Most
of us prefer a version of the Bible today that is more modern in
its language than the original American Standard Version of 1901
or the King James Version, thus making the Bible easier to read and
understand. However, in a few passages scattered about the Bible, the
new literal translations like the ESV, NASB, and the NKJV, all
excellent translations taken as a whole, have, in my opinion, given
us inferior translations in an attempt to make reading easier for us.
One
such example is found in Rom. 1:31. In Romans 1, Paul, toward the
middle of the chapter, begins to talk about the ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men (v. 18) and then in the last few verses lists
a series of sins into which mankind had fallen. Verse 31 is a part
of this listing and reads in its entirety as follows, “undiscerning,
untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.” (NKJV)
However,
read this same verse from the King James Version and it reads as
follows, “Without
understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful.”
The ASV of 1901 reads the same as the KJV except that it omits the
word “implacable.”
Here
is a case where both of these older translations are more accurate to
my mind than any of the newer ones, more accurate in exactness of the
meaning of the original Greek words behind the English words
untrustworthy
(NKJV) and unloving
(NKJV). That is to say, covenantbreakers
is a better translation than untrustworthy,
and without
natural affection
is a better translation than unloving.
For
covenantbreakers (it is one word in the KJV), the ESV and the NIV have "faithless," the NAS, the CSB, and
the NKJV have "untrustworthy." These words are close
enough that you can see where modern-day translators were coming from, but they still stray in my mind from the exact intent of the
original. The original is not referring to general
untrustworthiness but specific untrustworthiness in breaking a covenant one has made with another. I
may be wrong, as I am not a Greek scholar, and
modern scholarship seems to say I am, but if you go back in time, translators thought covenantbreakers was the best translation.
Let
each do their own study.
Hear
the words of Malachi 2:13-16, and for this I will use the NKJV because it reads easier and is still accurate. “And this is the
second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears,
with weeping and crying; so he does not regard the offering anymore,
nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, ‘For
what reason?’ Because the Lord has been witness between you and
the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet
she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did he not make
them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks
godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none
deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. ‘For the Lord God
of Israel says that he hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment
with violence,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to
your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.’”
When
a man and woman marry, they make a solemn covenant between each other
and God. To break that covenant would be exactly what the Greek word
used in Rom. 1:31 is talking about. But there is more. How many
times in reading the Old Testament do you run across the word
covenant in connection with covenants God made with his people and
them with him? How many times did his people break those covenants?
I
did a quick e-sword search on the NKJV concordance for the word
covenant in the New Testament, and the word popped up 31 times in 28
total verses. The New Testament is sometimes called the New Covenant
(it is listed as that on the title page of the copy I have of the
original American Standard Version of 1901).
As
Christians, we have entered into a covenant relationship with God.
When Jesus died on the cross and we come to accept him as Lord,
Savior, and King of our lives by gospel obedience, we have entered into
a covenant relationship with him. Remember his words, “This is my
blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission
of sins.” (Matt. 26:28 NKJV)
Paul
spoke of himself and his cohorts as “ministers of the new
covenant.” (1 Cor. 3:6 NKJV) “Jesus has become a surety of a
better covenant” (Heb. 722 NKJV) says the Hebrew writer. It is
said to be a “better covenant” than that which was under the Law
of Moses with better promises (Heb. 8:6). To be a covenantbreaker, whether between husband and wife or a Christian and his God, is a
serious matter.
“Of
how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy
who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the
covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing…,” says the
Hebrew writer (Heb. 10:29 NKJV). We must be as good as our word, and
if we are not, we need to repent and get to being that good. This
easy covenant breaking we have today is not going to get it with God, whether the covenant we are breaking is with our wife or husband or
with God.
Am
I saying modern-day translations have it wrong? I am told by Claude,
the
A.I.,
that modern scholars think the original is broader than just the
breaking of covenants. Here is a quote from it,
“The
shift from ‘covenantbreakers’ to ‘faithless’ in modern
translations reflects a more contemporary understanding of the Greek
term's broader meaning - it encompasses not just breaking formal
covenants or treaties, but being generally untrustworthy, unreliable,
or lacking in faithfulness to commitments and relationships.”
ChatGPT,
the A.I., says,
“the
Greek ἀσύνθετος
literally means ‘not keeping agreements’ but broadly conveys
faithless/treacherous/untrustworthy,
which explains why newer translations expand or modernize the
wording.”
Certainly,
a covenantbreaker would be faithless and
untrustworthy so I can see that.
However, here
is a case for me where I find it hard to discern between translation
and commentary, which is which.
The
other phrase I want to talk about from Rom. 1:31 is the words,
“without natural affection.” In the ESV and the NIV, the Greek is
translated by one word, the word “heartless.” The NAS, the CSB, and the NKJV have “unloving.” I think you will find the old King
James Version has it correct as to the exact meaning of the Greek. A
person might be heartless and unloving in general and still not be
“without natural affection.”
Vine’s,
An
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,
a standard work that Bible students consult regularly to see what
the original Greek behind the English word means, says this,
“signifies without natural affection…love of kindred, especially
of parents for children and children for parents.” The Greek word is “astorgos.”
An
example of natural affection is found in the story of the two women
(harlots) who, while living together, gave birth to sons 3 days apart.
The one woman lay on her son in the night, killing him by accident.
She then claimed the other woman’s son as her own. The matter was
taken before King Solomon, who heard both women claiming the boy as
their own. In his wisdom, King Solomon proposed to have the son
killed by the sword and both women given a half, knowing the real
mother would be willing to give up the child to have his life spared.
Natural affection led to this very result, with the real mother
pleading for the life of the son, willing to give him up to the other
woman to save his life. “O my lord, give her the living child, and
by no means kill him!” (1 Kings 3:26 NKJV)
What
is natural affection if it is not God given, natural, by nature? It
is hard for most of us to understand how this can be, that one would
not have natural affection, and yet Paul says some have this sin in
their life. In writing Romans 1, he includes it with a long list of
many sins about which he says in closing, “that those who practice
such things are worthy of death.” (Rom. 1:32 NKJV) We read in the
Old Testament of some offering their babies up for burnt sacrifices.
In 2 Kings 17, one reads of the sins that caused God to allow Israel
to be carried away into captivity. One of these sins was that “they
caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire.” (2 Kings
17:17 NKJV) This was a sin associated with the worship of idols.
Manasseh,
the king of Judah, became guilty of the same thing: “he caused his
sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.”
(2 Chron. 33:6 NKJV) God, in the book of Jeremiah, said, “And they
have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the
Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire,
which I did not command, nor did it come into my heart.” (Jer. 7:31
NKJV)
This
shows the depth and degree to which men can sink when they get
involved with false doctrine. Radical Islam comes to mind, where men
can slit a man’s throat with a knife, the burning of Christians at
the stake, etc.
However,
it can work the other way as well, children against their parents.
Almost every Bible reader is acquainted with the attempt by David’s
son Absalom to overthrow him. One can read about Absalom’s revolt
beginning in 2 Sam. 15, and every indication is that David felt
Absalom would put him to death if he had the opportunity.
Many
years later, Jesus spoke of a time when “brother will betray brother
to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against
parents and cause them to be put to death.” (Mark 13:12 NKJV) From
time to time, we read or hear in the news of children abusing their aged
parents. In fact, Jesus talked about this very thing, although not
speaking of physical abuse, in Matt. 15. He accused the scribes and
Pharisees of not honoring their parents, not being willing to help them
(Matt. 15:1-6).
Yes,
these are all extreme cases, but if men can fall into the depths of sin
to the degree they are willing to do these things, then certainly
there is such a thing as a lack of natural affection, which none can
deny. The lack of natural affection can manifest itself in many
ways. But in whatever way it manifests itself, the sin of the heart
remains the same. The sin of lacking natural affection is simply the
sin of not loving. Perhaps this is the reason some of the modern
translations use the word “unloving” in their translations.
“For
this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should
love one another.” (1 John 3:11 NKJV) “He who does not love his
brother abides in death.” (1 John 3:14 NKJV) One would do well to
read the book of 1 John where the word love is used 36 times in the
New King James Version.
If
one lacks natural affection, it is not something we are incapable of
doing anything about. All sin begins in the heart, unless one is
talking about sins of ignorance. If the Bible teaches anything at
all, it teaches that men and their hearts can be changed. Saul had a
hand in seeing Christians put to death (Acts 26:10), but God and his
word changed him into the apostle Paul. Paul said there was a reason
for that--that he might be an example.
I
use the New Living Translation here, not because I think it is the
most accurate translation of the passage, but because I think, as a
commentary, it has hit the nail on the head of what the verse teaches.
I refer to 1 Tim. 1:16 where Paul says, “But God had mercy on me
so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great
patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that
they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.” (NLT)
It
is not a matter of saying I was born without natural affection; what
can I do? We are the way we are because of the attitudes we have
developed over time. Saul was not loving toward those families he
tore apart, casting a mother, a dad, a son, or a daughter into prison and
possibly seeing them put to death depending on the case. Even so, he
became a changed man.
The
apostle John reached a point where he no longer had any desire to
have fire called down from heaven to consume those who rejected them
(Luke 9:54), but given a lifetime came to be known to us today as the
apostle of love.
Those
3,000 converted on the day of Pentecost who yelled for the Son of God
to be put to death had their hearts changed from hatred and murder to
love and compassion. Christ can change us. It all comes down to a
matter of our wills. Do we want to be known as the man or woman who
lacked natural affection or the man or woman who loved his or her
family? It is a matter of personal choice just as much as salvation
is. Natural affection goes with salvation as much as the lack of it
goes with condemnation.
Love
is a choice. That cannot be
emphasized
too much. Love is a choice, and remember, we are talking about
natural affection. When you begin to love rather than hate, you will
find life to be much happier. Where do you begin? You begin from
within, within your heart. You begin with your will. God can change
your heart, your life, but you have to want it first. When you want
it, you will begin seeking it, and when you seek, you shall find (Matt.
7:8).
[To download this article or print it out click here.]
