Letters to the Editor

North American Benevolent Fund

Dear Bro. Don,

1 John 3:17 gives us clear under­standing of the mind of Christ on the matter of benevolent assistance within the brotherhood.

Perhaps the anonymous letter writer (and parent), appearing to refuse even “temporary relief’ to family members facing a grave financial crisis, may want to look again at what John has to say on the subject. (Tidings, 1/92, pp. 22,23.)

Often, the psychological, emotional and physical problems relating to or arising from financial difficulties, as serious as those described, are punishment enough and ought not to be compounded by any self-righteous attitude on the part of others. Some decline to help through misplaced “kindness” or exalted concerns for the “eternal welfare” of those struggling with their humanity now. Family, especially, needs to help now, saving the exhortations until the crisis is over or relieved. Then is the time to set forth a helpful course of action or procedure for the future.

With love in the Lord, your brother by grace,
David 0. Millard, Sutton, MA

Dear Bro. Don,

I found Bro. George Rayner’ s letter to the editor in the January Tidings quite interesting. His thoughts on helping brethren and sisters by supporting the companies they are employed by, or that they own, by purchasing that company’s goods, were very sound advice in these last days. With business failures contributing to rising costs and rising unemployment, the brotherhood as a whole cannot help feeling the pressure of these trying times.

…I operate my own business. My business is computer oriented with services ranging from mechanical engineering consulting to desktop publishing and word processing. As such, I can help further Bro. George’s ideas by making it easier to contact businesses that are owned by brethren and sisters.

With cooperation from those breth­ren and sisters who operate their own businesses, I could publish a Directory of Christadelphian Operated Businesses. This directory would include the business name, address, telephone number, a description of the business and its services, the name(s) of the Christadel­phian owner(s), how to contact them and any other relevant information about the business. Anyone interested in more information about this should contact me at the address below.

A project of this sort will require funding. I can provide time and expertise but the costs of printing and distribution would be beyond my ability. I am reluctant to suggest a fee for being include in such a directory, however , I do feel that those included in this directory should be the ones to fund its production. Anyone wishing to could send a donation to help cover expenses of this project. Hopefully with this, we would be able to provide directories free of charge to any who desired. Any checks should be made out to North East Compu-Graphics, noting on the check that this is a donation for the directory.

…It is my hope that this effort will help support our brethren and sisters by making the service of the business they own available to the rest of their spiritual family.

Your brother in the one hope,
Craig S. Nevers
37 Harold St.
Warwick, RI 02888
(401)467-4391

A Cry For Help

Several months ago, a letter was received without signature or return address with a request that it appear in the Tidings unchanged. The letter was occasioned by Bro. George Rayner’s remarks in the “Signs of the Times” for November, 1991. He observed the rapid increase in membership in a church that caters to homosexuals. The correspondent reflected an attitude that our community has a naive view of the homosexual problem and that we have an unhelpful approach to those who have such a tendency. Useful comments were included, exhorting prayer for strength and expressing confidence God will not tempt us beyond what we are able to endure.

We had hesitated to publish the letter, feeling that its distinctive idiom probably would reveal the author’s identity to those who know him. And we feel the issue it addressed, while significant in the world, is hardly so in the brotherhood. Then Bro. Rayner received a copy requesting his response. Somebody in the community is asking for help and the only way we can reach him is through this column. We have, therefore, decided to publish responses from Bro. George and myself with hopes that they will be of some assistance.

Dear Bro. Don,

The main point of the November “Signs of the Times” article was to report that the mainstream religious organizations are integrating homosexuals into both their congregations and also their ministries. This is significant as it heralds the soon return of our Lord Jesus Christ. By his own words, Christ, in reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah states, “So will it be on the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:30). The article was not written as a condemnation against homosexuals, nor by my own authority do I personally condemn homosexuals. It is the scriptures that are direct in their condemnation of homosexual behavior; in God’s eyes, the behavior is abhorred (Lev. 18 :22 ; Rom. 1:26-36 to name a few verses). It is upon this basis that my comments were made.

I was interested to learn from this letter that individuals are either born homosexual or that the behavior is learned at an early age. Not having done enough research to dispute or support this assertion,we need only look to scripture to realize that a statement of this type is often a prelude to justifying wrong conduct. Scripture informs us that man is prone to sin (Rom. 6:12; 7:15-20) and the thoughts of his heart are evil continually. Yet, this fact does not justify any grievous acts that may be committed by followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many mainstream churches conclude their theological studies in the same fashion as this letter was concluded. They argue that it is alright to be a homosexual provided you are non-practicing. This type of argument seeks to make an artificial distinction where there is none. This is clearly missing the point made in scripture. Homosexuality, like murder, theft and idolatry, are sins condemned by God and originating within our own hearts.

We all struggle with the inclination to sin. It is always crouching at our door. We must not be further deceived by the human justification for sin that emanates from the established institutions of our day. For “to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the spirit is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6).

Much love, your brother in Christ,
George Rayner

Dear Correspondent,

In addition to the general predisposition to sin, all disciples have certain pronounced behavioral problems resulting from inherited or environmental factors. Some have been raised in poverty. Once they have financial security, they may dread ever losing it and thus have to struggle more than most against the sins of covetousness and faithlessness. Some have been treated brutally as children and struggle to treat their spouses and children with kindness rather than cruelty. Some people don’ t have much energy, a condition which can minimize their accomplishments and inhibit their usefulness in the Truth. Others are high strung and prone to be easily agitated and aggressive. You are not alone in having a particularly difficult problem that you must keep under control.

It is not sin to have the problem. It is sin to let it direct your conduct or dominate your thinking.

Your problem is particularly difficult for two reasons:

  1. If you give in to it, the sin involved is heinous to God. We must not justify homosexuality because it is gaining acceptance in society. In the end, God is our judge. To be saved, we must respect and conform to His standards.
  2. In suppressing your homosexual preference, you will find a tendency to fantasize satisfaction by reading or viewing erotic material. “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” speaks of sin in our minds. When we mentally relish what God deplores, we commit sin. Furthermore, you will only hurt yourself by resorting to trashy entertainment. Pornography is degrading. The mind is where we communicate with God; filling it with lustful thoughts harms our relationship with Him.

Christadelphians are not insensitive or callous to your dilemma. We don’t doubt that a loving, satisfying relation­ship is possible with one of the same sex. When that relationship crosses over to homosexuality, however, it is a sin grouped in scripture with murder, idolatry, etc. Although all of us often are beset with inner conflicts, we must say, along with our Savior, not my will, but thine be done.

You have the keys to right conduct: prayer and faith. “If we ask anything according to his will…” It is clearly God’s will that we not commit the sin of homosexuality. If you do your part, He will do His. As you say, you can rest assured that He will not tempt you beyond what you are able to endure. Go forward in that strength and strive not to be overcome by doubts or the standards of this age.

Yours in Christ,
The Editor

A View of Christadelphians

Dear Editor,

With regard to the Megiddo Church…In the Encyclopedia of American Religions by Melton, they are classified as part of the holiness family of sects while Christadelphians are con­sidered part of the Baptist family of sects (no doubt because we insist on the necessity of immersion while the Megiddo group denies it, ed.)…

Some would view you as a cult be­cause you deny the deity of Jesus, claim to be the sole group possessing the Truth, have a faulty view of the atonement and teach salvation by works. With regard to the atonement, your difference seems to be a matter of terminology; with regard to salvation by works, I can find little difference between your teaching and the Campbellite group you derived from, who are considered orthodox…I have seen some evidence that you teach a person must agree in every detail of your last-days interpretation system to be saved. This seems to place a great deal of emphasis on Bible knowledge over actual relationship with Jesus.

There seems to be more interest in getting people to believe in soul sleep, etc., than in having their sins forgiven…

Johnny Plunkett, Smyrna, GA

If people want to consider us a cult, they do so by their own definition.

Christadelphians were recently featured on a call-in radio program in our area and labeled as a cult because we reject the trinity. When asked where the trinity is taught in the Bible, the host finally admitted it is not. He acknowledged the doctrine developed after the first century and justified it by claiming the church had authority to add to biblical revelation. This, of course, flies in the face of the clear warning of scripture, “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book…” (Rev. 22:18). Accordingly, when the choice is between church teaching and Bible revelation, we recognize scripture as complete and wholly authoritative.

Our differences from orthodox Christendom on the atonement are far greater than might appear from the words “substitute” (orthodox view of the sacrifice of Christ) and “representative” (the Christadelphian teaching). If Christ died as our substitute, the debt for sins is paid, which is the orthodox teaching. The implications of this doctrine upon our daily conduct are enormous. Once a debt is paid, it does not have to be forgiven (the two are mutually exclusive); we would not have to repent of our sins (you don’t repent of accumulating a debt that is paid), and the incentive to forsake sin would be minimal (if Christ is our substitute, why follow his example?). The effects of such teaching is to rob the gospel of its transforming power.

The same implications are evident in the false doctrine of the conscious state of the dead. If a person is conscious after death, they must continually and eternally experience either a bad existence (hell) or a good one (heaven). Does anyone think they are bad enough to continuously suffer forever? Does 70 years of sin deserve an eternity of torment? Nobody thinks he is that bad! How many times have you heard that some deceased person is “looking up” at us from hell? That’s never said. They’re always “looking down” at us from heaven. Then why try so hard to please God if a little effort will get us to heaven? We don’t make a big issue out of the unconscious state of the dead just to be different. We do so because the state of the dead is clearly taught in scripture and a right belief in this matter has a significant impact on one’s conduct. “For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth” (Isa. 38:18).

In regard to salvation, we believe exactly what scripture teaches, “by grace are ye saved through faith…not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Je­sus unto good works…For this we know, that no whore monger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man…hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words…” (Eph. 2:8-10; 5:5-6).

We do believe we have the Truth. But that does not exclude the possibility other communities exist which do as well.

Anyone regularly reading this magazine should realize members of our community do not agree on all of the details of last-day prophecies. We do not make matters a test of fellowship unless they are clearly stated in the Bible and unless they significantly impact one’s relationship with God, with Christ or with other people.

The Church vs. The Jews

Dear Bro. Styles,

Our brotherhood seems to be getting away from the teaching that Catholicism is the instigator of Israel’s problem. Why? Throughout history, God has used Babylon to punish Israel for her disobedience. The Papacy is still “Babylon” and is still Israel’s greatest enemy. She will continue in this role until God sends forth His Son to conquer “Babylon.”

The papal history toward the Jews is one of utter horror. There were the pogroms in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Russia and now she is stirring up the Arabs…

Funk & Wagnall’ s Encyclopedia has this to say on antisemitism, “Certain features of this (Catholic) history are especially relevant to the objectives of organized antisemitism.” The Catholic Church is the organized body with objectives of gaining control of Jerusa­lem for themselves. This objective goes back as far as the crusades, instigated by the popes of Rome …The papacy does not even recognize Israel’s existence but will allow the head of the PLO to visit with the pope.

The teachings of Roman Catholicism are the carry over of Babylon’s idolatry versus God’s word among the Jews. While the Jews have fallen away from God’s commands, they still maintain the teaching of one God.. .the Jews are a thorn to Rome’s quest for world domination.

In contrast, Mahommet’ s teachings (Islam) are a mixture of Roman Catholicism, Greek orthodoxy and Judaism. In this world, the iron of Rome (Babylon, Dan. 2) is still the toughest of them all. Only Christ’s return will break her teachings to pieces as they are fit only for the fire of God’s wrath. By peace, she will destroy millions. She is advocating peace with her “dove” symbol as we see.

There are tens of millions of Catholics in Russia right now who will soon join with the others to try and form the EEC of confederated Europe. How far she will succeed only God knows. How will we stand in that day?

Sis. A. Mulder, Lowbanks, ONT

We appreciate your reminder of the often subtle maneuverings of the Roman church. The Bible Magazine published at Box 2004, Prince George, BC, Canada, V2N 2J6 regularly emphasizes the influence of the Catholic system. They have a number of non-Christadelphian works available documenting this thesis.

The emphasis of the Tidings has been on the apostate system versus the believer as developed in the articles by Bro. Joe Banta. We feel that is the great warning of the Revelation and a point believers in North America should al­ways remember.

The antisemitic practices ‘of the apostate church, while reprehensible, are part of the general punishment of God upon the Jews. Wherever they have gone, they eventually have become the objects of hurtful discrimination and of persecution (Deut. 28:65-67; A History of the Jews, Solomon Grayzel, Jewish Publication Society). For example, this was true under Moslem rule in the east in the ninth through 11th centuries and under Catholic rule in the west during the Middle Ages. In the wonder of God’s control, however, the Jews have always had someplace to flee that they might be preserved as a people.

Megiddo Mission

Dear Bro. Don,

…I was surprised to see the letter from Bro. Allan Taylor of New Zealand about the Megiddo Church here in Rochester…

I have acquired a set of their pamphlets and these confirm what Bro. Al­lan also noted…

Their most significant error appears to be that they believe the necessity for baptism stopped at the same time as the gifts of the Holy Spirit…

They are of a very conservative gender, being quite concerned with dress and clothing styles and with the devices of modern man…

Their pamphlet also indicates that they only have a memorial service at Passover…At one point in their past, they had a female pastor/ leader…

May His blessing remain with you as we endure these troubling times.

Bill Leathersich, Churchville, NY

In the course of preaching in Poland, a brother has come across members of the Megiddo Mission group, some of whom he felt could be amenable to the Truth. These contacts led to communication with the Mission’s Rochester, NY headquarters. As a result, their leader has offered to have a written debate on the atonement which would appear in both a Christadelphian journal and their periodical, the Megiddo Message. Lord willing, the debate will appear in the Tidings later this year.

“Nailed To The Cross”

Dear Bro. Don,

In the February, 1992 “Tidings,” p. 56, you offer a seven-point response to my letter on the above topic. We agree on points #1 and #7. On the other five, our differences range from issues of substance to matters of emphasis. To illustrate both, my revision of your second paragraph of point #6: “…those who sought justification through the Law (you should have said the works of the Law) would find it a harbinger of death, not of life. Those who were rightly tutored by the law would find it led to life, not (you should delete the “not”) under its own terms but in our Lord Jesus Christ.” “Its own terms” were God’s terms, being the same for Joshua and for Solomon as for Isaac and for Timothy.

A comprehensive response would involve extensive exposition. Permit me to try another approach. It is only through identifying the right questions that we discover the right answers. Unless we pinpoint the problem, we never find the resolution. So here are the questions!

Regarding your point #6: “…a disannulling of the commandment…” (Heb. 7:18). You apparently apply this to God’s law, the law of Moses, in total. Clearly a “commandment” has been annulled. The question is, which specific commandment? The context supplies the answer.

Have you carefully studied 2 Cor. 3, observing precisely what is said, and not said, regarding the supposed “annulment” of the law?

Regarding #2: agreed that the Law, in all its elements, was fulfilled by and in the Lord Jesus. You seem to equate “fulfilled” with “annulled,” and consequently “nailed to the cross,” having been “abolished,” “terminated.” How, then, do you understand Matt. 5:17-20, and “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31).

Do you think, further, in relation to the law, that the sentiments of Psalm 119 have a significance limited to those living under the law. Or do they have equally powerful significance for us? Consider, for example, verses 1,34,44, etc..

Regarding #3 & #4: granted that David’s hope of redemption focused in the promised seed. Can you read the whole of Psalm 119 without concluding that God’s law, in which the Psalmist rejoiced, offered him justification by faith and, consequently, eternal life? Is it not apparent that David had looked beneath the surface and uncovered marvelous, eternal truths (Prov. 25:2)?

Regarding #4: you suggest the law did not “provide forgiveness for sins of the mind.” When you consider Psalm 19, particularly vs. 12-14, do you think David would accept your conclusion?

You refer to Hebrews 10 :4, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” requiring repeated forgiveness. You seem to imply that the law did not, thereby, “provide forgiveness,” at least for some sins. How, then do you understand Psalm 51, noting ,for instance vs. 9,10, ” …All mine iniquities…” and “…a clean heart…”? Do you suppose that v.17 takes David above, beyond and outside of God’s law? Or does it take him and us to the very essence of its message? The sins of adultery and murder were forgiven. Would forgiveness have been unavailable if lust and self-indulgence had remained in his mind, unsatisfied in the flesh? Or was forgiveness provided on some basis other than divine law? Was this demonstration of mercy consistent with the law of the Lord? Or was it inconsistent with its principles?

Why did Jesus identify “mercy” as one of “the weightier matters of the law?” After the Lord revealed His primary characteristic as “merciful,” was His mercy shaded, modified and limited in His subsequent revelation through the same Moses (Ex. 34:6)? Or was God’s message to Israel, collectively, somehow different and distinct from the prin­ciples upon which He dealt with individ­ual Israelites? In Luke 24 :25 -27 , 44-49 , would Jesus have indicated that the prin­ciples of eternal salvation, through the Messiah, are discernible in some parts of scripture, but omitted from others? or that they are revealed on every page?

Regarding #2 through #6: have you ever tried to delineate those portions of Moses’ writings that constitute “the law of Moses?” Which chapters, which segments of chapters, do you include? Which do you exclude? It is a highly instructive exercise. It helps us discover what the Psalmist learned before us.

I remember Bro. Harry Tennant saying, years ago, “What you teach people, they will forget. What you help them discover, they will retain.” So, Brother Don, and dear reader, “Search the scriptures,” (the Old Testament) ‘for in them ye think (correctly) ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). It was the perverted approach of “the Jews” (v.10) that was wrong; the basic assumption regarding the power of the Word was correct.

Sincerely, your brother,
Silvanus

Your questions have usefully exposed the key points.

David was forgiven! But what sacrifice was offered to make atonement for his sin? Was it the sin offering which was for sins of ignorance (Lev. 4:2)? That would not do, for David was not ignorant in this matter; he had “despised the commandment of the LORD” (2 Sam. 12:9,10). What about the trespass offering? That was for deceit and theft, not for murder and adultery (Lev. 6:2-3). Furthermore, that offering required reparation which was impossible to do for Uriah. There was no animal sacrifice that would do. “For thou desirest not sacrifice…The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit…” (Psa. 51:16,17). The law of the Lord went beyond the Law of Moses; it included the scripture, “Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” David knew the full implications of those words, “David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven…” (Rom. 4:3,6,7). David was not forgiven under the terms of God’s covenant with Israel but on the basis of His covenant with Adam and Abraham.

When David exalted in the law of the Lord (Psa. 119), it was in the total out-working of Divine principles of which the Law of Moses was but a very specific and limited part.

Certainly the divine principles of justice, mercy and faith are interwoven into the very fabric of the Law of Moses. The children of Israel were to be impartial in judgment (justice), love their neighbors (mercy) and trust God would provide if they gave generously to those in need (faith). But the whole system of sacrifice, priesthood and tabernacle ended in Christ — nailed to his cross. The washings, dietary rules and all statutes dealing with externals ended with the ministration of the spirit — nailed to the cross. Even the 10 commandments were done away because the gospel applies their principles to the heart and mind.

The Law of Moses was designed to educate the Jewish nation so that “sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful” and thereby they would be drawn to rely on their coming Messiah. They did not respond. But in the mercy of God, through their temporary fall, the riches of His grace has now come to the Gentiles, that we might understand the law of the Lord and respond to His abundant mercy.

Going Beyond Scripture

Dear Brother Don,

I am writing regarding the article in the January Tidings, “Does Scripture Require Us to Go Beyond Scripture?” Having experienced the positive effects of counseling personally and professionally, I am comfortable with brethren and sisters seeking education to gain knowledge and skills in this area. Also, in certain circumstances, I am comfortable with them receiving therapy.

However, I question Bro. Don Ifill’s conclusions that one can gain support for such a decision from Genesis 1 and2 .

Ecclesiastes 7:29 states that man was made “upright.” This is in contrast to the bent, crooked nature Solomon had experienced as a result of the promptings of sin. Adam was created with a nature morally “right” and balanced, without our bias to sin. He walked and conversed with the angels, received guidance and instruction from them. They directed his intellectual and spiritual development.

“Language, music, gold and the principles defined by physics are from God,” I agree; but since the fall, man has distorted and misused them.

“Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing” (James 3:10). Music can be sublime, but it can also stimulate the baser instincts. Gold covered the mercy seat, but it was beaten into the likeness of a calf and is still worshiped as an idol in men’s hearts. The principle of physics produced a cure for cancer but threatens the very planet with extinction from nuclear warfare.

I suggest that we are on shaky ground if we use the rationale put forward in the article to condone our search for knowledge beyond the scrip­tures.

Having said this, I feel that brethren and sisters schooled in the helping professions can bring great comfort and help to those suffering both emotionally and physically (as shown by the Christadelphian Care Group in Britain). I am sure that we are all aware of the inherent dangers in exposure to university life and the need for ongoing love and support to those who prayerfully choose to seek this knowledge.

With love, your sister in Christ,
Patricia Bartle, Toronto, ONT

Dear Brother Don,

In regard to Bro. Don Ifill’ s article, consider II Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

When we get depressed, do we need a psychologist or a few hymns of praise and a Bible reading? (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Let us recall how David’s music relieved Saul of the evil spirit (I Sam. 16:23).

In I Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul enumerates ten diseases of the soul and concludes, “And such were some of you (us): but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Jesus said, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3). Where is there need of social sciences here?..Isn’ t it interesting that upon healing the afflicted, Jesus usually said, “thy faith hath made thee whole.”

Freudian adherents have to observe the beast to decide what is wrong with us. Doesn’t God decide what kind of beasts we are? “Be ye not as the horse or mule” (Psa. 32:9); “the serpent was more subtle (cunning, crafty)” (Gen. 3:1); “My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me” (Jn. 10:27); “grievous wolves shall enter in among you” (Acts 20:29); “be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). The character is the message. If we discern the natural character of the creature, we will have perceived the message Yahweh is trying to disclose to us in the spirit word…Finally , Bro. Don refers to Ephesians 4:11 to justify his argument that consultation with social sciences could help the brotherhood when it has spiritual problems. The gifts allotted to believers never included psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists as consultants to the faithful. But it does read, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints.. for the edifying of the body of Christ…that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…” (Eph. 4:1-15).

Is it not obvious that there is a vast difference between learning to play an organ for spiritual edification and learning psychology, the science of dealing with the mind? What did Jesus mean, by saying, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God?” (Matt. 4:4).

Paul warns Timothy against false philosophy of the world (I Tim. 6:20-21 and see Col. 2:8). The warnings of the apostle are against the “Social Sciences” of this world which can take one far away from the Truth. This is the great danger of Bro. Ifill’ s advice.

“The Law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple.

The statues of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart…” (Psa. 19:7-9). After such statements, why would we have to go “outside the Bible” for further guidance???

Yours in His Holy Name,
Peter Kurtis, Armstrong, BC

There was no doubt some mixing of disparate disciplines in Bro. Ifill’s article. Understandably that has evoked some comments.

It may help our thinking that three of the great servants of God, Moses, Daniel and Paul, were instructed in the word of God and received the finest secular education available in their day (Heb. 11:24; Dan. 1:4; Acts 22:3). Two of them exercised great administrative responsibility and one dealt with a full range of diverse cultures. In each case, they took advantage of what was useful from their secular educations and discarded what was hurtful because of their faith in God.

Dr. John Thomas took advantage of the keenly trained mind that resulted from his medical studies and Bro. Robert Roberts used his writing skills, developed as a court reporter, in the service of the Truth.

God assumed the average person in Israel could read and write (Deut. 6:9; 27:3). As a result of their written heritage, the Jewish people have consistently been the best educated of all ethnic groups. Accordingly, we do not want to convey any sweeping impression that education and godliness are mutually exclusive.

The difficulty is in separating the wheat from the chaff in information dealing with behavioral matters. There is no way of doing this apart from an intimate knowledge of the word of God. Once we have that, we will consistently find the orientation of human thinking misdirected. But that does not mean we cannot learn anything from unbelievers.

There are examples of behavioral problems rooted in physiological causes. Such disorders as imbalance in body chemicals, brain tumors, birth defects, hyperkinesia, Alzheimer’s disease, etc., require the services of a physician or psychiatrist to diagnose and prescribe treatment. Communication skills, useful in many areas of daily life, can be learned from those trained in such matters. A little thought would multiply such examples.

The key to rightly using secular knowledge is to have a solid grounding in scripture. That must be foremost or we will be adversely influenced by humanistic thinking.

Additions Bring Joy

Dear Brother Don,

Hearty greetings in the Lord.

As one who came to the Central Fellowship from a Dawn ecclesia, it was most encouraging to read of the two (now four) San Francisco area Unamended ecclesias uniting with the Central fellowship. Likewise, I had noticed with joy and thanksgiving the formation of a Central ecclesia in North Battle ford, SASK from those who were previously Berean (July, 91 issue, pg. 220).

Our Heavenly Father has emphatically stated that He is not pleased with “discord” in the brotherhood (Prov. 6:16-19). “Party spirit” and factious divisions are listed as one of the “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19,20 quotations RSV). Therefore, the fellowship situation is clear; if brethren and sisters agree that the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith is scripturally accurate, they certainly should be in the Central fellowship…

Fellowship should not be a matter of geography or relatives and friends, as some have suggested to me. Why?

Because it is an unequivocal commandment of our Lord and Master, “that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment: (1 Cor. 1:10). “…that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27).

In all of your many discussions with brethren and sisters of other fellowships, Bro. Don, did someone ever point out to you a doctrinal error in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith? So if they agree with us in doctrine, they are disobeying the plain teaching of God’s word if they persist in being factious. “It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19).

“Finally, brethren, farewell. Mend your ways, heed my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you” (II Cor. 13:11).

With love in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Arthur Armstrong, Detroit, MI

We, too, have been greatly encouraged at the developments to which you refer. One of the contributing factors to divisions is the insistence by some to pass judgment on ecclesial situations hundreds or thousands of miles distant from them. It is a very good sign that brethren have been content to let local ecclesias deal with the circumstances in Saskatchewan and northern California. Hopefully, such wisdom will continue to be exercised.

Yes, there are those who feel the BASF contains doctrinal error and are not in Central Fellowship for that reason. Joined with them are those who agree with the BASF but hesitate to join us because of the implications it would have for their present fellowship practices. If Christ remains away, perhaps some of those situations may be resolved for the glory of God and the spiritual well-being of those involved.

Divorced and Remarried

Dear Brother Don,

Greetings in the Master’s name.

May the Lord continue to bless you in your effort to bring thought-provoking articles through the Tidings.

On numerous occasions, we have seen the subject of divorce and remarriage discussed in the Tidings and elsewhere. It seems as though the subject is always discussed from the view that “whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery…”

I would agree that one should not put away with the objective in mind of marrying another. But…!! What of the brother or sister whose partner divorces him/her, denounces God, the Truth and all it stands for? The person who is left remains faithful to his baptismal vows, but is now alone. He meets someone very special and remarries in the Lord and continues in attendance at meetings but breaks bread on his own. Should some consideration be given to allow that person to come back to good standing in the meeting?

When a brother or sister marries out of the Truth, fellowship is withdrawn from him/her on the basis of being unequally yoked with an unbeliever. Sometime later, or in some cases, after no time at all, a letter is written requesting reinstatement. If and when reinstatement is granted, the condition that caused disfellowship still exists; he is still unequally yoked to an unbeliever. This same ecclesia may insist that the divorced and consequently abandoned brother or sister who has remarried must cast his new partner aside before being refellowshipped.

God created woman for man with the purpose in mind of their being together. It is not logical or healthy to be alone because of an unfortunate circumstance. (I say this understanding that marriage is a divine institution.)

The Bible tells us that there is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It seems that, in many ecclesias, there are two unforgivable sins.

The way some ecclesias act, they would preclude David from their midst. Are we so caught up in rules and the letter of the law, in an attempt not to compromise the principles of the Truth, that we overlook completely the principles of Christ concerning love, compassion and forgiveness? Christ, the only one who could have cast the first stone, said “go and sin no more.”

There are many different opinions on the Bible verses involved in the divorce and remarriage issue. In that there are different points of view, it is indicative that there is not a clear solution. Many brothers and sisters are being excluded from the table without consideration of their individual cases, persons who are already God’s children. Should this be done or should they be allowed to break bread with the final judgment being left to God?

Could you give us some insight into what should be done about those who are abandoned by their partners.

Sincerely, and with love in the name of Christ,
A brother

In the first place, it is not always accurate to infer ecclesias lack compassion because of their stand on this issue. Some believe that a divorced and remarried person is living in a continuing state of adultery. They do not deny an act of adultery is forgivable.

While we do not feel their position is correct, we can understand why they insist a person separate from his second partner before readmitting him to fellowship. The divorced and remarried person should be considerate and not seek acceptance at such an ecclesia but should go to an ecclesia that does not have such a policy, even if that requires relocating to a different city. People in our society move for more trivial rea­sons.

Another factor is an ecclesia’s evaluation of a specific case. They may not have a “state-of-adultery” position, but they may feel the “innocent” party is not so innocent. The abandoned partner may have been abandoned because he was impossible to live with. Or he/ she may have fallen in love with another person and virtually driven his first partner to leave so he could remarry someone he preferred. He may have thought he could do all this and remain in fellowship because he was the “abandoned” party. An ecclesia is thus put in the very awkward position of making a judgment on the particulars of a case. In such a situation, they could easily be accused of overstepping their right to judge or of lacking compassion. In actual fact, they are probably trying to maintain a stand against marriage breakdowns in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

If the innocent party is truly innocent and has been divorced by a promiscuous partner, some ecclesias feel the abandoned person is at liberty to marry with no sin incurred. If that is a person ‘s case, he should join such an ecclesia and avoid being the regrettable cause of dissension in an ecclesia which holds a different view.

As you are aware, different positions have been taken by different ecclesias in the Central Fellowship. As a fellowship, we have agreed not to let such differences prohibit inter-ecclesial association. Therefore, a divorced and remarried believer should strive not to disrupt an ecclesia and should apply at an ecclesia where he may be able to enjoy the benefits of communion around the Lord’s table. Any awkwardness of relocating should be graciously accepted by the person seeking refellowship even if he is the wholly innocent victim of an ill-fated marriage.

When relocating is impossible, a person may find it necessary to stand aside, not causing ecclesial turmoil. Please don’t view this position as insensitive. If you are a peacemaker, you will be greatly blessed.

Need For Mercy

Dear Brother Don,

“The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath.”

This is a beautiful quote from Shakespeare about the gentle quality of mercy. Unfortunately, it is not true. The quality of mercy is strained, because we are human. When someone does something very wrong, and is worthy of severe punishment and even public condemnation, we are called upon to show mercy. We must overcome our fleshly desire to see justice done and choose the spiritual inclination, which is mercy.

Mercy is not a natural tendency. Even though we do not delight in the death of evil men, we still may have a desire to see the wicked punished. But if we ask for justice for others, we are asking for justice for ourselves. “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt. 7:2). Yet we are all wicked and unprofitable servants worthy of death.

“He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8).

That is why I “choose” mercy, not because it flows from me naturally, but because I am asking God to “forgive our trespasses, even as we for give those who trespass against us.”

With love, your sister in Christ,
Maria Wilkinson, Worcester, MA

You are right in assessing our natural inclination. While not a pretty picture, we are prone to malice, partiality, and harsh judgment of others. True mercy is of God and will only be exercised by those who yield themselves to His word.

It is also true that, in a sense, all believers are “…unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10). The word “wicked,” however, is a very strong word and is reserved for those who will be rejected by Christ (e.g. Luke .19:22). Having come to Christ, we must forsake our former wicked works and “overcome the wicked one…because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (I John 2:14; 4:4). The believer may occasionally commit a wicked act, but he cannot be a wicked person and be saved.

While God delights to do mercy (Micah 7:18), He will purge the earth of those who scorn Him and refuse to forsake their wicked ways for, “thou hatest all workers of iniquity” (Micah 6:10-­16; Psa. 5:5). We are in no position now to apply such condemnation to individuals; but eventually we hope to be part of the LORD of hosts, who will execute His judgments that the world might be filled with the glory of God.

Malachi 2:16

Dear Brother Don,

In the letters section of the Tidings, I have noted that Malachi 2:16 is generally misquoted. Both the AV and RV read, “the LORD hateth putting away,” not “the Lord hateth divorce” as it is often misquoted as reading. The Hebrew word shalach is used here and is never translated “divorce.” Shalach does occur in connection with divorce in Jeremiah 3:8, “..J had put her away and given her a bill of divorce…”

There is a Hebrew word garash which is translated “put away, cast out, thrust out, divorced, etc.” …This is the word in the list of marriage prohibitions for priests: “put away,” “a divorced woman” (Lev. 21:7,14); “put away” (Ezk. 44:22).

Garash is used in the casting out of Hagar. Abraham was reluctant to follow Sarah’s instructions but God told him to do it. If we assume shalach also means to divorce, we have to determine why God hates it and also approves it. The answer is obvious. The putting away in Malachi is described as being against the wives of their youth, a heinous way of rewarding a lifetime service of a faithful wife. In Genesis, it was caused by Hagar’ s own actions. Thus we have to examine the cause of divorce or we could reach wrong conclusions about it.

Marriage is defined in Genesis 2:24 as two becoming one flesh. So there will be no mistaken ideas about what this means, refer to I Corinthians 6:15 ,16 (sexual relations are alluded to as two becoming one, ed.)…the apostle then gives the warning to flee fornication.

On the one-flesh foundation, a superstructure is formed of spiritual values such as mutual love, trust, compassion, etc. In the Old Testament, God decreed that the sexual sin of fornication ended a marriage with the death of the fornicators. The reason for this drastic action was that fornication destroyed the one-flesh foundation and left the superstructure a shattered condition. Only those who have had this happen in their marriages know the terrible effects it has on the spiritual values of that marriage. God was aware of the broken hearts of the innocent victims which was one of the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment for this sin.

In the New Testament, the same sexual sin, and God’s concern for the one sinned against, are the reasons why a marriage is ended. Because we are not under a theocracy, divorce takes the place of capital punishment…

Sincerely, your brother in Christ,
Harry Perks, Stayner, ONT

The Law of Moses was designed to regulate a nation of people relatively few of whom were believers. The law of Christ is designed for believers who have forgiveness and must forgive to continue to receive it. Under Christ, fornication should not end a marriage. When it occurs, the right course is forgiveness and reformation. The questionable area is what liberty does a person have if the partner is unrepentant, persists in being unfaithful and leaves.

The most recent discussion involving the problem has centered on Deuteronomy 24. We now close the present round of discussion on this issue.

The Name Of God

Dear Brother Don,

I am writing with regard to the recent discussion on reading of the name “Yahweh.” I would like to give my reasons for reading “Yahweh” instead of “the LORD,” and also comment on your reply in the January, ’92 Tidings.

We must all agree that the main theme of the Bible is that of God-manifestation, that is, of God filling this earth with people who have His character. In reading both the Old and New Testaments, one sees this theme come up over and over, described in different ways such as to “know God,” to “think on the name,” to manifest “the name” or the “glory of God,” or to develop “agape.”

Though the New Testament never transliterates the name of God, it certainly constantly refers us back to it (Matt. 6:9; John 5:43 — where we clearly see that “Father” is a title of God, not His new Name — John 10:25; 12:28; chapter 17; Acts 15:14; I Tim. 6:1, etc.). This constant reference to “the Name” was to direct the New Tes­tament reader back to the Old Testament so that he could find the significance of the name of God, that is Yahweh, and what it means, as outlined in passages such as Exodus 3,6,33 and 34.

What matters is not whether we read “the LORD” or “Yahweh,” but if we have an understanding of the Name. If we do not understand it, and know it, there is no way that we can be saved (John 17:3).

Having come to the understanding of the importance of knowing the Name of Yahweh and how it ought to affect our lives in the Truth (Mal. 3:16,17), I have found that the impact of the Name is much greater for me when using “Yah­weh.” Every time! read it or hear it, it causes to come to mind, if only briefly, the principles of God-manifestation. Though I would never insist on any one else following my practice, it is certainly one which I find to be spiritually beneficial.

In these last days, when the importance of understanding the meaning of the Name and how it affects our own expectations of the kingdom is being given less prominence, it is vital that we emphasize it more and more however we can. The danger lurks of beginning to selfishly view our future as only the attainment of immortality, rather than seeing it as being apart of a holy temple of people, manifesting God throughout the whole earth.

I would also like to respond to some of the other issues raised in the same Tidings.

  1. Spiritual elitism — I agree with your point. When giving a lecture or in any preaching type of situation, we ought to avoid any substitutions (or cliches) unless we explain them first. Some substitutions do serve to highlight the differences between us and the apostasy (such as “ecclesia” for “church”) and are valid if they provoke an interest in the interested friend to learn why we make such distinctions. Another preaching situation is that of CYC and! have found that the use of the “Yahweh” name has caused other young people to inquire why! do so, and thus has given a good chance to discuss the importance of the meaning of the Name.
  2. Polarization –I have never experienced brethren demanding the substitution of “Yahweh” for “the ” On the other hand, I do know of one ecclesia that split because of those who insisted that “Yahweh” not be used. Even now, the criticism seems to be generally against those who read “Yahweh,” not from them.
  3. Your exposition at the end of your reply– Though I know from hearing you before in talks that you don’t believe this, your comments could be interpreted as saying that the Yahweh name was fulfilled entirely in Jesus Christ, and consequently no longer applies today. This erroneous view has been taught in parts of the brotherhood and it falls short of the whole picture.

Philippians 2:9 tells us that after God resurrected Jesus Christ, he was exalted and given “The” name that is above every name (that is, Yahweh). This is only the beginning of the fulfillment of the Yahweh name. He will be manifest in a multitude. Though we are now in Christ, we have not yet been given the name of Yahweh as has Christ. That is the promise to the overcome, who will be given Christ’s “new name,” that is “the name of my God” (Rev. 3:12). This is our hope and goal. we must not lose sight of it.

I appeal to all then — let us not find ourselves debating such a lofty topic. Rather, let each of us come to a fuller knowledge and understanding of the Name, and support one another in developing the divine character.

With love, your brother,
John Mannell, Georgetown, ONT

Every time the believer uses the word “God,” he should draw to mind that God is the good Creator who made us to be in His image and to have dominion over His creation (Gen. 1:26-28). Being in His image includes being in the likeness of His moral attributes (Col. 3:10). Using the word “Lord” should bring to the believer’s mind that he serves a mighty and gracious lord whose principles we are to obey and in so doing manifest His glorious attributes. Addressing God as “our Father” should speak to us that we are children in His family only if we reflect a family likeness of graciousness, holiness, goodness, truth, uprightness and lovingkind­ness. Every one of these English words is powerfully able to bring to mind the vital topic of God-manifestation. If these English words have lost their impact in our lives, Hebrew words will do so too as we use them in a repetitive manner. Whatever vocabulary we use, we will only manifest God and be associated with His eternal purpose through continual Bible reading, prayer, remembrance of His great promises and obedience to His commands.

While “Yahweh” is used as a proper name of God, it is not His only name: God Almighty (Heb. El Shaddai) was a name by which the patriarchs addressed Him (Ex. 6:3); Amos 5:27 reads, “…saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts (Heb. Elohim tsaba).”

To speak of the name of God is to speak of Him, His power, authority and attributes. To say that, in the kingdom, there “shall be one LORD, and his name one” (Zech. 14:9) does not mean God will be known only by the appellation of Yahweh. The Revelation makes that plain: “Holy, holy holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” is the name by which God is feared and glorified during the kingdom (Rev. 4:8; 15:3-4). No light will be needed in new Jerusalem “for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (21:22). “The Lord God Almighty” is His Name yet He also says, “I am Alpha and Omega” and welcomes being called “King of saints,” and “Lord” (Rev. 21:6; 15:3,­4). The fact that there will be only one God and His name one clearly means that God will brook no idolatry, tolerate no apostasy and permit no defiance of those whom He has appointed to rule over His earth.

Dear Brother Don,

Just recently, I rediscovered afoot-note in a book titled Judaism, a Pelican original by Dr. Isadore Epstein, a recognized Semitic scholar. Throughout the book, God’s covenant name is printed YHWH. The footnote at the end of the chapter states, “The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is unknown, and the divine name is therefore best left unvocalized.” In other words, it is not a matter of which rendering is correct, but rather that we, quite simply, don’t know the correct pronunciation, and should be prepared to recognize the fact.

Hebrew is a phonetic language, where spelling merely gives the consonants of words; the vowels being fitted in from common usage. When from the 6th to the 10th centuries the Masoretes of Babylon and Palestine produced a written text of the Jewish scriptures, they did so by “pointing” the known consonan­tal text with phonetic vowels. However, the oral form of the name of God had been out of use for several hundred years and the Masoretic pointing was basically guesswork. Known vocalizations of the consonants in the covenant could give at least two variants: J’ HW’ H or J’ H’W’ H. Take your pick? Definitely not!

A consideration of Exodus 3 will show that God gave His name to Moses as the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and it was only on Moses’ insistence that he be given a name to take back to the children of Israel that Moses was given the covenant name. In other words, God’s name was for the use of Israel under their covenant with the God of Israel. This seems to be borne out by the use of God’s name in the New Testa­ment, where Hebrew names have been transliterated, but the Covenant name abounds only as euphemisms such as “the Majesty on High,” “The Highest,” “The Blessed,” etc.

Ever your brother,
Ron Easson, Collingwood, ONT

The foregoing was received prior to the article in this issue by Bro. Dilling­ham. Bro. Easson coincidentally comments on some of the same material.

The name “Yahweh” is frequently associated with the ecclesial era and the millennium. As pointed out in one of the following letters, it is not uniquely applicable to the Mosaic constitution. Some examples are: “they shall praise the LORD (Heb. Yahweh) that seek him…all the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD…Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his praise in the islands…And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God” (Psalm 22:26,27; Isa. 42:12; Micah 5:4). The issue is whether or not it is preferable to read “Yahweh” for “the LORD” when reading from an English language Bible.

(The following is extracted from a general letter covering several items.) Dear Brother Don,

…Your explanation of the use of “Yahweh” in my opinion is correct. Those of us who came “out of the world,” and had been instructed from the King James Version of the Bible, would not be aware of the Hebrew text. To us, it would be an “unknown” tongue. It fact, it would be a detriment at this stage rather than a help.

Paul said, “In the church, I had rather speak five words with my under­standing that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (I Cor. 14:19 also read vs. 9-19). It is well and good that, after we are “in the Truth,” the names of Deity be understood that we may grow in knowledge and understanding…

Your brother in Christ,
J.B.

“I Am” – “I Will Be”

Dear Brother Don,

One fact seems to be overlooked in our conclusions on this subject. Jesus and his disciples appear to have followed a practice already established by the Jews. The Jews when reading the Hebrew scriptures aloud substituted the word Adonai for Yahweh; they even inserted the substituted form in their scrolls. Adonai is a generic name for God — as opposed to the Memorial Name — and equates to the Greek Theos and Kyrios (God and Lord).

If this was the practice of the Jews in Jesus’ day, it does not appear that he objected to it — even though the reason for the practice was quite different from that suggested for the Master and his disciples. We are told that the Jews would not read the divine name aloud for fear of using it lightly and thereby disobeying the third commandment. There is no record that the Lord Jesus ever entered into debate with the scribes and Pharisees on this subject.

There is much that we do not know about first century practice in this re­gard, and we would all do well not to be too dogmatic in our assertions or to condemn others in the household whose practice may be different from our own.

The statement, the divine name is never transliterated in the New Testa­ment, must be qualified. The phrase “Hallelujah” (Alleluia, KJV) -­”Praise ye Yah” — is transliterated into Greek and English. It includes a form of the Memorial Name and is used four times in the Apocalypse –each time in a vision of the Millennium. At that time, Yahweh will reveal Himself in the multi­tude of glorified saints — as He has already manifested Himself in His Son.

The subject of God manifestation, as it relates to the coming kingdom, is not understood by the churches of Christendom. We trust that we will not lose sight of this aspect of the Memorial Name.

It would be a mistake to assume that the Yahweh name is only associated with the Law of Moses. It was revealed to Moses prior to and separate from the Law. The ultimate fulfillment of the “I will be” is to be seen when God is “all in all” (I Cor. 15:28).

Joe Banta, Austin, TX

We strongly suspect that Christ and the apostles read Yahweh, going against the practice of apostate Jewry. Yet, as Bro. Banta notes, we cannot be positive about the point.

Yahweh is part of the full memorial name which is, “The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exo. 3:15). This name draws attention to the covenant promises. As the God of the patriarchs, the LORD made promises to them which were extraordinary in the power that would be exercised in their fulfillment — Egypt would let a nation of slaves depart with great substance, a deliverer from sin would be provided, Abraham’s seed would inherit the land forever, etc. The memorial to God that exists in the earth is His continuing fulfillment of these promises. That establishes His power and His integrity that we might rely on His word for our very lives (note the context of Exo. 3:14­-17; 6:3-8; Psa. 135:6,12-18).

The full memorial name has additional implications — “He shall be mighty ones of the fathers” reveals that Yahweh intends to glorify those associated with Him through faith. By faith, we become children of the seed and heirs of the promises — we are therefore “of the fathers.” We feel over-emphasizing the word Yahweh can actually obscure God’s revelation of Himself not only in the full memorial title but also in the other names and titles of the Deity.

Dear Brother Don,

Greetings in Christ’s name.

In our area, the “oneness” Pentecostals deny the trinity and claim that God and Jesus are the very same person. They make use of John 8:58, “before Abraham was I am,” to help prove their views.

Our answer to them (and Bro. Scott) is that the “I am” of 8:58 (ego eimi) is also used in the next chapter by the man blind from birth. “Some said, this is he; others said, He is like him; but he said, I am he” (9:9). Again, the “he” is itali­cized and the “I am” is from ego eimi. Here the blind man is making no claim at God-manifestation, nor did they think so, but is merely identifying himself as the party in question.

Sometimes the italicized words added by the translators do serve to clarify the thought. In John 8:58, I believe the italicized “he” does just that, because Jesus is identifying him­self as the Messiah. So often in the Old Testament, Messiah is introduced in the text simply as “he” or “him.” Isa. 53 :2 ,3 is an example: “For he shall grow up…He is despised and rejected of men.” When Jesus said, “before Abraham was I am he,” he was saying that he was that Messiah.

However, as to the point Bro. Scott seems to be making about Exo. 3:14, it may very well be that all three tenses can apply. God was, God is, and God will be, teaching the eternal existence of God.

I do agree with Bro. Scott that Jesus was the full manifestation of God. If the future tense of “I will be” is correct for Exo. 3 :14 , the fulfillment of that purpose was achieved in Jesus. This certainly casts some doubt on the wisdom of using “Yahweh” in our prayers.

Regarding the Megiddo Mission, I have a two-volume work which seems to be theirs. ..Dr. Thomas and Robert Roberts are mentioned as “deceived teachers.”…

Your brother in Christ,

Ted Plew, Bloomington, IN

We thank Bro. Ted for his comments and take this opportunity to extend our deepest sympathy upon the falling asleep of his beloved father (see “Ecclesial News” for Jasonville, IN).

While Jesus fully manifested the Father, he was a, not the fulfillment of the purpose indicated in Yahweh Elohim. Hebrews 2:6-11 provides an exposition of Psalm 8:4-6 in this very regard. While all the redeemed will, in God’s gracious purpose, be crowned with glory and honor, now we see only one human being, Jesus, so blessed. “For it became him…in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” He thus is a fulfillment of the divine purpose.

In amplification of Bro. Ted’s remarks, we note that when the Master asked his disciples, “whom say ye that I am?” The right answer was, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:15,16). This suggests that Christ’s assertion to the Jews was to be taken as, “I am the Messiah.”

Dear Brother Don,

God created man in His image and likeness. Man rebelled and we have all suffered the consequences. God’s plan has not changed. He still wants man to reflect His image and likeness. God intends to reveal Himself through faithful men and women and bring all creation into oneness with Himself That divine intention is bound up in the lesson of the memorial name: Yahweh (He will be).

In the February issue of the Tidings, in the article entitled “Why Am’ Not ‘I Will Be’,” we were asked to accept the thought that the work of the memorial name was finished in Jesus Christ. This is absolutely not true! We read in Habakkuk 2 :14: “For all the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea.” We read also in Numbers 14:21: “But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Yahweh.”

These are some of the verses that make it clear that the lesson of the memorial name is tied to the divine plan of God manifestation in all creation. When God’s intention is to fill the earth with the knowledge of Yahweh (He Will Be), why are we being asked to divert our attention to the “I Am” philosophy that is constantly hurled at us by the Catholic harlot and all her daughters?

Yahweh Elohim (LORD God) means “He Will Be Mighty Ones.” Jesus Christ is not the only flesh that Yahweh will ever manifest Himself through. The work of the memorial name is not finished. That would be equivalent to negating our hope of redemption. We hope to share the divine nature (II Peter. 1:4). We hope to wear the name of God (Rev. 22:4). This is the lesson of the memorial name. ..that God will manifest Himself in the flesh, that His will shall be accomplished in creation. This work was not finished in Christ. Yahweh is a name that will find fulfillment in all the earth. It is a name that will fill the earth and therefore represents all that we hope for.

Yahweh is certainly a symbol ofwhat has been accomplished in Jesus Christ; however, the mistake being made in this article is that it attempts to limit the lesson of the name exclusively to what has been accomplished in the name at the expense of what has yet to be accom­plished in the name.

May our Father grant you grace and peace.

Jim Dillingham, Hudson, NH

Answers to other correspondents provide our comments relevant to most of the points raised by Bro. Jim Dilling­ham.

From private conversations with Bro. Jim Scott, he emphatically believes in the blessed hope of the redeemed sharing in God’s nature and in His name. His exposition was in respect to the admittedly intriguing use of “I am” by the Lord Jesus and to the notable way Yahweh is not transliterated in the New Testament. His suggestions, incidentally, were his own, as is the case with all contributors. They were not submitted on behalf of the Shelburne, ONT ecclesia.

(Bro. Gavin Melles of Costa Rica, a student of linguistics, has contributed an interesting and technically detailed letter on this subject. We plan to publish it as an article next month, God willing. That will then conclude the discussion of reading “Yahweh” for “the LORD.”)

The Growth Of The Word

Dear Brother Don,

I read with great interest Bro. Jack Robinson’s “Daily Reading Notes” (Tidings 2192) under the heading “The development of the word.” It is a reminder that God’s word must continue to be sown, because we know not how or when God shall cause the word to germinate in honest hearts, remembering, of course, it is God that gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-9).

Much love in Jesus’ name,
Gil Phillips, Lake Hughes, CA

Death Of Bro. Harry Whittaker

Dear Brother Don,

Greetings in the fellowship of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The news of the falling asleep, in Christ, of our beloved Bro. Harry Whit­taker will have brought to many in North America a sad sense of loss. Many of us met him during his Canadian sojourn, with Sister Phyllis, in the sixties, or during his subsequent visits. Others knew him through his published works and personal correspondence.

His knowledge of the scriptures, and of relevant background material, was prodigious. His devotion to the Truth was exemplary. His often unconventional approach to Biblical exposition was challenging, and served to stimulate others to read their Bibles with greater care and attention to detail. His openness to being, himself, challenged, was indicative of a degree of humility unusual in one of his level of intellect and knowledge. He was also a warmly compassionate brother. His spartan personal life-style puts us to shame who become dependent upon a standard of living that Brother Harry would, quietly, regard as self-indulgent. His highly disciplined use of time, in the study of the Word and in the service of the Master, serves as a lasting and salutary example to us all.

While his influence survives, our brother rests awhile, mourned and missed by his widow, his family and his countless friends. May that day soon come when, “they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint” (Isa. 40:31).

Sincerely, your brother,
Philip Jones, Calgary, ALBT

Our own association with Brother Harry began in Guyana (then British Guiana) in 1959 and continued in one way or another over the years. Bro. Harry was remarkable in his ability to relate to those much younger than him­self. He delighted in stimulating young minds to a love of the Word and to a careful study thereof. When with him, the discussion was continually Bible oriented. He always had some point that would incite interest or perhaps disagreement. But I can never recall him pulling rank and claiming he was right because of greater age and experience. His emphasis was always upon what the scripture indicated. He leaves a rich heritage of voluminous writings from which we can benefit.

Along with many others, we will greatly miss his keen insight and stirring example. We extend to Sis. Phyllis our heartfelt sympathy in the loss of her beloved husband and our esteemed brother.