Translated, Transformed, Transported

By Larry Ray Hafley

The terms of our topic and title are scriptural ones (Col. 1:13; Rom. 12:2; Lk. 16:22). Unfortunately, they do not occupy the minds and hearts of men and women as they ought to. Very few people give much thought to biblical translation, transformation and transportation. However, these words and the importance of the concepts they convey cannot be exaggerated. All things earthly, carnal and mundane are not to be compared to the themes of these ideas which the Holy Spirit has written.

1. Translated: “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1: 13). The Colossians, having been buried with Christ in baptism (Col. 2:12), had been delivered from the power or kingdom of darkness and had been translated into the kingdom or power of God’s dear Son. In ancient times, when one kingdom captivated and subjugated another, it often would “translate” or carry the conquered kingdom from one place to another. Booty, spoil and plunder belonged to the visitors. Hence, they carried their captives away, along with all their goods and gold. This process was called “translation.”

Hence, when the sinner has been delivered from the power of Satan, when he has been called out of darkness into the Lord’s light and life, he may be described as “translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.” A war takes place on the battlefield of the mind. It is the arsenal and artillery of the devil’s deceitful lusts versus the love, grace and goodness of God as expressed in the power of God, the gospel (2 Cor. 4:3,4; 10:3-5; Rom. 1:16; 2:4).

When one with an honest and good heart obeys the truth given by the Spirit, he is mustered out of allegiance to the devil and is translated into the kingdom of light and love (Lk. 8:15; 1 Pet. 1:22). His citizenship is removed and changed (Eph. 2:19-3:6). He is subtracted from the number of the lost and added to the roll of the redeemed, the church (Heb. 12:23; Acts 2:47). While men seek the privileges of freedom and move from one nation to another to acquire life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they remain oblivious to their plight in the kingdom of the devil and to the horrors of the judgment to come. Have you been translated, or are you yet following the course of bondage, death and eternal misery?

2. Transformed: “And be not conformed to the world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:2). “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:22-24).

With translation into the kingdom there should come transformation of one’s character and conduct. Some are translated who are never perfectly transformed (Lk. 8:13,14; 1 Cor. 3:14). Being conformed and transformed into the image of God’s Son is a daily struggle. It is fraught with frustration, but unto those who are exercised thereby, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness. In a sense, perhaps, translation is easier than transformation, as much as being born is easier than the proper development of one’s faculties and functions.

Apart from transformation, however, there can be no salvation. “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Christians fervently, and rightly so, stress the process of translation while lightly touching the quest for transformation. As a new born baby dies if he does not grow and develop, so the babe in Christ will expire if he does not go on unto perfection, if he does not transform his conduct in harmony with the guidelines of truth.

3. Transported: “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom” (Lk. 16:22). “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:41,42,47-50; 22:11-13).

You may not be translated into the kingdom. You may not be transformed in heart and life, but you will be transported when you die. There can be no doubt about that. All that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God and all shall come forth. It is an undeniable summons. You may turn a deaf ear to the call for translation. You may reject the appeal for transformation, but you will be given eternal transportation.

When the Lord Jesus shall descend from heaven with a shout, accompanied by ten thousands times ten thousands of his saints and angels, when he shall employ the keys of death, hell and the grave, when the voice of the archangel shall sound with the trump of God, every one of us will receive divine transportation. We shall be transported to meet him in the clouds or cast away from the glory of his power forever and ever.

It is the ultimate end of our transportation that makes our present translation and transformation so vitally important. Imagine being carried by the angels to meet the Lord in comfort or to be cast away unto tribulation and anguish, indignation and wrath! Such awesome reflections ought to cause us to contemplate the current state of our souls, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 78-79
February 7, 1991

The Bible: Our All-Sufficient Guide

By Lewis Willis

In the long ago, Jeremiah wrote, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Even though it is not possible for man to direct his steps, man surely has tried to do so. No amount of warning – no appeal has prevented him from trying.

As people have launched out on their own, they are quite impressed with the course they have devised for themselves. In fact, they are convinced that their way is the best way! Anyone who would dare to question their wisdom is subjected to immediate, harsh criticism. To these folks it is unthinkable that they could be wrong. One is reminded of the words of Solomon in two almost identical passages: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12, 16:25). Convincing folks of this truth is one of the most difficult tasks undertaken by the Church.

Because we cannot devise our own course, and because what would seem right to us would lead to spiritual death, it remained for God to give us the guidance we so desperately needed. Thankfully, that is exactly what he did. Before Jesus went away, he promised to send the Spirit to the apostles. Jesus said, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). When the Holy Spirit discharged that responsibility, he not only gave the apostles the thought of truth, but he also gave them the words with which to express the thought. Paul said, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:12-13). Therefore, we were given a reliable, true, and God-protected revelation to guide us where we could not guide ourselves.

It is very comforting to read the words of two great apostles as they referred to that divine revelation which God gave us as a guide. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3). These passages tell us that we will be “perfect” if we will follow the direction of the inspired Scriptures, and that “all things” which pertain to living and pursuing the favor of God have been provided for us therein. What we could not provide for ourselves – a proper course – God provided for us in the Holy Scriptures.

Furthermore, we are assured that God gave us this divine revelation only once. Jude wrote, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful of me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). When James talks about the Bible, he refers to it as “perfect.” He said, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty , and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (Jas. 1:25). The Greek word for “perfect” is a form of the word teleios. It means “finished, ended, accomplished.” Thus, the “once delivered” revelation was the finished product of God which he delivered to us to be our guide. It was and is a complete, perfect, and all-sufficient guide which God has provided us. It will save the soul (Rom. 1:16) and keep it saved (Acts 20:32). We have no need of anything else to guide us, except the New Testament Scriptures.

In spite of this information from the Bible, religious men still make two grave errors. They need to at least be mentioned in this discussion regarding God’s guide for our souls.

1. Some people believe they are receiving additional revelations from God – that God is talking to them. Every doctrine has a consequence attached to it. If the Bible is an all-sufficient, finished, once-delivered guide for man as it claims to be, there cannot be additional revelation. If God is saying anything beyond the New Testament, then it is not sufficient and finished – God’s revelation was not given “once,” but many times. Also, that which is given today would necessarily say that previous generations had only “partial” truth. I am not ready to buy into any of these consequences. I will just affirm, with New Testament authority, that the Bible is our all-sufficient guide.

2. Some who are obviously dissatisfied with the Bible as our all-sufficient guide, have taken upon themselves to write many creeds, manuals, confessions of faith, and catechisms to supplement what God has said. Again, a position has its consequences. If these things are permissible and/or needed, the Bible is not our all-sufficient guide and man can direct his own course. The Bible teaches the very opposite, so we, in Churches of Christ, will stay with the Bible and reject human creeds.

We feel confident of the position we hold. We believe that the passages referred to herein are ample proof that our position is true. We, therefore, appeal to men to accept the Bible as our all-sufficient guide, and, we furthermore, plead with people to renounce human creeds and ignore the false claims of those who say God has said something to them in addition to the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 75-76
February 7, 1991

Sword Swipes

By Cled E. Wallace (1892-1962)

The disobedient man often excuses himself by claiming that he “cannot understand the Bible. ” The chances are that he has not made a respectable effort to find out what the Book contains. He is merely excusing himself. Others excuse their lack of harmony with plain Bible teaching by cooly observing that “people can’t understand the Bible alike,” just as though that book were a volume of riddles for purposes of mystery.

Is it really a difficult matter for an honest man to find out what the will of the Lord is? The simplicity of the literary style of the Bible coupled with its profundity of thought amazes literary critics. There are only between five and six thousand words in our entire English Bible. Shakespeare or Browning uses three times as many. Proper names not considered, Bible words are for the most part simple words. More than three-fourths of the words used in the Decalogue or the Sermon on the Mount are monosyllables. They convey power that simple hearts may appropriate.

It is passing strange that a man who can understand another man cannot understand God, when God uses the simpler words. It is the strange malady of closed eyes and ears and a gross heart in the presence of divine revelation. Man cannot understand Christ when he says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”; but he can understand every word that a certain partisan may use in an hour’s speech designed to explain that Christ did not mean exactly what his words naturally convey. He cannot understand a divine ordinance, but he vividly appreciates a human “spiritualization” of it. When Christ says, “This is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me,” the simplest child of the kingdom of heaven can consider the circumstances involved and devoutly appreciate the Lord’s meaning. When a theologian says that “the validity of the service does not lie in the quality of its external signs or sacramental representation, but in its essential properties and substantial realities,” does he make the meaning clearer? He only serves to mystify what the Lord intended for all to understand.

A noted “anthropologist of the Smithsonian Institution at Washington” has found five hundred babies who walk on their hands and feet, can climb upstairs, and have a tendency to take things in the mouths. He infers from this that the human race descended “from animals who lived in trees.” The theory of organic evolution and the consequent rejection of the Bible as the word of God rest on such farfetched inferences as these. It is a pitiful substitute for faith. The conclusions Christians draw from the facts of the Christian religion have to do with remission of sins, the resurrection from the dead, and eternal life in heaven, They are not far-fetched inferences or “cunningly devised fables” like some of the nebulous theories scientists rave over. There is something wrong with a man who can infer animal ancestry from a crawling baby, but cannot find Christ in the experience and life of Saul of Tarsus (Reprint from Gospel Advocate, LXXIII, 14 [2 Apr. 1931], p. 381).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 68-69
February 7, 1991

Third Affirmative

By Glen W. Lovelady

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.

Since this will be my last article in this exchange, I want to thank brother Willis for allowing this discussion to take place and also I want to thank brother Caldwell for his willingness to participate in this debate. We are both hoping that this effort will be of some value to you the reader, as you try to come to grips with this issue. I will not have a chance to respond to brother Caldwell’s final article, so I ask you to read carefully what I have had to say throughout this series and make the proper application.

Brother Caldwell has established two methods of being joined, “bound by a yoke” and also “bound by the law.” Not so, brother Caldwell, because those who are married are bound with a yoke because they are bound by the law. When you are no longer bound with a yoke, then you can no longer be bound by the law, and vice-versa. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell also said, “She might disregard the law, leave her husband and marry another while her husband lives. If she does so, then she is an adulteress not only because she is still bound to her husband (yoked), but also because she is still bound under the law of God.” That is correct brother Caldwell; while she was bound to her husband she was still “bound by the law to her husband” (Rom. 7:2). But when her husband puts her away for fornication, she would no longer be yoked or bound to him or to the law that bound her to him. She would be released from him and from the law that bound her to him. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell also stated that my analogy of the two hands held together did not provide for the hand of God. God’s hand was never in there. If brother Caldwell would just go by what it says in Romans 7:2 we would not have this problem. I believe what the Bible states, “the two shall become one” (Matt. 19:5). “The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth” (Rom. 7:2) or until there is a putting away for fornication (Matt. 19:9). God binds the two of them together like a farmer binds his two oxen together in a yoke. Neither the farmer nor his hand is in the yoke. It is not a threesome yoke, as brother Caldwell asserts, but “the two shall become one.” When the husband is no longer bound to the wife, the wife is no longer bound to the husband; they are then loosed from one another. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell then stated, “While it is true that God releases one who puts away a fornicating mate, Jesus also said, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Brother Caldwell doesn’t know who she is, but Jesus plainly states that she is the one who was put away not for fornication, and we certainly agree that she would commit adultery if she remarried, because she was still bound to her husband. She could not be a put away fornicator because adultery is only committed when one is a mate to someone else. The put away fornicator has no mate. It would be impossible for him to commit adultery against his former spouse (Mk. 10:11) because the definition of the word adultery, is very clear and specific in its application. My position harmonizes with the Scriptures and the definition of adultery, while brother Caldwell and those who stand with him, must add to the Scriptures and then violate the definition of adultery to sustain their position. If we would all abide by what is said in the New Testament and accept the definition of adultery established by all scholars, we would be on our way to reconciling some of our differences on this matter. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell says the issue is not, “whether the divorced fornicator is still a spouse, but whether Jesus authorizes him to marry another without becoming an adulterer.” Brother Caldwell, he couldn’t commit adultery against his former spouse because he is no longer her spouse. Please find out what the definition of adultery is and then apply it. You brethren define it properly, and then turn right around and violate it. Then you cut us off and call us false teachers on this issue. If the put away fornicator is still bound to a mate, I concede; but if not, then you need to concede. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell tells us that in the Old Testament God restricted certain ones from doing certain things, and that is right. Now, where in the New Testament does God restrict the put away fornicator from doing anything? I affirm he can plant corn, eat apple pie, go to church, have a marriage if someone would have him, and go to heaven when he dies, if and when he gets right with God. If you can find a passage that restricts the put away fornicator from doing any of this, I will concede. If you can’t find the passage, then you need to concede and let him get on with his life. We need to help him and all other sinners get right with God and enjoy the blessings of humanity, even marriage. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

The put away fornicator is no longer bound to a mate, and the New Testament states that those who are loosed from a mate can marry without committing sin (1 Cor. 7:27-28) and I agree; but brother Caldwell tells us that there is a third choice. He wants us to believe that the put away fornicator is loose from his mate, but not loose from the law that bound him to his mate. That is not what the New Testament says and besides that it doesn’t make any sense. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Then brother Caldwell asks the question “Is the guilty fornicator to rest his eternal salvation on an implication which assumes that because the one who puts away for fornication is free (loosed), the put away fornicator must also be freed.” If only brother Caldwell would understand that God bound these two together until she put him away for fornication, and then God freed her from him, and common sense dictates that he is loose from her. They were bound together and now they are loose from each other. That can’t be made any clearer. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell takes issues with my earlier statement, “. . . the New Testament does not deal with the put away fornicator.” “Response: Why then affirm that ‘The Scriptures teach. . .’?” We must have authority for everything that we say or do (Col. 3:17) and since we have no cominand that the put away fornicator must remain celibate, and since we have no example of any put away fornicator in the New Testament being restricted to a life of celibacy, then we have no choice but to rely upon the implication. The implication is found in Matthew 19:9, where Jesus said, “except it be for fornication,” in which “it” makes reference to the kind o~f putting away. Thus Jesus makes a difference between a putting away not for fornication, and a putting away for fornication. If your putting away was not for fornication, then you have no right to marry another because you are still bound to your mate (a putting away not for fornication does not break the bond). If your putting away was for fornication, then your bond has been broken between husband and wife (a putting awayfor fornication does break the bond). This is the implication in Matthew 19:9, and why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

The other implication that we have is found in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 where Paul said, “Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.” The implication is, the put a vay fornicator is loose from his former mate. In the light of these implications I cannot go against them without a direct confirmation from God restricting the put away fornicator to a life of celibacy. Since a restriction can’t be found in the New Testament, you had better let him marry if someone would have him. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

You were right to quote my earlier statement, brother Caldwell, because as you so aptly pointed out, “and neither did he leave it to us to decide who is loosed.” That is correct! For we know from the example of 1 Corinthians 7:11 exactly who is bound in a marriage . . . because she was told to be reconciled to her husband or remain unmarried (to another), because she still had a husband and thus was still bound by the law to her husband. So you can see that she was not loosed from her husband. Is the put away fornicator bound to a mate, or loosed from a mate? I affirm that the put away fornicator is loosed from a mate because his putting away wasfor fornication (Matt. 19:9), and since he is loosed from a mate he can marry another without committing sin (1 Cor. 7:27-28). Using the proper definition of adultery, we know that he could not commit adultery against her because she is no longer his mate. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell makes a parallel between instrumental music and the put away fornicator. We all agree that Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing and that excludes instrumental music. But nowhere does the New Testament speak about what the put away fornicator can or cannot do. Please go back to my first article and re-read what brother McGarvey and brother Whiteside had to say about this. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

You brethren keep reading “only the innocent” into Matthew 19:9 as though the “innocent” one is the only one allowed to remarry. Jesus never said it. The only reason why she can remarry is because she is no longer a spouse. Jesus did say that all who married, divorced and remarried would commit adultery, “except it be for fornication.” The put away fornicator would have to come under this exception and based upon this proper application and implication, we agree with brother J.W. McGarvey, of 1875, and brother R.L. Whiteside, of 1939, and a whole host of godly men who disagree with brother Caldwell and those with him. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell cries out, “Give us Scripture . . . that he is in fact loosed by God.” And we respond, “To whom is he bound? God has already explained that the husband was bound only to her (Matt. 19:5), and Romans 7:2, “Bound by the law to her husband.” If the innocent mate is freed from the guilty, then the guilty must of necessity be loosed from the innocent. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me. I rest my case.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 52-53
January 17, 1991