The Bible reveals the Lord’s concern of the world’s view of His church and saints. When the church and individual saint walks contrary to God’s revealed standards they pave the way for the world’s blasphemy against the Lord and His doctrine. The Christian ought to be concerned about what people of the world think. God’s people can do one of three things in the public’s eye. First, they may make manifest the true church and individual Christian’s identity in all areas of life as they are guided by nothing but the truth. Secondly, they may make manifest a hypocritical approach to Christianity through unauthorized works. Thirdly, the saint of God may show the world a spirit of indifference due to their fear of appearing different. The church and individual saint will have much to do with where those of the world spend their eternity.

We are the World’s Bible

We often sing the 1934 song “The World’s Bible” by J. E. Hamilton. The song is based on 2 Corinthians 3:2-3 where Paul writes, “Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh.” As the song goes, “We are the only Bible the careless world will read… what if the type is crooked? What if the print is blurred?… What if our feet are walking where sin’s allurement is? What if our tongues are speaking of things His life would spurn. How can we hope to help Him and welcome His return?” God’s people are to appear as a literal mirror image of Jesus Christ and the revealed church of the New Testament (Rom. 8:29).

Christians are to be very concerned about the public’s perception of the church and what being a saint is all about. Jesus said,

“Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shines unto all that are in the house. Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).

When the Christian is careless with God’s laws and the public’s perception they can cause the name of the Lord to be blasphemed. Unfortunately the world often sees or hears Christians doing or saying sinful things and they conclude, “They are all hypocrites…” or “That is why I don’t go to church.” Our actions and language among those of the world may determine whether or not that lost soul will one day be saved.

Public Perception of the Church

When the world sees the church at work and worship it ought to see the true “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:14-15). Churches that practice unauthorized acts, such as supporting institutions to do its God ordained work, cause the Lord’s name and His doctrine to be blasphemed. Many churches sponsor “Christian” rock concerts, theatrical plays, singles groups, softball teams, conduct community services, and food fest for a “spiritual experience.” When these unauthorized acts are conducted they leave the wrong impression within the minds of the lost and so they will remain lost. The Lord has thereby ordained that the church withdraw from individuals who do not obey His authorized will. When the church does so the world will know that the church does not condone the unlawful actions of individuals (see 1 Corinthians 5:1ff; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15).

Confusion and faulty expectations of the church reigns supreme in the world. Jesus spoke of the world’s confused expectations of his kingdom, the church, while teaching in the flesh (Matthew 11:11-19; 18:1). Those who look for things from the church that God does not authorize will only be disappointed and further confused. False teachers do nothing but muddy the waters of understanding to the world when they spew out their contaminated words of error on the subject. Divine revelation plainly outlines the identity, organization, work, and worship of the church. God forbid that you or I would give any more fuel to the engine of error that brings about confusion and faulty expectations of the Lord’s church.

Public Perception of the Individual Christian

When the world sees the Christian at work or play they ought to see one who makes it apparent that they are holy (1 Peter 1:15-16) and perfect (Matthew 5:48) as the Lord is holy and perfect. The Christian’s language ought to show forth a heart of purity (see Ephesians 4:29; Colossians 4:6). The Christian’s attire should show a since of shame, modesty, and propriety (Exodus 28:42; Isaiah 20:4; 1 Timothy 2:9-10).

Christian women ought to be concerned about what the world sees them doing. Those who are do nothing gossips are condemned and apt to do grave damage to the name of God (see 1 Timothy 5:14; Titus 2:4-5). Christian women ought to emulate divine revelation’s model woman of Proverbs 31:10-31. Women ought to examine 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 for God’s New Testament model woman. Women, and men too for that matter, who refuse to work are not to eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).

The Christian’s marriage ought to exemplify the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Those who divorce their mates for reasons other than adultery or those who marry individuals who have no right to marry commit adultery and cause the name of Jehovah God to be blasphemed (see 2 Samuel 12:14). During Jesus’ day mass confusion reigned over marriage, divorce, and remarriage due to faulty expectations and preconceived ideas of marriage (see Matthew 19:1ff). When the Christian is out of line with God’s word they give the wrong impression to the world as to what God’s laws are. The Christian is not to give an occasion of stumbling to those in the world in any area of life (see 2 Corinthians 6:3).

Christians at the work place ought to be concerned about what their coworkers think of them. The Christian who steals from his employer (Titus 2:10) or will not work (Colossians 22-25) give cause to the name of Jehovah being blasphemed by the unbelievers. The Apostle Paul writes, “Let as many as are servants under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and the doctrine be not blasphemed” (1 Timothy 6:1). Lazy do nothing Christians ought to go to the ant for observation and a learning experience regarding a work ethic (see Proverbs 6:6). Employees who complain or will not work are not exemplifying the conduct and life of God’s elect.

Christians should also direct respect and honor toward those that divine revelation commands us to. Christians who mock, sneer, make fun of, show disdain, are disobedient, and show an overall spirit of disrespect toward government officials (Romans 13:7; 1 Peter 2:17), parents (Ephesians 6:2), employers (1 Timothy 6:1-2), elders in the church (Hebrews 13:17), and all others who hold positions of authority are rebellious. Moses concluded that the man who knows of God and His commands and does them not is a part of an “evil generation.” The evil is in the form of “rebellion” (cf. Deuteronomy 1:26, 43). To rebel is to “refuse allegiance to… to resist or defy an authority… to feel or express strong unwillingness … an act or show of defiance…” (American Heritage Dictionary pp. 1031). The Christian who refuses allegiance, resists, or acts in defiance against those in authority give way to the name of Jehovah God being blasphemed among those in the world.

The Public’s Expectation

There are areas in the Christian’s life where we cannot be concerned with what the world thinks about us. Those areas are our lives of obedience to God’s authoritative will (Acts 5:29). The public’s expectation of God, His church and people is skewed from divine revelation. The world views the church as a benevolent and entertainment society. Spend a few moments talking to your neighbors about “church.” Church is where their children are in leadership training, theatrical events, and learning to play a musical instrument. Spend a few hours at your church building and you will experience what most preachers do. People walk or drive up to the building expecting the church to take care of all their financial woes.

The Elect’s Perception of each Other

The individual Christian’s concern over perception should reach even further than the world. Yes, we are to be concerned with what the Lord thinks of us. We also ought to be concerned about our brethren’s view of us. Some brethren are “weak in faith” (Romans 14:1; 15:1; 1 Corinthians 8:1ff). Where God permits liberties the weak in faith do not view as a liberty. Paul said, “Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge…” (1 Corinthians 8:7). The true Christian is to be ready and willing to drop a liberty if it is offensive to one that is weak (1 Corinthians 9:22). If the strong are unwilling to do so or they push a liberty upon the weak they, “Walk no longer in love” (Romans 14:15).

The individual Christian cannot; however, be bullied by the conscientious and convicted weak brother. Those who would demand that we abstain or participate in liberties have gone beyond God’s laws. To bind where God has not bound is to be a false teacher and no saint shall be silent in such areas (see Galatians 2:3ff).

Concluding Thoughts

The elect of God are in the world yet they are not of the world (John 17:14-16). The world separated from God in sin has faulty expectations and preconceived ideas of God’s people and His church. Christians should be concerned not only with the public’s perception of our worship but also with our everyday lives. Let us unashamedly live a sanctified and holy life that the world may know what divine revelation authorizes and does not authorize (Romans 1:16). If we, through a spirit of fear, change our lives we will cause many in the world to have a faulty view of Christianity (see Matthew 26:70-75; Philippians 1:28). Mankind will be judged by the standard of divine revelation rather than man’s preconceived ideas, faulty expectations, and personal conscience (John 12:48). The Apostle Paul said, “Do all things without murmurings and questionings: that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye are seen as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:14-15). Let every true saint of God make their lives of godliness evident and the rest will take care of itself (please read 1 Timothy 5:24-25).

“Whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever.  Amen” (1 Peter 4:11, ESV).

Does that verse say what I think it says? Whatever it is we do or say, the purpose is to insure God gets the glory. “…in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” is the text. That word “everything” is no slip of the tongue. The Holy Spirit knew what He was inspiring to be written and preserved throughout eternity. He said everything and He meant everything. We are to do, and God is to get the glory for His revealing to us what it is we are to do.

In studying the Bible, too often we approach it with a preconceived idea of what it is supposed to say, and then base every conclusion on that preconception. One example of this is verses three thru ten of Matthew 5, which we call the Beatitudes. They are so labeled as that word relates to a state of being blessed, which is the first word of each of those piercing statements. In some dictionaries, the emphasis word used to define the state of being blessed is “happy.” Is Jesus really saying that if we master the art of making peace and thus show our discipleship, that He will grant to us that we will be happy? Did he do what He did so we can be happy? Happy! Happy! Happy! Does anyone really believe this? Yet, how many times do we read or hear that the word “blessed” means “happy” simply because the dictionaries and lexicons say that is what the word means? Jesus was promising us that if we attained to the selfless righteousness described in such terms as poverty of spirit, meek, merciful, and mournful, we would indeed be elevated among men as children of God, able to enter the kingdom of Heaven, satisfied, comforted, and able to see God Himself. While I would consider such experiences as producing great happiness, the elevated state of blessing goes far beyond mere human pleasure.

What is the impetus of Luke 16:19-31? Is Jesus providing for us the end all discussion of eschatology? Is His teaching intending to illuminate us on what happens between the time we die and the time we are raised? Are we really supposed to care? Before labeling me as blasphemous, read on. If it is in God’s word, we are to care. Some things the story of the rich man and Lazarus does not say:

How did the rich man acquire his wealth? Do we know? Are we supposed to care? Does the story tell us? The “implication” is that these two men were rewarded and punished based on their physical prosperity. Could that be true? Is there anything stated in the text that tells us of their character or their relative faith or obedience to God? We have to assume the rich man was unscrupulous and that the poor man was meek and filled with faith, but the text nowhere says that. Does God reward or punish men based on their earthly state of wealth? We know that is not the case.

Is Abraham the guardian of paradise? Jesus attributes the response to the begging of the tormented man to Abraham. If this account is the end all discussion most apply it to be, then Abraham would be a simple resident of this place as he was just a man who lived and died in faith. His statement to the rich man explains only that the poor man suffered in life and the rich man fared well in life and that the roles are reversed in this so-called by man, “state of the dead.”

The text also does not tell us that this is intended to be a discussion of all we need to know about life after death. Yet, any time you read or hear anyone talking about life after death, we run to Luke 16.

Is it not a preferred understanding of the text to let is say what it says? It says that there is a division after death and that there is no way to bridge that separation.  “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us” (Luke 16:26). When does Jesus teach us that the separation of the righteous from the wicked will take place? “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.  Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (Matthew 25:31-32). People want to think of us “safe in the arms of Jesus” at the moment of our death. While that is quite comforting, it just is not Biblical.

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.  For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.  For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.  For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.  Therefore encourage one another with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, ESV).  Certainly these are encouraging, and, as in most translations, comforting words. We ridicule the premillenialist for making this passage say what it does not say. Their contention is that this speaks of a “rapture” to usher in the period of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth. Do you see the word rapture here? Is that a biblical word? Will there be a 1,000 year reign of Jesus on a throne in Jerusalem? Is there scripture to support an affirmative answer to any of these questions? Let the Bible say what the Bible says. While the claim of the premillenialist is deemed ridiculous, would not the same be true if “we” do not allow the Bible to simply say what it says?

The truth of Luke 16 is that Jesus relates an account to teach a lesson. The focus of this lesson is that sin sick man would have the opportunity to escape eternal punishment by hearing the words of a man who had been raised from the dead. That man was Jesus Christ. I know the text does not say this, but is there another man raised from the dead whose words could lead to eternal life? Abraham’s lament was that if people would not read and hear the words of Moses, neither would they hear the words of the man raised from the dead. Moses wrote of Jesus. “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.  If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (John 5:45-46). Abraham told the tormented man the same thing. “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’” (Luke 16:31).

Many have said that division among God’s people has occurred more on what the Bible does not say rather than what it says. May we never be so guilty as to make such a mistake of making the Bible say what it does not. If any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. Otherwise, we do not need to hear it.

“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’” (Matthew 19:3).  The question, we all realize, is a simple one. It is the answer over which we have such a debate. “Is it lawful?” Even those Pharisees who asked the question with impure motives recognized that the law had to do with reason. What is the reason behind taking such radical action as the putting away or divorcing a mate?  “‘For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,’ Says the LORD of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously’”  (Malachi 2:16).  God hates divorce. Enough said. Men are still asking the question, “Can we not do it anyway?” If we are going to do what God hates, we had better have a pretty good reason before we do it.

The answer Jesus gave the Pharisees was a peculiar one in that he said no, but still offered an exception to his denial of the right to do what God hates. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). The people asking the question did not ask for a definition of adultery. They knew what adultery is. They just wanted to know if they could lawfully divorce their wives. Jesus answers, though, by saying if you do that thing which God hates, in this case divorce your spouse, you are committing adultery in every case except for one, “except for sexual immorality.” And he says not only is it not lawful, but in fact it is adultery for one to marry another person after a divorce for any reason except immorality. Jesus said it was adultery.

When Moses descended Mt. Sinai with the stones upon which God had written the ten commandments, one of those commandments was, simply stated, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14).  Was there any confusion on the part of the Israelite nation as to what God meant when he uttered that command? I contend there was none. Everybody there knew that God was regulating the behavior of His people in their sexual acts. “You shall not commit adultery.” No explanation needed. Everybody knew what God said and what God meant.

Do people really have a problem understanding what Jesus meant? I doubt it. But, as in most cases when people want to do what they want to do and not what God wants them to do, the problem is in the application. Easy to understand, difficult to apply. Difficult only in the sense that, as Jesus said to Saul on the Damascus road, “…It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 9:5).  We kick against that which we know is right.

What is it when we add another exception which the Lord did not allow? Is it lawful? NO! It is adultery. We can kick against that fact all day if we like, but that will not change anything. It is adultery. Jesus said so. Clean, pure and simple, it is adultery. May the guilty party in a divorce for immorality marry another? Did he divorce his mate for that sin? NO! If he marries another, it is adultery. Anyone who says the guilty party can remarry and be pleasing to God is promoting adultery. May those who erroneously say that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to “whoever”, even though Jesus said it, the conclusion being that God’s law on divorce only applies to Christians, be accused of anything short of promoting adultery among non-Christians? They do not see themselves as promoting adultery, but if you divorce your mate for another reason and marry another, is it not adultery? Jesus said it was. So, if you teach that you may divorce and remarry at will before you are baptized and keep that mate after baptism, you are promoting adultery. Did Homer Hailey and the myriad who have followed after him in this doctrine of advocating fellowship with those who teach such a doctrine think that the end result was the promotion of adultery? Absolutely not. But what is it when one marries and divorces not for sexual immorality and marries another? Jesus said it was adultery. I did not say it. Jesus did.

Most people do not like bottom line preaching. When you get to the bottom line, there are only two choices given to all people: the narrow way that leads to life and the broad way that leads to destruction. That is the bottom line. There is no tolerance on the bottom line for “what if’s?” or maybes. We either teach the truth or we are promoting adultery. There are only two choices. Which one will you make?

The arguments that false teachers forward in their attempts to skirt the teaching of God on the subject of Divorce and Remarriage can rightfully be described as sophistic or specious.  They have a deceptive allure and a surface plausibility, but are not legitimate treatments of God’s word.  One of the most obvious examples of such argumentation is the attempt to redefine the term “adultery” as it is used in Matthew 19:9.

Errorists contend that the term has no reference to sexual activity, and that it is used in an accommodated way by Jesus.  They contend that Jesus defined the term contextually by saying that the commission of adultery consists of “whoever divorces his wife,… and marries another”.  That is, that adultery consists of two actions, divorce and remarriage.  Note the following quote from Jerry Bassett, taken from his book Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, page 68:

“Notice that Jesus used two verbs,   “divorces”  and “marries,” and says the result of these two ACTIONS is the commission of adultery.”

Such an argument is simple, and has appeal to some who give a cursory reading to the text… especially those who are uncomfortable with God’s rule concerning marriage, one man, one woman, for a lifetime.  The consequence of the position would allow a man to be guilty of adultery (he divorced his wife and married another), but since the adultery is not sexual sin with his new mate, he could repent of the adultery (divorce and remarriage), and keep his new mate!  In effect, it makes every example of divorce and remarriage potentially acceptable in sight of God.  It stands Jesus’ teaching regarding the sanctity of the marriage relationship on its head!  A careful study of the text and the term shows this argument to be specious.

An important rule of Biblical interpretation is to supply a term with its most natural meaning unless such a meaning is untenable.  In other words, take it literally unless it is obviously figurative.  Note the first three rules given by Dungan in his work Hermeneutics (regarding Bible interpretation) in the section titled:  Rules by which the meaning of words shall be ascertained (pgs. 184-185)

1. All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the context forbids.  (He continues – Figures are the exception, literal language the rule).
2. Commands generally, and ordinances always, are to be understood in a literal sense.
3. The literal meaning of a word is that meaning which is given it by those to whom it is addressed.

The literal meaning of the term “adultery”, from the Greek word moichao is defined by Thayer, “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (pg. 417).  Likewise, Vine says an adulterer (same root term) is one who “has unlawful sexual intercourse with the spouse of another” (pgs. 32-33).

To say that Jesus redefined the term here is a forced interpretation, given in an effort to defend a false position.  Jesus here is talking about the marriage relationship, the only relationship with the component of lawful sexual activity.  The question surrounds what marriages are acceptable to God, and the answer Jesus gives indicates that some of these relationships result in sexual activity which is not lawful (adultery).  There is nothing in the context of the passage which necessitates anything other than a natural understanding of the term.

Bassett and others say that the text does not say “commits adultery (by having sexual intercourse with her, and each and every time he does so).”  While this is true, it is not surprising.  Jesus knew that his hearers knew what adultery is.  There was no need for further explanation.  Such need arises only when men seek to twist the words of our Lord.

Other texts bear out the literal use of the term.  Romans 7 records Paul’s statement that a woman who marries another man while her husband lives “will be called an adulteress” (vs. 3).  John the Baptist was imprisoned for his admonition of Herod, who had married his brother Philip’s wife Herodias. “For John had said to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife’” (Mark 6:18).  Notice here that the term is in the present tense.  The divorce and remarriage was past, and yet on this side of it he did not have the right to her.  In 1 Corinthians 5, a man had married his stepmother.  He had no right to her, and the sin is not defined as accommodated adultery    (divorce   and   remarriage).  Rather, it is defined by the Greek term porneia (sexual immorality).

Adultery is sexual sin.  To redefine it in an attempt to set aside Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 is a sophistical effort.  While plausible to those looking for comfort in their sin, the argument does not survive close examination.  Remember God’s rule: one man, one woman, for a lifetime!

The Bible warns us of this insidious sin throughout its pages in both Old and New Testaments. Exodus 20:14, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Note the severity of punishment of those who committed this sin under the Law of Moses, Leviticus 20:10, “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Though this is not required of us under NT Law, we have to be impressed with the level of seriousness that God has placed in this matter.

We cannot overlook the use of the word adultery by the Lord in Jeremiah 3:8 speaking of the nation of Israel guilty of this sin. “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce.” The concept of “unfaithfulness” is here explained. Like a jealous husband, our Lord, wanted his spiritual spouse to be faithful and repent of her spiritual adultery. The complete prohibition of idolatry is better understood when we realize that God has always wanted the undivided love of those who belong to Him (cf. Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). This helps us to better understand why adultery is wrong in our lives; because in the sin of adultery is this same faithlessness. If we recognize the need to be faithful to our physical spouse we will better understand the necessity of being faithful to our spiritual Husband (Ephesians 5:22-32).

Another dimension is added to this when we read Christ’s words in Matthew 5:27-28, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” The way our Lord looks at this, the act of sexual intercourse does not actually have to physically have taken place, only contemplated in the thinking part of man. In such a case, which is common for many, adultery has already taken place and the condemnation of the sin with it. This should cause us to pay particular attention to the pastimes of our day like television, reading material, movies and the ever-present pornography offered on the Internet. So much evil has entered the formerly sacred domain of our homes in recent years as to make us all fear greatly and to resolve to avoid at all costs such evil influences that can cause us to commit this sin of the heart.

It is important for Christians to understand the nature of this particular sin and to know fully the consequences of committing adultery. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” If we want to have heaven, we must avoid such sin.

God made provision for us as our Creator to fulfill our sexual desires and needs. 1 Corinthians 7:2-4, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” If we utilize our spouse in the way God intended, and likewise for his or her benefit, the temptation to stray will be greatly lessened in both partners. Hebrews 13:4, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

In this regard let us reflect upon the words of the writer of godly wisdom found in Proverbs 5:15-20, “Drink water from your own cistern, and running water from your own well. Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be only your own, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love. For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman, and be embraced in the arms of a seductress?”

“Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?’ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, ‘He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.’ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, ‘Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more’” (John 8:2-11).

This interesting but brief record in the life of the Lord presents to us some challenges that would be good for us to consider. In the church today, Christians are constantly having to deal with the question of what to do with a person living in adultery or, more specifically, living in an adulterous marriage. Not only must we deal with the people and their sin, we must also deal with those purveyors of evil who have successfully warped the minds of people into thinking that adultery is not a sexual sin. When Moses descended from the Mountain at Sinai with the tablets of stone containing the Ten Commandments, he read to the people the seventh commandment which simply says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). I am brought to a state of wonderment considering how many of the people at the foot of the mountain considered what Moses said to them about adultery from a legal perspective. Oh, it was law that Moses read, but the seventh commandment is and always has been a moral regulation and not a legal procedural matter. Furthermore, everybody knows that!!

When people look at this account from John 8, they know beyond doubt that the woman here is being charged with sexual sin. The sin she is charged with was not committed in the courtroom, but rather in some illicit bedroom, if in fact she was guilty. The question that is asked of those of us who are radicals in trying to keep and to preach everything that Jesus said and inspired to be written, is, “If Jesus can say to an adulteress, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.’ Then why can’t we?” This is where we need to study what happened in this instance.

Notice, first, that when the woman was brought to Jesus, he was busy doing his job. He was not looking to condemn anyone. He never set Himself up as a judge of Mosaic legal matters. Rather, just the opposite is true. Luke 12:14, “But He said to him, ‘Man, who made Me a judge or an arbitrator over you?’” Also, Jesus said, in John 12:47, “And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” Jesus was thrust into the situation with the charges against the woman purely out of the wishes and desires of her accusers.

Initially, there are three major problems with this event:

a) Why just bring the woman? The accusers already have egg on their face making a charge of adultery against only one party. They are showing their intellectual dishonesty if nothing else. It takes two people to commit adultery, and if she were caught n the very act, the man could have and, by law, should have been brought to face the identical charges which were lodged against the woman. Leviticus 20:10, “The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.” When we appeal to the law, as these accusers did, we had better know what the law says.b) If the proper execution of law was their primary concern, as indicated in verse 5, then what difference would it have made what Jesus said? Again, these men are manifesting their own dishonesty. Just because there is a new teacher in town is no reason to throw out the law and wait for the teacher to tell everybody what they all already knew. Adultery was a capital crime under the law, no matter what anybody said. If the woman was guilty, she must be stoned. If she was not guilty, then she never should have been arrested and brought to Jesus. When given the opportunity by Jesus to execute the law, they refused and all walked away. There had to be another motive. Modernists show their own dishonesty when they try to alter the plain teaching of Jesus on this subject. In seeking to relegate Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 to application ONLY to those born again into the Father’s Kingdom and not applicable to those outside of Christ, they prove that they have another motive. They are not seeking to execute the law of Christ. They are seeking to justify keeping a mate to which they have no legal right.c) The third problem in this case is the lack of witnesses. Without witnesses, there is no basis of guilt. Deuteronomy 19:15, “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” When Jesus sought to do things according to the law, the accusers all fled. There was no allegiance to the Law of Moses among the Pharisees. They used it to their own destruction. They used it for their own pleasure as it was revealed. Jesus showed His own disdain for their selfish application of the law by remaining in a stooped position and writing on the ground. The men learned by this that Jesus knew just exactly what they were doing, and they could not stand the light of investigation to see the results. When Jesus spoke up at the end, He was showing full and complete dedication to the Law, just as it was written. Is there a lesson for us today in that? Sentiment cannot rule. Compassion and mercy are not in the realm of lawkeeping. And please be advised that no one here is mentioning perfect lawkeeping, but when it comes to marriage, divorce, or, as in this case, execution of capital punishment, the law is simple to understand and simple to apply, if there is first the desire to obey God.

Why did Jesus challenge the men concerning who would cast the first stone? Why is most often a question that demands an assumption. God rarely tells us why. He tells us what and sometimes how. Was Jesus asking for a perfect man to cast the first stone? Many have given up the fight for doctrinal purity by saying that since they are not perfect, individually, how can we expect to have or maintain doctrinal purity, and, after all, they reason, if we miss it, Romans 14 is there to cover it. GOD FORBID!!! God never asked any man to do something which was not in man’s capabilities to perform. He never did in past times, and He doesn’t do that now. Jesus asks for someone to cast the first stone who was not guilty in the case before Him. If there was a man who had followed the law in this case throughout its entire process, then that man could cast the first stone and rightfully so. There was no such man. The three previously identified problems disqualified every one of the woman’s accusers. Who were they to kill a sinner in a matter when they were guilty of breaking the same law as she had probably broken (vs. 11; James 2:10)? The men were lawbreakers and in their mistreatment of the law, they prevented the woman from being prosecuted. Such was the demand of the law.

Was Jesus playing loose with the Law? In no way. Are we permitted, by His example, to play loose with the law under which we serve God? In no way. The Mosaic Law was very specific in how the execution of a sinner was to take place, especially in the case of adultery. Jesus is showing the utmost of respect for the law of God in doing what He did. Would to God that my brethren would do the same when addressing issues today, or even when they address their brothers. The accusers of the adulteress had failed to prove their case. Their motives were wrong. They neither followed the letter nor the spirit of the law. They were sinners in this regard. How could a sinner condemn a sinner in the sin in which they were both a party? By this, I certainly do not mean that the accusers were involved in the sexual sin, though some have surmised that, given the absence of the adulterer. The issue here is respect for the Law of God. How do we handle it (2 Timothy 2:15)?

What about the woman? There is every indication that she was guilty. Are we, then, to tolerate adulterers and adulteresses in the church today since Jesus allowed this woman to go free? The problem that most people have with what the Lord said to the woman is a failure to be consistent. He never condoned her sin. Under the Mosaic system, however, there was no censure provision. She was either worthy of death or she was worthy of life. Unless she was proven to be an adulteress by the testimony of legitimate witnesses, there was no alternative but to let her go free with the instruction of God on her, “Go and sin no more.”

The bleeding hearts want to legitimize adulterous relationships “for the sake of the children.” I have a question to ask of a very practical nature. Once parenthood has been established, and the law is clear that the parents are adulterers, {you know the scenario….young couple marries, divorces not for the cause of fornication, matures, remarries unlawful mates, has children, and then wants to take those children to church and have the whole family justified in their sinful behavior} does the role of these parents demand that they continue to have sexual relations with each other or with anyone for that matter? No, adultery is never right, whether there are children or not. Jesus never condoned adultery, Jesus never tolerated adultery, and the church is under no obligation to tolerate it today. Not only is the church not to tolerate it, but we are commanded to rid the church of all adulterers (1 Corinthians 5).

Be on guard for the bleeding hearts who think they are better than Jesus. Jesus commands repentance. Must we forgive without repentance? Can there be true repentance without the fruits of that repentance being known? Can a thief keep his stolen car? Can an adulterer keep his unlawful sex partner? Think about it.

Paul then turns his attention to the “preaching of the cross” (v. 18). In so doing, he makes several interesting contrasts. In the last half of 1 Corinthians one, Paul contrasts the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of God. Paul said God used what appeared foolish to the world, what appeared weak, that which was considered base, despised, and things that are not “to bring to nought things that are.” Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 1:18-21 really brings out the contrast. There, we read, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” Paul makes it clear that God chose what the world calls foolish to save lost souls. And truly, those who are lost consider the things of God foolish. In fact, “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Therefore, it pleased God to use what men consider foolish (preaching the gospel) to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21). Understanding passages like this makes me appreciate passages like Romans 1:16 all the more. Remember that Paul said he was “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” Though it was considered foolishness by men, he told the Romans it was “the power of God unto salvation” to save those who believe. Knowing the saving power of God is revealed in the gospel, it is imperative that men and women do all they can to spread the gospel (2 Tim. 2:2). Only through teaching and spreading the gospel will men be presented with the opportunity to hear and obey the saving gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-2).

Yet, in spite of the above, we see men and women who consider the gospel, and gospel preaching foolishness. This is especially true when we consider the moral issues that are addressed in the gospel of Christ. Yes, friends, the gospel deals with moral as well as doctrinal issues! In fact, we cannot talk about morality without talking about God, for morality cannot be possible without God! This is evident from just a casual look at society today. So much of our society wishes to be considered “moral,” but at the same time wants to deny the existence of an Omnipotent, Benevolent, Just Creator. Friends, we cannot have it both ways! Without God, there is no morality, and man is free to do as he wills. (Which many would prefer!) Yet, when we consider that sense of “ought” that every man has, and that sense of a definite “right” and a definite “wrong,” then we must have One who stands as the lawgiver and the lawmaker, determining what is moral and what is immoral. Of course, that One is God Almighty. Therefore, it is imperative that those who are preachers of the gospel, as well as all Christians, must make sure and stand for those things which are moral and upright in our society. It is not enough to allow “someone else” to do our job!

It is difficult, at times, to stand for that which is moral and upright. The world laughs at our efforts, and considers it foolish to discuss such things as morality (After all, many consider morality to be a “personal” decision!). But, if we stop teaching and preaching and showing people that God expects us to live pure lives, then who will do it? Unfortunately, we see more and more of those claiming to be Christians who do not want to hear about morality, living in a pure manner, and letting our “light” shine in a dark and sinful world (Matt. 5:16). Why is this? Well, there are several reasons: 1) Seeing that these people have been called out of the world, they may still have some growing to do (Heb. 5:12-14; 2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Cor. 3:1-3). 2) It may be that these people are more concerned about the things in this life rather than spiritual matters (Matt. 13:22; 2 Tim. 4:10). 3) It may be that they are conforming to this world, and continuing to allow worldly friends and contacts to sway them rather than conforming to God’s Word (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 15:33). 4) Some may allow their love of money, or their need for power to sway them to laugh and consider “foolish” the preaching on such subjects as morality (1 Tim. 6:10). Regardless of the influence behind it, many today in the world, but also many in the Lord’s church, consider preaching on morality foolish. In the remainder of this article, we wish to discuss what God has said concerning several moral issues, and some complaints registered by men. As we do this, this author wishes to encourage all to hold fast and to “fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life” (1 Tim. 6:12).

The Sin Of HomosexualityBecause of the newspaper, television, radio, and other media, homosexuality is gradually gaining acceptance. Many call it nothing more than an “alternate lifestyle.” Some say God made them that way. Others will be honest, saying it is a choice they made, but will still deny that there is anything immoral about homosexuality. All along, there are those who will deny that God condemned it, or that Christ condemned the sin of homosexuality in any way. Those who preach against homosexuality are considered foolish, to be sure! What has God said about homosexuality? God has said: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Lev. 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13). Don’t forget that Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes and smoke because of their sins, one in particular being homosexuality (Gen. 19)! In the New Testament, we read, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1:16-17). “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). At a glance we learn that homosexuality is an abomination, it is vile, it is against nature, it is unseemly, it is error, it is an act equated with some of the lowest of sins, and one practicing such things will not go to Heaven. Some may have a problem with my being “blunt,” but it needs to be understood that the subject of homosexuality and its sinfulness is not merely a matter of opinion, but a matter of Heaven or Hell!! Because this is true, it is imperative that we speak as plainly as possible so that people will understand how terrible this sin is. It is imperative that homosexuals be encouraged to get out of that sin before it is too late!Some today try to justify homosexuality by saying that Christ never talked about it. Thus, according to them, it might have been a sin in the Old Testament, but it is not a sin today. Well, let’s just see about that. In Matthew 19, Jesus discussed the marriage relationship among other things. There, Jesus told the Pharisees, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). Now, when Jesus talked of the marriage relationship, He showed it to be between one male and one female, never two males or two females! Notice, Jesus said that God made them male and female at the beginning! As the old saying goes, “In the beginning, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” Notice also that the man leaves his father (male) and mother (female) to cleave to his wife (female) and then those two (man and woman) are to be one flesh! This subject is really not that difficult to understand when we simply let the Bible speak. Jesus condemned homosexuality by showing what was acceptable with God.Some claim that being a homosexual is not a matter of choice, but a natural thing, “a genetic thing.” They will often say, “I didn’t choose this, did you choose to be heterosexual?” My response is, that at some point you had to have chosen to be a homosexual. Just because we are accustomed to certain things, or have established certain habits, does not mean that they still are not choices! The second thing I would say is that no, I didn’t have to “choose” to be heterosexual, you see that is a “natural” thing according to God. It is “against nature” or unnatural to be a homosexual. Thus, homosexuality is a choice that needs to be reversed! It is obviously possible to reverse this decision concerning homosexuality, for some in Corinth “were” homosexuals, among other things, but came out of that to be “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 6:11). Regardless of what men may think about it, and regardless of its “acceptance” in society, God says the homosexual activities are immoral and sinful in the sight of God. Those today who refuse to talk about homosexuality and call it sin, do not love men’s souls as they claim!

The Sin Of Immodest DressImmodesty is something that is rampant in our society. It is getting so that even the winter months do not curtail immodest dress. And those who at one time at least made an effort to dress decently and modestly for worship services are not doing so anymore. More and more are dressing as the world dresses, and as such, do not see anything wrong with wearing indecent clothing. We often see young women in the worship services who spend all their time fidgeting, fighting, and stretching their short dresses so it will cover their bare legs and thighs. Some today seem to have a problem getting enough material to cover the top half of their body, as well! This is not limited to the worship services, though. Some women seem to always be fighting, stretching, and fuming over their short dresses every time they sit down! Please do not misunderstand, this is not simply an indictment against the ladies, men also are known for their immodest dress, and it certainly is not condoned by God. God does not have “double-standards” as the world does. Both men and women can be guilty of dressing immodestly.Brethren, there needs to be more and more preaching on modest dress, and what it means to be “shame-faced” as the Bible talks about. Paul wrote to Timothy and encouraged him to preach on these matters. He said, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Paul made it clear that for a woman to have “too much” or “too little” on was wrong. Of course, as we see society today, they lean more toward the “too little” than the “too much.” Though this is a problem in places when we see women who are in the worship services either to see what “so-and-so” has on today, or to be adored herself! People ought to be able to see us as godly people, people who let our lights shine (Matt. 5:16). Therefore, it requires that we (men AND women) dress in an appropriate manner. Solomon showed us that it is possible for one to wear the “attire of an harlot” (Prov. 7:10). You reckon that if one was wearing the attire of a harlot that people would think she was a Christian? Peter discussed the importance of dressing in a modest manner as well in 1 Peter 3:1-6.As was said earlier, this rule applies to both the man and woman. Why must both sexes dress in a modest manner? First of all, because it is commanded, and second of all because it helps to not place a stumbling block in the way of others. Consider Matthew 5:27-28: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Ladies, would you like to be the one that influences another to commit adultery “in his heart”? It is possible! And yes, once again, it works both ways — men can have an influence on women and cause them to think impure thoughts. Someone may say, “Well, if someone lusts after me, then that is their fault, they have a dirty mind.” To an extent, this is true, we certainly cannot control the thoughts of others. But, if our dress can have an effect on the opposite sex, (and it can) and we dress as the world dresses with no thought for modesty or godliness, then we can have a bad influence upon others and have sinned ourselves (Matt. 18:6).

The Sin Of DancingDancing is also something that is immoral, for it leads to many other sins. One we have already discussed, and that is the placing of impure thoughts and motives in the mind of the opposite sex. Some downplay this, but all of us need to realize that what we think about will eventually come out — good or bad! This is why Jesus said what He did in Matthew 15:17-20, and why Paul encouraged us to think on things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy (Phil. 4:8). What we think about will eventually come out!So many today wish to portray dancing as “wholesome” fun. Many today consider you foolish if you talk about dancing and what it can lead to. Dancing is portrayed as a way for people (especially the young) to gain “style,” “grace,” and other social skills. This sin and it’s end is then promoted not only by parents at times, but also by the schools which sponsor Proms, Homecoming dances, Sweethearts’ dances and the like. What seems “innocent” on the surface is really something that effects your eternal soul! Some may not see the problems related to dancing and ask, “what is the problem?” Think about it, when you have two people of the opposite sex swaying in a rhythmic motion and holding one another close, does it take a genius to figure out that eventually they will do what they are acting out? One man called dancing “vertical fornication” and I think he got it right.Brethren, do we know what the word “lasciviousness” means? I wonder sometimes. Nevertheless, the word “lasciviousness” means “wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent body movements, unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer’s, p. 79-80). Now, I know that there are other things that could apply, but clearly, we can see that the definition for lasciviousness applies to dancing. No, it is not “good” or “harmless fun.” It is a dangerous thing that can lead men farther and farther away from God if we are not careful. The Bible discusses lasciviousness in such passages as: Galatians 5:19-21, calling it a work of the flesh; in Ephesians 4:18-19 and 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 as well. In no Scripture is lasciviousness shown in a good light!

Before one thinks I am simply foolish and the things we are discussing are “out-dated” or not relevant, let me ask this: In what other situation would we allow people of the opposite sex to handle one another as they do in most dances? Take the music out of it, and who would defend the “rights” of our teens, or adult men and women holding one another in the manner common in most dances? Husbands, what would you think of a strange man swaying back and forth with your wives in any other situation? Yet, this goes on in dances, does it not? What makes it right or acceptable? Is it the music? Is it the dance floor? What is it? Brethren, it is high time we realized that dancing and such things as this are sins, and are not to be “glossed over.” Just because a thing may be considered “socially acceptable” does not make it right in the sight of God!

The Sin Of Fornication/AdulteryBelieve it or not, we’ve come to the place in our society where a point like this is needed! People need to be reminded that in order to live a pure and moral life in the sight of God, we need to make sure and not commit such sins as fornication or adultery. As Satan continues to lead men away from that which is pure and right, it is going to become more and more necessary to preach on such basic truths as these. Many today consider this “foolishness” for they say “Everyone does it!” A man may convince a woman to “live with him” for a while as a “test marriage.” (Have you heard of this?) What this man really wants is to engage in acts reserved for marriage (Heb. 13:4) without actually being married! Others see this as a thing of beauty, for these people are supposedly “in love,” and people excuse fornication and adultery if people are truly “in love” or “committed” as the popular saying goes!To answer one argument, no, “everyone” does not commit fornication or adultery! I am glad to know many young people, as well as some older single people who have control of their passions and will not allow Satan to get a toe-hold in their lives! It is possible to live a life for Christ and do so without engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage. What is fornication, and why the distinction between fornication and adultery? Well, fornication is defined as any illicit sexual act. Therefore, such things as homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and adultery fall under this definition. Adultery is more specific, and has to do with illicit sexual relations specifically between a man and a woman. While adultery is fornication, fornication is not necessarily adultery (as explained above).God intended for one man and one woman to live together as husband and wife (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 7:1-4). Therefore, all others who might engage in sexual activity have sinned, and are considered by God to be fornicators and adulterers (Heb. 13:4). The sexual act, in its proper place, is a beautiful thing. The problem is that many have taken it out of its proper place. For example, anyone who gardens knows the value of good topsoil. If you can get some good topsoil, get a good soaking rain on it, those vegetables will really take off in that garden! But, what if we decide to take that topsoil, which is so good, and bring it into the house on the freshly-cleaned carpet?? What then? Some husbands may end up sleeping in the garden if they bring that dirt in the house!! Why is this? What was wrong with that good soil? Nothing, when it is in its proper place (the garden), but take it out of that place, and it becomes dirty, filthy, and a big mess. Thus it is with the sexual act. In it’s proper place (the marriage relationship) it is right, proper, and good. However, out of this relationship, it is ugly, dirty, immoral, and sinful!

Before we leave this point, it is also necessary to understand that God considers some to be fornicators and adulterers if they are married to one that they do not have the Scriptural right to marry. The Bible teaches that there are only two reasons for one to remarry. One reason is the death of the spouse (Rom. 7:1-3). The other reason is seen in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. There we see that one may remarry if his/her mate has been unfaithful to him/her. Then, only the innocent spouse may remarry. Friend, if you find yourself in a situation where you are unscripturally married to someone, you will face God’s wrath unless you repent and get out of that relationship. This is a serious matter, to be sure. The apostles understood how serious it was (Matt. 19:10), and we need to understand it as well.

The Sin Of Aborting ChildrenAbortion is simply the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is considered a “moral” choice for a pregnant woman. Abortion is something that is encouraged at times. I have a neighbor who found out her granddaughter was pregnant, and was willing to pay for the abortion procedure herself!! Can you imagine that? Truly, a people “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31) is appearing in America. Abortion procedures are becoming more defined and more specific. Not that many months ago, our local newspaper reported that a man had figured out a way to kill a baby at 2-3 weeks after conception! One man justified the technique by saying, “People are more comfortable with this type of abortion — it is not the picture of a little baby sucking its thumb.” It is a baby, nonetheless, regardless of whether or not it ever sucked its thumb!! I have had experiences with this, myself. My wife and I are the parents of a nine-month-old baby boy. While my wife was in the early months of her pregnancy, we were given the option of abortion (termed “termination” by this doctor). We denied it outright, but in the days and weeks following, I wondered how many countless couples sat in our places before us and seriously considered killing their child, or even went through with it.People consider this foolishness, but it is a serious matter. God says, that He hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov. 6:17). Who is more innocent than an unborn child?? Unlike many modern doctors and others, God says that a child not yet born is still a child! Genesis 25:21-24 calls Jacob and Esau “children,” “nations,” “people,” and “twins” though they were not yet born. In the book of Exodus, God demanded punishment in the case of a man causing a woman to miscarry and lose her child, though no harm came to her personally. He said the punishment would be “life for life” (Ex. 21:22-23). Psalm 139:14-16 records David’s words: “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Finally, we note that Dr. Luke (Col. 4:14) called John a “babe” though yet unborn (Lk. 1:41-44). Consider this question: What if Eve, and Mary, the mother of Christ were pro-abortion??If God calls the unborn “babies,” “children,” etc., then woe is me if I call them “dead matter,” “tissue,” or anything else that would take away from their value and worth as human beings! Now, can a woman be forgiven by God for aborting her child? Can a doctor be forgiven by God for killing babies? Yes, they can. But, the best thing to do is never get in this situation in the first place! (This is why our point about “fornication and adultery” preceded this one!) Yes, brethren, there needs to be more preaching on such timely subjects as this, regardless of whether or not men think it “foolish” to do so.

The Sin Of GamblingGambling is something that is overlooked by many today. Yes, gambling is a sin, and must be avoided by men. So many times, we see gambling (in the form of casino gambling, raffles, bingos, lotteries, employee “pools” on the ball games, etc.) being defended by men as a means of raising money, and simply having fun. While these things may be fun at the beginning, the end of these things is not fun at all! People try to justify such things as lotteries (especially state-wide or nation-wide lotteries) as ways in which the state can raise more funds. Having been born and growing up in a state which legalized lotteries, I can tell you the people of the state are still waiting on the money that was supposed to “roll in”! In the first year the lottery was legalized, there was a big scandal over funds, secret sexual affairs, and other things. After that first year, the people overseeing the lottery left in disgrace, but the lottery was there to stay, and it is still going strong! Catholic churches are known for their bingo games and other things such as that. This is nothing more than gambling, pure and simple, regardless of who condones it! Raffles for cars or school raffles, etc. are the same. It is nothing but a means by which to play on the covetousness of men and to take their money!The pull men feel to get “something for nothing” (or next to nothing) is strong. You see, gambling plays on men’s greed. The Bible says “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). The love of money motivates men to sin in all kinds of ways — including gambling! Gambling, simply put, is stealing by consent. Some may consent to the consequences of gambling (losing their money and/or possessions), but just because one consents doesn’t make it right! If it does, then would “consent” make it acceptable in God’s sight for a man and women to commit adultery? They both stand or fall together! If we can see that adultery “by consent” is still adultery and sinful, then we ought to be able to see that gambling (stealing by consent) is still stealing! Men may call this foolish, or being “nit-picky” or whatever, but God calls it sin!The Bible says that one may receive money or goods through working for it (Matt. 20:1-16; Eph. 4:28). Man may also receive goods and money through a gift or an inheritance (Eph. 4:28; Lk. 15:11-30). However, any other way is unauthorized, and as such is forbidden by God!! We are not to gamble, or to take part in games which play on a man’s covetousness, or greed! Covetousness is sin (Col. 3:5)!

The Sin Of DrinkingSo many today do not see a problem with drinking alcoholic drinks. The Bible says that it is wrong for a man to partake in such things. It affects our minds, and our judgments. It causes us to do things we would not normally do, and can ultimately lead to our death or the death of another (Prov. 23:29-35). It definitely leads to our spiritual death! Some justify drinking by saying God condemned drunkenness, but not one drink, or “social” drinking. Like the subjects above, it is considered a foolish thing for men to talk about drinking alcohol and such. Nevertheless, this subject demands our study!In dealing with the one who says God condemns drunkenness, not a social drink, consider Proverbs 23 again. First of all, drunkenness is condemned (Prov. 20:1, 23:29-30; 1 Pet 4:3; etc.). At the same time, it needs to be made clear that in order to stop drunkenness, one must stop the first drink! In Proverbs 23:31-32, we read, “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright (“goeth down smoothly,” ASV). At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.” Understand, brethren, there would be no “at the last” if there were no “at the first”! Solomon is warning against drinking at all by showing the end result. Certainly, we don’t stop drunkenness by drinking, we stop it by not drinking! That is his point. If you drink alcohol, you will eventually get to the state described in this text. And, no one, repeat NO ONE who justifies their “social drinking” can say that they have never “slipped up” and ended up truly drunk as is described in Proverbs 23.Let’s look to the New Testament for a moment. Peter says, “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:1-4). Notice please that Peter said these people had committed some pretty terrible sins at one point. Among those were: living after the lusts of men, doing the will of the Gentiles, walking in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, abominable idolatries, and excess of riot. Among all these sins were three we will consider: 1) Excess of wine — this is the “falling down drunk.” This is the man in the gutter, the one people who drink swear that they will never become. 2) Revellings — this is the man who is drunk enough that his inhibitions are gone. He is “the life of the party” as it were. 3) Banquetings — This word means “drinking parties” and is literally translated “a drinking.” You cannot have a “drinking” without a “drink” can you? If the warnings from the book of Proverbs were not enough, then listen to Peter. Yes, the Bible condemns “social drinking” and even the taking of one drink! Peter lists it in the category with living after the lusts of men, doing the will of the Gentiles, walking in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, abominable idolatries, and excess of riot. If we drink alcohol, we are sinning.

ConclusionThese things ought to really make us stop and think. Are we living for God as we ought? Do we appreciate what God has said about these moral issues that come up from day to day? Yes, the Bible is a relevant book, and yes, God’s word has meaning for us today. Woe to anyone who thinks otherwise! Regardless of how “foolish” men think it is, it is our responsibility to preach and promote God’s word to a lost and dying world. Remember, God chose the preaching of the gospel to win lost souls to Him. The world considers it foolishness and a waste of time, but we who are saved know better! We know it is the power of God to salvation (1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16)!! Let us not take God’s word for granted, but appreciate its beauty and its power and defend it, preach, and live it so that one day we can be welcomed into Heaven, the home of the soul (Matt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:1-3; Rev. 22:14; Phil. 4:13-14)!

Currently, some gospel preachers, who have (in the past) had their feet securely fixed in the “faith once for all delivered” (Jude 3), are casting themselves into the sea of human speculation through a disavowal of Bible principles which establish Biblical authority. To put it concisely, some are turning away from the use of approved apostolic examples and necessary inferences to prove what is that “good and acceptable will of God” (1 Tim. 2:3). Not only so, but they are shaking the faith of many and unsettling churches as to the limits of fellowship. Having negated the use of these two principles of Bible study, they conclude that churches of Christ are too narrow-minded and legalistic in refusing to fellowship some who disagree with us only in matters regulated by examples and inferences. The truth regarding the Lord’s supper, sponsoring churches, benevolent works, the eldership, and other things cannot be clearly ascertained, it is opined, therefore we cannot withhold fellowship from those who disagree.

The basic fallacy in this malady affecting so many is that some do not believe that God expects us to use reason in understanding His will. If it be so, as it is asserted, that only express commands have binding authority in the scriptures, man stands dumb before his Creator, unable to receive intelligent communication unless stated in primitive, elementary syllables: “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not.” Involved in this controversy is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of God’s communication with man. Before you jump to any conclusions and diminish your respect for examples and inferences, think this through with the native intelligence God has given to us all.

1. God has spoken,
2. He has spoken to man in more than one form of communication and
3. He will hold man accountable for understanding and obeying that revealed message.

My position can be outlined in this manner:

Godly implications and examples are not to be paralleled with opinions. We are speaking of approved apostolic examples and necessary inferences. Other studies have been (and will be) made as to which examples and inferences are binding and how to determine that; it is not to the point of this study. But it is vital to our becoming a full-grown man in Christ that we learn to “rightly divide” (2 Tim. 2:15) the scriptures. They are not always divided for us! Some things are spiritually discerned only as we study (1 Cor. 2:14-15). We must have “our senses exercised to discern between good and evil” (Heb. 5:14) and all spiritual food is not milk, but sometimes meat, which requires more “discerning” that some would permit.

1. How does one arrive at the conclusion that the plan of salvation includes all these actions: hearing, believing, repenting, confessing the name of Jesus and being baptized? How do we conclude that they must be in that order?
2. How does one prove that we must take the Lord’s supper each first day of the week?
3. Is the “sponsoring church” arrangement authorized in the scriptures? Is it wrong to oppose it as unscriptural and, if so, upon what basis?
4. Must elders be appointed in every church or may elders be appointed over many churches in one city? Is there an expressed command that teaches on this or must we infer something?
5. Are there any implications in the Bible from which we must draw necessary inferences and be held accountable for the inferences?
6. Are there any approved examples which must be duplicated today? How do we learn of the binding force of examples?
7. If express commands are the only means of learning what is authoritative, how does one determine which commands apply to modern Christians and which to peculiar, historical and cultural settings of the first century Christians?
8. How would one prove that missionary societies are sinful?
9. Since our individual names are not found in the Bible, how does one determine that the Bible is applicable to anyone today?

It is recognized that binding where God has not bound has been a source of controversy, conflict and division ever since the first century itself. Certainly, only God has the power to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19). If we are guilty of either binding or loosing where God has not done so, we will be condemned and will contribute to division. Yet it is inescapable that God expects us to read and reason from the scriptures to the correct understanding of God’s will. It is hoped that this will make a contribution toward that understanding.

What The Holy Ghost Says

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman TAKEN IN

Now, what does that convey to you? Do you get the idea that the woman was found in the “gate of the city” filing divorce papers on her husband, or filing for a second marriage license, or taking vows to contract a second marriage? Rather, doesn’t the term “taken in adultery” describe the fact that the woman was found having sexual relations with a man?

Marriage is honourable in all, and the BED undefiled: but whoremongers and ADULTERERS God will judge (Hebrews. 13:4).

To what part of marriage does this passage refer? Is it to the vows taken when the couple stands before God and man? How ridiculous! It refers to the BED, that is, the sexual relations of a husband and his wife. If that is not so, then language means nothing. Now, notice the comparison being made: an “honourable” marriage “bed” (sexual relation) compared to an unhonourable sexual relation (bed) of “whoremongers and adulterers.” It is addressing intercourse between a man and woman, righteous versus unrighteous, and uses adultery to define, in part, the latter.

Having EYES FULL OF ADULTERY, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children (2 Pet. 2:14).

Did these people have visions of divorce and remarriage? Were these folks enraptured and enamored with going to the courthouse and signing papers? Did they day-dream about an expensive ceremony? Rather, were they not ones who were full of sexual, sensual lust? What do you think?

It seems clear enough that adultery in the Book of God, when referring to a man and a woman (i.e. not idolatry or spiritual), is defined as a physical, sexual act. Nevertheless, some brethren do not agree.

What Men SayTrying desperately to redefine adultery, Jerry Bassett says the following:

It is significant that Jesus’ statement according to Matthew 19:9 is an expansion spoken to the Pharisees of what he had said earlier concerning them in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:20, 32). Notice that in both places (actually in every place) Jesus spoke first of a man committing adultery by divorcing his wife and marrying another…In either case, it would be a matter of a woman disposing of one mate in order to acquire another–a two-fold act Jesus termed adulterous, in and of itself…(Coburg Road Bulletin, Church of Christ, 1005 Coburg Road, Eugene, Oregon, Vol. 18, No. 2, Jan. 12, 1997). Further, we have pointed out that this makes it impossible for Jesus to have been teaching that a twice married man and woman commit adultery by sexual intercourse within their marriage (ibid., Vol. 18, No. 8, Feb. 23, 1997).

The very act, Jesus said, of a man divorcing his wife and marrying another woman,…, was itself an act of adultery (Rethinking Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, 1991, p. 30)

As explained earlier, it is not our conviction that Jesus was talking about adultery in the form of sexual intercourse within a subsequent marriage. Rather he spoke expressly of the dual act of divorcing one’s wife and marrying another woman (ibid., p. 111).

In his book, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come To God, Homer Hailey writes the following:

This position ["continuous adultery"] denies Jesus’ statement and what Moses taught. Jesus said, “Whoso shall put away his wife,” a word which means, “let go, send away, dismiss – a divorce, send away” (A and G). “And marries another,” – enters into matrimony (A and G), makes covenant with her, and so the second is no longer the spouse of the first partner but becomes the spouse of another. If God recognizes that the two are bound by the marriage covenant, and not in the sex act, then the “continuous adultery” theory is false (p. 56). The sin was in breaking the covenant by the wife (or husband) in order to marry another and not in a “continuous sexual adulterous condition.” Therefore, repentance demands they do not break such a covenant again (p. 72).

Olan Hicks, in the publication News & Notes, said,

Referring to Matt. 19.9… grammatically the word “adultery” refers to the two acts of divorcing and marrying, not to sexual action that comes later (Jan. 1993, p. 2).

W. L. Wharton in a taped sermon on MDR (1/19/92, San Antonio, TX) argues that adultery is covenant breaking.

Does a man commit adultery against his wife if he divorces her and never marries anybody else? The answer is, yes.

Jim Puterbaugh, on tape in a study conducted at the Livingston Ave. church of Christ in Lutz, FL, argues that “to commit adultery” is subject to two possible meanings: 1. A single action; or, 2. a continual action, depending upon the context. Puterbaugh believes it is a single action in passages like Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12. Thus, when the person gets a divorce and remarries another, he commits adultery as a one-time action. He argues it has no reference to the sexual part of the new marriage. The person needs to repent of the adultery and remain in the new marriage–it would be wrong to go back to the first marriage (a summary from the tape).

Weeding Through The MessAs you can see, several issues need to be addressed. First, after reading all of the above, do you really think that the Bible defines an adulterer as one who has gone to the courthouse to sign divorce papers? (Reread the Bible passages) Is an adulteress one who sees the Justice of the Peace to contract a second marriage? Or, is it not true that the Bible portrays the adulterer and adulteress as ones who have sex outside their God-ordained marriage or ones who have sex with a married person? But this is where a second issue comes up, what is a God-ordained marriage?Can one be lawfully married to a second or third spouse, not having divorced their previous one for the cause of fornication? Jerry Bassett thinks so, and thinks he finds comfort in a lexical definition.

Is the adultery he charged committed by sexual intercourse with the spouse of the second marriage? Not by the lexical definition of the term, “…unlawful intercourse WITH THE SPOUSE OF ANOTHER” (Wm. E. Vine, emphasis supplied [JB]). This cannot apply to people in a second marriage following divorce because, unlike the case in Paul’s analogy, neither of them has another husband or wife (Coburg Road Bulletin, Church of Christ, 1005 Coburg Road, Eugene, Oregon, Vol. 18, No. 15, Apr. 13, 1997). …historical descriptions…leave no doubt that the sin of adultery was rampant whether committed as defined by the lexicons (unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another) or as in the case Jesus reproved (one’s divorcing a mate in order to marry another). (ibid., Vol. 18, No. 31, Aug. 3, 1997).

We wonder why brother Bassett does not quote from Thayer’s Greek – English Lexicon of the New Testament. Could it be that that definition would corner him? Notice what it says about the Greek word moicheuo (adultery in Matt. 5:28): “…to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife: Mt. 5:28.” If we, like brother Bassett, took one definition from one lexicon and made our case on it, we could claim that a heterosexual woman could not commit adultery! Do you see it? Thayer’s definition says it is “unlawful intercourse with another’s WIFE.” So, if a woman wanted to have sex with a married man, whether or not she was married, it is all well and good, according to brother Bassett’s logic. We do not charge him with such, but simply wish to expose his erroneous platform.

Fact is, both Vine’s and Thayer’s definitions of adultery clearly convey that adultery is sexual! It is pure assumption to say that adultery is the “dual act of divorcing one’s wife and marrying another woman.” Where is the lexicon that defines it as such? We’ll pay good money to see it!

Furthermore, we must look at who is a lawful spouse. When two people are married, they are not the only ones involved, God is an interested third party. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). When a person goes to the courthouse and divorces his mate (for a cause other than fornication) according to the law of the land, he breaks the civil connection. However, the couple was also joined by God–through His law. He established marriage and, thus, regulates it. Therefore, the man and woman are still joined through God. So, even if said man goes out and contracts another marriage through the civil courts, God does not recognize his new mate as a lawful one. The first wife is still the one who God acknowledges as the man’s lawful spouse, while the second one is unlawful and results in the man being in an adulterous marriage.

Connection To FornicationThe Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2, p. 601, says,FORNICATION:

1. In 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Thessalonians 4:3, Paul is warning unmarried people about the temptation to fornication. In both cases he advocates marriage to prevent single life of sexual immorality. In both cases fornication refers to voluntary sexual intercourse of an unmarried person with anyone of the opposite sex…
2. In two passages (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) fornication is used in a broader sense as a synonym of adultery.

The argument goes like this: 1. Fornication is a sexual sin; 2. Fornication is used synonymously with adultery in Matt. 5:32 & 19:9; 3. Therefore, adultery in these passages is referring to sexual intercourse, not divorce.

When looking at the definition of fornication, we see that it is often a broad term which designates some type of illicit SEXUAL conduct, and frequently includes adultery.

PORNEIA…is used (a) of illicit sexual intercourse…in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 it stands for, or includes, adultery; it is distinguished from it in 15:19 and Mark 7:21 (W. E. Vine). Fornication… a. prop. of illicit sexual intercourse in general…Acts xv. 20, 29; xxi. 25, (that this meaning must be adopted in these passages will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Cor. vi. 12 sqq. how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected)…used of adultery…Mt. v. 32; xix. 9 (Thayer).

{For further information on adultery as a sexual act and not a “non-sexual covenant breaking,” see the appendix of Weldon E. Warnock’s book, A Review of Homer Hailey’s THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED WHO WOULD COME TO GOD.}

Living In A State Of AdulteryConnected with our subject, and quoted especially from Hailey, is the idea that people cannot “live” in adultery, that is, it is supposed to be a “one-time” act. Well, the Bible portrays a different picture than our esteemed brethren.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them (Col. 3:5-7).

We trust you can see our point. Fornication (which includes adultery – Vine) was a manner in which the Colossians had lived–it was a walk of life.

…And Then SomeWhat does all of this mean? We will try to summarize it like this: When someone says that adultery is the non-sexual breaking of a covenant, then those who are in a second or third marriage (after leaving their first spouse for a cause other than fornication) simply have to decide not to divorce and remarry again, that is, they can keep their second mate. This is what is taught. Therefore, to the casually observant, it is manifest that this opens the door to many, many more people who could be accepted as faithful Christians (appealing, isn’t it). In other words, this opens the door of fellowship to those who, according to the Bible, are living in sin. When this door is opened by a redefinition of the term “adultery,” what is next? Will we redefine the word church? God? Baptize? Fellowship? Love? Where will it end?Moreover, some rant and rave about preachers in years past disagreeing on divorce and remarriage, but not drawing lines of fellowship. SO WHAT?!? Their actions prove nothing other than the way they acted. However, it would seem obvious that in the 19th century and early 20th century, divorce and remarriage was not so rampant, especially among brethren. Today it is everywhere. Those who lived back then were not forced to make much practical application of their beliefs, but we are. Today, the local church must decide if the couple (one or both of whom is married to their second mate) who wants to place membership is living in adultery or not. The local church must determine if the divorcee who wishes to marry again has the right according to God’s law. More situations could be illustrated, but let these suffice. The point is, unlike in times past, we must face real situations, not just academic disagreements.

Let us beware of those who would turn the grace of God into adultery. Let us be mindful of God’s will concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and teach our children and others diligently. Let us not compromise and sacrifice the truth of God’s word upon the altar of friendship and feelings. “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).