Letters to the Editor

Is Christ Missing?

Dear Brother Don,

Loving greetings in that Name which is above every name and by which we have hope.

At the beginning of this new year, it behooves each of us to look at our brotherhood and assess the direction it is taking. The ecclesia of Christ does not stand still — it is a moving, perhaps evolving community.

I observe a rather disturbing trend. I wonder if we are beginning to put the Lord Jesus Christ on the “back burner.” For some time I have followed the topics of our public lectures, our midweek Bible classes and our Bible schools and have noticed how few of them deal with our Lord — his life, his redemptive work, his care of his ecclesia. When we speak of the atonement, it is so often done in a mechanical way -as if we were presenting a legal brief

I see far more public lectures dealing with the destruction of Russia than ones dealing with man’s need for a savior and his hopelessness unless he ac­cepts the offer of God to believe in Him and His Son.

I see more study days and young people’s weekends dealing with the study of “Joshua,” “Judges” and “Ezra and Nehemiah” than with aspects of the life and work of our Lord. The others are good but a balance is needed.

Perhaps the fact that the subject of the atonement has caused such grief and strife in the brotherhood makes us shy away from it and we are more comfortable and feel on safer ground discussing subjects which are not controversial.

The trend to put the Lord Jesus Christ on the “back burner” may be a reaction to the evangelical movement which attributes the honor and glory which belongs to God to Jesus. They are unbalanced and we must be careful always to be aware of who God is. But we also must honor the Son and recognize the power he has been given by God.

Recently, I was told that we should not sing hymns to Jesus. Can we not be grateful to our savior for the sacrifice he was willing to make on our behalf? If he is the head of the body, can we not commune with him? If all power has been given to him, can that not be acknowledged? Of course we know that all of this is possible because God first loved us while we were yet sinners. We have hope because God has given us hope through the gift of His Son.

Your sister by God’s grace.
Baltimore, MD

You make a number of useful points. In looking at the Coming Events, we find only 6 of 23 topics listed deal with some aspect of the teaching, life or work of the Lord. Reminders such as yours help us to keep a proper balance. Those selecting topics for Bible schools and study days will, no doubt, take note of your points.

While we pray to the Father in the name of the Son, praise of the Son is surely appropriate. He is “full of grace and truth…and of his fullness have all we received…all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father…God also hath highly exalted him…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and they sung a new song saying… Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (John 1:14,16; 5:23; Phil. 2:9,­10; Rev. 5:9,12).

As a community, our approach to expounding the atonement will be most useful if we allow scripture to mold our perspective. At times, we carry on at great length as to how Jesus benefited from his own sacrifice. While this is a valid point, it is greatly overbalanced in the word by the benefit of the cross to us. Furthermore, since the religious world virtually ignores the judgment of God while stressing His love, we can go to the opposite extreme in attempting to right the balance. Yet one of the dominant aspects of the atonement is that it reveals the love of God in the most convincing manner possible.

Reminders, such as these of our sis­ter, help us evaluate and, if necessary, redirect our emphasis.

Editor Admonished

Dear Brother Don,
Greetings.

The December, 1991 issues of the Tidings magazine and the Christa

North American Benevolent Fund

Dear Brother Don;

I was saddened to read Brother Sticht’ s letter to the Tidings (Nov, 1991) regarding the establishment of a North American Benevolent Fund. While I applaud the initiative taken by Bro. Sticht in suggesting such a fund, I am disheartened that such an idea needs to be considered.

Please do not misunderstand me. I fully concur with Bro. Sticht that times of terrible calamity will come upon us prior to Christ’s return. I merely feel that Christadelphians must become a proactive force dealing with the times ahead rather than a reactive one. In this way, we may all survive to witness the return of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We must become proactive by supporting one another in all ways, not merely spiritually but economically as well.

When was the last time we purchased a product because a brother of sister worked for or owned that enterprise? Price, quality and service are a few of the factors why one particular product is chosen over another. Should we as Christadelphians not add a fourth dimension to the selection process. That is, we should ask ourselves, if this purchase will directly or indirectly benefit another Christadelphian.

Within the region where I reside, there are Christadelphians who run their own business in many areas of economic activity. In addition, there are countless others who work at automobile dealerships, grocery stores or other places of employment. If we have requirements to purchase or recommend any of these services, why not from an organization that employs a Christadelphian?

In this day and age of competitive market forces, we can be assured that any organization will offer competitively priced products and services, including those offered by the brotherhood. In this respect we should use whatever influence we have within our place of employment to recommend or influence our purchasing division to buy from a firm that employs a Christadelphian.

Our small individual purchases might never directly benefit an individual brother or sister, but collectively they could spell the difference between economic survival and economic ruin.

In the same vein, many brethren in North America will have the opportunity to fill a job vacancy in the near future. Why not fill that vacancy with a Christadelphian? Writing to you as someone who has personally hired Christadelphi­ans in the past, I can inform you firsthand that all benefit from the experience.

In order to survive during the last days, we must provide support to each other spiritually, physically and economically. We must become proactive in actively promoting and supporting all members of our fellowship, in whatever their occupation. “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal 6:10).

With love, your brother in Christ,
George Rayner, Toronto, ONT

(There has been much reaction to the benevolent fund idea but, understandably, respondents have requested ano­nymity. Following are a few excerpts representative of the comments we’ve received.)

We recently visited our son and wife and found they had become entrapped by the acquisitive society in which we live. Their home was up for sale and they had lost one of their cars. While being diligent ecclesial members, they had adjusted their expenditures to two incomes and the expectations of a promotion which never materialized.

We could have provided temporary relief by dipping into our retirement savings but we decided that would be putting good money after bad. Trying to look to their eternal welfare, we decided the kindest thing we could do was to let them learn self-discipline and prudence the hard way. They will be poorer for it now but, hopefully, richer in the end.

One of our ecclesial members had an opportunity to make a large profit on what seemed like a sure thing. He was trapped by the collapse of the real estate market in our area and had to file for personal bankruptcy. Now he is unable to secure a mortgage on a house which would locate him much closer to the ecclesia. Is this the type of situation that would be aided by a central benevolent fund?

…My husband’s work is somewhat seasonal. Having to make payments on two cars and a house, as well as normal living expenses, we fall behind in our bills when he is not fully employed. I work full-time. When! tried to take a second job in the evenings, I found my health could not stand that kind of schedule.

…It is doubtful that the United States and Canada will ever again enjoy the economic growth they experienced from 1950 to 1990. People, including breth­ren and sisters, will simply have to adjust to a lower standard of living.

…I am a widow with two children living on welfare and child support. The brethren and sisters are very helpful in giving us used clothing, furniture , tools, etc. and in providing food from their gardens. Brethren also help with odd jobs around my house. With this assistance, I am able to make ends meet although we do live in a modest house and drive an older car.

What needs to be said is hard to say. We feel like hypocrites when we have more than enough for our own families and hesitate to respond to any request for help. The simple fact is, however, that many of our members are in financial difficulty because of their own careless spending habits.

There are several problem areas that frequently occur.

1. “Treating” ourselves can become addictive. We buy something new to raise our spirits or make our children happy, not because we need the item.
2. We nickel and dime ourselves to death by stopping for fast food rather than eating at home and by wandering through a mall picking up trivial items “on sale.”
3. We accept society’s definition of “necessities,” forgetting that many of today’s appliances did not even exist 30 years ago. If people lived without them for 5,950 years, surely we can manage without them for a few years.
4. Too much confidence is put in the economy remaining buoyant. The generation which lived through the depression learned not to count on that. Most of us have experienced only minor recessions so the discipline of saving is often not ingrained in our thinking.

We must heed the admonition of scripture, “godliness with contentment is great gain.. .and having food and raiment let us be therewith content” (I Tim. 6:6-8). But how do you say that when you personally have more than enough?

As was noted by some of the corespondents, we do brethren and sisters no spiritual favor if we continually underwrite their own inability to exercise control and their failure to practice contentment. In some cases, it may seem easier to finance their excesses than it is to gently help them mature into responsible disciples. For a person’s eternal welfare, sometimes they must learn through the difficulties of life. A genuine request for welfare assistance, however, must never go unheeded. We certainly should take care of our own -­either by means of ecclesial welfare or private ministration.

Reading Yahweh for LORD

Dear Bro. Don:

..Re your answer to Andy Bilello on the Name, in the October, 1991 issue, I was disappointed once again to read your reply. You have stated before what seems to be your only argument, which I don’t buy, on the lack of use of the Name in the New Testament. Enclosed some comments.. .It seems a great shame that young brethren like Andy and the brotherhood as a whole, who have the great and unique privilege of understanding the Memorial Name which enshrouds the principle of God Manifestation, are told by leaders such as yourself that the equivalent is “Lord” or “Father” and therefore we ought not to use Yahweh… “Which think to cause my people to forget my name…” (see context, Jer. 23:27).

Best regards, sincerely,
H .D . Bartholomew, Vernon, BC

The enclosure included the following comments:

Yahweh desires that all people “know that his Name is Yahweh” (Jer. 16:21), and we are privileged to have that great opportunity. The Name “Yahweh” is expressive of His purpose achieved through Jesus Christ. It means “He who will be manifested,” and thus expresses the divine intention to recreate Himself in those who are “like Him” (I John 3:2). The process is first seen in His Son, Jesus Christ, and then in those who manifest the same characteristics.

It is the importance and deep significance of the Name that delights those who so understand it, and who honor it in expression. ..we should not condemn those who desire to honor Yahweh through the Name by which He has made Himself known in the original Scriptures.

Dear Bro. Don,

…Why do you persist in pushing aside your Dad’ s position, understanding and enthusiasm with regard to the subject matter of the names and titles of the Deity?… We need the healing power that comes from being washed with His word; anything short of that misses the mark…The Yahweh name deserves better from the brotherhood whose main hope is to be a part of God manifestation…

It matters not how we state His name, whether it be LORD or Yahweh for the development of a character pleasing to our maker goes far beyond that. ..Simply put, how we choose to address our God won’t be the criteria that is used when we appear before the judgment seat. What will come into focus, rather, is how we “walk in the Spirit”…

As always,
A brother

The issue we raised pertains to the substitution of “Yahweh” for “LORD” when reading the Old Testa­ment from an English translation. We have made no negative comments at all about using “Yahweh” when not reading the Old Testament. In fact, when speaking on various topics, we will often use “Yahweh” or “Elohim” our­selves. If we read from a translation which uses “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” (the Spanish translation uses the latter), we would read the divine name as it was translated.

Our practice in this regard is identical to our own Dad who wrote a short book on The Names and Titles of the Deity. Even at home, he would not substitute “Yahweh” for “LORD” although he would frequently comment on the original words being used.

Whether or not we respect the Name is revealed in our total conduct and will not be known with certainty until the judgment seat. As noted by one of our correspondents, as long as we address our God with humility, praise, love and faith, whether we use “Yahweh” or “LORD” will not determine our fate.

Furthermore, we have not condemned those who substitute “Yahweh” for “LORD.” Originally, we raised the matter in the form of a question which elicited response and prompted some research on our own part. Our reasons for not making the substitution are:

1. We feel it conveys an attitude of spiritual elitism. (To a first-time visitor, reading “spirit” for “ghost” does the same thing. But in the case of “ghost,” virtually all modem translations read “spirit” and the Greek word, pneuma, means “spirit” not “ghost.” Accordingly, our substitution rests on very solid ground.)
2. In some areas of our community, reading “Yahweh” for “LORD” unfortunately seems to foster a polarization in our midst. The situation could jeopardize our inter-ecclesial fellowship if not handled with care and understanding.
3. “Yahweh” is not used in those parts of the Old Testament written in Chaldee (Ezra 4:11-22; 5:7-17; 6:6-12; 7:11-26; Jer. 10:11; Dan. 2:4-7:28). “The living God,” “the most High,” “the God of heaven,” “the house of God,” “the God of Israel” are phrases that occur where “Yahweh” might have been used, but never is. In all cases, Gentiles are being quoted or addressed or are intimately involved in the prophecies.
   These facts fit two points previously made: A) “Yahweh” is not as suitable as other words or phrases for conveying to Gentiles the position and authority of the living God. B) When using other than Hebrew, scripture does not encourage the transliteration of YHVH.
4. Different from other proper names, “Yahweh” is not transliterated into Greek when the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament.

There is no getting around the importance of this fact.

The feature is deliberate, not acci­dental; all other Old Testament proper names are transliterated, not translated.

Further, the title of Deity, “LORD (Heb. Yahweh) of hosts (Heb. tsaba),” is partially transliterated in Rom. 9:29 (quoting Isa. 1:9) and James 5:4 (broadly quoting Mal. 3:5). In both cases, “Yahweh” is translated “Lord” (Gk. kurios) and “hosts” is transliterated “Sabaoth.”

In addition, Matt. 11:25 and 5:45 are interpretive quotations of Deut. 4:39 and Psa. 17:14, respectively, and both interpret “Yahweh” as “Father.”

One might retort that the original manuscripts of the New Testament contained “Yahweh.” If they did (and none have been found to prove the point), then a widespread, significant and deliberate change has been made and followed by hundreds of copyists. If that were true, the implications regarding the integrity of the Greek manuscripts would be disastrous. How could they be trusted at all if God allowed such widespread and significant corruption of the text?

That cannot be the case. There is some other explanation for the New Testament translating “Yahweh” into “Lord” when quoting the Old Testament. Whether or not we know the reason(s), the practice surely sets a spirit-guided precedent for ourselves. Translators of the Hebrew into English have followed it. We feel that we are well advised to do so as well.

5. Throughout the New Testament, the faithful refer to God as “Father” rather than “Yahweh.” We suggest there are doctrinal reasons behind this change.

Yahweh means “he who shall be manifested.” The word alludes to the future. Yahweh, however, has been and is now fully manifested in the Son. With respect to His Son, Yahweh’s purpose of exalting human beings to divine nature is not future, it is already fulfilled.

With respect to ourselves, we have the extraordinary blessing of being in the Son. We draw nigh “in his name.” We “have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba (an affectionate name for Father), Father” (Rom. 8:15). While no physical change has occurred and while we can still fall from grace, we are to consider ourselves “dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11).

We would suggest, therefore, that our position in the living Son of God is a reason the faithful address God as Father rather than Yahweh in the New Testament.

Trade Unions

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in Christ, soon to appear!

Having recently read The Disciple of Christ and Trade Unions by Bro. C.T. Butler (available from The Christadelphian), I commend the booklet to everyone, particularly those soon to enter the job market. The publication does have, however, a slant to the laws and conditions in the UK. Could someone in our community prepare a short pamphlet of specific information on this subject related to the Canadian experience? This could act as a supplement to Bro. Butler’s guide.

Your brother,
Ron A.A. Hill, Bedford, NS

Megiddo Message

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the one hope we share, made possible through the love of our savior Jesus Christ.

Several months ago, I wrote to you about some people in America who were Christadelphians in Bro. Thomas’ time. They call themselves the Megiddo Church and put out the Megiddo Magazine (published at 481 Thurston Road, Rochester, NY 14619). They were Christadelphians for about 20 years and left because they believed the six days of creation were not literal.

If you start something wrong, the error expands as it goes along. They don’t believe in baptism but they do seem to believe the same as us on the coming of Christ and the setting up of the kingdom. Like us, they oppose church doctrines such as heaven going, immortal souls, trinity, the devil and so on…

Your brother in the one hope,
Allan Taylor, Christchurch, NZ

We had never heard of this group before and wonder if anyone knows anything about them?

Misbehaving Husband

Dear Bro. Styles,

Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am writing in response to a letter to the editor in the September issue headed “Aunt Sarah Rebuked.”

Without passing any comment on the letter itself, which refers to a previous letter, it seems to me that one aspect may have been overlooked. In any dealings with another where we have a problem, Jesus tells us what to do in Matt. 18:15- 17 . Here we are told to discuss the matter between the two parties themselves with the object of gaining our brother. However, if he neglects to hear the wife in this case, then she should take one or two more (probably arranging brethren) in the hope he will listen to them. If the brother’s behavior does not improve to that Christlike character required of a brother, then the whole ecclesia must act. This process applies equally to a marriage situation as to any other. The object of the action is to save the brother.

Sincerely your brother by grace,
Terry Fearn, Coquitlam, BC

Great caution should be exercised in applying Matt. 18 to marital problems. True, husband and wife should communicate regarding troublesome matters. Such failure of communication is probably an important reason why some problems that start small become marriage-threatening.

Getting others involved, however, needs to be done very carefully. Marital problems are generally highly personal in nature and there are usually two sides to the story. Involving others too quickly could lead to gossip and could result in the husband or wife being too embarrassed to associate freely with the ecclesia.

In extreme cases, the ecclesia should become involved as marital misbehavior can be grounds for disfellowship. But we need to remember that Matt. 18 addresses conduct that can justifiably result in disfellowship if it is not corrected. In this passage, the Lord is not talking about the myriad personal grievances and misunderstandings which occur, but about a matter so serious that a person is “to be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” if they do not straighten out. In most cases of personal grievance, forgiveness should be exercised and the matter dropped.

Objection To “Traditional”

Dear Brother Don,

Greetings in the one hope.

I have said before, and I will say again that I appreciate “The Tidings” immensely; the opportunity to compare notes on points of scripture and share information important to the Brotherhood is wonderful and much needed.

However,  I am upset with the rigidity of some of us about what is referred to as “the traditional Christadelphian viewpoint.”

Regarding the “traditional viewpoint” and the Russians conquering Israel: a large portion of the USSR is Muslim. I believe that prophesy points out locations of nations rather than names of nations. The suggestion oj Arabs rather than Russia (perhaps more likely as an instrument or ally) goes back over 20 years, and I persona) believe it has merit, but I have not done such an in-depth study that I would exclude either view.

I guess my problem is with the word “traditional.” Christadelphians should have no traditions. We do, of course, but we must not interpret the scripture with traditions..Dr. Thomas did a wonderful job of interpreting the scriptures almost 150 years ago. Think what he might have done today, having viewed so much more history and perhaps having access to a computer with Bible study aids to accomplish so much more in a shorter time. There are those in our midst that are doing that and I believe they have an obligation to present their findings just as each of us has an obligation to review the material responsibly.

Your sister in Christ,
Judith B inch, Tylersport, PA

We ought not to be over-sensitive to the use of “traditional” in describing a widely-held idea in the community. Normally, it is used as verbal short-hand for describing a point of view on a non first-principle topic.

It doesn’t make any difference to any of us whether the scriptures stipulate Israel’s last defeat will be at the hands of the Arabs or a Russo-European-Muslim coalition. Whatever the Lord reveals, we will accept. What is bothersome is to see brethren advance as proof for a point of view verses which do not come close to confirming their case. Careful Bible study has forced us to stand apart from modern-day Christendom and we do not want to see that heritage of careful Bible study dissipated in the community. As indicated by several articles in the magazine, we feel a number of passages have been wrested to support the Arabs-will-defeat-Israel point. Such wresting of scripture bothers us no matter what topic is involved.

Whether or not Bro. Thomas would have benefited from computer Bible study aids is open to question. Nothing can substitute for having the Word of God in our minds. We can then do a mental “scan” of scripture consciously or sub-consciously no matter where we are. Upon reading the writings of Bro. Thomas, we get the distinct impression he had such a recollection of scripture that accessing a computer would have been unnecessary and would not have changed his conclusions.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Dear Brother Styles,

Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I was reading the Letters to the Editor in the Sept. issue, particularly the letter from a sister requesting clarification of points raised on Deut. 24:1-4. I have not read the original article but comment on the points you give in your reply.

1. The instruction in v.1, “let him write her a bill of divorcement” is supported by the Greek translation of the O.T. which reads, “he shall write for her a bill of divorcement.” It seems clear from Matt. 19:7 that the Jews understood this passage to be a command from God by the hand of Moses. There is no correction by Jesus if they were mistaken in their understanding of this being a command. In fact, Jesus goes on to show that this command was given for those who were unable to live up to the Edenic ideal. He further shows the limitation of its application in v.9 and in so doing he clearly accepts the command as coming from God.
2. It seems incongruous that, having prescribed the action to take in writing a bill of divorce and permitting her to go and be another’ s wife, to then say she is not a wife. The Heb. word in v2 for “wife” is the very word used in Gen. 2:24 of Eve as the wife of Adam and is the common word for a wife. Surely if there had been an intention by God to convey a difference when the divorced woman went to be another’ s wife, He would have used a different kind of phraseology.
   Regarding the different words used of “husband” in v.3 and v.4, it is incorrect to maintain “this suggests the two unions were not regarded the same by God.” If we look at Gen. 20:3 and 7, we see God is speaking to Abimelech about Sarah whom he had taken to himself on the understanding she was Abraham’s sister. In v.3, she is referred to as “a man’s wife” where the margin has “married to a husband” and the Heb. word is baal. God continues in v.7, “now therefore restore the man his wife” where the Heb. word is ish. Obviously the same marriage is being spoken of and the two different Hebrew words are used synonymously. Therefore, to suggest the two unions in Deut. 24 were not regarded the same by God would appear to be incorrect.
3. The defiling in v.4 is clearly the consummation of the second marriage as you rightly point out. The defiling of Lev. 15:18 clearly applied to all marriages when intercourse had taken place. In Deut. 24, the point being made by God is that divorce must not be undertaken lightly. When the first husband has thought over the matter and wants his wife back, he would not be able to get her if she has married another.

I hope this helps in a clearer under­standing of these verses which, of course, have received much discussion over the years. One has to be careful when being so dogmatic as you are at the conclusion of this section in your reply. As you are aware, from the days of Bro. Thomas, the exceptive clause in Matt. 19, which is taken from Deut. 24, has been the only passage which has been accepted as the grounds for divorce.

Sincerely your brother by grace,
Terry Fearn, Coquitlam, BC

Christ’s comments as recorded in Matt. 19:7-9 seems to us a clear commentary on Deut. 24:1-4. The Pharisees read the passage as God through Moses commanding divorce if a man found some uncleanness in his wife. Christ corrected their view with the words, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.” God did not command divorce in this circumstance, He suffered (allowed) it because of the hardness of their hearts (as noted elsewhere, hardhearted people will not be saved as long as they remain in such a disposition). As the original article pointed out, the KW stands virtually alone among all English translations in failing to convey the very point made by the Lord. In Deut. 24, God regulated something that was going to happen because many Israelites would be hardhearted. He was not encouraging or commanding divorce.

While recognizing that ish and baal can be used interchangeably, we feel the difference in terms for the first and second husbands and speaking of the second marriage as defiling the woman is worth noting. It reflects God’s abhorrence of divorce as clearly indicated by the Master in Matt. 19:3-6. However, you are correct in noting that baal and ish are used as synonyms.

The exceptive clause is not based on Deut. 24. Under the law, sexual infidelity terminated a marriage because of the death of the guilty party (Deut. 22:22). Deut. 24 is therefore not regulating a case of sexual infidelity. The exceptive clause takes the place of Deut. 22:22. Such a change was necessary as the believers do not have the right to implement capital punishment. Actually, in many cases a believer attempting to reflect the spirit of Matt. 18:21-22 and 19:3-7 would practice forgiveness rather than divorce.

Dear Bro. Don:

Bro. Andy Muniz’ letter (“Tidings,” Nov. ‘ 91 ) misses the point of Deut.24 :1- 4 and your response, it seems to me, misses the point of Bro. Andy’s letter! You have added another dimension to the discussion of Deut. 24, that being the question of whether or not a second marriage is “a state of adultery.” That question is a huge problem in itself

With regard to divorce, let’s keep it simple and stay with scripture. Except for two references to one Hebrew word, Bro. Andy gives no scriptural proof whatsoever for his assumptions that both divorce and remarriage are not sins. He is wrong on both counts.

This letter deals only with divorce. Two passages are pertinent. Mal. 2:16: “For I hate divorce, says the LORD” (NAS) because “you have dealt treacherously” against “the wife of your youth” (v.14). Can anyone argue that that which God hates is not a sin?

Further, Jesus himself deals only with divorce, supplying the answer to Deut. 24. In response to the Pharisees’ question – only about divorce – Jesus said, in effect: “Yes, Moses ‘suffered’ you to divorce because of your hard hearts.” Rom. 2:5 warns: “by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath” (RSV). Israel was denied entrance to the promised land (typical of eternal life in the kingdom of God) be­cause of an “evil and hard heart ‘ (Heb. 3:8,12). Their hearts were hardened by “the deceitfulness of sin” (v. 13). In other words: a hardhearted man will not gain the kingdom because of his sin.

God hates divorce because it is a deliberate, sinful act which breaks His marriage covenant instituted in the garden of Eden. Why cannot brethren accept the crystal clear teaching of scripture instead of adopting the humanistic fashion of trying to circumvent the will of our heavenly Father by the use of specious and circumlocutory arguments which are not based solidly on scripture?

H.D . Bartholomew, Okanagan Ctl., BC

We will let Bro. Muniz answer for himself, which he does in the following letter. We interjected the “state of adultery” point into the discussion be­cause we feel that is the unstated reason why Deut. 24 is getting so much attention. After all, Deut. 24 was a statute which was nailed to the cross and is no longer binding on anyone.

In ecclesial life today, the facts we face are that 1) God hates divorce; 2) God is forgiving. When someone who has divorced another seeks baptism or refellowship, what should we do? If they admit they have sinned and are truly repentant, is their sin unforgivable? No, the only unforgivable sin is calling the power of God the power of wickedness or utterly forsaking the Truth after we have accepted it (Matt. 12:22-32; Heb. 10:25-29).

Now if the person who has divorced another has remarried, are they living in a “state of adultery?” If they are, obviously, no matter how sorry they may feel about their sin, they cannot be baptized or refellowshipped until they put away their existing partner. Thus in real life, the “state-of-adultery” issue is critical as to how the ecclesia handles real cases. That is why we mentioned the point.

Dear Bro. Don,

In his letter, Bro. Bartholomew has made two appealing but incorrect assumptions.

First, he has asserted that because God hates a man treacherously putting away the wife of his youth, (the context of Malachi 2:16) divorce is always sin in any circumstance imaginable. This cannot be the case because God put away Israel giving her a bill of divorcement (Jer. 3:8). While one may argue the language is somewhat figurative, it is hard to ignore the precedent. Israel had committed whoredoms years without end until a merciful husband finally put her away rather than terminating her existence.

Second, Bro. Bartholomew has assumed that in Matt. 19 Christ is saying that in a divorce, the hard of heart is always the one initiating the divorce action. What of Joseph who was a “just” man and manifested it by seeking to put Mary away privately because of her presumed unfaithfulness (Matt. 1:19).

The case of Joseph directs us to recognize a situation which could occur. A hard-hearted woman who persistently practiced infidelity could be married to a merciful man who would rather give her a bill of divorcement than have her stoned (Deut. 22:22). True, hardness of heart was involved, but the hardness was on the part of the wife, not the husband.

Your brother in Christ,
Andy Muniz, Clarkston, MI