Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Do 1 Corinthians 7:39 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 teach that a Christian is to marry only a Christian?

Reply: The Corinthian brethren had written some questions to Paul about several matters. Included in these were some questions about marriage (1 Cor. 7:1). Due to the “present distress,” Paul discouraged marriage (vv. 1-8), but to avoid sexual immorality, one should marry (v. 9). As to virgins in particular, about whom they had probably asked, Paul advised that it would be better for them not to marry because of the “present distress” (vv. 26, 38). As to those already married, believers are admonished to not leave their unbelieving mates (vv. 10-16). In verse 39, Paul states a positive truth about marriage: “a wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth” (see also Rom. 7:2). It should be observed, that due to the circumstances which existed at that time, it would be better for none to marry, including widows. Paul says “. . . she is happier if she abide as she is” (v. 40). But if she does marry, she should marry “only in the Lord.”

If the expression “in the Lord” is restricted here to mean one who is a Christian, then it would be for the reason of the “distress,” as is seen by the context of the previous verses. To bind this restriction for all time is questionable, because in the first place, she is encouraged to not even marry. Generally we do not discourage widows from marrying because the same situation that existed then is not prevalent today.

The phrase “in the Lord” is used in other places in the New Testament. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:11, Paul writes: “Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.” Are they not together unless they are both Christians? Who can so believe? “In the Lord” here is by divine arrangement. It was by God’s appointment that male and female ‘were created for each other. This purpose is for all, whether Christians or not.

Again, the same phrase “in the Lord” is found in Ephesians 6:1: “Children obey your parents in the Lord.” Is Paul restricting this admonition to only Christians (members of the church)? If so, then the directive would only apply to them. No, these are moral obligations of the home, whether the family is made up of Christians or non-Christians. God’s moral teaching that children are to obey their parents is applicable to all, those in the church and those out of the church.

Another example of the phrase “in the Lord” is found in Colossians 3:18: “Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” The laws of God in this regard are applicable to all, whether, they are Christians or not. Aliens are also amenable to God’s laws on marriage.

In view of these considerations, we conclude that the expression “in the Lord” is not restricted to one who is a Christian. Furthermore, God does recognize the marriage where one is a Christian and the other is not; the believer was not to put away the unbeliever, if the unbeliever were willing to dwell with that believer (1 Cor. 7:10f). As already noted, because of the adversities which prevailed at that time at Corinth, a widow or anyone who considered marriage should marry a believer. Otherwise, the burdens would be greater to bear and more difficult for the Christian to live his life of loyalty and service to God.

The second passage included in the inquiry is 2 Corinthians 6:14. Paul wrote, “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?” The key to a proper understanding of this verse is the phrase “unequally yoked.” Notice that it is “unequally” yoked. This refers to any incompatible situation, whether marriage, business or false religion. Paul does not condemn being married to an unbeliever per se, or being in a business with an unbeliever; Out he does condemn being “unequally” yoked in such relationships. Some conclude from this verse that it is sinful for a Christian to be married to a non-Christian, but Paul does not say this. He is condemning incompatible relationships, whatever they may be. And, application is not made solely to incompatible relationships with non-Christians; but a Christian himself is in an incompatible relationship if he decides to walk in darkness (Eph. 5:8-11; 1 Jn. 1:6). Light and darkness do not mix. A Christian cannot be in the light and in darkness at the same time. They are incompatible. To assert from 2 Corinthians 6:14 that a Christian cannot marry one who is not a Christian is a misapplication of the verse. The context clearly shows that the Christian is not to participate in error, and to do do so is to be unequally yoked. Christians are to be separated from sin in whatever relationship they find themselves (2 Cor. 6:17). The person who is married to an unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 7:12 is admonished to not leave him, but in 2 Corinthians 6:17, 18 those who are unequally yoked are told plainly to come out and be separate. It should be obvious that the marriage of a Christian to an unbeliever is not, in and of itself, the unequal yoke.

Christians should be encouraged to marry Christians for obvious reasons. Many difficulties, could be avoided if this were the case. This writer has always urged from the pulpit, in the classroom and privately that Christians who are qualified to marry should marry Christians. But to contend that it is a sin for a Christian to marry a non-Christian is a different matter. Those who so contend, in order to be consistent, should exercise the same measures toward such people as they do to those guilty of other sins. It would mean also that God would not recognize such relationships and, therefore these relationships should be dissolved. May we always interpret God’s word in fight of its context and ever be cautious that we do not legislate where God has not legislated, being ever careful to abide by God’s divine arrangements in all realms.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 10, pp. 293, 306
May 16, 1985

By Ronny Milliner

What is the relationship that the Christian is to have with the world? Paul answers, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2).

The Work — Negative

Paul approaches this responsibility first from a negative standpoint. We are not to be conformed to the world. The word “conform” means “to fashion or shape one thing like another. . . . This verb has more especial reference to that which is transitory, changeable, unstable” (Vine, p.227). The ways of the world are unstable compared to God’s ways. We must not allow ourselves to be poured into its mold.

There are a number of areas in which it can be easy for us to become like the world. We can conform to the world in our dialogue. As surely as Peter’s Galilean accent gave him away (Mk. 14:70), our speech will identify us with either the world or God. The speech of the world is characterized by “corrupt communication,” “filthiness,” “foolish talking, ” and “coarse jesting” (Eph. 4:29; 5:4). Our speech should be edifying and contain giving of thanks.

We can also conform to the world in our dress. Some become so fashion-minded that they set aside principles of decency and modesty in order to be like the world. The godly person will dress in “modest apparel, with propriety and moderation” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). A Christian will realize the importance of inward adornment over outward adornment (1 Pet. 3:3-4).

We can conform to the world in our deeds. The works of the flesh are in clear contrast to the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:19-23). Yet these deeds will sometimes be found in the lives of Christians. When they are found, it is because we have conformed to the world

The Work — Positive

Not being conformed to the world means we win be “transformed.” The Greek word metamorphoo (from which we get metamorphosis) is a compound word. The first part of the word implies change, and the latter half means “form.” So the Christian is “to change into another form” (Vine, p. 148).

The Christian is one who has changed. He is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). He is a new man (Eph. 4:22-24). He wears a new name (Isa. 62:2; Acts 11:26). He walks “in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Why would one want to go back to the old fife of sin (2 Pet. 2:20-22)?

The Way

How can one make this important change? How can we avoid falling into the trap of conforming to the world? Paul says we must have a renewing of the mind. We must have an “adjustment of the moral and spiritual vision and thinking to the mind of God, which is designed to have a transforming effect upon the life” (Vine, p. 279).

Renewing the mind will involve us in a change of awareness. There are some things of which the world is aware. But there are some things of which the Christian is aware that the world is not aware (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4,7). Part of our responsibility is to bring “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Renewing the mind-will involve us in a change of affection. The world loves itself and the things of the world (1 Jn. 2:15-16). The Christian loves God with all of his heart, soul, strength, and mind (Lk. 10:27).

Renewing the mind will also involve us in a change of aspiration. Those in the world aspire to many things. Paul describes the Christian’s aspiration in Colossians 3:1-2. He admonishes, “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.”

The Wish

The one who makes these changes in his life will d6prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Notice the traits of God’s will. It is good or beneficial. It is acceptable, or literally, well-pleasing. And it is perfect, complete, or f1mished. How does this compare with the ways of the world? There is no comparison.

When a Christian does not conform to the world, but is transformed, he is putting the will of God to a test. Such a life shows the character of God’s will, that it is best.

Conclusion

Paul did not admonish the Roman Christians, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” He urged them to a better way. “And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever” (1 Jn. 2:17).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 10, pp. 296, 303
May 16, 1985

By Luther W. Martin

Some versions of the New Testament were produced in order to promote a specific religious teaching. Others were published to hopefully cam profits for the publisher. Still others were written for the honorable and sincere purpose of spreading the Gospel of Christ and making it possible for a greater number of readers to enjoy and actually benefit from the study of the Scripture.

The Living Bible – Paraphrased

Definition: “paraphrase – To reproduce the sense of, in other terms. A restatement or free translation of a passage or work.” Note that a paraphrase is a “free” translation, the opposite of a “strict” translation. We copy, below, a paragraph from the preface of the Living Bible, which in turn was adapted from the preface to the first edition of Living Letters:

There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say. This is because a paraphrase is guided not only by the translator’s skill in simplifying but also by the clarity of his understanding of what the author meant and by his theology. For when the Greek and Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic, unless perchance the translation is allowed to stand without any clear meaning at all. The theological lodestar in this book has been a rigid evangelical position.

This paraphrased version is the work of a premillennial Baptist, Mr. Kenneth Taylor. I suggest that it is practically

impossible for a “one-man-translation” to be free from the influence and bias of the translator’s own belief and convictions. I further suggest that this is demonstrated in the Living Bible.

For example, even though at the completion of creation, God saw that everything he had made was “good” or “very good,” Mr. Taylor has David saying: “But I was born a sinner, yes, from the very moment my mother conceived me” (Psa. 51:5).

In Ephesians 2:3, Mr. Taylor has Paul writing: “We started out bad, being born with evil natures.” In Mr. Taylor’s “free” paraphrase, he inserts “born” when there is no word in the text for it, whatsoeverl So, his “theology” is showing!

Mr. Taylor’s premillennialism is demonstrated in Isaiah 2:24 – “the world will be ruled from Jerusalem . . . . the Lord will settle international disputes Further, in 2 Timothy 4:1 – “who will some day judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his kingdom . . . . ” So, Mr. Taylor’s beliefs have colored his paraphrase.

Faith “alone” is inserted by Mr. Taylor, in, Romans 4:12 . . for Abraham found favor with God by faith alone I’d sure like for Mr. Taylor to tell me from what Greek text he found the equivalent of the word “alone.” Then, in Galatians 5:6 – “For all we need is faith working through love I hope Mr. Taylor can find a Greek text having the word “all” (its equivalent) in it!

Another poor feature in Mr. Taylor’s version, is his use of footnotes, wherein he teaches his doctrine, just like Catholicism teaches her doctrine in footnotes in Catholic versions.

The New World Translation

This version is the product of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, originally known as “Russellites.” One of their cardinal beliefs is that at death, man simply ceases to ‘ be. According to them, both the soul and body go to the grave and the result is total annihilation or disintegration.

Notice the following excerpts from ‘Judge’ Rutherford: “No man has or possesses a soul” (Riches, p. 180). “A man dies like other animals, and all go to the same place” (Where Are The Dead?, p. 36). “Death means a change in condition. For an individual it means a change of condition from entity to non-entity” (Ibid, p. 33).

Now, with the followers of Russell and Rutherford denying that nay part of man exists after death, there are actually a number of Bible passage that oppose their false teaching. However, in their New World Translation, they render Luke 23:43 as follows: “And he said to him: ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in paradise.'” Note the comma after the word “today.” Other translations show it: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.'” So, in a false effort to counter the promise of Christ to the dying, but penitent thief, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have Jesus saying, “I tell you today” instead of “Today you will be with Me in Paradise.” To the Russellites, “paradise” merely means a burial garden, thus, a place of graves . . . . not the intermediate state of the righteous dead!

Now, for some other passages of Scripture that show the lie of Russell:

“In your patience possess ye your soul” (Luke 21:19).

“If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:19-20).

“He shall come in like manner as ye have seen him go” (Acts 1:11).

“Behold He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also that pierced Him. . .”(Rev. 1:7).

Obviously, one should beware of any religious sect that dares to tamper with Bible translation, in order to further their own false doctrines.

Even the Emphatic Diaglott, which in their book, entitled Creation (p. 129), they assured the Diaglott to be “one of the purest translations of the New Testament,” renders Luke 23:43 as Indeed I say unto thee, ‘This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”‘

The New English Bible

The Introduction of the New English Bible, reveals the thinking and procedure of its translators. Speaking of the 1881 English Revisers, “The Revisers no longer followed (like their predecessors) the text of the majority of manuscripts . . . . During the eighty years which have passed since their time, textual criticism has not stood still. Manuscripts have been discovered of substantially earlier date than any which the Revisers knew . . . . Meanwhile the methods of textual criticism have themselves been refined and estimates of the value of manuscripts have sometimes been reconsidered . . . . There is not at the present time any critical text which would command the same degree of general acceptance as the Revisers’ text (Westcott and Hort -LWM) did in its day . . . . In particular, our knowledge of the kind of Greek used by most of the New Testament writers has been greatly enriched since 1881 by the discovery of many thousands of papyrus documents in popular or nonliterary Greek of about the same period as the New Testament.”

“It should be said that our intention has been to offer a translation in the strict sense, and not a paraphrase. . . But if paraphrase means taking the liberty of introducing into a passage something which is not there, to elucidate the meaning which is there, it can be said that we have this liberty only with extreme caution, and in a very few passages . . . . Taken as a whole, our version claims to be a translation, free, it may be, rather than literal, but a faithful translation nevertheless, so far as we could compass it. “

Although the “Introduction” mentioned the reduction in acceptance of the text used by the 1881 Revisers, this version generally leans heavily on the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, texts which were the basis of the Westcott and Hort Text.

The thing that I cannot understand about the New English Bible is the “big words” that the translators selected, rather than using simple and more easily understood words. Here are a few examples: admixture, ambiguous, apprehensive, arbiter, astutely, beclouded, bedizened, beneficent, benighted, bombast, conflagration, deigned, effulgence, extirpate, exuberantly, fabrications, fomenter, pompous ignoramus, imputation, indefatigable, interloper, machinations, magnanimity, parricides and matridices, obdurate, rapacity, recalcitrant, servitor (for servant), specious, thwarted, and Whitsuntide.

Whitsuntide was inserted in lieu of Pentecost (which is in the Greek text), just like the King James translators inserted Easter in lieu of the Passover. In each case, the customs or traditions of the established church dictated the word selected by the translators.

The point that I wish to stress about the New English Bible, is that it could have been far more easily understood in modem speech, if they had kept it simplel Another sad thing, is similar to the errors of the New International Version translators, that is the insertion of the word “nature” in so many passages where it is not in the Greek text. Such as Rom. 7:5, 7:18, 7:25, 8:3, 8:4, 8:5, 8:7 8:12; Gal. 4:23, 5:13, 5:16, 5:17, 5:19, 5:24 and 6:8. The Greek word is sarx or sarkos, meaning flesh, but there is no word for “nature.” Therefore, again, we have translators who handle God’s Word loosely and freely. This shows a basic lack of respect for or reverence toward the Word of God.

Conclusion

As two scholars, John Beekman and John Callow, have written in their book entitled Translating The Word of God, there are basically four types of translations: (1) The highly literal like inter-linears. (2) The modified literal, like the King James Version, the American Standard, the New American Standard, and the New King James Versions. (3) The idiomatic, like the Cotton Patch version. And (4) The unduly free versions, and among these I would list the New International Version,the New English Bible, the Living Bible, Good News Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and Revised Standard Version.

As far as I am concerned, (2), the modified literal versions are the only ones I have respect for. It is helpful to study all of them, but only place your confidence in the modified literal versions.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 10, pp. 299-301
May 16, 1985

By Shelby C. Smith

In John 8:32, Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

There is power in truth. The word of God is truth. There is not enough power in all the doctrines of men to save one person from hell. It is were possible to know all the human doctrine of men, and we should obey them, this would not save us.

If we look at the denominations around us, and look at what they teach, what is the difference between them and us? It is the doctrine they teach. If we teach the same doctrine they do we will be lost also. It takes the truth of the gospel to save. The truth is what Christ wants preached. He commanded His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15). Within 40 years the early church had done this (Col. 1:23). The truth must be preached to every generation. Most people are confused by the doctrines and commandments of men. The truth is simple. Error is complicated. In the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul, being directed by the Holy Spirit, gives the basic facts of the gospel: (1) Christ died for our sins; (2) He was buried, and (3) He arose from the dead. In this day and age, these facts desperately need to be taught.

Brother, when you go back and walk no longer with the Lord, you are lost. Peter said, “To whom shall we go?” Peter was sure that Christ was the Son of God. We believe and are sure of the same thing. Jesus said if we do put our hand to the plow, and look back, we are not fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). It is an awful thing not to be fit for the kingdom of God.

To get on the straight road that leads to heaven, we must have faith, confess His name, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and the Lord will add us to His church (Acts 2:47). This is truth and it takes this to free man from sin. The people that are in Christ now need to be taught to add to their faith (2 Pet. 1:3-11).

In our day, there are so many people, and even preachers in the Lord’s church, turning away from the truth. Modernism, Crossroadism, and fellowship everybody are on the rampage and spreading like wildfire. And those that teach and change the Word a little see no wrong in it. It is a command of God, and we had better obey to the letter.

There are examples in the Bible of what happened to people who did not obey the word of the Lord. One example is Lot’s wife. When the Lord rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord told Lot’s wife along with the others, “Don’t look back” – only three word, but she looked back, and became a pillar of salt. There was death in that look, and there is death for us if we turn back to the world and the devil.

Jesus warns us in one of the shortest verses in the Bible, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). We can’t please the Lord and warm by the devil’s fire. We do not hear sound preaching like it was a few years ago. Preachers today try to take the sting out of sin, the blood out of the atonement, the inspiration out of the Bible, and the fire out of hell for the jingle of a few dollars. They preach what people want to hear. They preach a “social gospel.” What are we going to do about this kind of preaching?

Paul told Timothy: “Them that sin reprove in the sight of all” (1 Tim. 5:20). The Bible tells us plainly how to treat ungodliness in the church. Paul said, “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). The church of Christ today is honey-combed with false doctrine, there is little or nothing done about it, and still we expect to go to heaven.

Elders, it is your responsibility to see that the wicked person be put away; withdraw from him, and if there is an ungodly preacher preaching for you, don’t ship him off to some other church with a good letter of recommendation – but withdraw from him, save the church, and save yourselves. If ungodliness is condoned, Paul said: “A little leaven will leaven the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). Don’t forget Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 10, p. 298
May 16, 1985