Letters to the Editor

Is Dancing Appropriate?

Dear Bro. Don:

I would like to see the following topic discussed in the “Tidings” -­dancing. Some of us enjoy dancing but lack the opportunity. A Chris­tadelphian would feel uncomfortable dancing in smoke-filled, drinking establishments to questionable lyrics. Work or school functions are usually not much better.

The question is: Is it possible for Christadelphians to enjoy dancing in good conscience? For example, we might enjoy dancing at a wedding celebration. Another possible approach might be to organize our own dance. The music could be strictly controlled, alcohol and smoking would be banned. Only Christadel­phians who would find the activity acceptable would be invited. Further safeguards would be to limit the age of attendees to 21 years and over and to have a devotional activity to commence the evening.

I would be interested in your reader’s views, pro and con about this subject.

Bro. “Footloose”

We, too, will be interested in what readers have to say. There is a puritanical element in the religious heritage of North America which defines sin as drinking, dancing and smoking. Because this sentiment overlaps with our own feelings, many readers may be reluctant to express their true opinions on this matter. We would remind correspondents that the editor is not averse to anonymous letters and has, in fact, used one as the basis for this month’s “Family Life” section.

We would suggest readers look up “dance,” etc. in a concordance before expecting a blanket condemnation of the practice by all Christadelphians. From our brother’s letter, some open discussion of the matter would clearly be useful.

Personally, we find our opinion is largely shaped by the heritage of our own upbringing where dancing had no part in our family’s tradition. In addition, we have seen some forms of dancing on TV ads of forthcoming movies and find the body gyrations both suggestive and sensual. We trust it is not an overstatement to say that the blaring music, flashing lights and availability of alcohol is all designed to break down inhibitions and foster unrestrained behavior. Our immediate reaction, therefore, is negative and we would apply to dancing such passages as “ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men…abstain from all appearance of evil” (I Thess. 5:15,22).

Yet when we read of restored Israel, “thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry” (Jer. 31:4), we realize our own reaction may not be wholly balanced. Accordingly, readers’ comments will be welcome.

Lines of Fellowship

Dear Brother Editor,

The publication of Bro. Whit-taker’s short article and letter in the “Tidings” was commendable. However, your comments, we feel, avoided the issue raised, and it is a valid one: “…whether [or not] a particular item of belief.., is a thing of first-rate importance” (Bro. Whit-taker’s emphasis).

The tendency was to direct a reader’s attention to side-issues and concerns that have caused distressing divisions to persist, not just on the North American continent, but throughout the body of Christ. For instance, “If members of the CGAF or Unamended who believe as we do want to join us, we will welcome them with open arms, but we can’t be expected to tolerate in fellowship open teaching of wrong doctrine” (my emphasis).

Whilst the apostle Paul was imprisoned in Rome a group of believers made it their business to “…preach Christ even of envy and strife…” in an effort to wound and discredit him. Paul’s reaction was, “Whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea and will rejoice” (Phil. 1:14-18). Did he tolerate in fellowship these preachers of a sectarian gospel? Yes he did, but he didn’t tolerate the way they preached it. So hasn’t a precedent already been set for us? Why then is it one that we as a community have seen fit to ignore?

But “Surely,” some will say, “we will be held accountable for breaking bread with those whose views are not quite sound.” Paul, in his record of the last supper (I Cor. 11:23-34), says, “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lord’s body.” Notice the personal pronouns; they’re singular not plural!

It is clear that problems in the first century were dealt with by the ecclesia experiencing them guided, of course, by prayer, inspiration, advice from the apostles and instruction from the Word. There is nothing in the New Testament which calls for other ecclesias to get involved or to sever links with an ecclesia, or group of ecclesias, when the solution is felt to be unsatisfactory.

John’s third epistle tells us of a Bro. Diotrephes who refused to fel­lowship the apostle along with those who didn’t comply with his way of thinking (III Jn. 9,10). Nowhere in this brief letter is there instruction to cease fellow-shipping him. But, there is a firm commitment made to approach him about the issue and an exhortation given not to follow his divisive example (v.11). John would be well aware of the ecclesial, cultural and geographical circum­stances surrounding the case. However, these didn’t blind him to the issue, nor cause him to lose sight of the principle involved. Situations may change from country to country as well as from ecclesia to ecclesia, but the principle remains the same.

The apostle could so easily have made the mistake of thinking that since Bro. Diotrephes was schismatic, his ecclesia was too. Unfortunately, you apply this sort of logic in your comments about ecclesial activities in England. Saturday fraternal gatherings, Bible schools (of which there are four) and youth and study weekends are not “…arranged so that inter-ecclesial fellowship at a breaking of bread can easily be avoided by those having doubts about the soundness of other breth­ren.” This is a statement which, unintentionally l’ m sure, speaks ill of the good motives of brothers and sisters involved in organizing such events; and is so general it could as easily be said of other Christadel­phian gatherings throughout the world.

Paul’s comment to the Philippians quoted earlier shows where he saw the priority. He knew the scrip­tures which condemn envy and strife, but he also knew preaching Christ was of prime importance. Wasn’t this the force of Bro. Whittaker’ s argument and does it matter that this word of advice comes from someone who is not, as far as North America is concerned, in the “middle of things?”

Our balance is lost when one Bible principle is maintained at the expense of another of equal or more importance (Prov. 11:1). Throughout our community there seems to be tacit agreement to the truth of this fact, but an unwillingness to implement it in matters of fellowship. “Yes, but…?” is the standard answer to enthusiastic efforts at demolishing barriers and restoring links. All brothers and sisters, but primarily those of the North American continent, are faced with the question, “Do you believe in block disfellow­ship?” If the answer is a firm “No!” then why continue to oil the cogs that keep this machine going?

Your brother in the Lord Jesus Christ,

David M. Jenkins,
Chagrin Falls, OH

The context of Phil. 1:15 is not a discussion of fellowship and the point made by Bro. Jenkins is entirely based on an arbitrary interpre­tation. “Some [people, brethren or Judaizers] preach Christ even of envy and strife…” Asserting the apostle has “brethren” in mind is highly unlikely as the people are full of envy and strife which are hardly Christian attributes. The far more likely understanding is that unbelieving Jews were trying to add to Paul’s woes by preaching the gospel in such a manner as to arouse governmental hostility against the early ecclesias (cf. II Cor. 11:14). Once discovered, they would be covered by Rom. 16:17: “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoid them.” We therefore reject Phil. 1:15 as a guiding passage for our own fellowship practices.

The allusion to “Block Disfel­lowship” is a red herring that kept on coming up in reunion discussions. The CGAF and Unamended have a line of fellowship as do Amended ecclesias. They draw it in a different place, but they have one and enforce it, to our knowledge, just as consistently as do the Amended ecclesias.

Bro. Jenkins no doubt agrees with Bro. Whittaker that the BASF is sound on the doctrines at issue (mor­tal emergence and resurrectional responsibility). Instead of trying to expand our toleration of wrong Bible teaching, why not instruct those who are incorrect in their views as to the truth of Scripture? Toleration of wrong teaching simply leads us down the road taken by the church of the 2nd century and eventuates in the loss of the Truth. For proof one has only to consult the recent history of the Oregon Conference of the CGAF which followed such a course. Whereas they may have been basically sound, they are now virtually indistinguishable from orthodoxy.

Jew and Arab

Dear Bro. Don,

Hearty greetings.

[Bro. Alan begins his letter with some comments that do not relate to the topic of Jew and Arab in prophecy. Our apologies to Bro. Alan for leaving out some of his typically lively communication. Accordingly, we pick up his comments with his second point.]

(2)1 am not, myself, convinced by the view that Armageddon is to be solely an Arab-Israeli conflict, and that the Gogian invasion must be after the Lord’s appearing. But the charge made several times on both issues that the “traditional” view of prophetic events heightens, while the variant views discourage anticipation of an imminent second coming is most unfair and is, indeed, dishonest. In fact, I believe that it is the difficulty of seeing how the return could be imminent in view of Israel’ s patent insecurity and beleaguered position in the face of implacable Arab hostility which has weakened somewhat the credibility of some confident predictions based upon “pioneer” expositions.

[We agree. Our position is that God can rearrange political situations so rapidly that Biblical interpretations must not be based on current world conditions.]

(3) You say that a united public witness is possible if all Christadelphi­ans concur with the “traditionalists.” Would you yourself now distribute and advertise some of our existing literature which dogmatically state that a communist confederacy will invade Israel, that Britain will never join a European Parliament and that, despite the intifada, gas-masks and Patriot missiles, Israel is really a land of unwalled villages fulfilling Ezekiel’ s prophecy? I have another booklet, quoting Bro. Thomas, which affirms absolutely that Russia will move its capital from Moscow to Constantinople (Istanbul) before invading the Middle East. We need to be a lot more humble and less dogmatic, about detailed interpretations. Prophetic interpretation is not an exact science, but an exciting field for earnest, prayerful study in preparation for meeting the Lord. As for public witness, we recently reported on an effort that was clear, didn’t engage in speculation and was appreciated by scores of interested visitors.

[Our contention with the “Arabs will defeat Israel” view rests solely on our opinion that the passages used to prove it are incorrectly expounded. Obviously brethren have, and will, get carried away with their own ideas of how prophetic details will work out. This does not hurt as long as we specify to the public what is clear Scripture revelation and what is our own speculation. However, the current wave of speculation about an Arab victory has taken the vitality right out of many recent public efforts.]

(4) Because some current events don’t seem to be pointing the way they anticipate, some “traditionalists” (and even yourself, April “Tidings” pg. 106), keep anticipation alive by propounding an ever longer gap between an invisible appearance of our Lord to his household and his majestic appearance on Olivet. How really convincing is the scriptural evidence for a gap so long that it amounts to two comings with “years” between them? We know that this is how the Seventh-Day-Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses got themselves into trouble with their “Cleansing of the sanctuary” and 1914 rubbish. Did Jesus himself or the apostles even hint at two comings? In I Thessalonians, “the coming of the Lord” is clearly both to the world and to us. Jesus describes his coming as like the lightening – to the world and to us. This aspect needs much more careful handling before suggesting that “years” may elapse from when the judgment “begins” with us to the judgment upon the nations.

In love, for the truth’s sake,
Alan Eyre, Kingston, Jamaica

[For any person or class of people, there is only one coming of Christ. That is the one they must be ready for and that is why Scripture presents the matter as it does. One reason we repeatedly suggest the “gap of time” point is to reinforce the fact that the immortalized saints are the ones who will deliver Israel and execute God’s judgments upon the nations: “This honor have all his saints” (Psa. 149:9). Since we are going to judge the rulers of the dark­ness of this present age, recognizing this point serves the exhortational value of underscoring the difference that should exist now between our­selves and the world.]

Dear Brother Don Styles,

Thank you for your article, “Editorial Opinion – Israel’s Last Defeat by Russia, Not Arabs” in the March “Tidings.”

I was starting to wonder if all Christadelphians were championing new causes to refute the basic beliefs we have held concerning prophecies. I, too, saw flaws in the new interpretations of the prophets. When I went back and reviewed Dr. Thomas’ work, I discovered that he used a much deeper analysis of the scrip­tures than the current writers. Yes, I still believe in Dr. Thomas and the writings of our many other stalwarts of old.

I believe the current tendency of our younger intelligentsia to diverge from our traditional Christadelphian beliefs is tending to confuse and therefore weaken the faith of some of our brothers and sisters. Perhaps such writings should not be published in Christadelphian magazines! At least, not without a disclaimer!

Yours in the Hope,
Bro. John W. Packie, Union, NJ

P.S. I’m very happy that Bro. Roy Styles has assumed the Amended chairmanship of the National Service Christadelphian Committee. Please thank him for me. [Since Bro. Roy & Sis. Betty proofread the “Tidings,” he will promptly learn of your appreciation.]

We do not feel it is solely our “younger” intelligentsia who espouses a new approach, as a review of our literature reveals a full age-range of brethren is involved. We do agree, however, that the writings of Dr. Thomas show a wonderful depth in his grasp of the Word of God. Christadelphia has been blessed with this heritage and it is one of the basic reasons a person has for associating himself with us. We are concerned that the shallowness of some of them current expositions serves to negate this long-standing feature of our community.

Dear Mr. Styles,

I picked up a copy of your journal in a hotel room and read with interest your discussions about the Arabs and Israel. You used all sorts of sly arguments to get around the fact that Israel is never going to “dwell safely” in the Mideast. So did your associate Jim Styles. As an Arab Christian, I believe that Israel is undergoing blindness in part which was prophesied, and you also misjudge the determination of our people.

Israel, my dear sir, will never, never, never be allowed to dwell safely. We will fight, fight and fight to destroy them and regain our greatness.

Russia is now too weak to help us and is mortally sick. How can Russia ever invade the Middle East when she wasn’t even able to control the Afghans, a poor third-world coun­try?

Your interpretation of the Bible is not Christian, it is biased towards the Jews, who have misled you into believing that they are unconquerable. Your ideas are colored, not by the Bible, but by the imperialist dreams of the “pioneers,” as you call them, of your sect, who could only think in terms of empires (like Britain) controlling the weak and feeble nations worldwide. We Arabs meant nothing to them.

Be honest: the Jews in Palestine are hanging on by their teeth to a stolen land. They have atom bombs, yes, but they cannot use them against the people in their midst who will fight and fight and fight until their evil conquerors are driven out or destroyed.

When we have destroyed Israel, then Jesus Christ will gather Jews (not Zionists), Arabs, Australians, Americans and other faithful believers into his kingdom. Yes, we believe in the Kingdom of God, but only when Jews are converted to the Messiah whom they crucified. Right now, the Zionists do not deserve any support, only condemnation. They are just a temporary political movement, nothing to do with religion.

Sincerely yours,

Mrs. Halab Derb Galbon,
Alice Springs, AUST
but born in Jerusalem.

We would draw your attention to the following: “But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen…not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, 0 house of Israel…they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son.. .in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die…” (Ezk. 36:21,32; Zech. 12:10;13:8).

You are right that Israel is not now a God-fearing nation, but they do have title to the land of Palestine — not because of their virtue but be­cause of God’s promises to the fathers of old, “For the gifts and callings of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:29). It is true the only Jews who survive into the kingdom will be those who repent and accept the Lord Jesus in faith (Zech. 12:10-14). At that time, they will dwell at peace with those Arabs who submit to the rule of Christ (Isa. 19:23-25).

Don’t be Hypocritical

Dear Bro. Don,

I appreciate the “Tidings” more than any of the other of our magazines because it alone seems to be providing a forum for discussion of various perspectives on issues affecting the brotherhood. That said, I would like to share my thoughts on February’s “Family Life in the Lord.” I will try to be as clear and emphatic as possible.

Uncle Tom’s reply just didn’t hold any water for me, and where it did, it looked like the two letters were talking past each other. His comments on alcohol, I think, really missed the point. Uncle Tom said that Mark was trying to “justify” social drinking, when I don’t think that that was the issue at all. I take it for granted that any disciple, even a fictional one like Mark, is certainly not going to permit his judgment to be affected while in the company of his untrustworthy spiritual inferiors. But Uncle Tom wanted to go entirely too far and decide that alcohol is an evil thing altogether. That attitude is just not scriptural. Fact: the Scriptures speak favorably of alcoholic beverages, in one place even praising God for blessing us with their existence (Psa. 104 : ). Fact: The first miracle done by God manifest was to create alcoholic beverage. There’s no getting around that. Jesus Christ was the spiritual giant, as Uncle Tom points out — therefore, if alcohol were intrinsically evil, he wouldn’t have set this bad example, would he? If Uncle Tom’s attitudes about alcohol were scriptural, we would gather around bread and milk on Sundays.

…The world’s attitude toward alcohol, like so many other things, is childish and destructive. The solution is to practice a scriptural attitude, not to wholly abandon the things which the world misuses.

I don’t drink myself, but I can’t stand to see the plain sense of the Scriptures subverted in the name of prudence. That is my motivation here. This leads me to my next point: Uncle Tom took a cheap shot at Mark when he suggested that Mark’s motivation was the “lust of the flesh,” or a desire to compromise and make things easier. This is an easy slander to level at other disciples whose behavior one does not understand …Worldliness and laxity are real, positive dangers which must be guarded against…However, how often are we exhorted against the equally real dangers of Pharisaism? “Come not near unto me, for I am holier than thou,” said the Pharisees (cp. Isa. 65 :5)…To what extent does our sheltering of ourselves do the same? It is the metaphor of the narrow path which is used by our Lord to describe the disciple’s life, not the language of what’s black and white (Matt. 7:13,14). On the one side, off the path, there is worldly laxity, but on the other, what? Phari­saism! Both are equally dangerous. Perhaps Mark has noticed a lack of balance in our periodicals, an overemphasis on one side pushing us too far to the other side.

It is easy to feel good about our strength when we surround ourselves only with Christadelphians. his easy to shelter ourselves from the people dying all around us, to become unable to relate to them as individuals, to think of them only as “unbelievers” and as a consequence to lose our compassion for them as individuals, retaining only the ability to preach to them as abstractions called “unbelievers.” It is easy to be frightened by the ungodliness of the world, and to shy away from it not out of love for God but out of fear for our own personal hopes of eternal reward– when there are places which desperately need the presence of one who has the mind of Christ, not just to “preach,” but to understand and to show compassion. It is tempting to make our world very simplified…in order to ease our discipleship. I submit, however, that the desire to make our walk thus easy is not the desire of the spirit, but of the flesh.

“Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor to him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:36).

Sincerely your brother in Christ,
Tom Price, Pittsburgh, PA

I can remember how agitated I would become when my Dad would use an argument that he was right because he was older and had experienced what I had not. Now I find myself wanting to fall back on the same argument with my own sons or with others. Of course, if the point is right, one should be able to prove it from Scripture and not just from experience. But it is amazing how many things become clear once we have experienced certain circum­stances in our lives.

Over the years, one thing that comes through loud and clear to the earnest disciple is how weak we are. In regard to alcohol, just ask Noah and Aaron. Look at the trouble resulting from Noah becoming drunk (Gen. 9:20-27). True, the drink offering was wine, but Aaron’s eldest sons, Nabab and Abihu, got drunk during the very week of their consecration as priests. While drunk, they did not put a difference between the holy and unholy and consequently were slain (Lev. 10:1-11). An ordinance resulted forbidding the priests to drink wine or strong drink when they went into the tabernacle. Was this ordinance extreme? Do you think Aaron would complain about it or do you think he would agree that it was a wise precaution because of the proven weakness of the flesh?

Certainly alcoholic drinks can be used wisely and usefully. Obviously Christ used them that way. But he also could become very angry without sinning and could sharply criticize his disciples and do it entirely right. Some of us have sinned so badly in anger that we desperately attempt to avoid this emotion, not because the emotion is inherently sinful but because we find ourselves too weak to handle it correctly. And some find it impossible to offer criticism without becoming unjust or harsh. So they basically try to avoid criticizing others.

There is no doubt Pharisaism is a serious potential problem among those who know God’s commands. The gospels would not have recorded so much of Christ’s exposure of the attitude if it were not an issue with the saints. However, many an earnest disciple has been unfairly accused of Pharisaical behavior be­cause he has high standards, encourages others to righteousness, does many good works in private, occasionally commits sins that are known by others and has some areas of chronic weakness. Therefore, we need to be careful how we use the exhortation regarding this matter. Sometimes we are totally unaware of the good deeds another disciple is doing because they follow Christ’s commands and don’t brag about them. If we knew more, we might never think of them as being Pharisaical. Except in blatant cases, let us leave the judgment to the Lord at the day of judgment (I Tim. 5:24,25).

As to the Good Samaritan, we need to take the whole lesson. Plenty of opportunities will arise, as they did for the Samaritan, to do good to others and show compassion to those who need help. We don’t need to create such opportunities by putting ourselves in the way of temptation which is exactly what we do when we deliberately live with a group of worldly fellows. We’re normally too weak to handle the temptations that arise in such a situation; and the more experience the perceptive disciple has, the more convinced he becomes of his own weakness.

Jew and Arab

Dear Don,

Greetings in the hope of Israel.

I read with great interest your comments in the November, 1990 “Tidings” in answer to letters concerning the modern theory of an Arab victory over Israel based on Psa. 83 and other unconnected Scripture.

I am encouraged by your firm stand to maintain the pioneer expositions on this matter, and hope that you will continue to oppose the suspect views on this subject. I see a great danger in these views, which, in some cases, have caused some to pray for an Arab victory(!), and in others have convinced them that the return of Christ cannot be yet.

Having returned from a visit to South Africa, with a short stay in UK and North America, I am very disturbed by the evidence that many in the brotherhood have embraced this new idea — since it seems to me to allow for the proliferation of all sorts of concoctions on prophecy. Instead of causing brethren to examine the Scriptures consistently, which results from the pioneer expositions, the policy of pulling verses out of context and applying them to perceived current events leads to a very fragile attitude to prophecy, when any idea is acceptable. This is becoming evident in some other magazines and pamphlets being issued from various sources, and is a matter of great concern to us.

In the same spirit as indicated in the “Tidings,” I have written a rather lengthy editorial article in the March, 1991 “Logos,” which I trust will support your stand on the matter, and show that we believe it is impor­tant for the consistent and traditional Christadelphian view of prophecy to be maintained.

We can be encouraged, that not with standing those who say that the Arabs must win the war against Is­rael before the Lord returns, we can expect the Master at any moment to bring these present things to a conclusion, and to introduce the king­dom.

These are certainly very exciting times as far as the world conditions are concerned, particularly as we watch the events in the Middle East, and the deepening threat of international violence. Whilst we regret the folly of mankind in such issues, it does remind us of the prophecies of the Scriptures that speak so clearly of the return of our Master, and the consummation of all our hopes.

With appreciation of your work in the Truth,

Your brother in Christ Jesus,
Graeham Mansfield, AUST

The above comments are appreciated and touch on several items we find personally disturbing and motivate us to discuss out the “Arabs will defeat Israel” idea.

First of all, no matter what view one takes, there is no reason to expect any remaining prophecy to be fulfilled before Christ comes to gather the responsible for judgment. We have no idea how long the judgment and subsequent fellowship with the immortalized saints will take before Christ and the saints manifest themselves to the world at large. And as we have seen, within weeks, world conditions can change radically. Therefore, we must be ready at any time for the advent of our Lord.

Second, confusion is being caused in the brotherhood just when current events are confirming our traditional approach and give great potential for exciting gospel proclamation. As pointed out elsewhere in this issue, all the elements are there to say to the public, this is what Christadelphians have been preaching for 140 years.

Third, as noted by Bro. Graeham and by ourselves in answering correspondents, the passages used to support “the Arabs will defeat Israel” idea are wrested Scriptures. We rightly complain about other groups doing this with many verses as they endeavor to support unscriptural doctrines. As Bible students, we hurt our cause with those seriously interested in the Scriptures if we do the same type of thing on matters of prophecy.

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings!

During the middle of February, many of the brothers and sisters in our area received in the mail a copy of a new publication called, “The Christadelphian Watchman.” We think it would be wise to warn all our brothers and sisters of two points about this new publication.

First of all, everyone needs to be aware that this material was promoted by the Williamsburg Foundation and is not sponsored by eccle­sias in either the Unamended or the Amended fellowships. Secondly, we should know that the basic approach to latter-day prophecy in this publi­cation is that the Arabs (not Russia!) will conquer Israel prior to Christ’s return, and that Ezekiel 38 will not be fulfilled by a Russian-led confederacy before Christ’s kingdom is estab­lished.

Before brothers and sisters unknowingly put out funds to subscribe to this new publication or purchase the advertised videos on prophecy, they should be aware that this material will not present the traditional Christadelphian viewpoint on prophecy (you just outlined part of this in the March, 1991 “Christadel­phian Tidings”) which has been commonly accepted by our community. A careful reading of the January, 1991 issue of “The Christadel­phian Watchman” will make this abundantly clear!

It is almost unbelievable that at the very time God is using the armies of this world to destroy the only Arab military machine that could have possibly taken on Israel, our brothers and sisters are being asked to throw away our time-proven approach to latter-day prophecy and replace it with a passing fad that the Arab na­tions will themselves destroy Israel!

In an age when it is so easy for anyone to print publications and send them out to Christadelphians, we all need to thoroughly examine all materials we receive through the mail (even if the name “Christadel­phian” is on them!) and compare them with the Scriptures to see if they agree with the written word of God.

Much love in the Truth,
Roy and Jim Styles

We heartily agree with the above sentiments. Given the fact that Christadelphians have no earthly hierarchy and that the name is not registered, we are remarkably blessed that we are as unified as we are.

Perhaps one good thing that is coming out of this entire issue is that many brothers and sisters are examining the Scriptures more carefully and are thereby being edified. Frequently controversy does have this one redeeming virtue.

Dear Bro. Don,

Over the years, I have studied a lot of history and I have noticed that Jews and Arabs have not always been enemies. For example, in Moslem Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries A.D., educated Jews held key posi­tions in Spain. When Isabella and her government conquered Granada (late 15th century), both Jews and Moslems were expelled and for some time they continued to work together.

The Herod family, which governed much of Palestine when Christ was born, were Nabatean (descendants of Esau). It is also worth remembering that what we now call the Gaza strip more or less corresponds with the area occupied by the Philistines. The mention of antagonistic Philistines runs through many Scripture passages including prophetic ones. Regardless of current usage, Palestinians are not descended from Ishmael but are a mixture of various waves of people who have occupied the Holy Land through the ages.

Sincerely, Your sister in Christ,
Margaret Cooper Knorr, Largo, FL

Several of Sis. Knorr’s comments allude to facts which are critical to a right interpretation of so-called Arab prophecies. In fact, the Nabateans (Idumeans, Edomites) were absorbed into the Jewish people about 125 B.C. and disappeared as a distinct ethnic group. Lauer-day prophecies use them as representative of the Gentiles as a whole and not Arabs. The Philistines originally came from the West (from the land of Caphtor, i.e. Crete, Jer. 47:4) and are also used prophetically, not of descendants of Ishmael, but of non-Jews living in Palestine. As will be seen in the series running elsewhere in the magazine, these points are critical to rightly applying the Scriptures in our own times.

Christadelphian Books in Bookstores and Libraries Dear Bro. Don,

When you walk into a religious bookstore you find many different kinds of biblical subjects available but none by Christadelphian writers. About two years ago, Mid-Atlantic ASK began researching the methods of marketing religious books in the US in order to make Christadelphian books available to the general public.

Most of our books are published outside of the US which makes them “foreign publications” and puts them under certain US laws. One rule in particular is that a foreign publication can have only one US agent who imports the book. Our committee had several books under consideration and was able to put together all the ingredients needed in using “The Key to Understanding the Scriptures” by H.P. Mansfield with Bro. Tom Graham of Reseda, CA acting as the US agent.

The book was advertised once a month in the classified columns of “Christianity Today,” a leading nondenominational magazine, from June through Nov., 1990. The ad was small, cost $52 and read as follows: Key To Understanding the Scriptures. 148-page paperback for Bible students. $4.95. Contact your book store or Majco, Inc., 1000 Commercial Ave., Oxnard, CA 93030.

The price of the book was increased to $4.95 to make it commercially attractive to bookstores as they could purchase it for less than half that price from Bro. Graham.

We feel that larger and heavier advertising should be done on this book to see if it can gain acceptance in the commercial field but we do not have the funds to do this. We are thus making a plea to the brotherhood for funds for this exploratory effort.

It was our thought that we would learn the ropes using one book and working it through all stages of marketing and advertising prior to taking on additional books. In that way, we would find out what seems to work.

We would appreciate brothers and sisters in the US going to local bookstores and ordering this book and we would appreciate donations from the brotherhood for this effort. Please send checks made payable to “Mid-Atlantic ASK” and mail to:

Mrs. Judy Binch, P.O. Box 126,
Tylersport, PA 18971.

Bro. Tom Graham makes no profit from this effort. He merely covers his costs and Mid-Atlantic ASK makes nothing at all.

So far as libraries are concerned, each library system works independently. Each has its own budget and its own purchasing agent. If we can get our book on the market, we can start requesting it from our local librarian and in turn the library’s purchasing agent. When you donate a book to a library, it often does not get cataloged and, instead of showing up on the library shelf, ends up for sale in a library benefit program.

Yours in Christ,
June Renshaw, Mid-Atlantic ASK

Principle or Pragmatism

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in Christ Jesus.

The letters from Bro. Andy Muniz in Sept., 1990 and Feb., 1991 reveal that he and I agree on several impor­tant issues:

• – We should always strive to govern our conduct according to scriptural principles.
• – There is no scriptural basis for us to blend pragmatic expediency with the rule of principle.
• – The original article of June, 1990 presented faulty expositions of various scriptures.

In Sept., Bro. Andy commented specifically on seven of the nine scriptural expositions offered as a basis for rationalizing and legitimizing the application of pragmatism. Our divergence in response focuses mainly on his comments on one section. A review of 1 Sam. 16:1-13 provides a useful basis for comparing the three approaches involved in this debate. The passage can be sum­marized:

v.1 Samuel is instructed to prepare to anoint as king one of the sons of Jesse.

v. 2-3 “And Samuel said, How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take a heifer with you, and say, I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. And invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for me him whom I name to you.” (RSV)

vs. 4-5 Samuel obeys and invites the elders and Jesse and his sons to join him in the sacrifice to the LORD.

vs. 6-13 After seven sons pass before him, Samuel anoints David.

The June article comments, “In fact, the sacrifice was a blind, designed to mislead Saul as to Samuel’s real intentions” (pg. 173). This assessment supports the conclusion, “…that circumstances may sometimes arise in which pragmatic realities will prevail over principle” (pg. 172). As “the LORD once used a similarly pragmatic approach” (pg .173), the implication is that we may sometimes be justified in allowing pragmatism to “prevail over principle.”

Bro. Andy accepts the conclusion that the angel “instructs Samuel in a course of action designed to deceive Saul” (pg.273). That is a conclusion which I reject. Bro. Andy then suggests the angelic example is “a poor one to look to for ourselves,” on the basis that, “Here we see a classification which we do not fall into. The angel as God’s representative has the authority of God to both make and break any commandments given.” I am very uncomfortable with reasoning that seems to suggest, “Is is acceptable for an angel to break a divine commandment given to man, but that gives us no license to do the same.”

The third approach involves tracing the close scriptural connection between anointing and sacrifice (e.g. Ex. 28:40-29:37 at the consecration of the priests; Lev. 8 at the consecration of the tabernacle and its contents and the priests and their garments; I Sam. 10:1-8 at the anointing of Saul; Mk. 14:3-9 at the anointing of Jesus prior to his crucifixion). With this fitting association in mind, any apparent difficulty in I Sam. 16 is resolved. The episode unfolds thusly:

Samuel is instructed to prepare to anoint a future king. Samuel raises an objection. The objection is ignored. The instructions continue: he is to prepare for a sacrifice to be offered in conjunction with the anointing. Samuel obeys. David is anointed and the sacrifice is offered. The symbol of divine selection, appointment and consecration is complemented by a token of responsive willingness to offer dedicated service by God’s grace.

The fact that the actual offering of the sacrifice is not specifically recorded is irrelevant. The angel instructed Samuel to prepare it (vs. 2-3) and Samuel announced his intention to follow those instructions (v.5). To suggest that the angel counseled deception and that Samuel lied is as unnecessary as it is unsupportable. It is also dangerous when the reasoning supports the thesis that brethren may legitimately pursue “practical ends without being totally constrained by matters of principle” (pg. 173).

Sincerely, your brother,
Silvanus

A Day of Prayer

Beloved in the Lord:

The entire brotherhood is asked to share in a worldwide day of prayer and devotion.

March 31, 1991
A Day Of Prayer
For Israel – Natural & Spiritual

As once again we see Israel being attacked by their enemies, our hearts go out to them as the people of Abraham whose destiny is in Jesus Christ. Our prayer is that God will soon pour into their hearts a spirit of grace and supplication, and that they will soon cry, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39).

Let us offer as well prayers for ourselves — the “Israel of God.” In these last days, we need to seek the guidance of our Heavenly Father that He will bless us with a spirit of unity and conviction to preach the Gospel of Truth, through Jesus Christ.

Our prayer also is that God will use the present world crisis, and us, to call back those who have wandered out of the way of the Truth.

We ask you to share with us prayer and praise to our Heavenly Father on Sunday, March 31, 1991. Set aside a special time for prayers, relevant hymns, readings and devotions that prayer to God on behalf of Israel and the brotherhood will bring hour by hour ceaseless praise to our Heavenly Father through our Lord Jesus Christ.

With love in the common hope we share in Jesus Christ our Lord,

Your brothers and sisters of the
Saanich Peninsula Ecclesia
Saanichton, BC Canada.

Please see the Editorial for remarks supporting this appeal.

VCR Tapes Available

Dear Brother Don,

Loving greetings.

VCR tapes are still available, free, on Mid-east analysis. We have 10 half-hour programs on two tapes and eight on another. We send the booklet, “Renaissance of Israel” with the first tape.

On the tapes, the historical background of the Mid-east is covered, along with the covenant with Abra­ham, the true human nature of Jesus, the truth about the devil, etc. These are super for a very interesting in-depth study of God’s word.

Lovingly and in appreciation,
Sis. E.M. Ameral
P.O. Box 23231
San Diego, CA 92123
(619)277-2736

Now would be an excellent time to take advantage of this series of tapes. We have some fine preaching aids available in the brotherhood. Another example is the correspondence course and accompanying kit offered at the end of the “Ecclesial News” section.

Principles Grades 1 and 2

(Please see the “Tidings,” Nov. 1990 for the article referred to and the editorial comments which followed. The item discussed was, does the Amended fellowship in North America rightly exclude from fel­lowship members of the Unamended fellowship and members of the Salem Conference of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith.)

Dear Bro. Editor,

With lots of warm memories of past associations, I have to say that your comments on my short article: “Principles – Grades 1 and 2” do you less than credit.

My article sought to emphasize that, certainly, some principles are of less importance than others. This main point you have completely sidestepped, writing instead as though the two specified issues rank in importance with Paul’s seven basics in Ephesians 4. Yet everybody knows that they do not. In 20 years, I have not heard either of them mentioned in public discourses in this country, except by myself on one occasion.

Nor is it true to say that the coexistence of differing views on these things would mean inevitable ceaseless discord. That would happen only if there were a determination to maintain controversy. Of course, here and there you will find a wrongheaded zealot set on making the lives of others miserable to the glory of God, but there are ways of educating or silencing such bigots.

Your comments breathe a marked lack of faith that our Lord, who prayed four times that the disciples might be one, will enrich with his blessing a courageous effort to substitute fellowship for freezing. My own repeated experiences at the Lord’s table of warm fellowship with those who differ from me on some matters convinces me that what is needed most of all is the right frame of mind, which disposition your own tendentious comments do not, alas, evince.

When you have found courage to ignore conventional barriers, as I have done, you will know the truth of what I say.

Very sincerely your brother,
Harry Whittaker, Lichfield, UK

We have great respect and affection for our Bro. Harry. Furthermore, we understand the possibility that those in the middle of a situation can not see the forest for the trees and that brethren from a distance can sometimes be helpful in rectifying a local problem. However, the divisions between the Amended, the Unamended and the CGAF go back to the last century and have resisted numerous attempts to resolve them. Given the time and efforts that have transpired, we do not feel the issues are imaginary, unidentified or unimportant. Brethren from afar only hamper any local efforts at unity when they take it upon themselves to ignore local practice.

The New Testament does not supply us with a nicely condensed statement of faith nor with neatly summarized lines of fellowship. Thus ecclesias of every place in every era are left to work out these issues in their own situations.

We know from personal experience that matters of inter-ecclesial fellowship are handled differently in Australia and England than they are in North America. For example, in England, Bible schools (of which there are few) and fraternal gatherings, normally scheduled for a Saturday, are arranged so that inter-ecclesial fellowship at a breaking of bread can easily be avoided by those having doubts about the soundness of other brethren.

In North America, numerous Bible schools and greater distances render an English-style solution impossible. We have found the doctrines dividing the Amended, Unamended and CGAF do in practice cause traumatic confrontations if brethren holding opposing ideas try to meet in harmony together. We have tried to deal with this situation by establishing lines of fellowship that everybody knows and most observe. It may not be an ideal solution but in most cases it works.

Subscription renewals

We greatly appreciate the response this year, which is running well ahead of last year’s. Last year, income covered about 60% of the cost of printing and mailing the “Tidings.” That gap should be closed some this year. We are particularly grateful for those who send in more than the subscription price and for those who enclose little notes along with their renewals. Most are very encouraging but occasionally there is one that brings a tear to the eye. Some excerpts follow:

“…I have been very pleased with the past year’s articles and news. It helps keep us abreast of brothers and sisters.. .The articles have the needed educational value that is always required in our walk in the Truth.”

“I have enjoyed reading the magazine immensely..J appreciate the exchange of ideas and the differences of opinion which stimulate us to search and study. It is important to keep the lines of communication open within the Brotherhood, so brethren and sisters are not afraid of expressing an opinion for fear of getting stomped on. In this way, they can be politely but firmly corrected if necessary, or give us a different perspective to think about.”

“I am 96 and my sight has failed so that I cannot read. Please discontinue my subscription. God bless your fine efforts…”

So far, the magazine has been mailed no later than the 25th of the preceding month. Delivery varies from two days to four weeks depending on how the different post offices handle second class mail. If the magazine does not arrive in a reasonable time, let us know and a copy will be sent by first-class mail.

Canadian recipients who move should please note that the Canadian post office does not forward second-class mail nor do they notify us of a new address. Please send us a change of address notice when you move.

Penpals Wanted

“I am a new sister baptized August 4,1990 and love to write letters. I would be pleased to correspond with any sister, especially those in isolation.”

In the One True Hope of Israel,
Jo Ann Lee McDowell
19807 Brentonridge Lane,
Spring, TX 77379
(713)251-1553.

Letting Our Children Grow Up

Dear Bro. Don,

Upon reading the articles on “Family Life in the Lord,” I have grown to feel that there is a reluctance on the part of the writer to let the children go. True, the world is an evil one and we need all the support we can get to lead a godly life; nonetheless, sooner or later, we must all grow up and make our own choices. Rather than try to put off the evil day as long as possible, we should spend each day with our children equipping them with the tools to cope.

To this end, I feel that we should never resort to the easy reason, “because I said so,” but should give our children good, solid reasons upon which to base their own decisions. In doing this, we must be careful to give good reasons. “Don’t touch the hot stove, it will burn you” is a good reason; “Don’t climb the ladder, ,you will fall” is not. The first statement is based on indisputable fact, the second on our anxiety. Ladders are for climbing and sooner or later the art will be mastered, (likely when we aren’t looking); not so with touching hot stoves. Does it matter? Yes, very much so. When we confuse fact with anxiety, we confuse our child. They don’t know when to believe us and when to test us. When we tell them that taking illegal drugs is dangerous, we want there to be no doubt as to whether we are talking “hot stove” or “ladder.” We can’t afford for our child to test us and suffer the consequence.

When we are raising children, it helps to think out loud to them. Tell them why we are making the decisions we make. For example, “I don’t think we should go there be­cause I might be tempted to do something wrong.” In saying this, we have given our child a reason upon which to base his decisions later. Instead of telling the child that he will fall if he climbs the ladder, tell him the truth, that you fear he might fall. You might demonstrate how his legs are not long enough to back down safely. Now the child has the real reason and can properly assess the situation. As the years go by, these are the little building tools that he uses to test your reliability. These, too, become the tools of his own conduct. “Is this safe? Am I putting myself in a place of temptation?” When challenged by a friend, “Why won’t you come?” The answer comes clear, the reasons are sound, and the example you have set is followed as you have proven reliable.

The problem with leaving it at, “because I said so,” is that we will not always be there to tell our child what to do or how to deal with problems. God, on the other hand, has given us some commands for which we don’t always see a good reason, but God is always at hand to challenge us when we choose to walk contrary to Him. This is another factor we should make clear to our children. We have given them rea­sons for what we expect them to do, and not do. Now we must make allowances for the fact that we will not always be around to see that they obey us. This is where we must constantly draw their attention to the fact that God is with us, that He cares for us, and that He sees our every action. The child is now left to think carefully about what he intends. This kind of thinking should be impressed upon him from the first time he leaves your side to play with a friend. Hopefully, he will keep on thinking this way when he is on his own at school or work.

The interesting result of this approach is that your child may well choose to live longer at home be­cause, instead of finding his parents restrictive, he has learned to appreciate their judgment and value their support. If he argues with you with regard to your reasons, don’t despair. He is establishing his own reasons based on yours, rather than just adopting yours without careful thought. If you are firm and consistent, and refuse to give in to his reasoning when you see it taking a dangerous turn, you have given your child the tools to survive. If those tools are solidly based on God’s word, he will have the very best of reasons for his choices, whether at home or on his own.

Your Sister in Christ,
Arla Easson, Collingwood, ONT

There are a couple of points that need to be added to the foregoing, which is excellent advice.

The parent-child relationship is designed to cultivate certain characteristics in the individual which prepare that person to serve God as an adult. One of these characteristics is respect for authority. As S is. Aria noted, sometimes when adults, we do not understand the “why” behind God’s commands. In such cases, we obey Him out of respect for His authority. In training a child, it is essential to develop the necessary disci­pline by carefully picking circum­stances where the only reason given for parental instruction is that the child must follow the parents’ authority because he is the child and the parent is the parent — the “because I say so” reason. When this is the only recourse of an indifferent or lazy parent, it is bad. But when it is the occasional reason given by a godly and thoughtful parent, it helps the child develop a characteristic that will be critical when he comes to serve God as an adult.

Secondly, as long as the parents are alive, the parent-child relation­ship is never outgrown. Obviously it changes in form where the child may need to put aside resources in order to care for his parents. But all their lives, the parents are in a unique, God-given position to guide and encourage their children. Under God, the child must respect and ponder what is said. There may be disagreement and divergence of opinion, but the command to “honor thy father and thy mother,” faithfully implemented, will yield rich rewards both now and in the life to come.

Use of the Yahweh Name

Dear Bro. Don,

It is indeed a pity that the use of the Yahweh name should be a contro­versy among brethren.

I don’t know exactly why the apostles did not, by the Spirit, use the name. Possibly you have answered that question in your first remarks when you said, “sometimes the letters available in one language are not sufficiently equivalent to those in the original language to avoid a rather dramatic change in the pronunciation of the word.” The transliterations into Greek are a “rather dramatic change.”

But from this “example” or “divine guideline,” you would have us read the Bible as it is translated. Accordingly, then, if the translators had transliterated Yahweh in the Old Testament there would be no controversy. However, the two sisters who wrote in would have us never use the name at all. Also, are we supposed to read Holy “Ghost” instead of substituting Holy “Spirit”? ( I hope this does not read as being abrasive, so please forgive me if it does.)

It is too bad the translators did not transliterate Yahweh and translate Baal. Baal properly translated would be “lord.” In Jeremiah 23:27, had Baal been transliterated it would have read “which think to cause my people to forget my name.. .as their fathers have forgotten my name for ‘the Lord’.” I would not suggest at all that that is what anybody is trying to do. However, if you take a word out of your vocabulary, eventually even the meaning of it will be forgotten, the Jews being a prime example.

Let us hold fast to the little strength (Rev. 3:8) that remains, doing all things to the edification of the body.

Many things are left to individual decisions. There is no error or harm in using the Yahweh name, and it is a matter of personal preference, and should be left that way. There are some things that are better left unspoken as they may tend to divide rather than edify.

For the Hope of Israel,
Bob Pillion, Houston, TX

Each one of us should desire with our whole heart to please our Heavenly Father. Therefore, we should be sensitive to every indication of His will especially in regard to His Holy Name. For this reason, we personally have pondered the very point made by Bro. Pillion: why didn’t the spirit guide the New Testament writers to use Yahweh when quoting the Old Testament? For as we noted earlier, “No New Testament manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton in Old Testament quotations,” Manuscripts of the Greek Bible by B. Metzger. Our suggestion is that to do so, when God “now commandeth all men every where to repent,” would obstruct one’s understanding of the universal call of the Gospel.

During our present era, no ethnic group or social class has a special advantage as far as obtaining eternal life is concerned. This point required constant emphasis by the apostles: God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (I Tim. 2:4-5; I John 2:2).

The use of the general terms for “God” and “Lord” reflect this principle. Our concern is that we indicate insensitivity to the precedent set by God Himself, in the N. T., when we transliterate His name when reading the English version of the 0. T.

Principle vs. Pragmatism

Dear Bro. Don,

As the original respondent to the article entitled “Principle vs. Pragmatism,” I am now responding to Silvanus who both alluded to the article and my letter regarding it.

His concern with my remarks centered on my having written that, “The angel as God’s representative has the authority to both make and break any commandments given” and that “God determined the principle and he can modify how it is served if He so pleases.”

Silvanus indicates concern that I feel, “God himself is not guided exclusively by principle.” In reaching this concern, Silvanus has missed my point. There is a world of difference between the violation of a principle and “modifying how it is served.” Furthermore,  I think in this discussion there has been a serious confusion of commandments, or rituals, with principles. It is important for us to understand that a specific command in specific circumstances is only one of many ways God could have selected to implement or illustrate a principle, but the specific command is not the principle itself

The point in our letter was that God has the right to deviate from His commandments to us as to how a principle will be upheld. But that does not give us the same license. We must follow His commands even when those commands appear from the finite human perspective to conflict with His will (e.g. Abraham’s offering of Isaac).

We need to understand that God came before His commandments and we need to recognize the commands are subject to God and not God to His specific ordinances. Any deviation or exception that He may make should not be interpreted as an invitation for us to do the same. There are areas where, in the absence of explicit instruction, we are to exercise judgment in applying principles (lines of fellowship, for example). But we cannot take the existence of such a situation to justify our altering God’s specific directions.

On the other hand, developing our own rules from principles will ultimately reduce religion to a mere series of physical motions. Such a condition was prominent in the Judaism whose adherents crucified Christ. They started down their disastrous course by confusing commandments with principles, and consequently felt commandments could never be changed. When God changed His commandments, they refused because the commandments, which were becoming obsolete, had taken the place of God as supreme.

Andy Muniz, Clarkston, MI

The original article sparked more interest than we had anticipated and obviously has led to some useful reflection as brethren seek to articulate the right approach to this issue.

Jew and Arab

(Several pertinent letters are at hand, some from those who have already contributed. We give priority to the following from Bro. Hill as this will be his first input on the matter.)

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in Christ.

Thank you for your efforts in the “Tidings.” Sis. Kathy and I look forward to it every month.

Your August editorial made a very important point — that we must watch Israel. Israel is the focus of much Bible prophecy, especially that dealing with the last days, and should remain the focus of our attention.

In the October issue, Bro. Joe Banta suggested that Daniel 2 was particularly clear. He argued that the toe kingdoms could not represent the Arab nations. Perhaps Daniel 2 is not as clear as one would have thought, as the Hebrew word for “mixed” is “Arab.”

Dan. 2:41-43 – “…forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed (arab) with miry clay…whereas thou sawest iron mixed (arab) with miry clay, they shall mingle (arab) themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed (arab) with clay.”

The various parts of the image represent Gentile kingdoms that have had and will have control over the land of Israel: namely the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans and the feet and toes of iron mixed with clay which are the mingled people, that is, the Arabs. In this prophecy, it is the Arabs that have control over the land when Christ returns. Note that v. 34 says that the stone strikes the image at its feet and v. 44 interprets this to mean that it will be “in the days of these kings” (those of vs. 41-43) that the God of heaven will set up a kingdom.

Jer. 25 uses the same Heb. word. There is no ambiguity as to whom the “Arabs” are in this passage. In fact, the word is translated “Arabia” in v. 24. The nations marked with an (* ) are also found in Psa. 83.

Jer. 25 :15-26 — “…Then took I the cup of the LORD’ s hand, and made all nations to drink, unto whom the LORD had sent me: to wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, a hissing, and a curse; as it is this day; Pharaoh king of Egypt (Hagarenes *) …and all the mingled (arab) people, and all the kings of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines * …Edom,* and Moab,* and the children of Ammon,* and all the kings of Tyrus,* and all the kings of Zidon, and the kings of the isles which are beyond the sea, Dedan, and Tema, and Buz, and all that are in the utmost corners, and all the kings of Arabia (arab), and all the kings of the mingled (arab) people that dwell in the desert, and all the kings of Zimri, and all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of the Medes, and all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth, and the king of Sheshach (Assyria*) shall drink after them.”

The outpouring of God’s wrath begins at Jerusalem, then spreads through the surrounding Arab na­tions. According to many prophecies, the Jews are judged because they have forsaken God, and the Arabs are judged for their hatred of the Jews.

This is merely the beginning of the case that can be made that we should expect the Arabs to conquer Israel. This defeat, together with the teachings of an Elijah-like prophet, will bring Israel to the knees of repentance, and the subsequent return of their Savior and King.

Finally, your encouragement of an open discussion of Bible prophecy is to be commended. We Christadel­phians should all exhibit a little more open-mindedness and humility when it comes to interpreting details concerning future events.

Joe Hill, Albuquerque, NM

As we know, the original Hebrew text consisted of consonants only with vowels added centuries later to help clarify the meaning. Thus the same consonants with different vowel points can have a wide variety of meanings; such is the case with the word “arab,” or “ereb.” Depending on the vowel pointing, the basic consonants are rendered “evening” 46 times, “even” 62 times, “be mingled” 9 times, “to be surety for” 16 times and many other ways, including Arabia 5 times. The form found in Daniel 2:41,43 basically means “to interweave,” (Gesenius Lexicon). According to Gesenius, the basic meanings of the Hebrew word are: I. “to mix, to exchange, to become surety for…;” II. “To set, as the sun;” III. “to be arid, sterile, dry. Hence Arabia.” There is no reasonable basis for asserting that the basic consonants indicate the descendants of Ishmael simply because on five occasions one form is used to describe Arabia. This is an example of the misuse of a concordance.

Virtually all of Jer. 25 was fulfilled within 300 years: the prophecy against Jerusalem was fulfilled before the book of Jeremiah was written, “as it is this day” (v. 18); the Philistines were judged by Egypt (Jer. 47:1); Egypt, Tyre, the mingled people, etc. by Babylon (Ezk. 26:7; 30:5,10); Babylon/Assyria by the Medes (Jer. 51:11); the Medes/Elam by Greece (Dan. 8:2-4, 20,21). The latter-day aspect of Jer. 25 is the principle that God will judge Israel for her sins and He will also judge all other nations for theirs (vs. 29-33).

Every time we consider the pas­sages used to prove a latter-day Arab victory over the Jews we find the support for such a conclusion collapses upon careful Bible study. We do not hold the traditional view be­cause we are afraid to go against tradition, we hold it because we feel it is Biblically sound. This assertion we hope to prove next issue.