Truth Magazine

By Robert C. Welch

We have a few soft headed people who are thinking and saying that God does not require strict obedience to his will. They think that such a strict view is either Pharisaic legalism or stupid bigotry, or both; and that such a view is despicable. They have the impression that it may be necessary to do precisely what the will of God is in becoming a forgiven child of God; but that after he becomes a citizen of the kingdom of God his lapses due to ignorance or weakness will be overlooked. Their theory . is diametrically opposed to the example and attitude of the Son of God:

“Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God . . . then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” (Hebrews 10:7, 9).

If the Son of God must empty himself and come to this earth to do the will of God, even to die the ignominious death of a criminal, it is the height of arrogance to suppose that God will accept less than obedience to his will on the part of a mere man. He left us “an example, that we should follow his steps: . . . when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” (1 Pet. 2:2123).

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21). There is no substitute for obedience. There is no such thing described as “the spirit of obedience.” Such expression has been devised by men to justify themselves in deviation from specific obedience to the will of God. Such deviation was not acceptable from Ananias and Sapphira. It was not acceptable from Cephas at Antioch. It was not acceptable from the Corinthians in their assemblies. Neither will God accept such deviation from men today as they try to avoid specific obedience in the matter of the Lord’s supper, the singing of praise, the organization and work of the church in evangelism and benevolence, or in personal spiritual and righteous character.

When we insist upon following the steps of our Lord in doing God’s will we are not substituting works for the grace of God, we are neither rejecting nor denying the need for his grace: “When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do:” (Luke 17:10). It is by this obedience that we appropriate his grace: “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world.” (Tit. 2:11, 12). The grace of God is conditioned upon living righteously or obediently.

The difference between the first and the second covenant is not that obedience was required then but is not required now. The difference is that God has provided salvation in Christ now, which was only in promise then. But who can live without transgression? No one (1 John 1:8). Then, will that failure to obey not prevent every man from entering the kingdom of heaven? In that case of disobedience we have the will of God: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9). Does this argument for obedience and then providing for forgiveness not involve an inconsistency? It will only seem inconsistent to the man who has espoused the theory that God does not require obedience to his word. When we humbly “come to do thy will, O God” we will claim his amazing grace, and will confess our failures, being “not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer of the work” we will “be blessed” in the doing. (Jas. 2:25).–(The Restorer, January 8, 1975).

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, p. 266
March 6, 1975

By Luther W. Martin

In 1973, Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., published `A Review of The New Versions.” The 2nd printing, which I have, contains 652 pages plus Addenda. There is no question but what Brother Wallace has assembled into one volume much valid and worthwhile material, relative to the modern versions and translations. And, with the major portion of his conclusions, I readily concur.

However, I have been requested to review the portion of his work which relates to the New American Standard Bible, which is found from page 583 through page 593. Twenty specific passages are dealt with by Brother Wallace, and we shall consider each of them.

First, however, Brother Wallace condemns the NASB because it is produced by the Lockman, Foundation, which had previously issued The Amplified Bible. And, he also condemns it because of the Corporation’s claim on the dust jacket of the book, that it (the Corporation) is “of God’s creation.”

Brother Wallace also stipulated that the American Standard Version (1901) does not need revision. Since its completion in 1901 by one hundred and one (101) of the greatest body of scholars ever assembled in America or England “there have been no changes in the English language to warrant revision . . .” (page 584).

In response to the above, I suggest that merely because one does not admire Lockman’s Amplified Bible, does not necessarily nullify the possible worth of another of their publications, such as the NASB. Nor does the assertion that God had something to do with the work of the Corporation (Which I also deny), necessarily render the entire NASB valueless.

Therefore, hoping to manifest a more objective and open-minded approach, let us consider Brother Wallace’s sample of twenty objectionable passages.

Matthew 5:17

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law . . :” (King James Version).

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law . . .” (New American Standard).

Brother Wallace takes issue with the change from “destroy” to “abolish.” He stresses that Christ did abolish the Mosaic Law. (Eph. 2:15; 2 Cor. 3:7, 13, 14).

The Greek word used in Matt. 5:17 is katalusai. Berry’s Interlinear translates it “to abolish” while Marshall’s Interlinear gives “to destroy.” Berry then uses the term “annulled” in Eph. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 3rd Chapter. The Greek word in Eph. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 3:7,13,14 is a form of katargeo. In the King James Version, it is sometimes rendered either abolish, destroy, do away, make void, vanish away, and others.

Mark 1:4

“. . . preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (KJV)

” . . preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (NASB)

Brother Wallace stresses the significance – of the specific article “the” as used in the KJV and the American Standard Version (1901). Although the Greek has no article whatsoever preceding “baptism” and “remission of sins,” I agree that it is more acceptable to have the definite article inserted.

A. T. Robertson, on page 790 of his Greek Grammar, stated in part: “Much of the modern difficulty about the absence of the Greek article is due to the effort to interpret it by the standard of the English or German article.” John’s was a baptism of repentance and so was another, but different baptism which was taught by the Apostles. Therefore, in reality there were two baptisms of repentance for the remission of sins; with only one of them valid at a time. (See Acts 19:3). Brother Wallace, has a good point on this, but not of sufficient weight to impugn the entire translation.

Mark 16: 9 – 20

Many, of the modern versions of the New Testament leave out the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel. The American Standard Version of 1901 left several blank spaces (several lines worth) before continuing with verse nine. The ASV had a marginal statement to the effect that the two oldest Greek manuscripts, as well as some other authorities, lacked these twelve verses. Similarly, the NASB has a marginal statement, but no blank space was left. However, the NASB did reproduce a “short ending” for Mark that is extant in some manuscripts.

Brother Wallace was quite critical of the NASB for its treatment of these verses, but I really think ii was at least as charitable as was the ASV (1901) on this passage. I, personally, would prefer that all of these twelve verses be included without marginal comment. However, since it is an accurate notation, I am willing to live with it. Incidentally, just so there is no question, this scribe is convinced that the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine.

Acts 3:19

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come . . .” (King James Version).

“Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come . . .” (New American Standard Bible).

Brother Wallace takes issue with the use of the word “return” in lieu of “be converted.” The Greek word is epistrepho, and in the King James Version is sometimes rendered: be converted, return, turn, turn again, turn about, and others. As far as personal preference is concerned, I agree with Brother Wallace.

Acts 3:21

“. . . the heaven must receive until the times of restitution . . .” (KJV).

“. . . heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things . . .” (NASB).

Brother Wallace views this NASB rendering as having a premillennial slant; and well this may be. I note that the Tyndale Version of 1535, the Great Bible of 1540, the Geneva Bible of 1562, and the Bishops’ Bible of 1602, all used “time” in the singular. The first English veision, to my knowledge, to use “times” was the Catholic Rheims version of 1582. Since then, the plural has generally been used.

Acts 10:6

“He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.” (King James Version).

“He is staying with a certain tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea.” (New American Standard Bible).

“He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side.” (American Standard Version (1901).

“He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose housse is by the see syde.” (Tyndale’s Translation-1535).

Brother Wallace has a very valid argument on this passage when he points out that in Acts 11:13-14 Cornelius related it, Peter reported it, and Luke recorded that. “. . . who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and, all thy house shall be saved.” Those versions which include-the latter portion of the verse (6), follow the Textus Receptus; while those which do not include the last part of verse (6), follow other Greek texts.

Acts 26:28

“. . . Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” (King James Version).

“. . . In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” (NASB).

Brother Wallace views this change as being “scornful” on the part of the NASB. Let us notice some other early renditions of this verse.

“. . . Sumwhat thou bringest me in mynde for to be come a Christen.” (Tyndale’s Translation-1535). (The above spelling is accurate! LWM.)

“. . . Sumwhat thou bryngest me in mynde for to be come Chrysten.” (The Great Bible-1540).

“. . Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian.” (Geneva Bible-1562). This is the first translation to use the wording that the King James Version made famous.

“. . . Somewhat thou perswadest me to be a christian.” (Bishop’s Bible-1602). (Spelling accurately copied. LWM.)

” . . A litle thou persuadest me to become a CHRISTIAN.” (Rheims-1582). (Spelling and upper case, correct. LWM.)

“. . . In a little thou persuadest me a Christian to become.” (Berry’s Interlinear).

“. . In a little thou persuadest me to make (act) a Christian.” (Marshall’s Interlinear).

Romans 4:12

“. . . walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham . . .” (KJV).

“. . . follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham…” (NASB).

Brother Wallace points out that “that” is an adjective which differs in meaning and application from the article “the.” He stresses, “The adjective that refers to the thing specified, and here it means more than a general reference to faith.” It is . . . “a definition of Abrahamic faith.” Brother Wallace contends that this important definition is missed and lost by the change from “that” to “the.”

The NASB was not the first, by far, to use “the.”

“. . . walke in the steppes of the fayth that was in oure father Abraham . . .” (The Great Bible-1540).

“. . . walke in the steppes of the faith of our Father Abraham . . .” (Geneva Bible-1562).

“walke in the steppes of the faith that was in our father Abraham . . .” (Bishop’s Bible-1602).

“. . . folow the steppes of the faith that is in the prepuce of our father Abraham . . .” (Rheims-1582). (Spelling copied correctly. LWM.)

Romans 11:26

“. . . so all Israel shall be saved . . .” (King James Version).

“. . . thus all Israel will be saved . . .” (New American Standard Bible).

Brother Wallace objects to this change, stating: “. . . the verb shall expresses a conditional futurity, while the verb will is unconditional determination-a thing that will be done. The word `so’ is an adverb of manner and only indicates that all the Israelites should be saved in the same manner that the remnant had been saved-by acceptance of the gospel.” Brother Wallace concludes that it becomes more and more evident that the makers of the NASB are premillennialists. He may well be right.

I Cor. 7:25 and 40.

“. . . I give my judgment . . .” (Verse 25-King James Version.)

“. . . I give an opinion . . .” (Verse 25 New American Standard Bible.)

“. . . after my judgment . . . I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” (KJV).

“. . . in my opinion . . . I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” (NASB).

Brother Wallace considers the change from “judgment” to “opinion” as a calling in question of Paul’s being inspired. If that is what the translators intended, then they are wrong. But both English words, judgment and opinion, can be properly translated from gnome, the Greek word used in the passages. In his book, Brother Wallace cited also Eph. 3:4 and Acts 15:19, where “judgment” and “knowledge” are used . . . but the Greek words in those passages are different from gnome. In the King James Version, the following Greek words are rendered “judgment”: gnome, aisthesis, dikaioma, dike, krima, krisis, and dikaiokrisia. Each has a slightly different meaning from the others.

In 2 Cor. 8:10, the King James Version has Paul saying: “And herein I give my advice . . . .” The Greek word for “advice” is gnome, the same as used in I Cor. 7:25 and 40. Whether Paul gave judgment, opinion, advice, or counsel, it was still inspired of God!

(To Be Concluded Next Week)

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, pp. 264-265
March 6, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

“And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,’ neither on the Sabbath” (Mt. 24:20). Seventh Day Adventists argue that since the destruction of Jerusalem was after Christ built His church, that the warning in Matthew 24:20 is proof that Christians were bound to observe the Sabbath after the “new and living way” was opened. Or to state the argument in another manner, (1) Jesus said to pray that you do not have to flee on the Sabbath. (2) The necessary flight occurred after the new covenant went into effect and came into force. Conclusion: They were keeping the Sabbath after the cross and under the new testament; therefore, we should do so today.

Reply:

First, Neh. 13:19-22 shows that “the gates of Jerusalem” would be shut “before the Sabbath . . . and . . . that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath.” Thus, fleeing on the Sabbath would be extremely difficult as Jewish law and authority would have the gates sealed. Whether the Christians kept the Sabbath or not, this problem would exist as unbelieving Jews commanded the gates to be secured.

Secondly, does mention of the Sabbath after the building of God’s spiritual house necessarily infer that Christians were observing it? No, and this is proven by 1 Cor. 9:13. After the establishment of the church, Paul mentioned those that “minister about holy things . . . of the temple. . . .” If we argued that since Paul mentioned sacrifices on the altar of the temple, this proves that animal sacrifices were offered by Christians after the church came with power and that therefore we should offer animal sacrifices, our Adventist opponents would be the first to reject such a conclusion. They would say that this simply shows that unbelieving Jews continued to serve according to the old law and Paul referred to them and their practice without essentially teaching that Christians were doing so. When they have said this, they will have answered themselves on Matthew 24:20.

The mention of Sabbath keeping in Matthew 24:20 no more proves that the church observed the Sabbath than the mention of holy things, the temple, and the altar in 1 Cor. 9:13 proves that Christians were involved in their use. However, if the Adventist could hang the Sabbath yoke on our necks by Matthew 24:20, then logic, consistency and truth demands that they keep the temple ordinances. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways.

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, p. 263
March 6, 1975

By Donald P. Ames

During a recent visit to one of the local hospitals to see some there who were sick, I looked up and was surprised to see Steve Dyson, Minister of the United Pentecostal Church in Newport, Arkansas. Mr. Dyson and I have been acquainted, and good friends, as a result of the fact our radio broadcasts on Sunday morning are within a half-hour of each other and also because of mutual acquaintances in the past. Yet, neither of us has had any hesitation in opposing what we believe to be false doctrine regarding the positions taken by the other (although Steve Dyson has let it be known he has no desire to engage in a public discussion of these differences). I point this out to note that one can disagree without always being disagreeable, and that friendship does not mean that one must appease the falsehoods taught by others (Gal. 1:10).

But, to return to the discussion at hand, I enquired from Mr. Dyson as to the nature of his visit and problem; and learned that his throat was swollen and so sore that he could hardly swallow. I then asked him, since the Pentecostals believe they have the ability to perform miracles today as the apostles did in the times of the N.T., why didn’t he just heal himself? The only reply I got was that “even Paul had his `thorn in the flesh.’ ” This was the same reply I received from Bill Lewis, Minister of the First Apostolic Church (same fellowship) in Aurora, Illinois when he lost his voice during a debate with Larry Hafley (see my report on the Hafley-Lewis-Bishop Debate, Truth Magazine, July 20, 1970), and also when he later had to undergo heart surgery and was laid up for about six months.

Now, I am wondering about their consistency in using this passage in light of what Paul actually said-and why-in 2 Cor. 12. Paul received his “thorn in the flesh” because he had been caught up into the third heaven, and this “messenger of Satan” was to buffet him, “lest I should be exalted above measure.” What had happened to him in this instance was not something that was common to man, and therefore God used this “thorn in the flesh” to keep him humble. Did either Mr. Lewis or Mr. Dyson experience such a glorious view of the third heaven? Surely they will not contend that problems of being “a great speaker” necessitated God going to such measures-nor that they are so much greater than others that God had to go to such measures to make them learn the lesson of humility (and not do the same to their fellow-man as well).

Secondly, when Paul sought the Lord for relief, He replied, “My grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Cor. 12:9), and from this Paul concluded, “Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” However, both Mr. Dyson and Mr. Lewis sought relief at the hands of a. medical doctor. Now,.if they are going to use part of a passage, why not use the rest? If God will not heal their infirmities, why not accept the fact “My grace is sufficient for thee”? Or, do they think they can circumvent the “judgment of God” by obtaining relief from another source and thus destroy God’s “purpose” in giving them this “thorn in the side”?

The very fact Paul and others of the apostolic age had physical ailments that were not healed (Phil. 2:27, 1 Tim. 5:23, 2 Tim. 4:20, 2 Cor. 12:7) is evidence that physical healing was not the goal of Christ, but that these miracles were to confirm the word (Mk. 16:20, Heb. 2:4), and that not even the apostles could use them for other purposes (such as their own healing or general healing)-and that once that word had been confirmed, the miracles were to cease (1 Cor. 13:8-10, Eph. 4:11-13, Jas. 1:25, Jn. 20:30-3I ). It would seem that being caught in such a contradictory position would cause some of these “faith healers” to take another look at their own doctrine in light of the Word of God (see Rom. 10:2).

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, p. 262
March 6, 1975