Must the Divorce Papers Say "For Adultery"?
Kerry Duke

If a woman divorces her husband for adultery, do the divorce papers have to state this as the reason for the divorce? Some Christians say that the divorce decree has to say that the divorce was for adultery. This position is wrong. If the woman knows she is divorcing her husband for fornication, she doesn't have to spell out the details in the legal document. That can't be done in many states anyway. Is a scriptural divorce impossible in these states because the authorities will not allow adultery to be given as the cause? Think outside of present-day America. There are some countries today that allow citizens to get a divorce without going to court and getting a written divorce decree. The government in these countries delegates to citizens the right to divorce; it is more of a private matter than a legal process. This was largely true of the first-century Roman world. The Jews required a written bill of divorce because Moses commanded it (Deut. 24:1-4; Mark 10:5-7). But the Gentiles were not under this law, and the general population of Rome was not required to obtain authorization in the form of a written decree by the courts. The New Testament authorizes divorce for the cause of fornication, but it does not legislate the procedure of divorce. That is left up to each individual government to decide. Some issue a legal document declaring the dissolution of the marriage, while others do not. If the New Testament does not even require a government to give "divorce papers," then how can anyone say what must be in them?

Think of this question from a different angle. When a man and a woman get married, they affirm their vows. Do those vows have to specifically mention everything the bride and groom are agreeing to in order for the marriage to be legal and scriptural? If these vows do not specifically state that the wife is to submit to her husband, is she exempt from this responsibility? If the vows do not mention that the husband is to provide for his wife, is he obligated to provide for her? If these things are not in the vows, are the bride and groom really married? When a preacher conducting the ceremony says, "till death do you part," must he state that fornication is the exception?

Remember too that the same local government that issues divorce decrees also grants marriage licenses. The person officiating at the ceremony signs this document to verify that the man and woman were actually married on the date given. This official paper says nothing about the responsibilities of husband and wife. It says nothing about the couple's reason for getting married. It says nothing about fornication being grounds for divorce. In Tennessee, it says nothing about God at all! A marriage license is given for legal purposes and does not address the scripturalness or morality of a marriage. Marriage licenses are given to people who have no scriptural right to marry just as divorce decrees are granted to people who have no scriptural right to divorce.

If neither the marriage license nor the marriage vows must specifically state these things in order for the marriage to be valid, then why would the divorce decree have to specifically state adultery as the cause in order for the divorce to be valid in God's sight? If a marriage license does not have to state why a couple is getting married, why would a divorce decree have to state why they are getting a divorce?

Editorial: Moses Lard and J. W. McGarvey
Malcolm L. Hill

We have been reading materials about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. One paper we have seen tries to set J. W. McGarvey and Moses E. Lard against each other. Either the brother writing does not know about McGarvey and Lard, or he does know but refuses to accept the truth about the matter.

In J. W. McGarvey's Commentary on Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans he comments, "The Spirit leads both externally and internally. Externally, the Spirit supplies the gospel truth as set forth in the New Testament, and the rules and precepts therein found are for the instruction and guidance of God's children. Internally, the Spirit aids by ministering strength and comfort to the disciple in his effort to conform to the revealed truth and will of God" (p. 361).

Moses E. Lard said, "What kind of leading then is it? I answer, both internal and external. To whatever extent the Holy Spirit by its indwelling strengthens the human spirit, to enable it to control the flesh, to that extent the leading is internal. To whatever extent the motives of the gospel, when brought to bear on the mind in the written word, enlighten and strengthen it, and so enable it to keep the body in subjection, to that extent the leading is external." (Moses Lard, Commentary on Romans, p. 264).

Brother McGarvey and brother Lard must have talked about their view of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and it seems they believed very much alike. Were brother McGarvey and brother Lard Calvinists because they held this view of the Holy Spirit's indwelling the Christian? Some today have said brother Mac Deaver is a Calvinist and he has the same view as McGarvey and Lard.

J. W. McGarvey and Moses Lard did not make their view of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit a test of Christian fellowship and neither should we. Those who do so are out of harmony with the Word of God.

Our Prophecy
Malcolm L. Hill

For the past 25 or 30 years we declared what was taking place in the church of Christ and also gave certain observation about what the future held and holds even to this good day. What we said would take place has taken place even though some things have not yet come into fruition. We have urged strong men to stand up for the truth regardless the cost.

For the past couple of years we slacked off in order to observe and see just what would take place within the brotherhood. We do not intend ever to fold up our tent and steal away to some silent, secluded place where we can rest in peace and be in the favor of all sides and all preachers in the church of Christ. God's revelation is "there is a time to speak and a time to remain silent" (Eccl. 3:7). One cannot go wrong following the dictates of the almighty and all-knowing God.

We have encouraged all the way through the years good men to speak out and stand for Bible truth. Not long back a very fine preacher who is faithful to God and His word told us he was thinking about canceling all of his appearances on lectureships and such like programs. We asked him why he was thinking of doing such. He said he did not want to fellowship false teachers and preachers who were on the program. Appearing on a program with a false teacher does not necessarily mean one is in fellowship with that false teacher. Sinners often worship with us but this does not mean that we are fellowshipping them. One becomes a partaker of evil deeds by teaching false doctrine or by upholding such in one way or another. One must commit himself by word or by deed in that which is unscriptural before he is a partaker of evil (II John 9-11). One may be on the platform in a debate with a denominational preacher but this does not mean he is in fellowship with that preacher. One may be on a program with a false teacher but this does not mean he is in fellowship with that teacher. Those who invite false teachers to be on programs are doing wrong; they are partakers of their evil doings.

We encourage faithful teachers and preachers to appear on programs and speak out for Bible truth (Phil. 1:17). Much reproving, rebuking, and exhorting needs to be done on various lectureships and programs (II Tim. 4:1-3). If preachers and teachers will teach and preach what is needed, this will take care of their appearances on lectureships. Far too many want to throw their calf rope around just about everything that comes in the name of God and religion and this the Bible condemns (I Thess. 5:21; I John 4:1; I Pet. 3:15; Eph. 5:11).

Brethren who are soft on Bible teaching and doctrine do not like it when they are rebuked and pointed out. They remind us of little children playing in the marketplace. If one does not do it their way, they refuse to play. In actuality they are antis even though they would deny this to the very end. One must do it the anti way, or "no deal." And one must do it the fence-straddlers way, or "no deal."

God Still Works
Malcolm L. Hill

God has always worked with His Creation. He did not create all things and then move away from them. Some believe God pre-programmed the operation of all things in the universe and through the channel of time they have and do come to pass. This has a "smack" of deism in it to say the least and following this kind of thing lays aside much Bible doctrine.

God has always worked through providence. There has never been a time since God created all things that He has not worked through providence. God's providence is on just about every page in the Bible. God takes a part with the righteous against their enemies (Exod. 23:22). God commands His blessings on the righteous (Lev. 25:20-22). God sends His rain in due season (Lev. 26:4-6). God blesses the works of the righteous (Deut. 2:7). God increases the nations and destroys them (Job 12:23). God fills the houses of the righteous and also defends them (Job 18:22-28). God takes care of the fowls of the air and of those who seek His kingdom (Matt. 6:26-33). God has always watched after His creation (Matt. 10:29-31). God supplies the needs of His creation (Acts 14:17). God makes His grace to abound toward Christians (II Cor. 9:8-10). God makes all things to work together for the good of His people (Rom. 8:28).

Now if God works through providence today and it is not a miracle, why do some brethren have such a time accepting the Bible doctrine that the Holy Spirit is given to His obedient children (Acts 2:38; Gal. 4:6), and that without it being a miracle? Some brethren have strained at gnats and swallowed camels.

God answers the prayers of the righteous today and that without miracles. He tells us to ask and we shall receive (Matt. 7:7-8). God tells us to pray for wisdom and He will give it to us (James 1:5-7). God tells us to pray for the sick (James 5:14-15). God tells us He will be with us until the end of time (Matt. 28:20). He will never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5). God will be with us when we walk through that lonesome valley (Psalm 23). Now if God does all these things today and that without miracles, then why do we think it incredible that His Holy Spirit can dwell in the heart of the Christian without it being a miracle?

Some brethren have made how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian a matter of Christian fellowship. Some have told things about their opposition that are not true. This in no way can be Christ-like and in the Christian spirit. To falsify about a position a brother might have is dishonesty in the first degree and one will have to give an account for such to God. Let all of us act like men and be strong in Christ (I Cor. 16:13).

An Interesting Letter
From Millennial Harbinger, October, 1831

Dear Brother Campbell,

I will come at once to the object I had in addressing you at this time, and that is, to ask your opinion whether it be lawful, according to the will of God as revealed to us, to pray for our unconverted friends—that is, to ask God to convert them to the Christian religion? If it be true, as you affirm, (and which I am not prepared to controvert,) that the righteousness of a Christian is a righteousness by faith in Jesus as the Messiah; that that faith comes alone by hearing or reading the testimony concerning Jesus; and that we have no right to expect any influence superinducing the mind to faith, or even causing the sinner to examine this testimony, or place himself in circumstances for the light of Divine Truth to shine upon his mind: I say, upon the supposition that these things are so, what right has any one to expect that God will answer his prayers in the behalf of any of his unconverted friends? Ever since I have felt the importance of divine things, I have felt the most anxious solicitude for many of my relatives and friends who on their part manifested the greatest indifference to these matters, and have often tried to pray for them.

If the Divine Being exercises no other influence over the minds of men than that influence which is derived to them through the words he has spoken to men, and we cannot prevail upon wicked men to give attention to those words, the question is, Are we authorized to expect that God will answer our requests in the behalf of such an one?

Very affectionately,

Will Z. Thomson

Dear Brother Thomson:

It is not uncommon for us poor short-sighted mortals to take such one-sided views of things, and to be so engrossed in contemplating them as not to see at all, or very imperfectly, things of the very greatest magnitude connected with the other side of the subject. As the flying fish, fixing its eye upon the dolphin, endeavoring to elude its pursuit, sometimes leaps into the ship, or darts into the jaws of the shark, so we, in looking intensely upon one error, sometimes plunge into a greater one than we sought to avoid.

God has placed all the producing power in the heavens and the earth, as he has all converting power in his holy oracles. But neither of these systems of means, natural or moral, exist independent of him. God and man stand at the two extremes of this system of nature. The bounties of his providence pass through many hands, as the law passed through ranks of angels before it came into the hands of Moses. As he created and sustains all, so he presides over all; and therefore, while we call upon him for any favor for ourselves or others, we expect not that he will work a miracle to confer it, but that in subordination to these established arrangements he will bestow it.

Whatever is beyond this is matter of pure faith. Thus if God has promised any special succor to any person, for any purpose, we know he has classes of intelligent and voluntary agents, who are all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for the heirs of salvation, and with a reliance upon his promise and a knowledge of his means and agencies, we confidently expect the blessing promised.

We know not how the attention of men is fixed upon a thousand subjects, nor by what means, curious and unsearchable, a thousand thoughts arise in our minds. Like ancient Israel, we can trace matters to the clouds; but beyond the clouds, and beyond the three heavens of the Jews, what intellect can pierce!

Besides, there is the moral as well as the natural government of God. They are not the same, though the latter may in many respects be analogous to the former. Minds, or rational agents, are not under the government of only the same laws which govern our bodies. If the universe had been altogether material, its creator might have slept for seven thousand years, to speak after the manner of men, and on awaking have found things just as the evolutions of natural law would have presented them. But minds require supervision; because, all nature is an immense manufactory of motives, which are constantly operating in all directions, upon every thing that thinks, in the universe. But there we approach the shores of that ocean on which no mortal man has made a voyage of discovery; and for us to infer from premises unexplored, is as arrogant as it would be ridiculous to write the details of a voyage round the universe which has never yet been made.

But while all converting power is in the word, who can tell the thousand ways in which that word, that great moral instrument, may operate upon the minds of men, or in how many attitudes they may present themselves, or be presented, to its influences! No matter who plants, or who waters, "it is God who makes to grow."

God's word is the word of life. Where it is not known, believed, and obeyed, there no life eternal dawns. He that has the Son of God has this life, and he is revealed in this living word. He teaches his disciples to pray for the following things: for their daily bread; for them that despitefully use and persecute them. Thus, Jesus said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" — and Stephen, by the Holy Spirit said, "Lord lay not this sin to their account" — "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." Paul's desire and prayer to God for Israel was, that they might be saved; and he commanded Timothy to teach the church in Ephesus to pray for all men: for kings, and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For as a reason, he adds, "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to an acknowledgment of the truth." If any man lack wisdom, says James, let him ask of God who gives liberally and upbraids not, and it shall be given him. But in one general command, a hundred sayings to this effect are comprehended—Phil. 4:6: "Be anxiously solicitous about nothing; but in every thing, but prayer and deprecation let your requests be made known to God, and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." This is enough for me: how is it for you, brother?

A person who will not pray for the conversion of his children, friends or enemies, because he cannot see how it can be done in conformity to many truths in religion, such as God's immutability, etc., or his views of God's government, oracle, grace, purpose, etc., reminds me of a physician who could not pray for his daily bread because it was incompatible to pray for sickness, or an increase of his practice, and he could not see how his prayer could be answered unless by an increase of the afflictions of men!!

In one word, dear brother, there is all the good reason in the world why Christians should always pray and not faint; why they should pray without ceasing. What an honor to be permitted to speak to God in the name of his Son! May we prize it as we ought, and may the incense of our hearts always ascend to the heavens!

Yours affectionately,

Alexander Campbell

EDITOR

P. S. Many brethren need to study and read this today. Some have gone so far that their prayer life is not what it should be. If some of our preachers cannot figure a matter out, then the whole thing is out. We take God at His word and this is what the Almighty teaches us to do (II Cor. 5:7). The just shall live by faith (Rom. 1:17). There are many things that the human mind cannot figure out nor understand because God has not revealed them to man.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Campbell and Stone
Malcolm L. Hill

Who were Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone? Campbell was a very brilliant man seeking unadulterated Christianity. And who was Barton Stone? He also was a man seeking to do Bible things in a Bible way. Neither Stone nor Campbell was interested in starting a religion of their own or a church after their own making. They wanted to restore the church of the New Testament without additions or subtractions. I am a member of the church of Christ and the church of Christ to which I belong did not start with Campbell or Stone. If someone can show me anything I believe and practice in religion that started with Campbell, Stone, or any other man other than Christ and the apostles, I will willingly give it up.

I have just read an article by Doug Foster in the Christian Standard, which is perhaps the leading journal in the Christian Church. Foster is a very liberal-minded teacher at Abilene Christian University. His article is about scholarship in the Stone-Campbell movement. I do not know of any purpose for good that is found in the material. He is patting liberals who hold the Ph.D. on the back which is typical of men of his stripe. When I finished the article, some questions arose in my mind. One question that came to mind was which is best: to hold the Ph.D. and be liberal, or hold to sound doctrine and have no college degree at all? One can be a genuine scholar and never see the inside of a college or university. Scholarship does not necessarily lead one into liberalism or false doctrine. The thing that leads one astray from the truth of the Bible is a corrupt and arrogant heart. The reason denominational preachers are denominational is because their hearts are not right in the sight of God. Billy Graham is an educated man. John Hagee is an educated man. Norman Geisler is a very educated man. There are many religious, educated men who preach false doctrine and belong to false churches. They are such not because of education but because of impure hearts. The heart determines what we are (Matt. 15:16-20). Education and scholarship are good when in the heart of a good man. On the other hand it is a very dangerous thing when in the heart of a prideful and evil man. The heart of man makes the difference.

In writing about the scholarship in the Stone-Campbell movement, what is the purpose of the writing? Is Foster trying to put another feather in his cap in the eyes of these liberal Ph.D.s? Is he seeking their praise and glory? Is he saying the Christian church has been ahead of the church of Christ in enlightenment? Is he seeking more friendship and fellowship with the liberal Christian Church? Foster is a good example of what education and a prideful spirit will do with the authority of the Bible. His heart is not right with God. He teaches and stands for things the Bible condemns. Why so? Could it be because he is filled with worldly wisdom and a desire to make a fair show in the flesh?

The Christian Church is a product of the restoration movement. The men of the restoration movement did not want a Stone-Campbell Church. They wanted the church that Jesus built and not another denomination.

The All-Sufficiency of the Bible
Malcolm L. Hill

Anyone who has read the Bible very much knows that it is all-sufficient to do what God intended for it to do. God's Word accomplishes what He intended for it to accomplish (Isa. 55:11). The Bible is all-sufficient to guide man from earth to heaven and direct him in the way the Lord would have him to go (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Pet. 1:3).

The Bible was never intended to teach a woman how to bake a cake. It was not given to teach one how to change a flat tire on an automobile. The Bible does not teach one how to fly an airplane nor does it teach arithmetic. The Bible was not given to teach one how to play football and baseball. The Bible is not all-sufficient for these things and many other non-religious things. Yes, the Bible is all-sufficient to do what God intended for it to do and we have never doubted this. To doubt this is but to disregard the sacred Scriptures.

At this point we deem it needful to point out that God is not the Bible and the Bible is not God. Christ is not the Bible and the Bible is not Christ. The Holy Spirit is not the Bible and the Bible is not the Holy Spirit. The Bible was given to us by God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. It seems that some want to make the Bible the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gave us the Bible but the Holy Spirit is not the Bible (II Tim. 3:16-17). The Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit witnessing through the Word of God (Rom. 8:16). The context must be considered when we talk about the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Sometimes the Bible speaks about what the Holy Spirit says and it has reference to the Word of God. (See Revelation 2:7; 2:11; 2:17; 2:29, etc.) But sometimes the Word of God as found in the Bible is not under consideration when doing a work. The Holy Spirit makes intercession for the Christian (Rom. 8:26). This is apart from the Bible even though the Bible tells us about this work. The Holy Spirit gives boldness to gospel preachers in giving utterance to the preached word (Eph. 6:18-19). This is not a miracle any more than God answering prayer for the sick is a miracle (James 5:13-15). Brethren often pray for the preacher to have a remembrance of what they have prepared to say and in this they are asking God to help him. The Holy Spirit strengthens the Christian conjointly with the Word of God (Eph. 3:16). How this is done we cannot explain. It is not a miracle any more than the providence of God at work today is a miracle. God's work can be supernatural and yet not a miracle. When God places the spirit of life in a conceived unborn baby this is supernatural but not a miracle (Heb. 12:8-11). The Bible has nothing to do with God doing this. The Bible does inform us that God performs such.

The all-sufficient Bible teaches one to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7). The all-sufficient Bible teaches one to ask God for daily bread (Matt. 6:11). The all-sufficient Bible teaches one to pray for the sick (James 5:13-15). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us to pray for the lost (Rom. 10:1). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us to pray for rain (James 5:17-18; Matt. 5:43-45). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us that God works in nature (Nahum 1:1-8). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us that God works things out for the Christian (Rom. 8:28). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit strengthens the Christian (Eph. 3:16). This is not a miracle and we cannot explain how the Holy Spirit does this. The all-sufficient Bible teaches us that the obedient person receives the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us to pray for rulers that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life (I Tim. 2:1-3). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us that God works in the affairs of government and of men through providence (Dan. 4:25; 4:32). The all-sufficient Bible teaches Christians to pray that God's will be done (Matt. 6:10). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us to pray that God will send more laborers into the vineyard (Matt. 9:36-38). The all-sufficient Bible teaches the Holy Spirit bears fruit in the Christian (Gal. 5:22-23). The all-sufficient Bible teaches us that we cannot bear this fruit except we abide in the vine (John 15:4). We could go on and on with this kind of reasoning but we feel that this material is sufficient on this point.

The Bible does not do the above things but the Holy Spirit does. The Bible does not answer our prayers, heal the sick, make intercession for the Christian, etc. God does this in a way that man cannot adequately explain. We accept it because the Bible tells that such takes place and this is enough just as it tells us we have an eternal spirit, that God gives wisdom from above, that God heals the sick, and that God answers our prayers. We have no desire to try and explain everything that God does and how He works, but we do take God at His word as found in His holy Bible.

The "Only" Question is Not the Only Question
Kerry Duke

There is nothing new about Bible interpretation. A man may think he has found a new insight or controversy, but a little reading from past works will prove him wrong. As Lincoln said, books show a man that those original thoughts of his are not so original after all.

Is it right for a Christian to be married to a non-Christian? This question is at least as old as the New Testament. Some of the Christians at Corinth had questions about this relationship and wrote to Paul about it (I Cor. 7:1, 12-15). After the close of the apostolic age Tertullian (145-220) wrote, "The apostle rules that marriage should be 'only in the Lord', that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen."¹ Cyprian (200-258) condemned the marriage of a believer to a non-believer: "Marriage is not to be contracted with Gentiles."² Schaff says the Council of Elvira in Spain in 306 "forbade such marriages on pain of excommunication, but did not dissolve those already existing."³ The issue was bound to surface in the American Restoration Movement, and it has been a point of perennial debate in the brotherhood ever since.

Paul said a widow is "at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (I Cor. 7:39). Many brethren have interpreted the phrase "only in the Lord" to mean that a widow may only marry a man who is in the Lord—a Christian. This of course means that she sins if she marries a man who is not. From the early to somewhat past the mid-1900s, this interpretation was the prevailing view of preachers and writers in the church. Then this position began to be challenged. The sticking point was this question: "If a widow sins by marrying a non-Christian, then what must she do to repent?" This was no mere hypothetical question. It was a real-life situation in congregations. Some who held this view brushed aside this logical quandary and continued to teach this view in spite of its inconsistency. But the force of the argument was clear. If "only in the Lord" means only a Christian, then a widow who has married a non-Christian must separate from him to be right in God's sight. If it is a sin to marry this man, then it is a sin to stay married to him. If the marriage is sinful, then it is wrong to enter this relationship and it is wrong to remain in it. Yet it would be very difficult to find anyone who follows through with the logical consequences of this view.

To be consistent, preachers who teach this interpretation would have to tell widows who are married to non-Christians to leave their husbands and churches would be obligated to withdraw fellowship from widows who will not leave their non-Christian mates. The doctrine has always been stricter in theory than it has been in practice. But the reasoning is insurmountable and it proves that this position cannot be true. If it is sinful to marry a non-Christian, then it is sinful to stay in this marriage; but if it is not sinful to be married to a non-Christian, then it cannot be wrong to marry a non-Christian. The truth is that Paul told the Corinthian Christians who were married to non-Christians to remain in those marriages and not to leave them (I Cor. 7:12-13)! This shows that a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is a marriage (just as the marriage between two non-Christians is truly a marriage). People do not have to be Christians to be married. So Paul does not say that a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is legitimate in verses 12 and 13 and then teach that it is forbidden later in the same chapter! The marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian is not ideal, but to say that it is sinful is a quite different and scripturally unsustainable charge.

As the view that "only in the Lord" means only a Christian began to lose prominence, some of its adherents charged that the opposing position was a "new" idea. The "new" approach to this passage was seen as a compromise of the standard belief among churches of Christ. To some extent this same objection is heard today. Of course, how old or new a belief is has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. A doctrine is not true just because it has been accepted for a long time, and a view is not false just because it is new to a person. This was the theme that American restoration preachers had stressed, but somehow it has been forgotten when an interpretation has held sway for generations. Aside from the irrelevance of this accusation, however, the charge itself is not true. As early as 1831, the logical and practical inconsistency of this position was challenged. In the March and May issues of the Millennial Harbinger that year, a writer named "Parthenos" (believed by some to have been Walter Scott) wrote two articles denying that a Christian marrying a non-Christian is sinful. Especially interesting is that he used the same reasoning discussed earlier:

No Jew would have been retained in the congregation for saying he repented of his unlawful marriage; nor would he have been taken in again for any reason short of putting his wife away. Let us be consistent, then, and if we are to follow Jewish example without respect to the law of Christ, let us follow it closely. Let those who married unbelieving wives put them away, and then they themselves may be retained in the congregation.

But if the law of Christ to widows is, that they shall marry only a Christian, then I say there is no remedy for those who have acted differently, but immediately to leave their husbands, unless we can suppose that the law of the state is above the law of Christ.⁴

"Parthenos" told Campbell that he was deluged with letters objecting to his first article on the subject. He also observed that most of the arguments were based on Old Testament passages that prohibited Jews from marrying the Canaanites. Only one person asked him what the law of Christ said about the issue, and no one said that a Christian woman who was already married to a non-Christian should put away her husband. As to the real meaning of I Corinthians 7:39, Parthenos said "only in the Lord" may mean "only in the faith of the Lord, i.e. not go out of him or become an idolater to get a husband" or "to marry without giving up or abandoning the supremacy and headship of Christ." For example, the younger widows in I Timothy 5:11-12 left the Lord in the process remarrying. He further suggested that the phrase "only in the Lord" might not belong in verse 39 at all since the original Greek had no verse divisions. He proposed that "only in the Lord" might go with verse 40: "Only in the Lord is she happier. . ." I don't believe this will work because it fails to recognize the adversative "But" (de) in verse 40 which marks a contrast between verse 39 and verse 40. "Only in the Lord" may mean in keeping with or in harmony with the Lord's will. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord" (Eph. 6:1) is another case of this meaning. A widow is to marry only in harmony with God's Word, which means she may only marry a man who is authorized by God to marry. She may not marry a man who has unscripturally divorced his wife or a man who has been unscripturally divorced. Such a marriage would not be "in the Lord," that is, it would be contrary to rather than in harmony with the will of the Lord.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Parthenos about what this phrase does mean, it is clear that his objectors could not extricate themselves from the logical problem of saying it is sinful to enter a marriage but lawful to remain in it. Campbell conceded that it would be "difficult to contend" with Parthenos' argument on this inconsistency. Neither Parthenos nor Campbell advised Christians to marry non-Christians. Their only point was that we must not make a law on this matter because Christ Himself did not.

The neglect or the refusal to face the implications of the view in question may have contributed to hesitance on another marriage issue. Brethren had taught for years that it is wrong for a Christian to marry a non-Christian, but some members of the church did so anyway. What did these brethren do about these members? Did they tell them to separate from their non-Christian mates? Did they withdraw fellowship from members who remained married to non-Christians? They did not. So they taught that it was wrong for a Christian to marry a non-Christian but right to stay married to the non-Christian. The message, unintentional or not, was that it is wrong to form this sinful relationship but scriptural to maintain it. Could this be why some preachers, especially in the 1960s and 1970s when divorce rates skyrocketed, resisted the idea that couples living in adultery should separate? Did they use the case of Christians marrying non-Christians as a precedent? They had conditioned themselves to continue teaching this view of I Corinthians 7:39 while somehow rationalizing or not thinking about or not thinking through its consequences. Perhaps they applied the same approach to couples living in adultery because they had become accustomed to "excusing" Christians who had married non-Christians. They may have reasoned, "We don't withdraw from Christians who marry contrary to I Corinthians 7:39, so why should we withdraw from those who marry contrary to Matthew 19:9?" Whether or not they reasoned the question out like this or simply followed a general pattern of practice, it seems that the "tolerating" of people living in the one situation set the stage for tolerating people living in the second. This may explain why some well-known preachers regarded the idea of telling people living in adultery to separate as an extreme position.5

Differences among us about the meaning of I Corinthians 7:39 also provide an example of unity and fellowship. As the 1831 article of Parthenos shows, disagreement on the meaning of this passage has been around for generations, yet brethren who differ on this passage have not withdrawn fellowship from each other. Should we? There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret this verse. Either it is a sin for a Christian to marry a non-Christian or it is not a sin for a Christian to marry a non-Christian. If it is sinful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian, then those who teach that such a marriage is lawful are teaching something contrary to the Bible. They are loosing where God has bound. If it is not sinful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian, then those who teach that such a marriage is sinful are teaching something contrary to the Bible. They are binding where God has loosed. Either way, someone is teaching something contrary to the Bible. Yet brethren on both sides of this issue say it should not become a point of disfellowship. Neither camp considers the other false teachers, even though each believes the other holds a false belief.

The often-unacknowledged implication of this controversy is that there are some doctrinal issues about which we can disagree yet remain in fellowship, and yes, still be in the grace of God. But is this conclusion a mere platitude based on established practice or is it rooted in scriptural principles? Is it consistent to draw a line of fellowship on differences regarding Matthew 19:9 and then to have unity of fellowship in spite of contradictory views of I Corinthians 7:39?

There is a difference, and that difference comes from the connection of each of these verses to the overall teaching of the New Testament. The person who disobeys Matthew 19:9 commits adultery, and the teaching of the New Testament is that adultery is worthy of disfellowship and causes one to be lost (I Cor. 5; Gal. 5:19-21). Adultery is sinful, period. But a Christian marrying a non-Christian is not adultery. Marriages between Christians and non-Christians are not declared unlawful in the New Testament like marriages between Israelites and Canaanites were forbidden in the Old Testament; if they were, then brethren would be obligated to follow the example in Ezra 10 and order Christians married to non-Christians to put away their spouses. The New Testament tells Christians married to non-Christians to remain in those unions and to be loyal to their mates (I Pet. 3:1-6; I Cor. 7:12-13). Adultery is emphatically marked out as a serious transgression, but nowhere do we find this gravity attached to the question of a Christian married to a non-Christian or to one who has erred in his understanding and teaching of it. Now a person can be so contentious about this issue that he becomes divisive and therefore subject to the discipline of a congregation, but that discipline would be based on his unscriptural attitude and manner, not on the seriousness of the doctrine itself. This broader aspect of the issue has important applications and deserves much meditation.

The practical side of this question helps put the issue into perspective. Though there is disagreement on a doctrinal level, there is agreement in practice because both sides encourage Christians to marry Christians. I know of no preacher who says it is lawful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian who claims that it is better for a Christian to marry a non-Christian than a Christian. In fact, a few of these are stronger in urging Christians to marry Christians than those who say that it is sinful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian! Sometimes there is a fine line between poor judgment and an outright sin. When we consider how we as teachers are interpreted on this issue, we must admit that this distinction is not always grasped by our listeners. For instance, a father who does not believe it is sinful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian talks to his grown daughter about dating. This father warns the daughter about falling in love with a non-Christian and marrying him, pointing out the hardships and temptations this union will bring. The daughter, whether she accepts the advice or not, sees that this is a serious matter. Her father may not have said marrying a non-Christian is "sinful" or "wrong," but the clear idea that came across was that the marriage would not be best. The distinction between a bad judgment and a sin is not front and center in the discussions. So in terms of the practical counsel they give, there is not that much difference between those who regard this marriage as sinful and those who do not. And in terms of fellowship and unity, brethren have not made doctrinal differences on this issue a cause for separation. But in regard to consistency and accuracy in teaching, the difference between the two positions is worthy of some attention.

Notes
¹Tertullian, "Against Marcion," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), p. 443-444.
²Cyprian, "The Treatises of Cyprian," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), p. 550.
³Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910), Vol. II, p. 366.
⁴"Marriage—No. II," Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell, ed., May 1831, pp. 203, 206.
⁵For example, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. in The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State (p. 4).

Contending for the Faith
Malcolm L. Hill

It seems that there has always been a need to encourage Christians to contend for the faith. When Jude wrote his epistle he said it was needful for him to encourage saints to contend for the faith (Jude 3). The apostle Paul was constantly telling brethren to stand up and be strong (I Cor. 15:58; I Cor. 16:13). It takes courage and Bible knowledge to contend for the faith and brethren seem not to be willing to give what it takes.

Gospel preachers of yesteryear were very courageous and ready to stand up and contend for the Lord's way. They went after denominationalism and denominational preachers with great courage and strength. They would not quit nor shirk their responsibility in standing up for the Lord Jesus Christ. At first, denominational preachers would debate their cause, but after a while they learned that they were on the losing end and had nothing to gain in debating. In fact, they found they were much better off to keep quiet and refuse to debate. So what did they do? They took on a humble, sheep-like spirit, and said there is nothing to be gained in debating and discussion. They said debating and discussion about the Bible is silly and not in good taste and resorted to a more peaceful way of scattering their false doctrine.

Today in the church of Christ we have those who have taken on denominational spirit. Some preachers in the church have been vaccinated with this denominational vaccine. We talked with a church of Christ preacher a few days ago and asked him to come and reason with us. He said there was nothing to be gained from such. This tells us something about the character of the man. He plans to do things his way and has made up his mind as to what he is going to do, preach, practice, and believe. Who could have respect for such a character? An honest man is ready to study the Bible and change if he is wrong.

On another occasion we were in correspondence with a brother preacher about God's providence and prayer. He called that study "foolishness" and said he did not intend to engage anymore with us in such things. Why did he do such and take this route? Because he could not answer and support his cause. The crew he runs with is known for such action. Sour grapes said the little foxes when they could not reach them. This brother is a sour-grape little fox. He has taken a position he cannot sustain.

We hate to see folks that will not stand up for their beliefs and positions. What should contenders for the faith of the gospel do with brethren like this? They should keep on exposing them. If these brethren do not want to speak up and contend for their beliefs and practices, they will still have to pay the price for their lack of courage and cowardice. It is easy to whip a man who refuses to defend himself. There is not much man to a fellow like this.