Truth Magazine

By Buford E. Davidson

A recent bulletin said, “Too many of my brethren criticizing the church, the elders, the preachers, teachers and their brethren and the church would grow if they would just keep their mouths shut.”

The dictionary defines a critic as one who judges, evaluates, or criticizes. Criticism is defined as: (1) the act or art of analyzing and judging the quality of something. (2) The act of passing severe judgment; censure, faultfinding” (Random House College Dictionary).

Never fear the critic. He is your best friend. If his criticism is in kindness, he desires to help you. If his criticism is through envy, you may yet learn ways of improvement. Answer your friend’s criticism by a better service and answer the unkind critic with a closer application to your task.

No right thinking person is ever harmed by criticism. Success in this world is in being not only better than the average, but better than the best. The perfection of the automobile is the annual production of a better car.

The development of the phonograph was a far step in providing music for every home, but the radio is better. The cinema was entertaining, but the talking motion picture far superior. Critics of their imperfections started the manufacturers to the production of the better. The whole business world moves forward by reason of severe criticism of patrons that compel study in industrial laboratories.

The home, the school, the church, and most of all the individual, are not without defects that invite criticism. How much one can take will determine how far one may improve. Resentment of criticism forbids improvement. If a person will not think and learn, he may not know wherein he has weaknesses and defects.

Every piece of steel in an automobile is tested for strength, every radio for perfection in blended tones. The perfect motion picture comes after many rehearsals, and many productions in attitudes and ensemble.

Many people resent any form of criticism, yet it is one of the greatest of teachers and implements for the improvement of one’s character. Criticism helps us grow in grace and knowledge, if we accept the criticism and apply its lesson to our character.

How do you react to criticism? Does it stir your anger and sometimes cause you to despise the critic? Or, do you accept it with a greater determination to improve and overcome faults and imperfections? The person’ who learns to handle criticism and to profit thereby has truly learned a great test of character.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, p. 493
August 17, 1989

By Mike Willis

The book of Ruth records the life of a virtuous woman whose name has been recorded in the honor roll of faith. An unlikely hero of the Old Testament because she was from the Moabite nation, Ruth won the respect of God’s people and an honored place in the genealogy of the Christ.

The Historical Narrative

During the judges, a man from Bethlehem named Elimelech was forced by a famine to leave his hometown in search of food. With his wife Naomi and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, he moved to Moab. For ten years the family sojourned in Moab. During this time, Elimelech died, leaving Naomi a widow. Her two sons married non-Israelite women, named Orpah and Ruth, in disobedience to the law of Moses (Deut. 7:1-4; 23:3-6). Sometime later, they also died.

Desolate in a foreign country, Naomi resolved to return to Bethlehem. When her two daughters-in-law desired to return with her, she encouraged them to stay in Moab where their prospects for marriage were better than in Israel. Orpah consented but Ruth did not. In one of the most memorable statements of the Bible, Ruth expressed her resolution to go to Israel with Naomi:

Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me (Ruth 1:16-17).

After arriving in Bethlehem, Ruth assumed the obligation of providing for Naomi and herself. She went into the fields and gleaned with other poor folks. In the providence of God, she gleaned in the field of Boaz, a near kinsmen to Elimelech. In the course of time, she appealed to Boaz to perform the obligation of a levirate husband to raise up seed to his deceased relative. Boaz took Ruth as his wife. She conceived a son named Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of King David.

Lessons From Ruth

There are a number of lessons we can learn from the book of Ruth. Please consider them with me:

1. Ruth forsook all to trust under the wing of Jehovah. Naomi recognized that Ruth’s prospects for future happiness were much better in Moab than in Israel. In Moab she was among her own people; in Israel, Ruth was a foreign woman unlikely to ever remarry. Nevertheless, Ruth turned her back on her own people and their gods to cast her lot with the people of God.

What Ruth did was more than loyalty and devotion to her mother-in-law; it was an act of faith which was recognized as such by the inhabitants of Bethlehem. Unlike Orpah who went “back unto her people, and unto her gods” (1:14), Ruth said to Naomi, “. . .Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (1:16). Boaz recognized this conversion when he said, “The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust” (2:12).

Isaac Errett described her conversion in these eloquent words:

Ruth breaks the last tie that binds her to her own country and people; abandons her kindred, renounces her gods, and by a sublime act of faith weds herself to a new religion, a new people, and a new life – a life which holds out to her no other earthly charms than poverty and toil among strangers. . . . It was no small sacrifice – it was all, and with no prospect of compensation, except in the approval of the living Jehovah in whom she put her trust. She can not be supposed to have been brought to this decision merely through her love of Naomi (Evenings With the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 282).

2. She was committed to Naomi. Ruth loved her motherin-law Naomi. Naomi was one of the Lord’s people who, like Job, has been called to suffer. The plight of Naomi was terrible and is aptly described in these words:

“Of the two sexes,” says Fuller, “the woman is the weaker; of women, old women are most feeble; of old women, widows most woeful; of widows, those that are poor, their plight most pitiful; of poor widows, those who want children, their case most doleful; of widows that want children, those that once had them, and after lost them, their estate most desolate; of widows that have had children, those that are strangers in a foreign country, their condition most comfortless. Yet all these met together in Naomi, as in the centre of sorrow, to make the measure of her misery pressed down, shaken together, running over. I conclude, therefore, many men have had affliction – none like Job; many women have had tribulation – none like Naomi” (James Morison, The Pulpit Commentary: Ruth, p. 4).

Ruth recognized Naomi’s plight and was moved with love and compassion to go with her and stand by her in her hours of need.

We hear many mother-in-law jokes because of the friction between in-laws. There was no such friction between Ruth and Naomi. They loved and cared for each other. Such deep friendships come rarely in life and, where they exist, they are a ray of sunshine in the midst of dark clouds. Ruth became to Naomi better than seven sons (4:15).

3. She was a virtuous woman. Ruth won the respect of the community about her by her devotion to Naomi, her industriousness, and her virtuous conduct. When she labored in the field, the workers noticed how hard she worked saying, she “hath continued even from the morning until now, that she tarried a little in the house” (2:7). Boaz said, “It hath fully been shewed me, all that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law since the death of thine husband” (2:11).

Again he said, “For all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman” (3:11). Not only did she work hard, she maintained her purity, winning the respect due a virtuous woman.

4. She trusted in the Lord’s provisions. She was content to accept the provisions which God had made for widows such as Naomi and herself. She joined other poor people to glean in the fields to provide for themselves, even as the law of Moses demanded (Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:19). Without complaining, Ruth worked hard to provide for her mother-in-law and herself.

She trusted in the Lord’s provision for a levirate marriage. She appealed to Boaz to perform the duties of a near kinsman to raise up seed to one who died childless (Deut. 25:5-10). She walked within the law in both of these respects.

5. She walked in the pathway of duty. Ruth turned her back on the pleasures of life in order to do what duty demanded. Orpah turned her back on duty to find a pleasurable life on earth. Orpah was more nearly like those widows Paul described who “liveth in pleasure” and are “dead while she liveth” (1 Tim. 5:6). On the other hand, Ruth turned her back on pleasure to discharge her duty her duty to God and Naomi.

Ruth sacrificed everything that could fascinate a young woman to fulfill the demands of duty. She gave up association with her family, kinsmen, and friends to move to Israel. She committed herself to caring for her aged mother-in-law who could not provide for herself (Naomi did not go to the fields with Ruth). While others were enjoying life’s temporal pleasures, Ruth was fulfilling her duty. In the Expositor’s Bible, Robert A. Watson wrote, “To deny the higher light which shows the way of personal duty and nobleness, to prefer instead the miserable rushlight of desire is the fatal choice against which all wisdom of sage and seer testifies.” Ruth was a wise woman who was committed to duty.

I Have Met Ruth and Orpah

Yes, I have met both Orpah and Ruth – not the ones of the text of the Bible – but women who walked in the footsteps of both women. I have met Orpah in the presence of those women who turned their backs on duty to pursue personal pleasure. These are the women who find their obligations to care for their children to be unexciting and unfulfilling. They are dissatisfied with their lot in life. They start looking for happier circumstances and situations. Soon they find their “dream boat” who will take them away from their miserable existence. Forsaking the husband of her youth and her precious children, this modern day Orpah commits herself to happier times on earth without regard to the pain she inflicts on those committed to her care.

I have met more than one Ruth. These are the women who commit themselves in loving obedience to God, regardless of how harsh are the circumstances in which they live. Like Ruth of old, they devote themselves to fulfilling their obligations to God and those others entrusted to their care. I would like to introduce you to several of these Ruth’s:

Ruth 1 is a younger woman whose husband was a, gospel preacher. He become sexually involved with a member of the church where he was preaching. When he would not cease his sin., this woman divorced her husband and undertook the task of rearing her children alone. Recognizing her deficiencies in the job market, she returned to college, completed her degree, and is now working to support herself while rearing her children to serve the Lord.

Ruth 2 and 3 are two widows, one the daughter of the other, who attend where I worship. The daughter lost her husband first and sometime afterwards her father suffered a stroke which left him paralyzed from his waist down. For over eleven years, the mother and her daughter committed themselves to caring for their disabled husband and father. The way of duty prevented them from enjoying many of life’s pleasures; they have existed on meager incomes. Like Ruth of old, they were devoted to fulfilling their duties toward God and those committed to their trust.

Conclusion

The years have passed. The lives of both Orpah and Ruth have long been concluded. Orpah’s name has passed into oblivion, having been forgotten except by a rare few who remember the names of obscure Bible characters.

Ruth passed down to her children an honorable name a name still given to young ladies. She received her reward of righteousness, a son named Obed, She was the great grandmother to King David and an ancestor to Jesus the Christ. Her name is included alongside the 42 men who are given in Jesus’ genealogy (Matt. 1:5).

Our modern day Ruth’s will also pass down a legacy to their families – a legacy which teaches their children to be devoted to God and to those committed to their care, a legacy to fulfill one’s obligations to duty, a legacy to have one’s name written in the book of life. May Ruth’s Godfearing conduct be an example to each of us!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, pp. 482, 502-503
August 18, 1989

By Irvin Himmel

Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished (Prov. 16:5).

Like unbelief, pride is found at the root of all rebellion against God. It is an attitude of heart which keeps the creature from bowing in submission to the Creator.

Pride Defined

We commonly use the word pride in both a good sense and a bad sense. When we use the word to denote reasonable self-respect, that is a good sense. Every person needs to maintain self-dignity. An individual who has absolutely no respect for himself is in bad shape. To say that one takes pride in his work usually means that he wants to do his work well.

“Pride is never used in a good sense in the Bible but is always condemned” (E.M. Zerr). The Bible speaks of pride in the sense of vanity, haughtiness, arrogance, conceit, inordinate self-esteem, or egotism. Pride often manifests itself in boastfulness and the seeking of honor, attention, or acclaim. Pride multiples disobedience.

Three Examples

(1) Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in the days of Daniel, was lifted up with pride. Walking in his palace, the king said, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” (Dan. 4:30) God knocked this arrogant king from his pedestal by taking away his sanity. Nebuchadnezzar was driven from among men, ate grass as oxen eat it, became wet with the dew of heaven, and his hair grew like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws. After his reason returned, the king of Babylon honored the king of heaven, acknowledging that those who “walk in pride” God is able to abase (4:37).

(2) The Edomites, dwelling in what they thought was an impregnable natural fortress, felt secure even when they sided with the enemies of God’s people. At various times in history they showed hostility toward the Israelites. The prophet Obadiah foretold the doom of Edorn. Said the prophet, “The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?” Obadiah continued, “Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord” (Obad. 3,4). God did in fact knock the Edomites from their “nest among the stars.”

(3) The Pharisee in the parable in Luke 18:9-14 is a classic example of pride. In the temple this arrogant fellow prayed thus with himself, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” After giving thanks that he was such a fine dude, he boasted of his works. “I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.” What folly for a man to brag before his Maker! In contrast to the proud Pharisee, the humble publican confessed that he was a sinner and asked for mercy.

Pride and Abomination

An “abomination” is something loathsome, utterly detestable, disgusting, or hated. When the writer of Proverbs listed six things, yea seven, which are an abomination to God, the first on the list was “a proud look” (Prov. 6:16, 17). In harmony with this, our text says, “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord.” No matter how man may consider pride, God finds it disgusting.

Though Hand Join in Hand

In 11:21, this proverb is found: “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.” The expression “though hand join in hand” is taken by some to be striking hands as a pledge, therefore it means that something is made sure. The New American Standard Bible renders it “assuredly.” If this be the correct rendition, our text is saying that assuredly the proud in heart will not escape punishment.

Another view is that “though hand join in hand” means joining with others in whatever is under consideration. If this be the preferred meaning, our text is saying of the proud in heart, although others may hold hands with them in their unrighteous ways, God will punish them. The fact that many are involved in a wicked practice does not make it less abominable to God. Evil confederates will not get one off the hook. “The power of sinners cannot secure them against God, though they strengthen themselves with both hands. Though they may strengthen one another with their confederacies and combinations, joining forces against God, they shall not escape his righteous judgment” (Matthew Henry).

Pride and Punishment

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18). Jesus said, “For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Lk. 14:11; 18:14). If people do not humble themselves to serve God, they will be abased with everlasting misery in the world to come. “When pride cometh, then cometh shame” (Prov. 11:2). Men and women who are too proud to bow to the will of God must face eternal shame.

Let us cast away pride and learn true humility of heart. “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:5,6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, p. 486
August 17, 1989

By Weldon E. Warnock

Those brethren who see another cause for divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15 claim that “bondage” in v. 15 is the marriage bond and they assert that when Paul said, “is not under bondage,” the apostle meant, “not under the bondage of marriage,” and the believer is free to marry again. James Bales wrote, “The only bondage this believer had ever been in to this unbeliever was the bondage of marriage . . . the context proves that “bondage” refers to marriage . . . the only bondage discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 was the marriage bondage” (Not Under Bondage, pp. 62,68,91).

The Greek word for “bondage” in the text is dedoulotai, 3rd per. sing. perfect, ind. pass. of douloo. Thayer says it means “to make a slave of, reduce to bondage” (p. 158). After Thayer gives the definition of douloo he interprets its usage in 1 Corinthians 7:15 as “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter.” He does not say this is the marriage bond. Vine states “to make a slave of, to bring into bondage.” Arndt-Gingrich define it to “make someone a slave of (doulos), enslave, subject” (p. 205). They say it means figuratively, “be bound (as a slave).” Kittel says, “The basic meaning is ‘to make a slave,’ ‘to enslave… (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 279).

It becomes apparent to me, after reading the preceding definitions, that Paul did not have the loosening of nuptial vows in mind when he said “not under bondage.” When the apostle spoke of being bound in marriage (1 Cor. 7:25,39), he used deo, not douloo. It is odd that Paul switched words in the same chapter if “bondage.” (douloo) in v. 15 is speaking of marriage also. The word dedoulotai (bondage) suggests that the believer was not a bond servant to the unbeliever or a slave to man, even though the person was a marriage partner. Paul said the same thing in a general way in 1 Corinthians 7:23, “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants men.” This principle is specifically applied to the marriage relationship in v. 15.

Neander wrote, as quoted in Lange’s commentary: “The Apostle only means, that in matters of religious conviction, one person cannot be the slave of another, (that a married Christian person cannot be forced to remain with a heathen consort, if the latter will not allow the exercise of his own religious views. Under such circumstances separation should be allowed: but concerning liberty to marry again, nothing is said”).

Grosheide wrote that “the members of the church of Christ are not subject to an unbeliever” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 166). Barnes said, “Many have supposed that this means they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife or husband had gone away. . . . But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle” (1 Corinthians, p. 119). Robertson and Plummer state all that is meant is “that he or she need not feel so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation” (Commentary on First Corinthians).

Caverno, in the LS.B.E. (Vol. 2, p. 866) said, “But Paul has not said in that verse or anywhere else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be married to someone else. All he said is: ‘If the unbelieving depart: the brother or sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai) in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.’ To say that a deserted partner ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be remarried. ” Cavemo also says that “Paul has not modified Christ in any respect.”

None of the preceding commentators thought that “not under bondage” meant “loosed from the marriage bond with a right to remarry.” There are a few commentators who differ, but the evidence to me is too strong that “bondage” is not referring to the marriage bond, but rather it means that a Christian is not a slave to men, even a marriage partner.

The tense of the word dedoulotai would not permit it to mean the marriage bond. The word is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense would mean the brother or sister had not been in bondage and is still not under bondage to the unbeliever. However, the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bond is indicated.

Monroe Tharp, professor of Greek at the Bear Valley School of Preaching (Denver, Colorado), as quoted by Roy Lanier, Sr. said: “The Greek perfect tense is used here to show the meaning: ‘The brother or sister has not been enslaved and is still not enslaved.’ One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved.’ One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved” (Your Marriage Can Be Great, p. 471).

Marshall’s Interlinear translates “not under bondage” to mean “has not been enslaved.” The Pulpit Commentary says, “has not been enslaved.” Since the word dedoulotai means “to make someone a slave, enslave, subject” (Arndt and Gingrich), the only kind of slavery that a believer had ever been under was before conversion. From the time of conversion, the Christian has not been enslaved. Keep in mind that Tharp, Marshall’s Interlinear and the Pulpit Commentary said the believer “has not been enslaved.”

The perfect tense is a combination of punctiliar action and durative action (Davis’ Greek Grammar, p. 152). Dedoulotai is perfect tense. Therefore, it has punctiliar (completed) action and durative (linear) action. The idea would be that at conversion the Christian becomes free from bondage (completed action) and continues free (durative action) from bondage. As a Christian, one has never been in moral and spiritual bondage to men, but is a servant or slave of the Lord Jesus Christ. Quoting the apostle Paul again, “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants (slaves) of men.” A Christian is not under bondage to any man, whether it be in marriage, slavery, government or business. In 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul simply means that the believer is not to give up Christianity or compromise truth in order to save the marriage with an unbeliever. He or she is “not under bondage in such cases” or any other case or matter that has to do with human relationships.

Nobody has proved that the marriage bond is broken or loosed on the basis of an unbeliever divorcing a believer. Brethren arbitrarily make the word “bondage” mean the marriage bond. There is no evidence that “bondage” means the marriage bond. Their position sanctions the remarriage of believers who have been deserted by unbelievers -without proving that “bondage” means the marriage bond. This is dangerous business. Their view permits the deserted believer to marry ‘an unbeliever who has divorced a dozen wives or husbands. The result of this kind of thinking has God showing more favor to Christians deserted by unbelievers than he does to Christians deserted by Christians. The former can remarry as many times as he/she is deserted, but the latter cannot remarry unless the deserter is put away for fornication.

Concerning brother Bassett’s illustration of a college football coach and his players, all the players are on the team and all play by the same rules. The coach would not give one set of rules for football to the veteran players and a different set of rules for the new players. Yet, this is what brother Bassett has Paul doing for married couples.

The believers married to believers (illustrated by veteran players) must remain unmarried if there is a divorce or be reconciled to his/her mate. This is one set of rules for a married couple. However, for the believers married to unbelievers (illustrated by new players), they may remarry someone else if the unbeliever departs. Here is another set of rules for a married couple, according to brother Bassett. This is the same team (the married team, per brother Bassett’s illustration), but brother Bassett has it playing by different rules. I believe the football example better illustrates my position than it does brother Bassett’s.

I had proposed to brother Bassett that we discuss this issue on a broader scale, namely, whether unbelievers desiring to be baptized who have divorced and remarried without the cause of fornication, may remain together (cohabit) as husband and wife, but he informed me that he had agreed to have an exchange on this topic with brother Ken Leach in Sentry Magazine. In my judgment it would have been profitable to discuss the proposition in both papers Guardian of Truth and Sentry Magazine.

Alien sinners, having divorced their wives/husbands without the cause of fornication, and are living with their second, third or fourth marriage-partner, are told by brother Bassett, as well as others, that they may continue to live together (cohabit) after they are baptized. This position affects far more people than whether “bondage” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 means the marriage bond. I have never seen, personally, a case where the unbeliever put away his/her mate on the grounds that he/she was a Christian.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 466-467
August 3, 1989