Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Reuel Lemmons submitted the following in an editorial in the Firm Foundation, Aug. 2, 1977:

“We have developed an ‘eldership.’ There were elders in the New Testament church but where do we find an ‘eldership’? . . .The average reader will be astonished to learn that you cannot find the term ‘eldership’ In the New Testament. Many elders do not even know that it is a non-biblical term . . .

Norman L. Parks, writing in the Ensign Fair, Dec., 1977, makes a similar assertion. Says Parks,

“There were elders in the assemblies of the Lord established by the Apostles but no ‘eldership’.”

Classifying the word “eldership” as an example of “Americanese,” not pure English, Parks thinks the term misrepresents Biblical truth. Here is how he states his feelings about the word “eldership”:

“It is true that one may find the term ‘eldership’ in such dictionaries as Websters which accept ‘Americanese’, but in such authoritative ‘pure’ dictionaries as the great unabridged Random House Dictionary of the English Language it just does not appear. It does not appear in the Bible. It misrepresents Biblical truth just as the word ‘fellowship’ does when used as a verb. We need to follow Campbell’s claim that we should call Bible things by Bible names . . . .”

To reason that a congregation may have elders but not an eldership is like reasoning that the church may have members but no membership!

Our English word “elder” is used to translate the Greek word presbuteros. Sometimes the Greek word is Anglicized (spelled with English letters and given an English ending) to make it “presbyter.” Some English translations of the New Testament speak of “elders” and others speak of “presbyters,” depending on the preference of words employed by the translators. For a parallel, some English versions use “baptism” (an Anglicized word) and others use “immersion.” As an illustration, in Acts 14:23 in the King James Version it is stated that Paul and Barnabas ordained “elders” in every church. Moffatt’s translation says they chose “presbyters.” Either rendition is correct.

In 1 Tim. 4:14 the King James Version uses the word “presbytery” for presbuterion. Timothy had received a certain gift “with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” If “elder” is an appropriate English term to translate presbuteros, “eldership” is equally appropriate to translate presbuterion. Such translations as Anderson’s, the American Bible Union, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and Young’s use the word “eldership.”

Parks says, “It is true that one may find the term ,eldership’ in such dictionaries as Websters which accept `Americanese’, ” but not in “pure” works like the “great unabridged Random House Dictionary.” He does not bother to tell his readers that before the first English settlement was made in America (Remember Jamestown and the year 1607?) there were English translations of the New Testament that used the word “eldership.” The Geneva Bible appeared in 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible in 1568. It is strange that both these versions which were in use before the King James Version appeared in 1611 used “eldership,” a word belonging not to “pure” English but to “Americanese.” Startling! How did this “Americanese” find its way into the vocabulary of English scholars before the first English settlement in America? Strange indeed!

According to Parks if we would but use the “pure” style of “the great unabridged Random House Dictionary” the word “eldership” would be gone. Lemmons finds the word equally out of place, but for some strange reason he blames the Random House people! In a Firm Foundation editorial of Nov. 15, 1977, he objects further to “eldership,” especially the “ship” part of the word, and offers this comment:

“Brethren have swallowed the Random House Dictionary definition hook, line and sinker. They are forgetting the Bible definition.”

Brethren, I need help in figuring this one out! How is it that the Random House Dictionary definition of “eldership” is the bad thing that brethren have swallowed hook, line and sinker, yet the “pure” Random House Dictionary does not use the word “eldership.” Parks uses Random House to sink the “ship in “eldership,” but Lemmons blames Random House for the “ship” idea’s floating around in our minds.

Leaving the Random House fight in the hands of Parks and Lemmons, I direct your attention to another matter. The word presbuterion used in 1 Tim. 4:14 means a “body of elders” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon), “the elders or bishops in a local church” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary), “the college of elders” (Hendriksen), or “elderhood” (Berry’s Interlinear). The English word “eldership” expresses the idea well.

Parks says we need “to follow Campbell’s claim that we should call Bible things by Bible names.” I am not interested in following Campbell, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or any other man except as he follows Christ. Calling Bible things by Bible names is included in the principle laid down in 1 Pet. 4:11, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God,” and I am solidly for that principle. “Eldership” is but a synonym for “presbytery” (just as “immersion” is a synonym for “baptism”) and is in fact a Bible name for the “body of elders.”

Interestingly, when Campbell published a translation of the New Testament which he considered to be an improvement over the old King James Version, he used Macknight’s version of the epistles, and (with our sincere apologies to Random House) it has “eldership” in 1 Tim. 4:14! Obviously, Campbell did not think the word “eldership” was contrary to calling Bible things by Bible names. In the appendix to the Living Oracles translation, Campbell says presbuterion (commonly rendered “presbytery”) is “applied to the eldership of the Christian congregation” in 1 Tim. 4:14. Such scholars as Macknight and Campbell did not know that the term “eldership” is “Americanese,” and, fortunately, they had no occasion to either praise or condemn Random House!

The New Testament teaches that local churches should appoint elders when there are men who are qualified to serve. It is right to refer to these men collectively as the “presbytery” or “eldership.” Abuses in the eldership are no justification for attempting to leave elders stranded on the high seas with a sunken “ship.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, pp. 330-331
May 18, 1978

By Glenn Jones

For many years I had heard the term “state religion” used, but I never was confronted with it personally until I came to Germany. The state religions of Germany can be divided basically into two major affiliations, namely the Catholic and Protestant Churches. The employees of these institutions have the same status and benefits as do government employees, and the churches are supported by “church taxes” deducted from the earnings of their respective members. As a whole, one’s religious affiliation is determined at birth by his parents, who generally follow the family tradition. There are those who faithfully attend the services of these churches, but for the most part church life is reduced to a few major social events: christening as an infant, confirmation or first communion, marriage, and one’s funeral. For some people these occasions are the only times they ever enter the church building.

For over one hundred years Germany has been the home of very liberal theology which denies the divine inspiration of the Bible and presents God’s Word as a collection of legends. Such theology has resulted in various humanistic and political philosophies which see the improvement of man’s physical welfare as the basic goal of Christianity. Consequently, the state churches are heavily involved in the social gospel, including the support and operation of medical, educational, and charitable institutions throughout the world. This liberal theology coupled with the post-war prosperity in Germany and with the miserable historical record of the church and its clergy has caused many people to view the state religions as useless institutions. As a result, an ever increasing amount of Germans are officially withdrawing their membership from these churches and turning their backs on Christianity altogether.

These circumstances present a rather bleak picture for those of us interested in New Testament Christianity. However, recent experience has shown me that I ought not to give up too soon. Having known that most Germans reach conclusions about Christianity on the basis of virtually everything except the Bible, I was curious to see how they would react to a quick and simple reading of the life of Christ (Luke) and of the origin of the church (Acts). I designed a Luke-Acts reading program whereby one could read Luke in six sittings and Acts in seven. This program was not intended to be a detailed exegesis of these books, but rather a brief introduction to the Bible for those thousands of Germans whose knowledge of the Scriptures is very weak. I asked several of my German friends for their help in this reading experiment, and received enough positive responses to keep me booked up almost every night of the week. I believe the response was positive for several reasons. First, I came as one seeking to learn from them, and not as a preacher trying to push conversion upon anyone. Secondly, the fact that I came with the Bible, as opposed to my own study outlines, helped diminish the fear that I was trying to press some American sectarian system upon them. Thirdly, it was clear that every reader would be free to reach his own conclusions after investigating the text, although there would be a responsibility to defend his positions. Finally, some viewed this program as a challenge to make an intellectual judgment about the Bible, while others responded to it out of curiosity, desiring to see what is in the Bible.

From the standpoint of my own learning this program afforded me invaluable insights into human nature and into the problems of people in understanding the Bible. From the standpoint of teaching others, the Biblical text itself gave me opportunity to bring up numerous fundamental points of the faith, including Christian evidences, the authority of Jesus and the Scriptures, sin, judgment, salvation in the gospel, the cost and rewards of discipleship, and many other items. Although we are not yet certain of the outcome of this reading program, we are having more opportunities than ever before to plant the seed and are seeing people seriously considering their eternal destiny. If we had more workers, we could find even more willing to read the Bible with us. For this reason we want to make a special appeal for faithful workers to come to Germany. There is much to do, and the Lord needs you here!

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, p. 330
May 18, 1978

By Ray F. Dively

On December 25, 1977, Windell Wiser and I left for a preaching trip to India. This was my fifth trip to India and Brother Wiser’s first. Our main purpose in this trip was 4o encourage and edify the brethren. There have been approximately seventy churches established in the Hy4orabad area. These brethren are young in the faith as the first churches were established in 1972.

After arriving in India, we visited some churches and taught the brethren. Then, we held a week of training classes at the village of Thummalapally. We invited three of the leading members from seventeen churches. Near the end of the training classes, we began to get suspicious of our interpreter, P. V. Devedanam, who is also a preacher. After the training class Brother Wiser and I spent some time checking on him. We found that he had overcharged us on printing, his hotel bill and food for the training classes. We confronted him with the evidence and later he sent word that he would repay us part of it, but we never saw him again. He has proven to be dishonest, deceitful and a liar.

As in India, there are also false brethren in America. Several years ago, Richard E. Swan introduced the false doctrine that women could not teach children or other women. This has caused some problems among the brethren, setting brother against brother. But many of the brethren have rejected this false doctrine and love among the brethren is much stronger now. In May 1977, Richard E. Swan was disfellowshipped by the Winchester, Virginia church, at which time, he was their preacher.

Near the end of our stay in India, Brother N. A. Lazarus agreed to be our interpreter when we return. He speaks excellent English. He is a very good interpreter, as I have used him in three previous trips, when he could get leave from work. He has agreed to take leave from work without pay, when need be. I baptized him during my first trip in India.

The Lord’s work in India has problems, as does the work here in America. Even with false brethren and problems, the Lord’s work looks very promising in India. We have faithful and honest brethren as N. A. Lazarus, B. Samson, B. Rathnam, G. Lazar, Sir Ramulu and others. We must not get discouraged in supporting the Lord’s work in India.

Brother Wiser and I both agree that we had a successful trip. We spent our time in edifying the brethren and straightening out some problems.. We had two tracts printed in Telugu. We hope to have more tracts printed in Telugu. There is a great need for gospel literature in their own language. We need to go to India periodically, to strengthen the brethren and teach the lost. These trips must be made as an American cannot get a permanent visa to preach in India.

Surely, all who read the above will agree that such trips are vital to soul saving efforts in India. We work and pray for the day when brethren over there will be able to carry on by themselves, but until that day arrives we must conserve and stabilize the good accomplished by continuing to do as our Lord commanded, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:. . .” It was for these very same reasons that the apostle Paul went back confirming the churches that he had established. “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”

I will always be grateful for the fellowship the brethren have given me in preaching the gospel in India. As the apostle Paul stated, “Not that I seek for the gift; but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to your account.” I am thankful to God and the brethren that I am able to have a part in the Lord’s work in India. Lord willing, I wish to return to India in December. Please pray for the brethren in India.

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, p. 329
May 18, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

When a companion is snatched away by death, whether after a very few years of marriage or after several decades, the surviving spouse is thrust into a condition of shock at first, of loneliness a little later, and of frustration finally. The intent of this article is to be helpful to such troubled people and to also help all of us in our association with such lonely and frustrated ones.

However, this is obviously a sensitive subject and any recommendation that is made is necessarily drawn at least partly from personal experiences and individual ideals. Thus such recommendations would vary from one advisor to another. Consequently, I shall limit myself to general ideals and to Bible principles.

Finances

Most preachers have not had sufficient training or experience in significant financial matters to equip them to advise people in this area. But the following advice is surely wise, yet may be in areas often overlooked and forgotten by those who become widows and widowers: (1) Do not be hasty to settle all financial matters. Give yourself a little time–some weeks or months to reach decisions. (2) Seek a competent and reliable financial advisor if you are not already skilled yourself. (3) Especially, give yourself some time to adjust to the new life-style before changing residence and/or selling a home.

To Marry Or Not To Marry

It is impossible to advise “yes” or “no” in this regard without a full consideration of the many variables from one case to another. But again there are some fundamental principles that can be suggested that really should help each person to determine his or her action: (1) It is assumed that every Christian will recognize that he or she is free to marry (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). (2) One does not show disrespect to his first companion when he consummates a second marriage, being guided by righteous principles. (3) Yet, if there is a significant burden imposed by present conditions that would be escalated and aggravated by a second marriage, then Paul advises one to remain single (1 Cor. 7:40). Thus, one’s health, age, finances, children, work, and such matters must all be considered.

But I believe the most significant factor in deciding whether or not to re-marry is: Do you really want another companion? Or the question may be: Do you need a companion? Obviously, some men and perhaps many women have no emotional need for a second companion. But most people probably do have that need, for it is a basic characteristic of human beings. Therefore, a second marriage may be wise because of the very same reasons for any marriage at all (1 Cor. 7:2, 8, 9). How pitiable it is when some have lived chaste lives throughout a first marriage, and then when they find themselves “single again” they decline marriage and live in sin-sin that brings shame, disgrace and eternal ruin.

If You Marry Again

It is assumed that Christians recognize that they must marry a companion who is faithful to the Lord, if they marry at all (1 Cor. 7:39). Paul chose to remain single for the sake of the gospel, but he said he had a right to have a wife who was a believer (1 Cor. 9:5). Please think how harmful it would have been for him to have led about a wife who did not share his faith.

When young people marry there are adjustments to be made, but these come quite naturally, usually. However, in later life such adjustments are much more significant. We may have each become quite “set in our ways.” And at these later ages we do not bend as easily as we did when we were young! So, let us enumerate a few principles (again) that are important to success in a second marriage:

(1) Marry a Christian — and to assure this, do not even consider any other — do not even date or otherwise become closely associated with one who is not a child of God. (2) But remember, this alone will not guarantee success. Even Christians are not always just naturally compatible. Evaluate in yourself and in the prospective companion: (a) flexibility in attitude, (b) joyful, pleasant disposition, (c) mutual likes and dislikes, (d) emotional stability, etc. (3) Enter your second marriage with even more resolution than you did the first one. Remember, this one may not have all the magic that usually accompanies the easy-going emotions and passions of youth.

Finally, expect your second marriage to be good. It can provide a needed companionship, a happy association, a joyful participation, a realistic security, a fruitful partnership as two lives blend in mutual devotion to God and in unselfish sharing with each other-a sharing of joys, sorrows and goals-a sharing of lives that are lived with hope and assurance and trust.

Addendum

Because of the scarcity of prospective companions for widows, great care should be exercised lest in a desperate attempt to find companionship and/or security, scriptural and logical considerations may be cast aside and a very unwise marriage may result. Conversely, since suitable companions are so readily available for widowers, they too must exercise great care lest they be pursued by — the least desirable ones and be led to the most unsuitable choice. And I hasten to add: not one of the points I have made in this article is inconsequential. It is a serious matter and, for the sake of all who need these words, I have treated the subject with strict seriousness. Next (and finally): “Senior Citizenship.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, pp. 328-329
May 18, 1978