Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

When a couple gets a divorce for the cause of fornication, can the guilty party scripturally remarry? While a number of brethren have answered that question in the affirmative, our Lord answers in the negative (Matt. 19:9). The idea that some have is this: if the guilty is no longer married to the innocent, then the guilty party is free to remarry. The advocates of this position think that if one of the parties is loosed, both are loosed, thus allowing a scriptural remarriage.

In this article we want to consider the basic problem that the advocates of this position have, reasons why the guilty party cannot remarry and a few of the efforts made to justify this position.

Confusion On The Marriage And The Bond

The basic problem with the position that says that the guilty party can remarry is that it confuses the marriage and the bond. I have not seen anything from any of the advocates of this position that indicates they think the marriage and the bond are distinct. They believe that the marriage and the bond are the same. Thus, if a couple is no longer married, they are no longer bound to each other. To apply it to the case of the guilty party, since the put away fornicator is no longer married, it is thought that he is no longer bound and is free to remarry.

Romans 7:2-3 shows that there is a difference in the marriage and the bond. The woman in this text is bound to her first husband even though she is married to another. This bond is the reason that the second marriage is adulterous. Marriage is a relationship entered into by agreement and ratified by compliance with civil law. The bond is a covenant with God that joins one to his mate.

It is possible to be bound to one and married to another. Such is the case in Romans 7:2-3. The woman is “bound by the law to her husband” even though she is “married to another man.” It is also possible for one to be released from the yoke and the other party not. Matthew 19:9 says that the man who puts away his wife for fornication may script rally marry another. Thus, he is loosed. However, the one who marries the woman who is put away commits adultery. Thus, she is still bound. God has loosed the innocent who has put away his mate for fornication. God has not loosed the guilty (Matt. 19:9).

When Jack married Jill, God yoked (joined) them together (Matt. 19:6). However, when Jack put Jill away for fornication, God released him from the yoke, while Jill is still yoked (bound, Matt. 19:9).

When the confusion concerning the marriage and the bond is cleared up, the fact that the guilty party cannot scripturally marry can be easily seen.

The Guilty Party Is Not Authorized To Remarry

If we have any respect for the Lord and his authority, we understand that to act without authority is a sin (2 Jn. 9). We cannot afford to be presumptuous, thinking that God’s silence is permission to act. Hebrews 7:14 illustrates the principle that God’s silence is prohibitive (there is no authority), not permissive. Jesus could not be a priest on earth for he was of the tribe of Judah “of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.”

God has authorized the innocent party to put away his/her mate for fornication and remarry (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). There is no passage that authorizes the put away fornicator to remarry! Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10: 11-12 and Luke 16:18 do not grant such a right. Nor does any other passage provide the needed authority. To use human reasoning won’t do. To say that no passage forbids it won’t work. We must respect the authority of God in this area as well as in the work, organization and worship of the church. I oppose the guilty party remarrying on the same basis as I oppose instrumental music in worship – no authority!

The Guilty Party Is Forbidden To Remarry

Not only does the Bible not authorize remarriage for the guilty party, but it emphatically forbids it.

Jesus stated that when a put away one remarries he commits adultery. “. . . and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32b). “. . . and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9b). “. . . and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18).

Carefully note that there is no exception phrase in this clause just quoted. The exception is the first clause applies to the one who puts his mate away. Obviously, when the put away one remarries, he commits adultery.

Efforts Made To Justify The Guilty Party Remarrying

It is argued that fornication severs the marriage at the point it is committed. Thus, we are told that when the marriage is dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty and the guilty is no longer married to the innocent. Thus, both are free to remarry. Lloyd Moyer, among others, argued this point. “The marriage ceases to be that which God ordained when one of the two parties of the marriage joins his body to that of someone other than the person to whom he is married” (Frost-Moyer Exchange, p. 8). Moyer developed his argument further by saying, “When a marriage is thus dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty, nor is the guilty any longer married to the innocent. No marriage exists. Where no marriage exists, the parties may marry someone else” (Ibid., p. 10).

Again, Moyer and all those that advocate that the guilty party can remarry confuse the marriage and the bond. He assumes that if they are no longer married, they are no longer bound. We have already demonstrated otherwise.

Fornication is the cause and not the divorce itself. Jesus said that a man could put his wife away “for fornication.” The fornication is committed before the divorce takes place. Otherwise, a man could commit fornication and his wife would be unmarried and not even know it. Thus, she unknowingly would be living with a man to whom she is not even married. How absurd!

Glen W. Lovelady argued that the put away fornicator could not commit adultery if he is no longer married to his first mate. “Preachers today are feeling the force of the question, how could the put away fornicator commit adultery, if he remarried, not having a spouse? . . . If he is not bound and he marries one who is free to marry, how could he commit adultery? ” (Bible Forum, November 1977, Vol. 1, no. 3, p. 11) Lovelady makes the same mistake that Moyer made which is a failure to distinguish the marriage and the bond. He assumes that if the guilty party is no longer married (because he has been put away) that he is no longer bound. Such is an assumption without proof. Since there is no authority for the guilty party to remarry and he is forbidden by Matthew 19:9 to do so, we must conclude that God has bound him and not loosed him to remarry. Yes, it is true that he is not married. However, that doesn’t mean that he is not bound. Don’t forget that Romans 7:2-3 demonstrates that there is a distinction in the marriage and the bond. Using the same logic I could argue that the one who puts his wife away for a cause other than fornication can remarry. I could reason that he is no longer married since he put his spouse away. Thus, he is free to remarry. To the contrary, Jesus said that, when he remarries, he commits adultery (Matt. 19:9).

It has been argued that if the innocent is loosed, the guilty is automatically loosed as well. Such illustrations as the following have been given. “Tie your two hands together and let each hand represent one of the two parties to a marriage. Cut the string. Which hand is freed? Both!” (Roland H. Worth, Jr., Divorce And Remarriage, p. 11) The man and his wife are not the only elements in the bond. Romans 7:2-3 tells us that God’s law (one mate for life) binds the two together. The two are bound by God’s law to each other. One mate could be free while the other is still bound by the law. So, if we want to use the illustration of a rope, we would have the man and his wife tied together, but also to the law of God. Thus, if a man is untied (due to his wife’s fornication) she is still tied by the law of God.

There has been an effort to re-define adultery to prove that those entering any second marriage can continue in that marriage and not separate. Olan Hicks argues that the word translated adultery “refers to the act of remarrying itself” (What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Nashville: 1978, p. 28). Hicks further argued, “This establishes, if we take precisely what the scriptures say, omitting human opinion entirely, that the ‘adultery’ which is to be repented of in this case, consists of two actions, ‘putting away’ and ‘marrying another'” (Ibid., p. 29). Again Hicks wrote, “Does the adultery Jesus spoke of occur when one puts away his wife and marries another or does it occur later when he cohabits with the second wife? How can we insist that it is the later when Jesus specifically said it was the former?” (Ibid., p. 28) Hicks says the same thing in his new and expanded book by the same title (What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Joplin, 1987, pp. 149-161). Truman Scott argued the same basic position in his debate with Wayne Jackson in 1982 (Divorce & Remarriage – A Study Discussion, Stockton: 1983).

This redefining of adultery lends comfort to the advocates that say that the guilty party can remarry. When he does remarry he does not commit adultery by continuing to live with that mate.

The term adultery is not used that way in the Bible. Jesus said that a man who looks upon a woman and lusts after her has committed adultery in his heart (Matt. 5:28). Was he fantasizing about breaking the covenant (divorcing and remarrying) or sexual relations? In John 8 the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus whom they said was caught in the “very act” of adultery (v. 4). Was she caught in the act of divorcing and remarrying (breaking wedlock) or in the sexual act? Ezekial 16 tells the parable of the unfaithful wife. What verse 32 calls “adultery” the context calls “fornication” (v. 15), harlotry (vv. 15-16), “whoredom” (w. 25-26), and taking “strangers instead of her husband” (v. 32). Furthermore, there is no lexicon or passage that would justify this arbitrary definition of adultery.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 17-18
January 4, 1990

By Tom M. Roberts

It has been suggested by sectarians and brethren alike that any use of human reasoning ability in arriving at an understanding of the Bible makes any such conclusions suspect. We are told that no one should bind any other than direct statements as limits of fellowship. Specifically, inferences and examples are to be excluded as binding authority from the Scriptures because we must use human intellect to tell which, if any, examples and inferences have that binding force. This use of the human intellect, we are told, thrusts any conclusions we reach into the realm of opinion and should never be made a test of fellowship. Among sectarians, it is stated thusly: “No one can see the Bible alike. You interpret it your way and I will interpret it my way. One way is just as good as another. ” Among brethren, there is a call for a “new hermeneutic” which would exclude a but direct commands or statements and which would permit the same situation as that describing the sectarians. In fact, some brethren are rejecting any “doctrine” as important, accepting only the deity of Christ as a limit to fellowship. The argument common to both groups is that our reasoning is faulty, unity upon God’s word is impossible and that fellowship must be inclusive of every position short of the rejection of Jesus’ deity. While sectarians have occupied this position for centuries (resulting in permissiveness toward every kind of error), it is disconcerting to see brethren embrace such a fallacy. We need to see clearly that God has required the use of human reasoning in understanding his will.

Absolute Truth

If truth is relative (subjective), each man is right in what he believes, regardless of the Bible or of the belief of others. Humanism advocates the relativity of truth to the individual and his circumstances. They aver that stealing is wrong only if you believe it to be wrong; abortion is wrong only if it hurts your conscience; incest is wrong only if it is wrong for you (however, it might be right for another). To them, “man is the measure of all things.” Truth, therefore, is to be changed to fit the circumstances.

But the truth is not relative, it is absolute (objective). The world is round even if I maintain that it is flat. Baptism is for the remission of sins whether I understand that, disagree, or have never heard about it. Jesus Christ is the Son of God whether I concur or not. In other words, truth does not need my permission or consent to be truth. It is truth and will be truth with or without my acceptance or obedience.

God has spoken (Heb. 1:1,2). His spoken Word is truth (Jn. 8:32; 16:13). And God requires of me that I understand his word. “Whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the win of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). “And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). Such Scriptures could be multiplied: Jude 3; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Peter 1:3; Galatians 1:6-8; 2 John 9-11, et al.

Lest I be charged with believing in “perfectionism” (that one knows every answer to every question), let me state that God’s word has built into it an area in which brethren may hold different judgments (opinions) and still be in fellowship (Rom. 14), but that we must agree on matters of faith (Jude 3). But many are guilty of relegating every item of faith into the. area of opinion, making nonsense of the gospel of Christ.

If truth is absolute (arid it is), then I must seek to understand it lest I fall short of what God has said to us. And it should be noted, that absolute truth has been given to mankind for his benefit. It is relevant to our needs, given by inspiration to safe-guard its contents, having a purpose (the salvation of our souls), and it will judge us (Jn. 12:48). It is folly to say that man cannot understand the instruction given specifically to us by God. Is God not able to speak to us on our level, in an understandable manner? Is he not able to create a creature capable of receiving communication from his Maker? Either view is an indictment of God and his wisdom and/or ability. As the pioneer preacher Benjamin Franklin put it, “The Bible as it is, is addressed to man as he is, that he might become what God would have him to be.” Yes, brethren, I am charged with understanding the will of God and it requires of me that I use the native intelligence placed there by God at the creation. Adam understood more than the deity of God. He understood the revelation of the divine will and was held accountable for the violation of it. There was no one around to tell Adam that eating the forbidden fruit was right if he thought it to be right, except the Devil. The same God has spoken to the descendants of Adam and we had better listen, for we are accountable.

Reason Limited Only to Direct Statements?

It is affirmed that we are able to understand direct statements and commands by our human reasoning but not examples or inferences. “Inferences,” we are told, require human reasoning to decide when one is “necessary.” Also, we have to decide when one example is binding and another is not. Therefore, since we have difficulty in deciding, it is concluded that it is impossible to decide. Like the foolish mother that threw the baby out with the bath water, some would throw out all inferences and examples.

But before we deal with inferences and examples, let us back up a step. Is it not true also that we must use human reasoning with direct statements and commands as well? Are all commands binding on us today? What about the Ten Commandments? If you do not bind the Sabbath today, why not? Did you have to use some reasoning ability to determine that the law of Moses is not bound today? Have you burned any incense or killed any animals as sacrifices lately? Why not? Do you tithe? Do you observe Passover? Why not? But, more basic than that, since your name is not found anywhere in the Bible, how did you reason to the position that you have any obligations at all toward God? Should only the ancients serve God?

The point that I am making should be plain. Human reasoning is a necessity in determining which commands or positive statements, or, in fact, if any of the Bible is bound on us today. To state otherwise is to make the Bible into an absurdity, and it is not the Bible that is absurd.

As proof that God requires the use of human reason in understanding inferences, some passages should be considered. When the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus about the resurrection, he rebuked them for not reasoning and making an indifference from what God implied. “But Jesus answered and said unto di6n, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. . . Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:29-32). That “God was not the God of the dead, but of the living” was an inference that the Sadducees should have drawn from Scripture was obvious. Should it be less obvious to us? Ignore this at your own peril: God holds us accountable when he implies something that we should infer.

The parables also teach by inference. In Matthew 21:33-45, the Pharisees “perceived” that he spake of them (v. 45). Many of the parables contain implications by God that we should understand.

In Hebrews 7:11-17, it is implied that the silence of the Scriptures is binding. I have seen some treat this principle with disdain, but the objective truth contained there will stand the carping of modern Sadducees. The people to whom the writer addressed the letter understood the point, as should any person who has read the Law. Jesus could not be priest on earth. Why? Was there a command that excluded him? No, but an inference was there that he could not serve since Moses “spake nothing” of the tribe of Judah serving, Was this inference any less binding than a stated command? Did it require human reasoning to understand it?

As for apostolic examples, it is readily admitted that not all examples give binding authority for us today. But are you sure that none of them do? Paul said, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). “1 beseech you therefore, be ye followers of me” (1 Cor. 4:16). “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:6). “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14).

Were the first century Christians not discerning enough to know that they had no responsibility to follow churches that did wrong (like Corinth) or apostles that did wrong (like Peter)? Don’t you believe they could tell the difference and follow Paul “as he followed Christ”? If not, what is the force of these passages exhorting them to “follow” others? Were they not to follow Paul because he was right? And was he not right because he followed Christ? Would this be a sufficient background command to bind the example on early Christians? Or on us?

“Now these things were our examples” (1 Cor. 10:6). “. . . leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). “. . so walk, even as ye have us for an example” (Phil. 3:17). Who says that examples do not bind? Did you learn it from these verses?

Yes, it takes reasoning power to know that we should follow some examples and not follow others. Some examples are good and some are bad, but we can know the difference. Also, some examples are of incidentals and some are binding. But we can tell the difference because of the Scriptures and because of the reasoning ability that God gave us.

Reverse the Process

If you disagree about the binding force of examples and inferences because it takes the ability to reason (and our reasoning may be faulty), then you must also apply this argument to direct statements and commands. I challenge you to be consistent. And if commands have no binding force, let us face it, the Bible is vain and empty and our faith is ludicrous.

Either the Bible leads and guides through the power of the Holy Spirit in an intelligible manner or it does not. God has addressed man on a level commensurate with his ability to comprehend or he hasn’t. Truth is absolute or it is not. The choice is clear. “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 749-750
December 21, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote. Cyril Ponnamperunis, review of Francis Crick, Life Itself. Its Origin and Nature, in New Scientist, 13 May 1982, p. 435.

We have been, considering some of the alternatives proposed to replace the concept that the universe was created by a Divine being. Modem hypotheses which attempt to do so usually postulate some chemical broth and/or make unprovable assumptions about the supposed nature of the early atmosphere – and still aren’t able to explain how the early atmosphere or chemicals came to be to begin with, thus begging the question. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, attempting to calculate the likelihood of such events occurring came to the conclusion that “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now . . . cannot decide” such chemical origins are probable or impossible; indeed, “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. . . ” (Life Itself, p. 88).

In truth, Crick’s “profound insight into the processes of molecular biology and his awareness of the difficulties” are, in the words of Cyril Ponnamperuma, a tacit admission that “it is not a problem that can be solved by scientific methods in terrestrial laboratories” (New Scientist, 13 May 1982, p. 435). Such difficulties lead Crick to postulate the doctrine of “panspermia” (i.e., that the seed of life are everywhere in the universe), which Crick thinks may have “traveled in the head of an unmanned spaceship sent to earth by a higher civilization which had developed elsewhere” (Life Itself, pp. 15-16).

Ponnamperuma (director of the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution at the University of Maryland, noted for work done with the Murchison meteorite) notes that “with great frankness, Francis Crick tells us that his wife described his book as science fiction.” Adds Ponnamperuma, “I cannot help but agree with her.” Others, this author included, will add a hearty “Amen.”

One can begin to appreciate the difficulty of accepting ideas postulated by those who reject faith in a Creator as an explanation for the origins of life when one recognizes the improbability (or even impossibility) of demonstrating by the canons of science as we know it how life began in a naturalistic manner. Especially is this true of Crick’s “panspermia” – the concept that life began elsewhere and was transported to earth in space ships. Leaving aside the question of how one could ever test such a hypothesis in any conclusive way, we wonder: If some “creationist” were to postulate something as ludicrous and unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of scientific data, wouldn’t he be laughed off the stage?

But whether you think panspermia is science fiction highly likely, it ought to be obvious that it only makes the problem of human knowledge of the origins of life even greater. If we cannot determine through scientific discovery what happened on this planet, how on earth (pardon the pun) can we discern how it arose elsewhere? Such concepts remove any knowledge based on the principles of scientific discovery.

Of course, one could accept the concept (also unprovable by scientific methodology) that God created the heaven and the earth. Why is that more difficult to believe than panspermia, or chemical evolution, each of which require large doses of pure faith to accept? Ponnamperuma’s review of Life Itself (13 May 1982 New Scientist, p. 435) summarizes it nicely: “If life did not begin on earth by natural processes, unless of course we subscribe to the concept of special creation, life must have originated somewhere else and colonized the earth.”

Why should two of these views, which derive as much from metaphysics as physics, and require as much credulity to accept as the idea of Divine creation “in the beginning,” be any more acceptable to modern minds than theism? We are reminded of a statement attributed to the British scientist, Sir Arthur Keith. Speaking of what may be called the “general theory” of evolution (the moleculesto-man theory), Keith is reported to have said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable; the reason it is acceptable is because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.”

It is certainly not out of order for anyone to hold a view of origins which may correspond to some aspects of current scientific theory but which also relies greatly on faith. But don’t call that “science” – or look down your nose at someone else’s view of origins as less “scientific.” You might get a “Crick” in your neck.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 748
December 21, 1989

By Rick Duggin

Recent years have seen an epidemic of preachers who have been caught in less than honorable circumstances. Bob Harrington, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart are notable examples of men who preached one standard as they practiced another.

The May 29 issue of The Daily News journal featured a story concerning the present problems of some men who are connected with The Sword of the Lord, a Baptist paper which is published within one-half block of my house. Robert Sumner, an editor of a rival paper, has accused The Sword of the Lords circulation manager of adultery, prompting him to resign.

Even more serious are Sumner’s charges against Jack Hyles, a member of The Sword of the Lord’s board of directors, chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College, and preacher of a church in Indiana which boasts the “largest Sunday school in the world.” Sumner alleges that Hyles has misappropriated funds and that he has carried on an improper relationship with a woman for 15 years.

Curtis Hutson, editor of The Sword of the Lord, has responded to Sumner’s allegations by denouncing him as a known liar whose motives in this matter are based on jealousy.

It is not my intention in this article to take sides with Sumner or with Hutson. I wish that both of the accused men could be proven innocent of the charges against them. The interesting part concerns Mr. Hutson’s response to Sumner’s accusations.

On April 10, 1982, I purchased a copy of Robert Sumner’s booklet, Does the Bible Teach That Water Baptism Is a Necessary Requirement for Salvation? After thoroughly studying this diatribe, I too had reached the conclusion that Mr. Sumner has difficulty in accurately representing the positions of religious opponents, not to mention his acute difficulty in properly handling the word of God. (I will provide documentation of this fact for interested readers.)

Apparently I have been more charitable with Robert Sumner than Mr. Hutson has been. I was willing to assume that Mr. Sumner had carelessly passed along inaccurate information to his readers without making an effort to verify his claims. I have never referred to him as a Har. I’m sure Mr. Hutson knows him much better than I do. If Baptist doctrine were true, however, Mr. Sumner would not need to be overly concerned with Mr. Hutson’s estimate of his character. Baptist doctrine says that once a man is saved, he cannot fall from grace. Sam Morris, whose articles are sometimes featured in The Sword of the Lord, explained the doctrine this way:

We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of his soul. . . All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all, the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger. . . The way a man lives has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of his soul (Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?, pp. 1,2).

Mr. Hutson says that Robert Sumner is a known liar. But Baptist doctrine affirms that lying will not endanger the soul of the child of God. According to this teaching, Mr. Sumner will be in heaven in spite of his lies, just as every adulterous Baptist will be in heaven in spite of his adultery.

Now, contrast Revelations 21:8: “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.- which is the second death.”

How can Mr. Hutson reconcile Baptist doctrine with Revelation 21:8? Sword of the Lord writers emphatically declare that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Dear reader, does Revelation 21:8 mean that all liars will be lost or that some liars will be lost? By the time the advocates of Baptist doctrine gets through “explaining” this passage, it will say the opposite of what it really says! So much for literal interpretations!

Mr. Hutson, is Robert Sumner a saved liar or a lost liar? If saved, the Bible must be wrong in teaching that all liars will be lost. If lost, then what has become of your Baptist doctrine? Dear friends, forsake this glaring falsehood and believe the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 752
December 21, 1989