Words have their histories, like men. Like them they live and die. A word that meant one thing may mean another hundreds of years afterwards, and may at last cease to be used at all. In our English translation (the Authorized Version of King James in the year 1611) there are many words found that are now, after the lapse of almost 400 years, obsolete (that is, gone out of use) or obsolescent (that is, going out of use). Others have somewhat changed their meanings. The following are some hard, and old-fashioned, words to be found in the King James Version, with their present-day meaning:

Abomination	An object that fills us with disgust, particularly an idol.
Ambassage	The same word is translated “message” in Luke 19:14.
Asswaged	Sank down, subsided.
Astonied	Astonished.
Audience	The Hebrew word means the ear. Abraham spoke in the ear of the children of Heth; we say “in the hearing of”. To give audience means to listen.
Barbarian	An alien or foreigner.
Barbarous	Foreign.
Baser	“Certain lewd fellows of the baser sort”; that is, wicked men who hung about the market place; vile men of the rabble.
Bewrayeth	Betrays.
Carriage	That which is carried, baggage. We now say luggage.
Charger	Dish in the Old Testament (Num 7), where silver chargers are spoken of. But in the New Testament (Mat 14) the Greek word “pinax” means a wooden drinking cup.
To be at charges	To discharge the cost of, to bear the expense of.
Convert	To turn again.
Fain	Gladly.
Garner	Granary (barn).
Jot, Yod	The smallest Hebrew letter. “Iota” is the Greek. Both correspond to the English letter “I” but it is often transliterated “J” in our Bible. The names Jerusalem, Jesus, Isaac, Isaiah, Judah, Israel, John, James, Jacob, etc., all begin with this letter.
Knop	An old way of writing “knob”. In connection with the tabernacle, the knops were carved imitations of the buds of flowers.
Latchet	The thong by which the sandal was attached to the foot.
Let	In a few passages only, ‘let’ means ‘hindered’ (Exo 5:4; Isa 43:13; Rom 1:13; 2 Thes. 2:7).
Liketh	Pleases.
Lively	Living.
Maul	A heavy hammer.
Meat	Food of any kind. In the RV the words “meal offering” have been substituted for meat offering. This expresses the sense better.
Mete	To measure.
Meteyard	The English means to measure by the yard, or a yard measure. The Hebrew (Lev19:35) is best translated by the word “measure” only.
Minish	Diminish.
Minister	A servant.
Mite	A very small coin.
Mote	A minute particle of dust; a speck (Mat 7:3).
Neesing	Sneezing.
Nether	Lower.
Nethermost	Lowest.
Occupy	To do business; to trade.
Occupier	Trader.
Offence	In many places, a stumbling block, “skandalon”, the original of our word “scandal”.
Ouches	Sockets.
Overlived	Outlived.
Peradventure	Perhaps; it may be.
Pottage	That which is prepared in a pot.
Presently	In the present moment; now.
Printed	Engraved; “inscribed” (RV).
Proper	Goodly, comely.
Proselyte	“One who has come to”, therefore a convert to Judaism.
Provoked	Stirred up, stimulated.
Quick	Living.
Quicken	To make alive.
Quit	Behave, or, as we now say, acquit.
Ranges	Ranks in 2Ki 11:8.
Ravin	Plunder.
Reins	The kidneys, regarded as the seat of joy, pain, etc.
Reprobate	Refuse.
Ringstraked	Streaked with rings.
Riotous	Gluttonous.
Scall	An eruption on the head or face.
Scrabbled	Scrawled, or scratched.
Scrip	A small bag or wallet.
Seethe	To boil.
Sherd	A sherd, potsherd, a broken piece of pottery.
Silverlings	Pieces of silver.
Sith	Since.
Sod, Sodden	Boil, Boiled.
Sottish	Foolish.
Staggered	“Wavered” (RV)
Strawed	Strewed, scattered.
Tables	Writing tablets covered with wax.
Tabret	A kind of small tambourine.
Tell	To number or count.
Temperance	Self-control.
Tempt	To test, try, put to the proof.
Tetrarch	Ruler over a fourth part.
Thought	“Anxiety” in Matthew 6:25.
Tired	Adorned with a tire or head dress; attired.
Tittle	The minute point added to one Hebrew letter to distinguish it from another.
Tormentors	Torturers.
Trow	To think, imagine.
Twain	An old form from the Anglo-Saxon “twegen” — two; hence the Scotch “twa”, and the English “twainty” or twenty.
Unperfect	Imperfect.
Untoward	Not toward; ie, inclined in the opposite direction.
Utter	Sometimes means outer.
Vagabond	A wanderer.
Vile	Worthless.
Ware	Aware.
Whit	A bit, atom; every whit, wholly; not a whit, not at all.
Wilily	Craftily.
Wise	Way. On this wise, in this way.
Wist	Knew.
Wit	To wit, to know.
With	Young twig of willow.
Wot	Knew.
Yokefellow	Fellow-laborer.

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be ye filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18).

Possibly Paul is referring to something quite explicit rather than merely warning against drunkenness, necessary as such warning may have been. Considering the cultural background of first-century Ephesus, it may well be that Paul has in mind the wild, drunken practices connected with the worship of Dionysus or Bacchus, the god of wine.

Dionysus was not an invention of the Greeks, but probably had his origins in Thracia, Lydia, or Phrygia. (The equivalent Lydian name is “Bacchus”.)

The name “Dionysus” signifies “son of Zeus”. The worship of Dionysus spread throughout Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, and even remote India (Cleon L. Rogers, Jr, “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18”, Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1979, pp 250,251).

The city of Ephesus itself was filled with the worship, not only of Diana (or Artemis), but also of Dionysus — according to the ancient historian Plutarch.

The cult of Dionysus was so widespread and common that anything having to do with grapes or wine was at once connected in the popular mind with the worship of the wine-god. To talk of wine and drinking immediately brought Dionysian expressions into the conversation, and to live a riotous, wanton, debauched life was characterized as being a “Dionysian” (Ibid, p 253). Witness also the English “bacchanalian”, from Bacchus. JB Norris speaks of the social gatherings of the heathen, “where idolatrous rites were practised and the singing waxed merry and lewd” (FCE 123,124).

As with the worship of Diana, that of Dionysus was heavily sexual. This worship, like. the nature religions of the Canaanites, with emphasis on pornographic images and vulgar songs, was supposed to please the god so that he would grant to his devotees the gifts of health and fertility (Jonathan Goldstein, I Maccabees, The Anchor Bible, p 133).

Another feature of the festivals was wild, frenzied dancing and uncontrolled ravings, in connection with wine drinking and heated music. This activity was expected to induce Dionysus to enter the body of the worshipper and fill him with his “spirit”, so that he would partake of the god’s strength, wisdom, and abilities. The person so affected would be able to speak inspired prophecy, with poetic genius (CEph 115). One result of such a “service” was the feeling of release from the pressures and stresses of the drudgery of daily life (Rogers, p 255).

If this is indeed the cultural background of Eph 5:18, then the inclusion of this verse in Paul’s letter is not as sudden or incidental as it might first appear. Rather, the entire context now takes on a new light: “Excess” refers to the dissipation of a life habitually given over to drink. The word “asotia” literally means “without salvation”, or “incurable” — a fit description for the behavior of the follower of Dionysus: “an abandoned, dissolute life” (EM Spongberg, Ephesians, p 99).

The idolater believed that, by drink and wanton behavior, he could be filled with Dionysus, thereby being “inspired” to poetic or artistic heights and forgetting the ordinariness of daily life. But Paul says, the true believer should be “filled with the Spirit”, so as to know true wisdom and true fellowship with God, being “lifted up to heaven”, not literally but in spirit (Eph 1:3,20; 2:6). [There is a sense in which even twentieth-century believers may be “filled with the Spirit”, and that is, as Paul elsewhere tells the Ephesians: “the eyes of your understanding being enlightened” (1:18); “that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” (3:17); that you will be “renewed in the spirit of your mind” (4:23); etc.]

Instead of the “sexy” drinking songs of Dionysus, the true believer must sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19).

Immorality, either in thought or deed, is not the way of approach to the true God. Rather, the marriage relationship is the gift of God for the realization of righteous joy (Eph 5:22-33).

***

It should be easy to see that what has been discussed here is not mere first-century history. Take only a passing glance at the “entertainment” of our western world — its inordinate consumption of alcohol and drugs; its “rock music” and accompanying lewd posturings (euphemistically called “dance”); 2nd its deification of the naked body, and of sexual attraction and prowess! Truly Dionysus is “alive and well” today; he just goes by other names! Should we, who are called to be “children of light” (5:8), “walk” even for a moment in such debauched company?

“Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be ye filled with the Spirit.”

During the last generation of the first century, the “fellowship situation” can best be described as chaotic. Paul’s last writings are far from optimistic, and John’s letters show an elderly apostle — the last of his generation — contending against the practices of men who scarcely if at all deserve the name ‘brother’ (AE, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, Xd 108:210).

Such a man was Diotrephes — characteristic of a certain spirit within the ecclesias. Diotrephes was domineering, self-assertive, and arrogant. Defying the loving authority of the aged John, he could — so it seems — “cast out” of fellowship (ct Joh 6:37) with impunity those associating with the apostles, or, for that matter, anyone of whom he disapproved. Like some modern brethren of the same stamp, he also “cast out” those who failed to “cast out” the brethren he had “cast out” — in the ultimate extension of the “guilt-by-association” syndrome.

AE in his article points out that, with ease of communication in the Roman Empire, it was common for preachers to travel from ecclesia to ecclesia on lengthy missionary journeys. Such activities posed problems of fellowship then as now. Wherever the ecclesia was to which Diotrephes belonged, it included as members both those who rejected these preacher brethren, and those who welcomed them. John appears, then, to be presuming on his almost universal standing in the brotherhood, when he “interferes” in a tricky internal affair of another ecclesia. Notice, however, that his “interference” — if it may be so termed — is not for the disfellowshiping of any individual, but rather is for the acceptance of “the brethren” (3Jo 1:5). And John does not even counsel the disfellowship of the despicable Diotrephes!

The phrase “casting out” (3Jo 1:10) is a very harsh and cruel term: “If the Master himself was able to conduct most of his preaching within the synagogue system, however grudgingly received by those in power, he had no illusions as to the long-term fate of the church following his ascension to the Father. ‘Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils (Greek Sanhedrins, ie local courts) and flog you in their synagogues’ (Mat 10:17, RSV)” (AE, ibid 16).

Examine closely and without prejudice this first-century picture of inter-ecclesial affairs. How similar it is to our own day: an imperfectly joined network of congregations, with no universally recognized leader (even the apostles met frequent opposition); an arrangement calling for forbearance and patience and tolerance, not to mention the occasional compromise! Certainly not the place for would-be leaders to issue “bulls” of excommunication either against or on behalf of uninformed brethren.

Notice that even the apostle John does not declare, ‘Disfellowship Diotrephes.’ Notice also the presumed “conflict”: Gaius will receive “the brethren”; Diotrephes will not receive them. And yet they are considered — by no less than an inspired apostle — to be “in fellowship” with one another. Sometimes inconsistencies and anomalies exist in our midst. Patience and love are required to “sort out” these issues, without destroying or driving away those who have not quite “got it right”!

“Wherever there is intolerance; wherever we find conditions of communion among Christians imposed, which Christ hath not clearly enjoined; wherever creeds and modes of worship are enforced by human power, and men made to forfeit any of their civil rights, or are stigmatized on these accounts, there is the spirit which is not of God. Wherever one Christian, or a number of Christians, assumes the seat of authority and judgment in the Church of Christ, wherever they call for fire to destroy those who dissent from them, or only exclude them from their communion and affection, there is a portion of the spirit of Anti-christ, which has so long opposed itself to the benign principles of the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, has been the cause of so many evils to humanity, and the occasion of making the inconsiderate esteem the amiable yet distinct and uncompromising religion of Jesus, as a source of mischief, instead of benevolence… Alas, how much of this spirit remains amongst us all! How few have learned that, ‘In Christ circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God’ ” (JT, Herald, 1850).

Joh 2:22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Joh 2:17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” [ Psalm 69:9 ]

Joh 4:31-34 Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

Joh 6:19 When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, [ Greek rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia (about 5 or 6 kilometers) ] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified.

Joh 8:27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.

Joh 12:16 At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

Joh 13:7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

Joh 14:4-9 You know the way to the place where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know [ Some early manuscripts If you really have known me, you will know ] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Joh 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

Joh 16:17 Some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?”

Mat 16:7-11 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Mar 8:17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

Luk 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

Luk 24:8 Then they remembered his words.

Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

This is one of the mottoes which through long and perhaps careless use acquires almost the force of Scripture. Under this heading or something similar, some brethren would contend that great distances and lack of personal interaction do not mitigate one’s “fellowship” responsibility at all. In other words, an ecclesia (or an individual for that matter) must become acquainted with the facts in any alleged wrongdoing no matter where around the world, and take “fellowship” action, just as if the problem were local.

The especially sad thing about this line of reasoning is that it appeals for support to the very principles that should be the most uplifting and comforting to a believer in Christ — that is, the essential worldwide unity of faith of believers with Christ and one another — and makes these wonderful ideals the basis for unwarranted and hasty dismemberment of the spiritual Body. In the ultimate sense, neither distance nor time is a barrier to Biblical “fellowship”, for it was Christ himself who told the disciples, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mat 28:20). But only a very impractical person — or one thoroughly bent on a negative course of action — could fail to comprehend that distance, as well as time, can be a mitigating factor in the ability of fallible mortals to get at all the facts of a doubtful and disputed matter. Sometimes it is the course of wisdom to admit one’s inability to judge aright; sometimes the wisest words are simply: ‘I just don’t know for sure’.

Although in certain circumstances RR is made out as a foremost exponent of this unrealistic fellowship approach, it is clear when considering all of his actions and writings that the practical outworking of such a “cut-and-dried” approach was quite different from the impression given by a few random citations. An actual example, which concerned the brethren in my locality, serves well as illustration:

In 1883 a group of Texas brethren submitted a “position paper” concerning a regional controversy to The Christadelphian, requesting its publication. (The exact nature of the difficulty is irrelevant to our present purposes.) Brother Roberts printed the ecclesial news only, omitting the statement as to fellowship difficulties in Texas. The comments he added to the correspondence give his reason:

“The publication of your statement would only raise a controversy, which could not only do no good to any of us, but involve others in troubles best localized. We can afford to refer all doubtful matters to the tribunal of Christ, not doubtful, perhaps, to those who see clearly on the spot, but doubtful to those at a distance, who can only see them through the medium of conflicting representations” (“Fraternal Gathering”, Xd 20:528).

If it appears that this position is at variance with RR’s thoughts elsewhere given, I can only say that it is not my desire to portray anyone long deceased — especially one of the spiritual stature of Robert Roberts — as inconsistent. However, it should never be forgotten that no man, no matter how wise in the Bible, no matter how well respected for his work’s sake, no man (but Christ) has ever been perfect, or perfectly consistent.

A balanced view of Christadelphian history leads to startling, but understandable, conclusions: When controversies plagued large centers of Christadelphians — like Birmingham, London, or Adelaide — and touched brethren in editorial capacity, or otherwise well-known or influential, then those troubles were quickly exported to the most remote corners. But when a similar controversy arose in an isolated area, Texas for example, it was generally localized and ignored; thus it died out after a few unsettling years. There seems to be no more rational explanation as to why the “partial inspiration” question, for example, is still extant, but the “priesthood” question and other esoteric matters died well-deserved deaths. One is forced to the belief that the latter-day body of Christ would have been much better off had more such questions been localized, and ecclesias at a distance been allowed to concern themselves with their own affairs only.

“We must keep firmly to two rules, which might be considered by extremists to be contradictory, but which are complementary. All ecclesias as a basis of co-operation must acknowledge the same fundamental truths, while at the same time each ecclesia must have the right of judging any doubtful case. The first maintains the truth; the second provides for an ecclesia taking account of all the factors in any borderline case, these factors being only known to the members of that ecclesia. There must be mutual respect for each other’s judgments” (JC, “A House Divided”, Xd 94:187).

“When fire breaks out there is need for calm, careful action. Panic is disastrous. Fanning of the flames is foolish. Spreading the fire to other places would be criminal. When controversy breaks out there is need for calm, careful thought, and all the facts of the fire drill have their spiritual counterpart. Our history as a community sadly illustrates the dangers of spreading controversy, and the evil of provoking controversy…. Let us be on the Lord’s side to fight for unity, to put out fires of controversy, to rebuke those who would spread the fires afield. Together let us all pray that Christ may not be divided today” (H Osborn, “Is Christ Divided?”, Xd 102:214).

“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife” (1Co 7:10,11).

In relation to brothers and sisters in Christ, we believe divorce is contrary to the commandments of Christ; and that if a believer is divorced, remarriage to another partner should be out of the question as long as any possibility remains for a reconciliation.

“But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman”, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Gen 20:20b-25).

“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’ ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate'” (Mat 19:3-6).

God’s purpose was clearly that man and woman joined together in marriage should be joined together for life. Only the death of one of the parties should terminate the bond. It is easy to see various reasons for this. The very method of Eve’s formation (“bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”) laid the basis for this indissolubility; the mental and moral qualities of man call for it; and the purposes of marriage in the increase and nurture of the race demand it.

It is plain that estrangements and separations between husbands and wives, whenever and wherever they exist, are incompatible with the high standard of conduct which the Bible sets forth. In the light of this exalted teaching, it is considered that where estrangement is threatened between husband and wife it is a Christian duty to seek patiently and actively a renewal or resumption of normal relationship.

Not only is this the duty of husband to wife and wife to husband, but also of those who can offer wise counsel with patient understanding. Where estrangement followed by separation has already happened, and while reunion is still a possibility, the pursuit of divorce and remarriage is a definite negation of the teaching of the Lord — because the successful pursuit of such a “solution” removes forever the possibility of reconciliation. These considerations apply with added force where there are children to consider.

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery” (Mat 5:31,32).

” ‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery'” (Mat 19:7-9).

Divorce obtained by a brother or sister on any ground except that allowed by Jesus is a sin which cannot be overlooked. Nevertheless, the ecclesia should not exclude the possibility of true repentance after the fact.

Furthermore, while remarriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, are contrary to the highest ideals as expressed by Christ, it is possible to envision circumstances in which it would be unjust for an ecclesia to lay down a course of action without discrimination.

In dealing with all who come short of the divine ideal, our aim should be, not only to admonish and rebuke, but also to restore. While trying to maintain to the fullest the high standards of Christ’s teaching, we must beware of slipping unconsciously into an attitude toward offenders which the Lord would condemn. To achieve the right balance in these matters in the spirit of our Lord’s teaching, calls for prayerful and persistent effort and humility of mind.

The following statement was prepared in 1950 by the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central Christadelphian Ecclesia of that time; the author of this book having a part in drafting it. It appeared in “The Christadelphian” for July, 1950.

In dealing recently with a case of divorce and re-marriage, the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central Ecclesia have given long and anxious consideration to the principles which should govern our attitude in such cases. Similar problems have arisen in other ecclesias and in existing circumstances may be expected to arise more frequently. It has therefore been suggested to our Arranging Brethren that a statement of the principles which have guided us in dealing with our own case may be of some service also to others.

A declaration of these principles was contained in a statement considered and endorsed by the Birmingham Central Ecclesia at special meetings… the declaration being in the following terms:

(1) The sanctity of the marriage relationship is set forth by Jesus and by his Apostles in very exalted terms. Its unique quality compared with other standards is based upon the fundamental principles expressed in Genesis (Gen 2:24) and is also set forth ideally in the union of Christ with his Church. In Revelation there appears the vision of the Marriage of the Lamb to his bride, for which marriage “his wife hath made herself ready” (Rev 19:7,8).

(2) The duties and obligations of husbands to wives and wives to husbands are also set forth with impressive beauty by Paul, notably in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 5:22-23) in which the love of Christ for his Church, and his giving of himself for it, is exhibited as the ideal to be emulated by wives and husbands.

(3) The teaching of the prophets reinforces these exalted views. For example, in Hosea the enormity of the sin of adultery applied in figure to Israel is denounced with severity on the one hand, while the appeal to the back-sliding nation to forsake this evil way and return to the Lord is made with extraordinary tenderness of thought and feeling. In the prophet Malachi, there is the passage, “The Lord the God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away”, and the context makes it clear that God detests the insincere repentance on the part of any Israelite who has dealt treacherously with the wife of his youth. The teaching of Jesus himself as to the duties and obligations of the married state is set forth in several places in the gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sets his own teaching against what was said of old time.

(4) According to Mat 5:31, Jesus said: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

In Mat 19:3-5, in answer to the question put to him by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus took them back to the divine intention at creation: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (v 6).

To the second question by the Pharisees, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” Jesus replied that it was due to the hardness of men’s hearts that Moses suffered this precept. This teaching maintains uncompromisingly the sanctity of the marriage relationship as set forth throughout the Scriptures.

(5) The disciples were astonished at the uncompromising nature of these declarations by Jesus, when according to Matthew, after he had thus declared himself, they remarked, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”. The Lord’s answer is of great significance. He recognizes that the standpoint he has put forward is beyond the strength and determination of some; he did not modify in any way what he had already taught, but added, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”.

(6) It is plain from this teaching that estrangements between husbands and wives whenever and wherever they exist are incompatible with the high standard of conduct which the Scriptures thus set forth, and still more so is the existence of separation and the pursuit of divorce. In the light of this exalted teaching, it is considered that where estrangement is threatened between husband and wife it is a Christian duty to seek patiently and actively a renewal or resumption of normal relationship. Not only is this the duty of husband to wife and wife to husband but of those whose relationships to these would enable them to offer wise counsel with patient understanding and due recognition of the frailty of human nature. Where estrangement followed by separation has already taken place, and while re-union is still a possibility, the pursuit of divorce proceedings and re-marriage is a negation of the teaching of the Lord, inasmuch as the successful pursuit of such proceedings removes for ever the possibility of reconciliation. These considerations apply with added force where there are children.

---

A great change having taken place in current social standards as regards marriage contracts, and ignorance of Scripture teaching having become increasingly widespread, we believe it is essential that all applicants for baptism should assent to these principles; that with applicants who have previously been divorced, or having been divorced have re-married, this assent is especially necessary; and that before baptizing such, special consideration should be given to their knowledge, state of mind and general outlook regarding these principles. There is additional need to emphasize this course of action because of the recognition of desertion by the State as a valid legal ground for seeking divorce.

Acceptance of these principles should be required of all our members, but when a brother or sister fails to observe them there inevitably arises a separate and more difficult question. What action should the ecclesia then take? It is in the answer to this question that different points of view are found. There are those who would lay down a rigid rule which would disfellowship any brother or sister who obtains a divorce or marries a divorced person in all circumstances except those provided for by the “exceptive clause” recorded by Matthew. It would follow from this that any brother or sister so offending could only be received back into fellowship if he or she separated from the other party to the marriage. Those therefore who wish to lay down a rigid rule must face this consequence of it and must be prepared to call on the parties to separate. It should be borne in mind, however, that there are circumstances in which separation creates more problems than it solves, and many brethren and sisters are, therefore, unwilling to commit themselves irrevocably to a rule which would require separation as a condition of continuance in fellowship without regard for or any consideration of such circumstances. It is the unanimous view of the Arranging Brethren that we ought not so to commit ourselves.

While it must be recognized that divorce obtained by a brother or sister on any ground except that allowed by Jesus is a sin which cannot be overlooked, the ecclesia should not exclude the possibility of repentance. Further, while re-marriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, are repugnant to the spirit of Christ’s teaching, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which it would be unjust to lay down a course of ecclesial action without discrimination. The Arranging Brethren therefore consider that the present practice in dealing with known breaches of the Lord’s commands should be maintained: where divorce, or re-marriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, occurs, an interview should be sought, and withdrawal or other ecclesial action determined in the light of all the facts and of the principles referred to in earlier paragraphs.

In dealing with all offenders, we must remember that our aim should be, not only to admonish and rebuke, but also to restore. While endeavouring to maintain to the full the high standards of Christ’s teaching, we must beware of slipping unconsciously into an attitude towards offenders which the Lord would condemn. To achieve the right balance in these matters in the spirit of our Lord’s teaching, calls for prayerful and persistent effort and humility of mind.

“Can a perfect God be ‘lonely’, or could he be perfectly happy by himself? Can a perfect God ‘need’ anything?”

We are created in the image and likeness of God. Without delving into the precise meaning of the Hebrew words, it would seem that — not too fine a point here — we are like God. If we are like God, then God must be like us. I realize, of course, that this doesn’t mean we are immortal… or that we are omnipotent, or anything like that. But… whatever God is, in a perfect or well-developed sense, we are in some imperfect, developing sense, or we have the potential (and the inherent desire) to become.

So… since we human beings are social creatures, in need of social companionship, someone to talk to, someone to be with, someone to love and be loved by… then it seems to follow that God is too — only more so.

It also stands to reason that, if the angels could have completely fulfilled God’s needs socially, there would have been no reason to create man. What is the difference between the angels and man in regard to the society of God? We might suppose that there is nothing we could ever give God in this regard that the angels can’t. But then we realize that the angels cannot be disobedient to Him. Oh, even they may need time and instruction to become more familiar with the mind and desires of God, and to learn to do exactly as He wants. But eventually they succeed and get it right. And, evidently, they are constitutionally incapable of actually disobeying him. They don’t go out on their own to become “Lucifers”!

So it could be this very potential to disobey God that makes us “better” than the angels, that is, more capable than they of supplying God’s social needs. How? Perhaps because God needs love from those who can choose freely to love Him. Perhaps because this kind of love, which can be freely given or freely withheld, is what makes our company so much more fulfilling to Him than anything the angels can supply. (More fulfilling, potentially, but also more risky, I might add. Creating human beings with freewill means that, sometimes, One creates what becomes a Hitler or a Stalin…)

Does this mean God is somehow “imperfect” or “incomplete”? With what I hope is all due reverence, I would say: ‘Yes’…in the sense that God is a “becoming” God. “I will be whom I will be”, He said. “I will become what I will become.” In other words, “I am a God who continues to reveal Himself, step by step, in a long continuing process. Paramount in that process of self-revelation is My development of a relationship with My family, My children! WHY? Because I care for… because I love… because I need… My children.”

I would say that if this view of God’s mind/character is incorrect… and the austere, indifferent, self-satisfied, “complete” “god” of Mount Olympus is the correct view… then… we would not be here discussing such a question… because we wouldn’t exist… because such a “god” would never have bothered creating us. Creatures like us would just be irritants!

What? No Bible passages? There are so many…

“It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them” (Hos 11:3,4).

How does God want Himself to be perceived by us? One way: As a strong and patient and loving father, stooping to grasp a little toddler by the hand, leading it carefully along the path… bending down to feed it. And…

“How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice! Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon” (Song 4:10,11).

…how else? As a lover desperately desirous of the company of his beloved. The Song of Songs is not just about Christ and a mystical Church. Before there was Christ and the Church, there was God and Israel. And before there was God and Israel, there was God and the individual human mind which He created.

God is looking for, yearning for a soul-mate, an eternal companion to be His sister, His bride… to share His confidences, His intimacies, His love. And there is room in His heart and His eternal purpose for an untold multitude of such companions… provided they want the role.

Oh, yes, He made all the stars in all the galaxies too!