Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Give me six lines written by an honest man, and I will find something in it with which to hang him” (Cardinal Richelieu, as quoted by Henry Kissinger, who was quoted by James Reston, “The Commercial Appeal,” Memphis, Tennessee, April 17, 1976, p. 6).

The devil walks about seeking whom he may devour. Some read about seeking whom they may hang. It is always proper, even in six lines or less, to point out error, but one must be careful lest envy, jealousy and pride cause him to go mote hunting as per Matt. 7:1-5. The cause of truth and righteousness is too important to be burdened with selfish arrogance and egotism. In controversy, issues must remain primary and basic. A personal vendetta results in a number of negative goals. First, the one in error enlists sympathy. Second, the cause of truth is evil spoken of. Third, the reprover loses his influence for good. Fourth, the rebuker loses his soul.

Men often become so tied to false doctrine that their very name is synonymous with error. There is nothing inherently wrong with marking those who lead away disciples (Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; Titus 1:10-13). Judgment and discretion must be used, but to shrink from direct, personal conflict is as inexcusable as the afore mentioned personal vendetta. So what can be done? Keep your heart with all diligence, pray, do your duty toward the truth, hate every false way, and love the souls of men.

Meantime, give me six lines written by a dishonest man, and I will try to find something in them with which to help him.

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, p. 562
September 15, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

I read an article somewhere in which a woman was being given advise on the matter of “holding a husband.” The counsellor’s advise was, “If you want to hold a man you must first set him free.” Sounds paradoxical, but good advice I think. I’m not an expert on such matters, but I think she meant that the best way to hold a man is to let him feel that he is not being “held.”

I read another story, and this one was hypothetical. A man fell over a cliff, and a few feet below the edge he caught a bush that grew out of the side of the cliff. He was terrified and began praying. The story has it that the Lord answered him audibly and said, “What is it you want?” “Save my life,” the man pleaded. “Do you believe that I am able to save you?” the Lord asked. “Oh, yes, I believe.” “What would you be willing to do to show that faith?” asked the Lord. “Anything! Anything at all!” the fellow said. “Then turn loose that bush,” came the answer. This sounds paradoxical, also, but there is illustrated in this story a principle of divine truth. This is particularly apropos of the matter of giving.

We Receive by Giving

In my preaching on giving, I have stopped putting the emphasis on “paying the bills” and “meeting the budget.” I do not mean to minimize the importance of money in the Lord’s work. The more money we have to use, the more work that can be done. But our preaching on giving ought to emphasize the need of the giver more than the need of the money. Paul calls giving a grace (2 Cor. 8:6, 7). Grace is something God does for us, not something we do for Him. And giving our means into the Lord’s work is a favor of the Giver. Why else would the Creator of the world, the Giver of life and the Father of our spirits ask us to give? Does anyone think that God needs our money? Don’t we realize the God could have preached the gospel to the whole world, relieved all the needy and edified all the saints to perfection, without a penny of our money or an effort of any kind on our part if He had chosen to do it that way? What’s the matter with us? When you hear some poor miserable imitation of a Christian complaining about how the church is always needing money, and how the “Bible says charity begins at home,” just tell him to stick his money back into his pocket and save it to buy himself an air-conditioner to take with him when he dies. Because what little he gives would not help the work much and it won’t do him any good at all unless he changes his attitude.

Paul not only says that giving is a “grace,” but that “God is able to make all grace abound towards you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may bound unto every good work . . . . now he that ministereth seed for the sower both minister bread for your food and multiply your seed sown and Increase the fruits of your righteousness” (2 Cor. 9:8, 10).

This simply says that if you will use what God has given you that He will give to you again so that you may abound in His work. This does not mean that God will give you back more dollars and cents than you gave, necessarily. And if you increase your giving because you think you will get back more money than you gave, you have missed the point. Forget it, and start over. However, I doubt that I need say this. But if we “give ourselves to the Lord” as did the Macedonians (2 Cor. 8:5), and consider always that what we have is His rightfully; if we obey the divine injunction to give “cheerfully” and as we “are prospered,” because we want to give it and without considering what we are going to get in exchange, we shall receive abundantly. I believe the passage teaches that this blessing will include material prosperity. But not many of us are willing to trust the Lord to do what He would have us do. We are not willing to “let go” that we might “hold on.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, p. 562
September 15, 1977

By Daniel H. King

Two Important Finds

Over the last several months some very exciting things have been reported in many newspapers across the country with reference to discoveries in Jordan and Syria which appear to have either direct or indirect relevance for students of the Old Testament. In reading the accounts I have been tempted on a few occasions to write up a critique on the basis of the mass media reports but my better judgment consistently got the better of me. For several reasons I was determined to wait for reports issuing from the scholarly publications. One major reason is that one does not always get the facts right when dependent upon those untrained in a particular discipline (journalists are usually only expert reporters and not specialists in technical fields of endeavor); there is a well-known tendency on the part of news people to over-estimate and exaggerate for the sake of a mass readership; in addition scholars are usually more apt to be deliberate and reserved in their judgments since their scholarly reputations are “on the line” when they offer their opinions. One will have to wait a while longer to enjoy the fruit of their expertise, but in most cases the wait is justified. Too often we have rushed into print with insufficient information at our disposal and been embarrassed at a sudden change in scholarly mood and sentiment at a later date. Throwing caution to the wind is like spitting into the wind. We never like the results!

I therefore hope that my remarks are not premature or exaggerated. Conservative religious folk are often faulted for over-playing the value of Archaeology in the realm of Evidences. And, perhaps we sometimes deserve it. I have never heard of anyone yet who obeyed the gospel because of the Moabite Stone or the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, although both of these certainly fit into the class of those discoveries which are monumental in their impact upon historical and biblical studies. If I did I would most likely eye them with skepticism, since both things now are clearly aspects of knowledge rather than faith. Knowledge is demonstrable and amenable to validation through scientific means. Faith is not. Faith is “a conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). It comes by the hearing of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17), not by scientific and historical testing and validation. I believe the Bible is true not because Archaeology has proven it to be true (which it has not done and cannot do) but because God said so. People believed the Bible before Archaeology was ever thought of and believed it no more or less since its present popularity. Those who believed the Bible before the many recent discoveries are encouraged and strengthened by them. But, on the other hand, nonbelievers have merely back off momentarily, rallied

their forces, revamped their strategy, changed their tactics somewhat, and mounted a fresh assault on the Scriptures. Nothing has really changed.

So, why do we bother to keep up with the latest finds in Archaeology? For numerous reasons. Assuredly it sets a tone of historical credibility and veracity for the book as a whole as demonstrated by those parts which have been tested in the arena of knowledge. As well, it has out-dated many of the older works which leveled criticism at the Scriptures from the standpoint of historical criteria and has set a mood of caution and solicitude (even gingerliness) over the whole of liberal biblical scholarship which has long been overdue. For these reasons and others we will ever remain in the debt of the many dedicated men who have spent untold hours sifting through the dust of ages past with the hope of giving posterity a greater insight into the text and background of the Bible.

The Balaam Inscription

From Deuteronomy 27:2-4 we learn that the children of Israel were to set up stone monuments in Mount Ebal when they inherited the land of Canaan and to overlay them with plaster. In the plaster was to be inscribed “very plainly” the words of the law. Apparently this passage reflected a custom of monument-making which was frequent in the ancient East, for the text of a similar inscription was discovered in 1967 and reported in the March, 1976 Biblical Archaeologist which bears indirectly upon the story of Balsam as reported in Numbers 22-24. The fragmentary text (or possible texts) was found at Tell Deir — ‘Alla in Jordan by Dr. H. J. Franken. It is written in a dialect of Aramaic which has many affinities with biblical Hebrew and dates from around 700 B.C. The lines are written in a kind of poetic idiom. Herein lies one of the important aspects of the discovery: heretofore Aramaic poetry dating before the Christian era was unknown. Further, the character of the material is prophetic and this makes it the first prophecy of any scope from the ancient West Semitic world outside the prophecies of the Old Testament. Here are a couple of important comments from Jacob Hoftijzer as to content:

“The first combination contains a prophecy In the name of the prophet Balaam, the son of Beor, known in the Old Testament (Num. 22-24; Deut, 23:5-6; Josh. 13:22; 24:9-10; Neh. 13:2; Mic. 6:5, and see also Num. 31:8 and 16). According to Old Testament tradition, this non-Israelite prophet had been summoned by the king of Moab to curse the Israelites, who were marching through Tranalordan Into Palestine proper; but through God’s Intervention Balaam was obliged to bless the Israelites rather than to curse them. In the Old Testament Balsam is clearly a figure who belongs exclusively to traditions about Translordan, it is noteworthy then, that our texts in which be plays a central role, likewise come from a Translordanian holy place. Also, in oar teats Balaam has no connection whatever with anything that can be considered characteristic of typically Israelite religion. If one combines the biblical data with those of Deir– ‘Alla, one moat conclude that for a considerable period of time the figure of Balasm took up a prominent position In a specific religious tradition In Transjordan.

The form in which the prophecy Is narrated resembles those in which certain Old Testament prophecies have been handed down ….

The second combination contains-so far as it is Intelligible–a series of curses, parallels for which are found In many passages of the Old Testament and In other ancient Near Eastern literature . . . (pp. 12-13).”

He further points out that “It is striking how many points of contact there are between this. text and the Old Testament” (p. 14). Certainly scholars are now in possession of a significant piece of evidence in this inscriptional material. We shall anxiously await further details on these Deir — Alla texts. For now we are grateful for the several points of confirmation which are obvious from this material.

The Ebla Archives

During the years 1974 and 1975 in the excavations at Tell Mardikh in North Syria, the Italian Archaeological Mission of the University of Rome unearthed around 16,000 texts from the 3rd millennium B.C. The language of the city called in ancient times Ebla has been labeled Paleo-canaanite and was previously unknown. Surprisingly though, this language represents only about a fifth of the texts. The rest are clearly in Sumerian, the language of the ancient Mesopotamian civilization known as Sumer. Under the direction of Professor Paolo Matthiae, the Italian archaeologists uncovered an entire era of ancient Near Eastern history with the finding of these tablets.

The texts reveal the history of the city of Ebla. They date from the Early Bronze IV period, or about 24002250 B.C. This is before the time of Abraham. Every kind of material is found in these documents: mythological stories, hymns to divinities, incantations, collections of proverbs, royal ordinances, international treaties, legal texts, school exercises, economic and administrative texts, etc. In addition, historical texts of many kinds bespeak the political history of Syria during the term of Ebla’s power.

More importantly for students of the Old Testament, however, is the fact that there are several points of contact worthy of notice. Firstly, in the texts we find third millennium documentation of cities hitherto attested only in the first and second millennia B.C., such as Salim, the city of Melchizedeck, Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, Gaza, Dor, Sinai, Ashtarot, Joppa and others.

Among the kings of Ebla appears the name of Ebrum, third in the list of Eblaite monarchs. His name is written Eb-uru-um with two possible readings: Eb-ru-um, which resembles the biblical Eber, the father of the Semites according to Gen. 10:21; or Eb-ri-um, which reminds us of the name Eb-ri or “Hebrew.” In his article in the May, 1976 Biblical Archaeologist, Giovanni Pettinato chooses the second as the better alternative (p. 47). Many other names which appear in the Ebla texts appear also in the Old Testament in roughly the same form. The name Da-wi-dum (David) is present in the texts, over a thousand years before the son of Jesse wore it; Ish-ra-il and Ish-ra ya both also appear. And, notably, the name Ya (the Old Testament shortened form of “Yehovah”) and the name II (the Old Testament term El, or “God”) both appear in the texts and seem to point to a specific deity.

Much more could be said about this important archaeological find, but as yet the details are scanty and the interpretations varied. It will take many years to sort out and evaluate properly the mass of data that is now made available through the Ebla excavations. It is certain, though, that exciting days lie ahead for those of us who are intrigued by such things!

Truth Magazine XXI: 35, pp. 556-557
September 8, 1977

By Jimmy Tuten

It is regrettable that my reply to Al Diestelkamp did not appear at the same time his reply appeared in print (Vol. 21, No. 20). The fault lies with me. I received Al’s response to my Sunday night communion articles approximately four weeks before I moved to Charleston, South Carolina. When the copy of his reply was received I had already packed my library and all my notes for the move. Two weeks before I moved I was in a good meeting at Beaufort, South Carolina and returned to another in progress at my home congregation where W. L. Wharton was preaching. Following the move to Charleston I was about 10 days getting around to setting up my office and then immediately thereafter I preached a meeting for the Ashley Heights church where I am now preaching. I am just now getting to Brother Diestelkamp’s reply. I am sorry for the unavoidable delay. My original articles on Sunday night communion appeared in Truth Magazine in Volume 21, Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

There are several comments I want to make about Al’s reply. First, in his conclusion he charges me with establishing my position with tradition. I deny this and maintain that my position is Scripturally established as can be seen by reading my three articles on the matter.

Al says, “if those who share Brother Tuten’s conviction insist upon the participation of us who cannot do so in all good conscience, then they will be guilty of causing division.” Frankly, I know of no one who takes the position I take who forces anyone to take part in the Sunday night communion. We simply insist on the right to do what the Lord commanded us to do, i.e., commune on the Lord’s Day. To the contrary, some of those who hold to Al’s position have split at least one church I know of and have refused to let brethren commune on Sunday evening in other places. It is Brother Diestelkamp’s position that causes the division. Let’s put the shoe on the right foot!

Brother Diestelkamp does not like my reference to “the One Assembly Argument” preferring, he says, to call it “the Second Serving” argument. This change may add some emotional appeal but it does not make Al’s position any more Scriptural.

Because I maintain that the communion can be served anytime during the Lord’s Day, Sunday morning and Sunday night, for example, Brother Diestelkamp charges me with holding to a “metropolitan bishop” concept. This simply is not true! I know of a church which holds two services on Sunday morning: Communion is served at both periods. One worship is on a service base for midshipmen. The other is about three hours later at the building. The midshipmen cannot attend worship at the building at 11:00 A.M. This is Al’s “metropolitan bishop” concept and he would deny the young men the right to commune unless they can attend the one assembly where supposedly all are tarrying one for another to commune. If he denies this he has given up his position on communion in one assembly. If he grants the young men the right to commune three hours ahead of the one assembly communion, and the rest to commune at 11:00 A.M., then he cannot deny other brethren the right to commune in the evening. In either case the brethren are simply doing what the Lord commanded (I Cor. 11:23-26).

As to forming “two congregations,” I think Al had better re-read my article. I admit I could have been more careful in wording this section and should not have used the word “congregation.” But what I said was, “if we should accept the one-meeting-in-one-congregation theory,” then this might be the solution. I do not accept Brother Diestelkamp’s position so I do not argue for a separate congregation. Surely Al can see this. Those who attend Sunday night are as much a part of the flock as those who attend Sunday morning and should have the same right to commune at the only time they can do so. Who gives Brother Diestelkamp the right to “play God” and tell people when they can and cannot commune on the Lord’s Day?

Al wants authority for establishing a congregation for “convenience of time.” Acts 20:7-11 gives every indication that this was a Lord’s day evening meeting, possibly because most of the disciples were slaves and had to work, not having the Lord’s day off as we do. Paul’s continuing his speech until midnight, being ready to depart on the morrow (Act 20:7), and the reference to “lights in the upper chamber” where the disciples were gathered adds weight to this. The reference to “midnight” shows Roman time is under consideration. I am convinced that the church at Troas was established for the convenience of time. I would like to inform Al that some brethren in Missouri who hold his position pulled off from a congregation who would not buckle under to their “Sunday-morning-only communion” idea and started a church of their own. If this is not starting a church for the convenience of time, I do not know what is. Perhaps Al needs to talk to these brethren if he considers this unscriptural. Why do brethren meet at 10:30 A.M. or 11:00 A.M. anyway? For the sake of convenience! Al, are brethren unscriptural in doing this? Maybe you can tell us, based on Scripture, when we should meet. What about it?

On Acts 20:7, Brother Diestelkamp says, “Brother Tuten, you cannot ‘come together’ without being in the same place at the same time.” Al, have you ever seen a congregation whose Sunday morning worship was attended by all of the members down to the last member there? If there is not 100% attendance at your communion time, your argument means nothing. You have to admit that if such should happen it is a rare occasion indeed. Frankly, I have never seen it, not even in small congregations.

Al wants authority for one Christian partaking of the Lord’s Supper at a time and place where other Christians are not partaking with him. This is not the issue! The issue is: do Christians have the right to commune on the Lord’s Day The time element is immaterial as long as it is on the Lord’s Day. The partaking of the Lord’s Supper on this day is vital and I

am not going to refuse one the right to do so. I might add that the Lord’s Supper is just one act among several that is observed on the Lord’s Day. Brother Diestelkamp’s position makes it the most important item because he makes an issue of it. I would like to know where he gets authority for this. His very position de-emphasizes the other acts of worship.

As to I Corinthians 11 and tarrying one for another, to have an argument, Al would have to have all members of the church present at the same time. This is an impossibility except on rare occasions due to the fact that there is always someone out of town, or sick or hindered from attending Sunday morning for some reason beyond their control.

Conclusion

Let me say again that when disciples break bread in one assembly on the Lord’s Day, they are doing what is authorized. When others break bread in another assembly on the same day in the same building, they too, are doing what is authorized. I maintain that the observance of the Lord’s Supper is Scriptural at any hour on the Lord’s Day. If a brother misses Sunday morning unavoidably and wants to commune Sunday night, we have no right to forbid him the privilege of communing with his Lord. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shew the Lord’s death till he come” (I Cor. 11:26).

Editor’s Note

It is difficult to end a discussion of this nature without leaving one writer without opportunity to respond to questions and arguments made in the last article. Yet the editor’s responsibility to maintain balance requires that he determine when this can be done most equitably. Therefore I have decided that this will be the last article in the exchange between these two brethren on this subject for publication in TRUTH MAGAZINE. Readers who would like a copy of Brother Diestelkamp’s response to the above article may obtain one from him.

Write: AI Diestelkamp 5916 Graceland Drive Peoria, Illinois 61614

Truth Magazine XXI: 35, pp. 553-554
September 8, 1977