Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

To say that this passage has been the occasion for much debate is an understatement. The fact that it is a difficult passage, regardless of the interpretation defended, is a truth to which all serious students would readily agree. In this brief study, we cannot raise all of the questions posed about this text, much less take the space required to reason to-wards answering all of those questions. We will, however, try to lay a foundation needed to properly understand the main points. For a detailed study, Whiteside’s commentary gives an excellent examination of this text.

The apostle Paul began the epistle to the Romans by affirming that the Gospel is God’s power to save those who respond in faith to that message. He then shows that all are in need of that salvation because all have sinned beginning with the Gentiles and then concentrating on the Jews (Rom. 1:18-2:20). The next two chapters emphasize the themes of faith and grace as they relate to the justification of the sinner through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This point is also made with special emphasis to the Jews. Up to that point in the book, the writer stresses the need for and nature of God’s action in salvation.

With the beginning of chapter 6, the apostle spends three chapters mainly concentrating on the proper response from man to God’s grace in salvation. Paul affirms that “we” (Christians) cannot say that we may sin the more since God’s grace takes care of sin. Instead, we must see our baptism as a death to or separation from sin that we might live in “newness of life” (Rom. 6:1-11). He views that point of obedience from the heart as the time we were freed from the dominion or mastery of sin and brought under the control of the Lordship of Christ, being made servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:12-23). Those figures of death and dominion continue to reappear throughout this section of the book.

In the seventh chapter, those figures are pulled together in the first six verses as the writer uses them to picture the freedom “we” have from the old law as analogous to the wife released from the dominion of her husband upon his death. Paul shows the need for that change in dominion by noting “our” condition under the law. He notes, “For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death” (Rom. 7:5). Paul is not saying that the old law created the sinful passions of man, for sinful passion predated that law. The law, rather, was the means by which the one living under dominion of the “flesh” identified his passions as sinful because the law so defined them as sinful. Such a person also learned through the law that the fruit of his sinful passions when acted upon (“wrought in our members”) was “the fruit of death.” Obviously, the main audience the writer addresses with this point are those of a Jewish background.

This line of reasoning was sure to raise a question in the mind of the reader. It is that question which initiates the context with which we are concerned. Paul answers by more fully explaining that the law was not sinful, nor was it the originator of sinful conduct. The law merely defined sin and made its nature clear to those it addressed. The identity of the law under consideration is made certain when the writer says, “Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). “The law” being considered obviously included the Ten Commandments for it is only in the two times those commandments are given that we find the phrase quoted by Paul, “Thou shalt not covet” (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). Through that commandment, Paul first learned that coveting was sinful. That understanding came solely from the old law. Though men today may learn not to covet through the Gospel, such was not available to Paul when he learned the nature of coveting. In dealing with the context, let us remember that Paul introduces the teaching which follows by using himself as an example of those under the old law who discovered their sin by means of that law. Up to this point, he has tailored his teaching to those of a Jewish background.

It may also be noted that from this point forward in the context, the sin of which the writer speaks is that practiced by one who knows that his actions constitute sin. Thus, those who seek to use this passage to illustrate the Christian’s battle with sins of ignorance pervert the context. As we will see, this passage does not have primary application to the Christian’s struggle with sin much less his battle with sins of ignorance. It deals with the dilemma faced by the sinner who came to understand his sinfulness by the old law and found himself unable to escape sin’s dominion over him apart from the deliverance found in “Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The problem was not with any inherent evil in the law. Paul affirms that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12). This use of the present tense gives us our first clue about how Paul uses the present tense in this context. Though the apostle writes this at a time after that law had been done away, he further portrays that law as presently working “death” in him “through the commandment” (Rom. 7:13). How could that be literally true at the present time since Paul could only be condemned as a violator of the law he was presently under — the Gospel. He clearly speaks of a past time in the present tense just as the Hebrew writer does in saying what Jeremiah “saith” (present tense) even though Jeremiah spoke such in the past (Heb. 8:8-13).

The pattern of the context would lead us to the conclusion that Paul is also using the present tense to describe a past state when he says, “I am carnal, sold under sin” (v. 14) and later exclaim, “Wretched man that I am!” (v. 24). Not only would the consistency of context suggest this conclusion, but so would other passages which plainly state the manner of Paul’s life. In speaking of his present conduct as a Christian, Paul says, “Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and righteously and unblameably we behaved ourselves to-ward you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:10). Which was it? Was Paul presently carnal, sold under sin and wretched or was he holy, righteous and unblameable? It cannot be both ways at the same time, but it could have been both ways if the two passages speak of different points in his life.

Some have suggested that any casual reader of this con-text would automatically think that Paul was speaking of his present struggle with sin in verses 14 to 25 and that only those seeking to make an argument against Calvin-ism would view it otherwise. Such reasoning assumes what is to be proven. In the first place, the careful reader of the context will see that Paul has consistently spoken of a past time in the present tense and should reasonably expect that he is doing the same in these verses. Secondly, various commentators throughout history have defended the view that Paul here speaks in the present tense of a past point in time. Macknight shows the diversity of those so viewing the passage as he comments on verse 14 by saying:

Because the apostle in this passage uses the first per-son, “I am sold,” etc. Augustine in the latter part of his life, and most of the commentators after his time, with many of the moderns, especially the Calvinists, contend, that in this, and in what follows, to the end of the chapter, the apostle described his own state at the time he wrote this epistle, consequently the state of every regenerated person. But most of the ancient Greek commentators, all the Arniinians, and some Calvinists, hold, that though the apostle speaks in the first person, he by no means describes his own state, but the state of an unregenerated sinner awakened, by the operation of law, to a sense of his sin and misery. And this opinion they support by observing, that in his writings the apostle often personates others. See Romans 13:11-13. Wherefore, to determine the question, the reader must consider to which of the two characters the things written in this chapter best agree; and in particular, whether the apostle could say of himself, or of other regenerated persons, that “they are carnal, and sold under sin.”

Examination of Terminology

The terms Paul uses to describe his thoughts and actions are the strongest argument for understanding his statements in this text to illustrate the confusion experienced by the sinner condemned through the law. Often, a close scrutiny of the words used will help us better comprehend the idea stated by the writer. For example, if one reads Galatians 6:1-5 not knowing two different Greek words are both rendered “burdens” in the English translation of verses 2 and 5, the reader is likely to be confused. However, when he understands that the word in verse 2 refers to a heavy load which must be shared while the word in verse 5 refers to a personal load, the meaning be-comes obvious. Let us look at the terms in Romans 7:15-21 to see if we can get similar help.

Paul says, “That which I do I know not” (v. 15). Is he suggesting that he is not conscious of his actions? If so, his mental competence to stand accountable may be in question. Such is surely not the case with an apostle chosen by God to spread the truth and inspired to write these words by the Spirit. The word translated “know” is the Greek word ginosko which carries with it the significance, not just to being conscious of a fact, but of growing to understand the nature or comprehend the result of something. Whiteside commented on this word by noting:

It does not mean simply to be conscious of the particular act one is performing, but also to grasp the nature and consequences of what one is doing. No sinner does that. When Paul was persecuting Christians, he was conscious of his acts, but was utterly ignorant of the nature and con-sequences of his deeds. “Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief’ (1 Tim. 1:13). He did not know that every act he performed in persecuting the church was a crime against God and man; he thought he was doing right. He, therefore, did not know what he was doing  what he was accomplishing. When Jesus was on the cross, he prayed: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” These men knew they were engaged in the act of crucifying a man called Jesus; they did not know that they were crucifying the Son of God. They did not know what they doing. “And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17). “For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Now, these men were not demented. They knew they were putting a person to death; yet they did not know what they were doing. If a sinner really knew the full nature and awful consequences of the life he is living, he would quickly turn away from it.

Three Words Describing Action

Three Greek words rendered “do” or “practice” in our English translations of the context also bear examination. All three words are used in verse 15 providing us an opportunity to examine their use and relation. Notice the passage:

“For that which I do (katergadzomai) I know not: for not what I would, that do I practice (prasso); but what I hate, that I do (poieo).”

Why are three different Greek words translated with two English words, both of which may convey the same meaning? When we define the words, we are aided in understanding the text. Let us define them:

1. According to lexicographers Arndt and Gingrich, the Greek word katergadzomai carries the idea of achieving or accomplishing something. It does not describe a mere action, but connotes action towards an accomplishment. It could be illustrated by that which an artist ultimately “does”  not just making strokes of paint, but accomplishing the desired end of his expression.

2. In contrast, the Greek word prasso describes one engaged in some action. It is mostly used of being involved in action which is not praiseworthy, thus rendered “commit” in many cases.

3. The last word, poieo, is used to signify the making, manufacturing or producing of something. It is used to de-scribe the action of Aaron in producing the golden calf (Acts 7:40) and of God in creating the earth (Acts 17:24). It carries the connotation of action done to make an end product.

The sinner does not fully comprehend what he will achieve as a result of his participation in sin. Instead, the sinner merely lives for the moment, satisfying his lusts. But what happens when he has time to think about the direction of his life? At such times, he surely longs for a different life than is characterized by his action of committing sin. Yet, he keeps on doing the same thing. In the end, he hates the end product of his life being produced by his actions. In paraphrased form, that is Paul’s point in verse 15. The same points are made repeatedly as Paul elaborates on this theme using the same terms throughout the text to describe the captivation of the sinner who realizes his sinfulness through the old law, but has no deliverance without Christ.

What is the solution? Paul says deliverance for such an one was found only “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 25). What was true for the one who came to understand his sin by the old law is also true of the one today who comes to under-stand his sin by the new law. There is deliverance available, not by submitting to the dominion of the flesh, but by submitting to the Lordship of Jesus as an obedient servant of righteousness who has found newness of life in Christ.

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 16-18
February 15, 1996

By Jim R. Everett

There are none so blind as they who will not see!

Jesus said, “If any man will do his will (literally, if any-one wishes to do his will), he shall know of the doctrine …” (John 7:17). If our understanding and exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 should be incorrect, this much we know for sure  before a man can know, he must want to know and the man who does not want to know will never under-stand.

What power does Satan really have? In view of the clarity of truth, how can Satan deceive? How can man avoid being deceived by his lies? What does the phrase “working of error” mean? How can it be said that God gives man a “working of error”? Is God responsible for man’s being lost?

It is critical, in the study of this text, that we maintain a proper, balanced concept of the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. God rules, but he does not rule in a monothetic manner; that is, his will, in the existence of time, is not “one single element” but he restrains his will to allow man the freedom to choose. For instance, 1 Timothy 2:4 expresses his will  he wishes that all men be saved. Not all men will be saved though, because most men do not want to do God’s will. In harmony with that understanding, we accept the truth that God’s message has two effects on the hearts of free men. It opens the receptive heart  case in mind, Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened (Acts 16:14). It hardens the rebellious heart  consider the Jews of Jesus time (Matt. 13:10-15). In this way it can be said that God hardens men’s hearts, but we understand that it is done indirectly  it is done through his message which offers grace. God created both hearts good and in neither instance did he operate on them contrary to the aspirations of either.

When Isaiah had been sent to Judah, God told him that the message would be met with a hardness of heart and blindness of eyes. Both Judah and the Jews of Jesus’ time could not understand the message, because they did not want to understand. In whatever way we may seek to ex-plain this text, no lost man can ever lay the fault for his condition at God’s feet.

The focus of attention in this study on 2 Thessalonians2:11, is on the phrase “a working of error.” The immediate text (2 Thess. 2:9-12) presents God’s dealings with hearts already hardened, hearts that do not want to believe and do not love the truth. That is clearly demonstrated in Paul’s statements: “. . . because they received not the love of the truth …” (v. 10), “… believed not the truth . . . but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). Understanding the phrase “a working of error” cannot be divorced from an understanding of the immediate context in its general con-text with remote contexts interwoven. That procedure will be followed here.

Verses 1-8

In the general context, Paul began by referring to the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 1). Then he says that Christ’s coming will not happen until the man of sin be revealed and a falling away occur (v. 3). He follows those predictions with a description of the behavior of the “son of perdition” and an alignment of him with Satan as his source of power to deceive (vv. 4-9). His most effective ploy has been and will always be the lie. Note that in the Greek verse 11 says specifically “the” lie. This is exactly how he deceived Eve in the beginning (cf. Gen. 3:1).

Verses 9-12

The immediate context (vv. 9-12), presents a conflict between the truth and the lie, which is really a conflict between God and Satan. There also existed a heart problem here, because there were hearts which “loved not the truth” and “loved the pleasures of unrighteousness.” Who wins the struggle between truth and lies in men’s lives depends upon the heart’s aspirations.

That Satan has power enabling him to deceive man is obvious  “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (vv. 9-10a).

Is he able to work real miracles, to do real signs? Notice first that Paul calls Satan’s wonders “lying wonders,” or, literally, “wonders of a lie.” Next, he identifies those miracles with “deceivableness of unrighteousness,” or, literally, “all deceit of unrighteousness” (v. 10a). The Thessalonians would remember that when Paul first came to them his preaching was not of “deceit, nor of uncleanness nor in guile” (1 Thess. 2:3). Such methods are associated with Satan but never with God and his servants.

John says of the land beast: “And he doeth great wonders … and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast . . .” (Rev. 13:13-14). One way Satan deceives is by his ability to imitate God’s signs by magic and sorcery. Simon the sorcerer knew the difference between his sorcery and Philip’s signs (Acts 8:11-13). Pharaoh’s magicians admitted their inability to match God’s miracles  they also knew the difference (Exod. 8:1-19). If God allowed Satan to do real miracles, he would nullify the witness of his own miracles to verify truth (cf. Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:3-4).

In harmony with our text’s presentation of Satan’s lying signs and wonders, a close parallel could be made to those who, currently, are blindly following the gospel of health and wealth. In spite of the fact that many of those preachers have been exposed as frauds who have no power from God to work miracles, millions are being deceived. Why? Many, plagued with debilitating diseases are desperately grasping for some hope of cure. Others are deluded by promises of wealth. Both are easily duped by skilled charlatans who are nothing more than manipulative magicians. No doubt some of these teachers have deceived themselves into believing that God actually is working through them. Others merely perform in order to accumulate treasures, but Satan can deceive only the heart which does not love truth.

Verses 10-12

There are two statements used by Paul which mean, essentially, the same thing  “they received not the love of the truth” (v. 10), and “they had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). Understanding this restrains one from blaming God for the condition of the heart and resulting damnation. They did not believe the truth because they did not want it, and they did not want it, because they had pleasure in unrighteousness. The result of their lack of love for truth is covered by the words “perish,” and “damned.”

Verse 11

The phrase “working of error” (2 Thess. 2:11) can be understood as being done by God either indirectly or directly. We have observed previously in this study that God’s message for good has a bad effect on hearts that are unreceptive. In this way, God can be said to have hardened hearts by his requirements of men. However, in this context the word “send” suggests activity on the part of God. It is something God does as a consequence of their having Measure in unrighteousness. How God dealt with Pharaoh serves as a model in history which demonstrates the truth affirmed in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. In Pharaoh’s case God operated upon a heart already hardened by Pharaoh’s own aspirations.

It is said that Pharaoh hardened his heart but it is also said that God hardened his heart (Exod. 7:11-14, 22; 8:12-15, 19, 32; 9:32-35; 10:1-2, 20, 27; cf. Rom. 9:17-18). In an analysis of all the statements made, it appears to me, that not only did God’s message harden Pharaoh’s heart but that after Pharaoh initially hardened his heart, God made him obstinate in order to demonstrate clearly his power (note Exod. 6:1; 7:3-4; 8:22; 10:1-2; 14:3-4, 17-18). Though he could have delivered Israel without any signs or, for that matter at any point in time, he wanted both the Egyptians and the Israelites to know, beyond any doubt, that he was The Almighty. It was necessary that Pharaoh not let Israel go until God had demonstrated his mighty power.

God also affected Nebuchadnezzar’s heart without violating his freedom to choose (Dan. 4:1-37). Though Nebuchadnezzar had been warned by Daniel’s interpretation of his dream about the stump, twelve months later Nebuchadnezzar exalted himself in his pride and God did exactly what he said he would. “Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him and let seven times pass over him . . . till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men” (Dan. 4:16, 25b).

Establishing those truths makes it easier to understand, not only the meaning of the phrase “working of error,” but also, what God does to the hearts of those who do not want to believe his truth. “Working of error” (NKJV) means “an active power of misleading” (Vincent, 4:67), or “. . . the energy or working that belongs to error” (Lenski, 431). It is true, as we have already observed, that God allows men to believe and practice wrong (cf. Rom. 1:24, 25, 26, 28); however, “send” (pempei, Greek) is not permissive but active. We would never be justified in concluding from this context that error is God’s creation, for that would violate the very nature of God. Rather, errors authored by Satan (cf. John. 8:44), are used by God for those who have actually chosen to do the will of their father, Satan.

When man wants to believe a lie, when he has no love of truth, when he has pleasure in unrighteousness, not only will God allow that but he will also send error’s energy into such a heart that it might believe the lie and be damned. No stronger warning could compel us to love and seek truth above all else.

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 14-15
February 15, 1996

By Tom M. Roberts

Jesus said, “Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). But who is the Jesus in whom we are to believe? Shall be believe in the Jesus of the Oneness Pentecostals who maintain that Jesus is not a separate personality in the Godhood? Shall we believe in the Jesus of the Mormons who teach that Jesus transmigrated into Godhood from manhood? Shall we believe that Jesus was just another prophet like Mohammed? Shall we believe that Jesus divested himself of Deity in the Incarnation so as to be just a man among men, giving up the divine at-tributes, powers, prerogatives and privileges? Just who is this Jesus in whom we must believe? To be sure, salvation is predicated on believing in Jesus, but as God revealed him, not as men might redefine him.

No other passage has presented brethren with more difficulty in the last few years than Philippians 2:7. As Paul revealed, Jesus “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (KJV); as rendered in the ASV, “But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” The key phrase before us is “emptied himself’ (ASV). How are we to understand this passage? Did Jesus empty himself of (divest) Deity? The answer will be found in a careful analysis of text and context.

What Is Deity?

When Jehovah identified himself to Moses at the burning bush, he identified himself as “I AM THAT I AM” (Exod. 3:14). None can misunderstand this reference to God’s everlasting being: no beginning or ending, but rather the attribute of being: eternal existence. One cannot be deity temporarily; off again, on again. By nature, God is everlasting.

But Jesus claimed for himself this same equality. To the unbelieving Pharisees, he asserted, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). Understanding that Jesus claimed equality with Jehovah, the Jews attempted to stone him. But the truth which they rejected, we most surely believe: Jesus is deity, identified with Jehovah, as much God as the Father or the Holy Spirit. Here is our bedrock truth which provides us with the context in which to understand our disputed passage. Whatever Philippians 2:7 means, it can-not mean that Jesus divested himself of deity. Why? Because one cannot be deity temporarily; off again, on again. By nature, God is everlasting. Jesus cannot lay aside his divinity and remain divine.

Scripture Explains Scripture

If Philippians 2:7 does not mean that Jesus gave up or “emptied himself ” of his deity, what does it mean? Here is where proper Bible study is always helpful. Let the pas-sage define its own terms. Not only does the text say that he “emptied himself,” but further explains this phrase to mean that emptying himself is to be parallel with “taking the form of a servant,” and “being made in likeness as a man.” We should not isolate one phrase in this verse from its companion (and clarifying) phrases. Thus, “emptying himself’ was not an “undressing” (a divestiture) at all, but rather a “clothing upon.” As the KJV renders it, he “made himself of no reputation.” How so? By robbing himself in the “body of humiliation” (Phil. 3:21), emptying himself by what he took on, not by what he divested. As John stated it, “The word became flesh” (1:14). Isaiah 53 (quoted by Luke in Acts 8:33) referred to Jesus’ fleshly life and death as his “humiliation.” This agrees with the fact that man is mortal and corruptible (1 Cor. 15:53), occupying a body in which we groan, longing to be unclothed, that we might be clothed upon by immortality (2 Cor. 5:4), a “little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7). Jesus “emptied himself’ in that he “made himself of no reputation” by taking on the fleshly form of manhood. But he did this while retaining Godhood, for he was Immanuel, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

Jesus’ Flesh Was A Veil

An apt illustration of this can be seen in the action of Moses who veiled his face, having been in the presence of God’s glory on Mount Sinai (Exod. 34:30ff; 2 Cor. 3:7fO. Beneath the veil was Moses, but Israel saw only the veil because none could look upon his shining face. In like manner, Jesus as the pre-existent, glorious Word (John 1:1-2) has a radiance equal to that of God (Phil. 2:6), for he is God. Had Jesus come to earth in this wondrous form, none could resist him. We know this, for when we see him in his full glory, every knee shall bow and there will be no unbelievers (Phil. 2:9-10). But, in order to save us, Jesus came, not as angels before the throne would recognize him, but as the suffering servant (Isa. 42:1), in his “body of humiliation.” It was this body which was prepared for the sinless sacrifice (Heb. 10:5). Almighty God (a Spirit, John 4:24), took upon himself a body of flesh in order to suffer (Heb. 2:9-10). This body of humiliation veiled the Eternal Word so that men, when they looked on him, saw an actual man. As man is a spirit housed in a fleshly body, so Jesus is a spirit and, for a time, was housed in a fleshly body, made “like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:14). Accomplishing this required no divestiture of deity but rather a clothing of humanity.

The Transfiguration: The Veil is

Parted For A Moment

This analogy of the veiling of the Word in a fleshly body does not depend on speculation; it is what the Bible asserts. Furthermore, when we visit Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, we are further assured of the truth of this when we see the veil of flesh drawn back briefly, and the radiant glory of Jesus shine forth. “And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light” (Matt. 17:1-2). The three disciples saw Jesus in one form, his manhood, then he was “transfigured” (Greek metamorphoo, “to change into another form,” Thayer 405). Of this, Peter later says, “We were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). The veil was parted for a moment and Christ’s divine majesty was partly revealed. We should not believe for a moment that Jesus’ manhood robbed him of his deity for the voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (v. 5). Jesus was as much God while in the flesh as he was in heaven before being born of Mary. This truth must not be lost in our discussions about the person of Jesus while on earth.

Difficult passages of Scripture can be understood if we use the ancient wisdom of God: “For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little” (Isa. 28:10). While the “secret things belong to God” (Deut. 29:29), the “revealed things” help us in our understanding. What is revealed about Jesus allows none to believe that he was less God on earth than he was before and after the Incarnation.

Who is this Jesus in which we believe? There can be no doubt: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 6-7
February 15, 1996

By Robert F. Turner

We do not expect this article to appeal to every one  just those parents who have “married off’ a daughter or who face that dreadful day in the future. Vivian and I joined the clan several years ago  and lived to marvel that “that man” who was so unworthy of our girl could father such wonderful grandchildren, and become such a grand son-in-law. We appreciate this story, heard in California, right down to the last line.

A preacher had given his darling daughter in holy wedlock and joined the two “’till death do you part”; and then witnessed the loading of the honeymoon car  including the teddy bear she had kept on her dresser. Mother kissed the young couple and collapsed in the living room to cry it out; but father bravely carried the last item to the car and then slowly walked the bride to the side of her waiting husband. Now was the time for those memorable parting words  the warm fatherly advice that would sustain her in trying times words to live by! And what did he say? He told me all about it.

“Darling, your mother and I have watched you grow from our precious baby to beautiful womanhood. You have brightened our every day and spread light into the darkest moments of our lives. We have never had reason to doubt you, and although you may not always have understood our efforts to direct your paths, we want you to know that only love and a sincere desire to make you happy have been our motives.

“But now the time has come to open the cage and let our darling fly away. You have married the man of your choice, and a new family is being formed. As much as we love you and hate to see you go, your tie with this home is broken.

“You must now depend upon your husband for those things we once gave you. Go to him for your daily needs. Go to him for counsel, for comfort, for support. You must not complicate your own family relationship by turning to mother and me. Settle your own problems, and learn to live your own life apart from us.”

Then, as the car began to move from the curb, the father ran along-side and called once more to his daughter: “And if you ever need anything  anything at all  just call us collect!” (Reprint from Robert F. Turner, Stuff About Things, 77, by permission)

Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 1
March 7, 1996