Out of 25 occurrences of “nephele”, all but three plainly mean the Cloud of the Shekinah Glory. The student should work his way through the entire list. Acts 1:9 and 1Th 4:17 are specially instructive.

But there are three of the twenty-five which do not so readily conform to this general usage:

In 2Pe 2:17, false teachers are referred to as “clouds carried with a tempest”. Jud 1:12 (ref to the above) calls them “clouds without water”. In each of these instances the Shekinah Glory idea is not out of sight. Here were men claiming divine authority for their message (as Ezekiel with his Eze 1), but in fact they were not borne along by the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:19) but by a tempest, sweeping them away to their own destruction. Differently, Jude’s “clouds without water” implies that these men brought no true Holy Spirit blessing.

But what is to be said about the words of Jesus?: “When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.” Besides the simple literal meaning, a commonplace experience in the Holy Land, Jesus may have meant allusion to the Holy of Holies at the western end of the sanctuary enclosure (cp Psa 103:12) — the Shekinah Glory of God appearing there would be the certain herald of heavenly blessing: “a shower”.

It is important to observe that the “so great cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1), referring to the multitude of the faithful in Heb 11, uses a different word: “nephos”. Thus, it is not permissible to use this passage to interpret 1Th 4:17.

Author: Paul

Time: AD 61

Summary: The letter to Colosse was written in response to heresy that had been brought to Paul’s attention. The major errors that had crept into the church seemed to have been: (1) the exaltation of angels or other “elemental spirits”; (2) the emphasis on ascetic or liturgical practices thought to produce spirituality; and (3) claims to a special knowledge beyond that found in the Gospel of Christ. Paul states that these are philosophies based on human tradition and are therefore worthless. He teaches love, humility, submission to authority, and finally prayer to establish a believer in the wisdom of God.

Key verse: “See, to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Col 2:8).

Outline

1. Introduction: Col 1:1-14
2. The supremacy of Christ: Col 1:15-23

3. Paul’s labor for the church: Col 1:24 — 2:7
4. Freedom from human regulations through life with Christ: Col 2:8-23

5. Rules for holy living: Col 3:1 – 4:6

6. Final greetings: Col 4:7-18

Rather than concluding that ‘the judgment’ cannot be taken literally (because of time constraints), perhaps the meaning of time will be collapsed around the Lord’s return. Thus, the descriptions of the judgment can still be taken on a literal level. For example, we are taught that we must each appear personally before the Lord Jesus at the judgment, and have some kind of two-way dialogue with him (Rom 14:10; 1Co 4:5; 2Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1). If we must each appear personally before the Lord Jesus, we have two options: (1) Either time is collapsed so that we all appear before Christ individually — in what might seem to outsiders to be the merest moment of time, or (2) We appear before him in real time, in which case there must be some kind of queue, and a period of several months at least. (Some have suggested a number of years — up to 40! — for such an individual judgment.) This “judgment in real time” creates many Biblical and practical problems: ie, (1) where will thousands of waiting responsible be housed, and fed?; (2) will they be “mortal”, or in danger of dying again?; (3) will they be able to sin?; (4) will they be able to repent?… to pray?…; etc.

Thus “judgment in real time” ought to be rejected in favor of the idea that the meaning of time will be collapsed at the Lord’s coming.

Indeed, it seems that the whole process of resurrection, gathering, judgment and immortalization may take place in a split second, although it will seem far longer. If we could break this split second into real time, there would be: (a) emergence from the grave, (b) judgment involving a period of time, (c) then the righteous being grouped at Christ’s right hand, and (d) finally they would all be immortalized together.

“Come… inherit the Kingdom” is spoken to the whole group of sheep; we will be immortalized together, at the same time. If we are all judged individually in real time, this is impossible. Some would be immortalized months or years before others.

This collapsing of time at the Lord’s return would explain why “the resurrection” is sometimes used as a description of the whole process of resurrection, judgment and immortality. This was how Paul saw it (Rom 8:11; 1Co 15:42-44,52; Heb 11:35). Likewise he saw the trumpet blast as the signal of both the call to judgment (1Th 4:17) and also the moment of glorification (1Co 15:52).

A collapsing of time would also mean that the place of judgment is irrelevant. There are practical problems with the idea of judgment either in Jerusalem or Sinai. If it all happens in real time, Christ would come, raise the responsible dead, take us to (perhaps) Jerusalem, assemble us there for several months or years, and one by one grant us immortality. There seems no space for this in the Biblical description of events on the Last Days. Christ comes with the saints to save Israel from their enemies. Unless there is a secret coming of Christ to gather and judge the saints, after which he is revealed to the world, then this just isn’t possible. And the idea of a secret coming of the Lord of glory just cannot be reconciled with the clear descriptions of his coming in the New Testament. The coming of Christ in glory with the saints to establish the Kingdom is the coming of Christ.

Depending how one reads the Heb text of Zec 14:6,7, this idea of collapsed time at the Lord’s return is Biblical: “It shall come to pass in that day, that it shall not be clear in some places, and dark in other places of the world; but the day shall be one, in the knowledge of the LORD, not day, nor night… at evening time it shall be light” (AV mg).

This collapsing of time would also explain why it is impossible to construct a chronology of events in real time for the coming of Christ; the various prophecies of the Last Days just don’t seem to fit together in chronological sequence. If indeed time is collapsed, this would enable all these prophecies to come true, but not in real time. The events around Christ’s return were prefigured by those at the time of Joshua’s conquest of the land. Some of the records of his campaigns require a huge amount to have been achieved by his soldiers within a short time. “The sun stood still” may well mean that time was collapsed (Jos 10:12,13; cp Isa 28:21).

To appreciate God’s timeless perspective is one of the fundamental battles of faith; what God said has happened (our redemption is the supreme example). The ‘gap’ between His fiat and its fulfillment is only a perception of time-bound mortals. In the Kingdom, eternal life will be life without time, without these ‘gaps’, rather than life that ‘lasts’ for unending time. Understandably, given our nature, we tend to see the events of the Lord’s coming, and the Kingdom itself, from a far-too-real time-perspective. We find it hard to escape the paradigm of time, and therefore we often attempt to force God’s timeless revelation (e.g., concerning the events associated with the judgment) into our time-bound view.

An interesting possible corroboration is found in the KJV of Rev 10:6,7, where the mighty angel of God stands upon the sea and the earth and swears that “there should be time no longer (the NIV reads: ‘no more delay’)… but… the mystery of God should be finished.” And Peter, when speaking of the time leading up to the return of Christ, tells us, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2Pe 3:8). Even now, our standard references of time are meaningless to God, because He supersedes time! In the words of Isaiah, He “inhabiteth eternity” (Isa 57:15, KJV). How much more evident will it be to us in the future when Christ returns, that God and His family exist above and outside and beyond the reach of time!

So… as a side point: it might be noted that, for the glorified saints, the reward will not only be living forever, but also escaping time altogether!

[This article is a follow-up to one written by AH, which appeared in The Christadelphian Watchman (edited by GB and NF), Sept 1995 (see Article, Judgment seat, unresolved problem).It includes correspondence from DH, originally published under “Judgment seat: a response” in The Watchman, Nov 1995 — as well as additional thoughts by GB.]

So many of God’s faithful servants have been shepherds: Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David, to name but a few. In NT times, the vocation of fisherman was prominent among the Lord’s followers. Both these secular occupations well fitted such men for the spiritual work they would do — as “shepherds” of the flock of God, and “fishers of men”. The connections in Scripture between the literal and the typical in these cases are plentiful indeed, and rich in spiritual instruction.

Taking our lead from such obvious patterns, what then should we make of the livelihoods of God’s two most prominent servants: Jesus the carpenter (Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3) and Paul the tentmaker (Act 18:3)?

The thread starts in Exodus, where the LORD God commanded Moses to build Him a tabernacle, “according to the pattern showed you in the mount” (Exo 25:40; Heb 8:5). For this work, the LORD called and inspired Bezaleel (Exo 31:2) and his assistant Aholiab to be “cunning” workmen in metal and timber and fabric.

“Bezaleel” signifies “in the shadow (under the protection) of El”. He was of the tribe of Judah; the sun of Uri (“light”; the plural is “Urim”); the grandson of Hur (“whiteness”, “splendor”). He was definitely the “artisan-in-charge”: Aholiab was “given with him” (Exo 31:6; cp Ezo 38:23), “to help him” (NIV).

Apparently Bezaleel was especially skilled in metal and stone and wood, whereas his assistant Aholiab (the name itself signifies “the tent of his father”) was more adept in the working of fabrics and skins. The distinction is borne out by a careful reading of Exo 35:30-35; 38:23. Together, they carried forward the word of building the tabernacle.

A bit more about Bezaleel: Clearly, he stands in the narrative as a type of Christ:

• He was a “carpenter”. This is a Hebrew word, according to most authorities, which signifies an artisan in metal and stone as well as wood (as does its Greek equivalent, applied to Joseph and Jesus).

• His name (“in the shadow of El”) calls to mind Psa 57:1; 63:7; and especially Psa 91:1. Likewise, Jesus was and is “under the protection of El”, as Isa 49:1,2 and Joh 1:18 imply: “In the shadow of His hand hath He hid me…” “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father…”

• He was of Judah!
• He was the son of Uri (“light”) and Hur (“splendor”). Likewise, Jesus was the son of “Light” (1Jo 1:5), and himself “the Light of the world” (Joh 9:5), being the “brightness” of his Father’s glory (Heb 1:3)!

---

The Mosaic tabernacle, with all that pertained to it, was a “figure” (Greek “parable”) of the “greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Heb 9:9,11). This spiritual “tabernacle”, or temple, is of course the ecclesia, built upon Jesus Christ the “foundation” (Eph 2:20-22; 1Co 3:16; 1Pe 2:5-7) and chief corner-stone (Psa 118:22,23). As Bezaleel labored to build the literal tabernacle, so Jesus labored to build the spiritual. As Aholiab assisted the “master builder”, so Paul assisted Christ (cp 1Co 3:9-15; 2Co 6:1).

The secular occupations of Jesus and Paul beautifully fill out this picture: Jesus, like Bezaleel, the “artisan” in wood and stone and metal, built the framework and foundation of the spiritual tabernacle — the “center pole” of his work being the cross of wood erected at Golgotha. He also “worked” in metal — the spikes with which he was nailed to the cross.

Afterward, Paul — the New Testament “Aholiab” — was chiefly responsible for the “stitching together” of the skins and fabrics (the individual ecclesias?) into whole coverings, to overlay the wooden framework. Building up and binding together individuals into ecclesias, and ecclesias into the One Body of Christ.

The “carpenter” and the “tentmaker” working together, according to the pattern of the more perfect tabernacle!

On Writing: “There is a tendency to condemn an author as shallow or superficial if his writings are perfectly clear. And conversely, a writer will sometimes gain a reputation for profundity simply because no one can quite make out what he means.”

On Faith: “Unless a man is prepared to affirm that he knows nothing, believes nothing, and harbours no opinions, unless he is prepared is prepared to condense all his positive belief into one solitary affirmation of his own ignorance, he must of necessity be in some sense a man of faith.”

On Doctrine: “We frequently hear men say that they do not attach much importance to doctrine; they concentrate attention on the living of a good life. Such sentiment only emanates from a very shallow brain. It is as if a child should enter a garden, and seeing the gardener planting bulbs, should say, ‘I do not care for those ugly bulbs, I like the beautiful flowers.’ The living of a good life without a foundation of good doctrine is impossible, just as it is impossible to grow flowers without roots.”

On Societal Pressure: “It is always difficult to resist fashions, whether in clothes or theology, and when we think we are quite unmoved by the stream, it often only means we are lagging a little way behind.”

On Evolution and Morality: “When a modern thinker accepts the doctrine of evolution and repudiates revelation, how can he give us an authoritative moral code?”

On Sin: “The depth of a man’s guilt is determined, not by reference to the degree of harm he does to other men, but by the degree of deliberateness with which the law is violated. In other words, sins of presumption are always worse than ‘sins of infirmity.'”

On Disciplining Children: “Nothing could be more demoralizing than for children to be taught that disobedience did not signify [ie, count] so long as no evident harm was done. Yet how often we see parents taking a course which will inevitably give this impression. A child is perhaps meddling with some ornaments which should not be touched. The mother commands him to leave them alone, and comes away. The mandate has to be repeated several times, perhaps with threats, and it may be some kind of bribe. The child is not punished though richly deserving. But now, on the other hand, suppose that, without any deliberate disobedience of this nature, the child turning to come away at the first command, chances to break one of the most precious of the ornaments. The parent becomes a perfect fury, and the erring child is punished with the utmost severity.”

On Self Examination: “This work is necessarily an individual matter, and herein lies the difficulty. A man is his own accuser, his own defender, and his own judge. With the most complete facilities for knowing the full measure of his guilt, he unites a most unjudicial bias in favor of the accused. He perhaps possesses all the knowledge necessary to draw up an unanswerable indictment; but his talent is mainly employed to find extenuating circumstances. He has all the skills of a defending counsel to raise a false issue, but lacks the impartiality of a judge to expose the pretense.”

On Feigned Purity: “Close observers of mankind always feel rather suspicious of those who make a profession of superhuman purity. When frail human nature pretends to have grown more refined than God originally made it, we generally find that the profession is a mere cloak to cover exceptional depravity. Those who have been most successful in subduing the flesh have always been the most honest in describing it.”

On Intentions: “We shall not have the praise of God simply for good thoughts which we have instantly dismissed, neither shall we be condemned for evil thoughts, which we have instantly repudiated. But a solid intention to perform a good work is counted for well doing, even though circumstances should prevent the consummation; and, on the other hand, a deliberate harbouring of evil thoughts is counted for sin, even though lack of opportunity prevents the sinful act.”

On Motives: “It is possible for even the noblest work to be spoiled by an improper motive at the foundation. We have no right to judge the motives of others, but it is a duty to judge our own.”

On Joy: “The most genuine joy is to be found among the servants of God, and the most complete misery and discontent is to be found among the most thorough servants of sin.”

On Suffering: “The whole history of mankind does not constitute a fraction of eternity. The realisation of this fact helps us to see something of God’s point of view, and we can understand why that which seems like the most awful suffering to us can be described as a ‘light affliction which endureth but for a moment.'”

On Our Thoughts: “Every deliberate act is the outcome of deliberate thought, and it therefore follows that control of thought must be the mainspring of every virtue right up to that bridling of the tongue which is placed by an apostle as the supreme test of a man.”

On Doubt: “To summarize the difference between ancient and modern doubt, we may suggest that in olden time men saw superhuman beings in every shadow, and so in time of trial they supposed that their God was only one of many. But in modern times men seek a prosaic and ordinary explanation for everything, and so in time of trial even [the one true] God is explained away.”

(Islip Collyer)

John Carter was born near Halifax in 1889. He succeeded CC Walker at Editor of The Christadelphian magazine in 1937, and served in that capacity until his death in 1962. He gave unsparingly of his time and efforts on behalf of the Faith for many years.

Travelling extensively in Australia and North America during the 1950s, he worked for and achieved a sizeable measure of unity in a previously divided brotherhood. His calm and confident grasp of difficult theological subjects stood him in good stead for this work. But the heavy cost of these arduous labors in physical and mental strain hastened his end.

His writings were marked by keen scholarship, solid analytical exposition, a strong sense of moral obligation, and a deep devotion to the Word of God.

While he served the Christadelphian community in many ways, it was recognized that his best work was done in Bible exposition. A number of his expositions of particular books have been published.

His works include:

• John’s Gospel

• Ephesians
• Romans
• Galatians
• Hebrews
• Prophets after the Exile

• Parables of the Messiah

• Delight in God’s Law

• God’s Way

• Marriage and Divorce

It seems clear that man is by nature a fighting animal. Wars recur between nations as soon as the people have recovered sufficient strength, and have had time partly to forget the horrors of the last struggle. The men who succeed in business are the men who love the fight of it. Politicians turn their disagreements into fights with as much unfairness and injustice as in actual warfare. Even games are all struggles, and most men cannot understand the pure pleasures of artistic achievement without any contest as to who wins.

This being the natural tendency of the flesh it is not surprising that the same fighting spirit is found in connection with religion. It need occasion no surprise if men who do not fight either with guns or fists, and who take no part in the struggles of politicians, are apt to be especially violent. It is certainly true that religious disputes have often resulted in a bitterness and uncharitableness more sinful than the errors which caused the strife to begin.

It is important therefore for us to remember the principles laid down in scripture for our guidance in these matters. If brethren could saturate their minds with the perfectly clear principles stated and reiterated in the Word, it might put an end to nearly all the destructive disputing, merely by the removal of all unnecessary provocation.

The first point to emphasize is the fact that strife and debate are treated as essentially evil things. Thus in writing to the Corinthians the apostle took the fact that there was envying, strife and division in the Church, as clear evidence that the members were still carnal minded: “For ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying and strife and division are ye not carnal and walk as men?” (1Co 3:3).

In writing to the Galatians the same apostle includes strife in a list of evil things summarising the works of the flesh: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21).

TruIy the word strife appears here in a terrible list of evils with a terrible penalty threatened. We do well to make a very critical examination of our own conduct to make sure that any variance, wrath and strife existing in the ecclesias now, shall not be aggravated by any wrong action or wrong words of ours.

In writing to Timothy the apostle Paul again denounces strife. He refers to the evils which come from strife of words and perverse disputings (1Ti 6:3-5). Then in the second letter he gives this positive instruction: “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes; and the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose themselves” (2Ti 3:23-25).

If anyone should raise the question how we can avoid strife in view of the wrong attitude taken by others, we surely have the answer in this positive instruction. If we are convinced that those who oppose us are doing wrong and that in faithfulness to the Truth we must contend with them, we have ready to hand a splendid test of our discipleship. We have an opportunity to be gentle, patient and meek in instructing those who oppose themselves. If these qualities could be cultivated all round it might soon be found that there was no need for any further argument. Wrongdoing would accept the necessary reproof and wrong thinking would be corrected. The apostolic method would remove all the fuel that feeds the destructive fire. The railing, striving and impatient disputing, the personal hits and retorts of the carnal mind, continuously add fuel to the fires of wrath until even some who try to obey the teaching of the Word may perish in the flames.

The apostle Paul gave us example as well as precept. After the position of the Gentiles had been determined there was still much prejudice among the Jews, causing difficulty for disciples who feared the criticism of men. The apostle Peter was at fault in withdrawing himself from some of the Gentile believers apparently as a concession to the prejudices of certain Jews who had recently come to him. The apostle Paul “withstood him to the face.” Fortunately we are told what he said: “If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

Here was the essence of the argument forcibly but gently expressed. It truly showed an aptitude for teaching and meekly instructing, and it had the right effect.

It would have been possible to have brought a formidable indictment against the apostle Peter if one had cared to use carnal methods. He might have been reminded that he at one time had spoken against the idea of Christ dying at all, and had called forth a rebuke from the Master. At a later period he used the sword and had to be reproved again. Later still he forsook the Lord and denied him even with an oath. If in addition to the undoubted facts of Peter’s weakness all derogatory reports regarding him and his associations had been collected, it might have seemed to the fleshly mind a crushing blow to the influence of Peter and all his connections.

We simply cannot imagine the apostle Paul using such methods. He was ever ready to remember his own dark past but not that of others. When it was necessary to reprove the brethren he did so with gentleness and patience. Though he had authority such as none of us possess, he “besought them by the mercies of God” (Rom 12:1). He “besought them” to follow him (1Co 4:16). He besought them by the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2Co 10:1). He said: “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you, though the more abundantly I love you the less I be loved” (2Co 12:15).

This was in writing to an ecclesia which was very faulty, and against which a very formidable accusation might have been made.

The whole tenor of the apostle’s teaching is as outlined in the fifth and sixth chapters of the letter to the Galatians. We must overcome the flesh and all its works; we must bring forth the fruit of the spirit; but we must at the same time remember that we are all sinners who can only be saved through grace. Those who are spiritually minded must thus be ready to restore offenders in the spirit of meekness; considering themselves lest they also be tempted; bearing one another’s burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ (Gal 6:1,2).

There is further instruction regarding necessary controversy in the writing of the apostle Peter: “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing: but contrariwise, blessing” (1Pe 3:8,9). “Be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1Pe 3:15).

“All of you be subject one to another and be clothed with humility” (1Pe 5:5).

Such instructions require emphasis in time of controversy, for then it is that we are in the greatest danger of forgetting them. We may be stung by an unfair criticism and we think of a crushing reply. The flesh would call it a righteous reproof, but Scripture calls it rendering railing for railing.

We are perhaps in a position to quote from a past utterance of an opponent, a cutting criticism of one of his present supporters. The quotation would not help or guide anyone a fraction of a degree in the right direction; but it might tend to cause division among those who do not agree with us. The flesh would call such a quotation skilful tactics; Scripture calls it sowing discord among brethren.

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.

The need for a clear perception of the scriptural principles governing controversy is shown by the tendency toward unrighteous exaggeration even on the part of those from whom better things would be expected. A few days ago we read some words written by a critic who has usually shown a sense of responsibility in the use of words. Yet there are exaggerations which tend to foster strife without the slightest suggestion as to the restitution of the offenders. It declares that the belittling of the commandments among us had become an open sin.

This is a very definite and severe judgment, which presumably includes the present writer in its sweeping condemnation. What does it mean? Is there any effort or desire to restore us “in the spirit of meekness”, or are we too evil for that? If we “belittle the commandments of Christ” to the point of “open sin”, what hope can we have of forgiveness unless we can be restored? I have just recently been through the four Gospel records in an attempt to classify all the commandments of the Lord Jesus and apply them to present experience. It is easy to find commands which are very imperfectly observed. The repeated command to love one another even as he has loved us (Joh 13:34) has been repeatedly broken. The commands not to lay up treasure on earth and not to seek the riches of the Gentiles are so foreign to the spirit of our age that we only grasp them with great difficulty, and so far no one has been found to rend the ecclesias on this issue. It is quite certain that our critic does not mean these matters. He probably refers to the vexed question of a decision as to where to draw the line between reproving, rebuking or withdrawing from an offender. Is there anything in the commands of Christ to suggest that one who takes too lenient a view of his brother’s offences is to be condemned and repudiated? I know of no such command. There are plenty of warnings that those who take too severe a view of a brother’s offences will themselves be dealt with severely. There are warnings against judging and against the natural tendency to see the defects in the eye of a brother while remaining unconscious of greater defects in ourselves. If some among us err in their unwillingness to take the most severe of all measures against offenders, if they carry too far the commands to be patient and to restore offenders in the spirit of meekness, it cannot in fairness be described as “belittling the commandments of Christ.”

The use of this expression is to be explained in the same way as the many far worse attempts at argument which we sometimes hear. It is a natural emanation from strife and debate.

It is not fair, it is not true; but it has the doubtful merit of being severe, and therefore it is made to serve. It is so easy to be led into the use of such expressions, and we must not make any man an offender for a word, but we do well to sound a warning. Be pitiful, be courteous, be gentle, be meek, be honest. Cultivate charity and love, and remember that for every idle word that you speak you shall give account in the day of judgment.

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.