Truth Magazine

By Michael R. Baggett

It has crossed my mind very often lately as to “how” we can spread, or hold forth, the Word of Life more effectively.

While visiting the library today, I noticed something that really motivated my thinking. The religious section of the bookshelves were absent of good commentaries, restoration works, or even any resemblance of writing which could help the public understand God’s Word? Are there any books that persuade men to obey its conditions which are set forth? Upon close observation, you may find, as I have found, works that “discredit” the Bible instead of encouraging belief of it! You might find a set of Baptist commentaries, a Book of Mormon, or two or three books written by Billy Graham, and not one sound work, outside of the Bible itself, on the entire shelve!

Well, am I upset over nothing? Should I be concerned? What about you? Should you be concerned? Certainly, everyone who loves the cause of the truth, will be concerned about such circumstances. I’ll say this: it should concern every Christian when libraries, hospitals, and public areas in general, are bombarded with Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and Calvinistic literature, and some poor soul may be out there searching for the truth who has never even heard of the Church of Christ! Now, don’t doubt this last statement! “I” had never “heard” of the church of Christ until I was about 21 years old! We must assume there are other precious souls who have never heard of the Church of Christ! Brethren, a poor soul, who is searching for the truth, will read any and all literature he can get his hands on; I know – I was one of them! We must assume there are honest, truth-seeking, men and women, who go in and out of these public places daily, “hungering and thirsting after righteousness.” We should be concerned enough to want to give them a “fair chance.”

Here are a few suggestions for your consideration:

1. Donate a good commentary to the library such as B.W. Johnson’s New Testament With Notes.

2. Donate good books dealing with restoration, or a good work such as The New Testament Church, by Roy Cogdill.

3. Leave lesson commentaries and magazines which deal with “first principles.” (Leave them on tables, and newspaper stands.)

4. Leave gospel tracts in libraries, hospitals, and other areas.

5. Finally, visit these areas regularly to replace tracts, and notice who is reading the donated books. Perhaps you can arrange a study.

Brethren, let’s do everything in our power to teach the gospel (Matt. 28:19,20). After all, it is our continuous duty to “hold forth the word of life” (Phil. 2:15,16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, p. 483
August 17, 1989

By Jerry F. Bassett

Brother Weldon E. Warnock, in reviewing my article “Not Under Bondage,” began by referring to “those brethren who see another cause for divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15,” then quoted James D. Bales, eventually touched on my “football coach” illustration, and closed implying that I had refused to discuss with him what God requires of divorced and remarried aliens.

I did not refuse to discuss the alien question with brother Warnock. In a letter dated 3-30-89, I asked him to look at my exchange with Ken Leach when it appears and suggested that he might be interested in doing something of the same kind in GOT. I said, “. . A would simply submit the same material with whatever modifications might be in order. As with brother Leach, I would expect you, in turn, to write an affirmation of what you believe, i.e., that aliens who have divorced for causes other than fornication and then married another person must divorce in order to be saved in Christ.” Further, I would expect equal space to respond without editorial censorship.

Brother Bales is more than adequate to answer for himself. When quoted, however, he (and Bassett) should at least be represented accurately. Neither of us holds that 1 Corinthians 7:15 provides a “cause for divorce.” To the contrary, verses 12-13 forbid the believer to divorce the unbelieving partner. Verse 15, then, does not state a cause for divorce. Instead, it declares the status of a believer who is victimized by a resentful unbeliever.

Look at brother Warnock’s notice of my “football coach” illustration. He thinks, and has me saying, all married people are on “the same team.” Notice, however, that Paul (and therefore Bassett also) distinguished between marriages consisting of two believers and those consisting of a believer and an unbeliever.

Even if Warnock was correct in asserting that both of the foregoing categories of married persons are on the same team, he would be incorrect in using either my illustration or the Scriptures to assert that different players would not be given different rules to play the same game. Football rules allow players on defense to tackle, offensive players may not. Considering the offensive team alone, receivers may run downfield on a pass play, down lineman may not. Yet, the very purpose of these distinctions is to make the game viable and fair.

Warnock contradicts Paul at 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Paul said that what he wrote to a marriage consisting of two believers had been spoken by. the Lord. On the other hand, he claimed that what he had to say to a marriage consisting of a believer married to an unbeliever had not been spoken by the Lord. Clearly, then, what Paul wrote to believers married to unbelievers was something other than what the Lord had spoken. But Warnock, in effect, asserts that what Paul said is the same for both of these categories. If Warnock is right, Paul must have erred.

Warnock thinks God’s loosing the believer to remarry who is divorced by an unbeliever, while requiring believers divorced by a believer to remain unmarried, would be unfair “dangerous business” because it would allow the former to remarry as often as he can find an unbeliever who will divorce him. But this same thinking disparages God’s wisdom in loosing the spouse of a fornicator. One could seek morally weak partners, divorce them when they become unfaithful, and thus marry over and over. Fatuous nonsense! Who has ever heard of a Christian in either of these categories marrying for the purpose of divorcing and remarrying?

Commentators

One must remember that commentators are mere humans, and that what they say is therefore uninspired, human opinion. If their views are consistent with the Bible, their comments may be helpful, but the reverse is also true. For example, notice Neandor’s comment on Paul’s meaning at 1 Corinthians 7:15, “. . that a married Christian person cannot be forced to remain with a heathen consort. ” Warnock agrees, saying Paul “means that a Christian is not a slave to men, even a marriage partner.” But Paul was projecting a case in which the unbeliever would divorce the believer. Was any Corinthian so dull that Paul had to tell him he could not be forced to remain with a pagan who would not have 1im? This is tantamount to telling a rodeo bronc rider that he must stay in the saddle for seven seconds, but if the horse throws him off he doesn’t have to stay on!

Were I to stake my case on a commentator, I would prefer a brother reputed for his piety and reverence as well as his knowledge and keen, analytical mind. I speak of the late R.L. Whiteside. Arguing that “not under bondage” means freedom from the marriage bond, Whiteside went on to say, “Such a condition had not arisen during the personal ministry of Jesus, and there was no occasion for him to mention it. It did arise in Paul’s day, and he gave commandment covering this new development. When we get so set in our opinions that we cannot accept a plain declaration of Holy Writ, we should not complain at the denominations for doing the same thing. And we say that the apostles were the final revelators of the will of Christ, and yet we go back on this principle in dealing with 1 Cor. 7:15” (Reflections, pp. 416, 421).

Running to the Greek

If one cannot find what he teaches in any of the several very fine English translations of the New Testament now available to us, but is determined to teach it anyway, where can he go for help? Commonly, such people run to the Greek. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses turn to the Greek at John 1:1 to argue that Jesus Christ is a lower case “god.” Baptists argue that baptism cannot be essential to the remission of sins because the number and person of the verbs “repent” and “be baptized” differ at Acts 2:38. Instrumental music advocates insist their instrument is in psalmos and psallo at Ephesians 5:19. And many of us remember that the sponsoring church advocates finally “found” their organizational corruption in the Greek of Philippians 4:15. Regrettably, Brother Warnock pursues the same course. Thus, I must answer to the best of my ability. However, does anyone really think he would resort to this nit-picking of the Greek if he could find his doctrine in the English translations made available to us by the expertise of linguistic scholars? In a word, no!

Douloo and Deo

Refreshingly, Warnock acknowledges that Arndt and Gingrich say douloo (“bondage”) is used figuratively at 1 Corinthians 7:15. So do Thayer (p. 158) and Kittel (Vol. II, p. 279).

Furthermore, deo must also be used figuratively in order to refer to marriage. Its basic meaning is “to bind, tie, fasten” (Thayer, p. 131). Thayer says it applies 4 4prop. ” (literally) to the tying of an animal (Matt. 21:2) and the chaining of a prisoner (Acts 12:6). How, then, can such a word possibly refer to marriage? It has to be used figuratively! “Metaph.,” Thayer says, means “to bind, i.e., put under obligation, sc. (namely) of law, duty, etc.” and it is here that he cites Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:27,39. Thus a word which is used literally of tying animals and binding prisoners can be used to refer to marriage through a figurative application.

So can douloo. In fact, Thayer treats douloo exactly as he does deo. He says the basic meaning is “to make a slave of, to reduce to bondage” (p. 158). Applied 44prop.” (literally) it refers to literal slavery (Acts 7:6). But used “metaph.” (figuratively) it means “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity in some matter.” This describes the legal side of marriage, and this is precisely where Thayer places 1 Corinthians 7:15. If deo can be used of marriage, so can douloo, and for the same reason. Each is used figuratively in passages which speak of nothing else but marriage.

Failing to appreciate the figurative use of douloo, Warnock states, “. . Ahe only kind of slavery that a believer has ever been under was before conversion.” This is absolutely false. Christians must be slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6:18). Paul enslaved himself to those to whom he preached (1 Cor. 9:19).

Some object to the idea Paul would use douloo only once (out of eight uses in the N.T.) to mean marriage while using deo three times (out of forty-four uses in the N.T.). Well, of the thirty-six times hapto is used in the N.T., it means sexual touching only once (1 Cor. 7:1). But spoken by the Lord, once is enough to establish meaning.

The Perfect Tense

Dedoulotai, (“not under bondage” [NUB] at 1 Cor. 7:15) is the perfect indicative of douloo. Warnock says “. – it would not permit it (i.e., “is not under bondage,” or “is NUB”) to mean the marriage bond.” He quotes Monroe Tharp who says, “The brother or sister has not been enslaved and is still not enslaved.” He thinks “is NUB” should be translated “has not been enslaved” despite the fact that he cannot cite even one major English version which so translates it. Then he turns to Davis’ grammar. Unfortunately, Warnock stopped reading Davis one paragraph too soon. Davis wrote, “The perfect tense as tense is timeless. But in the indicative the time element is present. The perfect indicative generally expresses the present result of a past action. It then has to do with the past and the present” (Sect. 368, p. 152, emphasis supplied). For example, if a man dies, his wife is loosed (Rom. 7:2). The woman’s loosed state is the present result. The past action producing this result is her husband’s death.

So also at 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul said, “. . a brother or a sister is not under bondage (the present result) in such cases.” What case did Paul refer to which constitutes the past action producing this result? Listen to him, “But if the unbeliever departs. . . . ” Warnock apparently agrees that this departure is divorce. Paul is saying, then, that the believer is not under bondage as a result of being divorced by the unbeliever. He cannot, therefore, refer to anything other than the marriage bond.

Brother Warnock, if you ever do baptize someone whose spouse therefore threatens divorce action, what will you do? Will you run him/her through the foregoing commentators and Greek acrobatics? Or will you simply speak as the oracles of God? This one will ask, “What if my spouse divorces me?” Say, “. . . a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” This one will ask further, “Would I then be free to remarry?” Say, ” . . . a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. ” And having said precisely what the Bible says, be content with the thought, “Enough said!”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 468-469
August 3, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Sir William S. Gilbert said, “I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can’t help it. I was born sneering.”

Indeed, if man is but a compound complex combination of mutant molecules, merely a quivering mass of protein and protoplasm bound and skewered to a skeleton of bones, why should he not sneer and jeer rather than fear God? The question awaits an answer. Fellow organic blobs, the echoes of silence are deafening.

A master musician of yesteryear said, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). The reverse and converse is, ” I will praise no one or nothing; for I am simply an accident of eons, a tragedy of chance.” Man observes his fortuitous surroundings and proudly proclaims himself lord of an evolutionary time chain. He crowns himself with glory and honor because he reckons that he is more noble than a pig in a sty. Says who? Certainly not the pig. He would not desert the comfort of mud for a professor’s hopeless existence. And pity the poor professor. He cannot enjoy the mud from whence he came. Ali, but unbelief has its rewards. He can savor the pig from he whom descended.

Does an unbeliever ever question his humanistic, atheistic philosophy? Does he ever, in the solitude of a cold, dark night, ponder his origin, mission and destiny? Does he ever silently wonder if there is a God? Does he ever ask, in the silent recesses of his denied and banished soul, if there is a Supreme Being who created him and his environment? Does he ever dream of whether or not there is a slight chance of life beyond the grave? Does he ever dare to risk the thought that there may be a day of Judgment which will hold him accountable for his deeds? Does he ever waver and doubt his philosophic presuppositions regarding his origin, nature and purpose? Does he ever wish to believe and hope for something besides death and the grave? Does he ever long for something besides becoming food for worms? Does he even think that just maybe. . . . Nah, he assures us with a shrug of the shoulders, he never considers such things. But, then again, neither does the pig.

Evolution of a Preacher’s Pride

Abraham Lincoln said, “I am nothing. Truth is everything”

Many men, many Christians, begin with that assumption. They enjoy a measure of success because truth will buoy its bearers. They develop a feeling, an air of importance and significance, that should be reserved for truth. Their ultimate decline is a downward spiral of personal pride. From the humble spirit manifest in Lincoln’s words, “I am nothing. Truth is everything,” the descending steps and stages of pride are:

“I am almost nothing. Truth is everything.”

“I am a little something. Truth is almost everything.”

“I am something. Truth is something.”

“I am something. Truth is relative but important.”

“I am something. Truth is relative.”

“I am everything. Truth is not obtainable.”

“I am truth.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, p. 487
August 17, 1989

By Benita E. Crumley

In recent years, Christian men and women have become lax in their attention as to what is considered proper dress for those “professing godliness. ” From the time when man became aware of his unclothed state until now, our God has been concerned, and has given instructions to guide us in the way we clothe ourselves.

Numerous considerations enter in to determine styles: many cultures, variations of weather conditions, and numberless areas of the world where man was destined to live. People in hot climates, of necessity, would not dress in the same clothing as the Eskimo. Neither would the South Sea Islanders, nor those in the jungles, dress in the same manner as those in areas with the four distinct seasons, such as we experience in America.

But taking all of these things into account, there was always to be a distinction between the sexes. God said, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination to the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5). Today, it is often difficult to distinguish between the sexes, due to their hair and clothing styles.

Clothing greatly influences the behavior of the wearer, and one has but to notice the difference when a young lady dresses in feminine dresses, and then switches to faded jeans, sloppy sweat shirts and soiled sneakers – she becomes a different person altogether. Numerous studies have been done in order to determine the effects that clothes and hair styles have upon children’s behavior, and the findings apply to adults as well.

In one such experience of mine, where I was involved with a kindergarten class in a Campbell, California public school, the little bully of the group had long, shaggy, unkempt hair, which all but covered his eyes. His clothing was equally as bad. The other children picked on him; they didn’t really like him, and he fought back with a vengeance!

As a last resort (when all else had failed with this child), I said, “Danny, before you come to school on Monday, tell Mommy you need a hair-cut and some clean clothes.” The teacher was mortified and quaked in her boots for fear of repercussions! But on Monday, a totally new little boy came to school. He had been transformed! He had a radiant face, beautiful, big, brown eyes, and a grin from ear to ear. The kids all gathered around him, and were so pleased with his new look. They couldn’t believe their own eyes! Danny’s belligerent and unacceptable behavior never returned, and even his learning problem improved. What made the difference?

God gave us a positive message as to how we must dress in order to please him. However, in later years, too many of us have been unfavorably influenced by a fashion world that is largely ruled by homosexual designers, and patronized by the rich, vain and bored (both men and women), who set the pace in dress for the equally bored, idol-worshiping and publicity-seeking rest of us.

In our headlong dash to be like the pack, we have st sight of proper decorum, seemliness, decency, dignity, etiquette, a sense of what is proper or correct, to say nothing as to what God requires of us. To our shame!

The second rule speaks of modest dress, “as becometh women (and yes, men, BEC) professing godliness” (1 Tim. 2:10). Men’s attire can be just as immodest as women’s, and when they stand before the congregation to lead in any way, with trousers so tight that nothing is left to the imagination, then that is immodest. But anything that meets these two requirements may be worn.

Since clothes do give identity to the wearer, one needs to ask himself, “How do I wish to be known?” In Bible times certain garments identified a widow, a harlot, a priest, a prophet (e.g. John the Baptist), a ruler (king or queen), those in mourning, the wedding garment for invited guests, to mention the most familiar.

In our time, the rule still holds – our clothing identifies us most of the time. A uniform could indicate a soldier, policeman or policewoman, nurse, doctor, UPS person, chef or waitress, etc.

There are dress clothes, formal clothes (how many would be admitted to a dinner at the White House dressed like many Christians come dressed to worship?), wedding clothes, casual clothes, sport clothes, school clothes, play clothes and night clothes. We even have laws concerning those, and if you don’t think so, try going shopping in your night gown, or men in their pajamas.

Consider the following words which describe and suggest clothing, and see if immediately you don’t also associate them with people: gaudy, modest, immodest, sloven, neat, hippie, tasteful, appropriate, sloppy, dainty, coarse and suggestive. How we dress fairly well tells people the kind of person we are, and what we stand for.

The most important place we go, and for which we should be properly dressed (both men, women and children), is when we assemble for worship – We tend to forget, if indeed we ever knew, that we are coming into God’s presence. This is not a causal affair – where we can approach it in whatever way suits our fancy. God laid down strict rules for the children of Israel at such times, and the principles have never been altered for us: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day; for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai” (Exod. 19:10). But lest any should argue that such command doesn’t apply to us, consider Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Each Christian, young or old, male or female, is the only Bible the world reads, and it is of utmost importance that we set proper examples. The objection is raised thus: “But, if we have to be so strict we will be freaks.” Hardly! Our women will be the lovely, feminine, dainty, desirable, adored creatures they were meant to be – the climax of God’s creation. Our men will be Christian gentlemen, proud to be seen with us, and our women honored to be seen with them!

We are children of the King! We are kings and priests unto him (Rev. 1:6). What an honor! Let’s not disgrace ourselves, nor bring reproach upon him, because of our thoughtlessness and careless regard for what is proper dress for those professing godliness.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, pp. 488-489
August 17, 1989