Filling in the Gaps

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

A Study to Help a Young Preacher

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

FRANKLIN T. PUCKETT: Powerful Proponent of the Prince of Peace

By Cecil Willis

Just this afternoon, I returned from a hurried trip to Florence, Alabama to attend the funeral services for that well-known and much beloved gospel preacher, Franklin T. Puckett. A few years ago, Boyd E. Morgan published a book about early preachers of the gospel in Arkansas. This book he entitled, Arkansas Angels. I am sure that by his usage of the word “Angel” when applied to a gospel preacher, he alluded to its primary meaning; that of “messenger.” Somehow, in my mind, Franklin Puckett has always been one, of those “Arkansas Angels,” though he was not mentioned in Morgan’s book which was published in 1967. By that time, the name of Franklin T. Puckett had become a “hiss and a by-word” to all those purveyors of digression in Arkansas and elsewhere.

Franklin Thomas Puckett was born near Melbourne, Arkansas June 21, 1908. But as long as I can remember knowing him, he has always called Calico Rock, Arkansas “home.” On December 25, 1974, Brother and Sister Puckett were spending a holiday with their daughter, Editha, and her family. Editha is married to Olin Kern, able preacher in his own right, who now works with the fine Plainfield, Indiana congregation. Brother Puckett became ill, and decided that it would be best for him to get back as soon as possible to Florence, Alabama, where he has lived and worked for the past several years with the College View congregation. After consulting his doctor, he was told that he had not yet suffered a heart attack, but conditions were such that he could have one to occur at any moment. Soon thereafter Frank did have a heart attack. It was so massive in nature that it ruptured the frontal part of his heart. Perhaps he suffered a stroke at the same time, or virtually at the same time. An aneurysm resulted, and he was in critical condition thereafter. Prior to his death, his temperature had risen to 107 degrees, which had he lived, would have very likely left him with brain damage. The brittle thread of life for him severed at about 2 A.M. on Thursday, January 16th. Funeral services were held on Friday the 17th at 2 P.M. at the College View meeting house, and his earthly remains were deposited in the bosom of mother earth in Florence, Alabama, a city which he much loved and where he twice had served as a full-time evangelist.

The College View meeting house, which probably can seat 500 people,- was filled and over-flowing. Several remarked that they had never seen so many gospel preachers at anyone’s funeral. Certainly more preachers would have attended had they known of his passing. The funeral service was conducted the day following his death. It seemed so appropriate that two men whom I also somehow think of as Arkansas preachers (Paul Keller and Eugene Britnell) should be chosen to speak at the funeral service. Like Puckett, Britnell and Keller have preached in many states, but much of their work has been done in Arkansas.

Frank Puckett was a Bible-preaching man. His lessons always were crammed full of Bible quotations, appropriately chosen and correctly used. Thus, fittingly, the funeral service was lavish with Scripture. I doubt if I ever attended a funeral service where more passages of Scripture were cited than were used as we met to honor the memory and the work of Franklin T. Puckett.

Frank and I were nearly kin-folks. He is related to Dwight King’s family, and Dwight married my wife’s sister, Aloah. So since 1949, I have known and been quite closely associated with Frank Puckett. There are many lessons to be garnered from the consideration of a long, useful, and steadfast life in God’s service. Please forgive me if I make this article a little longer than you might think befitting. But Frank Puckett was no ordinary man. We shall not soon see his equal again. A wide gap has been created in the ranks of the soldiers of Christ, and it will take some gallant service, perhaps by several men, to clue the ranks and to protect that part of the battle line which for so many years has been filled by that massive spiritual man, Franklin T. Puckett.

His Preparation

Isn’t it strange how many great men came from such unpretentious and unprestigous backgrounds? It seems that most of the great men are men who climbed from the lowest rung of the ladder. No knowledgeable Bible student would ever leave an assembly where Frank Puckett had done the preaching feeling that he had just listened to an uneducated preacher. Brother Puckett, I am told, finished only the ninth grade. Sometime later he completed his studies and took the necessary, test and was given teaching credentials and he taught in the public schools for ten years-from 1927 to 1937. Later on in life, he did additional college work, and taught in the Bible Department at Florida College from 19541957. But preaching was too much in his blood for him to stay tied down to a classroom. Thus, his teaching career was cut short by the impulsion he had to preach. Yet there are scores of gospel preachers who will carry and disseminate throughout their lives those great Bible lessons they learned at the feet of Franklin T. Puckett.

Frank began preaching in 1933. He often has told me of the influence that men like Joe Blue of Arkansas had on him. I shall long remember Frank telling about attending the famous Hardeman-Bogard Debate in Little Rock in 1938. Hardeman and Bogard (Baptist) were about the ablest men that could meet on the same platform on those subjects. Frank said the crowds were so large that one had to go two hours early in order to get a seat. One night when he walked in, the auditorium was completely filled and already the aisles were filled around the sides of the auditorium. Seated on the rostrum with Hardeman and Bogard were that trio of terrors to false teaching, J. D. Tant, Joe S, Warlick, and Joe Blue. Brother Blue happened to spot Frank, as he was standing in the doorway looking in vain for an empty seat. There just happened to be one extra chair on the rostrum, and Brother Blue motioned for Frank to come to sit there.

Hardeman and Bogard were both experienced debaters. Bogard had participated in nearly 300 debates, about 100 of them with our brethren, or so I have been told. In his introductory remarks, Bogard cautioned the audience to leave the debating to himself and to Brother Hardeman. He said they were capable of handling it. Bogard then began to talk about how many debates he and Joe Warlick had conducted. They had debated seventeen times, and yet Bogard said they were still good friends: Bogard said they frequently exchanged setters and that whenever he went through the place where Warlick lived, he stopped by for a visit with Warlick, whenever possible. He continued by reporting that he and Warlick had even stayed at the same house during one debate; in fact, they even slept together. But Bogard said, “Of course, I was very careful to get up early the next morning and take a bath.” Brother Warlick commented: “And I would have slept a lot better if he had taken that bath the night before!”

J. D. Tant brought the evening paper with him and very obviously read it, page by page, while Bogard was making his first speech. Warlick, who was sitting right next to the pulpit stand, appeared to have gone to sleep. Puckett said Warlick’s enormously large head fell backward, and his mouth popped open, as though he were sound asleep. During Bogard’s speech, he misquoted a passage of Scripture. Brother Warlick just opened one eye, and with his head still flopped back, said quite loudly, “Quote it right, now!” And Bogard went back and correctly quoted the passage. But those were the days. It was in this kind of furnace that the mettle of Franklin T. Puckett was forged.

His Portrait

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of you personally knew Frank Puckett, but for those of you who did not have that good fortune, let me tell you just a little bit about him. He was a robust man, and was white headed as long as I can remember him. Just his appearance immediately conveyed to you a sense of quiet, but very strong and perhaps stern dignity. Some might say that he, bore the air of Southern Aristocracy. He was about as dignified a preacher as I ever knew . . . until he got his country fiddle out!! And then all that dignity left. What a time he then could have if there were a few others who would join with him in making some good country music.

Someone commented that Frank Puckett reminded them of what a Supreme Court Judge should look like. I suppose that would describe him about as well as anything I might try to put on paper. Yet with this somber and stern dignity, there was a tender-heart inside. Gene Britnell said at the funeral, “No man could be around Frank Puckett very long without feeling close to him.” He cared for other people. In many ways, Frank Puckett and Curtis .Porter made similar impressions upon me. When I first met them, I was awed by what I had heard of them, and now to be in their presence. One of the things that made me know those two men were different was that they sincerely seemed interested in what I, as a very unlearned and inexperienced preacher, had to say. I do not mean that they particularly thought I was about to teach them anything. They both forgot more than I will ever know. But they had time and the disposition to listen to me. This pulled them from this imaginary pedestal upon which I had supposed they sat, and made them lovable, ordinary gospel preachers to me. But they were by no means ordinary gospel preachers. Frank Puckett once in private conversation shortly after Brother Porter’s death said to me of W. Curtis Porter, “He was a great man, but he did not know it!” I can think of no more appropriate way to describe Frank Puckett.

During the early 1950’s, when the institutional issues were really being fought out, sizable elements of the liberals attended the Florida College Annual Lectures. During the “Open Forum” period, for several years they tried just to take over the discussion. Brother Puckett had been chosen as Moderator, and a fairer but sterner one, you never saw. It made no difference who the liberal preacher was, he was not about to bully Frank Puckett around in the Open Forum. Frank never once lost his composure, but neither did he ever once lose control over the Open Forum. His quiet, but strong, dignity never shined brighter in my estimation than on those heated and even hostile occasions.

His Preaching

Franklin T. Puckett was preeminently a gospel preacher. He taught school a while, farmed a while, taught in college a while, but he could not leave his love for gospel preaching. The appraisal of gospel preachers, I know, is a very subjective thing. I have said on several occasions that I thought that Roy E. Cogdill was the ablest preacher of the gospel in my generation. Other than Roy Cogdill, there was no other man whom I ever heard who approached such thoroughness in covering a subject in a sermon than Frank Puckett. Having heard him preach many times, whenever he finished one felt, “Well, now, that subject has been well covered.”

Brother Puckett did not enter the pulpit with three jokes he wanted to relate in his introduction. He was no imitation comedian. Did you ever see a preacher who was a good comedian? When Puckett got up to preach, he opened the Bible, and from that moment onward he amassed Scriptural evidence to set out the thesis which he had proposed for consideration on that occasion. A word much on the mind of Brother Puckett as a preacher was “balance.” He did not want to be an extremist on any issue. Other than by those who would have perverted the work arid the organization of the church, my guess is that you never heard anyone charge Frank Puckett with radicalism, or extremism. But somehow, when the smoke of battle had cleared away, it seems that Frank Puckett always came out of the fray standing for the truth.

I never heard Brother Puckett in debate, though he was principal participant in several and moderated for many others. Among his debates were the “BmersonPuckett” debate on Women Preachers and instrumental music in 1940. The “Puckett-Weaver” debate on baptism, sanctification, and miraculous healing occurred in 1944. In 1949 he debated a denominational preacher named Crowder on instrumental music. W. Curtis Porter was the best negative debater I ever heard, or after whom I have read. On the other hand, Alexander Campbell made a massive affirmative argument that simply overwhelmed his opponent. Roy Cogdill, in this regard, debated after the manner of Alexander Campbell. Though I never heard Puckett in debate, but judging from having heard him speak on many occasions, I know Franklin T. Puckett was a debater who amassed an insuperable affirmative that completely engulfed his opponent.

But primarily, one would have to say that Frank Puckett was a great Bible expositor. When he chose a paragraph of Scripture and proposed to discourse upon it from one to two hours, you could know that you were in for a real treat if you were one of those “whose delight is in the law of the Lord.”

His Proficiency

One certainly could count on one hand (and it probably would not take all five fingers in order to do so) the men who were held in higher esteem by the brethren nation-wide than Frank Puckett. He had preached in hundreds of gospel meetings in about 80% of the States of this nation. Frank did not commit himself on a position until he was sure he was on solid ground.

He was without doubt the most informed man among us on Calvinism. For two or three years, I have again and again literally begged him to step into this current discussion and help to expose those who have accepted Calvinism or Neo-Calvinism; whether they accepted this false doctrine deliberately or inadvertently, the result of its teaching is the same. The greatest tragedy of the sudden death of Frank Puckett, in my judgment, is that he took all this now so badly needed knowledge to the grave with him. Had several men of Puckett’s knowledge and spiritual stature used the pages of the various journals available to them, this new wave of Calvinism sweeping across the churches could have been reduced to a mere ripple. Make no doubt about it: Frank Puckett taught against the errors of accepting the doctrine of the imputed personal righteousness of Christ to the Christian, and against the error that God unconditionally forgives sin. In fact, probably the very day you are reading this article, Frank Puckett (had he lived) would have been engaged in teaching an intensive series of studies on Calvinism in Florence.

Frank was a thorough student. Whenever he attacked a problem, he drove to the,heart of it. When he decided that he wanted to learn Greek and Hebrew, he simply persisted until he had become competent in both languages. In fact, he also was scheduled to be teaching a class in Biblical Greek at this very moment, had he not been snatched from our midst.

Just to illustrate the type of student he was, elsewhere in this issue I am publishing a long letter that he wrote me in response to a request I made that he do some research for me in regard to a textual variant in the reading of Acts 12:25. This was just prior to my debate with Clifton Inman on sponsoring churches in Parkersburg, West Virginia in 1966. Back then, the liberals felt they should at least try to find authority for a sponsoring church in the Bible. In the interim of nearly a decade, they have come to the place where they find it easier to deny the binding nature of apostolic examples or necessary inferences than to try to present Biblical authority, either generically or specifically, for a sponsoring church.

But nearly ten years ago, these liberal brethren were looking as closely as possible at every verse in the Bible to try to find something that looked like a 42nd cousin to a sponsoring church. So some of them learned that some of the ancient manuscripts on Acts 12:25 indicated that Paul and Barnabas returned `from Jerusalem,” supposedly having delivered to the Jerusalem elders the relief sent by the brethren in Antioch for all the needy brethren in Judea. You say, you don’t see a sponsoring church in `from Jerusalem”? Well, you see, you have to supply a little missing information, which the brother who is looking for Bible authority for a sponsoring church is plenty ready to do.

So . . . they suppose that since some copies of the ancient manuscripts state ?hat Paul and Barnabas returned `from Jerusalem,” this therefore proves that Jerusalem was the sponsoring church. Paul and Barnabas supposedly delivered the relief to the Jerusalem elders, and they distributed it to the brethren throughout Judea. A liberal preacher who has nothing better to offer than this kind of an argument is no better off than the Baptist who denies the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20 in an effort to deny that baptism is essential to salvation. Perhaps others of you might need access sometime to this same information, so I am now publishing Brother Puckett’s letter to me. This gives you some idea of the thoroughness of his scholarship, when he felt he must really dig into a question. Keep in mind that he was merely doing some private study to help a friend. He was not writing an article for public consumption. But this type of work was typical of Frank Puckett’s thoroughness. And . . . there just might be a liberal or two still around who is naive enough to think that he can build a castle upon the flimsy textual controversy of whether Acts 12:25 says “from Jerusalem” or “to Jerusalem.” When I make a trip to Texas, I usually return “from Houston,” but that does not mean that I did not visit any other city in Texas.

On various occasions, when I have been trying to convince some competent brother that it does not take superhuman power to preach the gospel, I frequently have said that ‘preaching is about 90 percent work, and 10 percent ability.” I still sincerely believe that. But the tools of trade to a gospel preacher are books, carefully chosen and with which he is well familiar-and I might add, paid for by dollars that his wife and family might like to have seen used for some other urgent need.

Those who know me probably would say that I have some kind of “hang-up” on old books that deal with divine truth. Ah!! It was there that Frank and I could strike up a warm discussion. He had the best collection of religious debates owned by any individual known to me. I have heard that his close friend and protoge, Paul Keller, also has a tremendously valuable collection of debates. If I may bragg a little, Frank’s was the only collection of debates privately owned that I ever saw that was more complete than my own. He had some debates that I just thought I had to have!! I offered him nearly anything that I could get my hands upon for certain select ones, but he always wanted twice their worth in return, but in debate books. I became so exasperated at times trying to trade with him that I was nearly tempted to swipe the ones I wanted But Frank Puckett loved good books, and his shelves were not filled’ with a lot of worthless denominational trash. Define the word however you will, it must still be said that Franklin T. Puckett was indeed a Bible “scholar.” His was a degree of scholarship and knowledge of the Word, but predicated upon his constant implicit trust in its verbal inspiration, which few men before him have attained, and which very few after him are likely to attain.

His Partner

Aside from being, the light of his life and the love of his heart, Sister Puckett was also a partner in the work of Frank Puckett. Eugene Britnell best expressed it at the funeral:. “There could never have been a Frank Puckett without an Evelyn Puckett.” For several years, he and I lived in the same city, and I had the chance to see not only him, but also her at work. Sister Puckett made no great fanfare about her portion- in the Lord’s work. In fact, most would hardly know she was so deeply engaged in it.

The life of a preacher’s wife is not easy. Particularly is this true of that wife who happens to be’ married to a preacher who does a lot of travel in connection with his gospel work. There are scores of things about which such a wife could whine and complain. But in all the days that I have known Sister Puckett, never once did I hear any remark indicative that she would have Frank doing anything else. Though she went about her work quietly, yet it was obvious that she supplied that quiet, serene strength that every gospel preacher needs is order to do his work well.

Though Frank is now gone from our midst here on earth, Sister Puckett is the kind of woman that will go on living and go on doing what her Lord (and Frank) would have her to sio. Wherever she is, she will be one of those “worthy” women who continues quietly to go about doing her Master’s work.

His Posterity

Brother and Sister Puckett had but one child, a daughter named Editha. She is married to Olin Kern, an Indiana-born preacher, who recently returned to work with the Plainfield church just West of Indianapolis. Olin worked in Marion previous to my coming here in 1966. Most recently, he has spent several years in Blytheville, Arkansas. Olin and Editha have two children whom they are nurturing is the chastening and admonition of the Lord. The influence of Frank Puckett’s “sojourn” upon this earth will be evidenced in the lives and work of Olin and Editha and their children for years to come. My only regret for the grandchildren is that perhaps they are not yet old enough to know what a truly great servant of the Lord their grandfather was, and perhaps they will not remember all those noble traits that made him the great man that he was.

His Perpetuity

The preaching of Frank Puckett is not finished. Even his oral preaching is not finished, for there are scores of brethren who have tapes of sermons that Frank has preached that they will now cherish as never before. Though every preacher wants to “be his own man” so to speak, none of us really is. Even subconsciously we seem to emulate the characteristics of the men whom we admire. Having spent fifteen years or so in close association with a preacher of Frank’s calibre, certainly Olin will have been made a better preacher thereby.

Then think of the scores of preachers, both young and old, who have sat at his feet and absorbed the wonderful lessons Frank taught. I shall never forget the lessons he preached on Romans and Ephesians. That which he taught shall be used again and again as we attempt to attend to those duties assigned to us by the Captain of our salvation. Already I have heard of several who now are hurriedly seeking to acquire tape recordings of certain lessons Brother Puckett taught. Indeed it must be said of him that, like Abel, “he being dead yet speaketh.”

His Prospect

Though there was weeping at his death, as did those at the death of Lazarus (John 11), yet there also was rejoicing at his hope of glory. The very first song sung by the congregation assembled for the funeral was “Blessed Be the Name.” That must have pleased Frank! He would have had everyone concentrating on Him who is our hope, rather than on him who so recently had died in the hope of glory.

Little of my time is spent in reading poetry, except that which was written by divine inspiration. But a few pertinent quotes comes to mind as I reflect upon the life, labors, and legacy of Franklin T. Puckett. Emily Dickinson said:

“If I can stop one heart from breaking,

I shall not live in vain;

If I can ease one life the aching,

Or cool one pain,

Or help one fainting robin

Upon his nest again,

I shall not live in vain.”

It is wonderful just to contemplate the number of redeemed souls who will be in heaven because there was a man named Frank Puckett who preached Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

Frank’s life had been spent in preparation for this transition that we call “death.” He knew its inevitability. Some may ask “Why” as he was stricken in the strength of mature manhood. As has been said of the soldier or cowboy, “He died with his boots on.” If each one of us could choose his way to leave this world, many of us would choose to leave it as did Frank, without having to endure those painful and helpless years of wasting into nothingness. Alfred Tennyson’s poem, “Crossing the Bar, ” seems appropriate here.

“Sunset and evening star,

And one clear call for me,

And may there be no moaning of the bar,

When I put out to sea.

“But such a tide as moving seems asleep,

Too full for sound and foam,

When that which drew from out the boundless deep

Turns Again home.

“Twilight and evening bell,

And after that the dark!

And may there be no sadness of farewell,

When I embark;

“For tho’ from out our bourne of time and place

The flood may bear me far,

I hope to see my Pilot face to face

When I have crossed the bar.”

But Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “A Psalm of Life” seems even more poignant to me as I reflect upon Frank’s “Home-going.”

“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,

Life is but an empty dream!

For the soul is dead that slumbers,

And things are not what they seem.

“Life is real! Life is earnest!

And the grave is not its goal;

Dust thou art, to dust returnest,

Was not spoken of the soul.

“Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,

Is our destined end or way;

But to act, that each tomorrow

Find us farther than today.

“Art is long, and Time is fleeting,

And our hearts, though stout and brave

Still, like muffled drums, are beating

Funeral marches to the grave.

“In the world’s broad field of battle,

In the bivouac of life,

Be not like dumb, driven cattle!

Be a hero in the strife!

“Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!

Let the dead Past bury its dead!

Act in the living Present!

Heart within, and God o’erhead!

“Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime,

And, departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time.

“Footprints, that perhaps another,

Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,

A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,

Seeing, shall take heart again.

“Let us then be up and doing,

With a heart for any fate;

Still achieving, still pursuing,

Learn to labor and to wait.”

Close

Partings here are indeed sad, but won’t it be wonderful over there, where we can meet to part no more? Frank Puckett in his life did help somebody (thousands of them!), and thus his living was not in vain. Having crossed the bar, he now has gone to meet his Pilot face to face, a meeting for which he had been decades in preparing. Blessed thought it is, “Dust thou art, to dust returnest, Was not spoken of the soul.” That vibrant spirit, which sojourned in that robust tabernacle of clay that we thought of as Frank Puckett, lives on. Frank left his “Footprints on the sands of time.” Every time his footprint fitted exactly into the footprints of Jesus, let us likewise walk therein. The song writer put it beautifully when it was said, “We’ll say Good night here, but Good morning up there.” Let us thank God that there was a Frank Puckett, and may his tribe increase.

Truth Magazine XIX: 15, pp. 227-232
February 20, 1975

THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Alabama: `Does Matthew 18:22 apply in a case where d person is about to divorce his mate for the cause of fornication?”

REPLY:

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times: but until seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:21, 22). “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

Now read the question again. The “except it be for fornication” clause is not in Matthew 18:22. The Lord did not say, “Forgive your brother unless the sin he commits is fornication.” He said forgive all who truly and sincerely repent. “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3).

It would be easy to cease here and repose and reflect on the above answer, but there is more to our querist’s inquiry than is immediately apparent. The only reason one may scripturally put away a companion and marry another is fornication. May one put away his or her mate and marry another if the guilty party is penitent? I respond in the affirmative. The issue in this case is not forgiveness. One must forgive the penitent party (Matt. 18:21, 22). However, repentance and forgiveness do not do away with the “except it be for fornication” clause. One who commits fornication may be “put away.” The innocent party may “marry another” without committing adultery. The Lord did not say, “Put away for fornication unless it be forgiven.” He did not say, “Except it be for fornication that is unrepented of.” He said, “Except it be for fornication:”

True, the fornicator can receive forgiveness. Consider this–one who puts away his spouse for just any reason may later obtain forgiveness of the Lord, but his forgiveness does not permit him to marry another. God’s forgiveness is available, but it does not allow the individual to retain all his former rights. So, in this case.

One may put his marriage mate away “for fornication.” That is what the Lord said. When one commits the sin, he may be put away for it. If the offended partner chooses to continue the marriage, that is his prerogative. This is the course that ideally should be followed in such difficult times, but there is no obligation for the innocent party to do so. Required to forgive? Yes. Free to put away the other because of fornication and marry another? Yes. In a case where one puts away his companion for burning the toast, the Lord is (I hesitate to say “required”) willing to forgive, but He is not willing to allow that person to marry another.

Caution and Conclusion

Matthew 19:9 does not demand that one put away his mate. Hopefully, the relationship can be restored. What I have said is controversial, and I am painfully conscious of that fact, but it is what I believe to be the truth. However, let me say that the case is theoretical and hypothetical. It seems unlikely that sincere penitence and genuine forgiveness would allow . the putting away process to occur. After one is over the hurt and shame and the disgust and depression and humiliation that has been done to them by the sin of fornication, would they then proceed with the putting away after granting forgiveness?

Oh, the grief and agony caused by sin in the marriage relationship! But what is worse than ruined homes and wrecked lives is lost souls. Mom and dad, what are you teaching your children with respect to the sacredness and sanctity of the home? Do not wait until they are engaged to begin telling them of the seriousness of marriage. Start now while there is hope.

Truth Magazine XIX: 15, p. 226
February 20, 1975