Letters to the Editor

Working Mothers

Dear Editor,

Thank you for running a more positive article on working mothers (“Tidings,” February, 1995). I do not personally know any sisters in our membership who are working full time be­cause they want to. I am a working mother and I struggle with the guilt almost every day. I need support and comfort — not criticism and the gloomy notes from others that my chil­dren cannot grow up to be fruitful in the Lord.

Most working sisters must work because of the economy. Some sisters are helping to support their family due to a husband’s illness or lack of a position that pays well. Some brothers have left their wives and their families and the mother must now work to pay the rent and feed her children.

God made woman to help her husband, preferably in the home. Sometimes, however, a need is there for the woman to financially contribute to the family. It does not make her more powerful in her home; she is still subject to her husband. The decision for her to work should be made more by the husband, the head of the household, than herself. If this is the case, she is not working to satisfy herself but to meet a need that her husband has identified. The decision for the wife to work is made as prayerfully as the decision of what to do for child care, if needed.

I know many Christadelphians feel that their children should not go to college. Consider this: It is very difficult to meet financial expenses today without a college or specific trade education. If we do not send our sons to school after high school, we may be putting their future wives in a position where they must work outside the home. Our young people do not have to live away from home to get a college education.

These are difficult times. Let us support one another and assume that a sister is working from need. We cannot judge the motives of a sister who works outside of the family. Indeed, the Lord tells us not to judge others at all. Instead of condemning a sister for working, please, offer to take care of her children when she and her husband cannot.

Respectfully,
A Sister in New England

Dear Bro. Styles,

Throughout my lifetime (I’m in my 80’s) sheer necessity has forced many devout wives and mothers to augment the family income. When I was young, there were so-called “fireside industries.” Now when a second income is needed, it is usually necessary for the wife and mother to work outside the home and make appropriate arrangements for child care.

Also consider that today there are so many modern machines to assist housekeeping that the mother often has a great deal of free time. It may be she is better off occupying it by taking at least a part-time job. The point is that we must keep our interests and our behavior in line with our life of service to God no matter where we are.

Sincerely,

Your sister in Christ,
Margaret C. Knorr, Port Charlotte, FL

In the last few years, there has been tremendous growth in income-producing jobs based at home. Rapid development of personal computers, faxes, small photocopiers, etc. is making it possible for over 40 million in the U.S. alone to have offices in their homes. The “fireside industries” are back in a big way and we should be trying to take advantage of the opportunity. Sisters particularly should keep this possibility in mind when preparing for an occupation.

Post high school education

We feel a blanket condemnation of post high-school education is unreasonable. Societies differ widely in the jobs available and the training needed to fill those jobs. Furthermore, people vary widely in their income-earning potential. Any sweeping condemnation ignores these differences.

In North America, many apprenticeship programs are being replaced by two-year college certificates and many other positions require at least a four-year degree before a job candidate will be considered. In our situation, there are relatively few people who have the intelligence, natural ability or personalities to make a reasonable living without some post-secondary education.

This is not true, however, all over the world. In many industrialized countries, the school systems are designed so that the 18-year-old graduate is well equipped to enter the work place. Brethren living in such places may well find that college or university training is optional. Since they live under different conditions, however, they should not condemn us for undertaking further schooling.

Our danger is in unnecessarily going away to school. Along with the necessity of post-secondary education has come such a proliferation of colleges, etc., that usually there is one convenient to home. We may have to compromise in quality of education or specific curriculum, but those compromises should be made to stay in a solid spiritual environment. (An option to living at home is living with other brothers and sisters.)

Reminders to working mothers

We can appreciate the appeal of working mothers who must work and who could use help from their breth­ren. While not wishing to minimize the validity of the appeal, we feel there are four key points that must be kept in mind:

1. The mother is the best possible person to bring up the child in every respect, but particularly in the ways of God.
2. Women in the workplace face added temptations from fellow workers. We should not unnecessarily make our discipleship more difficult.
3. The net monetary value of the mother’s income may be minimal after considering taxes and added expenses.
4. Wants can be confused with needs! We can be so overwhelmed with advertising, a vast array of products and keeping up with others, that our definition of what we “need” becomes wholly distorted.

At various times, each of these points has been developed in depth in this magazine and we will continue to emphasize them, God willing.

On What Day Did Christ Die?

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the hope we share.

I am writing in regard to the article by Bro. Alan Hayward in the February, ’95 magazine. Bro. Alan proposes that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the tree on Friday.

In Matthew 12:40, the Lord Jesus Christ said: “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” That is 72 hours. If the Lord Jesus Christ was laid to rest before 6 p.m. late Friday afternoon, a 72-hour period would have the resurrection occurring sometime before 6 p.m. Monday afternoon. All four gospels agree that the Lord Jesus Christ had already risen on Sunday morning (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1 and John 20:1).

According to Mark 15:34-37, the Lord Jesus Christ gave up the spirit shortly after 3 p.m. and was buried before 6 p.m. This happened on Wednesday. The Father would not leave His Son one minute longer than three days and three nights in the grave. Consequently, the resurrection took place before 6 p.m. Saturday afternoon.

It is easy to figure out on which weekday the 14th of the first month — Abib, later called Nisan — fell. In Exodus 16:1, we are told that the Sab­bath was on the 15th day of the second month. In verse 5, Israel was told that they were going to eat for six days, starting on the evening of the 15th, which, of course, was their 16th (the Jewish day beginning at 6 p.m.), until the 21st. This makes the 22nd day of the second month a Sabbath (Saturday). Now work your way backward and the 14th of the first month (Passover) is a Wednesday.

“All things that are written by the prophets concerning the son of man shall be accomplished” (Luke 18:31).

Your brother in Christ,
Albrecht von Gadenstedt, Vernon, BC

Sacrifice for Human Nature

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings with love in Christ.

In the comments of Bro. Ken McPhee and yourself on the sacrificial offering for human nature in the February, ’95 magazine, one phase of sin seemed to be left out of consideration. That phase does not mean guilt of any kind which most people immediately associate with the word “sin.” Bro. Thomas, Roberts and others emphasized the fact in their writings that Christ had to offer for constitutional, that is physical, sin inherited in the flesh.

Paul tells us that our Master was “…compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins” (Heb. 5:2,3). And that his offering was “…first for his own sins, and then for the people’s” (Heb. 7:27).

Ritually, sin was condemned under the law but it and the evil in the nature producing it remained until they were destroyed both ritually and actually in the sacrifice of Christ. As Bro. G.V. Growcott explained, Christ’s whole life was a sacrifice to God.

In the compilation of his writings entitled, “The Purifying of the Heavenly,” the writings of Bro. Thomas and Roberts are quoted copiously to give scriptural proof that Christ offered for himself including the only thing he would offer for himself, that is his nature.

A sample of this can be found in a quotation of Bro. Thomas found on page 42 where we read, “As the Dead One anointed with the spices and bound with grave clothes, he (Jesus) was Sin’s Flesh crucified, slain and buried, in which by the slaying, sin had been condemned, and by the burial, put out of sight” (Eureka vol. 2, pg. 124).

The expression “sacrifice for” does not necessarily involve guilt. The scriptures make it plain that Christ offered for something for which he bore no guilt, his sin nature, and having ob­tained eternal redemption through his own blood he is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God through him.

Trusting you will see the necessity of maintaining the position that Christ made an offering for himself because of his nature,

Yours in the hope of Israel,
David Sommerville, Massillon, OH

Bible balance should be a hallmark of our teaching. In this regard, we invite consideration of the following facts:

1. “Sinner(s)” is used 68 times and only once is used in the sense of constitutional sinner (Rom. 5:19).
2. “Sin” appears nearly 400 times and is used of sin nature no more than six times (Rom. 7:17,20 being the two clearest cases).
3. Hebrews 5:2,3 and 7:27 are describing the high priest under the Mosaic law and are not directly speaking of the Lord Jesus. In both places, “sins” (plural word, i.e. committed transgressions) are the subject rather than sin nature. Accordingly, these passages do not prove Christ made an offering for himself because of his nature.

In respect to these two passages, note the following:

Hebrews 5:1-8 states Christ has the two great qualifications for being high priest: a) he is ordained by God [vs. 4­6]; b) he has empathy with the people because he struggled with human nature. In addition, it contains a subtle contrast showing the superiority of Christ: while the Levitical high priest must offer for his own transgressions, v. 3, Christ was “made perfect,” i.e. contrast the sinning Levitical priest to the perfect Lord Jesus.

Hebrews 7:26-28 sets out three points of Christ’s superiority: a) the priests offer daily whereas Christ offered once; b) the priests have infirmity while Christ is consecrated for evermore; c) the priests are still committing sins while Christ is separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.)

4. There are three passages in Hebrews which we feel do prove Christ offered for himself, Hebrews 9:12, 23 and 13:20. But there are 12 which state what he did for us (1:3 “purged our sins:” 2:9 “taste death for every man;” 2:15; 5:9; 7:25; 9:14,15,28; 10:10,12,17-19; 13:12.)
5. Elsewhere in scripture the great preponderance of verses refer to what Christ did for us.

Maintain balance

We recognize that Christadelphian understanding of Christ’s offering for his nature is virtually unique to our community. Consequently, we are bound to stress the teaching. We have noticed, however, some bring the point up every time the atonement is discussed and emphasize it more than Christ’s offering for our sins. Going even further, some require the truth regarding Christ’s offering for his nature to be expressed in a precise form of words suitable to themselves.

While we never want to lose our understanding of this truth, we need to watch our balance so that we reflect the Bible emphasis that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, which we are. And we need to think in terms of ideas and not a specific form of words.

Documenting Donations

Bro. David Gadberry, who works for The City of Hope in Los Angeles, CA, kindly supplied a copy of an article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times. We quote a few paragraphs as a reminder regarding a change in the tax law which went into effect January 1, 1994. (Relevant information appeared in the Tidings in October and November of ’93.)

“If generosity moved you to drop a check for $250 or more into the collection during 1994, don’t assume that your canceled check will be enough to satisfy the Internal Revenue Service if your tax return is audited.

“Before sending their forms to the IRS this year, taxpayers who deduct donations to any charity — religious or not — are required under a new regulation to set aside for review a receipt stating that lump-sum gifts of at least $250 were not in exchange for goods or services…

“Church administrators noted that most people donate money in amounts smaller than $250, and that the change in the law does not apply to them, regardless of how high their accumulated contributions were for the year.”

Job’s Satan

Dear Bro. Don,

It has long been held by brethren in the Philadelphia area that Job’s adversary was Eliphaz. The problem is in proving it!

The reasons for suspecting Eliphaz are his arrogance, his lies and his direct approbation by God.

His arrogance is shown by his use of a very special word when saying he received a revelation from God. “Deep sleep” in Job 4:13 is the word used for Adam (Gen. 2:21 when Eve was created) and Abraham (Gen. 15:12 when the covenant was ratified). It is also evident in the overall tone of his speeches.

His lies are that he never received a revelation from God stating what he claimed it did (4:12 _if) and his charges against Job in 22:6,7,9 and 13 are all lies.

Finally, in 42:7, Eliphaz is singled out by name: “The LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”

The two friends were also adversaries but they did not attack as forcefully as did Eliphaz.

In regard to Elihu, he is described as being “wrathful:” “Against Job was his wrath kindled” (32:2) which automatically makes him an adversary.

One thing I have not been able to understand in relation to Elihu is the extent to which he seems to talk and say nothing. Consider 32:7-33:7 and note that he does not say anything pertinent to the subject. Why is all this in the record?

Your brother in Christ,
John Kastrup,
Levittown, PA

The Exceptive Clause

Lord willing, final letters and editorial comments will be included next month.

Suggestions Sought for Children’s Books

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This letter is being sent to several Christadelphian magazines in the hope of generating some dialogue within the brotherhood regarding books suitable for our children.

Background

Since it’s inception in 1979, the Mid-Atlantic Christadelphian Bible School (MACBS) has operated a book store as a service to the brothers and sisters attending the school. Our service committee has always solicited feedback from those attending to see if we might improve the school in any way possible. This has included survey questions asking how we might improve the book store. Over the years, we have received many requests to provide a larger selection of books for children. Since there are few books for children published by Christadelphians, we have had to resort to sources outside the brotherhood. At the same time, we have received comments about the content of non-Christadelphian material. It is not possible for our committee to review the thousands of children’s books available so we are seeking your help.

Possible solutions

The most desirable would be to have the Christadelphian body produce more material for our young people. There is in particular a shortage of material for ages 6-18 which we all know is a critical time for children to develop their reading skills as well as a firm grounding in the things concerning our Lord Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. This is a long-term objective requiring some coordination and very special talent, but one that should not be outside the reach of our worldwide brotherhood with its many skills and resources.

A second solution would be for the brotherhood to develop an organized way of reviewing non-Christadelphian material to identify what is appropriate and what is not. The results of such an effort would need to be compiled and distributed to interested parties. We are sure other Bible schools as well as Sunday schools and our Christadelphian book suppliers would welcome such a resource. This would need coordinating so that books found inappropriate would not be reviewed repeatedly and that new material would be reviewed as soon as possible. We are sure that much of this reviewing is already being done by concerned parents and information is being passed on by word of mouth. This is very inefficient, however, and doesn’t get the information to all who have a desire for it.

A call for help

It is encouraging to see the progress the brotherhood has made in recent years in preaching the Truth to our neighbors such as the “Learn to Read the Bible Effectively” seminars, the Christadelphian Outreach effort that is producing videos for public television and home study and the efforts of our Bible Mission programs throughout the world. Can we apply the same effort and resources to teaching our children the things concerning God and His plan of salvation?

We are requesting your comments and ideas and those of your readers on how we might address this critical need in the brotherhood in these last days. The best contacts we have are our own children and God has entrusted them to us to nurture them in the Truth.

Do we have brothers and sisters willing to develop such material for our children? Is there already a list of books that have been found to be appropriate for our young people? Can you recommend suitable materials? Are you aware of material produced by the brotherhood that is currently not available through our book suppliers?

Information on Bible related books for children should be sent to :

MACBS, c/o Frank Locke,

5 Overlook Dr.,
Asha way, RI 02804 (401)377-4396. Your brother in Christ,

Bob Kling
MACBS Service Committee

The Bible Truth Church

Dear Bro. Don,

Thanks for printing Bro. Alan Eyre’ s article, “The Bible Truth Church” in the January, ’95 issue.

Brother Eyre sounded an important precautionary warning to all Chris­tadelphians. We must beware lest we fall from the Truth after their example!

Gil Phillips, Lake Hughes, CA

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in our Master’s name.

I was quite impressed by the article by Bro. Alan Eyre in the January “Tidings” about how the “Bible Truth Church” went astray. It seems quite evident that two things they lacked that might have saved them were our hymns and our Bible Companion. I have always marveled how accurately our faith is expressed in our hymns. We should think a long time before changing them.

Since the days of Bro. Roberts, faithful brothers and sisters have stressed the value of our Bible Companion for the daily reading of the scriptures. I remember my father-in-law, Bro. Harry Styles who lived in the days of Bro. Roberts and knew him, said that many at that time would say that if Bro. Roberts had done nothing but provide us with the “Bible Companion” he would have done a great service for the Truth.

Other reading plans may do as well as long as they cover the whole Bible. While many of us read daily with thankful hearts for these guides, sadly, there has always been those that do not appreciate the need for daily reading of the Word. No matter how faithfully we attend our Sunday morning services, if we do not read God’ s word during the week we are not much different from the world around us. Many zealous people attend church regularly but because they do not read the Bible during the week, they are ignorant of the false teachings of their pastors. It is our daily reading of the Word that keeps us in tune with the exhortations we hear on Sunday. It is because of our daily readings we can invite brethren from all over the world to speak for us and know that what they say is the Truth.

There is another important lesson for us in the falling away of the Bible Truth Church — the need for interec­clesial fellowship. We stress very much the words of Paul in Hebrews 10:25, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day approaching.” We refer to this verse for our individual needs, but the same holds true for our ecclesias. Ec­clesias also need spiritual communication with each other. One point Bro. Eyre mentioned is a mystery and I am sorry he did not comment on it. Why didn’t the Epping Forest Ecclesia keep in contact with the Bible Truth Church? Was it distance? Whatever the reason, it shows the need for inter­ecclesial fellowship.

I was glad of Bro. Eyre’ s comment on the Holy Spirit. That has been a problem from time to time in our Bible-reading ecclesias; it is no wonder it surfaced in a group where the Bible was not given first priority.

There is still a further important lesson — the need to read and hold fast to pure doctrine expounded by the pioneers. If we believe Dr. Thomas rediscovered the Truth (we wouldn’t be Christadelphians if he didn’t), then we can only review his writings, not improve them. The “Logos” magazine is rightfully constantly harping on this matter. We hear now and then of some ecclesias that sound very much like the “Bible Truth Church” but nothing seems to be done about them. Why? Continued fellowship with such will never improve the situation. The corruption will eat like a canker. An apple starting to rot never improves, it only spoils the other apples.

John Sommerville,
Mission Hills, CA

Having just returned from Jamaica, we were again impressed with the difficulties of transportation. In several ecclesias, not one family has a car. In the country areas, bus transport goes in and out of urban centers, thus getting from one rural town to another requires going into a city and then out again. Doing this, one may travel 100 miles when the destination was only 15 miles away by direct travel. In addition, money is seldom available for any but the most necessary trips. Thus it is not hard to see why there has been a lack of communication between Christadelphians and the Bible Truth Church.

We heartily agree with Bro. John’s stress on daily Bible reading. A broad base of Bible knowledge is essential to correct understanding of the Word. God has clearly designed scripture that a right understanding of any part is dependent on a knowledge of the whole of His revelation.

Discerning readers of the “Tid­ings” have no doubt recognized our deep respect for the teachings of our “pioneer” brethren. This is probably most apparent in positions set forth on prophecy and the Apocalypse. Our own preference is to work directly from the Bible with the pioneer writings and other study helps close to hand.

Your remark regarding problem ecclesias deserves comment. We do not think you have your own ecclesia in mind or ones in which you have significant input. Consistently, we find brethren having great concerns about ecclesias at a distance about which they hear frightening stories. As we have traveled both in this hemisphere and elsewhere, we have made a particular point of visiting ecclesias where serious problems have supposedly set in. In every case, we found the problem is not the ecclesia as a whole, but one or two brethren whose radical views are also known elsewhere in the brotherhood. In every case we have seen, the local ecclesia is dealing with the troublesome individuals in the best way it knows how, trying to save the person and preserve the Truth at the same time. As you know, this is not always easy to do. Obviously, not every ecclesia deals with a problem the same way. But we have not found one ecclesia where we felt the whole ecclesia should be dis­fellowshipped. We feel a great deal of unnecessary worry is caused by those who publicize a problem without also reporting all that is being done to rectify it. In the name of “preserving the things that remain,” we can cause much strife and confusion by such irresponsible and incomplete reporting.

Should Sunday School Scholar Play Piano For Memorial Service?

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in our Master’s name.

Our small ecclesia has recently wrestled with an issue with which we would like some advice.

For some time, our Sunday morning music has been provided by two baptized members who alternate playing supplemented by a Sunday School scholar who occasionally plays for Sunday School only. We are concerned that some day both of our bap­tized members may not be at meeting and we will have to make other arrangements. Two alternatives have been suggested:

* Using pre-recorded tapes done by our baptized members, or

* Having our Sunday School scholar play for memorial service.

In trying to decide which route to take, we have consulted scripture and various Christadelphian material but have not been able to resolve this question. Some of our members feel it is proper for only baptized members to serve the meeting for memorial service. Others feel it is more seemly to have live music for our worship services.

We were hoping that you or your readers might be able to suggest a means of resolving this question. We suspect we are not the only small ec­clesia who has had to come to grips with this question.

Thank you for your help with this issue.

Sincerely,

Kevin Flatley, Recording Brother,
Bucks County, PA Ecclesia

Before adding our own thoughts, we will give opportunity for response from readers.

The Exceptive Clause

(In the January, ’95 Tidings p.31, Bro. Cyril Deacon of Vancouver, BC sought comment on Matthew 5:31,32 and 19:3-9. Following are representative replies received to date.)

Dear Bro. Don,

In the January “Tidings,” Bro. Deacon raised several points to which I would like to respond. I will try to keep my remarks to a minimum and still remain coherent.

“Acceptable” — Bro. Deacon infers that some in our community feel divorce and remarriage is “acceptable.” This is an unfortunate word as it implies what is not true. No transgression is acceptable, but any (all) may be forgiven, including all those listed in Mark 7:21,22; I Cor. 6:9, etc.

“In the beginning” — God’s mind was expressed in the Garden of Eden and these expressions should be our goals in a things. One wife and one husband was set out as the ideal. Yet the ideal was not achieved by some outstanding people. Abraham, God’s friend and the father of the faithful, plus his grandson Jacob (plus many others) had more than one wife before the law. David, God’s beloved (plus others) did so under the law. Were they acceptable?

“Divorce” — Did the law provide for divorce for some (any) reason? The Pharisees, quoting the law, said, “Yes, the law did provide for divorce” (Mk. 10:4). Jesus agreed (v.5). Although Jesus stated a higher ideal, he did not say God was wrong in making a provision for divorce.

“Hardness of heart” — Provision was made for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. Both husbands and wives could be intolerable to live with because of the natural hardness of heart we all possess. And some husbands would be so hardhearted as to put their wives out of the house without a bill of divorce. Without such a bill, the woman could not legally remarry. She would be put in an impossible position (this is still true in Israel today.)

“Fornication” — Our English word “fornication” was translated from a Greek word (porneia). Jesus, when interpreting the law to the Pharisees, did not speak in Greek. We accept this word, however, as being the nearest equivalent to what Jesus said, but it has a much broader meaning than just adultery.

Reasons for divorce under the law — Bro. Deacon misspeaks himself in saying that “under the Mosaic law there was one reason (for divorce), and that was unfaithfulness.” In fact, unfaithfulness occasioned stoning, not divorce (cf. John 8:5). The wording in Deuteronomy 24 which discusses the reasons for divorce is deliberately vague but the procedures for divorce and remarriage are precise.

“What God has joined together, let not man put asunder” — It is a command the violation of which is sin, but it is not stated as an impossibility. It is therefore possible for man to “put asunder” a marital union.

Man has made his world imperfect and we have fallen short of the perfection that God intended from the beginning and which He will yet achieve in the future. In the case of the marriage union, God’s ideal is clear; but both under the Old Testament and the New, some provision is made for failed unions.

One last thought. Being long past the threescore and ten years allotted, I have considered the arguments of Bro. Deacon many times. I answer them now most briefly for in my youth, I grew up believing the same arguments our brother sets forth. I feel I have grown wiser with the years.

Sincerely your brother in Christ,
Floyd Elsas, Santa Barbara, CA

Dear Bro. Don,

I have read Bro. Deacon’s letter regarding the exceptive clause and I have the following comments to make.

I read Matthew 5:31,32 thus — a faithful wife has been divorced (possibly because no child has resulted from the marriage), in many cases it would be an economic necessity that she remarry. I see in Jesus’ comments a sympathy for the woman. He rightly places the blame on her hard-hearted husband who caused her to commit adultery by her remarriage. The first husband is also to blame for the new husband committing adultery. He could easily avoid this blame by retaking his wife before she married someone else. I would suggest that we be very careful in our judgments as we also might be classed as hardhearted.

It was stated (by Bro. Deacon] that the Mosaic law was still operative when Jesus made these statements. Frequently in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made remarks such as “ye have heard” or “it has been said,” referring to the Law of Moses, and then says, “but I say unto you.” Luke 16:16 states that the law and the prophets were until John the Baptist.

In Matthew 19, Jesus answered the Pharisees’ question on the lawful cause of divorce. He took them to the beginning of creation in Genesis when God made Adam and Eve ‘one flesh’ by taking a rib from Adam and creating Eve. So by union in marriage, they again became ‘one flesh.’ “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be one flesh.” Jesus emphasizes this remark by adding — “they are no more twain but one flesh.” Then he adds this warning: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

In order to see what Jesus is saying by these words, I have left some of them out and lined his comments up as follows:

cleave to wife — become one flesh
no more twain — but one flesh
joined by God — put not asunder.

On the left side is the common idea of joining together and on the right side a warning is given. It is obvious that Jesus is warning against putting asunder the one flesh relationship.

There were two ways a marriage could end under the Law of Moses. One was by the divorce bill and the other by one of the marriage partners committing fornication (being unfaithful to the one flesh relationship) which resulted in the death of the offender.

Since the Jews no longer had control of capital punishment, the divorce bill was the only way of ending a marriage. So the Jews asked Jesus why this divorce bill was provided. Jesus told them that the bill was written because of their hard hearts. He then tells them there is only one reason for which the divorce bill can be used, that is, for the sin of fornication because this sin destroys the one flesh relationship. “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication and shall marry another, committeth adultery and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” The phrase, “except it be for fornication” can be put at the beginning, middle or end of the sentence without changing the meaning.

While the divorce bill was the means by which the marriage was officially ended, the reason was the destruction of the one flesh relationship — a union that was joined by God had been destroyed by the sin of fornication.

Sincerely,
Harry Perks, Stayner, ONT

Dear Bro. Don,

To get a clear answer to Bro. Deacon’s questions will not be achieved by unending detailed word or sentence analysis. We need to take a much broader look at the subject from a holistic biblical approach.

Jesus, in his discourses on marriage is dealing with the results of the teaching of the Jewish leaders (Matt. 5) and with the Pharisees directly (Matt. 19). Jesus always lays down the highest ideal. This is done in contrast to the low level to which the Jewish leaders and Jewish society had fallen. However, we would not expect the Son of God to give anything less than the ideal.

In Matthew 19, Jesus says that this is the way it has always been with God from the very beginning. This takes us back to a time before the fall of man and sets ow the ideal God had intended before sin entered the world. The question thus raised is, “Are we to live up to the ideal expected of Adam and Eve while they were in a very good state?” The marriage issue is not the only one we encounter. From the very beginning, God also intended that man should not sin. These certainly are goals to strive for as testified throughout scripture. As we progress through scripture, however, we find that mankind always comes up short of achieving these goals.

How did God deal with man’s shortfall? God provided a covering for sin and seemed to tolerate shortcomings with the marriage issue. In the beginning of the books of Moses, we encounter the ideal. At the close of the books of Moses, we find that God is tolerating certain deviations from this ideal, as in the case of divorce and remarriage.

In Leviticus 21:10-14, we find the absolute is applied to the High Priest.

This implies that the rank and file probably do not achieve this high ideal. In Ezekiel 44:22, speaking of the kingdom age, the same situation seems to prevail relative to divorce and remarriage among Israel.

This also seems to be the situation when Christ talks with his disciples in Matthew 19:10-12. In reviewing with them what he had said to the Jews, he says in verse I I , “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” This seems to be a recognition on Christ’s part that all of his followers may not be able to achieve this high standard. He goes on to say that “…there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men…” this not only includes those who are physically changed, but also those who have disfellowship held over their heads if they remarry.

Do we not have here two levels of dealing with the marriage question? The ideal, and the less than ideal which comes about by the hardness of men’s hearts, but which God graciously tolerates?

Gardner Howes, Sandwich, MA

Dear Bro. Styles,

Greetings in the name of Jesus anointed.

In response to Bro. C.E. Deacon’s question the following is submitted, not to correct him, but to suggest he could start in earlier and continue on a little further.

Coming in at Matthew 5:1 and going on past Matthew 19:9, we see that Jesus spoke to different groups as he made his various utterances, namely:

1. To the multitudes.
2. To his disciples apart from the multitudes (Matt. 5:1,2).
3. To the Pharisees (Matt. 19:3-9; Mk. 10:2-9).
4. “In the house” (Mk. 10:10).

Now in regard to Matthew 5:32, there is no need to spend too much time on it. Bro. Deacon has dealt with it very neatly in his first paragraph under his subheading, “Matthew 5:31,32.” In other words, what that verse boils down to is, “…you will make her an adulteress unless she has made herself one already.”

Matthew 19:9 is different, however. The setting is different and the wording is different. This verse is the conclusion of a dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees. They had asked him how they should be applying that dispensation (that Moses had suffered them to have) in their lives under their law of Moses. Those of us who live under the law of Christ don’t have any such.

Then the Markian account enlarges our understanding a little more. In the tenth chapter, the discourse with the Pharisees ends at verse 9. That is followed by, “And in the house his dis­ciples asked him saying…” There is no “exceptive clause” here.

Note how many times in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus refers to some rule that came from “them of old time.” Then he counters with a “But! say unto you…,” and he takes it to a higher plane. That is the pattern as to what is going on with this “exceptive clause.”

The “exceptive clause” was for the Pharisees; it is not for us “in the house.”

Yours in the hope of His mercy,
George Carrick, Ancaster, ONT