Without Natural Affection and Covenantbreakers

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.]

Circumcision and Baptism

Many believers in Christ teach that baptism is just a sign of salvation that has already been received and thus whether or not one is baptized is of no great consequence as pertains to the soul’s salvation.  Many see baptism in the same light they see circumcision in the Old Testament, as just a sign.  Is baptism just a sign of salvation by faith that is already in one’s possession? 

In the Old Testament long before the Law of Moses it was said of Abraham, “He believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.” (Gen. 15:6 NKJV)  Certainly, no Bible believer would doubt Abraham’s salvation at that point in time.

Many years later the Lord appeared to Abraham and commanded him and all the males in his household to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14).  The Lord declared it to be “a sign of the covenant between me and you.” (Gen. 17:11 NKJV)

Even though circumcision was just a sign it was not unimportant.  The male child that was not circumcised “shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Gen. 17:14 NKJV)  How seriously did Abraham take this command that was but a sign?  Abraham obeyed it immediately, “that very same day.” (Gen. 17:23-27, see Gen. 17:23 specifically)

In Romans 4 Paul talks about this event and again reiterates that circumcision was a sign (Rom. 4:11) and makes the declaration that Abraham was saved, prior to circumcision, by his faith (Rom. 4:3-12, specifically v. 9-10, NKJV).

In thinking about this specific command of God to Abraham, his household, and his descendants one must keep in mind the relationship of faith to obedience.  Without faith, believing God, Abraham would never have obeyed.  Faith had already obtained a righteous standing before God but it was a living active faith that willingly obeyed God that kept Abraham’s standing firm before God.  No one ever seems to ask the question, “what if Abraham had not obeyed?”

Faith is primary in the lives of God’s people whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament.  Faith always has primacy for without it nothing else follows.  Men do not obey nor follow after one, unless coerced to do so, without belief in the one they follow.  Atheists do not seek to follow God and looking at it from their point of view we readily understand why.  Why would they?  Abraham obeyed because Abraham believed.

Well, how about baptism?  Is baptism just the New Testament’s version of circumcision?  There is no doubt about there being some similarities but just because two things are similar does not mean they are equivalent serving the same purpose.  Horses and mules share similarities but it is error to not distinguish between them for there are some real differences.  Mules do not race at Churchill Downs for a reason.

Circumcision and baptism share the necessity of faith for either act to have spiritual meaning.  Circumcision itself had no spiritual significance for man until God gave the command at which time man (Abraham) had the option to either trust and obey or disobey.  Would Abraham honor God by obedience or would he rebel?   In that sense, baptism shares a similarity with circumcision.  As a man of faith Abraham obeyed.  Because of faith, his descendants had their sons circumcised on the eighth day after birth. 

One Hollywood actor can baptize another on film but it amounts to nothing before God.  One can be baptized to please mom or dad, husband or wife, or even the church community but it amounts to nothing other than getting wet until such a time as the person does the act out of faith in God in obedience to God’s command.

Those who talk about people believing in water salvation are generally in error in doing so.  I never knew a person who believed just going down into the water and coming up out of it saved the person who lacked faith in the command giver, faith in the God who commanded it.  Without faith nothing can save a man.  “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.” (Heb. 11:6 NKJV)

Faith leads to things that accompanying faith make faith alive and active versus the dead faith that James says cannot save (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).  Faith leads to repentance and where is the man who would deny that repentance is required for salvation?  There is no motive for repentance toward God outside of faith.  “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness…” (Acts 17:30-31 NKJV).  “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish!” (Luke 13:3, 5 NKJV)  

Peter, in the first gospel sermon ever preached, in Acts 2 tied repentance with baptism, “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  He repeated himself years later in regards to baptism when he wrote 1 Peter saying, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) 

Peter certainly did not mean to say water will save you without faith and repentance, water salvation, but was merely making the point he desired to make regarding baptism.  Baptism is a part of God’s plan for mankind in the age of Christianity as much as circumcision was a part of God’s plan for his people in Old Testament days.   The failure to be circumcised in Abraham’s day and afterwards would cut a man off from God’s covenant.  In the Christian era baptism is the initiatory rite by which man comes into covenant relationship with Christ for man is “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV, see also Gal. 3:27, 1 Cor. 12:13)  

While the Bible speaks of circumcision as a sign it nowhere speaks of baptism as being a sign.  I searched the concordances for the word sign in seven major Bible translations in a context where baptism was also mentioned.  Not one translation yielded a result.  Man may call baptism a sign but that is man, the Bible does not do so.  

The one passage in the New Testament that relates circumcision to baptism is found in Col. 2:11-13:  “In him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.  And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (NKJV) 

Paul wrote this Colossian passage and provides the best commentary on it in something else he wrote back in Rom. 6:2-4:  “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?  Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (NKJV) 

Paul makes it clear that there is a “circumcision made without hands.”  It is Christ’s circumcision.  This is a circumcision that is performed on a person spiritually dead in sins, one whose sins have not yet been forgiven.  That spiritually dead person is buried in baptism into death to sin but arises from his burial with Christ a new creation (Gal. 3:27, 2 Cor. 5:17), “raised with Him through faith” (Col. 2:12) to “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4)  The circumcision of Christ is the cutting off of the person’s sins which is done in baptism when preceded by faith and repentance.  Only Christ (God) can forgive sins thus it is the circumcision of Christ. 

Peter says in the passage quoted earlier, the passage talking about baptism, that he now has, “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV)  He is a new creation, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV)  He was “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) 

It is only through faith that one arises from baptism with an answer of a good conscience.  Only through faith can such a person believe that old things have passed away and all is new in his life.  Only through faith can he believe he has been forgiven of all trespasses. 

When a person submits through faith to be baptized into Christ he is submitting himself to accept in that act of faith Christ’s circumcision.  It is not a sign; it is the reality itself. 

As a final note one should not confuse the “circumcision…of the heart” in Rom. 2:28-29 with the “circumcision of Christ” in Col. 2:11-13.  In Romans, Paul is making the point that physical circumcision alone without obedient faith accompanying it was of no avail to the Jew.  God cares about a man’s heart toward God.  “He is a Jew who is one inwardly.” (Rom. 2:29 NKJV)  In Romans it is man who circumcises his own heart, it is man’s circumcision, that which he is responsible for.  In Colossians it is Christ’s circumcision, what Christ does for man when man complies with God’s will by faith.  Man can circumcise his heart as he possesses free will; man cannot forgive his sins.  That is God’s dominion, Christ’s circumcision.

This is a teaching that was found in scripture long before Paul’s time or writings.  Moses spoke of the need for the Jews to circumcise their hearts in Deut. 10:16 and the Lord spoke of the same need in Jer. 4:4.  This did not mean physical circumcision was unnecessary but that more was needed than just the physical act.

There is much more that could be said on this subject and perhaps I will tackle that at a later date. 

[This article can be downloaded and/or printed out by clicking here.]