Truth Magazine

By Grant Caldwell

About 7:45 A.M., Sunday morning, October 27, 1976, I was getting ready for morning worship. We were to the last day of our meeting and things had been going very well. Just about that time, my wife came into the bedroom from the kitchen, looked at me and totally collapsed in my arms.

At the emergency room of the hospital, the doctor said she had a bladder infection, gave her a prescription, and said she would get better. On Thursday of that week, however, she was admitted to that same hospital. She was now under the care of two of the finest internal medicine specialists the state of Ohio had to offer. Diagnosis: A bacterial infection, a viral infection, infection in the blood stream, extreme (total) exhaustion. With the infection in the blood stream, the problem had rapidly spread from the bladder to the lungs, throat, and ears, and the doctors feared that it was going to the lining of the brain. The doctors explained that the infections were serious enough, but her physical condition was such that she was having trouble fighting it off.

She was 28 years old and I feared for her life. I was scared, and I prayed. What would I do without her? We had two small children. What would they do without their “mom”? The very thought was almost more than I could bear. But thanks be to God, she made it through. While she is now still regaining her strength, she is alive and very much well.

I bring all of this up not to use this paper as a nevus bulletin, but to remind all of us of one of the most serious matters that we must face. Those who are faithful in the service of the Lord and have special jobs to perform such as preaching, eldering, etc., often forget to care about those that are behind us “holding up our hands.” Especially, I believe this is true about our wives. They cook our meals, clean our clothes, keep our houses, and raise our children while we are out seeing to everyone else. And it is all too often that we wear them out.

How often we hear about problems that arise because preachers just did not take enough time to care at home. We have lost so many of our own children while out trying to convert everyone else’s children that “P.K.” has become a by-word with people. And one of the saddest things I know is the number of preachers who have found themselves in divorce courts as the primary participants in the last few years. Some of us (I must confess) have simply put so much on our wives that physically, emotionally, and / or spiritually they have buckled under the strain.

Someone may say, “Well, I don’t have much sympathy for the wife who doesn’t share her husband’s ambition for the cause of Christ.” And I will add that, I do not either. I am not talking about such a woman. But I am talking about good women with human limitations. Some of us take on such a load that our own bodies cannot stand the strain and we have strokes, heart attacks, ulcers, etc. Yet, in all, our faithful wife stands beside us helping us do what we think we must. But sometimes, their limitations as human beings show up, too.

What I am saying is this: The Lord does not expect that we perform in the church to the neglect of the Home. If he does, someone who knows it, please, show us the passage. 1 Cor. 7 applies to the preacher-the elder-as much as to anyone else. Eph. 5 is a law to the preacher and elder just as it is to the other members. My wife and children have the same right to a husband and father and a home-life as anyone else has. And they have the same right to rest and recreation that anyone else has.

I am not upholding a preacher who neglects the work of the church and gives his home-life as an excuse. But just as bad is the preacher who neglects his home-life and offers his work at the church as an excuse. Some of the blame, I suppose, must be put on the church in many places for expecting everything from debating to sink-cleaning from the preacher. But some of the blame, if not most of it, must be put squarely upon our shoulders for taking on more than we are really able to handle.

When we were in school, Brother Homer Hailey used to say, “Boys, remember your wife has a right to your time and your money, too. And your children need a father, too. In my early years I deprived my wife of things she had every right to have because I thought I had to spend it all on the church or put it in the basket. She was put in an early grave. I spent all my time in meetings and failed to spend my time teaching my own children the truth.”

Why, bless his heart, Brother Hailey was recognizing the same problem we are talking about. He was not saying one should not spend on the church, nor was he saying meetings, are not important. But he was saying that one’s home is important, too! Why don’t we give our wives a break. Maybe a night out. (Even if you are broke, the clown with the golden arches is better than another night in the kitchen.) Or how about an evening where you can just sit down, relax, hold her hand, and tell her she’s still the prettiest, most wonderful girl in town and you love her. Anything to give her a break before you break her. I will tell you, brethren, sometimes it is harder for her to sit home and wonder what “hell” you are going through, than it is for you to be out going through it.

Our wives, like ourselves, are human beings. As such, they are creations of the Lord and He alone knows best what care should be given them. Some can withstand more than others, but all have their limitations just as we do. We must “dwell with them according to knowledge” and give to them their just due. Maybe it is time to back up again, and ask, “What are we doing to our wives?”

Truth Magazine XXI: 31, p. 485
August 11, 1977

By Mike Willis

Creation Vs. Evolution

An important court battle is heading toward a climax in Indiana over whether or not public schools have the right to use a textbook in biology which presents the creation account. At the present the opponents of the creation account have won the first round. Two parents, aided by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union lawyers, asked Marion County (Indianapolis) superior court judge Michael T. Dugan to remove the textbook, Biology: A Search For Order in Complexity (published by Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), from its list of state-approved texts. Dugan agreed with the two parents that the textbook should be removed from the list of approved books.

At the present, the schools in the West Clark school district in Indiana are still using the texts. Those who defend the use of the books state that the book presents both theories and not just the biblical account. Opponents charge that the book is “anti-science” and dwells on religion of the fundamentalist type. Too, the judge agreed with the argument that the textbook leaves the student no way to support the doctrine of creation. Of course, the judge had nothing to say about the myriads of books we have had to use which supported evolution and left the creationist no arguments to support his beliefs.

At one time creationists occupied such a strong position that they forbade anyone to even mention the theories of evolution in the classroom. However, the courts stepped in to be sure that both sides of the controversy on how we came to be were presented. At the present, evolution has a death-grip on its opponents. They will not allow another side to be presented in the classroom and the courts are taking their side to enforce the position. That is quite a reversal to what happened a hundred years ago.

I am convinced that Arthur Custance’s evaluation of the present attitudes toward evolution are accurate; he said,

“But when a theory which is tentative is presented as fact, it no longer serves to inspire questions but rather to predetermine answers. To my mind, this is the present position of evolutionary theory. It has become Pact’ and to challenge it is to run the risk of excommunication. In Medieval times, too, excommunication was one of the penalties for challenging the accepted view of things. At that time the teat of whether any new theory was true or false was, a John Randall points out, whether it fitted harmoniously into the orthodox systems of belief and not whether it could be verified by experiment. Thin is exactly the position today; ecclesiastical dogma been replaced by biological dogma which, as ‘dogma,’ has been detrimental to the troth” (The Doorway Papers (In: Genesis and Early Man, p. 75).

It will be interesting to watch to see if the courts of this land reverse the decision they made one hundred years ago which gave the classrooms the right to present both sides of how men came to be.

Women as Roman Catholic Priests?

The National Federation of Priests’ Councils, which represents 113 local councils of Roman Catholic Priests, voted in its recent national convention to ask the Vatican to permit women to become priests and deacons and to eliminate all sexist language in official prayers of the Catholic Church. What the Catholic Church decides to do with this request will be interesting.

Should they ignore it? Most likely they will since the small group in America represents such a minority of the total number of Catholics in the world. However, if they are consistent, they should censure these priests for not accepting the authority of the Catholic Church. The official voice of the Catholic Church has already stated its position that women cannot be priests; yet, these priests refuse to accept that. Therefore, it seems that the church should censure these priests for rebellion. Yet in today’s climate, that would not be too popular so I doubt that this will be done.

Should the Catholic Church change its position and allow women to serve as priests? If they do, this is going to have serious repercussions for their claim to papal infallibility. For years, the papacy has forbidden women to be priests stating that it was not according to the will of God. If they now accept women as priests, this will be a change in positions, a total reversal of their previous stance. How would the Catholic be able to maintain its position of papal infallibility? If it is wrong to allow women to be priests, the tolerance of them as priests would be sinful; if it is right for women to serve as priests, the centuries during which this was withheld from them was sinful. The Catholics are between the proverbial rock and hard place. Which way can they go?

Drinking: American’s Number One Drug Problem

Recently I made a comment in a sermon which prompted a response from one of our members regarding the subject of drunkenness. I requested that he give me some literature regarding the prevalence of problem drinking in the Armed Forces since he was a major in the Air Force. Within a week, he gave me a copy of Alcohol Abuse Is More Prevalent in the Military Than Drug Abuse, a Report to the Congress of the United States. Although one must take into consideration that the problems of drinking would probably be statistically higher in the military than in civilian ranks because of a number of reasons (the military is filled with single, young men; the places in which many are stationed are isolated, leaving the men nothing else to do; etc.), the truth of the matter is that drinking is a problem for all Americans and not just for the military. However, since I have rather current statistics on how badly the military is affected by drinking problems, I want to relate them to you.

“A study by a private research organization on drinking practices and problems in the Army, based on questionnaires sent to 9,910 personnel and completed in December, 1972, showed that:

— 20 and 32 percent of officers and enlisted men, respectively, are heavy or binge drinkers, and an additional 17 and 35 percent, respectively, have drinking problems.

— Army duty time lost in 1973 because of drinking was estimated to be about 2,200 staff-years and the cost was estimated to be about $17 million in pay and allowances alone . . . .

— Over half of the non-senior officers and over half of all junior enlisted men believed it was all right to get drunk once in a while as long as it did not become a habit, and 28 percent of the junior enlisted men believed it was all right to get drunk whenever one felt like It . . . .

A semiannual opinion survey completed In Europe by the Army in February 1974 showed 27 percent of the 1,759 Army personnel sampled had a potential alcohol problem . . . .

In March 1975 the Navy Issued a report on drinking problems which was based on, questionnaires sent to 9,508 Navy personnel. This study showed that:

— 37 percent of the enlisted men, 26 percent of the male warrant officers, and 18 percent of the male commissioned officers had drinking problems described as ‘critical,’ ‘very serious,’ or ‘serious.’

— 19 percent of the enlisted women and 9 percent of the women officers had drinking problems described as ‘critical,’ ‘very serious,’ or ‘serious.’

— 15.6 percent of the enlisted women and 24.3 percent of the enlisted men reported at least some lost work time or inefficiency at work during the 6 months preceding the study because of drinking or Its after-effects. The percentage for officers were 17.5 for females and 17.7 for males. . . .

A study performed by the Navy Medical Neuropsychiatric Research Unit, San Diego, California, estimated that the Navy loses about $52 million annually from absenteeism, decreased efficiency, and poor decisfonmakin& due to fig . . . . It did not include the costs of hospitalization, outpatient treatment, medications, or legal services for these individuals.”

There were other interesting figures in this report but these should be sufficient to see what a problem drinking has become in the United States. I do wish that I had comparative figures to see how bad a problem drinking has become for civilians. I hazard a guess that it is not much less a problem for civilians than it is for the military.

In the midst of a society which is so troubled by drinking problems, the Christian should stand forth as a shining light. His conduct should be above reproach inasmuch as he abstains from strong drink. Peter wrote, “For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you” (4:1-3). It concerns me to hear that some among the Lord’s disciples will defend social drinking when all the world around us needs to see the shining light of a good example.

Truth Magazine XXI: 31, pp. 483-484
August 11, 1977

By Arvin Himmel

God’s word teaches in Prov. 17:15, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.”

All responsible people fall into one of two categories. There are the righteous and the unrighteous, the good and the bad, the just and the wicked. God approves righteousness but condemns wickedness. Some men have the reverse attitude; they defend wickedness and find fault with righteousness.

Justifying the Wicked

Here are some examples of how efforts are made to uphold wickedness:

1. The wicked are acquitted. When the prophet Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel. However, they “walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment” (1 Sam. 8:1-3). Any wicked person with enough money could have bought his way out of trouble with these judges.

The law of Moses warned the judges and officers, “Thou shaft not wrest judgment; thou shaft not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous” (Deut. 16:19). This warning often went unheeded. During many periods of Israel’s history the magistrates and rulers set the wicked free in exchange for a “gift.”

Today, people who violate the law often escape punishment by bribes and by hiring smart attorneys who can find loopholes in the law or get a client set free on some legal technicality. There is no honor in the exoneration of criminals and lawbreakers.

2. Wickedness is whitewashed. Sometimes when sin is committed, attempts are made to justify the wicked by acting as if no wrong has been done. A person in an important position is found to be immoral, or one of high rank is proved to be guilty of gross misconduct, but in “Watergate” style the whole mess is quickly and quietly swept under the rug, any statements issued are vague and meaningless, and it is understood that no one is supposed to ask any questions.

Israel’s king David wanted to whitewash his sin, but God sent Nathan to David to let him know that all Israel would see the consequences of what the king had done secretly (2 Sam. 12:12). The scribes and Pharisees were so accustomed to whitewashing their sins that Jesus compared them to “whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness” (Matt. 23:27).

3. Sin is openly advocated. In the present generation numerous groups are loudly endorsing homosexuality, gambling, drinking, prostitution, and similar vices. There is widespread clamor for liberalized laws. Some in high governmental circles of influence have spoken in justification of practices explicitly condemned in the Bible. Courts are freeing the smut peddlers and prostitutes. Crime and immorality increase rapidly because wickedness is justified.

Condemning the Just

The following are a few ways in which the just are condemned:

1. The righteous are afflicted. In Isaiah’s time the leaders of Israel were “companions of thieves”; they loved gifts and acted for reward rather than in the interest of justice, therefore “they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them” (Isa. 1:23). Amos made a similar charge. He said the leaders “afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right” (Amos 5:12).

2. The righteous are falsely accused. Jesus our Lord did no sin but was accused and condemned to die. Although perfectly just, He was accused of “perverting the nation,” forbidding tribute to Caesar, and trying to set Himself up as king (Lk. 23:1,2). Paul, the righteous apostle to the Gentiles, was accused of being “a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” and one who had tried to profane the temple (Acts 24:1-6).

3. Just men are shown disrespect. Sometimes men condemn the just by acting with contempt toward the godly. In the church, God-fearing, mature elders are condemned sometimes by a disgruntled individual who did not get to have his personal way in a thing that is purely one of judgment. A young person who is immature and inexperienced ought to be very slow about condemning older men who are wise by reason of experience and many years of careful Bible study, especially if the area of disagreement is only a matter of human judgment.

In conclusion, consider the words of Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him” (Isa. 5:20-23).

Truth Magazine XXI: 31, p. 482
August 11, 1977

By Johnny Stringer

Men today do not have the original Biblical manuscripts which were written by the inspired men. We have copies of those originals, and it is from those copies that the Bible is translated into English and other current languages. Since the printing press was not invented until many centuries after the completion of the scriptures, the copies had to be made by hand. Consequently, it has been charged that these copies have been so corrupted by the errors of the copyist that it is impossible to determine God’s original message to man.

This charge is one of those rash charges made by people who feel quite free to speak authoritatively upon subjects which they have not thoroughly investigated. Those who make this charge have not investigated the subject enough to be aware that they are setting their own uninformed minds in opposition to the finest, most reputable scholars who have diligently studied the question.

Those who believe that the manuscripts of the Bible which we have today have been hopelessly corrupted so that it is impossible to learn God’s will from them do not have much faith in God and His providence. Is it reasonable to think that God would put forth all the effort of giving a revelation to man, only to let that revelation become hopelessly corrupt and useless within just a few years? It should be obvious to anyone who has faith in the omnipotent God of the Bible that if God was interested in man enough to give the revelation in the first place, then He was interested in man enough to preserve that revelation so that man could benefit from it. Those with faith in God will believe Peter’s assuring promise, “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:25).

Scholars who have studied the matter agree that we have substantially the words of God as they were revealed from heaven. One of the most outstanding scholars of recent years was Dr. Edward J. Young. In his work, Thy Word Is Truth, he said, “Are these copies, however, hopelessly corrupt? For our part, we are convinced that they are not. W e believe that the Bible which we have is accurate and that it is a remarkably close approximation to the original manuscripts” (p. 57). Young further affirms, “One cannot but exclaim, after having spent much time in a study of the Hebrew text-and, of course, the same is true of the manuscripts of the New Testament-that these manuscripts have been preserved by the singular care and providence of God” (p. 58).

But what about copyists’ errors? Surely, in almost anything that is copied the possibility of error is present, and there are copyists’ errors in Biblical manuscripts. Textual critics, however, through studying and comparing the many manuscripts and ancient versions which we have, are able to arrive at what was essentially the original words. In his work, Thy Word Is Truth, Young illustrates the matter as follows:

Suppose that a schoolteacher writes a letter to the President of the United States. To her great joy she receives a personal reply. It is a treasure which she must share with her pupils and so she dictates the letter to them. They are in the early days of their schooling, and spelling is not yet one of their strong points. In his copy of the letter Johnny has misspelled a few words. Mary has forgotten to cross her t’s and to dot her Is. Billy has written one or two words twice, and Peter has omitted a word now and then. Nevertheless, despite all these flaws about thirty copies of the President’s letter have been made. Unfortunately, the teacher misplaces the original and cannot find it. To her great sorrow it is gone. She does not have the copy which came directly from the President’s pen; she must be content with those that the children have made.

Will anyone deny that she has the words of the President? Does she not have his message, in lust those words In which he wrote it to her? True enough, there are some minor mistakes in the letters, but the teacher may engage in the science of textual criticism and correct them. She may correct the misspelled words, and she may write in those words which have been omitted and cross out those which are superfluous. Without any serious difficulty she may indeed restore the original (p. 57).

To those who are disturbed that we do not have the original copies of the books of the Bible, it should be noted that we do not have the original copies of Shakespeare’s writing or of most other literary works. Textual critics must study and compare early editions of Shakespeare’s works in order to arrive at what was the original text. Due to the thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have, with some of them dating back to the second and third centuries, it is possible to be very certain about the correct reading of the New Testament text.

In fact, there is much more evidence for the integrity of our New Testament text than there is for the integrity of our texts for other writings. One of the world’s foremost scholars, Dr. F. F. Bruce, in his work, The Books and the Parchments, said, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New ` Testament” (p. 178). In citing evidence for this statement, Bruce observes that the earliest useful manuscripts which we have of Herodotus and Thucydides are over 1300 years later than the originals. Additionally, he points out that, although Caesar’s Gallic Wars was written around 50 B.C., the oldest manuscript which we have of that work is around 900 years later than Caesar’s day (p. 180). After mentioning the writings of a number of ancients, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Homer, he affirms, “But the textual evidence for the New Testament is abundant beyond all comparison with these other works. The number of extant manuscripts of all or part of the Greek New Testament runs to about 5,000. If the very number of manuscripts increases the total of scribal corruptions, it supplies at the same time the means of checking them” (p. 181).

In concluding his discussion of the New Testament text, Bruce said,

Our century has seen no greater authority in this field of New Testament textual criticism than Sir Frederic Kenyon, who died in August, 1952, and we may take his words to heart with confidence: “It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our con. viction that we have In our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.” And again: “The interval then be. tween the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (pp. 189-190).

There are certainly some variations among the many different manuscripts of the New Testament scriptures, but the variations are mainly insignificant. The names that stand out among all the rest in the field of textual criticism (restoring the original text) are B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort. Their years of intense and dedicated work led them to conclude that “the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed.” Affirming that most of the variations that exist are trivial and insignificant, and that the evidence is such that the correct reading can usually be ascertained, they say, ` f comparative trivialities such as changes or order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like, are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 564-565). Similarly, B. B. Warfield declared, “The great mass of the New Testament, in ther words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no variations.”

Regarding the Old Testament, it should be pointed out that Jesus and the inspired writers of the New Testament quoted it as being the word of God. Although they did not possess the original manuscripts, they obviously considered the text which they had in the first century, although it was derived from copies, to constitute, in substance, the word of God as it was revealed from heaven. Thus, the text of the Old Testament had not been hopelessly corrupted by the first century. But was it corrupted during the centuries after the first century? No. Scholars agree that it was faithfully transmitted from the first century on by Jews whose reverence for the scripture led them to take great pains to safeguard the purity of the Old Testament text. Using the copies available to them, Jewish scholars produced a standard text around A. I). 100. Succeeding generations of editors, called Masoretes, copies this text and affixed to it many signs to guide readers in the proper enunciation of words. They devised a complicated system of safeguards to prevent errors in coping. These safeguards included counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book pointing out the middle letter of the Hebrew scriptures, and other such measures. Scholars agree that they were successful in preserving the text of the Old Testament.

It is fitting to conclude this article with some remarks o the renowned scholar, Dr. Edward J. Young:

These copies, however, do give the actual word of God. No point of doctrine has been affected. The doctrine shines before us 1n all its purity. Why God was not pleased to preserve the original copies of the Bible, we do not know. Perhaps, In His infinite wisdom, He did not wish us to bow down to these manuscripts as unto images. Perhaps their preservation would have directed towards them veneration as reties and would have deflected one’s attention from their message. One thing is clear. In His mysterious providence, God has preserved His Word. We do not have a Bible which Is unreliable and glutted with error, bat one that in most wondrous fashion presents the Word of God and the teat of the original (Thy Word Is Truth, p. 61).

Truth Magazine XXI: 30, pp. 476-478
August 4, 1977