Truth Magazine

In Hosea 8:7 the prophet of old laments the condition of Israel and how the people are turned to idols from serving the true God.

While it is true that man reaps in kind to the thing sown, it is also true he reaps more than he sows of that kind. Paul said, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” For instance, from one grain of corn there comes forth a stalk. It can stop growing at that point, but if it grows, in time an ear of corn (or maybe more than one ear) appears on the stalk. One grain is sown and ears of corn are produced. How many grains on one ear? It may vary but, even though I was raised in the country, it has never been appealing to me to count the number of grains on an ear of corn. But, it is evident from casual observation that more was produced than was planted. It was all corn, however.

Hosea said Israel “had no stalk.” If there is no strong, sustaining stalk, anything produced will come to naught for lack of support.

Israel had sown the wind (sin) and reaped the whirl- wind (even greater consequences) because there was “no stalk.” When we speak of sowing and reaping, we may be speaking good or evil. The principle is the same as it pertains to rewards or consequences. It is a consequence even though it may be good. And, of course, it is also true if we are speaking of sin.

So whether it be righteousness or sin, the principle of sowing and reaping is there. The farmer delights when he has an abundant harvest of good things from his field. God’s people reap many blessings, both temporal and spiritual. The wicked reap much more than they bargained for. Wind is one thing. A tornado is something else. But both are wind.

Hosea warns (8:1). The trumpet sounds forth the alarm and calls the people to repentance. God will surely have his vengeance, make no mistake. Their cries will be to no avail and will come too late. They say “My God, we know thee.” But, Israel has lost her identity. Jesus said this could happen. In speaking of the final judgment and day of wrath on the wicked, he said to some “Depart from me, I know not who you are.” Sin can so deform us as to make us unrecognizable as the people of God. It was true of Israel then and is no less true in the Israel of God, the church, today.

So Israel had “no stalk.” Anything produced was too heavy for the stalk to support. Brethren, indeed sin is heavy. Hosea said even the “bud shall wither” without the sustaining stalk.

In John 15 Jesus talks of the vine and the branches. The secret of growth and fruit-bearing is found as we “abide in the vine.” To become separated from the vine or stalk cuts off the flow of strength needed for the required “much fruit.”

Brethren, be profited from a study of God’s Word!

Have you ever examined thoroughly the subject of elders’ leadership or authority? It has been my experience that this is one topic which is often neglected in our study of God’s shepherds. We spend hours debating and thrashing out the qualifications of elders, which are indeed important, and neglect to examine in equal detail the congregation’s relationship to the elders.

What is the scope of the elders’ leadership? Just how far should a congregation follow elders? What are the limits which God’s word imposes on elders’ authority? Do elders serve as examples only? Do they have the right to make any decisions of judgment on behalf of the congregation? Do Acts 6, Acts 15, and 1 Corinthians 5 indicate that all significant decisions must be congregational decisions, with all members taking an active role in making those decisions? These are the types of questions which come to mind when we discuss the elders’ leadership.

In recent years, this subject has received greater attention. Books have been written which address these questions, debates have taken place, and Christians have sought Bible answers. When a preacher addresses the subject in his sermons, he’ll often be asked now about the elders’ authority. Where does it begin and where does it end?

It would be impossible to answer all the questions which I have posed in one article. For example, a careful examination of Acts 6, Acts 15, and 1 Corinthians 5 necessitates a separate study. What I would like to do, however, is examine two prominent, equally unscriptural views regarding the elders’ leadership. I say equally unscriptural because both of these doctrines violate God’s law to an equal degree.

The first view holds that we must follow the elders no matter how they rule or decide. This is the notion that, “We have to do whatever the elders say, because they are the elders. They know what’s best for us.” In essence, this view gives elders authoritarian or dictatorial powers and would allow them to “lord it over” the flock, in violation of such passages as 1 Peter 5:3.

This view also overlooks the fact elders are men, subject to sin, as we all are. In 1 Timothy 5:19-20, the apostle Paul writes, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (KJV). One of the implications of these verses is that elders can sin and that they need to be rebuked and corrected whenit is established that they have erred.

Obviously, we cannot follow elders into sin. If they ask us to do something which is contrary to God’s law, or will lead us in a way that violates Scripture, we must refuse. Our obligation is summed up by the apostles’ words in Acts 5:29: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (KJV). We cannot use the excuse, “The elders made me do it!” as a reason to tolerate or practice error.

You might be tempted to ask, “John, does anyone really believe that? — that we should follow the elders, even if their decision is sinful?” While they probably would not frame it in those words, I assure you that many have practiced this false doctrine.

For example, I am told by reliable witnesses who were present back in the 1950s, when questions regarding institutionalism and the sponsoring church arrangement were raging, that many brethren drifted into error on the basis of the excuse, “The elders said it is okay, and they know what’s best for us.” There was also the idea that, “The elders have made the decision to support this arrangement, and I cannot go against their authority.”

Friends, this is a sorry excuse to sin, and we ought to know better. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, KJV). Being respectful of the elders’ leadership does not include the idea of violating God’s word. Who would honestly argue that it does?

This false doctrine also overlooks the fact that ultimate authority resides in Christ. In Matthew 28:18, Christ says, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth” (ASV). Clearly, elders have no legislative, law- making authority, and whatever leadership they exercise would have to be under the headship of Christ. Elders serve as shepherds or pastors of the flock under the Chief Shepherd, who is Jesus (1 Pet. 5:4). They cannot make a law where God has made no law, nor can they act outside the boundaries of God’s word.

These points are axiomatic, and all honest students of the Bible will accept them.

Sadly, in recent years I have become aware of an equally false doctrine regarding the elders’ leadership which goes to the opposite extreme. In fact, it is my observation that some of those who hold this unscriptural view drifted into it because they witnessed the sin of dictatorial, authoritarian elders. One human fraility we must guard against is the tendency to swing from one false extreme to the opposite, false extreme. I would also submit that this second false view is founded on the misinterpretation and misapplication of such passages as Acts 6, Acts 15, and 1 Corinthians 5. It has also been my experience that those who believe this second doctrine are working to increase the role of female participation in the leadership of the congregation, though I would hasten to add that many of them would deny this. Time will tell.

Simply put, this second view holds that elders can make no significant decisions of judgment in harmony with God’s word without the prior knowledge or consent of the entire congregation. Let me be clear on this: There are those who teach and practice that elders can make no decisions on behalf of the congregation regarding its work and worship unless the entire church has met, discussed, and agreed on the matter first. According to these proponents, Acts 6 and Acts 15 give the pattern for all decision-making in the congregation, and there is no Bible authority for any private business meetings of the elders or of the men of the congregation in their absence.

They would contend that there are no examples of private decision-making meetings in the Bible and to have them, whether they be by the elders or the men of the congregation, is unscriptural. They will often give a conspiratorial flavor to this concept and talk about the sin of “secret, closed-door meetings” as if some diabolical plot is being hatched.

This view is wrong on about a half dozen counts, and I would contend against it just as strongly as I would the notion of authoritarian elders.

Primarily, this viewpoint denies the clear meaning of such passages as 1 Timothy 5:17, Hebrews 13:17, Acts 20:28, and 1 Peter 5:1-2, which describe the role and work of elders in leading a congregation. These verses say that elders are to “rule well,” we are to submit to them that “rule over” us, the Holy Ghost has made them “overseers,” and they are to “exercise the oversight.” They do all of this and yet they have no decision-making ability in harmony with God’s word? Friends, can we not see that the authority to make decisions of judgment in harmony with God’s word is inherent in the very phrases which God’s inspired writers used to describe the leadership of elders? Those who want to argue that there are no examples of private, decision- making meetings of the elders forget that is not the only way God instructs. Indeed, they make the same kind of arguments the non-class brethren have made through the years: “There’s no example of Bible classes smaller than the whole assembly meeting at the building.” They ignore the fact that God informs us in a variety of ways.

It is interesting to observe some of the arguments which those who hold this position try to make from the Greek. While I’m no Greek scholar, I can read an accurate English translation, and so can you. There are good textual reasons why the best Greek scholars of their day who worked on the American Standard Version decided that 1 Timothy 5:17 should read, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor.” Those same translators rendered Hebrews 13:17 as, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch on behalf of your souls.”

Young’s Analytical Concordance tells me that rule in Hebrews 13:17 means to “lead, guide, govern,” and those three words certainly include the idea of being able to make decisions and judgments in harmony with God’s word! And, surely we can understand that shepherding a flock involves watchful care and active supervision.

Is there no genuine leadership in harmony with God’s word inherent in such terms? May elders oversee the work but make no real decisions until they check it out with the whole congregation first? Are we saying that shepherds guide the flock but make no decisions on behalf of the flock? Are elders prohibited from exercising judgment until they check it out with the whole church? Friends, who’s leading whom if all of that is true? Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 describe men of judgment and experience; why the need for such wisdom and maturity if it cannot be employed and others are to make the decisions?

Those who hold this second, unscriptural position may not realize it, but the ultimate result of their teaching is that bishops become little more than announcement elders who preside over meetings of the entire church and make known the decisions the church has reached. I understand that they would not agree with this assessment, but see if that is not the end result.

Elders do not become dictators lording it over the flock as soon as they make any decisions on behalf of the local church. If they are men of judgment and experience, as the qualifications demand, and if they have the proper respect for God’s word and their fellow saints, then they can make decisions in harmony with God’s word without behaving as tyrants. We should respect them for that responsibility and “obey them that have the rule” over us.

And certainly qualified, working elders should keep a congregation informed concerning decisions affecting the work and worship of the group. They should also solicit the input of the members on a regular basis. No one denies this. In fact, Titus 1:7 states that one of the qualifications of elders is that they act as stewards of God who are not self- willed. If the men are truly qualified, they will understand exactly what Peter meant when he wrote, “Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God, nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2-3, ASV).

But, friends, let us never take the position that elders can make no decisions on behalf of the congregation. Even from a practical standpoint, such a position is impossible to defend. For example, sometimes elders must make judgments immediately, when there simply is no opportunity to call the congregation together, even if they wanted to. Sometimes decisions are of such a private, personal nature that the fewer people who know about a situation, the better. Those who have been members of the Lord’s body for any length of time at all can think of many examples which fit the circumstances I have just described.

The bottom line is that “exercising the oversight” and shepherding the flock involves leadership. And, anyway you cut it, leadership involves making decisions.

If someone were to ask me to sum up my beliefs regarding the elders’ leadership in one paragraph, I might say it this way:

Qualified, working elders lead, guide, and feed a congregation. They act as wise and loving shepherds in exercising this oversight (1 Pet. 5:2; Heb. 13:17; Acts 20:28). The scope of their rule is limited by the boundaries of God’s word (Matt. 28:18; Acts 5:29). Can they make decisions on behalf of the local church in harmony with God’s law? Absolutely! One cannot exercise oversight, lead, and act as a shepherd without doing so! Will qualified elders keep a congregation informed, solicit input, and ask for suggestions from all the members? Absolutely! Remember, these are stewards of God who are not self-willed (Tit. 1: 7).

In closing allow me to make one final point: Our understanding of truth should be shaped not by what has happened to us, but rather by what God’s word says. Do not allow your own or another’s past experience with elders who acted, perhaps, in an unscriptural way, to cause you to embrace a false view concerning their leadership. Be content with what God’s word plainly teaches on the subject. Do not add to the authority of elders (the first view we examined) or subtract from it (the second view). Remember 2 John 9 and Revelation 22:18-19.

By P. J. Casebolt

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for- ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this (Isa. 9:6,7).

Not only can Jesus be identified by the names given unto him, but also by his itinerary during his earthly sojourn. Some of the names assigned to Jesus had to do with some of the places he visited, and his itinerary had something to do with the fulfillment of prophecies made concerning him.

First of all, the itinerary and identity of Jesus began in heaven. “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3: 13). “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Tim. 3:16).

In fulfillment of prophecy, the earthly itinerary of Jesus began in “Bethlehem of Judea” (Matt. 2:4-6). This event fulfilled another prophecy: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:23). Not only was Jesus to sit and reign on the throne of David, but both David and Jesus were from the same town of Bethlehem (1 Sam. 17:12).

After the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, an angel of the Lord directed Joseph to flee into Egypt with Jesus and his mother. This part of the earthly itinerary of Jesus fulfilled another prophecy: “Out of Egypt have I called my son” (Matt. 3:13-15; Hos. 11:1).

Upon the return of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus from Egypt, they “came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matt. 2:23). When Jesus was crucified, the title on his cross identified his early childhood itinerary with the words, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:19). Jesus also identified himself in this fashion to Saul of Tarsus on the road to   Damascus (Acts 22:8). This mark of Christ’s identity may have been a reproach to some of the Jews (John 1:46), but it tends to identify the Son of God.

The name Christian was given to the disciples of Jesus while the apostles Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch (Acts11:26), and that name was later endorsed by both Paul (Acts 26:28, 29), and Peter (1 Pet. 4:14-16). Jesus could be called a Nazarene because it (Nazareth) was the city where Jesus spent his boyhood years, even as some of his disciples were called Galilaens (Acts 2:7), and John was called “John the Baptist” because of his mission to baptize (Matt. 3:1). No other one claiming to be the Messiah could lay claim to the itinerary or identity of Jesus of Nazareth.

“And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying . . . The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up” (Matt. 4:13-16). Not only was much of Jesus’ preaching done in the regions of Galilee, this is where he began to make disciples and choose his apostles. Some 750 years before Jesus began his earthly sojourn, Isaiah the prophet outlines a portion — itinerary and some of the salient marks of his identity.

During his earthly ministry, Jesus often avoided Jerusalem and the final confrontation with those who were determined to apprehend, torture, and crucify “the Son of God,” because his “hour was not yet come.” But eventually, Jesus knew that he had to face Jerusalem and the part it played in his itinerary and identity as “the Son of God.”

The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah established a reputation which lives to this day. In the eyes of the Jews, Nazareth and Galilee held dubious reputations as far as prophets were concerned (John 1:46; 7:52). Jesus confounded those who held these latter concepts, and established himself as “Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Matt. 21:11). But Jerusalem holds the all-time record for the persecution, imprisonment, and death of God’s holy prophets (Matt. 23:29-36; Luke 13:33-35). Jesus was not born in Jerusalem as the Book of Mormon falsely stated, but he was certainly condemned and crucified there on Calvary.

President Roosevelt declared December 7, 1941 as “a day of infamy” when the Japanese perpetrated their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, but Jerusalem laid claim to that title when it crucified the sinless Son of God on Calvary some 1900 years before Pearl Harbor. Attempts have been made to delete these events from history, and to exonerate those who were guilty of such ignominious deeds, but history cannot be forever buried, whether it be good or bad.

When Jesus made his earthly advent, he “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), and this phase of his identity was stressed during his earthly sojourn. After his death and burial, not only was his claim to be the son of David vindicated as he ascended to David’s throne, but he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, ac- cording to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). When Jesus claimed on earth that he was the Son of God, it cost him his life because, said the Jews, “he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). Jesus was not crucified because of his earthly itinerary in or identity with Nazareth, but because of his claim to be the Son of God.

Where did the itinerary of Jesus take him when he left this earth? He ascended into the clouds of heaven (Acts 1:7-9), “he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:9, 10.)

When Jesus asked his disciples, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Matt. 16:13), several answers were given. But no man can come close to duplicating the itinerary and identity of Jesus, the Son of God.

By Ron Halbrook

It is sometimes argued that people in unscriptural marriages should remain in them because they have made a covenant to do so. It is said that a person in an unscriptural marriage should not get out of it because to do so would be to break his marriage bond. Such a person should preserve the sanctity of his family relationship rather than become guilty of covenant breaking, we are told. This view is in error for several reasons.

When God Does Not Join Them

God ordained marriage and he joins people in marriage only if it is according to his will (Gen. 2:24). “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). God does not join two homosexuals in marriage no matter how many vows, ceremonies, and covenants they participate in. Their immoral relationship may be called “marriage” only in an accommodative sense, i.e., they profess and pretend to enter the relationship of Genesis 2:24 known as marriage. Their “covenant” is a farce and a fiction. There is no true “marriage bond” joining them together in the sight of God. There is no “sanctity” to a “family relationship” not sanctioned or sanctified by God.

The same objections stand against polygamous marriages, according to plain statements of God’s law in the gospel age. The Lord, who ordained marriage and who joins people in marriage, said, “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). God did not say, “Let every man have his own wives, and let every woman have her own husbands.”

Likewise, the same objections stand against other un scriptural marriages, according to plain statements of God’s law in the gospel age. The Lord, who ordained marriage and who joins people in marriage, said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery,” and, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). When people marry contrary to God’s law, God recognizes it only as sin and rebellion against Him. Yes, Jesus spoke of people entering such relationships as marrying, for that is what they profess and pretend to do, but he also pronounced it to be nothing more or less than “adultery.” Such people do not go to the bed of purity in true marriage but go to the bed of impurity in adultery (Heb. 13:4).  In other words, such a relationship is unscriptural, unauthorized, impure, immoral, and an abomination in God’s sight!

There is no “sanctity” to homosexual, polygamous, or other adulterous relationships — even when they are put under the name of “marriage.” To attempt to give them the aura of “sanctity” is bold, brazen, highhanded rebellion against the authority of God. Such is the spirit of the “man of sin . . . , the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

Fruits Meet for Repentance”

To enter such immoral relationships is to defy the God of heaven, and to continue in them is to persist in defying God. The Bible teaches consistently that people in unscriptural marriages need to repent and to “bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” by getting out of them (Matt. 3:8; Acts 26:20). For instance, when the Jews married Gentile wives contrary to the law of Moses, Ezra as God’s prophet demanded this very thing: “Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure; and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives” (Ezra 10:11). In order to come to the Lord, they had to get out of their un- scriptural marriages.  The marriage of Herod to Herodias was incestuous adultery. John told Herod to repent and get out of this marriage: “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). Herod could not have come to Christ while remaining in this adulterous marriage. When a brother at Corinth persisted in marriage with his father’s wife, Paul commanded the church “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan” (1 Cor. 5:1-5). The church erred by tolerating this man. In fact, the brethren were proud to have him — perhaps he was a good song leader or could make impressive talks at the Lord’s table. This man could not come to Christ and find forgiveness unless he got out of his union with this woman, no matter what vows, ceremonies, and commitments had occurred.

Breaking a Covenant with Satan

But, someone protests, if people get out of unscriptural marriages, aren’t they “breaking a covenant”? Yes, they are breaking a covenant witnessed and sealed by Satan rather than God. When the commitments of marriage are made to form an unscriptural and adulterous union, they are vows and promises to live in sin. A person sins by making such vows and commitments, not by breaking them. Saul vowed with letters representing civil authority to cast Christians into prison — he promised to sin. Had he refused to break this promise, he could not have come to Christ in baptism (Acts 9:1-2, 18). After his remarkable conversion, forty Jews “bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul” (Acts 23:12). These men needed to “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20). To have kept their covenant would have been sinful, to break it righteous. Vows and promises to live in sin, even those made before legal authorities and friends, ought not to be kept. “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Promises, vows, commitments, and covenants to sin are themselves sinful. To vow to live with someone as a mate in marriage when God forbids it is to vow to live in sin. It is a covenant committing these two people to live in immorality and rebellion against God. What ought to be done about such a promise? To ask is to answer. Such a covenant is “a covenant with death, and with hell,” i.e., a deal with the devil, but it shall not stand nor deliver people from the wrath of God. The only hope for deliverance through Christ is in forsaking such a covenant (Isa. 28:14-20).

Separating Valid Obligations from Sin

Someone may ask what should be done about financial and moral obligations which were created while living in sin but which can be fulfilled without committing sin. For instance, suppose Saul had borrowed a coat or rented a donkey when he went in search of Christians to imprison. Must he return the coat and pay the rent? Yes, no sin is involved in meeting such obligations. Suppose a polygamous man obeys the gospel. Can he continue to live with several wives? No, sin is involved in maintaining unscriptural and adulterous marriages. Suppose a man like Herod obeys the gospel. Can he continue to maintain his unscriptural marriage? No, sin is involved in maintaining unscriptural and adulterous marriages.

Might it be possible to provide some association, moral training, and material needs to the children born through adulterous unions? Yes, a person should try to fulfill such obligations to the best of his ability without participating in anything sinful. That is true even of children fathered outside any pretense of marriage, as often happens. The father will find his efforts to fulfill his duty to the children fraught with difficulties and constant, painful reminders of his sin. A father who walks away from such children compounds his sins, but occasionally a mother prevents the father from performing his duty. The mothers of children born of adulteries sometimes leave the area and cut off all contact between the father and the children. While that is painful for the father and the innocent children, all must realize that this pain is the tragic result of his committing adultery, not of his obedience to God. Had he obeyed God from the beginning and avoided adultery, he would not be facing the bitter fruit of his sin. Had he continued in an unscriptural and unsanctified marriage, he ultimately would have reaped an even more painful and shameful harvest from his sins.

Consequences and Complications

Many temporal consequences afflict the adulterer and the adulteress even after they seek and find forgiveness of their sins. At times, it seems only a Solomon could unravel all the tangled complications which may follow. The knotty problems and unutterable sorrows which attended David’s life after his sin with Bathsheba are instructive in this regard. Such consequences are not limited to the sin of adultery. When Paul remembered his past sins against God’s people, he thought of himself as the very chief of sinners, though he knew God had forgiven him (1 Tim. 1:15). There must have been times when he saw, perhaps even in his dreams, the relatives of people he had mercilessly persecuted, and found his heart throbbing in his throat. God warned long ago, “Good understanding giveth favor: but the way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15).

Let those who are weary and heavy laden with the weight of sin in adulterous marriages know that God will forgive the sinner who forsakes his sin (Matt. 11:27-30). Let them know it was a sin to enter such a marriage, which is no marriage at all under divine law, but which is the moral equivalent of adultery and an abomination to God. The alien sinner must come to Christ by faith, repent of every sin, confess Christ’s name, and submit to him in baptism for the remission of sins (Gal. 3:26-27). But, he cannot maintain an unscriptural marriage. The Christian who errs by entering an adulterous marriage must repent of it, confess it, and seek God’s forgiveness in prayer (Acts 8:22). But, he cannot maintain an unscriptural marriage. Let the sinner know that as a result of his sin, he will reap temporal pain, including the pain of seeing the innocent suffer from his sin, but know too that God can bind up his wounds. Let him come to God with a poor, humble, contrite heart, trembling before God, and he will forgive and guide us all to a home in heaven (Ps. 51:17; Isa. 66:2). Do not be deceived by those who say the sinner can come to Christ while maintaining the sinful covenant of an unscriptural marriage.