Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

In ancient Oriental kingdoms, messengers who brought a monarch bad news often suffered the penalty of death. Woe to the messenger who had to tell the king that his army had suffered defeat at the hands of the enemy, that a beloved family member had died, that affairs of state were in turmoil. Absolute monarchs answered to no one for their actions and messengers could, and sometimes were, dispatched on the spot for being the bearer of bad tidings. Of course, killing the messenger did not change the message, but it gave the king an outlet for his fury.

Such events are not unknown in biblical accounts. Upon hearing that Saul and Jonathan were dead, David slew the messenger who brought the news. Of course, the extenuating circumstance on this occasion was that the messenger was an Amelakite who lied, claiming to have slain Saul at Saul’s request. It infuriated David that a pagan had dared to deal so with King Saul, saying, “How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” (2 Sam. 1:14). The messenger paid with his life.

King Herod likewise cut off the head of John the Baptizer since John had boldly opposed the sinful marriage of Herod to Herodias, Philip’s wife. John stated: “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4). Though Herodias and her daughter were implicated in the plot to kill John, the ultimate power was Herod’s and he slew the messenger of God who condemned his sin. Again, killing John did not change the truth that he declared, but he was effectively silenced because of the message he delivered; the messenger paid with his life.

We Don’t Kill Messengers Today

Of course, we live in “kinder and gentler” days and messengers are not slain today when they deliver bad news. But messengers are not immune to ill treatment when a communication carries unfavorable tidings. There are more subtle, albeit effective, ways to vent one’s displeasure. These “civilized” methods of dispatching unwelcome messengers are even found among members of the church who do not like the truth of God. Gospel preachers have some-times been on the receiving end of this “kinder and gentler” method of dealing with the messenger: fire the preacher, cut off his support, throw him out of the preacher’s house, haul him over the coals in a business meeting. Paul was no stranger to ill-treatment by brethren, raising the question, “Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). He stated that he had been in “perils often,” even among “false brethren” (2 Cor. 11:26). Paul under-stood the danger of being the bearer of bad news.

Institutional History Continues the Pattern

The wrath of the guilty against the messenger who ex-poses his guilt is still a viable force to be reckoned with in our time. No, those who preach the truth aren’t beheaded, thrust through with spears or stoned to death in the public square. But let us not be so naive as to believe that the anger of the evil-doer cannot find its outlet against the messenger in the twentieth (or twenty-first) century. During the institutional controversy of the 50s, the “yellow flag of quarantine” was an effective tool against many of God’s messengers. Meetings were canceled, whisper campaigns were conducted, reputations were ruined by name-calling (some charged as “orphan haters,” “church splitters,” and such). Many who did not study the issues were influenced against truth by those who assassinated characters as readily as Herodias demanded the head of John. All of this was done “in the spirit of Jesus” of course!

Messages and Messengers Today

That Face Opposition

Every generation faces its own issues, its own controversies, its own forces of iniquity. In one generation it is called Gnosticism, in another institutionalism, in another unity-in-diversity. However the titles are changed, the battle remains the same. The battle is truth versus error, law versus iniquity, right versus wrong. The actors on the stage change with each succeeding generation, but the plot remains the same. And one constant that is still with us is, “Kill the messenger.” Diotrephes threw some out of the church that received John’s letters (3 John 9-10). John was exiled (Rev. 1:9). We don’t have the custom of beheading people in our times and no one has been stoned to death like Stephen in centuries (Acts 7:58). But don’t think mod-em iniquity hasn’t developed effective means of dealing with those who preach the truth when it is “out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2).

The overwhelming iniquity of our age is that of compromise, of unity-in-diversity, by which the unforgivable sin is to have conviction and stand opposed to error. It is a little recognized fact that unity-in-diversity, earlier taught by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, and considered so radical at the time, has come of age and is quite acceptable among “sound” brethren today. Some brethren mistakenly believed that Carl Ketcherside was isolated, ridiculed, and put to flight before he died. Nothing could be further from the truth! The New Hermeneutic Movement today is Carl’s unity-in-diversity gone up-town. A doctrine that was once scorned by many as illiterate has become the darling of the sophisticates as they use their Master’s and Doctorates from “brotherhood colleges” to encourage fellowship with denominations.

But compromise is not restricted to the ultra-liberals. New ammunition has been found “among us” by those who are turning a misuse of Romans 14 into a breeding ground for-unity-in diversity. Used at the first to embrace those who would accept the “alien who would come to God” in unlawful marriages, Romans 14 is quickly being expanded to allow sinful beliefs and doctrines of every sort. Compromise with sin is the order of the day and woe to the messenger who has the conviction to speak out. Kill the messenger? Of course not. But please don’t think that just as effective methods are not available to silence those who would “preach the word.”

It is possible for the voice of gospel preachers to be stilled just as effectively (and politely) as in the days of the institutional apostasy. The “good of boy” system is still effective by which whispers and innuendoes ruin the reputation of faithful preachers. Brethren are quarantined today by inclusive, unpublished lists which, at the same time, exclude unwanted preachers. Those who raise the voice of opposition are ignored as they appeal to brethren for Bible studies. Careful and studious articles are condemned as “rash,” “shoot from the hip,” “knee-jerk” attacks by the very ones who refuse to meet and study issues. It is considered bad taste at the best and sinful at the worst to call names and identify those who advocate compromise. Tape recorders are outlawed from study sessions where compromise is taught lest some “troubler of Israel” get an insight to the material presented. Some are obliquely labeled as factional because their stand for truth is too open, too plain, too uncompromising.

The tongue can be as effective as a sword in such controversies. Faithful messengers of the word have had their characters assailed as “brotherhood watchdogs,” “meddlers in other men’s matters,” and “guardians of truth” so many times that even the innocent and naive are led to believe the lie. Such barbed comments are smilingly pronounced against brethren while they decry the mean spirit of the “name callers” and “busybodies.” Even while those who teach error are militant in their spread of compromise, they berate those who oppose them as “too militant.” Those who travel across continents to teach error attack those who write in papers such as this one as desiring to direct.

Kill the messenger in the church today? Oh, we are much too polite for that. But this approach is just as deadly, lethal to a fault, and has the advantage of shedding no blood. And, sad to say, it is effective. Those who are guilty can stand in shocked dismay and claim innocence while they continue to spread error and refuse to study. They are the ones with the sweet spirit, who rise above controversy, who refuse to sully their hands in debate. Meanwhile error continues its destructive march and compromise eats away at the heart of conviction.

The Message Is Not Changed by

Killing the Messenger

Stephen told those who were to stone him to death: “Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do al-ways resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it” (Acts 7:51-53). These words will face his murderers at the judgment.

Herod must still hear the haunting echo of John saying, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”

The splash of the water could not wash away the guilt of Pilate even as he consented to the death of Jesus. Pilate is gone but the gospel remains.

And so will it be in our generation. If by character assassination, ignoring the truth, condemning as factional, or in some other way, the message of faithful men is silenced, it doesn’t change the truth of the gospel. Unity-in-diversity is still compromise no matter if every voice of opposition is stilled. It remains comforting to know, even as Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35). You may kill the messenger, but you can’t stop the message.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 20, p. 21-23
October 17, 1996

By Jim McDonald

Jim Puterbaugh, preacher and teacher in the Philippine Islands, presents a series of lessons on a subject he calls “The Covenant.” He argues that there is only one covenant, reaffirmed from time to time, but actually only one. He explains that just as Israel observed the “feast of the New Moon” once each month, it really wasn’t a “new moon” at all  just the same old moon going through a new cycle! In the same way (according to him), God made a covenant with Abraham and while there are different “renewals” of that covenant (such as at Sinai, return from Babylonian captivity, and Christ’s death on the cross), there is only one covenant.

If brother Puterbaugh’s purpose in his elaborate argumentation at first seems without direction, his aim becomes crystal clear as his teaching develops and unfolds. He boldly states that when Jesus died on the cross, he “did not die to do away with the law and institute a new law as the last will and testament” (1-C); that when Jesus said, “This is the blood of the covenant which was poured out for many unto remission of sins” (1-C), he was not acting as a testator in giving a new will or law but simply became the curse for an existing covenant broken by sin (Matt. 26:28)! Brother Puterbaugh does not stutter when he claims that Christ nailed no law to the cross, he only nailed sin to the cross (Mailout). According to him, Jesus “did not nail the Ten Commandments to the cross, he taught the ten commandments,” even the Sabbath because Christ is our rest (Matt. 11:27-30). (MDR)

The aim of brother Puterbaugh’s “Covenant” teaching is to prove that God has never had but one universal moral law from creation until now. According to brother Puterbaugh, Jesus did not die to give a new law for he taught exactly the same thing in the realm of morals that Moses taught. The thrust of such teaching is to promote his doctrine on “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.” He explains that whatever Moses taught on marriage, divorce and remarriage, Jesus also taught. Here is the way brother Puterbaugh makes the application under Moses and then under Christ (MDR). When (according to brother Puterbaugh) those under Moses’ law divorced their wives and both remarried new mates, although the divorce wassin, God recognized the second marriage of each and if they repented of their sin, they would be forgiven and could remain in covenant relationship with God while at the same time keeping the second mate. So it is today under Christ. In fact, to divorce the second mate and return to the first would be sin, according to brother Puterbaugh.(MDR)

It is my purpose to show that (1) God has given more than one covenant, which covenants are diverse from each other; (2) When Jesus died on the cross, he died to remove the law of Moses and to initiate a new will and testament; (3) Jesus did nail the law, i.e., the Ten Commandments, to the cross; and, (4) God’s moral law has not always remained the same. Jesus did not always teach the same thing Moses taught, particularly about MDR.

It is not my purpose to malign brother Puterbaugh’s character or assign ulterior motives to his actions. I have no animosity toward him. I review his material because (1) I do not believe it, and (2) like him, I have a personal interest in the brethren in the Philippine Islands and believe his material is detrimental to their faith. I believe that the con-sequences of his doctrine will result in many grievous ills being spawned, not only in the Philippines but wherever his theory is taught and believed.

The “Abrahamic Covenant”

God made a covenant with Abraham. He promised to make of him “a great nation,” to give unto that nation certain land and ultimately to bless all nations through the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:12; 15:18-21; 22:16-18).

God fulfilled that covenant. As he promised, he multi-plied Abraham’s seed as the stars of the heaven, molded them into a nation, gave them Canaan, and sent his own Son as the promised seed to Abraham, to become a blessing for all nations.

With the multiplied seed of Abraham God also made a covenant. The covenant made with Israel at Horeb was not the Abrahamic Covenant nor was it a renewal of the Abrahamic Covenant. True, it was a consequence of that covenant, but it was not that covenant. “And Moses called all Israel and said unto them, Hear, 0 Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that they may learn them and keep and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us alive here this day” (Deut. 5:1-3). The covenant to which Moses referred was the “old covenant.” It contained commandments and statutes for Israel to keep. Moses wrote: “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone” (Deut. 4:13).

God also promised Abraham, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). Christ was that promised seed and Christians are the heirs of that promise (Gal. 3:16; Acts 3:25-26). The blessing promised is “the turning away everyone of you from your iniquities.”

The New Covenant of Jesus, Neither

“Abrahamic” or “Mosaic”

God’s promise (covenant) with Abraham was that he would make a great nation of Abraham’s seed and give them the land of Canaan. He fulfilled that promise and fleshly Israel is the consequence of it. God made a covenant with Israel through the hand of Moses which was not the Abrahamic Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant renewed. God has no special obligation to Abraham’s literal descendants today which he would have if that covenant were still intact. Hebrews 2:16 reads: “Verily not unto angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham.” If, when Israel was in bondage in Egypt and cried because of their sufferings, God helped them because he remembered his covenant with their fathers (Exod. 2:24), then if that covenant with Abraham still stands, and faithfulness to that covenant demanded God deliver them from Egyptian bondage, faithfulness to that same covenant demands his special protection of the Jew today. If not, why not?

God promised to bless all nations through the seed of Abraham. He fulfilled that promise when he sent Jesus. With those who are Christ’s, God has made a covenant. The New Covenant of Jesus was made with a new Israel (Abraham’s spiritual seed, whether Jew or Gentile). While it was also the consequence of God’s covenant with Abraham, it was neither the Abrahamic Covenant nor the Mosaic one but different from both (Heb. 8:9; 10:90,

Hebrews 8 contains a lengthy quotation from Jeremiah 31:31. The writer says that Christ has become the media-tor of a “better covenant.” A “better covenant” necessarily implies another covenant, inferior to the better (v. 6). The writer mentions that if the first covenant had been fault-less, then would no place have been sought for a second, thus two covenants are being discussed (v. 7). The writer continues, “Behold the days come when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel … not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.” Having thereby spoken of two different covenants he concludes: “In that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old and that which is becoming old and waxed aged is nigh unto vanishing away” (Heb. 8:8, 13). This passage teaches that God made two covenants with Israel, an “old” one and a “new” one. This passage also teaches that the first covenant was to end and the second covenant would continue (Heb. 8:13).

Brother Puterbaugh’s explanation of Jeremiah 31:31 is that it was first fulfilled when Judah returned from Babylonian captivity, then fulfilled again in Christ. He argues that under the first covenant God’s law was to be in the heart of Israel; Israel was God’s people and God was their God; all Israel was to know him and there was forgiveness of sins under the first covenant. He adds that the covenant made with Judah and Israel (Jer. 31:31) was “new” because it dated from deliverance from Babylonian exile rather than deliverance from Egyptian bondage.

Such an explanation of Jeremiah 31:31 is faulty. First, the Holy Spirit speaks of the covenant of Jesus as the second covenant (Heb. 8:7). If brother Puterbaugh’s exegesis of Jeremiah 31 is correct and the prophecy was fulfilled in the return from Babylonian exile, the covenant regarding their return to Canaan would have been the second covenant and the covenant given by Jesus would have been the third! But the Holy Spirit said the covenant of Jesus was the second! The first covenant given at Sinai is the first covenant of Jeremiah 31:31. The covenant given by Jesus when he died on the cross is the second. The return of the Jew from Babylonian exile was not the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31. The reference in Jeremiah 31 to a second covenant has exclusive reference to the covenant which began when Jesus died on the cross.

The covenant mentioned by Jeremiah was to be different from the covenant given by Moses at Sinai. What was different about the “covenant” God made with Judah at the return from Babylonian exile and the covenant God made with her at Sinai? Nothing. Is there a difference between the covenant of Moses and the covenant of Christ? Yes, indeed. Consider at least two. The “Israel” God made the second covenant with is different from the “Israel” God made the first covenant with. Second, in the first covenant there was a remembrance of sins year by year whereas in the covenant of Christ there is the promise, “And their sins … will I remember no more” (Heb. 10:3; 8:12).

Contrast, Not Unity

The book of Hebrews is a contrast between the system of Moses and the gospel of Christ, but brother Puterbaugh does not see the real contrast. He professes to see “unity” from Abraham’s covenant to the Mosaic Covenant and then to the one given by Jesus. He argues that the “blood of an eternal covenant” in Hebrews 13:20 has reference to the Abrahamic Covenant but ignores the context of the pas-sage. Reference to “the blood of an eternal covenant” is a contrast between the blood offered under the first covenant with the blood of Christ offered under the second. In He-brews 13 the writer contrasts the altar of the Jew with that of the Christian and the fleeting city (Jerusalem) of the Jew with the abiding one of the Christian (Heb. 13:10, 14). Then, he speaks of the blood of an eternal covenant.

The word “eternal” is found often in Hebrews. The writer speaks of “eternal salvation,” “eternal redemption,” the “eternal Spirit,” “eternal inheritance,” and an “eternal covenant” (Heb. 5:9; 9:12, 13, 15; 13:20). There was the “temporal” salvation from Egyptian bondage vs. “eternal redemption” for the obedient (Heb. 5:9). There was the “temporary” redemption of sins vs. the “eternal redemption of sins in Christ Jesus” (Heb. 10:4, 14). There is the “temporary” priesthood of Aaron vs. the “eternal” priest-hood of Christ through the Eternal Spirit (Heb. 7:12-14). There is the “temporary” inheritance of Canaan vs. the “eternal” inheritance of heaven (Heb. 13:14). And there is the “temporary” covenant of Moses vs. the “eternal” covenant of Christ (Heb. 8:13; 13:20). The “Abrahamic Covenant” is not in the Hebrew 13:20 text at all. The book of Hebrews does not emphasize one covenant reaffirmed again and again; it contrasts two covenants showing that the old Covenant was removed and replaced by the second (new) Covenant.

In Hebrews 10:9-10 the writer says: “. . . then bath he said, Lo I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second. By which will we havebeen sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” This text teaches that (1) Christ came to do the will of God, and (2) He took away the first (will, covenant, testament, law) that he might establish the second. It was God’s will that the first law be taken away. The text teaches that we are sanctified by the second will, not the first. In the text, two wills are mentioned. The first of these wills (Mosaic law) is taken away that the second (Covenant of Christ) may be established. Men today are sanctified by the will of Christ, not by the law of Moses. This passage does not present unity between the Covenants of Abraham, Moses, and Christ; it presents a sharp contrast between the law of Moses and the law of Christ, eloquently showing that the covenant given by Moses has been done away.

The contrast between the Old and New Covenant is found in many other places as well  Romans 7:1-4; Galatians 4:21-31; 2 Corinthians 3:1-9 to name just a few.

Christ Nailed the Ten Commandments

To the Cross

Brother Puterbaugh teaches that Christ nailed no law to the cross. He only nailed sin to the cross (Mailout). Brother Puterbaugh says that the four things of Colossians 2:12-16 (meats, new moon, Sabbath, feast days) are things we are no longer to be judged in because they were fulfilled in Christ, but is unwilling to say these four things were “nailed to the cross” (1-C).

Colossians 2:14 reads “… having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us; and he bath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” Something was nailed to Christ’s cross. What was it? That which was nailed to the cross was “the bond written in ordinances.” The parallel account reads: “He is our peace who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” (Eph. 2:14-15). Colossians. 2:14 refers to “the bond writ-ten in ordinances”; the Ephesian letter refers to “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” The bond in ordinances was nailed to the cross; the law, commandments, ordinances were abolished through the cross (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15, 16). The parallel between these two draws an irrefutable conclusion: It was the law which was written in ordinances. It was the law which was nailed to the cross.

Consider further. That which Christ nailed to the cross was a partition wall and enmity between Gentile and Jew. Was “sin” that partition wall, that enmity? Jews and Gen-tile had sin in common so “sin” was not the partition wall nor enmity between Jew and Gentile. The partition wall between Jew and Gentile was the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:14-16). Christ did nail law to the cross. Did Christ only nail the law to the cross. Did Christ only nail the ceremonial law to the cross, as the Sabbatarian sects claims?

In Romans 7:1-4 Paul addresses Jewish believers among Roman Christians. In these verses he refers to law in three senses: (1) law in a general sense, (2) the law of the husband, and (3) the law of Moses. He made a general statement about the nature of all law when he wrote: “the law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth” (Rom. 7:1). He illustrates that principle by referring to the “law of the husband.” The wife is bound by law to the husband so long as he lives and can only be married to another when the husband is dead. His application is this: Jewish Christians could not be alive to two husbands at the same time; they must be dead to the first husband (the law of Moses) before they could be married to the second (the will of Christ). An attempt to live under both the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ would be spiritual adultery. And so he says, “Wherefore my brethren ye are made dead to the law through the body of Christ that ye should be joined to another, even to him that hath been raised from the dead” (Rom. 7:4). When did these Jews become dead to the law? Through the body (cross) of Christ. What law had they become dead to? “I had not known coveting except the law said, `Thou shalt not covet”‘ (Rom. 7:7). The law that the Jews became dead to by the body (cross) of Christ was the law which said, “Thou shalt not covet.” What law said “Thou shalt not covet”? The Ten Commandments! The Scriptures teach not only that Christ nailed the law to the cross, but also clearly identify that law as the Ten Commandments. Brother Puterbaugh is altogether wrong when he says, “Christ nailed no law to the cross,” and “Christ did not nail the Ten Commandments to the cross, he taught the ten commandments,” even the Sabbath because Christ is our rest (Matt. 11:27-30) (Mailout, MDR). Christ nailed the whole system of Moses, both Ten Commandments and ceremonial law, to the cross.

(This article will be concluded in the next issue of Guardian of Truth.)

References:

(1-C), a series of taped lessons Jim Puterbaugh gave on “One Covenant” in 1995

(MDR), a series of taped lessons of brother Puterbaugh’s teaching on “Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage” given in Lutz, Florida, about 1993.

(Mailout), A circulated letter sent out by Wallace Little to more than 100 brethren in the States, January 1996.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 20, p. 18-21
October 17, 1996

Dear Brother and Sister,

I am having a terrible time getting this letter started and just don’t know quite how to begin, because it deals with a subject which I have had to deal with twice in my life and have learned to detest. When I hear of others who are about to get a divorce, a heavy feeling of sadness weighs me down. I have never written others about these feelings but I am compelled to write you as I have always seen both of you as very beautiful people and I love you both. I don’t want you or your families to experience what I and my family have gone through and continue to go through because of my divorce.

I am sure that you have been counseled by others who have discussed this from a religious stand point. You are aware of what God has said on this subject. I have probably listened to every argument that man has to offer on the subject of divorce and remarriage. From one extreme to the other. After the dust settles on all the excuses, reasons, and arguments for divorce I come back to a passage in Malachi 2:16. “For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” It doesn’t get any plainer. God hates divorce and those who get divorces deal treacherously with one another and God. From experience I have learned that we continue with our wants and feelings and let them dictate what we will do in-stead of doing what God wants us to do. We want to do what is right in our own eyes. Solomon addresses this problem in Proverbs 3:7. “Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil.” And again in Proverbs 12:15. “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel.” I beg you to listen to his counsel. You cannot fight God and expect to win in this life or the life after.

Brother, if I may, let me tell you a little about what my life has been like without living with my son. My son has grown up without a father. On the surface, this doesn’t mean much, but when I consider that a child has every right to expect his father to be there in the home as he grows up, it becomes a tragedy for both of us. I wasn’t there to help him when he had a problem. I wasn’t there to play ball with him or work on his bicycle. We are not together enough to enjoy hobbies or just to take a walk together and talk about the joys of life or the problems of life. I wasn’t there to teach him about family and show him how a husband and wife ought to be. I wasn’t there when he needed to sit in my lap and be held. I wasn’t there every night to say prayers with him and kiss him good night and to let him know that he was loved and that everything would be alright. I wasn’t there to enjoy the simple things like helping him with his home work or doing the dishes together or help him clean up his room. I wasn’t there to cheer him on at his soccer games. I wasn’t there to talk to him before he went out on his first date. And most of all, I wasn’t there to see to it that he grew up in a Christian home. My son never had a chance to be a kid. He grew up being the man of the house. Sometimes when I think about what he and I have missed, it is hard to hold back the tears. And speaking of tears, when I returned my son to his mother after having him for the weekend, he would cry and cry. Even now that he is nearly grown, when we part there will be a tear in both of our eyes.

My son and I didn’t choose the relationship that we had as it was forced on us. Brother, I understand that you have filed for a divorce. If that is the case, than you have the power to decide the relationship that you and your daughter will have. You have the power to choose to take from her what belongs to her. You can choose to take from her the right to have two loving parents to grow up with her. You can choose to be the cause of the tears that will be in her eyes.

To both of you I would like to offer the following for your consideration: At this stage of your marriage either one or both of you are probably saying that ” I just don’t love him or her anymore.”

To this I have learned to respond by saying, that you do not have the right to make the decision to not love one an-other. You made a covenant between each other and the Lord to love one another through good times and bad. So you are having a bad time. So love each other anyway. You say you can not. I say you must and can. We often forget what love is all about. Love is not something that appears all on its own. Please read God’s definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. All of those things listed in those verses takes effort on the part of the one that loves. They are things that re-quire us to work at and if necessary to change our way of thinking. Ask yourself this question after reading the above scripture! Have I worked at doing all of these things? I pray that you would work at leaning to love each other. Put your efforts into building love instead of putting your efforts into tearing it down.

If you steal a man’s goods and later have remorse for your theft, you can go to that man and restore his goods and make him whole again.

But when you take from your daughter the right to have two loving parents and she grows up without one of you, how will you make amends to her? Can you give those years back to her?

Brother. If you break your promises to Sister and divorce her and in later years understand that you wronged the bride of your youth, how will you right the wrong you have done? Can you take those years of misery back and start over again? Can you take away the tears that you caused to flow from the one that you promised to have and to hold, to love and to cherish?

Sister. If you are not willing to keep your promises to Brother  and in later years come to the knowledge that you have wronged the husband of your youth, how can you make him whole again? Can you give back the love you withheld? How can you give back time?

Both of you are on the brink of opportunity. You have the opportunity to spit on your commitment to each other and cause pain for your God, yourselves, your daughter, your family and all those that love you. Or, you can decide to put your house in order and to be what you ought to be to each other. You can learn to love each other again and be the example to others. You can grow old in each other’s arms.

I pray at this point you would ask the question, how do we start to rebuild? My answer would be to quote Solomon in Proverbs 1:7. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Listen to God’s instructions and seek counsel from righteous men.

Pray together. If I can help you in any way, please give me a call. I love you both and will be praying for you.

Your brother,

Name Withheld

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 1
November 7, 1996

A little girl strolled into Bible class on Sun-day morning. Her hands were dirty, dress soiled, and there was a curious dirty ring around her mouth. Her teacher asked how she had gotten so dirty so early in the morning. She explained that on her way to Bible class a neighbor boy asked her to blow up his wading pool. She blew and blew until she had enough air to make the rubber wall stand up. The boy picked up the water hose and started filling the pool. The little girl then asked why he did not go to Bible class with her. He told her, “Because I am gonna play in my pool!” Then with her pretty blue eyes looking straight toward the teacher, the little girl said, “I pulled the stopper out of the air hole and let the air out so the pool would go down because if the little boy did not come to Bible class with me I did not want God to blame me for it.”

The Blythe Banner

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 20, p. 13
October 17, 1996