Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In the bulletins and religious journals which I receive, brethren continually are expressing amazement at the lack of knowledge on the part of some brethren. One’s amazement at the confusion and ignorance of the masses of brethren will be somewhat lessened if he will examine carefully what they are being taught. Judging from the bulletins that I receive, and from some of the sermons that I have heard, I am amazed that brethren have learned as much as they have.

Just today I was reading of a report of visits to services of liberal churches by Brother Robert McDonald of Pampa, Texas. He said that the sermons he heard could have been preached by virtually any denominational preacher in town. Brethren who refuse to see how bad things are in some places prefer to bury their heads in the sand, and to try to convince themselves that things are better than they are.

There are many gospel preachers, even among conservative churches, who do not use enough scripture during a sermon to make a decent “Introduction” to the sermons of many other real gospel preachers. Luther Blackmon gave me some advice many years ago that I have well remembered, and diligently have tried to put it into practice in my preaching. When I was a very young preacher, he told me: “Remember, brethren will get a lot more good out of your preaching if you spend five minutes telling them what the Word of God says and two minutes telling them what you think It means, than if you spend two minutes telling them what the Bible says and five minutes telling them what you think it means.”

Many years ago I heard G. K. Wallace make the following statement to a group of young preachers: “Young men, it is absolutely impossible to over-estimate the ignorance of an audience.” That statement rubbed me the wrong way at the time, but after spending twenty-five years trying to preach the gospel, I think now he was correct. His statement in no way implies that everyone in the audience is ignorant. But it would be very difficult for some of us to realize just how ignorant of God’s Word some, in nearly every audience, are. We take for granted that many understand certain things, merely because we have heard them so many times and understand them ourselves so clearly.

While holding a meeting in Terre Haute, Indiana about fifteen years ago, I walked to the rear of the auditorium on Sunday night after I had finished my sermon. Being a little “bone-weary,” I sat down on the back row. ”here were some present who had not partaken of the Lord’s Supper on that Lord’s Day, and so the opportunity to partake was offered. Several were served, with little or no explanation of what was being done having been made. A visitor to the services (a middle-aged man) leaned over to me and said, “What on earth are they doing up there?” That incident drove home to me just how little some really know about Bible teaching.

But the point I wanted to make in this article is that the reason why some brethren know so little is because they have been taught so little. Furthermore, some of the teaching that is done, is done in such a disorderly way that it is a wonder anybody learns anything at all from it. Just to present a real-life case-in-point, let me quote now from the bulletin of a congregation in Chicago, Illinois. Some of the preachers who read what I am about to quote will think I am “spoofing” them, and that such an incident really could not have happened with the teaching being done by a preacher in the Church of Christ. If it would do any good, I would give you the name of the author, and the address of the Chicago church from whose bulletin. I am about to quote. But just be assured that I really do have such a bulletin, and that it was published in all seriousness. In fact, for the benefit of some of you debating preachers, I might just mention that the author closed with this blunt challenge: “I will debate this issue.” I would almost defy you to tell me what the issue is, after reading his article. Space forbids me quoting all the article. It is single-spaced, mimeographed on legal-size paper, and the article fills both sides of the 11 X 14 inch page. It is all one paragraph! On the first side of the sheet, he cited 191 verses of Scripture, but you never saw such a jumbled up mess of twisted Scripture.

The title to this article is “A Sermon on a Fornicator and a Profane Person.” I shall quote it, punctuate it, and reproduce it precisely as given. Perhaps then you will understand why some of the brethren are confused. With teachers and preachers like this, who would not be confused? “This Supreme giver of life made and planed eternal life based on conditions Jesus Christ, The law of Christ that plainly set forth the nine Beatitudes are his saying, when he said, upon this Rock speaking of himself.’ and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt. 16:13-19; this is part one of this Supreme law of Christ, the second part of this Supreme law God granted him his requist when he said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them, In the name of the Father,’ and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things. What so ever I have commanded you to I am with you always even unto the end of the world. Matt, 28:1820. God the Father gave Jesus the power to pass and execute this law; Esau a profane person who sold his birth right for a morsel of food, this is the only grounds that a man or woman is freed to marry only in the Lord. No one Esau married out of the everlasting covenant; no two he sold his birth right for a morsel of food, and if we marry out of the eternal covenant wilfully knowingly we are lost eternally lest we let them slip. Heb, 12:14-17. On these basic fundamental principles: Abraham and Sarah set the stage with Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob and his wives Leah and Rachel; every thing was bought and paid for with Abraham’s money. God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham through circumcision of the foreskin; this covenant was never broken, so all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrieing away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ Jesus are fourteen generation Gen, 17:7-I5; Matt, 1:1 7-18; Luke, 2:12-21; 3:21-23. Therefore owe no man, Under the Mosaic law of circumcision of the foreskin this made you a Jew outwardly. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, Romans, 15:l-6. Now that we have established the fact of the eternal covenant that never was broken; and this end the seed Jesus Christ was born, and this is the foundation on which Christ’s church and kingdom is established; and is built on the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone; that the seed the Word of God. Luke, 8:10-11; The Word of God the seed is able to build you up and save your soul. Js. 1:16-22. Now we have no more use for the circumcision of the foreskin only for health sake. For Jesus the seed is standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55; set on the throne in heaven. Heb. 8:1-2; 12:1-2, The seed is the Word of the kingdom of God; sown in the heart and minds of human beings, The eternal covenant is the circumcision of the heart without hands, This is a Jew inwardly. This circumcision of the heart came by Abraham the faithful. Gen, 26:1-5; Gal, 3: Col, 2:8-14; In Isaac shall thy seed be called Jesus Christ. Christ Jesus is the seed of a woman. Gen, 3:15; But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the Law, Gal, 4:1-7. Jesus Christ said, I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, MY FATHER he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you. John, 15:1-5; Joseph of Jacob interpreted the chief Butler’s dream about

a vine having three branches. Gen, 40:8-12; The Sceptree shall not depart from Judah, nor a law giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be, Jesus Christ. The vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine. Gen, 49:9-12; The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the Olive, Fig, the Bramble, and cedar of Lebanon, and when they asked the vine to rule over trees. The Vine remained a question mark?. Judges, 9:815. The choicest Vine that men tried to mix with other vines only made the fruit of the worse. Isa, 5:1-3; and when the disciples and Jesus were eating the passover. Jesus took bread and blessed it, and break it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, eat; this is my Body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drank ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom. Matt, 26:26-29; Mark, 14:22-26; Luke, 22:16-20; 1 Cor, 11:23-34. Now that the Lord supper is taken from the vine. The next thing in order is the seed Jesus Christ: And I will put an enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen, 3:15. but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the Law. Gal, 4:4. Jesus we see, for verily he took not. on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham . . . .”

I tried to find as appropriate a place as possible to break off this quotation, but there was no appropriate place. More than this much more remained of the article. I found it somewhat like the country boy who was trying to read the dictionary, and commented: “Its an interesting book, but the author surely does change subjects frequently.”

O. K., now you debaters, line right up. This man boldly states, “I will debate this issue.” Who will be the first to take him on? Perhaps you are not even sure, at this point, what the issue is. Having read the whole article several times, I am not absolutely sure myself what the brother was seeking to prove. I think he was trying to show that it is unscriptural for a Christian to marry a non-Christian! With a fellow who uses Scriptures like this as their teacher, does anyone have difficulty understanding why just a few of the brethren might be confused on a few points? How would one of you debaters begin, if you were going to reply to such a speech?

I sent this article to John Clark in Louisville, and told him that I was thinking about using it as one of my editorials in Truth Magazine, and asked if he would suggest a title for it. He suggested that it might either be called “Lines From the Labyrinth of LSD,” or “Marijuana Mutterings on Marriage.” Either title seems appropriate to me. John even suggested we perhaps should secure permission to publish this article in tract form.

The only thing that I can remember that had the Scriptures more jumbled up was the tale some preacher told when I was a boy about an uneducated, country preacher who quoted from his favorite New Testament book, “The Book of Parables.” His recitation went something like this, as he told of the Good Samaritan:

“Well once upon a time a man went from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves and the thorns grew up and choked him. And he went on and didn’t have any money, and he met the Queen of Sheba, and she gave him a thousand talents of gold and one hundred changes of raiment. And he got in a chairot and drove furiously, and while he was driving under a tree his hair caught among the limbs, and he hung there for three days and three nights; and the ravens brought him food to eat and water to drink, and one night while he was hanging his wife came along and cut off his hair, and he fell or; stony ground and it rained forty days and forty nights, and he hid himself in a cave and he met a man who said, `Come in and have supper with me.’ And he said, `I have married a wife and can’t come now.’So the man went into the highways and byways and compelled him to come in and have supper with him. And he went on to Jerusalem and sitting high up in a window was Jezebel and when she saw him she laughed and they Hang her down. And he said, Wang her down some more,’ and they Hang her down some more. And they Hang her down seventy and seven times and of the fragments they picked up twelve baskets full. Now whose wife is she going to be in the resurrection because they all had her? Amen.”

Now I am aware that you preachers have your own version of this tale, but the first jumbled-up mess that I quoted is no tale. It is the sad truth. Do you think it just might be possible that we preachers are partly responsible for the confusion among some of the brethren? Or, do you think they deserve all the credit themselves?

Truth Magazine XIX: 16, pp. 243-246
February 27, 1975

By Gordon J. Pennock

We regard it our duty to constantly exhort brethren to neither inject nor accept into our teaching, worship, work or organization anything for which clear authorization cannot be found in the Bible. This may not be the way to get the church on the “band-wagon” nor “in step” with the many innovations which are cropping up among brethren, but in the light of the following scriptures, it will keep us “in step” with the Lord. Let us note:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” (Dent. 4:2.)

“What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Dent. 12:32.)

“Add not to his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:6.)

“That . . . ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written.” (1 Cor. 4:6.)

“Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9.)

“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18, 19.)

Surely, any one of these passages would be sufficient to establish our point, but perhaps the preponderance of evidence so repeatedly stated might convince one who might otherwise be skeptical. The summarized conclusion to be learned from them is that no additions or subtractions, substitutions or supplements may be made without corrupting, destroying and thus rendering ineffective one’s response to that which includes, but is not limited to, that which God has revealed. Any change whatsoever implies that God did not know what He wanted men to do, as well as the presumption that man, by his wisdom may improve upon the wisdom of God. Such attitudes and actions are sinful.

The sin of thus corrupting and contaminating God’s word is illustrated by the following: Several years ago a leading oil company used the following advertising slogan to encourage motorists to change the crank-case oil in their automobiles frequently: “3 quarts dirty oil 1 quart clean oil = 4 quarts dirty oil.” Some old-time country preachers used to make the same point by saying, “Sweet milk, plus sour milk, equals sour milk.” Who can deny the logic in such illustrations!

Let us therefore not ask, “Where has the Bible` forbidden this doctrine or that practice?” Let us rather ask, “where has it been authorized?” For a matter to be sinful does not mean that it must be specifically forbidden. It must be “according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5)!

Truth Magazine XIX: 16, p. 242
February 27, 1975

By Ron Halbrook

(A Reflection On Franklin Puckett’s Passing)

Awake, young men, and fill in the gaps! Now is a time to sing with understanding, “Soldiers of Christ, arise, And put your armor on; Strong in the strength which God supplies, Strong in the strength which God supplies Thro’ His beloved Son.” That song should be a constant prayer of God’s people. Yet this is a time when we can well afford to be especially conscious of its need.

At 2:07 A.M. this morning (January 16, 1975), Brother Franklin Puckett of Florence, Alabama, laid down his sword and rested from his labors. His death follows a massive heart attack several weeks ago. When I first received word of that attack with the expectation of impending death, something forced itself immediately into my mind. It was the memory of a serious discussion with Brother Puckett in the not-so-distant past.

In the discussion, Brother Puckett was recalling what an able, educated, articulate, young preacher and scribe had told him in recent times. They were exchanging thoughts on whether preaching should be positive or negative or both, whether it should be “distinctive” or “tolerant.” Brother Puckett related to me with genuine sadness and deep concern how the young man made one thing perfectly clear. He let brother Puckett know the time was coming when his style of preaching would pass off the scene. Already the older men were passing and younger men arising to take their places-men of broader views and more tolerant sentiments. In other words, this young preacher felt it was not necessary to say much publicly in direct opposition to the kind of preaching done by men like Brother Puckett. It was sufficient to let time and nature remove such men from the pulpits. After the passing of several years, such men would quietly and unobtrusively be replaced by broader, more tolerant spirits. That, then, is the hope entertained by some in the church today.

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever” (Eccl. 1:4). It is certain that time will remove an older generation of preachers from the scene. But does that mean that good, plain, direct gospel preaching (such as was done by Brother Puckett) will pass with them, to be replaced by something less distinctive and more tolerant??? That depends, dear reader, on you and me-especially those of us who are younger in years. It depends very much, as well, on older and more experienced men who are laboring in the fields today.

Just when Israel needed most to hear teaching on the distinctive nature of divine religion as opposed to human, and on specific sins being tolerated in daily living, she was treated instead to “broader views” and “more tolerant” sentiments. Ezekiel said of her prophets, “Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord” (13:1-16). These prophets were cunning as “foxes in the deserts,” lacking in courage and plainness, and said, “The Lord saith . . . ,” when He had not spoken (vv. 4,5,6). “. . . they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered mortar . . . . So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered mortar . . . . Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered mortar . . . to wit, the prophets of Israel which prophesy concerning Jerusalem and which see visions of peace for her, and there is no peace, saith the Lord” (vv. 10-16). The wall thrown up by false teaching was defective both in workmanship and materials, but it was whitewashed “to hide its defects and give it a semblance of solidity. They come, that is, with smooth words and promises of peace” (Pulpit Commentary).

Distinctive presentation of truth and scathing denunciation of error is not much appreciated in some quarters today. The awful sinfulness of sin and the awesome perils of false doctrine are being whitewashed. Someone has suggested these perils which accompany false doctrine: (1) carnal ambition, (2) self-assumption, (3) sophistical arts of speech, (4) lack of courage, (5) final collapse and defeat (“The frog that would swell its dimensions to the size of a bull destroyed itself.”). This failure to uphold the truth in all its distinctive features and fullness is crucial! Ezekiel points out concerning the weak-as-water prophets, “They have not taken their place in the breach, they have not helped in the defense of the city, they have not stood in the van of the battle, when the enemy has made an assault. Here is the practical test, which reveals the worthlessness” of all their claims and professions of loving the truth (Ibid., emph. added, RH).

“There were breaches in the walls of Jerusalem, literally and spiritually . . . .” But in the face of “arduous toil” and “serious danger,” the false prophets “were conspicuous by their absence. Truth makes men at all times courageous, but falsehood corrodes the metal of a man’s bravery. These pretentious prophets desired the honor and advantage; the risks they devolved on others” (Ibid., emph. added, RH). It is ever characteristic of such teachers to bide their time in a bid for advantage. It is never characteristic of them to face crucial issues at the risk of some imagined honor or ambition. A message of “peace and brotherhood” is “all the rage” with such men. They hope to multiply their number by the sugary seeds of sweet sentimentality and judicious silence. Such men today do not rise to stand in the gaps, but make themselves conspicuous by their absence in the face of danger, denominationalism, and false doctrine.

God’s people in the long ago needed exactly what God’s people need today. “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” As the seed falls into good and honest hearts, others will rise up in faith and courage to join in rebuilding “the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in” (Isa. 58:1-12).

Men like Brother Franklin Puckett have been standing in the gaps left by others who passed off the scene in days gone by. He was standing and planning to stand and calling others to stand right up until the end. The class for young preachers he was planning on Calvinism for February 25-March 7 of this year is just evidence. Who will arise as he and others pass off the scene today? Will it be those who are unwilling to go up “into the gaps . . . for the house of Israel to stand in the battle”? Such men are biding their time and sowing their seed toward that end, as one of them made abundantly clear to Brother Puckett himself. Will there not be others-and by “others,” I mean you and me, dear reader-who will say, “Here am I, Lord, send me”? (Isa. 6:8).

Let us who are young pledge ourselves to fill in the gaps, no matter what the cost. We dare not do it simply in memory of a mortal man like Brother Puckett, but his passing can justly force us to see the need, and to ask, “If I will not go, who will?” Not merely to perpetuate “a great tradition,” but because the same God who called Franklin Puckett to preach the gospel is calling young men today to preach the same gospel. Awake, young men, and fill in the gaps!

Truth Magazine XIX: 15, pp. 237-238
February 20, 1975

By Franklin T. Puckett

September 11, 1966

Mr. Cecil Willis

1835 Brown Street

Akron, Ohio

Dear Cecil:

I have given as much study as time would permit to the textual problem you presented based upon the footnote of the ASV rendition of Acts 12:25. Whether the passage should read “from Jerusalem” or “unto Jerusalem” is a problem arising from manuscript variations with the weight of textual scholarship favoring the former. Here are the witnesses concerning the variant readings.

1. eis lerousalem, plerosantes ten diakonian . . . “to Jerusalem, having fulfilled the ministry . . . .”

Supporting Witnesses:

(1) B’ corn-Vaticanus (IV Cent.)-an alternative reading or a possible correction given by the original scribe.

(2) H-Seidelianus II, a late IX Cent. uncial.

(3) LrCOdeX Regius (Paris) assigned by Tischendorf to the VIII Cent., but Tregelles et, al. assign it to the IX Cent. It has the Alexandrian textual form, but is very nearly related to B.

(4) Aleph-Sinaiticus (IV Cent.)-discovered . by Tischendorf.

(5) k-An XI Cent. cursive from the library of the bishop of Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Lebanon.

(6) 1-Codex Wordsworth-a XIII Cent. cursive.

(7) p-A XIII Cent. cursive by a monk named Theophilus, 1285 A.D.

(8) syr-mg-A marginal note. found in a Syrian version (Philoxenian) made at the instigation of Philoxenus, bishop of Heirapolis, in Phrygia, A.D. 488-508.

(9) AEth-rom-AEthiopic Version, Roman Polyglott Edition.

(10) Chr-ms-A manuscript of Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople (397-407), as quoted by Tischendorf.

(11) Thl-Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, 1071 A.D. (XI Cent.).

(12) Other witnesses add eis Antiocheian (to Antioch) after Ierousalem (Jerusalem).

(a) E-Codex Basileensis, said to be about the middle of the eighth century (VIII Cent.).

(b) Also the following cursives-a, b, e, and o, all belonging to the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries.

(c) The Peshitta Sryiac and the Sahidic Versions.

In so far as I have been able to learn, these are the “ancient manuscripts” that render the passage “to Jerusalem.” Looking at this array of witnesses, one might think the evidence rather strongly in favor of this rendition, but the testimony is not as weighty as it might seem. Below are the authorities favoring “from.”

2. apo Ierousalem, plerosantes ten diakonian “from Jerusalem, having fulfilled the ministry . . .

Supporting Witnesses:

(1) B*-Vaticanus (IV Cent.), probably by the hand of the original scribe.

(2) D-Codex Bezae (VI Cent.), a sixth century uncial.

(3) (E)-An unnamed, VIII Cent. manuscript, which after ‘apo lerousalem (from Jerusalem) adds eis Antiocheian (to Antioch). (See note 12 under first division.)

(4) b-A XII Cent. cursive.

(5) c-A cursive, probably XII Cent.

(6) o-A cursive assigned to the X or XI Century.

(7) The above reading is also supported by 36, vulg., et. al.

3. ex Ierousalem, plerosantes ten diakonian “from Jerusalem, having fulfilled the ministry . . .”

Supporting Witnesses:

(1) A-Alexandrinus (V Cent.).

(2) 33-an important minuscule.

(3) al-a greater number, also out of other groups.

(4) syr-all or at least the most important Syrian versions including the Peshitta (II Cent.).

(5) rel coptt-the Egyptian versions agree in supporting this reading, as do all of the manuscripts named on the margins.

The Pell Platt edition of the Aethiopic Version (IV Cent.) and the Armenian Version (V Cent.)

(6) et-While these witnesses have been quoted separately, they belong together according to sense.

In so far as I am able to read the signs in Alford’s and Nestle’s Greek Testaments, these are the witnesses to the different readings involved in your question. While “to Jerusalem” has some manuscript support, an examination of the witnesses shows there is no testimony favoring this rendition prior to the Fourth Century. Other than the Sinaitic, an alternative reading in the Vatican, a marginal note in the Philoxenian, a quotation from Chrysostom by Tischendorf, and the Roman Polyglott edition of the AEthiopic, the rest of the witnesses favoring this reading are as late as the Ninth Century, or later. The testimony of the Aethiopic is practically nullified by the fact that the Pell Platt edition of this version uses “from” instead of “to.”

On the other hand, the reading “from Jerusalem” derived from apo Ierousalern is supported by the Vatican text, together with other important uncials and cursives. Additional testimony favoring this reading is found in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (IV Cent.) and other Latin translations.

The oldest Greek manuscript authority supporting “from Jerusalem” derived from ex Ierousalem (out of, out from Jerusalem), is the Alexandrian (V Cent.). This reading is supported by a greater number of various groups of later manuscripts, all or at least the most important Syrian versions, the Egyptian versions, and the Armenian version. At least some of these versions antedate the oldest Greek manuscripts. The conclusion would have to be reached that the manuscripts of which they were translations must have read ex Ierousalem, and would certainly imply more ancient manuscript testimony than that or Sinaiticus, and more valuable witness than marginal notes and alternative readings, supporting this form of the test. Because of his, most textual critics except Catholics favor this reading.

But whether the original autograph of Luke contained ex or apo, the English in either case would be “from.” Hence, the combined total of witnesses favoring “from” far exceeds and is of greater weight than that which favors “to.” At least this is the way it seems to me, although I would be first to admit that I do not qualify as a competent textual critic.

Dean Afford seeks to explain the variations in reading as follows:

“The variations have apparently arise from a confusion of marginal glosses. eis Antiocheian may have been an explanatory gloss, afterwards substituted for ex Ierousalem: then Antiocheian may have again been corrected to Ierousalem, leaving the eis standing (Afford, The Greek Testament, Vol. II, p. 137).

Whether this is the way the variation and confusion developed, I know not, but at least it is a possible explanation.

A. T. Robertson comments as follows:

“From Jerusalem (ex lerousalem). Probably correct text, though D has apo. Westcott and Hort follow Aleph B in reading eis (to) Jerusalem, an impossible reading contradicted by 11:29 f. and 13:1: ” (Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. III, p. 176).

I have examined the text in the following Greek Testaments: Stephen’s Greek Testament, Textus Receptus (Elzevir), Alford’s Greek Testament, Cambridge Greek Testament, Nestle’s Greek Testament, and Westcott and Hort Greek Testament. All of these use ex Ierousalem rather than eis Ierousrtlem in their texts, with the exception of Westcott and Hort. Though both Westcott and Hort doubted the correctness of eis in this passage because of its bad sense, yet they included in their text because it is found in what they considered to be the best manuscripts (Sinaiticus and marginal note in Vatican). According to the signs in the Apparatus of, Nestle’s Greek Testament, this reading “did indeed appear to doubtful to them, but they did not wish to give preference to any other reading.” Thus five of the more popular Greek texts stand in opposition to Westcott and Hort, who against their better judgment used eis, a reading which Robertson says is impossible because of the context.

I have also examined the following English translations: English Revised Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New English Bible, Challoner-Rheims, Lamsa’s translation of Eastern Text, Amplified New Testament, Authentic New Testament, Living Oracles, Phillips’ Translation, New World, and Twentieth Century in addition to the King James, all of which render Acts 12:25 “from Jerusalem” except The Twentieth Century Translation. There the passage is rendered “to Jerusalem.” Goodspeed translates as follows: “When they had performed their mission to Jerusalem, they went back, taking John who was called Mark with them.” It looks to me like he might be quoted on both sides: Their mission was “to Jerusalem,” but they went back “from Jerusalem” to Antioch. His translation is no more justified than Inman’s argument.

So, in view of the testimony of the manuscripts, versions, Greek texts, translations (English), and the commentators and critics, I am inclined to think you would be building on a very .weak foundation if you tried to argue that the passage should read “to Jerusalem” instead of “from Jerusalem.” It seems to me Inman could get the better of that argument. But such is wholly unnecessary to meet his perversion of the passage. You already have the answer as stated in your letter: “Of course the mere fact they returned from Jerusalem does not prove they only went to Jerusalem.” This is what he must prove in order to make out his case, and this is what the passage does not say! They could have visited every village and hamlet in the entire province of Judea and still have returned to Antioch “from Jerusalem.” His whole argument is based on what the passage does not say, hence, it rests -on nothing but pure assumption. In making such an argument, he is not only guilty of assuming the point to be proved, but he stands guilty of violating the basic rules of interpretation.

“RULE FOURTEEN-No important teaching or practice is to be based upon doubtful or ambiguous Scriptures” (Kendrick, Rules of Bible Study, p. 90). While the evidence favors “from” over “to,” the variations in the manuscripts certainly casts a shadow of doubt over any reading that one would accept. Furthermore, there is a degree of ambiguity in the passage as it relates to Inman’s argument. The phrase may not limit the visit of the messengers to Jerusalem. It is possible that they went elsewhere. Surely Inman will admit this. If so, he convicts himself of violating this rule of interpretation, for he founds both the teaching and practice of the sponsoring church upon a “doubtful, ambiguous” phrase. If it is possible for them to have gone anywhere else than Jerusalem before they returned, his whole argument falls flat for lack of support.

Furthermore, in order to make out his case for the sponsoring church, he must have the brethren scattered throughout the province of Judea, but he must limit the elders to the city of Jerusalem. In developing his argument,’ he violates another basic rule of interpretation.

“RULE FOUR. Common usage, which can only be ascertained by testimony, must always decide the meaning of any word which has but one signication; but when words lave, according to testimony, (1.e. the Dictionary), more meanings them one, whether Ited or figurative, the scope, the context, or parallel passages must decide the meaning: for If common wage, the design of the writer, the context, sad parallel passages fall, there can be no certainty in the Interpretation of language” (Alexander Campbell, The Christian System. 1835, p. 16).

“AXIOM I. Every word in a given passage has, in that place, one fixed meaning, and no more.”

“AXIOM II. Whatever be the true sense of a word under my given set of circumstances, It will in all cases retain that sense under the same circumstances” (J. S. Lamer, The Organon Of Sclipture, 1866, pp. 281, 262).

There can be no certainty at all in respect to the interpretation of any passage, unless a kind of necessity compel us to affix a particular sense to a word, which sense, as I have said before, must be ONE, and unless there are special reasons for a topical meaning, it must be the literal sense” (Eraesti, p. 10).

“A word can have but one fixed meaning in the connection is which it occurs. This may seem so evident as to require no special mention. But experience teaches us that is not superfluous to call attention to it. The desire to seem original and profound, and to surprise the common people by fanciful expositions of which they have never heard, sometimes tempts interpreters to lose sight of this simple canon of interpretation. It frequently happens that all the significations which a word in the abstract has, are ascribed to it in whatever connection it may occur. Such a mode of procedure must be condemned as being purely arbitrary” (L. Berkhof, Principles Of Biblical interpretation, 1950, p. 75).

These quotations range from the Eighteenth Century to the middle of the Twentieth Century setting forth one of the “rules of interpretation, deduced from extensive and well-digested premises; fully sustained, too, by the leading translators and most distinguished critics and commentators” of the last two centuries (Cf. The Introduction to The Christian System). Inman violates this rule in his treatment of Acts 11:29.

The only thing locating either the brethren or the elders is the locative phrase (en to loudaia) “in Judea.” Whatever that phrase means with reference to either of these terms, it will mean with reference to both of them. Since it is used but once to locate both the “brethren” and the “elders,” it would be inconsistent and illogical for it to be defined provincially as it locates the one, and congregationally as it locates the other. The relief was sent to the brethren and it was delivered to the elders. Now, what elders? Manifestly the elders where the brethren were. But where were the brethren? “In Judea!” Where were the elders? Same place! Whatever “in Judea’ means as it locates the brethren, it must mean as it locates the elders, or a double meaning must be attributed to the same words in the same instance of their usage, thereby violating this long-established hermeneutical rule.

If “the-dwelling in Judea-brethren” are the brethren throughout the whole province, why would not “thedwelling in Judea-elders” be the elders throughout the province? Or if “the-dwelling in Judea-elders” are limited to Jerusalem, why would not “the-dwelling in Judea-brethren” likewise be limited to Jerusalem? It would be strange indeed if the phrase means one thing as it modifies the first,noun and something else as it qualifies the second. If this phrase can be handled in such an arbitrary manner, there can be no certainty of the meaning of words, and each interpreter (?) is privileged to arbitrarily define his terms as he desires. This kind of thinking will lead to the conclusion that all truth is subjective rather than objective, as is claimed by certain philosophical systems. The only reason for such deceitful handling of the word of God is, as Berkhof says, “the desire to seem original and profound, and to surprise the’ common people by fanciful expositions of which they have never heard,” and, I might add, to justify some unscriptural practice that is not taught in the word of God.

If it be claimed that the brethren were members of the churches in Judea and scattered throughout the province, but the elders were the elders of the church in Jerusalem, and that these elders of one church were made the overseers of a program of relief for the brethren in all the churches-and this is what must be established to be of any value to Inman and his cohorts-, then, it follows that such can only be established by one of the following methods of reasoning:

1. By contending that “in Judea” has different meanings in its relation to “the brethren” and to “the elders,” thereby setting aside the long established rule that words can have but one fixed meaning in the same instance of their use. This makes understanding the word of God a mere matter of arbitrary subjectivity and destroys the very foundation of both the Reformation and Restoration Movements. Incidentally, never again can Inman, or any of the liberals, argue that “for” in Acts 2:38 cannot mean both “in order to” and “because of” in the same instance of its use, for the same principle that will allow them to give double meanings to “in Judea” will allow the sectarians to give double meanings to “for.” I wonder if they are ready for the consequence they will reap for their folly.

2. Or by allowing that men are privileged to insert explanatory (?) interpolations into the text of the New Testament, for they must in the development of their argument insert an additions) limiting phrase in the case of the elders, and make the passage read the dwelling in Jerusalem in Judea-elders to separate and distinguish the elders from the dwelling in Judea brethren. Though our liberal brethren might not literally write this additional limiting phrase for the elders into the text as Luther wrote “only” beside “faith” in Romans 3, nevertheless, in their reasoning they must do so in order to make the distinction between the elders and the brethren necessary to their argument. But if additions can be made, subtractions will be allowable, and the gospel being perverted ceases to be the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). This kind of attitude and treatment is diametrically opposed to the claim of sufficiency and reliability for the sacred Scriptures. It will inevitably lead to modernism and infidelity.

3. Or by arguing that there were brethren throughout the province of Judea making up a multiplicity of churches, but there were no elders outside of Jerusalem, which would make not only possible but necessary the conclusion that the Jerusalem elders received the funds from Antioch and had the oversight of a general program of relief for all the brethren and churches of Judea. Such an argument is completely arbitrary and without one iota of Scriptural support. But if such an argument is allowable, the diocesan form of church function is established.

I know of no other process or method by which Inman’s argument (?) can be vindicated. The first will lead to sectarian confusion and perversion. The second will result in modernism and infidelity. The third will develop into hierarchical ecclesiasticism. Possibly a mixture of all three results will characterize the apostasy of which Inman is an advocate.

Cecil, instead of getting into an argument over whether “to Jerusalem” is preferable to “from Jerusalem,” I would merely point out that his whole argument is founded upon a reading that has been disputed. Manuscript authorities vary and textual critics sometimes disagree as to what the true reading should be. Hard pressed must be those who will build an argument, doctrine, and practice on such a questionable foundation.

Then I would press him on the following points: (1) he assumes the point to be proved, hence, begs the question. The passage does not say what he wants it to say. (2) He violates the rules of interpretation and the laws of logic. Inman likes to think of himself as a logician and scholar-sort of puncture his vanity and pride. (3) The consequences of his argument will destroy the plea for primitive New Testament Christianity and can only result in apostasy. I believe the audience will follow you and see the force of what you say, if you follow this line; but I am of the opinion you will soon lose your audience if you get involved in technical argument over which variant reading has the best manuscript support. They won’t know what you are talking about, but those who love the truth will be right with you when you are appealing for strict adherence not only to what the text says, but also for respect for what it doesn’t say.

I don’t know whether all of this will be of any benefit to you or not, but if it is, I shall be glad. I am sorry I couldn’t get this to you any sooner, but as you already know, I am a slow writer and at the present time I have a pretty heavy load that demands a lot of my time. I hope it isn’t too late.

Olin tells me you are moving to Marion. Perhaps you already know that I am moving to Florence, Alabama, around the first of the year. I have had to cancel all of my meetings this year since Dad has been with me, except the one at Blytheville. I drove back and forth to it.

I wish for you complete victory in your defense of the truth with Inman. I wish I could attend the debate. Let me hear from you at anytime. I have tried to call you twice since receiving your letter, but failed to find you at home.

Fraternally,

Franklin T. Puckett

Truth Magazine XIX: 15, pp. 233-236
February 20, 1975