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.

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 (John Carter, The Gospel of John, pp. 100,101; C.C. Walker, “The Woman Taken in Adultery”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 70, No. 831 — Sept. 1933 — pp. 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” (v. 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” (v. 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” (v. 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”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 105, No. 1248 — June 1968 — p. 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” (v. 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 (John 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 (John 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’ (Matt. 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” (M. Purkis, A Life of Jesus, p. 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” (I. Collyer, 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 (Deut. 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 (Matt. 1:18,19).

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

A certain Levite and his concubine were traveling through the land of Benjamin, and as night approached they sought and received shelter in the home of an old man of Gibeah. But when the house was beset by certain “sons of Belial”, evoking unpleasant memories of the Sodomites (Gen. 19), they realized how unsafe they were. This Levite allowed his concubine to be abused by the Benjamites — a circumstance which speaks not much better of him than of those who threatened him.

Finding the woman dead in the morning, he took her body and divided it into twelve pieces and sent the pieces into all parts of Israel. Then all the children of Israel were gathered together “as one man” (20:1,8,11) out of revulsion at this hideous crime. By a comparison with 1 Samuel 11:7 we see that the people did not so act again in unison until the days of Samuel, probably 300 years later.

But their unity of action was unfortunately not preceded by consultation with God. The militia of the eleven tribes, minus Benjamin — 400,000 strong — made their plans without prayer. Though they finally asked of God who should go up first to the battle, yet their forces lost 22,000 men at the hands of the men of Benjamin, who defended Gibeah. This certainly implies that guilt in Israel was to be found on both sides, not only with Benjamin.

By various stratagems that need not be detailed now, the tribe of Benjamin was nearly annihilated. Once bloodshed started no one knew when to stop. In cutting off those who were guilty by their association, the rest of Israel used highly unsuitable methods and almost totally destroyed one of the twelve tribes. The punishment, because of haste and probably a measure of self-righteousness, was out of all proportion to the crime. In their zeal the men of Israel imposed by an oath a strict isolation upon those few Benjamites who remained, no matter what their degree of guilt or complicity.

The outcome was a terrible feeling of remorse, and some ironic words:

“O Lord God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, that there should be today one tribe lacking in Israel?” (21:3).

The fault was their own, in going too far in their zeal for purity, and the decimation of Israel, on both sides, was their punishment. Finally the leaders of this bitter civil war realized that they had indeed overstepped the bounds of reason. They now took some distinctly unusual steps, involving reprisals and kidnappings, to remedy, insofar as possible, the problem.

By these events the whole nation was disciplined and humbled and made to remember their essential unity as a nation, a unity that even extreme sins on the part of some should not be allowed to violate. Human nature has not changed from that day to this, and we often act still as though there is “no king in Israel”. We need as a brotherhood to remember that each of us shares in the same inheritance (21:17), and that we must with care and patience remove the defects of the body. Otherwise, the sword we lift up against our brethren may do irreparable harm to the whole house of Israel.

Surely, in our quest for deeper understanding of the man Jesus and his message, something is to be learned from the people with whom he frequently came in contact. It is fair to say that these were not usually such as would have graced the finer synagogues of his day; nor, we might add, would their modern counterparts be immediately welcome in many of our ecclesial halls. This comes across rather impressively in catalogue form:

(1) Lepers: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him and kneeling down to him….’If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean’ ” (Mark 1:40).

“The leper, in accord with the strict conditions of the law, should not have been so close. With torn garments and disheveled hair he should have gone around crying ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ (Lev. 13:44,45), and he should have dwelt alone. The stern requirements of hygiene caused the Israelites to deny their camp in the wilderness to those in this condition (Num. 5:2). That the man came so close is a mark, not of callous dis- regard of the law, but of the supreme confidence which knew that he would do no injury to the Lord, while the Lord could, if he would, confer cleansing on him. Jesus, on his part, accepted the position without embarrassment, and acted with the same assurance. To touch a leper was to contract defilement; but for the Lord to do so was to bring cleansing without himself suffering any harm” (A.D. Norris, The Gospel of Mark, p. 21).

(2) The Samaritan woman and her neighbors (John 4:1-42): Even the woman at the well recognized that the Jews customarily had no dealings with the Samaritans (v. 9). To the legalistically devout this was all too literally true; the gospel record finds an exact parallel in the well-reported sayings of the rabbis: “May I never set eyes on a Samaritan!” or “May I never be thrown into company with him!” It was said that to partake of their bread was like eating swine’s flesh (A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 401). Most Israelites, in traveling between Judea and Galilee, went miles out of their way, circling through Perea, to avoid traversing the loathsome land of Samaria. How this gives weight by contrast to the statement of John, that Jesus “must needs go through Samaria” (v. 4). Not only did Jesus disregard the traditional proscriptions of the land of the Samaritans, but also it was necessary that he go there! And necessary that he wait at the well, and necessary that he ask drink of the woman (unthinkable to a Pharisee), and necessary that he remain in their city two days (v. 40) to bring to their thirsty lips the true water of life.

(3) The infirm man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9):

“High on the hill of Zion the immaculately robed priests observed the temple ritual, aloof and impersonal. In the shadows of its walls the halt, the blind and the withered waited for the movement of the water” (M. Purkis, A Life of Jesus, pp. 86,87).

Among them was a certain man with an infirmity of 38 years’ duration (v. 5). By the law such a man, if a descendant of Aaron, would be prohibited from all official duties (Lev. 21:17-23). Extreme body blemishes would exclude any Israelite from the congregation of the Lord (Deut. 23:1). And so the “pure and undefiled” of Israel went their way to the Temple services, oblivious of the poor, suffering scraps of humanity who clung superstitiously to the hope of healing at the pool. Where did the Master’s steps turn, upward to the beautiful ritualized service of Herod’s house, or downward to the miserable exiles of Bethesda? The true scene of his ministry was not among the subtle analysts of the law but in the midst of suffering, diseased, afflicted mankind, those who needed a redeemer.

(4) The harlot, “a woman in the city, which was a sinner” (Luke 7:37): So astounding was Jesus’ acceptance of this harlot’s approach and service, that his host Simon the Pharisee thought surely he could not be a prophet or else he would push her away and revile her for her sins (v. 39). He knew so little of the spirit of the Saviour! Do we know more?

(5) The lunatic (Mark 5:1-21; Matt. 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-40): Christ and his disciples came to the shore at Gergesa, on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, in Decapolis. And there met them out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. Here was a man expelled from all society by his condition (insanity), his appearance (nakedness), and his abode (the tombs). Yet Jesus approached him, spoke to him, even bearing with his fantasies, healed him, and gave him of his own garments (an unproven suggestion, but quite probable, and filled with wonderful typical significance)! So impressed, however, were those of the neighborhood that they begged him to leave (Mark 5:17); a man who consorted with such men as “Legion” could certainly be no friend of theirs.

(6) The woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:25-34): Here was another condition which, like leprosy, rendered the sufferer unclean (Lev. 15:19-30). As Jesus went on his way, she pushed her timid way through the crowd: “If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.” This was the reverse of the legal restriction, which should have been: ‘If I touch his garment, he will be unclean also.’ How great was her faith! She knew what manner of man Jesus was: a man who could touch the unclean, and yet remain pure; a man whose law superseded that of Moses; a man to whom mental impurity was far worse than legal defilement.

(7) Gentiles: Of several examples, we note here the case of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:25,26; Matt. 15:21-28). Coming on the heels of the Lord’s discourse about the true source of defilement (Mark 7:1-23; Matt. 15:1-20), and in disregard for the traditions of the elders, this incident in which Jesus heals the daughter of the Gentile woman thus carries extra significance. Though the woman was not a Jew, her faith exceeded by far that of Jesus’ countrymen. As in the other cases we have noted, an external condition of separation was of no consequence to him who came to save the “world” and to call sinners to repentance.

(8) Publicans: Two of this hated class figure prominently in the gospels: Zaccheus, “chief among the publicans” (Luke 19:2), and one of the twelve, Matthew (Matt. 10:3; Luke 5:27). These servants of the Roman oppressors were held in such low esteem generally that the word “publican” had become practically synonymous with “sinner” (Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30). Yet Jesus found friends among this class; perhaps some real-life publican was the model for the Lord’s account of contrasting prayer styles, for the admonition of those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (Luke 18:9-14).

On the opposite side, we have the rabbinical attitude toward the publicans: They were excluded from being judges and witnesses in legal affairs. They were seen as a criminal race, to which Leviticus 20:5 applied (about those who committed “whoredom with Molech”). It was said that there never was a family which numbered a tax-collector in which all did not become such. And they were seen as so evil that it was permissible for the righteous to lie to them to protect their property from taxation (Edersheim, op. cit., p. 516).

(9) The dead (Mark 5:35-43; John 11:1-46; Luke 7:14): Here was the ultimate defilement, the dead body (Lev. 21:1; 22:4; Num. 5:2; 9:6,10); even from this Christ did not shrink. We know he could raise the dead by a word, as he did with Lazarus. But he did not hesitate to take the dead daughter of Jairus by the hand (Mark 5:41). His was the “personal touch” of sincere love. As always, it seems, the consequences of legal “uncleanness” were ignored as irrelevant beside the greater issues of his ministry. The Lord of life came near to death, partaking of mortality, bearing the burdens of those who grieved and the curse of the law, “tasting death” on behalf of all men.

By contrast with all of the above, we find the Lord, so kind and gentle on most occasions, becoming openly aggressive in censuring the moral defilement of those who were most scrupulous to avoid legal defilement. Surely, we are tempted to think, this very “religious” (even if misguided) class deserved more diplomatic treatment at his hands. But no figure of speech was too drastic for Christ to use: They were whited sepulchres, full of dead men’s bones (Matt. 23:27,28; Luke 11:44); cups clean on the outside, but filled with extortion and rapacity (Matt. 23:25; Luke 11:39). The reason? It may be said there are many, for the list of charges against the Pharisees is long and varied (Matt. 23:3-7,16-18,25-29,34), but certainly one reason is this: that it is dangerous to find satisfaction in any physical separation from “defilement”. “I thank thee, God, that I am not as other men” (Luke 18:11) is no basis on which to build one’s faith.

To go about preoccupied with the “sins” of others, ever mindful of how their shortcomings may reflect upon us by association, is to fight a “paper tiger”, while the true enemy goes free. “Let a man examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:28). Those things which are outside the man cannot defile him, but that which comes out of the man, from a self-righteous heart, defiles the man (Mark 7:18,20).

Brethren, how far are we really removed from the foolish prejudices and traditions of the Pharisees? Have we altogether reversed Christ’s standards, downplaying his emphasis on moral defilement — in a slow drift into the world’s thinking — and seeking to cover our inadequacies by an undue concern for legal “defilement”? We vicariously associate, through television and other media, with the worst the “world” has to offer by way of movie “stars”, sports “heroes”, and rock musicians; and, unconsciously perhaps, we absorb the spirit of this licentious and materialistic age. Then we dress in our finest clothes and drive our new automobiles to places of worship on Sunday morning, where we meticulously draw our “skirts” about us and withhold the Bread and Wine from someone who is just slightly too “sinful” or not quite well enough “informed” for our standards (‘We thank thee, Lord, that we are not like these other men’), and somehow we feel that in this we are doing God service.

We must be careful that the means by which all believers are commanded to remember the Lord’s death until he returns does not become a ritual, with supposed efficacy in the object itself, by which we establish our “purity” in a negative sense. “Negative holiness” can save no man. Neither can the proximity of a “sinner”, even one so close as to partake of the same cup, endanger our “fellowship” with one who was ever and always the friend of “sinners”, who embraced lepers and lunatics, harlots and dead bodies — yet in the best sense was still “holy, harmless, and undefiled” (Heb. 7:26).

Again, we come in our survey to a passage which critics of our viewpoint would argue has “nothing to do with fellowship”. And in one sense they would be correct. The word itself does not appear at all in the chapter. But the best students of the Bible must agree that, in the close study of any divine subject, the more broadly based our conclusions are, the better. The All-wise Father does not teach His children by simple assertion only; if He did, then our Bible would need be no more lengthy than our Statement of Faith. But He teaches us also by type, parable, history, prophecy, and example. Foremost among the examples given for our instruction is His only-begotten Son. The example of Christ’s sacrificial life, culminating in a cruel, lingering death, speaks volumes to the reflective soul concerning “fellowship”. We might even say that “fellowship” is the main theme of Isaiah 53, for it tells us of Christ’s sharing, his partaking of our infirmities.

Isaiah 53 is a mountain peak of God’s Word. I will not attempt an exhaustive, or even a brief exposition of the chapter as a whole. This has been done very ably by others, and their efforts will be well-known to most. Let us simply consider the chapter as it relates to our fellowship experiences and responsibilities, as a moral issue and not a “theological” one (in the common sense of the word).

No man of faith can stand before the cross. It is perpetually holy ground — this mysterious place of meeting between God and man. The perceptive disciple approaches the mercy seat on his knees; he finds there no place to display his own strength or wisdom or cleverness. All the qualities that develop pride in natural man are driven from him further and further with each blow of the hammer upon the Roman spikes. As his awareness deepens, he must finally acknowledge that the cross of Christ has become, not a set of logical premises to be thrown back and forth in legalistic debate, but rather a moral mandate. As the rising of the sun drives away the darkness and creates each day a new world, God’s love for man as demonstrated in Christ’s death and resurrection forever changes the spiritual landscape for the believer. Every issue of his life must now be viewed in the peculiar divine glow emanating from Golgotha.

And thus our fellowship, with the Father and the Son and with one another, is seen against the background of Christ’s sacrifice. Here is the practical expression of his fellowship with us, his brethren. This should be our example of action toward one another.

To those of us who have been accustomed to read Isaiah 53 as related only to the last day or so of our Savior’s mortal life, the quotation in Matthew 8:16,17 comes as quite a surprise:

“When the evening was come, they brought unto him many demoniacs…. and he healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.’ ”

Surely these verses are telling us that Christ’s sympathy for poor suffering humanity was an intensely personal feeling. We can imagine no stronger words to convey the closeness, the unity, the fellowship of suffering. Here is no theoretical transferal of guilt or sin-effect; there is no ritual, no ceremony about it — it is real, as real as it can be! This man was one of us. He stood before the tomb of a friend and shed real tears. Our weaknesses were his… are his still, this high priest who was touched so deeply with the sensation of our infirmities, and who carried it with him into the most holy place. For our griefs are his, our sorrows also. For us he was willing to die; for us, finally and conclusively, he did die. And not just for “us” as a whole or a concept or an abstraction, but… this is the real wonder…. he died for each one of us! Had there been only one sinner, Christ would have still been willing to die. When each of us stands before the judgment seat, he will be looking into the eyes of a man who gave his life, personally and individually, for him.

Yes, it truly is a marvel: The Savior of mankind suffered for sinners. For the man who blasphemed God’s Holy Name, Christ spent sleepless nights in prayer. For the man who coveted, and even took, his neighbor’s wife, Christ denied himself all fleshly indulgences. For the man who in hot anger or cold hatred slew his brother, Christ bore the Roman scourge that tore his flesh and exposed his bones and nerves. And for us, “righteous” as we might be in the ordinary “middle-of-the-road” sense, but sinners at heart if we would but admit it, consumed with petty jealousies and grumblings, unthankful, lazy, and often indifferent — yes, for people like us — Christ, the holiest of all men, groaned and bled and died.

What does it really mean, to bear the griefs and sorrows of another? As exemplified in Christ, it was more, much more, than a mechanical “burden-bearing”. It was a “living sacrifice”, a way of life that denied the lusts of the flesh within himself, while at the same time loving and striving continuously for the well-being of his brethren who could not, or did not, so deny themselves. And when they failed, and failed miserably, he bore with their failures and never gave way to “righteous”, condemning anger — but only expressed sorrow and gentle rebuke. Was there ever such a man? “For even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom. 15:3).

“The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all.” “He was wounded for our transgressions.” Here again we Christadelphians so quickly lapse into the “technical” aspects (the word here almost seems sacrilegious) of Christ’s sacrifice. We carefully point out that Christ did not bear the guilt of our sins, and that he did not die in our stead. And there is nothing wrong with saying such things, in their proper place. But, is it not possible that we are missing the main point? Call it what you will, hedge it about with exceptions and careful definitions, when all is said and done, HE DID DIE — and that is the important issue!

Let us be careful here; let us examine ourselves. In our zeal for “truth”, are we so caught up in the theory that the fact is almost ignored? Do we suppose that when we have explained, in man’s imperfect language, why Christ died, on a legal basis — that our conception of the cross is complete? No, brethren. This man died because he loved to the uttermost his brethren. Here is the lesson. Christ’s way of life, the “fellowship” he practiced in regular interaction with his brethren, is the challenge to us. Do we perceive that love as an impossible theory — or as a reality, to be reproduced and practiced by us, here and now? Our Savior calls us, he commands us, he entreats us, insofar as we can, to do as he did. He sets before us an ecclesial life of difficulties, of sorrows, of problems — and he tells us: ‘Bear the infirmities, even the iniquities of your brethren. I died for them; you must live for them. I did not please myself; neither should you. They are all worth saving, they are all worth loving, they are all worth your sacrifices and prayers — or else none of you are worth it! If you really believe in my love, then you must believe that your ecclesial problems can be solved — and that love is the key to their solution.’

We break bread and drink wine as a memorial of our fellowship with God through Christ. We do not earn this right; it is a profound privilege and a gift, earned by the sufferings of Christ. It is given freely to sinners, if they will only believe. A fine record of outstanding accomplishment, accompanied by perfect purity of doctrine (remember our “brother” the Pharisee who prayed in the temple!), will not earn us eternal life. The spirit that compasses sea and land to bring division between brethren of Christ for the smallest hint of a cause will not earn eternal life, no matter how zealously exercised that spirit is!

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Mic. 6:8).

It is worthy of note that the idea of disfellowship, or excommunication, of many ecclesias worldwide for the sins or supposed sins of those in one corner of the world is often confidently advanced under the umbrella of “the overall teaching of the Old Testament”. Such passages as Deuteronomy 17:2-7 (the idolator’s punishment); 18:9-12 (the elimination of false religions); 20:16 (Canaanite abominations); and Joshua 7 (Achan and the Babylonish garment) are cited to support the like treatment of those who espouse wrong ideas today in spiritual Israel.

The difficulties in such a generalization are manifold. In the first place, New Testament fellowship should be established and controlled on the basis of New Testament passages. It would be a very easy matter to produce a number of plainly absurd conclusions by applying the same methods to other Old Testament passages. For examples, should arranging boards recommend the stoning of “Sabbath-breakers”? What should believers do today, preach the love of Christ and the coming kingdom of God to their more-or-less “heathen” neighbors, or launch military campaigns against them?

Secondly, the great principles of God are fundamental and eternal — we are speaking of the majestic themes of Scripture, such as the covenants of promise, light and darkness, love and hate, and the holiness of God — but the personal applications vary enormously from time to time. Our twentieth-century ecclesial leaders do not have the inspired wisdom that the apostles and many of their co-workers had in the first century. It must not be forgotten that the “general teaching” of the Old Testament was the application of sound principles to changing circumstances by men inspired by God. These men, like Moses, were directly and explicitly commanded, when God judged the time as ripe, to punish evildoers. A close parallel between those days and ours is clearly impossible.

Even such Old Testament “retributive” passages as listed above do not go so far as to require the “elimination” of those otherwise righteous worshipers of God whose only “sin” was living side by side with such as Baal-worshipers. Yet the principle of worldwide fellowship responsibility, to be proven, would necessitate some such Mosaic precedent as the annihilation of entire villages, the worshipers of the Lord along with those of Baal, simply because they did not act against the error in their midst. And, even if this sort of reasoning be allowed thus far, which is without Scriptural precedent, should the next village over the hill be similarly destroyed for failure adequately to “police” its neighbor town?

Perhaps the best argument against such an exaggerated view of fellowship responsibility is one that has already been mentioned elsewhere; yet it is so important that a second reference would not be out of place. Where the prophets of Israel witnessed against the spiritual abuses among their contemporaries they did so while still continuing full fellowship with those whom they denounced. More than this, the examples of Moses (Exod. 32:30-33), Daniel (9:5-14), Nehemiah (1:6,7), Jeremiah (3:25; 9:1), and Ezra (9:6,7,13) show these men intimately associated with the people whom they reprimanded, even so far as confessing the sins of the nation as though they were their own. Here is the spirit of true fellowship, or sharing, by which those most exercised against error bear the burdens of their brethren, and strive with them as partners — not outsiders — to defeat the enervating effects of sin. Such a policy stands, with God’s blessing, a chance of success. But the opposing policy condemns from the beginning innocent and guilty alike, and invariably fails in the object it purportedly seeks — that is, the elimination of error; for who ever gives serious attention to those who “walk out”? By all standards of law, both human and divine, such “deserters” forfeit any voice in the affairs of the enterprise. Who welcomes, or even listens to, the advice of those on the outside looking in? Imagine a brother who, finding his neighbor’s ox in the ditch (Deut. 22:4), stands carefully aside but generously gives constant directions to the sorely-beset owner as to how to extricate his animal. And James similarly tells of the rather impractical (to say the least!) character who says to the cold and hungry, “Be ye warmed and filled” (2:16), but cannot bring himself to become “involved” enough to really help.

A final point completely overturns any appeal for severity to the general Old Testament teachings. It is this: the Lord was in unbroken “fellowship” with the nation of Israel from the time He brought them out of Egypt until Ezekiel’s day. This is proven by the presence of the “Shekinah” glory, leading the people by cloud and fire through the wilderness, and afterward enthroned in tabernacle and temple. The nation was from time to time filled with the grossest abominations, with widespread indifferent to the prophets’ messages, and with every other imaginable sin. God’s messengers were incessant in their demands for reform; but no matter how evil the nation, a righteous remnant always remained and consequently the nation was preserved. Its “fellowship” with God was only withdrawn when His glory was seen departing by stages from the Temple on the eve of Jerusalem’s captivity (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4,18,19; 11:23). Until then, no matter how imperfect their service, Israel remained in communion with God. Thus, if anything may be learned of the general principles of fellowship from the Old Testament, it is that it was never lightly withdrawn from those who bore the name of God — as has been done in His Name, and often for the flimsiest of reasons, by more than a few modern believers.

“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (vv. 10,11).

Without attempting a complete exposition of this letter, it should be noted that John was addressing an unnamed sister and mother in the Truth, one in whose home the ecclesia of that district met. In her kindness the “elect lady” (v. 1) had offered her hospitality to certain traveling preachers who could scarcely, if at all, be called Christian.

What was the doctrine so heinous as to merit the title for its purveyors of “antichrist” (v. 7)? It was the erroneous contention that Jesus did not “come in the flesh”, in other words, that he was in essence God and only seemed to suffer the frailties of humanity and the climactic death on the cross. The apostle rightly saw this as a significant perversion of the gospel, which effectively nullified all else of truth to be found in the itinerant speakers’ message. He therefore counseled the sister not to receive such men into her house nor, by implication, to receive them at the Breaking of Bread held there. They were to be shunned completely.

The question is this: Was such a prohibition intended to apply, as a general rule, to any and every irregularity of belief or practice, whenever and wherever manifested? The answer is, emphatically, “No”. The particular error in 2 John is said to be that of “anti-Christ”, etymologically signifying that which replaces or stands as a contrast to the true Christ. The name seems to be reserved for those errors which deny the nature and character of Christ (1 John 2:18,22; 4:1-3), thereby rendering unintelligible his redemptive work.

A passage from Robert Roberts is often quoted to justify the disfellowship of everyone that might, mistakenly or otherwise, bread bread with some individual who believes any error. Brother Roberts says, among other things:

“As to those who bring not this doctrine, John’s comment is — ‘Receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed!’ This commandment we can no more evade than any other commandment delivered unto us.”

The citation is certainly forceful enough as it stands to support most any wide-scale excommunication of individuals and ecclesias alike. However, the effect is drastically mitigated when a portion of the immediately preceding paragraph is also quoted:

“The doctrine of Christ is that he is God made and manifested in mortal flesh of Abraham’s race for the deliverance thereof, on his own principles, from ‘that having the power of death’ ” (Seasons of Comfort, p. 98).

It was to such as “bring not this doctrine” (according to both John Thomas and Robert Roberts), and to such only, that the extremely harsh directive of the apostle should apply.

The sweeping use to which our brother’s words are often put is specifically denied by him in another passage. There he speaks of “fellowship” on far more practical, reasonable, and (we might say) spiritual grounds than some of his “followers” would care to admit:

“Fellowship is friendly association for the promotion of a common object — with more or less of the imperfection belonging to all mortal life. To say that every man in that fellowship is responsible for every infirmity of judgment that may exist in the association is an extreme to which no man of sound judgment can lend himself. There will be flawless fellowship in the perfect state. Perhaps it is the admiration of this in prospect that leads some to insist upon it now. But it is none the less a mistake. This is a mixed and preparatory state in which much has to be put up with when the true principles are professed” (“True Principles and Uncertain Details”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 35, No. 407 — May 1898 — p. 187).

In reviewing verse 10, other points of interest emerge:

“If there come any unto you…” —

These verses clearly refer to some serious error introduced into one’s local ecclesia. They give no sanction to the searching out of alleged error in other ecclesias, much less those which are great distances away, on the basis of some rumor.

“And bring not this doctrine” —

These deceivers were active, positive false teachers, engaged in a campaign, not just “holders” of false doctrine or those who might be termed “weaker brethren” or “honest doubters”, who should be sought after and reclaimed.

“Neither bid him God speed” —

“God speed” was an unfortunate choice by the translators of the AV, a choice which has colored much of subsequent Christadelphian analysis of this passage. Brother Roberts equates “God speed” with “intimacy, toleration, and cooperation” (The Law of Moses, p. 285); this may be implicit in the text, but it is certainly not the primary meaning. The Greek word is chairo — which merely means “greeting” or “farewell”; it is so used many times in the New Testament (Matt. 26:49; 27:29; Luke 1:28; John 19:3; Acts 15:23; 2 Cor. 13:11; James 1:1). It may also mean “to rejoice” (Matt. 2:10; John 3:29; 16:22; Rom. 12:12; 2 Cor. 6:10; Rev. 19:7).

This presents us with a couple of alternative views of the passage:

(1) These false teachers’ doctrine was so extremely dangerous that they could not even be greeted courteously, nor be given the most elementary considerations due even to out-and-out worldlings, much more to “erring brethren”. Such a view, in conformity with our understanding of this special doctrine, thus removes this passage from serious consideration as a guideline to ecclesial duties toward most other, milder forms of error. Would any “minority fellowship” brethren seriously want to adopt such an attitude toward all other Christadelphians? The otherwise unanimous view of the apostolic passages regarding errorists is that they are to be gently entreated, and diplomatically led away from their follies. So we have here in 2 John a unique case, and consequently one which gives no real precedent for lesser issues.

(2) The second possibility, much less likely, is this: If the word chairo here signifies “to rejoice”, then that which designates brethren “partakers of the evil deeds” of gross errorists is their rejoicing in that evil — that is, wholeheartedly approving of and positively participating in the propagation of error. This is not to suggest that something less, say a passive toleration, is proper — it may be wrong too, depending on circumstances — but only that it is not the “partaking” or “fellowshiping” of the error which some interpreters would have it to be.

Therefore, no matter which of the two interpretations of “God speed” be chosen, the verse is not that clear-cut directive to the “block disfellowship” of all that break bread with one false teacher. Even if the elders of an ecclesia should decide to tolerate the membership of one holding false doctrine, it cannot be said that members of that ecclesia who continue to use every opportunity to expose and denounce his errors are “bidding him God speed” or “partaking of his evil deeds”. To say that they are is a travesty of language. The situation has been known a hundred times over that something done or said by a brother has been openly disapproved of by the rest of his ecclesia without excommunication being applied. At times the simpler expedient of removing such a brother from all speaking and teaching duties has allowed him the scope to recover his spiritual balance and forsake his error.

Brother Roberts’ understanding of “God speed” certainly conforms to this. He says:

“If men lend themselves to the evil projects of others and wish them well in them, no doubt they are as responsible for those projects as if they actually promoted them with their own personal labours. This is the principle to which John gives expression when he says, ‘He that biddeth him (the holder of false doctrine) God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ “ (“True Principles and Uncertain Details”, pp. 187,188).

The problem in a single-minded reliance on this passage to justify wholesale separation is evident when the effects are fully considered. It is self-evident that an interpretation of a passage that “proves” too much actually proves nothing at all — for then there is surely something wrong with that interpretation. This is so with an unbalanced view of 2 John 10,11: (1) If merely refusing to punish error is “bidding God speed” to it, then was Christ a “partaker of the evil deeds” of the adulteress when he said, “Neither do I condemn thee”? (2) Should brethren hold themselves to be “partakers” and thus personally guilty of every aberration or “sin” of every brother or sister in their “fellowship”? This is perceived as sheer folly when examples are considered. Suppose, for example, one brother in your worldwide fellowship — only one — smokes; suppose another, but only one, occasionally drinks to excess. Now you yourself never touch tobacco or liquor of any sort. Are you nevertheless a “partaker” of these things, and many more, because you endure these brethren in your “fellowship”? In short, is a brother really the sum of all the worst parts of all his weakest brethren? Such ill-founded logic must be our conclusion if we apply 2 John 10,11 to any and every ecclesia situation.

Two short quotations from John Thomas would seem to go well here:

(1) Of the correspondent who accused him of being a “slave owner”, he wrote:

“His argument is that in fellowshipping slave owners, and those who fellowship them, the parties so fellowshipping them are partakers with them of their evil deeds; and therefore as much slave owners and slave holders as if they actually held and drove them. The argument is specious but not sound” (The Herald, 1851, p. 204).

(2) And again:

“The salvation of individuals is not predicated on the purity of their neighbour’s faith, though these may be members of the same ecclesiastical organization” (Ibid., p. 120).

In conclusion: 2 John 10,11 appears to be the only passage in the Bible which puts “tolerators” on the same ground of condemnation as the “false teachers” themselves. We have shown that, for the purposes of condemning those who “bid them God speed”, this passage proves either too little (for the context is quite specialized) or too much (thus making us all “partakers” of every “evil” to be found in our midst). The wisest course would appear to be that we leave 2 John alone as “pure fellowship” justification, and that we turn our attentions to other passages which may give more solid footing, and practical limitations as well, for Biblical “disfellowship”.