The Word Abused . . .

“MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS”

This series on the mishandling of scripture would be incomplete if it did not include this passage that has been raised against every reformer in the history of Christianity. He who would dare to challenge the status quo is nearly always accused of causing trouble or creating divisions. Even old Socrates in ancient Athens was condemned for corrupting the youth, for under his influence their values began to change and they found other things more meaningful than temple worship. Socrates had to die, for to them who had power over him he was a trouble maker, a divider among men. But history has vindicated him to have been a man of peace. They murdered one who was really their best friend.

Such is the lot of the reformer, whether he be a political or social or religious reformer. Neither the world nor the church has exactly loved him. Copernicus gave the world the most enlightening book on science ever written only to have it banned for 200 years! And Galileo was brought before the Inquisition for agreeing with him. Tyndale dared to give mankind a fresh translation of the scriptures and was burned at the stake for it. Wycliffe somehow escaped a similar fate, but, as if to make history consistent for all reformers, his bones were later exhumed and burned. John Knox’s reformatory efforts in Scotland cost him 19 months as a galley slave. All such led one poet to complain, “Truth for ever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne.”

Insult is added to injury when this sort of thing is made to be the will of God, with biblical texts themselves used to support it. And this is one that is commonly used: “Mark them which cause divisions and offences” —and nearly always the quote stops there, for the rest of the passage places a significant qualification to it: “... contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Of course one is not to be divisive contrary to the doctrine, but, to be true to God and his conscience, he may have to divide. Jesus himself not only divided, but recognized division as a principle of right: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.” That is strong language! Had you thought of Jesus as one who came to turn a daughter against her mother?

Since the world, by its very nature, hates the truth and turns from the light, any man who dares to educate and enlighten is in for trouble. “If the world hates me, it will also hate you,” Jesus warned, so anyone who chooses truth and light will necessarily be at odds with those who reject them. This will include mothers and daughters, fathers and sons; and in turning to Jesus one’s enemies may be those of his own household. And so goodness is necessarily divisive. It separates people in terms of the values they choose.

But this verse, when superficially applied, is made to mean that division is per se wrong. Nobody can really believe that. Whatever be his religious heritage, he is what he is and where he is because of reformers who had to divide for the sake of what they believed to be God’s truth. It is like one condemning the idea of revolution while he himself enjoys those freedoms gained by the American Revolution. All revolutions may not be right, but revolution is a defensible principle. Not every division is right, but division is a justifiable principle. Some had to leave the Roman Church and so we have Presbyterians; some had to leave the Presbyterians and so we have Disciples; some had to leave the Disciples and so we have the Church of Christ. All these are divisions. And all along the way somebody was quoting “Mark them which cause divisions . . . and avoid them.” Does all this mean that it is all right for us to divide, but not the other fellow?

Alexander Campbell in an article on “Mark them who cause Divisions” had something to say about the way men have used this text to their own sectarian advantage:

The Pope and his angels preached from this text for half a century, while Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon, et al were exposing the filthiness of the Mother of Harlots. As Luther gave the Pope no quarters, he wreaked his vengeance on the Reformers, denouncing them as heretics, schismatics, sowers of discord among brethren, haughty, self-willed, and contumacious dignitaries.

He learned that lesson from his predecessors, who denounced the Messiah and his Apostles by similar arguments. Jesus was not a good man, for he made divisions among the people; and the Apostles were heresiarchs, for they turned the world upside down.

Elijah, too, was a disturber of the peace of Israel; and Daniel greatly marred the harmony of the devout fraternity who paid court to Nebuchadnezzar. In short, from the time that Moses caused divisions in the kingdom of Pharaoh, down to the last Dover Association, this text, “Mark and avoid them that cause divisions,” has never been unseasonable amongst the opponents of reform and of change —and as all who preach reformation preach a change, the consequence must be, that those who will not change; must, to justify themselves, denounce the reformers; and no text does better than this — “Mark them who cause divisions, and avoid them.” (Mill. Harb. 3, p. 604.)

It does not follow, of course, that just because this passage is often abused that it does not have its appropriate application. The passage has a ring of urgency about it. The apostle begins with “I appeal to you, brethren. . .” Lenski thinks that at this point Paul may have taken the pen from Tertius, who was writing for him, and penned these poignant words with his own hand. Factious men, who were false brothers, had hounded the apostle throughout his ministry, and he was eager that they be marked and avoided lest their evil work be all the more damaging. Their appearance at Antioch, Galatia, and Corinth made it likely they would invade Rome as well, so Paul issues this urgent warning against them.

That they did indeed invade Rome is evident from what he says in Philippians, which was afterwards written from Rome, and his description of them gives us insight as to the kind of people we are to mark and avoid.

“Some indeed preach Christ of envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment” (1:15-17). In 3:2 he describes them further: “Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh,” and in 3:18-19 he says they are “enemies of the cross of Christ, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.”

The description of them in Ro. 16 is similar. Verse 18 says: “Such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.” These deceitful workers are identified now and again in Pau1’s writings, for he considered them a threat to the very life of the infant community of believers. 2 Tim. 3:8 says they oppose the truth, have corrupt minds and a counterfeit faith; verse 13 of the same chapter calls them “evil men and imposters, who are deceivers and deceived.”

It is clear enough that he is dealing with a behavioral problem more than a doctrinal one. He admitted to the Philippians that they preached the gospel, even if with envy and rivalry (a reference to their malice towards him), and he rejoiced that they did preach the gospel. But through their deceitful behavior and hateful attitude they were creating dissensions. It was their evil heart more than their wrong doctrine that concerned the apostle. Their behavior was causing division, for they sought to form cliques and parties around themselves through flattering and deceitful talk.

The key description is that they were insincere. They were deceivers and imposters. They had no real interest in Jesus and his disciples even if they did preach the gospel, for they were concerned only for themselves. At one point the apostle describes them as men “who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7). They are the kind that take advantage of weak and troubled people for their own ends.

Such people spell trouble, real trouble. They will destroy in a day what others have labored for years in building. They create dissensions and cause divisions within the Body, and they are pleased to tear things up for their own glory. They are anything but peacemakers. Self rather than truth is their only concern. When Paul realized that such imposters and counterfeits would likely come to Rome, he could not conc1ude his letter to the disciples there without issuing a thunderous warning. The New English renders it: “I implore you, my friends, keep your eye on those who stir up quarrels and lead others astray, contrary to the teaching you received.” Whether Paul hastens to take Tertius’ pen and add this to the letter with his own bold strokes (cf. Gal. 6:11), as Lenski suggests, it is apparent that it is a “no-nonsense” appeal.

The word for “Mark them” has no reference to disfellowship, excommunication, or even stigmatization. He is not calling for labels or brands, nor even for discourtesy. The idea is that they are to watch out or keep an eye on such people. They are to be on their guard and not be deceived by their cunning.

The phrase “contrary to teachings you received” almost certainly refers to the teaching on unity in spite of differences he had just laid before them in the letter, especially Ro. 14. Albert Barnes sees it this way when he observes that it refers “To the teaching which you have received in this epistle and elsewhere; the teaching that these divisions should cease; that the Jewish ceremonies are not binding; that all should lay aside their causes of former differences, and be united in one family” and points to chapters 14 and 15.

The point is that these imposters are willing to sacrifice the unity of the Body for their own selfish gain, and so those who might fall prey to their deceit must be on their guard to see that this does not happen. Paul had laid down the teaching that the unity of the Spirit must be preserved, that believers are to receive each other even as Christ received them, with warts and all. But these “dogs,” who are only interested in mutilating, reject such teaching and are willing to destroy in order to have their way. So watch out for them!

There is no way that this passage can be applied to sincere, well-meaning, unity-loving brothers who happen to hold to ideas different from what we believe the scriptures to teach. To apply this to those who support Herald of Truth, divide into classes for study, use a plurality of cups, employ a resident pastor, use a piano or organ, interpret a prophecy in terms of a premillennial reign, or do their missionary and educational work through societies is to abuse the scriptures. In fact the one who so twists the scriptures as to impose this kind of oppression upon his brothers is more guilty of the sin involved than the one he is applying it to, and if anyone needs to be Marked! it is he.

The truth is that we can hold such differences and still be one. This is because we are in the fellowship with Jesus together. It is not doctrines that make us one. “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love” our old pioneers said so wisely. And they realized that matters of faith are only those things that are clearly and explicitly set forth in the scriptures. All else is our opinion. Those who insist that we line up on their opinions, or else suffer their wrath and oppression, are really the ones to mark and avoid, in view of the real meaning of Ro. 16:17.

And when these very ones use Ro. 16:17 on the rest of us or any of us, insisting that we are to love them and hate everybody else, or join them and separate ourselves from all other believers, and browbeat us as “dividers” if we don’t, implying that we are going “contrary to the teaching” rather than themselves, well. . . a growing number of us just aren’t buying it any longer.

“EYE HATH NOT SEEN NOR EAR HEARD”

This series on The Word Abused need not include only those instances of gross mishandling of scripture, but some of the less serious cases of misinterpretation as well. So we will be including some of these, believing that such a study will make us more responsible interpreters. But we will say at the outset that these are less crucial, for they are not used to browbeat, chastise, and exclude those who would be free in Jesus. Not only are they not interpreted to hurt people, but the conclusions drawn are often true, or may well be true. But we doubt if the passages really teach what is claimed for them. This part of the series, then, may be viewed as misapplications more than abuses.

This particular one, found in 1 Cor. 2:9, is commonly applied to the coming glories of heaven. Even preachers may be heard to say the likes of “The splendor of heaven is far beyond what any man can imagine, as Paul says: “Eye hath not seen, nor has ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” One may well suppose that if that doesn’t refer to heaven it ought to! But the very next verse shows conclusively that that can’t be the case. That is the problem with so many of these mis applications: they are taken out of context.

The next verse says: “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” If God has revealed already what “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,” then it can’t refer to anything in the future, can it? The context indicates that Paul is referring to that divine wisdom that was vouchsafed to the apostles and prophets through the Spirit. He is referring to the gospel that he had preached to them —“Jesus Christ and him crucified”— which defied all the vain reasonings of the wise (verse 2). He is talking about “a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which was decreed before the ages of our glorification,” which, if the Jewish leaders had realized, they would not have murdered Jesus (verse 8). God’s plan of uniting all men, Jew and Gentile, into the one Body of Christ, was the great mystery kept secret for long ages (cf. Ro. 16:25-26).

In all those ages no ear ever heard, no eye ever saw, no mind ever contemplated what God had in store for His people through the gospel of Christ. This would, to some degree, exclude the prophets who had some inkling of what was in the offing. The verse in question is, after all, a quotation from Isa. 64:4, albeit a rather loose one. But neither is Isaiah referring to the heavenly state, but to what God “works for those who wait for him.”

The meaning of the passage is clear when one sees that verse 10 is a continuation of the thought embodied in the quote from Isaiah. The Revised Standard thus has it: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard . . . God has revealed to us through the Spirit.”

While there is no great harm done in applying this to heaven, the truth remains that it does not have that meaning, and we should endeavor to be true to the word in every ‘particular. Besides, it might not hold up to have the Bible say this about heaven. “No eye hath seen.” Really? How about John in Revelation? He saw a great deal, as well as heard some things. He saw heaven, God, Christ, and even the departed souls, and he heard conversations. “No ear hath heard.” Hardly, if this applies to heaven, for Paul in 2 Cor. 12:4 says that he “heard things that cannot be told” in his rapture into the paradise of God, which is heaven. There are others as well. The martyred Stephen saw into heaven as he died (Acts 7:56).

The passage has all the glory the Spirit can give it just as it stands. Praise God that He has revealed to us through His Spirit that which the wisest of men could not even begin to imagine through all those long ages. Even a Plato, an Aristotle, or Euripides could not begin to contemplate the glory that the Creator kept secret, awaiting His chosen envoys, lowly fishermen, who were to tell the glad story to a lost world. It did not “enter into the heart” even of the great poets “the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” Even the creative Stoics could not come up with a story like the story of Jesus. And all this God did because He cares for man. He gave us Jesus because He loves us. As Karl Barth puts it, God is for man! Yes, He is so much for us that He designed such a glorious secret that no one could see it, no ear hear it, and no mind imagine it. Glory be! it is all for us as a free gift.

Don’t worry about heaven. It will get along just fine without this passage! —the Editor

True intellectual freedom is found not in independence of the truth, but in submission to the truth, whether scientific or biblical. — John R. W. Stott