Communications

Baptismal Formula

Dear Bro Don:

It was a little less than 20 years ago. Three weeks after his baptism the new brother asked why he had been baptized into the trinity [i.e., “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”]. The question immediately diverted my attention. I had never considered that mistaken understanding before. It was certainly a simple answer but still spotlighted a weakness in my teaching procedure. Our ecclesia not only began reviewing every step and every word involved in the baptism procedure with every new candidate, we eventually also added some questions to our baptismal review concerning God manifestation.

Admittedly, this particular baptismal command doesn’t appear to carry exclusive application. However, if one does not understand they are

being baptized into the one family name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then a glaring hole in the educational process has been revealed. Where was the instruction into the name of God, the principle of God manifestation, and Christ’s prayer in John 17 for all believers to be kept in God’s name, maintaining a divinely intended oneness? Does this candidate even understand the foundation principle of God manifestation if they don’t understand that we are all joined into God’s family name…just like a newborn and just like a new bride?

There is a dangerously burgeoning tendency in our society to avoid even perceived offense. The political correctness dragged behind the mutations of popular thought has established the instinctive feeling that toleration and accommodation is righteousness and offense is immoral.

This unspoken presumption licenses the moral free fall of our generation. Its subtle presence in our particular community disengages a valiance for truth. Rather than accommodate a potential discomfort in the baptismal candidate, perhaps a better policy might be that we should answer the problem with improved education before baptism.

Our community is in little danger of the assembling trumpet blasts of significant doctrinal challenge. It is the relentless baby steps that raise few eyebrows and encourage more than one shrug that challenge our future. If we are caught in the current of society’s thought flow without struggle, we will eventually be swept into the rapids and over the falls to its ultimate destination.

Jim Dillingham, Dunbarton, NH

We certainly agree that the doctrine of God manifestation should be an integral part of our pre-baptismal instruction. Further, we have suggested that an appropriate use of Matthew 28:19 at the point of immersion would be to say: “We baptize you into the name of the Father manifested in the Son through the power of the Holy Spirit.” But we do not agree that using the baptismal formula cited throughout the rest of the New Testament represents any degradation in our grasp of Bible truth.

Adjusting to people’s background in a biblically precedented manner is actually following the example of our Heavenly Father as He has dem­onstrated His grace in dealing with all kinds of human needs Consider His wonderful patience in encouraging Gideon with many signs to strengthen

his faith and His gracious work with Samson. We need to beware of a gradual decline from the truth. In this case, however, all we suggested is making a fully warranted accom­modation to the background of a baptismal candidate.

Plight of Divorced Sisters

Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to comment on your response to the recent letter on the subject of what was termed the plight of divorced brothers and sisters. In your response you stated that “not all Christadelphians agree on this subject.”

While it may be true that there are sometimes honest differences of opinion on whether or not one who has been divorced and then remarried should retain their place in the ecclesia, that only becomes an issue once we have all failed to properly fulfill our obligations to God and to one another in these cases.

The issue here, specifically, is how individuals should conduct themselves in the face of marital problems which may arise from time to time, and how the ecclesia should respond if the individuals involved do not conduct themselves properly in such a situation. There should be absolutely NO difference of opinion among us as to what the scriptural admonition is.

The clear scriptural instruction is that a brother or sister who is married, or one who comes to the truth when their spouse does not, should remain married to their spouse, unless there are extreme circumstances. The fact that the spouse may, in some cases, be an unpleasant person to be around is irrelevant. We are instructed to remain with our spouse, and being baptized after one is married does not release one from the vows which were made before God at the time of the marriage. Baptism should strengthen the obligation to our spouse in our minds rather than weaken it.

If, however, the unbelieving spouse is not content to remain in the marriage (which doesn’t appear to be the case here) the believing spouse is free to depart, but once again we are given clear scriptural instruction. The departing spouse should remain single if at all possible.

The arguments usually put forward are: God couldn’t possibly want me to stay with this “horrible” person; God would want me to be in a “healthy” relationship rather than this “unhealthy one;” the unbelieving spouse will never come to an understanding of the truth; the children could more easily be raised in the Sunday school if only… and so on. These are usually only rationalizations, our mortal mind looking for justification for what WE want to do, rather than what we have been instructed to do.

Of course, each case should be judged on the specific circumstances, but how are we to know that God hasn’t put us into a certain situation for a reason which we may not fully understand? Who are we to decide that a difficult spouse is ultimately “unsaveable?” How is he to be sanctified by the believing spouse, if the believing spouse has abandoned the marriage?

In nearly 25 years in the ecclesia, serving nearly a decade on the arranging board, and having been personally involved in many of these cases, I have not seen any unfair treatment of those involved. What I have seen over and over is the ecclesia working tirelessly to salvage the remnants of a situation which is so far gone due to the hardheadedness of those involved, that there is really not much left to do.

As for treating sisters differently from how we treat brothers in these situations, I have personally seen many cases of sisters divorcing, and then remarrying (sometimes more than once), and then being accepted back into fellowship. I can count only a few cases where brothers have done the same. As a matter of fact, there have been at least a half dozen sisters in such situations in my ecclesia in recent years, so I fail to see any evidence of unfair treatment, as each of these cases has been judged fairly based upon the individual circumstances.

In all of life’s circumstances, we need to remember the importance of example to our spouses, children, family, friends, and our brothers and sisters. “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk…”

Brian E. McDonald, Pomona, California

In the referenced letter to the editor (November, 2005), extreme circumstances did apparently exist. Further, we should note that Paul’s commendation of the single life in I Corinthians 7 is in the context of “I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress;” and even in the existing difficulties, Paul says “it is better to marry than to burn.”

Honoring parents

Dear Bro. Don,

In your September editorial, “Honor Your Father and Mother,” you suggest this command is completely unqualified, an “absolute dictate” that is, in effect, regardless of any improper parental conduct. Permit me to suggest that there is an implied qualification.

Please consider the following pairs of instructions: 1. “Wives, be subject to your husbands…Husbands, love your wives…” 2. “Children, obey your parents in everything…Fathers, do not provoke your children…” 3. “Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters…Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly” (Col. 3:18 – 4:1, RSV). Does this not illustrate the mutual obligations implicit in each such relationships?

“Children, obey your parents in everything.” On the surface, this is an unqualified command. By your reasoning, no exceptions can be contemplated. To take an extreme example, suppose the father demands of his child willing, habitual, secret participation in incestuous acts. Is obedience required? Is such an individual to be honored in the heart of the child?

Various scriptures might appear to be unqualified, but turn out to be modified by other passages. To take one example that is beyond dispute: “Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation” (Mk. 8:12). Clear enough. Definitely no sign. But Matthew’s record of the same event adds the qualifying exception: “No sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Mt. 12:39). Mark cites the general principle that, for these hard-hearted people, no effective sign would be provided. Matthew elaborates, referring to an exception, a sign that would not be recognized.

The requirement, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” also appears to be unqualified. But it relates to the companion principle, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Rom. 13:1-3). Exceptions might arise, when rulers become a terror to good conduct, e.g.: “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name…” The apostles disobeyed the rulers’ direct order on the basis, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In scripture, all human relation­ships are ideally patterned after God’s relationship with His people. His covenants always involve both a promise and a requirement; they are all conditional, explicitly or implicitly. (Any suggestion that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional fails to take into account such passages as Gen. 26:4,5). Accordingly, the covenant relationships between husband and wife, parent and child, employer and employee, all involve both a promise and a requirement, explicit or implicit. The requirement, “Children, obey your parents in everything…” has its counterpart, “Fathers, do not provoke your children…”

It is one thing to behave with polite, restrained courtesy toward a chronically wicked parent, it is quite another to afford him or her heartfelt respect and honor. The requirements of the law of the Lord reach beyond the niceties of social behavior. At a deeper level, we may glimpse an underlying principle whereby the greater honor accrues to those whose conduct is honorable: “Pay all of them their dues…respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” (Rom. 13:7).

Philip Jones, Calgary, Alberta

We appreciate your raising these points as we are certain many readers were thinking along the same lines. You are quite right that children are not to give their parents unqualified obedience. In Ephesians 6:1 we read: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Recognizing this, in our editorial remarks we deliberately stayed away from “obey” your parents which must be, and is a qualified instruction. Instead we deliberately used the terms “respect” and “honor” to stay within the biblical directive.

Your citation of the master-slave (employer-employee) relationship provides an excellent guideline for the child-parent matter. Peter says: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing…For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval” (I Pet. 2:18-20). In like manner, what credit is it if we honor parents who are godly, generous, wise, kind and helpful? It’s when they don’t deserve our respect and we still act toward them with patience, kindness and filial care that we have God’s approval.

There is great danger that we will rationalize any biblical instruction to suit our own desires. Human thinking is very good at this. But the Lord settles the matter in his exposure of the Corban law which we noted in the editorial. The Lord did not qualify his words according to the worthiness of the parent and neither should we. We may not find it biblical not to obey our parents in some circumstances, but we must always treat them with deference, care, and respect.

Baptismal formula

Dear Bro. Don,

Thank you so much for your years of editorials. We all appreciated your work so much.

We had a baptism on Saturday and our new sister was baptized into “the name of Jesus Christ.”

When I heard Bro. Peter King at Idyllwild on Matthew 28:19, he said the disciples were asked to baptize in “the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit.” Then he commented that they never did, not once. They did not at all, ever. Makes me wonder if that was inserted later because they never did use those words? Funny, don’t you think? Surely they would want to do just as he said…”IF” he really said that. After all, I John 5:7-8 was inserted and it was faulty. Do you think this has signs of “grievous wolves entering in” and doing their work?

Dorothy Woolridge, Santa Barbara, CA

Thank you for your encouraging words and good wishes. You raise a very relevant point which we investigated before writing the editorial. According to the Nestle Greek text, which notes the vast majority of manuscript variations, the only alternative in this case is whether the text should read “the” Father or “my” Father.

At the time of our Lord’s instruction, there would be no prob­lem in rightly understanding his words. The Father’s name, that is, His essential attributes, was manifested in the Son and was further revealed through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is only in the subse­quent distortion of the truth, by the false doctrine of the trinity, that the words can give rise to difficulty in the minds of some. Our suggestion, as evidently was Bro. Peter’s, is that we consider the impact of the baptismal formula on the one being baptized and use what is a fully appropriate alternative.

Plight of divorced sisters

Dear Bro. Don,

This letter serves to bring to the attention of yourself and the brotherhood the sad plight of a growing number of brothers and sisters in our midst. I refer to divorced brothers and more especially, divorced sisters.

After enduring years of mental, emotional and verbal abuse, I recently, by the grace of God, found strength and courage to agree to sever all ties with my unbelieving husband.

Now I find myself longing, no, yearning, to be in a wholesome, caring relationship in the Lord, to be married to someone, God willing, of like precious faith with whom I can share my life in the same manner the Lord God intended and producing children (converts in my case) who will be heirs of the promise.

Alas, however, because of my status as a divorcee there is no brother in the Christadelphian world with whom I can expect to share my aspirations. If I were to convert someone toward this end, he would find himself in the same situation as the brother in Christ. To marry “out of the truth” I dare not, since I would be out of the fellowship, so dear to my heart.

“What did the Lord Jesus say about divorce? What did the Apostle Paul say?” I am asked time and again. One brother even declared that to marry a divorced sister is to “sell out Christ.” An unmarried woman or sister who may have had several sexual partners and who may or may not have offspring is looked upon more favorably than a divorced sister who may have had only one sexual partner (her husband) in her entire life.

I have been baffled by this phe­nomenon for a long time. What message is it sending to our young women: Is it a question of interp­retation? Shouldn’t there be provision in the brotherhood for people in my situation? What about judging each case on its own merit? I am fully aware that the controversy sur­rounding divorce and re-marriage rages on.

I know of cases where divorced brothers in the ecclesia have remarried (women in and out of the truth) and are in fellowship. To date I know of no sister in a similar situation. Is there one rule for brothers and another for sisters?

Further, I am aware of instances where divorced sisters were forced to have their physical, emotional, and other needs met by forming a relationship outside the ecclesia. They preferred instead to “fall into the hands of the Living God” than to risk the open disapproval and sometimes tacit disdain of their fellow believers if they were to seek such associations with brothers.

The scripture tells us that marriage, ordained by God was intended to be a lifelong bond and a model for ecclesial life. However, since some of us married when we were unbelievers, we lacked sound knowledge of the true meaning of such a worthy institution and chose our then spouses without the benefit of such knowledge. Should we be penalized for the rest of our lives if our marriages fail? All of us were not meant to become eunuchs for the kingdom of God’s sake. Remember, there is no marriage in the kingdom. It behooves us, therefore, as children of God to use marriage as a training ground to mold our characters for life in the kingdom. But how can we divorcees do so if we are stigmatized and counted as rejects?

Please publish this letter so that brothers and sisters can share their views and experiences.

Name withheld on request

We would strongly recommend you secure several copies of Bro. John Carter’s book on Divorce. Or obtain the CD of past Christadelphian magazines from the Christadelphian office and read the articles on divorce contained therein.

As you are aware, not all Christadelphians agree on this subject. However, no one should be applying one standard to brothers and another to sisters when it comes to marriage and the ability to rightly remarry. “There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Assuming that you have rightly represented your situation, the passage most applicable is I Corinthians 7:13-15: “And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him…But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” As Bro. Carter notes in his comments, the only reasonable understanding of Paul’s words is that the sister is freed of the marriage bond and able to remarry without committing sin, but “only in the Lord” (I Cor. 7:39).

Hopefully, as you request, others will share their views and experience.

Abortion

Dear Bro. Don,

On the subject of abortion we would urge your readers again to show compassion as Jesus taught.

One may believe abortion is wrong for any reason and that it is a horrible sin. However, until you have been through the agony of carrying a mentally/physically impaired baby yourself, or the product of rape or incest, you cannot comprehend what it is like. We cannot tell what circumstances drove a woman to willingly terminate a pregnancy. It is not for us to coerce anyone into bearing/raising a child because we believe it is the Lord’s will.

If you believe the Bible teaches abortion is wrong under any circumstances, then by all means never elect to have one yourself. But please don’t presume to tell anyone else what is best for her and her situation as you really just don’t know. Let God, who knows our human frailties and weaknesses be the judge.

Fulfilling prophecy

Dear Bro. Don,

Is it possible for us, in our eagerness to discover signs in current world events that the coming of our Lord is near, to exaggerate the significance of current political events and statements by political leaders?

An example of possible exagg­eration is the conquering of the old, walled city of Jerusalem by the Israeli Defence Forces in the short war of June, 1967, that so fundamentally changed the map of Israel to this day. We usually see that event as fulfilling the words of Jesus (Luke 21:24) that “Jerusalem will be trodden down by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” We sometimes link this with the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 11:25 about the hardening that has happened to Israel “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”

Look closely at the old city of Jerusalem today, 38 years later. We find a complete integration of it into Israel, absolute control exercised over it by Israel, the squeezing out of some of its Arab inhabitants, the construction of a barrier to separate other Arabs from it, and the building of many Israeli neighborhoods around it. Yet, the old city continues to be occupied by many Gentiles antagonistic to the faith of Abraham and King David.

There are 13 so-called Christian denominations jealously maintaining their property in the old city of Jerusalem — 2 or more owning parts of the huge edifice called the “church of the holy sepulcher.” The biggest property owner in the old city is the Russian Orthodox Church. There are 57 religious sites, the majority Christian. On the mount formerly occupied by the temples built by Solomon, Zerubbabel and Joshua, and Herod are two huge Muslim buildings where thousands of Moslems worship daily and which are critically important in the teaching of that religion. The facts on the ground do not support our too-readily made assertions that Jerusalem ceased to be trodden down by Gentiles in June, 1967.

Unquestionably, the Lord brought about the events of 1967 which gave so much joy to Jews in Israel and around the world. Should we not see this event as part of the Lord’s continuing testing of this people, His showing that He has not forgotten them, that His calling of them is irrevocable, and that the door is wide open for them to be grafted back into His olive tree, if they do not continue in their unbelief?

In the last 38 years, the “fullness of the Gentiles” continues to be made up as the preaching of the truth of the Gospel extends to more and more countries — a foothold now in India and Eastern Europe, a toe hold in Bangladesh and Pakistan, a finger-hold in China, a foothold in some countries of South America. There is so much yet to do that the Gospel might be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations and we must all be part of that, and “then the end will come” — as the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 24:14.

Is it possible to overemphasize current political happenings and media headlines as signs of our Lord’s imminent return and cause eventual disillusionment and questioning of our faith as the years slip by? 135 years have passed since the first Jewish Aliyah to their ancient land, 112 years since the first Zionist Congress, 88 years since the Balfour declaration, 57 years since the declaration of the state of Israel, 38 years since Israel’s conquering of the old city of Jerusalem. Should that not give us pause?

Things never happen as fast as we think they will or should. Yet, “a thousand years is as one day with God” ( II Peter 3:8-10). It will come, and suddenly. In the meantime, the Lord continues to call out a people for His name and our part is to participate in that activity in patient hope.

Bob Green, Brantford, Canada.

This letter to the editor has hit a personal nerve. In May, 1967, we were discussing scripture with a recently baptized brother. Quite naturally he was interested in how the then-current world situation fit in with Bible prophecy and what events we might expect before the Lord’s return.

Among other things, we noted that Israel needed to be in control of Jerusalem before the times of the Gentiles would be over. Two weeks later in early June, 1967, it apparently happened! The Jews not only took Jerusalem, but the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza. Our new brother was, of course, duly impressed and subsequently would ask us, “What next?” whenever our paths crossed.

Now Bro. Green points out that, while Israel may control the political administration of Jerusalem, Gentiles still own most of the property and the critical area of the temple mount is controlled by Muslims. As he says, “The facts on the ground do not support our too-readily made assertions that Jerusalem ceased to be trodden down by Gentiles in June, 1967.”

Too much of a stretch

Some recent developments have also jolted our own application of scripture. The Israeli pull out from Gaza and sealing off of the West Bank are not how we expected events to develop. Ezekiel 38:12 speaks of the Jewish people occupying the “midst” of the land in the last days. In Judges 9:37, the “midst” of the land is the very part now called the “West Bank” from which Israel is pulling back and around which she is building a wall to ensure the area will stay under Arab control for the foreseeable future.

What’s going on?

Furthermore, how does the present state of Israel fit with a people living in “unwalled villages,” dwelling “at rest,” “safely,” and “dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates” (Ezk. 38:8,11)? We can explain “safely” as “confidently” but that really doesn’t help with all the other phrases describing Israel in a far different condition from its present situation of conflict, threat and armament.

While it’s certainly true that they are a nation “gathered out of many people” living in the “mountains of Israel” which they have “brought back from the sword” (Ezk. 38:8,11), it’s too much of a stretch to say Israel dwells “at rest” in any meaningful sense.

Another stretched application, which we have been prominent in advancing, is the identification of the great northern host with Russia, particularly when it formed the basis of the U.S.S.R. controlling Eastern Europe. In Ezekiel’s day, Meshech, Tubal, Magog, Gomer and Togarmah were all peoples living north of Israel in what is today Turkey, northern Iraq, and areas around the Black and Caspian Seas (all heavily Muslim areas today). Rather than be happy with that identification, in our prophecy lectures, we regularly traced Meshech to Moscow and Tubal to the River Tobal (with really no solid justification). We also followed the migration of the peoples of Magog, Gomer and Togarmah into Eastern and Central Europe. During the long years of the Cold War from 1946 to 1989, this identification held up fairly well.

But now what?

With the break-up of the Soviet Empire, and the Russian brothers and sisters exposing the weakness of linking Meschech with Moscow and pointing out the River Tobal is not very significant (see Tidings, 5/2000, p. 161), what looked applicable in past years, doesn’t look so relevant today.

Then there’s the European Union: When there were 10 nations founded from the Treaty of Rome, we felt it was a natural. The ten toes of Daniel 2 were in place. But the Union didn’t stop at 10, or 15 or 20; and the Roman Church does not seem to have much impact on European affairs. Could it be that the recent rejection by some core nations of the proposed Constitution will result in a new grouping of 10? Will it be that  political turmoil will bring the Church to the fore as a stablizing force?

Do we have to know? Must we take every significant development in current events and fit it to Bible prophecy?

Relax and watch with joy

The developments of the past 150 years make it clear we are in the last days. The process of God bringing the Jewish people back to their land has been happening before the eyes of all the world. Long ago He promised: “I will gather them out of all countries whither I have driven them…I will bring them again unto this place…I will plant them in this land…” God is doing it; He is keeping His promise in faithfulness and righteousness. Yet He has promised much more than what exists today: “I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever…I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me” (Jer. 32:37-41). While a Jewish nation of Israel exists in the land of promise, it is very much a secular sovereignty with conversion of the people to their God and their Messiah being yet in the future.

We are watching a process, the process of God fulfilling His promise. We know how it will end, but we don’t know every step in the way.

Of course we want the process to be hurried up. We yearn for the return of our Lord. Of course we’re excited to know, “What’s next?” But the experience of recent years has convinced us we can’t answer that question with certainty.

Could it be that, contrary to traditional expositions over the years, Ezekiel 38 occurs after Christ’s enthronement in Jerusalem? We don’t think so, but it’s certainly not appropriate to fall out over the matter. Could it be that Babylon of Revelation 18 represents humanistic capitalism accommodated by Papal adaptation? We may not agree in advance, but we’ll all know together when the events come to pass.

We know we’re in the last days: knowledge is increasing at an unbelievable pace; the sea and the waves are roaring both literally and figuratively; the Cold War has ended but terrorism causes even more “distress of nations with perplexity;” greed, family breakdown and personal dysfunction prevail in “perilous times” for the saints (Dan. 12:4; Luke 21:25; II Tim. 3:1-5).

Rather than becoming frustrated at the twists and turns of current events, rather than arguing passionately for our own point of view, let’s watch with great interest and fascination as God fulfills His promises. Let’s take particular note of the long-term trends where fulfillment of prophecy is more clearly seen. We are living through great developments in God’s master plan for this creation, let’s enjoy the times praying the end of the matter will soon be experiencing the joy of our salvation.

Abortion

Dear Bro. Don,

Modern medicine gives us many possibilities unknown in Bible times for which we can hardly expect direct Scriptural guidance: immunizations; all types of operations on various parts of the body, including the brain; body replacement parts; organ donations; various machines to keep a seriously ill person “alive,” “therapeutic” abortion, and so on.

In the absence of direct scriptural guidance, if we look to “nature,” we see that natural or spontaneous abortion, otherwise known as “miscarriage,” is a fairly common phenomenon. A miscarriage is considered a sad event, but not as terrible as the death of a child. It is very often pointed out that miscarriage seems to be connected to faulty development of the fetus, which, if the pregnancy had gone to term, would have produced a severely handicapped child. “It was probably for the best,” the mother is often assured.

However, not all deformed fetuses are miscarried. The dilemma presented by modern medicine is that many forms of serious handicaps can now be detected quite early in pregnancy. Here the choice can be very difficult: to carry a baby to term, only to see it suffer and die early? Or, if it doesn’t die, to have a child who needs so much attention and, perhaps, financial resources, that its brothers and sisters have to be neglected to a certain extent at least? There are many different situations, and I think it’s understandable that not everyone feels able to cope, not everyone feels it’s right to inflict such problems on their existing family, and so on.

There are also cases of rape or incest, cases where a girl is too young to carry a child to term without serious risk to her own health. The choice is not easy in such situations. There’s also the case where a woman who already has children may be risking her life if she tries to bear another child. To take such a risk for oneself is one thing: to risk leaving one’s beloved children motherless is another.

Without really being in someone else’s shoes, we just can’t know what we might decide if we actually found ourselves in such a terrible situation.

The Exodus passage (21:22-23) doesn’t seem to me to mean that the death of the unborn child has to be compensated “life for life:” it could just as easily, perhaps more logically, be read to mean that if it’s just the loss of the unborn child, the penalty is a fine; if the mother suffers more serious injury, then it’s “eye for eye”, etc.

As for Onan, the context makes it clear that he was punished not for practicing birth control, but for refusing a child to Tamar when it was specifically his duty to have a child with her, a child which would have been considered as his dead brother’s.

Another comment on Sister Connie’s article is that only the mother is mentioned. A child has two parents. If the father has disappeared, at the very least, when discussing the mother’s situation we should bear in mind that, as well as perhaps behaving wrongly, she has also been very badly treated by an irresponsible and uncaring man.

Life can be very difficult for fatherless children, and also for some adopted children, however loving the single mother or the new family. I’m not suggesting abortion may be the “right” solution for an unwanted pregnancy, just pleading for more sympathy and understanding for people facing difficult choices, whose idea of what is “for the best” may not be the same as ours.

Anon at writer’s request

Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to comment on the letter written by Sis. Patricia Bartle (Tidings pg. 323) on the subject of abortion. She mentioned that there were certain times when an abortion would be all right in the eyes of God and gave some examples, such as someone who finds out that the child she is carrying has a physical defect. I would disagree based upon the following.

The apostle Paul laid down the principle that there is that which is first natural and then that which is spiritual (I Cor.15: 46). This is a principle that plays itself out in a number of ways in the divine scheme, one of them being the bearing of a child. In order for a child to come into the world there is first that which is natural – a man and woman engage in the act of intercourse. But there is also that which is spiritual, God’s role of determining whether the efforts of the man and woman are fruitful or not, and determining how the child will turn out. There are a host of women in the Bible whose wombs God had shut, preventing them from bearing children. The conclusion is, that if God shuts the wombs of some, He must be the one who opens the wombs of others. There is then the human realm and the divine realm in the bringing forth of a child. When a woman has an abortion, she is determining whether the child should be brought to term or not; and what she is, in fact, doing is entering the divine realm, thereby usurping the power and authority of God. If she finds out that the child she is carrying has a physical defect, it is because God so allowed it; she has no right to tell God which sort of child she will accept from Him.

But what of the woman who carries a child that she did not consent to carry? Should she not be allowed to choose whether the child lives or not, seeing that it was forced upon her? No, because we know that “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to His purpose.” God is in control and watches over all our steps and will not tempt us beyond that which we are able. Again, God is the one who opens and closes the womb, and therefore the one to decide what is best for us. We conclude then that abortion, no matter the circum­stances, is wrong, for it is the act of playing God and challenging His wisdom, power, and authority.

Darryl Rose, Brampton, Ontario

Dear Bro. Don,

May I add a hearty ‘Amen’ to Sis. Bev Russell’s letter (Tidings July-August, 2005).

In regard to comments made by my dear friend and brother Alan Fowler, he seems to have overlooked the fact that abortions of choice are not carried out on “fertilized eggs” but weeks to months later. A very close relative of mine was medically advised to consider a ‘therapeutic’ abortion. What swayed her prayerful decision was a twofold realization: (1) that it was the Lord who had given her conception (Ruth 4:13); (2) by the sixth week of pregnancy, before some women even realize their condition, her ‘foetus’ had a stomach already producing digestive juices, intestines, reproductive organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lungs, a brain of sorts, nerves, circulatory system, muscles that twitch, ears that can sense to some degree, a mouth with lips, signs of teeth, bone cells, and so on. This is surely far more than a “fertilized egg.” It may not be a ‘child’ with a personality, and it is not yet in the “image of God.” But it is certainly a “creature” on which Almighty God is working His wonders (Psa.139:13). It has to be ‘killed’ if it is to be discarded. We may hesitate to call this killing ‘murder,’ but it surely ought not to be undertaken lightly by anyone, certainly not by a Christian. Interestingly, the early (apostolic) church excommunicated sisters who willfully aborted pregnancy. My Zondervan NIV Bible has this comment on Psalm 139: Clearly God does affirm in his Word his deep concern for the unborn. Conception is a gift of God. God fashions a baby in the womb of his/ her mother and plans her days.

Alan Eyre, Kingston, Jamaica

Ezekiel 38-39 explored Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to comment on Bro. Alan Fowler’s article “Ezekiel 38-39 Explored” in the March, 2005 Tidings, in particular table 1 on pg. 124 referring to the deportations to Babylon.

I have always considered there to be six deportations while many brethren will argue that there were only three. However, Bro. Fowler uses different references from me to get his six deportations. So I looked into the subject again and can now only find four deportations (see table below). I wonder if somebody could verify exactly how many deportations there were.