Waymarks 35
Report of Open Air Preaching…………………....…2
The Integrity of the AV Bible…………………………………………..4
Ecc. 3: 11, Luke 2: 7, Acts 1:
20, 1 Thes. 4: 14
Synopticism is a
Myth…………………………………………………..7
Defining
Scripture……………………………………………………….8
The Preservation of
Scripture…………………………………………..9
Christian Books and Authors you can
Trust…………………………10
Biblical Teaching Relating to
Marriage………………………………11
The Influence of Archbishop Bancroft on
the AV Bible……………..14
The Translators to the
Reader…………………………………………15
“The Christian Maiden’s
Glory”………………………………………20
Report of Open Air Preaching
September 1st LUTON TOWN CENTRE. An interesting day. The mobile phone
cover man had his trolley right where I wanted to stand —again! But this time
all his goods were being confiscated by the police. This took most of the
afternoon so I carried on preaching next to them which did not seem to distract
them in any way. While I preached three Asian youths wanted to question me. They
were being polite so I stopped to talk to them, forestalling them with their
first question – “your Bible has been changed”. Not mine, I assured them.
Modern perversions and parodies of the Bible are altered but not the true
English Bible.
I started to preach again and a lady presented me with a
bottle of water, for which I thanked her. But she didn’t want me to preach from
the Bible. She thought it had some good stories, and she was quite impressed,
she told me, with the life of Elijah, but God is everywhere and we don’t need
the written word. In which case, there is no hope for this poor lady. 1 Peter 1:23 assures us that the written word
of God is absolutely essential for a soul to be born again.
September 18th LEIGHTON
BUZZARD. By the Cross. I began preaching in my usual manner, quoting from
memory John 3:16-19. This is usually followed by a few more gospel texts, and
then an explanation of what they mean. While doing this a youth began heckling
from behind me. Then, needing to impress his friends, he came and leant on me,
putting his arm on my shoulder. I told him to remove his arm, which he did,
informing me that nobody was listening to me. I thanked him for listening but
he told me it had just gone in one ear and out the other. I commiserated with
him for having nothing in between to prevent this happening. By this time his
friends had gathered around him.
They were just returning from their first day at college
and were full of the usual questions. The outcome was that six teenagers
had attended an outdoor gospel meeting
and had been under the sound of God’s word for at least half an hour. Their
questions revealed a deep ignorance of God’s way of Salvation. But they are
ignorant no longer. Do pray for them.
These youths, like so many, think that the Gospel preacher
must always have lived in some kind of cocooned world, far away from the
reality of life. This Gospel preacher grew up in an ungodly home, served ten
years in the armed forces, spent thirty years as a school teacher, and raised
seven children. This Gospel preacher is somewhat worldly wise and much battle
stained. Along the way he got saved.
September 25th AYLESBURY.
Market Square. There were about 60 schoolchildren. Waiting to return to their school.
I had about 15 minutes to preach to them along with their teachers. They were
well behaved and some were obviously listening intently. They heard a message
which they are very unlikely to hear from their R E teachers― the story of the
cross and a call to repentance and faith.
October 8th LUTON TOWN CENTRE. I began in my usual manner, quoting
John 3:16 and preached on the cross: the evidence of God’s love. Two young men
wanted to talk. They are members of Stopsley
Baptist Church
which seems to me to be a department of Social Services. I tried to draw out of
them a conversion story but they would have none of it. One of them insisted in
praying over me. I thought it was in
“tongues” but he assured me the language was Cambodian because his English is
not too good. I apologised for not being able to add an amen.
Another young man stood listening to our conversation.
When the two left he stepped forward. He wanted to explain to me how the Bible
had helped him to become a good Muslim. He was very sincere and polite. He
discovered, he told me, how Jesus had prophesied of Mohammed in John 16: 13.
One’s thinking has to be seriously warped to come to that conclusion but my
replies were no longer heard as he was no longer in listening mode. At least,
he accepted a pack of gospel literature.
November 6th AYLESBURY
MARKET SQUARE. This beautiful market square, with buildings on all four sides,
doesn’t call for an amplifier. The buildings keep the sound in and amplify it.
I stand with the war memorial immediately behind me, and face the clock tower in the centre of the
square. There is a flow of pedestrians crossing between the two shopping malls.
I preach my usual message, beginning with John 3: 16, and
feel within myself that I am getting rather stale. I sense that the freshness
is missing in my preaching. Then a lady hurries over and tells me she is
thrilled to hear the gospel going forth in Aylesbury. She tells me I must be
very brave.
Actually, bravery is not in the equation. It is not even a
matter of duty. Obedience to the command of the Risen Lord is required. All
believers are called upon to go forth with the gospel. But when people ask me
why I preach thus, it is out of love to the Lord Who went to the cross for me.
…And because 48 years ago a young man came and preached to me.
November I have experienced a few
hindrances to open air preaching lately. In Luton Peter is always ready to
waylay me. He intercepted me on my way from the car park and wanted to talk. He
lives on his own and has no friends. He made a profession in the street several
years ago. (I don’t look for this kind of thing) He tells me he reads his Bible
every morning now and prays and has assurance of salvation. He is unwilling to
come to a meeting because he is frightened to leave his flat after dark. I try
to give him some encouragement but after twenty minutes I want to get on with
preaching but he keeps on talking. Eventually he goes and then a tramp arrives.
He only wanted 20p. Enough for a second class stamp I suppose but he didn’t
seem the kind to write letters. I had never seen him before and I had not begun
to preach but he knew I was a preacher. He had been baptized into the Church of
Jesus Christ, he told me. I replied that it obviously hadn’t done him much
good. Those in God’s family don’t need to beg. (Psalm 37: 25).
I offered the man a gospel pack which he didn’t want. I
explained to him how he could access the wealth of heaven. He didn’t want to
know. He was gone before I could make my final offer―if he would sit and listen
to the gospel for twenty minutes I would buy him a pie and a cup of tea. I saw
him again a few days later and he declined the pie and tea but took a gospel
pack.
Other hindrances are the mini- road sweepers that seem to
encircle me like wasps (only noisier) round a jam pot. When they go the Town
Crier arrives in all his regalia. He is a friendly jovial fellow and told me he
is a believer. What a pity he doesn’t put his voice (which I note is not quite
as powerful as mine) to better use.
Of course a strong voice is essential to open air
preaching. It removes the need of amplifying equipment which gives opportunity
for complaint.
Other notes.
On several occasions I’ve been told “you think you are the
only one who is right!” How a passer-by knows what is going on in my mind I
cannot tell, but I have a stock answer. The Bible is right and my
responsibility is to keep as close to its teaching as I possibly can.
Thankfully I am not alone in this. I find many brothers and sisters in Christ
who are likeminded.
One of our Conference Speakers recently told us “We Are
Right!” But our public men are not right
when they criticise the Bible. They are not right when they promote Calvinism. They
are not right when they preach in places where the name of Christ is
blasphemed, and where the scriptural principles they claim to hold are mocked.
They are not right when they try to make a sect of us.
They do this by urging that even where an assembly is in disorder, liberal,
apostate, its disciplinary acts must be upheld by all assemblies. The decisions
of Diotrophes must be recognized by all assemblies. This is cultism! The
autonomous church will judge matters for itself.
*****
The Integrity of the AV Bible
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his
time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out
the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
The NIV has “He has also set
eternity in the hearts of men.” This is a misleading translation of the Hebrew
word goh-lahm’ (Strong’s 5769). It
presents entirely the wrong meaning of verse.
The word has to do with time and not eternity. Certainly
the word is frequently translated in the AV Bible as “everlasting” or “for
ever” but it is in relation to time and tells of time past (Deut.32:7,
Josh.24:2 etc.) as well as time future (Isa. 45:17, where we read of world
without end)..
There is a time limitation in the
word so that the everlasting statute of Lev. 16:34 is not applicable today. The servant for
ever is servant no more (Deut.15:17). There is a time factor on the whole
of Ecc.3:11; it is in his time!
It is a long time, (Isa.
42:14), so that the puny mind of man cannot take it all in. It is a temporal
world, from the beginning of time to its end in which men cannot find out
the work of God. The last clause of the verse spells this out this long time to
us —from the beginning to the end.
Proud men do not like to be told
that there are earthly things set in their heart that they cannot find out so
they perversely alter the meaning of Scripture.
Eternity is not set in the heart
of men, though they fear it and deny it.
Luke 2: 7
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling
clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the
inn (kataluma).
There is no reason to reject the
traditional understanding of this passage. There are no problems with the text
(i.e. underlying Greek text) or the translation. But some are teaching that the
Lord was born in an open field thereby negating the prophecy of Micah 5: 2, But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou
be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth
unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of
old, from everlasting. This prophecy relates to the birth of Christ,
indicating that the birth would take place within Bethlehem.
We do not believe there were open
fields within Bethlehem’s
bounds. The critics deny that kataluma could
have anything to do with a stable because the word is translated “Guestchamber”
in Mk.14: 14 and Luke 22: 11.
Those who make a play of the
Greek word kataluma show their
distrust of the English Bible where we read the word “inn”. Inn
is a satisfactory translation.
Inns in New Testament times were
places for the traveller to rest. Like modern inns they usually had parking
places for the traveller’s vehicle; then it would be a stable at the base of
the inn where the vehicle (an ass) might be parked overnight. It would need
refuelling and a separate charge was usually made to the traveller for
provender (hay) provided. Thus a manger was provided. (Life in New Testament Times; A C Bouquet.)
We would hardly expect to find a
manger in an open field. Would not the sheep just eat the grass? Why would they
need a manger?
Acts 1: 20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be
desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
It is alleged by some that “bishoprick”
is one of the ecclesiastical words to be kept in the translation of the AV
Bible. They seem unsure whether it was King James or Archbishop Bancroft who
ordered it. We note that in 1 Peter 5:2 the word episkopeo is translated “oversight” and not, as we might have thought
the Archbishop would have demanded, “bishopric”. Note also “overseers” for episkopos in Acts 20: 28. Perhaps even Bancroft thought that a faithful
translation was more important than a mere clinging to ecclesiastical terms.
Bishoprick is a translation of
the Greek episcope translated the
office of a bishop in 1 Tim.3 :1. (nb. The phrase is not in italics) and visitation in Lk.19: 44 and 1 Pet.2:
12.
The Old English form of the word
was biskop (or bisceop ) and appears in Wycliffe as bishopriche in 1 Tim.3: 1 and Acts 1: 20.
Tyndale has bisshoprycke and so Matthew’s Bible has bishopric. The Geneva Bible has “the room of this ministration”.
The AV translation is therefore a move back to what it had been.
Episkope is literally translated “oversight” (this word occurring
only once in the AV New testament, at 1 Pet. 5: 2) This was the role (office)
occupied by the Apostles, of which Judas was one).
The AV reading causes no problem
to the Bible believer. He will not want to tear the word out of his Bible simply
because it has been hijacked and abused by men wishing to develop their own
ecclesiastical hierarchies. There are many similar Bible words abused and
misused today. We shall not surrender them to ungodly men.
1 Thes. 4: 14
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that
sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
W E Vine tells us
―the margin,
“through” is correct; the preposition dia
is not elsewhere translated ‘in’, and cannot bear that meaning. Moreover,
while the phrase “in Christ” is frequently used by the Apostle to express the
intimacy of the relation between the believer and the Risen Lord, believers are
never said to be ‘in Jesus’, see notes on 1:1.
What a pity that Vine didn’t
think of looking in Newberry’s Bible. He would have been saved from this
miserable faux pas.
The other verses where dia is
translated ‘in’ are:-
Matt. 26: 61 This
fellow said, I am able to destroy the
temple of God, and to build it in (dia)
three days. (Newberry missed this one.)
1 Tim. 2: 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in (dia)
childbearing.
Heb. 7: 9 Levi
also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in(dia) Abraham.
Heb. 13: 12 suffer
the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in (dia)
few words.
2 Peter 3: 5 by
the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the
water and in(dia)the water:
Vine’s statement is therefore
false on three counts. The preposition dia
IS elsewhere translated ‘in’. It CAN bear that meaning, as the verses above
show us, and believers ARE said to be ‘in Jesus’ as 1 Thes. 4: 14 accurately and faithfully
assures us.
Shall I believe Vine or shall I
believe my Bible? This really is the issue that has to be faced. Our brethren
are awed by scholarship. It has been placed on the highest pedestal of
idolatry. But in the case before us we see that scholarship had gone into
hiding. Vine was a great scholar but here he was relying on his own intellect
and simply had not done his homework.
As far as them that sleep in Jesus is concerned, our critics immediately fly
at us with the question “well then, what does it mean if it does not mean
‘through Jesus’.” The question tells us
a little more about our critics. They have their theology and the Bible must
fit round it.
Our first answer is we accept the
written word of God whether we understand it or not. If the words do not make
sense to us we have to confess that it is due to a lack of sense on our part
and not due to a lack in the word of God.
The statement If we believe that Jesus died and rose
again brings the Man before us. His humanity is in view. It is not here
that Christ died and rose again. This truth is expressed in 1 Cor. 15. In 1
Thess. It is the Man Jesus who died and rose again.
Believers who die before the
Rapture are now said to be asleep (this does not imply a state of limbo) and
those who sleep are sleeping IN Jesus. They must therefore be brought with Him
in that day for it is Jesus Who died and rose and is coming again.
When we get to v16 it is the Lord
Who is spoken of and so we read of the dead in Christ.
The moral is DON’T TRUST THE
SCHOLARS. READ YOUR OWN BIBLE.
*****
Synopticism
The first three gospels, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, are sometimes referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. This simply
means they are “seen together” because they are similar in style and content
and can be readily compared with each other. John is the odd one out.
This apparent similarity between
the three gospels has been defined as “The Synoptic Problem” because to be so
similar one to the other they must have copied from each other―or so the
critics wish us to believe. It is all down to plagiarism!
The early believers weren’t aware
of a problem until Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215) announced it. He “accepted
the notion of four gospels as scripture, following Irenæus, and was the first
to distinguish John (a ‘spiritual’ gospel) from the other three, known as the Synoptic
Gospels, which he regarded as more down to earth”. – A Dictionary of the English Bible and its Origins; Alec Gilmore.
Believers (i.e. born again men
and women) from the beginning held to the doctrine of verbal inspiration. They
knew the Holy Spirit to be the Author of all Scripture so they never had a
problem and still don’t. Whether Mark or Matthew wrote the first gospel was
quite irrelevant and still is.
Augustine thought that Mark was
an abbreviation of Matthew and Luke had knowledge of both..
Griesbach (1745-1812) a German rationalist, regarded by
many as the Father of Modern Textual criticism, took up this problem which the
unbelievers had invented. His hypothesis was
that Mark got his material from Matthew and Luke.
Then came the Two-Document hypothesis “widely accepted
by modern scholars, [which] holds that the two documents, namely Mark and Q,
were utilized independently by Matthew and Luke.” Oxford Companion to the Bible; edited by B M
Metzger and M D Coogan.
The “Q” theory, relating to an
undiscovered gospel, was the 19th C invention of the higher critics.
Another traditional view is that
Mark was written by a disciple of Peter. This with the earlier hypotheses is a
naturalistic view which denies a belief in the verbal inspiration of Scripture.
The writers did not need to get their material from others. They wrote as the
Holy Spirit directed them.
There is “the remaining
possibility that a plurality of documents were used and combined in successive
stages. Such theses are complicated and speculative, hard either to establish
or to disprove. The synoptic ‘problem’ therefore remains”. Oxford Companion to the Bible.
We say it remains only in the
minds of the critics and Bible mutilators.
*****
Defining Scripture
A correspondent has sent me a
list of questions passed to him that came from a RC allegedly converted from
being an evangelical Baptist. There are eighteen questions in all which means
they can’t all be answered in this rather limited publication.
The first two are,
1 Where in the Bible does it say
what books belong in the Bible?
2 If the Bible doesn’t tell us
what books belong in it, then is the Bible’s “table of contents” merely a human
tradition? If not, why not?
The English speaking Bible
believer knows that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and
every word in his Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 is Scripture.
He knows by common sense that within the covers of his
Bible, and on its pages are various helps such as a list of the books of the
Bible, chapter and verse headings, subject headings etc and in the margins are
numerous explanations, which are not part of Scripture.
The Lord referred to the Old Testament. He said It is written in the prophets (John 6: 45). None of those Jews queried
the Lord as to what list of prophets He was referring to. They accepted the
writings of the prophets in their Holy Book as Scripture. The testimony of
Christ to the Scriptures is sufficient for the believer today. The Lord also
quoted from the Book of Psalms when He said Is it not written in your law (John 10: 24). They did not reply that they were uncertain as to
the authenticity of the list of Psalms.
Timothy knew what was Scripture. From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures (2 Tim.3:15). He
never challenged them. The Bereans knew also ― they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the
scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17: 11).
The Bereans had no problem with the canon.
Peter tells us how we obtained the Scriptures. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1: 21) They knew they were writing Scripture, under
the direction of the Holy Spirit. Peter knew it too. He refers to Paul’s
epistles and other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3: 15,16).
If the apostles knew that their writings were on a par
with the Old Testament Scriptures, being given by inspiration of God, it would
be a very strange thing indeed if this fact were not communicated to those
first century believers. That the disciples were thus instructed is evidenced
in the preservation of Scripture through the ages. There were never any
disputes over the canon of Scripture among believers. This has been the work of
enemy from the beginning to challenge the authenticity of Scripture.
One may yet ask how we can be sure. Again, John 6:45 has
the answer; It is written in the prophets, And they shall
be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of
the Father, cometh unto me. The child of God is taught of God. But ye have an unction from the Holy One,
and ye know all things. (1 John 2:20). And we don’t have to explain this to
the unbeliever and scoffer.
We read in Romans 15: 4, For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our
learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have
hope.
Patience, comfort, and
hope are largely lacking in the Bible critics. What scholar do you know who is
patiently awaiting the rapture?
*****
The Preservation of Scripture
The doctrine of the preservation
of Scripture is never preached among us. This must be because it is not
believed. Yet there are a number of Scriptures that teach preservation .
For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119: 89. God’s unchanging word is from eternity
Unto them (the Jews; in particular the Levites) were committed the oracles of God. Rom. 3:1,2. They carefully guarded
this commitment that came from heaven. There can be no conflict between the
heavenly account and its record on earth.
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them. O Lord. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12: 6,7. God is faithful. The words
settled in heaven will God keep safe on earth unto eternity.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous
judgments endureth for ever Psalm 119:160. God’s word, true from eternity
and true in the “original” manuscripts remains true inn every faithful copy,
though perversions may abound on every hand.
The word of our God shall stand for ever. Isa. 40: 8.
The word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1: 23.
The word of the Lord endureth for ever. 1 Peter 1:25. Will not
fade, will not wear out, and will not be subject to amendment from eternity to
eternity.
Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. Mtt.24:
35, Luke 21: 33. Not a single word will disappear.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. 5:
18. It is not only the individual word that God has pledged to preserve; not
only the letters in the word; but the strokes in each letter. This preservation
is not lost in translation. We would not think for a moment that the mighty
omnipotent God Who took such exquisite care of His word would be beaten by the
need to express His word in different languages. God gave this human race its
multiple languages at Babel.
If the word of God is preserved,
where is it? The popular view is that God’s word exists in thousands of
manuscripts and not between the covers of one single book. The popular view is
that these manuscripts must be sifted through by the scholars who will tell us
what is the “original” and what is not. What kind of God would do this to us?
The believer knows he has one
Book he can trust. It is the Authorized Version. Paul wrote to Timothy, from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures
and we know them too.
He that rejecteth me,
and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12: 48. A solemn
warning for the textual critic and Bible scoffer.
*****
Christian books and authors you can trust
The title “Christian books and authors you can trust”
appears as a sub-heading on page one of the latest John Ritchie catalogue. We
find listed several books by Max Lucado.
Lucado is pastor of the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio. He is
reported as saying he believes that baptism is necessary for salvation. He
writes on his website, “Baptism effectively seals our salvation uniting us to
him and his body”. He also wrote in his book The Gift for All People, “But when God turned his head, that was
more than he could handle. ‘My God!’ The wail rises from parched lips. The holy
heart is broken. The Sinbearer screams as he wanders in the eternal wasteland.
Out of the silent sky come the words screamed by all who walk in the desert of
loneliness. ‘Why? Why did you abandon me?’”
He
has been shown to be committed to Church
of Christ doctrine.
The directors of John Ritchie Ltd are deceitful in
suggesting that this author is one I can trust. But there are others; Wiersbe
and MacArthur are men deeply committed to New Evangelism. This matters nothing
to the directors of John Ritchie Ltd.
*****
The Biblical Teaching relating to Marriage
Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This is the first verse that
speaks of the marriage state.
The cleaving is as we understand
it in Dt.10: 20; Thou shalt fear the
Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve and to him shalt thou cleave.
This is to be joined to and to adhere
to, to the exclusion of all other rivals and interests. Having left his parents
the man the cleaves to his wife. The cleaving is not consummation, which is an
act. Cleaving is a continuing condition. It is a joining in marriage. From this
moment they are one flesh in the sight of God. God calls the two one flesh.
Consummation is mentioned only once in Scripture, at Daniel 9: 27 and has nothing to do with
marriage.
The Lord quoted Gen 2: 24 and
added a rider- Wherefore they are no
more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man
put asunder. Mtt. 19: 6 The joining is made by God when the two become man
and wife and no man may put asunder. This will include the man himself
regarding his wife. The joining has nothing to do with consummation because it
is God Who does the joining. These two verses define “one flesh”. It is a man
and a woman joined in marriage and has nothing to do with joining to harlots or
to casual relationships.
Illicit joining as mentioned in 1
Cor.6: 19, What? know ye not that he
which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
is not marriage and does not break the marriage bond. This is a union that
mocks the Biblical institution of marriage.
When Adam knew his wife, she
conceived. Gen.4: 1 She was already his wife. He had already become one flesh.
English law may permit the annulment of a marriage on the grounds of
non-consummation but the Scriptures do not allow such. Such annulment is the
putting asunder by man.
It is not reasonable to quote
Levitical practices…..we are not subject to Mosaic law.
Are there any grounds whereby
a believer may divorce their spouse?
The only ground given is that of
Mt 5:32, But I say unto you, That
whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth
her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.
The first thing to notice about
this verse is that it differentiates between fornication and adultery. They are
not the same. There is no tautology in Scripture. Matt. 19: 9 , Gal. 5: 19, 1 Cor.6: 9 have these two
mentioned together. Fornication includes all unlawful sexual intercourse while
adultery involves married persons.
Divorce was permitted under Moses
because of the hardness of their hearts. The Lord hardened the heart of
Pharoah. Hardness of heart is the mark of the unregenerate. Mark 6: 52, 8: 17. Therefore those seeking divorce demonstrate by
their hardness of heart that they are unregenerate. Divorce is not to be found
among believers.
Saving for the cause of fornication must not be interpreted in
isolation. Other Scriptures relating to this subject must be taken into
consideration. We read in Luke 16: 18,
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery.
Here there is no exclusion
clause. The Lord was speaking to a company of Pharisees who were deriding Him.
The Lord made this unequivocal statement: Remarriage for either partner
constitutes adultery.
Also we read in Mark 10: 11,12,
this time speaking privately to His disciples, And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry
another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away
her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Again there is no exception
clause. If there were to be an exception clause then we believe the Lord would
have made it clear to His disciples. They did not ask Him if there were an
exception clause.
But what of the innocent
previously unmarried man or woman who marries a divorced person and then gets divorced by this person? The
argument is that God recognises only the first marriage. This later marriage
which has ended wasn’t recognised by God so the innocent person is therefore
free to marry. Those who use this argument make a play of the word
“recognise”. The Bible says nothing
about what God does or does not recognise.
The first marriage, God owns, as
shown in Genesis 2. a second marriage is contrary to God’s will, but it is still
a marriage and is a “one flesh” bond as 1 Cor.6: 19 will show. A person
committing this sin and is afterwards converted will need to break this sinful
relationship and live apart.
One of the weirdest arguments in
support of divorcees remarrying has been put out by M Penfold of Penfold Book
and Bible House. Penfold, a severe critic of the AV Bible, claims that only the
act of remarriage constitutes
adultery. The pair still together the next day are therefore NOT committing
adultery. Therefore, he argues, they are fit for fellowship.
This argument is based on what he
calls the ‘gnomic’ present. He writes,
….in Matthew
13v14 we are told the man “goeth and selleth….and buyeth that field.” Here are
three present tenses, none of which refer to an ongoing series of events. The
man was not always going, he was not always selling and certainly he was not
always buying that field. It was, by the very nature of the story, a once for
all transaction and yet it is related in the present tense. Such examples could
be multiplied. The present tense is very frequent on statements of general
principle and fact. Grammarians call such a tense the ‘gnomic’ present.
Penfold chooses to ignore the
consequences of actions described in the present tense. The field remained the
man’s purchased possession. The divorced person remarrying remains in the
adulterous relationship.
Maxims or aphorisms may be described as
gnomic. Because they are wise sayings and permanently true they are usually in
the present tense. Foe example: A rolling stone gathers no moss. These sayings
are not restricted to the present tense. Thus they have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind (Hos 8:
7) may be regarded as a gnomic saying but has no present tense.
However, it debases the words of
the Lord to reduce them to gnomic utterances (as the wisdom of gnomes) as
though some of His words were maybe not so wise as to be considered “gnomic” I
personally regard the inference as blasphemous
.
So moicatai found in Mtt.19: 9 and translated “committeth” is claimed
to be gnomic and applies only to the act of marrying!
It is in any case a matter of
opinion among the “scholars” as to whether the statement is gnomic. It remains
an opinion which not many Bible believers will adhere to.
So what about Matt.5: 32 and 19:
9. ? The verses must be understood within their own context. They cannot be in
conflict with Mark and Luke. Matt.19: 3
helps us to grasp the context, The
Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The Pharisees were tempting
the Lord on a matter relating to Mosaic law. The passage has a Jewish context.
The putting away on the ground of fornication had to do with the Jewish
betrothal system, the fornication occurring during this period.
The engagement of a couple in our
Western culture does not relate to Jewish betrothal. It is not to be seen as a
modern equivalent. There is no moral, spiritual, or legal requirement for
engagement. (This does not mean that it is wrong). This writer was never
engaged to be married to his wife.
If a Christian should find that
his or her spouse had committed fornication ―that is, had been unfaithful before marriage―there is still no
Scriptural ground for divorce. Deception, and dishonesty and lies would have been
involved in cheating their partner, but the joining of the two was in the
presence of God and may not be put asunder. However we do not think a believer
would stoop to this evil level of deception, the Scriptures assuring us that
those who persist in adultery and fornication are not saved, Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
mankind (1 Cor.6: 9) such were some
of you, the apostle goes on to say, demonstrating that what sins were
practiced before conversion are not practiced subsequently. There were no
divorced and remarried persons in fellowship at Corinth. One may not divorce on the ground
that maybe the spouse was not saved. The bond remains.
A person who has been divorced
and remarries is, in the words of the Lord, an adulterer. We may have sympathy
with the presumed innocent partner but remarriage constitutes adultery and this
state remains while the couple remain together. It will not be possible for
believers to have fellowship with them either in the assembly or in the home.
Some are facing this problem with
their own children and are compromising the truth for the sake of family
relationships. We can have full sympathy with such in their sadnesses but
faithfulness to God is paramount. Assembly life is damaged when remarried
persons are brought in.
Where a firm and bold stand is
taken then repentance and restoration may follow.
*****
The Influence of Archbishop Bancroft on the AV Bible
Richard Bancroft became
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1604 and was “the chief overseer” of the Authorized
Version of the Bible. He had at first opposed the suggestion of a new Bible
translation but later became enthusiastic about it.
Critics of the Bible try to make
much of Bancroft’s influence as grounds for rejecting the AV Bible. They point
out, no doubt correctly, that “he was of a harsh and stern temper”, determined
to maintain the Episcopalian form of state religion, very hostile to the
Puritans and ruthless towards any who opposed him. He was determined to keep
all ecclesiastical words in the new translation.
Bancroft had two areas of
influence over the translation (excluding his 14 changes to the final draft)
The first influence was the
appointment of the translators. Considering his hostility towards the Puritans
it is remarkable that we find some among the translators. The names of at least
three are given by A McClure in his Translators
Revived. They are John Reynolds, who proposed the new translation, Lawrence
Chadderton, Thomas Holland, and Samuel Ward. There were certainly others
because McClure wrote of the many Puritans who were opposed to the use of the
word “church”. There were no better men available for translation work than
those appointed.
The second influence was in the
list of fifteen rules of translation. Only one need occupy us in this little
article and this is rule no. 3. “The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz.
the word “church” not to be translated “congregation”. No other ecclesiastical
words are specifically listed, so “bishopric” may be one of the fourteen changes
that Bancroft insisted on in the final draft.
Bancroft then left the
translators to get on with their work.
*****
The Translators to the Reader (Pt.2)
(preface to the
1611AD edition)
THE TRANSLATION OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT OUT OF THE HEBREW INTO GREEK
While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name
great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece
only, and all the earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people,
which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the
same original in Hebrew was sufficient. [S. August. lib 12 contra Faust c32]
But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son
of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation
through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of
all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the
spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy
Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of
Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters,
commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles
by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For
the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth
to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready
scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again,
the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians
had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same
causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe,
yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of
God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a
candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a
proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take
knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the
Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for
witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.
It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it
needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work
as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to
them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true
and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of
the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though
they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a
witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed
to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for
current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not
fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ,
Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after
him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof
were not known. [Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderibus.] These with the Seventy
made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by
Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and
therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and
excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by
the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. Yea,
Epiphanius above named doeth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the
Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some
respect [S. August. 2::de dectrin. Christian c. 15]; and Justinian the Emperor
enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the
Seventy, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened
with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the
Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa
31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) [S. Jerome. de
optimo genere interpret.] that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not
Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they
stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through
ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and
sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times,
when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the
truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching
the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.
TRANSLATION OUT OF HEBREW
AND GREEK INTO LATIN
There were also within a few hundred years after CHRIST,
translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to
convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countries of
the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latin, being
made Provinces to the Romans. But now the Latin Translations were too many to
be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interprets nullo modo numerari
possunt, saith S. Augustine.) [S. Augustin. de doctr. Christ. lib 2 cap II].
Again they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin
Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the
Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be
muddy. This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist
without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake
the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that
evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had
forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and
thankfulness.
THE TRANSLATING OF THE
SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES
Now through the Church were thus furnished with Greek and
Latin Translations, even before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in
the Empire; (for the learned know that even in S. Jerome's time, the Consul of
Rome and his wife were both Ethnics, and about the same time the greatest part
of the Senate also) [S. Jerome. Marcell.Zosim] yet for all that the
godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which
they themselves understood, Greek and Latin, (as the good Lepers were not
content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbors with the store
that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) [2 Kings 7:9]
but also for the behoof andedifying of the unlearned which hungered and
thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they
provided Translations into the vulgar for their Countrymen, insomuch that most
nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear CHRIST speaking
unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their Minister only, but
also by the written word translated. If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied
by examples enough, if enough will serve the turn. First S. Jerome saith,
Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quae addita
sunt, etc. i.e. "The Scripture being translated before in the languages of
many Nations, doth show that those things that were added (by Lucian and
Hesychius) are false." [S. Jerome. praef. in 4::Evangel.] So S. Jerome in
that place. The same Jerome elsewhere affirmeth that he, the time was, had set
forth the translation of the Seventy suae linguae hominibus, i.e., for his
countrymen of Dalmatia [S. Jerome. Sophronio.]
Which words not only Erasmus doth understand to purport, that S. Jerome
translated the Scripture into the Dalmatian tongue, but also Sixtus Senensis
[Six. Sen. lib 4], and Alphonsus a` Castro [Alphon. lb 1 ca 23] (that we speak
of no more) men not to be excepted against by them of Rome, do ingenuously confess as much. So, S.
Chrysostom that lived in S. Jerome's time, giveth evidence with him: "The
doctrine of S. John [saith he] did not in such sort [as the Philosophers' did]
vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and
infinite other nations being barbarous people translated it into their [mother]
tongue, and have learned to be [true] Philosophers," he meaneth Christians.
[S. Chrysost. in Johan. cap.I. hom.I.] To this may be added Theodoret, as next
unto him, both for antiquity, and for learning. His words be these, "Every
Country that is under the Sun, is full of these words (of the Apostles and
Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue [he meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew
tongue] is turned not only into the Language of the Grecians, but also of the
Romans, and Egyptians, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians,
and Sauromatians, and briefly into all the Languages that any Nation useth.
[Theodor. 5. Therapeut.] So he. In like manner, Ulfilas is reported by Paulus
Diaconus and Isidor (and before them by Sozomen) to have translated the
Scriptures into the Gothic tongue: [P. Diacon. li. 12.] John Bishop of Sevil by
Vasseus, to have turned them into Arabic, about the year of our Lord 717;
[Vaseus in Chron. Hispan.] Bede by Cistertiensis, to have turned a great part
of them into Saxon: Efnard by Trithemius, to have abridged the French Psalter,
as Beded had done the Hebrew, about the year 800: King Alfred by the said
Cistertiensis, to have turned the Psalter into Saxon: [Polydor. Virg. 5
histor.] Methodius by Aventinus (printed at Ingolstadt) to have turned the Scriptures
into Slavonian: [Aventin. lib. 4.] Valdo, Bishop of Frising by Beatus Rhenanus,
to have caused about that time, the Gospels to be translated into Dutch rhythm,
yet extant in the Library of Corbinian: [Circa annum 900. B. Rhenan. rerum
German. lib 2.] Valdus, by divers to have turned them himself into French, about
the year 1160: Charles the Fifth of that name, surnamed the Wise, to have
caused them to be turned into French, about 200 years after Valdus his time, of
which translation there be many copies yet extant, as witnesseth Beroaldus.
Much about that time, even in our King Richard the second's days, John Trevisa
translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet
to be seen with divers, translated as it is very probable, in that age. So the
Syrian translation of the New Testament is in most learned men's Libraries, of
Widminstadius his setting forth, and the Psalter in Arabic is with many, of
Augustinus Nebiensis' setting forth. So Postel affirmeth, that in his travel he
saw the Gospels in the Ethiopian tongue; And Ambrose Thesius allegeth the
Pslater of the Indians, which he testifieth to have been set forth by Potken in
Syrian characters. So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not
a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England,
[Thuan.] or by the Lord Radevile in Polony, or by the Lord Ungnadius in the
Emperor's dominion, but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old,
even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it
was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the
sooner, and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalms,
"As we have heard, so we have seen." [Ps 48:8]
THE UNWILLINGNESS OF OUR
CHIEF ADVERSARIES, THAT THE SCRIPTURES SHOULD BE DIVULGED IN THE MOTHER TONGUE,
ETC.
Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a
motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in
their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a
gift, an unprofitable gift: [Sophecles] they must first get a licence in
writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves
to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet
soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to
Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the
vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius
the Fourth. [See the observation (set forth by Clemen. his authority) upon the
4. rule of Pius the 4. his making in the index, lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5.]
So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum,
as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as
it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own
Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the
Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that theyare not ashamed
to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their
wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we
are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the
touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; [Tertul. de resur. carnis.]
neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest
his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plaindealing
Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in
place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and
return to translation.
THE SPEECHES AND REASONS, BOTH OF OUR BRETHREN, AND OF OUR
ADVERSARIES AGAINST THIS WORKMany men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, here silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? (Lacte gypsum male miscetur, saith S. Ireney,) [S. Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19.] We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had the Oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complain, yet that we had none. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but wind in it? Hath the bread been delivered by the fathers of the Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certain brethren. Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we hear, both the work and the workmen, saying; "What do these weak Jews, etc. will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall." [Neh 4:3] Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula. We will answer them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Jerome, "Damnamus veteres? Mineme, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possums laboramus." [S. Jerome. Apolog. advers. Ruffin.] That is, "Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God." As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned men that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty, to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any measure to God's Church, lest I should seem to laboured in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) above that which was in them. Thus S. Jerome may be thought to speak.
(to be continued)
The Christian Maiden’s Glory
We're living in a danger zone,
Oh Christian Maid beware!
The Devil with a cunning tone
Would make you cut your hair.
He'll tell you that it's falling out
Or else, it's getting thin.
Your headaches will be gone — no doubt
And thus he tries to win.
Your Hair — your Glory, just to think
That which took years to grow.
The Devil with a cunning wink
Would lay your Glory low.
That which the Angel's wandering eye
Deems as subjection sweet
That which fond Mary took to dry
Her Blessed Saviour's feet.
T'was love that touched, that won her heart,
Love drew her Glory down,
But greater love — the Saviour's part
He crowned her with renown.
Let not the Devil's scissors touch
The hair—what'ere its measure,
But keep your GLORY — for 'tis such
And part not with your treasure.
M.J.C. I
Cor. 11:1-16.
Waymarks is published quarterly and is sent out as a tract. Its purpose is to encourage open-air preaching and also to
establish the confidence of the
Lord's people in the Authorized
Bible as being the true and only Holy Bible in the English language.
We are sometimes accused by
those of differing views of showing a lack of love and of being critical of the
saints. We love all those who love Christ but it is not love to Christ to
condone error or to ignore it. It is also necessary to identify sources of
information so that statements made may be verified by my readers. Further
copies may be obtained upon request. This publication is a personal exercise
and is made free of charge. Waymarks may be freely copied without alteration
but acknowledgements should be given.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment