Truth Magazine

By H.E. Phillips

Various attitudes characterize the preaching of the gospel of Christ. These various attitudes within the pale of the church of our Lord attest to our many failures in carrying out that great commission of Christ. Many of this age “have a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” as was in the apostolic days, from such we should turn away (2 Tim. 3:5). Our attitude toward obedience is just as important as the obedience itself. We should be cautious that our motive in obedience be pure, for the secrets of men will be made manifest in the last day.

In suggesting some of the various attitudes that disrupt the preaching of the gospel, permit me to read a verse or two from the Philippian letter. “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:15-17).

Now for some of the attitudes of the church toward preaching the gospel of Christ.

1. Some suppose the gospel to be a philosophical system of teaching to support any religious organization. In this anything that cannot be explained by man’s reason is not considered a part of the gospel. But Paul assures us that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God (1 Cor. 1:25-27). Certainly, the world’s greatest philosophers were Christ and his apostles, but the gospel of Christ contains much more than just philosophy by which men glory.

The weakness of this attitude is shown in many congregations who insist that “their minister” be a great philosopher. They seem to think that makes a great gospel preacher, but it doesn’t.

2. The attitude that the gospel doesn’t criticize anyone, but only deals with the “love of God. ” These people cry aloud: “Don’t say anything to hurt the feelings of my neighbors and friends.” Brethren, it is virtually impossible for a sound gospel preacher to stay long with a congregation with this attitude. Christ nor his apostles could have preached to them. Stephen would have suffered the same fate with them as he did at the hands of those wicked Jews. We will have something to say about the preachers who soothe such people later in this study. Paul told of such attitudes in his letters to Timothy. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3,4). The sad part is there are too many preachers and elders who will gratify this desire. This attitude is destructive both to the church and the community.

3. To the opposite extreme is that group whose attitude toward the gospel is that one must be feuding with his brethren to be sound and faithful. To those of this group the gospel is a very harsh and abusive system of teaching. These churches do not want a preacher unless he is able to “cuss and fight” in a scriptural (?) way. I have yet to find an example in the Bible where any gospel preacher so abused his charge as to wrangle his brethren in the church continually by abusive language. When Christ was reviled, he reviled not again. The gospel does not necessitate abusive and unkind language.

Do not get the wrong impression in this, the gospel is not a soft compromising system. There is much “fight” in the gospel, and to preach it requires a fight to the end. But this fight is not of a personal nature, but between the powers of darkness and the King of glory. Christ died and gave the gospel because he loved men even though they were in sin. A Christ-like spirit in preaching the gospel is to do so in love for the souls of men, but with not the least idea of compromising with error. The proper attitude of the church should be to preach the gospel in kindness and love, but in a firm, steadfast and uncompromising manner. Denounce sin without partiality or favor, but do not become so arrogant and selfrighteousness as to forget the spirit of Christ.

4. Another attitude is that the gospel is only for the popular and important in a community. So many churches today strive to convert the rich and elite to the neglect of the poor and humble of the community. Surely we should strive to convert all men who will listen to the good news of Christ, but the attitude that some are more important than others in the sight of God is a grave mistake. God, is no respecter of persons, neither should we be. The gospel is of universal application, and the attitude that is limited to a few is wrong. Let us put away this disposition from among us.

5. Some people look at the gospel as a scheme to make money. This attitude has grown out of the emphasis placed upon money in denominational institutions. Many Christians are so much like Israel of old. They want to be like the nations around them. There is a continual effort to copy the attitudes of various denominations.

But I do not believe this is the only or most outstanding reason for this attitude. There are so many tightfisted, selfish and covetous members of the church that there is needed much preaching on this subject. A faithful gospel preacher will preach on that which is lacking in a congregation more than on that part which is well established, as Nehemiah of old did in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 1-6). These money-loving church members hate to hear the truth preached regarding giving to the Lord so much that they have cultivated the attitude mentioned here.

Friends, the gospel of Christ is not a money raising scheme, but the power of God unto salvation. However, the gospel demands every Christian to give of his prosperity willingly and regularly, and no one can worship God pleasingly without obeying this requirement.

5. Another attitude – the gopel is negative only. “Thou shalt not” do this or that. Many feel that if they don’t steal, murder, lie, commit adultery, etc., they are all right. Brethren, the gospel is as much positive as it is negative. Jesus said: “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). This is enough to include all that the Father has commanded us to do and also refrain from that which is evil. It is not enough not to do this or that. We must do positively what the Father commands of us.

Many churches have rocked themselves to sleep spiritually by assuring one another that “we do not do this or that. ” As Christ sent word to the church in Sardis: “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead” (Rev. 3:1), so we might have a name of being alive, but be dead. Let us awake and begin to do the will of the Father. No one will be saved by what he did not do only. This is a very dangerous attitude and should be denounced strongly.

6. Some think the gospel changes with the ages, that is, we today are not obligated to obey as in the early days of the church. Few will admit this, but evidence is too strong to deny it even in the church of the Lord. A few things will illustrate the truth of this statement.

a. The all-sufficiency of the church to do the Lord’s work. In apostolic days the church was the Lord’s only organization to do his work. Now many must have various organizations both within and without the church to do the work of the Lord. The only remedy for this is to forsake every organization that attempts to facilitate the work of the Lord and return to the ancient order, not to continue to blindfold ourselves and make excuses that we are living in a different age. The gospel is a system of teaching to deliver from sin. It is heaven born and cannot be improved upon. Sin is the same, so the gospel must, be the same.

b. The tendency to overlook sin and worldliness in the church. In the days of the apostles the church was taught to put away all who persist to live in sin. Today the church tries to overlook certain sins and even condone it in the eldership and among preachers. If this isn’t an example of the attitude that the gospel must be changed with the change of times, what is it?

7. Many within the precinct of the church have the attitude that the gospel is not complete. Certain things must accompany it to be effective. To this class the gospel does not have the power to attract and convert sinners. All sorts of entertainment conceivable have been added to make the gospel attractive to young people. When they come into the church what have they been converted to, Christ or entertainment? If you want to know, take away the entertainment and see how long they remain. The gospel of Christ doesn’t need one thing to assist it in converting souls to Christ. Just faithfully proclaim it and the results will be conversion to Christ.

8. Another attitude is that much of the gospel is unnecessary. Many congregations over the country are satisfied with first principles of the gospel, and grow weary when the meat is presented. The disposition of many today is “believe, repent, confess and be baptized for the remission of sins and sit down and wait for the Lord to come.” Paul plainly taught us that there is more to the gospel of Christ in its comprehensive sense than first principles. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (Heb. 5:12). Also read verses 13,14. Obedience to the first principles is the beginning, not the finish of Christian service. The gospel is complete to serve the purpose of God. It is not lacking in a single point. Let us contend faithfully for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 589-590
October 5, 1989

By Robert F. Turner

Many churches that claim to believe in congregational independence, plan “their work” (?) on the basis of funding from a number of contributing churches. As sponsoring churches they plan to exercise oversight of some project on behalf of contributing churches (who also claim to be independent). We believe the principles of congregational independence are being violated by both the sponsoring and the sending churches. An “independent” church is “not dependent” on oversight or contributions from outside sources to carry out its divinely assigned functions. It “has a competency” as the dictionary says. But to understand “independence” (meaning “not dependent”) we must know the means of determining when a church is “dependent,” and to this we turn our attention.

If some family should claim to be “in want” and ask assistance, how would you determine the validity of this claim? If they had adequate housing, food, clothing, necessary medical attention, etc., would you say they were dependent? To illustrate let us use a simple dollar basis (not necessarily geared to the present economy). If the basic needs for the family were $50 per day, and the family had an income of $150 per day, would they be “in want”? Of course not. On the other hand, if the family income was only $25 per day, they would clearly be “dependent” on outside assistance to maintain themselves. Note, a condition fo “want” (do not confuse with the verb “desire”) is determined in relation to needs for the essentials of life and maintenance, the means of sustenance. And what is true regarding a family, is true in principle regarding a church.

In 2 Corinthians 8:13-14 Paul says, “For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; (should these conditions be reversed at some future time, rft) that there may be equality.” The two terms “want” and “abundance” are obvious extremes. The “equality” that is between these terms is freedom from want, or sufficiency, adequacy, or the like. Paul evidently had in mind the condition of want that existed in Jerusalem, the “poor saints” of Romans 15:26; and he had urged the collection of “alms” (Acts 24:17) by which this “want” could be relieved. To put this in terms of our dollar illustration, a church that needed $500 for self maintenance, but had only $300, would be an object of charity or alms. If the church had $500 it would have a sufficiency and would not be in want. If it had $700 it would have an abundance. It is just that simple.

Of course the next step is to determine the basic needs of a local church. It must have a sufficiency for what? The answer requires a clear distinction in self maintenance (that which is essential to its existence), and those things it does to meet its world obligations. Under “self maintenance” would be its worship, self edification, and the physical needs of its own members; and under “world obligations,” its duty to preach the word to every creature, and assist needy saints and churches elsewhere. This separation of functions is necessary because only self maintenance needs can be used to determine if a church has a “sufficiency” to function. No church can meet all world needs: do the total world teaching job or relieve all needy churches and saints. In this field no local church can be adequate, all would be sadly lacking. World obligations can only be met to the extent of the ability of an independent church. This is an extremely important point.

There is divine approval for churches sending to another church to relieve its condition of want. We can see from Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-37, and 6:1-4 that the early church in Jerusalem had difficulty in caring for its own needy saints. This initial condition may have resulted from conversion of many who had come for the Jewish Passover and Pentecost (2:5-11). A famine added to their need (Acts 11:27-30) and brethren in Antioch sent relief in care of the elders of Judea, including Jerusalem (12:25). The condition continued (Rom. 15:25-27) and Paul urged churches to supply this need (1 Cor. 16:1-3), ministering to the saints (2 Cor. 8:9). Alms were sent, to a church or churches, who were dependent unable to meet their own needs for self maintenance. We must not confuse alms with ante. Evidence does not warrant the assumption that these churches pooled their funds in an independent church, under sponsoring elders, for some “brotherhood” (churchhood) project.

Saints pool their funds in a local church treasury. To play a bit on words, they “ante up,” each putting his part into a common fund. In so doing they give up independent use of the funds contributed and that money is now one means by which the collectivity functions. Legally, I believe it belongs to the purpose for which it was given, and church overseers hold it in trust. When money is given for divinely authorized work it must be used as nearly as possible (cy pres) in conformity with that intent. It is administered by the team’s overseers for the team’s work. God has authorized team activity on the part of saints (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 5:16; etc.), but this is the extent of church organization. There is no divine authority for churches to pool their funds, and no authority for overseers of such a conglomeration.

Alms giving is the work of the giver, done under the giver’s oversight. In alms giving the end or purpose is achieved in relief of the dependent recipient. But in the pooling of funds (ante) the givers form a means of acting collectively toward an end or purpose yet to be achieved. When contributing churches put this means at the disposal of a “sponsoring church,” they give up their independent use of those funds, and entrust the “sponsoring elders” with the oversight of achieving some future purpose. Clearly alms and ante are distinctly different, and Scriptures that warrant churches giving alms to a dependent church can not justify churches “anteing up” (pooling) funds in the treasury of an independent church.

When churches become units in something larger that one church, they approach the organizational essence of denominationalism. One definition of “denomination” given in Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary is: “. . . 3; a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of congregations.” Methodists have their “Conference,” Lutherans their “Synod,” Baptists, their “Association. ” While all differ, they have one thing in common: they provide the means for collective action of churches. Funds from many churches are pooled under some form of executive board, and used on behalf of the “team” of churches. We know that few institutional brethren acknowledge a denominational status, but the problem is more than “what this may lead to. ” Brotherhood (churchhood) benevolent, evangelistic and edifying projects violate the principle of congregational sufficiency, and embrace the essence of denominational organization. Brethren, it is later than you think.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 613-614
October 19, 1989

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