even then, the disciples were given freedom to make the choice (vv. 8-9). If they married, all those responsibilities God placed on mates were to be observed (vv. 1-5) and they were not allowed to depart (vv. 10-16). Neither were any divine regulations governing married life changed during or because of the “distress.”

Paul Versus The Lord?

Second, in conjunction with questions raised about the impact of the “present distress” there is another issue concerning the relation between what Paul was presently saying and what the Lord had said while with the apostles. Some have argued that Paul’s instructions are optional because they represent his opinions and were not guided by the Spirit. Careful reading of the text should dispel this notion:

(a) In verse six, Paul says that the authorization for temporary relief from the responsibilities of mates (v. 5) was granted as a “concession,” not a “commandment.” The “concession” was from the Lord and it was intended to provide time for prayer leading to reconciliation. The apostle was not, however, “commanding” a separation. Nothing in the text indicates that Paul’s words here were not inspired.

(b) In verses ten and twelve, the apostle first stressed what Jesus had himself initially taught, namely that a wife must not depart from her husband (v. 10); and then he presented the later specific instruction now given to him by the Lord that the Christian living with a non-Christian should not leave the mate (v. 12). Again, there is no contradiction between Paul and Jesus, and there is no indication that Paul was speaking on his own apart from inspiration. The statements simply call attention to the fact that Paul’s directive was an application growing out of Jesus’ own words. That fact is further emphasized in v. 17 when Paul gave “order” (authoritative command) concerning the things taught in the passage.

(c) Toward the end of the chapter, Paul affirmed that he had been allowed to write his “judgment” on the advisability of marrying under the present circumstances (vv. 25,26,40). If we were to grant that Paul was expressing purely human judgment, we would be forced to recognize that he clearly declared it to be judgment and that he spoke only about a matter in which God allows Christians to make a decision. It is optional whether one marries and Paul also clearly stated that his judgment was not compulsory. The truth is, however, that Paul was not simply expressing his own humanly fallible opinion. He was, instead, expressing apostolic judgment guided by the Spirit of God. He said, “I give judgment as one whom the Lord in his mercy has made trustworthy” (v. 25). Paul spoke often of having been given grace or mercy to teach faithfully God’s will (Eph. 3:7-8; 1 Cor. 3: 10; 2 Cor. 4: 1 f; et. ao. The fact that this “judgment” is concerned with a permissive matter does not in any way argue that it was uninspired. You might ask yourself, “If Jesus himself had been advising people who were contemplating marriage under those conditions, what other possible advice could he have given?” Surely he would have told them it was better not to marry unless being unmarried posed such a stumblingblock to their moral purity that they stood in danger of becoming unchaste. It should also be observed that Paul concluded the chapter by saying, “I think I also have the Spirit of God” (v. 40), and thus, at the least, he indicated divine compliance in the judgment.

Divorce, But Not Remarriage?

Third, Paul repeated the “command” of “the Lord” that ‘,’a wife is not to depart from her husband” (v. 10). Some have found comfort in Paul’s next phrase, “even if she does depart.” The Christian, they say, may divorce without sin for cause other than fornication if there is no subsequent sexual activity. Among these some go on to say that if the former mate commits fornication, the “innocent” party is free to put him/her away in the heart and marry again, whatever the cause of the original divorce.

The statement “but even if she does depart” (v. 11) does not free one to disobey the command of verse ten. Actually, Paul was only stating what the Christian must do who has left a mate in ignorance of or in spite of the command 9 $not to depart.” This passage is like many others in which an inspired writer “plains provisions made or what to do or to avoid after sin has occurred. In another place Paul said, “Do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you” (Rom. 11:18). Remembering does not justify boasting. John said, “My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). Certainly the provision of an Advocate does not make it all right to sin. James said, “But if you have bitter envy and self seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth” (Jas. 3:14). The prohibition against going further to boast and lie against the truth does not soften the bitter envy and self-seeking.

The truth that God does not condone divorce was clearly reinforced when Paul returned to the original command. He said, “And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (v. 11).

Remain in Your Calling?

Fourth, when Paul addressed these Christians who were married to non-Christians, he told them not to leave their mates but instead to stay in their marriages. “God has called us to peace,” he said (v. 15). We are not to seek freedom from circumstances in which we find ourselves when we are called into Christ. Such circumstances as circumcision and slavery were used by Paul as illustrations (vv. 17-24).

This passage has been used to teach that Christians who are “married” a second, third, or fourth time may stay with the mate they have at the time of conversion despite the causes of former divorce action. Reasoning thus affirms the thing to be proved and argues in a circle. No preacher I know would declare that the professional thief or contract murderer may remain in his “calling.” I have not talked with one who will proclaim that the homosexual or polygamist may remain in the sinful relationship. All must affirm that repentance requires leaving sinful practice (1 Cor. 6:9-11). What these persons are claiming is that the relationship is not sinful and/or that activity shared in the relationship is not sinful. That is the thing to be proved! If one argues that because the sins of the past are forgiven the relationship may continue, by what line of reasoning would he not be forced to argue that two unmarried people living together are forgiven and thus may continue in a relationship God did not previously approve? If they argue that these persons are not under the law of Christ prior to baptism, by what reasoning could he ever point to the homosexuality, polygamy, and multiple marriages of the worldly rich and famous as sinful? Some, in my humble and perhaps simple view, have become educated beyond their intelligence!

Remarriage in Verse 15?

Finally, some have found another cause for divorce and remarriage in the phrase “not under bondage” (v. 15). That is the subject of another article and, therefore, I will simply call attention to the fact that only by implication based on one’s own opinion concerning the interpretation of the verse can he assume that it authorizes remarriage. Paul says nothing of remarriage in this section of the chapter. In fact, he only approaches the subject of remarriage twice in the entire chapter, once directly and once indirectly. In verse 39, he says that he woman whose husband is dead may remarry. In verse 11, the commanded the woman who had left her husband to remain unmarried.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 11-12
January 4, 1990

By Bill Cavender

I have read that the divorce rate has reached fifty-two percent of marriages in our society. Hardly a family and/or congregation of Christ anywhere, anymore, has not been affected by this problem with all of its attendant feelings, emotions, sadnesses, sufferings, heartaches, disruptions, displacements, bitternesses, and, in many cases, soul damning, eternal consequences. A recent article says that by the turn of this century possibly seventy-five percent of first marriages will end in divorce.

Most congregations now have within their memberships and fellowship people who have experienced the trauma and tragedy of divorce, and some who have subsequently remarried. As society changes and divorces increase, churches of our Lord are destined to confront these problems more often. All of us who teach and lead others are having to spend more time in calling attention to our Father’s will in the Scriptures. In forty-three years of preaching the gospel and in some years of serving as an elder of a congregation, many, many times have I taught on these subjects. In every protracted meeting I have a part in, I preach on marriage, divorce, remarriage and family relationships. I have been in many meetings with brethren and fellow-elders, talking with people regarding their marriage problems, and with divorced and remarried people, some seeking to obey the gospel of our Lord and some desiring membership in the local church. In reading and studying the Scriptures with such ones, the results have been that some obeyed the gospel, believing they could so do and maintain their present marriage. Some did not obey the gospel, believing they must repent of and cease an obvious, unlawful, adulterous union and were not willing to do so (Matt. 14:1-12; Mk. 6:14-29). Some, in second (or even third) marriages, claimed and affirmed scriptural grounds for their previous divorce(s) and remarriage(s) and were received into fellowship in the congregation by the elders and/or conscientious brethren. In some cases fellowship was denied to divorced and remarried people on the bases of their statements and histories as conveyed in their own words, brethren believing such ones were in an obvious adulterous, unscriptural union. From time to time I have participated in withdrawing congregational fellowship from a brother or sister believed, by overwhelming evidence, to be involved in an adulterous marriage. From time to time I have had to determine my own personal fellowship and relationship with a brother or sister as regarding their conduct, teaching and practice. These are the only two areas of fellowship existing between brethren in Christ (i.e., congregational and personal). Both are areas of judgments, governed and exercised through our knowledge and understanding of our Father’s will in the New Testament, and in the light of our knowledge and understanding of the facts, events and circumstances of the people involved. We must always deal with others in such matters in a sincere, impartial, kind, just and brotherly manner, insofar as is humanly possible.

In spite of our best efforts, errors are and will be made. Sometimes people do not speak the truth, deceiving those who are listening, teaching and trying to help. No doubt there are people in fellowship in some local churches who should not be fellowshipped and are, in fact, living in adulterous unions. No doubt there are cases where people should have been received into fellowship and were not. None of us is omniscient in these matters. None of us can know all of the events, thoughts, words, attitudes and deeds which have made marriage(s) to be happy and permanent, and, to the contrary, which have destroyed marriage(s). Only our God and Father in heaven knows all and understands all that transpires in anyone’s marriage. None of us is authorized to be detectives by our Lord. There are no God-ordained brotherhood investigative agencies nor agents. There are no official boards of biblical interpretation nor brotherhood regulatory bodies, authorized by Jesus the Master, to tell us what we must believe, teach or practice. There is no man or group of men who are empowered to tell a local congregation or an individual Christian who may be fellowshipped and who must not be fellowshipped. Our Lord and the inspired apostles of Jesus were the only revealers, interpreters and enforcers of God’s truths. No man or group of men are authorized to hang “the yellow tag of quarantine” on any brother or congregation, as was done to many of us in the fifties, sixties and seventies by the Gospel Advocate hierarchy in Nashville, Tennessee. In the local church the elders watch for souls, feed the flock, and make those judgment decisions regarding the individuals who are fellowshipped or disfellowshipped by and in the congregation (Acts 20:28-3 1; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). All we can know and do in dealing with one another is by what we see hear and are truthfully told by those who have marital problems. And all any one of us can do is to turn people to God’s word, for he is the authority and Lawgiver in such matters and his word is the law. Each person must obey that law by faith to be acceptable to the Father. Each one of us must give account of himself to the Judge at the last day (Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Rom. 14:10-12; Acts 17:30:31).

The first covenants and compacts made between God and man, and between man and his fellow-man, were made in Eden. Man’s relationship to God was established as one of man’s faith in and obedience to his Creator (Gen. 2:8-9,1517). Man’s relationship with his fellow-humans was first established with his companion, his wife (Gen. 2:18-25), as one of total unity, union, communion, commitment, love and loyalty (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Jesus reaffirmed these two basic relationships (Matt. 22:35-40). When men, and nations of men and women, forsake the commandments and covenants of the Almighty, they are compared to adulterers, guilty of spiritual adultery. “The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah, the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? She is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returneth not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord. And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah” (Jer. 3:6-11). When individuals forsake their covenants and commitments in marriage, they are said to be guilty of adultery (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Col. 3:5-6; Eph. 5:3-5; Rom. 7:1-3; Prov. 6:20-35; 7:6-27).

Under Moses’ law the adulterer and adulteress were to be executed (Lev. 20:10; 18:20; Deut. 22:22). Such ones had already come under the sentence of spiritual death, separation from God (Exod. 20:14; Isa. 59:1-2; Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 5:12-14). In the New Testament of God in Christ Jesus (Heb. 1:1-2; Matt. 28:18; 26:28; Heb. 9:15-17), adultery is clearly condemned as sin, as in the Old Testament, and the adulterer or adulteress will not go to heaven (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev. 21:8,27; 22:15; Heb. 13:4). Adultery is said by Jesus the Lawgiver to be the only cause whereby a man may divorce his wife (or a wife her husband) and marry another (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9). The guilty adulteress (or the guilty adulterer, as the case may be) is not at liberty to remarry. No concession is given by our Master to the immoral person. The innocent partner in a marriage which has been dissolved because of adultery may remarry. But that “innocent party” must be sure that he or she is really innocent and did not by temperament, evil words, ugly attitudes, hurtful deeds and a malignant spirit, drive his companion to distraction, distress, unhappiness, and then unfaithfulness. People violate the fundamentals of God’s will regarding a happy and enduring marriage relationship, fail to cultivate that sweetness and goodness which a marriage must have, and then claim innocence when their companion is unhappy, and then immoral. Adultery, immorality, is never justified, is always sinful, but is sometimes understandable by human wisdom when people have been abused, mistreated and evilly-dealt-with by their marriage companion.

In teaching people regarding the permanency of marriage, I use Genesis 2:18-25; 6:2,5,11-12; Exodus 20:14,17; Leviticus 18:20; 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22; Numbers 25:1-9; 2 Samuel 11:1-27; 1 Kings 11:1-8; Ezra 9:2; 10:2-3,1014,17,44; Nehemiah 13:23-27; Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 5:28-32; 14:1-2; 19:3-9; Mark 6:14-30; 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:10-24; Hebrews 13:4. A marriage is for a lifetime, one man for and with one woman, with death as the only honorable way and reason for the union to be dissolved, and with adultery as the only sinful, dishonorable way and reason for divorce, the innocent partner having a concession to remarry but the guilty may not. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-17, the deserted companion “hath been called to (in) peace” (v. 15). “As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk” (v. 17). “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called” (v. 20). “Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, there in abide with God” (v. 24). 1 have never been able to understand that the apostle is granting another reason for divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:12-17, for the cause of desertion, which almost invariably presupposes adultery on the part of the deserter by those who hold the opinion that desertion is a scriptural ground for divorce and remarriage, in addition to that stated by our Master (Matt. 19:3-9). From the beginning of my Bible studies as a Christian, I have believed the only cause for a divorce is that stated by Jesus our Lord in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, and that his words are a restatement, re-establishment, and a re-affirmation of the Father’s original intent, will, law and purpose in ordaining and permitting marriage in Eden, this most basic of all human relationships.

All other human relationships grow out of this basic one, whether it be families, nations or churches. Where the laws governing this basic and fundamental union are ignored and violated, then all relationships between human beings are affected and deteriorate. Strong, stable, law-abiding nations, families and churches cannot be built upon divorce, division, fornication, adultery, all kinds of immoralities, sins against God’s laws and crimes against the laws of men. Marriage ordained of God is designed for God’s glory and the happiness of human beings. It is instituted by God and not subject to alteration and/or interpretation by men. We cannot separate from our companion at leisure or at our pleasure. It is an offence against God to commit adultery and to destory our marriage. Divorce defeats the wisdom of the Eternal God and the entire purpose of marriage, i.e., the purity of the individual and the honorable introduction of children into society (1 Cor. 7:1-5; Psa. 127:3). God hath joined them together, they are one flesh, and man with all his wisdom, laws, and opinions cannot put them asunder. The holy, permanent relationship of love between two people pledged to each other for life exemplifies and becomes an illustration of the union between Jesus Christ and his redeemed body and saved souls, the church (Eph. 5:22-33). This union between a husband and wife is worthy of the wisdom and knowledge and justice of him who cannot err. It is for the comfort and happiness of those who enter into it. Marriage purifies and perpetuates the tenderest affections of which humans are capable. It inspires, hope, prompts virtue, gives strength to endure hardships of fife, and gives contentment to the souls of those who participate in it as our Father has taught us. Peace, moderation, kindness, compassion, patience and understanding are some of the fruits of a good marriage. Yet there are those who will lightly and unscripturally teach and tell people that their marriages may be dissolved at will, without any heart-felt remorse and repentance, and can enter into a union with someone else, when everything that our Father and our Savior, Jesus, taught us militates against the very idea.

Adultery and divorce mean fraud, deceit, seduction, wicked villainy, and inflict the greatest injury which an innocent husband or wife can experience this side of the grave. The prospects of happiness and comfort in this present world become overcast with the blackest darkness. Life is changed to a lingering death. A house is turned into an empty, premature tomb. Despair replaces hope, and peace and trust expire. “A singular and agonizing procession follows this funeral of departed virtue. Tears stream which no hand can wipe away. Groans ascend which no comforter can charm to peace. Bosoms heave with anguish, which all the balm of Gilead cannot soothe. The object of lamentation is gone forever, and all that remains is living death. Ah, how shall we paint the evils of adultery? The social compact, through every fibre, trembles at its consequences: not only policy, but law; not only law, but nature; not only nature, but religion, deprecate and denounce it: parents and offspring – youth and age – the dead from the tombs – the child from its cradle – creatures scarce alive, and creatures still unborn – the grandshire shivering on the verge of death – the infant quickening in the mother’s womb – all, with one assent, re-echo God, and execrate adultery!” (Charles Phillips, in the case of Brown vs. Blake)

There are such marriages as “adulterous” marriages. Jesus said so (Matt. 5:32; 19:3-9). There is such a sin as “living in adultery.” Paul said so (Col. 3:5-7). These were not single, unmarried people “living in” these sins. King Herod and Herodias were “living in” such an adulterous marriage and it was not lawful (Matt. 14:1-12; Mk. 6:14-29). They are not the only and last ones to do so! If people are to repent, they must change their minds, quit “living in” sinful relationships, and engage only in true, pure, scriptural activities (Matt. 3:2,6,8,11; 4:17; 11:21-22; 12:38-41; 21:28-32; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 13:1-5; 24-46-47; Acts 2:37-41; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30-3 1; 26:20; Rom. 2:1-16; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 2:6-8; 7:8-12; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 6:6; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 2:5,16,21-22; 3:3,19; 9:20-21). If we will not repent, we will perish. Repentance involves renewal of the mind, reformation, restitution and restoration, insomuch and insofar as is humanly possible (Lk. 19:8; Exod. 22:1,3,4,5,6,7,9,12,14; Prov. 6:31).

There are brethren who are now beginning to find room for questionable and/or adulterous marital unions, and for teachers and doctrines which uphold and give credence to such unions, in Romans 14. This is an abuse and a major misuse of this chapter. This chapter deals with matters of opinions, personal scruples, customs, and views which will neither save nor damn the soul in God’s sight. Matters of Romans 14 are not to be disputed about and made tests of fellowship (v. 1; 15:1-4): Eating or not eating certain foods (v. 2-3); observing or not observing certain days (vv. 4-5); circumcising or not circumcising (Acts 16:3; Gal. 5:6); taking vows or not taking vows (Acts 18:18); conforming to custom or not conforming to custom (Acts 21:18-30). The meeting in Jerusalem settled once for all matters of indifference (Acts 15:1,5-6,24,28), and essential matters necessary to the salvation of the soul (Acts 15:19-20,29). Paul’s principles and practices, as delineated in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, are entirely consistent with Romans 14. Every child of God is to quietly observe his conscience (vv. 22-23). We are not to cause a brother to stumble by our scruples (vv. 20-21). God accepts his children and will make them stand (vv. 3,18). We shall all give account for our opinions, scruples, etc. (vv. 10-12). We are to be peaceable, build up the body of Christ, and not tear it down (vv. 13,15,19-21). Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit characterize our service and citizenship in God’s kingdom. To “all speak the same thing, and 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) is the ideal to strive for, and each of us is to endeavor to think this way and work for that unity which such thoughts and practices produce (Eph. 4:1-3; Phil. 2:2-4,14-15; Col. 3:12-15; Rom. 14:17-19). The cause of truth would better be served if there were no opinions, scruples, conscientious convictions, customs, and matters of human judgment as are regulated in Romans 14. But such problems have ever been present among brethren, and, I suppose, ever will be. They are always a hinderance, not a help, to the cause of Christ. Romans 14 governs and regulates such conditions and circumstances.

Adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, uncleanness, idolatry, denominationalism, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Mariolatry, Popery, sprinkling for baptism, infant church membership, instrumental music in worship, centralization of churches in super-centralized boards and elderships, human institutions as adjuncts to the Lord’s churches, the social gospel, etc., along with marriages which violate God’s revealed will, can never be acceptable areas of inclusion and discussion as lawful and legitimate matters regulated by principles of Romans 14.

Would to God that all of us could and would speak as one mind and one voice, according to God’s revealed will, on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. If ever there was a time when the world needs clear, unvarnished, plain truth of the New Testament, it is now. If ever there was a time when churches of our Lord need to be pure within, and set forth an example of righteousness in word and deed, it is now. If ever there was a time when sinners could find rest and peace to their souls through the power of God in the gospel, and comfort of the Spirit in fellowship with godly men and women, it is now. If ever God gave humans the privileges and opportunities of preaching the gospel to all the world of lost souls, it is now. But if our sounds be uncertain, and if we believe and/or think that God’s word cannot be understood, on marriage as well as any other vital subject, then we are destined, as a body of people, to degenerate into a warring, factious, fractious, sect which has nothing to offer a sin-cursed world but confusion and chaos. Let us discuss the truth among ourselves, if need be, in brotherly kindness and patience. No one of us knows everything and no one of us has all the answers. God does. So we must, each of us, try to study, learn and understand his will. Then each of us will have to determine who we will fellowship, and each local congregation will have to determine who will be fellowshipped and who will not. And then we shall all answer to our Father and our Judge, Jesus Christ, at the last day for all that we thought, said, taught and practiced while here we lived, trying to do his will as best we could. May he be merciful to us all now – and at that last great day.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 1, 33-35
January 4, 1990