The Apostasy of the Brethren Gospel

I shall refer to one example of Brethren preaching that I listened to recently. It is typical of so many I have heard over the years.

The meeting began with the singing of three gospel hymns. They were “old time” hymns, sung from the Irish Gospel Hymn Book but still popular today with N. I. Brethren and some G B assemblies. They were hymns sung by most evangelical churches in the past. They were hymns I like to sing.

Then came an opening prayer which lasted about one minute. This is probably a good thing too if the desired audience should be made up of unconverted folk, not used to lengthy theological prayers. The praying had been done before the meeting started.

This was followed by the reading of the Bible and here he trouble started. We were told that a few words would be read and they would be applied out of context. They were “For how long shall thy journey be?” Neh. 2: 6.

There were no good gospel passages for the preacher to use apparently. He indicated by his use of Scripture his low regard for it. His message was to be a succession of semi-related anecdotes. He would not be relying on Scripture to apply his message and he quoted no texts during his preaching.

One appreciates that it is difficult to mention every gospel word or phrase within the bounds of a 45 minute gospel message but to make no mention at all of the cross? Not only was the cross ignored but also no mention was made of Lord, Jesus, virgin birth, the blood, deity, resurrection, repentance, conversion, faith, trust, forgiveness, pardon ,lake of fire, eternal punishment, baptism, Scripture.

It was all a succession of anecdotes. Some were quite moving and one felt one’s emotions being stirred. Some appeared totally irrelevant. We were told of the surgeon who stopped to ask a drink at a house while out walking. The little girl of the house brought him a glass of milk. Later the little girl was taken ill and needed surgery. The surgeon, unrecognised, performed the operation and as the family was poor he wrote on his bill, “Paid in full —with one glass of milk.”

I missed what theological point this fulfilled. I think it was we can gain salvation with as little as a glass of milk. Certainly not “nothing to pay” because the little girl had done something to merit her bill being paid.

The meeting closed with a short prayer for people to get right with God and another gospel hymn.

Those present appeared to be impressed with this message. None showed any concern that this did not relate to the gospel revealed in the New Testament.

This was not the preaching of the cross; it was not even mentioned! No suggestion was made that the convert would have to change his life style. Eugene Higgins certainly did not preach Christ crucified. It was not the Christian gospel.

Ron and Joyce, Ruby wedding anniversary, '02

The Biblical Teaching relating to Marriage


Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This is the first verse that speaks of the marriage state.
The meaning of “cleaving” is as we understand it in Dt.10: 20; Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve and to him shalt thou cleave.
This means to be joined to and to adhere to, to the exclusion of all other rivals and interests. Having left his parents the man cleaves to his wife. The cleaving is not consummation, which is a single act. Cleaving is a continuing condition. It is a joining in marriage. From this moment they are one flesh in the sight of God. God calls the two one flesh. Consummation is mentioned only once in Scrip-ture, at Daniel 9: 27, and has nothing to do with marriage.
The Lord quoted Gen 2: 24 and added a rider- Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mtt. 19: 6 The joining is made by God when the two become man and wife and no man may put asunder. This will include the man himself regarding his wife. The joining has nothing to do with consummation because it is God Who does the joining. These two verses define “one flesh”. In this context it is a man and a woman joined in marriage and has nothing to do with joining to harlots or to casual relationships.
Illicit joining as mentioned in 1 Cor.6: 19, What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh is not marriage and does not break the marriage bond. This is a union that mocks and defiles the Biblical institution of marriage.

When Adam knew his wife, she conceived. Gen.4: 1 She was already his wife. They had already become one flesh. English law may permit the annulment of a marriage on the grounds of non-consummation but the Scriptures do not allow such. Such annulment is the putting asunder by man.
It is not reasonable to quote Levitical practices…..we are not subject to Mosaic law.

Are there any grounds whereby a believer may divorce their spouse?
The only ground given is that of Mt 5:32, But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adul-tery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The first thing to notice about this verse is that it differen-tiates between fornication and adultery. They are not the same. There is no tautology in Scripture. Matt. 19: 9 , Gal. 5: 19, 1 Cor.6: 9 have these two mentioned together. Fornication includes all unlawful sexual intercourse while adultery involves married persons.

Divorce was permitted under Moses because of the hard-ness of their hearts. The Lord hardened the heart of Pha-roah. Hardness of heart is the mark of the unregenerate. Mark 6: 52, 8: 17. Therefore those seeking divorce demon-strate by their hardness of heart that they are unregenerate. Divorce ought not to be found among believers.

Saving for the cause of fornication must not be inter-preted in isolation. Other Scriptures relating to this subject must be taken into consideration. We read in Luke 16: 18,
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth anoth-er, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adul-tery.
Here there is no exclusion clause. The Lord was speaking to a company of Pharisees who were deriding Him. The Lord made this unequivocal statement: Remarriage for either partner constitutes adultery.
Also we read in Mark 10: 11,12, this time speaking pri-vately to His disciples, And he saith unto them, Whoso-ever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Again there is no exception clause. If there were to be an exception clause then we believe the Lord would have made it clear to His disciples. They did not ask Him if there were an exception clause.

It is sometimes argued that despite the Lord’s words, Deut. 24: 1 shows that God permits divorce and remar-riage. It must be noted that the woman in Deut. 24: 1 is not innocent. An earlier uncleanness has been discovered by her husband. If she having been divorced then marries another, v4 shows that she has been defiled by the second marriage and may under no circumstance return to her former husband. The prospect of a third husband is simply not countenanced in Scripture.
That Deut. 24: 1 does not imply that God approved of divorce and remarriage is seen in Deut. 21: 15, If a man have two wives… If God approves of divorce and remar-riage, He also approves of bigamy, and we must be just as free today to practice it. These practices, though wide-spread, were never according to the mind of God.

But what of the innocent previously unmarried man or woman who marries a divorced person and then gets divorced by this person? The argument is that God recog-nises only the first marriage. This later marriage which has ended wasn’t recognised by God so the innocent person is therefore free to marry. Those who use this argument make a play of the word “recognise”. The Bible says nothing about what God does or does not recognise.
The first marriage, God owns, as shown in Genesis 2. A second marriage is contrary to God’s will, but it is still a marriage and is a “one flesh” bond as 1 Cor.6: 19 shows. A person committing this sin and who is afterwards con-verted will need to break this sinful relationship and live apart.
One of the weirdest arguments in support of divorcees remarrying has been put out by M Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House. Penfold, a severe critic of the AV Bible, claims that only the act of remarriage constitutes adultery. The pair still together the next day after their marriage are therefore NOT committing adultery. There-fore, he argues, they are fit for fellowship.
This argument is based on what he calls the ‘gnomic’ present. He writes,

….in Matthew 13v14 we are told the man “goeth and selleth….and buyeth that field.” Here are three present tenses, none of which refer to an ongoing series of events. The man was not always going, he was not always selling and certainly he was not always buying that field. It was, by the very nature of the story, a once for all transaction and yet it is related in the present tense. Such examples could be multiplied. Thye present tense is very frequent on statements of general principle and fact. Grammari-ans call such a tense the ‘gnomic’ present.

Penfold chooses to ignore the consequences of actions described in the present tense. The field remained the man’s purchased possession. The divorced person remar-rying remains in the adulterous relationship.

Maxims or aphorisms may be described as gnomic. Be-cause they are wise sayings and permanently true they are usually in the present tense. For example: “A rolling stone gathers no moss”.
These sayings, however, are not restricted to the present tense. Thus they have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind (Hos 8: 7) may be regarded by some as a gnomic saying but has no present tense.
However, it debases the words of the Lord to reduce them to gnomic utterances (as the wisdom of gnomes) as though some of His words were maybe not so wise as to be considered “gnomic” I personally regard the inference as blasphemous
.
So moicatai found in Mtt.19: 9 and translated “committeth” is claimed to be gnomic and applies only to the act of marrying!
It is in any case a matter of opinion among the “scholars” as to whether the statement is gnomic. It remains an opinion which not many Bible believers will adhere to.

So what about Matt.5: 32 and 19: 9. ? The verses must be understood within their own context. They cannot be in conflict with Mark and Luke. Matt.19: 3 helps us to grasp the context, The Pharisees also came unto him, tempt-ing him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The Pharisees were tempting the Lord on a matter relating to Mosaic law. The passage has a Jewish context. The putting away on the ground of fornication had to do with the Jewish betrothal system, the fornication occurring during this period.
The engagement of a couple in our Western culture does not relate to Jewish betrothal. It is not to be seen as a modern equivalent. There is no moral, spiritual, or legal requirement for engagement. (This does not mean that it is wrong). This writer was never engaged to be married to his wife.
If a Christian should find that his or her spouse had com-mitted fornication ―that is, had been unfaithful before marriage―there is still no Scriptural ground for divorce. Deception, and dishonesty and lies would have been in-volved in cheating their partner, but the joining of the two was in the presence of God and may not be put asunder. However we do not think a believer would stoop to this evil level of deception, the Scriptures assuring us that those who persist in adultery and fornication are not saved, Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abus-ers of themselves with mankind (1 Cor.6: 9) such were some of you, the apostle goes on to say, demonstrating that what sins were practiced before conversion are not practiced subsequently. There were no divorced and re-married persons in fellowship at Corinth. One may not divorce on the ground that maybe the spouse was not saved. The bond remains.

A person who has been divorced and remarries is, in the words of the Lord, an adulterer. We may have sympathy with the presumed innocent partner but remarriage consti-tutes adultery and this state remains while the couple remain together. It will not be possible for believers to have fellowship with them either in the assembly or in the home.

Some are facing this problem with their own children and are compromising the truth for the sake of family relation-ships. We can have full sympathy with such in their sadnesses but faithfulness to God is paramount. Assembly life is damaged when remarried persons are brought in.

Where a firm and bold stand is taken then repentance and restoration may follow.