Truth Magazine

By Ronnie Henderson

“And I heard a voice from heaven saying, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them” (Rev. 14:13). Jady Wilson Copeland, one of God’s children, died in the Lord on Monday, December 11, 1995. He now rests from his labors and his works follow with him.

Our dear brother was born to J.A. and Georgia Copeland in Pike County, Arkansas on August 28, 1922, the youngest of their thirteen children. He was raised in a God-fearing home, receiving the love of his parents and siblings.

He leaves behind his loving wife, Dorothy; their three children, Neva Hoffman, Wilson Copeland, and Mary Broadwell; their three “children by marriage,” Doug Hoffman, Becky (Hunter) Copeland, and Marty Broadwell; ten grandchildren; one brother and three sisters; a large number of nieces and nephews; and thousands of friends.

Jady was born into the family of God somewhere around the age of fourteen, having been taught the word of God by his parents and others. As a penitent believer he was baptized into Christ and dedicated the remainder of his life to serving the Lord. His personal records indicate he preached his first sermon at Two Bayou (near Camden, Arkansas) on December 28, 1941.

On the day before his death he led the congregation in singing at the Sunday morning service  active right up to the end of his earthly life.

On October 12, 1945, Jady married Dorothy Risley. They celebrated fifty wonderful years together just a few months ago. He spoke frequently of his love for her and of her helpfulness and encouragement to him. From this union there were four children  Neva, Wilson, and Mary, plus Scott who died in infancy. Three months before his death, Jady wrote a brief article on the subject of heaven. In it he said, “I know not whether we will know loved ones there, but if so, what a bonus! I want to see our little Scott who lived a few hours. I want to see Mama and Papa and hundreds more I’ve worked with and loved. Brethren, let us not jeopardize our chances by our lukewarmness, missing services for insignificant reasons, `excuses’ that do not excuse us from work, thoughtlessness of others, indifferences, evil communications, harsh words, immoral practices, and lack of faith! Please think!”

This humble “country preacher” (a compliment in the Copeland family) did his earliest regular, weekly preaching in Springdale, Arkansas and Arp, Texas, while supporting himself and his family as a school teacher. His first full-time preaching labors began in Greggton, Texas, followed by periods of work in Beaumont, Center, and Ft. Worth in Texas; Long Beach (two congregations) and Sepulveda in California; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Lakeland, Florida; Springdale, Arkansas; and back to the same congregation in Florida (Lakeland Hills Blvd.) where he served as a full-time elder. In addition to conscientiously doing the things an elder should be doing with his fellow elders, he took a load off this writer by doing things like putting out the weekly bulletin, preparing daily radio spots, and other such things that might normally be done by the local preacher. Brother Jady taught Bible classes at the meeting house and in private homes at every opportunity. In his lifetime he preached in at least 204 meetings in at least twenty-five states, plus in the Philippines and the Virgin Islands. He was also a Staff Writer for this magazine.

Jady was a good preacher. He was a good preacher because, like Ezra, he “set his heart to seek the law of Jehovah, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). And I emphasize “to do it,” for he practiced what he preached. Others may know more about Hebrew and Greek, or possibly be better orators, but the thing that made brother Copeland’s preaching, teaching, and writing effective is the fact that he demonstrated his faith in the word he taught by living it daily.

Jady was a good preacher because he understood that “a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition. . . .” (2 Tim. 2:24-25). He was always considerate of others, able to disagree without being disagreeable. And at times it was necessary to disagree, because he refused to compromise the truth of God’s word.

Jady was more than a good preacher  he was a good man. He heeded the words of Scripture: “Be thou an ensample to them that believe, in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). His example is his legacy he left for his family, friends, and acquaintances. He was never content with the level he had attained, but was always striving to improve. This is exemplified by the final entry in his journal, written at 11:55 p.m., December 10, 1995, less than twenty-four hours before his death. “I was just thinking . . . `He that has ears to hear, let him hear’ (Jesus). God gave us the ability to reason, understand, and think. We all have `ears’  but often we don’t use them. We don’t `hear’ him. By his mercy we have all the equipment to do good  to be who he wants me to bebut how often we fail to take advantage of these facilities to be the productive and faithful child he wants us to be. `He that has ears to hear, let him hear.’ Oh, how I need to listen.’ JWC”

We thought Jady was in pretty good health for a man of seventy-three years because of his mental alertness and physical activity. His sudden death was a shock to all. Word of his passing spread rapidly and about 250 gathered to visit with the family on Thursday evening, December 14th. The funeral service was conducted the following afternoon in the meeting place of the Lakeland Hills Boulevard congregation where he had labored from June 1979 until June 1987, and again from August 1989 until he went to be with the Lord. The auditorium was filled, and it was necessary to place chairs in the auditorium to accommodate the crowd of family and friends.

Hall Davis, a fellow-elder, led the audience in singing three songs: “Immortally Arrayed,” “Face To Face,” and “Hold To God’s Unchanging Hand.” Brief words were spoken by the son and both of the sons-in-laws telling of their fond memories of Jady’s sense of humor and humility; his loving acceptance of, and concern for others; and the importance of our imitating his faith. A nephew, Milton Copeland, reminded us of his uncle’s unpretentiousness, hospitality, love of family, and labor for the Lord.

This writer then talked about Jady’s ability to end his earthly journey in the same manner that the apostle Paul ended his journey to Rome: “He thanked God, and took courage” (Acts 28:15). Jady had much to be thankful for, and he frequently expressed his gratitude for having a Savior, spiritual blessings in Christ, the word of God, the Lord’s church, a hope of heaven, his wife and other family members, his brothers and sisters in the spiritual family, material blessings, etc. He took courage from the fact that “the Lamb shall overcome . . . for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with Him, called and chosen and faithful” (Rev. 17:14). Because God gave us the privilege of knowing Jady, we can give thanks and take courage.

Following another prayer, the audience stood and sang “Soldiers of Christ, Arise.” Services were concluded at the burial site in Lakeland Memorial Gardens, with an-other nephew, Wallace Alexander, reading from the Scriptures and another friend, Walt Hunter, leading the group in prayer.

I do not think of what has happened as simply an old soldier of the cross having fallen in battle, but as an heroic warrior who has been promoted to a higher rank in the Lord’s army above the battle fray. He will be missed by those of us who are still on the battlefield for our Lord.

Guardian of Truth XL: 2 p. 16-17
January 18, 1996

By Don Partain

Some contend that the guilty put-away fornicator can remarry and still be right with God. How do they arrive at this conclusion? They argue that in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 Jesus is simply explaining and clarifying Moses’ instruction in Deuteronomy 24:1. But is this the actual case?

In Matthew 5, at times Jesus contrasts his teaching with Jewish tradition that distorted and misapplied the Law  for example, in verses 38-42. “Eye for eye and tooth for tooth” (Lev.24:20) meant that civil punishment was to fit the crime. But the Jews misapplied this to justify personal vengeance. So, Jesus clarified the Law on this issue  but did so especially to teach a principle of his imminent kingdom: namely, that his disciples must not return evil for evil, but instead overcome evil with good (Rom.12:17-21).

In the same way, in Matthew 5:31 32, Jesus is teaching a truth of his kingdom. However, here, instead of contrasting his teaching with Jewish tradition, he is contrasting it with the Law of Moses itself  specifically. “And it was said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal’; but I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery” (Deut. 24:1). In the parallel passage (19:7-9), Jesus contrasts his teaching with what “Moses permitted” (again, not with Jewish tradition). Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, had granted the Israelites a concession  husbands could divorce their wives for some cause short of fornication. But Jesus was reinstating God’s original purpose and allowed one to divorce and remarry only if the spouse was guilty of fornication. So, clearly, Jesus was not clarifying Moses and the Law in Matthew 5:32; 19:9. Rather, he was opposing and contrasting what the Law of Moses permitted with his own teaching, the teaching of the new covenant.

In fact, the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 provides further evidence that this was indeed the case: “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (v.10). In other words, what Jesus teaches here is much stricter than what they were used to under the Law of Moses.

So, what did the Law of Moses teach about divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4? The teaching is in an “if . . . then” form. Verses 1-3 state the protasis or condition (the “if ” section), while verse 4 states the apodosis or conclusion (the “then” section). Viewing the passage in this way, we can readily see that Moses’ teaching is aimed at making a husband stop and think before deciding to put away his wife, because (as the conclusion states) once he has divorced her and she has become another man’s wife, he can never marry her again  even if the second husband dies. The “writing of divorcement” (or certificate of dismissal) was a legal document that formalized not only the wife’s release so that she might marry another man but also the first husband’s inability to ever marry her again. So, Moses’ teaching was especially directed towards protecting the wife, not towards giving the husband an easy out.

Moses permitted a husband to divorce his wife if she had lost “favor in his eyes because he (had) found some indecency (erwat dabar  “unclean thing”) in her.” What is this indecency (uncleanness, KJV)? The Hebrew word (basic form, ervah) is used elsewhere to refer either to human seminal emissions and excrement (Deut. 23:10-14) or to “nakedness” (exposure of the genitals; Exod. 20:26). Some have contended that nakedness refers to sexual intercourse, therefore to fornication in Deuteronomy 24:1. So, they argue that Jesus was only restating the Law of Moses in Matthew 5:32. However, nakedness, by itself, does not refer to sexual intercourse, but only to exposure of one’s private parts. They have confused “nakedness” with “uncovering nakedness,” which does indeed refer to fornication (Lev. 18:6f.; Ezek. 16:36). But Moses, in Deuteronomy 24:1, does not speak of uncovering nakedness  only of nakedness. Therefore, Moses was not speaking of fornication being the grounds for divorce.

It is further evident that uncleanness (or nakedness) was! not fornication since fornication was punishable by death. (Deut. 22:22), despite any exceptions to this rule (as in they case with David and Bathsheba). So, divorce, when a partner had been guilty of adultery (a form of fornication), was a moot point!

In fact, uncleanness does not even include suspicions of fornication. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Numbers 5:11-31 describe the procedures to be used when a husband suspected his wife had been unfaithful to him. In neither case does divorce result.

So, what did uncleanness mean? It referred to something the husband found to be indecent, immodest, shameful, or unseemly in his wife  yet, short of fornication. Thus, Matthew 5:32, which gives fornication as the only allow-able cause for divorce and remarriage, does not clarify Deuteronomy 24:1, but instead, contrasts with it.

“But,” some argue, “even under the Old Law when one divorced for the cause of uncleanness, adultery resulted when either partner remarried, since Deuteronomy 24:4 says the woman was “defiled.” They connect this with Numbers 5:13, where a wife guilty of adultery is described as “defiled.” However, take a closer look at Deuteronomy 24:4. In what situation is the women here “defiled”? Is it when she marries her second husband? No. She is not in an adulterous relationship in this second marriage. If such were the case, this would have been an “abomination before the Lord”  something that would have brought “sin on the land” and therefore something strictly forbidden by the Lord (see vs.4). But, again, these things are not said about the woman’s second marriage. So, in what situation would the woman be “defiled” and cause an abomination before the Lord? If she remarried her first husband. In other words, she is de-filed in relation to her first husband, so that, if she remarries him  regardless of the circumstances  she brings sin on the land.

Therefore, to divorce for the cause of uncleanness and then remarry was not committing adultery as some have contended. In fact, such a possibility should never have been entertained in the first place! Would our holy God, in the same breath even, both permit and condemn as adulterous certain marriages? To ask this is to answer it. Here in Montana, you can apply for permits to shoot cow elk in certain districts. Imagine the situation in which one has obtained such a permit and then successfully filled his tag. A game warden then approaches. “Nice shot! I’m sure you’ll get plenty of meat from this animal. However, even though you have a permit, I am going to have to arrest you for poaching! Please come with me.”

In the beginning, God’s revealed purpose for marriage was to join one man to one woman for life. But because of hardness of men’s hearts  and until the fulness of grace and truth should be revealed in Christ Jesus  God fitted Israelite men to divorce their wives if they were guilty of some form of indecency or shamefulness. Then when Jesus came to earth in the “fulness of time,” teaching the principles of his kingdom, he reinstated God’s original purpose, yet allowed one to divorce and remarry if his spouse had committed fornication.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 
February 1, 1996

By Joe R. Price

In the last year of Jesus’ life during the Feast of Dedication (present-day Hanukkah), unbelieving individuals confronted him and demanded of him a plain declaration that he was the Christ (John 10:22-24). Like ravenous wolves the Jewish rulers had encircled him, ready to pounce upon their prey (v. 24).

The Context

Jesus was surrounded by unbelievers. They had seen his miraculous works and their results (i.e., the healing of the man ill for 38 years, John 5:2-18; sight restored to the man born blind, John 9:1-34), but still they did not believe on him. His works and his words had provided ample proof of his claims (John 5:36; 10:25). A further demonstration of his power would no doubt be casting pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6). They had made up their minds. They were looking for a reason to put Jesus to death.

His Sheep

Their failure to believe in Christ made it clear that they were not his sheep (John 10:26). They were not his disciples. Jesus made a contrast between his sheep and the unbelieving Jewish leaders in John 10:27-28. By so doing, he specifically stated the blessings of being his sheep. His sheep hear the voice of Christ (consequently, he knows them, John 10:14). They follow the words of Christ (consequently, he gives them eternal life, John 10:10). As a result, they shall never perish (no one shall snatch them out of the hand of Christ).

Jesus taught that human salvation rests upon the pillars of man’s faith and God’s grace (John 10:27-29; Eph. 2:8-9). Jesus rejected the Calvinistic doctrines of unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints. If the conditions of verse 27 are not obeyed, the blessings of verses 28-29 will not follow. As one hears and obeys the voice of Christ (the gospel) he receives the security of his soul that the Son and the Father provide. The Jewish rulers did not hear his voice nor did they follow him. Therefore, they did not have any true confidence of salvation. Because of their unbelief, Jesus implied that they would die in their sins (cf. John 8:23-24).

“I And The Father Are One”

Jesus claimed to possess the same power as the Father when he claim power to give eternal life and to protect his sheep from danger (vv. 28-29). This mutual protective power illustrated his unity with the Father. As Lenski observes, “To snatch them out his hand is the same as snatching them out of the Father’s hand.” So, what his enemies were pressing him for they now receive. Jesus uttered a clear and decisive statement of his divine nature by affirming, “I and the Father are one.” His works proceeded out of the Father and testified of his unity with the Father’s purposes and power (John 10:32; cf. 8:42).

To claim the same power as the, Father was to claim oneness with the Father (John 10:29-30). The Jews immediately saw such a claim as blasphemous and tried to stone Jesus (John 10:31). They did not misunderstand what Jesus said. They simply did not believe him. They knew Jesus was “making himself God” (John 10:33).

Jesus declared for himself equality (sameness) with God (cf. John 5:17-18). They considered his words to be blasphemous because they had rejected the evidence  his works  which proved him to be divine. They thought he was just a man. So, they charged him with blasphemy and considered him worthy of death (John 10:33). Think of it! A man making himself God (v. 33)! Yet, the very works he did showed his declaration to be true (John 10:32; 5:36; 10:25, 38). Jesus is more than just a man. He is also God (John 1:1-3, 14). Had they believed his works, they would have readily received his words (John 10:37-38).

“Ye Are Gods”

The Jews were completely intolerant of Jesus’ claim of Godhood. Jesus continued his defense by exposing their inconsistency through an appeal to the authority of Scripture. “Is it not writ-ten in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34-36).

The Jews accepted the statement from their own law that described God’s appointed judges among his people as “gods” (Psa. 82:6). Jesus reminds his opponents of this (it is significant to note that he says the book of Psalms belonged to their “law” (cf. Rom. 3:19, 10-18). Jesus stated what his Jewish opponents conceded. Namely, that it stood written in the law (i.e., it was firmly established by the binding nature of God’s law) that God said of men, “Ye are gods” (John 10:34-35).

Then, Jesus affirmed the authoritative force of Scripture by saying, “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Inspired scripture cannot be deprived of its binding authority by the whims of men. All individuals are obligated to harmonize their beliefs and practices to the authority of God’s writings (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 14:37; Col. 3:17).

Not only did the Jews reject the evidence of Jesus’ works, in their charge of blasphemy they also failed to respect the authority of Scripture. In Psalms 82:6, the judges of Israel were called “gods” because of their representative position of authority and responsibility among the people. These judges were God’s representatives, charged with executing fair and impartial judgments in Israel (82:2-4). To go before the judges was to go before God (cf. Exod. 21:6; 22:8-9, 28), for they were charged with rendering God’s judgments (Deut. 1:16-17). The 82nd Psalm depicts God rebuking these “gods” (the unjust judges) for their corruption of justice. Because they failed to judge righteously, God would now judge them (82:1, 7-8). Even so, because of their God-given position of power, the psalmist called the unrighteous judges “gods.” (Please note, these “gods” are on the earth judging among the poor, fatherless and needy, vv. 2-4. God’s judgment would be executed on “the earth,” v. 8. The Mormon explanation that this passage proves their doctrine of many gods is without contextual support, cf. 1 Cor. 8:4-6.)

The Jews had never considered the statement from Psalms 82:6 as blasphemous, even though it depicts unrighteous men as “gods.” Yet they were charging Jesus (whose words and works showed that he was approved by God) with blasphemy because he said, “I am the Son of God” (10:36). That which had been written in their law must be accepted by them as authoritative (“the scripture cannot be broken”). Butler observes, “How then could the Jews have the right to accuse Jesus of blasphemy when He says, `I am the Son of God …’ especially since all of His miraculous works indicate that He has been sanctified and sent into the world by the Father” (Paul Butler, The Gospel of John 127). The Jews were not being consistent in their reasoning. Since God’s law called unrighteous men “gods” because they had been sent by God to execute his judgments in Israel, the righteous Jesus was not blaspheming when he identified himself as one with the Father. Jesus argues from the lesser to the greater here. The Father had set him apart and sent him into the world with a far greater work than the judges of Israel received. Jesus’ works proved he was from the Father. He was righteous in every way. Truly, he is the Son of God (John 10:36).

Conclusion

“I and the Father are one” is equivalent to saying “I am the Son of God” (v. 30, 36). This was a clear declaration of deity by Jesus and the Jews took it as such (v. 33). Only in a representative sense have men ever been called “gods.” However, one has lived among us who was more than just man. Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:14; Col. 2:9). His works confirm it. His words attest to it. He has power to save and to protect your soul. Do you believe it? Are you his sheep?

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 6-7
February 1, 1996