Truth Magazine

By David Moyer

As the father of a teenager, it is my responsibility and privilege to make sure that I teach him what is right and wrong (Eph. 6:4). This is especially true when it comes to the temptations of the flesh he will be encountering as he reaches maturity and adulthood.

This is my son’s first year of high school, the beginning of those years of adolescence, the start of interest in girls and, in the not-too-distant-future, the beginning of dating activities.

I remember well when I was his age – the happiness and the struggles, the tremendous pressures of a young Christian trying to do what is right when the wrong looked like so much fun! I suppose I survived those years – I’m still alive – but I still recall the tough temptations, the mistakes, the tears, and also the laughter. It was during those same high school years I met my wife. We dated, fell in love, went through the usual ups-and-downs, got married, and began our family, Now we have come full circle, and have a son nearing the age we were when we met.

So what do I say to my children to help them survive their teen years without doing something they would regret for the rest of their lives? All I can say is what is taught in the Scriptures. I can spend time with them to answer their questions with the principles found in the Word, and point them to the proper behavior which glorifies God and helps them feel good about themselves.

Dating Behavior

Dating is an acceptable method of enjoying associations with members of the opposite sex. It is a period of time when one learns about another person, and has the opportunity to make choices regarding the potential of that person to be a husband or wife for life.

Dating begins when one is somewhat attracted to another, that is, sees something in another person that is likable, or “attractive.” After the preliminary shyness and butterflies of making the date, these individuals now must decide what they are going to do while together, and this is where parental guidance is absolutely necessary. If wrong choices are made at this point, there will be haunting memories for the rest of their lives, or else the conscience will become calloused so as not to feel the guilt of the mistakes.

I want to consider some “dating behavior” in light of biblical teaching, and give answers to three questions which are often asked by teenagers, not just those in the church.

1. Is It Okay to Have Sex?

The Bible says, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Heb. 13:4). If marriage is going to be kept pure, then any sexual activity outside of that relationship is wrong, period. To understand this perfectly, a clear definition is needed. Fornication:

“Sexual intercourse between a man and woman not married to each other” (American Heritage Dictionary).

“. . . is used (a) of illicit sexual intercourse . . . it stands for, or includes, adultery” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, Vol. 11, p. 125).

“To commit adultery, to be utterly unchaste,. . . . Every form of unchastity is included in the term” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 746).

We can be crystal clear in our understanding of how God feels about any sexual conduct or activity outside of marriage. Whether it be hetero- or homo-, whether it be approved by society or not, any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, it is sin!

Can it be any clearer than this: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14)? “Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality” (Eph. 5:3). “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord (1 Cor. 6:14). “Flee sexual immorality, . . . he who sins sexually sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18).

Yet for some reason people today, not only teens, argue, “But we love each other, and we plan to get married . . . someday . . . maybe.” The reason why anyone tries to justify an act that is clearly and expressly defined as sin is stated in John 3:19, “but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

Some will even go so far as to say that pre-marital sex is okay, there’s nothing wrong with it. Young reader, do not listen to those voices. Hear what God said about those who say such things. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20).

Be assured of this, the Spirit speaks expressly premarital sex is a sin. Don’t make the mistake you’ll regret for all eternity.

2. If Sex Is Wrong, How About Just “Making Out”?

Let’s go back to the definitions. Lasciviousness:

“Lewd; lecherous, licentious” (American Heritage Dictionary).

“Absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness lack of self-restraint” (Fine’s, Vol. II, p. 310).

“Wanton (acts or) manners, a filthy word, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 79).

“Follow the inclination to sensuality, . . . indecent conduct” (Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon, p. 114).

Licentious: “Lacking moral discipline or sexual restraint; lewd” (American Heritage Dictionary).

Take a careful look at the definitions. When you touch the body of another person (other than your husband or wife) in such a way as to excitesexual desires, you are guilty of the sin of lasciviousness and licentiousness. Notice particularly the use of the phrase, “unchaste handling.” This is a reference to touching the body of another person in a sexual way.

When I was a teenager I heard my father speak of “petting.” I related that to the “petting” of my dog, stroking its back and rubbing its ears. As a kid that comparison didn’t make much sense to me, but now it does. Stroking my wife’s back and rubbing her ears takes on a whole different connotation for me now.

To “pet,” or stroke the body of another person will evoke a physical and emotional response. This is how the meaning of the definition “follow the inclination to sensuality” is applied. To touch another is appealing to the senses – it feels good, it is exciting. To continue to touch the parts of the body that promote the feeling of excitement screams out for going a little further, and a little further, and it becomes difficult if not impossible to stop.

Parents, talk with your kids about what an exciting touch is all about. Talk about how holding hands may be OK but full body hugs may be wrong – and why!

The Bible plainly says, “the works of the flesh are obvious . . . lasciviousness (debauchery) . . . they who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires . . . because of these the wrath of God is coming” (Col. 3:5-6).

Be assured of this, the Spirit speaks expressly: touching anotherperson’s body (not your mate) in such a way that causes sexual excitement is a sin. And it could very well lead to having sex! Please don’t hand me that nonsense that you are strong enough to stop before it gets out of hand. That’s a lie of the devil. Don’t make the mistake you’ll regret for all eternity.

3. Can I Go To The Dance This Weekend?

The temptation to go to dances is often quite strong. School dances are held after all the big ballgames; the graduation is capped with a prom; even some churches are holding dances, giving the dance an air of respect.

In regards to this question we need to be careful so as not to be guilty of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” I don’t think we could make a blanket condemnation of everything that carries the label “dance.”

There are biblical verses which speak of dancing in favorable terms, and also in condemnatory terms.

The following verses speak of dancing in positive terms as a celebration, an outburst of joy, even an act of worship: Psalm 30:11; Ecclesiastes 3:4; Jeremiah 31:4,13; Lamentations 5:15; Matthew 11:17; Luke 15:25. Clearly there are types of dances which are not condemned in Scripture.

So what’s all the fuss about dancing? One example of the problem is found in Matthew 14:6-12. In this text a dance was used which so aroused the King that he made a fool of himself and caused the murder of John the Baptist. Clearly, something in that kind of dance was sinful. What was it?

Go back to the definition of lasciviousness: “indecent bodily movements, . . . following the inclination to sensuality.” If there is something in the dance that emphasizes certain parts of the body which tend to arouse sexual excitement, then that movement is sin! If there is something in the dance movement which stirs the mind toward thinking in terms of sensual desires, then that dance is wrong!

With this definition in mind, think of the embraces and movements of the bodies on the dance floor. Sometimes you see arms and legs intertwined that are suggestive of sexual embrace. (Does “Dirty Dancing” ring a warning bell?) Body gyrations and jiggling either practiced or observed puts a person in a position that is nothing more or less than that of sexual advertisement and suggestiveness – all set to the beat of music. (The thought crosses my mind; how would people look going through all those motions if there was no music? They would look pretty sillyl Bob Hope once remarked that “if they turned off the music the dancers would all be put in jail.”)

Now, if you think for a moment that I am only spouting the old church party line concerning the modern dance, read the following quotations spoken by leading authorities on dance:

Dancing is an exciting and pleasurable recreation as it affords a partial satisfaction to the sex impulse (Lita Hollingsworth, professor of Education, Columbia University).*

The difference between wrestling and dancing is that, in wrestling some holds are barred. I don’t think ballroom dancing will ever return to popularity. People always thought of it as a prelude to sex, but people do not need preludes anymore (Arthur Murray, famous dance instructor).**

Dances … have developed from the Twist. The feet are rooted to the spot, though there is plenty of motion, callipygian, pelvic, mammary, cranial, and gesticulary…. The youngsters . . . have parodied it into a replica of some ancient tribal puberty rite . . . the pelvis gets all the play . . ., switching sexily from side to side, while the hands make slow sensuous gestures (Time Magazine).*

Dr. E.S. Sommers, past eminent specialist in nervous disorders of Chicago and Los Angeles, spoke of the modern dance in these terms:

I flatly do charge that the modern social dancing is fundamentally sinful and evil. I charge that dancing’s charm is based entirely upon sex appeal. I charge that dancing is the most advanced and most insidious of the maneuvers preliminary to sex betrayal. It is nothing more or less than damnable, diabolical, animal, physical dissipation. Under what other shield can a man or woman, a youth or maiden so promiscuously fondle so many people of the opposite sex in a single evening or a lifetime? I am no prig or prude and so I can tell you frankly it is not safe to subject even the strongest men and woman to the subtle temptations of the dance. A trail of broken homes proves this. The physical stimulation of the dance with its fingerlings of the lowest and most primitive emotions, drugs the intellect and the spirit.**

Summary

I believe our teens need to have valid and reasonable answers to their questions as regards their dating activities. The Bible is not silent concerning these issues which so strongly affect the lives of our young people; the answers are clear. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Touching another’s body (not your mate) in a sexual way is a sin. Dancing in such a way that either the dancer or the observer has their sensuous desires kindled is a sin.

A Christian will not participate in these activities, nor will he put himself in a situation or go to a locality where these activities will take place.

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:11-13).

I want to teach my teenage son the dangers of the world, and I want to give him straight answers to the difficult questions he is facing. I want him to remain pure through his young years so that when he marries he will be pure and pleasing to God and his mate. Will you resolve to do the same for your children?

Endnotes

*Cited from: Dennis Abernathy, “Problems In Dating,” Vanguard Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 20, Oct. 28, 1977, p. 462.

“Cited in: The Voice of Evangelism, July 29, 1950, p. 238.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, pp. 144-146
March 2, 1989

By Joe Griffin

What if you could afford to produce a program and buy air time on television? Certainly you would consider this a great opportunity. Yet this opportunity may be accessible to many, but few know of it. I didn’t know it existed until my wife worked as a temporary for our local station for a couple of months. The station is a Public Access Community Cable Television Station. When she came home and tole me I could put on a program free of charge I could hardly believe it.

First let me tell you a little about public access television (may be called something different in your community). Congress said that, since we have a first amendment right to freedom of speech, and since the people who make up a community do not have free access to most means of speaking out, if a cable television company is awarded a contract by a city they must make available a channel if the city wants to provide a station. This station then is to allow the people of the community to use its facilities free of charge. There is some cost associated with it however, but as you will see, it is well worth the same expense. Before you can use the equipment you have to be trained on it. Here, there is a $15 training fee and $5 a year thereafter. Though all the equipment (camera, lights, editing, studio, etc.) is furnished, you have to provide tapes, and anything else outside of this equipment. You will have to spend a minimum of fifteen hours in class, and probably more if you want to produce live programs, like a call-in program. As you can see though, for the opportunities the cost is very small.

I don’t have the space to tell you all there is to this great opportunity, but about anything you could imagine using television for, you can use Public Access to do.

The greatest catch to all this is, even thought there are several towns which have it, more do not. Call your local cable company to see if it is offered in your community. If not, you may be able to get one started. There are not five (that I know of) in the state of New Mexico which has less population fr the whole state than most cities have. If you are interested in this great opportunity (and who shouldn’t be when you consider the philosophy of most of the people who have control of the air waves), but do not have access to this, and would like to, write me and I will give you more information on how you can help start Public Access in your community. If you do have access to it, write me too, so that we may share ideas on how to use it in furthering the gospel. If you have some programs already produced send me the information on them and we may be able to air them here.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, pp. 164, 183
March 16, 1989

By Lanny Smith

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Anyone who has studied these verses knows that they are subject to varied interpretations and that these interpretations have caused problems among brethren. Surely these verses are like those “hard to be understood” things of which Peter spoke (2 Pet. 3:16). While not claiming to have all the answers, I would like to offer my thoughts on these Scriptures.

Some claim more for these verses than can be supported by the rest of the Bible. While I respect the convictions of these people, I believe that they have taken an extreme view of this passage. The claim is made that a woman should make no comment, nor ask any question in any teaching arrangement of the local church. Such an assertion ignores both the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 14 and the context of the rest of the Scriptures.

The thrust of the commands of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is the woman’s role of subjection to men (v. 34b; cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-12). A contrast is drawn between “speaking” (whether inspired or not is irrelevant) and being “in subjection.” Hence, we should have some understanding of the concept of subjection before we can understand these verses.

The woman’s role of subjection is by no means limited to the local church, or to the assembly (1 Cor. 11:2-3; 1 Tim. 2:8-14). Hence, whatever subjection means in the assembly, it also means out of the assembly. How can it be that a woman who merely asks a question in the assembly is considered insubordinate, and yet the same woman with the same question is considered in subjection out of the assembly? Such reasoning makes distinctions where the Bible does not. We must not limit the woman’s role of subjection to the assembly, nor should we equate such subjection with being speechless. As I understand subjection, it is more significant how one speaks to someone in authority, rather than if one speaks. Consider that each one of us must be in subjection to someone (Eph. 5:21; 6:1-5; Heb. 13:17). Do such relationships demand that we refrain from all speaking?

Notice the significance of the words “speak” and “keep silence” in 1 Corinthians 14. These words do not carry the same significance in every context. For example, the word “speak” can mean anything from “utter” to “preach” (see Strong’s Greek Dictionary, p. 44). In the context of 1 Corinthians 14, especially from verse 26 onward, the predominate idea is to lead the public worship (i.e., as if to preach). Obviously, “keep silence” would have the opposite connotation. Herein lies the significance of vv. 34-35. Since preaching to the assembled church would cause the woman to “usurp authority over the man” (1 Tim. 2:12), she is forbidden to do so (cp. Tit. 2:15). Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-35 again with these ideas in mind.

In verse 35, the women are told further to ask questions of “their husbands at home.” Again, how can merely asking a question in the assembly be considered insubordinate, and yet not be considered so out of the assembly? Remember, wives are to be in subjection to “their husbands at home,” too (Eph. 5:22-24,32-33).

The answer which seems best to suit the context is that these questions were not asked in the proper spirit. The word “ask” (Greek: eperotao) used here can carry the significance of “demand” or “disputing” in some contexts. Consider these quotes from scholars on this word (all emph. mine, Is):

(1) Vine (p. 301): “to ask, interrogate, inquire of, consult, or to demand of a person.”

(2) Thayer (p. 230): “To accost one with an inquiry.”

(3) T.D.N. T. (abridged, p. 262): “. . . perhaps disputing rather than merely asking questions (Lk. 2:46; cf. v. 47). In Matt. 16:1 the sense is ‘request’ or ‘demand.’ In I Cor. 14:35 wives are to ask their husbands at home.”

Compare Luke 3:14 and 17:20, where this same word is translated “demanded” in the KJV. When we consider the citations above, and all that the Bible says about subjection, it is very likely that Paul is rebuking the manner in which they asked, rather than the mere asking of questions. Remember that Paul is correcting disorderly abuses (w. 26,33,40). Even though the women may have legitimate reasons for asking questions, they were speaking in such a manner as to disrupt the assembly and dispute with the men. Hence, they were insubordinate (v. 34b). Such boisterous conduct is “a shame” and “is not permitted.” The idea to “ask . . . at home” is parallel to “eat at home” in I Corinthians 11:22,34. There, Paul isn’t saying “eat at home” as much as he’s saying “don’t eat in the assembly” (cf. 11: 17-18,20,22,33-34). If we took his statement, “eat at home,” literally, then we couldn’t eat at McDonald’s. Similarly, “ask (demand/dispute) . . . at home” means “don’t be disputive in the assembly.” This is not to be understood as a command for women to be insubordinate at home; rather the stress is placed upon proper conduct in the assembly.

This interpretation harmonizes with all that the Bible says about the woman’s role of subjection, without placing undue restrictions upon her. A woman is not insubordinate simply because she modestly asks questions or makes comments in situations where men teach (cf. Jn. 4:1-27). The woman’s role in teaching (even teaching men) is evident throughout the Scriptures (Judg. 4:4ff; Jn. 4:28-30,39; Acts 18:26; Col. 3:16; Tit. 2:3-5). However, stress should be placed upon her disposition and conduct, especially when teaching men. She should always display the “meek and quiet spirit” of which Peter spoke (1 Pet. 3:4). She is not to “teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” (1 Tim. 2:11-12), which would forbid her from public preaching (cf. Tit. 2:15).

We should not force women into absolute silence, nor should we defend their “right to speak” to the extent that we go to the equally dangerous extreme of ignoring their proper place of subjection. There should be balance in our teaching on this subject, especially in our modem society where many women are unashamed to “usurp authority.” Let us stand only upon the Word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, pp. 163-164
March 16, 1989

By Weldon E. Warnock

Did it rain before the Flood, or was, the earth’s vegetation watered by irrigation from underground streams? It is my conviction that it did rain before the Flood, although I cannot be absolutely certain. A river ran out of the garden of Eden and parted into four headstreams (Gen. 2:10). These four rivers were Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and Euphrates. The water from these rivers would pour into the sea. However, the sea, would not overflow.

We read, “Or who shut up the sea with doors. . . . Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed” (Job 38:8,11). “He gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command” (Prov. 8:29, NIV). Both of these preceding verses were speaking of the time of creation. But let us notice again, “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again” (Eccl. 1:7). Obviously, here is suggested evaporation. The sea is not full and the water, by vaporization, returns to the rivers, and falls as rain. This principle antedates Noah, it seems to me. Hence, I conclude there was rain before the Flood.

At the time of Adam Genesis 2:6 states, “But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” C.F. Keil said, “The mist (vapor, which falls as rain, Job 36:27) is correctly regarded by Delitzsch as the creative beginning of the rain itself, from which we may infer, therefore,,that it rained before the flood” (The Pentateuch, Keil & Delitzsch, Vol. 1, p. 78). Genesis 2:5, which says “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain,” would have to be interpreted in conjunction with verse 6.

The Pulpit Commentary notes in regard to v. 6, “. . vaporous exhalations began to ascend to the aerial regions, and to return again in the shape of rain upon the ground” (Vol. 1, p. 40). Lange declares that the midst “can mean nothing but the rain itself” (Genesis-Leviticus, Vol. 1, p. 202).

On the other hand, the New International Version translates Genesis 2:6, “but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” The New English Bible renders the passage, “A flood used to rise out of the earth and water all the surface of the ground.” However, virtually all standard translations adopt “mist,” In my estimation, “mist” is to be preferred. In Job 36:47 the same word necessarily means “vapor.”

Whitcomb and Morris maintain that there was no rain before the Flood. They wrote,, “This inference is supported also by the fact that the rainbow is mentioned as a new sign from God to man after the Flood, implying strongly that rain as we know it and the subsequent, rainbow were experienced for the first time then (Genesis 9:11-17)” (The Genesis Flood, p. 241).

But was the rainbow experienced for the first time in Genesis 9:11-17? God said to Noah, “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth” (v. 13). “I do set,” according to The Pulpit Commentary, literally means, “I have given, or placed, an indication that the atmospheric phenomenon referred to had already frequently appeared” (Vol. 1, p. 143). The NIV reads, “I have (emphasis supplied) set my rainbow in the cloud.” The ASV has in a footnote, “I have (emphasis supplied) set.” Therefore, it appears that God took the rainbow, a familiar and frequent phenomenon, and gave a symbolic meaning to it. The rainbow would from that day forth symbolize that God would never again destroy the world by water.

Concerning the rainbow, Keil suggests, “From this it may be inferred, not that it did not rain before the flood, which could hardly be reconciled with chapter 2:5, but that the atmosphere was differently constituted; a supposition in perfect harmony with the facts of natural history, which point to differences in the climate of the earth’s surface before and after the flood” (op. cit., p. 154). Though Keil’s position is possible, Genesis 9:11-17 does not compel us to reject the rainbow before the Flood, and in view of the data already presented, I am of the opinion the rainbow and rain preceded the days of Noah.

Sometimes Hebrews 11:7 is offered as evidence that rain was unknown until Noah. The verse roads, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house.” The verse does not say they had not seen rain, but rather it refers to the deluge that would sweep the earth. As F.F. Bruce proposed, “Such a catastrophe had never been known before” (Hebrews, p. 291).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, p. 171
March 16, 1989