Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Good Wife, Good Thing

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor of the Lord (Prov. 18:22).

Finding A Wife

Here are some basic guidelines that should help one in seeking a wife, especially if he expects to find “a good thing” and obtain favor of the Lord.

(1) Blind passion may make a poor selection. As Irven Lee has expressed it, “Love and lust are not the same . . . Some have said that love is blind. Not so. It is lust that cannot see straight” (Good Homes In A Wicked World, p. 34). The girl with a lovely figure, beautiful face, and charming voice may have a very ugly disposition.

(2) Haste should be avoided. “Every woman is not suitable for every man. Hasty courtships may lead to miserable marriages. So serious a matter as the choice of a companion for life is not to be lightly undertaken if there is to be any hope of its issuing in happiness” (Pulpit Commentary). Don’t assume that a girl is what she appears to be. Give yourself time to get to know her in a variety of circumstances. A lifetime of heartache sometimes results from a speedy courtship.

(3) Social and educational background must be considered. Although a marriage may succeed in spite of sharp social and educational differences, these divergent experiences may result in a mismatch. A girl who has been reared in the lap of luxury is not likely to be contented to live and rear a family in poverty. A young man of learning and refinement will not be happy with a girl who has had no opportunities for education and for learning some of the niceties of social life” (Roy H. Lanier, Sr.).

(4) A mate should be chosen for life. The New Testament teaches that marriage is a lifelong contract. It should not be entered on a trial basis, or as though it can be terminated at will. “To sunder one’s parental relationships and join oneself in intimate, life-long union with a person who hitherto has been a stranger demands a considerable degree of maturity – as expressed in a capacity for self-giving love, emotional stability and the capacity to understand what is involved in committing one’s life to another in marriage. Marriage is for those who have grown up” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology).

(5) There must be the scriptural right to marry. One who puts away a companion for some cause other than fornication has no biblical right to enter into marriage with another (Matt. 19:9). “And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32). The fact that civil laws make someone eligible for marriage does not change God’s laws.

(6) Character is to be carefully considered. A Christian should desire for a mate one who is of the highest moral and spiritual character. It is risky business to team up with someone who does not love and respect the word of God, or who has thrown moral restraint aside, or who shows more interest in material things than spiritual values. Marriage is such an exclusive giving of oneself to another that in the absence of a common spiritual bond there can be little hope of attaining the highest level of happiness.

A Good Thing

The Septuagint, a translation made in the third century B.C., renders Proverbs 18:22 as follows: “He that has found a good wife has found favors, and has received gladness from God.” That version adds the following which is not in the Hebrew text: “He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.”

Clearly, it is a good wife that is under consideration in the proverb. To find her is to find a good thing for the following reasons:

(1) It is good for man to have suitable companionship. God said concerning Adam, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him” (Gen. 2:18). Contrary to the thinking of some theologians, celibacy is not good for man. Aside from the male-female relationship to produce offspring, man needs someone to share with him in the joys and sorrows of life, someone with whom he can confide, someone who can be his constant helper. God ordains that the marriage partner be that someone.

(2) Marriage is honorable. The Bible says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb, 13:5). It is honorable and praiseworthy to find a good wife.

(3) To avoid fornication. Paul taught that to avoid fornication (illicit sex), “let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:3). He further pointed out that the husband has the right to his wife’s body, and she has the right to his body (v. 4). Neither should keep away from the other except by mutual consent (v. 5). It is good for one to follow the course that avoids fornication.

(4) A jewel of great value. A good and worthy wife shines with exceptional splendor, “for her price is far above rubies” (Prov. 31:10). She is a crown to her husband (Prov. 12:4).

Favor of God

To find a good wife is to find a good thing and to obtain favor of the Lord.

(1) A gift from God. It was God who created Eve for Adam and who ordained the marriage relationship. “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord” (Prov. 19:14). Every husband when has a good wife should thank God for her!

(2) God helps man through her. She is not enslaved by fulfilling her God-given role in the home. The women of our day who are abandoning the divinely appointed role to compete with men, dress and act like men, and shatter the “family image” are foolishly enslaving themselves. God does not look with favor on a society which disregards His revealed will.

God’s good word, respected by good people, teaches that a good wife is a good thing.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 17, pp. 523, 525
September 4, 1986

By Don Givens

The apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:5 and in Philippians 4:8 commend virtue. Virtue (Greek: arete) should characterize the life of every faithful disciple.

Virtue is defined as “manliness, courage; the disposition to stand loyally for what we believe; moral excellence.” Kittel says: “it is the excellence that the righteous are to maintain in life and death” (Theological Dictionary, pp. 77,78). A.T. Robertson defines virtue as “moral power, moral energy, vigor of soul” (Word Pictures of the New Testament, p. 151).

What is your faith worth if you have not the courage, the vigor of soul, to stand loyally for it? Moral courage is when a man realizes his danger, and yet stands faithfully at his post of duty. We are to be real men (1 Cor. 16:13) not weaklings without the moral energy to live, and if need be, to die, for Christ.

How fitting it is that Peter uses virtue to describe a necessary trait of the loyal disciple. The very nature of life in a world of sin is that of conflict attended with great danger.

The forces of light, led by Christ, are arrayed against the forces of darkness led by the devil. We absolutely must “fight the good fight of the faith, lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto (we) were called” (1 Tim. 6:12). We are engaged in a spiritual battle which is no less real simply because it is not “against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:10-17).

Let us manifest a strong, energetic faith; a faith that is able to overcome the world (1 Jn. 5:4). When modern day people regard Christians as fools, it takes courage to say, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16) and it takes real vigor of soul to prove that statement by the way one lives in the midst of the current wicked generation.

We need the vigor of soul to honestly profess our faith, and the courage to be different from the world, not just for the sake of being an “oddball,” but because we live on a higher plane (Rom. 12:1,2). Christ has solemnly charged all His disciples to confess Him before men, and threatened to inflict eternal punishment on those who deny Him (Matt. 10:32, 33).

Opposition will come. The world hated our Lord. It shall hate us also, when we are like our Lord. May we show manliness, courage, spiritual strength, and real vigor of soul in maintaining the principles of righteousness, because this material world is not our home, and we are passing though toward that glorious city of God.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 17, p. 531
September 4, 1986

By Tom Roberts

I once saw a news report about a young football player who, while confined to the bench during a series of plays, got so excited about the opposing team’s interception and possible touchdown, that he leaped off the bench onto the field and tackled the runner! Needless to say, the young man’s action was illegal and whistles blew all over the field. Zeal and ill-conceived desire to stop another team’s easy touchdown will not justify an illegal intrusion by a twelfth man into a football game. While we may chuckle at the young man’s folly, we all would agree that a yellow flag should be thrown: the action was not legal and a penalty was justified. Those team mates on the field must do the job or their opponents will win. Such is the nature of football – and of other matters of transcending importance.

Our Contending Must Be Lawful

“And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully” (2 Tim. 2:5).

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully . . .” (1 Tim. 1:8).

There is an illustrative figure of the Christian and athletic contention used in the Scriptures that vividly teaches some truths. While we must not extend these figures beyond their proper use, they do make a valid point that we often overlook, as did the young football player, in his zeal and desire to “save the play.” To properly “contend in the games,” “contend for the faith,” or, in other words, to be a faithful disciple, we must be lawful in our service. I fear that many, for what they conceive as noble purposes, are often ready to suspend the rules of God and want to “play ball” only on their own terms. Why is this fallacy so easy to see among athletes and so difficult to see among brethren?

God Has Established Rules

Some brethren seem to be unwilling to accept the fact that God has spoken through Christ (Heb. 1:1ff) to establish authority (Matt. 28:18-20) in the kingdom. Christ is King and He reigns on His throne (Acts 2:29-36) and will continue to rule until the end (1 Cor. 15:24-26). The rule of Christ is expressed through the words of Christ (Jn. 8:31; 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Jn. 9-11; et al). These words of Christ constitute a body of truth which may be referred to variously as “the faith” (Jude 3), “gospel” (Rom. 1:16), “truth” (Jn. 16:13), “doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10, 11), etc. Yes, this body of truth also constitutes a law. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death” (Rom. 8:2). “But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth. . . ” (Jas. 1:25). So far as the definition and essence of law is concerned, there is no difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Both laws emanated from the same source: God. They carry His authority. Rules are expressed. Obedience is required. Punishments are noted and rewards are offered.

However reluctant some are to state it, Christians are as much under a law of God today as man has ever been. True, there are important differences between the laws of Moses and Christ. And understanding these differences helps one to explain the grace of God and to understand the plan of redemption. But we must not lose sight that man is now, has been in the past, and will ever be, under law.

The Laws Of Moses and of Christ I say again, for emphasis, there is no difference in definition and essence between any expressions of the law of God, whether through Moses or Christ. Some mistaken concepts of grace would pit all law against grace. But this is ridiculous on the surface. Must we remind that the “grace of God . . . instructs us” (Tit. 2:11,12)? Hence, the principles that govern grace are a part of God’s sovereign will . . . rule . . . law. That part of the Law of Moses that is inconsistent with grace was intended to be so in order to magnify man’s need of grace: it taught that man was unable to save himself. That part of law required perfect works for justification from sin (Gal. 3:11,12). The Law of Moses defined sin (Rom. 8:7ff) but had no provision for forgiveness (Heb. 9:11-28). The Law of Moses constantly reminded one that he was a sinner (Heb. 10:3). Man was unable to save himself under this law and, understanding this (as the law intended), he was ready to be introduced to God’s grace. This was all in the mind of God (Eph. 3:8-10) from the beginning and the Law of Christ is but the logical extension (the end, purpose: Rom. 10:4) of the Law of Moses. Now that we are under the Law of Christ, we no longer attempt justification by perfect law-keeping but through forgiveness based on the perfect sacrifice of Christ’s blood. Whereas God spoke through Moses and it was called a law of condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9ff), He has now spoken through Christ and it is called the “law of the Spirit of life” (Rom. 8:3). One law convicted us; the other delivers. One law enumerated our sins; the other forgives us. One law showed our faults; the other restores our soul. One law condemned to death; the other introduces eternal life.

Both Require Obedience

But both are laws, by definition, and require obedience. Some have indicated a lack of concern for obedience to the will of Christ because 4twe are not under the law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). But they beg the question. Which law are we not under? Why, the law that required perfect works for justification from sin, of course. We are not under that law. But are we not under law at all? Does God treat disobedience any less severely today than before? Perhaps we need to refresh our memory with the words of Hebrews 10:26-31, and it being a “fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” The very letter of Paul that is so often misused and abused with reference to the teachings of grace reminds us that the Romans understood the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Salvation, though free, is conditional and until these terms are met cannot be obtained. Man’s faith is the proper response to God’s grace and, James notes, “show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith” (2:18). One cannot, by disobedience, proclaim his obedience to the will of Christ. “And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully” (2 Tim. 2:5).

What Conclusions Must We Draw?

Brethren, our actions must be legal (lawful). Let us not, as many seem to be doing, stretch the grace of God to cover disobedience. Has God spoken? Then let us respect His will. King Saul attempted to disguise his disobedience as obedience when he said, “Yea, I have obeyed the voice of Jehovah” (1 Sam. 15:20). But Samuel was not fooled asking, “What meaneth then. . . ” these acts of disobedience if you claim obedience? This is a revealing question. “What meaneth” the many acts of disobedience, if we are doing what God commanded? Isaiah put it succinctly: “Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil. . . ” (Isa. 5:20). Just whom do we think we are fooling? Brethren, if you want to cast yourselves loose from God’s law, that is your right under free will until the Judgment. But please don’t protest that you are doing God’s will, lawfully contending, when the “bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen” are heard in the land and among the churches. If a practice or belief is lawful, it will be revealed in the law. If one cannot substantiate a belief or practice by Scripture it is unlawful. Try your hand on the following things:

Action	Lawful	Unlawful
Instrumental Music
Church-sponsored Entertainment
Institutionalism
Centralized Control
Sponsoring Churches
Premillennialism
Divorce for any cause
Social Drinking
Churches charging tuition
Unity with Doctrinal Error
Church support of colleges

How I long for the day when brethren all across the land will once again rise up and produce Scriptures for their practices. We have become a people without law, head-strong and rebellious. Many no longer make an attempt to contend lawfully, but like their religious forefathers, look to the denominations around about. But God has never been fooled and the crown is promised to those who contend lawfully. Many will be surprised to hear, “Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you” (Lk. 13:27). Such people, we are told, will claim to have done 4 ‘many mighty works.” But they are called “works of iniquity” by Jesus works without law.

I can well imagine the chagrin on the face of the young football player when he heard the referee’s whistle. He had entered the playing field; he had tackled the opponent; he had stopped a touchdown by the enemy. But he had not done it lawfully and he was ejected from the game.

Of how much sorer tragedy will be those of us at the Judgment who claim to have done such wondrous things only to hear Jesus reject us. Brethren, come back to the law and the testimony. “Hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him; and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. . . ” (1 Jn. 2:3-5).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 17, pp. 528-539, 535
September 4, 1986

By Donald P. Ames

Recently the phone rang at the church building, and as I answered it, the lady on the other end began telling me about the new translation they had brought out under the above name. Apparently it has been done by brethren, and is “not a paraphrase” but a new and accurate translation, and is written on a fifth grade level of comprehension. As I reflected upon the conversation, there seemed a number of good ideas being offered, yet I was also surprised how little I really knew about the translation itself. They wanted to know if they could send the church 20 issues (return guaranteed) and let us look it over 15 days before deciding, so I said “go ahead.”

Several of us began examining it carefully to see how accurate and readable it was. Frankly, I must admit I found it very disappointing. The sentences were short and single thought (which they did on purpose to make for easier reading). However rather than simplify the understanding, in some cases it chopped it up so much it made it even harder to grasp. And some of the expressions therein would have required even more explanations than the KJV (such as t4orgies,” etc.) to children – an added disadvantage to those who might be already busy struggling to answer questions in booklets based on the KJV already. Although a “translation, ” it read much more like a paraphrase. And, sadly, in some places, they took almost as many liberties, while in others of complicated translation, they almost avoided changing it to avoid being “put on the spot” (or so it seemed).

Those received included only the New Testament, and that in a red hard-back binding (which did not impress me much for real quality). The N.T. was nicely laid out, but already about an inch and a half thick, which means by the time the O.T. would be added, we would be looking at a book 3-4 inches thick! Copyrighted in 1981 (American edition), it is published by Upward Productions, Inc. and apparently is being sold via phone solicitations rather than traditional book stores (at least for a beginning). O.T. quotes are set in and easily spotted, and listings of qualifications, events or genealogies are spaced on short successive lines so they can be easily read. Yet, none of us who examined it felt it was any easier to grasp than the New King James Bible or New American Standard Bible. Several said they felt it was so strange they simply did not care for it at all – and none of us felt it sufficiently interesting that we were interested in really purchasing a copy for our personal reading.

Some places made for good translations. “Baptism” is consistently translated “immersion” throughout. Matthew 16:19 is translated “will have already been” bound and loosed — correctly conveying the idea there. “Begot” is translated “fathered” and “fornication” is translated “sexual immorality.”

However, there are some rather poor translations made too, which were major factors in turning all of us against it. “Deacons” is translated simply as “servants” in 1 Timothy 3, which in view of modern usage, might have been better served by the word “deacon” instead. “Repent” is consistently translated “change your hearts” – an idea that might not necessarily convey a sign of regret or remorse for what was done wrong, but just simply altering into a different direction. “Tongues” in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 (etc.) are not helped with the consistent translation of “inspired languages” — an idea almost beneficial to Pentecostals who could argue it was a “God-given language” and hence not designed to be understood. In 1 Corinthians 7 and other passages, the use of the expression “Christian woman” is so freely tossed about one would never believe this “accurate translation” realized the word “Christian” only appears three times in the Bible — and not once in 1 Corinthians 7 (where it appears 9 times in that chapter alone).

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says, “Upon this rock foundation, I will build my community – those called out by God.” This translation (?) sounds almost like he is talking about a local town or sub-division rather than the establishment of His church! Maybe since some of our liberal brethren are getting the church involved in real estate and housing projects, though, there is more to this verse than meets the eye!

While 1 Corinthians 11 has been a passage that has bothered those in favor of making an eating place out of the Lord’s meeting place, they took a major liberty to remove such objections of the passage in this new translation. In 1 Corinthians 11:34 it reads: “If someone comes only (Emp. mine – DPA) for the food, he should stay home and eat there!” Hence the way is opened for “coffee and donuts” etc., as long as one does not come “only” for the food. And this is not a paraphrase, but a translation? Where did that idea come from in the original? Liberal brethren are busy “feathering their own nests” here.

Acts 11:30, which so many liberals have sought to use to try to justify the concept of the sponsoring church, gets another dose of mistranslation in support of liberalism. Rather than Saul and Barnabas taking the funds to the elders of the churches in Judea where the brethren had the need, it is translated, “Then Barnabas and Saul brought it to the elders in Jerusalem.” This leaves the door wide open for the false practice of a sponsoring church, but not for a accurate translation!

2 Corinthians 9:13 is another passage liberal brethren have sought to lift from context (“all”) and try to apply to universal benevolence. To do so, of course, they must not only ignore the contextual limitation of the word “all,” but accuse Paul of collecting the funds under one understanding (for the needy saints) and spending them under another (for all men). I would wonder if that would not fall under misrepresentation! So, this “translation” gives the liberals a little help by rendering it ambiguously: “Sharing with them or anyone else (emp. mine – DPA) shows that you are generous.”

In 1 Corinthians 7:39 the door is opened for several different translations of questionable nature. It is rendered: “A Christian woman is bound by her marriage promise as long as her husband lives, but if her husband dies, she becomes free from it. She may marry anyone – anyone in the Lord Jesus.” I wonder if this is in support of the concept that “non-Christians” are not under the law of God? Is only a “Christian woman” so bound? And, the expression “only in the Lord” is definitely open to debate as to its meaning. However they chose to translate it (their option, of course) here “anyone in the Lord Jesus.”

Seventh-Day Adventists could find real comfort in the translation of Matthew 5:17, where, speaking of the Law and the Prophets, Jesus says, “I did not come to destroy them. I have come to give them their full meaning.” While that could include the idea of “fulfilling” them, it would have to come as an interpretation subject to argument, and not from this “accurate translation.” A much better translation could have been done here!

In Revelation 1:1 the Revelation of Jesus Christ was not spoken to John in symbolic language, signified, or even a question of literal or figurative translations. Following the example of the NASB (which unfortunately settled for “communicated it”), this translation also renders it simply “Jesus revealed it to John.” One wonders why they stayed so vague and uncommitted after so freely taking liberties in some of the other passages we have looked at.

Other translations of profitable or unprofitable nature include “elders” being referred to only as “overseers,” and “saints” translated as “holy ones.” Acts 8:37 is omitted from the text and included in a footnote, though both John 8 and Mark 16 are included in the text and a footnote questioning them is included.

Frankly, while there is a need for an easy to understand translation for people of today, and while I commend some of our brethren for an interest in such, unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, this is not much real benefit. I would rather commend the New King James Bible or the New American Standard Bible to those desiring something easier to understand. And, if you are unfamiliar with this “Simple English Bible,” maybe this review will help you be on your guard when you are approached about it. Examine it carefully if you are going to seriously consider it – it most likely could create more problems than it will help. And, if such be the case, it would hardly be beneficial in teaching people the truth without addition or subtraction – while busy showing what is wrong with this “simple” and easy to read translation (?).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 17, pp. 524-525
September 4, 1986