"THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY"
When the angels asked Mary why she was weeping,she said, "Because they have taken away my Lord, andI know not where they have laid him" (Jno. 20:13). Marywas right about the absence of the Lord's body, though she was confused as to why the body was missing.
However, we have learned that there are those whowill take away the Lord, and everything which pertains to Him. Jesus said, "Woe unto you, lawyers!for ye have taken away the key of knowledge ..." (Lk.11:52). The New Testament of the Lord containstwenty-seven books, but by the time some peopleget thru with it, there is nothing left. They take awaythe virgin birth of the Lord, His second coming, and allelse in between.
There are those who claim that the first four books of the New Testament are not a part of the New Testament, but try to assign them to the law of Moses. Ifthis be true, then we have about 400 years between thebook of Malachi, and the four books of Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John. Jesus apparently thought He had covered the Old Testament pretty thoroughly when He made reference to the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms (Lk. 24:44).
Many great lessons are taught in these four books,lessons which are not to be found in the Old Testament (cf. Matt. 5:17ff). The Hebrew writer speaks of that "sogreat salvation; which at the first began to be spoken bythe Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them thatheard him" (Heb. 2:3). A distinction is clearly made between "the word spoken by angels" and this great salvation spoken by the Lord (v. 2). We must also remember that the first four books of the New Testament were not written at the time Christ spoke, but ratherHis words were brought to the remembrance of inspiredmen some thirty years later.
But why this attempt to take away these four books?Generally, there is but one reason—to neutralize the teaching of Christ on the subject of divorce and remarriage (Mt. 19:9). In order to get rid of this one verse,not only must the rest of the Book of Matthew beeliminated, but the following three books get the axe aswell.
Some approach the Book of Revelation, knowing fullwell that it contains symbolic and figurative language.But, by the time they have finished this book, theyinterpret it so as to take away plain teaching contained in the other twenty-six books of the New Testament (aswell as some rather plain prophecies in the Old Testament). With all due respect to this great book called Revelation, I fear some "let the tail wag the dog" whenthey give precedence to symbolic language instead ofplain statements concerning Christ, His kingdom, andHis second coming.
For instance, there are those among us who teach that Christ came the second time in A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, and we have been in "heaven"since that time. But, these same ones try to explain away sorrow, pain, and death, just as others do theteachings of Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Others try to place the things of Revelation 21-22 in
the church age, thus inheriting the same problem as
those who claim we are in heaven now, i.e., how to
explain the presence of tears, sorrow, pain, death, and
sin (Rev. 21:4, 27). Then, the tree of life is no longer in
heaven (22:2,14), and we are back where we were when
Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden, and away
from the tree of life. Then, the language of 2 Pet. 3
doesn't mean what we thought it did before we got to
Rev. 21:1, and maybe we can forget what we learned in
other books about the second coming of Christ and the
resurrection of "the just and unjust" at the judgment.
The point of this article is, that some have reversed
the principle which many denominational preachers fol
low. The Lord nailed the entire law of Moses to His cross (2 Cor. 3; Col. 2), but some want to retain thesabbath, some the burning of incense, some instrumental music, and others the idea of infant membership. Bythe time all get through taking what they want (or don't like), out of the New Testament, there isn't much left. Some take out the resurrection, some the judgment,some heaven, some hell, some the life and teaching ofChrist, and some the second coming of Christ.
About all this leaves is the account of Saul of Tarsus persecuting the church, which church isn't essential tosalvation anyway according to some. "They have takenaway" until there isn't much left to take away. The nextgeneration of these latter-day, penknife-wielding Jehoiakims aren't going to like that (Jer. 36:23). There's nothing left to cut out.
the bacon, Fry it up in a pan, And never let you forget you're a man." All this super woman lacks is a cape overher shoulder with a streak of lightning emblazoned onit. But such is the image of the successful, modern woman.
Now, let's get it straight. Some women never marryand some who do probably should not have done so.They have to support themselves. There are financial crises which arise in families which demand that the wife and mother do something to keep the family afloat.Widows must survive. Wives and mothers with sick or disabled husbands have to do something. What theyneed is understanding and support-not censure. It willnot be easy for them, nor for their children.But Paul taught that the older women should teachcertain things to the younger women, and instructed Titus, a gospel preacher, to include these things in hispreaching. Hear him out: "But speak thou the thingswhich become sound doctrine: That aged men be sober,grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior asbecometh holiness, not false accusers, not given tomuch wine, teachers of good things; that they mayteach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste,keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands,that the word of God be not blasphemed" (Titus 2:1-5)."Keepers at home", Paul said. Exactly what does that mean? Let's look at some other translations for help.
"workers at home" (New American Standard Version and ASV)
"homemakers" (New King James Version)
"domestic" (Revised Standard Version) "busy at
home" (New International Version) Do you get the
picture? Here is the most challenging career which any married women ever considered. It isat once challenging, frustrating, rewarding, fulfilling,exhausting. It provides support for a husband and guidance for children. It demands time, patience and effort.It is the cement which holds family life in place. Not only have the foundations of family life cracked andcrumbled, we have very little cement left to hold thebricks together
"Mother isn't home." Somebody has convinced herthat unless she competes in the job market she willnever really find out who she is. She must find self-expression and self-fulfillment. She must contributesomething of her talents to the world or it will surelydeteriorate. And so we educate our daughters to plan for business careers. We must prepare them to escapethe mundane, humdrum, boring, unfulfilling, dreary existence of being a "mere" wife and mother and homemaker. Ask a class of junior high or high school girlsabout their future plans and listen to what they say.How many of them REALLY dream of being goodwives and mothers?
We have all heard the reasons why mother is not athome. She can add greatly to the financial security ofthe family. They can ail have better housing, betterclothes, better cars, better trips. What we have not considered is that we shall also have disappointed husbands, neglected children and frustrated women. "It will teach the children to be more independent." Comeon! It will leave them alone when they need you. Theywill learn that you are really too tired or too busy toreally listen when they need to tell you of their disappointments or hurts, or their hopes and ambitions.They will find somebody to listen but, after it is too late,you will not always like their choice. You will not havetime to talk with them about Jesus and the apostles and the early Christians and how they applied truth to the real situations of daily existence. There will be button-less shirts, skirts and jeans. There will be unstitchedseams and hems. There will be unkept houses and youwill become more and more reluctant to have company.
Showing hospitality to friends and strangers will become a virtual impossibility. You will be too tired, or not have time to "guide the house" (1 Tim. 5:14); or to"bring up children", "lodge strangers", "wash the saints feet", "relieve the afflicted" and "diligently follow every good work" (1 Tim. 5:10). You cannot findtime to be "full of good works and almsdeeds" and make"coats and garments" for the poor as did Dorcas (Acts9:36-41). When will you and your husband ever findtime to "expound the way of the Lord more accurately"to an Apollos, or anyone else, as did Aquila and his wifePriscilla (Acts 18:24-26)? How will you be able to "laborin the Lord" as did Tryphena and Tryphosa (Rom. 16:12)? The "homemaker" is the foundation of hospitality.How can you ever find time to help your husband demonstrate this qualification of an elder? He cannot do itwithout you.
Many of the things just mentioned impact directly orindirectly on soul winning efforts, or the lack of them.Home studies go begging because life is too hectic tobother with them. Home chores which used to be done
in the daytime have to be done at night now. Who has thetime or inclination to invite folks in for Bible study?Several years ago, while living in Atlanta, I had homestudies several mornings a week with ladies who gathered in the homes of Christians after the children left for school. That resulted in a number obeying the gospel.But now, husband leaves for work, children go to school and wife? Well, she leaves, too. She must not be bored and she MUST find herself and be fulfilled! It is her duty! She must make a statement and be part of a movement to forever halt injustice and stop chauvinismin its tracks!
Something is wrong here, folks. We must get back towhat the Bible teaches. Families are falling apart for wantof it and churches are suffering in the aftershocks. Youngpeople would be well advised to discuss this area fully before marrying and come to a meeting of the minds asto what the Bible teaches and the roles to be filled by each partner. Children must be taught at home, in Bible classesand from the pulpit what Paul told Titus to preach as a partof "sound doctrine." Preachers, are you telling older and younger women what Paul said to tell them about being"homemakers"? Would you "catch it" from the women where you preach if you did, or worse yet, from your wifewhen she gets you home?
Sisters, if you want a career which will help stabilize thebasic unit of all ordered society, make your husband a better man, give your children guidance for life, set aworthy example for your children, grandchildren andneighbors, develop leadership qualities in your husband which will help the church and provide a better climate inwhich to enhance the work of soul winning, then I strongly recommend to you the challenge of being a good wife and mother who is "discreet, chaste" and a "keeperat home."
HE WILL DO SOMETHING BETTER
The contrasting views of prayer of two fictional characters struck me as being very typical. I suspect theyreflect the beliefs of their respective creators.
Mark Twain's Huck is occasionally quoted as representative of a pragmatic interpretation of this matter of prayer.
"Miss Watson she took me in the closet and prayed,but nothing come of it. She told me to pray every day,and whatever I asked for I would get it. But it warn't so.I tried it. Once I got a fish-line, but no hooks. It warn'tany good to be without hooks. I tried for the hooks threeor four times, but somehow I couldn't make it work. Byand by, one day, I asked Miss Watson to try for me, butshe said I was a fool. She never told me why, and Icouldn't make it out no way."
"I set down one time back in the woods, and had along think about it. I says to myself; if a body can getanything they pray for why don't Deacon Winn getback the money he lost on pork? Why can't the widow get back her silver snuff-box that was stole? Why can'tMiss Watson fat up? No, says I to myself, there ain'tnothing in it." (Adventures of Huckleberry Finn).
Surely we can all experience with Huck Finn. We haveprayed for fish-lines and snuff-boxes too.
And we have prayed for sound health and have seensickness. We've prayed for success and have suffered failure. Haven't we all thought it, even if we haven't saidit? "There ain't nothing in it!"
Just what did the Lord mean anyway when He said,"Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast intothe sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believesthat those things he says will come to pass, he will havewhatever he says. Therefore I say to you, whateverthings you ask when you pray, believe that you receivethem, and you will have them" (Mark 11:22-24).
Johanna Spyri's "grandmother" expressed a quitedifferent point of view to the child, Heidi, in anotherclassic from the world of literature. Heidi said:
"It is of no use, God does not listen. . . and I can understand that when there are so many, many people inFrankfurt praying to him every evening that He cannotattend to them all, and He certainly has not heard whatI said to Him."
"And why are you so sure of that, Heidi?"
"Because I have prayed for the same thing every day
for weeks, and yet God has not done what I asked."
"You are wrong, Heidi; you must not think of Himlike that. God is a good father to us all, and knowsbetter than we do what is good for us. If we ask Him for something that is not good for us, He doesnot give it, but something better still, if only wewill continue to pray earnestly and do not run awayand lose our trust in Him. God did not think what you have been praying for was good for you justnow; but be sure He heard you, for He can hear andsee every one at the same time, because He is Godand not a human being like you and me. And because He thought it was better for you not to haveat once what you wanted, He said to Himself: Yes,Heidi shall have what she asks for, but not until theright time comes, so that she may be quite happy. IfI do what she wants now, and then one day she seesthat it would have been better for her not to have had her own way, she will cry and say,' If only God hadnot given me what I asked for, it is not so good as I expected!"
Later in the story, Heidi exclaims:
'"... everything is happier now than it has everbeen in our lives before!' and she sang and skippedalong.. . but all at once she grew quiet and said, ' I fGod had let me come at once, as I prayed, theneverything would have been different, I should only have had a little bread to bring to grandmother, and I should not have been able toread, which is such a comfort to her; but God hasarranged it all so much better than I knew how to; Oh, how glad I am that God did not let me have atonce all I prayed and wept for... God, I am sure, isgoing to do something better still."
I can relate to this too. A number of times I have thanked God for unanswered prayers.It's a good line to remember: "God, I am sure, is going to do something better still."
The Lord is able to give thee much more than this...
(2 Chron. 25:9).
"Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according tothe power that works in us, to Him be glory in thechurch by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph. 3:20,21).
SECOND AFFIRMATIVEBy Marshall E. Patton
PROPOSITION: The Scriptures teach that the innocent person (free of fornication) who has been put awaywithout God's or his/her approval and against whomadultery has been committed may remarry.
I appreciate the fine spirit in which Brother Phillipshas made reply to my first affirmative. His first paragraph expresses my sentiments exactly, relative to thisdebate.
There are some things in his reply that demand attention on my part. After noticing these, I shall proceedwith further affirmative material.
The Put Away "Her"
In spite of all the proof given in my first affirmative(including my chart) showing that Matt. 5:32b refers toa particular "her," Brother Phillips repeatedly asserts (without proof) that it refers to ANY put away person.The put away "her" of v 32b has had no fornication committed against her. The woman of our propositionhas. The two women are different and the situations are different! Why, then, persist in applying a portion ofScripture to a person who is not even in it in the first place?
Furthermore, it matters not where the emphasis isplaced—on the put away one or on the person marryingthe put away one—both commit adultery when no fornication is involved before the remarriage.
You ask, "Where is an exception clause that releases aput away person from the statements in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, and permits him/herto marry another?" If you mean by "a put away person" one who was put away by human authority, in violationof the will of God, and, hence, without God's approval (which is the one this debate is about), then the answeris in the exception clauses of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. If not,Why not? Your only answer so far—and the only possible answer that can be given is that such is "a put awayperson" not specifically mentioned in the exception clauses. Certainly not! The "whosoever" is genericenough to include such as per my argument in my firstaffirmative. Such putting away is by HUMAN AUTHORITY and is FUTILE! Even you have admittedtwice in your reply article that the bond in heaven remains unbroken. If action by human authority can setaside the divine prerogative in this instance, then youneed to answer the question: How many more divine
prerogatives can be set aside by human authority? Iknow you admitted that such was wrong in your firstnegative, but, Elwood, you need to show escape fromthis consequence. If follows necessarily from your position. Remember, the only reason, according to yourposition, that the innocent person against whom fornication has been committed cannot exercise the divine right that God gave (to put away and remarry) is because someone made a human law contrary to it andacted upon it, making the person of our proposition the victim of such action. Thus, human law supersedes divine law! You said I made a great play on this in my firstarticle. If you mean, I placed great emphasis on it,indeed, I did. Furthermore, we are not through with ityet. I cannot accept a position that demands such a consequence.
Furthermore, your reply to my argument on the word"Whosoever" in relation to the exception clause inMatt. 5:32; 19:9 does not answer the argument. You distinguished between the "whosoever" in relation tothe exception clause and the "whosoever" in the b partof these verses, but you did not exclude the person ofour proposition from the former "whosoever." It doesnot answer the argument to say that such is a put awayperson. Remember, this putting away is futile! According to your own admission, the bond in heaven remains.Therefore, it has no bearing on the divine prerogative.Otherwise, human law supersedes divine law!
A Third Putting Away
You accuse me of affirming a third putting away. No,just because there is "mutual agreement" to divorce does not alter the fact of putting away No. 2, namely,when no fornication is involved. Even you admit "Thereis no explanation from God as to what the circumstances were regarding those put away when there is nofornication involved." Then why exclude the circumstance of "mutual agreement" and make it a third putting away?
Concerning the "mutual agreement" argument thatexcludes such from our proposition, you ask for an explanation in God's word. I gave it in my first affirmativein the next sentence following the one you quoted, saying, "My reasons are based upon Matt. 5:32." Then follows my explanation which you overlooked. Pleaseread it again.
Under the heading "Matthew 5:32" in reply to myaffirmation of two putting aways, you say, "The secondputting away involves brother Patton's person who hasbeen put away against her will. The reason I know thisis because the husband's putting her away caused her,when she remarried as per brother Patton's chart, tocommit adultery," No, Brother Phillips, "brother Patton's person who has been put away against her will"and against whom adultery has been committed is not in my chart. The one in my chart and in Matt. 5:32b hashad no fornication committed against her—the one inour proposition has. You also missed the point on whatyou call "brother Patton's 'mutual agreement.'" Elwood, if they mutually agree to the putting away when no fornication is involved, BOTH share in the guilt of adultery that follows regardless of which one commitsit.
The Waiting Game
Brother Phillips accuses me of endorsing the "waiting game" even though I denied it. I still deny it AS DEFINED in my definition of terms. I defined it accordingto its normal usage in relation to the subject of Divorceand Remarriage. Brother Phillips has brought up a situation altogether different. There are a number of situations, according to his use of the expression, that mightbe called the "waiting game." Of course, the woman ofmy proposition must wait until fornication is committed against her before remarriage. So must every woman who is bound in heaven to a husband, includingboth my wife and Brother Phillips' wife. However, noneof these have in view remarriage. Neither does the person of my proposition. He/she is praying, hoping, and trying for reconciliation. Brother Phillips is obligated to deal with the one defined in our proposition.
Mark 10:11
Brother Phillips tries to tell our readers that myargument is based upon Mark 10:11. In so doing he putswords in my mouth which I never used and attributesan argument to me that I never made. I did not argue that the person of my proposition is in this verse; that"because she has had adultery committed against her"that she "may now put away her former husband andremarry."
The only argument I made based upon Mark 10:11 was with a view to corroborating my argument based upon Matt. 5:32, namely, that the putting away therein(except for fornication) was futile! Since the marrying ofanother in Mark 10:11 was "against her," i.e., the oneput away, it shows that the bond in heaven is yet intact.untouched, and unaffected! This was my argument.Brother Phillips has admitted that the bond remainsunbroken, so regardless of what this verse teaches fromthe view point of grammar, we both agree on the point Imade—the bond in heaven remains intact.
However, his lesson in grammar and his conclusionare in error. His rule of grammar is true, except whenthere is an obvious exception. In Mark 10:11 the obvious exception is found in the word "against" on which he bases his argument. Since the sin was adultery, there is no way it could be against the second wife; it would be with her. Brother Phillips's own words accommodate this point: "and he sins against the second by committing adultery WITH (Emp.—MEP) her." Thus,according to Brother Phillips, while he sinned againstthe second wife, he committed adultery with her. Thus,the adultery was with the second and against the first..
Who is in Matthew 5:32
Under this heading Brother Phillips continues topress me for "a person who has been put away who can remarry." This overlooks my argument that the innocent put away person of our proposition who has had fornication committed against her is in the exceptionclauses of Matt. 5:32; 19:9 and has the divine right toput away the guilty spouse and marry another. Remem
ber, to deny this divine right to such a person on the
grounds of her being a put away person overlooks the
fact that such putting away is futile and dethrones
divine authority and enthrones human authority.
In the paragraph that begins with "Look at 5:32 for amoment," Brother Phillips sets forth my position exactly, and I appreciate his admission: "she still is boundby God to her husband." Notice, however, that in theverse quoted it is "her" that is divorced and not just anydivorced person.
I am in full agreement with his next paragraph also.Notice again, however, that when he says, "When that'whosoever' marries that put away one in Matt. 5:32b, he 'committeth adultery.' Period," that our agreementinvolves "that put away one in Matt. 5:32b"—not any put away one.
Patton's Chart No. l—Matthew 5:32
What Brother Phillips says about my chart is true—itproves that "no adultery is involved" and "no one is free to marry again." What he says about what I was tryingto prove by the chart is wrong! I was trying to provethat the person of our proposition is not in Matt. 5:32because adultery is involved against her. I agree withhis statement: "THAT (Emp.—MEP) put away person(not any put away person—MEP) in Matthew 5:32 commits adultery when she marries again. The Lord saidso!" I say, amen!
I believe this covers everything in Brother Phillips' reply that demands attention from me. If I have overlooked something, he may call my attention to it, and Iwill deal with it forthrightly.
Now, we must look at more affirmative material.
Matthew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adul
tery: and whoso marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery."
Like Matt. 5:32, understanding this verse, what is init and what is not in it, is essential to understanding thetruth on the issue under study. The issue in this studyhinges on the meaning given to the conjunction "and"translated from the Greek work "kai." The word itself admits of two possible meanings or views. Its meaningin any given instance must be determined in the light ofits context and all else that is revealed. The two views are obvious from the definition of the Greek word "kai" which is translated "and."
"It serves as a copulative i.e. to connect.. . single
words or terms.. . clauses and sentences.. . whole
narratives and expositions... It marks something
added to what has already been said, OR (Emp.—
MEP) that of which something already said holds
good; accordingly it takes on the nature of an ad
verb, also,.. . likewise" (Henry Thayer, Greek En
glish Lexicon, pp 315, 316).
We need to see these two views contrasted.
POSITION NUMBER ONE: If the "and" (Gr. "kai")be understood according to part a of the definition, i.e.,
"It marks something added to what has already been said," then it means that the events of the verse followin sequence and the b part of verse 9 happens after theevents of part a. This would make verse 9b apply to ANY put away wife or person—even if she be innocentand her husband has committed adultery against her.This represents the position Brother Phillips has affirmed throughout this discussion.
POSITION NUMBER TWO: This view affirms that the meaning of "and" (Gr. "kai") is as defined in the b part of the definition, i.e., "as an adverb. . . likewise."This makes the b part of verse 9 just like the situation inthe a part of the verse. Hence it follows that since thehusband in 9a who put away his wife and married another when no fornication was involved, before his re-marriage, committed adultery, LIKEWISE the put away wife who marries when no fornication wasinvolved, before her remarriage, commits adultery.This would make verse 9b apply not to ANY put awayperson, but only to "her" who was put away when nofornication was involved before her remarriage.
Look at the two positions contrasted in the following charts:
has been committed.
Which of the two positions is true? If position No. 1 is correct, then 1) It makes Jesus teach something different from the same statement in Matt. 5:32b—and that without evidence. 2) It subjugates divine law to human law and away goes the divine principle of Acts
5:29. If position No. 2 is correct, then 1) We have harmony between Matt. 5:32b and Matt. 19:9b. 2) We haveharmony with all else and we eliminate all problems ofNo. 1. I affirm that the consequences of the two positions demand that we accept No. 2.
The rule of harmony would lead to the conclusion thatLuke 16:18b teaches the same thing. Look at all three b parts of these verses: Matt. 5:32b, "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matt.19:9b, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away dothcommit adultery." Lk. 16:18b, "and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committethadultery."
I insist that the person of my proposition is not in the b part of these verses. To so apply them is to misapply. Iinsist that the person of my proposition is in the exceptional clauses of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9; that this personmay exercise the divine right given by Christ to putaway the guilty spouse and marry another regardless ofwhat men on earth may do and all human law to thecontrary.
SECOND NEGATIVE By H. E. Phillips
I appreciate the fine attitude brother Patton has shown in his second affirmative. I now wish to pay respects to his reply to mine and then to his secondaffirmative.
Patton's Position Clarified
The first thing I think ought to be done is to try toclarify what I believe brother Patton is defending. If wecannot understand what he is defending, then we obviously cannot find a scriptural solution to it. If the following is not his position, he will correct me.
I understand brother Patton's position to be as follows: Two people are married and bound by God. The husband decides to divorce the wife, with no fornicationinvolved. The wife begs the husband not to get the divorce. Her pleading is to no avail, he gets the divorce anyway. At a later time (the length of time would have no bearing on the situation) the husband remarries,thereby committing adultery. After the adultery and/orremarriage, the wife may now (because the puttingaway was against her will and God's will) put him awayfor fornication and remarry with the approval of God.This is the woman of his proposition.
Brother Patton and I agree on what Matthew 19:9aactually says. But we disagree on 19:9b because of hisexceptional clause. "And whosoever shall marry herthat is put away (except it was without her approvaland if her husband commits adultery or remarries)commits adultery."
By implication brother Patton has placed an exceptional clause in the passage that is not actually in it. The "her" in brother Patton's proposition is not in thisverse. Yet he makes this "her" who is put away againsther will and whose husband has committed adultery orremarried an element that is necessary to prove hispoint. He admits that she cannot remarry before hecommits adultery. I asked before, and I ask again,Where is the exceptional clause that releases a "putaway woman" from the adultery of Matthew 5:32b,19:9b; Luke 16:18b who has been put away when nofornication was involved, with or without her will?
The Put Away "Her"
Brother Patton has created another problem for himself. He has reduced the number of putting aways toONE: the one for fornication, which is by divine authority. He says the other putting away is FUTILE! It is NOT really a putting away because it is by human authority.
I want to look very closely at Matthew 5:32b and seewhat is IN it and what is NOT IN it. "... and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."What is IN this clause? Two persons: "whosoever"—anyone, everyone, and "her that is divorced"—anyone,everyone who is divorced. When they marry they commit adultery, and there is no exception. What is NOTIN this clause? No persons other than the "whosoever" and "her that is divorced." There is no way you can getany thing else in Matthew 5:32b and deal justly withthe passage.
Two women are not in the verse; only the wife of the "whosoever" who puts her away. This one woman may be in a dozen different situations, but so may the manwho put her away. One may imagine that the wife is in asituation of not being guilty of adultery and draw wideconclusions. But two women are NOT IN Matthew 5:32a.
What Do the Scriptures Mean By Put Away?
Brother Patton defined "put away" in his first affirmative as: "By 'put away' I mean the breaking of thepersonal commitment made to one's spouse when God joined them in marriage." Later he said of Matthew 5:32, "This verse shows that there are two puttingaways," and he said of the second: "This putting away isdone by human authority and, hence, without God's approval."
Brother Patton seems to think that the difference between putting away for fornication and for everyother cause is resolved by saying that the latter "wasput away by human authority." The thing that seems toelude him is the fact that all marriages and all divorcesmay involve human authority. He is equating "marriage" with which man is involved with "bond" whichonly God can make.
Marriage consists of a covenant between a man andwoman: an agreement, commitment, and a relationshipto fulfill the duties and obligations enjoined upon bothof them by their covenant to each other. It also has a divine element. When they vow and pledge themselvesto each other for life, God joins this man and woman together with a yoke that can be broken only by God.Those whom God has joined together are "one flesh"(Matthew 19:5; Genesis 2:24). At death God releasesthat bond of marriage (Romans 7:2,3; I Corinthians7:39). If one of those joined by God commits fornication, the other may put that fornicator away, and God releases the innocent person from that yoke, to be married to another eligible person. The guilty fornicator isstill bound to that yoke and may not remarry. All whoare bound by that yoke, whether put away for fornication, or for any reason, may not remarry.
This commitment and joint responsibility may be forsaken. When the commitment is broken, the relationship is dissolved. This is defined in Matthew 5:31 as"Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement." Further explanation of this is given in Deuteronomy 24:1, where Moses said that itmeant "... then let him write her a bill of divorcement,and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."One may break that mutual contract and covenant andexpel the other from that relationship. When this happens the marriage is broken. Whoever initiates the termination of the marriage "puts away" the other. He/shedismisses the spouse from the relationship. Whether approved by God or by the one put away makes nodifference, the marriage is terminated; it no longer exists! How can one talk about TERMINATING a relationship that has already been TERMINATED?
However, that yoke which God placed upon them isnot released. Only God can do that, and He does it atdeath, and when the marriage is terminated for thecause of fornication; that is, when the putting away, thedismissing of the spouse, takes place because he/shecommitted fornication, not sometime after the marriage is terminated.
Brother Patton equates the putting away with God releasing the yoke, but a marriage can be terminated bydivorce and the yoke by God still be binding
It is possible for a man and woman to make a covenant with each other to live as man and wife, and not bejoined by God. The Bible calls this relationship "marriage" (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18). TheBible clearly teaches that one may be married and not"joined" by God, or he may be "joined" by God and not be married. Romans 7:2,3 teaches that a woman may bemarried to one man and bound to another. She is called an adulteress when she does. I Corinthians 7:10,11 teaches that a woman may be unmarried and still bound to her husband. If she is UNMARRIED, she is notmarried. A woman may be married to one man, butyoked to another (Matthew 14:3,4).
The Waiting Game
Brother Patton says, "Brother Phillips accuses me ofendorsing the 'waiting game' even though I denied it. Istill deny it AS DEFINED in my definition of terms."
Please read his definition of terms in his first affirmative. He said he made no defense of the one who desired the divorce in remarriage. "By 'without. . . his/her approval' I mean without any desire, intent, or action onhis/her part in relation to the putting away. . . "
"Furthermore, this expression 'without. . . his/herapproval' excludes from this proposition those who would play 'the waiting game.'" Read his definition of "the waiting game." He said, "I want it clearly understood that such persons are excluded from the proposition which I affirm. I make no effort to justify suchpersons in remarriage."
But after denying the waiting game, he says, "Of course, the woman of my proposition MUST WAITUNTIL FORNICATION IS COMMITTED AGAINST HER BEFORE REMARRIAGE (emp. mine—HEP). . . however, none of these have in viewremarriage. Neither does the person of my proposition.He/she is praying, hoping, and trying for reconciliation."
There is not a chance that brother Patton can escapethe consequences of his position. He advocates "thewaiting game" in the woman of his proposition, even with his definition of terms. He uses the phrase "without. . . his/her approval" to get to the "mutual agreement" and then rejects this as the person of his proposition. That is not what the scriptures teach by directstatement, approved example or necessary inference.
But how does one know if she resisted the puttingaway? Are we going to allow thousands of divorces and remarriages to rest upon the statement of the put awaythat he/she resisted and prayed for reconciliation?
Mark 10:11
Brother Patton says I put words in his mouth and attribute to him an argument he did not make. I ask himif he repudiates the words I put in his mouth, or does hebelieve what I said his position is?
I insist that I am correct about the rules of English grammar. The antecedent of a pronoun is the closestnoun to it, which, in this passage, is "woman" understood. My case for "adultery against" the second wife isstronger than" your argument for the first wife. Youhave by no means proved this point; you have simply asserted it.
The Greek epi that is translated "against" in the KingJames Version is translated "with" in Nestle's Interlinear. Nigel Turner in the Bible Translator of October, 1956, page 152 says of Mark's use of epi inthis context: "i.e. unto or with. . . " Your point on"against" is not conclusive in establishing your case.
The Meaning Of "And" (KAI)
I checked 35 translations in my library on Matthew
19:9 for a translation of kai by an English word other than "and." In not one translation did the words "ALSO" or "LIKEWISE" appear either in the text orfootnotes. That ought to tell us something about whatthe word kai meant to all the scholars who translated the Greek by the English "and."
Brother Patton says that understanding Matthew19:9, what is in it and what is not in it, is essential tounderstanding the truth on the issue under study. "Theissue in this study HINGES (emp. mine-HEP) on themeaning given to the conjunction 'and' translated from the Greek work 'kai.'" He says the word admits of twopossible views from Thayer's definition, namely, as acopulative and as an adverb. He assigns to me the firstmeaning and he takes the second.
There is not one word in the "b" clauses of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18 to show any area for any exceptions to the plain statement that "whosoever marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery."
Brother Patton has failed to prove his proposition bythe scriptures. He has only presented assertions,claims, unnecessary inferences, and misapplied scriptures to establish a position that cannot be proved bythe word of God. Brother Patton's whole propositionrests upon an imagined situation and not upon scripture.
From time to time the editor of STS shares with readers timely and wise advice concerning successfulgospel meetings. He is certainly qualified to offer suchadvice, and I am always edified and enlightened by the information provided, and often entertained by the anecdotal manner in which it is presented.
In recent months brother Adams has made the observation that gospel meetings often are more effective ifthey go through Sunday rather than end on Friday, and if an exceptionally good song leader is invited in todirect the singing.
In view of these suggestions, it was thought thatboth editor and readers might be interested in the viewpoint of the late Marion Davis concerning meetings.Marion Davis was publisher and editor of TRUTH INLOVE, a monthly journal. He was a well known songleader back in the days when it was in vogue to bring ina song leader as well as a preacher for meetings. BrotherDavis led singing throughout the nation in meetingswith such men as Foy Wallace and Roy Cogdill. It washis considered opinion that "shorter" meetings are better. Here is what brother Davis wrote (emphasis ismine, TM):
SHORT MEETINGS BETTER
It has been my pleasure to lead the singing inmany gospel meetings in the past twentyyears. I have seen long ones and short ones. Inthe long ones I have always observed that thesecond week you have to begin your meetingall over again and it usually takes until Thursday to get the interest back where it wasthe Second Sunday night. Of course, the reason for this is that the members get tired and just 'lay out' for a rest. They (some of them) are just not going to attend every service in a long drawn out affair. The short meeting from Sunday to Sunday is well attended. The members know that it is only tobe a week and they must not miss a service.The week passes, great crowds attend, a great meeting is had and everybody is happy.No one worn to a frazzle, and the preacherand singer can go home for a short visit withtheir loved ones before going on to the nextmeeting. Any preacher that cannot tell people what to do to be saved in an eight-day meeting should be publishing song books or plowing cotton. Yes, give me two short meet
ings each year instead of one long one.
Marion Davis
TRUTH IN LOVE, July, 1947
Perhaps this is good advice from brother Davis! Our meetings just might be more effective if we were toreturn to the "short", eight day. Sunday to Sunday meetings!
In his article of September, 1986, bro. Weldon Warnock affirmed that a woman may teach a class thatincludes young baptized males. I wish to present a different view. (I suggest the readers re-read his articlenow).
I am not certain that it is unquestionably sinful for a woman to teach young baptized males, but I and othersconsider the practice to be so doubtful that it causesserious problems of conscience (Rom. 14:23). Situations Ihave witnessed make me concerned that churches mayfail to respect the consciences of sincere, faithful Christians in this matter.
I consider the evidence offered in the 9/86 article to beinconclusive, at best. I will present additional evidence.Yet I hold absolutely no ill will for bro. Warnock, and I will try to speak in a spirit of brotherly kindness.
The Lexicons
We are told that lexicons prove that "'man' in I Tim.
2:12 excludes boys," and so women may teach classes ofbaptized 10-12-year-old males. Several lexicons were quoted, but what was not made clear was that all thelexicons—Thayer, Vine, Arndt [ Gingrich, and the Analytical Greek Lexicon—all are giving alternative definitions for "man" (ANER). Different definitions apply in different passages, depending on context.
While ANER sometimes refers to a mature male, asdistinct from a young male, this meaning actually applies only in a minority of instances. Not one of the lexicons cited actually lists I Tim. 2:12 as an instance where this meaning applies! Often ANER simply designates a distinction in gender—male as opposed to female, without regard to maturity. In fact,Thayer and Vine both list I Tim. 2:12 as an instance ofthis latter meaning—in this passage, ANER simplymeans male as distinct from female, according to thevery lexicons cited!
I grant that women may teach small boys, and that adegree of maturity is required before a male must not betaught by a woman. My point is simply that the lexicons do not resolve the issue of when a male becomes mature enough that a woman ought not to teach him.We must be given better evidence than this.
Jesus as a "Child"
The 9/86 article states that Luke 2:43 calls Jesus a"child" when He was 12, so a 12-year-old can not be a "man," and women can teach them in class.
But Gen. 21:14-16 calls Ishmael a "child" when he was about 15 years old (Gen. 16:16; 21:5,8ff). Gen.37:2ff; 42:22 says Joseph was a "child" when he was 17years old. In Jer. 1:6, Jeremiah called himself a "child"when God called him to begin his public ministry as aprophet. (Note also Acts 4:27,30 in the KJV).
How many of us would have a clear conscience knowing we had women teaching baptized males who are 15 or 17-years-old, or who had begun their public ministryof preaching? Who would object if some of us affirmed that we should put these young men in a class taught bya man? Very few, yet the Bible calls some such people"children," just as it does Jesus. How do you provewomen can teach 12-year-olds, but not 15 or 17-yearolds?
These passages illustrate the fact that maturitycomes by degrees. A person can be a "child" regardingsome responsibilities and some relationships, and stillbe a "man" regarding other responsibilities and relationships. Jesus' case simply does not answer the question of when a woman can no longer teach a young man.
10-12-Year-Olds Called "Men"
The 9/86 article claims there is "no scriptural basis"for believing that 10-12-year-old males fit the definitionof "men" (ANER). But I would like to nominate a few Scriptures to fill this office!
Consider these passages about conversion: "... believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudesboth of men [ANER] and women" (Acts 5:14). Samaritans believed and "were baptized, both men [ANER] and women" (Acts 8:12). Many Bereans believed,"women... and of men [ANER] not a few" (Acts 17:12).Rom. 4:7,8 pronounces a blessing on "the man" [ANER] whose sins are forgiven.
Who is prepared to argue that the above passagesexclude baptized 10-12-year-old males? Actually, theBible consistently refers to males old enough to be baptized as "men." Where does the Bible talk about baptizing "boys"? If we agree that 10-12-year-old males maybe baptized, are we not therefore admitting that theyare "men" who fit the definition of ANER? If not, thenby what scriptural authority do we baptize them?
I Cor. 11:14 says,"... if a man [ANER] have long hair,it is a shame unto him." Are we wrong to apply this to10-12-year-old males because "they are boys and notmen"?
I Tim. 2:8 says, "I will therefore that men [ANER]pray every where. . . " Most congregations allow baptized 10-12-year-old males to lead prayer, lead singing,or speak. I personally did all these at those ages, including preaching publicly when I was 12. Was this wrong? If not, then are we not admitting that these males should be classed as "men" with regard to church activities, and they should be given places of leadership whichwomen are not allowed to have? Why is it then, thatjust four verses later, in I Tim. 2:12, we want to callthem "boys," deny they are "men," and make them subject to women in the Bible classes?
Interestingly, when we encourage these males to participate in worship, we call them "our young men," but when we want women to teach them, we deny they are "men" and insist they are "boys"! Why the switch? Ifwomen did teach them, when prayer is led in the class,who would lead the prayer: the woman or the baptizedmales?
We could consider other verses, but surely we can see that 10-12-year-old baptized males can be considered"men." I grant that, in some senses they are not yetmature "men." Maturity comes gradually. One may bea "man" in some senses and not in others. This is whythe issue is so difficult. But it seems to be a safe and reasonable conclusion that, if one is mature enough toaccept the responsibility of spiritual manhood (be baptized, lead in worship, etc.), then the church should treathim as a man in our spiritual relationship to him. If so,then it would be safe to conclude that women should not teach over such males in our classes.
Conclusion
This is a difficult issue. I do not claim I can answer all the questions. But why not choose a course that isunquestionably safe and that violates no one's conscience? Those who say women may teach young baptized males, surely cannot prove women must teachthem. We all agree there is no error if men teach them.Most congregations have men teaching 12 or 13 yearolds and up, anyway. So we are only talking about adifference of 2 or 3 years. Why not let the 10-12 year oldbaptized males be taught by men? Then there is nodoubt we are right and no ones conscience is offended.
The only real objection raised to this in the 9/86 article is that it may be a disservice to the young men toput them in a class of older students. This is all based onhuman reasoning, not scriptural argument. Bible classes currently often group together students of 2 or 3 year's age difference. If a young man is baptized earlierthan his peers, chances are he is able to handle moreadvanced material anyway. I was often placed witholder students, for various reasons. It never hurt me,and often helped me. If parents feel strongly that thisshould not be done with their son, there is still anothersolution: Put a man teacher in the younger class!
We are discussing a case that affects only a few peoplefor only a few years at most. The matter can be easily resolved if brethren are willing to be peaceable. Somehave a problem of conscience here, others see it simplyas a "matter of judgment." Let us follow things thatmake for peace (Rom. 14:19). Let those who have problems of conscience not condemn others to hell, and letthose who view it as a matter of judgment not insist onarrangements that violate others' consciences.
I do not seek a lengthy exchange about this. I simplywant readers to know there is reason to consider a different view. If bro. Warnock chooses to reply, I will probably not respond. Let the readers not conclude thatI cannot respond, but let them simply re-read what Ihave written.
BOYS, MEN AND WOMEN TEACHERS
Brother David Pratte argues in another article in thisissue of STS that a baptized 10-year-old boy falls withinthe definition of man (aner) in I Tim. 2:12. He states,"Why is it then.. . in I Tim. 2:12 we want to call them'boys,' deny they are 'men,' and make them subject to women in the Bible classes?" However, in his introductory remarks he says, "I am not certain that it is unquestionably sinful for a woman to teach young baptized males, but I and others consider the practice to beso doubtful that it causes serious problems of conscience (Rom. 14:23)."
Now, my brother, if a 10-year old baptized boy isincluded in "man" in I Tim. 2:12, there is no uncertaintyabout the matter; it is UNQUESTIONABLY SINFULfor a woman to teach such a boy in a Bible class. BrotherPratte's approach to this issue is rather strange. Hegoes to great length to try to make a boy a man, while atthe same time believing that a woman teaching this boyis not sinful. Why the bother, if it does not make any difference?
Arbitrarily, brother Pratte makes the boy that hesays comes within the category of "man," a baptized one. Why are not unbaptized boys also in I Tim. 2:12 ifbaptized boys are included? By what rule and whoserule does he differentiate between the two? This is a peculiar exegesis of Scripture. Actually, brother Prattemust oppose, to be consistent, a woman teaching ALLboys, even 4 and 5 year olds, because they are men, inone sense, too. Thayer gives one definition of aner as,"any male person, a man" (p. 45). In this generic sense, a 4 year old boy, being a male person, is a man. Paul said awoman was not to teach over a man (any male person,according to brother Pratte's logic). Therefore, a woman may not teach boys of any age (or men), period!
The passages brother Pratte introduced in the bookof Acts about "men" (aner) obeying the gospel prove more than he is ready to accept. All of them were men before they obeyed. They were first men, and then theybelieved, were baptized and added to the Lord. So, if thepassages teach 10 to 12 year old males were men whenthey were baptized, they also teach the 10 to 12 year old males were men who were not baptized. Therefore,brother Pratte's position condemns ALL WOMEN whoteach boys 10-12 years old, whether baptized or unbaptized, and all churches that allow it, because Paul said,"I permit not a woman to teach over a man" (Any male,per Pratte's logic). It is obvious that boys are not included in I Tim. 2:12.
He wants to know about long hair in I Cor. 11:14 and if it would apply to a 10-12 year old boy because it says,"man" (aner)? Well, let me ask him a question: Is "man"in v. 14 just the Christian, or any man? Too, is it applicable to a 6 year old boy? Watch it brother Pratte or you are going to force yourself into the "no-womenteachers" camp. After all, Paul wrote in I Cor. 11:3 that"the head (aner) of the woman is man," and since "man"in v. 14 could be a 10 year old, then a woman could not teach even a primary class because she would be usurping authority over little Johnny, Billy, Ricky, and allthe other rambunctious "men" in the class.
Concerning I Tim. 2:8 that "men (aner) pray every where," brother Pratte suggests this verse includesbaptized boys (10-12 years of age) because they leadprayer, too. His point is that if baptized boys are men in
v. 8, then baptized boys are included in "man" in v. 12.But we need to remember, aner can also mean, "anymale person" (Thayer). Youthful male Christians may lead prayer, lead singing and make talks in public worship, but that does not make any one of them a man,that is, "A male person of full age and stature, as opposed to a child or female" (The Greek Analytical Lexicon, p. 29).
In I Tim. 2:12 "man" is used in antithesis of woman,the woman who is teaching. This is the woman whoadorns herself in modest apparel with shamefacednessand sobriety and manifests a life worthy of one whoprofesses holiness (vv. 9-10). This is the woman whoshall be saved in childbearing if faithful to the Lord.Hence, this is the woman of full age and stature asopposed to a child. The man, spoken of in contrast withthis kind of woman, would also be a mature, adult maleas opposed to a child.
It would have been interesting if brother Pratte had told us when a child becomes a man. He cited Old Testament Scriptures to prove that some were still childrenwhile 15 and 17 years old. When did they become men?If a woman is teaching a class of children that are 10-12years of age, are the boys in the class men or children? Ifthey are children, do they become men when they are14, 15, 17 or 21? But according to the consequences ofbrother Pratte's position, the age makes no difference,anyway, because all males are men, so a woman may notteach pre-schoolers where boys are. Brethren, goodjudgment and common sense must prevail as to whatclass a woman may teach and not teach.
As to the matter of conscience, it is not a problem formost of us. I have seen few brethren who opposed women teaching boys who had been baptized. But since when is conscience to regulate church functions? Romans 14:23 applies to individual activities. Read thechapter in context. By brother Pratte's reasoning we could not have anything that some brother objected to on the basis of his conscience. We could not have literature, communion cups, women teachers, Bibleclasses, baptistries, invitation songs, pitch pipes, etc., if a brother's conscience was violated. What a mess we would be in! One brother could kill every good workor lawful practice and the church would be held as"spiritual hostages" to the warped thinking of one misguided brother.
No, I cannot prove that women MUST teach a classwherein is a baptized boy, but neither can brotherPratte prove that a MAN MUST teach it, either. So, itis a matter of judgment, and why should human opinion be imposed upon the church of God? We have enoughhomemade rules, already, that are hindering the progress of God's people. We certainly do not need any more.
My 9/86 brief article in STS was not intended toexplore in depth the usage of the word "child" or "man" in the Bible, but to simply show that a boy 1012 years of age does not become a man by beingbaptized. I realize that a child is sometimes called a man, i.e., he is a male. Sometimes "child" means "youth" (Jer. 1:6). Isaiah speaks of a man 100 yearsold as a child (65:20). John wrote in Revelation of thewoman bringing forth the "man child" (12:5). The word for "man" in Rev. 12:5 is arsen, not aner, and means "male." However, it denotes exactly one of the definitions of aner, "any male person, a man." Hence,a newborn baby boy is also a man.
Women can also be classified under man (aner) in afew places in the New Testament, according to Thayer (p. 45). Compare Lk. 11:31; Rom. 4:8; Jas. 1:8,12, 20, 23.
It becomes clear that "man" in I Tim. 2:12 does not encompass every meaning of the word, or else women may not teach women, or teach where newborn maleinfants are present. It is misconstruing the passage to make it applicable to boys that are just 10-12 yearsold, even though they have been baptized.
I appreciate the good spirit in which brother Prattehas written, and I trust this exchange will be profitable to all who read it.
BOUND VOLUMES—STS
Vol. 9-10—$9.50 (Plus postage) Vol. 19-20—$12.00 (Plus postage) Vol 21-22—$12 00 (Plus postage) Vol. 23-24—$12 00 (Plus postage) Order From—STS
P.O. Box 69 Brooks, KY 40109
Please Renew Promptly
On Sunday morning, December 28, 1986, at age 55,Billy J. James slipped peacefully into that rest remaining for God's people (Heb. 4:9). He had been seriously ill for several days and had fought a hard battle withcancer until finally being overcome. He had fought another battle with cancer fifteen years before, and, withGod's help, won. Many times I think of how God answered good King Hezekiah's prayer and how He answered for Bill.
Each time I face the grim fact of death, I realize morethan ever that "this world is not my home, I'm justpassing through". But I want to do more than think ofdeath at this time. I want to pay tribute to my uncle,brother and true friend, Billy J. James, with the hopethat his example will help us all to see more clearly andtrue meaning of life.
Bill was a good husband and father. He loved andcared about his family deeply. He gave them everythinghe knew to give, especially the knowledge and exampleto do what's right. Many homes lack that kind of consideration today. Bill saw the need and he filled it.
Bill taught me how to love the truth by standing upfor it. He began preaching in 1955 on the south side ofChicago where a handful of courageous people of God began the task of establishing a faithful church in thatarea in an old store front. It wasn't anything for ourworship to be disrupted by hollering in the doors, banging on the windows, and even rotten tomatoes or eggsthrown in the windows. This did not stop the churchfrom growing. In fact, it helped all of us in our stand. It wasn't too long after that, that Bill got the opportunityto preach at 410 S. Michigan in Chicago. As he continued to study he was given the opportunity to move toBurbank, Illinois where he labored from 1960 to 1963.From there he and Flossie, his first wife, moved toBeaver Dam, Kentucky. In 1966, they moved to Louisville, where he worked with the West End and Eastside church. While at Eastside, he was asked to work withthe good church in Paragould, Arkansas at 2nd andWalnut. He worked with the church there for eightyears at which time, 1976, he was given the opportunityto move to Grenada, Mississippi. In 1980, he was asked to serve as one of the elders of that local church, anevidence of the high esteem the brethren had for himthere. There he stayed until his death. For 31 yearspreached the gospel, fought error, stood for and with Jesus Christ. You would never find Bill on the sidelines.
He was always studying, asking questions, discussing
the truth with "whosoever will". He had a keen mind
and used it properly. He had no use for fence-straddlers
because they have never helped the cause of Christ.
While in the hospital at Memphis, He told me of his love
for my dad and mom and that he didn't ever want me to
quit preaching the word. He had set the example on
being one that "finished the course".Bill taught me how to face hardships without becoming bitter or soured on the world. His first bout withcancer was while in Paragould, Ark. The doctors didn'tgive him much hope to live but he faced the odds and,with the help of God and family, he overcame them.During this time, his first wife, Flossie (who was thereason he became a Christian) developed complicationswith her heart from an early childhood disease, and after a series of strokes over a period of 18 months,passed from this life at the age of 40. On that Wednesday evening, after making preparations for her funeral,left for the church building to teach the Wednesday Bible class. Bill, with the help of his daughters, Sharonand Denise, and his son, Billy, continued on. While in aGospel meeting in Illinois, he met Kathy Boyle, thedaughter of Carmel and Marcine, one of the elders of the church. Kathy and Bill married in 1975 and had two children: Stacy (10) and Adam(6). They loved one another deeply and their goals were the same. In the summer of 1986, tumors on the brain and lung were discovered. While going through the difficult treatments ofchemotherapy he received a letter from his insurancecompany canceling his policy. Being one who was morethan concerned with paying his debts, this seemed tohave a devastating effect on his ever recovering, andfinally he passed away. But even in death there were nougly scars on his soul. He knew how to take the bitterwith the sweet, how to adjust in difficult circumstances.He was a man of character. In fact, the greatest tribute that I could ever pay to Bill, is in simply saying he was agood man at home, in the church and in the community.He was a leader, not a follower, except of Jesus Christ.Funeral services were held in Paragould, Ark. and hisbody was laid to rest in Kennett, Missouri. There was also a memorial service held in Grenada MS. NOTE: Bill's wife, Kathy, is left with a $12,000 medical bill, notto speak of the needs of the family for the future.The church in Grenada has shown a supreme exampleof love and benevolence to them continuing theirsupport. Other brethren have sent help in their relief.If you can help in any way, she can be contacted thruthe elders at the following address: Church of Christ, 175 Van Dorn St., Grenada, MS 38901.
READ YOUR BIBLE TODAY
INTRODUCTION: The gospel (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor.15:1-8) is good news. If we would but show more joy,love, kindness, and consideration toward others; perhaps we would convert more sinners to Christ through our teaching. There are four points I would like to call toour attention in this article.
I. "BE OF GOOD CHEER, THY SINS BE FORGIVEN" (Mat. 9:2). This makes all the difference between you and the child of the devil. You are a saved saint; he is a lost sinner. You have occasion of rejoicing.All the blessings of abundant life, and joys of the worldto come are reserved for those who have been forgiven.Salvation brought cheer to the Ethiopian eunuch inActs 8, as he rose up from baptism and went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:38-39). Salvation made the jailor andhis household rejoice greatly (Acts 16:33-34). If we stayclose to the Lord, the joy of salvation will grow. If wedrift away from our first-love; we need to pray alongwith David, "restore unto me the joy of thy salvation"(Psalm 51:12).
II. "BE OF GOOD CHEER. IT IS I. BE NOT AFRAID" (Mark 6:50). There's the reason the child of God has inward joy; He has the abiding presence ofChrist, through the indwelling of Christ's Spirit. ("Andbecause ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit ofhis Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" Gal.4:6). If we are true to our commitment to Him, He willbe true to His commitment to us. "He hath said, I willnever leave thee, nor forsake thee" (Heb. 13:5). And again, "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end ofthe world" (Mat. 28:20).
III. "BE OF GOOD CHEER: I HAVE OVERCOME THE WORLD" (John 16:33). We become heartsick, very discouraged and blue, when we look at all thesin in the world about us. But we can have no part withthe world. We can pray for it, we can preach the gospelto it, but we cannot become a part of it. By the help ofChrist we, too, have overcome the world. "This is thevictory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1John 5:4). And, why so? "Because greater is he that is inyou, than he that is in the world" (1 John 4:4). Be ofgood cheer. Help comes from Him.
IV. "BE OF GOOD CHEER FOR I BELIEVE GOD,THAT IT SHALL BE EVEN AS IT WAS TOLD ME" (Acts 27:25). This was Paul's admonition to those lost at sea in a tumultuous storm. God had promised themdeliverance; and Paul believed, and asked all with him to be of good cheer. What a faith! What a great examplefor us today. When we are in the midst of tempest andconfusion; let us lift up our hearts in prayer to God. "Letus therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, thatwe may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time ofneed" (Heb. 4:16). BE OF GOOD CHEER. This can often preach a better sermon to others than words.
Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P.O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109
WHIT SASSER, 4610 Stein Ave., Apt. B, Madison, WI 53704—OnJanuary 4,1987 three families banded together as a church belonging toChrist here in Madison, Wisconsin. We intend to be a congregation of the Lord's people in everything, submitting to his leadership and followingthe divine pattern. We number nine, including children, but hope for a bountiful harvest of souls from our efforts as God gives increase. Wewelcome visitors to meet with us. We meet in my home presently at theabove address on Sundays at 9:30 A.M. for Bible study and 10:30 A.M.for worship. In the afternoons we have devotionals at various homes. Wemeet on Wednesday nights at my home for Bible study.
COLLEGE PARK MEETING COLLEGE PARK CHURCH OF CHRIST, 701 Centennial Blvd., Richardson, TX 75081—April 5-10, 1987 will find us engaged in agospel meeting with R. J. Stevens, Ed Harrell and Dee Bowman. The theme will be "He Lifted Me." Brother Stevens will open the series with"He Lifted Me By Grace Through Faith" and then will lead congregational singing each night from 7:00 to 7:30. Ed Harrell will speak on the following themes: "He Lifted Me To Forgiveness"; "To Freedom and Life"; "From Materialism and Worldliness"; "To Humility and Service"; "From Aimlessness and Confusion"; "To Assurance and Hope". Dee Bowman will address the following themes: "He LiftedMe In Love"; "From Bondage and Death"; "To Spirituality and Godliness";"From Pride and Selfishness"; "To Purpose and Commitment"; "FromDoubt and Despair."
MIKE O'NEAL, 9705 Rail Rd., Midwest City, OK 73130—An effortis being made to establish a faithful work in Stillwater, OK. To the bestof my knowledge there is no faithful congregation within sixty miles ofthis city of 35,000. Besides the residents, there is an enrollment of over20,000 students who attend Oklahoma State University which is located in Stillwater. There are some sound brethren in the area who are preparedto support such a work. We are trying to make contact with people in oraround the Stillwater area who might be interested. We need your helpin locating these people, whether students at OSU or residents. Send anyinformation to me at the above address or to: Virgil Mclntire, 2318 N.Park, Stillwater, OK 74075.
TIM J. GRISSOM, 2044 Claxton Dr., Winston-Salem, NC 27107— The church here is at peace and consists of 25 Christians. There are 15children and others who frequently attend for an average of about 40. Wehave 10 men who actively participate in the work. Most of them willdeliver a lesson, lead singing and teach classes. We have some
talented women who teach younger children and carry out other aspects of their role in the church. We have made a number of contactsthrough a Dial-A-Bible Message. We have a personal visitation program. Much time and effort has gone into improving our Bible classes.We now have a systematic study of the Bible on all age levels. Wewould appreciate information from readers of this paper about relatives or friends in this area whom we might contact. Contact me at the above address or call (919) 784-7507; or you may call CharlesAlexander (998-4002) or Wally Hayes (760-2510). We are located onSouth Main at Wright St. in Winston-Salem. See our ad in this paperfor schedule of services.
WAYNE S. WALKER, 5170 Chippewa Rd., Medina, OH 44256— From March 22-27 I will be in a gospel meeting with theCentral church, 1018 E. 72 Bypass, Greenwood, SC. We encourage Christians in western SC to support these fine brethren.
SOLID OAK BENCHES CHURCH OF CHRIST, 2455 N. Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, FL 32952—We have 15 benches at 13 feet and one at 10 feet. These are in very good condition. We will sell them at $12 per foot.Perhaps some Florida or Georgia congregation could utilize them. Call (305) 452-8822.
MYRTLE WILLIAMS, P.O. Box 656, Summerland Key, FL 33042— For 10 years my home at 1609 Patricia St. in Key West, FLwas used as a meeting place for the Lower Keys church. Because oftransfers out of town and death of the membership, I find myself theonly member left. I now live in Big Pine Key, 40 miles from Key West and because of failing health, can no longer make the trip to Key West.Please contact me if you know of any members who want to followthe New Testament pattern and who live in the lower Florida Keys.It is a terrible thing not to have other Christians with which to meeton the first day of the week to break bread, sing praises to the Lord,pray together, study his word and contribute of our means. Pleasepray that souls living in this area will be called by the gospel. In BigPine Key, FL my phone number is (305) 872-9721.
FROM FOREIGN FIELDS WEST GERMANY-STEVE WALLACE, Box 7257, APO NY. 09012—The work in West Germany goes well. I am in my fourth yearwith efforts centered mainly in Ramstein (Kaiserslautern area), although I have also worked with congregations in Stuttgart, Karlsruheand, presently on a once-a-month basis in Frankfurt. These churchesare made up mostly of American military personnel and their families.In Ramstein our efforts include correspondence courses which are mailed to all known military base housing areas within a forty-mileradius and advertised in the base paper, and Bible studies with contacts thus made and through our normal social contacts. We advertiseservices in the base paper. Contact with brethren from institutional backgrounds is continual. This has resulted in many studies and a good number have studied their way out of error as a result. Some who leave here after their service is completed may consider full timepreaching. With that in mind we have had classes on "How To Studythe Bible," "Topical Studies," and "Sermon Preparation." Results have been good. The Ramstein congregation averages 25-35 in attendance while Frankfort has 10-15. Yet, it is worth noting that 90% of mysupport comes from these two small churches. This speaks well forthem.
After being here for over three years I have observed some things I'd like to pass on. (1) The military environment is very detrimental tothe spiritual life of a Christian. By the time a young Christian has gonethrough basic training and has been shipped here, he usually becomesunfaithful. The spiritual fatality rate is unbelievable. Having visitedyoung men in their barracks, I have seen firsthand the spiritual wasteland they must live in. Most of the young, single, male Christians Ihave known since coming here have fallen away. Parents and young people should consider this when talking about careers. (2) There arebig, established institutional churches here. Some lack leadership anda family might move in and "hold back the tide of liberalism" bytaking a strong stand, but many of these churches have eldershipswho reside here permanently. Some come and just attend. They saythey don't agree with what is going on and some will send theircontributions back home. If you can attend where you can't "lay by in store", could you not just as consistently attend where you could notsing because they use the instrument? Further, this leaves the impression with the institutional brethren that matters which have divided brethren are really just matters of opinion. Then what do you do ifthere is no sound church? Start one! You can do it. There will be plentyfor you to do. Try to find sound brethren in your area and start meeting with them. If I can be of any help, please get in touch with me.
ARGENTINA, SOUTH-AMERICA-FERNANDO VENEGAS, Casilla No. 122 C.C., 5500 Mendoza, Argentina—Since last report threemore have been baptized. To God be the glory. We have other contactswho are near to the kingdom. Raul C. Caro from Valdivia, Chile preached in our last gospel meeting for this year (1986). He did goodwork and we were edified.
SOUTH AFRICA-RAY VOTAW, Box 801, Springs 1560, Rep. ofSouth Africa—They were already at retirement age-Wasson and Henrietta Nicks-when they arrived in South Africa a few years ago. Butthey hit the tarmac running for the cause of Christ and never slowed the pace in their years here. Wasson (or, Earl as he was known bymany) was an electrical engineer with the Fluor Conglomerate, basedin Los Angeles, which was under contract with South Africa to buildtwo "oil from coal" plants here. He had hardly landed when he journeyed to preach to the coloured church near here. Almost immediatelyhe consented to teach a regular Bible class in the church here inSprings. Within a few short weeks, he began studies with nativeblacks in his home-and this with much disapproval in the white community of Secunda where they lived. They struggled, as Americanshave, to become all things to all men in order to gain souls (1 Cor. 9:22). They faithfully traveled over 150 kms. each Sunday to be with the church here in Springs. Henrietta, being the lover of hospitality whichshe was, entertained numerous Christians and others in their home. Their travels in South Africa were extensive and they came to knowmany Christians from scores of faithful churches among all race groups in this region. Truly, their "faith to God-ward is spread abroad;so that we need not to speak anything" (1 Thes. 1:8). Their liberalityenabled the white church in Springs to support a young preacher in theCape. I believe Wasson continued with assistance to this preacher aslong as he lived. I do not know what many other Christians do when they are expatriated from the U.S.A. who go for secular work into
Page 17
foreign countries but I happily testify to their diligent labor of love forthe Lord's kingdom while here.
But alas, my dear friend and faithful brother-Earl Wasson Hicks-left this earthly tabernacle at his home in Orange, California on October 21, 1986. Thena and I kept in close contact with both him andHenrietta by telephone and letter during his many weeks of terminalillness. We unashamedly wept many times. I wrote to Wasson as histime drew very near and told him I hoped to see him soon. I'm confident he knew what I meant. Heaven is dearer to us now and I pray God that I make that trip when "I put out to sea." To quote from somebody: "I knew him well; I knew him long; I loved him much. Nowthrough the eye of faith me thinks I see him comforted in the bosom ofAbraham." Please pray for his devoted and courageous wife, Henrietta, and his only son, Richard and his family of faithful Christians.Henrietta's address is: 1347 Greenview Dr., Orange, CA 92666. Oh,how I miss this big, lumbering and jovial saint-just knowing that he's gone. But, no groveling to you, death, and be not proud, for this one "being dead yet speaketh" (Heb. 11:4).
PREACHERS NEEDED ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI—The Kirkwood church in St. Louis is interested in securing the services of a young man who is interested in awork-training program We can furnish a house, utilities, and a minimal amount of wages. The man should not be merely interested in ajob. He must be interested in preaching and in an arranged and disciplined training, preaching, teaching, writing, and study program.If interested, contact L.A. Stauffer, 1716 Dover Trace Dr., Fenton, MO 63026.
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA—A preacher is needed to work with a small congregation in southwestern Virginia. We have a population of about 70,000 within a 15 mile radius Attendance averages about 40each service. We seek a man who would like a challenge to further the cause of Christ. We will work hard in helping the right person. If youplan to relocate or know of someone who is, please contact us at the following address: Church of Christ, Route 7, Box 241, Martinsville,VA 24112
PRESCOTT, ARIZONA—An 85 member congregation in Prescott,AZ seeks a full-time preacher. The church is self supporting, withoutelders and needs a mature man for full-time work immediately Contact Sal Mollindo, 3 Broadmoor, Prescott, AZ 86301. Phone
(602) 445-8358.
PREACHERS AVAILABLE GLEN HACKNEY, Rt. 1, Box 61 A, Depauw, IN 47115-I would like to relocate in a 50—60 mile radius of Louisville, Kentucky I can helpsupport myself and have eleven years experience
DAVID L. ODOM, 2201 Wallace Branch Road, Plant City, FL33566—My family and I are interested in preaching full time again. Ihave preached for 12 years except for the last two years. I am 43 and we have 6 children I put much effort in having home Bible studies andreaching the public with the gospel. If interested, please call me at
(813) 752-7018.
IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 262 RESTORATIONS 51 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)