Suing Brethren
Dear Mr. Styles,
Could you clarify a question for me regarding the statement: “Thou shall not sue a brother.” Is this a brother of the Truth or a fellow man.
Thank you kindly,
Roy Nixon, Manchester, NH
While the above quote is not from the Bible, it does express a practical application of the spirit of the teachings of Christ for his disciples in this present dispensation. His followers are to be forgiving, peaceable and non-retaliatory toward believers and nonbelievers. Applicable scriptures are Matthew 5:23-26,38-45; Romans 12:17-20; I Corinthians 6:6-8.
The last reference is of particular interest as it deals with one brother in the Truth suing another in the Gentile courts. That was wrong. In the first place, one brother should not wrong anyone, let alone another member of the body of Christ. If that should happen, however, the wronged party should suffer the hurt and forgive. If need be, the dispute should be taken to other ecclesial members for settlement (I Cor. 6:1-8).
Some real-life illustrations may help. For years, we hosted an ecclesial picnic with hundreds in attendance who freely used a swimming pool, youngsters climbed trees, darted about on bikes, ran through some woods and played with our two dogs. From a worldly point of view, there was a very high exposure to someone hurting himself on our property and suing us for negligence. When the agent handling our homeowner’s insurance learned of the situation, he expressed shock and concern. He recovered when he was reassured of the principles of those attending and, after 12 years of no suits, he has relaxed and we were provided an opportunity to witness to the principles of the Truth.
When running a medium-sized business, we experienced a number of situations where suing at law is the norm in our society — customers not paying bills, disputes with unions and vendors, disagreements caused by environmental regulations, disgruntled employees, etc. By being very careful with respect to granting credit, by acting non-confrontational, reasonable and courteous with vendors, unions, government agencies and business associates, we came out net dollars ahead of competitors who resorted to the law courts. The lost cases and legal expenses they incurred more than offset any losses we suffered.
Luke and the Old Testament
Dear Bro. Don,
In “Tidings” for April, ’94 the article on “A Reading Plan for the Gospel of Luke” section 49m, there were some comments on divorce. Bro. Hill notes the Jews “had done everything they could to avoid the clear teaching of the law on marriage and divorce. In contrast, Jesus restores the original intent…cp. the readings in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.”
This is taking Jesus’ words in Luke 16:18 out of context. When they are read in context, it will be seen that Jesus is warning the scribes and Pharisees (15:1) that a drastic change was coming that would personally affect each one of them (16:15-18). The subject of change occupies all of chapters 15 and 16.
At 16:16, Jesus warns them about this change, which had already begun. “The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist] : since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Jesus continues, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass (away, RV), than one tittle of the law to fail” (v.17).
Since Jesus said that the law (Law of Moses) ended with John, then it is obvious that heaven and earth (the Jewish state) would pass away. This is confirmed by Jesus, “Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away” (Luke 21:33).
Accordingly, Jesus states that one portion of the Law of Moses was no longer valid when he declares that those who divorce and remarry now commit adultery in so doing. He thus tells the scribes and Pharisees they can no longer use the divorce bill of the Law. But more importantly, since one tittle of the law has passed, the Jewish state will pass away.
(In earlier teaching, Jesus had already given his ruling on what constituted a lawful cause of divorce with an allowance for remarriage — fornication. This allowance replaced the Mosaic law of terminating the marriage by execution of the offending party.)
Thus Jesus is using the ending of a portion of the Law of Moses to stress the fact that the Jewish state was to pass away and would be replaced by the kingdom of God. The subject here has no bearing on his teaching regarding the subject of divorce.
Sincerely,
Your brother in Christ,
Harry Perks, Stayner, ONT
Christadelphians as Role Models
Dear Brother Don,
Our comment relates to the article “When Your Daughter Wants to Dress Up” (3/94).
We have no disagreement with the question raised or response given. Our concern is with any statement containing the phrase, “Christadelphians don’t do this or that.”
As their own reasoning develops, there is considerable confusion in the minds of children and young teens regarding the things of the Truth taught them by their elders. We can easily forget our own difficulty in sorting out contradictory statements from two respected sources, our teachers and our parents. For example, the teaching of the origin of the species has led to many a supper table discussion and must eventually result in the discrediting of a large majority of the scientific community.
We add to the confusion in young minds if we say Christadelphians don’t do something or other and then they see Christadelphians doing it. Any blanket statement about the practices of Christadelphians fails to recognize that some of us have differing values having been raised in various backgrounds. For example, in a group setting, a young child blurted out, “Only tramps wear make-up, right Mummy?” Since one of the group was wearing a little make-up, much embarrassment was occasioned to the wearer and to “Mummy.”
It is far better to teach our children that the servant of Christ should adhere to the wisdom and counsel of the scriptures and pursue the answer that was well given in the article, using the scriptures, not other people, as our reference point.
We are not a perfect community, although it is our hope and prayer that one day we will attain to this level. Until then, we must be aware of each other’s sensitivities…Only first principles should fall into the area where we can state that Christ’s servants do, or don’t do something.
Another item that has been a cause of concern is the way some brothers, sisters and children dress for the memorial and other services.
…There is a time and place for casual attire, but it is certainly not as we approach the memorial of the Lord’s sacrifice. Obviously, there are exceptional circumstances; in an emergency case, it is better to attend in work clothes than not at all. When we become comfortable in casual clothes, however, we need to ask ourselves if we are giving less than due diligence in other areas of our stewardship.
Love in the Lord,
A brother and sister (Canada)
From Jamaica
Dear Bro. Don,
Loving greetings in the one hope we share.
I continue to be fascinated and to rejoice in spirit because of the direction in which Christadelphia is moving. Specifically, I am pleased with the opportunity to now look critically at ideas that have been held for years with a great deal of inflexibility.
It seems our past attitude was that absolute truth was discovered by our pioneers and therefore the frontiers are closed and no further exploration is possible, or should be allowed. This approach presumes a lot. It presumes, firstly, that any one human being has the capacity to understand fully the mind of the Creator as revealed in the word. It presumes further, that there are boundaries to the depth of spiritual knowledge and understanding. It also presumes that men, uninspired by the spirit of God, are capable of infallibility in their understanding and interpretation of scriptures.
I suggest the spirit of inquiry be encouraged. A note of warning should be sounded, however, that we remember we are dealing with holy things and we should not start jockeying for position or for positions of influence. All of us, especially those who are teachers, must remember they are to be slaves, not lords, in the Master’s household.
Having said that, I suggest, as a community, we should be wholly reliant on facts and that we agree:
- No human being has the capacity to understand absolutely the scriptures.
- That any boundaries placed on the Truth are man made.
- That no one is infallible.
Such an attitude would reflect appropriate humility which is the attitude we should have when approaching the word of God. And we will not feel a need to “defend” our own opinions, we will listen to the opinions of others and objectively see the merits in differing points of view. Indeed, we would like to see the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, etc. approach things in this light. We often think, “If only they would change their attitude, to stop believing that the Watchtower organization and Ellen G. White are infallible.” Ought we not to adopt for ourselves the same attitudes we wish for others? Have not the wrong attitudes led them into error and kept them there? Cannot the wrong attitudes do the same to us?
It is my opinion that the Truth is so profound, so dynamic that we do ourselves and our community a great injustice by setting artificial boundaries on the level of understanding we are capable of developing. By virtue of the fact that there are differing opinions on some Bible subjects throughout the brotherhood, brethren should sit together and listen to each other in the spirit of love, unity and humility. To presume that a brother or sister, in suggesting an alternative interpretation of scriptures, is seeking to willfully oppose the Truth is to think evil.
I further suggest that many of the divisions we have had in the brotherhood have resulted from wrong attitudes which have not served the household well and which, if continued, will not fulfill the prayer of the Lord — that we all be one as the Lord and his Father are one that the world may believe that God had sent him.
What a powerful message in word and deed Christadelphia could and would send to the world if it could become a united community, pooling its resources together and truly demonstrating the spirit of love and unity. What an example it would be in the right attitude to Bible study and inquiry.
I submit that such a change of attitude would not diminish or detract from the Truth but would enhance and develop even further our understanding and appreciation of the Truth while adding a powerful dimension to the concept of fellowship.
Yours in the one faith,
Tony Isaacs, Kingston, Jamaica
In referring to discussion of various points of view, we are sure Bro. Tony does not have in mind the first principles of the Truth. He is one of the most direct and effective presenters of the fundamentals whom we have known. We find his letter particularly interesting in that the Jamaican ecclesias are, for the first time in the experience of most, directly facing the harm of a splintered community. In Montego Bay, for example, another Christadelphian ecclesia runs prominent campaigns with no regard for the existing Central Fellowship ecclesia. In a relatively small town, this is disastrous and gives rise to many of Bro. Tony’s comments.
So far as inquiry and discussion is concerned, we see no point in reevaluating the pros and cons of the fundamental doctrines of our faith and neither does Bro. Tony. These are clearly revealed Bible facts upon which we all agree. Any discussion about such matters should be to improve our presentation of our teaching and to better answer wrested scriptures. When it comes to the pioneer writings, they contribute wonderfully to the understanding of many areas of scripture. Their expositions can be profitably discussed, keeping in mind always that the ultimate authority on any issue must be the scriptures of truth. What we may not realize is the extent of scripture which is not covered in the pioneer works. Using the fundamentals and the pioneers as a foundation, we have much scripture where original exposition is still needed for those who are inclined to such activity.
Christ Redeemed by his Own Sacrifice
Dear Bro. Don,
Loving greetings in Christ.
These comments relate to your exposition on pages 512 and 513 of “Tidings” for 12/93 which was under 2 headings:
- The voluntary death of Christ.
- Christ redeemed by his sacrifice.
I agree with your comments under the first heading. In respect to the second matter, there is another way of looking at the scriptures you quoted and deduced from.
You say “Mortality is a result of sin.” The scriptures say that man was created mortal (I Cor. 15:45-47). Lack of immediate access to the tree of life came with sin, which results in death. The judgment which came upon all men with a view to their condemnation (Rom. 5:18) is this judgment which restricted access to the tree of life…Condemnation is a legal term and only applies to those capable of making moral decisions and who spurn God’s saving covenants. It does not apply to babies who die, for example, and is not synonymous with mortality because those “in Christ” get rid of condemnation in this life but not their mortality (Rom. 8:1).
It is true that Jesus needed saving and delivering from mortality (Heb. 5 :8)…but it is not correct to say that Jesus needed redemption. Redemption is only applied to those who need forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Redemption can only apply to those who are under a condemnation as a result of their sins. The redeemer had to be one who was free of the need of redemption himself, who had the price and who was willing to pay it (Lev. 25:47-55; Ruth 4). The middle voice verb of Hebrews 9:12 is not a reflexive verb in which the subject of the verb does the action of the verb to himself (See Greek experts such as Dana and Montey.)
You say that our nature is regarded as “unclean” in scripture but you offer no proof Jesus said, “Now ye are clean through the word I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3). He would not have said this if he thought they still had their unclean natures. The scriptures use the term “nature” as referring to human behavior, which can be either good (Rom. 1:26; 2 :14-15 ; II Tim. 3 :3 ) or bad (Eph. 2:3; Jude 10).
Finally, you say Jesus was purified by participation in his own sacrifice (Heb. 9:23). The tabernacle of Hebrews 9:23 symbolizes the saints of the new covenant, the collective ecclesia (II Cor. 5:1,4; II Peter 1:13-14; I Peter 2:5). The vessels have the same significance (Acts 9:15; I Thess. 4:34). The cleansing of the saints is the forgiveness of their sins for Christ’s sake and their action of getting rid of sin from their lives.
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Pat Brady, Toowoomba,
Queensland, Australia
(Pat Brady is co-editor of The Small Voice, a publication representing what would commonly be known as the “Clean Flesh” doctrine.)
We realize surface mail takes two months to reach Australia and the magazine starting the editorial series on matters that you raise has only recently reached you. We are sticking to straightforward ideas which can be readily supported by many passages which do not depend on a specific word for their meaning. We are trying to avoid the traditional catch-words which carry with them a history of controversy. We will, however, make brief comment on the key words you have mentioned.
“Mortality” — I Corinthians 15:45-47 says “the first man was of the earth, earthy;” it does not say he was created “mortal.” What we know is that as a consequence of sin, God reproved and punished Adam. Part of the punishment was that death became a certainty, “dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” Thus Paul says, “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). Even if Adam were created mortal and was sustained alive by regular partaking of the tree of life, once barred from it because of sin, he would ultimately die. Thus, no matter how you look at it, it was sin that brought death into the world for him and all his progeny.
“Condemnation” — As Adam’s sin had adverse consequences for many, so Christ’s righteousness can have beneficial consequences for many. Without bogging down in legalism, that seems a reasonable summary of the bad news and the good news as set forth in Romans 5:12-21. The great blessing is that, in God’s grace, the gift which comes through Christ can offset not only the adverse consequences of Adam’s sin but also the fatal consequences of our own sins.
“Redemption” — Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm (cf. v.4 & John 15:25; v.9 & John 2:17; Rom. 15:3; v.22 & Rom. 11:9,10; v.25 & Acts 1:20). Speaking of being saved from death, the Messiah cries, “Draw nigh unto my soul and redeem it…” Your own references in Leviticus and Ruth show “redemption” has a broad use in scripture. The idea is used with respect to any difficulty from which a person or thing is incapable of delivering himself. The word “redemption” is thus totally applicable to God delivering Christ from the grave and his mortal nature.
“Nature” — Granted, the word is not always used with respect to our inherent human make-up. Interestingly, in 4 of your 5 references it is used of aspects of our inherent human condition as opposed to that which must be learned. In the remaining reference (Rom. 2:14-15), the good behavior of believing Gentiles not educated in the law did appear to unbelieving Jews as to be coming from the Gentile’s “nature.” So there again it has the essential idea of that which is inherent as opposed to what is learned.
“Clean, unclean, purge, purify” -Literally, these words refer to physical dirt or stains which require a thorough washing. Figuratively, the terms are used of an undesirable condition which requires changing. Your reference in John 15:3 illustrates the words being used figuratively of sinful behavior. With respect to the nature of Christ, which was the same as our own, rather than wrestle over Hebrews 9:23, consider this: our basic nature is so undesirable that it is called “sinful flesh,” “the flesh [that] lusteth against the Spirit,” etc. “We that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened…that mortality might be swallowed up of life” expresses the attitude of every servant of God who struggles now in this most undesirable condition. If ever a circumstance deserved to be called “unclean” and from which we want to be “purged,” it is this mortal, corruptible situation that now burdens each one of us.
Finally, we do not feel fine-tuned disputations over terms and definitions is the way to open out the clarity and power of the sacrifice of Christ We feel that the mercy, wisdom and righteousness of God is clearly revealed for the benefit of all His children. The principles it reveals are best seen when we step back and look at the overall picture rather than becoming trapped in a maze of technicalities and jargon inherited from past generations.
Strong’s Concordance