Truth Magazine

By Greg Litmer

One of the most interesting doctrines of Roman Catholicism involves Mary, the mother of Jesus. The things we are going to be talking about are the virgin birth, which I agree with, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and her bodily ascension to Heaven. This particular act is known as the Assumption. The Catholic works that we will be referring to are Twenty-Five Questions Non-Catholics Ask, authored by John A. O’Brien, a professor of research at the University of Notre Dame at the time of his writing, and the Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism, a manual of Catholic theology.

The first point that we will deal with is the virgin birth of our Lord. Catholics believe in this and so do all true Christians. The New Testament clearly teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and that she remained a virgin until after His birth. Let us turn to Matt. 1:18-25 and read Matthew’s account. There the Bible says,

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fueled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name Jesus.”

Clearly Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception of Jesus as this passage, as well as Luke 1:26-38, shows us. It is obvious as well from the passage in Matthew that Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. It is at this point that differences in belief begin to occur. According to the Baltimore Catechism, “Mary, the Mother of God, remained a virgin not only in the conception of Christ but also in His birth and during the rest of her life. ” O’Brien says, “Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary because this truth is clearly taught by holy Scripture, in both the Old and New Testament, and is mirrored in the constant and unbroken tradition of the Church found by Christ from the earliest days down to the present.” It is to this issue that we now want to address ourselves. We will follow closely the Catholic reasoning on it.

The Bible teaches us that at the time of the conception of Jesus, Mary was espoused to Joseph. We could equate this with being engaged today, although an espousal was much more serious than an engagement. In his book, O’Brien refers to Luke 1:34. He says, “As Mary had already dedicated herself by a vow or at least a firm resolve to a life of virginity, she asks: `How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”‘ Now I ask you, is there anything in this passage that even hints that Mary had dedicated herself by a vow, or by a firm resolve, to a life of virginity? Was there anything in Matt. 1 that could lead us to this conclusion? No! Much to the contrary, actually. In Luke 1:27, we see that she was espoused to Joseph. That is hardly indicative of one who intends to lean a life of perpetual virginity. To do so as a married woman, she would have had to deny Joseph the relations that he had every right to expect as her husband. The statement that O’Brien makes is simply unfounded. He has absolutely nothing to base that on. Sadly enough, I know from experience that most Catholics do not know enough about the Bible to investigate his statements for themselves.

He goes on and says, “Transparently clear then is the covering testimony of the Old and New Testament to the fact that Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit with no impairment of her virginity.” With this statement I fully concur. He then goes on to explain Matthew 1:25 which says, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

A simple, unprejudiced reading of that passage shows that Mary and Joseph did not engage in sexual relationships until after Jesus was born. According to O’Brien, the key to understanding that passage rests with the two words “till” and “first-born.” He says that the word “till”, “May indicate a point of time up to which a state, an action or inaction continues, without implying any change thereafter.” As a reference, he cites Isaiah 46:4. He renders the first part of that verse, “I am till you grow old.” He says, “Here the state of God’s being continues unchanged – the same afterward as before. So, too, did the state of Mary’s virginity remain unchanged.” A simple rule for understanding the Bible says that the meaning must make sense in context. I agree with what he says about Isaiah 46:4. That is exactly what was being said, it makes sense and fits the context. But to use that same reasoning in Matt. 1:25 does not make sense. The context clearly shows that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived in a normal husband and wife relationship. There is no use trying to get around it, that is what it says.

Concerning the use of the word “first-born,” he says that this does not necessarily mean that Mary ever had another child and I agree with this. Other places in the Bible teach that she did indeed have other children, but one does not have to have children to not be a virgin. Matt. 1:25 is really sufficient to disprove the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Let us continue, however, and look at the passages concerning the “brethren” of the Lord. According to O’Brien, the word “brethren” or “brother” in the Bible is used to designate not only near relatives, but also compatriots and co-religionists. He says neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word to signify cousin exclusively. But, brethren, the Greek did, although not exclusively; and Matthew and Luke were written in Greek. The word for cousin is sungenis as used in Luke 1:36 and it means kinswomen or kinsfolk.

Now turn to Matthew 12:46-50. There the Bible says, “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, they mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. “Now, obviously Jesus realized when they told Him that His “brethren” were outside that they were talking about His brothers and sisters. He defined the term “brethren” as they used it. If He had been talking about only kinsmen, or cousins, the inspired writer could have used a term that would have meant that, but he did not.

This is not the only passage that shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters. In the very next chapter, Matt. 13:54-58, we read the following,

“And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. “

The term “brethren” (adelphos) used in verse 55 means “male children of the same mother” according to Vine. It means that these men, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, were His actual brothers. It means that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

To give us an idea of what kind of thought gave birth to this perpetual virginity and this adoration of Mary, look at a letter from Pope Siricius (384 – 398 A.D.) which he wrote to a bishop of Thessalonica. In it he wrote,

“We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine about children of Mary, and Your Holiness was right in rejecting the idea that any other offspring should come from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had judged that she would be so incontinent as to taint the birthplace of the body of the Lord, the home of the eternal king, with the seed of human intercourse.”

According to the Bible, the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4) and there would have been absolutely nothing incontinent about Mary fulfilling her obligations as a wife. But this letter shows you what happens when man will no longer accept the Word of God.

The last thing that we want to discuss is the Assumption of Mary. According to the Baltimore Catechism, “After her death, the body of the Blessed Virgin, reunited with her soul, was miraculously taken up into heaven. The church observes this event in the Feast of the Assumption.”

This is a belief that has gradually grown over the years as Mary was more and more venerated. It seems to have been started in a work called “The Passing of Mary,” which was written in the late 4th or early 5th century when Mary worship had reached an advanced stage. Even though this piece of literature was eventually condemned by the Catholic Church, this particular belief has hung on. There is in Catholic dogma, a full-grown legend concerning the latter life of Mary. This legend includes her death, her bodily assumption into heaven, and her reception in heaven by Jesus and her subsequent glorification there. Even Roman Catholic writers will admit that there is no reliable historical information to be found among the legendary accounts. They handle this by saying, “Mary’s corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the church can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact (Manual of Catholic Theology). It is easy to see how, with this type of attitude, that these beliefs have risen.

All of these different legends and doctrines have given rise to a whole system of veneration that is given to Mary. It was in the latter part of the third and fourth centuries that this system of Mary worship began to take shape. About two hundred years removed from the time of the apostles, the Baltimore Catechism says, “Special veneration, called hyperdulia, is given to the Blessed Virgin, because of her excellence which far surpasses that of all the saints and angels.”

Included in this system of worship, or veneration, is a number of prayers, such as the Hail Mary: “Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

Also, the Hail, Holy Queen: “Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hopes! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve! To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears! Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us; and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus! O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary!”

In this system of hyperdulia, Mary has been elevated to the position of an advocate for us in prayer. This, too, is contrary to the scriptures. 1 John 2:1, 2 shows us who our real advocate is. There we read, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate With the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

We could go on and on showing how this special honor, this hyperdulia, which is given to Mary, is contrary to the Word of God. God is to be the object of our honor and reverence and we must be careful not to give honor due to Him to anyone else. The first century church did not afford Mary any special position and if we are to be the same today, neither must we. Indeed, we cannot, if we wish to be pleasing in God’s eyes.

Bibliography

Baltimore Catechism. A Catechism Of Christian Doctrine, No. 3 Confraternity of-Christian Doctrine, 1949.

O’Brien, John. 25 Questions Non-Catholics Ask. Huntington, Indiana. Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1958.

Tolle, James. The Bible And Catholicism. Alexander Street Church of Christ. San Fernando, California.

Certain material from Lessons 1 and 2 was taken from past issues of Apostolic Doctrine.

Scriptural quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 35, pp. 566-568
September 4, 1980

By Mike Willis

The people of the Lord are separate from the world; they will never blend in with modern religious denominationalism. We have already seen how the Lord’s people are distinctive with reference to their language and their doctrine. In this final article of this series, we remind our readers that the Lord’s people are also distinctive with reference to their worship.

The First Century Saints Had Distinctive Worship

The church which began at Jerusalem was distinctive in worship. Its worship was unlike that of its religious neighbors in many aspects. The inspired historian wrote that those who had been baptized on the day of Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Consider the differences in apostolic worship from that of those around them.

Judaism. New Testament worship certainly differed from that of Judaism in a number of ways. The Jews offered animal sacrifice daily at the Temple; too, incense was burned. The early church had no animal sacrifices to offer as a part of its congregational assembly; they burned no incense. As a matter of fact, the sacrifice of animals was replaced with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Whereas animal sacrifices were offered daily in the Temple, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary was an all-sufficient payment for the sins of the world; being all-sufficient, there was no need for continual offerings day after day.

The worship which the Lord’s people offered also separated them from Judaism; the Jews had no Lord’s supper – a memorial to the sacrifice of Christ; they did not preach the apostles’ doctrine; instead, they preached the Law of Moses. The early church did not observe the ceremonial law of cleanness. We can, therefore, conclude that the early church was easily distinguishable from Judaism in the worship which was offered.

Paganism. The worship of paganism did not have uniformity; that which was offered in one place to one god was different from that which was offered in another place to another god. Yet, the worship of paganism was distinctive from Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps the most obvious difference was in reference to the gods who were worshiped. Christians worship the true God; pagans worshiped a plurality of gods. Paganism was polytheistic and, therefore, differed from the early church.

The acts of worship of paganism were different from that of the Christians. For example, certain religions in Corinth committed fornication as an act of worship to their god. Other pagans burned their own children in fire as an act of worship to god. Consequently, we can see how distinctive the worship of the New Testament was when compared to paganism of the first century.

The Worship of Twentieth Century Saints Is Distinctive

Even as the worship of the first century church was distinctive from that of first century Judaism and paganism, so also the worship of the twentieth century saints is distinctive from that of its religious neighbors. Let us consider the distinctive nature of the worship of the New Testament church as compared to that of our religious neighbors.

1. The Lord’s Supper. The early church assembled on the first day of every week (1 Cor. 16:1-2) for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20; Acts 20:7). In partaking of the Lord’s Supper, remembrance was made of what Christ had done for us (1 Cor. 11:26). The items which were used were the fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:29) and unleavened bread (Matt. 26:17, 26).

Whereas the early church and the twentieth century church assembled on the first day of every week to break bread, modern Protestant denominationalism does not partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week. Some denominations observe the Lord’s Supper monthly, others annually, and still others semi-annually. Some observe the Lord’s Supper in conjunction with a foot washing ceremony. Modern Catholicism, in distinction from Protestantism and the church, celebrates the “mass” every day. Both of these practices are contrary to the Lord’s revelation; consequently those who are simply following New Testament Christianity are distinctive with reference to the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper.

The purpose for which the early church assembled to break bread is different also from that of Roman Catholicism. The New Testament church observed the Lord’s Supper as a memorial to the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 11:24-25). Catholicism celebrates the mass as a daily sacrifice of the body of Jesus which atones for venial sins and preserves one from committing mortal sins. The New Testament church is distinctive from the world of Catholicism in this respect.

2. Singing. The worship of the New Testament church in celebration to God is just as distinctive in the twentieth century as it was in the first century. The first century Christians had congregational singing (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). There is no evidence that the early church had a choir which did the singing for the entire congregation. Rather, each individual Christian lifted his voice in praise and adoration to God.

Modern worship services manifest several apostasies in worship with reference to singing. The most obvious apostasy is that of appointing a special singing group which does the singing for the entire group. Choirs and choruses are prevalent in many religious denominations today. Another apostasy in reference to the worship of God through song is the usage of mechanical instruments of music in connection with singing. There is no book, chapter, and verse authorizing the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship; nevertheless, brethren have forced them on other brethren causing a division in the body of Christ. A more recent apostasy which is showing itself in many denominations and some liberal churches of the Lord is the usage of specialized singing groups as a means of drawing a crowd to worship. There is no authority for drawing a crowd to the assembly to hear someone entertain us with his singing ability.

The Lord’s people will continue to be distinctive in the kind of worship which they offer. The simplicity of singing praises to God without mechanical accompaniment is considered strange to our religious neighbors. That we have no special singing groups to entertain us is unusual to our neighbors. Even today, the worship of the New Testament church is distinctive with reference to its singing.

3. Giving. The early church raised funds to preach the gospel through first day of the week contributions (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Each member gave as he was prospered, cheerfully, without grudging and not of necessity (2 Cor. 9:6-7). This was the manner in which funds were raised for the work of the church in the first century.

Modern religious groups raise their funds through begging, raffles, pot luck dinners, bingo games (a form of gambling), church owned businesses, and many other methods. The contributions taken in denominations are taken in at every assembly; in some assemblies several contributions are taken. The New Testament church continues to be different from that of its religious neighbors with reference to its manner of raising funds. Frequently I have to explain to people why our contributions are so high when compared to that of our religious neighbors. They cannot understand high contributions without many begging appeals for money. A group of saints committed to the support of the gospel preaching is unique even today.

4. Prayer. The approach of God through prayer is not unique. Just about every religious group offers prayer to God. What made the prayer of the first century church unique was that they approached the throne of grace through their mediator Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 16:13-14). They recognized their need for someone to stand between them and God, one who could and would plead their case (1 Jn. 2:1). Hence, the first century saints prayed to God through Christ.

This is still unique to some extent. Catholics pray to God through Mary. A mediator other than Jesus is used, a mere human being. Ecumenical circles pray to God directly without praying through Christ. They are concerned that they not offend their Jewish friends who do not believe in Jesus; consequently, a concerted effort is made not to mention Jesus’ name when offering prayer to God. Certainly the prayers of the saints are distinctive when compared to the prayers offered by ecumenical disciples and Catholics.

Let Us Remain Distinctive

I do not foresee the religious world around us making drastic changes in their practices in order to comply with the revelation of God. Until that is the case, the people of God will be as distinctive from the religious world around us as the first century saints were from the religious world around them.

There can be no compromise with sinful departures from God’s revelation. The man who departs from God’s revealed pattern cannot be fellowshipped (2 Jn. 9-11; 2 Thess. 3:14). The man who is presently involved with these religious denominations needs to obey the instructions of the apostle Paul; he wrote,

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).

Those who are attending religious denominations need to leave those denominations to become a part of the church of God, the blood-bought body of Christ. Those who are presently a part of the New Testament church need to remember that they have nothing in common with modern religious denominationalism; joint participation with them reflects a compromising spirit; failure to oppose their apostasies is unfaithfulness to the Lord.

However, the man who expresses their apostasies will be viewed as a different person to the rest of the world; indeed, he will be considered a member of a sect in exactly the same manner as the first century saints were considered a sect (Acts 28:22). Let us be content to stand for God’s word; by so doing, we shall continue to be a peculiar people.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 35, pp. 563-565
September 4, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

Light and darkness are contrasted a number of times in the word of God, as are those who follow each. It is a contrast rather than a comparison, because there is no likeness of the two. One is opposed to the other, and the one loving one also hates the other. The person who loves truth hates darkness (error). “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:104); and the one who loves darkness hates light, “For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light . . .” (John 3:20).

Jesus had somewhat to say about this throughout His earthly ministry. He made it very plain in regard to those who loved the truth (or light), as well as those who loved error (or darkness) when He said, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:19-21). From this we can plainly see why some love darkness, and refuse to come to the light. Those who do evil, who walk in darkness, and engage in that which is not the truth, love the cover of darkness, and refuse to come to the light.

When one refuses, or even is reluctant to come to the light, to have the light of God’s word turned upon him and his teaching, it is evident that he is afraid of reproof, and fears (or knows) that his teaching will not stand the test. On the other hand, that person who loves the truth above all else, and wants nothing else, cometh to the light, for he has nothing to fear. For even if he is wrong, he needs, and wants, to know it; whereas when he is right everyone needs to know it. Thus, he cometh to the light, and does so continually that he continue to be right.

The conclusion then must be this: Those who refuse to come to the light, are not willing to defend publicly their actions and teaching, well know that they cannot stand the light of God’s word lest they be reproved. This should be cause enough for those who find themselves among such, to come out from among them – to come to the light come to that which does not fear investigation, and stand upon the truth, and stand for it!

Truth prospers when it “cometh to the light”; error does not, and thus must remain in darkness, under cover, and be kept quiet. Which do you love: light or darkness? Will your teaching and practice stand the light of God’s word? Are you willing to come to the light, and allow your works to be made manifest? “But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light” (Eph. 5:13).

Could this be why some brethren attend Bible classes so rarely where the word of God is taught and stressed? Could it be that they do not want to see themselves as they really are, and as they appear in the sight of God? If so, such should remember that sometime it will be too late to come to the light and make amends for that which is lacking in their lives!

“They are of those that rebel against the light; they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the paths thereof” (Job 24:13).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 35, p. 562
September 4, 1980

By Wallace H. Little

In a 1977 discussion with several Filipino preachers on problems in teaching, I mentioned a series of lessons on “Methods of Teaching.” They thought it would be good for me to return and teach this, providing other preachers agreed. They did. To make the series more suitable, I revised the material, reducing the number of lessons from 13 to 9. Five hundred copies were printed for distribution for attendees. I choose 13 locations where the greatest number of preachers could be reached at minimum expense to them. Other members, including wives, were also welcome to attend. The series required 21 hours of classes over three days in each place. Additionally, I discussed some problems of significance to Filipino brethren. Also, some funds had been sent to me for distribution for specific benevolence cases, although not as massive as in previous years. Another purpose was to lend whatever influence I might have to settle a long-standing dispute among brethren. I planned to preach as I was invited to do so. The trip began on the Lord’s day, 16 March 1980 and ended on Saturday, 21 June 1980. Unlike previous trips, I planned this one with time for me to rest properly.

The results: I was privileged to see 26 baptized into Christ in the various places where I was privileged to preach. This was an unplanned, but certainly joyous additional consequence. 398 preachers, plus a number of others including more than a few preachers’ wives, attended the classes. I had intended sending each of my supporters a copy of the notes I used for the classes, but these are all gone. Toward the end, it was even necessary to ration them so each preacher could have a copy. However, I summarized the notes at the end of the report I sent to my supporters. The classes themselves, plus other teaching and preaching, gave me an average of 30 hours of teaching each week. I missed preaching one Lord’s day when I was ill and was unable to assemble with the saints. Finally, I have written an individual report on each supported man, to be sent to those who are supporting.

Success in helping brethren solve their problems is not yet completely measureable. It will take time to see how much fruit this will bear. I pray this was successful, for the preacher-envy there has been the plague on that work for 15 years. Distribution of benevolence and other financial matters are included in a report to my supporters which contains an audit of these things prepared by a professional in that field, that brethren might be assured proper stewardship has been exercised.

I planned an average expense of $30.00 per day, apart from transportation and miscellaneous costs. It turned out to be closer to $50.00, for several reasons. First, there was an inflation increase of more than 25% from the time I planned the trip until I arrived. Second, one week after I arrived, the government announced a 26% across the board increase on hotel cost and related charges. Third, a similar increase was allowed for restaurants.

I contracted pneumonia, and added to the other expenses, was a stay in the hospital, plus the medicine and doctor bills for it. More importantly, I lost four days of work, and that hurt badly.

Brethren supporting me over-subscribed, which turned out to be fortunate because of the increased costs. Even so, for the last month prior to my departure, I turned back a number of offers of additional financial help. Those funds remaining will be returned to my supporters on a basis proportionate to their financial assistance.

One congregation offered $1500.00 for trip expenses. When I informed these good brethren I already had sufficient, they asked me to use the funds to purchase and distribute Bibles there. This was done so each preacher received at least one Bible in his native dialect. There are 116 major and minor recorded dialects, greatly complicating the teaching problem. The need for dialect Bibles is to permit preachers to teach those whose English is inadequate to this. In this future, I hope more dialect Bibles can be purchased and distributed. The ultimate solution to the language problem is the government’s plan to make the Philippines a bi-lingual nation within a generaion. Tagalong and English will be the two languages. The short term solution is a 3-language interlinear translation based on the 1901. Competent men are presently at work on this. Before the end of 1980, 1 hope to have enough of a sample completed (perhaps the entire book of Matthew) to enable me to make an effective presentation to raise the funds to complete this work and get it into the hands of preachers there.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, p. 555
August 28, 1980