Truth Magazine

By Brooks Cochran

“So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it. And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matt. 27:24-25).

Note, in the verses above, two attitudes expressed toward accepting responsibility. Pilate wanted and tried to rid himself of any and all responsibility toward Jesus. The Jews were willing to accept that which Pilate wanted to “wash his hands” of; i.e. responsibility. In the end both were wrong for their actions.

There are two extremes, in this case, which should be avoided:

1. Pilate’s. Attempting to rid oneself of any and all responsibility he may feel he has and/or not accepting that which is his to do and cannot be transferred (cf. Gal. 6:5).

2. The Jew’s. Accepting any and all responsibility for some course of action without first considering the consequence (cf. Prov. 14:12). There is a safe course of action which lies between these two extremes.

One must realize that in his service to God, he cannot rid himself of that which he is responsible. The one talent man attempted to rid himself of his obligation to his master and in the end was punished (Matt. 25:24-30). “Pilate was warned by his sense of justice, he was warned by his conscience, he was warned by the dream of his troubled wife; but Pilate could not stand against the mob; and Pilate made the futile gesture of washing his hands” (William Barclay, Matthew, Vol. 2, p. 333). We cannot, like Pilate, just “wash our hands” of any and all obligations we have to the Lord and his cause. Yet, many are doing that very thing; thinking that compromise is the solution to doctrinal problems. They exhibit the fear of the one talent man and in the final day will be condemned.

One must examine the work and/or course of action for which he is willing to accept responsibility. He must be sure that it is the right course to follow. No doubt many of the Jews, on that occasion, were more than willing to accept responsibility for their conduct. Many were blindly following the crowd. However, they were still responsible and God held them accountable (cf. Acts 2:22-24,36-38; 3:13-17). Others, after some time, no longer wanted to accept the responsibility for their actions and became upset when thus accused (cf. Acts 5:27-28). But they were still responsible for their actions! Jesus warned of the consequences of blindly following the crowd (cf. Matt. 15:14).

Let us not be like Pilate or the Jews. Accept all responsibility that is expected of us; but only after we have made a careful examination that the course we intend to follow is right in God’s sight. To do otherwise will condemn us with Pilate and the Jews.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, p. 619
October 15, 1992

By Ron Daly

It is often alleged that those who propagate false doctrine must be “marked” because of the reading of Romans 16:17-18 in the King James and American Standard Versions of Scripture. Many assume that, inasmuch as the word “mark” is the term which was selected in translation to convey the meaning of the Greek skopeo, that it means “to designate, to point out, to label, to brand, or to stigmatize.”

In English usage there are several more definitions for “mark” than merely “to brand or label,” one of which is “to take note of” (American Heritage Dictionary, 767). It is not ever an appropriate procedure to arbitrarily choose word meanings which suit our purpose without giving due consideration to word usage in context, for most words have multiple meanings.

I do believe that the New Testament authorizes the people of God to designate, to point out, label, and name teachers of heresy and damnable error, but not because of the use of the word “mark” in Romans 16:17. Rather we learn that such is sanctioned by God through: (1) Apostolic example. The Holy Spirit through Luke records the name of BarJesus, Elymas the Sorcerer, and calls him a false prophet (Acts 13:6-8); Paul informs Timothy that “Hymenaeus and Alexander” made shipwreck concerning the faith, and they were delivered to Satan (1 Tim. 1:19-20); Paul also states that “Hymenaeus and Philetus” were men who concerning the truth have erred (2 Tim. 2:14-18). Finally, Paul designated “Alexander the coppersmith” as one who did him much evil, and as one who greatly withstood our words (2 Tim. 4:14-15). (2) Implication. The fact that we are to “turn away from (ekkiino apo) those who are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine ye learned” (Rom. 16:17b), and since Paul exhorted Titus to put the brethren in mind of various obligations, one being, “a factious man after a first and second admonition refuse” (paraiteomai, Tit. 3:10), indicates that in order to “turn away from” and “refuse” we must know who the class of persons being discussed is, whether by personal observation, or someone else’s unbiased and just labeling.

But, this is not the meaning of “mark” in the Romans text. The Greek word from which the English term is derived is skopein, present active infinitive of skopeo. Skopeo means “to note, to keep an eye on, to look out for, be on watch for, to notice carefully.”(1) For similar uses of the word skopeo in the papyri documents of the first century see the work of James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.(2)

The use of the word “mark” in some of the older versions is appropriate and legitimate, provided, that the student of the text is aware, that the meaning is “to take careful notice,” or some equivalent expression. We have a similar use of “mark” in our vernacular, such as in the following example, “Tom, mark this statement well, do not cross the old bridge, it is treacherous.” That is, “Tom, take careful note of this statement.”

Skopeo is used six times in the Greek Text of Nestle-Aland, 26th Edition.(3) In the ASV, it is translated “Look” (Lk. 11:35), “Mark” (Rom. 16:17), “Look” (2 Cor. 4:18), “Looking” (Gal. 6:1), “looking” (Phil. 2:4), “mark” (Phil. 3.17). In neither text does skopeo have the connotation of branding. The translation variation between “look” and “mark” is based upon contextual usage.

Please take special note of the fact that the translators of the KJV and the ASV, use “mark” to translate skopeo in both Romans 16:17 and Philippians 3:17. This is significant in that it is not likely that the apostle is using skopeo differently, i.e. with a different meaning in the two texts. It is agreed by nearly all that in Philippians, skopeo does not mean “to brand,” but “to keep an eye on,” or “to take careful notice of” with a view of imitating their example, giving them due association, but in the Romans text they are to “keep an eye on” or “take careful notice of” those who are causing the divisions with a view of having no association with them, but rather “turning away from them. ” Mark the similarity in use and structure between the Romans and the Philippians texts.

In order to convey to the modern reader, the scriptural idea underlying the word skopeo in Romans 16:17, some of the older, versions and most of the more recent ones use a word or phrase that is not as likely to be misinterpreted as “mark” normally is.(4)

As stated earlier, the idea of “marking” i.e. pointing out, designating, labeling, and identifying those who teach error and cause divisions is taught in the New Testament, but that is not the meaning or use of the word “mark” (skopeo) in Romans 16:17.

It is possible that those who were “causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine” were the Judaizers (Rom. 2,3,4), yet they might have been those who caused dissensions by their opinions (Rom. 14). Nonetheless, Paul’s admonition is, “watch them closely.”(5) So, the obvious sense in which “mark” (skopeo) is used in the Romans’ text is “look after, consider, keep your eye upon, not in a malignant way, but in the way of precaution.”(6)

May God bless us with the knowledge and wisdom to use the correct texts and words to teach, uphold, and defend the truth, without misapplying his sacred word.

Endnotes

1. Cf. the following Greek-English lexicons of The New Testament, Louw and Nida, Volume 1, page 280, Section 24.32, Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testimenti, Translated by J.H. Thayer, p. 579, Bauer, Arndt-Gingrich, p. 764, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance, Ethelbert W. Bullinger, p. 482, A Reader’s Greek-English Lexicon, Sakae Kubo, p. 147, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 7, p. 415.

2. The Vocabulary of The Greek New Testament, 1976 Reprint, p. 579.

3. Concordance To The Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, Published by Walter De Gruyter, Berlin, 1987.

4. The NEB says “keep your eye on,” Weymouth says “to keep a watch on,” Moffatt says “to keep your eye on,” The New Berkeley says “to keep an eye on,” Williams New Testament says “to keep on the look out for,” NASV “keep your eye on,” McCord’s New Testament “watch out for,” NRSV “to keep an eye on,” NIV “to watch out for,” NKJV “note.”

5. An American Commentary on The New Testament, Volume IV, Acts and Romans, p. 308.

6. Commentary on Romans, William S. Plummer, p. 640.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, pp. 628-629
October 15, 1992

By Phil T. Arnold

Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows (1 Tim. 6:6-10).

One of the most desired and yet elusive goals in life is contentment. Truly, contentment is one of the great treasures of life and he who has contentment is truly rich. The word Paul uses here in 1 Timothy 6:6 for contentment is autarkeia. This was one of the great watchwords of the Stoic philosophers of Greece. By autarkeia they meant a complete “self-sufficiency.” They meant a frame of mind that was completely independent of all outward things and which carried the secret of happiness within itself. He who had autarkeia (contentment) needed nothing else. The thought being that true contentment never comes from the possession of external things (material wealth) but from an inward attitude in life. A Greek philosopher named Epicurus was asked for the secret to happiness and reportedly replied, “Add not to a man’s possessions but take away from his desires.” It is not what a man possesses but what truly possesses him that produces contentment.

God has provided all that man needs to be happy. Yet, God brought us into the world without any possessions. Thus, possessions cannot be the root of happiness. They are transitory. There are no pockets in a shroud and “you can’t take it with you.” “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (1 Tim. 6:7). All we can take to God is ourselves and the history of the lives we have lived whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10).

It is not that Christianity pleads for poverty. There is no special virtue in being poor or in having a constant struggle to make ends meet. In the same sixth chapter in fact, Paul speaks of Christians who are rich and does not condemn them for their wealth. He does warn about trusting in “uncertain riches” and encourages them to be “rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share” (1 Tim. 6:17-19). It is not sinful to be rich nor righteous to be poor. But we must realize that it is never in the power of things to bring lasting happiness. Paul pleads instead for concentration upon the spiritual things which are permanent. For contentment can only come when we escape the servitude of things – “Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (Lk. 12:15). Contentment will be ours when we find that our wealth is in the love and fellowship of God which has been made possible through Jesus Christ. Truly, having God we have all things.

“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptations and a snare. . . For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6:9,10). Again, money in itself is neither good or bad; but the love of it – the “desire to be rich” – leads to evil and “many foolish and harmful lusts. ” With money a man may selfishly serve his own desires or answer the needs of a fellow human being. With money a man may facilitate the path of wrongdoing or he can make it easier for someone else to serve God. No, money is not in itself an evil, but it is a great responsibility. It is a powerful tool that may be used for good or evil, and it brings with it special dangers if it is loved. If it is loved: (1) It tends to be a desire which is never satisfied (Eccl. 5:10); (2) It is founded upon an illusion that security is found in possessions (Lk. 12:1621); (3) It tends to make us selfish and proud (Lk. 16:19ff); (4) It promises security but tends to produce anxiety (Eccl. 5:12); and (5) It may even lead to dishonesty (Prov. 30:9).

To seek to be independent of financial reliance upon others and prudently provide for the future is a Christian duty (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10), but to make the love of money the driving force of life cannot ever be anything other than the most perilous of sins and will rob us of the “great gain the contentment that is found only in Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 21, p. 642, 663
November 5, 1992

By David A. Padfield

Have you ever tried to define the word pornography? Supreme Court Justice William Potter once commented he had trouble defining pornography, but “I know it when I see it.” “Pornography may be defined as the presentation of sexual behavior in books, pictures, or films solely to cause sexual excitement. The word pornography is derived from a Greek term meaning ‘the writings of harlots,’ or prostitutes. Closely related, and in legal terms virtually identical, is obscenity, which is behavior or material that is immoral and designed to produce lust” (Compton’s Encyclopedia, online edition, Britannica Software, Inc. e 1991).

We are living in a society where pornography is often visible at the check out lane in the local grocery store. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individual states were at liberty to set “contemporary community standards” to judge whether or not material is pornographic. It seems as though the only thing some people consider “pornographic” falls into the realm of child pornography, which in the 1982 the Supreme Court ruled was not protected under the First Amendment. In 1969 Denmark removed all restrictions on the sale of pornography. Don’t be surprised if the United States follows suit.

“The huge increase in the quantity and types of pornography that have become available since the 1960’s, however, has left many people uneasy. Although the National Commission on Obscenity and Pornography in 1970 could find no link between the consumption of pornography and antisocial behavior, the depiction of violence against women in pornographic material was then comparatively rare. Recently, psychologists have begun to establish connections in some men between exposure to such violence usually films, and often in films without overt sexual content – and both sexual stimulation and negative changes in attitudes toward women. Some observers see the upsurge in rape and sexual abuse of women and children as a result of the increase in sadistic pornography. In response to the claims of some feminist groups that pornography harms women, the cities of Minneapolis and Indianapolis passed anti-pornography statutes in 1984; they were quickly declared unconstitutional. Even if a decisive link between pornography and violent behavior is eventually proved, it is difficult to see how a definition of pornography could be drawn that would not abridge free-speech guarantees” (The Academic American Encyclopedia, online edition, Grolier Electronic Publishing, Danbury, CT, 01991).

As blatant as immorality is in our day, don’t get the idea that things have never been worse. Consider what it would have been like to live in the area near Ashkelon, a port city on the Mediterranean Sea, less than 50 miles west of Jerusalem. Recent excavations of the city have uncovered many oil lamps which graphically depict sexual immorality of every sort. “Unlike their Jewish or Christian counterparts, Romans saw nothing wrong with homosexual relations or with heterosexual liaisons outside the marriage, provided that the relations comported with the hierarchy of power and status. Thus a freeborn Roman could engage in sex with a social inferior of either sex (such as a slave or a prostitute), but not with the wife of another freeborn Roman” (Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 1991, p. 43).

While the English word “pornography” is not found in the Bible, it is included in such words as lasciviousness, wantonness and licentiousness. In fact, the word “fornication” is from the Greek word porneia, from which we get our English word “pornography.” Porneia includes sexual immorality of all kinds. The New King James version of the Bible usually translates this word as “sexual immorality” instead of “fornication.”

The apostle Peter could have well been describing lovers of pornography when he spoke of those who had “eyes full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14). This phrase is a “vivid picture of a man who cannot see a woman without lascivious thoughts toward her” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson, Vol. IV, p. 167). Pornography destroys common decency and promotes evil desires of all kinds.

In Matthew 5:27,28, Jesus told his audience, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Jesus goes beyond the outward act, right down to the very thought that would bring on the act itself. Women who dress in such a way as to arouse evil desires in men are guilty of sin, as well as the men who lust after them. I have had Christians tell me they can go to the public swimming pool and observe the young women in their thong bikinis without having any evil thoughts at all. All this means is that they probably lie about other things as well.

Pornography not only glorifies adultery, but often the sin of homosexuality. In Romans one, Paul says this was one of the reasons God “gave up” on the Gentiles. “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves . . . For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due” (Rom. 1:24-27).

Christians who would never purchase pornography at an adult book store often have it piped into their house via Home Box Office or Cinemax (or is that Sin-A-Max?). Instead of concentrating on things that break down the standard of morality, let us follow the words of Paul, “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy – meditate on these things” (Phil. 4:8).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, pp. 629-630
October 15, 1992