Letters to the Editor

North American Benevolent Fund

Dear Bro. Don,

We keep hearing more and more of cases of need in the Brotherhood — losing jobs, house foreclosures, losing cars, etc., etc. Frankly, I feel very strongly that times are going to get worse and worse in this country.

Because of this, I wrote to Bro. Robert Sirett, Secretary of the Chris­tadelphian Benevolent Fund, based in Watford, England. It was my sincere hope at the time to start a similar operation here in the States.

Along with correspondence, I received from Bro. Sirett a copy of their method of operation, rules, regulations, etc. Due to the size of our country, a great deal of additional planning would have to be done, perhaps even setting up regions, but nevertheless, it can be done.

I do feel the need for something like this is going to become greater and greater. I had hoped, with the LORD’S guidance, to be able to start the setting up and the running of the Fund myself, with the assistance of some local breth­ren. However, my health the last month or two has been such that undertaking this project would not be in the best interest of the project.

Hence this letter! Should you also feel the need of establishing a Fund of this nature, is it possible to do it through the “Tidings,” or as a division of the “Tidings?”

We, of all people, should have the deepest interest in helping one another, according to our teaching…

With loving greetings in our One Hope, and awaiting the return of our dear Lord, I remain,

Bro. Otto W. Sticht, 8726 B SW 95th
St., Ocala, FL 32676

If we had answered this letter privately, we would have been guessing at what is being done throughout the continent without really knowing the facts.

Is there a need for such a fund as Bro. Sticht outlines? Before starting any such venture, a broad spectrum of feedback should be received and evaluated.

Our own suspicion is that financial needs within the community are being handled by local ecclesias. They certainly are in the best position to know the specifics of a given situation. Sometimes, for example, a family has been caught up in the acquisitive nature of our society and has overextended themselves. In such a case, it may be better for them to scale back their standard of living and exercise restraint in financial matters.

Before proceeding further with such a project, we would be most interested to receive feedback from our readership.

Dancing

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

May I add a few comments to the discussion of dancing? This is a subject which every brother or sister has to deal with at some time or other; but before we can make a decision for or against, we need to know how God views the matter.

I would like to reiterate the advice you gave in response to the brother who raised the question. You stressed that brethren and sisters should find out what the Scriptures teach, for this must be our only source of guidance. I followed this course many years ago and found the knowledge I gained of great help in clarifying the issue.

Two types of dancing

The first point to note is that dancing is mentioned in the Word, but, upon examination, it becomes obvious that there are two types of dancing —

1. dancing which honors the LORD,
2. dancing which incurs His displeasure.

It is essential that we be able to distinguish between the two.

Miriam and the women

The first occurrence of dancing is in Ex. 15 where, following their redemption from Egypt and baptism into Moses in the Red sea, the children of Israel sang of their deliverance. “Then Miriam, the prophetess.. .took the timbrel in her hand: and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them ‘Sing to the LORD, for He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea!” (Ex. 15:20 NKJV, as all quotes).

This was clearly an occasion of great spiritual rejoicing where the focus was the exaltation of the name of the LORD. The Apostle Paul exhorts us to have this same spirit: “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19).

Jephthah’s daughter

When Jephthah returned home after the LORD had delivered the Ammonites into his hand, we are told “there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing” (Jud. 11:34).

David’s dancing

A similar event happened after David had slain Goliath: “when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistine, the women had come out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul with tambourines, with joy and with musical instruments” (I Sam. 18:6). Again, another joyous celebration of victory over the enemy of Israel occasioned dancing before the LORD.

David himself provides a wonderful example. He had vowed that he would not rest until the ark of the LORD was restored to its rightful place at the center of national life (Psa. 132). This was a time of tremendous rejoicing in which David divested himself of his kingly robes and humbled himself before his God. “Then David danced before the LORD with all his might and David was wearing a linen ephod” (II Sam. 6:14). “You have turned my mourning into dancing. You have put off my sackcloth and clothed me with gladness.. .0 LORD my God I will give thanks to you forever” (Psa. 30:11).

Dancing in the parables

Jesus refers to dancing in the parable of the prodigal son. “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing.” What was the reason for this joyous event? “Your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found” (Luke 15:25,32). “Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).

A common element

It would seem to me that there is a common theme linking all these examples: the love of God in providing redemption and the response of the redeemed to that love. This was expressed in Israel in single sex dancing; i.e. women together in a group, but,! would suggest, dancing individually, or in a ring and David dancing as an individual. It is still practiced by Orthodox Jews in Israel.

Unseemly dancing

There is, however, another incidence of dancing which greatly angered the Almighty. Paul counsels us to take particular note of it and heed the warning (I Cor. 10:7). This took place when the golden calf was constructed during the absence of Moses on Mount Sinai. How quickly Israel lost its enthusiasm for the ways of the LORD after their earlier joy led by Miriam! Note: It was “when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the Mount” (Ex. 32:1). It would appear that Aaron tried to soften their rejection of the LORD with a vain attempt to combine the ways of God with the pleasures of Egypt.

“And Aaron made a proclamation and said ‘Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.’ Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings; (putting first things first!)and the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play (i.e. pleased themselves)” (Ex. 32:5).

Strong’ s Concordance gives the meaning for “play” as: “to laugh outright in merriment or scorn, to sport, to mock.” The LORD’ s response was to tell Moses, “Go, get you down… I have seen the people and indeed it is a stiff-necked people. Now let me alone that my wrath may burn against them and consume them” (Ex. 32:7,9).

“So it was as soon as he came near the camp that he saw the calf and the dancing. So Moses’ anger became hot, and he cast the tablets out of his hands and broke them. ..Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (naked, KJV, i.e. there had been a breakdown in essential inhibitions) …then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp and said ‘Whoever is on the LORD’s side let him come to me” (Ex. 32:19,25).

Our choice

That is the choice we have to make today. It is easy for us to fall into the same way of thinking as Israel. Jesus warned of the servant who said in his heart “My master is delaying His coming” (Matt.24 :48). Peter spoke of those in the last days who would scoff saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?” (II Pet. 3:4). Paul tells us, “Now all these things happened to them as examples and they were written for our admonition on whom the ends of the ages have come.” He warns us not to be naive and overestimate our own spiritual strength, “Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (I Cor. 10:11,12).

May we all follow the example of David and the women of Israel by having the spirit of joy in our lives (Gal. 5:22) and devote our mental and physical energies to the glory of our LORD, so that those around us are left in no doubt as to whose we are and whom we serve. We look forward to the day spoken of by the Psalmist in Psa. 149:

“Let the children of Zion be joyful in their King
Let them praise His name with the dance,
Let them sing praises to Him with the timbrel and harp,
For the LORD takes pleasure in His people.
He will beautify the humble with salvation.”

Your sister in the One Hope,
Beulah Ridgway, St. John’s, NFLD

Deuteronomy 24

Dear Bro. Don,

Deut. 24:1-4 does not describe conditions under which God commands that divorce should occur. That point has been made clear by translations other than the KW and is, in fact, the very point Christ makes in Matt. 19:8.

There is, however, a flip side to this argument: the passage does not command against divorce. Of the two issues in this text (divorce and remarriage) only one is revealed to be improper, remarriage to a former husband by a divorced woman who has married another man.

The argument has been made that after her divorce, the woman’s marriage to a second man must be sin because “she is defiled” by it. That is pure assumption. The defilement she experiences by her divorce and subsequent marriage only affects a prospective remarriage to a former husband.

Tameh is the Hebrew word for “defiled.” It is used of situations which are clearly sinful (e.g. Lev. 18). It is also used of situations which are not sinful unless the stipulations regarding how the defilement should be handled are ignored. (E.g., men and women were defiled by the seed of copulation or by any internal issue of fluids, whether normal or not. Sin was only committed if the stipulated cleansing ritual was not followed, Lev. 15 :1-33).

In Deut. 24 :4 , when was sin committed? The woman was defiled by her second marriage but that defilement had stipulations regarding how it must be handled. Failure to meet those stipulations (i.e. remarrying the first husband) was a sin. We must, therefore, conclude that the defilement of the woman of Deut. 24 falls into the category of defilement which does not denote an action that is, of itself, a sin. The sin was committed if the stipulations regarding how the defilement should be handled were ignored.

Accordingly, any argument based on her defilement is not sufficient to establish that God does not recognize her “second” marriage.

We want to emphasize the importance of understanding what this passage does and does not say. This passage does describe conditions under which divorce and remarriage may have occurred in Israel without a situation resulting which would cause the land to sin and which would be “an abomination before the LORD.”

Yours in Christ,
Andy Muniz, Clarkston, MI

Some may wonder why this passage is receiving so much attention. The reason is that some in the brotherhood hold to an idea that a person who divorces and remarries is living in a “state” of adultery. In other words, every time the couple engages in physical intimacy they commit adultery. If that point is right, no matter how many years go by in the second marriage, no matter how many children they may have, no matter how much they may acknowledge the sin of divorce and remarriage and repent of their past deeds, the only solution to their situation is to separate as husband and wife.

Of course, the assumption underlying this position is that the first marriage continues to exist– it was never and can never be dissolved except by the death of the first husband. With such thinking, the woman whose first husband is alive and who has divorced and remarried has never really remarried, she is just playing the harlot every time she cohabits with her second man.

Now suppose the “state-of-adultery” idea is right. What should the Law of Moses stipulate? Let’s cite a hypothetical case. Suppose there were three unbelievers in Israel — two men and one woman. Man number one was married to the woman but divorced her. She then married man number two. According to the state-of-adultery theory, the woman and man number two would not really be married but would be living in sin. Now suppose all three people were converted to become wholehearted worshipers of Yahweh. They realized their sins and wanted to put things right. What did the law permit them to do? It absolutely forbade the woman from returning to her “husband,” man number one. In fact, to do so was “abomination before the LORD.” But the woman could stay with man number two, thus continuing to live in an alleged “state of adultery.”

It seems to us that it is unreasonable to think God would permit people to live in a state of adultery. It seems far more reasonable to accept the fact that Deut. 24 proves that a person who has divorced and remarried has committed a sin but is not living in sin.

When applying the point to our­selves, we should not automatically declare that divorced and remarried people must separate before we will even consider extending them fellowship. While marriage should be for life, we all know the difficult decisions that sometimes face ecclesias when people have divorced and remarried. The wise course, in our opinion, is to consider each case on its own when we have to face it.

Please Watch The Context

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in our Lord and Savior.

I am writing in response to Sis. Margo Maier’ s letter concerning Aunt Sarah’s advice to Sally dating back to

the May, 1991 “Tidings.” (It seems that article has received a lot of attention.) My concern was with the last part of the sister’s letter. She quoted Heb. 10:26,­27, “for if we sin willfully…” She used this quote to tell the brother husband of his “reward” if he continued in his folly.

My problem is that she has taken these verses out of context. This chapter is dealing with the lesson that Christ has sacrificed himself for us and therefore it is not necessary to have burnt offerings any longer. The epistle then continues with exhortation to hold to our faith and not forsake assembling ourselves together at which time we are to exhort one another. Then verse 26 reads, “for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”

Taken in context, this appears to be referring to those who are staying away from the ecclesial body, not a man who mistreats his wife or (as! have heard it used) about those who remarry after divorce.

In verse 29, the chapter continues the earlier theme by stating we are treading on the Son of God by staying away from the memorial table. This, of course, is my paraphrase but when the chapter is read all together in context this is the meaning that comes out.

It scares me when verses are taken out of context so I felt! must write in an effort to clarify this point. Otherwise,! agree with Sis. Margo in her letter concerning “Aunt Sarah’s” advice.

Your sister in Christ,
Ellyn Schlageter, Westerly, RI

We appreciate the always useful admonition to remember the context of any passage. In this case, however, we see no reason to limit the idea of sinning willfully to the problem immediately addressed of deserting the ecclesia.

Throughout scripture, deliberate or presumptuous sin is treated with great severity. For example, sacrifice was provided for sins of ignorance but “the soul that doeth ought presumptuously …shall be cut off from among the people” (Num. 15:30. Again, the person “that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the priest…shall die” (Deut. 17:12).

We agree, however, that it is questionable whether or not one should apply such severe terms to hypercritical, inconsiderate, unkind or discourteous conduct in a marital relationship. In most cases, such conduct would probably not be willful sin, but it could be. A husband practicing such conduct would do well to consider the point. If he were deliberately trying to destroy his wife in spite of knowing the clear instruction of scripture, we feel S is. Margo’s application of Heb. 10:26-27 could well apply.

Encouragement

Dear Brother Don,

Loving greetings in Christ Jesus.

As one who has subscribed to the “Tidings” many years, originally as a result of a visit to U.S.A. 15 years ago and subsequent associations with Bro. Bob Lloyd, I would like to thank you for the sound and balanced writings which you have written since assuming the editorship. I have particularly appreciated your comments in the editorials and your comments on various topics in “Letters to the Editor.” …Along with my remittance, I take the opportunity to comment on a number of matters in the May, 1991 issue.

Thief like coming

I believe your editorial, “Maintaining the Momentum” contains some well-needed exhortation. Those of us who have lived through the past 40-50 years have witnessed a number of climactic crises in the Middle East– 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973,  1982 and now the recent Gulf War.

These situations have had a very great impact upon the brotherhood and have, to a degree, awakened us to the reality that we are living in “the time of the end.” Ecclesias worldwide have had a resurgence of activity and these significant events have caused many young people to commit themselves to Christ in baptism. But, as you have correctly said, the evidence of Scripture is that Christ will not come to the household at a time of international crisis or war but rather “in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.” The emphasis by Christ, and the apostle Paul in I Thess. 5 upon his “thief like coming” and the exhortations to watchfulness reinforce the warnings that the household may be taken unawares.

It is in times of comparative “peace and safety (security)” that we tend to relax our guard and many prophecies indicate that the Lord will come at such a time. Let us “Gird up the loins of our mind;” let us be actively involved that we may not be unprepared for his coming.

Overreaction to immediate events

The recent Gulf War has also led to a resurgence of interest in Bible prophecy, which is commendable, but there is a danger that we may become too much influenced by the immediate events. This has always been a problem with our community.

Back in 1877, when the Turkish-Russian War occurred, a well known brother is said to have made the comment in a public lecture that “within six weeks Russia will have occupied Constantinople!” Even Bro. Roberts at that time suggested the imminent return of the Jewish Diaspora in their multitudes.

Similarly, both in WW I and WW II, brethren assumed the early demise of Russia would result in Germany taking over the mantel of the king of the north; but sober-minded brethren like C.C. Walker and John Carter warned against such assumptions.

These premature assumptions should have warned us of the danger of jumping to conclusions. Yet today, be­cause Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab nations vowed to destroy her, some have assumed they will do so and cite for support scriptures such as Psalm 83 which does not have any obvious “Latter-Day” application. It is unwise to assume that any prophecy is related to our times unless it specifically so states.

Furthermore, to attempt to use scriptures to support our own theories, whether in prophecy or doctrine, is dangerous since it may be wresting Scripture. Bible prophecy is intended to confirm the faith of the believer, not to be used for political prognostication.

The words of Jesus in Luke 21:28 are relevant here, “When these things begin to come to pass then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” In other words, world events reveal to us the unerring infallibility of Scripture and confirm us in our faith. The writer believes that the general principles of prophetic interpretation as presented by our pioneer breth­ren were soundly based. Although, as they were living in a different age, some of their speculations were premature.

Agree on Ezekiel 38 and Edom

Our orthodox interpretation of Ezekiel 38 is, I believe, soundly based even though it indicates that Israel will be dwelling “safely all of them dwelling without bars and gates.” This may seem far removed from their present situation, but in view of the transformation of Eastern Europe two years ago, we know that situations can change very rapidly. Let us be patient and we may yet see drastic events in the Middle East. The fact that we think such a scenario is unlikely does not mean it will not occur.

Your article, “Israel’s Last Defeat by Russia not Arabs” in the May issue has, I submit, correctly summed up the situation. As you so rightly stated, Edom is to be “a perpetual desolation” and the fate of Edom is similar to that of Babylon. What evidence is there to suggest that Edom represents the Arabs? Ishmael is the Arabs. Edom, as you said, is associated with the descendants of Adam, a view I have held for some years, and represents flesh in political and military manifestation antagonistic to Christ and has reference to the Gogian confederacy (see Isaiah 34).

Lines of fellowship needed

Finally, Bro. Don, may I comment upon the letter from Bro. David Jenkins in regard to “Lines of Fellowship.”

Although I write from an Australian perspective, I had many years of ecclesial life in the UK, and in any case these problems are worldwide.

Fellowship involves a personal relationship with God through Christ. Our baptism has united us with “the whole counsel of God” and our fellowship is based upon a common agreement upon “The things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ.” Unless we are of one mind in relation to these things as expressed in our Statement of Faith, we have no fellowship. We have each committed ourselves to uphold these principles individually and ecclesially. But if any individual, or an ecclesia, repudiates these things or upholds those who do so, there is no basis for fellowship. Those who reject these principles have rejected the principles fundamental to the Christadelphian position since its inception last century.

We agree that there should be no “witch hunt.” But when there is incontrovertible evidence of departure from these principles, in practice or belief, there is no basis of fellowship and we must separate.

I believe that in all continents that principle was reaffirmed in the 1950’s in words like these: “If an ecclesia sets out by design to propagate at large false doctrine it will be necessary to dissociate from such an ecclesia.” That has always been the stand of the Central Fellowship for nearly 150 years and I believe we would ignore it at our peril.

With kind regards in Christ Jesus, Sincerely your brother,

Hubert E. Taylor,
Launceston, Tasmania, Australia

While this letter is longer than we normally publish, we felt it would be of interest to many readers. With respect to current world developments, we would suggest readers watch two items in particular: one, the continued existence of a huge Russian military capability and second, the development of a hi-tech industry in Israel. The first of these is the subject of Bro. Rayner’s article in the “Signs of the Times.” The second is something that has matured in the last three years and holds potential for making Israel a truly prosperous country.

Freedom of Religion in Israel

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in our one hope.

I read with interest Bro. George Rayner’ s “Signs of the Times” in the August issue of the “Tidings.”

In his assessment of God’s view of the present Israeli government’s policy regarding freedom of worship for its citizens, he writes: “because of this policy, God is manifesting His displeasure by using natural resources [e.g. shortage of water] to punish them.”

While it is true that God detests all forms of false religion, it seems unreasonable to conclude that the present Israeli government will be, or should be expected to be, the instrument by which that nation’s sins will be purged.

We need to remind ourselves that the present Israeli government and its people do not acknowledge Christ as Messiah and that is the basic cause of all their calamities. This will continue to be so until they shall say, “Blessed is he that comes in the name of the LORD”(Psa. 118:22-29).

Yours in Christ,
Gil Phillips, 42623 Pinecliff
Dr., Lake Elizabeth, CA 93532

The comments of Bro. Rayner and of Bro. Phillips reflect an ironic situation that is presently true of any governing power. Today, a national policy of freedom of religion is beneficent only because of the chronic wickedness of mankind. Such a practice is not God’s desire nor will it be true in the kingdom.

Israel was selected as a special nation before God because of the failure of mankind as a whole to walk in God’s way. This failure led to the flood, the confusion of tongues at Babel and the selection of Abraham from whom God would develop a special nation among the peoples of the world.

As God’s peculiar people, Israel was not to permit freedom of religion and their allowing such freedom led to their downfall. In the mercy of God, however, their fall led to the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles as He called out of every people those who would respond to the Truth. In this new circumstance, God’s own people live under a great variety of human governments and are greatly benefited when such governments permit them to openly worship correctly. We are, in fact, to pray that freedom of religion be the law of the land and we must be very thankful when such is actually the case. While freedom of religion is a blessing, it is so only because mankind, as a whole, refuses to worship God aright.

The present situation in secular Is­rael is consistent with the hypocrisy which led to their 2,000 years of oppression. As Bro. Leslie and Sis. Edith Johnson discovered when they lived in Israel, the Truth cannot be freely proclaimed there no matter what public laws may theoretically set forth. Thus, in practice, the actions of the Israelis continue to justify the special difficulties that are experienced by this special people. Nevertheless, because of God’s promises to the fathers, we are to seek Israel’s eternal welfare.

Reading Yahweh for LORD

Dear Bro. Don,

I am writing in regard to the growing practice among brothers and sisters of substituting the word “Yahweh” for “LORD” when reading from the Scripture. I was not aware of how popular this practice was becoming until I attended Bible school this summer. I heard several speakers do this consistently and, by talking with brethren from other ecclesias, I realized that many Christadelphians were adopting this habit.

It seems to me that this practice is at the very least unnecessary. It may even be giving a false impression to the children in our ecclesias and to those whom we are introducing to the Truth.

The God who we worship is not a God of words, but rather of meaning. It does not matter that we refer to God by a particular sound in a specific language. The importance lies in the respect and understanding behind that word. The Lord intended that His plan and purpose would be readily apparent in the Bible and independent of translation in a particular time or place. God’s message is purposefully intended to cut across the barriers of language and culture. By referring to God by a Hebrew word that no one ever uses in their common speech, one can get the impression that this is a “special” term that only those “in the know” truly comprehend. God’s message is accessible to all men and women, not only to those with some special knowledge or ability.

It is interesting to note some comments made by Bro. Roberts when responding to a question concerning words used when a person was baptized:

“You were baptized — not into a word, but into a reality. This reality is the divine existence and purpose. It matters little by what collation [arrangement] of sounds that reality was expressed at the time of your immersion. God, Deity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Jesus,Yahweh,Yahoshua are all but the verbal symbols of the reality to which the understanding and obedience of the truth introduced you — not the reality itself.” Christadelphian, June, 1874. Iris our responsibility to maintain the understanding of that reality and convey it to others. I believe that we can best maintain our understanding and preach to others by relating the reality of God’s name in the same language in which we live and think. It does not matter whether we worship in English, Spanish, French, or any other modern language. What does matter is that we approach God with the proper appreciation of His character and of our relationship with Him. God does not require us to become amateur ancient Greek or Hebrew scholars to worship Him effectively. God does ask us to apply in our lives the general principles found in the Bible and repeated so many times that those lessons are obvious when translated into any language.

I am not saying that it is wrong to use “Yahweh:” it is, after all, just another word. However, when a brother or sister uses it consistently as a substitute for the modern version, they must ask themselves if it is really necessary. It is a matter of priorities, for when we use God’s name, we are sending a message to our youth and to the world that we are trying to reach. What is most relevant to our lives and to their lives? Do we want to concentrate on the things represented by God’s name or is the exact word expressed of greater importance?

Your Brother,
Andy Bilello, Baltimore, MD

“Yahweh” is not just another word in the Hebrew text of the Bible. Recognizing this and noting how the inspired New Testament handles quotations from the Old Testament actually strengthens Bro. Andy’s point.

In the Hebrew, “Yahweh” is the proper name of God as Adam and David are the proper names of those individuals. As with “Adam” and “David,” “Yahweh” has special significance. It alludes to the divine intent to glorify a host of humans, bestowing upon them His very nature.

Curiously, this highly significant name is not handled by the inspired New Testament in the same manner as other proper names. For example, the Hebrew characters Aleph, Daleth, Mem are used for Adam and also for the color red (note Zech. 1:8– “red [Aleph, Daleth, Mem] horses”). When referring to Adam, the NT does not translate Aleph, Daleth, Mem into red (which would be the Greek purrhos) but imitates the sound of the Hebrew letters with the Greek letters Alpha, Delta, Alpha, Mu (ADAM). It transliterates rather than translates this proper name. That is how proper names are normally handled in any translation process. In other words, the sound of the original name is imitated in the foreign language as nearly as possible. We are following this practice when we read “Yahweh” for the Hebrew characters Yod, He, Vav, He (YHVH).

Yet when inspired New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, they make an exception to this general rule when they come to YHVH. Instead of transliterating “Yahweh” or even translating it “I will be,” they interpret it by using the Greek kurios which is the common word for “lord” — one who has authority and must be served (e.g. Matt. 4:7 citing Deut. 6:16). In other words, they do exactly what Bro. Andy has indicated so that the concept of God’s rulership might be conveyed to Greek-speaking people.

Interestingly, on one occasion when a title of Deity is transliterated, Yahweh is still rendered “the Lord” but the Hebrew for “of hosts” is transliterated: “Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us…” (Rom. 9:29 citing Isa. 1:9).

Many English versions follow the precedent of the inspired New Testament when they render YHVH “the LORD.” Our puzzlement is why do some of our brethren insist on ignoring the guidance of the inspired New Testa­ment and transliterate YHVH into “Yahweh.”

We hope they do so out of a sense of reverence and of awe at the beauty of the divine purpose alluded to in the name “Yahweh.” Yet their practice does ignore God’s own inspired guideline of how His name should be handled when the original Hebrew is translated into a foreign language. We have that clear guideline in the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. We think that should be sufficient for ourselves and that when orally reading the Old Testament we should read “the LORD” and not substitute “Yahweh.”

Successful Youth Conference

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the Hope of Israel.

As you are well aware, the fifth annual youth conference on Manitoulin Island, ONT has just finished. It was a tremendous success this year. About 80 young people and 12 older brethren and sisters enjoyed a week of fellowship around I Timothy. This is an increase of over 50% from previous years and we were well represented globally. Young people from southern Ontario were joined by some from British Columbia, North Carolina, Colorado, Illinois, Washington ,New York, Michigan, Indiana, California, Australia and the UK.

The daily activities commenced with discussion groups of 12-14 people focusing on a particular section of the epistle. This gave a great opportunity for those who fear Yahweh to speak one to another and think upon His name. We were in camping groups of five or six people who ate, slept, read and did daily chores together, having all things common…

We also had the opportunity to knock on some of the doors in the local communities and invite people to a lecture on the Middle East. This was putting in practice the will of Godwho desires “all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2 :4). We were encouraged by the presence of two visitors.

In the evening, Bro. Frank Abel gave us some very stimulating and challenging addresses based on I Timothy. We learned how we “ought to behave ourselves in the house of God, which is the ecclesia of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth” (I Tim. 3:15).

Our nights concluded with a devotional around the campfire followed by a study hour with Bro. Don Styles for those requiring less sleep and who were eager to study more from God’s word.

Overall, it was another very successful conference and plans are underway for 1992 when, God willing, we will be studying Matt. 5,6 and 7.

Love in Christ,
Chris Sales, for the committee.

Bible School Costs

Dear Bro. Don,

Many “Tidings” readers who attend Bible schools are increasingly aware of the continual increases in rates charged by our host school. These increases were particularly hurtful in 1991 because of the recession.

Ideally, we would like to see all of our ecclesial members, and especially all of our Sunday school scholars, attend a Bible school of their choice. The spiritual blessings that we receive from a week of Bible study shared together are a vital source of encouragement and strength for all of us (note Mal. 3:16).

At the present time, the single most burdensome obstacle to the goal of 100% attendance is the continual in­crease in rates. Many of our families can no longer afford to attend ow schools. Various methods are being tried to overcome this obstacle but each one has it limitations.

One suggestion that offers a partial solution to the problem is to have each ecclesia set aside all or part of their Sunday school collections from now until next July so that every Sunday school scholar will have the opportunity to attend a Bible school. This spreads the collection effort out over the year, and, by regular announcements, keeps everyone aware of the problem.

This suggestion does not solve the problem of adult attendance. However, there are approximately 40 weeks from now until Bible school season. If each adult can set aside $5 – $6 per week, their costs will likewise be covered. Beyond that, in cases of extreme hardship, individual ecclesial funds can be used to supplement the cost.

There may well be other solutions to this continuing problem. It would be most helpful if your readers would contribute their suggestions and comments on alternative solutions.

Alvan Brittle, 5605 Catoctin Ridge
Dr., Mt. Airy, MD 21771.

“Revelation” Study Help

Dear Bro. Don,

We have, with the use of the Online Bible program for the KJV and its related Strong’s Concordance and lexicon, completed a word byword, verse by verse study of the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

The format consists of 300 pages of 8.5″ x 11″ photocopied text which is punched for a three-ring binder. The cost is presently set at $25.00.

Available from The DoveTree Press, Box 1317, Levittown, PA 19058.

Which brings another matter to mind. Why cannot American Christadelphians have their own publishing house to put their writings about the Bible and the Truth before the public?…

When we import books and leaflets from overseas, it is extremely hard to deal with the existing powers that be. The cost for shipping and handling to a small ecclesia, and for an individual working in isolation is quite often just too much…

Sincerely and in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Lois L. Griffith, Moorestown, NJ

Two points need to be made regard­ing the idea of an American Christadelphian publishing house.

The Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply, operating from 14676 Berwick and 14651 Auburndale both in Livonia, MI 48154, buys books, leaflets, etc., in quantity from the Christadelphian Office, Logos Publications, The Christadelphian Scripture Study Service and private publishing efforts and makes them available at reasonable per piece prices. Simply request their catalog.

Second, we have had little success in selling most materials to the American brotherhood. For example, we bought 50 copies of an issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review which featured a long article by two Christadelphians. We sold three of them at our cost of $3.00 each and are left with 47 on hand. Another example — in 1986, we printed 1,500 copies of “Bible Jeopardy.” We have sold 250 in England, 400 in Austra­lia and 150 in North America leaving a balance of 700. We sold the item at our cost of $3.00 which means we have not recovered $2,100 of funds from 1986.

For these reasons we are not encouraged to expand our own publishing activities nor are we inclined to urge others to start up a new endeavor in this regard.

Comments on I Cor. 10,11

Dear Bro. Haltom:

I am writing with regard to your notes on I Cor. 10 and 11 and your request for comments.

The apostle Paul’s advice to the men and women in the ecclesia at Corinth on prophesying and praying — he with his head uncovered, and she with her head covered — comes right in the middle of references to the breaking of bread. Those references are in! Cor. 10:16-22 and 11:20-34. Paul’s reference to eating meat offered to idols (10:22-33) is a digression, which is a common technique in his writings.

I would suggest that the prophesying and praying were done in the ecclesia’ s breaking of bread service as both men and women are admonished together as to how they should appear — he without a head covering and she with one. Things had become careless at Corinth and the brethren were prophesying as the holy spirit dictated with shawls over their heads. The women were doing the opposite –forgetting their shawls.

The next step is found in I Cor. 14 where the brethren are instructed on how to conduct the meeting and the sisters are told they must be silent. Other things were out of order in Corinth and the apostle took one thing at a time as he made his suggestions and corrections.

I feel very positive the sisters were praying and prophesying at the break­ing of bread service. Of course, I wasn’t there. There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

The breaking of bread service is a service of symbols — the body and blood of Jesus our savior symbolized in the bread and wine.

The uncovered head of the brother representing the glory of God and the covered head of the sister representing the ecclesia in need of redemption are symbols which beautifully illustrate, in visible and very personal form, the pur­pose of this service.

Your sister in Christ,

June Renshaw, 1805 Tunis Road,

Silver Spring, MD 20903

You have presented one of the alter­native viewpoints — that I Cor. 11:1-16 refers specifically to the breaking of bread. We do not believe I Cor. 10 confirms that setting.

In I Cor. 8, Paul begins his response to a matter that could split the ecclesia:

“Now as touching things offered to idols…” He is dealing with our liberty in Christ. In 9:4, he asks, “Have I not power to eat and to drink?” And then he continues to consider several other rights he has but does not exercise for the sake of the gospel. The general context of chapter 10 is the same. Idolatry was a grievous danger. Brethren and sisters could be lured back to its practice if they did not realize how wholly incompatible it was with Christ. Furthermore, stronger brethren, who realized idols were nothing, needed to restrict their own conduct for the sake of the conscience of weaker ones. References to the “Lord’s table” in chapter 10 are thus in the context of this consideration, rather than that of a general consideration of the breaking-of-bread service.

This is significant when reading the first part of I Cor. 11. Reference regarding head coverings is not particularly in the context of the memorial service.

Two other points should be noted. There is much evidence that believers met frequently during the week. This was certainly the case at the beginning in Jerusalem (Acts 2:46). And writings of the early second century indicate frequent meetings continued to be common during the first decades of ecclesial life. Many of these would be rather informal, held in homes of various brethren.

Second, it does not seem consistent that Paul would tell sisters to cover their heads when praying or prophesying (11:5) and then tell them to keep utterly quiet (I Cor. 14:34) if only the memorial service is in mind in both chapters. Surely he must have reference to differ­ent occasions: one, a less formal class when sisters could participate and two, meetings of the entire ecclesia when sisters were to remain silent.

Of course sisters were to wear head coverings on the more formal occasions as well as at the home Bible classes. I Cor. 11:17,18,20 seem to mark the clear distinction in this chapter as to when Paul begins to consider conduct at the breaking of bread.

Your comments at the conclusion of your letter are very helpful. Thank you for your letter. Your interest is greatly appreciated. (T.H.)

Dancing

Dear Bro. Styles,

Loving greetings in Jesus’ name.

I would like to comment on the letter from Bro. “Footloose” regarding dancing, not by discussing the propriety or otherwise of moving our bodies to music, but by raising an issue which I feel can help put this question into per­spective. This is the issue of how we use “our” time and whether we are correct in accepting, without question, the world’s assumptions regarding leisure.

We are not `footloose and fancy-free.” We have been purchased with the precious blood of the Great Creator’s only Son and at our baptism we dedi­cated our lives to God’s service. How far does this dedication extend? Does it merely consist of attending ecclesial functions? Is our Bible study no more than a quick skim through the daily readings? Do we regularly visit the sick and afflicted (and have words of conso­lation to offer when we do)? To what’ extent have we researched in our Bibles the current issues being debated in this magazine? What is our personal preaching schedule? How seriously do we take the numerous pleas for help from small ecclesias or the Bible Mis­sion? What do we say to the following extract from a brother struggling alone to preach in South America: “…I received a letter from Bro. … and he tells me that, at present, there are no volun­teers for preaching in my country. I can’t believe it! For my part, and in my complete isolation, I can only pray that the Lord of the harvest will send forth laborers…”

There is so much to do! Don’t let’s join those dying in their sins in their futile pleasures but let us show them a better way — the one that leads to life eternal. “Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.”

Your sister in Christ,

Anne Melles, Costa Rica

We hope every reader ponders this letter and its message.

Sometimes we act as if we expect to get the best this world has to offer and eternal life as well. That is not our calling. It is only if we lose our lives now in service to our Master that we will gain the life to come. When we start doing that, we become so absorbed in His service, the choice of leisure-time activities becomes a moot issue.

Aunt Jane Confirms Aunt Sarah

Dear Bro. Don,

I am writing in response to the com­ments which “Aunt Sarah” has provoked in the last few issues of the “Tid­ings.” I felt compelled to voice the words of a dear sister who is asleep awaiting the return of our Lord and Master. Sis. Jane, or as I would like to think of her, “Aunt” Jane Roberts, has this to say about the subject:

“As candidates for eternal life on the same principle of faith and obedi­ence to Him, sisters are upon an equal footing to brethren; but in relation to each other, Paul informs us that the husband is the head, and that the wife ought to be subject to him. Their union in the Truth does not obliterate the natural relation established at the begin­ning, in which the woman, as the weaker vessel, is to accept a subordinate rela­tion to the man.”

A word to the husbands

“If I were writing for the husbands, I would stay to point out that, with his special privileges, greater responsibili­ties are proportionately his. He is entrusted with the headship in the family, on the supposition that he is capable of exercising it with wisdom and kindness.

“But all husbands do not come up to the standard given them. We must not expect perfection yet. It sometimes happens that the husband is overbear­ing, and for gets the conditions which engender a loving and ready service on the part of his wife. He neglects the working out of his pattern, and takes to admonishing his wife about some flaw in her attitude, instead of acting such a part as would remove the flaw. This is a mis­take. Such a procedure cannot possibly accomplish the object he has in view but is more likely to aggravate the evil sought to be removed.

“But I must remember I am not writing specially for his benefit, or I would point out that Paul nowhere enjoins upon the husband to assert his headship over his wife, but exhorts him to meet his wife’s loving and spontaneous subjection by following the example of Christ, with the great love with which he loved the ecclesia. However, to follow this subject, would lead me out of my province. I must leave him to think it up for himself hoping he may as the result, approve the more excellent way.”

To sisters with thoughtless husbands

“I direct my thoughts and counsel to the sister-wife who finds herself mated to such a one: her task will be a difficult one, but let her not quail before it. Let her by all means endeavor to fulfill in a becoming manner the duties and responsibilities of her position. Let the dignity and patience of her meek and quiet spirit be the means of heaping coals of fire upon the head of her faulty companion, if such she have. Let her remember that ‘a soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.’ If she has a Nabal to deal with, she can at least, like Abigail of old, show herself to be a woman of good understanding; and by her wisdom may, like her, avert much evil that would otherwise come upon her household.” (From “Chapters for the Daughters of Sarah” by Jane Roberts).

Sally given wrong advice

I am very sorry to see that one re­sponse to this problem was to advise “Sally” and her husband to visit a “professional” marriage counselor. It would be a sorry day, indeed, if we had to turn to the world to solve the marital problems of brethren and sisters in Christ! All of us have in our possession all the marriage counsel we need right here in God’s Holy Word. If we needed some more of some sort, it would have been included.

A daily reading of the Word will put us all into perspective: that we are weak and miserable creatures of dust, and that, had not Yahweh had mercy on us, we would continue on to that end.

It is obvious that the brother in­volved has not made it his habit to read the Word, else he would not treat his family with the disdain described, for he would be afraid of the consequences. His comments on his wife’s appearance show a lack of knowledge of God’s de­sire, “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corrupt­ible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (I Peter 3:3-4).

The wife must point this out to him, in all meekness and find out where, perhaps, her housekeeping fails, and at­tempt to do better, giving none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

If our brother-husband does not heed admonitionfrom the Scripture, and continues in his folly, then it is certain what is left for him: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received a knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for ofjudgment andfiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:27).

Let the sister then continue in her walk to the kingdom, daily reading God’s word and keeping herself in sub­jection to the commandments of Christ.. Let us be “Looking unto Jesus the au­thor andfinisher ofourfaith; who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God…Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby” (Heb. 12:2,11).

With love, your sister by His grace Margo Maier, Houston (Wilshire), TX

This submission breathes the right attitude. Space prevents full comments this month.

Aunt Sarah Rebuked

Dear “Aunt Sarah,”

I am writing in regard to your response to “Sally” in the May, 1991 Tidings concerning her marital problems. I feel that you failed miserably to address her problem as stated. In fact, you have refused any comfort to a woman who is crying out for help.

I find your treatment of the word “dysfunctional” very interesting, especially since I can’ t find the word in any of my dictionaries…Based upon the root word “function,” I would say that “dysfunction” simply means anything

which interrupts the normal function of something..If this is the case, then Sally is perfectly within her rights to consider her marriage “dysfunctional,” and your criticism for her use of it has done nothing more than reinforce her feelings of inadequacy. As a matter of fact, I find your answer to be somewhat condescending and critical of Sally, while absolving Jack of any responsibility, and, in fact, making him look like the injured party…If my understanding of God’s word is correct, then I would say that everything in a marriage is the responsibility of both parties 100% (“and they twain shall be one flesh”) (Matt. 19:5).

This brings me to your suggestion that “sex” may be the underlying problem. Whether “sex” is the problem or not, your suggestion that the man should receive his conjugal rights regardless of his failings, is nothing short of “absurd.” What are you trying to do? Are you trying to open the door for any man who displays deviant characteristics? Are you trying to tell our women that they should overlook what’ s wrong with their husbands “just because he’s a man?” Is it all right for Jack to mentally abuse his wife and children, and carry on as if nothing is wrong? That, is nothing short of ridiculous!

“One flesh” obviously means “of one accord.” It is obvious that these two are, at the present time, not “one flesh,” and they won’t be until their problem is solved, and that won’t happen without a concerted effort from both parties. Whatever happened to “let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself?” (Eph. 5:31-32). Or “Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath?” (Eph. 6:4). It would seem to me that unless this man is willing to heap on his own head the abuse that he seems intent on heaping on his wife and chil­dren, then scripturally, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He is breaking God’s law…Why don’t your comments reflect this? Could it be, as I have found with many Christadelphian men through the years, that you tend to ignore these scriptures unless they suit your purpose? It has been my experience that brethren who offer “marriage counseling” are not capable of maintaining an objective view and tend to lean very heavily toward the male viewpoint, often ignoring the woman’s complaints …lf  you are truly interested in helping this sister, then perhaps you would do well to suggest that she and her husband visit a professional marriage counselor –one who can look at their relationship from a completely objective viewpoint and not become emotionally involved. Women are by no means the sole cause of marriage breakdowns, contrary to the belief of many brethren. Suggesting such a thing is ludicrous and ignores the fact that a married couple is supposed to be “one flesh,” and that the husband is to “love his wife as himself.”

I apologize if any of my comments may have been a bit abrasive, but I can’t just sit by while a sister cries out for help and receives nothing more than platitudes and condescending remarks.

Your loving brother in Christ,

Ronald E. Jennings, Hamilton, ONT

You correctly set forth the right way a husband should treat his wife and children. However, as with any personal relationship, the question arises, What happens when one party does not do as he should? Does his misconduct justify wrongdoing on the part of the injured servant of God? Look at Christ in his relationship with Judas. In spite of the latter’s treachery, Jesus treated him with the same loving kindness he extended to the other apostles. Not one of them suspected Judas was “a devil.”

“Aunt Sarah” is not a marriage counselor and the Bible is not a manual designed to correct unhappy marriages. Scripture is designed to equip the servant of God “for every good work” (II Tim. 3:17) to the end that he may find an inheritance in the kingdom of God. Frequently, this means doing the right thing oneself even though the other person does not (Matt. 5:43-48). That principle applies to a marital relationship as much as to any other. Remember, too, that an unhappy marital situation may be God’s way of developing in us necessary spiritual characteristics. Patience, forgiveness and love must be extended to the difficult partner as well as to the lovable one.

Accordingly, Aunt Sarah’s advice will not be the same as marriage counselors. The objective is different. We are primarily preparing for the kingdom of God. While a happy marriage can be the product of this objective, there is no guarantee in this regard. We are deceiving ourselves, however, if we desire to be in the kingdom while we treat our partner with cruelty and disdain.

It is true that good marriages will only result if there is concerted effort by both parties. You have properly indicated that and have rightly drawn attention to the principles set forth in Ephesians 5. If one partner fails to do his part, however, the servant of God should still attempt faithfully to do his part, trusting God will not try him beyond what he is able to bear.

The comment regarding “conjugal rights” was not made in the context of “deviant characteristics.” If they exist, that comprises another subject which we made no attempt to address.

Your dictionaries may be abridged. “Dysfunctional” is the adjectival form of “dysfunction” which means “failure to function normally” (1986 revision of Oxford American Dictionary). Unfortunately, the situation Sally described may not be good but, regrettably, it is all too common (normal) in marital relationships. Our advice may not be what a marriage counselor would give, but we feel it was in accord with Scripture.

Divorce Under The Law

Dear Brother Don:

Greetings in our Lord.

I have some questions about divorce under the Law of Moses.

1. Does Exodus 21:2-11 cover cases of divorce and remarriage? While they are laws dealing with servants, I don’t see where that would make any difference in the “one flesh” relation­ship before God.
2. I am confused by the contrary points raised about Deut. 24 :1-4 . Could you clarify the discussion on this passage?
3. What is this point about horizontal and vertical blood relationships? I have never heard of such an idea before.
4. Why bother about what the Law says about divorce? Aren’t we now under the commands of Christ?

Thanking you in advance.
A sister

We appreciate your questions. We had not previously thought of the relevance of Exodus 21. On the other points, no doubt many would like to ask the very same questions. We will consider the matters in the order you have asked them.

1) Exodus 21:2-11 deals with three separate situations.

1. Verses 4-6 deal with a servant who was given a wife by his master during the time of his bondage. When that period expired, the woman would become the master’s unless the newly-freed man pledged a lifetime of service to that master. If the man chose freedom, he would forfeit his wife and chil­dren. In that case, the woman and chil­dren would be treated as the wife and children of the master (“the wife and her children shall be her master’s”). The woman would thus be supported by the master as a wife in his household. This would protect and provide for her and her children but would, in our terms, be a breaking of the one-flesh relationship with her first partner.
2. Verses 7-8 provide for a daughter sold by her father as maidservant to another man. She could be very young at the time of the arrangement; but since she is “betrothed” to her master, the intent was that she should eventually be his wife. If, for some unstated reason, she was not satisfactory to the master, she was to be redeemed by her relatives. We cannot be sure her union was consummated with the master nor can we be sure she could be given to another man. Therefore this case does not clearly relate to the marriage, divorce and remarriage situation.
3. Verses 9-10 state if the one buying the maidservant had purchased her for his son, he must see to her proper care and marital status or she would become a free woman without any requirement of remuneration. By saying, “her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish,” the law clearly infers a marriage had been consummated. By saying she would “go out free,” the law indicates she would be free to marry another man. If that were not true, the woman would be in a difficult situation, having no ready means of support.

While servitude is involved in all three cases, we agree that this does not affect the divine principles involved. In fact, the laws are clearly designed to enforce consideration for the woman even though she might be in a servile position; her servant status does not make her a second-rate human being. The section is thus applicable to the issue under discussion and does, in our opinion, provide circumstances where a “one flesh” relationship might be broken and another undertaken.

2) The issue regarding Deut. 24 centers on the status of the woman’s union to a second man. Was it a second marriage, a new, valid one-flesh relationship or was it an adulterous union? The pertinent points are as follows:

1. 24:1 reads, “…let him write…” in the KJV which implies the law encourages a man to divorce his wife if she displeases him. Nearly every other version changes the wording to something like, “…and he writes…” (NW) which indicates a situation existed which required regulation with no implication of encouraging the divorce action. In fact, Jesus comments on this very passage, making it clear the action being regulated was disapproved of by God (Matt. 19:7-8).
2. A different word is used for the “former [first] husband” (baal) than is used for the “latter [second] husband” (ish). This suggests the two unions were not regarded the same by God.
3. The second union defiles the woman (v.4). Since the seed of copulation always defiled those contacted by it (Lev. 15:17), “after that she is defiled” (v.4) could be a euphemism for the consummation of her second marriage. However, a first marriage is never referred to as defiling a person and is often described with the phrase, “…knew his wife…” (Gen. 4:1) or “…and took Rebekah, and she became his wife” (Gen. 24:67). The use of the word “defiled” certainly suggests Divine disfavor over the second situation.

Anyone who uses Deut. 24 to condone divorce is wrong, as a careful consideration of the passage shows.

(3) A careful reading of Leviticus 18 indicates most in-laws are treated by the law much the same as blood relations. Some draw the conclusion that husband and wife becoming “one flesh” is to be taken almost literally. Thus a husband/wife must reckon his/ her wife’s/husband’s relations to be “blood” relations as much as his/her literal blood relations. This is viewed as evidence that the husband and wife become one flesh and therefore can never truly separate. Offsetting the point are the following facts: not all situations are covered (the aunt of the wife and the wife of the wife’s brother) and the levitate law, which required a man to marry his sister-in-law if his brother died childless (Deut. 25:5).

We feel the reason for the laws of Lev. 18 were to prevent incestuous relationships which are common when in-laws become familiar with each other. We do not feel the laws were given because husband and wife technically became one flesh forever.

(4) The reason for considering the Law in relation to the divorce and remarriage question is because adultery has always been forbidden by God. Since adulterers were punished with death under the law, the reasoning is that God would never allow separation and remarriage in any situation if such resulted in people living in a continuous state of adultery. Since Exodus 21 and Deut. 24 allow some form of separation and remarriage, the argument follows that divorce and remarriage does not result in a continuous state of adultery.

While that position may be technically accurate, the plain facts are that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and the only cases where divorce is tolerated under the Law involve hardness of heart and enslavement of others. Hardhearted people will not be in the kingdom and slavery is prohibited by secular laws. Therefore, the Law of Moses does not supply a rationale for divorce and remarriage. But it does caution us against contriving extreme positions in determining our present response to cases of divorce and remarriage.

New Bible Study Tool

Dear Bro. Don,

Thank you for your help in making the brethren and sisters aware of the new and exciting Bible study tool advertised in the August issue. Initial interest has been good. Lord willing, production will begin this fall as expected.

One item about your write-up needs to be clarified. During the process of shrinking the illustration for inclusion in the “Tidings,” the text size appears to be very small. In actuality the text size is the same size as, if not slightly larger than that of the “Tidings” and of most Bibles. It is very readable.

Any interested brother or sister should contact me as soon as possible. Their names will be placed on a list of those interested and they will be contacted to place an actual order when production begins. Anyone who wishes can receive a copy of the original flier showing an actual text sample.

Your brother in the one hope,
Craig S. Nevers (401)467-4391

P.S. The Hebrew/Greek Study Bible (which is similar to the study Bible we are offering) was published by Baker Book House but is now out of print and they have no plans for a reprinting.

Regarding Dancing

Dear Bro. Don,

It would appear that no one wanted to pick up on your query as to what the brotherhood thinks about dancing.

We have belonged to a formal dance club for several years which has a dinner and ballroom dancing some four times a year. The people involved would be termed middle-aged and considered conservative.

The atmosphere is secular other than a generic prayer of thanksgiving before the meal. The ballrooms are the same places that are rented for wedding receptions and similar activities.

We have always enjoyed dancing -­not gyrating — and the music, while perhaps not what Christadelphians would call uplifting, is tasteful — no flashing lights and blaring noise.

Membership is limited to married couples; alcohol is available, but! have noticed in the secular world of our peers, people are much more health-conscious than they used to be. The smokers are almost non-existent and the drinks are usually wine with dinner.

Our life surely does not revolve around dancing, ecclesial functions come first. I must point out that each must examine his/her own conscience to determine whether the individual could deal with such a situation.

A sister

Thank you for responding to the question raised by a brother some months ago. In your comments, you did not mention if you danced exclusively with your husband or if there was a liberal switching of dance partners during the evening.

While we love music and admire the grace of some dancing, we have opted to avoid social dancing. Under some circumstances, it does present problems such as: close proximity with another than one’s husband or wife which can break down essential inhibitions, abuse of alcohol, over exuberant revelry, etc. Young people may be more susceptible to some of these pitfalls, but the difficulties are not confined to the young.

While we agree the matter of dancing is a judgment call, if there are marked spiritual hazards connected with the activity, why unnecessarily put ourselves in an environment which leads to temptation? In other words, dancing is not inherently sinful, but if it exploits our weaknesses, we should stay away from it.