Letters

I read with interest your January editorial and the Scriptural justifications for either inclusive or exclusive fellowship. The justification for promoting exclusive fellowship seems based on not wishing to cause “offense”.

On further reflection it seems to me that not wishing to cause “offense” can also be used to justify inclusive fellowship. It is self-evident that excluding brethren in Christ from the table of remembrance will offend them and the Lord Jesus Christ whom they serve.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15) the Father’s inclusion of his younger son into the family again “offended” the elder brother and he removed himself. In fact he was angry that his Father was rejoicing at the return of his younger son. The Father’s appeal to his elder son is based on compassion, love, forgiveness and mercy for his younger son who he thought he had lost.

The parable was directed towards the Pharisees and scribes who prided themselves on their exclusivity from the rest of the Jewish community. They said “this people who knoweth not the law are cursed” (1 John 7:49). They were offended by Jesus’ criticism of themselves (Matt 15:12). They thought that they knew God (the Father in the parable) but sadly they didn’t. Their pride prevented them from believing Jesus and his message of compassion, love, forgiveness and mercy.

If we choose exclusive fellowship rather than unity and inclusive fellowship, then we need to remember Jesus’ warning “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20). We ignore his warning at our peril.

Dear Brother Editor:

I would appreciate a clarification concerning Bro Jim’s statement that the way Thomas addresses Jesus as “God” would have been somehow inappropriate prior to his immortalization (see The Tidings, December 2012, p. 568). In the context of the foundation principle of God manifestation, that statement seems incongruous. Jesus even defends himself from inappropriate presumptions by the religious leaders in God’s kingdom by quoting where the elders of Israel are identified as Gods (Elohim) by Yahweh (John 10:34-36; Psa 82:6). In other words, the seed of God had been planted in them through enlightenment, qualifying them for the title of elohim/gods. Additionally, Yahweh Himself assigns the title of “God” to Moses and appoints Aaron as his prophet (Exod 4:16;7:1). There are many oc­casions where the leaders of the enlightened are addressed as gods (elohim) by our Creator (Exod 21:16; 22:8-9; Psa 82:6). The mortal Jewish defenders against the Gogian invaders are prophetically identified as being made “like God” (Zech 12:8-10). This is why many of the titles of our Creator are shared with Christ and the faithful, such as God, savior, light, judge, king and father. We all literally take our Creator’s family name at baptism (Matt 28:19: “the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit”) which is why the third commandment warns us not to “take” that name in vain. Therefore why would it be inappropriate to use the title “God” in relation to Jesus before he was immortalized?

The principle of God manifestation makes it clear that creation is not about the salvation of man, but the manifestation (projection) of our Creator. The “word” of John 1 was not our Messiah until it was made flesh. That “word” was, is and will always be the plan of God, not simply Jesus. Jesus is certainly the flesh applica­tion and the doorway to the realization of the Creator’s plan, due to mankind’s corruption of that plan. There is more to God manifestation than simply giving immortality to faithful men and women. Jesus always told everyone that this isn’t all about him, but that it is all about his Father.

Your brother in Christ,
Jim Dillingham, (Cranston, R.I.)

Reply:

I have no argument with Bro. Jim’s points. The problem perhaps lies in the way I expressed things, and I apologize if it was not clear. The word of John 1:1 is the word of fore-ordination (“the plan of God” as Bro. Jim expresses it is fine.) Given that John is writing a gospel of Jesus Christ, though, I am venturing to say that he primarily has the things that were foreordained concerning Christ in mind. The rest of John’s Gospel shows us how these things became historical reality in Jesus. Clearly the things foreordained of Christ were not manifested to men until the word was made flesh (John 1:14). Nor would they be entirely accomplished until after his death and resurrection.

In the days of his flesh, it is wonderfully true that Jesus manifested the character of God to men: “full of grace and truth”, in that respect he rightly deserves the title “God” before his death and resurrection. I believe that Thomas’s confession goes beyond this, however, and reflects the fact that the one now standing before him (John 20:28) has also received the immortal nature of the Father. It is this last fact only that “would have been altogether out of place earlier in John’s chronology”; i.e., before the death and resurrection of Christ. I thank Bro. Jim for his comments and an opportunity to clarify what I wrote.

Your brother in Christ,
James Harper (Meriden, CT)