Page 77 - BV20

The House of Israel 77

is wear ing a loin cloth, and on his feet, what ap pear to be siah rec og nized). On the is sue of re-mar riage there is
moc ca sins, as seen in the pic ture. A copy of this was sent ob vi ous dis agree ment. Many of the Free Churches will
to Mr. Alan Wil son, the Welsh his to rian re search ing King re-marry a di vor cee; the An gli can Church does not, al -
Ar thur II. He is of the opin ion that this may rep re sent Ar - though an in creas ing num ber of di vorced per sons are
thur’s death at the hands of the In di ans when he went to be ing re-mar ried by An gli can priests on the pre text
Amer ica, fol low ing which his body was brought back to that the bish ops of a few di o ceses al low their clergy to
Wales for burial. Mr. Wil son also points out that “King” ex er cise their own dis cre tion and be cause any priest of
Edmund was re ally a fairly mi nor Duke of Suf folk. the es tab lished church has a le gal right to de cide whom
he will marry.
The sec ond set of wall paint -
ings, high on the nave clere - A se ri ous study of what
story, de picts, as in other the Bi ble has to say about
churches across the land, the di vorce re veals that
em blems of the Tribes of Is - Yeshua en dorsed the Mo -
rael, painted in the 16th cen - saic law but mod i fied its
tury. Only two are now ap pli ca tion so that the
clearly iden ti fi able, those of only ground for di vorce
Zebulun and Jo seph, com - was the sin of adul tery.
bined in one panel. Un der Di vine Law adul -
tery is pun ish able with
The text in the cen tre is not A King is Shot by Indian Arrows death: the guilty per son
clear, but the fourth line ap - there fore no lon ger ex -
pears to read: “peple (peo ple) which is called.” Could this ists. Be cause the adul terer is “dead” the mar riage is at
once have been: “If my peo ple, which are called by my an end. And it is there fore pos si ble and Scrip turally
name, will hum ble them selves, and pray, and seek my per mit ted for the in no cent party to such a di vorce to be
face.” If so, how ap pro pri ate that it should ap pear be tween re-mar ried by the Church. This does not mean that
em blems of Is rael on a church wall in this land of ours, re-mar riage is pos si ble to the par ties in a di vorce by
whose peo ple do in deed need to hum ble them selves, and con sent (who may both be re garded as “in no cent”),
pray! since their ac tion in de stroy ing their mar riage would
be con trary to Yeshua’s rul ing that what “God hath
-- John F. Battersby, Wake Up! Nov./Dec. joined to gether let no man put asun der.”
1996
The Ro man Cath o lic dogma that a Chris tian mar riage
Divorce: The Real Issue is in dis sol u ble ex cept by a dis pen sa tion from the hi er -
ar chy and that the con cept of di vorce is in com pat i ble
W hy has the church be come so hope lessly con fused with the Chris tian faith can be seen to have no Scrip -
on the ques tion of di vorce and the re-mar riage of tural foun da tion.
we find that YEHOVAH
In deed,
di vor cees? Some lead ers ar gue that di vorce, or God, through His in spired ser vants the proph ets, ac tu -
the dis so lu tion of mar riage, is a purely le gal de vice which ally used the symbology of mar riage, di vorce and
the Church can nei ther rec og nize nor con done. This, they re-mar riage in or der to con vey some con cept of His
say, is be cause a Chris tian mar riage -- that is, a mar riage in love for Is rael and of His pa tience and for give ness for
church or cha pel -- is a life long con tract be tween two peo - her way ward ness and dis obe di ence. Through Jer e -
ple: it can be bro ken only by the death of one of them. This miah, YEHOVAH tells us that be cause back slid ing Is -
view is re jected by the “pro gres sives” who ar gue that di - rael had com mit ted adul tery He had put her away and
vorce was part of the law of Mo ses (which Yshua the Mes - given her a bill of di vorce ment. But “Thy Maker is

The Berean Voice