Truth Magazine

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Late Date

Before the end of the second century Irenaeus spoke of the vision of the Apocalypse and said that it “was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians’ reign.” (Against Heresies V: xxx: 3.) Domitian reigned from 81 A.D. to the latter part of 96 A.D., when he was killed. William Barclay combines some interesting historical information that helps to pinpoint the time of John’s exile on Patmos.

Tertullian says: “The apostle John was banished to the island” (On The Prescription of Heretics, 36). Origen says: “The Roman Emperor, as tradition tells us, condemned John to the island of Patmos for witnessing to the word of truth” (Homilies on Matthew) Clement of Alexandria tells us: “On the death of the tyrant John returned to Ephesus from the island of Patmos” (The Rich Man’s Salvation, 42). Jerome says that John was banished in the fourteenth year after Nero and liberated on the death of Domitian (Concerning Illustrious Men, 9). This would mean that John was banished to Patmos about A.D. 94 and that he was liberated about A.D. 96. . . 39

Besides the consistent tradition which favors dating the Apocalypse in the days of Domitian there are several other evidences. Before proceeding to an examination of these, a word about Domitian is in order.

Domitian was the son of Vespasian and a brother to Titus. He was a proud and power hungry man who had much in common with Tiberius. If, as has been suggested, Tiberius was led into false positions through hesitation and uncertainty, Domitian knew exactly what he wanted from the start. Tacitus and Pliny were filled with horror, not by occasional acts of vengeance but by a calculated and deliberate cruelty carried out in order that a definite aim might be achieved. Domitian sought control of the Roman Senate, the people and the army. By Biblical standards he was an immoral man. Having divorced his wife he lived with his niece as his mistress; after a short time his wife returned and both women lived with him in his palace.

With a good source of information, Domitian was able to eliminate any foe that in any sense seemed dangerous to his purposes. Philosophers and astrologers were banished from Rome in 89 A.D. Domitian was in no position to trust even his influential generals or governors. His policy of terrorism was aimed primarily on senatorial and upper class persons.

Domitian styled himself “Master and God” and liked for men to so address him. In the second half of his reign he accepted a form of address which implied his divinity and lordship. In public documents men swore by the genius of the living Emperor. Some wishing to flatter him began to offer sacrifices to his genius. It seems that he seized upon this and turned it into a test of loyalty. Out of all of this arose the concept of the eternity of the Roman Empire. There were two groups who could not acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor: Jews and Christians. They were charged with atheotes, which is equivalent to ungodliness or atheism; the faithful Christians of the Domitianic period were atheists by Empire standards. 40

We shall summarize the arguments for the late date of writing under five headings. (1) The General Condition of the Churches. It is argued that the general situation of the churches mentioned in Revelation presupposes the late date. The low moral conditions, particularly of Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea, are indicative of a time later than the period of Nero. Scott suggests that the heresies, “apparently of a Gnostic character, which were working mischief” in some of the churches did not become a danger until near the end of the first century.41 However, the Colossian epistle was written some thirty years previously, and one could hardly doubt that it dealt with Gnosticism as a present threat to the church.

(2) The Persecution. There were several periods in which the Christians were persecuted. Some religious persecution was carried on by Caligmla (c. 41 A.D.); Christians were driven from Rome by Claudius (c. 52 A.D.); Nero (c. 64-68 A.D.) carried on intense persecution in Rome; Vespasian (c. 69-79 A.D.) did very little to persecute the disciples of the Lord. But Domitian “is the emperor who has gone down in history as the one who bathed the empire in the blood of the Christians.” 42 It is debatable, but the persecution by Nero seems to have been confined primarily to the city of Rome. Gibbon says, “It is evident that the effect, as well as the cause, of Nero’s persecution, were confined to the walls of Rome. ” 43

(3) Emperor Worship. In our discussion of Domitian we have shown the beginning of Emperor worship. This spread throughout Asia Minor. Some of the cities in which churches were addressed in the Revelation had vied for the right to erect a temple for the worship of the emperor; Pergamurn was the first to do So. 44 Thus, the cultus in Asia became as much a threat to the Christians as if they had lived in Rome itself; Caesar worship covered the whole empire. The attitude that prompted such worship also produced a change of attitude on the part of the Christians toward the empire. We will discuss this as a separate point.

(4) Change in Attitude toward the Empire. William Barclay presents a refreshing study showing the difference in the attitude shown in the book of Acts toward Rome and the Empire and that shown in the Revelation. In the early days of Christianity the safest refuge of the Christian from a mob of angry Jews was the tribunal of the Roman magistrate. Paul seemed quite proud of his Roman citizenship. He used it to good effect in Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem. He was protected by the empire on the way to Caesarea, and exercised a citizens right in appealing directly to Caesar.45 Paul urged the Romans to be subject to the powers that be because they were ordained of God and was a terror only to the evil. (Romans 13: 1-7), Peter gave similar instructions to Christians. (1 Peter 2: 12-17).

“But in the Revelation there is nothing but blazing hatred for Rome. Rome is a Babylon, the mother of harlots, drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs (Revelation 17: 5,6). John looks and hopes for nothing but the total destruction of Rome.” . 46

(5) Nero Redivivus Myth. Nero had made such a strong impression on the Roman world

that after his death there were many who at least claimed to believe that lie continued to live. Some of them claimed that lie would return shortly. In fact. there were several pretenders who claimed to be the returned Nero. Others told that Nero was in Parthia and would come back some day as the leader of a Parthian army. Swete suggests that

“Nero is doubly the Antichrist, the historical Nero persecuted the Church, the Nero of popular myth caricatured the faith. When the Apocalypse was written. Nero had in truth returned in the person of Doinitian (17: 11). ” 47

 

Footnotes

39. Barclay, 1, 5 L.

40. Cambridge Ancient History, ed. S.A. Cook. F.E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth. Vol. XI: The Imperial Peace, A. D. 70-192 (Cambridge: University Press, 1954). For the history of Domitian, from which this has been summarized see pp. 22-45.

41. E. E. Scott, The Book of Revelation (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1939, p. 29.

42. Summers, 83.

43. Robert Maynard Hutchens (ed.) Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 40: Gibbon: I (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1952), p. 214.

44. Thomas Cosmades, “Ruins of the Seven Churches,” Christianity Today, IX (December 4, 1964), 17.

45. Acts 16:36-40; 18:1-17. 19: 13-41; 22:22-30; 23:12-31; 25:10,11

46. Barclay, I, 18.

47. Swete, lxxxiv.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 6-7
May 3, 1973

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Date

The date of the writing of Revelation is important. A number of significant points hinge on the date. The book has been placed in the reigns of several Roman emperors including Claudius, Nero, Trajan and Domitian. Some modern scholars have even suggested the reign of Vespasian as the time of writing.19 The majority of expositors hold to either a date during or shortly after the persecution of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerusalem, or to one during the persecution by Domitian. Thus, the date would be about 69 A.D. or about 95 96 A.D. The issue is so well defined that Harrison can say, “only these two need be considered.”20 This writer sees the weight of evidence pointing to the Domitianic date.

The Early Date

A number of the older works defend the early (late. The most thorough defense is made by Macdonald”21 and by Randell in The Pulpit Commentary. 22 The sobriety with which Macdonald undertakes his task is indicated:

“A true exposition depends in no small degree, upon a knowledge of the existing condition of things at the time it was written; i.e., of the true point in history occupied by the writer, and those whom he originally addressed . . . It will be found that no book of the New Testament more abounds in passages which clearly have respect to the time when it was written.” 23

The arguments made in defense of the early date may be summarized under eight points: (1) The Linguistic Phenomena. This is supposed to demonstrate that Revelation was the first of the books written by John and one of the earliest of the New Testament. The idea is that John wrote the book of Revelation before he had learned Greek very well. By the time he wrote the Gospel of John he knew Greek well. This is rather interesting, but not very probable, in the light of recent reversals on the dating of the Gospel of John. As early as the time of Dionysius, the Greek of Revelation has been accused of being ungrammatical.” 24 Tenney comments:

“Some of the Greek in the Apocalypse seems awkward and even ungrammatical. One should remember that the author was attempting to put into human language scenes that could not be described in ordinary terms; and consequently his grammar and vocabulary both proved inadequate.” 25

(2) The Doctrinal Expressions. It is said that the Apocalypse is the link between the synoptic Gospels and the book of John. Westcott thinks that in the evolutionary plan of revelation John did not know nearly so much when lie wrote the book of Revelation as he did when he wrote the Gospel of John. Hendriksen makes an appropriate reply: “Again, as for the style, should we expect to find the same style in a history of events (the Gospe0, a personal letter (the epistles), and the apocalypse or unveiling (Revelation)?” 26 Certainly one should not expect a book that is admittedly made up of signs, symbols and visions to be put in language so plain that they become unnecessary.

If one were to make a comparison of the doctrinal teaching in the alleged writings of John, he would see that in the Gospel lie calls Jesus “the Lamb of God”; so does he in the Apocalypse. In the Gospel and Epistles, he used the title “Logos” with reference to the Lord; so does he in Revelation. John is the only New Testament writer to make such a use of this word. The Gospel presents Christ as a preexistent, eternal being. The Apocalypse does the same. Both writings ascribe man’s salvation to the sovereign grace of God anti to the blood of Jesus Christ. The “whosoever” doctrine is found in both books. As Hendriksen says “There are no doctrinal differences!” 27

(3) The Jews Still a Distinct People in Their Own Land. From Revelation Seven it is argued that the twelve tribes were still in existence in Palestine. There are, however, other interpretations of the 144,000, which would seem to make it unnecessary to interpret this literally as the twelve tribes.28

(4) Jerusalem and the Temple Still Standing. It is said that Revelation Eleven, which represents the measuring of the temple and altar, indicates that Jerusalem and the temple were still standing. It seems entirely correct to regard this as symbolical, but as Macdonald says:

” it seems very strange and altogether unnatural that the apostle, in writing to churches so remote from Judea, gathered on Gentile soil, should make use of such symbols; and still more so if nearly or quite a generation had passed since that city with its temple had been destroyed. ” 29

The forty-two months finds a literal fulfillment in the period from February 67 A.D., when war was declared to August 10, 70 A.D., when Jerusalem was destroyed. 30

(5) The Sixth Roman Emperor on the Throne. This argument is based upon Revelation Seventeen.

“Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, a and he goes to destruction. ” (Rev. 17: 9-11).

According to Macdonald this passage represents the book of Revelation as being written, or at least the visions seen, during the reign of the sixth of the emperors of Rome. Rome was built on the seven hills. The emperors are reckoned thus: Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius; these are the five who have fallen. The one who is was Nero. The one who had not yet come and was to remain only a little while was Galba, who reigned only seven months. “The context of the beast which was and is not and yet is (Rev. 17:8) strikingly describes Nero by alluding to the popular belief that, after disappearing for a time, that emperor would reappear, as if he had risen from the dead.” 31 This is commonly spoken of as the Nero redivivus myth.

The difficulty of this interpretation is seen when we examine, a second interpretation. Summers does not hold the view, but shows how one holding that Revelation was written during the reign of Vespasian would deal with the problem. The five fallen emperors were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Vespasian was the one who “is” and Titus, who ruled for only two years is the one to come for a “little while.” “The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven” is said to be “Domitian, who was pictured as the reincarnation of Nero; his was a revival of the same type of work as that of Nero but was much more intense and widespread.”32 In any similar interpretation of this question there is a big problem, as suggested by Summers. “Are the numbers literal, and if so, with which emperor do they start? Usually the numbers in Revelation are symbolical, but here they appear to be literal and to serve as the author’s interpretation of his own symbol.” 33

(6) Six Hundred Sixty-Six. In the first century, it was not uncommon for numbers to be written with letters of the alphabet, with each letter having a numerical value. The Seer identified the number of the beast as the number of a man, not a literal beast and not an apostate religious organization. The number was six hundred and sixty-six (Rev. 13:18). This number has been applied, at one time or another to such persons as Mohammed, Luther, Napoleon, the Pope, Hitler and others. Kepler gives an example of the ingenuity that arrived at Hitler as the identification of the number during World War 11. 34 Allowing A – 100, B – 10 1, C 102 and so on here is how it totals up:

H -107

I – 108

T- 119

L – 111

E – 104

R – 117

666

Just why this character began his system with 100 and why he used the English alphabet is unknown.

The general consensus among scholarly commentators is that the numbers refer to Nero Caesar. “Some take the Latin word Neron and apply numerical equivalents for each letter in such fashion:

N – 50

E – 6

R – 500

0 – 60

N – 50″35

The final “N” can be dropped and total would be 616. Others have transliterated the Greek or Latin for Neron Caesar into Hebrew letters and come tip with a total of 666. By omitting the final “n” in Neron the total comes to 616. There is a slight amount of evidence for the 616 reading. The only major manuscript which gives this reading is Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus of the fifth century. However, as early as Irenaeus there was some indication of this reading. Irenaeus said that “all the most approved and ancient copies” contained the number 666, and he gave a rather fanciful explanation as to its meaning. In this connection he remarked:

“I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decades they will have it that there is but one.” (Against Heresies V: xxx: 1.)

Some, in the day of Irenaeus, had sought out a name, which would contain what he called “the erroneous and spurious number.” We may safely conclude that 666 is the genuine reading in this place.

On the basis of this identification some have said that the book was written during the reign of Nero. This writer has no doubt that the “beast” under consideration is the Roman Emperor. He cannot, however, be dogmatic as to the interpretation of the number. Even if the identification is “Nero Caesar” this would fit well into the evidence for the late date in connection with the Nero redivivus myth which we shall subsequently mention. It does not seem probable that a literal identification would be given in such a highly symbolical book.

(7) Only Seven Churches in Asia at Time of Writing. Macdonald argues from the careful mention of the seven churches by name that these were the only ones in Asia at the time. He cites Pliny to the effect that both Laodicea and Colossae were overwhelmed by an earthquake in the ninth year of Nero’s reign, and then suggests that the church at Colossac was not restored; what remained probably became identified with the one at Laodicea. 36

(8) The Judaizing Teachers Active. In favor of the early date it has been suggested that the Jewish enemies of Christianity, which are so evident in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2: 2, 9; 3:9), are the same and of the same period as those confronted by Paul in his labors.37

Randell argues negatively “the clear and positive external testimony against it (the early date) is not strong.” 38 He narrows the external evidence down to the statement by Irenaetis, which we shall deal with subsequently.

NOTE: If you have an interest in the book of Revelation you will enjoy studying the author’s new book on THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION. It is available from the Truth Magazine Bookstore.

Footnotes

19. J. W. Bowman, “Book of Revelation,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible”, ed. G. A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), IV, p. 60.

20. Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), p. 446.

21. James M. Macdonald, The Life and Writings of St. John (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877), pp. 15t-172.

22. T. Randell, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 1950). Vol. 22. pp. ii-vi.

23. Macdonald, 151, 152.

24. See also B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), pp. lxxxiv – lxxxvii.

25. Merrill C. Tenny, The New Testament: A Survey Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., t9541, p. 403.

26. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), p.18

27. Ibid., 19.

28. For example: H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954). Swete interprets the 1_44,000 as “the whole church.” p. 99.

29. Macdonald, t59.

30. Ibid., 160.

31. Ibid., 164.

32. Summers, 81.

33. Ibid.

34. Thomas Kepler, The Book of Revelation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 147.

35. Ibid., 1,48.

36. Macdonald, 154-155.

37. Ibid

38. Randell, iv

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 25, pp. 10-12
April 26, 1973

By J. Noel Merideth

Kenneth Taylor, president of his own Wheaton-based publishing Company, Tyndall House, published The Living Bible Paraphrased in 1971. Taylor says he began his project so his children (now numbering ten) could better understand the Bible. He began the task fourteen years earlier while commuting on the Chicago and North Western Railway – and so far has sold two million copies of his paraphrased Bible. Parts of the Bible were issued first as separate books as they were completed. The work is now finished completely and issued as one volume. The news releases say it was not until the Graham association started pushing the book that sales really began to grow. The Living Bible Paraphrased is really just another “running commentary” that “paraphrases” and “rephrases” the Bible. Such books are sometimes helpful but must be watched closely for error. Frequent liberties with the text make it especially dangerous for the young and uninformed. Taylor admits in his introduction: “There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say . . . for when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide . . .” There are some good things about the paraphrase. However, we need to be aware of the objectionable readings as some are pushing this paraphrase in the church today. While some hail how easy the paraphrase is to read; we need to know if it presents the word of God accurately faithfully.

There are serious objections to The Living Bible Paraphrased because of doctrinal error. The erroneous doctrine of original sin is taught in the paraphrase. The paraphrase renders Psalm 51:5, “But I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” Ephesians 2:3 reads in the paraphrase, “We started out bad, being born with evil natures, and were under God’s anger just like everyone else. – These renderings are error. The “theology of the translator” certainly got the better of him here. There also appears the dispensational premillennial doctrine in Revelation 7:14 when we have “the Great Tribulation” with both the definite article and capitals. In connection with this 2 Timothy 4:1 reads in the paraphrase, “who will judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his kingdom. Likewise in Isaiah 2:24, “In the last days Jerusalem and the Temple of the Lord will become the world’s greatest attraction . . . The Lord will settle international disputes, all the nations will convert their weapons of war into implements of peace.” There are also problems in the paraphrase about the time of regeneration or the time we are saved. Romans 4:12 is rendered by Taylor, “Abraham found favor with God by faith alone.” Earlier he indicated we are acceptable to God if we “only trust in Christ.” (Rom. 4:9). Romans 6:4-5 has the time of regeneration and death of “your old sin-loving nature” when Christ died. First Peter 3:21 in the paraphrase does have baptism as a turning to God but states first, “In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ.” He does not have regeneration at baptism as the Bible teaches. John 3:5 which has the new birth of water and the Spirit has the footnote on water: “Or, ‘Physical birth is not enough. You must also be born spiritually . . .’ This alternate paraphrase interprets ‘born of water’ as meaning the normal process observed during every human birth.” This is, of course, denominational error in the footnote and has been answered many times in debate. Direct communication of the Holy Spirit is taught in the paraphrase. No wonder those mixed tip on this subject like this particular paraphrase so well! ! ! Romans 8:16, in the paraphrase read, “For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts, and tells us that we really are God’s children.” Galatians 5:16 reads, “I advise you to obey only he, Holy Spirit’s instructions. He will tell him where to go and what to do, and then you won’t always be doing the wrong things your evil nature wants you to.”

Genesis 6:4 has the fanciful reading in the paraphrase “In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, of whom so many legends are told.” Matthew 16: 18 has “You are Peter, a stone, and upon this rock . . . ” the gloss “a stone” does not belong in the text and though stone is different from rock, what uninformed reader will get the difference? Though members of the church generally know that the word “Christian” is found only three times in the Bible, it is frequently used in the paraphrase in other scriptures. (E.g., Gal. 6: 1; I John 2:5).

The book of Psalms is not printed in poetry form though other poetry is so printed. This is definitely inferior to the American Standard Version. The Song of Solomon is divided with speakers inserted, which are not in the original text. This is a questionable thing. Second John I has “That dear woman Cyria” which is a contestable point. Romans open with “Dear Friends” and closes with “Sincerely, Paul.” Other letters end with “Sincerely, Paul” but Second Corinthians and Philemon just have plain “Paul,” they did not get the “sincerely.” The book of Philippians has the last three verses following a “P.S.”

Some passages range from flippant to vulgar renderings. The word of God should be handled with reverence and we object to the loose and gutter type renderings beneath the dignity it deserves. John 9:34 reads in the paraphrase, “You illegitimate bastard, you!” Acts 4:36, “Joseph (the one the apostles nicknamed ‘Barney the Preacher’)!” Hosea 4: 11 read, “Wine, women, and song have robbed my people of their brains.” Second Corinthians 12:16, “He is a sneaky fellow.” Acts 23:3, “Paul said to him, ‘God shall slap you, you white-washed pigpen.’ ” First Samuel 25:17, “He’s such a stubborn out that no one can even talk to him!” Psalm 8:4, “Mere puny man.” Second Corinthians 8: 11, “Having started the hall rolling so enthusiastically.” Galatians 1:10, “You can see that I am not trying to please you by sweet talk.”

“Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth it off” (1 Kings 20: 11 ASV), becomes “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch!” in Taylor’s paraphrase. The problem here is that the person who reads the paraphrase and is not familiar with the Bible text might think that the expression “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch!” is in the Bible, when in reality it is not.

The paraphrase by Taylor is a nightmare when it comes to tracing a word through ‘the

Bible with a concordance. Casting lots is “drawing straws” in Jonah 1: 7; Acts 1: 26; “casting lots” in Leviticus 16:7; 1 Samuel 14:42; “throwing dice” in Esther 3:74; and “toss a coin” in Proverbs 16:33; 18:18. There is no consistency in its rendering of a single word. The kiss of the sinful woman and of Judas stand; but the “holy kiss” becomes “shake hands warmly (Rom 16:16) or “loving hand shake” (1 Cor. 16:20). The washing of feet is found in John 13; but the washing the saints’ feet is completely omitted in the qualifications of the widow in I Timothy 5: 10. While one is used to “all the churches of Christ salute you” in Romans 16:16, the paraphrase drops Christ altogether and has “all the churches here send you their greeting.” Christ prayed to him that was “able to save him from death” in Hebrews 5: 7 becomes premature death in the paraphrase (with premature inserted in brackets).

We hope that people, who have The Living Bible Paraphrased, will be aware that it is a Paraphrase. In too many instances it does not make the Bible say to the twentieth century what it said to the first century. This paraphrase is not reliable enough. It has the possibility of leading people into error. It lacks the dignity, accuracy, and exactness that should characterize such a work.

We add this unusual footnote from “Time” July 24, 1972, “Mysteriously, halfway through the paraphrase, Taylor lost his voice, and still speaks only in a hoarse whisper. A psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the word of God.” Gospel Advocate, Sept. 14, 1972

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 25, pp. 8-9
April 26, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Occasionally there are reports heard that one hopes are untrue. Such is my attitude toward a report made by Leroy Garrett concerning a discussion that he had a few months ago with Bill Wallace, Editor of the Gospel Guardian. In the September, 1972 issue of Restoration Review which Leroy Garrett edits, Brother Garrett told of a visit to Lufkin, Texas for one of his “mini-meetings” (that’s what Garrett calls them) on his favorite theme, “Fellowship.”

Garrett stated that “Lufkin is the only city of any size in Texas, I think, where the ‘antis’ (conservatives) are in the majority.” I am not familiar enough with Texas to know whether Garretts analysis of conditions in Texas is correct or not. Leroy then proceeds to explain why the conservative influence is so strong in Lufkin. There is only one “mainline” (thats Garretts definition of “liberal”) church in Lufkin, while there are four or five other congregations “of substantial size” which are conservative.

Garrett explains the reasons for these conditions in Lufkin: “Leading figures of the anti persuasion have been associated with Lufkin: Yater Tant, Roy Cogdill, Charles Holt, William Wallace, and in an earlier day Cled and Foy Wallace. For some 20 years it was the home of the Gospel Guardian and the cradle of the Guardian angels.’ ” Garrett assures us that he loves “all our angels, anti as well as pro, and no longer allows folk to draw lines of fellowship for me ”

Then Brother Garrett details incidents concerning “a delightful and brotherly visit with Bill Wallace, editor of the Guardian, who related to me the story of the paper’s move to Athens, Alabama. He also told me that he is reexamining his own position of fellowship, suggesting that he finds it too difficult to live with his present position. He is not likely to go as far as to embrace Carl Ketchersides and my position, he observed, but he is moving in our direction.” (My emphasis-CW).

Garrett then states: “I wished that our brotherhood could see the Bill Wallace I then saw, not an ‘anti’ but a brother beloved who needs God’s grace just as we all do. Well, we are all changing and growing, and that’s what happens when Jesus comes into our lives. So Bill Wallace is changing, and the Guardian, and Lufkin. And from what I know that reaches me far beyond Lufkin, much of the ‘anti’ brotherhood is changing.”

As many of you know, Bill Wallace and I worked very closely together in the publishing of Truth Magazine, beginning in 1962. After several years, Bill was employed to manage the business affairs of the Gospel Guardian and soon thereafter purchased the Gospel Guardian from Brother Yater Tant. Leroy Garrett categorically states that “Bill Wallace is changing,” and so is the Guardian and that Wallace is moving in the direction of Ketcherside and Garret on the fellowship question.

Shortly after Bill purchased the Guardian, he traveled around the nation a good deal, and while doing so, was feeling “the pulse” of the brotherhood, as he expressed it. After he had felt the pulse of a good many brethren, he then proceeded in some articles to tell us what the brotherhood thought. During the time he was “feeling the pulse” of the brotherhood, Bill spent a night at my house. He and I spent most of the night in discussion. From his published reports, I could not detect any registration at all of my pulse, if indeed he even took it!

However, Bill said enough then to cause quite a few brethren to be apprehensive about where the Guardian might go, with Bill at the helm. Without exception, those whom I heard express apprehension considered themselves to be friends both to Bill Wallace and of the Gospel Guardian. Bill’s “pulse of the brotherhood” articles seemed to shake the confidence of a good many brethren in where the Guardian would stand, under Bill’s direction.

A little over two years ago, during the Florida College Lecture Program, I asked Bill to walk down by the Hillsborough River to talk with me. I confess that I too was one of those very apprehensive about what Bill had said, and told him so, in our discussion that (Jay. Finally, Bill summarized the situation in these words: “Truth Magazine takes the hardline approach on fellowship, while I we’ would take the more liberal approach.” At that time, I interpreted the “we” in Bill’s remark to mean just “Bill Wallace.” I did not then think there was anyone else connected with the Gospel Guardian who would take anything like a liberal stand on fellowship.

But with the passing of time, the personnel of the Guardian staff have undergone a drastic change. Excepting Yater Tant, gone, for the most part, from its pages are the names and writings of the men who made the reputation for faithfulness which so rightly had been attributed to the contents of the Gospel Guardian. Instead, in the places on the staff of the older stalwarts are two younger men. Each one of these men has somehow created a reputation for himself as having at least some sympathy toward the Ketcherside position on fellowship. I do not charge that either of them agrees with Ketcherside’s position 100% but as Garrett expressed it concerning Wallace, they seem to be “moving in our direction.”

It is evident that I am not alone in my apprehension about where the Guardian is going to end up standing on the fellowship question. Gordon Wilson, Associate Editor of Gospel Guardian, after receiving many requests that lie do so, recently wrote an article stating somewhat wherein he disagreed with Brother Ketcherside’s position on fellowship. Yet there are those who have left the St. Louis congregation where he preaches, charging that he has been sympathetic with the Ketcherside position on fellowship. Edward Fudge, also an Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian, for ten years or so has been defensive of Brother Ketcherside and his efforts. In fact, the very first conversation I ever remember having with Edward Fudge was one in which he was defending Brother Ketcherside, while I was opposing him.

With there appearing to be considerable evidence that both Associate Editors of the Gospel Guardian have some sympathy for and affinity to the compromising position on fellowship, and now with the categorical charge by Leroy Garrett that Bill Wallace told him be “is reexamining his own position of fellowship, suggesting that be finds it too difficult to live with his present position. . . . (and) he is moving in our direction . . .” it appears that it is time that these brethren state in no uncertain terms where they stand on this important issue.

Recently there have been articles in the Guardian by both Yater and David Tant on fellowship, which articles I was glad to see. There has been no suspicion as to where these brethren stood on this issue, so far as I know. However, there have been grave doubts in the minds of many brethren for years about where Edward Fudge would end up. It is only recently that questions have begun to be raised about Gordon Wilson’s stance. It is going to take a more complete disclosure than the re-printing of an old article, in tract form, to remove the brethren’s doubts about where Ed Fudge stands. Gordon’s recently published article told some points wherein he disagrees with Ketcherside, but it said nothing about wherein he is in agreement with the Ketcherside position.

The Guardian has sought to clear the air by quoting some old editorials. Bill has repeated what he said a couple of years or so ago. But it seems to me that some comment would be in order about the Garrett claim that Wallace is uncomfortable with the position that he has heretofore held on fellowship, and that he definitely is moving in the Garrett-Ketcherside direction. Bill, if this does not correctly represent what you told Leroy, you should clarify the matter.

For at least five years, I have been very concerned about what appeared to be an inevitable battle among us on the question of fellowship. Somehow I had hoped the problem would go away, but it has not. Consequently, James Adams is even now in the midst of a thorough and extensive examination of the subject of fellowship in his series of articles now being carried in this paper. I sincerely hope that we do not find that our allies in battles past are now our foes on this present important subject. I know of no way to find out exactly where the Guardian stands on this issue than to publicly ask that the Editor and Associate Editors make their position known, loud and clear.

The Gospel Guardian has meant much to me as an instrument through which badly needed truth was propagated, and error of every description was exposed. That is the kind of paper I would like to see the Gospel Guardian continue to be, and that is the kind of paper we intend to strive diligently to make Truth Magazine continue to be. We have no competitive disposition toward the Gospel Guardian. Searching the Scriptures, and the Preceptor, but it is very important that we all strive diligently to hew to the line, and let the chips fall where they may. As I see it, the Gospel Guardian has not yet hewed quite up to the mark on the fellowship question, and I am simply asking that they speak out loud and clear.

Bill Wallace has long been a very close personal friend. My friendship with Gordon Wilson has not been as intimate, but it always has been cordial. My relationship with Edward Fudge has been one in which we have often differed, but on a friendly basis. This article no doubt will stir up a little dust. But an article I was reading just a few moments ago exactly expresses my sentiment. Said one writer: “We detest clandestine consorting with unbelievers while pretending to be loyal preachers of the ancient Gospel. The honest man would rather speak the truth than save a friendship.” Though spoken by a Christian Church preacher as he opposed involvement in the “Key 73” program (about which we will have more to say later), these remarks express my feelings exactly.

I do not charge Wallace, Wilson, or Fudge with consorting with an “unbeliever,” but I must confess that each one has left me a little hazy about where he stands on the Garrett-Ketcherside-Fellowship issue, and I would like to have that cleared up once and for all, and the sooner the better. And if an article that might bring me a few kicks in the shins will accomplish that purpose, it will have been worthwhile.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 25, pp. 3-5
April 26, 1973