“But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable….”

One of the most extraordinary perversions in the whole of Christadelphian exposition is the not uncommon use of James 3:17 to justify agitation and strife in the pursuit of “purity”. It is a terribly wrong use of the Bible to toss about convenient phrases as slogans, with absolutely no regard for their context.

“In times of ecclesial strife, it is often assumed, quite unfairly, that to advocate a policy of patient negotiation and attempt to avert division by every proper means, is to display lack of a sense of Scriptural priorities and unhealthy tolerance of error. James is often (wrongly) called in aid of a vigorous campaigning for purity of doctrine as an essential preliminary to the restoration of harmony and peace. For does he not say ‘the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable’ (3:17) and is unity not therefore dependent upon oneness of mind in things spiritual?” (A.H. Nicholls, “First Pure, Then Peaceable”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 109, No. 1295 — May 1972 — p. 193; this article is virtually repeated in Vol. 113, No. 1343 — May 1976 — pp. 161,162).

And it is so tempting to read this phrase as a time sequence: Take care of the purity first, and then the peace will naturally follow. Contend earnestly for the faith, with tooth and nail if need be, and then take the fragments that remain when the strife has run its course, and establish an “honorable” peace only among those who are absolutely of one mind — because they agree absolutely with you! Can the policy so much like the repressive tactics of a Hitler or a Stalin, tactics that allow no disagreement and ensure peace by steamrolling the opposition — can such a philosophy truly commend itself to Christ’s brethren? Is “first” really a note about time, as though one could be “pure” this week but not necessarily “peaceable” till the next, when the other fellow has been disposed of?

The entire passage in James (3:13-18), dealing with true wisdom, is an extended contrast between two types of “wisdom”, one which has its origins from “beneath” and the other from “above”. Envying and strife and debate, motivated by impure thoughts, are from beneath; they are natural rather than spiritual. Against such manifestations of the “wisdom” of man the apostle Paul also spoke:

“For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would….lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults….” (2 Cor. 12:20).

And he warned the Galatian brethren:

“If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (5:15).

By contrast, the positive theme of James’ words here is a peace born of love and sincerity (purity of motives). Heavenly wisdom is free to manifest itself in works of meekness (v. 13); it need not resort to bombast and agitation. True righteousness is motivated by Scriptural peace — inward calm and outward gentleness (v. 18).

The words of the apostles imply far from idyllic conditions in the early ecclesias. Their warnings are just as valid, and perhaps more so, to us today as we survey a divided body and ask ourselves why.

“Even in those early days, there were men who had a measureless self-conceit, a bitter jealousy of those whom their brethren regarded with affection and trust, an arrogant confidence in their own opinion and their own judgment; men in whom there was very little of the spirit of Christ, but who were quite certain that they, and they alone, had the mind of Christ; men who were resolved, whatever might come of it, to force upon the ecclesias their own beliefs either with regard to doctrine or practice; who made parties in the ecclesia to carry out their purposes, held secret meetings, flattered those who stood by them as being faithful to conscience and to Christ, and disparaged the fidelity of all those who differed from them” (N. Smart, The Epistle of James, p. 117).

The tragic misuse of James 3:17 to justify every manner of agitation and division stems also from a misguided apprehension of the word “pure”. As James uses it here, the word applies only to moral deportment, not to the body of first principles commonly but not altogether correctly called “doctrine”. Indeed, the word hagnos and its related words have reference always to moral purity; in other passages these words are appropriately translated “chaste” (2 Cor. 11:2; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:2) and “sincerely” (Phil. 1:16). The verb form appears as “purify” in such passages as James 4:8; 1 Peter 1:22; and 1 John 3:3, with the same connotation. By using hagnos James does not convey so much the idea of cleansing or catharsis, but more nearly that of holiness or sanctification, freedom from any kind of defilement of mind or conscience, or from any inward stain or blemish (L.G. Sargent, The Teaching of the Master, p. 71).

The Bible emphasis, therefore, is not upon “pure doctrine” (the phrase occurs nowhere in the AV or RV), but invariably upon “sound doctrine”, the healthful teaching which informs the spiritual mind and keeps the ecclesial body pure and wholesome. It refers equally to method as to content. The very test of a teaching’s soundness is whether or not it produces strife (Nicholls, op. cit., p. 194). Wisdom is to be “pure”, whilst doctrine is to be “sound”, an enormous distinction.

It might also be noted that neither is “fellowship” ever Scripturally characterized as being “pure”. Purity in the absolute sense belongs to God alone, and in any other relation is only relative. Purity of conduct is something for which to strive, since Christ commands, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:45). But it cannot be said that we should strive for the “purity” of belief of our brethren by the questionable means of agitation. And, even if we were so instructed, the outcome of such an inquisitional search for “purity” would certainly not be the desired “peace”.

Inasmuch as words are just about as well defined by citing their antonyms as their synonyms, I shall consider here James’ two forms of “wisdom” in parallel columns. By such a method the real significance of both “pure” and “peaceable” will become plain:

Thus it may clearly be seen that “peace”, far from being nonexistent until an artificial “purity” has been imposed, is instead a virtue always to be desired. Indeed, how could one instructed at all in the wisdom of God ever contend that any of the other qualities enumerated along with purity are not to be desired at all times? Should one be gentle only after the opposition has been beaten into flight or submission? Should one be merciful only after his striving has left nothing and no one to be forgiven?

“ ‘First’ and ‘then’ are not references to a sequence of events — get the wisdom pure and peace will follow — but to the relationship between the characteristics of the wisdom that is from above. It is above all else pure, and consequently is ‘peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy’…’But if ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not against the truth.’ The path of doctrinal purity, in any sense of the word, does not lie along that road, since nothing can be of God that causes confusion and strife” (Ibid.; compare also P. Adams, “First Pure, Then Peaceable”, The Testimony, Vol. 30, No. 360 — Dec. 1960 — p. 429).

James crowns his discussion of heavenly wisdom with an allusion to the “sermon” of Christ on the mount:

“And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by them that make peace” (James 3:18).

The “pure” and the “peaceable” of James’ discourse are now seen as a conscious imitation of the thought (and even the order) of Matthew 5:8,9: (1) “Blessed are the pure in heart”; and (2) “Blessed are the peacemakers”.

Also, James’ simile of the fruit trees (v. 12) and his allusion to the “fruit” of righteousness (v. 18) are echoes of the Lord’s figure of speech in the same discourse:

“Beware of false prophets… ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit” (Matt. 7:15-17).

As did Christ, James foresaw that men would sow destruction and confusion in the field of God. The damage that such men would cause by their schismatic tendencies, born of jealousy and pride, would have to be counteracted by the pure and peaceable and gentle actions of others. With this in mind James speaks of the tree. There is a tree that is righteousness, and righteousness is its fruit. It is firmly planted, rooted in the truth, and nourished by the soft showers of heavenly wisdom. Its fruit is harvested and then sown by the peacemakers who are pure in heart. The product will be many “trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified” (Isa. 61:3). But there is a condition for this planting in which God works with and through men: it must be done “in peace”, for strife is destructive of the very seed of righteousness.

Brother Carter, late editor of The Christadelphian, under the heading “A Plea for Uncalled-for Disunion”, wrote as follows:

“The title is not ours; it is one given by bro. Roberts in a call for sober and fair judgment at a time when feeling was running high just after bro. Andrew’s teaching had caused years of contention followed by division. Some were for pressing too far their demands upon fellow believers under the guise of ‘PURITY OF TRUTH’, and belaboured bro. Roberts for lack of zeal because he would not endorse their efforts. Some have thought of bro. Roberts as a fiery zealot always leading division. He certainly combatted, and rightly so, important and vital errors that were at different times introduced in the community. But it is clear that it was not a fanatical zeal that moved him. He recognized that there were other duties — teaching, guiding, instructing, promoting unity where vital issues were not involved. Three pamphlets were reviewed by him which he variously described as ‘Plea for Unsound Union’, ‘Plea for Uncalled-for Disunion’, and ‘Plea for Apostasy’. He repudiated all three pleas, and we endorse his attitude” (Vol. 93, No. 1104 — June 1956 — p. 224).

To this we would add certain of Robert Roberts’ thoughts in his own words:

“It is well to be zealous for ecclesial purity; but if we are to abstain from ecclesial association till we find an ecclesia that is perfect, we shall never have ecclesial association at all. We must have compassion as well as zeal. We are all imperfect, and unless we practice some of the charity that ‘hides a multitude of sins’, we shall hinder and destroy instead of helping one another” (“Ecclesial Notes”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 23, No. 263 — May 1886 — p. 230).

To his words may be added those of other staunch brothers:

“The aim of the gospel is to convert and edify, not to divide. Division is an evil, whether necessary or not. The loss of disciples through apostasy, even when it becomes inevitable, is still grievous. And many losses may well have occurred, not because members were caught out in apostasy, but because some mistaken person or group thought that one must not be peaceable until purity has been attained. And of course this is not what James is saying….The wisdom from above is pure, but it is folly to think of it in terms of purity alone, or to imagine that it can entertain purity in isolation from the warming qualities which make it at once divine in its origin and human in its sympathies. The whole theme of this exalted homily is against the pursuit of so-called purity for its own sake alone, and for a righteousness which bears peace as its fruit at the hands of peacemakers” (A.D. Norris, Bible Missionary, No. 42 — July 1971 — pp. 2,3).

“My conviction is that we, as a body, are in a thousand times greater danger through failure in this matter of brotherly love than in those doubtful issues which have exercised so many of our members. When once controversy has started there is usually a tendency on all sides to multiply the sins of unfairness, misrepresentation, and all the other fleshly evils that arise from strife. Stones are thrown where bread should be given. The Scriptures will save us if we will allow them to have free course, but we must search them for food and medicine and not merely for weapons” (I. Collyer, An Appeal to Christadelphians, p. 5).

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words… and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words… from such withdraw thyself.”

This passage is quickly quoted to justify separatism, generally with little regard to its context. A close review of that context yields the following observations:

1.	“If any man teach otherwise”: The warning here should be limited to the “teacher”, the active trafficker in some sort of error (the context should tell us what sort). It should not necessarily apply to the passive, ill-informed hearer or receiver of such error. Neither should it apply to the ecclesia established on a sound basis that may number among its members one who teaches a different doctrine. There is absolutely no thought here about the disfellowship of a whole ecclesia for its failure to disfellowship an errorist!
2.	The “doctrine”, in the Scriptural sense “teaching”, against which Paul warns is a moral teaching contrary to godliness. Verses 1-5 should be taken as a whole: if any man counsels slaves to disobey their masters (v. 1) or to shirk their duties (v. 2), or if he proudly refuses righteous instruction, being envious and perverse (v. 4), or if he supposes that “gain is godliness” (v. 5), then this type of man should be marked.
3.	The phrase “From such withdraw thyself” is omitted altogether in most versions, including the Diaglott, RV, RSV, NEB, and NIV! Can we really be sure that these words are valid?
4.	There is little if any Bible precedent for using the word “withdraw” to describe the disfellowship of erring brethren. But to some it is a very attractive word, because it seems to convey an open-mindedness with regard to “judging” one’s brethren. In other words, ‘We do not condemn you nor cut you off. We simply withdraw from you as a matter of conscience.’ But this is really trifling with words. Of course, in the final sense, we cannot cut anyone off from Christ. If, however, we “withdraw” from our brethren, we do cut them off from our personal association, and no amount of careful wording can relieve us of the responsibility of such action — either for good or ill. The possibility of wrongdoing in hasty or improper excommunication (this is the more Biblical term!) is not mitigated by referring to the same act by a milder word. (The same point applies to the use of that euphemistic invention “stand aside”!)
5.	Even if the questionable phrase is allowed to stand, it may signify that Timothy was to withdraw himself from such ideas as the love of gain, and strife and disputings. Paul’s basic thought is continued in vv. 6-10, and summarized by the warning in v. 11: “Flee these things”. This is a far cry from “withdrawing” from the brethren guilty of such things (T. Haltom and G. Booker, Godliness With Contentment, p. 120).
6.	Those things that Paul condemns sound, strangely, very much like the qualities most common among many ecclesial agitators for “pure fellowship”:
	1.	“Consenting not to wholesome [or healthful] words”: Often brethren consumed with a passionate hatred for some single “false doctrine” lose sight of the destructive effect their words and actions are having on others. Their constant contention may militate against the growth of the qualities that make for edification and godliness in the body as a whole.
	2.	“Proud, knowing nothing”: These are those who pose as Bible students, often without realizing the extent of their own ignorance. Ecclesial life has not infrequently been plagued by such men.
	3.	“Doting about questions”: The subject matter of many Christadelphian divisions can be seen, in retrospect, to have consisted of too much speculation in unprofitable questions, and of too long concentration on a very narrow area of interest while failing to appreciate the “big picture”.
	4.	“Strifes of words” — logomachia — “word-battles”. Much trouble has come upon the brotherhood during the last century in just this form. Problems have arisen because of carelessness in the use of words, unwillingness to clarify meanings, and the tossing back and forth of slogans and epithets which may unfairly characterize the beliefs of others. Phrases like “clean flesh”, “Adamic condemnation”, “open door”, “enlightened rejector”, and a host of other technical trivia become the touchstones of controversy, with devastating results. Ordinary brethren are swept along and drowned in a sea of uncertainty — wondering who is right and who is wrong.
	5.	“Envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings”: “Word-wars” bring all these qualities to the fore. They encourage brethren to deceive, to misrepresent, and to foster suspicions against their “adversaries”. “Word-wars” set battle lines, sides are chosen, cliques are formed. Sadly it reminds us of the world of political intrigue, with which no true believer should have any connection. “From such withdraw thyself.”

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven… the leaven of malice and wickedness” (vv. 6-8).

These words are often quoted as supplying the reason for the rooting out of false doctrine. The application made of them is this: ‘Just as leaven, given time, permeates and changes the whole mass of dough, so also any single difficulty in any ecclesia will inevitably ruin the otherwise good character of the rest.’

It needs to be emphasized that what Paul is talking about in this chapter is bad behavior, not false ideas. The context (do some folks ever look at context?) is the case of incest:

“a fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife” (v. 1).

This open flouting of all moral restraints on the part of one was aggravated by the permissive, even proud and defiant, attitude of the ecclesia:

“And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you” (v. 2).

In the entire chapter there is no hint of doctrinal error. This simple fact makes it clear that the words quoted are being made to do duty for a purpose other than their original intention.

Objection to a general application of this saying (“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”) is also made in the following:

“Long experience shows that whereas nothing contributes to the lowering of tone in an ecclesia like persistent bad behaviour, it is possible for the community to immunize itself almost completely from the cranky ideas of one member, be he never so good a propagandist. Paul’s words [however] are absolutely true in the field of morals” (H. Whittaker, “Block Disfellowship: Is It Taught in the Bible?”, The Testimony, Vol. 43, No. 512 — Aug. 1973 — p. 312).

In the case of Corinth, what made the sin “leaven” was the proud willingness to allow its influence to affect the whole of the ecclesia. And even should we talk of doctrinal divergence as “leaven”, then it is still true that one false teacher does not introduce the “leaven” singlehandedly. He usually has to have the approbation of the arranging brethren or the whole ecclesia. In supporting this deviation in their midst, and taking no steps to correct or isolate the problem, it is in fact they who are introducing the leaven.

“In the case of 1 Corinthians 5 the evil was not only unrepented of, it had not been repudiated by the ecclesia, although it was the case of open and manifest sin. The second epistle, however, shows the response of the ecclesia to rebuke, and also (so at any rate many would interpret it) the restoration of the repentant sinner (2 Cor. 2:5-11; 7:8-11)… It is, as Paul showed, the ecclesia’s responsibility to judge open sin, and to repudiate it while doing all possible for the recovery of the sinner (1 Cor. 5:12,13)” (L.G. Sargent, “Why Not Ask?”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 105, No. 1247 — May 1968 — pp. 218,219).

As to those who resort to this passage for proof of the necessity to separate from error, how often have they been as eager and energetic to seek the reclamation of the brethren whom they brand in the most infamous terms? If we follow the apostle’s example (supposedly) in purging out any that offend, then we must endeavor to follow his example also in fervently seeking their reinstatement. This, in the case of “false doctrine”, would involve a most serious effort to bring about reunion of the divided sections of the brotherhood — especially when the ones who “caused” the divisions by their peculiar ideas have now in some cases been dead for years.

A further point that must be made in regard to 1 Corinthians 5 — as has been already made for other passages: Even if this passage may be used of those who teach wrongly concerning the first principles, it still goes no further than demanding that the single ecclesia purge out its own “leaven”. There is no hint that failure to do so would result in the Corinthian ecclesia being expelled from the worldwide association of all her sister-ecclesias.

And finally….

“If the application so often put on this passage be granted, it becomes a terrible ground of censure of those who apply it thus. For, if the leaven of false teaching really leavens so drastically, how is it that the writings of the ‘spiritually decadent’ are read, scrutinised, criticised, and discussed so vigorously? If such activities do not ‘leaven’ some who are doctrinally ‘pure’, why should they be so damaging to others?” (Whittaker, op. cit).

It is in the nature of leaven, and indeed it is the only reason for ever using the figure, that it changes the basic nature of any material with which it comes into contact. If this proves not to be the case with something that is called “leaven”, then the whole argument with regard to that divergence — whether in morals or doctrine — collapses.

Using this criterion, certain retroactive tests may be made. The Christadelphian body has experienced many grievous divisions, ostensibly to excise “leaven” from pure dough in each case. If the thesis were correct that those errors or so-called errors would have a leavening influence on the rest, then it should be true that the body that contained such leaven would be by now thoroughly leavened. But this is just not the case! What has actually happened many times is that the teaching, or perhaps action, that aroused so much indignation in other ecclesial circles far removed from the center has quietly sunk into oblivion, never again to trouble anyone except those who separated themselves prematurely and who, to justify their separation, continue to be exercised about a long-dead issue.

One of the main historical reasons for one “pure fellowship” group’s separation from the main body of believers was the queer ideas of a rather eccentric brother; this brother circulated several pamphlets on the nature and sacrifice of Christ in the early part of this century. His uncertain speculations were not summarily repudiated by more responsible brethren elsewhere (though neither were they accepted), and the pages of the break-away periodical were for years filled with denunciations of the leavening nature of his work. Some seventy years have now passed since all this began, and one occasionally still reads criticisms of this brother and of his “toleration” by others. But his writings have completely vanished, and no one else has to our knowledge ever taken up those ideas he so weakly articulated. It was told me by another brother who once belonged to one of the separated ecclesias that, in his travels, he had visited the old ecclesia of that long-dead brother. The ecclesia met in a hall with an extensive library, and our friend began a search therein for some of the brother’s questionable writings. He found none and so asked a brother of that meeting where they were kept; this brother in fact was a relative of the original perpetrator of the questionable ideas. “Oh, we wouldn’t have that sort of thing around here!” was the immediate reply. And so it seems that the only ecclesias where the old “leaven” still exists are those who supposedly “purged” it out in the first place, but who still keep a few “fragments” under wraps on the “top shelf” to demonstrate to later generations how terrible it really was!

Returning to a more positive conclusion here, we should endeavor to make an application of these verses to ourselves individually, for certainly this was Paul’s intention, as v. 8 would indicate:

“Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

We could do no better than conclude with the following quotation:

“To this day the Orthodox Jew is ruthless in the exclusion of all leaven (or yeast) from his home for the seven day feast [i.e., of Passover]; even to the extent of using a special set of cutlery, crockery and cooking utensils lest a trace should be left on that normally used. In many cases this is merely a slavish adherence to the letter of the law but we can take a lesson from it. Should we not be just as diligent and just as ruthless ourselves with our lives, with our thoughts, words and deeds to exclude from them anything savouring of malice or evil? Bearing in mind the nature of the evil which Paul had in mind at this time the warning is surely not to be lightly passed over when we live in a world rapidly becoming as morally degenerate as was the world by which the brethren and sisters at Corinth were surrounded. Such moral depravity must at all costs be kept at bay, and the only way this can possibly be done is by each one purging from his or her heart the old leaven that as a community we may be a new lump, as we are unleavened” (E. Toms, “Christ Our Passover”, The Dawn Ecclesial Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 12 — Dec. 1960 — pp. 280,281).

“What communion [koinonia] hath light with darkness?… Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing” (vv. 14,17).

This passage has always been popular with separatists, but it is even more sorely misapplied than are some of the others we have considered. The context clearly speaks of a life of unrighteousness. From such a worldly outlook and way of life the believers are certainly prohibited, since such a joining is an “unequal yoking with unbelievers”. But it is a peculiar wresting of Scripture which would take this passage and wield it in cutting off believers for some minor deviation, real or imagined!

The entire passage is much richer and more detailed than one would ever imagine from a cursory reading. Each phrase is fully expounded in a series of articles by Brother David Parry — in which practical applications are precisely drawn (The Testimony, Vol. 46, pp. 218-220, 270-272,311-314, 341-344, 427-429, and 452-455; Vol. 47, pp. 70-74). These exhortational conclusions reveal once and for all the moral force of the passage, in contrast to the mere legalistic approach in “withholding fellowship” at the breaking of bread. We have certainly come to see by now, if we had not realized it already, that “fellowship” is a much broader and more meaningful concept for believers than the question of whom we exclude from “our” table (which is not even ours, but Christ’s). Fellowship with God is a way of life that permeates all corners of our lives, and calls us constantly upward to a fuller appreciation of life lived always in the presence, and in the household, of our Heavenly Father. Those who convince themselves that their duty in the way of “separation” is accomplished when they ruthlessly exclude some or many of their brethren from their “fellowship” have simply not understood as yet what “fellowship” is all about! And it just may be that, in giving undue attention to one area of responsibility, they are on their way to ignoring other, more far-reaching duties!

We shall briefly summarize the passage:

1.         Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers (v. 14): Only two can wear a yoke, and they must agree together in the direction they are traveling. We are commanded to be yoked with Christ (Matt. 11:28,29), and we can be yoked with no other at the same time.

“The call of Christ is to a complete way of life — it is all-sufficient. Failure to realize that when Christ spoke of two ways, he meant two and no more, has led men to try and walk in both, looking for a third. For the Christian partnership to work, the believer must at all times try to match the example of his Master. The only incentive is to think deeply of the work being performed together. Unless positive reasons for a life in Christ are understood, the yoke of Christ will chafe and the discipline be irksome” (Ibid., p. 220).

2.         What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? (v. 14): This word “fellowship” might best be translated “partnership”, a joint partaking in something. Righteousness describes the ethical standard by which God offers men salvation. It is the pattern of life in Christ. It is impossible that there should be any partnership between this way of living and its exact opposite — unrighteousness, or lawlessness.

3.         What communion hath light with darkness? (v. 14): This word “communion” is the common word for “fellowship” — koinonia. To think of fellowship between light and darkness is to consider an impossibility, for the two cannot in any way exist side by side. Those who say they fellowship light and yet walk in darkness are liars (1 John 1:5-7). Correct beliefs are necessary, but our fellowship in light must be proven by the actions of a new life (1 John 2:29; 3:7; John 3:19-21; 8:39; 10:37). The Bible definition of walking in darkness is not holding false doctrine, but hating one’s brother (1 John 2:11)!

4.         What concord hath Christ with Belial? (v. 15): “Concord”, relating to the English word “symphony”, expresses the idea of harmony in singing or other verbal expression. In Christ’s life the “symphony” has already been composed. Each performer and each instrument should be controlled by that original plan. We as the players bring our individual talents to bear upon the composer’s score. But we cannot “play our own tune”, or else there will be discord and not concord in the finished product. Trying to follow both Christ and Belial (idols) is like singing two songs at once. How much easier to follow the example set by Christ, so that there be true harmony in our lives!

5.         What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (v. 15): Here is the idea of sharing, or having a portion or an inheritance, which may be understood against the Old Testament background of the promised possession of the land.

“Believers and unbelievers have nothing in common which they can share. The believer cannot take part in activities and associations which are not controlled by God. The believer cannot share his inheritance, nor allow it to be taken away by unholy men. He can, and must, seek to share his inheritance by converting the unbeliever; but he must take care that this work is the one that God has described in His Word. The Lord is the portion, the Hope of Israel, the founder of the New Jerusalem. It is His inheritance, His kingdom, His memorial” (Ibid., p. 429).

6.         What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (v. 16): This question involves the idea of putting together, or a joint deposit, particularly of votes. The ecclesia is the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19); its members must cast in their “votes”, and their hopes and aspirations, with their brethren — not with the “idols”, crude or sophisticated, religious or secular, around them. The temptation to cast in one’s lot and find apparent satisfaction with the godless of today is a strong one to the modern saint. The only real antidote is not knowledge alone but application to the example of Christ.

“Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (v. 17):

“The teaching of these words as highlighted by Paul involves an equal determination on the part of a Christian to become holy through separation from unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, unbelievers, and idols. The far-reaching implications of these words are now obvious and it behoves those who would apply them in very limited circumstances to take care that in casting the first stone they are not condemning themselves” (Ibid., p. 72).

The party in the Cretan ecclesia or ecclesias to which these words applied were “they of the circumcision” (v. 10). These Judaizers were a great and constant source of opposition to the truth as it was in Christ, and it was periodically necessary to warn new converts against their Jewish fables and traditions (v. 14).

The particular disciples to whom Paul here refers must have been unusually dangerous, in view of his further comments:

“….who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake… liars, evil beasts, slow bellies…” (vv. 11,12).

It is difficult to imagine such strong language ever being applicable to brethren today. Hence Paul’s warning has an unusually hard edge: “Rebuke them sharply” (v. 13), he says. The first step must be to cause these brethren to cease their propaganda. When the agitation has died down, then hopefully a policy of instruction and restoration may be set in motion.

As in many New Testament passages, there is implied here a great gulf between ecclesial action toward the active offenders and toward the more passive followers. The mouths of the teachers must be stopped. But the minds of the hearers, if already confused, must be set right. Certainly there is no warrant in this verse, neither in any of the previous verses, for a “blanket” disfellowship of errorists and “tolerators” alike. Paul, ever the shepherd of the Lord’s flock, simply did not advocate such a policy.

It would be pleasant indeed if there were no such problems in the ecclesias such as “unruly and vain talkers and deceivers” (v. 10). However, these things are part of the necessary pattern of our training and development.

“It is important that the Truth be defended, but it is equally important that it be done with the pure, calm sword of the Spirit, and not with any of the ugly weapons of the flesh, since, ‘The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God’ (James 1:20). It takes no special effort or ability to criticize and condemn error. Any limited minds can do that, and enjoy the boost it gives their ego. But it takes much self-discipline and self-preparation to confront error with a calm manifestation of personal godliness and a constructive, upbuilding presentation of the deep beauties of the Truth” (G.V. Growcott, “Zealous of Good Works”, The Berean Christadelphian, Vol. 56, No. 8 — Aug. 1968 — p. 240).

Here is the problem that, sooner or later, faces all ecclesias and all brethren. It is easy enough to be like Peter in Gethsemane, to “sleep” while the crisis is brewing, then to awake suddenly, grab the “sword” and “cut off” an ear, thinking this is the only way to serve God (Luke 22:45,50). But it is far more difficult, though infinitely more spiritual, to do as the Master did: wait and watch, pray and prepare, consider the alternatives, and then act gently but firmly, with an eye to healing and not rending (v. 51). It is true, sometimes mouths must be stopped. But this can often be done without resort to cutting off heads!

And what else may be learned from this passage in Titus 1? Surely there is a warning to all of us, whether Judaizers or not, in regard to vain talking and gainsaying:

“It would seem that the Judaizers’ contention was largely to gain a debating ascendancy and to display their intellectual skill. Is the same possible in an advocacy of the Truth? Is it possible to be an exponent of the Truth and yet be a vain talker and deceiver? It is possible to ‘preach Christ even of envy and strife… of contention, not sincerely’ (Phil. 1:15,16), to engage in wordy warfare for the sake of a verbal victory and for the elevation of human pride… We received the Truth with meekness of heart; we should live the Truth with lowliness of mind, and we should be ‘gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves’ (2 Tim. 2:24,25)” (W. Mitchell, “The Epistle of Titus”, The Dawn Ecclesial Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 11 — Nov. 1957 — p. 255).

Here again it is perfectly clear that the context is one of deeds and not of “doctrine” (in the commonly used sense). When the apostle speaks of “having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”, we need have no doubt as to what he means: fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, filthiness, foolish talking, crude jesting, and idolatry (vv. 3-5). That Paul is speaking of conduct is emphasized furthermore by the three-fold “walk” of the passage (vv. 2,8,15).

That with which we are to have no fellowship, therefore, is the unclean way of life that belongs to the darkness of this world. If need be that we personify this “darkness”, then let us not look at our brethren in a critical sense, but instead let us first examine ourselves (1 Cor. 11:28). He whom we should be quick to “disfellowship”, if anyone, on the basis of this passage, must be the “old man”, who is corrupt according to his deceitful lusts (Eph. 4:22), the “devil” within each of us (4:27).

Is there ever a time that such a passage should be turned against our brethren? Yes, sadly, there may be such times, when faithful brethren are forced to examine the conduct of their brethren. How shall we go about this in a Christ-like manner, being sure that we do not zealously overstep our prerogative and disfellowship those whom Christ would forgive?

“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 of 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” (I. Collyer, “The Principles Governing Fellowship”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 721 — July 1924 — pp. 297,298).

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

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

Although in certain circumstances Brother Roberts is made out as a foremost exponent of this unrealistic fellowship approach, it is clear when considering all of his actions and writings that the practical outworking of such a “cut-and-dried” approach was quite different from the impression given by a few random citations.

An actual example, which concerned the brethren in my locality, serves well as illustration:

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

“The publication of your statement would only raise a controversy, which could not only do no good to any of us, but involve others in troubles best localized. We can afford to refer all doubtful matters to the tribunal of Christ, not doubtful, perhaps, to those who see clearly on the spot, but doubtful to those at a distance, who can only see them through the medium of conflicting representations” (“Fraternal Gathering”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 20, No. 233 — Nov. 1883 — p. 528).

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

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

“We must keep firmly to two rules, which might be considered by extremists to be contradictory, but which are complementary. All ecclesias as a basis of co-operation must acknowledge the same fundamental truths, while at the same time each ecclesia must have the right of judging any doubtful case. The first maintains the truth; the second provides for an ecclesia taking account of all the factors in any borderline case, these factors being only known to the members of that ecclesia. There must be mutual respect for each other’s judgments” (John Carter, “A House Divided”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 94, No. 1115 — May 1957 — p. 187).

“When fire breaks out there is need for calm, careful action. Panic is disastrous. Fanning of the flames is foolish. Spreading the fire to other places would be criminal. When controversy breaks out there is need for calm, careful thought, and all the facts of the fire drill have their spiritual counterpart. Our history as a community sadly illustrates the dangers of spreading controversy, and the evil of provoking controversy….

“Let us be on the Lord’s side to fight for unity, to put out fires of controversy, to rebuke those who would spread the fires afield. Together let us all pray that Christ may not be divided today” (H. Osborn, “Is Christ Divided?”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 102, No. 1211 — May 1965 — p. 214).

All ecclesias, and individuals, should have at hand a guide that, if it were read and observed, would go a long way toward solving many ecclesial problems. Unfortunately, A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias is more honored than used. It seems to be standard procedure for human nature to acknowledge the benefit of a principle in theory, but when provoked by circumstance, promptly to forget to implement that very principle that is most relevant. We all tend, under duress, to convince ourselves that rules are made for other people, and that the position in which we may suddenly find ourselves is very different from that which the framers of principles and rules envisioned. In theory, the wisdom of the words of Christ, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:21), is unquestionable; but they are so easily set aside when we gaze in fond rapture upon a gleaming new automobile or a fine house or some exquisite new fashions. The standard, “Turn the other cheek”, is wonderfully appropriate if your friend’s cheek is the one smitten, but we can always think of good reasons why we should retaliate.

In just such a way, The Ecclesial Guide supplies those balanced judgments that are most needed when in controversy they are most easily forgotten. Though no one would say the rules are perfect, as the Bible itself is, at the very least they are dispassionate commentaries on the relevant passages dealing with ecclesial conduct. They have the benefit of being sound advice from a bystander not personally involved at all in whatever conflict is immediately at hand. Principles have a way of becoming distorted and either over-stressed or under-stressed when the holders thereof come under intense pressure.

A few brief excerpts from the relevant sections should suffice here:

32. Cases of Sin and Withdrawal: “Withdrawal is a serious step, and ought not be lightly taken against any brother. It erects a barrier and inflicts a stain not easily removed. It ought never to be taken until all the resources of the Scriptural rule of procedure have been exhausted. The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of personal offences (Matt. 18:15-17) is doubtless applicable to sin in general….”

39. Absence and Separate Meetings Unlawful: “It is….an imperative law that the brethren must be one body, and that they must submit one to another. It is a law of the house that each brother and sister must meet at the table of the Lord on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread. Nothing but denial of the truth in the assembly, or overt disobedience of the Lord’s commandments among them, can justify a brother or sister in absenting himself or herself from the breaking of bread.. If the matters of difference….do not affect the question of the truth or the commandments, it is the duty of the lesser to submit to the greater number… If, instead of submitting, they separate themselves, they put themselves in a false position from which worse things than those they objected to will come. Their action means that the greater number ought to submit to the lesser, or that there should never be submission to the wishes of others, and that a disappointed minority should always leave a meeting where their wishes cannot prevail. Such a doctrine is fraught with confusion and ruin, and is inconsistent with the most elementary commandments of Christ.”

40. A Time to Separate, and How to Go about it: “It is a maxim of universal law (divine included) that no man is to be judged without a hearing. If it is true of one man, it is true of a number of men, and to be applied as scrupulously to an erring ecclesia as to an individual delinquent. Suppose this rule is not acted on, — suppose the aggrieved minority simply depart, without formulating their grievances, and without giving the offending majority an opportunity of either justifying or removing the causes of offence, the situation is afterwards embarrassed for the minority as regards other ecclesias. Other ecclesias are in fellowship with the offending majority; and if there be not a correct mode of procedure, those other ecclesias, will not have it in their power to decide upon the issue.”

41. Involved in Another Ecclesia’s Trouble: This section is too lengthy to be quoted here in full, though it is all very good and very relevant. A point certainly worth stressing: any disfellowshiped brother or ecclesia is deserving of the right of appeal to someone, and there is no weakness implied in a conscientious, even drawn-out, examination of all matters pertaining to a disagreement.

42. Ecclesias in Relation one to Another: “The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist….

“There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another….An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with: but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere. In the majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the withdrawal of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a concurrent investigation would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then? Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgment on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result — a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot. Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person? What sadder spectacle can there be than to see servants of the Lord Jesus frowning at each other, and denying each other the comfort of mutual friendship and help, because they cannot agree about a given action or speech or perhaps some unworthy person. The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ. An ecclesia acting otherwise — demanding of another ecclesia, as a condition of fellowship, that they shall endorse their decision in a case that has become the business of both — is in reality infringing that principle of ecclesial independence which they desire to have recognized in their own case. It would be to impose what might be an intolerable tyranny upon the brethren.”

What follows is a list, without elaboration, of some of the fellowship principles derived from the previous studies (references which follow certain items are to the most relevant chapter in this book):

1. Excommunication should always be intended to lead to the restoration of the sinner, the cessation of fellowship being thought of as only temporary.
2. It is at least as wrong to go too far in our demands upon our brethren, as it is not to go far enough. In other words, it is possible to err on the side of severity.
3. “Fellowship” appears many more times in the Bible as a positive thing, to be shared, than it does as a negative thing, to be withheld (Chapter 1).
4. Patience and sympathy, even toward error or ignorance, are always desirable; love is never a sign of weakness (Ch. 2).
5. False teachers and those who are falsely taught are two very different groups, and should not be treated the same (Ch. 2).
6. Even such brethren as the Lord’s own apostles could at times disagree in “fellowship” matters (2).
7. The “shepherd” who protects the flock must be our example, not the “hireling” who flees when danger threatens (3).
8. Our individual salvation is not endangered by fellowshiping “doubtful cases” (3).
9. A church without tares is an impossible thing in this dispensation; uprooting of “tares” or doubtful brethren can weaken the “good grain” (4).
10. The main purpose of the ecclesia is not to keep the Truth “pure” as a theory or system, but to help its members, impure men and women, strive toward Biblical purity or perfection (5).
11. Each ecclesia should be basically, if not altogether, concerned with its own affairs, i.e. building the “wall” in its own place (5).
12. Ecclesias are primarily responsible to Christ, and only secondarily to one another (6).
13. Inconsistencies in local fellowship matters must sometimes be tolerated (8).
14. Matthew 18, dealing with the procedure for possible disfellowship, has nothing whatsoever to say about taking up controversies with ecclesias other than one’s own (9).
15. We must seek reconciliation with our brethren continuously, and never be satisfied with disunion (10).
16. Much more emphasis is placed, Biblically, upon judging oneself than judging others (11).
17. “Peace” is always to be desired; division and strife, never (12).
18. “Fellowship” is primarily a way of life, not a technicality (13).
19. It is Christ’s utmost desire that his brethren be at one with each other (16).
20. Divisions are not always good nor admirable (17).
21. It is a common weakness of human nature, that those who are near to us but not quite with us arouse more bitterness than total strangers (21).
22. God knows who are truly His and He will reveal them in due time (22).
23. Sometimes the only proper course is to choose “the lesser of two evils”. God will pardon the failings of those who prepare their hearts to serve Him, even if their service is less than perfect (24).
24. The greatest abhorrence of sin is not necessarily to be found in the one who is most severe on the sinner (27).
25. Christ did not believe in “guilt — or defilement — by association”; in fact, he acted very much in opposition to such a theory (29).
26. “Negative holiness” can save no man (29).
27. Christ died for sinners, not for the sinless; moreover, he lived for sinners, bearing their burdens and patiently, lovingly helping them. He considered all men, even the most sinful, worth saving (30).
28. Perfect, or pure, fellowship with our brethren is an impossibility in this life (32).
29. Those who fail to excommunicate “heretics” do not thereby become “heretics” themselves (33).
30. In actual practice, brethren can agree to ignore minor differences and walk together if they are of one mind on the vital issues (35).
31. “Peaceableness” is a virtue always to be desired; it should not be kept “under wraps” until some imagined “purity” has first been achieved (36).
32. Differences of opinion on secondary matters are, if not ideal, at least preferable to out-and-out division (37).
33. A limited toleration of differences is more desirable than an absolute conformity of opinion that is dictatorially imposed (37).
34. Not all contention is proper or profitable; some contention may be only for one’s own pride and personal opinion (39).
35. Mouths may be stopped by means other than the cutting off of heads (42).
36. Time and distance are often very real barriers to ascertaining all the facts necessary to make a proper decision regarding fellowship (45).
37. No brother should ever be judged without a fair hearing (46).
38. Two ecclesias may arrive at different conclusions on a matter involving fellowship, and yet agree to recognize each other in fellowship even while holding opposite opinions concerning a third party (46)

It seems fitting to conclude the consideration of “fellowship” with Psalm 133. Here is the perfect picture of unity — a DIVINE UNITY: the sharing of the blessings of God, poured out in love upon us all. How foolish to suppose that Biblical fellowship can be enjoyed by those who do not share the blessing of a common hope! But how foolish also to suppose that God views favorably any division among those who, despite minor differences, do share a common hope!

This psalm might well bear the title: “The Descent of Divine Blessings”. The repetition of this word “descend” is obscured in the AV because, oddly enough, its three occurrences are translated three different ways: “ran down” and “went down” as well as “descended”. But mark its uses here, and then we may follow the lovely refrain:

“Unity is like the precious ointment

        that DESCENDED upon Aaron’s beard;

Yea, that DESCENDED even to his skirts;

Even like the dew of mount Hermon

        that DESCENDED upon Zion.”

Through this refrain, as with the gently descending rains of summer, our Father seeks to cleanse our hearts of all pride and boasting. He seeks to refresh in our minds the principle that our unity is derived from above (descending from God), and is not the product of our own labors. Surely James had this in mind when he wrote of:

“the wisdom that is from above….pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy….and the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace” (3:17,18).

“Can it be a question whether brethren should from conflict cease?” Truly unity — with God at the center — leads inevitably to righteousness, peace of mind, and the solution of those perplexing tangles in which Christ’s brethren, as they execute their duties, so often find themselves.

“Behold how good and how pleasant….” It is not simply good (right and proper) that we dwell together in unity. It is also pleasant (exceedingly delightful) that we do so. The appeal of Abraham to his kinsman Lot might as well be an exhortation to us: “Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee… for we be brethren” (Gen. 13:8). It should be enough to encourage our endeavors in the direction of unity, if only it were right in God’s sight. But the “icing on the cake” is that it is superlatively delightful as well. There is no state on earth to match this dwelling together in “the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3) — with shared feelings and purposes — whether it be as husband and wife, or as an entire family, or in the larger “family” of the ecclesia.

The brethren of Christ “dwell together”. This does not mean that they merely meet and socialize a little before and after ecclesial functions. This means instead a continuing together, in the closest communion. As David exhorted the men of Judah, “Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh” (2 Sam. 19:12). And if other duties or infirmities or distances make this personal “dwelling together” impractical, then we still have recourse to thought and prayer for one another as a means of achieving this union.

The goal, the focal point of our unity, is mount Zion and her king. We could have no unity but for Christ and the promises. This Psalm 133 is one of the fifteen “Songs of Degrees”. These glorious songs are centered in the worship of the Lord in His temple, and are in part prophetic of the kingdom age (see the relevant chapters in G. Booker, Psalms Studies, Vol. 2). They are also called “Pilgrim Songs” and “Songs of Ascents” — because they appear to have been composed with those in mind who journey upward to worship the Lord of Hosts in the elevated mount Zion.

And so we find the expression of our unity in the ascending of our common petitions and the descending of our common blessings. True brethren of Christ are united in one hope, one need, and one experience. Unity with Christ is intimately bound up with unity with our brethren. We cannot have one without the other.

“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40).

But when we exalt ourselves above our brethren then we do what our Lord and Savior would not do; we displease him; and we endanger our own oneness in the “Body of Christ”.

We must now examine the beautiful comparisons of this Divine unity: first, the holy anointing oil of Aaron (v. 2), with which the tabernacle and its furniture were also anointed (Exod. 30:23-33).

This anointing served as the consecration of God’s priests, empowering them to fulfill the duties of their office. All priests were anointed, but the high priest received a great abundance, an overflowing “to the skirts of his garments”. The anointing oil was an expression of God’s love in His ordinances: its “pouring out” prompts the “virgins” to love Him (Song of Songs 1:3). The anointing of Aaron pointed forward to that of Christ — “with the oil of gladness above his fellows” (Psa. 45:7). Christ has received a greater glory and a greater strength, so that he might be a perfect High Priest to us his brethren.

The “oil” descended first and in greater measure upon the head, Christ, and then descended to the skirts of his garments, his “Body” as well! God’s special provision of a Son in whom we might be reconciled to Him (2 Cor. 5:21) calls forth this picture of oil covering, not just the head, but the whole body! None of us is the head, only Christ. A realization of this simple fact would curtail most ecclesial wrangling and self-seeking. Our unity is that each of us is an integral part of the one, undivided “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12). All of the body shares the blessings that came through the special anointing of the head. It is not the believers who make this unity possible, for Christ has already done so. Neither do we earn our place in “fellowship” around the table of the Lord. We merely accept it, and rejoice in the blessings it affords. Our righteousness is not our own, but his that called us. Our unity is based upon our abject humility and our sincere acceptance of our subordinate and dependent position.

Finally, in verse 3, we are called upon to consider the descending dew of Hermon as an allegory of our unity. The anointing oil has brought to our minds the death of Christ (“for in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial” — Matt. 26:12). Here, the dew stands foremost as a symbol of resurrection (his, and ours in prospect) — completing the cycle.

Hermon is a range of three peaks which dominates the northern parts of Israel, and which is visible over the entire Land. Because of its great height, Hermon is covered with snow most of the year. In late summer this snow begins to melt, the runoff feeding reservoirs and springs to supply water to the thirsty lands of the south.

The obvious and intended symbolism of Hermon is that of the Divine Blessing, stored up in the providence of God until the proper time, when it is most needed.

We can read verse 3 by omitting the phrase beginning with “and” which is in italics. Thus:

“As the dew of Hermon that descended upon the mountains of Zion….”

It is the same dew although the two areas are over 100 miles apart: Observers say that the breezes that blow from the north across the snow-covered face of Hermon bring cooling moisture as far south as Jerusalem. (Perhaps it is this very phenomenon which called forth the description of a faithful messenger — “as the cold of snow in the time of harvest”: Prov. 25:13.)

The dew comes as God’s blessing during the hottest part of the year. We are told the king’s favor is as dew upon the ground (Prov. 19:12), and especially upon the hallowed ground of Zion (Bible symbol of the unified body of saints: Heb. 12:22; Rev. 14:1). The “manna” of God — the bread of His blessing that descended each day — was said to come as the dew falling upon the ground (Num. 11:9), emblem of the unfailing compassions of God for His people, renewed each morning (Lam. 3:22,23).

“For there [upon the mountains of Zion] the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.”

Finally, and most important, the dew portrays the saints on the glorious resurrection morn:

“O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For thy dew is a dew of light” (Isa. 26:19, RSV)….

the first rays of the “Sun” revealing a glorious spectacle of reflected light, dancing upon the grass:

“From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you” (Psa. 110:3, RSV).

In that greatest of all days the Lord will achieve that perfect unity of which our assemblies are only a shadow. A great multitude, which no man can number, born in a day, silently, irresistibly, as the dew of heaven. Such is the picture of the development of the body of Christ, a multiplicity and yet a unity, appearing all together for the first time.

In the memorials which we receive each Sunday we have the reason for our unity. We have the “bread which strengtheneth man’s heart” (Psa. 104:15) and the “wine that maketh glad the heart of man”. The strength and joy of a renewed life through Christ come from above. They descend upon us as the precious anointing oil, as the dew upon the earth beneath; and all we need do is stretch forth our hands and hearts to receive the eternal bounty of God’s inexhaustible store.

Let us draw together in this, the true unity of shared blessings. Let us look upon each of our brothers and sisters with deeper understanding. We are all of us, collectively and individually, those “for whom Christ died”. Let us be silent and reverent as we stand with our brethren and mingle our prayers like incense on the altar before the throne of heaven. We have come into the miraculous presence of God’s grace. It is His mercy alone that has brought each of us to share the oil of healing and the dew of refreshing, the bread of strengthening and the wine of joy. In the loving provision of His Son, the all-powerful, self-existent Lord of all being has commanded the blessing of life for evermore; and none can turn aside His decree.

May we grasp and cherish that bright hope, and lead lives worthy of the Savior who loved us all. May the contemplation of that awesome work, the reconciliation of sinners to God, transform our minds in the understanding and practice of true Biblical fellowship. And may we now — and forever — “dwell together in unity” under the shadow of His love.