THE ROOTS OF DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY

What is the cause of disrespect for authority?Who is responsible? Shall the blame be placed uponpermi ive (or domineering, as the case may be) parents? Or is it government? Too many scandals and too much corruption and social inequities too gross for authority to survive with anybody's respect? Perhaps the church is to blame, what with the hypocrites and all. Who is at fault ? Upon whomdoes the burden of guilt rest? In the final analysis it is suggested that the burden of guilt belongs to the individual who, notwithstanding his circumstances and frustrations, does not respect authority.The final burden is not upon those in authority who may perchance (and most likely) have misused andabused their authority upon occasions. This is notsaid in any justification of any abuse of authority, nor to deny that by incompetence, corruption or arbitrariness a given authoritarian (parent, governmental body or what have you) may both lose and deserve to lose the personal respect of those under it. It is not denied that human authorities can and often do contribute to a breakdown of respect and actually trigger reactions of resentment and rejection. But there is a deeper cause, quite apart from any earthly authority and its exercise of rule, that must exist within the individual under authoritybefore the follies of some authoritarian can trigger the discontent and evidence the disrespect.

The foundation of authority is God. Stated negatively, the wisdom and fairness of parents or rulers is not the basis for authority. No. Contrariwise,respect for authority depends very simply upohuman recognition of God and his ordination of such authority as he has delegated to men, and the humility to accept the divine arrangement. In the very nature of the case, the rights of God cannot begranted and accepted in a heart that disrespects authority. He who knows the facts and loves Godnecessarily respects all authority (that is, all authority exercised by God himself or delegated bGod to men). Respect for authority itself is coexistent and synonymous with respect for God,though personal respect for the individual in theGod-delegated position of authority will depends upon that individual's exercise of his powers. The point is vital — one may respect God and disrespecta man who shows himself unworthy of the power given him by God, but since it was in fact given byGod he will still respect the position or authorityitself. That means he will submit and obey. It also means he cannot be the rebel. The burden is on the individual under authority to respect it

Now we come to the what in the root of disrespect. Since respect is based upon the (1) knowledge and

(2) acceptance of God's right to rule and to delegateauthority, and since respect necessarily lives on so long as this knowledge and acceptance is in theheart, disrespect is the result of either this knowledge or acceptance being destroyed. It is that simple

The first root of disrespect is ignorance — ignorance of God and his rights and power, ignorance of our own puny frailties and utter dependence, ignorance of the nature of things, and ignorance of lawand life and the light of hope. The man who does not have the knowledge of God cannot po ibly have the proper perspective of authority. If so, how? Onwhat ground should he accord men the prerogative of telling him what to do? Do the strong have the right to dominate the weak because they have more might ? May the intelligent usurp rule over the simple because they are smarter? Can a majority by vote make a lie truth? Or does a majority inhere any right within itself to put one man or system in authority over a dissenting minority? No. And thaon the simple ground that man has no inherent rightto seize for himself or to confer to another any authority whatsoever. All authority properly begins with God! Well might a man, who has no knowledge or perspective of God to law, shout, "I will not obeyany law in the making of which I had no part." Indeed, if there is no God, it can be successfully andcategorically denied that any man or group of men have the right to rule over any other men. But giveGod his place in a heart, and respect for authority can survive in good health all the foibles and abuses of weak, foolish or even evil men in high places.

The second root of disrespect is rebellion. In its rankest form it has full knowledge of God and his right to rule. But it stubbornly and arrogantly r e-fuses to humble itself. It will not accept divine rule. It is denned as "open resistance and defiance." Gesenius in his definition of the Hebrew word (marah)translated rebellion most graphically depicts its sullen and insolent spirit: " (to stroke, to stripe .. ;spec, to lash with a whip) ... to be contumacious, rebellious ... to reject a divine command ... (which, perhaps, formerly taken in its proper sense meant, to stroke or strike anyone's mouth, i.e. to refuse to hear his words, to treat him with contempt...) ." T his is a horrible and damnable disposition. What a revolting scene comes to mind in the spirit of thedefinition when we see a boy rejecting correction or guidance from his father or mother, rebelling andefiantly refusing and taking the back of his handand slapping them in the mouth for daring to telhim what to do. "I don't have to." "You can't tell me what to do." It is not necessary to slap the mouth every time it speaks, it is quite sufficient to do itone time. (See James 2:10.) Contempt for a person can be shown by spitting in their face one time, and rebellion against God is quite clear when a mantakes even one point and says that he will or will not do a certain thing regardle . Is it not one of thegreatest tragedies of our day that some are so foolish and self-inflated as to think that it is their "r ight" to disobey laws they do not like? T heywould smite God in the mouth, declare it to be their r ight, and opine that it is a small thing. And this is what we do when we stubbornly disobey, or rejectauthority

It would be wonderful if all human authorities ruled well. It would be sweet if we suffered no mistreatment or injustices from those over us. Butexperience and common sense tells us that it shall never be. Nonetheless the foundations of respect stand; it came not by man's wisdom, it falls not with his folly; it stands in the knowledge and acceptance of the living God.

CONCERNING THE KETCHERSIDE-TURNER EXCHANGE

In the February 1972 i ue of this paper appeared the first of what was to be a series of three articles showing the devious, subtle appeal Carl W. Ketcherside makes across this country, sowing' discord and alienating brethren. He is heralded as a healer ofthe "fragmented segments of the heirs of the Reformation." He is a self acclaimed example of thatspiritual maturity that gives him insight into thmeaning of "unity of the Spir it" that most of the rest of us do not possess.

The fact is that Carl Ketcherside is one of the most prominent promoters of discord in America today. More division of churches of Christ follow in his wake than any other one man in religious circles today. Most all of his divisive work is done b"good words and fair speeches" which deceive the untaught (Rom. 15:17)

We shall make some further observations on his misuse of God's word in future issues of this paper.

H. E. P.

"GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS"

One of the several reasons for the general apathyand unconcern on the part of most "church members" is that they believe God will respect their person in that day of accounting for their years spent upon this earth. Such important factors to the world as wealth, high position of power and responsibility, fame, moral goodne , benevolent works,and religious activity will bring them special favor from Almighty God when their eternal destiny is revealed.

The near universal practice of showing favoritism and expecting special treatment in all walks of life because of respect of persons is so common in most churches of Christ that I must speak of the sin again. I know a half dozen congregations that are now divided over the basic problem of showing respect of persons. I know that "both sides" charge some scriptural i ue as the reason for the dividedstate, but the foundation of these scriptural issues may be traced to some degree of showing respect of persons in regard to sinful practices which are used to justify the divided condition. The divided state to which I am referring does not necessarily mean that two separate groups exist, but that dispute and hatred exists in some of the churches.

In an editorial in the July 1969 i ue of Searching The Scriptures the following appeared which I believe needs to be considered as soberly now as when I wrote the article. I bid you read it carefullyin the light of God's word.

RESPECT OF PERSONS I get that feeling of disgust mingled with anger

when I observe some brother in the Lord being mis

treated, ignored, even slandered, and for no other

reason than that he is poor, uninfluential, or less

educated than others. Every time I see or hear of

this I think of the scene the Lord gave of the judg

ment in Matthew 25. He said the treatment one gives

to "one of the least of these my brethren" is the

treatment given to the Lord. You just remember

this: what you do (or do not do) to the brethren you

do to the Lord.

That feeling of disgust becomes more loathsome

when I see some brother unduly honored, praised and

bowed to as if he were an emperor, and for no reason

other than that he is rich, popular, highly educate

academic-wise, and socially or politically powerful.

The political maneuvering, financial mergers, and

social alliances are avenues by which many seek to

have others respect their persons, or they seek toexpress their respect of the persons of others.

I can imagine someone saying, "That editor is trying to make himself a champion of the poor and less fortunate among brethren" or "He is envious andjealous of those who are more fortunate and more popular than he." Nothing is further from the truth on both counts. There is no special virtue and purityabout poverty or illiteracy, and there is no speciaevil and impurity about wealth, fame and academicattainment. It is as disgusting to me to see the poor and le -educated look with disdain upon those who have worked hard to acquire wealth and education as it is in reverse. The extremes in wealth, popularity,education, etc., have nothing to do with how onbrother ought to treat another. This is the very pointof this le on. Men ought not to be judged and respected upon their persons, but upon what their lives are as measured by the word of God.

Let me give the reason why I abhor the abuse of

some and the unearned praise and honor of others.

To show respect of persons means to accept (or re

ject) one upon the basis of who he is or what he has.

It means "acceptance of faces" or persons; to re

ceive or reject one on appearance or recognition ohis person alone.

The matter of showing "respect of persons" is mentioned nine times in the New Testament: five times of God and four times of men. In each of the five passages relating to God it is affirmed that He is NO respecter of persons and the areas where He does not respect persons are given. But in the four verses where showing "respect of persons" relates to man they show the very nature of the sin and where it leads. Three verses are found in James 2 and one in Jude. This respect of persons is unjust and unfair in the measurement of a man; it makes man a judgeof others by his own standard and ignores God's standard of right and wrong, and the word of Godsays it is sinful. This pits the truth against the person. If I respect the person I tend to "bend" the truth to make it conform to the person. But if I honor God and His truth I will strive to persuade the person to conform to truth. He then deserves respect, not because of his person, but because of his obedience to

the truth.

We are taught to be like Christ. All who believe

the Bible believe God to be perfect in every sense. If

God does not respect the person of any man, it must

be right, merciful, just, holy, and Christ-like to show

respect to no man's person. If we learn to do this the

law of the Lord will be far more meaningful to us.

The law of the Lord will become the standard of

judgment and not the person of any man

First, God respects the person of no man in accepting those who become His children. The Jews had the notion that they were favored by God because of their nationality, but God showed Peter and the six Jews with him when they went to the house of Cornelius that "God is no respecter of persons: but inevery nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34,35).Every man is not accepted by the Lord, but it is not on the basis of his person that he is rejected; it is because of his disobedience. Peter said the truth is that "God is no respecter of persons: but in everynation" (Jew and Gentile) "he that feareth him,and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." It is what a man does and not who he is that determines whether he is accepted with God.

Second, God respects the person of no man when

sin is involved. The righteous judgment of God, "who

will render to every man according to his deeds"

(Rom. 2:6), applies equally to "the Jew first, and also

to the Gentile" (vs. 9,10). With God sin is sin whether

it be by Jew or Gentile. "For there is no respect of

persons with God. For as many as have sinned with

out law shall also per ish without law: and as many

as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law"

(Rom. 2:11,12). If you transgress the law of the

Lord, He will not stop to check whether you are a

Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, popular or unknown

ruler or servant, scholar or unlettered. You will be a

sinner whoever you are because God respects the

person of no man when sin is involved.

Third, God will render good to those who do goodwithout respect of persons. The poorest, least esteemed man on earth will receive good from the Lord for the good he has done, and it will be by the same standard and on the same principle that the most esteemed on earth will receive it. "Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall hereceive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free ...neither is there respect of persons with him" (Eph.

6:8,9). Whatever good any man doeth he will receive

of the Lord, and the person of that man has nothing

to do with it. It is what the man does, not who he is,that counts with God.

Fourth, God will render just punishment to all who do wrong without respect of persons. "Knowing that

of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheri

tance : for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hat

done: and there is no respect of persons" (Col.

3:24,25). T he most noted evangelist or the most

highly esteemed bishop in the Lord's church will re

ceive the same punishment for his wrong as any

other person on the face of the earth. His position or

his honor will in no wise affect God in dealing out thejust wages for his wrongdoing

Fifth, the judgment of God toward every man will

be without respect of persons. "But as he which hath

called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of con

versation ; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am

holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without re

spect of persons judgeth according to every man's

work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear"

(I Peter 1:15-17).

Now compare this with man's dealing with man

"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus

Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For

if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold

ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor

man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that

wear eth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Si

thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand

thou here, or sit here under my footstool: are ye not

then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of

evil thoughts ? ... But if ye have respect to persons,

ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as trans

gressors" (James 2:1-4,9)

These verses picture the abominable condition so evident among many brethren today. A well-known evangelist will come into an assembly and some brethren will act as if Christ himself has arrived. They must honor him with special eulogies and favors. They do the same for a very rich man, a famous political figure, or a noted entertainer. But these same brethren will hardly speak to an unknown, poor man who is "just a faithful Christian." If you think I am saying that all well-known evangelists, rich brethren,and brethren who have become successful in their fields of endeavor should be ignored and the poor honored, you have missed the point of this study.The word of God teaches that we should treat the rich and poor alike. We should honor the brethren — all brethren, regardless of who they are or what theyhave. They should be respected for what they havdone and are doing of the living word of God. This is the way God deals with all of us.

We show respect of persons for personal advantage. It is a selfish move. We tend to favor the wealthybecause we hope to profit by it. We run after the influential because we expect to enhance our own influence and popularity by the a ociation. We associate with the powerful because we desire to besecure. What can the poor, weak and unknown do forme ? Nothing! Why then should I give him any special attention? This is the root of the whole matter.

There is no love for the brethren, and, consequently,

no love for God (I John 4:20,21)The Spirit said by Jude that the evil "brute beasts" who had committed every conceivable sin known to

man, were "walking after their own lusts; and their

mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's

persons in admiration because of advantage (Jude

16). The A.S.V. says, "showing respect of persons for

the sake of advantage." Like many brethren today

these were using flattering words to show respect of persons for their own personal advantage. Let us

learn to treat others without partiality and measure

them by what they do according to the standard of

God's word and not according to who they are, whothey know, and what they have.

"NO DEAD ISSUE — NO. I"

With the permi ion of brother Phillips, I plan to run a series of three articles under the above title. The fact that brethren who believe in the support of human institutions out of the church treasury write so often on the subject proves beyond anyquestion that they do not consider it a dead issue. It would be tragic indeed if we are lulled into complacency with reference to this question. The first article to be printed is by brother Gus Nichols, andappeared in the July 1972 i ue of the Boles Home News. Boles Home is almost my next door neighborbeing located some twelve miles south of Greenville. The title of brother Nichols' article is "Whose Work Is It?" The second article we will review is one bbrother Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, Austin, Texas. Brother Lemmon's article is called "Benevolence and Education," and appeared in the March 21 i ue of the Firm Foundation. It shall be my purpose to print the articles in their entirety, then show the true and false affirmations of said articles. In a third article, I plan to show the contradiction between brethren Nichols and Lemmons. These men both teach the support of orphaasylums and yet they are as far apart as the poles in what they teach. We will notice this in the third article month after next.

Now for brother Nichols' article called, "Whose Work Is It?" Please notice article and the reply athe close:

"Whose Work Is It ?" One brother is "anxious" to know whose work is being done when the "church contributes to an orphan home — the work of the giving church? or the work of the orphan home is caring for the destitute children?" He thinks the orphan home was established "by the church to do the work of the church," and that because it was thought that the church is insufficient for its work. So he asks, "whose work is it?"

All essential work done by the church in caringfor homeless and destitute children is a work of the church. But all essential work done by the homein caring for the children is a work of the home. It is just that simple! Paul taught that the church is to relieve widows (I Tim. 5:16). The church mighnot need to do more than send a bill of needed groceries, or to have a doctor's prescription filled, andall at church expense. The church would not have to send someone to cook the groceries and administer the medicine, if the widow is unable to cook and see to such details. The church has done its work when it has done what is essential for the chur ch to do.

Then the home takes over, and does its work inapplying what the church has in benevolence supplied. T he home has its work to do. It is not thework of the church to be a home; neither is it thework of a home to be a church. Each institution functions in its own place, and does its own work.

The church in giving to a destitute home is simply aiding the home in its work, helping it to carryon under stress and strain, till it can wholly takecare of itself without church benevolence.

The church has no scriptural right to take over destitute homes and oversee them. God put individuals over their own homes. Adam was to "rule over" Eve (Gen. 3:16). God said of Abraham, "ForI know him, that he will command his children and his household after him" (Gen. 18:19). Joshua was to be over his house, and hence said: "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15).

This is also a true principle under the new covenant, under which we live. A Christian man is to be "one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a manknow not how to rule his own house, how shall hetake care of the church of God?)" (I Tim. 3:4-5). This denies the idea that elders are to rule over our homes for us, even in times of sickness and distress. Paul says of young widows, "I will therefore that the younger women (widows -A.S.V.) marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully" (I Tim. 5:14). Here the wife is to "guide the house," and not leave it for the elders to take the oversight of her home.

Furthermore, God did not put the elders over homes. The elders are placed over the churches, andnot homes. We read of "elders in every church" (Acts 14:23) ; and of "elders of the church" (Acts 11:29-30). From Miletus, Paul "sent to Ephesus,and called the elders of the church" (Acts 20:17).When they came to him, he said unto them, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (verse 28). These elders were not over homes, but over the churches in which they served. God did not put elders over families of Christians, but over the church and its work.

Of course, elders could serve as trustees of a home,just as they could be principals of schools, or postmasters; just as citizens and Christians, withoufilling the positions as elders. Hence, the church does not have to take over homes and operate them when it is contributing to the necessities of such homes.

The church of Antioch sent a contribution to the elders of another church, or churches, in Judea (Acts 11:29-30). The giving church did not have to takeover the receiving church, or churches, and destroytheir autonomy before it could aid them in their own work of benevolence. The receiving church, or churches, did their own work, and the giving church was aiding them in sending the contribution. Another way to say the same thing, is to say eacchurch did its own work; neither did the work of the other. The giving church did not send men along tothe receiving church to take charge and oversee the receiving church, nor to control the contribution sent; the receiving elders were trusted to their work,and the giving church had done its part. Both thegiving institution, and the receiving institution hadits work to do. The receiving church did the actualwork of applying the relief, while the giving church was working in sending the relief. Then further down the line, when the needy applied the funds distributed by the receiving church they, also, as homes and families, did their work in appropriatingthe benevolence of the sending church (Acts 11: 29-30). The contribution was sent by the church atAntioch, to elders in Judea. but for "the brethren." Let us say then, that it is the work of the givinchurch to send relief, or do what it can for the relief of the destitute, and it is the work of those receiving aid and a istance to apply what is received to the extent of their abilities. The giving church does not have to take over and do all the work to be done. Others may give whatever relief they can,and the receiving church, or home being assisted,can do, each its own work, to the extent of abilitySurely this is scriptural and right.

ANSWER: The tragedy of brother Nichols' article is that it ASSUMES the very point which has divided churches all over the land. He did not givONE scripture showing that a church ever gave to an organization like Boles Homes. It would be nice if he would write us an article showing where this was done in Bible times! As a matter of fact, hcan't even find a scr iptur e wher e a Chur ch ever gave to any kind of a HOME ; much less one likeBOLES! In Bible times the Church helped SAINTS not HOMES! A man once said to me, "Yes, buHogland. all saints are a part of a home." I said,"Yes, indeed, I am a part of the Church but I am not the Church — I am also a part of the U.S. but I am not the United States." If we are not careful these brethren will ASSUME the point they must prove from the scriptures. Where does the Bible say the church ever gave one cent to a home? Well, it ifound on the same page you read about the church haying all kinds of instruments of music in the worship service — the blank page!

Now for the true statements of brother Nichols' article. He said a number of times that the Church could not take over the work of the home. That is exactly correct. He said God put individuals over their own homes. Yes, this is true and it would have been interesting to have heard brother Nichols tell us WHICH individual is over Boles Home! Is it the Superintendent? Is it a member of the Board of Directors? In the Bible we are taught that the father is the head of his home. Who is the father of Boles Home? This is one question I can't get answered. Gayle Oler, while sitting in one of the rooms of Boles Home would not tell me. If the Superintendent is the head of the home then he would have to become destitute before he could beg churches in behalf of his children! Paul said, "If a man provide not for his own and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than in infidel" (I Tim. 5:8). So while brother Nichols was correct in saying God put the individual over his home, it would have been refreshing to have heard who is over Boles Home!

Brother Nichols tells us in the support of widows the Church could buy a bill of groceries, or have doctor's prescription filled at Church expense. Yes,indeed, but this is where he slipped a cog. He should of said the elders may send money to the Board ofDirectors or a grocery association and they in turn buy the widow the groceries. Or the elders take money out of the Church treasury and donate toa doctor's association under the control of a Board of Directors and they in turn pay for the doctor's prescription. Brother Nichols says one thing andpractices another. This was the same violation ofthe Missionary Society. In supporting preachers it was God's plan that the work and conduct of thepreacher being supported be under the control anauthority of elders. But they shifted that to a Board of Directors and sent donations to that organization. The same is true with organizations like Boles Home. There is still a difference in the elders buying services of an organization and making a donation to anorganization. One is scriptural and the other is not.

It was fatal indeed when brother Nichols gave usthe example of Acts 11:29-30. He says one church sent to another church and autonomy was not destroyed. Yes, I agree one thousand percent. Nowbrother Nichols, in sending to Boles Home whatchurch receives the money? This pattern doesn't fit your practice. This is one Church sending to another Church to take care of its benevolent wards. This is exactly how it should be done today. If a Church has poor saints and cannot take care of them, then let other Churches send to the church in need and let the Church take care of its poor saints as it did in Acts six. If this were practiced, division would end all over this great land of ours. Please notice that the above example does not justify a sponsoring Church gathering up poor saints from all over the brotherhood and asking for donations but only taking care of its own members!

Remember, gentle reader, just because a group ofelders take money out of the Church treasury andspend it DOES NOT make it scriptural. Those elders must have Bible authority for spending the moneand they will answer to God if they prostitute the Lord's work. Brother Nichols didn't tell us what we need to know — that is, authority for elders takingmoney out of the Church treasury and giving to aorphan asylum like Boles Home. We all know thedifference in a home and the Church but where did the Church ever give to a real home, much less an organization like Boles Home? If Boles Home is ahome then so are the Catholic Hospitals in the state of Texas, because I checked the record and theyare chartered exactly alike Think it over.

THE HEBREW DAY

The Hebrew word for day is "yom" and is found over 2,100 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Jewish method of time-keeping is based upon the daybeginning from evening to evening. It is in accordance with the order observed in the Biblical account of Creation, "and there was evening and there wasmorning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). This principle is repeated several times in the Torah (cf. Lev. 23:32Ex. 12:18)

The word day is used in a number of senses (cf. Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon ofthe Old Testament, pp. 398-401). But there are two senses of prime importance. The first is in the sense of an ordinary 24-hour day. With sunset, the Jewish 24-hour day comes to an end. This type of day consists of two parts, or periods, i.e., light and darkne . The second sense is used by calling the light "day"and the darkness "night" (Hebrew word is layelah). Thus the term "day" is used in a double sense of 24-hour day consisting of light and darkness and a12-hour (approx.) day consisting of light. Context will determine which of the two meanings the word has in a particular text.

THE HEBREW WORD DAY IN CREATION

Whether the days of Genesis chapter one are siximmediately successive literal 24-hour days, whether the six days of creation are separated by long intervals of time, whether the days of creation follow a long geological time period/gap after the first creative act or whether these days refer to six indefinite periods of time or ages, are questions that haveplagued Bible students and scholars alike.

The Hebrew word "yom" first appears in Genesis

1:5 and is here used two times in the two senses mentioned above, i.e., in a double sense of a 24-hour day and in the sense of daytime or light

There are two periods of transition during eac24-hour day that need explanation. These periods are called morning (boker) and evening ('ereb) and are of indefinite length. The evening begins before sunset and continues after sunset merging into thdarkness of the night. Likewise, morning begins before sunrise and continues after sunrise blendinginto the light of day. These transitions are gradual and include both the full setting (evening) and the full rising (morning) of the sun on the horizon inboth west and east respectively

The first creative Divine act after the first verse was the creation of LIGHT. When God had pronounced the light good, He divided the light from the darkne . God then named the light DAY andthe darkness He named NIGHT. This division is the first reference to a point of time in the Bible. Darkness was not blotted out of existence but rather we find two entities existing at the same time, darkness and light. We are not told the source of light and itis not connected with a source until the fourth day(cf. l:14-ff.). Science recognizes that there are other sources of light than the sun.

Guess what you get as a free prize for subscribingto MISSION Magazine. No, not a New Testament,for they don't go in too much for that. You get aprinted interview with Pat Boone. Now that is a real appropr iate gift for that paper, for neither of themwould be worth a plug nickel!

In an advertisement which I received they say,"Thousands of Christians find MISSION one of the most relevant and exciting Church of Christ periodicals available today. MISSION is not a typicaChurch of Christ periodical. It was never meant to be. MISSION is a thought and talk starter that keeps readers talking, reacting, asking questions,and expressing their own opinions."

What is a "Church of Christ periodical?" Such language is a good indication of the type of teachingfound in MISSION. And we are thankful that it is not a "typical Church of Christ" publication. I have found that the writers express "their own opinions" more than those of the Lord and the inspired apostles. And I notice that Carl (anything goes) Ketcherside is now one of the writers.

The opening line of a hit song by Glen Campbellsays, "Manhattan Kansas ain't no place to have ababy, when you've got no man to give it it's last name." Before an omnipresent God, is there angood place to have a baby when there is no one togive it a legitimate name? We realize that manthousands are born each year under such conditions,and the number is increasing. In fact, illegitimacand venereal disease continue to increase at an alarming rate. We thought that sex education inthe public schools was supposed to correct this. That's what the liberals argued. Teaching children about sex to discourage experimenting makes about as much sense as teaching a man how to cook in order to keep him out of the kitchen!

According to the Official Catholic Directory fo1972, there are 48,390,990 Catholics in the UnitedStates. That is 23.3% of the nation's population. I think that it is safe to say that 90 % of those became Catholics without their knowledge or consent! They were "baptized" and Catholicized as infants. It we should count the children of all of our families as members, whether they wanted to be or not, wcould probably triple our membership within a week.I have proof of Catholics "baptizing" babies whilethey were asleep. If that be right, could you baptize a ten-year-old child while asleep? Thirty-year-old man? Just how old would one have to be before he would have to wake up in order to be baptized scripturally?

The Bible teaches that only those who can hear the gospel, believe, repent, confess faith, and bimmersed can (or even need to) become Christians (John 8:24; Luke 13:3; Acts 8:37; Rom. 6:4).

While our Government spends millions of dollars annually in an anti-smoking campaign — warningpeople of the hazards of smoking — it also spends millions in subsidizing tobacco farmers. It looks like anyone with judgment enough to run a nation could be more consistent. No wonder we are hopelesslyin debt.

I cannot under stand the attitude of a man who will stand in front of a building sucking his lungs and body full of nicotine before going inside to worship the God who commands temperance (self-control), and has informed him that his body is the temple of the Spirit and is to be kept holy (I Cor. 6:19; Rom. 12:1).

Almost everyone is in favor of going to heaven,but too many are hoping they will live long enoughto see an easing of the entrance requirements.

Sign on a bumper sticker: "If God Seems Far Away, Guess Who Moved."

The scriptures abound with teaching relative to the importance of unity. For instance, in Jno. 17:21Christ in praying to the Father taught thus concerning the importance of unity among Christians: "That they all may be one (Christians); as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Christ states that one reason Christians are to be united (one) is "that the world may believe that thouhast sent me." Hence, division and disunity amonChristians is one of the most prolific causes of disbelief!

In the process of studying the teaching of the NewTestament concerning the importance of unity, I have experienced members who took the position that it is utterly impo ible for Christians to be united. I would concede that in some instances it is difficult for Chr istians to be one; however, it is not impossible. (I Jno. 5:3) One reason, and I might add one of themost common reasons for disunity prevailing, is our overlooking and ignoring the teaching found in Eph.

4:3. In this passage, Paul gives the antidote for disunity -"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." The antidote or remedy is,"Endeavouring (earnestly trying) to keep the unity ofthe Spirit..." Also to be taken into consideration is the fact that Paul penned this letter to the Christians at Ephesus; thus, each individual Christian is to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spir it. So mantimes, members complain because the church of which they are a member is divided and they wonder why disunity exist. Why does disunity exist? In manyinstances, simply because we (members) just do notearnestly try (endeavor) to keep unity! Frequently,members sit back in their easy chairs and watch the preacher and the faithful few try to promote unityThen when disunity prevails they gripe and complainand threaten to go elsewhere if the division does notcease. Beloved, let us be aware of the following: therewill always be disunity to some degree in a church where only part of the members are "Endeavouringto keep the unity of the Spirit."

In view of the fact that we must all do our part to keep unity, let us sincerely ask ourselves this question, "How can I promote unity?" and ponder the following answers:

(1) By being involved and taking an active part in

the work of the local church. The old proverbial say

ing that idleness is the devil's work shop, while no

found verbatim in the Bible, is certainly a Biblica

truth. When members are not busy in the Lord's

work, they will be apt to take part in go ip and other

divisive things. (I Tim. 5:13) In this vein of thought

it has been said that the brethren are going to fight

if they are not busy fighting denominationalism and

sin, they will be busy fighting each other. Beloved,

are you taking an active part in the work of the local

church of which you are a member? (Matt. 6:33)

If you are not, I say kindly but candidly, you are not

promoting unity!

(2) By examining every motive and making surethat everything you do is prompted by love. (I Cor. 13:1-7) So many times division is begun with members quarreling over silly, immaterial things that areinconsequential. The absence of love was one of theparamount causes of disunity at Corinth. (I Cor. 8:12,3:1-3 (3) By contending for the once delivered faith.(Jude 3) On numerous occasions I have encountered the "peace at any price" attitude. Some mistakinglybelieve that when error is introduced or practiced the best thing to do is remain silent. We are told, do not oppose error or you will be guilty of sowing discord among the brethren. Brethren, this attitude is asdiametrically opposed to unity as darkness is to light.God's word is the only standard for authority. (Matt. 28:18; Jno. 6:63) Therefore, when we deviate from it or sit back quietly while others depart from it -we will unavoidably experience division. (4) By considering others and their needs beforeourselves and our needs. Frequently, division is conceived over "personality clashes" or personal disagreements. Beloved, we need to put others before ourselves (Phi. 2:4) and esteem others better than ourselves. (Phi. 2:3) We need to be involved in the needs of others (Rom. 15:1-3; Phi. 2:4) and not our owneeds to the exclusion of others. (5) By realizing the awful consequence of promoting disunity. "If any man defile the temple of God,him shall God destroy..." "These six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him... He that soweth discord among brethren." (I Cor. 3: 16, Pro. 6:16,19).

Brethren in Christ, are you a promoter of unity orof disunity? If you have not been practicing the foregoing, why not repent and resolve now to be apromoter of unity? (All emphasis mine. D.M.)

Rt. 1, Box 20Pineland, Texas 75968

Bill Crews, 9451 W. Coronado Dr., Baton Rouge,La. 70815 — The church with which I am workinghas been meeting for more than two years in Baker,La. Some time in September we hope to be in our new building at 9926 Sunny Cline and Aletha Dr. This is across from the Park Forest Jr. High innortheast Baton Rouge. If any of the readers know of prospects whom we may contact, either Christians who will be students at L.S.U. or new or old residents who may be converted or who should bealready worshiping and working with a faithfuchurch, please send us their names and addresses. Please help us to save the lost and keep the savesaved.

RELIGIOUS DEBATE

There will be a religious discu ion between J. T. Smith of Conway, Arkansas and Orville Lee Smith of McAlester, Oklahoma on the One Container,Classes, and Women Teacher questions. The discussion will be October 2, 3, 4, 5 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.For further information, write James D. Watts, preacher for the East Central church of Christ,1702 South Memorial Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112; or call brother Watts at 627-5670 in Tulsa.

THE GRIDER-HIGHERS DEBATE

Dick Blackford, P.O. Box 651, Central City, Ky.42330 — It was my privilege to moderate for A. C.Grider for five nights in the debate at Central CityKy., with Alan E. Highers, March 6-10. It is not our purpose to discuss the debate in detail but onlyto mention what we consider to have been the main arguments.

The first two nights were on limited benevolence. Brother Highers presented a chart on II Cor. 9:13 as his major argument. The chart contained Acts 5:11; I Thes. 3:12; I Thes. 5:15 and Gal. 6:10 which are parallel in construction to II Cor. 9:13. (This chart is in The Arlington Meeting, p. 221.) His argument was that because each of these verses includes more than saints, that the same must alsobe true in II Cor. 9:13. Brother Grider replied that we must keep a passage in context to determine who was relieved. He presented a chart containing I Cor. 16:1; Rom. 15:25,26,31; II Cor. 8:4; II Cor. 9:1,12,all of which say it was for the saints. He then asked if Paul misappropriated the funds by giving it tosomeone other than whom he said it was for. Brother Highers did not deal with the context butstuck to his "parallel constructions" argument

On the second night when brother Grider agaicited all the cases of church benevolence and pointed out that only saints were mentioned in each case,brother Highers replied by trying to parallel Grider's argument to a Baptist preacher reading all the verses on faith and concluding that salvation was by faith only. Brother Grider effectively pointed out thathere were other scriptures on the subject of salvation which proved that more than faith was involved. He emphasized the point that the Bible did not say sing only, but that it only said sing; that it did not tell us to take the Lord's Supper on the first day ofthe week only, but that it only said the first day of the week; and that it did not tell us to take a collection on the first day of the week only, but it onlysaid on the first day of the week.

Brother Highers presented a chart on James 1:27 and Gal. 6:10 (appears in The Arlington Meeting,

p. 218) in an attempt to show that individual duties are discharged through the church. He paralleled James 1:27 to I Cor. 11:28 (Lord's Supper) and said it was an individual duty discharged collectively andthat Gal. 6:10 was collective because it was addressed to churches (Gal. 1:2). Brother Grider answered this with two charts — one showing that the Lord's Supper was both individual and collective (I Cor. 11:28 and Acts 20:7) but that orphan care was only individual (James 1:27) and that there was no passagauthorizing orphan care on a collective basis. The other chart showed that Gal. 6:10 could not be collective because of the context — particularly that fact that "they compel you to be circumcised" (Gal.6:12) could not be collective action. These were the major arguments the first two nights.

The third night was on institutionalism. Brother Highers introduced a chart called "Which Organization?" with the chur ch on one side, the home othe other and such things as "provide food, shelter, recreation, etc." in the middle. His purpose was to show that these were home duties and not church duties. Thus the church could only contribute the money to the home and it could provide these things. Brother Grider again pointed out that it was the individual who was to practice pure and undefiled religion (James 1:27)

Brother Highers presented his "Hobby Wheelchart in an effort to make it appear that we are just like the anti-Bible class brethren. Brother Grider replied with a chart called "The Hobby WheelBroke Down." He pointed out the brethren who oppose classes are objecting to something that does not exist — an organized Sunday School society separate from the church. He said if that was what it was he would oppose it too. He noted that theorganized Sunday School society, the benevolentsociety, and the mi ionary society are parallel andthat all three are wrong. It was also pointed out thatbrother Highers was confusing the word "home" busing it in several different ways without noting thedistinction. Grider cited the charter of the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home showing that the organization called a "home" existed for the purpose of "providing a home" (another usage) and thus was an institution which could provide a thousand "homes" if it wanted to. He further emphasizedthat the church helps individuals, not "homes."

On the fourth and fifth night cooperation inevangelism was discussed. Brother Grider showed what was involved in the sponsoring church system and noted that concurrent cooperation and not jointcooperation was the scriptural kind. Brother Highers did not show where one church sent to another in evangelism but asked by what authority Brother Grider got his salary from the first-day-of-the-week contribution. Brother Grider showed from II Cor.

11:8 that it is necessarily inferred that preachers were paid from the treasury and that I Cor. 16:1,2is the only passage telling when a collection couldbe taken. This did not satisfy brother Highers andbecame his main argument the final night. On thlast night brother Highers admitted that I Cor. 16:1,2 was not on evangelism but made a "twowrongs make a right" type argument that if preachers could get their salaries from this passage that he could also get authority for World Radio, etcAgain brother Grider said he did not get his salary from I Cor. 16:1,2 but that a treasury was necessarily inferred in II Cor. 11:8. He forcefully emphasized that I Cor. 16:1,2 was the total r evelation from God as to when a collection was to be taken and it was specific (first day of the week) and exclusive (first day of the week only). Grider further noted that we must first find authority for spendingthe money and that I Cor. 16:1,2 was not authorityfor spending anything in evangelism and thus was not the passage which authorized a preacher's salary.

Good order prevailed throughout the discussion and the atmosphere among brethren seemed to bemuch better than it had been at previous debates.

Brother Highers remarked that whether we (conservative brethren) "win" in a debate or not thatwe always "win" when we write it up. Though the same could be said about them, we simply want tpoint out that we were not seeking a personal victory. Both truth and error were presented. And inspite of brother Highers' outstanding ability as aspeaker one can study the arguments presented andarrive at the truth. Thus we encourage the reader to purchase the complete debate on tape from PhillipsPublications, P.O. Box 17244, Tampa, Fla. 33612.

Charles Gentry, C.P.O. Box 179, Nagoya, Japan 40

— The second Sunday in April we set a new record in attendance with 20 present. We had five new visitors this month. The enrollment in Bible classes and correspondence course continue to increase. Osaka: The Lord continues to give the increase. One has beenbaptized since last report. Our Saturday eveninBible class is showing continued interest and great results. The first week in April we had -a three day meeting with brother Shintoku Oshiro from Okinawa doing the preaching. The attendance and interest was good with visitors every night.

DEBATE

A religious debate was conducted on Aug. 14-17,1972 in Decatur, Ala., between T. N. Thrasher, representing the church of Christ, and Mr. Eddie K. Garrett, representing the Primitive Baptist Church. The propositions for discussion were as follows:

Aug. 14-15, "The church of Christ, of which T. N. Thrasher is a member, is scriptural in origin, doctrine, and practice." Affirm: T. N. Thrasher. DenyEddie K. Garrett.

Aug. 16-17, "The Primitive Baptist Church, of which Elder Eddie K. Garrett is a member, is scriptural in origin, doctrine, and practice." Affirm: Eddie K. Garrett. Deny: T. N. Thrasher.

A PLEA FOR HELP IN GERMANY

Dudley Ross Spears — There is an opportunityfor someone to preach the gospel in West Germany at the present time. There are at least two groups of brethren meeting there where the truth can bepreached and where the work of the church is done scripturally. These small outposts need help anthey need it now.

After trying to find some qualified man to go there and meeting with no success, my family and I haveagreed to go and work in Germany. It is a big decision to make, especially for anyone with a familthat is well situated in this country. Were it not for conscience I would not be making plans to go there and consequently not writing this plea for help igoing.

I will go to Germany for a series of meetings in November. At that time I will make an assessment of the po ibilities for establishing a lasting conservative work among the German people. By thatime I will be able to preach a sermon in the German language.

With great anticipation for wonderful opportunities I am trying to raise the necessary support now. After consultation with brethren who are over there and have been over there I conclude that living expenses there are equal to the U.S.A. in most things and excessive to our costs in others. I am askingfor $800.00 monthly support for salary, $250.0monthly support for rent and utilities and $150.00up for the publication of a monthly paper in German and in English as well as tracts, Bibles and other teaching materials.

I do not believe that the amount I am asking foris excessive for the living conditions there now. Also the devaluation of the American dollar means that more money will be needed there to buy the same amount of goods here.

I also need money for a travel fund which will be used in transporting my family and me, purchasingwhatever is necessary in order to have living quarters there.

The Par Ave. church, where I am currently working, has promised to support me monthly while I am in Germany. The church in Altamonte Springs, Fla. (which is in the Orlando area) has already begutheir support. They are already sending me monemonthly which I will use to defray moving expenses when I go permanently

My plans now are to go to Germany in November for two or three meetings. Then I will move permanently next Spr ing with my family. I will be able to speak and write German by the time I make themove. I already have a linguistic background in the language and will enroll in conversational German this fall at one of our local schools. If there is a congregation anywhere who is will-ingto contribute substantially toward this endeavor I would appreciate hearing from you very soon. Anamount will help, but I would like to be a ured of the monthly support before I make further plans and commitments. Please let me hear from you. I will be glad to come anywhere to talk to anyone aboutthe work and answer any questions I can. 35 W. Par Orlando, Florida 32804

BOBBY HERSCHEL FRANKS

July 31, 1926 -September 3, 1972

At 1:25 in the afternoon of Sunday, September 3,Bob Franks left this life. The long and painful struggle he waged against the effects of rheumatoid arthritis is generally known to the brotherhood. For fifteen years he did the work of an evangelist, withpain a constant, present reality. This past June he was forced, by an acute recurrence of the disease, to cut short his part in a gospel meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. His last sermon was preached inNew Orleans. Shortly after his return to his familyin Fort Worth, he began the first of three periods of hospitalization, the last of which was terminated by his death.

Brethren Jim McDonald and Stanley J. Lovett conducted funeral services Monday morning, September 4, in Fort Worth. Brother McDonald spokmovingly of a ociation with Bob, of their efforts together in the proclamation and defense of thegospel. In those remarks, brother McDonald described Bob's determination to preach, even in great physical discomfort. He used the words of the apostle Paul to depict also the attitude Bob had: whenthere was strength still to work, "I am debtor ... I am ready... I am not ashamed of the gospel" (Romans 1:14-16). When strength was exhausted, whemonths and years of ravage by disease and medication and surgery exacted their toll, when the gathering of the shades of night was apparent: only thenwas the past tense apropos: "I have fought the goodfight. I have finished the course, I have kept thfaith" (II Timothy 4:7)

The last two years of his sojourn he labored with the Westside Church in Fort Worth. Prior to that,he had done local work with churches in Lafayette,Louisiana; Lufkin, Beaumont, Kaufman, and Kirbyville, Texas.

Bob Franks is survived by his wife, Roma Dean; a son, Rickey; three daughters, Teresa, Sandra, andRene; his mother, Mrs. J. A. Franks; a sister anthree brothers. The burial was at the Franks Cemetery, near Merryville, Louisiana, in the late afternoon, September 4.

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glorywhich shall be revealed to us-ward."

The Church of Christ which began meeting aOmaha, Nebraska in July 1971 has rented space in the Parkview Heights Elementary School. Meetingtimes are 9:30 a.m. Sunday morning Bible study,

10:30 a.m. morning worship, and 6:00 p.m. Sundaevening worship. The new location is in southwest Omaha at 7609 South 89th Street, a fast growingarea of metropolitan Omaha. Anyone wishing tcontact the church may write one of the following: W. F. Bates, Route 1, Box 298, Plattsmouth, NE 68048, phone 402-298-8543, or Timothy Fox, 5Travis, Offutt Air Force Base, NE 68113, phone 402291-6009, or Kenneth Hirshey, 4405 Terrace Drive,Omaha, NE 68134, phone 402-572-7838.

Ralph Joiner, P.O. Box 208, Cambridge City. Ind. At the end of September my family and I will bereturning to the Sunshine State where I will workwith the church in Clermont, Fla. This will terminate a little over two years labor in the Hoosier State. Any sound preacher of the gospel interested in this work are encouraged to write: J. C. Newton,

E. Cambridge Rd., Cambridge City, Ind. 47327, ocall 317-478-1968.

Wendell M. Powell, Barber Lane. Loudon, Tenn. 37774 — As of August 20, 1972 I began full-time work with the congregation of Lord's people at Lou-don, Tenn. Please, assemble with us, if ever-in the East Tennessee area.

PREACHER NEEDED

Small but sound congregation needs experienced preacher. We have been meeting here for two years. The body of Christ here was recently purified bbreaking from the liberal element.

We are presently meeting in a home while looking for a building. We can arrange full support for the preacher. Contact: Roger Lewis, Rt. 1, Box 514,Waupaca, Wis. 54981, phone (715) 258-7705 or Tom Comely, 506 Waupaca St., Waupaca, Wis. 54981, phone (715) 258-7900.

PREACHER NEEDED

We are two Christian women with families who are trying to start a sound congregation in Rochester, Minn. We need a preacher to help us with thiswork. If any man wishes details about our circumstances he can get in touch with Patsy Johnson, 7253rd Ave. N.W., Plainview, Minn. 55964, phone 5342685 or Leslie Diestelkamp, 1398 St. Paul Ave., StPaul, Minn. 55116, phone 690-0254.

Philip A. Morr, P.O. Box 97, Gymea N.S.W. 2227,Australia — The work in Sydney continues to make satisfactory progress. I am preparing to leave Sydney for 2 1/2 weeks while I visit with most of thecongregations in Queensland. The trip will cover 3500 miles. There is a great distance between cities in the outback. Most of the congregations are few in number but there are two congregations in Queensland which number 30 and 45.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

A public discu ion between Drew E. Falls of Hanceville, Ala. and Ben J. Franklin of San DiegoCalifornia was held in the Midfield church of Christ building in Birmingham, Ala. on July 24, 25, 27, 28,1972.

The proposition was: "What the Scriptures teach about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spir it for our day."

Each night there was a forty and twenty minute

speech by each participant. There was also a ques

tion and answer session each night following the

speeches.

Ben Franklin was endorsed by the Full GospelBusiness Men's Fellowship International.There has already been a written discussion onthis subject by these men.

Thomas C. Sweeney, 2307 Maplecrest Drive, Nashville, Tenn. 37214 — I am available for part-time work within driving distance of Nashville, Tenn. References will be furnished and I can be contacted at the above address or phone 883-8847.

EVANGELIST NEEDED

The church at St. Cloud, Fla. needs a full timepreacher. This is a small congregation in one of the fastest growing areas in Florida. The congregation is able to provide only partial support at this time. Interested individuals may contact the Church of Christ, St. Cloud, Fla. 32769 or Farley Adams, 61Clearlake Rd., Cocoa, Fla. 32922.

In speaking to the elders of the church in Ephesus Paul reminded them of the time he had spent witthem, and of the work he had done in their presence. Among other things he called their attention to thecarefulness with which he had preached the gospelin its fullne . In Acts 20:20 he said, "... I kept backnothing that was profitable to you ..." In verses 26-27 he said, "Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Implied in this statement is the fact that the condemnation of those who hear a preacher rests not only upon the hearer, but also upon thepreacher himself, and that the only way he can relieve himself of that burden is by confronting thesinner with his sins and showing him what he must do to obtain pardon in the sight of God. As Paul expressed it, the preacher must declare all the counsel of God. In the case of the Ephesian elders Paul could rejoice knowing not only that he had fulfilled his own responsibility, but also that his hearers had received the truth and obtained pardon.

Paul also made a statement to some Jews in Corinth similar to the one he made to the E phesianelders. These men, however, were not like the Ephesian elders who obeyed the truth. Instead they rejected it with blasphemy. Paul could nonetheless sayto them, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean" (Acts 18:6). He had fulfilled his responsibility by preaching the truth, and in so doing haplaced the burden of guilt squarely upon the shoulders of his hearers; he himself was clean.

Although it is a sad thing to see the truth rejected, there is still consolation to the preacher who has done his job well. How peaceful it is to retire at night having given diligence in handling the word of truth, and thus being assured of God's approval (II Timothy 2:15)

But by the same token, how fearful it must beto a preacher to go to bed at night with the knowledge that his work is not faithful to the word of God. Indeed it must be terrifying to one who does not care enough for the truth to preach it, to realize that he must face Jesus Christ in judgment whloved it enough to die for it. And how burdensome it must be to know that at that day he must also face those whom he might have saved if he hadonly tried, but instead whose condemnation he must share.

Finally, notice that in the two instances cited from Acts 20:26-27 and Acts 18:6 that the gospel preached to both groups was the same, yet one had been saved by it while the other blasphemed. This simply, but clearly, points out the fact that whenthe preacher has done his work, when the truth has been declared, that the responsibility for its reception rests upon the hearer. "Therefore putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedne , ihumility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21, New American Standard Bible).

P.O. Box 928 Bend, Ore. 97701