The Middle East
Dear Bro. Styles,
The editorial in the “Tidings” of December, 1994, page 485 under the heading, “They will dwell safely” says: “supporting the description of peace in the land is the absence of Israel’s immediate neighbors from the invading coalition. Iran, Libya and Ethiopia are mentioned (v5) but conspicuous by their absence are Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan…”
Two suggestions are made — either Israel has conquered these nations or they have made peace with them. I would like to offer a third suggestion that these names are included in the name of Persia.
My reasoning is that in Genesis 10 can be found all of the names used in Ezekiel 38 except the name “Persia.” We can find the names of the sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Tubal, Meshech, Togarmah and Tarshish. The sons of Ham are Cush, Phut, Sheba and Dedan.
From the studies which I have made it appears to me that Persia descended from Elam, the son of Shem. There is no genealogy of Elam.
The first time we find the name “Persia,” in the Bible is 1,600 years after Genesis 10 in II Chronicles 36:20. This is when Persia had become an empire under Cyrus. Persia was in existence when Ezekiel prophesied. The name Persia seems to be out of place with all the other names which are mentioned in Genesis. Included in the Persian Empire were the countries of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan (along with others).
I would suggest that when Gog and all his bands and many people come against Israel that the countries that were under the Persian Empire will be part of that group.
We receive a lot of pleasure from reading the “Tidings” and enjoy the articles of the many brothers and sisters who write for the magazine.
Your brother in Christ,
Walter Smead, Beaumont, CA
Suspension of the Edenic Curse
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in Jesus.
For me, it is satisfying to feed on such piquant words of life as Bro. Ian Prentice brought forth in his exhortation in the “Tidings” (12194) about temporary suspension of part of the Edenic curse. He noted two times when people ate “bread” without the toil and sweat of field labor: when Jesus fed the 5,000 and when Israel’s millions ate heavenly food in the wilderness for nearly 40 years.
Exhortation comforts in Jesus, forces introspection, warns and instructs. And exhortation can cause spinoff thinking.
Some other examples
After noting Bro. Prentice’ s examples, I thought over some other incidents which seem to be suspensions of the Edenic curse on the ground:
- Noah’s arkful of food nourished eight humans and all those creatures for over a year and for the time after the flood that it would take to plant (from conserved seed) and then to reap; to set vine slips and wait for trees to bear. The curse on the ground was either lightened at that time (Gen. 8:21) or might, as some think, even have been done away with except as man’s greed and forces of nature intervene.
- Joseph’s seven fat years were a suspension of the curse on Egypt’s fields to preserve the covenant line as it saved the lives of Jacob’s family and many other peoples.
- In the toil-free wilderness years, even the manna-gatherers had their light work suspended on each seventh day by double provision on the sixth.
- On entry into Canaan, they had the promise of sown fields and olive trees and vines yielding to those who did not labor for their fruits.
- While in the land, there was the overriding promise of blessings in basket and store, contingent on obedience.
- Through Elijah, the widow of Zarephath lived from her unfailing meal barrel and cruse of oil.
- Israel’s priests and Levities were sustained by tithes of oil and wheat and certain portions of meats without personal field labor. This one tribe was exempted for centuries from part of the curse.
- All Israelites were provided with sufficient food to give them their day of rest from the curse on the ground on their weekly sabbath. And there was the year of Jubilee, with a three-year harvest abounding in the 49th year which kept them at rest for an entire year and fed them until the next harvest.
Bro. Prentice highlighted his exhortation by noting that Jesus did not just reverse the curse of Eden temporarily, but destroyed it forever. Through him we anticipate the restitution of all things (Acts 3:21) in a new Eden where all will be nourished with wine and milk without money and without price and none will say, “I am sick.” This restitution will not be complete with the restoration of Israel, but will reach back beyond and before Abraham and Noah. We wait for the true Eden and rest where none shall make us afraid. I thank Bro. Prentice for his insights which led to my personal introspective review and for his compelling plea to appreciate more deeply the Bread of Life.
Sincerely your sister,
Jean M. Wilson, Largo, FL
At the beginning of the Millennial era, the permanent reversal of the Edenic curse is for those found faithful at the judgment seat of Christ. While there will be a reduction in the curse for the mortal population (a handful of corn planted on a mountain top will bring forth abundantly), the subjects of the kingdom will still be mortal. They will be subject to death and will have the same propensity to sin as ourselves. Furthermore, they will still need chastening to develop their characters. One of the great challenges we will face as rulers of the kingdom (if we are so blessed as to be included among that number) will be to regulate conditions so that, while great blessings are provided, some difficulties are allowed for the purpose of trial and development of the mortals. While we know we concur on these matters, it is helpful to keep them before the minds of us all.
Bequests
Dear Bro. Don,
I wish to express my appreciation to the “Tidings” and to Norm Luff for the article on “Bequests” in the December issue. The subject is one we don’t discuss often in spite of its universal application and importance.
No group understands the subject of death better than Christadelphians, but it doesn’t seem to follow that we understand the spiritually best ways to bequeath the things we most certainly will leave behind. As Bro. Norm proved, our wealth belongs to God (“All things come of thee and of thine own have we given thee” I Chron. 29:14), yet I would guess that it would be only a tiny percentage of brethren who bequeath any substantial fraction of their estate to the Lord’s work. Won’t we be held accountable for that? (“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully” II Cor. 9:6.)
Bro. Norm touched on some of the needs and good works that deserve support in our community, and he gave a list of “Possible Beneficiaries.” I might suggest a condensed checklist for anyone who has been touched by the grace of God:
- Our spouse, if still living or perhaps some special personal situation.
- The Lord’s work.
- Others (this includes adult children and relatives).
The Lord’s work category has many candidates, some of which were mentioned by Bro. Norm. I would submit that the Williamsburg Christadelphian Foundation is another worthy nominee. The WCF is a legal structure recognized by the U.S. government to receive tax-deductible contributions and bequests. Its registered charter lists the purposes of WCF as:
Charitable works; Services to the brotherhood; Preaching the gospel.
The WCF has a history of carrying out these purposes in positive and constructive ways. A number of lives have been touched via the “charitable works:” edifying works and projects have been promoted and financed under “services:” the gospel has been preached in creative ways, the latest being by production of “video leaflets.” The Williamsburg Christadelphian Foundation is one of the very few entities in North America that is structured as a charitable organization with clear and positive objective to serve the brotherhood until the coming of our Master.
Your brother in the Hope of Israel,
Herman Opitz , Chairman,
Williamsburg Christadelphian Foundation
We have reviewed video productions and a Bible correspondence course produced by WCF and they are excellent. We should also note that the managing committee of WCF is primarily composed of brothers of the Unamended fellowship.
Sacrificial Offering for Human Nature
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in the name of our Lord.
In recent days, I have been reviewing the editorials, articles, letters, etc. which have to do with the controversial areas published in the last year. I appreciate this prolonged effort that you have made and I think that I can discern a policy of trying to handle these difficult areas openly, in a balanced manner, with the avoidance of inflammatory argument and Christadelphianisms (which can so easily mean different things to different people). Moreover, I think your extended effort has been directed toward the correction of some erroneous thinking. I commend you for this. I think that you’ve probably had some success in educating your readers.
There’s one concept that I am having difficulty with: that is the title of your series, “Sacrificial Offering for Human Nature.” See particularly your italicized lead-in pg. 266,7194.
It seems to me that the idea of sacrificial offerings for human nature is something like the idea of saying we are guilty of Adam’s sin and that our baptism is for the forgiveness of Adam’s sin. In my understanding, neither of these concepts is correct. Why do I say this? Well, in neither case does man have any control over the situation he finds himself in or the nature with which he is born.
- God does not regard us as guilty of our father’s (forefather’s) sin(s). Ezekiel, as God’s scribe, makes this emphatically clear — See Ezekiel chapter 18. It is unfortunate that the phrase, “guilty of Adam’s sin” was ever used. It is not good scriptural exposition.
We are agreed that all of Adam’s descendants suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin.
- On the other consideration, if we think that sacrifices are offered for our human nature we must surely recognize that such sacrifice is singularly ineffective. Our nature (one of the consequences of Adam’s sin) is inclined toward sin, self-will, and the satisfaction of fleshly tendencies. After we have been baptized into Christ, or after the Israelite had offered a sin-offering, these tendencies to sin still continued. Paul agonized over this tendency (Romans 7) after he had come into Christ, and he continued to guard against the natural tendency to transgress, “I keep my body under and bring it into subjection: lest by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (I Cor. 9:27). These fleshly tendencies are with us as long as we are in human flesh and blood and we must strive against them until we die.
In my mind, there is no doubt that you and I are agreed on this.
- Would it be more to the point to say that baptism releases us from condemnation to perishing death? John 3:16: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that who- soever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” II Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness: but is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Mark 16:16: “He that believeth (the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned (condemned).”
The effort of a man to seek for God and to draw nigh to him through Christ is very pleasing to God. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness… (and) for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:3,24). “The just shall live by faith” (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11).
So belief impels us to be baptized, in which act we partake of the sacrifice of Christ. In so doing, we become righteous in God’s sight and are no longer under condemnation to death, but our nature is not changed until we are changed to spirit beings.
Of course, this mortal life which we now enjoy will come to an end and in this way we die (which may be described as sleeping until the appearance of Christ). But we are not discussing this death. We are talking of everlasting death — perishing, as contrasted with everlasting life.
With warm affection in the hope we share,
Fraternally,
Ken McPhee, Guelph, ONT
(For several years, Bro. McPhee was editor of the Advocate magazine.)
Thank you for the clear statement that we are in no sense guilty for Adamic sin.
Your reaction to our series of editorials is remarkably similar to that expressed by others. The title (a Christadelphianism) was viewed as controversial and confusing while the exposition was considered thoughtful and accurate. We enjoyed writing the series as we feel it helped deepen our own understanding of the subject. To us, the two most significant contributions were the idea of “aspects of the total package” of salvation through Christ and the wording of something being “occasioned by” our nature.
While a great variety of sacrifices were offered under the law, there is only one “sacrifice of Christ.” The sacrifice of Christ, however, has many aspects to it; in effect, it is a package of many divine points bound up in one scheme of salvation. Some aspects of this “package” were required by our nature. Specifically, human paternity was removed from the picture (i.e. Jesus Christ was the Son of God) and salvation is of grace not law.
At the present time, the wording “occasioned by” seems much more useful than “sacrifice for.” “Sacrifice for” consistently is taken to connote guilt for sin, as you indicate in your response, while “occasioned by” suggests that human nature has evoked specific elements of the atonement.
There are two places in your letter where I think the word “provisionally” should be added: “baptism [provisionally] releases us from perishing death” and “In so doing (being baptized) we become righteous in God’s sight and [provisionally] are no longer under condemnation to death.” Belief and baptism are only effectual for everlasting life “if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.” On this point, I am sure we are agreed.
John 1:1 rooted in the Old Testament
(In the following letter, Sis. Griffith comments on an article by Bro. Joe Cooper which appeared 11/94 and reasoned that “In the beginning…” (Jn. 1:1) refers to the beginning of the ministry of Christ. Our extracts from Sis. Griffith’s longer letter present her basic thesis that the Old Testament is the key to understanding John 1.)
Dear Brother:
…The “old” Word of God worked upon the earth until the appearance of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who was the quintessence of every prior revelation from God…You must construct an understanding upon the right foundation — the “old” Word of God found in the Old Testament books which foreshadowed Jesus Christ as Israel’s Messiah…
When speaking with evangelicals you cannot utilize only New Testament references..Jn regard to John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word…”), the author of Hebrews says (6:1) that we should go on to perfection after “leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ.” Iris presumed that the first principles regarding Messiah were laid down in the preceding chapters of the letter as the basis for the remainder of the letter. Those five chapters contain less than 2,000 words [and 19 quotations from the 0.T.]; a number sufficient to explain the Lord’s “beginning” under the old covenant.
The “Hebrews” certainly understood that Jesus Christ was not God, the Father. They were familiar with their Old Testament, but they did not fully understand the new teaching of the Lord’s “coming” from God; i.e. his physical appearance and ministry. Therefore, the apostle’s references to Old Testament witnesses are copious.
His logic and reasoning from those references concerning the origination of the Messiah are exquisite. If the points are hard to understand, it is because the letter reader is not as skilled in the O.T. word of God as he ought to be.
The commandment to “love” is the preeminent one under every old and new covenant of the Lord; therefore, it is not difficult to understand how or why John uses “the beginning” in the epistles to compare and to demonstrate the unchangeable name of God. The characteristics of His name have never changed…
Sincerely,
Lois Griffith, Moorestown, NJ
While we feel “the beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the Genesis beginning, Bro. Cooper’s idea is not that uncommon in the brotherhood. For example, his approach was argued by Bro. Andrew Perry in The Testimony magazine, 9/94.
You are perfectly right, however, in noting the importance of the Old Testament in understanding difficult sayings in John’s gospel. Sometimes the Old Testament allusions are quite obvious: the serpent in the wilderness, John 3:14 alluding to Num. 21:9; manna in the wilderness, John 6:31 referring to Ex. 16:15, etc. And sometimes the allusions are unstated although still vital to a right reading of the gospel: Jesus’ exhortation at Sy-char matches Joshua’s declaration at the same location thus “spirit and truth” = “sincerity and truth,” John 4:5,24,38 cf. Josh. 24:1,14; the man sick 38 years alludes to Israel’s spiritual sickness for 38 years in the wilderness, John 5:5 cf. Deut. 2:14, etc.
A right understanding of the gospel only comes with a right grasp of the Old Testament, and that is where we should begin in expounding any first principle subject.
Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezekiel
My Beloved Bro. Don,
I have noted in the “Tidings” that a question arising from a discussion in our family has been presented to you (12/94, pg. 518). I am writing so your readers can be presented with both sides of the discussion.
First of all, we remember a statement you made in Sunday School, “If anything is clearly stated in the Bible, we must take the Bible verse before any person’s respected opinion.” To me, these are words to live by. Most of your points (and my Mom’s) are hypothetical and not really facts.
Let’s look at some facts: In Jeremiah 5:30-31; 6:13; 14:13; 23:32; 29:9, etc., he decries false prophets and speaks as if there are no true prophets in the land (e.g. “For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely,” 6:13). Jeremiah speaks as if he was the only true prophet. Yet we know that there were other true prophets during his ministry [which extended from at least 626 B.C. to 585 B.C.] . — Nahum (c. 650-620 B.C.), Zephaniah (c. 636-623 B.C.), the prophetess Hulda (635-607 B.C.), Habakkuk (c. 621-609 B.C.), Daniel (c. 605-539 B.C.) and Ezekiel (c593-559 B.C.). If Jeremiah knew them, why doesn’t he mention them?
Jeremiah is mentioned in Daniel 9:2 in a reference to “the words of Jeremiah.” Ezekiel mentions Daniel (Ezk. 14:14) in about 592 B.C. Daniel and his friends were taken in 605 B.C. and news of him and his friends would have spread rapidly throughout Babylon. Now, remember, Jeremiah does not mention this.
The prophets had one job, being a servant of God, not making friends or knowing other prophets. Therefore I cannot feel certain that all three knew each other.
God be with all,
Aaron Cluette, Southfield, MI
These are good points and I would certainly concede the evidence we raised was indirect and not conclusive. We should note, however, that Jeremiah’s rebukes were directed to prophets in the land of Israel, while Ezekiel and Daniel were located in Babylon. Furthermore, Jeremiah’s statements were not limited by his own knowledge as he was but a vehicle for the words of God. We would accordingly suggest that the other faithful prophets were not active in the land when Jeremiah made his sweeping denunciations. eight speaking brothers who each normally exhort and lecture on Sunday once a year from our own platform. They also frequently speak at neighboring ecclesias. It is an unusual Sunday if at least one of our brothers is not away speaking elsewhere!
These brothers also form “the backbone” of the Bible Class where all brothers in the ecclesia have the opportunity to prepare addresses if they wish. It is a pleasure to watch our younger members progressing in their preparation and presentation so that they, too, can become steadily more and more involved.
…What a tremendous blessing it is to all of us worldwide to be able to receive such a wide range of speakers with a constant variation of approach and presentation.. .Encourage the interchange! Fresh faces and new approaches are of tremendous benefit to speaker and hearer alike.
Sincerely your brother,
Peter R. Edwards, Derby, UK
Lay System in UK
Dear Bro. Don,
The November ’94 Editorial [“Advantages of the Lay System”( was interesting! I am not sure that it is correct to say: “North American ecclesias take better advantage of the lay system than ecclesias do in some other parts of the world.” By comparison with many parts of the U.K. there are often great distances to be covered in the U.S. and Canada and this militates against easy interchange of speakers but it is sad to read that: “Generally speaking…we have chosen not to implement the British or Australian approach.”
In my own ecclesia, we have about eight speaking brothers who each normally exhort and lecture on Sunday once a year from our own platform. They also frequently speak at neighbouring ecclesias. It is an unusual Sunday if at least one of our brothers is not away speaking elsewhere!
These brothers also form “the backbone” of the Bible Class where all brothers in the ecclesia have the opportunity to prepare addresses if they wish. It is a pleasure to watch our younger members progressing in their preparation and presentation so that they, too, can become steadily more and more involved.
…What a tremendous blessing it is to all of us worldwide to be able to receive such a wide range of speakers with a constant variation of approach and presentation … Encourage the interchange! Fresh faces and new approaches are of tremendous benefit to speaker and hearer alike.
Sincerely your brother,
Peter R. Edwards, Derby, UK
Dear Bro. Don,
Sincere greetings.
On reading your editorial, “Lay System,” …it brought back memories. I was baptized in England and on leaving the waters of baptism was full of enthusiasm to get involved in the work of the Lord, especially platform work. I was gently told to sit on the back row and that my time would come around. There was some mention made of the age of 30 and that the ecclesial program was already full of seasoned speakers. An effort would be made to fit me in once a year in the Mutual Improvement class.
A saving element for myself and some other young brothers was provided by an elder who arranged for us to visit and break bread with those unable to get out, lie even appealed to the very small ecclesias around to let us preside and give the occasional exhortation and Bible class. Such an exercise kindled the fire and we went from strength to strength…
Yours by grace,
A British brother now in Canada
Perhaps our remarks on the lay system did not sufficiently stress that we had much more than platform work in mind. In large churches around us, primary responsibility for all kinds of youth, Sunday School and pastoral work resides with the paid clergy. Our lay system compels many of us to become involved in such areas where we might otherwise leave the work to the hired pastor(s).
So far as platform work is concerned, Bro. Edward’s letter highlights a notable difference between ecclesial life in the UK and North America. On average, UK ecclesias make far greater use of visiting speakers. The result may be variety in one’s own ecclesia and better development of the more capable speakers as they have more practice. This approach does tend, however, to concentrate platform duties in fewer hands which means fewer brothers have the incentive to Bible study provided by speaking assignments.
Strong’s Concordance