Truth Magazine

By William B. Wright

Due to some apparent misunderstanding of sonic of the points I advocated in my article, “The Beginning of Sorrows,” which appeared in the September 28, 1972 issue of Truth Magazine, I wish to attempt to clarify some of those misunderstandings, which have been called to my attention. This additional statement is intended to accomplish this goal.

As a first consideration, however, I suggest that the interested reader try the following procedure:

1. Write on paper all the scripture references contained in my article plus any others that may seem to be relevant.

2. Read those references carefully and in context.

3. Then, using his powers of common sense, ask: “What is the inspired writer saying?”

This should help him considerably. Now let I s look at some of the principal misunderstandings known to me.

Misunderstanding No. 1

Nehemiah 13:23-27 condemns the “mixing of races” and secondarily deals with possible spiritual damage. The object, according to some, of this teaching is to maintain a pure lineage for Christ.

I urge the candid reader to read Nehemiah 13: 23-27 carefully along with Deut. 7:1-4 and Josh. 23:12-13. The conclusion is inescapable that the leaders of Israel who feared God and were in receipt of His teaching condemned mixed marriages and cited as a reason why it should not happen that God’s people would be led away from Him by mixed marriages.

In my article I cited Old Testament passages to point out a principle-nothing more. That some of the old worthies married women not of the family of Israel is beyond question. Boaz married Ruth (a Moabites) and their son was in the lineage of Christ. Evidently Rachab (or Rahab) was not of the family of Israel, but her son was in the lineage of Christ. Joseph married a lady of Egypt. The mother of Rehoboam was an Ammonites and her son was in the lineage of Christ. The point in all of this is not that men of God married women who by the incidence of birth were born to people of Moab or Egypt or Ammon, but the fact that God did not want His people corrupted by false gods, false worship, and false practice. These things were in integral art of the ways of other nations. Thus, warnings were issued more than once, in effect, “Marry your own!”

Today, it isn’t the incidence of what family one is born into that matters nor his previous condition of religious servitude, but whether the two partners to marriage bring to each other a full and unreserved submission to Christ so as not to corrupt the worship and work of each other. That is the real issue! It is exceedingly poor reasoning to think that a non-Christian did not subtract something from the Christian who is married to him. regardless of how moral the non-Christian is supposed to be.

Misunderstanding No. 2

Let’s look at the matter of 1 Corinthians 9: 5. At issue here in the minds of some is the question of whether Paul’s statement thus forbids the marriage of a Christian to a no Christian. I consider this “the wrong end of the stick.” We who are members of the church of Christ has repeatedly told our religious neighbors that God told us to sing and said nothing about mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship. Therefore, we sing-which is safe and commanded-and reject mechanical instruments of music in worship because they are excluded from reference or condemnation. They just aren’t discussed in the Sacred Scriptures. We have followed similar arguments on sprinkling and quarterly communion. Since God said through Paul it is right to have a Christian companion, why not practice that which is safe? Why should I exempt the question of marriage from this interpretation of Scripture? I can positively prove that marriage of a Christian to a Christian is right. I need make no excuses for it or argue from a negative standpoint. No one will challenge this position its to its being right and safe. It is the best thing a Christian can do. Why not stand here? One need not worry about recommending or having recommended this position to young and old alike.

Misunderstanding No. 3

Another matter which some suggest which varies from the position I took in my article is that the phrase, “in the Lord,” in 1 Cor. 7:39, does not mean the marriage partner of a Christian widow must be a Christian. Some offer what I consider to be an amplified translation saying of it along with the same phrase in Eph. 6: 1; “The expression, rather, seems to mean widows are to marry and children are to obey their parents only to the extent that they would not be caused by ‘obedience’ or marriage’ to disobey the Lord.” I believe this point of view is quite labored. Would one be willing to argue the same in regard to ‘in Chris- in Gal. 3:27? In both cases, Paul was instructing Christians how to conduct themselves. In Ephesians Paul has some instructions for all members of a Christian home. He is not speaking to non-Christians. He had instruction, first, for wives and husbands (Eph. 5:22-23), then children (6: 1-3), after that fathers (6: 4), and finally servants (6:5-9). If one can explain away “in the Lord” saying it does not mean Christian, there are an infinite number of possibilities for explaining away many passages. I conclude that the argument above cited is a matter of extracting an expression that happens to contain exactly the same three words from two contexts and causing them to govern both situations in a very narrow word “strait-jacket.”

While I do not consider the words of a commentator to be inspired, I do feel that when someone expresses a truth better than I it is proper to quote that individual. Therefore, I wish to insert at this point a quotation by Lipscomb and Shepherd on 1 Cor. 7:39 (Gospel Advocate Commentary on First Corinthians, pp. 114-115):

“This prohibits the widow marrying one not a Christian. I know no reason why a widow should be more restricted as to whom she marries than a virgin. Under the Law of Moses the man was prohibited marrying out of the family of Israel, save when the woman would identify herself with the chosen people. The reason given was lest they should draw them into idolatry. Solomon violated the law, and, despite his wisdom and power, his wives drew him into idolatry. Influence is frequently more potent for evil than authority or power.”

Then, a paragraph later:

“The whole drift and tenor of the Scriptures, both of the Old Testament and the New, is that in the close and intimate relations of life the people of God should seek companionship of servants of God, that they might help and encourage each other in the Christian life. “

Misunderstanding No. 4

Another point that I believe is misunderstood by some is the meaning and use of 2 Cor. 6: 14-18. One must recognize that every principle and teaching must be first interpreted within its context and its application may have some limitations. I said in my article: “He also admonished the Corinthian Christians to avoid being unequally yoked with unbelievers, (2 Cor. 6:14) Now in what condition is a person more ‘unequally yoked’ to an unbeliever than in the marriage relationship?” I have heard preachers who preached excellent sermons on such questions as marriage, the danger of marriage to those not Christians, 2 Cor. 6:14-18 etc., then turn around in the same sermon and say these verses do not apply to marriage and it is no sin to marry one not a Christian. Concerning these verses (2 Cor. 6:14-18) some argue that it is contradictory to teach that they apply to marriage because verse 17 states that one is to come out from among them and Cor. 7:12-13 suggests that the Christian who is married to a non-Christian is to remain with his non-Christian mate as long as that one is content to dwell with him.

I deny that any contradiction results from applying 2 Cor. 6:14 to marriage. Obviously it does not apply to marriage alone. It applies to any circumstance (marriage, business, social organization, fraternal organization) where a Christian is bound to a non-Christian. But the difference is I can dissolve a business partnership, or cease attending a social group, or resign from a fraternal order without God ordained penalties being visited upon me. With marriage a prior restriction exists, namely, a man is not to put away his wife for every cause. Thus, in all circumstances that I can think of save one, I can come out and be separate. But, from marriage, I cannot. For Paul to have spent his time writing to the Corinthians setting forth all the exceptions would have turned the letter into a 900-page doctoral dissertation instead of the small book of simplicity which provides us with precepts, approved examples, and necessary inferences adequate to our needs.

What would one know about baptism if be chose to use only the 16th chapter of Acts without using, the 8th chapter of Acts and other passages such as Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12? What would one know about the Lord’s Supper if he used only Acts 20:7? See what I mean?

Misunderstanding No. 5

1 gather that it is not clear to some that I fully understand the implications of what I said about the treatment accorded a couple where a Christian marries a non-Christian, once the event had taken place. Further, some suggest that I contradict myself in this. So let’s have another look.

First, I do believe the Christian who marries a non-Christian commits an act of sin. Make no mistake about that! This must follow from my view of 1 Cor. 7 :30 and 9: 5. At no time in all of this did I think otherwise or have I tried to imply otherwise.

Second, if I understand the New Testament correctly, the only prerequisite for a male and female being validly married is that there be no disability to it in the eyes of God. The only disability I can identify that would make it no marriage is a previous marriage undissolved in the eyes of God. If a Christian and a non-Christian are married where no such disability exists, then the marriage is a valid one. The Christian cannot put away his wife just because he wishes to do so (1 Cor. 7:12-13).

Third, but what does that Christian do about his act of sin? Seek the forgiveness of God. Can he thus remove the problem of living with someone who has no interest in the Christian faith? Of course not! He can no more remove that (with God’s approval) by his own action (except through conversion) than a Christian who becomes an alcoholic and then repents can remove the physical problems (sclerosis, for example) that were caused by his sin. He has to make the best of it.

Fourth, what should other Christians do about brethren who sin in this or any other circumstance? Try to help them in every way possible to do right! There are brethren who feel as I do about this matter who seem to think we ought to ostracize brethren after they marry out of the church. I can think of no good thing coming from such an attitude. The object of the true Christian is to take his fellowman (Christian and non-Christian alike) where he finds him and to do his best to insure his eternal, salvation leading him to completeness in Christ.

Therefore. I solemnly affirm that my attitude is consistent with the truth as it is in Christ and is in no way inconsistent with truth.

A Word Of Counsel Especially For Preachers

I wish to counsel brethren who feel that I am wrong in my approach to this question, and especially to preachers who make “much to do” about the position I bold in this matter. They make much of what we say and teach on this subject though they must acknowledge the way we propose is unquestionably safe. They lend all the encouragement in the world to Christians who have formed romantic attachments outside the church. They always say, “we don’t recommend it,” yet they spend so much time arguing that “God didnt say not to do it,” that the Christian so inclined does not hear the recommendation. I know quite a number of young people who have made that unfortunate decision to marry out of the church and have either been completely destroyed as Christians because of it, or have most certainly been much weakened because of it.

How much encouragement would it be to Brother Preacher, who is sound in the faith and knowledgeable of the importance of obeying the Scriptures, to go home at the evening hour to put his arms around a wife who did not share with him the common faith? How would it be for him, if at the approach of the hour of worship, it was not taken for granted that all members of the family were going to the place of worship? How would he react if his mate were to tell him she did not see the point to giving as he is prospered’! Suppose his mate saw nothing wrong in gambling a little or a social drink? How can we expect one not a Christian to be governed by any of the laws of Christ unless that one first embraces the faith in Christ? If this would be a major problem for Brother Preacher who is sound in the faith and trained in the faith, what is it for the young sister or young brother who does not bear the preacher’s recommendation because he protested so loudly that “God didn’t say not to do.”

Though he does not intend it, Brother Preacher inadvertently leads young men and women into destructive circumstances that will destroy the soul. I do not say this with any intent to be harsh. But it is just as important that I call forcefully to the attention of the preachers who choose to read this article what is really happening as it is for them to preach on adultery and sectarianism which also destroy the soul. I personally feel that preachers would be better advised to give a much stronger emphasis to the wise action young people should take, namely, select their mates in Christ, and less emphasis to their disagreement with me over the question of whether it is a sin or not. They unquestionably agree with me that it is wiser-far wiser to marry in Christ. Our difference then becomes somewhat academic. God will judge whether it is a sin or not. But the end product in both instances should be to urge young people to marry in Christ. I believe all – nearly all- of them feel that way. If they do not, then we are truly at issue and the question is not academic. They are entirely within their rights to question whether I have practiced sound hermeneutics. I can think of no reason why they should refrain from so doing. But I urge them in challenging my point of view on this question to be certain that their teaching now is something they can be certain they will be content to live with for the rest of their lives and will not be ashamed of in the judgment.

In Conclusion

To the candid reader I say from the depths of my being, do not be influenced by what “seems” to be the case, or what some man thinks, or conclusions drawn from negative judgments, or by amplified renderings of the Scriptures which read into the text that which is not or may not be there, but rather be influenced by that Which is right and cannot be wrong!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 8-11
May 3, 1973

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Late Date

Before the end of the second century Irenaeus spoke of the vision of the Apocalypse and said that it “was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians’ reign.” (Against Heresies V: xxx: 3.) Domitian reigned from 81 A.D. to the latter part of 96 A.D., when he was killed. William Barclay combines some interesting historical information that helps to pinpoint the time of John’s exile on Patmos.

Tertullian says: “The apostle John was banished to the island” (On The Prescription of Heretics, 36). Origen says: “The Roman Emperor, as tradition tells us, condemned John to the island of Patmos for witnessing to the word of truth” (Homilies on Matthew) Clement of Alexandria tells us: “On the death of the tyrant John returned to Ephesus from the island of Patmos” (The Rich Man’s Salvation, 42). Jerome says that John was banished in the fourteenth year after Nero and liberated on the death of Domitian (Concerning Illustrious Men, 9). This would mean that John was banished to Patmos about A.D. 94 and that he was liberated about A.D. 96. . . 39

Besides the consistent tradition which favors dating the Apocalypse in the days of Domitian there are several other evidences. Before proceeding to an examination of these, a word about Domitian is in order.

Domitian was the son of Vespasian and a brother to Titus. He was a proud and power hungry man who had much in common with Tiberius. If, as has been suggested, Tiberius was led into false positions through hesitation and uncertainty, Domitian knew exactly what he wanted from the start. Tacitus and Pliny were filled with horror, not by occasional acts of vengeance but by a calculated and deliberate cruelty carried out in order that a definite aim might be achieved. Domitian sought control of the Roman Senate, the people and the army. By Biblical standards he was an immoral man. Having divorced his wife he lived with his niece as his mistress; after a short time his wife returned and both women lived with him in his palace.

With a good source of information, Domitian was able to eliminate any foe that in any sense seemed dangerous to his purposes. Philosophers and astrologers were banished from Rome in 89 A.D. Domitian was in no position to trust even his influential generals or governors. His policy of terrorism was aimed primarily on senatorial and upper class persons.

Domitian styled himself “Master and God” and liked for men to so address him. In the second half of his reign he accepted a form of address which implied his divinity and lordship. In public documents men swore by the genius of the living Emperor. Some wishing to flatter him began to offer sacrifices to his genius. It seems that he seized upon this and turned it into a test of loyalty. Out of all of this arose the concept of the eternity of the Roman Empire. There were two groups who could not acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor: Jews and Christians. They were charged with atheotes, which is equivalent to ungodliness or atheism; the faithful Christians of the Domitianic period were atheists by Empire standards. 40

We shall summarize the arguments for the late date of writing under five headings. (1) The General Condition of the Churches. It is argued that the general situation of the churches mentioned in Revelation presupposes the late date. The low moral conditions, particularly of Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea, are indicative of a time later than the period of Nero. Scott suggests that the heresies, “apparently of a Gnostic character, which were working mischief” in some of the churches did not become a danger until near the end of the first century.41 However, the Colossian epistle was written some thirty years previously, and one could hardly doubt that it dealt with Gnosticism as a present threat to the church.

(2) The Persecution. There were several periods in which the Christians were persecuted. Some religious persecution was carried on by Caligmla (c. 41 A.D.); Christians were driven from Rome by Claudius (c. 52 A.D.); Nero (c. 64-68 A.D.) carried on intense persecution in Rome; Vespasian (c. 69-79 A.D.) did very little to persecute the disciples of the Lord. But Domitian “is the emperor who has gone down in history as the one who bathed the empire in the blood of the Christians.” 42 It is debatable, but the persecution by Nero seems to have been confined primarily to the city of Rome. Gibbon says, “It is evident that the effect, as well as the cause, of Nero’s persecution, were confined to the walls of Rome. ” 43

(3) Emperor Worship. In our discussion of Domitian we have shown the beginning of Emperor worship. This spread throughout Asia Minor. Some of the cities in which churches were addressed in the Revelation had vied for the right to erect a temple for the worship of the emperor; Pergamurn was the first to do So. 44 Thus, the cultus in Asia became as much a threat to the Christians as if they had lived in Rome itself; Caesar worship covered the whole empire. The attitude that prompted such worship also produced a change of attitude on the part of the Christians toward the empire. We will discuss this as a separate point.

(4) Change in Attitude toward the Empire. William Barclay presents a refreshing study showing the difference in the attitude shown in the book of Acts toward Rome and the Empire and that shown in the Revelation. In the early days of Christianity the safest refuge of the Christian from a mob of angry Jews was the tribunal of the Roman magistrate. Paul seemed quite proud of his Roman citizenship. He used it to good effect in Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem. He was protected by the empire on the way to Caesarea, and exercised a citizens right in appealing directly to Caesar.45 Paul urged the Romans to be subject to the powers that be because they were ordained of God and was a terror only to the evil. (Romans 13: 1-7), Peter gave similar instructions to Christians. (1 Peter 2: 12-17).

“But in the Revelation there is nothing but blazing hatred for Rome. Rome is a Babylon, the mother of harlots, drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs (Revelation 17: 5,6). John looks and hopes for nothing but the total destruction of Rome.” . 46

(5) Nero Redivivus Myth. Nero had made such a strong impression on the Roman world

that after his death there were many who at least claimed to believe that lie continued to live. Some of them claimed that lie would return shortly. In fact. there were several pretenders who claimed to be the returned Nero. Others told that Nero was in Parthia and would come back some day as the leader of a Parthian army. Swete suggests that

“Nero is doubly the Antichrist, the historical Nero persecuted the Church, the Nero of popular myth caricatured the faith. When the Apocalypse was written. Nero had in truth returned in the person of Doinitian (17: 11). ” 47

 

Footnotes

39. Barclay, 1, 5 L.

40. Cambridge Ancient History, ed. S.A. Cook. F.E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth. Vol. XI: The Imperial Peace, A. D. 70-192 (Cambridge: University Press, 1954). For the history of Domitian, from which this has been summarized see pp. 22-45.

41. E. E. Scott, The Book of Revelation (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1939, p. 29.

42. Summers, 83.

43. Robert Maynard Hutchens (ed.) Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 40: Gibbon: I (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1952), p. 214.

44. Thomas Cosmades, “Ruins of the Seven Churches,” Christianity Today, IX (December 4, 1964), 17.

45. Acts 16:36-40; 18:1-17. 19: 13-41; 22:22-30; 23:12-31; 25:10,11

46. Barclay, I, 18.

47. Swete, lxxxiv.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 6-7
May 3, 1973

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Date

The date of the writing of Revelation is important. A number of significant points hinge on the date. The book has been placed in the reigns of several Roman emperors including Claudius, Nero, Trajan and Domitian. Some modern scholars have even suggested the reign of Vespasian as the time of writing.19 The majority of expositors hold to either a date during or shortly after the persecution of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerusalem, or to one during the persecution by Domitian. Thus, the date would be about 69 A.D. or about 95 96 A.D. The issue is so well defined that Harrison can say, “only these two need be considered.”20 This writer sees the weight of evidence pointing to the Domitianic date.

The Early Date

A number of the older works defend the early (late. The most thorough defense is made by Macdonald”21 and by Randell in The Pulpit Commentary. 22 The sobriety with which Macdonald undertakes his task is indicated:

“A true exposition depends in no small degree, upon a knowledge of the existing condition of things at the time it was written; i.e., of the true point in history occupied by the writer, and those whom he originally addressed . . . It will be found that no book of the New Testament more abounds in passages which clearly have respect to the time when it was written.” 23

The arguments made in defense of the early date may be summarized under eight points: (1) The Linguistic Phenomena. This is supposed to demonstrate that Revelation was the first of the books written by John and one of the earliest of the New Testament. The idea is that John wrote the book of Revelation before he had learned Greek very well. By the time he wrote the Gospel of John he knew Greek well. This is rather interesting, but not very probable, in the light of recent reversals on the dating of the Gospel of John. As early as the time of Dionysius, the Greek of Revelation has been accused of being ungrammatical.” 24 Tenney comments:

“Some of the Greek in the Apocalypse seems awkward and even ungrammatical. One should remember that the author was attempting to put into human language scenes that could not be described in ordinary terms; and consequently his grammar and vocabulary both proved inadequate.” 25

(2) The Doctrinal Expressions. It is said that the Apocalypse is the link between the synoptic Gospels and the book of John. Westcott thinks that in the evolutionary plan of revelation John did not know nearly so much when lie wrote the book of Revelation as he did when he wrote the Gospel of John. Hendriksen makes an appropriate reply: “Again, as for the style, should we expect to find the same style in a history of events (the Gospe0, a personal letter (the epistles), and the apocalypse or unveiling (Revelation)?” 26 Certainly one should not expect a book that is admittedly made up of signs, symbols and visions to be put in language so plain that they become unnecessary.

If one were to make a comparison of the doctrinal teaching in the alleged writings of John, he would see that in the Gospel lie calls Jesus “the Lamb of God”; so does he in the Apocalypse. In the Gospel and Epistles, he used the title “Logos” with reference to the Lord; so does he in Revelation. John is the only New Testament writer to make such a use of this word. The Gospel presents Christ as a preexistent, eternal being. The Apocalypse does the same. Both writings ascribe man’s salvation to the sovereign grace of God anti to the blood of Jesus Christ. The “whosoever” doctrine is found in both books. As Hendriksen says “There are no doctrinal differences!” 27

(3) The Jews Still a Distinct People in Their Own Land. From Revelation Seven it is argued that the twelve tribes were still in existence in Palestine. There are, however, other interpretations of the 144,000, which would seem to make it unnecessary to interpret this literally as the twelve tribes.28

(4) Jerusalem and the Temple Still Standing. It is said that Revelation Eleven, which represents the measuring of the temple and altar, indicates that Jerusalem and the temple were still standing. It seems entirely correct to regard this as symbolical, but as Macdonald says:

” it seems very strange and altogether unnatural that the apostle, in writing to churches so remote from Judea, gathered on Gentile soil, should make use of such symbols; and still more so if nearly or quite a generation had passed since that city with its temple had been destroyed. ” 29

The forty-two months finds a literal fulfillment in the period from February 67 A.D., when war was declared to August 10, 70 A.D., when Jerusalem was destroyed. 30

(5) The Sixth Roman Emperor on the Throne. This argument is based upon Revelation Seventeen.

“Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, a and he goes to destruction. ” (Rev. 17: 9-11).

According to Macdonald this passage represents the book of Revelation as being written, or at least the visions seen, during the reign of the sixth of the emperors of Rome. Rome was built on the seven hills. The emperors are reckoned thus: Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius; these are the five who have fallen. The one who is was Nero. The one who had not yet come and was to remain only a little while was Galba, who reigned only seven months. “The context of the beast which was and is not and yet is (Rev. 17:8) strikingly describes Nero by alluding to the popular belief that, after disappearing for a time, that emperor would reappear, as if he had risen from the dead.” 31 This is commonly spoken of as the Nero redivivus myth.

The difficulty of this interpretation is seen when we examine, a second interpretation. Summers does not hold the view, but shows how one holding that Revelation was written during the reign of Vespasian would deal with the problem. The five fallen emperors were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Vespasian was the one who “is” and Titus, who ruled for only two years is the one to come for a “little while.” “The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven” is said to be “Domitian, who was pictured as the reincarnation of Nero; his was a revival of the same type of work as that of Nero but was much more intense and widespread.”32 In any similar interpretation of this question there is a big problem, as suggested by Summers. “Are the numbers literal, and if so, with which emperor do they start? Usually the numbers in Revelation are symbolical, but here they appear to be literal and to serve as the author’s interpretation of his own symbol.” 33

(6) Six Hundred Sixty-Six. In the first century, it was not uncommon for numbers to be written with letters of the alphabet, with each letter having a numerical value. The Seer identified the number of the beast as the number of a man, not a literal beast and not an apostate religious organization. The number was six hundred and sixty-six (Rev. 13:18). This number has been applied, at one time or another to such persons as Mohammed, Luther, Napoleon, the Pope, Hitler and others. Kepler gives an example of the ingenuity that arrived at Hitler as the identification of the number during World War 11. 34 Allowing A – 100, B – 10 1, C 102 and so on here is how it totals up:

H -107

I – 108

T- 119

L – 111

E – 104

R – 117

666

Just why this character began his system with 100 and why he used the English alphabet is unknown.

The general consensus among scholarly commentators is that the numbers refer to Nero Caesar. “Some take the Latin word Neron and apply numerical equivalents for each letter in such fashion:

N – 50

E – 6

R – 500

0 – 60

N – 50″35

The final “N” can be dropped and total would be 616. Others have transliterated the Greek or Latin for Neron Caesar into Hebrew letters and come tip with a total of 666. By omitting the final “n” in Neron the total comes to 616. There is a slight amount of evidence for the 616 reading. The only major manuscript which gives this reading is Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus of the fifth century. However, as early as Irenaeus there was some indication of this reading. Irenaeus said that “all the most approved and ancient copies” contained the number 666, and he gave a rather fanciful explanation as to its meaning. In this connection he remarked:

“I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decades they will have it that there is but one.” (Against Heresies V: xxx: 1.)

Some, in the day of Irenaeus, had sought out a name, which would contain what he called “the erroneous and spurious number.” We may safely conclude that 666 is the genuine reading in this place.

On the basis of this identification some have said that the book was written during the reign of Nero. This writer has no doubt that the “beast” under consideration is the Roman Emperor. He cannot, however, be dogmatic as to the interpretation of the number. Even if the identification is “Nero Caesar” this would fit well into the evidence for the late date in connection with the Nero redivivus myth which we shall subsequently mention. It does not seem probable that a literal identification would be given in such a highly symbolical book.

(7) Only Seven Churches in Asia at Time of Writing. Macdonald argues from the careful mention of the seven churches by name that these were the only ones in Asia at the time. He cites Pliny to the effect that both Laodicea and Colossae were overwhelmed by an earthquake in the ninth year of Nero’s reign, and then suggests that the church at Colossac was not restored; what remained probably became identified with the one at Laodicea. 36

(8) The Judaizing Teachers Active. In favor of the early date it has been suggested that the Jewish enemies of Christianity, which are so evident in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2: 2, 9; 3:9), are the same and of the same period as those confronted by Paul in his labors.37

Randell argues negatively “the clear and positive external testimony against it (the early date) is not strong.” 38 He narrows the external evidence down to the statement by Irenaetis, which we shall deal with subsequently.

NOTE: If you have an interest in the book of Revelation you will enjoy studying the author’s new book on THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION. It is available from the Truth Magazine Bookstore.

Footnotes

19. J. W. Bowman, “Book of Revelation,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible”, ed. G. A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), IV, p. 60.

20. Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), p. 446.

21. James M. Macdonald, The Life and Writings of St. John (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877), pp. 15t-172.

22. T. Randell, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 1950). Vol. 22. pp. ii-vi.

23. Macdonald, 151, 152.

24. See also B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), pp. lxxxiv – lxxxvii.

25. Merrill C. Tenny, The New Testament: A Survey Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., t9541, p. 403.

26. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), p.18

27. Ibid., 19.

28. For example: H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954). Swete interprets the 1_44,000 as “the whole church.” p. 99.

29. Macdonald, t59.

30. Ibid., 160.

31. Ibid., 164.

32. Summers, 81.

33. Ibid.

34. Thomas Kepler, The Book of Revelation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 147.

35. Ibid., 1,48.

36. Macdonald, 154-155.

37. Ibid

38. Randell, iv

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 25, pp. 10-12
April 26, 1973

By J. Noel Merideth

Kenneth Taylor, president of his own Wheaton-based publishing Company, Tyndall House, published The Living Bible Paraphrased in 1971. Taylor says he began his project so his children (now numbering ten) could better understand the Bible. He began the task fourteen years earlier while commuting on the Chicago and North Western Railway – and so far has sold two million copies of his paraphrased Bible. Parts of the Bible were issued first as separate books as they were completed. The work is now finished completely and issued as one volume. The news releases say it was not until the Graham association started pushing the book that sales really began to grow. The Living Bible Paraphrased is really just another “running commentary” that “paraphrases” and “rephrases” the Bible. Such books are sometimes helpful but must be watched closely for error. Frequent liberties with the text make it especially dangerous for the young and uninformed. Taylor admits in his introduction: “There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say . . . for when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide . . .” There are some good things about the paraphrase. However, we need to be aware of the objectionable readings as some are pushing this paraphrase in the church today. While some hail how easy the paraphrase is to read; we need to know if it presents the word of God accurately faithfully.

There are serious objections to The Living Bible Paraphrased because of doctrinal error. The erroneous doctrine of original sin is taught in the paraphrase. The paraphrase renders Psalm 51:5, “But I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” Ephesians 2:3 reads in the paraphrase, “We started out bad, being born with evil natures, and were under God’s anger just like everyone else. – These renderings are error. The “theology of the translator” certainly got the better of him here. There also appears the dispensational premillennial doctrine in Revelation 7:14 when we have “the Great Tribulation” with both the definite article and capitals. In connection with this 2 Timothy 4:1 reads in the paraphrase, “who will judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his kingdom. Likewise in Isaiah 2:24, “In the last days Jerusalem and the Temple of the Lord will become the world’s greatest attraction . . . The Lord will settle international disputes, all the nations will convert their weapons of war into implements of peace.” There are also problems in the paraphrase about the time of regeneration or the time we are saved. Romans 4:12 is rendered by Taylor, “Abraham found favor with God by faith alone.” Earlier he indicated we are acceptable to God if we “only trust in Christ.” (Rom. 4:9). Romans 6:4-5 has the time of regeneration and death of “your old sin-loving nature” when Christ died. First Peter 3:21 in the paraphrase does have baptism as a turning to God but states first, “In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ.” He does not have regeneration at baptism as the Bible teaches. John 3:5 which has the new birth of water and the Spirit has the footnote on water: “Or, ‘Physical birth is not enough. You must also be born spiritually . . .’ This alternate paraphrase interprets ‘born of water’ as meaning the normal process observed during every human birth.” This is, of course, denominational error in the footnote and has been answered many times in debate. Direct communication of the Holy Spirit is taught in the paraphrase. No wonder those mixed tip on this subject like this particular paraphrase so well! ! ! Romans 8:16, in the paraphrase read, “For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts, and tells us that we really are God’s children.” Galatians 5:16 reads, “I advise you to obey only he, Holy Spirit’s instructions. He will tell him where to go and what to do, and then you won’t always be doing the wrong things your evil nature wants you to.”

Genesis 6:4 has the fanciful reading in the paraphrase “In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, of whom so many legends are told.” Matthew 16: 18 has “You are Peter, a stone, and upon this rock . . . ” the gloss “a stone” does not belong in the text and though stone is different from rock, what uninformed reader will get the difference? Though members of the church generally know that the word “Christian” is found only three times in the Bible, it is frequently used in the paraphrase in other scriptures. (E.g., Gal. 6: 1; I John 2:5).

The book of Psalms is not printed in poetry form though other poetry is so printed. This is definitely inferior to the American Standard Version. The Song of Solomon is divided with speakers inserted, which are not in the original text. This is a questionable thing. Second John I has “That dear woman Cyria” which is a contestable point. Romans open with “Dear Friends” and closes with “Sincerely, Paul.” Other letters end with “Sincerely, Paul” but Second Corinthians and Philemon just have plain “Paul,” they did not get the “sincerely.” The book of Philippians has the last three verses following a “P.S.”

Some passages range from flippant to vulgar renderings. The word of God should be handled with reverence and we object to the loose and gutter type renderings beneath the dignity it deserves. John 9:34 reads in the paraphrase, “You illegitimate bastard, you!” Acts 4:36, “Joseph (the one the apostles nicknamed ‘Barney the Preacher’)!” Hosea 4: 11 read, “Wine, women, and song have robbed my people of their brains.” Second Corinthians 12:16, “He is a sneaky fellow.” Acts 23:3, “Paul said to him, ‘God shall slap you, you white-washed pigpen.’ ” First Samuel 25:17, “He’s such a stubborn out that no one can even talk to him!” Psalm 8:4, “Mere puny man.” Second Corinthians 8: 11, “Having started the hall rolling so enthusiastically.” Galatians 1:10, “You can see that I am not trying to please you by sweet talk.”

“Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth it off” (1 Kings 20: 11 ASV), becomes “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch!” in Taylor’s paraphrase. The problem here is that the person who reads the paraphrase and is not familiar with the Bible text might think that the expression “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch!” is in the Bible, when in reality it is not.

The paraphrase by Taylor is a nightmare when it comes to tracing a word through ‘the

Bible with a concordance. Casting lots is “drawing straws” in Jonah 1: 7; Acts 1: 26; “casting lots” in Leviticus 16:7; 1 Samuel 14:42; “throwing dice” in Esther 3:74; and “toss a coin” in Proverbs 16:33; 18:18. There is no consistency in its rendering of a single word. The kiss of the sinful woman and of Judas stand; but the “holy kiss” becomes “shake hands warmly (Rom 16:16) or “loving hand shake” (1 Cor. 16:20). The washing of feet is found in John 13; but the washing the saints’ feet is completely omitted in the qualifications of the widow in I Timothy 5: 10. While one is used to “all the churches of Christ salute you” in Romans 16:16, the paraphrase drops Christ altogether and has “all the churches here send you their greeting.” Christ prayed to him that was “able to save him from death” in Hebrews 5: 7 becomes premature death in the paraphrase (with premature inserted in brackets).

We hope that people, who have The Living Bible Paraphrased, will be aware that it is a Paraphrase. In too many instances it does not make the Bible say to the twentieth century what it said to the first century. This paraphrase is not reliable enough. It has the possibility of leading people into error. It lacks the dignity, accuracy, and exactness that should characterize such a work.

We add this unusual footnote from “Time” July 24, 1972, “Mysteriously, halfway through the paraphrase, Taylor lost his voice, and still speaks only in a hoarse whisper. A psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the word of God.” Gospel Advocate, Sept. 14, 1972

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 25, pp. 8-9
April 26, 1973