Letters to the Editor

Divorce in Deuteronomy 24

Dear Bro. Don,

In his comments on Deuteronomy 24 :1-4, Bro. Bart is correct in pointing out that God never sanctioned divorce. Jesus, in fact, says plainly that his Father never approved of it. “From the beginning it was not so.” What the law did was to regulate the practice so that the least harm would be done when it did occur. Israel was to be a holy nation, and the practices of the heathen were to be avoided. This we believe to be the basis of Deut. 24. We can empathize with Bro. Bart’s concern with regard to this subject, but we must disagree with several of his points in the exposition of this passage.

First, the suggestion that Yah­weh does not acknowledge the second union as a marriage is simply incorrect. If this were so, the Law would have strictly forbidden it. It does not do so, except in the case of the priests (Lev. 21:7). As Jesus points out in commenting on the Law, and the Jews’ abuse of it, the putting away, and marriage to one put away, are both sinful. Scripture, however, nowhere denies that the second union is a marriage. What is strictly forbidden is the resumption of a marriage that has been broken by the divorced wife’s remarriage. This is put in very strong terms, both here and in Jer. 3:1 (Shall that land not be greatly polluted?).

There is no question of incest. If that were the case, the marriage would have been incestuous before the wife’ s defilement by remarriage. The heathens made light of marriage (at least from the husband’s standpoint): the union could be abandoned at will. The Law of Moses would not allow such conduct.

Bro. Bart states that the Hebrew words for “husband” in the passage indicate that the second union is not a marriage. This does not seem to be a valid argument in light of the fact that the word ish is the common Old Testament word for “husband,” even when the first and only husband is the subject. It is used of Adam (as the husband of Eve), of Abraham (Sarah) and of Jacob (Leah), (Gen. 3:6, 16; 16:3; 29:32). In fact, ish is translated “husband” in the KJV some 69 times, whereas baal (owner, master) is so translated just about 15 times.

We do not want to condone divorce and remarriage, but we be­lieve the implications of Bro. Bart’s comments on this passage could lead to more difficulties on the subject than we already have. We would advise sound and careful exposition, and a consideration of the views of the pioneers.

Faithfully, in Christ, your brother,
Joe Banta, Austin, IX

While not agreeing with all of Bro. Bartholomew’s exposition, we were impressed that a detailed look at the verses underscores how God hates divorce. As children of the Father, we should imitate His attitude. To my knowledge, there is no disagreement throughout the brotherhood on this fundamental approach. Therefore, in any discussion of this matter, let us not accuse others of favoring divorce simply because they disagree with us on the specific exposition of a given passage.

Christ cursed by the law

Dear Bro. Don,

In the May ’91 issue of the “Tidings,” Silvanus asks the question, “Did God curse Jesus?” The case is proposed that the answer to this question is “no.” The curse is seen as the obscenities and railings that men hurled at Jesus during the days of his flesh…

This interpretation is in direct conflict with the teaching of scripture in Deut. 21:23. This passage affirms in clear language: “He that is hanged is accursed of God.” …The whole argument of Paul in Gal. 3 : 10- 14 hinges on the fact that the law of Moses cursed everyone who had the misfortune to be hanged upon a tree, however innocent of wrongdoing the victim was. The fact that Paul argues that “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law” is proof that he was not referring to railing from the mouths of persecutors.

There seems to be a reluctance in some quarters to ascribe to Jesus anything that is connected with constitutional sin as opposed to trans­gressional sin. As Bro. Roberts says: “The crucifixion was a Divine declaration and enforcement of what is due to sin, and as it was God’s righteous appointment that this should be due to sin, the infliction of it was a declaration of God’s righteousness” (Law of Moses, pg. 176, 1979 ed.).

There can be no question that our pioneer brethren taught that Jesus was made a curse by God in the manner of his death by hanging upon a tree. Here follow some quotations:

“But here (in the atonement) the serpent-power of sin ended. It had stung him (Jesus) to death by the strength of the law, which cursed every one that was hanged upon a tree: Jesus being cursed upon this ground, God ‘condemned sin in the flesh’ through him” (Elpis Israel,pg. 99, 1939 ed.)…

While the citation of these pioneer writings offers no proof of the correctness of their interpretation, it does demonstrate that the explana­tion set forth by Silvanus is mutually exclusive with what appears to be the clear teaching of the apostle Paul in Gal. 3:13.

Yours in Israel’s hope,
E.W. Farrar, Hamilton, ONT
P.S. It looks as if AD. Strickler, being dead, yet speaketh.

[Editor’s note: A.D. Stickler was accused of teaching clean flesh. The Christadelphian office refused to withdraw fellowship from him and this led to the formation of the Berean fellowship in 1923. The majority of the Bereans returned to the Central fellowship in the reunion of 1953. The editor’s father was a nephew of Bro. Stickler and commented he never could understand his writings. The comment usually was accompanied by the observation that most people who write would be better off if they jammed the pen and threw the ink bottle away.]

Dear Bro. Editor,

I’m not surprised at this [the comments by Silvanus] . If it be taught that Christ was not cursed with “sin” from Adam, it follows that he likewise would not have been cursed Mosaically. This is another way of excluding Christ from the benefits of his own sacrifice. We have here a logical extension of the old “clean flesh” concepts of E. Turney and AD. Stickler.

Dick Pursell, Heber Springs, AR

The above reactions are overstated. We ought to be able to discuss a difficult passage, such as Gal. 3:13, without being accused of harboring heresy. A quick accusation stultifies a possibly useful contribution to our understanding of the Word.

In this case, Silvanus pointed out an interesting context in Deuteronomy 21. The passage in question immediately follows the legislation regarding “a stubborn and rebellious son” (Deut. 21:18-23). The sonship of Jesus was a major issue between him and the Jews (John 5:17-18; 8:36-42; 10:25-33). To the Jews, having Jesus crucified on a tree would thus label him a rebellious son as well as ensuring he was cursed by the law. While Silvanus’ exposition may not be correct in every aspect, his comments on the Deuteronomy context were useful.

To infer that anyone who accepts the BASF believes “clean flesh” is calling that person a deceiver. The phrasing of the BASF was much affected by the Turney (“clean flesh”) controversies of the 1870’s and deliberately includes several phrases which exclude such teaching. Some of the key phrases are: “…a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his (Adam’s) posterity…Jesus was…of like nature with mortal man…and a sufferer from all the effects that came by Adam’s transgression” (clauses 5 and 10). “Jesus Christ was raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature…(was to) abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him” (clause 8).

Not surprisingly, those who be­lieve in clean flesh reject the BASF. Quoting from one of their publications: “Never has it been more apparent that the traditional Christadel­phian doctrine of the atonement, as summarized in the BASF…is a delusion” (1958 Revisited, by Pat Brady and Ian Fotheringham of Toowoomba, Queensland, AUST). Subsequent to the publication of that booklet, the same individuals have issued a periodical called “The Small Voice” wherein they have written, “these errors [i.e. Central fellowship views of the atonement] have become enshrined in the Chris­tadelphian basis of fellowship through the BASF…The reasoning of these pioneers was wrong on some points, and these errors were incorporated into the statement of faith.”

As long as a person accepts the BASF, we should be able to discuss critical passages of scripture, having the confidence that they do not teach the clean flesh point of view.

A Rebuke of “Aunt” Sarah

Dear “Aunt” Sarah:

In regard to calling you an aunt — I wonder why this title is used? Are we not all sisters and brothers to one another?… We must esteem all others better than ourselves…

As for your article on troubles in marriage, may I point out that the man is supposed to be the head of his house and of his wife….If there is a problem, he is the one that should take the time to sort it out.. .If the marriage is in trouble, he should be aware of it and sensitive to any problems…

As for quoting marriage counselors “of the world,” what do they know of Christ’s example?

Sex is not love —even the world is beginning to see this. ..Men do not show their wives love and affection as Christ says they should.

Men equate love as sex. Women as a rule do not. Men in the truth should know better than to sink to worldly notions in this matter…It seems to me this sister’s husband [May “Tidings” pgs. 134-135] has deteriorated this marriage by the things he says to her which are very unChrist-like…

Adrienne Mulder, Lowbanks, ONT

If all married brethren did as they should, we would not have many marital problems in the brotherhood. While you are right as to the ideal, the reality is that brethren and sisters need help when things are going wrong. In such circumstances, we feel the answers are found in the Word of God. The reference to the importance of sexual relationships in marriage was a lead in to the suggested applicability of I Cor. 7:1-5. (Incidentally, the statistic referred to came from a Christadelphian, not a marriage counselor of the world.) We feel the disciple must keep clearly in mind the divine principles for his own conduct and not be overwhelmed by the faults of his partner. If we realize what God wants of us and make a sincere attempt to do it, our prayers for the relief of our trials will be far more efficacious.

The “Aunt” and “Uncle” titles are not an effort to project status but are a continuation of the literary technique that many appreciate with the “Family Life” section. The reader is not addressed directly but is expected to be an interested third party reading the correspondence between members of a family. Several have commented they find the approach facilitates a more objective consideration of delicate matters.

The Name of God

Dear Bro. Don,

I want to thank you and all those who help with the publication of the “Tidings.” I believe that the section used for open discussion of important and interesting subjects is a good one.

I was surprised when the subject of using the memorial name came up that there really wasn’t much discussion on it…the name of our Heavenly Father and of God manifestation as is taught in the Bible and has been taught by our group is far more im­portant (than some of the issues that receive much comment]. It is the central theme of the Bible, the hope that is set before us, the most distant point aimed at.

Possibly we don’t know how to properly pronounce The Name. “Yahweh” may be a little off I’ve a Jewish friend who told me that ac­cording to her Rabbi, Yuhh-whoo­vah or Yuhh-ho-vee (I placed the two h’ s together attempting to reflect how the name was pronounced to me) are both acceptable. The root meaning of the word is to exist, to be, to become, as the source or creator of all things.

Moses requested the name of the God of the fathers for he knew that the people of Israel would ask it of him. They were used to the many lords and gods of Egypt who all had names. Moses’ request was granted because it was reasonable. The people had to be taught that the gods of Egypt were nothing and that the God of Israel was the true and living God. They had to learn as well that this true and living God had a purpose in calling Israel out of Egypt. That purpose was revealed in The Name by which He chose to represent Himself– Yahweh Elohim, He Who Will be Armies. I cannot see how the words “LORD God” can be interpreted in such a way.

As for the New Testament writers not using the name — this seems no problem to me. One of Jesus’ names was “Emmanuel.” So he was not “He who will be,” but “God with us.” In Revelation, he is spoken of as “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8). If that isn’t a complete interpretation of the memorial name, then I don’t know what is.

We are told in the Psalms to “Extol him.. .by his name Yah” (Psa. 68:4). However, if a brother or sister feels that they can’t use that name without doing so in vain, then they really shouldn’t use it. I don’t feel that they should condemn others for using it with the same reverence they do reading LORD God.

Keep up the good work and may the blessing of our Heavenly Father rest upon you.

With love in our one hope,
Larry Fultz, Fayetteville, AR

We, too, have been disappointed at the lack of discussion on this matter. A study of the names and titles of Deity is most rewarding.

As you note, the key is in seeing the meanings behind the words whether one reads LORD God or Yahweh Elohim. One of the points we tried to make in our brief comments on the subject was that one does not demonstrate their spiritual insight by endeavoring to transliterate the Hebrew. Doing so, however, should not be objectionable to others as long as it is done in the right spirit.

Samuel’s Deception

Dear Bro. Don,

We once more respond to Silvanus. In his letter of April ’91, he indicates a critical misunderstanding of the issue raised by the original “Principle vs. Pragmatism” article.

While there is understandable difficulty accepting that God would practice deceit, we should not dismiss clear scriptures because of what they appear to support.

In I Samuel 16, Samuel clearly feels a true statement of his mission was the anointing of a new king.. .For Samuel to answer any inquiry as to his mission without including this key fact was to tell a half-truth. This was deception by omission which is specifically dealt with in Lev. 19:11: “Ye shall not.. .deal falsely, neither lie to one another.” The deliberate omission of the information in question is covered by this verse.

However, we should remember that God will deceive under some specific circumstances. In Ezk. 14:19, the Lord states: “If a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.” In II Thess. 2:11, He depicts Himself as sending a strong delusion that a certain class of people may believe a lie.

In these cases the common element is evident — the individuals deceived had rejected the Truth. They had demonstrated they preferred a lie; so God worked with that preference to achieve His purpose. We thus conclude that under certain circumstances God will deceive.

A careful look at Saul’ s situation reveals why God would choose to endorse deceit under the conditions that prevailed at the time. While Saul had been rejected from the throne, no judgment had been passed as to his personal eternal fate. Therefore we suggest God was still working with Saul to bring him around. Accordingly, when God permitted Samuel’s half-truth, it was not because pragmatic realities were prevailing over principle. Rather we feel the principle of mercy was prevailing over the technicalities of being totally forthright. The issue was not so much the temporal fate of Samuel (God has permitted many a prophet to die for telling the truth) but the eternal welfare of Saul.

God knew Saul and He knew his limitations. God was aware that a full knowledge of Samuel’s mission would provoke him to do what we suggest would seal his personal eternal fate. The consideration was thus of eternal matters and not of present pragmatic realities…

Your Brother in Christ,
Andy Muniz, Clarkston, MI

These are useful comments. In our own lives, there are times when it is perfectly obvious that being completely forthcoming would hurt someone else. In like manner, the Lord told the apostles “…ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt.19:28). He knew Judas would not be included but revealing Judas to the others was not appropriate at that time. While in no way justifying deceit to gain our own ends, there are circumstances when deflecting a person from the whole truth is the course of wisdom.

Identity of Magog, etc.

Dear Bro. Don,

It would seem that the discussion which has been evident in earlier editions of the magazine is now devolving into rhetoric. This latest “heresy” is not the result of some “false shepherd” misleading, and therefore confusing, the sheep. If there is confusion, it is among those who follow tradition as the easiest road to the sheepfold…

You say, for example, that Ezk. 38,39 conclusively proves that Israel’s defeat comes at the hand of Russia and her allies…Your proof consists of a reference to Elpis Israel, and your opening comment proves you wrong. Dr. Thomas’ predictions never materialized and…are not likely to…

Meschech and Tubal have almost certainly been identified in Turkey, Gomer as either Cimmerians or Galatians also in Turkey (it should be noted that the Galatians are not to be confused with the Gauls, although both are keltoi, Greek for Celtic). Rosh as a proper noun is the figment of the imagination of a Jewish translator.. .Jerome in the third century A.D. recognized rosh as an adjectival noun in the Hebrew and put the record straight. ..It is accepted that there were no tribes approximating Rhos in his time.. .The Russians claim to be of Scandinavian, not Asiatic, origin. Despite Dr. Thomas’ assertions to the contrary, the connection between the Goths and the Scythian’s has been proved by archaeologists to be mythical, and it is now known that the Scythian’s got to the Black Sea and little further west…

Togarmah is uniformly recognized as Armenia, far to the south of Russia. The fact that neither Persia, Kush or Put can be considered northern suggests that the confederacy is not a northern horde, but simply descends on Israel from the north… While none of these nations are Arabic, they could all be Islamic except Togarmah (Armenia). Islam surrounds Israel and if the Arab states went to war with Israel, they could expect backing from Turkey, Persia, Libya, Soviet Islamic republics and the Sudan…

What we have proposed is obviously hypothetical, but the “traditional” views are hypothetical and the “Arabist” views are hypothetical …Remarks such as, “Arabs will conquer Israel theory is dead” is a sign of weakness not strength. Better to say, “perhaps in the days that are left before Christ returns, Chris­tadelphians should present a purely scriptural front on Bible prophecy to our interested friends and young people.”

Almost 2,000 years ago, the Jews of Jesus’ day destroyed their chances of fulfilling their role as the people of God by their stubborn adherence to the tradition of their elders. If we continue as we are going, it could well be that Jesus will find the shepherds of the flock in precisely the same situation as they were at his first coming.. If God’s purpose is working out in our midst, it is far more important to keep an open mind with regard to current events. We must identify the changing course of history with scripture rather than maintain, out of pride, a sequence of events which cannot be reasonably demonstrated in private, let alone proved on a public platform.

Your brother in Christ,
Ron Easson, Collingwood, ONT

The strident tone of the foregoing is hardly justified. We have consistently maintained that no first principle is at stake in identifying who will conquer Israel. We have termed no one a heretic for believing it will be the Arabs rather than a Russian-led confederacy. Neither have we argued for the traditional view be­cause it is traditional. We have consistently tried to maintain a useful scriptural discussion.

The reference to Elpis Israel was done simply to save space. Every point mentioned above is considered by Bro. Thomas in Section 3, chapter 5 of that work. Since most readers have access to the book, we saw no point in repeating all of the doctor’s arguments. When space avails itself, we hope to evaluate Bro. Thomas’ analysis. In the meantime, the following may be useful.

Scripturally we have some key helps to establish the identity of Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah (and Rosh?). They are four of the seven sons of Japheth and one of his grandsons (Gen. 10:2,3). Surely this should tell us something. The primary descendants of Japheth are the European peoples. Using names available in Ezekiel’s day, there is no better way God could direct our attention to Europe and the western U.S.S.R.

Also clear from scripture is that the Gogian-led confederacy is a massive military machine: “a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords…all of them with shield and helmet: Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togar­mah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee…all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army” (Ezk. 38:4-6,9,15). With the recent exposure of Iraq as little more than a hollow bully, the massive force of Russia (still intact although dislodged from eastern Europe) is the only one to meet the prophetic description.

In addition, the primary invader comes from “the north parts” (Ezk. 38:15; 39:2). To the north of Israel, the only possible alternative to Russia is Turkey, which hardly answers the description of a massive military power. Syria and Iraq (Assyria), both easily identifiable in Ezekiel’s day, are not in mind as they are not mentioned as constituents of the invading confederacy.

Accordingly, whatever we may research from worldly historians, the scriptural pointers are clear enough.

When we turn to non-biblical sources, we find such as the following: “The Palestinian Talmud (Meg. 71b) identifies Magog with Gothia (Germany)…Josephus (Antiquities I, vi.I) associates the Magogites with the Scythians, the ancestors of the Gothians who inhabited the region of the Caucuses mountains…Tubal and Meshech are usually identified with the Tibareni and Maschi who lived south-east and south respectively of the Black Sea…some scholars identify Gomer with the Cimmerians, the Greek name for the Armenians” (Rabbi Dr. S. Fisch in the Soncino Books of the Bible on Ezekiel).

Bro. Thomas alludes to every item mentioned in the foregoing. However, the major difficulty in drawing certain conclusions from the available secular evidence is that these peoples did not stay in one place. They migrated over the centuries from north of the Middle East to Russia and Europe. Furthermore, some of the Scythian’s invaded the Middle East and some settled in Turkey. So which people are in mind? The ethnic descendants of Magog, etc.? The people inhabiting the same land areas in the latter days that those people did in Ezekiel’s day? Or those now occupying the land area where a portion of the people had temporarily invaded in Ezekiel’s time?

For ourselves, we think the three Biblical pointers — 1. the descendants of Japheth; 2. formation of a massive military machine in the latter days; and 3. located north of Israel — are sufficient to indicate a Russian-European host as making up the primary force led by Gog against the mountains of Israel.

Correspondent a Muslim

Dear Brother Don,

Greetings in our one hope.

We greatly appreciate the “Tidings” and the work you and your staff have done; however, there are two related points in the June, 1991 issue we feel compelled to address. Your editorial notes preceding the Letters to the Editor stated that “if correspondents address us as ‘Brother’ and sign off as being ‘in Christ,’ we can only assume they are Christadelphians in good standing in their local ecclesia.” One can hardly read the letter following that statement and not question whether the writer is in good standing. To set reader’s minds at ease, Kevin Fulton is a brother who not only left the Truth, but joined the Muslims and married a woman of that faith.

As a brother, though out of fel­lowship, he chose to address you as “Bro. Don;” and to close with, “With much love in the Truth.” However, from his letter, it appears he holds something other than what the Bible teaches to be the Truth. Your comments following his letter made that very clear.

Unfortunately, that final sentence in the “change in policy” which preceded Kevin’s letter combined with the letter itself, leaves the impression that the Austin area ec­clesias fellowship those with such unscriptural viewpoints. He is nei­ther a brother in good standing in the Austin (South), TX ecclesia, which disfellowshipped him approximately three years ago, nor ours, the Austin (Leander), DC ecclesia.

The range of articles and letters has been valuable in stimulating study and eagerness in these last days. Yet when a letter is printed that could leave a reader questioning what doctrines we, as a group, are tolerating, we find it disturbing.

We pray that Kevin and those others who have left the straight and narrow path may return to follow God as He has instructed, before His Son’s return.

With love in Christ Jesus,
Bro. Fred & Sis. Laura Bearden

Thank you for the clarification. We deliberately included the note to which you refer immediately preceding the letter in question because we seriously doubted the individual was in fellowship. As you note, this specific situation was a case where a generally useful policy could have some adverse side effects. Accordingly, we particularly appreciate the kindly tone of your remarks.

Change in policy

Shortly after assuming editorship of the “Tidings,” we promised to print all letters to the editor basically without alteration. That commitment was based upon the prior experience of very few letters to the editor. The situation has altered dramatically. The volume and length of letters we are receiving for publication is such that many have sat in our file for months, still waiting to appear. Your interest is greatly appreciated and, for reasons of space limitations, we feel it would be more useful if we followed the precedent of many publications and extract the pith of a point rather than not printing a letter at all or keeping it on file for a long time. In this way, a broader representation of views can be provided. Therefore, some will find only the most pertinent parts of their letters are published. We hope this is acceptable and will not stifle the lively exchange in this section of the magazine.

(We do not know the ecclesial status of all writers but if correspondents address us as “Brother” and sign off as being “in Christ” we can only assume they are Christadelphi­ans in good standing with their local ecclesia.)

Muslims will accept Christ

Dear Brother Don, I read with great interest “Signs of the Times” and find it amazing that a Christian would believe that it is Arabs who would be in a position to fight Jesus Christ in the end times.

The Holy Koran in Surah 3:45 says “Behold! the angels said: ‘0 Mary! God giveth thee Glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of the company of those nearest to God.” Muslims look forward to the second coming of Christ and Prophet Mohammed says that the Anti-Christ will be followed by the Jews. Prophet Mohammed is reported by Hadrat Kilabi to have said: “In the meantime when Dajjal (the Anti-Christ) will be busy doing this and this, Allah will send down Messiah son of Mary, and he will descend in the eastern part of Damascus near the white tower, dressed in two yellow garments, with his hands resting on the arms of two angels. When he will bend down his head, water-drops will appear trickling down, and when he will raise it, it will appear as though pearl-like drops are rolling down. Any disbeliever whom the air of his breath reaches…will fall dead. Then the son of Mary will go in pursuit of the Dajjal and will overtake him at the gate of Lod, and will kill him.” There are many other accounts of the Second Coming of Christ.

Let all Christians see Muslims as fellow believers in Christ and not as their enemy.

With much love in the Truth,

Kevin Fulton
11218 Hwy 290 W
Austin, TX 78737

“Neither is there salvation in any other [than Jesus Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved…no man cometh unto the Father, but by me [Jesus Christ]…there is…one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Acts 4:12; John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). Muslims do not believe these statements (neither do many so-called Christians). While accepting Jesus as a true prophet, they consider him of lesser importance than Mohammed. Furthermore, they reject the virgin birth of Jesus and the fact that he is thereby the Son of God in a unique sense. Note that twice in the quote made in the letter, Messiah is referred to as “son of Mary” not “Son of God.” (Ency. Brit. article on “Islam”).

Accordingly, they are a long way from being fellow believers in Christ. Those living at the time, however, will have the opportunity to accept “the everlasting gospel” and to enter into the kingdom as part of the mortal population of that age (Rev. 14:6-7).

The Promise of the Gift of the Holy Spirit

Don:

Recently, a brother asked how Acts 2:38-39 applied to the ecclesia today. Finding none of the responses spiritually satisfying, I decided to study the matter further. The following may be helpful to others.

The very term “promise” should alert any Bible student to recall the promise made to Abraham. Its major theme is heirship and life eternal. The reconfirmation of the promise to Isaac, Jacob and David continued with the same theme. The promise remains the same today.

I submit that the “promise of the Holy Spirit” mentioned in Acts 2 is the very same “promise of the Father” made to the patriarchs in ages past. Consider:

Acts 1:4: If the “promise of the Holy Spirit” means to “possess” God’s spirit, what is the “promise of the Father?”

Acts 13:23,32-33: the promise of Yahweh is fulfilled and manifested in Messiah.

Acts 26:6-8: the apostle Paul declares the promise to be the resur­rection from the dead.

And to whom is this promise intended? A reading of Rom. 4:13-16, Gal. 4:28 and Rom. 9:8 should leave no lingering doubt as to the answer. On the other end of the scale, Eph. 2:12 shows for whom this promise has no intent (“without” being the opposite of “in”). Heb. 9:15 tells the reader that those “called” receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Heb. 10:36 exhorts the faithful of Yahweh to endure, that the promise may be received. Heb. 11:39-40 states the fact that the faithful of ages-past yet await the receipt of this spirit-promise.

I John 2:25 summarizes the promise in few, but exacting, words, “and this is the promise he has promised us…life eternal.”

…A final thought– we are told in Acts 2:33 that Yahweh’s very son didn’t receive the promise until he was exalted to the right hand of God “having received the promise of the Holy Spirit.” That promise was (and still is) life-eternal…

In the hope of Yahweh’s promise,
Hank Mason,
Lancaster, CA

While Bro. Mason’s suggestion is attractive, we do not feel it fits the context or the earlier statements of the Lord. Jesus had previously promised: “the comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things…It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you” (John 14:26; 16:7).

Acts 1:4-5 reads: Jesus had “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” This alludes back to the words recorded in John.

By comparing Acts 2:1-4 with 11:15-17, there can be no doubt that being baptized with the Holy Spirit referred to the special powers, including the gift of speaking in foreign tongues, bestowed upon the believers at Pentecost.

Acts 2:38-39 alludes to Peter’s earlier quote (vs. 16-21) from Joel 2:28-32. Old and young among the believers (“to you and to your chil­dren”), those of different strata of society and believers of any ethnic descent (Palestinian Jews, Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles — those “afar off”) were promised these special powers. Such gifts were critical to witness to the truth of the gospel (Heb. 2:4), confirm the validity of a person’s belief (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:44-47), provide essential information until the New Testament was completed (John 14:26; I Cor. 13:8-­12) and prove that Messiah had come and had been exalted to heaven (Acts 2:16, 33-34). This special period would not commence until the Lord ascended to heaven (Eph. 4:8; Acts 2:33). The closing words of the latter verse: “…having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear” clearly refer to the evidence witnessed by the crowd which was the fact that every one heard the gospel proclaimed in their native tongue (vs. 7-12).

There can be no doubt that the great promise of the Father is eternal life, but in Acts 2:38-39 we feel the phrase refers to the special gifts given to the early believers prior to the completion of the New Testa­ment.

Lines of Fellowship

Dear Brother Don,

Greetings in Christ Jesus.

I have read, with interest, Bro. Harry Whittaker’ s contributions… Bro. Harry correctly observes that some revealed principles are clearer and more important than others. He then suggests that the division between the Amended and Unamended fellowships is indefensible..In your editorial responses, you defend the Amended position. May I offer comments to each of you?

To Bro. Don:

Your concluding sentence reads, “It may not be an ideal solution but in most cases it works.” …This illustrates the type of reasoning I regard as inappropriate. The fact that “it works” is irrelevant; the question is, “Is it right?” I suggest the Amended position can be defended entirely upon the basis of sound, scriptural principles.

To Brother Harry:

1. All teachings are interrelated…One doctrinal error undermines other truths. The proposition that only the baptized will be raised for judgment is intertwined with other issues. These involve a comprehensive set of beliefs relating to the process of salvation…
2. …a correct understanding of these issues may not be vital to salvation. God’s grace. ..will surely also cover, for faithful brethren, significant inadequacy in our personal knowledge…
3. In 1986-87, The “Christadel­phians for Unity” committee made a diligent effort to unite the two groups [Amended and Unamended] upon the basis of a thorough elaboration of the principles you outline…Significantly, the percentage of Unamended brethren rejecting the final CFU proposal was high, representing a substantial majority of respondents.
   Further, expositions circulated by various Unamended groups, including “The Advocate” magazine, make it clear that many of them categorize our beliefs as unsound…Many would, indeed, require explicit recognition of the truthfulness of their convictions. Consequently, it appears that, in order to achieve union of the two groups, we would be required to acknowledge not only that the amendment is unnecessary, but that it actually represents a wrong set of beliefs. As a matter of principle, this would be clearly improper…
4. North American brethren, particularly those living where both groups are represented in local ec­clesias, are in a position that differs from that of overseas visitors. For us, it is not simply a matter offending courage, as you suggest, “to ignore conventional barriers.” We cannot join both ecclesias. We could, perhaps, attempt to recognize the validity of both groups and seek fellowship accordingly. In most cases, we would be denied fellowship in one or the other, or even both, depending upon location…I would be naive to suggest such decisions are always governed by principles; practical, personal and historic factors are doubtless influential…
5. North American “Amended” brethren belong to a worldwide community whose formal basis of fellowship is the BASF. I agree with Bro. Don that overseas visitors, members of ecclesias meeting on that basis, should accordingly govern their participation in the formal act of fellowship at the memorial service. That leaves abundant opportunity for sharing, in other ways, with members of other communities whose beliefs, in many aspects, correspond with our own.

Sincerely, Your brother,
Silvanus

It should be noted that “Silvanus” is not a pseudonym for the editor but for a brother who would prefer that his comments and articles be judged solely on the basis of what is said, not by whom it is said.

Principle or Pragmatism

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in the Lord Je­sus Christ.

Principles or Pragmatism (June, 1990) seems to have evoked some comment; this letter is to correct any misunderstanding about what the article was trying to say…

The original article was written because several brothers and sisters asked that it be offered to the “Tidings.” It is a fairly literal transcription of a discussion paper which has been given in several parts of the ecclesial world and which has invariably been received positively.

The key objective of the paper was to stimulate thought about some important ideas, without offering any cast-iron conclusions. Although phrases such as, “we must conclude…,” occur in the text, Principle or Pragmatism was never intended to be any kind of definitive philosophical treatise. On the contrary, it was aimed in completely the opposite direction: it was supposed to show that we need to be very careful about any glib conclusions concerning the tremendously difficult business of balancing mercy and truth. Therefore the article itself was not intended to convey any dogmatic position…

God is not arbitrary and inconsistent; principles may never be treated casually; human considerations may never be regarded as of paramount importance. On the contrary, it is our ways that are shifting and transitory. Apparent conflicts are due to human shortcomings -­either our own, or those of the characters in the record — and if they are to be resolved, must be resolved from God’s standpoint. We are obliged to find that standpoint by carefully thinking about His word. These points are axiomatic. Principle or Pragmatism assumed them and then attempted to explore and contrast the ways in which some individuals either ignored principle, or worked within it to achieve necessary ends.

The discussion was driven by reflection on the profound wisdom of God in having brought principle and practice together in Christ — something which we only occasionally achieve. In our dealings with each other, mercy and truth too often seem to be mutually exclusive. In Christ, God has caused them to embrace. Are we not conscious of a need to find a similar balance in our dealings with each other?

The article was certainly not intended to imply that there are situations in which God’s clearly stated principles may simply be set aside in favor of merely human considerations…the most it suggests is that there are some surprising situations recorded in scripture and that these require close attention…

Just a few words about Silvanus’ summary of objections in his letter appearing in the November, 1990 “Tidings:” He says, “From the article…we glean these suggestions, implicit or explicit:

1. God Himself is not guided exclusively by principles.
2. God’s law is inconsistent, containing inherent conflicts, which need to be resolved by the application of human intelligence.
3. Some of God’s commandments may, indeed should, be disregarded on some occasions.
4. Biblical principles alone are an inadequate guide to human conduct.”

Let the record show that Principle or Pragmatism was never intended to suggest any of the above…

1. I have reservations about what the first of Silvanus’ paragraphs actually says. Considering His majesty, and our utter insignificance, I would not presume to assert that God is “guided” by anything to which we might give a name. I think that the most we should say is that God has revealed principles by which we should be guided. But while I cavil at his words, I agree with the spirit of the first of Silvanus’ paragraphs.
2. I do not believe that God’s law is inconsistent, containing inherent conflicts. Therefore the question does not arise as to whether or not human intelligence needs to be applied in resolving such alleged conflicts.
3. I do not believe that any of God’s commandments may ever be disregarded on any occasion. I agree with Silvanus (“Tidings,” Jan., 1991) that we need to carefully distinguish between what is a commandment of God and what is a commandment of men…
4. I certainly do not believe that Biblical principles are an inadequate guide to human conduct.

Having said all that…I am concerned about prejudged, rigid solutions to all kinds of problems — and the sometimes devastating effects these may have in ecclesias, in families and in the lives of individual brothers and sisters.

Maybe Principle or Pragmatism was a rather inept way of addressing this problem, and perhaps the problem itself is rather less prominent in North America than it is, in patches, down our way…the principles involved [in the atonement] go much further than a simplistic, rigid adherence to a legalistic code. We not only need to know this, we need to apply it too. This is what Principle or Pragmatism was trying to suggest. None of us is in any position to be harsh or judgmental…

With love in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Maurice Beale, Wanganui,
New Zealand

Since Bro. Beale is speaking at Winfield Bible Camp, Lord willing, we felt it would be useful if he responded on this matter. When passing through New Zealand April 8, we phoned him to suggest he do so. He noted it had been difficult for him to enter the discussion since he had just received the January “Tidings” which had arrived by a slow boat to New Zealand. Incidentally, as mentioned elsewhere, “Silvanus” is not a pseudonym for the editor.

Jew and Arab

Brother Styles,

…I believe that this issue is tending to confuse and weaken the faith of brethren and sisters as Bro. John Packie noted in his letter in the May issue. It is true that personal views discussed between brethren and sisters can cause one to study more diligently…but to discuss them in Bible classes or any other group study seems hardly appropriate. Although this issue is not a doctrinal one, it seems to be lending itself to causing disagreement and debates, which not only confuse but also cause divisions. This can only hurt Christadelphians…

We should be stressing our fundamental beliefs on which we all agree. In doing so, the days that we have left before Christ returns become more profitable for each of us and for those that have an open ear to hear God’s truth…

A young sister

Thank you for your comments. There is no doubt brethren can get carried away with minor disagreements as we naturally tend to argument and schism rather than to unity and peace (Jam. 3:13-18). In these last days, however, we would be foolish to stop talking about Bible prophecy. It is there to stimulate and warn this generation of believers probably more than any other.

Accordingly, we need to emphasize those points on which all agree (the return of Christ, the repentance of Israel, the conquest of the nations, the kingdom of God) and use the points of disagreement as a stimulus to deeper study of the word. Within the confines of limited space, we are trying to follow this policy in the series we are currently running in the magazine.

Dear Bro. Don,

An intriguing connection can be made between Tubal (Ezk. 38:2) and Rasputin, the scandalous minister in the Imperial court of Russia from 1911 to 1917.

Rasputin was a notoriously immoral “man of God” who rose in influence until he possessed almost absolute control over Russia…

Rasputin made blunder after blunder in running the country but…the Empress, as supreme head in her husband’s absence, blocked any attempt to remove him. She did so because it seemed Rasputin’ s prayers were apparently responsible for several “miraculous” healings of the Empress’ son’s hemophilia. As the son was heir to the throne, this gave Rasputin much influence in the court…

His influence and his ineptitude spelt demise for the court. Every Russian knew of him and hated him. ..To a modern Soviet, Rasputin symbolized the evil capitalistic, imperialistic regime…like Moscow represents the Soviet system of collectivism and socialism…

Rasputin was born in the village of Pokcovskoo on the Tura near the town of Tobolsk, modern “Tubal.”

Rasputin was known as “Rasputin of Tobolsk.” (He even created a new saint, St John of Tobolsk…) Symbolically, Gog is chief prince of Mes­chech — Moscow, the new soviet system — and Tubal (Tobolsk) — the Czarist regime. The inclusion of Tubal is not as much a geographic reference but a political and economic one…

The modern Soviet atheistic state owes its existence in part to this bumbling but clever mystic from Tobolsk. Hence the inclusion in Ezekiel 38 of an obscure Russian city.

Glenn Lea,
Shelburne, ONT

Scripture frequently uses cities to represent a whole system of thinking and conduct; obvious examples are Sodom, Gomorrah, Jerusalem and Babylon. Bro. Glenn’s comments are therefore in harmony with the divine vocabulary.

It should also be noted that Ma­gog, Meshech and Tubal are all sons of Japheth (Ezk. 38:2; Gen. 10:2). Since Ezekiel’s day, this is the only consistent point believers have had to identify the northern constituents of the Gogian invader. We therefore feel the soundest biblical approach to the identification of these peoples is to determine where their descendants are located in the last days. At the time of the giving of the prophecy, they lived north of the Euphrates in what is now Turkey and Soviet Armenia. They later migrated into Russia which is where they are presently located.