When Jude wrote his warning to the saints of the first century, he certainly had reason to be alarmed. There seems to have been a tremendously dangerous problem at large; those who were disrupting the ecclesias were not even described as brethren; they were “certain men…. ungodly men” (Jud 1:4). Jude’s other terms for them are even worse: lascivious, brute beasts, greedy, lustful, mockers, sensual. It is hard to imagine sins heinous enough among the brethren of today ever to justify such terms.

Even though Jude says that these men “deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jud 1:4), it is most unlikely that they would deny association with Christ altogether. More likely they were such as those against whom John warned in his second epistle: teachers who so confounded the nature and the work of the Saviour that in their minds the gospel message was hopelessly distorted.

In judging from the catalogue of vices of these men, and considering those with whom they were compared, it would appear that they were of the “libertine” school. To such men nothing done in the flesh was truly sin, for they possessed a superior knowledge. It was the old lie of the serpent: that there is nothing wrong in “experiencing” all aspects of life — the evil with the good. “Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound.”

“The question must be asked: were these monstrously dangerous false brethren in fellowship with those to whom Jude wrote? From verse 12 it would seem they were: ‘these are a blot on your love feasts, where they eat and drink without reverence’ (NEB). On the other hand in verse 19 Jude says of them; ‘it is they who set up divisions.’ Presumably if they were in the ecclesia it was only in order to draw it away from the faithful brotherhood into an orbit of their own in which they would be ‘wandering stars’ ” (AE, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, Xd 108:210,211).

In such a distressing situation it is certainly understandable that Jude would rise to sound an alarm. If ever there were a time to protect the flock from the wolves, it was then.

However, considering the enormity of the errors rampant (worse, it must be admitted, than anything that has troubled the brotherhood in modern times), Jude shows a remarkable restraint in his instructions as to the type of contention to be waged. First, he emphasizes the positive actions which should counteract the evil influences:

“Build up yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God…” (Jud 1:20,21).

And secondly, he implies that God will judge these sinners in due time; all of his examples and comparisons tending toward this view: it was God Himself who singled out the generation of Israel to die in the wilderness (Jud 1:5); it was God who sent forth the fire and earthquake against Korah and his followers (Jud 1:11). Even Michael, an archangel, does not bring a railing accusation against his adversary (whoever that might be is irrelevant to this discussion), but merely promises that God will rebuke him (Jud 1:9). These evil men against whom Jude warns were present at the “love feasts” (Jud 1:12) — the Breaking of Bread! — yet Jude writes not a word commanding their exclusion!

Despite the seriousness of the sins, Jude does not command a blanket disfellowship of the false teachers, much less of their deluded followers. His view is the same as that of Brother Thomas, who, in writing of the same period, stated his belief that the “Antipas” class could “contend earnestly for the faith” quite effectively and Scripturally even while continuing as members of very imperfect ecclesias (Eur 1:335).

Much more is inferred from Jud 1:3 than the context will bear. True, there are times when brethren must “contend for the faith”, but must that “contention” involve the excommunication of guilty, possibly guilty, and uninformed “toleraters” alike? And how much of all the “contention” which seeks its justification from Jud 1:3 is contention for one’s own views and opinions and importance rather than contention for the faith?

“It is easy for men to deceive themselves into thinking that unrighteous and unjust extremes are simply the evidence of their zeal for truth. Even a readiness to listen to the accused is regarded as weakness. Such extremists cry shame on the very effort to be fair, and in their determination to have no compromise with error they sometimes exaggerate faults, and so grossly misrepresent the objects of their attack that they become guilty of offences worse than all the error against which they are trying to fight. We must not fall into the mistake of taking an extreme view even of the extremist. God has been merciful to such men in the past, and we must be merciful now even in our thoughts. We may state most emphatically, however, that it is wrong to exaggerate the faults of anyone or to find ugly and misleading names with which to label those who do not quite see eye to eye with us. It is quite possible to be valiant for the Truth and zealous for the Lord without being unfair even to those who are mistaken, and it is always wrong to be unfair. In faithfulness we must point out the danger that in great zeal for the jots and tittles of the law men may lose sight of the foundation principles. All their faith and works may become valueless through lack of charity” (IC, “The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, Xd 61:344; see Lesson, Collyer on Controversy.)

It is not necessarily true, then, that all contention is proper or profitable. Jude has more to say of contention than simply in Jud 1:3: It is possible, he says, that men, in thinking they do God service, may “speak evil of those things they know not” (Jud 1:10), and in their accusations and antagonisms become as “raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame” (Jud 1:13). “Indeed there is a spirit which strives against impurity which is itself impure; furthermore where the spirit is right but the method is wrong there may be a generation of heat without light” (C Tennant, “The Epistle of Jude”, Xd 104:404). James adds his voice to the same effect: “Whence come wars and fightings (contentions!) among you?” Because you are zealous to contend for the truth? Not always! “Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (Jam 4:1)

We must always remember that the greatest abhorrence of sin is not necessarily found in the one who is most condemning of the sinner, and that in contention for truth the loudest and most self-confident voice is not always the best. The example of Christ should serve us well when we are faced with ecclesial problems. From him we learn that patience and tact and love and prayer are our most effective tools. We do possess a “sword”, and we may finally have to use it. But let us not rush headlong into every controversy with it drawn. Like the surgeon’s scalpel, it must be the last resort, after all other possible healing attempts have conclusively failed.

We have all heard genie stories about a man finding the magic lamp and getting three wishes.

Here is my version:

An old man finds a lamp on a beach. While rubbing the lamp, a magic genie pops out and grants him three wishes. The old man wishes for health, wealth and a beautiful wife. Immediately the wishes are granted. The man has the body of a twenty-year-old body-builder. His fortune puts him in the class of the weathiest people in the world. He has a gorgeous, young wife.

For many months, the man is elated at his new-found wealth. He enjoys his lovely bride and his new body. He buys things he never dreamed of owning and sees places he never dreamed of seeing. Everywhere he goes he is envied and admired. Men covet his life.

And now, as Paul Harvey says, you get “the rest of the story.” As times wears on, little by little he starts to question his wishes. Should he have asked for extremely high intelligence rather than wealth? He could then have used his intelligence to make a lot of money, but he would still have the high intelligence. Should he have asked for things that were not so self-centered? If he had asked for a cure for cancer, he could have become wealthy and also made a tremendous contribution to mankind. He would not only be envied, but beloved. Should he have asked for a soulmate rather than the outward beauty of a wife? He loved his beautiful wife, but sometimes she wasn’t very easy to talk with about what he was thinking and feeling. If he had thought about it a little more before answering, he would have asked for it differently. Thoughts such as this plagued the man for the rest of his life. He was very glad that he had met the genie and was thankful for what he had been given, but always, in the back of his mind, he thought he could have done better in making his wishes.

The point of the story is this: most of us are in some way, shape or form that old man. We have been given blessing upon blessing in our lives that we appreciate, but yet we are not content. We are always thinking that we could have done better. We are always looking for the next genie to come along so that we can make things right. We second-guess where we are in life. Do we have the right job, friends, spouse, neighborhood, faith and so on? Open and honest self-examination is healthy. Yet, if we cannot balance the need for self-examination and self-improvement with the idea of being content, perhaps we have something more to learn on the subject.

It may appear that to be content is the same thing as being complacent. Complacency is never a good thing. One can be both complacent and content, but one does not have to be complacent in order to be content. One can be content and still have a burning desire to improve. I would suggest that you can be diligent in self-examination and self-improvement while at the same time being content. We can learn Paul’s secret when he said “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (Phi 4:11).

We will focus on Paul’s comment to see if we can learn the most published, but least understood “secret” to having a contented life.

---

There is a scene in the book “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”, by J.K. Rowling, where Harry finds a mirror. In this mirror, he sees his dead parents and himself together. He spends hours looking into this mirror. Only later does he find out that the secret to the mirror is that it shows you whatever it is you desire. People waste their entire lives looking at this mirror because in it they see their deepest unfulfilled desires.

The modern media bombardment — TV, movies, advertising, etc — is a lot like that mirror. We blame Hollywood for all kinds of ills from materialism to teenage pregnancy. I am not defending the entertainment and advertising industry at all, but if you understand that the media is just like that mirror, you have an insight that many people do not possess.

I am pretty sure that the media moguls don’t have an annual meeting and say, “How can we destroy the fabric of morality in the world this year?” These guys have companies. Like most companies, they are motivated by profits. If they could make a lot of money on wholesome, family-oriented programming, they would. I believe they don’t care much at all about what is on the TV as long as you and I will watch it and buy the products or services of the advertisers. Day in and day out, the average American spends 6 hours a day staring into this mirror.

Contentment doesn’t move much product. If you are happy and content, you are less likely to buy the next big thing. If they can make you feel a little less content and provide you with the magic solution, you are just the chump — I mean consumer — they are looking for. The real shame is that the majority buys into it. If we just buy the next big thing, we can be younger, healthier, more attractive, happier, more admired by our family and friends, wealthier and all-around better off. Why wouldn’t you plunk down $39.95 for that set of knives with all of those accrued benefits? You would be crazy not to!

This plays right into human nature. Starving people want food. People who have food want it to taste good. People who have good-tasting food want it presented pleasantly and someone else to cook it. This same principle of discontent applies to clothing, housing, recreation and so on. We are always looking for something better unless we are content.

The Bible says in 1Ti 6:6-12 that “Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.”

Contentment is great gain. We think of riches as great gain and are convinced by the media that buying whatever they are selling is great gain, but think of how many miserable people there are who have all of the trappings of wealth.

We have to learn that even with all of this against us, we have an opportunity to be content. God has provided us the answer to this secret.

---

The first principle of contentment is: “Seek first the Kingdom of God.”

Imbedded in this advice from Matthew is belief in the King. If we seek for the Kingdom of God and along with it the King who rules that Kingdom, we have the essential element of contentment. If we honestly and sincerely believe in the King — not an academic concept or abstraction — but truly believe in a living Jesus Christ, we will not be easily swayed by the garbage that the world would have us believe brings contentment. The more we believe in him, the more we will seek him. The more we seek him, the less we will seek what the world wants us to seek. Fame, fortune and all of the cares of the world shrink in proportion the more we know the son of the living God.

Imagine yourself with a bloodied back from a severe beating with a whip. But that is not all, you are locked in a dark, stinking dungeon with your feet locked in between two blocks of wood. Now I want you to imagine, if it is possible to do so, that in these terrible circumstances, you are content enough to break forth into song praising God and to offer prayers of thanksgiving. This might seem too unusual even to imagine, but that is exactly what happened to Paul and Silas (see Acts 16). What could possibly possess two people to have such a profoundly unusual disposition in the most horrible of conditions? They knew the King. They knew the Kingdom. Nothing could take that contentment away from them. The King and the Kingdom were not abstractions or academic exercises to Paul and Silas but a strong relationship with a living Christ.

By God’s grace, few of us will have to undergo such horrible treatment. Most of us have not had to develop characters that would allow us to be content under torture. We only have to develop characters that allow us to be content under the most benign circumstances. We need to learn to be content in our jobs, in our families, in with our homes, with our clothing and so forth. While Paul was content while in jail, we need to be content when that person cuts us off in traffic or our friends do not treat us well.

I would suggest that part of our problem is that we treat seeking the Kingdom of God like it was finished business rather than a relationship with a living being. For example, if we see our marriages as completed when we say “I do”, we are really missing the point, aren’t we? A marriage is an ever-changing and evolving relationship. We must constantly work at that relationship and build upon it day by day. While we can view the Kingdom of God as an event yet future or even a place we secured when we believed (both of which are true), we miss the point that behind these facts is a living relationship with the King. To seek the Kingdom is to seek the King in day-to-day living. It is an act of transformation from the things of this world to the things from above. If our focus is intent upon that relationship and seeking to enhance that relationship, all of the things that the world seeks after do not enhance our ability to improve that relationship — rather, they detract from it. Hence, if we sincerely seek for the Kingdom of God, we become content by virtue of things that cannot be bought at a store. We find that the greater the relationship with the King, the greater our contentment regardless of other circumstances.

The ultimate irony is we fret so much about those who we perceive as in control of our contentment. The government takes too much of our precious money. Our boss didn’t give us that well-deserved promotion. Our children don’t appreciate us enough. We fret and fume because if “they” would just do the right thing, we could be content. It is ironic because the only person that stands in the way of our contentment is the one that we view when we look into the mirror. The only “they” that stands in our way is, in fact, “us.”

There are a few more “secrets” concerning contentment other than seeking first the Kingdom of God.

---

The next principle of contentment is simple to say, but hard to do: “Trust God.”

One of my favorite sayings is: “A fanatic is defined as someone who does what God would do if He had all of the facts.” Another one of my favorite sayings is: “Worry is the illusion of control.” Both worry and fanaticism stem from the same problem — not trusting God.

It is impossible to be content if you are constantly concerned about things that are out of your control or fighting battles that are not yours to fight in the first place. Contentment comes from having a good idea of what your job is and what God’s job is. The fact of the matter is that one of those two parties — you and God — has a high probability of royally messing up his job. (Hint: It’s not God!) So if this is true, we should focus on things that are our job. God will do just fine of His responsibilities without our help.

Yet another of my favorite sayings is: “Do your best and leave the rest to God.” God knows what we are made of and understands that we will fail. At the same time God knows we will fail, God expects us to make the effort to succeed. The key is for us to know — despite all the malarkey of the self-help, motivational gurus — that success is completely out of our control. We may do all the right things, push all the right buttons, know all the right people and make all the right moves only to find that God has made the decision that we will not succeed. Failure may come in one of a million packages — a brain tumor, corporate downsizing, an unfaithful spouse, a lost letter, a fall down the steps. These examples are reasons for failure that are beyond our control. We could certainly add to it a longer list of reasons for failure that are directly of our doing. Whatever the package of failure, the contented know that their job is to do their best despite the pitfalls of life, and remain content knowing that God is in control. We can surely minimize the pitfalls of life by doing the right thing. Eating right, getting a good education, staying away from illicit sex and drugs, flossing regularly, working hard and being honest can all minimize our risk of trouble, but, in the end, we are all left helplessly dependent upon the mercy and wisdom of God. What better place is there to be left dependent on mercy and wisdom that with our loving Father in heaven?

Here is where we need to define the difference between contentment and apathy. Both words carry the connotation that we are satisfied with things as they are. However, apathy implies that we have no motivation or desire to change. Contentment, on the other hands, has no implication on our desire to change; it just means that we are happy regardless.

Let’s take an example of a person who is seriously overweight. The apathetic person doesn’t care. They have no desire to change and are not taking any steps to change. The contented person may also be apathetic, but not necessarily. The contented person may see a real need to change. He may change his diet or exercise in an effort to reduce his weight. However, in the process, the spiritually contented person is happy regardless of the state of her progress or the way the new diet and exercise regime makes her feel. Neither is the contented person in a constant state of worry until she achieves her goal. She simply do her best and trusts God.

Once again, it bears mentioning that trusting God is not easy. We are people who want results. When we have pain whether physical or emotional, we want it taken away. When we see something that needs to change, we want it done sooner rather than later. The point is that being discontented by worrying, fretting, or fuming doesn’t help achieve the goal any sooner, it just makes us miserable in the process.

So we see that trusting God is not just a sound theological principle, but a key to leading a contented, God-centered life.

---

The state of being content is defined by what you desire. If all you desire is to please God and help your fellowman (think about the two greatest commandments — love God and love your neighbor), contentment is readily obtainable. If we understand this, verses like 1Ti 6:8 make sense: “And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.” If we read this verse in context of what the world would have us believe, 1Ti 6:8 seems ludicrous. The world wants us to read it this way: “And having food and raiment (by the right designer) and a new car and a large home and the perfect body and the perfect spouse and a great job and a fat retirement account and a good golf swing and smart, athletic children, let us be therewith content (until our neighbor gets something as good or better and then we need to outdo them).” Following the world’s prescription will never bring contentment. Never. No matter how successful you are in this world’s terms, there is always something more to attain, and the contentment is fleeting at best.

There is a soon-to-be-released WCF video about a Bible school in Russia. In this video, there is a clip of a sister in Christ who has nothing that this world has to offer. She is homeless. She is old. She has no living relatives. She lives on $30 a month. She lives day to day and hand to mouth. When the interviewer, Steve Johnson, asked her what the brethren could do to help her, this was her response:

“I’m happy that I’m living a new life with Jesus, that I’ve started my sad life over and that I have Jesus with me. I realize now that I can’t complain about what God hasn’t given me because He’s given us sunshine, He’s given us the earth, He’s given us the stars above. I actually have no house at all, I have nowhere to live. In the winter months, because I literally have nowhere to live, an old people’s home that is run by the government allows me to live there. It’s a hostel for homeless people but the conditions there are absolutely terrible. In the summer months when I’m not allowed to live there I go around to people and I offer to do housework for people. I offer to work in their gardens. I offer to work on their farms if they let me sleep on their farm. So that’s how I survive in the summer months. But in the winter I have to stay in this hotel for homeless people. But also I consider myself so happy because I have found spiritual fellowship with you. I’m an optimist.”

“It’s totally awkward for me. I can’t even entertain such thought. All my life until this happened, until we got chased away, I’ve all my life worked and I’ve helped other people, not the other way around. When my brother-in-law died I spent a lot of time and effort helping my sister raise her three children. I’ve never been in such a position where I’ve had to ask other people for help. It’s such a terrible thing for me. The concrete help you already gave me. You gave me the Bible. You gave me the Truth. That’s the material help. You already gave it.”

“Let your life be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb 13:5).

(KT)

Corinth was a very wicked city. This is both specifically stated and implied in the Corinthian letters:

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world…since then you would need to go out of the world” (1Co 5:10).

This letter which Paul wrote to these converts needs rereading today. It sets out seven reasons why believers should shun, or flee from, immorality (1Co 6:18):

(1) The immoral will be excluded from the Kingdom of God: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral… nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1Co 6:9,10; cp Gal 5:19-21).

(2) You were separated from immorality at baptism: “You have been washed… separated… and justified” (1Co 6:11).

(3) Your body belongs to the Lord: Therefore you are not free to do as you wish with your body: “The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1Co 6:13).

(4) The body will be the subject of a future resurrection: “God who raised Christ by His power will raise your body by the same power” (1Co 6:14).

(5) Your body is a member of Christ: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (1Co 6:15).

Immoral unions violate the oneness with Christ. The believer is one spirit with his Savior. The “one spirit” is a oneness in thinking and attitude (Joh 17). You cannot be of “one spirit” with the Savior and of “one flesh” by union with an immoral person (1Co 6:16).

(6) Fornication is a sin against one’s own body (1Co 6:18).

(7) You are not your own: “You have been purchased with a price; therefore glorify God in your body” (1Co 6:20).

Of course, the world around us thinks nothing of premarital relations. Indeed, how can it when it tolerates or encourages intercourse between those who have no intention to marry? But it should not be so among us. Intercourse is intended only for marriage and is an expression of heart and mind by one person for one person. Premarital relations destroy the proper joy of marriage. Indiscriminate intimacy, apart from being wholly unChristian and loose, makes nonsense of the sanctity of the marriage bond and encourages unfaithfulness after marriage. Right behavior begins in the mind. Christian behavior follows the precepts of Christ.

The Call of God

There is little harm in making friendships outside the Faith, if two things are thoroughly clear and firm in one’s mind. First, that God has “called you out of darkness into his marvellous light”. The spectrum of this light includes the knowledge of God and of Jesus, the awareness of His kindness and severity, and the revelation of His truth. God called us to this light and we obeyed His call. This is the important factor. Paul wrote that upon those who “do not obey the truth” would come “indignation and wrath”.

This call of God must be kept firmly in mind, for upon faithfulness to it depends one’s eternal future. Thus everything must yield to one’s loyalty to God and to Jesus, even an affair of the heart — that is if the Faith is a reality. Jesus was clear and uncompromising about this: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Obviously each will love his own close relatives — and each will love his (or her) sweetheart — but make sure that neither is elevated above Jesus. Otherwise why wait for his coming and for all the great things that are promised us?

The second fact that needs to be clear is that whoever has not obeyed the truth is still in darkness in God’s sight. This is His judgment, not ours. So however charming, tender, kind and gentle a person may be, he (or she) is in darkness until the truth has been obeyed. God wants all these attributes in a person, but they must be the qualities of a person obedient to Him.

If one meets and is attracted to someone who is not of the Faith, what is one to do? First remember that mutual attraction is not only physical, it is also intellectual. There will be similar interests in books, art, music, games and hobbies. And in a world of hate and violence, racial discrimination and political struggles, when so many young people dread the future with its threat of nuclear warfare, one has a fine opportunity reasonably and tactfully to reveal one’s supreme interest in and loyalty to a Father who, through Jesus, is to sweep these things away. Here is the place to start a relationship.

This introduction of one’s spiritual interest in the Faith should be made at the start of a friendship, and its overwhelming importance for you should be emphasized. If your friend can be persuaded to join you at your meetings and to meet the brothers and sisters, so much the better.

The danger of friendships outside the Faith is that one’s hope of the coming Kingdom may not be revealed until one is emotionally and deeply involved — when, frightened by the thought of the possible consequences of marriage out of the Faith, one makes every effort to persuade the friend of the merits of the Truth. How can he (or she) be expected to understand at such a late date? The response is likely to be: “What is all the fuss about?” Or “Why wasn’t I told before?” Thus one’s last minute efforts may have an adverse effect on the friend, rather than otherwise, and one has done a disservice to God and His Truth.

Paul’s primary reason in writing this letter was to convince Jewish Christians not to return to Judaism — toward which some were wavering. He is showing that in every respect the believers in Christ had a high-priest and a law far superior to the old. We have a high priest.

Christ was a “minister of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.” The word “true” signifies real, in contrast to the typical or the shadow of v 5. There, “example” may be more faithfully translated as “representation, outline, copy.”

And the “shadow” of v 5 implies something of no substance which depends on something else for its very being. The Law of Moses depended for even its existence upon the great Law in Christ.

The Law of Moses was merely the pattern, or the type, of the true system. God instructed Moses concerning His first Tabernacle: “See that thou make all things according to the pattern (Greek- “type”) showed thee in the mount” (Heb 8:5).

In God’s mind there was already the plan for the building of a greater Tabernacle — of which Moses’ Tabernacle was just a feeble representation.

In contrast to the old, Christ was the true Tabernacle where God might commune with men. The old Tabernacle was a place where God might meet with man, and where man might worship God. But both of these things could be done only very imperfectly in Moses’ Tabernacle.

God’s glory was in the Most Holy Place, hidden except for once a year, and then only seen by the high priest. Common Jews could not approach there. And all of man’s offerings and sacrifices only emphasized his own sin, and their inability to take it away.

Everything under the Law of Moses pointed forward to something better to come. To the eye of faith, every item of the Law truly cried out for a more perfect way — the way of Christ. Of him John said:

“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt (‘tabernacled’) among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Christ spoke of his own body as “this Temple” — and in Mat 12:6 he called himself “One which is greater than the Temple”. Man must serve God in and through Christ, the true Tabernacle. Here in Christ, we find true worship and the means of fellowship with God.

***

“For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer” (Heb 8:3).

On our behalf, Christ offers sacrifices to God, of which we shall consider these aspects:

The High-Priest of the Old Covenant brought blood into the inner sanctuary once a year. But Christ entered there by his own blood once for all time, for himself and for our benefit (Heb 7:27)-

“By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12).

Even now, Christ acts as our High-Priest — by which we approach the Father. Christ offers our prayers to Him-so that we might come, with confidence, to the throne of grace, and obtain mercy (Heb 4:16).

And finally, a third aspect of the offerings of our High-Priest is this: Our good deeds, our righteous actions, are a sacrifice (Heb 13:16): all of our activities are “living sacrifices” to God (Rom 12:1-2).

Through Christ, these offerings have meaning and serve to present us to God as acceptable sacrifices. Only in Christ can our works be worthwhile. Only in him can they have any value.

Christ was the true Tabernacle or dwelling-place of God, by himself. But believers, upon being baptized, come into Christ-thus becoming a part of the true Tabernacle, pitched by the Lord:

“The House of God, the Ecclesia of the living God” (1Ti 3:15).

“Living stones, built up a spiritual house” (1Pe 2:5).

What a glorious promise is presented here, as we read in Eph 2:19-22:

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the Household of God. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone; In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Heb 8:7-13 present the crisis of Paul’s whole argument. He proves that the Old Covenant, the national covenant with Israel, was not final; and he proves this from the Jews’ own Scriptures:

“For it that first, covenant had been faultless…” (v 7)

It was faultless in morality, in its own commandments — for it came from God. Paul himself calls it, in another place, “holy, just and good” (Rom 7:12).

But the Law could not save men; it could only condemn them, because all have sinned. There must be a more perfect way, a more powerful way, to which it pointed, in Christ:

“For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through flesh, God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

***

“For finding fault with them, He saith, ‘Behold, the days come,’ saith the Lord, ‘when I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’ ” (Heb 8:8).

God found fault, not with the Law, but with Israel and Judah who could not keep it.

In referring to the “New Covenant”, Paul is quoting from Jer 31: “I will complete a New Covenant” (Diag). He had promised the New Covenant even before the old one began — with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But its effects are eternal; it will not be concluded until Christ returns to reign from David’s throne and to give the inheritance to all the true seed of Abraham.

***

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people” (v 10).

In v 8, both Israel and Judah are mentioned. But here, Israel alone is mentioned. The two houses are now one house — as Ezekiel saw in his vision. They will be united:

“I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all. They shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all” (Eze 37:22).

The future Kingdom, with Israel as one nation, will be the culmination of that New Covenant which had its beginning in Christ, the beginnings of which the Hebrews had been invited to share.

(Never from the time of Solomon until Paul’s day, had the two houses been one. So therefore, never had this New Covenant been realized for them. It must come in the future, with Jesus Christ as its mediator.)

“I will put my laws into their minds” (that is, into their inward parts)…” and “write them in their hearts.” The Jews’ former heart of stone will then become “fleshly tablets of the heart” (2Co 3:3), ready and able to receive the engraving of God’s Word, in the spirit. (This is also what happens for us when we enter the New Covenant).

“They shall be to Me a people”: God told Hosea of the nation, “they are not My people”; but Paul promises them here, “They shall be My people”.

The New Covenant did not come simply to destroy the old, but to improve it. It offers what the Old Covenant could not: recognition as God’s people.

***

“And they (the Levitical priests) shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest” (Heb 8:11).

At the culmination of the New Covenant, Christ will reveal himself to his brethren, the Jews, who mourn that their forefathers have crucified the true Messiah, and that they themselves have long ignored his teachings.

And God will give teachers to Israel, to bring them into obedience to the New Covenant:

“And I will give you pastors according to Mine heart which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer 3:15).

“And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand and when ye turn to the left” (Isa 30:21).

***

“In that He saith, a new covenant, He hath made the first old” (Heb 8:13).

He hath pronounced it old, even as early as the time of Jeremiah.

***

“Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb 8:13).

What God had promised 600 years before Paul’s writing was then (63 AD) about to occur. At that time, the Mosaic system had indeed grown old, and it was ready to vanish away — as it did in the fall of Jerusalem, 70 AD.

Paul’s warning undoubtedly saved many Jews from returning to the old Law. Those who listened to him fled from the onslaught of the Romans and were saved from death in the horrible siege of Jerusalem.

All of this is strikingly typical of us today, and Paul’s words are therefore important to us: We have all left the old system of so-called Christianity, which can offer us nothing.

We have come “outside the camp” to Christ. Let us not return in any sense, to the ways of the old man — nor to the systems of the world, which will soon be completely destroyed.

The sacrifice of the covenant victim is described in Jer 34:18-20: “The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces. The leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests and all the people of the land who walked between the pieces of the calf, I will hand over to their enemies who seek their lives. Their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.”

It was first referred to in Gen 15:9,10,17:

“So the LORD said to him, ‘Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.’ Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half… When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces.”

In this ritual, an animal is sacrificed, and separated into parts: all parties to the covenant must pass between the separated pieces of the sacrifice. Such a practice was common in the Middle East — evidence of such a practice has been found among other peoples of the area, and not just Jews. Two individuals, or two groups, would decide to make a solemn covenant, or contract, with one another; it might be a purely secular matter, having to do with property rights or business arrangements. To confirm the agreement, they would sacrifice an animal, cut the animal in pieces, separate the pieces, and then pass between the parts, or meet in their midst. They would also participate in a common meal of fellowship, each partaking of the animal which they had sacrificed and separated. Thereby they would confirm, by a gesture of great solemnity, their mutual understanding of the terms of their agreement.

They were saying something else as well, something very profound and sobering: if anyone violated the terms of that covenant, then he was deserving of the same fate that had befallen the covenant-victim; he was deserving of death. In fact, he would have already eaten his own condemnation, in the meal itself!

1. Quite possibly, this is the basis, too, for the oft-repeated and rather enigmatic vow: “The LORD — or God — do so to me, and more also, if…”: Rth 1:17; 1Sa 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2Sa 19:13; 1Ki 2:23; 2Ki 6:31; etc. May God do WHAT, exactly? The same thing that was done to the covenant-victim!

2. Likewise, it explains the Hebraism, where “to make a covenant” — as we might put it — is, literally, “to CUT a covenant”!

3. Also, it may account for the rather gruesome procedure adopted by the Levite, when he cut up his dead concubine into twelve pieces and sent the pieces around to the various tribes (Jdg 19:29).

4. …As well as what Saul did, similarly, with two oxen (1Sa 11:7), and what Samuel did with Agag (1Sa 15:33).

5. …And the words of Jesus in Mat 24:51, where the fate of the unfaithful servant was to be “cut in pieces” or “cut asunder”!

6. Notice also how Isaac and Abimelech (Gen 26:28-31), and Jacob and Laban (Gen 31:44-54) confirm their agreements by a “sacrifice” and a meal.

Many critics do not regard these verses as authentic, but despite all the official doubts there are voices to be heard in their favor. Strong arguments have been advanced on both internal and external grounds, which are summarized elsewhere (CJo 100,101; CCW, “The Woman Taken in Adultery”, Xd 70:405,406). The words of Jesus reported therein ring true and consistent both with the immediate context and the more general teachings of his ministry.

Jesus was teaching in the temple precincts one morning when a band of scribes and Pharisees thrust themselves through the crowd, dragging with them a terrified woman, whom they flung at the Master’s feet. They reminded him of the law of Moses, requiring stoning for the offence of adultery, and also that this woman was apprehended in the very act. What does this new Rabbi have to say? Will he agree with Moses or, as rumored by those who have heard his teaching, will he throw over the revered traditions and laws of the fathers? It is Jesus, not the woman, who is on trial this day; how will he respond?

The first reaction of Jesus was to stoop down and write on the ground, apparently indifferent to their demands. But his crafty enemies were not to be ignored or put off; they pressed him again and again for an answer. But the answer they finally received came as a bombshell or, more precisely, as a searchlight from the “Light of the World” (Joh 8:12) to reveal their innermost thoughts, their consciences stained indelibly with sin.

“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone” (Joh 8:7).

The burden of decision, with its consequent dangers, which these men had sought to thrust upon Jesus, was now placed squarely on their own shoulders. The law specified that the witnesses be the first to lift up the hand in punishment of a convicted sinner. Not only was this so but, by implication from the Law at least, such hands must be innocent of the same offence. It is reported that the first-century Jews, even those most devout for the Law, were notorious in their disregard for the sanctity of marriage, and divorces were granted for the most trivial of reasons. The Mosaic law in this regard had long fallen into disuse, and such punishments as they argued for here were no longer meted out. In fact, they would have been prohibited by the Romans at any rate.

Jesus put a sword with two edges in the hands of the woman’s accusers; should they lift it up against the adulteress they would also cut down themselves. That “first stone” is not in the world yet, if Christ’s condition be required. Only one man could have cast that stone, but he chose not to do so. The Light of the World had come, and his light shone in the darkness. Assuredly that penetrating light would reveal many works of darkness, no less the Pharisee’s subtlety and hatred than the woman’s immorality. But Jesus had come to offer life; the pronouncement of death for those who reject his offer was yet in the future.

He stood up and searched the faces of these rulers of Israel who had stooped so low. His eyes burned into them and they felt the disapproval of this man’s perfect holiness. Then he bowed again to write upon the ground. He had not accused them, but had left them to decide. They watched him as he wrote, conscious that at any moment he could stand up again to challenge any one of them, and they would have no defense. Silently, each man in turn confessed his own guilt by departing, “beginning at the eldest, even unto the last” (Joh 8:9).

“That last phrase is an interesting one….The older we get the more experienced we become, and the more conscious we are of the scope and content of sin. Often when we read and hear of the sins of others we are conscious that our guilt is as great as theirs. For us, circumstance has not provided the occasion for the ‘very act’, or in the case of some has even provided a cloak for sin. So, with the scribes and Pharisees, it was the older and more experienced, the Gamaliels, who first turned away, and it was the young Zealots, the Sauls amongst them, who finally bowed their heads and left” (A. Ashton, “Neither Do I Condemn Thee”, Xd 105:247).

Now, finally, Jesus stood again. The crowd, transfixed by the spectacle, remained awaiting an outcome. The poor bedraggled woman, her shame revealed to all, was still there where her accusers had cast her. But they were gone. Jesus now fixes his stare upon her. “Is there no man here to condemn thee?” They had all faded away as mists at the rising of the sun. “No man, Lord.” No witnesses remained to the crime, none willing to cast “the first stone”. “Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more” (Joh 8:11).

The word for “condemn” here is katakrino, which signifies a formal passing of judgment. It was at this time the sole province of the Sanhedrin, supported and often restricted by the Roman rulers, to pass such judgment. Jesus had recently spoken of the Father committing all judgment to the Son (Joh 5:22), and it was so. The power was there, both moral and physical, to punish sinners; but the authority had not yet been assumed. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world (easy though it would have been!), but that the world through him might be saved (Joh 3:17). This was the great message of light and comfort and hope; it is the message we must share with one another and take to the world today. Christ does not condone sin — that lesson is plain from the incident too — but today, this age, is the “day of salvation”, not the “day of condemnation”. Those who persist in sin, with disregard to the holiness of Christ, will meet their fates soon enough without the intervention of their own imperfect brethren.

“This incident has proved invaluable in Christian history. It is a graphic exposition of the Master’s words on the mount, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’ (Mat 7:1-5). However damning the evidence may be against our brother, if we pause and look into our own hearts, we shall go quietly away and leave him with his Lord. There are times when it becomes necessary to take action, but that action must not be taken because we have condemned our brother. It will be taken in the painful consciousness of our own unworthiness, and with a love which will plead intercession before the Throne of Grace. We shall wait with eagerness for the first signs of penitence so that we can joyfully restore the erring one to the fellowship of the saints” (MP 235).

“The greatest abhorrence of sin is not necessarily found in the one who is most severe on the sinner. Sinful men wanted to stone the sinful woman. It was the perfect man who saved her. In these days many of the brethren seem to think that if it is admitted that any members have sinned, the only logical course is to withdraw from them, while anyone who has reservations as to the correctness of such severity must be regarded as a partaker of the evil deeds and should be treated in like manner. There is no justification for such ideas in the Bible” (IC, An Appeal to Christadelphians, p 5).

An appealing final thought arises in relation to this incident. The adversaries of Christ were insidious, and it is almost certain that secret inquiries had been made into his early life and that the peculiar circumstances of his begettal had been uncovered. This would naturally suggest to the minds of his foes the possibility of illegitimacy. This “secret”, as they saw it, might be exploited to discredit the dangerous teachings of the man. It is possible, then, to see this whole incident as contrived by the Lord’s enemies. The woman was caught in the very act, but where was the man? Perhaps he was even one of the conspirators, who enticed and compromised a betrothed woman (Deu 22:23,24) only as a pretense for his friends to confront Jesus.

So if Jesus had said, “Yes, let her be stoned”, the retort would have immediately come back: “Then what should be done with your mother?” — for Mary had been a betrothed virgin at the time of his conception (Mat 1:18,19).

Other such base insinuations, in this very chapter, may be seen in the same light: “Where is thy father?” (Joh 8:19), and “WE be not born of fornication” [as some are!] (Joh 8:41).

Let us leave this account then with this final point for meditation. When we are hasty in seeking out “stones” to cast at our brethren, let us remember that many men have been unjustly accused, and that appearances are often deceiving! (Christ himself died as a “criminal”!) How childishly wrong we can be in our blusterings against the “sins” of others, when we cannot possibly know all the attendant facts. Better to leave such matters to the One who is without sin, the One who can and will judge perfectly when the time comes, and from whose eyes no sin whether open or secret can be hid.

The question has been raised whether it is possible to find scriptural principles to give us clear and unmistakable guidance in the matter of fellowship. Of course, there are some obvious truths which are recognized by all men and women who are Scripturally enlightened. There are errors of doctrine and offences of practice so serious that all enlightened men and women would agree that we cannot fellowship them. There are, on the other hand, errors so slight that no one would think of making them a cause of division. Between the two extremes there is more debatable ground and the difficulties arise in determining where the line should be drawn.

In time of strife there is a natural tendency for men to exaggerate and indulge in parody. It has been so in the brotherhood. “If you are going to tolerate this”, one party says, “you may as well fellowship a man who does not believe the Gospel, or one who steals.” “If you are going to cut off for this”, another party may reply, “you may as well withdraw from a brother because he does not agree with you as to the king of the North, or because he has been known to visit a Natural History museum.”

Such efforts of satirical exaggeration may relieve the feelings of disputants, but for every other purpose they are worse than useless in a serious discussion. They simply present the familiar spectacle of extremes begetting extremes, and they lead to a chaotic condition of the mind in which principles are ignored and men form arbitrary judgments according to their feelings for the moment and the subject which is most to the front.

Perhaps the first scriptural principle that we should note in this matter is that God sometimes leaves men to try them and prove all that is in their hearts. Even when the Apostles possessed the power of the Spirit in such large measure, they were not relieved of this difficulty of forming judgments. There was a difference of opinion between the Apostles Paul and Peter as to how far Jewish prejudices might be conciliated in the attitude taken toward Gentile believers. Evidently the Apostle Peter was in the wrong, withdrawing himself from some of the Gentile brethren, not on principle but for fear of what some of the Jews might say. Inspiration did not relieve these men from the onus of individual judgments and decisions or they would not have experienced the trials and temptations necessary for the formation of character. In writing their epistles, however, the Holy Spirit was their constant guide, and these writings bear witness regarding the truth of this dispute. The epistles of the two men are in agreement. There is no disputing there.

We may assume then that in these days also it is the will of God that we should experience some difficulty in applying scriptural principles to the circumstances of our own times. We must try to be honest and faithful in our application and on our guard against the fleshly feelings that so continually come to the front in time of strife.

There is another principle that needs to be mentioned before considering what the Bible has to say regarding fellowship. All should pay earnest heed to the scripture now cited and reflect upon the truth stated regarding human weakness.

It is wrong to “watch for iniquity”, and yet in time of strife it is the most natural thing in the world to do. If a fleshly politician is angry with another over a dispute in parliament, how delighted he is if he can find some discreditable story about his rival. How ready he is to believe the ill report and to put the worst possible construction upon it. It may have nothing whatever to do with the original quarrel, but that does not matter. Anything will serve as a weapon in the fight.

This is, of course, sheer diabolism, but unfortunately it is characteristic of human nature, and we are all tinged with it. It comes out the worst when a man is half conscious of having a weak case and is making desperate efforts to convince himself that he does well to be angry. If he believes in the Bible he needs then to remember that all who watch for iniquity and make a man an offender for a word shall be cut off (Isa 29:20). It is usually an easy matter to collect reports derogatory to any man or any body of men. There is quite a temptation to use these “make weights” in time of controversy, especially if the original cause of dispute is slight. One on the defensive can be kept busy chasing the false reports and unfair interpretations, but never succeeding in catching one before the next is on the wing.

In a court of law a litigant is tied down to the actual charge. It is useless for him to try to fatten out his suit by all sorts of complaints remote from the original accusation. We are free from any such legal restrictions now, but it is well to remember that we have to go before a judgment seat far more searching than any ever set up by man, and for “every idle word” that we have spoken we shall have to give account. Do not let us watch for iniquity, then, either in those we accuse of specific errors or in those who accuse us. Such watching inevitably leads to countless idle and evil words.

Coming now to the matter of fellowship, we cannot make a better start than by taking all the passages of Scripture in which the word occurs. Truly it is not safe to assume that a word is used in the Bible in exactly the sense that men employ it now. The story is told of a theologian who, when challenged to show any scriptural warrant for the modern ceremony of confirmation, made a full list of all the passages in which the word confirmation occurs, and triumphantly exhibited it as conclusive proof. This was foolish as an argument, for he was assuming a meaning for the word quite remote from the original intention of the writers. Nevertheless, an earnest seeker after truth might have found that list of passages very helpful as showing the manner in which the early believers were confirmed in their faith.

We desire to use the word and to treat the doctrine of fellowship in accordance with scripture teaching. We may find benefit therefore in considering all the passages in which we have the word in our English rendering of the New Testament. In each case sufficient is quoted to bring the teaching to the memory of all persistent readers of the word. Any who fail to remember the connection can easily find the passages.

• Act 2:42. “Continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers.”

• 1Co 1:9: “God is faithful, by whom ye are called unto the fellowship

• of his Son Jesus Christ.”

• 2Co 8:4. “The fellowship of the ministering to the saints.”

• Gal 2:9. “They gave the right hand of fellowship.”

• Eph 3:9. “The fellowship of the mystery.”

• Phi 1:3-6. “I thank God upon every remembrance of you always in every prayer of mine for you all, making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now.”

• Phi 2:1. “Fellowship of the Spirit.” (Connection of idea, comfort, love, and mercy in Christ).

• Phi 3:10. “Fellowship of his sufferings.”

• 1Jo 1:3. “That ye may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.”

• 1Jo 1:6. “If we say we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie”; v 7, “But if we walk in light… we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

In addition to these passages there are one or two other examples where a slightly different word is given the same English rendering.

• 2Co 6:14. “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?”

• Eph 5:11. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; for it is a shame even to speak of those things that are done of them in secret.” (Fornication, uncleanness, covetousness. See context.)

Surely these passages give us explicit teaching of vital truths that are often forgotten.

The fellowship to which we are called is a fellowship of the Gospel. It is a fellowship with the Father and the Son, and it is a fellowship to which God has called us (1Co 1:9). This is, of course, quite in harmony with the statement of the Lord Jesus: “No man can come unto me except the Father who hath sent me draw him.”

Surely these passages should lead us to the conclusion that fellowship in the Gospel is a sacred matter not for a moment to be treated like the ordinary fellowships of the world. If men have been called to this fellowship by God Himself, we need clear scriptural ground before we cut them off from it.

We will next consider the commands regarding the matter of withdrawal. There are two of these commands that have often been quoted with very little regard to the context. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”, clearly may involve withdrawal, and it has been quoted in that connection. The context, as we have already seen, speaks of the works of darkness in question, evil wrought in secret of which it is a shame even to speak.

The other command referred to is the admonition to withdraw from those whose walk is disorderly (2Th 3). The context shows that the immediate reference is to men who did no honest work, but were “busybodies”. The Apostle goes on to say in more general terms, “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

There was the explicit command to withdraw from the one who so grievously offended in Corinth, and one of the objects stated and made clear in both the letters of the Apostle to that church was that the sinner himself might be brought to sincere repentance and salvation.

There is another direct command as to withdrawal in 1Ti 6. The immediate reference is to the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds eager for worldly gain rather than godliness. There are several commands which clearly require a refusal to fellowship those who have not the doctrine of Christ or who depart from any element of the Truth. It should not be difficult to form a sound judgment as to where to draw the line in these matters. As Dr Thomas remarked, the first principles of the Truth are few and simple. Moreover, they are so opposed to all fleshly wisdom that from the natural standpoint they do not seem attractive. If men are prepared to accept them at all, it should not be difficult to accept them as a whole.

In actual experience, the divisions on doctrinal points in these latter days have illustrated this fact. New theories have been brought forward and have come into collision with first principles. The unity of first principles has been revealed in the strongest light. Where the right spirit has prevailed the new idea has been repudiated as soon as its true character has been revealed. Sometimes, however, there is a wrong spirit; worse still, there is personal feeling. Then there is hardly a limit to the possibilities of evil that may surge round the dispute or of the monstrosities into which the confused thought may grow. An illustration of what is meant was furnished some years ago. A well-known brother put forward an idea in a Bible class, and although he was quite unconscious of the fact, he raised an issue affecting a principle of God’s dealing with men. An older brother took the matter up in the right spirit, and after some discussion the younger student of the Word saw his way more clearly and repudiated the idea that he had expressed. Some years later, the one who had instructed him espoused the discarded theory, and with hidden causes at work to urge him forward, he elaborated it until division was inevitable for the sake of purity and peace. It is doubtful whether anyone living now holds the theory as it was put forward in time of strife. It played its part of mischief and destruction, and then it passed into the shadow of forgotten things.

For many years there has been unanimity among us as to the first principles of the Truth. New theories which menaced those first principles and caused division have not endured for the final judgment. They have perished of their own weakness, and if any of the pamphlets which caused such havoc are still extant, they are only retained as curiosities, not quoted by a single living soul as standard expositions of the Truth. There is a lesson for us in this.

Another series of scripture injunctions that we do well to call to mind in connection with the matter of fellowship is in condemnation of contention. We are required to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, but we are not expected to contend among ourselves. Strife and debate are ranked among the evil works of the flesh (2Co 12:20; Jam 3:14-16). In the letter to the Galatians there is a terrible warning as to the results of such strife (Gal 5:15). We must be careful then to see that our contending is for the Faith and not merely a strife of words to no profit.

Yet another series of commands must be remembered. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.” “Judge nothing before the time until the Lord come who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness” (1Co 4). “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom 14:4). “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law thou art not a doer of the law but a judge.”

Some might despairingly raise the question, How can we reconcile these very serious warnings against judging each other with the plain commands to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness and to withdraw from those who are disorderly?

The answer is that the very plainness of these commands helps us, for Scripture passes judgment on such matters. Truly we have to apply the judgment of Scripture, and there is danger of mistake in the application. It is the will of God that such responsibility should be ours and we must discharge the duty as faithfully as we can. We must try to remember the teaching of the Word as a whole, and we must be honest in the application of specific rules. If one quotes the passage regarding unfruitful works of darkness, things done in secret “of which it is a shame even to speak”, and applies the passage to one well reported of for good works, the only real complaint against him being that he is too reluctant to be severe with offenders, surely it is evident that in such an application there is the most amazing perversity. If one in resentment of a difference in judgment as to the precise application of these commands denounces his brother as guilty of disorderly walk, repudiation of the faith and re-crucifixion of the Lord, it is difficult to believe in such a case that there is even an attempt to find righteous judgment.

The time has come to use great plainness of speech regarding this vital matter of fellowship in the Gospel. There has been much failure to realize the sanctity of the fellowship of the Father and the Son to which God has called us. There has also been a failure to understand the real meaning of brotherly love. It has been thought of as a weak, sleep-inducing sentimentality which may stand in the way of faithfulness to God.

An amazing but most illuminating comment was made by a brother who advocated withdrawal from some who were alleged to be no longer worthy of fellowship. There were doubts, he said, as to the faithfulness of these brethren, so let us “give to the Lord the benefit of the doubt, and cut them off”. It seemed that any tendency toward maintaining unity was regarded as sentimental weakness, the motion to withdraw was zeal for the Lord. It seemed that there was no recognition of the possibility that we might sin against God in wrongful cutting off of members called by Him to the fellowship of the Gospel. If there were doubts as to the standing of those accused, we should be giving the Lord the benefit of the doubt by cutting them off!

Surely everyone should know that we can give nothing to God but the tribute of our obedience, that we can only learn of Him through His Word, and that all the commandments are equally authoritative. And surely everyone must know that for every one passage of Scripture commanding withdrawal from workers of evil, there are scores of commands to love and to be forbearing and long-suffering; exhortations to be meek, temperate, kind, courteous, pitiful, to comfort the feeble, build up the weak, restore the faulty; to be rooted and grounded in love, to bear one another’s burdens, to esteem others better than ourselves; to do all things without murmuring and disputing, and to be at peace among ourselves.

When we urge the law of love we do not mean sentimental human affection with all its partiality, its inconsistency and blindness. We mean love after the pattern set by the Lord Jesus who died for a church full of imperfection and who, under the very shadow of the cross, gave comfort to his faulty disciples. This law of love so incessantly urged upon us in the Word of God is the most soul-searching and the most difficult of all the commands. It involves a crucifixion of the flesh far more complete than that which comes to us from the bitterest criticisms of misguided opponents. If we ignore these commands while giving an extreme and unjustifiable application of the command to withdraw from the disorderly, we sin doubly. We sin in that which we do and that which we neglect.

From the testimonies cited, it is surely safe to draw the following principles.

1. Fellowship in the Gospel is a fellowship with the Father and the Son, to which God calls us. It is therefore a sacred matter to be treated with reverent care.

2. If we join ourselves to the world we join that which God has ordained to be separate (2Co 6).

3. If we cut off brethren from fellowship without scriptural warrant we put asunder that which God has joined (1Co 12; Eph 5:30).

4. We must at all times remember the warnings against judging each other and the countless exhortations to love and forbearance.

5. There are times when on the judgment of the inspired apostles we are called upon to withdraw from offenders. From those who turn from any element of the Faith (2Jo 1:10); from those who by perverse disputings cause wrath, strife of words, railings, evil surmisings (1Ti 4:6); from those who are guilty of moral offences (1Co 5:11); such to be restored in love after repentance (2Co 2:7,8).

6. That all unrighteousness is sin, but there is a sin not unto death. Many such offences are to be reproved or rebuked and left to the judgment of the Lord (1Ti 5:20; Tit 1:13; 1Co 4:5).

7. That in this sacred fellowship with the Father and the Son we can have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus will cleanse us from all sin.

Are these principles helpful? Are they fairly stated? If you think not, then take your Bible, put in a few hours’ study yourself and try to draw up a more faithful summary. Add such scripture as you think may be necessary, but do not ignore any of the testimonies referred to here.

In time of strife some may agitate that we cut off some of the Lord’s servants who are judged beforehand to be unworthy. Some may be frightened by the suggestion that to decline shows them to be weak in the faith. Well, “to the law and the testimony”, that is the only guide. Have these brethren denied any element of the faith? Are they guilty of perverse disputings which are making your ecclesial life impossible? Have they been guilty of any of those moral lapses mentioned by the apostle? In short, is there any scriptural principle which justifies you in saying, “These men were called by God to the fellowship of the Gospel, but they are now taking such a position that Scripture requires me to take the extreme step of cutting them off”?

Perhaps there is no one charge that can so easily be tested, but rather a multitude of alleged offences which in the aggregate are regarded as providing a cause. Beware of these “many and grievous charges”. It is easy to bring charges against any body of men to show that their general standard of conduct is inferior to that of others. Whether true, half true, or wholly false, such accusations are difficult to judge. Fortunately we are not called upon to judge. Rather are we required to refrain. We have responsibilities in our own ecclesia to make it a real light-stand, but there is nothing in scripture to suggest that we are called upon to make a detailed examination of the way of life in other towns. Smyrna was not held responsible for the sins of Laodicea, and Smyrna would have been at fault if it had attempted to pass judgment. It was the Lord who judged.

Brethren need not be distressed by the thought that they are bound to pass judgment when others have fallen out. We need not take sides at all, indeed there are disputes in which those at a distance cannot possibly take sides. If some brethren in misplaced zeal insist on an unscriptural division, the whole responsibility lies with them. If they cut our brethren off they cut us off. Clearly we cannot seek their fellowship while they have cut off the body to which we belong. It is equally clear that they alone can repair the breach. We can say with perfect truth, “We have not cut you off, you have cut us off.” The old man of the flesh hates to make such a confession, but it expresses a distinction which may make all the difference between life and death in the day of account.

If there is in these days a Laodicean church, the Lord will pass judgment on it. He is the only one qualified, and God has committed all judgment to him. We need to be very careful how we even form an opinion on such matters. A thousand times more careful how we speak and write.

(PrPr)

---

FELLOWSHIP

THROUGH belief and obedience of the Gospel we are privileged to have fellowship with the Lord Jesus. We can even be his friends if we will obey all his commands. This scriptural use of the words is quite in harmony with the meanings they bear when employed in merely human relationships. Fellowship is on the basis of one definite cohesive capacity or profession; friendship is more, comprehensive. Fellowship may bring together the most diverse individuals so long as they conform in the one particular. A fellow of the Royal College of Organists must be an expert with the organ, but his religious and political opinions are of no consequence. The fellows may be of such diverse temperaments, tastes, and connections that they could not agree together for an afternoon, and they could never form real friendships. These diversities do not matter in the least so long as they have passed the test which gives them fellowship.

This principle holds good in the fellowship of the Truth. The most completely different temperaments are drawn together; men who on a worldly basis could never even be acquaintances meet at the one table as fellows and brethren. In the world they might be at the opposite ends of society; at the Lord’s table they are equals, for they are fellows on the same basis. Here, however, the Truth transcends all other kinds of fellowship. It is an entity so complete and so beautiful that when properly apprehended it can break through all barriers and fuse the most divergent temperaments. Under the influence of the enlightened love that it brings, individual differences are moulded towards a common ideal and men become friends of each other because each is trying to be the friend of Christ.

It would seem that this fellowship is a matter too sacred for the adjudication of man. Only the Lord can give the privilege, and only he can take it away. In the final sense this is certainly the case; but as custodians of God’s Truth, members of the Church of Christ are called upon to take such disciplinary measures as may be necessary for the preservation of purity in both doctrine and practice, even to the extreme of refusing fellowship to offenders.

We are given explicit instructions as to the principles by which we must be guided in these matters, but we are necessarily left with a considerable margin for judgment in the application of those principles. We are told to withhold fellowship from those who do not accept the full truth regarding Christ’s redemptive work, and we are instructed to withdraw from those who are guilty of disorderly walk.

An example is given in the treatment of an offender. In the church at Corinth there was a man who committed a sin, exceptionally vile even for that city of loose morals. We are told that the brethren were puffed up perhaps using the sin of the erring brother as an effective background for a gratifying exhibition of their own virtue. Their proper attitude should have been one of sorrow because of the wrong done and the necessary severance that must follow.

Quite definitely the apostle instructed the brethren to withdraw from the offender — for that is plainly involved in the words, “hand over to Satan.” With equal clearness the apostle indicates that the first object should be the purging and correcting of the transgressor that he might eventually be saved.

In the latter-day history of the Truth there have been several divisions caused through the introduction of a false doctrine. As brother Roberts pointed out not long before his death, the main divisions were caused by attacks on the fundamental truths of Christ’s redemptive work. The “no will” theory was in effect a denial of Christ’s trial and perfect obedience. The “renunciation” theory was in effect a denial that “Christ came in the flesh.” The “theories of inspiration” attacked the Word and therefore made a direct attack upon Christ. The divergent views regarding resurrectional responsibility were never treated as serious until in an attempt to formulate a coherent theory it became plain how closely the matter was connected with the redemptive work of Christ.

There have also been many cases of withdrawal from individual members for individual offences. In many cases the right spirit has prevailed, the right effect has been produced; the transgressor has been delivered from overmuch sorrow and “in the spirit of meekness” has been restored.

On the other hand, it must be sorrowfully confessed that there have been divisions over matters that should never have caused any trouble and there have been times when the right spirit has not prevailed. Moreover, there has often been great confusion of thought as to the principles which govern fellowship, and there is danger that brethren may be led into grave errors in their attempts to be consistent. If, therefore, we can have a little clear thinking and speaking on this matter many may be helped.

First, we can state positively that no rules can be laid down in such a manner as to spare us all trouble in the application. The most illogical opinions regarding fellowship have been expressed just when brethren have tried to be most logical. Sometimes one has attempted to draw up a series of propositions on such lines as these: (1) To do thus and so contravenes the law of Christ; (2) One who contravenes the law of Christ is not fit for fellowship; (3) Therefore, however painful the duty, we must withdraw from him; (4) Those who refuse to support a motion for withdrawal are defending wrong-doing, and therefore are partakers of the evil deeds; (5) Therefore we must withdraw from them too.

Even such crude reasoning as this would be accounted sound and logical by some. It is possible that many brethren might examine the propositions for some time before they detected the fundamental error. That error turns on the meaning of the word ‘fit’. The fact is we are none of us fit for fellowship with Christ if our personal record is to be the test. A man who was among the greatest of the prophets testified that he was not fit to untie the thong of the Lord’s sandal. Where, then, do we stand? If we were to take fitness in that sense no brother or sister of intelligence would ever dare to withdraw from anyone, while at the same time daring to claim the fellowship of Christ. We are not left to our own sense of fitness, however. We are given instructions that we must withdraw from those who are disorderly; not withdrawing in the spirit of self-righteous men preserving ourselves from contamination, but with the hope of saving the offender. It certainly does not follow that every offence against the law of Christ must be punished in this way, for in many things we all offend. We have to deal with each case as it arises, asking the question, “What would the Lord have us do?” and acting faithfully to the answer of our conscience. We can readily agree on the principles involved. When a member transgresses we may all agree that some disciplinary measures are necessary; but if we make use of our powers at all, it is improbable that we shall all agree in our judgment as to the exact course to take. In such matters we all have to be “subject one to another,” which is the beautiful scriptural way of putting the idea harshly expressed in the modern phrase that “majorities must rule.” When there is no difference of principle but only variability of judgment in the application of a principle, this subjection in love one to another is the only workable method.

This brings us to another point in connection with which there has been much confusion of thought. Some brethren have reasoned as if withdrawal from a transgressor was the only way of expressing disapproval. It has been repeatedly assumed that if a brother is hesitant to the point of weakness in supporting a motion for withdrawal, he is necessarily weak in his views of the error that has called forth the motion. If he argues against cutting off from fellowship, he is regarded as supporting the sinner in his evil way.

I suppose it has always been so in this unreasonable world. Little more than a century ago, men were hanged for sheep stealing in this country. At one time boys of sixteen were hanged for stealing as small a sum as five shillings. If I say that such punishment was wrong am I supporting thieving? No one would say so now; but, doubtless, at one time such charges were brought against the first men who suggested counsels of moderation. And after the milder men had protested with wearying re-iteration that they condemned thieving as fully as any of their neighbours, critics would come back with a repetition of the charge, “These men say it is right to steal.”

I am sorry to use such a crude illustration, but if it serves to clear the thoughts of any distressed reader the roughness may well be excused.

There are many scriptural ways of dealing with the offences of brethren. Withdrawal, or cutting off from fellowship, is the most drastic of all. We may entreat brethren, or reprove them privately, and so leave the matter. In some cases of error everyone would agree that nothing more is needed. We may take others with us, and finally bring a matter before the ecclesia. We may, as an ecclesia, rebuke an offender ‘before all, that others also may fear,’ or, finally, we may if we feel confident that this is what the Lord would approve — cut the offender off from fellowship.

Are we to make it a test of fellowship that there must be unanimity of judgment as to the appropriate method of dealing with an offender?

When we withdraw from a member for prolonged absence from the table is there to be a division, and an extension of cutting off, because all cannot agree that the time has come for action? Are we to cut off those who refuse to support one of these painful motions because of some real or fancied special circumstances in the case? Assuredly not. These are not matters of principle but of application, and the proper course is for all of us to be subject one to another.

Finally, to make this matter as plain as words can make it, let us briefly review the history of the last thirty years in the Brotherhood.

It is about thirty years since the ecclesias throughout the country began to treat certain offences more severely than had been their wont. It was argued-quite soundly, as I think — that for a brother to take a course which bound him to an alien or any body of aliens was a more serious offence than any ordinary failure in a moment of temptation. Among offences of this class, marriage with an unbeliever is, perhaps, most prominent. It is certainly condemned most directly in scripture, and it has unquestionably been of more frequent occurrence than any other sin of similar character. This will serve as well as any matter to illustrate the point, and as I have been urged by a worthy brother to make my position quite clear on this subject it will be well to make this choice.

At one time the general practice was to reprove or rebuke any who offended by marrying outside the Truth, but to go no further than rebuke. In some ecclesias — I believe it was so in London — the rebuke took a public form. Marriages of brethren and sisters were announced to the meeting with appropriate words of goodwill and commendation to the blessing of God. Marriages outside the faith were only referred to that grave disapproval might be expressed.

Nearly thirty years ago the Leicester ecclesia passed a resolution deciding to go further and to withdraw from offenders. I supported that resolution in a very intemperate speech which, for fiery zeal and merciless condemnation, would be hard to beat.

May I assure the brethren that while I would never think of using such language now, I feel a horror at the bare idea of marriage outside the Truth such as the ignorant and zealous stripling could never have felt. It is a sin against the law of Christ, a sin against the life partner, a sin against the children; and in addition to all this it is a renunciation of the greatest joy that life has to offer. If the more drastic rules of later days have saved any young people from this fatal error in the establishment of their homes, surely the severity is justified.

There is, however, a grave danger that growing severity may go too far. It may come to be regarded as the test of soundness in principle, and then weak men will vote for harsher measures than they think are right in the effort to appear strong. When Christ was writing on the ground before he spoke, what would have been our attitude if we had been called upon to express an opinion? We might have been merciless for fear of merciless accusations.

When an ecclesia changes its constitutional practice in dealing with certain offences, all members must certainly be loyal in the sense of not opposing the constitutional action. A faithful brother will not remain a member of the ecclesia if he feels that a matter of principle is involved. He will not be coerced into doing wrong. If, however, it is not a matter of principle, but only of application, he will be subject in love to the others.

Now in these matters which have caused such agitation there is not any difference as to the principle. All recognise that it is wrong to marry an alien or to enter bond service to Gentile power. It is true that in the stress of argument some have even appeared to defend unholy marriages, but the extremes of heated discussion should not, be treated too seriously. In quiet moments all agree as to the fault; even the offenders admit it. We cannot reasonably require that a brother who has married outside the Truth shall say that he is sorry. To ask for such a confession is going too far. Usually, however, he will admit the principle that he has violated. He will recognise that he has given way to a human passion, and in the grip of that passion has broken the law. But while we all agree on these principles there never has been and there never can be unanimity as to the disciplinary measures the Lord would have us take in all these cases. Some of the best and strongest of brethren have urged that we should rebuke offenders with all humility, but not cut them off from the one anchorage that can save them. The Lord has left us to judge for ourselves in these applications of his principles, I know of no workable method but the scriptural one of being subject to one another in love.

It will be a sad day for the Truth if any considerable body of brethren shall ever insist that in future there shall be no liberty of conscience. That when a decision has been reached to treat certain offenders in the most drastic way permitted to us, all who have any scruples as to the correctness of the ecclesial decision must stifle them, must actively support the drastic action and confess that it is not only a permissible action but right, without any mental reservation whatever. Such a demand as this is certainly entirely new in the latter-day history of the Truth, although it is not new if we review the bitter history of past ages.

We may mention one more matter in which there has been confusion of thought. Some have suggested that they may be forced into a position in which they have only a choice of two evils. They say that they may be forced into withdrawing from one section or another, although in neither case do they feel that the withdrawal is right.

It is not true that you can be placed in such a dilemma. You never are forced to cut off any whom you regard as sound in the Faith. To do so would surely be a terrible sin, far worse than the error of those who act with honest but mistaken zeal. You may be forced into a position in which others will cut you off, but that is a different matter altogether. The wrong done is not your responsibility, and if you maintain the right spirit, presently the fever will pass away and wounds will be healed.

There is only one sound course in this matter of fellowship. Stick to “true principles,” and do not strive about “uncertain details.” Pray for divine guidance, but do not neglect the divine guidance which is near, in our memories and on our shelves. Try to keep in their proper place the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Then, when there is a difference of judgment in the application of principles, and you have to record your vote on a motion for withdrawal, vote for what you think is right though your dearest friends should cut you off for it.

IC (The Christadelphian 60:261-265)

The decree resulting from the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

We then, following the holy Father, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood, in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood; one the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets form the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

What is the derivation of the Heb word “cherub”? One possibility: “cherub” = ke-rab: the conjunction of two Heb words: (a) ke: the likeness of; and (b) rab: greatness, or a great number (cp “Rabbi”). Thus cherubim (the plural) sig a great and mighty multitude, in whom God is manifested. This might refer to an angelic company or the company of the redeemed. All of the places of worship have cherubim associated with them (Gen 3:24; Exo 25:13-22; 26:31,33; 1Ki 6:23-35) — suggesting that the great cherubic multitude will be finally revealed through their true worship of the Almighty.

The cherubim were associated with chariots (1Ch 28:18) — the ancient vehicles of war, suggesting that their manifestation will be accompanied by a great battle. (JT suggests the word cherub is related to the Heb word “rekab”, or “chariot”.)

Therefore, the cherubim speak of the sureness of God’s purpose, covenants, and provisions, and His promise to fill the earth eventually with His glory, in the persons of many resurrected Spirit-beings. This salvation is the hope of all creation, and the cherubim in Eze 1 are pictured with four heads:

1. The lion: the head of all wild creatures;
2. The ox: the head of all tame creatures;

3. The eagle: the head of all birds; and,
4. Man: the supreme head of all God’s creation (Gen 1:26,28), who has been promised dominion over the earth.