Letters to the Editor

When in Germany several years ago, we noted the sign board at the Esslingen Ecclesia. It was headed “Urchristengemeinden” with “(Christadelphians)” underneath. While our knowledge of German is sparse, we knew that Urchristengemeinden was not German for “Brethren in Christ” so we began asking a few questions. Not surprisingly, Bro. Alan Eyre has done historical research into the development of the Brethren in Christ in Germany. Upon learning that, a request for information was dispatched to Bro. Alan and the following letter is part of his response. We felt the material would be of general interest to our readers.

Dear brother Don,

Greetings in the fellowship of the Father, His Son and the Spirit of Truth.

I am responding to your request for information regarding our ecclesias in Germany. While at the Library of Congress recently I was able to verify information which I could only recall from memory when you raised the matter with me on the telephone. I think the following “history” is both accurate and more or less complete in all relevant essentials.

Christadelphian involvement with the preaching of the gospel in Germany dates from about 1908. In that year brother A. H. Zilmer (footnote – grandfather of Bro. Norm Zilmer of the Unamended Fellowship), a converted Lutheran pastor and a German immigrant, assisted financially by brother J. G. Miller of Waterloo, Iowa, translated “The World’s Redemption” by brother Thomas Williams into German. These were (according to the practice at that time) for sale, not free distribution. The first run was a thousand copies. All were sold, mostly in Germany, but in what manner and by whom over there I do not know.

Albert Maier meets Christadelphians

Some time later (the date is not known to me) Albert Maier, another German immigrant to the United States, became acquainted with Christadelphians while in Portland, Oregon and found them amenable to his religious thinking.

I have not yet been able to find any notice of brother Albert Maier’s baptism. His subsequent friendship with brother Zilmer, and the availability of the afore-mentioned book in German led to his decision to return to Germany and introduce the Truth to his religious associates there. Incidentally, as a result of leaving the U.S.A. in 1912, two years later the U.S. government confiscated his assets in Oregon as belonging to an enemy alien!

The work of brother Albert Maier between 1912 and 1920 is extremely obscure. World War I obviously was a disruptive factor. It is certain, however, that fruitful work was going on nevertheless.

Exciting activities in the early ’20’s

Around 1920 news reached Britain and America that there were two areas where groups of believers were preaching actively. One was in north and northeast Germany. A young brother Ludwig Knupfer of GrossRominten in East Prussia (a locality now, I think, in Russia) asked brothers and sisters in the U.S.A. for help to further his work in that region, in particular to finance the publication of “The Declaration” and “Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse” in German. The response was adequate, with some to spare.

The other area of activity was hundreds of miles away in south Germany, where brother Maier was consolidating the “conversion” of his Bible-oriented friends in and around Stuttgart.

The most exciting period was the 12 months from December 1922 to December 1923. Two great events occurred almost simultaneously, one in each region. First, brother Ludwig Knupfer met a small group of disciples who had been thrown out of an evangelical church because they preached “the truth” as we understand it. This group was led by the dynamic and indeed charismatic brother (as the records designate him) Dr. von Gerdtell. I am very familiar with him and his work, both through talking with converts of his in Germany in my own youth and from reading his writings.

I am convinced that he was far and away the greatest preacher the Brotherhood has ever had in this century, though I have no evidence that he ever “officially” called himself a “Christadelphian.” How about this for example: “We have heard that Dr. vonGerdtell of Berlin is engaged in delivering addresses on the truth in that city, and that the meetings are largely attended, there being present at one meeting fourteen hundred people. What the results of this work will be, it is impossible to even estimate.” Or this, still in Berlin, but six years later: “We hired one of the very best and well known halls of Berlin, the large and beautiful Aula of the Technical University…We had 350 to 550 hearers. This audience consisted of persons out of all classes and religious bodies, including professors of the University, Catholic priests, Lutheran pastors, and many doctors. Also Jews were present, who were specially interested.”

Meanwhile, at the other end of the country, another “coup” took place. Johannes Reich, a friend of brother Albert Maier, and his entire congregation, joined with the small Christadelphian contingent in the Stuttgart area, and became the “Unchristengemeinde” (“Original Christian Brotherhood”). The magazine “Der Modeme Urchrist” was started, later to become “Prufet Alles,” which continues to this day.

Visitors from England

Some time during 1927 two brethren from England, J. Owlet and H. C. Ramsden, decided to have a “holiday” in Germany. They wanted to see what was going on, but it was not in any sense an “inspection.” The visit, as reported, was totally in the spirit of Acts 11:21-23. They broke bread at one of the three Stuttgart ecclesias with 60 German brothers and sisters, and they assured American brothers and sisters that “the meetings [in that areal are to cooperate on the Birmingham Statement of Faith, and are to arrange for a constitution providing for managing brethren, etc.”

Actually, it didn’t quite work out like that. Four years later, Brother von Gerdtell visited south Germany and cooperated with the ecclesias there in drawing up “Das Glaubensbekenntnis des modemen Urchristentums,” “The Confession of Faith of the Modem Primitive Christians,” consisting (it was stated at the time) of “thirty-five tabulated, lucid points forming an excellent summary of our belief.” This Confession stuck, and the Urchristengemeinden they remain, offering fellowship to all who come to them in sincerity and truth. The CBM (UK) accepted in the 1950’s the German ecclesias on their own basis and that is how it remained for years.

Dr. von Gerdtell to America

There was one sad sequel. After the Nazis won their first landslide victory in the Reichstag, but before Hitler assumed dictatorial powers, the Nazi Gestapo went after brother von Gerdtell. He was holding one of his typical campaigns in Stuttgart, with an audience of nearly 700, when the Nazi S.S. burst into the hall and shut down the meeting “to ensure the safety of Dr. von Gerdtell and the audience.”

Brother von Gerdtell quickly saw through the euphemism, fled the country, and went to the USA. It would appear…he did not join himself to any Christadelphian ecclesia (as I mentioned, he may never have called himself such). He did, however, become a professor at an American university and continued to promote the truth in his own way.

I hope this little bit of history will be of help.

In the boundless joy of our salvation,

Readings In I Chronicles

Dear Bro. Don,

A couple of thoughts on the “Notes on the Daily Readings” in the September, ’95 issue.

Repeated record of offerings

Bro. Jack Robinson makes some really valid comments in regard to lists of names we find in scripture. These names often tax us for pronunciation, but there is a basic lesson for us in them. In Numbers 7, we have 89 verses dedicated to the enumeration of the offerings of 12 princes of Israel at the time of the setting up of the tabernacle by Moses.

Here we have 12 offerings, each exactly the same! Why not list the names and the dates and the offerings in one shorter, more compact record? The answer is a great exhortation for us all.

God has moved the writer to record “longhand,” as it were, that we might understand that He is vitally interested in individuals and their offerings to Him. Each of these offerings, although the same as the others, is individually noted and then aggregated and graciously accepted.

In our walk and in the ecclesia, we offer our service before the Lord and each of us offers essentially the same, but it is important that we do this as God is ready to receive the widow’s mites as readily as He is the seemingly more substantial and unique offerings of others (our estimation) — none is lost or unnoticed.

This all underlines the fact that God is positively motivated toward the salvation of the individual inasmuch as that individual is positively motivated toward obedience and service to Him.

Length of Saul’s reign

Another point brother Jack mentioned in passing was the length of Saul’s reign. From the comment in Acts 13:20-21, it’s often assumed that Saul reigned 40 years. It can be demonstrated that this is possibly not so.

Rotherham has at this place (vs. 20-21) “And after these things he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. And from that time they asked for themselves a king and God gave them Saul, son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin during 40 years.”

In this is suggested that the 40 years covered more than just the reign of Saul. Now come do a bit of comparative detective work. In I Samuel 4:15-18, we see that the ark of God is taken by the Philistines. Note that this is before the people asked of God a king for themselves.

We learn in I Samuel 6:1 that the ark remained with the Philistines for that uneasy (for them) “seven months,” then in I Samuel 7:2 the ark was in Kirjath-jearim for “20 years.” Next we come to II Samuel 5:4-5 and we note the details of David’s reign and in II Samuel 6:1-11 we see that it was David’s early desire to bring the ark to Jerusalem.

This history of the ark totals around 21 years. We now have to realize that this period of history included the entire reign of Saul. It also included “seven years and six months” (II Sam. 5:5) of David’s reign in Hebron. Remember, this is God’s view — He saw David as king from the moment Saul was removed (in I Samuel 15:23-28).

Now it’s a simple matter of arithmetic. The ark history we noted was around 21 years; subtract from that the seven and a half years of David’s reign in Hebron and we come to around 13 years!

Finally, for the really interesting part, and, for me, the clincher. What was the Divine estimate of Saul’s efforts as king as related to him by Samuel? It’s there in 1 Samuel 15:23 -”rebellion.” What does the number 13 indicate in scripture? — rebellion! John F. Beer, Hastings, New Zealand

These are two fascinating points. We have often wanted to properly study out the length of Saul’s reign and I think you have stirred us to get to it.

Your first point comes up again in the readings in Nehemiah when we get details on what each of the parties is doing in building the wall. When you consider how compact scripture wording can be, the attention given to the specific humble works of God’s faithful ones is most encouraging to ourselves. He sees all the humble service we do in His name and is glorified thereby.

Prayer to Jesus

Dear Bro. Don,

In the October, ’95 “Tidings,” a question was raised concerning the efficacy of prayer to Christ. I thought a few comments may be of further help to your readers.

The word prayer is defined as petition to heaven, entreaty, submissive importunity in the sense of entreaty, etc. In the scriptures we find prayers to Jesus, but what of the propriety of offering prayer to him “now” that he is seated on the right hand of God?

When Jesus first taught his disciples to pray, (the Lord’s prayer, Matt. 6), he instructed them to pray to the Father in heaven and to hallow “His name.” He did not teach them to pray “in” that name, but to hallow (set apart and sanctify) the name of the Father. John 16:23-24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name…”

Here then is a precept to ask in the Son’s name, which is the “very reverse” of prayer “to” Christ. The favors of the Father are granted through the Son, so that what comes from the Father comes from the Son, hence their intimate association in the epistles in the formula, “Grace and peace to you from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Paul teaches that the One God and Father is above the One Lord, for He is “above all.” We should therefore pray “to Him” in the name of the Lord, and in so doing we “Honor the Son even as we honor the Father.”

The Aaronic high priesthood and its ordinances were typical of the “greater high priest.” Would it have been in conformity with scriptural propriety to have offered prayer to Aaron? No, the people in the courts prayed to Him who dwelt between the cherubim. The Lord Jesus Christ is the high priest over the household, so in conformity with the antitype, we make our petitions “through” our high priest, not to him.

“Brother John Thomas”: “All prayers then, ascending from the children of the covenant, ascend to the Father as sweet odors from Christ (Rev. 5:8). He is the golden censer in which the incense is deposited. He is the censer; the prayers of his brethren, and only theirs, the incense fuming around the Priest after the order of Melchizedek. The arrangement is very beautiful, both in type and antitype, but so much more so in the antitype, as the reality transcends its shadow.”

“Brother Robert Roberts”: “Israel did not worship the High Priest; they sought the Increate God of their fathers, “through” the High Priest, worshiping without, while he interceded within; so the people of Christ worship not Christ, but “in the name” of Jesus, worship God; and Jesus, in the presence of God, maketh intercession, and God hears him, and through him — by the means of his personal will — vouchsafes the blessings sought.”

Let all exercise care in their approach to the throne of Grace. May our prayers and hymns of praise, ascend to our Father according to the scriptural principles laid out.

Trevor Snow, Westland, MI

The types and shadows of the law are very useful in bringing points to our attention that we might otherwise pass over. This is true, for example, of the priest offering first for himself and then for the people. In seeking how this applies to the Lord Jesus, we are led to the understanding of his participation in and benefit from his own sacrificial offering that we might otherwise not have noted.

In considering the types, however, we must always remember the far greater standing and power of the Lord Jesus than was true of the Mosaic priesthood. Our Lord has been “perfected for evermore…who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” (Heb. 7:288:1). In that position, he can testify, “All power is given me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). What this means in practice is readily seen in Revelation chapters one through three. The high priest would never speak as

Christ does there, for the Lord has “the keys of hell and of death” (Rev. 1:18). Walking in the midst of the believers, Christ is the one who controls what trials they will have and those from which they will be spared. He is the one who determines when forgiveness will be extended and when rejection will occur. This is a vastly different level of power and authority from the Mosaic priests.

The Lord was charged with blasphemy when he forgave sins for “who can forgive sins but God only?” said the Jewish authorities (Mk. 2:7). But Jesus demonstrated God had in fact delegated that power to the Son. This was not true of the Mosaic priesthood.

While the high priest was subservient to the angels, Jesus has “gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (I Peter 3:22). This is why we pray to God “in the name of Christ,” for in doing so we recognize that all things are of the Father through the Son. This was obviously not true of the priest and one would never think of praying to God in the name of the priest.

It might also be noted that intercessory prayer by a mortal on behalf of other mortals was not a priestly function. It can be done effectively by any faithful person. Moses, Nehemiah and Daniel, none of whom were priests, all prayed fervently for the nation and Jesus prayed for his disciples and ourselves before the cross. Paul prayed continually for the believers and so should we.

We appreciate the initial question on this matter and the follow-up comments, for we all need continual reminders of the present relationship of the Son to the Father and of the scriptural etiquette of prayer.