HOME | MAIN BOOKS PAGE | SITE MAP | EMAIL

MAIN PAGE

I have before me a copy of a very interesting and instructive letter addressed to the Recording Brother of the Los Angeles ecclesia and signed by Brother F. E. Wood on behalf of the Clapham Presiding brethren of the year 1933.

It is dated December 5th of that year and is a companion letter to one dated September 15th, 1933, written by and addressed to the same persons as the letter before me. The September letter has already been published in our booklet "The Clapham Change." Both letters deal with the same subject, namely: Divorce and Remarriage. One is a signal to the other and in the December letter, the Clapham Presiding brethren give further advice (as requested) as to the course to be pursued in the case of one who had been guilty of the sin of Divorce and Remarriage but after some years had become repentant and was seeking forgiveness and the helpful benefits of ecclesial association and fellowship.

These well-beloved, unpretentious and well-informed brethren of 1933, after expressing their dislike of any contentious discussion of such a subject as Divorce and Remarriage which they styled "unsavory and debasing", went on to say, and I quote as follows:

"As, however, in your letter you cited a specific case, we commented accordingly.

"The matter to be investigated is the present state of mind of the person applying for re-fellowship. In our experience it is invariably the case that where a person applies for re-fellowship to an ecclesia which is based on rigid adherence to the commandments of Christ both in letter and spirit, the person concerned has done everything possible to put himself or herself in a right position before applying for refellowship. This fact, of course, does not absolve us from the responsibility of closely investigating the motive prompting the application for refellowship.

"In our opinion there is a very close parallel between marriage with an alien and remarriage after divorce. Both are equally reprehensible in the light of Scripture teaching but we must beware of 'judging before the time comes'.

"We assure you our object is to be constructive and not contentious merely for argument's sake, and would deal with the specific case you have on hand in the spirit of Christ, and then direct our attention and energy to the deeper and more ennobling things of our most holy faith.

Sincerely your fellow labours in Christ's service,

For and on behalf of the Presiding Brethren of the Clapham Ecclesia,

F.C. Wood
Assisting Recording Brother

Brother T. Lloyd-Jones
Recording Brother: Los Angeles Christadelphian Ecclesia,
Los Angeles, California."

The Clapham Presiding brethren of the Berean fellowship of 1933 were "more noble" than those of 1940-41, inasmuch they have shown by their letters that "they searched the Scriptures daily," and therefore were better qualified and more competent to "expound the way of God more perfectly," on the subject of divorce and remarriage, than their brethren of the latter date, who simply say, "we think" and "we believe" (Acts 17:11 and 18:26).

If they were not all "wiser than their foes" who now repudiate and denounce their teaching on this matter, the majority certainly were. Casting reflections upon the memories of the deceased will not add to the prestige of the present incumbents of the chair. There were a few among the Clapham Presiding brethren of 1940, who for some reason exhibited an excessive eagerness and unbounded determination to cause dissension and bring about division over this "unsavory and debasing subject."

Obviously, because of this, a few who should remember, found it expedient, in order to keep themselves within the fold, to say, they had no recollection of the letters of 1933.

But fortunately, there are many on both sides of the ocean who have a distinct recollection of the Clapham attitude toward this matter in 1933, and several have copies of their letters.

This thing was not done in a corner as some would insinuate and it is a mean and unworthy act to intimate that it was. Why not acknowledge the facts and admit that Clapham has changed? What folly to deny this fact as the Clapham editor does.

Of course, if the Clapham Presiding brethren have an impelling desire to make new articles of faith for themselves and those for whom they do the thinking; they are quite within their rights, having the same liberty as others to do so.

But when they insist that their so-called "advanced thinking" must be "wholeheartedly endorsed" by all in their fellowship, then it is that they go beyond our Statement of Faith, and we have no other alternative than to respectively decline and with the Lord's help continue to walk in "the old Paths."

Clapham's course in this matter reminds us of Butler's famous lines concerning the Churches:
"What makes all doctrines plain and clear,
About two hundred pounds a year,
And that which was proved true before,
Prove false again, two hundred more."

The last two lines minus the words "two hundred more" truthfully describes Clapham's position, for that which was proved true in 1933, in 1940 they attempt to prove false again.

Just what the unworthy motive was, we cannot positively determine, but we know there must have been some ulterior and compelling reason for such a right-about-face movement.

Some have intimated that the sole inducement for the change was the belief that it would pave the way for a new magazine-one that would be the mouthpiece, not of 160 ecclesias, as the Berean Christadelphian was, but rather the mouthpiece of one ecclesia and that must be the Clapham ecclesia.

Other ecclesias would be required to wholeheartedly "approve their sayings" and no difference of opinion as to the correctness of their sayings would be tolerated.

This, of course, would facilitate the early development of an hierarchy that would lord it over God's heritage.

It would also destroy that ecclesial independence which Bro. Roberts (who foresaw this evil) so urgently pleaded in the "Ecclesial Guide" and other works. However, be the motive what it may, one thing is certain, the kindly and helpful words of the unassuming and unpretentious Clapham Presiding brethren of 1933, form a striking and pleasing contrast to the preremptory demands of those who occupied the chair in 1940. Concerning the letter, it may be said, "This their way is their folly."-Psa. 49:13.
GOD'S WAY OF REASONING

"Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow; though they be as crimson, they shall be as wool."-Isa. 1:18.

To reason is to mentally discriminate and distinguish between facts concerning persons, things and conditions so as to arrive at conclusions in accordance with all the facts.

To reason accurately, every circumstance must be taken into account because circumstances alter cases.

If any circumstances be omitted, the conclusion must to that extent be wrong.

For example, in considering a case of Divorce and Remarriage, the nuptial vows in the first marriage and also in the second, must be taken into account. If in either instance they are omitted, a very serious blunder has been made. The Clapham brethren in their consideration of such a case, stress the nuptial vows in the first marriage, while in the remarriage they are either purposely or carelessly omitted.

The failure to consider a circumstance of such paramount importance as the nuptial vows in the second marriage must inevitably render their conclusion or decision absolutely wrong.

No such error in judgment can be found in the Scriptures. In the inspired Oracles everything is made as plain and clear as it can possibly be made.-Deut. 24:3,4.

The Deity recognizes the vows made in the second marriage as binding and obligatory "until death us do part," and the woman becomes the wife of the latter husband.

Not a word is written in this law regarding Clapham's new philosophy which requires the remarried divorcee to terminate this new "alliance" and return to her "former husband," concerning whom they say: "he is her husband." All this is mere chaff which the Clapham brethren have gleaned from false teachers and is not worth the ink consumed in writing such words.

On the contrary, just the opposite is taught for the Holy Oracles further stipulate that if "the latter husband die, his wife cannot return to" again be the wife of "the former husband."

By this Law of God she is debarred, restrained and denied the option of again being his wife, nor can he again be her husband.-Deut. 24:4.

This is Heaven's decree and from it we learn how God would have us deal with such matters when they arise. Paul declares, "it was written for our learning," and coupled with other Scriptures the man of God is thoroughly furnished and able to deal with every phase of the question whenever it may arise.

It is that which God the Lord hath spoken by His servant Moses concerning the matter of Divorce and Remarriage, and the prophet like unto Moses said:

"If you believe not his (Moses) writings, how shall ye believe my words?"-John 5:47.

The same God who "at sundry times" spoke by Moses, spoke also by His Son and to correctly believe the moral precepts of the one, we must believe the other; for the God who spoke by them hath said, "I am the Lord, I change not."

In this instance, it is Clapham that has changed and they now call us "heretics" because we claim there is perfect harmony between the sayings of Christ and the writing of Moses and Paul.

As we shall see later they now ask us to exclude and discard Moses' writings on this question because it completely shatters their hobby and leaves not even a crutch to support them, but more anon.

The major folly of our Clapham brethren consists in the medieval system of reasoning which they have adopted. They reason by rote, that is, by mechanical repetition coupled with a parrot like use of words and phrases which they have learned from false teachers. These phrases such as "a state of adultery," "prolonged adultery," etc., etc., are not to be found in the Scriptures and should therefore be viewed with suspicion. They simply express the view of some, as to what they think should have been written there to prove what they believe. Thus, they seek to improve the Oracles of God.

The above phrases are not only unscriptural but they are ungrammatical because adultery is an act, not a state, however much they may multiply words to deceive.

It really affords little help to us to be told simply what some people think of what they believe, unless it be accompanied with infallible proof. What really counts is a "Thus saith the Lord," to which we can point as did Christ and Paul, saying, "It is written." That is all-sufficient criterion or standard by which correct judgment can be reached. This can never be superseded by mechanical repetitious methods of reasoning, which we must now further consider.

A century ago false teachers had recourse to this repeating system to bolster the dogma of eternal torment. The argument ran like this. Quoting Mark 9:45, 49: "Every one shall be salted with fire," they said, to salt means to preserve, therefore, the wicked cast into hell, shall be preserved in life by the fire, where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

They failed to take into account the destructive nature of fire and their argument prevailed for the time.

Later it was learned that to salt anything with fire in the valley of Hinnom meant to cast burning coals of fire upon it to ensure its destruction, in accordance with the words of the Psalmist, "Into smoke shall they consume away."-Psa. 37:20.

Where all the important facts and circumstances are not taken into account, the mechanical repeating system is sure to go wrong.

The Scriptures teach that if a divorced woman is remarried to another, while her first husband is living, she thereby breaks the marriage vows made to her first husband and by so doing, she commits adultery.

But our "put asunder" brethren go beyond this and claim that the remarried woman by faithfully performing her marriage vows to her second husband in compliance with the words, "until death us do part," thereby commits adultery, therefore, they must be "put asunder."

It requires only a grain of common sense to perceive that there is something radically wrong in the latter proposition, which fails to take into account the nuptial vows of the second marriage which are precisely the same as those of the first marriage and the fact that she was unfaithful in the first instance, affords all the more reason why she should endeavor to be strictly faithful in the second.

In the first instance, the woman although divorced by her husband, should have remained unmarried until her husband's death and thus have performed her vow, "until death us do part."

But by marrying a second husband, while the first still lived, she proved unfaithful to the above vow; thus committing adultery, "she shall be called an adulteress."-Rom. 7:3.

This sin stands against her until repented of, and forgiveness sought in the matter set forth in the Scriptures to which we shall shortly refer.

But now, having made the same marriage vows to her second husband, it becomes her solemn duty, despite her failure in the first instance to faithfully perform those vows "until death us do part," instead of putting him away as our "put asunder" brethren claim she should do. However, the commandment of the Lord is explicit: "Perform thy vows."

If a woman is divorced and remarried while her husband lives, she commits adultery; and if her second husband divorces her, and she remarries while he lives, she commits adultery once again, and so on every time she is divorced and remarried, under the above circumstances she commits adultery.

Let us now digress somewhat abruptly perhaps by retracing our steps far enough to enable us to view our subject from a different angle. We shall do so by asking an important question. It is this:

May a divorced woman remarry while her former husband lives? But you will say, we have considered this question and found a negative answer. That is true. The inspired Scriptures furnish us with an affirmative reply as well, and this when fully considered in conjunction with the negative answer gives us the Divine perspective or viewpoint of the matter, and affords and supplies us with a proper conception and a comprehensive grasp of the whole question.

The affirmative reply to our question is found in Deut. 24:2 and reads as follows: "She may go and be another man's wife."

At first sight, some may ask, how can a "yes" and "no" answer to the same question be made to harmonize? The answer is simple. It is because Heaven's seeming opposites, always blend, while man's contrast seldom if ever do.

The happy and convincing feature in this case is, our Master does the blending.

The above quotation from Deuteronomy is part of a decree on Divorce and Remarriage, which the Lord commanded Moses to publish in Israel and which became the Law of the Realm for more than fourteen centuries.

Beside this it is a portion of the Oracles of God which were written for our learning, and should therefore receive our most careful consideration, instead of being treated as if it was only a bit of Jewish tradition scarcely worth the reading, which is the manner in which some of our brethren trust it.

This decree makes special mention of a provision which the Lord made for a woman divorced under the circumstances described therein. If the husband gives his wife a bill of divorcement and sends her out of his house, when she is departed, "she may go and be another man's wife."

The decree also stipulates that if the latter husband "hate her" and divorce her, or if "the latter husband die," the former husband cannot take her to "again be his wife."

But if "the former husband" should insist upon taking her to again be his wife, knowing that she had been remarried, after he had divorced her: his action would be regarded as "an abomination before the Lord," causing the land to sin. The definition of abomination is "excessive hatred."

There is one important fact mentioned in the latter part of this decree, which if omitted, the mind of the Deity would not be as fully understood; it is this, that while God hates divorce or putting away (Mal. 2:16), there is another thing which He regards with more extreme or excessive hatred and that is the thing which our Clapham brethren unfortunately teach, namely: that the former husband is the woman's true husband after that she has been divorced and remarried to another. This is their identifying phrase, "The former husband, he is her husband." Thus, they reverse the judgment of the most High God, and we regret to say, it is just as the late Bro. William Smallwood of Toronto, Canada, wrote when commenting on: Deut. 24:1, 4.

"These brethren, in their new-born wisdom and ignorant zeal, would reverse this order and insist on the husband rejecting his second wife and take the first one back again."

Some eight centuries or more after this decree was published in Israel, the prophet Jeremiah referred to it saying:

"If a man put away his wife and she go from him and be another man's; shall he return unto her again, shall not the land be greatly polluted?" Jer. 3:1.

If the land was polluted by the former husband returning to his divorced and remarried wife, so that it could be said, "The former husband, he is her husband," how can the conclusion be avoided that the same teaching will now mentally pollute and corrupt the community, in God's sight, wherever the same abomination may be taught today?

Brother F.W. is probably the oldest and most reckless of the few who have written in defense of the Clapham revolution of 1940.

He fully realized that the Lord's decree by the hand of Moses made a complete wreck of the Clapham revolution and therefore desperate measures must be adopted to neutralize its deadly effect.

He therefore boldly rejects it, saying: "Don't use this language-the former husband-he is her husband." -See his booklet page 18. His words are endorsed by brother M.J., who is Editor of the "Dawn" of the new philosophy.

In the language of the Oracles of God the phrases "the former husband" and also "the latter husband" are both used in the Decree, and the Apostle Peter wrote saying:

"If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God." (1 Peter 4:11).

The beloved physician Luke informs us that the Old Testament Scriptures are the Oracles of God. See Acts, Chap. 7:38.

These brethren (F.W. and M.J.) say, "No, don't use that language." There can be no doubt in the minds of our readers as to whose advice we shall adopt and follow, the Apostle Peter was inspired, today no man in thus favored.

To thus reject a portion of the Oracles of God, as these brethren do, is a very dangerous proceeding; first because God has "magnified this word above all his name" (Ps. 138:2); and secondly, because the God who spoke by Moses, spoke also by His Son, saying:

"He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my word, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

Brother F.W. attempts to justify himself in rejecting this portion of Scripture by saying: "It was nailed to the cross."

They were the ordinances of meats and drinks and special offerings on special days, including the Sabbath, all of which were types and shadows of Christ and the rest that remaineth for the people of God. These types and shadows, as such, were all nailed to the cross in the one great offering of Christ. See Col. 2:14-17.

Brethren F.W. and M.J. would make the law of divorce and remarriage, a shadow of good things to come and thus "corrupt the word of God." See 2 Cor. 2:17.

Some of the early Corinthian brethren dealt with the divine precepts of the Law of Moses in the same flippant manner as F.W. - nail it to the cross.

They were so "puffed up" and confident that they were right in their boasted freedom from all the authoritative commands of that Law, that they approved of one of their ecclesial members having "his father's wife." - 1 Cor. 5:1-3.

Paul promptly corrected their great error and gave them to understand that this brother's action was a gross infraction of the moral precepts concerning marriage, contained in the divine Law of Moses as set forth in Lev. 18:8, and that they should have "married" rather than to be "puffed up" over the grievous sin of believing that the divine moral precepts concerning marriage were nailed to the cross.

To set aside any portion of the inspired word, by nailing it to the cross, because it cannot be reconciled with one's own personal vision, is surely "handling the word of God deceitfully."

Paul's use of the word "fornication" in the foregoing case, instead of "adultery" may indicate that no marriage had been performed.

"Oh that there were more Nehemiahs today." The case of Nehemiah is a very unhappy citation for the defenders of the Clapham revolution to make, since not one of them would follow Nehemiah's example in requiring his brethren to put away their alien wives. They would not tolerate such a proposal today.

It is simply a specimen of their sporadic ebullitions intended to make people think they are saying something worthwhile, when really they are not.

However, it is worthwhile for us to note that the class whom Ezra and Nehemiah urged his brethren to "put away" are Clapham's favorites today in the matter of forgiving the sin of divorce and remarriage.

If any of the alien class be guilty of this sin and later obey the truth, the Clapham brethren will receive them without terminating their sinful alliance. They will be permitted to live together for the remainder of their lives in the so-called "state of adultery."

The class objected to by the Clapham brethren are not such as Ezra and Nehemiah would have put away, the alien who served other gods, but believers who are well represented by a couple in California who in their earlier and less informed days were guilty of the sin of divorce and remarriage.

Several years later they realized their sin and were devoutly repentant and confessed their sin and expressed their desire for the helpful associations of ecclesial life.

When interviewed it was found that their two hearts beat as one on all the first principles of the truth: they were perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.

They also believed that a divorced woman was a divorced woman whether she was in the truth or not - she was the divorced wife of another man and therefore should not marry during the lifetime of her former husband. Their former baptism marked the only difference between them and Clapham's favored class, at the time of their repentance and confession of sin, and the brethren thought that no reasonable person would hold this against them as it certainly was no crime.

Yet strangely enough the Clapham brethren claimed that their sin having been committed after they were baptized, they must separate or be "put asunder", before they could be received into fellowship. Had they committed their sin before they were baptized, they would have found forgiveness without separation on the basis of Clapham's favored alien class. Furthermore, if an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic should commit this sin they would knowingly be acting in defiance of the rules and tenets of their respective churches which they believed to be founded upon the Bible, and therefore would be as guilty of sin as any Christadelphian could possibly be. Set upon, a confession of the faith and baptism, they would be received into fellowship by Clapham, without separation on the basis of their favored alien clause.

These features we regard as an exceedingly discordant element in Clapham's new philosophy to which we could never assent.

From a Scriptural point of view it would appear that the Clapham brethren have acted very unfaithfully and unjustly in this matter, for it is written:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9).

"Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow." (Isaiah 1:18).

There is no demand for any additional sacrifice lest any should boast. The sacrifice provided "Christ" is all sufficient.

In this connection we shall quote from a letter written in 1939 by a highly esteemed brother, a member of the Los Angeles Ecclesia - it reads as follows:

"To us it seems much more in keeping with the spirit of the law of mercy and forgiveness to leave the matter of forgiveness in the hands of the Judge, and in the meantime do what we can to encourage and help an erring brother and sister who, except for the one offense of divorce and remarriage some twelve years ago, to all appearances have since been living more in harmony with the Divine principles than some of these who so strenuously object to fellowshipping them. As we see it, the Scripture principle has been upheld in the acknowledgment of wrong doing, the same as is required in cases of alien marriage, and therefore there should be no conscientious scruples about receiving them, and leaving the final decision to the Judgment."

In this new philosophy, God-granted-repentance-and-forgiveness-of-sin [Publisher] together with the blood of the Covenant are of no avail with erring brethren and sisters, unless the "debasing" put asunder edict of Clapham be complied with.

Little wonder that our beloved brother, the late Frank G. Jannaway wrote of the crotchet as "debasing." Debasing it is and as such can find its only proper resting place in "the Roman dunghill of decretals." (Luther).

Just a few words about the zeal of these two great reformers, who lived about one thousand years after the Law of Moses had been given.

The Jews were returning from their captivity in Babylon where they had mingled with these people and learned their ways and some of their teachings, such as the immortality of the soul and allied notions. They had married strange wives who served other Gods, and these women had turned away the hearts of their husbands from serving the God of Israel. (Deut. 7:4).

Ezra, who was a leader, and Nehemiah, who had been appointed Governor (Neh. 5:14), were very zealous of the Law of God, and their great aim was to reclaim their people from the service of other gods.

Therefore, they commanded the Jews to separate themselves "from the people of the land" and from their strange wives and "those who were born of them." See Ezra 10:3, 11.

The demand of the Governor was for complete separation from the people of strange lands. Men, women and children, that the Jews should, once more be a separate people unto the Lord.

Had the question of divorce and remarriage among themselves arisen, the questioner would have been referred, at once, to Deut. 24:1-4, which was sacred to them as Deut. 7:4, or any other part of the book.

The word "Deuteronomy" means, repetition of the law and the book contains the severe penalties for disobedience to that law.

We can imagine the unpleasant reception that would be given them if F.W. and M.J. should have approached either Ezra or Nehemiah, saying: "Don't use that language - the former husband, he is her husband" (see their booklet page 18), where they refer to Deut. 24:4. They claim that "putting away" does not separate the first husband from his wife - "he is her husband" and the woman put away is still his wife. F.W. and M.J. reject the Scriptural phrase "the former husband."

Either one or both of these Governors, in all probability, would have ordered them "back to Babylon", saying: We are as zealous over any one part of that sacred book as another; why not? It is divine, we will reject no part of it.

Brethren F.W. and M.J. attempt to "lead the hearts of the simple" to believe that we lack the zeal of the ancient Governor of Judah; whereas, the lack of zeal for the Oracles of God is found to be on the other side of the fence which they have erected on this question.

They are obsessed and fascinated by the words "put away," and wherever found, they seize upon them to bolster their views, only to find themselves wholly out of harmony with the inspired writers who use them.

One of the most daring and destructive devices adopted by the Dawn Party to give pretense to their hobby is the dangerous expedient of representing Joseph and Mary as being married at the time that the former was "minded" to put her away.

They say that "if Joseph had put away Mary and married another woman he would have committed adultery." This could only be true if Joseph and Mary were married, but they were not. Mary was Joseph's espoused wife or as Bro. Roberts expressed it - "his intended wife," and again Bro. Roberts wrote: "Mary although unmarried, was under espousal to Joseph." See Nazareth Revisited, page 32.

The correct use and meaning of the word "espoused" is shown by Paul in the following:

"I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Cor. 11:2).

But "the marriage of the Lamb" has not yet come and a part of the multitudinous prospective bride is still engaged making herself ready.

F.W. and M.J. surely know that "the son of the Highest was to be born of "a virgin" and not a married woman. See Isa. 7:14 and 9:6, Matt. 1:23.

Why the perversion of facts? Why misrepresent Joseph and Mary as being married at the time he was "minded" to put her away privily?

It was all done to find that much needed and still unfounded "fine example," as they style it for putting asunder man and wife like the couple in Los Angeles, California who were baptized before their sin-the unbaptized are not required to separate?

In their careless and reckless hunt for a "fine example" they render the virgin birth a myth, and furnish a basis for the Josephite claims.

They falsely charge us with blunders where there are none, but in the case of Joseph and Mary they have made an egregious blunder, yes more, it is a fundamental error, and "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3).

Christ was born of the will of God, and not of the will of man: and while the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy spirit did not eliminate from either herself or her son the natural tendencies to sin (Rom. 7:20; Heb. 4:15), it did this for the son of the virgin-it gave him a strong bias in the direction of good, that he might refuse the evil and choose the good. (Isa. 7:15).

In this manner he was "a body prepared, the man whom God made strong for himself." This revealed truth must not be tampered with. Instead of developing "the fine example" anticipated, it proves to be "a fine example" of the heedless and thoughtless manner in which the Clapham defenders write.

How could a young unmarried man who was "minded" to break his engagement with his fiancee be a fine example to a married man who had a desire to divorce or put away his wife?

The old adage is still very true: "It is better not to know so much, than to know so much that is not so."

Some have thought it expedient to disfigure their records by classifying the sin of divorce and remarriage as a sin against the Holy Spirit-an unpardonable sin; therefore, they refuse to accept such under any circumstances.

While in reality, this is no worse than Clapham's position, it is difficult to conceive of anything more childish and extreme.

But, there never was a religious error too utterly absurd, but that some sober brow would adopt it and bless it and attempt to prove it with a text, so we are not surprised at anything when some men's prestige is at stake.

The unpardonable sin is made very plain in Matt. 12:24-31, Christ wrought great miracles among the Jews, by the Holy Spirit and some of the Jews attributed the miracles to the power of Beelzebub: this was the sin against the Holy Spirit for which there is no forgiveness.

In the days of Paul and Apollos the sin against the Holy Spirit consisted of the declension of such as had been "partakers of the heavenly gift"-the Holy Spirit, and had wrought miracles: if such, should later fall away, and attribute the miracles they had formerly wrought to some other power than the Holy Spirit for such there was no forgiveness-see Hebrews sixth chapter, verses 4-6. The Apostle John also refers to this as "a sin unto death." (1 John 5:16).

One of the "Dawn" standard bearers (Bro. H.S.) in an effort to render null and void the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 7:27:

"Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed," writes saying, "these words were written to brethren who were all legitimately married in the Lord."

This statement is absolutely untrue. Paul's words in verse 27, were written in response to inquiries made by some who had unbelieving wives and husbands and were disposed to leave them, vs. 13. Furthermore, the statement made by Brother H.S. is simply increditable in view of Paul's testimony in 1 Cor. 5:1, that the ecclesia was actually "puffed up" over the mournful fact that one of their members had taken his father's wife. This was a flagrant infraction of the divine Law as given by Moses and recorded in Lev. 18:8, which I hope our Clapham friends will not regard as nailed to the cross, as the "puffed up" Corinthians obviously did.

Moreover, Paul in his first letter to these Corinthians, asks the question: "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

Baptism into Christ is a figure of Christ's death and resurrection. See Romans 6th chapter.

"If the dead rise not, then is not Christ risen, and if Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins." These "some" in the ecclesia were yet in their sins," not "in the Lord" as Bro. H.S. represents them.

The Corinthian ecclesia was probably one of the most corrupt in doctrine and practice of any with whom Paul had epistolary intercourse. Some of them ate and drank to excess-were drunken at the Lord's supper. Several other evils existed in their midst as mentioned by Paul. Paul found also, that they placed the words of men "above that which is written" in the Oracles of God. Some said, "I am of Paul"; another, "I am of Apollos"; still another, "I am of Cephas": and some others said, "I am of Christ." (1 Cor. 1:12).

At that time the ecclesia at Corinth were far from being the ideal community that Bro. H.S. would have us to believe- "all legitimately married in the Lord." He would have us believe that Paul's instructions "art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed," was wholly uncalled for in such a community: simply, an idle remark!

The conditions were just the reverse, however, we are happy to note in the second epistle, that the ecclesia responded nobly to Paul's forceful reasoning and importunities to mend their ways, and they became an exemplary ecclesia.

Bro. H.S. has failed to distinguish between a Sadducean believer and a brother of Christ, or one who believes in the resurrection of the dead, and one who does not.

He regards as sound in the faith- "married in the Lord," a community who were "puffed up", because one of their members had boldly nailed to the cross the divine laws of marriage as given by Moses, and had taken to himself, his father's wife, doubtless thinking to himself, we are free from Moses' Law and now it's all in the family!

Brother S. bids fair to become a compeer of Bro. F.W. for looseness and inaccuracy of statement.

The latter nails anything and everything to the cross that is antagonistic to his views. He fails to see any difference between "a virgin" and a married woman; and he thinks that a young unmarried man who breaks his engagement with his fiancee, sets a fine example to a married man who wishes to divorce his wife! His reasoning is a bit obscure to say the least.

Both men fail to "speak as the word of God" on the question under discussion, and one of them makes the astounding request: "Don't use that language!"

These men have proved their own incompetency to render "true judgment" on the question of divorce and remarriage.

They have "swerved from the truth" on this matter, as taught by the early believers and by the faithful Clapham brethren of 1933, and may well be described in Paul's words to Timothy, 1st Epistle, 1st Chapter and 6th and 7th verses, as having "Turned aside to vain jangling (quarreling); desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

This is the crop that never fails. It was all too plentiful in Paul's time and it has crept up in every generation since.

Apart from Christ, Moses stands out as the greatest teacher and lawgiver of all time. His five books contain the only record we have of God's revelations to man, and also the only history we have of mankind for the first twenty-five hundred years of the world's history. It is therefore a record of vast importance to us.

Christ paid high tribute to his writings when he said: "If ye believe not his (Moses) writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47).

Moses' voice like that of God's son, was the Voice of God, for God spoke by them both (Heb. 1:1), and the voice of one does not contradict nor render null and void the voice of the other.

The words of both are the words of God and the man who dares to tamper with those words spoken by Christ and Moses, shall be judged by those words in the last day (John 12:48).

The books of Moses therefore, constitute one of the most important volumes ever written. The origin of the earlier portion of these books is most interesting.

Methuselah lived with Adam two hundred and forty-three years, learning from him the world's history up to that time. The former wrote it upon two pillars or books as they were called, and Moses had access to these books. God left him not without a witness. See Adam's Synchronological Chart or Map of History.

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives but from the beginning it was not so."-Matt. 19:8.

Moses, the servant of the Lord, did as the Lord commanded him (2 Kings 18:6), therefore Paul when preaching at Antioch, in referring to the period when Moses issued the above decree said that God "suffered their manner (habits, customs) in the wilderness." (Acts 13:18).

At this time God, by the hand of Moses was delivering this nation of slaves from the cruel hands of Pharaoh, but they proved to be a very rebellious and stiff-necked people; yet for His Holy Name's sake, He suffered their manners and hardness of heart in putting away their wives, sometimes for a very trivial offense.

It is written, God "suffered them" that is, he ensured them with a feeling of grief and sorrow because of their perversity and their persistence in this evil.

"Charity suffereth long" and charity is one of the most constraining characteristics of the Deity. The decree of the Lord stipulates that when the husband has given his wife a bill of divorcement and hath sent her out of the house, "she may go and be another man's wife."

In many instances, this would be a dispensation of mercy to the woman driven from her home by a hard-hearted husband. It was a wise and merciful provision, which would greatly alleviate her distress of mind.

This is proven beyond question by another stipulation in the decree; namely, that if the latter husband died, the former husband shall not take her again to be his wife". It is further declared that such an act would be "an abomination before the Lord."

The definition of the word "abomination" is excessive hatred: so while the Lord hates putting away (Mal. 2:16), he regards with excessive hatred any act or claim that would again render the former husband, the woman's husband.

The "Dawn" party's claim is that the former husband is the woman's husband; but the Lord's ruling is against them and precludes the possibility of their claim being "right in the sight of the Lord."

This precautionary measure was inserted in the decree for the maintenance of purity as opposed to the "abomination" of defilement. See Deut. 24:4.

One of our correspondents writes: "The Dawn party claims to be striving for purity." These are "good works" and the speech "fair" (Rom. 16:18), but they should remember that Paul wrote, saying: "If a man strive-yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully."-2 Tim. 2:5.

It is not lawful to oppose or reject, nor to discredit or suppress any portion of "the Oracles of God." The "Dawn party" should reverently and carefully study the words of the living God as a whole, especially those portions which their leaders endeavor to sidetrack: for a knowledge of the whole counsel of God is essential to enable us to "strive lawfully."

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and has been written for our learning," and if we neglect certain portions which are essential to a knowledge of God's ways, we do so at our own loss and peril. Read Romans 15:4 and 2 Tim. 3:16.

God has spoken on the subject of divorce and remarriage, showing us plainly whom He regards as the woman's true husband, and our wisdom lies in a thankful recognition of the fact; and if we reverence the word He has spoken and which He has "magnified" above His Name (Psa. 138:2), and accept God's Oracles as our counsel rejecting the advice of a careless man, who says, "don't use that language," we may ultimately reach that pinnacle of conviction which enabled Paul to say: "Let God be true, but every man a liar." -Rom. 3:4.

A curse is pronounced against any who take away from the words of the last book in the Bible-Rev. 22:19 and this should at least, cause all to fear to thus trifle with any portion of the inspired words of God, lest they be held answerable in the like manner.

However, the Dawn party do not hesitate to adopt this dangerous expedient when the demands of their new philosophy call for it.

The words they wish to have deleted "from the sacred page" are these: "The former husband."

F.W. writes (and M.J. endorses his words), saying: "Don't use this language: the former husband-he is her husband." When we ask, why not? Their implied answer is: because it militates against our teaching, that there is but one husband in the case; and the words we object to renders our position a hopeless wreck.

That is precisely the case for everybody knows that in divorce and remarriage there are two husbands: "the former husband" and "the latter husband."

These words are used in the Deity's decree in Deut. 24:1-4; and as the Lord never uses meaningless terms, we are assured thereby, that the remarriage of the divorcee is real and not a sham as the Dawn party claim. The Lord meant just what he caused to be written for our learning: nothing less and nothing more.

The use of these terms in the Lord's decree is an acknowledgment and recognition of the fact that the divorced and remarried woman is the wife of "the latter husband" and not of the former.

F.W. and M.J. admit that there is a difference between the divine decree and their "put asunder" edict, and the difference is very great.

The former is real and practical, teaching us that which is "right in the sight of the Lord" in all cases of divorce and remarriage; while the latter is unreal in all its pronouncements.

It is a figment of the imagination-a sinful and corrupting bogy, conceived by petty minds and set up by false teachers to deceive the hearts of the simple, and "if possible secure a reputation for advanced (?) thinking.

The Dawn party have exposed their unscriptural methods. If the mind of the law of God is against them, they repeal it, and request us to desist from speaking as the Oracles of God on this matter. Shall we follow them and adopt their habit and custom and desist? There can be but one reply: "Be ye followers of God as dear children" (Eph. 5:1) and "speak as the Oracles of God." (1 Peter 4:11).

"In the beginning God created man--male and female created he them, and the Lord said, a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh" - literally so in their offspring. (Gen. 1:27 and 2:24).

The Spirit ideal state and condition for a man and his wife is well expressed in the following words:

"Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity; for that is thy portion in this life."

This standard of perfection in married life was maintained along the genealogical line from Adam to Lamech, the father of Noah. Lamech had two wives. Whether this was an innovation by Lamech, or that he simply conformed to the customs of some of the nations who had forgotten God, cannot be determined. It may have been the latter, because the way of the Lord had been so greatly corrupted upon the earth, that God brought a flood of waters upon the earth and destroyed them all, save Noah and his family. [Our brother has confused the Lamech of Cain's line in Gen. 4: with the Lamech in Seth's line of Gen. 5:25, and as a result expressed a concern which has no validity in reality.-Publisher]

In the following 1,000 years a good beginning was made, but as time rolled on, it proved to be anything but a millennium of peace on earth and goodwill among men.

About this time we find Moses enacting laws as the Lord commanded him, for the government of the people of Israel.

Among them we find one forbidding their kings to multiply wives unto themselves and concubines as well, frequently divorcing a wife and casting out an obstreperous concubine.

Still the Lord "suffered" or endured their ways and "manners" not only "in the wilderness" but throughout the most flourishing periods of the nation's history, causing David in his riper years to say: "His mercy endureth forever."

The moral precepts of the divine law of Moses were designed to make the people of Israel "a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6) and the Apostle Peter points out that those precepts whenever and wherever they are honored and magnified, will do the same thing for the Gentiles-taking out from among them "a people for his name-a holy nation"- 1 Peter 2:9, and Paul wrote saying, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning." (Rom. 15:4).

Therefore, when we are confronted with an ecclesial question such as divorce and remarriage our appeal should ever be "To the Law and to the Testimony," (Isa. 8:20) rather than to the wiseacres and highlights of any community however advanced or wise in their own conceits they may be.

"In men this blunder I have found. They think their views alone are sound."

Therefore, they are determined to maintain their own prestige rather than to submit to anything that Moses and the prophets may have to say, although Christ hath said, "If ye believe not his (Moses) writings how shall ye believe my words." -John 5:47.

Moses has given us the mind of the Deity as to which man is the woman's husband after she has been divorced and remarried and the inspired record is-

"The latter husband." -Deut. 24:3,4.

The latter husband, he is her husband, and she cannot return to her former husband to again be his wife. This is the divine decree, definite and plain and "written for our learning." (Rom. 15:4). God, the Lord hath spoken, what more can we ask? To ask more involves doubt and unbelief, but for all who believe the Bible to be wholly inspired and that we should speak as the Oracles of God this will be an all-sufficient reason for the declaration, "let not man put asunder" the man and wife whose remarriage God has recognized.

On this basis, and on this basis alone, can a case of divorce and remarriage be scripturally dealt with.

Every case must be dealt with on its own merits or demerits as the case may be; and the chief merit is sincere repentance and confession of sin; for it is written:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all righteousness." -1 John 1:9.

"All manner of sin shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Spirit." -Matt. 12:31.

"He will abundantly pardon." -Isaiah 55:7.

"Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow." -Isa. 1:18.

They must also "forsake" their way (Isa. 55:7) of divorce and remarriage, which has been opposed to God's way "from the beginning."

Four hundred years before Christ, God spoke to the Jewish people saying, that a man should be "faithful to the wife of his youth", and not put her away, "for the Lord hateth putting away." -Mal. 2:14-16.

This teaching was always disquieting to the Jewish mind as witnessed by the words of the disciples of Jesus, whom he taught the same doctrine; they view his teaching with apprehension, saying: "If the case of a man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." -Matt. 19:10.

Jesus pointed out that the husband in putting away his wife, "causeth her to commit adultery" he becomes a contributor to her sin, when she breaks her nuptial vows to him by becoming "another man's wife".

Jesus further pointed out that the man who married her that was put away, had committed adultery and was also an accessory to her sin, because he had married the divorced wife of another man, who while she remained unmarried, the way was open for reconciliation with her former husband. But now that she has become "another man's wife" the possibility of such a reconciliation no longer exists; because according to God's law regarding divorce and remarriage, she cannot return, even if the latter husband "dies, to again be the wife of 'the former husband'." See Matt. 5:32, 1 Cor. 7:11, Deut. 24:3,4.

If "the former husband" should again become the woman's husband, that would be "an abomination before the Lord"-not right in his sight, that is according to the Oracles of God; but not according to the Dawn party who contend that "the former husband" is the husband of the divorced and remarried woman despite anything the Oracles of God say about it.

They admit they are not in harmony with the Scriptures, when they request us not to use the "language" of the word of God- "the former husband."

"Come let us reason together, saith the Lord," Isa. 1:18, and if we consent we must "reason out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2); we must "search the Scriptures". Only by appealing to the Law and Testimony (Isa. 8:20) can we learn how to "Execute true judgment, showing Mercy and Compassion." (Zachariah 7:9).

"Having compassion one of another." (1 Peter 3:8).

"For I desired Mercy and not sacrifice." (Hos. 6:6). Cases of divorce and remarriage are very infrequent in our midst, but when they do occur, they must be dealt with and dealt with only according to the Scriptures.

But when the parties have been legally married by the powers that be, which are ordained of God, Rom. 13:1, and seeing that such marriages are recognized by the Deity - (Deut. 24:3, 4), and the parties have realized their error and harness of heart and have sincerely repented and confessed their sin; as the Clapham brethren of 1933 said, "What more can we ask?" Only the most obstinate and self-righteous could object to their fellowship. We should give them all the helpful benefits of ecclesial association and life.

The Dawn party have made a good confession through their representatives, Bro. Frank Walker, their chief exponent, and Bro. M. Joslin, their editor, who endorses the former's words.

The confession is made perhaps inadvertently but nevertheless accurately. They find themselves in collision with the language of the Deity when speaking of divorce and remarriage (Deut. 24:3,4) and they presume to correct Him, saying "Don't use this language: the former husband, he is her husband." What consummate and brazen-like arrogance to dare to rectify the language of the Most High God!!

We have styled it a good confession but good only in one sense, namely, that should lead them to rectify their own error; otherwise it is a lamentable confession.

They have tried to foist a foolish explanation upon their readers. It goes somewhat like this: "Under certain circumstances a married woman whose husband was still living, was allowed to live in adultery with another man because of her chastity. It is too silly for refutation; it is deserving of ridicule only. It reminds one of the sign over the door of a wood-turning factory: "All kinds of turning and twisting done here."

Their pathway is beset with difficulties at every turn. They should pause and consider. Let them ponder over the fact that He who made man's tongue does not require to have his "language" corrected, and those who say "don't use it", may be called to account for their language.

Better for them to repudiate that corrupting crochet (Jer. 3:1) which by adopting political strategy, they sought to pin as a "rider" to our statement of Faith, so that the person accepting the latter must accept the former also.

"The Dawn party" should retrace their steps, getting back on the sure foundation of the Oracles of God, being "rooted and grounded" in them (Col. 1:23), walking in the "old Paths"; accepting "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) on every question, rejecting nothing that God has caused to be "written for our learning". - Rom. 15:4.

There are vicissitudes and trials enough in the work of the Truth for the few short years that we have to live, without adding to them by unnecessary animosities and divisions which arise from the ambition of men to lord it over the ecclesias. "One is your Master, even Christ and all ye are brethren."

I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the late Bro. R. Roberts for instructions received from him on the matter now being discussed.

We were in correspondence for several years and he was a visitor in my home.

A few years before his death I heard him discuss the question before a large ecclesia.

He was opposed by one brother whom he easily vanquished. He then made his position definitely clear, reasoning out of the Scriptures.

He maintained that the Bible was wholly inspired. In it God had spoken and He meant just what He had caused to be written, and no man had any authority to reverse, reject, discredit nor suppress any portion of the Oracles of God.

After Brother Roberts' death, I became intimately acquainted with Brother F.G. Jannaway.

During the last fifteen years of his life, we had several personal interviews in England and America. We were regular correspondents and we were co-editors for a time. In replying to the Los Angeles inquiries of 1933, we were in complete accord.

We both had ample opportunity to know Bro. Roberts' mind on the subject discussed in this booklet and we know it well. We three were of the same mind and the same judgment on this matter, and very, very few Christadelphians thought differently until the Clapham change.

As Brethren Roberts and Jannaway are now sleeping, I would feel condemned if I did not bear witness to their belief on this question.

Affectionately yours in Christ,
B.J. DOWLING

Main Page