This column is open to all readers. That being the case, we make no attempt to monitor the fellowship association of any who write in. In actual fact, we do not know the association of all recipients of the magazine. What is happening, however, is that some are objecting to the greetings and sign offs which we have been printing without any modification. While we appreciate the warm openings and closings that accompany many letters, we will henceforth, print all letters as being addressed to “Dear Bro. Don,” and leave off any sign offs except for the writers name and city of residence.
Books for Children
Dear Bro. Don,
We heartily concur with the points expressed by Bro. Bob Kling regarding the lack of suitable books for Christadelphian children. Over the last few years, we have tried (with the help of some very capable brothers and sisters) to remedy this problem by publishing some children’s books. The first two books, Josh & Jenny Go To Meeting and Josh & Jenny go to a Baptism have been very well received. They use simple stories to uphold distinctive Christadelphian teachings.
Recently a third book, Sarah and her Grandpa, is on the way to printing. Iris a tenderly written story that brings before young minds the reality of the coming of Christ, the great hope of the resurrection and the glories of the kingdom. The illustrations are in pen and ink and beautifully capture the love between a grandfather and his granddaughter.
Our children do need books. As a community, we have an abundance of outstanding literature, except in this area. We know that there are brothers and sisters with the talent to write and illustrate such books. Others of us can contribute to the work through financial support. We request that any interested in this work contact:
Frontlets Publications
Bill & Carol Link
2613 Westchester Avenue
Ellicott City, MD 21043
Low Contributions to Israel Fund
Dear Bro. Don,
I am very discouraged because I have had no donations whatsoever for the Fund For Israel for many months.
Please enclose this appeal. The need is still just as great, if not greater, and I can share copies of letters from Bro. Leslie Johnson showing that the money is being put to good use.
Ruth Robinson
Fund for Israel
2122 O’Keefe Avenue
Prince George, BC
Canada V2K 1K9
The prime beneficiaries of funds sent through Bro. Leslie Johnson of the UK are recent immigrants to Israel. There continues to be a steady stream of people coming into the land and their needs are very great.
We are to “do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). While our first concern will be for the great needs within the household (e.g. the CBMA), when we do good to “all men” we should give priority to the natural descendants of Abraham. It is still true that they are a special people to God and those who bless Israel, God will bless.
Sunday School Student Playing at Memorials
Dear Bro. Don,
In my opinion, the memorials are extremely holy and reverent and only baptized members appropriately contribute to the service. The baptized are privileged in this regard and responsible for maintaining a high standard of service. I feel live worship is what God wants. Taped music has its place but not at the memorials. If no one has the ability to play an instrument, we may consider singing without the aid of one.
Bettina Carrington, Hamilton, ONT
The Exceptive Clause
The initial letter on this matter was from Bro. Cyril Deacon of Vancouver, BC published 1/95, pgs. 31-32. Some responses appeared 3/95, pgs. 117-121. Pertinent excerpts from additional letters follow with concluding editorial comments.
Dear Bro. Don,
In Matthew 5 , the Lord makes some obvious references to the law of Moses and draws distinction between the Pharisaical interpretation of some of its tenets and his own and advises his disciples that they had better be more equitable in character than the Pharisees. I would suggest, therefore, that the words of vs. 31 and 32 were spoken in this context making it clear that “the law” permitted a putting away for only one reason — not for “every cause” (Mt. 19:3). In Matthew 19, the Lord makes it clear that the Deity never intended there should be a “putting away” and only permitted it in the case of Israel because of the destitution of spiritual perception.
The Lord indicated in Matthew 19 that those who claim to be his disciples are expected to be of quick spiritual perception. Thus verse 12, “He that is able to receive the divine principle let him receive it.”…
Lloyd Newth, Largo, FL
Dear Bro. Don,
Bro. Deacon has correctly paraphrased Matthew 19:9: “Yes, a man can put away his wife if she has committed fornication…”
This one reason: ‘fornication” (unfaithfulness) is the exceptive clause. Matthew 5:32 says, “saving (except) for the cause of fornication” and Matthew 19:9, “except it be for fornication”…
Bro. Deacon’s comment that a divorced woman “would be cast out into a hostile world where remarriage would provide a degree of support and stability” could be confirmed with Deuteronomy 24:2: “And when she is departed out of his house she may go and be another man’s wife.”…
Requested Anon, BC, Canada
Dear Bro. Don,
Study Matthew 5 and do not take the verses in question out of context. Jesus does not change the law nor does he add to it. He is warning against the misuse and contempt of the law. In Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-9 the Pharisees do not ask what the law said; they ask what the law did not say…
Moses, in Deuteronomy 24:1, said, “If you send her away then you have to give her a divorcement bill.” The command was not that the wife should be divorced but that she be given a divorcement bill. In other words, if the couple cannot stay together and they break the vow, then a divorcement bill must be granted. The victim was free and was protected. She was not living in adultery if she married again.
The question of uncleanness [in Deuteronomy 24] is also not understood. It is not a matter of adultery or fornication. The uncleanness is referring to something else. If the husband saw in his wife something unclean, so that he could not live with her any more and sent her out of the house, he had to give her an official divorcement bill. A complete separation had to take place. She could go back to her family for support and be married again. She did not have to be an unclean person; she was unclean in his eyes, and, for that reason, he could never marry her again…
John Booy, Delta, BC
We feel this interchange has been particularly useful in placing a right stress on the law in Deuteronomy 24. That law does not approve divorce; it regulates an existing practice by mitigating harm to the woman. “And the Pharisees, who were covetous” had twisted this protective provision to negate the simple divine truth that “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery” (Luke 16:14-18).
There was an appropriate issue to be addressed, however, for the followers of Christ were no longer to live in circumstances where those who committed fornication in marriage would be put to death. As is so often done by the Master, he takes a wrong question as opportunity to provide useful instruction: In these new circumstances, what guidelines prevailed for his followers?
Editor’s comments on the exceptive clause
For simplicity of reference, we have numbered the following points, which we feel are scripturally clear.
- As pointed out in one of the above letters, there is an exceptive clause. According to English translations and the Nestle/Aland Greek text (which gives manuscript alternatives if they exist), the clause unquestionably appears in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
- The clause applies to us.
Evidently, this is the main concern of several of those submitting letters as summarized in the suggestion that the exceptive clause applied to the Pharisees but not believers in the Lord Jesus.
Consider the scriptures: “Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35). There was not one set of right standards and principles for the Pharisees and another for the disciples; there was one gospel preached in the synagogues and everywhere else. Speaking to Cornelius many years later, Peter comments that this Gentile believed the “Word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all;) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached” (Acts 10:36-37). There is one gospel!
Furthermore, the gospel records are highly selective accounts of the teaching of Christ (cf. John 21:25). It is unthinkable that one of the few recorded statements on the vital matter of divorce and remarriage would be inapplicable to all believers of the gospel.
- When used in a literal sense, fornication always refers to sexual sins but can be broad or narrow in its meaning depending on the context. In I Cor. 6:9, for example, fornication is distinguished from adultery, homosexuality and other deviant behavior, while in I Cor. 6:18 it refers to all forms of “sexual immorality” (NIV). In Matthew 5 and 19, it no doubt includes adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc. on the part of husband or wife. By using a non-specific word, the Lord has given his followers a general guideline but no specific rule. This should not surprise us, as we are expected now to apply principles to cases as we develop to be rulers in the kingdom.
Recognizing that the exceptive clause does apply to brothers and sisters when sexual sins are involved, we feel there are still appropriate questions to be asked, namely:
- Can the “innocent party” divorce the “guilty party” and remarry without committing the sin of adultery? A common and reasonable answer is: “No, they cannot, because they should forgive and they should not sue another believer at law, which is necessary to secure a divorce.”
- Can the “innocent party,” when divorced by the “guilty” party, remarry without committing the sin of adultery? This question is reasonably answered with another question: How “innocent” is the “innocent party?”
Each case must be judged on its own set of circumstances which is why the matter should be left in the hands of the home ecclesia involved. Presumably, brothers and sisters of that ecclesia best know the true situation.
Summary and appeal
We do not feel that a right response is the one given by those saying Christ’s teaching is not applicable to ourselves. There are appropriate questions to be discussed on the issue, but this is not one of them.
Our best approach is to work to prevent divorces from occurring. We do this by much positive instruction before people are married, by continually emphasizing the divine ideal of one man, one woman for life, by identifying troubled marriages and by being ready to provide loving, sympathetic, wise and godly counsel.
In addition, each married person needs to work on his part in his own marriage. One correspondent made an excellent comment: “Husbands and wives can be intolerable to live with because of the natural hardness of heart we all possess.”
When marriage breakdowns tragically occur among us, let us respect the decision of the local ecclesia in the matter, remembering that Christ is the final judge.
In all of our deliberations, let us remember Christ’s words to the Pharisees: “If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless,” and the words of a Jewish believer to the twelve tribes scattered abroad: “Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13 NIV).
Strong’s Concordance