Truth Magazine

By Bill Hall

Introduction:

A. Divorce is increasing in our society at an alarming rate. This is true, not just in society generally, but also among Christians.

B. What God has said on the subject seems hard in our day, but however hard it may seem to be, it is for our good (Deut. 10: 12,13).

C . It is the purpose of this series of lectures to examine God’s teaching, along with some of the theories of men, in relation to these matters.

Discussion:

1. Definition of marriage: A God-approved marriage takes place when two eligible people, having met legal requirements for marriage, are joined together by the Lord as husband and wife.

A. “Two eligible people.” Three types of people are eligible for marriage:

1. Those never married.

2. Those whose companions are dead (Rom. 7:2,3).

3. Those who have put away companions for the cause of fornication (Matt. 19:9).

B . “Having met legal requirements.” Christians are subject to the laws of the country and state in which they live (Tit. 3:1).

C. “Joined together by the Lord” (Matt. 19:3-6). (Observe terms used suggesting the permanence of marriage: “cleave, ” “one flesh, ” “God hath joined, ” “let not man put asunder;” also “bound” in Rom. 7:2,3.)

II. The term “eligible” implies that there are those who are ineligible for marriage.

A. Two types of people are ineligible for marriage:

1. Those who have put away their companions for some cause other than fornication (Matt. 19:9).

2. Those who have been put away by their companions for any cause (unqualified by the Lord) (Matt. 19:9; 5:32).

B. If such people do marry, whenever they engage in sexual relations they commit adultery. Theirs is an immoral relationship. Their relationship can be described in the same words used by John to describe Herod in Matt. 14:4.

C. The apostles recognized the strictness of this teaching, and responded accordingly (Matt. 19:10).

D. We doubt that there would have ever been any problems relative to the meaning of these passages were it not for society’s total disregard for Christ’s teaching and the problems growing out of this disregard. The temptation to “water down” Jesus’ teaching, thus making the gospel more “palatable” for the immoral, has been great.

III. How forgiveness for adultery is obtained.

A. One obtains forgiveness for adultery in the same way as he obtains forgiveness for any other sin.

1. Through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism if he is an alien.

2. Through repentance, confession, and prayer if he is an erring Christian.

B. In either case, one must repent, and repentance involves:

1. Godly sorrow – this produces repentance (2 Cor. 7:10).

2. Change of heart – this is the action itself.

3. Reformation – this is the fruits of repentance (Matt. 3:8). Reformation would include both a ceasing of the practice and restitution whenever possible.

C. Illustration: A person repents of stealing. Reformation demands that he return the stolen property and quit stealing. If he cannot return the stolen property, he can quit stealing (Eph. 4:28).

D. When one repents of adultery, he may not be able to make full restitution (in most cases such is impossible), but he can quit the adulterous relationship, and repentance requires his doing so.

E. Someone may be thinking, “I just couldn’t do that; that’s asking too much.”

1. If you want to go to heaven badly enough, you can do anything. You could offer up your son or daugther if God so required; you could go to prison, never again to see the light of day; you could live separate from your family the rest of your days.

2. Every sin has its consequences and is hard to give up. The alcoholic has difficulty giving up alcohol; the gambler his gambling; the person caught up in an adulterous affair that does not have legal sanction has difficulty breaking that relationship.

3. Two passages to consider: Matt. 13:44-46; Luke 14:26,27.

4. You can do it! Other have done it!

IV. Theories which we reject in relation to divorce and remarriage, along with our observations.

A. There is no acceptable causefor divorce and remarriage. This theory holds that Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 19:9 was in reality an explanation of the law of Moses regarding divorce and remariage, and consequently was not applicable after his death on the cross; that Rom. 7:14 is the teaching of the gospel on the subject, and that there is no exception to be found in this passage.

1. We reject this teaching, for Jesus’ teaching is given in contrast to Moses’ teaching (Matt. 19:9).

2. Efforts to reconcile Jesus’ teaching with that of Moses in Deut. 24:1-4 prove futile:

a. According to Moses, a man could put away his wife for “some uncleanness” (not adultery, for an adultress was to be put to death – Deut. 22:22); while Jesus said he could do so only for the cause of fornication.

b. According to Moses, when the wife was put away, she could become another man’s wife; while Jesus taught that “whoso marrieth her that isput away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9, consider also Matt. 5:32).

3. Jesus frequently taught during his lifetime that which would be applicable during the gospel age (Jn. 14:26; Matt. 28:20).

4. The teaching of Rom. 7:14 is not primarily teaching concerning marriage, but is teaching concerning our death to the law as illustrated by marriage. An illustration requires only those details that are related to the point of truth being illustrated. In this case, the exception of Matt. 19:9 would have been irrelevant.

5. Our conclusion is that Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 19:9 is applicable to the gospel age; that in it he does give one exception in relation to divorce and remarriage; and that this teaching should be accepted along with all other teaching in the New Testament on the subject.

B. Alien sinners are not subject to God’s law concerning marriage. This theory holds that since alien sinners are not subject to God’s law on this matter, they can remarry again and again without sin; and that when they are baptized, they can continue to live with whatever partner they have at the time they are baptized. E.C. Fuqua wrote: “While in the world, people cannot be with or without ‘a scriptural cause’ for anything, seeing they are not under Christian law” (The Warren-Fuqua Debate, p. 24). Brother Fuqua goes on to say that people in the world are only under civil law.

1. We reject this theory, for the Scriptures clearly teach that alien sinners are held accountable for disobedience to God’s moral laws, including those which pertain to sexual immorality (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).

2. The teaching of Matt. 19:9, therefore, does apply to alien sinners. Those who have disregarded God’s marriage laws are adulterers, and they must cease their adulterous practices just as the thief must cease his stealing or the drunkard his drinking if they are to be saved.

C. The guilty party who has been put awayfor the cause of fornication is free to marry again. According to this position, when the innocent party marries again, the marriage bond is broken; the guilty party, therefore, being no more bound to the former companion is free to marry again.

1. We reject this position for lack of proof. We ask those who do hold to this position, “Are you sure that the inference you have drawn is a necessary inference?” “Can you really encourage the guilty party to marry again with absolute assurance that his marriage will be approved of God?”

2. We would teach the innocent that they can marry again, not because a bond is broken, but because Jesus specifically said that they could.

3. Jesus said, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9; see also Matt. 5:32). He made no exception concerning the one put away.

4. Jesus made one exception, that exception applying to the person putting away his companion for the cause of fornication. We dare not make another exception.

5. We express our conclusion in the words of Harold Comer: “The real argument to me says that the general rule of marriage is that no one may divorce and remarry. The only exceptions to that are those who specifically are granted the right of divorce and remarriage. In Matthew 19:9, it is the ‘putting away’ party, i.e. the innocent party, who is given authority to divorce and remarry. The innocent may divorce and remarry not because the marriage is broken by the fornication but because their divorce and remarriage is specifically allowed or authorized by God. That says that the limitations of marriage still bind the ‘guilty party’ as they still bind everyone else, since all the rest of us remain under the general rule prohibiting divorce and remarriage. The guilty party is given no exception and therefore there is no authority for divorce and remarriage on the part of anyone except the innocent, ‘putting away’ party” (The Godly Family in a Sick Society, Florida College Annual Lectures, 1979, p. 58).

D. Adultery on the part of the one person in a marriage severs the marriage bond, freeing both parties to remarry. According to this position, (1) the guilty party can remarry, and (2) adultery automatically severs the marriage bond. The reasoning then goes like this: a man puts away his wife for some cause other than fornication, and marries another; the first time they engage in sexual relations, they commit adultery; but since that one act of adultery severs the original bond, so that he is no more more bound to this first companion, any subsequent sexual relations are not adulterous. He can continue living with the second companion without sin until one of them “commits adultery,” at which time that mariage will be severed.

Lloyd Moyer states it this way: “Any time one puts away his marriage companion without fornication (illicit or unlawful intercourse) and marries another, that person commits adultery when he has sexual intercourse (Matt. 19:9), and if the one who has been put away marries he is caused to commit adultery also (Matt. 5:32). This is true because the first marriage has not been dissolved by illicit or unlawful intercourse. That is why adultery is committed the first time one cohabits with any other than the person to whom he has first married. It is a case of a married person having unlawful sexual intercourse with someone other than husband or wife. We have already shown that by the very act (unlawful sexual intercourse) the first marriage is defiled, made unclean, or ‘adulterated.’ By this act the first marriage ceases to be that which God ordained. It is no longer the two people being ‘one flesh’; it has become three people being one flesh and God did not ordain this nor will he tolerate it. That first marriage has been destroyed by the sin of fornication (illicit or unlawful sexual intercourse). Since the first marriage has ceased to exist, how is it possible to adulterate that which does not exist? Though adultery was committed when they first joined themselves together in intercourse because they were still the husband or wife of someone else, subsequent sexual intercourse between them is not adultery. They are no longer the husband and wife of someone else. They are sinners because they have committed adultery. And by this sin of adultery they caused their previous marriage to be dissolved” (Frost-Moyer Exchange on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, p. 9).

1. The potential consequences of this position are frightening. According to such reasoning, if one’s wife on any occasion were to become unfaithful, his bond with her would be broken. She would no longer be his legitimate wife. As long as she continues this secret affair, he has no right to her. All relations with her are adulterous. He could, according to the theory, in total ignorance of her sin and the “broken bond,” continue committing “adultery” with her over a period of years, believing her to be his legitimate wife, and die with that stain of adultery on his soul. He dies, never having had sexual relations with anyone other than his wife, and yet dies an adulterer. He not only would have committed the sin in ignorance, he could not have possibly known that he was committing sin without her confession. In fact, according to the logical consequences of the theory, no man or woman could on any given occasion know with absolute certainty that he has a right to his own companion in marriage.

2. Fornication does not constitute an automatic severance of the marriage bond; it only constitutes a legitimate cause for putting away one’s companion and marrying another.

3. The wording of Matt. 19:9 renders this position impossible. Observe: The person “putting away” and marrying another commits adultery; also the one “put away,” if she marries again, commits adultery – adultery results in both actions. The word joining the two clauses is not “or,” but “and.” The theory under consideration would say, however, that if either had married again, the other could not be committing adultery, for the bond with the first companion would have been severed by that person’s marriage and subsequent fornication.

4. We raise some questions for which we have seen no clear-cut answers: Do those who accept this theory believe that a man by one act, and that the sinful act of adultery, both severs a former marriage and consummates a new one? When does God join the two in the new marriage – at the time of the ceremony? At the time when they commit adultery? Or at the time when they next have sexual relations?

5. We conclude that the premises on which this teaching is based cannot be sustained. It is our view that this theory is not an explanation of Jesus’ teaching, but a perversion and circumventing of his teaching.

E. A Christian whose unbelieving companion has departed is at liberty to marry again. This view is based on the expression “not under bondage” in 1 Cor. 7:15.

1. We reject this view, for the word “bondage” in this verse does not refer to the marriage bond. In fact, this word is not used anywhere in the Scriptures in reference to marriage. The Greek word for “bondage” in 1 Cor. 7:15 is douloo while the word for “bound,” used in reference to marriage in Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:27,39, is deo.

2. To what does the “bondage” of 1 Cor. 7:15 refer? We commend the following from the pen of Roy H. Lanier for your consideration: “Paul says the believer is not in such bondage as to obligate him to give up Christ and finally be lost . . . not in bondage to the unbeliever in order to make peace in the home. If the unbeliever makes such unreasonable demands, let him depart rather than be in such bondage to him. Such bondage we owe only to our Lord” (Gospel Advocate, August 18, 1949; quoted in “Divorce and Remarriage,” a tract by Alvin Jennings).

F. Each person is to abide in the same relationship wherein he was called. This position is based on the teaching of 1 Cor. 7:20. It is to be understood, however, that the relationship in which one is to abide is a legitimate relationship. As one would not continue to abide in a homosexual relationship or a polygamous relationship, neither would he continue to abide in an adulterous relationship.

V. Steps to be taken in the prevention of divorce and remarriage.

A. Sound teaching must be given regularly, not only on the evil of adultery, but also on the evil of divorce. Positive teaching must be given on the proper roles and attitudes of husbands and wives.

B. Those eligible for marriage must avoid dating and forming close relationships with those who are ineligible for marriage.

C. Those contemplating marriage must choose their companions carefully.

D. All must recognize the permanency of marriage and do all they can to make their home a success.

E. If one’s partner leaves him (or her), and he cannot put that partner away for fornication, let him resign himself to a life of celibacy, and live accordingly.

F. Where husbands and wives have separated, let them work toward a reconciliation, keeping in view the eternal happiness of one another.

Conclusion:

A. When one is joined by the Lord to a companion in marriage, only two possibilities exist for his ever marrying again with God’s approval: (1) death on the part of his companion, or (2) unfaithfulness on her (or his) part, in which case he may put her away for that cause, and marry another.

B. Let each respect God’s teaching in this matter and faithfully abide in it.

C. “Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled.- for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 595-597, 599
October 5, 1989

By Irvin Himmel

The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness (Prov. 16:31).

One can recognize easily the approach of the golden years by the silver in his hair. Of course, some older people dye their hair to conceal their age. And in some cases the hair turns loose rather than turning gray.

Righteousness and the Hoary Hair

1. A life of devotion to God. The individual who waits until he is nearing the setting of the sun before trying to break bad habits, obey God, and prepare for heaven has wasted valuable years, lost much power of influence, and gambled with his soul. In contrast, the person who turned to God in holy living in earlier years and has pursued godliness – that is the type of individual who has attained something worthwhile. In his advanced years he should be more God-like than ever.

2. Years of experience in useful living. The inferior creatures “profit neither by the wisdom, nor the follies of the past. The first robin built its nest of the same materials, and with as much art, as the robin does now. . . . Neither laid in the bird nor the bee has learned anything by experience, by study, or by observation, – nor lays up, to transmit to future generations of birds or bees, the results of its own sagacity or observation” (Albert Barnes). Man finds experience to be one of his most valuable teachers. The mistakes of the past are stepping stones to new heights. A long life of useful living gives one an accumulation of wisdom that can never be obtained without extended experience.

3. The beauty and grace of maturity. There is a kingly dignity that surrounds an aged saint. Venerable qualities are present in the life which is nearing its goal. “There is a glory and beauty in the field covered with the green blades of early spring, but the period of its perfection is not in the spring, but in the autumn, when the full corn in the ear stands ready for the sickle” (W. Harris).

4. The right to respect. The law of Moses said, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God” (Lev. 19:32). “There is something touching in the sight of hair whitened with the snows of many a winter: the old and faithful soldier receives consideration from his king, the venerable servant is beloved of his master” (C.H. Spurgeon).

5. Contemplation of eternal reward. Weary with his long journey, the aged Christian rejoices in the prospect of his house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Though the outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16). Paul the aged (Phile. 9) knew that the time of his departure was at hand when he wrote, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at the day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:6-8).

Some young people do not appreciate the aged among the saints. They fail to show the deference and courteous respect which the elderly are due. The New Testament says, “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder” (1 Pet. 5:5). Paul told the young preacher, Timothy, “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father; and the young men as brethren; The elder woman as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity” (1 Tim. 5:1,2).

Unrighteous and the Hoary Hair

Hoary heads are not always found in the way of righteousness. If old age “Be found in the way of wickedness, its honor is forfeited, its crown profaned and laid in the dust” (Matthew Henry).

It has been said that there is no fool like an old fool. Despite the wisdom which God has given him, Solomon in old age was brought to disgrace by his love for strange women. His wives “turned away his heart after other gods” (1 Kings 11:4). It is incredible that a man of Solomon’s stature would build high places in honor of such false gods as Chemosh and Molech. One never gets too old to have need of guarding against apostasy.

What a sad spectacle to witness an individual whose life is near its end cursing God, railing against righteousness, and influencing the young to serve Satan! That hoary head which could be a crown of glory becomes a crown of shame. The hair is white as snow but the soul is black as the outer darkness of hell itself!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, p. 588
October 5, 1989

By H.E. Phillips

The attitudes of preachers have gone far in destroying the effectiveness of gospel preaching. If any group should understand and appreciate the story of the cross it should be those men who devote their lives to the proclamation of the gospel of Christ. But it is sad to note that many of these men have departed from the simple gospel and no longer contend for the faith once delivered.

I call your attention to a few among preachers’ attitudes which have developed to hinder the progress of the Lord’s work.

1. The modern preacher has come to judge that only the “educated” can preach. I am not against secular education. I believe it is helpful in any work, but to say that only the “educated” can preach is a serious mistake. Some of the most effective and greatest preachers of the gospel had little more than an 8th grade education. No, they were not great in the wisdom of the world, but they knew what God’s word said.

Many are the congregations who will not allow one to preach who does not have a college education with at least two degrees. In this their only desire is to have an educated man to compete with the denominational world. Brethren, the gospel is enough. The gospel is powerful enough to silence any denominational preacher. One is a gospel preacher if he preaches the gospel of Christ, whether he has a “LL.D”, “D.D.” or “Ph.D.” or not.

2. The attitude of “big” and “little” preachers is a great hindrance to the cause of Christ. Never was such an idea further from the spirit of Christ than this one. There are a few preachers among us who have classed themselves as “big” preachers. The common is far below him in every respect. The picture of these “big” preachers is given in Luke 18:9-14 in the Pharisee who thought of himself so far above the humble publican. Every gospel preacher should follow Paul and count everything as loss (even “bigness”) that he may gain Christ. When any preacher, I care not how much ability he has, grows in his own estimation to be above others, he immediately loses his power as a gospel preacher.

3. A few preachers have the attitude toward the gospel that if they can originate some new thing in the church they become a leader of men and great in the sight of God. As someone has said: “Anything new is not true, and anything true is not new,” as applied to the gospel of Christ. A safe and sound gospel preacher is one who preaches just what the apostles preached by the power of the Spirit of God. Many departures from the truth originated in some preacher’s desire to become known among the brethren. A few clamorous preachers have succeeded in leading a few brethren into digression, but the truth is against them and they shall fall.

4. The attitude of some preachers is to please the congregation at all cost. They have a “job” and must keep it. Paul told of those to come who would not continue in sound doctrine, but would heap to themselves teachers to tickle their ears and soothe them in their sin. If the sin of adultery exists in a church the preacher must not preach against that. And so on it goes through the whole catalogue of sin.

It is rather amusing, but sad, to go many places and find the local preacher tactfully informing you certain things not to preach on. You can be sure that is the thing to preach on, for that congregation certainly needs it. A preacher who will sell out to a group of sinners for a salary is no better than Judas who sold the Lord into the hands of the enemy.

Brethren, the masses love the truth. I speak of the church. You may gain temporary favor of a few people in sin by such preaching, but you lose the favor of God. That is a bad deal. The truth is all that will save. Preach it in season and out of season, without fear or favor. If a church is in sin and asleep spiritually, do not hesitate for one moment to cry aloud against such sin. If you, as a preacher, are driven from the church, shake the dust from your feet and go on to other places with the same gospel truth. You will be assured that you love praise of God more than praise of man. We dare not “sugar-coat” or “soft-pedal” the power of God to save. Expose error wherever you find it, whether in the church or out. Do not be blinded by the love and praise of the spiritually dead.

5. Another attitude of many preachers is that of compromise. The “union” loving preachers, willing to concede a principle of truth to gain popularity, are very dangerous. There is not a possibility of the least bit of compromise with God’s truth. Christ prayed for unity among brethren upon the authority of his word. No other standard will do.

Recently in this column there appeared an article entitled “‘That They All Might Be One.” I received two or three letters referring to different parts of the article, calling in question “Premillennialism” and the “Word of God as the basis of unity.” It was suggested in one of these letters that a compromise with “antis,” “Premillennialists,” “instrument users” (Musical instruments), etc., could be effected by each giving a little and allowing each to believe and practice what he believes the Bible to teach. No preacher ought to have the audacity to sell a principle of truth to gain the favor of those in error. The Bible doesn’t teach a series of doctrines differing one from the other. It teaches just one doctrine – the doctrine of Christ. Where two differing doctrines are taught, one is necessarily wrong. To close our eyes to this and cry for a compromise is both cowardly and dangerous to our soul’s salvation. Do not yield a scriptural principle in compromise to obtain popularity and favor of men.

6. The last attitude I mention in this study is that of many preachers, especially young men, who are looking for a “soft job.” When someone tells you gospel preaching is easy you can mark it down that person doesn’t know what gospel preaching is. It is one of the hardest and most continuous works one can find. There is nothing easy about real gospel preaching.

This is the general idea of most church members. All a preacher has to do is preach no more than two 20 or 30 minute sermons on Sunday, teach a 30-minute class on Wednesday night, and “call on” a few of the members during the week. The rest of the time he has for pleasure and entertainment. Far too many preachers follow out this idea at many churches. They sleep until about noon every day, make a few “pastoral calls,” play golf or go fishing in the afternoon, attend a movie or some social party in the evening, and his day is finished. On Saturday he opens a “canned sermon” and is ready for Sunday. This is about as near gospel preaching as any denominational preacher gets.

A gospel preacher has about 12 to 18 hours each day, seven days a week, every week in the year, to work. Several hours each day should be spent in Bible study and prayer. Each sermon should be filled with convincing truth. Daily preaching and teaching should be done. Every opportunity, every available source should be used to tell the story of Christ.

When the attitude of the church as well as the preacher turns to the desire to save men and women from the awful suffering that is sure to come from a sinful and neglectful life, then the church will grow as in the days of the apostles. Let the elders, preachers and Christians demand an uncompromising, plain, simple, righteousness and forceful gospel without fear or favor. Then and only then will we invoke the blessings of Almighty God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 611-612
October 19, 1989

By Ron Halbrook

On the baseball field Pete Rose was a smashing success, but in the game of life Peter Edward Rose has been a crashing failure. Rose, dubbed “Charlie Hustle, ” played baseball with such zeal and abandonment that it seemed to be the only thing that mattered in his life. He holds 19 major-league records and is the all-time leading hitter.

The baseball Commissioner’s office faced Rose on 20 February 1989 with charges that he had violated baseball’s Rule 21 against misconduct which reflects on the game. Gambling has a corrupting influence on all sports and Rose was guilty on both legal and illegal gambling. After denying all charges on 20 February, in the face of evidence presented to him by the Commissioner’s office on 20-21 April he admitted betting on sports other than baseball. On 9 May the Commissioner’s investigator submitted evidence detailing 412 wagers by Rose between 8 April and 5 July 1987, including 52 bets on the Cincinnati Reds (the team managed by Rose from August 1984). The report concluded that Rose is an avid, high stakes gambler.

Finally, on 24 August the baseball Commissioner announced that Rose was banned from baseball for life for dishonoring the game. “The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is the sad end to a sorry episode,” Commissioner Giamatti said. “One of the game’s greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which have stained the game. And he must now live with the consequences of those acts” (Houston Chronicle, 25 Aug. 1988, p. IA).

Sports can provide clean recreation and reinforce such values as persistence and hard work toward a goal, but America has too often made sports into a religion and sports heroes into gods. Athletic prowess and fame are not the marks of a truly successful life. Writers for the Associated Press noted under the banner “Charlie Hustle: Once a hero, now a wilted Rose,” “With baseball came the fast lane – fast money, fast cars, fast women. It all seemed to end so fast, too” (BrazosportITX] Facts, 27 Aug. 1989, p. 2B). The seductive temptations and sinful passions of this world all-too-soon pass away, “but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 Jn. 2:15-17). If lasting happiness and satisfaction cannot be found in sports, where then are they found? “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13).

If gambling is the “clean,” “honest,” and “moral” activity it is claimed to be by its defenders, if it is “wholesome” family fun as is implied by churches and the Knights of Columbus who use it for fund raising, why does it have such a corrupting influence on sports and such a debilitating impact in the lives of people? If we truly love God, we must love our neighbor as ourself. This love is embodied in the law of God, teaching us, “Thou shalt not steal . . . . Thou shalt not covet. . . . Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Matt. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10).

Gambling corrupts and debases the soul because it violates the demands of love and respect for our fellow man. It is an exercise in covetousness which causes us to try to take base gain from others. Rather than trying to bless our fellow man while also feeding our own family, as is done in honest labor and in the honest exchange of goods and services, gambling is an effort to take and to get without regard to the welfare of others (Eph. 4:28). It is “every man for himself!” The more we exercise our hearts in such a philosophy, the more we become debased, immoral, and driven by ungodly passions.

This debasing influence is passed from one generation to another as the iniquities of the fathers are visited upon the children “unto the third and fourth generation” of them that disobey and hate God (Exod. 20:5). Where did Pete Rose learn his passion for gambling? A bartender in Pete’s old neighborhood in Cincinnati said, “Pete’s dad would bet on which cube of sugar a fly would land on” (Houston Chronicle, 25 Aug. 1989, p. 8C). Pete was devoted to his dad, who took him to the horse track when he was a small child. Like father, like son! Some of us fathers desperately need to wake up and begin leading our children in the paths of righteousness (Eph. 6:4).

Little League baseball can be an excellent activity for young boys, but it too is stained and dishonored in many communities by the use of raffles to raise money. “Raffle” comes from “a dice game” and means “a lottery in which the prize is won by one of numerous persons buying chances” (Webster). Little League can ask for donations as gifts based on love for our youth without enticing people to wager in the hope of getting a prize. The raffle is degrading to Little League, to our community spirit, and to the boys who are sent out selling tickets as the agents of a lottery.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 609, 631
October 20, 1989