Letters to the Editor

Worshiping Jesus

Dear Bro. Don,

I read with great interest your November editorial entitled “Worshiping Jesus,” as I am the brother you mentioned whose question sparked the article. Having in the interim studied the question myself, I felt that I should offer some clarifications.

It is obvious that Jesus is worshiped in scripture (14 times in the KJV) and deserves worship. However, the English word worship has changed in meaning since the 16th century and its Biblical meaning needs to be properly understood. The modern meaning of the word implies by definition that the object of worship is divine, leading to the misuse of this con­cept by Trinitarians as proof that Jesus is God. The older meaning of the English word means to bow down to, prostrate before, fall down before, do obeisance, do homage, reverence or honor, treat with respect. It can ap­propriately be given to a human king, lord, noble or magistrate, as well as to God. It is in that older sense that worship is used of Jesus in the KJV. The modern meaning (divine worship) is not intended by the Biblical use of the word with respect to Jesus. In fact, the New English Bible, apparently recognizing the change in English meaning, never uses the word worship in regard to Jesus, and the other modern translations (e.g. NIV, RSV, NASB) reduce the number of times the English word worship is used of Jesus by about half.

It is important to distinguish between the different Greek words that are translated worship. Of the approximately ten such Greek words, only proskuneo is ever applied to Jesus. Proskuneo is quite similar to the older meaning of the English word worship cited above, meaning to bow or kneel, and is also closely equivalent to the Hebrew shachah. The use of worship that you cite in Matthew 15:9 however, is from the Greek sebomai, which is entirely different from proskuneo, and is never used in regard to Jesus. Honor may be given to almost anyone, but sebomai refers to divine worship, which is never given to Jesus or to anyone but God. Honor is, as you note, a component of worship. Worship always includes honor, but honor does not necessarily imply worship.

Of the 14 times that Jesus is worshiped in the KJV, all but one are prior to or at his ascension. The single sub­sequent case of the worship of Jesus is by the angels (Heb. 1:6). There is no statement in the Acts or Epistles that Jesus is an object of worship by believers in a sense similar to the wor­ship of God. Honor, yes. Submis­sion, yes. Praise, yes. We bow to Jesus (Phil. 2:10) as Lord and King in homage, reverence, obedience and praise. But the use of the word worship could mislead or confuse the reader into thinking that a religious or divine worship is being referred to. Jesus is held in higher honor after his exaltation to the right hand of God than before, yet all the examples of his being worshiped by humans are before that, not afterwards. We need to differentiate between the special kind of worship that is due to God alone, and the kind of worship that is due to Jesus and others. If you look closely at the times that worship is used of Jesus in the KJV, it is apparent in most cases that what is implied is kneeling, begging, falling down in fright or awe, or the worship that is due a king.

Although there are a few scriptural examples of men or angels rejecting worship, there are many more examples of them legitimately accepting worship. A few examples of the ac­ceptable “worship” of men and angels in the KJV include:

Matt. 18:25-26: The debtor in the parable of the two debtors, worshiped his (human) lord.

Rev. 3:9: The false Jews will wor­ship the ecclesia at Philadelphia.

Heb. 11:21: Jacob worshiped Jo­seph (cited from Gen. 47:31 “bowed”).

Jos. 5:14: Joshua worshiped the angel (“man”), the “captain of the Lord’s host.”

Chron. 29:20: The people wor­ship the LORD and the king (David)

Dan. 2:46: Nebuchadnezzer wor­shiped Daniel (Heb. Segad).

There are many other examples of shachah, the primary Hebrew word for worship, being applied acceptably to men, though translated differently into English. See Gen. 19:1; 23:7; 37:7,9; 42:6; 48:12; Num. 22:31; Ruth 2:10; I Sam. 20:41; 24:8; 25:23; II Sam. 15:5; 24:20.

Much of the confusion on the is­sue of worship stems from the few cases where worship is rejected as inappropriate. The worship of angels is condemned in Colossians 2:18, but a different Greek word is used there, threeskia, which should be translated religion. The angel in Revelation 19 and 22, as you point out, rejected John’s attempt to worship him, how­ever this is the only case of an angel rejecting worship. In that case, the angel appears to be representing and speaking for Jesus (22:7,12 “Behold I come quickly”), and he redirects John’s worship to God rather than to Jesus. We should recognize that this is in context of a symbolic vision. Also, angels in Revelation are not al­ways heavenly angels, as for example the angels of the seven ecclesias to whom the seven letters are addressed, where angels appear to refer to what we might call the recording brothers of those ecclesias. Likewise, although Peter rejected Cornelius’ worship, many other faithful men accepted be­ing bowed down to, for example the Philippian jailer fell at Paul’s feet in Acts 16:29 without rebuke. Jesus re­fused to worship the tempter in the wilderness, citing a command against idolatry, because the tempter, like false gods, did not deserve worship. It is quite true that we are to worship Jesus, but it is important to recognize that worship in this sense is not something that is uniquely due to God and Jesus. John MacDougall, Verdugo Hills CA

Allowing Differences

To my beloved brethren and sisters, Greetings in the saving name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a letter that contains both my hopes for and my sadness at the state of the Brotherhood in the year 2000. On the eve of our Lord’s return it is sad indeed that I feel the need to share these feelings and to seek for a reason to hope that we can recover from the place we are in.

A movement has been growing in the Brotherhood for a number of years that I have always seen as disturbing, but it has now become so pervasive (at least in Southern Ontario) that it has become what I see to be a significant point of division among us. And it goes to the very core of what it means to be a Christadelphian.

Our pioneer Brethren, John Thomas and Robert Roberts, opened a wonderful portal for so many of us who have learned the Truth through their writings and influence. I myself was introduced to the Truth by my wife Valerie, and after 2 years of our young relationship (two years before we were married); I decided that I had better figure out once and for all who was right — “me” and my Roman Catholic heritage or “her” and this strange group called the Christadelphians! Val’s Grandmother, Sis. Dorothy Roberts, kindly gave me her late husband’s copy of Christendom Astray, with the encouraging words: “Maybe this will help you to find your way.”

That very night, I left my beloved’s side to read this mysterious gift and decide once and for all if this silly religious affection of hers had any merit. I was 19 at the time and upon arriving at home with my contraband, I went straight to my room and started to read. I was up all night!!! The force and the power of Bro. Robert’s reasoning was devastating. The Bible came alive to me for the first time. Val and her family had spoken to me on so many occasions about all of the things written in this book and had laid such a thorough groundwork, that this book now brought everything together in a marvellous summary.

Within months I was baptised. That was 30 years ago and I have been blessed ever since with a Sister wife in the Truth, three beautiful children (now young adults — 2 baptised, one to go!), a wonderful family of faith in the Truth and daily guidance and care from my Father in heaven.

So, you must be asking, what’s my problem?

Simply put it is this: Those wonderful pioneers are now being increasingly held up as being infallible! They are now being viewed, not as our founding forefathers, but as our inspired sages. Are these words too strong? Unfortunately they are not. It is my absolute conviction that if they knew how their names were being used today, they would be horrified.

The most compelling example is that of Bible prophecy. In my little part of the world, there is an extremely reactionary element of the Brotherhood that will not tolerate any view of prophecy that is not squarely founded on the footings of Eureka, Elpis Israel or Thirteen Lectures. Any attempt to reason for ourselves is met with an almost violent response. It is the most devastating blow to the Christadelphian principle of being the people of the Book (the Bible, of course) that I have ever seen. Now we are no longer people of the Book, we are people of Elpis Israel, Eureka and adherents of the writings of Dr. Thomas.

Where we as a community have ALWAYS told our interested friends to search the Scriptures for themselves, we will not allow our own brothers and sisters to study the Scriptures on matters of prophecy for themselves — they MUST adhere to “Christadelphian tradition,” or not be welcome to share fully in the fellowship of the saints! In fact threats of disfellowship are not far beneath the surface of this assault on the brotherhood.

I have corresponded with several brethren from around the world, and while they recognise this sad trend, it doesn’t appear to be as robust elsewhere as it is in Canada. But it will spread and it is like a rolling stone that, if left unchecked, will cause serious trouble in the brotherhood.

What to do?

It seems to me that it is the responsibility of each brother and sister to make it known that they will not be spoon-fed by anyone! We are each individually accountable to God and we jealously guard the gift that He has given us to “search as for hidden treasure” the secret things of our God.

Prophecy in many ways is a mystery to many brothers and sisters because of the heavy use of symbolism in books like Daniel and Revelation. The brethren who promote the “traditional” views of our pioneers give many of us comfort that it has all been worked out (we don’t need to worry ourselves about such a complex matter) and if we can’t trust Dr. Thomas and Robert Roberts, who can we trust! Consequently, when brethren today find that the Scriptures speak to them in a different way, they are condemned as injecting confusion into the brotherhood and causing our “simpler” members to be unsettled and lose faith. I find this to be a specious argument, because, of all denominations in Christendom, Christadelphians are among the most knowledgeable Bible students in the world! Sure, there are those among us who are not as cerebral as others, but the Truth is simple and interpretations that require huge amounts of non-Bible based historical information should be challenged if for no other reason than they cannot be understood using the Bible alone. Massive amounts of historical detail fill the works of continuous-historical books and very few of us are equipped to properly assess their veracity.

Attempts recently by those highly regarded in the Brotherhood (Harry Whittaker, Alfred Norris, Peter Watkins, Duncan Heaster, to mention just a few) have attempted to search for a more Bible-based understanding of Revelation and some outstanding thinking has emerged. Tragically, these attempts to assist our under­standing have been met with unchari­table resistance and the very reputation of these brethren has been slan­dered in the process.

Brothers and Sisters — what are we afraid of? Do we actually believe that exploring the Bible to better understand the most significant prophecy it contains is heresy? Some of these brethren (myself included) have actually been accused of being Catholic Jesuits infiltrating the brotherhood to spread false doctrine — simply because we see a lot of Revelation as having particular relevance to the last days in which we live!!! Can you imagine that kind of slander actually being voiced in the Ecclesia of God?

A stop must be put to this and spiri­tuality must be restored where fanaticism has emerged.

We cannot allow our precious brotherhood to become a cult — like the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. We cannot allow our wonderful heritage of literature to become our version of the Book of Mormon or the Watchtower Magazine. The only book that deserves that kind of sacred place in our community is the Bible!

This is an appeal brothers and sisters, to call us together in Christ, to promote Bible study and let God speak to us through His Word!

Don’t be afraid of Bible classes that delve deeply to comprehend the mighty hand of God! These are the last days and we need each other! We need to exhort one another all the more as we see the Day approaching!!!

May God be with us in these try­ing times and continue to prepare us for the return of Jesus, His Beloved Son and our Saviour.

In the precious name of our Mes­siah, your Brother in the one hope,

Al Hussey, Welland, Ontario

Please see this month’s editorial for our comments.

Rosh or Chief Prince?

Dear Bro. Don,

I had the opportunity to read Tidings of May, 2000, and your comments on Magog and Rosh.

I feel the structure of the Hebrew means Magog is a people, not the name of a country. The Hebrew reads “of the land of the Magog” similar to the idea, “of the land of the Englishmen.”

Also, the Hebrew for rosh indicates it is not part of a series of countries but modifies the word for “prince” and thus the passage means “chief prince.”

With love in Christ,

 Peter Ratushnyi, Kiev, Ukraine

Thanks very much for your comments. Could any readers familiar with the Hebrew either confirm or help us on these two matters? We cannot determine conclusive readings from the Hebrew-English Interlinear.

Partial Atonement

Dear Bro Don,

I want to express my thanks for your ‘Partial Atonement” editorial in the July issue It took both a great deal of courage and solid judgment on your part As you well know, the timing of Bro Keith Cook’s book could not have been worse as it relates to the current unity efforts in Ontario and the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U S The fact that this book was specifically sent from Australia to brethren in these areas is especially unfortunate

Although it would not have been an easy editorial to write, I believe it was necessary to confront the issue head-on before the book gained any credibility in North America Bro Cook’s assertions had the potential to negatively im­pact the unity efforts which so many brethren here have unselfishly dedicated themselves to over the past few years, with God’s blessing Your article exposed the book for what it is and will, I pray, avoid any harm that may have otherwise come from it It also sent a clear message to our brethren in En­gland and Australia (specifically those who were misrepresented in the book) that they have the full support of their brethren and sisters here.

The article was well researched, direct and to the point The inconsisten­cies and inaccuracies of the book were stated clearly in a forthright manner This was obviously the product of a great deal of research into Bro Cook’s assertions Most importantly, the article was written tastefully and in a Christ-like spirit, taking into account the sensitivities around such an emotionally charged issue as the atonement

David Wave Toronto Ontario

In the following we are asked several direct questions our responses are in square brackets following the questions or comments

Dear Bro Don,

It was with considerable disappointment that I read your editorial in the July issue of The Christadelphian Tidings You appear to present an understanding of the atonement that is quite at variance with the accepted beliefs of the Christadelphian community since the days of our pioneer brethren I find your criticism of my stand in defense of the pioneer writings difficult to un­derstand in view of your expressed beliefs as featured in an article published in Logos Magazine, August, 1994, pp 344-346 There you clearly asserted, “Sacrifice is offered for non-transgression situations,” and further in the ar­ticle went on to write of sacrifices that were “sacrificial offerings for human nature” This evidence shows that you are either quite inconsistent or that you have radically changed your beliefs.

[Neither is true Later in that series of seven articles we phi aced the same point as sacrificial offerings occasioned by human nature. The phrasing for human nature is as evolving the same objections you have received — It is either biblical nor, in accordance with pioneer writings and implies to some brethren the idea of actual transgression. So we adopted a phrase which made the same point regarding human nature without being objectionable So long as we could rightly expound scripture in different terms, we saw no point in holding to a pet phrase].

You referred to pages 24-26 of my book, The Theory of Partial Atonement Examined These pages contain quotations cited from the Australian Unity Book, all of which have been declared to be “doctrinally erroneous” The five quotations you cite are by no means “erroneous” They are the direct words of Bre Thomas, Roberts and Carter, all of whom I believe expressed doctrinal soundness in the words quoted.

[Please read the Unity Book” section again (p 70) Bro Carter introduces the list by saying “A few short quotations from Bro Andrew’s pamphlet. The Blood of Covenant ‘ After the list Bro Carter comments “That these ideas were resisted (by Bro Roberts) at the time they were advanced is abundantly evident they are far removed from the plain truths of Scripture ” These are the ideas of Bra Andrew, not Bre Thomas Roberts and Carter

If read carefully it is evident the vocabulary is typical of Bro Andrew and foreign to the pioneers For example Bro Andrew said the baptized admit “they deserved for their sin in the flesh and for their ‘wicked works’ a violent death     That s not pioneer wording]

1. Would you suggest that Bro Thomas was in error when, in Elpis Israel (p 129), he wrote “Children are born sinners or unclean, because they are born of sinful flesh”? Do you consider Bro Carter to have been in error in using this same quotation (Unity Book p 75)? [See answer to 3]
2. In The Revealed Mystery, p 24, Bro Thomas wrote “All mankind are born of corruptible parents into a state of sin By this natural birth they become members of this sinful and evil state and heirs of its disabilities By virtue of this birth they are constituted sinners” Would you consider Bro Thomas to be in error in this statement? [See answer to 3 ]
3. Bro Thomas in Elpis Israel, p 130, stated “By Adam’s disobedience the many were made sinners, that is, they were endowed with a nature like his, which had become unclean, as the result of disobedience, and by the constitu­tion of the economy into which they were introduced by the will of the flesh, they were constituted transgressors before they were able to discern between right and wrong” Would you claim this statement represents doctrinal error?
   [In the full context of Bro Thomas’ exposition, I agree with his use of “sinner” and “transgressor” in a constitutional sense As Bro Roberts noted in 1874, however “Only perversity would suppress the word ‘constitutional’, and allege that the Christadelphians teach Christ to have been a sinner ‘and he added, “Finally, I do not teach that Christ was a sinner by birth or any other means I believe he inherited in his flesh the result of Adam’s sin, as we do not that he was a sinner himself And here I add, for the sake of a few who are wondering what the phrase constitutional sinner means, as once or twice employed by Dr Thomas in reference to Christ, It means that he stood related to a sin-constitution of things — a state of things arising out of sin; without being himself a committer of sin” (“Unity Book,” p. 75-76).
   It surely is not wise to elevate a “once or twice use of a term to a point of major contention between brethren especially when that term (“horn sinners”) is highly susceptible to misunderstanding.]
4. In The Christadelphian (1875, p. 139) Bro. Roberts wrote: “He obtained eternal redemption in and for himself… ‘He was made sin for us who knew no sin;’ and does not sin require an offering?” Do you consider this to be wrong doctrine?
   [We agree with Bro. Robert’s overall answer to a correspondent. He titles his response, “For himself that it might be for us,” which is a good way of summarizing the atonement. And he stresses, “All that Christ was and did was for us which rightly refuses to separate Christ from his work for us. We feel he misspeaks himself, however, in suggesting whatever must he done for committed sin must also be done for human nature. For example, committed sin must be “forgiven,” yet Bro. Roberts would never suggest human nature must he forgiven or remitted.]
5. Did Bro. Roberts err doctrinally in 1869 when, in The Ambassador of the Coming Age, (p. 83) he wrote: “It is testified that he was ‘made sin for us’ (II Cor. 5:21). As he was not of sinful character, this could only apply to his physical nature”?
   [Bro. Roberts did not “err,” but he was likely too limiting in his exposition. “Made sin” probably infers more than just the fact that Jesus was of human nature. It no doubt includes the fact Jesus was treated as a sinner for our sake as we “are made the righteousness of God” (treated as righteous ones in addition to ultimately being made of the divine nature) in Christ.]

The above statements and similar teachings by the pioneer brethren are rejected by proponents of the partial atonement theory because they teach that atonement (or “covering,” as the word signifies) applies only to actual sins of transgression, not to the present defiled physical state of Adam’s progeny. [Bro. Martin certainly recognized the application of “atonement” to our physical state in Leviticus 12 (see my editorial p. 242)].

If it is your belief that all the above quotations from the writings of the pioneer brethren are erroneous and should be rejected, as a matter of duty to the brotherhood, may I ask that you publicly acknowledge in your magazine that this is your belief. [Please note my comments above. Obviously I do not believe they are erroneous.]

You have accused me of “targeting brethren who do not speak of atonement for human nature.” The expression is used only once in my book (p. 21). [The phrase “Atonement for Physical Nature” is the section heading for pp. 18-24 and “offered for sin-nature” occurs in your comment on p. 23. Note that the phrase, “Atonement for physical nature,” never occurs in quotes from the pioneer brethren or in quotes from scripture ] You should be made aware that initial objection to the use of this expression was made some 12 years ago by “clean flesh” adherents in Queensland because, in defending their position, they claimed it was not a biblical expression These brethren were teaching that human nature does not need or require sacrifice or atone­ment Proponents of the partial atonement theory embraced this clean flesh objection and taught that the flesh, or human nature, has nothing for which a sacrifice or offering or atonement is required [Having read much of the Queensland literature not everything they say is wrong In this case they were right, about the phrase you insist upon – sacrifice for human nature — not being a biblical (or pioneer) expression ]

The reality of this teaching is open for all to consider in the widely circulated doctrinal statement by the Enfield, South Australia Ecclesia that “We do not believe that Yahweh requires a sacrifice, offering or atonement for those impulses in our nature that lead to sin” The author of “Saved by His Life” has been advocating this doctrinal concept for more than 10 years.

[In talking with Enfield brethren we know vie agree on the essential as­pects of the atonement While not personally objecting to the phrase sacrifice for human nature we can see where another might do so as he might feel ‘sacrifice for implies committed sins We are astounded at your public criti­cism of brethren who believe the great truths of the atonement hut find objec­tion with a particular form of expression Our advice is to say the same thing in different words].

I draw the attention of yourself and your readers to some of the pioneer quotations included in my book.

The Christadelphian, 1873 “The body offered being the nature that trans­gressed” (p 321) “The death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature” (pp 465,466) “He should offer up himself for the purging of his own nature” (p 468)

The Christadelphian, 1875 “The Lord partook of our nature which had to be redeemed by death and resurrection ” (p 138) [Note “redeemed by death and resurrection,” not solely by sacrificial death This is a strong point made by those you criticize so sharply]

The Law of Moses, 1898 “Both the moral and physical purification is in virtue of the one sacrifice” (p 250) ” It is the principle upon which we are saved from the law of sin and death, whose operation we inherit in deriving our nature from Adam Christ partook of this nature to deliver it from death ” (pp 178,179) “He was ‘purified with’ a better sacrifice than bulls and goats — viz, his own sacrifice If he was ‘purified,’ there was something to be purified from” (p 181)

The Blood of Christ “It was that nature that was to be operated upon and redeemed in him” (p 21 early edition, p 18 later edition)

Catechesis “The flesh in or through which the Deity was manifested was, for the brief space of 33 years, inferior to the angelic nature, which is spirit It had been purified by the sprinkling of its own blood on the cross, it came forth from the tomb an earthy body which, in order to become spirit, and so equal to the angels had to be justified, rectified, ‘made perfect’ or quickened ‘by spirit”‘ (p 12, item 51, fourth edition, 1915)

That this matter is one of the utmost seriousness is demonstrated in the words of Bro Roberts “Here is where the various false theories of the sacri­fice of Christ are so dangerous they put a man’s heart out of harmony with God’s aims in the greatest of His works upon earth” (Law of Moses, p 243)

Bro Thomas wrote “The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture It signifies in the first place, ‘the transgression of the law”, and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust” (Elpis p 126)

I believe that this provides the kernel for the teaching of our pioneers, based upon their understanding of scripture, in relation to the sacrifice of Christ This principle is denied by those who endorse and teach the “partial atonement” theory [Note that not once in the above quotes does the phrase occur “sacrifice (or offering or atonement) for the impulses which lead to sin (or the physical or human nature)”]

I appeal to you and your readers to carefully consider the wide variety of quotations from the writings of the pioneer brethren which appear in Panel C of my book These quotations represent the true Christadelphian position on the nature and sacrifice of Christ, which I thoroughly and wholeheartedly endorse.

Keith Cook, Throng, Australia

Among other great truths, all brethren involved in this discussion believe that we are mortal, death reigns in our members, and we possess a bent to sin so powerful it has enslaved every human being but the Son of God Moreover we all believe that Jesus Christ, as a member of the human race, was tempted in all points like ourselves Possessing the same nature as ourselves, he, too, was beset with the same propensity to sin, but did not yield to its power, and lived under the dominion of death, as do all Adam’s progeny. Accordingly, his obedient, sacrificial and representative death was crucial to his own salvation as well as to ours.

This agreement on great aspects of Bible teaching distinguishes truth from error Holding in common as we do such vital teachings, we should respect one another in the bonds of Christ and desist from requiring everyone to conform to an identical, highly specialized vocabulary.

God’s saving work through the Lord Jesus Christ is magnificent It is like a priceless diamond sparkling with exquisite colors Depending on our per­spective, we’re going to emphasize the particular aspect which most impresses us This diversity is good so long as we patiently listen to each other and respect each other’s particular emphasis.

“Beyond Bible Basics”

Dear Brother Don,

I have just received the Sept issue of Tidings (it takes a good while for post to reach us here in Southern Africa) and wish to thank you for publishing the positive book review by Martin and Lois Webster of Duncan Heaster’s book Beyond Bible Basics’

As you are doubtless aware, there has been a fair amount of negative publicity associated with this new publication from certain quarters in the brotherhood and the Websters’ review constitutes a timely redressing of the balance.

Beyond Bible Basics. is one of the most stimulating and challenging books I have come across in the wide range of literature published by Christadelphia and I heartily recommend it to all brethren and sisters.

It is not necessary that every page be approved before recommending the book Readers can assess the relative merit of each of the ten sections for themselves The title page describes the work as “A Manual for Spiritual Growth,” and given a fair read, I am satisfied that it will achieve its objective.

Anthony Oosthuizen, Durban, South Africa