Truth Magazine

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

By Harry R. Osborne

On the plane ride from Berlin to Vilnius, Steve Wallace, Kieran Murphy and I discussed what we needed to do in order to effectively teach the gospel in Lithuania. We all agreed that the most important thing we needed to do was avoid answering Bible questions with “I think” or “I believe” instead of turning to a Bible passage and letting it answer the question. In every study, all of us repeatedly pointed out that our opinions did not matter, but God’s word is what each of us needs to obey because it is always true.

People noticed the difference and mentioned it to us. They saw that our interest was in what the Bible says, not in man’s teaching. They also were able to see that the Bible clearly answers every question we may have in spiritual matters.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” & Clarity of Truth

About the second week we were set up on the square in Vilnius, we had several so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” come by each day. As each one failed to sustain his doctrine, another was sent the next day. Finally, we had two Russian speaking women who were Jehovah’s Witnesses come to give it a try. We began by discussing the deity of Christ and as we did a crowd gathered around. I used a Russian interpreter to speak through and handed a Russian Bible to several in the crowd who read verses like John 1: 1-3, Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 1. I asked people in the crowd what these verses said and they answered that the verses taught Jesus was deity as he existed in heaven and on earth, not an angel as the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach.

The two Jehovah’s Witnesses women tried to negate the clear force of the Bible teaching by saying, “The Bible is not for everyone because it cannot be understood.” Though very few American Jehovah’s Witnesses will admit it, this is their doctrine. The Watchtower teaches that one will come closer to God by following its teaching than by just studying the Bible. Why? They claim that the Bible cannot be understood.

When these two women came up with this rebuttal, I turned in the Russian Bible to Ephesians 5:17 and had one in the crowd read it. All of them nodded and whispered in agreement, obviously understanding that the verse clearly refuted these women’s doctrine. I asked another person to read aloud 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and the crowd responded the same way. The women left unwilling to change their view, but unable to answer the Bible’s clear teaching. We were able to invite all in the crowd to our Bible lectures and to study more with several as a result of them seeing that the Bible can and must be understood.

Russian Soldiers’ Questions on Divorce & Remarriage

Vilnius was home to the old Soviet Military Academy which was the counterpart to West Point in this country. We had an opportunity to meet and study the Bible with 16 of the cadets. At the beginning of each study, we would give a Bible to each cadet to use for the evening’s study. Our communication was always through an interpreter since none of us knew very much of the other’s language. During one of the studies, a cadet asked, “Suppose a man divorced his wife and married another woman. What does God think of this?” I responded by asking if he was speaking of a divorce because the wife committed fornication or because of some other reason. He replied that he was speaking of a divorce where no fornication was involved. Following our usual procedure, I asked the young men to read Matthew 19:3-9. The point at which each read the ninth verse was obvious as they said, “Oh,” and nodded their head.

The young cadet who had asked the question said through the interpreter, “Yes, that is very clear.” Before he could continue to another thought, I had the interpreter ask him to explain what the passage said in answer to his question. The young man replied, “It says that anyone who divorces his wife for any reason except her fornication cannot marry another woman.” I followed up by asking him what the man must do if he divorced his wife for a cause other than fornication and married another woman. He responded, “He must get out of that marriage.” Wanting a little more information, I asked under what circumstances would God approve of a man marrying another woman while his first wife still lived. He answered, “Only if the man divorced his wife because she committed fornication.” When I asked if all of them understood the same thing from their reading, they all said, “Da” (the Russian word for “yes”). I asked if it was clear and again they replied, “Da.”

Brethren, how is it that a group of young men who had obviously never read Matthew 19:3-9 could understand it so clearly while some of our brethren have a difficult time with it? Ed Harrell has repeatedly told us in Christianity Magazine that Christ’s doctrine on divorce and remarriage lacks clarity, thus we should accept those who teach various errors on the subject. Samuel Dawson in his new tract “Fellowship on Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage” makes the same claim. A host of others, several in our Houston area, have taken the same position. Honestly, how hard is it to understand these words?

And I say unto you, Whosoever shallput away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she isput away committeth adultery (Matt. 19:9).

If Ed Harrell, Sam Dawson and the others who have problems cannot understand that, I think I have the solution. Maybe they should switch to the Russian Synodal version – it seems easy enough for 16 young men who had never read the verse to understand without any problem!

Actually, the problem is obviously not the translation. The English is also easy to understand. The problem is that too many of our brethren have been reading and listening to the erroneous teaching of Homer Hailey, Jerry Bassett, Don Bassett, W.L. Wharton, Jim Puterbaugh, Lowell Williams, Don Givens and others rather than the Word of God. Those young cadets had not listened to the confused and contradictory teachings of those in error – they just read the verse! For those who love the truth and are content to follow it, the Bible text is clear. For those who will justify error and go beyond the teaching of Christ, an abundance of words will be needed to show why the Bible does not really mean what it says. I am glad those young cadets had not read the volumes of error recently published by those who would promote false doctrine.

I am also glad they had not read Christianity Magazine with its justification and continued recommendation of those who teach such errors. The publication has carried repeated articles denying the clarity of Christ’s teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. If anyone on the staff currently disagrees, they have done an excellent job in keeping such quiet. It is past time for brethren to stand solidly upon the foundation of Christ’s clear teaching on the subject and cease defending mere men who oppose and pervert that teaching! May God help us once more to place our trust in his plainly revealed will and not in men.

What About Creativity?

Another of the Russian cadets asked, “Maybe God wanted us to be creative with the Bible rather than just following it exactly. What do you think?” I asked them to turn to Revelation 22:18-19 and read it. After reading it, the rest of the young men looked at the questioner and laughed as they said, “Nyet” (the Russian word for “no”). They had no trouble seeing that God’s word is an exact pattern for us to follow (2 Tim. 1:13). They did not argue that we are free to act where the Bible is silent, that we should do many things for which there is no Bible authority or ask for a “new hermeneutic.” The Bible answered their question because they were content with its teaching (1 Pet 4:11).

Our liberal brethren would do well to figure out that God did not mean us to be creative with his pattern for the church either. In the fifties, they began to create sponsoring churches and institutions and added them on to God’s divine pattern. In the sixties, they added their social gospel extras. In the seventies, they made all of the above bigger and better as their creativity abounded. Now they have gymnasiums to rival the best of the denominations, sponsoring churches to subject every church in America under the centralized scheme of “One Nation Under God,” a modern missionary society which they call “World Bible School,” and many more of their creative wonders. After seeing the monster built by their growing creativity, some among them like Wayne Jackson and the Spiritual Sword crowd are now crying that it has gone too far. They are right! It went too far when they swallowed and justified the first creative addition with the Herald of Truth. Their protests have a hollow ring in the fancy gymnasiums to which they served as the creative forefathers.

Conclusion

The truth was not made too difficult for anyone to understand. Simple people can read the Bible and readily comprehend the answers to their spiritual questions. The more we taught people in Lithuania who had never studied the Bible, the more apparent that fact became. When we read the words of the apostles delivered by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can understand the truth just as the apostles did (Eph. 3:1-4). After all, the work of the Spirit was to reveal the truth, not conceal it. God has done his part in revealing truth and man must do his part in understanding that truth (Eph. 5:17).

Similarly, it does not take a PhD to figure out the will of God regarding issues which separate brethren (though it may take one to miss it). The problem among brethren today is not a lack of clarity in God’s truth, but a lack of obedience to it by people. We are in a dangerous time where some brethren are perverting the truth, others are practicing ungodliness and still others are trying to justify one or both of those groups by blaming God’s word for lacking clarity. Those who preach such will one day stand before the God they so accuse and will find that the problem was not his lack of clarity. Brethren, let us back up and see the real problem and resolve it in the way God clearly prescribes (2 Jn. 9-11; Rom. 16:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 19, pp. 582-583
October 1, 1992