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).

Having considered in detail the passages most relevant to Biblical fellowship, we now examine those that might be placed under the heading of “Biblical dis-fellowship”. Perhaps we can determine, from a review of both sets, how far we may reasonably go, and where we may reasonably stop, in our demands upon our fellow-believers. These passages are grouped under the heading OBJECTIONS because those who would most object to the general drift of this study to this point would no doubt quote such verses in counter-argument. I feel that these “dis-fellowship” passages have been seriously misused by many Christadelphians. They have been “wrested”, in some cases, out of their quite restricted contexts and made to do duty that the inspired writers never intended. The extent of these misinterpretations will be apparent as we continue.

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”.

We come next to Paul’s warning to Titus, the elder of the ecclesia (or ecclesias) on the island of Crete:

“Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject (paraiteomia); knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Tit. 3:9-11).

The word paraiteomia has also been translated “avoid” (2 Tim. 2:23) and “refuse” (1 Tim. 4:7; 5:11); it points to the clear duty of rejecting or excommunicating a “heretic”. However, the provision of a first and second admonition must not be forgotten, and this points the way to a comparison with the similar order of admonition in Matthew 18:15-17 (see Chapter 9). The disfellowship, if such is finally deemed necessary, must be done in the spirit of meekness, and at every step the brethren so acting must endeavor in love to reclaim the offender. Such matters must be handled locally, and not be allowed to unsettle ecclesias elsewhere.

“There is need for a faithful rather than a harsh observance of this apostolic counsel today. The most serious consideration should be given to the question of whether a brother’s nonconformity is of such a nature as to justify the grave decision of exclusion. Each elder should ask himself the question, in all cases, not ‘Do we traditionally disfellowship for this divergence?’ but ‘Can I, as a responsible elder and shepherd, give full satisfaction to my Lord at his judgment seat, that I do well to exclude this brother?’ “ (J.B. Norris, The First Century Ecclesia, p. 55).

Furthermore, it must be noted that those brethren or ecclesias that fail to excommunicate “heretics” are not to be equated with the “heretics” themselves. (Such a notion is based solely, but erroneously, on 2 John 10,11.) They may be disobedient to the apostolic injunction, but this shortcoming does not of itself constitute them guilty of the same or as serious offence as their erring brother. These words of Paul do not sanction the judging and disfellowshiping of large numbers at a distance — for how then could the “admonitions” be properly administered? In fact, no Bible passage sanctions division from a nominally sound ecclesia because of its supposed failure fully to discipline an offender.

The seventeenth-century translators have made a rather unfortunate choice of words here. “Heretick” is a quite interesting and complex word, but subject to misinterpretation. Transliterated from the Greek, it is hairesis, or “heresy”. The word denotes a “choice”, or that which is chosen; hence, an opinion. Secondarily, it means a “sect” or division — a party formed, either as a subgroup of a main body, or in extreme cases entirely independent (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 217, and Vol. 3, p. 335). It is not even implied that the distinctive character of the “sect” is a doctrine at all (Speaker’s Commentary, New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 817). The Sadducees and the Pharisees were called “sects” or “heresies” (Acts 5:17; 26:5), as were the “Christians” before their break from Judaism was complete (Acts 24:5,14; 28:22). The Greek word has no inherent suggestion of an error, only of party spirit tending toward division. It was only in post-apostolic times that “heresy” acquired the invariable meaning of doctrinal divergence; the term was so applied to all deviations from the Roman Catholic apostasy during the fourth century and beyond (Imperial Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 86; International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 3, p. 1377).

A “heretick”, therefore, would signify an “opinionated person” (W.R. Mitchell, “The Epistle of Titus”, The Dawn Ecclesial Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 12 — Dec. 1957 — p. 274), a separatist, a causer of schism or division, for whatever reason. Paul says that a heretic is “self-condemned” (Tit. 3:11), apparently because of the position of separation in which he has placed himself. Thus the ecclesia’s rejection of him is more or less an official acknowledgement of the “status quo”.

The main accompanying idea in the other passages where hairesis occurs is of some sort of division:

• In 1 Corinthians 11:18,19 it is used synonymously with “schisms”, which, however, had not yet resulted in full-scale ecclesial division, but only in factions.
• It is listed with strife, seditions, and envyings as one of “the works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21); the list, however, includes no false doctrines.
• In 2 Peter 2:1,2 “heresy” is the division which certain men cause unjustly, not the false doctrines they teach!

All this agrees well with the context of Paul’s letter to Titus. Therein he more than once characterizes the Cretans in general as liars, lazy gluttons, and envious (1:12; 3:3), men naturally given to controversies, dissensions, and quarrels (3:9) — in short, men who are always combative, never satisfied, potential sectarians, troublemakers, or “heretics”. It is an extraordinary irony that those brethren who feel they are most scrupulous at resisting “heretics” (i.e. teachers of false doctrines?) through their policy of absolute separation are themselves guilty of b

eing “heretics” (schismatics) in the Biblical sense.

This writer, with the uninhibited zeal of youth, felt for a number of years that he knew all that was worth knowing about “fellowship”. But changing circumstances provoked a serious and prolonged re-examination of the foundations of his “pure fellowship” position, and he was led at last to conclude that there is a “better way” consistent with the commandments of Christ. He now holds a different understanding of “fellowship”, with not quite the certainty of earlier times, but rather what he believes is a more realistic awareness of the imperfection of all things human (including this book!).

Some of the results of those studies are now offered to the brotherhood, with the prayer that they might somehow encourage brethren of all “fellowships” to embrace the true “purity” that is never distinct from “peace”. May the Lord when he returns find his disciples endeavoring, in all humility, to keep the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Certain chapters in this study were first published as articles in The Christadelphian, The Testimony, The Logos, and The Tidings. They are now somewhat modified for inclusion here.

I wish to express my gratitude to the many brethren whose thoughts and expositions appear herein. I have tried always to give references, so that verification and further study may be possible.

Several articles are worthy of special citation:

1.	Robert Roberts: “True Principles and Uncertain Details; or, The Danger of Going Too Far in our Demands on Fellow-Believers”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 35, No. 407 (May 1898), pp. 182-189. This article has been reprinted at least twice in the same magazine: by C.C. Walker (Vol. 60, No. 708 — June 1923, pp. 248-256) and by John Carter (Vol. 92, No. 1097 — Nov. 1955, pp. 414-418).
2.	Robert Roberts: A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias (commonly referred to as The Ecclesial Guide), published in several editions. Of particular relevance are Sections 32 and 36 through 42.
3.	Islip Collyer: At least four articles are extremely important:
	a.	An Appeal to Christadelphians, published in booklet form by the Christadelphia Newsletter.
	b.	“True Principles Governing Fellowship”, The Christadelphian Vol. 61, No. 721 (July 1924), pp. 294-299.
	c.	“The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 722 (Aug. 1924), pp. 342-345. These last two articles are also reproduced in the book Principles and Proverbs.
	d.	“A Pure Fellowship”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 68, No. 807 (Sept. 1931), pp. 408-410. This article was reprinted in Vol. 95, No. 1128 (June 1958), pp. 258-260.
4.	Alan Eyre: “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, 1971. This is a series of five articles commencing in the January issue.
5.	The Committee of The Christadelphian: “Fellowship: Its Spirit and Practice”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 109, No. 1291 (Jan. 1972), pp. 7-13. This is also available separately in pamphlet form from The Office of The Christadelphian.
6.	H.A. Whittaker: “Block Disfellowship: Is It Taught in the Bible?”, The Testimony, Vol. 43, No. 512 (Aug. 1973), pp. 310-313, and No. 513 (Sept. 1973), pp. 340-345.

The above articles, as well as all the others cited in the body of this book, should be read in their entirety if possible.

In truth, however, we must realize there is only one authority in spiritual matters; it is only insofar as the writings of brethren illuminate the principles of God’s Word that they are useful. Otherwise, they may become a snare; today, we are confronted with a sad spectacle: We see almost a dozen mutually exclusive “pure” fellowships, each appealing to the names of the same “pioneer” brethren almost as though they were inspired prophets. Thus they seek to justify their separation from the other eleven “groups”, but especially from the “Central” or “Reunion” Fellowship.

In arbitrarily choosing the Scriptures to be emphasized in any study, the writer leaves himself open to the criticism of being less than objective. This charge may be inescapable in a subject as volatile as “fellowship”. How does one walk the “tightrope” between an intolerable leniency on the one hand, and the vehement censure of any and every deviation on the other — a habit that has become all too common among us? I ask you, the reader, to give due weight to every relevant passage, and balance all arguments according to their Biblical evidence. Perhaps if we approach the Word of God as we should, humbly, prayerfully — and with just a hint of godly fear — then we will achieve that balanced approach where justice and mercy, goodness and severity, patience and action walk hand in hand.

I have attempted to consider, as far as possible, only the Scriptural aspects of “fellowship”, and not the circumstances of the many previous divisions. These would themselves constitute material for a sizeable volume, but in my estimation this would not be nearly so profitable a study. No “fellowship” of today is precisely what it once was. And experience shows us the impossibility of judging perfectly even present-day situations. How much less can we be certain of all our “facts” (i.e., motives and circumstances) in a 50- or 100-year-old controversy? It is next to impossible to know the circumstances as they truly existed at the time of these divisions, or the minds of the brethren involved. Therefore, it would be very difficult for us to make an unbiased judgment as to the particular fellowship issues as they may have existed in their days. A little more Christadelphian humility in such matters might very well be the wisest course for all of us.

What does require further investigation is the very concept of “first principles”: What precisely are “first principles”? And how can they be Biblically determined? These are important questions because, no matter how well Biblical principles of fellowship may be understood, there is still the matter of where and how they should be applied. And being able to draw clearly defined and consistent lines between first principles and matters of lesser importance is crucial in this process. It is my hope to deal with these important but difficult matters in a further work — to be published, God willing, within the next year or so. [This has since been published, as What Are The First Principles?]

It is to the Bible that we turn, then, to determine the responsibilities of true “fellowship”, both individual and ecclesial, in our present-day circumstances. And yet is not “fellowship” distinctly more than a mere responsibility?

“Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you, that your joy may be full” (1 John 1:3,4).

George Booker

May 1990

Please see also the special addendum to Biblical Fellowship, at the end of this work, entitled THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ONE BODY. The author feels this statement is necessary, to provide a necessary corrective and corollary to the general thesis of Biblical Fellowship. To put it another way, whereas Biblical Fellowship stresses our duty, individually and collectively, to recognize in fellowship, and to treat as brethren, those who share our fundamental beliefs — The Implications of the One Body stresses our obligations toward those whose fellowship we do share.

This writer, with the uninhibited zeal of youth, felt for a number of years that he knew all that was worth knowing about “fellowship”. But changing circumstances provoked a serious and prolonged re-examination of the foundations of his “pure fellowship” position, and he was led at last to conclude that there is a “better way” consistent with the commandments of Christ. He now holds a different understanding of “fellowship”, with not quite the certainty of earlier times, but rather what he believes is a more realistic awareness of the imperfection of all things human (including this book!).

Some of the results of those studies are now offered to the brotherhood, with the prayer that they might somehow encourage brethren of all “fellowships” to embrace the true “purity” that is never distinct from “peace”. May the Lord when he returns find his disciples endeavoring, in all humility, to keep the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Certain chapters in this study were first published as articles in The Christadelphian, The Testimony, The Logos, and The Tidings. They are now somewhat modified for inclusion here.

I wish to express my gratitude to the many brethren whose thoughts and expositions appear herein. I have tried always to give references, so that verification and further study may be possible.

Several articles are worthy of special citation:

1.	Robert Roberts: “True Principles and Uncertain Details; or, The Danger of Going Too Far in our Demands on Fellow-Believers”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 35, No. 407 (May 1898), pp. 182-189. This article has been reprinted at least twice in the same magazine: by C.C. Walker (Vol. 60, No. 708 — June 1923, pp. 248-256) and by John Carter (Vol. 92, No. 1097 — Nov. 1955, pp. 414-418).
2.	Robert Roberts: A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias (commonly referred to as The Ecclesial Guide), published in several editions. Of particular relevance are Sections 32 and 36 through 42.
3.	Islip Collyer: At least four articles are extremely important:
	a.	An Appeal to Christadelphians, published in booklet form by the Christadelphia Newsletter.
	b.	“True Principles Governing Fellowship”, The Christadelphian Vol. 61, No. 721 (July 1924), pp. 294-299.
	c.	“The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 722 (Aug. 1924), pp. 342-345. These last two articles are also reproduced in the book Principles and Proverbs.
	d.	“A Pure Fellowship”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 68, No. 807 (Sept. 1931), pp. 408-410. This article was reprinted in Vol. 95, No. 1128 (June 1958), pp. 258-260.
4.	Alan Eyre: “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, 1971. This is a series of five articles commencing in the January issue.
5.	The Committee of The Christadelphian: “Fellowship: Its Spirit and Practice”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 109, No. 1291 (Jan. 1972), pp. 7-13. This is also available separately in pamphlet form from The Office of The Christadelphian.
6.	H.A. Whittaker: “Block Disfellowship: Is It Taught in the Bible?”, The Testimony, Vol. 43, No. 512 (Aug. 1973), pp. 310-313, and No. 513 (Sept. 1973), pp. 340-345.

The above articles, as well as all the others cited in the body of this book, should be read in their entirety if possible.

In truth, however, we must realize there is only one authority in spiritual matters; it is only insofar as the writings of brethren illuminate the principles of God’s Word that they are useful. Otherwise, they may become a snare; today, we are confronted with a sad spectacle: We see almost a dozen mutually exclusive “pure” fellowships, each appealing to the names of the same “pioneer” brethren almost as though they were inspired prophets. Thus they seek to justify their separation from the other eleven “groups”, but especially from the “Central” or “Reunion” Fellowship.

In arbitrarily choosing the Scriptures to be emphasized in any study, the writer leaves himself open to the criticism of being less than objective. This charge may be inescapable in a subject as volatile as “fellowship”. How does one walk the “tightrope” between an intolerable leniency on the one hand, and the vehement censure of any and every deviation on the other — a habit that has become all too common among us? I ask you, the reader, to give due weight to every relevant passage, and balance all arguments according to their Biblical evidence. Perhaps if we approach the Word of God as we should, humbly, prayerfully — and with just a hint of godly fear — then we will achieve that balanced approach where justice and mercy, goodness and severity, patience and action walk hand in hand.

I have attempted to consider, as far as possible, only the Scriptural aspects of “fellowship”, and not the circumstances of the many previous divisions. These would themselves constitute material for a sizeable volume, but in my estimation this would not be nearly so profitable a study. No “fellowship” of today is precisely what it once was. And experience shows us the impossibility of judging perfectly even present-day situations. How much less can we be certain of all our “facts” (i.e., motives and circumstances) in a 50- or 100-year-old controversy? It is next to impossible to know the circumstances as they truly existed at the time of these divisions, or the minds of the brethren involved. Therefore, it would be very difficult for us to make an unbiased judgment as to the particular fellowship issues as they may have existed in their days. A little more Christadelphian humility in such matters might very well be the wisest course for all of us.

What does require further investigation is the very concept of “first principles”: What precisely are “first principles”? And how can they be Biblically determined? These are important questions because, no matter how well Biblical principles of fellowship may be understood, there is still the matter of where and how they should be applied. And being able to draw clearly defined and consistent lines between first principles and matters of lesser importance is crucial in this process. It is my hope to deal with these important but difficult matters in a further work — to be published, God willing, within the next year or so. [This has since been published, as What Are The First Principles?]

It is to the Bible that we turn, then, to determine the responsibilities of true “fellowship”, both individual and ecclesial, in our present-day circumstances. And yet is not “fellowship” distinctly more than a mere responsibility?

“Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you, that your joy may be full” (1 John 1:3,4).

                                                                                                George Booker

                                                                                                May 1990

Please see also the special addendum to Biblical Fellowship, at the end of this work, entitled THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ONE BODY. The author feels this statement is necessary, to provide a necessary corrective and corollary to the general thesis of Biblical Fellowship. To put it another way, whereas Biblical Fellowship stresses our duty, individually and collectively, to recognize in fellowship, and to treat as brethren, those who share our fundamental beliefs — The Implications of the One Body stresses our obligations toward those whose fellowship we do share.

In a broad view of the brotherhood in the first century, one point becomes very clear. Newly baptized brethren and even entire ecclesias in the formative stage were treated by the apostles with a great deal more patience and sympathy than is customary in these days. Even extreme errors and gross misconduct were the subject of careful explanation and entreaty, not broad and summary excommunication.

The best example of this is the Corinthian ecclesia, which seemed to lack a comprehensive grasp of one of the greatest of first principles — the resurrection (1 Cor. 15)! Can we imagine the reaction of many Christadelphians today? ‘Why, these people are obviously not in the Truth at all! How can we have anything to do with them?’

In contrast to this attitude, the apostle Paul strives mightily and tirelessly to reclaim those who have been misled — while at the same time strenuously repudiating the false doctrine. Obviously, as far as he was concerned, these Corinthians were brethren. Admittedly, they were brethren who very much needed assistance, but they were brethren nevertheless.

In a similar vein are Paul’s words to his Galatian brethren, who were sorely beset by error:

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” (Gal. 3:1).

Paul does not consider the false teachers and those brethren who are falsely taught to be in the same category. He bluntly exposes the wrong, attempts to isolate the perpetrator of the wrong, but still patiently and lovingly instructs the ones who are misled. This is a theme which will recur time after time in this survey, and it would be well to watch for it.

“An important distinction is made — between the urgent need to disfellowship the circumcisers and their advocates and the treatment urged upon those Galatians who may have been gullibly led astray: ‘Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.’ They were to remember that self-examination, not self-conceit, is required of all who would thus assume the role of ecclesial monitors and shepherds. Such are not free from temptation themselves! (Gal. 6:3)” (A. Eyre, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, No. 1281 — March 1971 — p. 106).

It must not be contended from such passages that we (either as individuals or ecclesias) are at liberty to overlook error when we encounter it. And yet an enlightened view of the first-century ecclesias as presented in the New Testament must encourage a substantial measure of restraint in our actions. Perhaps there is less reason for patience and latitude today (it may be argued), since Christadelphian doctrines and practices are so solidly established. Yet human nature never changes, some brethren will always develop slowly or erratically or not at all, and some ecclesias will always be in formative or turbulent periods. Consequently, those who are most firmly grounded in the Truth will always be building, always desiring maturity (yes, even perfection) for themselves and their brethren, but never quite attaining it. And so it must be until Christ returns.

Again, with regard to the Corinthians, Brother Roberts adds:

“There were men among the Corinthian brethren who denied the resurrection; did Paul charge the [other] brethren with complicity with that heresy because of the presence of such among them? Doubtless their rejection of the resurrection nullified their claims for that place [i.e. among the brethren], but still it did not make the true brethren guilty of their false doctrine while merely tolerating it, pending an appeal to Paul” (“True Principles and Uncertain Details”, p. 417).

Some of the other above-mentioned examples of error and misconduct in the first-century ecclesias are listed below:

1. There is no resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12; 2 Tim. 2:18).
2. Suing at law (1 Cor. 6:1,6).
3. Fornication, incest (1 Cor. 5:1).
4. Drunkenness at the “love feast” (1 Cor. 11:21).
5. Women speaking (teaching) in the ecclesia (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11).
6. The Great Heresy: “Circumcision is essential to salvation”, or (in its milder form) at least preferable (Acts 15:1; Galatians, esp. 2:12,13).
7. Jesus was merely a man, and not the Son of God (1 John 2:22; Luke 1:35).
8. Jesus was “God”, not man (1 John 4:2,3).

We notice that in latter times Nos. 2 and 3 have, on a local level, been the cause of many ecclesial problems; and that No. 5 has been the basis for numerous local problems. Also, that the questions of the precise nature of Christ (Nos. 7 and 8) and details about resurrectional judgment (No. 1) continue to bother Christadelphians.

But also, the “Great Heresy” of the first century (No. 6) is quite interesting, in that it practically reproduces the “fellowship” viewpoint of some groups of believers even today. If we simply substitute “cutting off doubtful brethren” in place of “cutting off the flesh” (in circumcision), the parallel becomes obvious. The unwarranted division is described as follows:

“Perhaps news of this (Peter’s reception of the Gentile Christians in Antioch) reached Jerusalem and encouraged the ‘ultra-conservatives’ to make investigations. Perhaps the death of Herod encouraged Judaean brethren to go and fetch Peter back to Jerusalem. Whatever the reason, a disastrous visit was made by some ‘from James’…. These visitors to Antioch forced a division in the ecclesia by demanding that circumcision be made a matter of fellowship.

“We have very sparse details of the actual course of events, but there is no doubt that it took a very serious turn. Peter, challenged by those from his own ecclesia, afraid of conservative reaction and failing to face up to the implications of the vision in Joppa (Acts 10), crumbled under the attack of the Jerusalem bigots. He ‘stood aside’ and withdrew his fellowship from his Gentile brethren. The Jewish members of the Antioch ecclesia, faced with this lamentable lapse of one so prominent, had little alternative but to follow suit. Paul says they ‘acted insincerely’ (Gal. 2:13), the implication being that they viewed the division as being expedient, with fellowship to be resumed perhaps when Peter and the others had gone. Even Barnabas was carried away and met with the ‘circumcision fellowship’. Perhaps it is something of a comfort in our own problems to know that for a time two great apostles were not in the same fellowship!

“How the division was resolved we do not know, but resolved it must have been, for shortly afterwards an apparently united Antioch ecclesia sent Saul and Barnabas forth together on their first sponsored missionary journey. Probably, Paul’s forthright yet sincere stand on the matter may have helped; in any case, in God’s providence such a disastrous division was not to be” (A. Eyre, Vol. 108, No. 1280 — Feb. 1971 — p. 60).

And so, in the first century, there existed for a time a second or “elite” “fellowship”. No doubt, like similar associations today, it included the most radical — who urged that their peculiar viewpoint was essential to salvation — as well as the more moderate element. These moderate ones did not deny to the “others” the possibility of acceptance at the judgment seat, but merely wished to remain separate either for expedience’s sake or for fear of personal “contamination”. How little the ecclesial world has changed from that day to this!

The previous section (vv 4-6) gave the reason for the sufferings of the Messiah. This section gives the facts of the sufferings.

The, figure is continued, from the previous section, of the Messiah as a lamb, or a sheep. The Law of Moses designated the sheep as a clean animal because it chewed the cud and parted the hoof. Chewing the cud, or “ruminating”, applies in the spiritual sense to pondering and meditating upon the Word of God so as better to assimilate it into one’s character. The parted hoof points to the necessity of “making straight paths for our feet”, or walking morally upright, though the way may be rough and uneven. Jesus was such a lamb, “a lamb without blemish”, taken from the “flock” of Israel, and prepared for the sacrifice that would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

Verse 7

“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth” — The parallelism of this phrase is incomplete, and it has been suggested by textual critics that since the word “anah” means both “answer” and “afflict” it originally occurred twice, in both senses, but that one “anah” has “been dropped in transmission. If this is correct, though it essentially adds nothing to the message of the whole, then the phrase would have originally read:

“He was oppressed, and he answered not; and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth.”

“Oppression” is the word “nagas”, signifying to drive or harass. “He opened not his mouth” recalls the Psalms:

“Thus I was as a man that heareth not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth” (Psa 38:14).

“I was as dumb, I opened not my mouth” (Psa 39:9).

Jesus was silent before the Sanhedrin (Mat 26:63), before Herod (Luke 23:9), and before Pilate (Mat 27:12-14; John 19:9). On other occasions he actively protested against sin (Luke 4:23-29; John 7:19), as did Paul also (Acts 22:25); here, though the sin was flagrant, he did not.

“He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter” — This phrase, “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter” (RSV), is echoed by Luke 23:1:

“… and led him unto Pilate” —

and v 32:

“led… to be put to death”.

“As a sheep before her shearers” — The figure of shearing is now blended into the figure of sacrifice, a minor variation on the major theme. As the “fruit” of a shorn sheep provides, ultimately, a garment to cover the nakedness of the shearers, so the “fruit” of Jesus’ sore trials and death is a “garment” of righteousness to cover the “nakedness” of sin!

This phrase is quoted in Acts 8:32 by the Ethiopian Eunuch as he reads Isaiah with Philip:

“Like a lamb dumb before his shearer”.

Definite differences appear between the original statement and its citation Where Isaiah has “rachel”, a ewe, matched by the pronoun “her”; Acts has “amnos” (which may be either masculine or feminine) and “his”. Where Isaiah has “shearers” plural, Acts has “shearer” singular. (In this, Acts 8:32 appears closely to follow the Septuagint.)

The female aspect stresses the docility, the passive response of submission. In the sacrificial usage there may also be a clue to its usage here: The sin-offering for a ruler was a male kid (Lev 4:23), but the sin-offering for commoners was a female kid or lamb (Lev 4:28,32). The rulers of Israel were not to benefit from the humiliation and suffering they inflicted upon Christ; but the common people who heard him gladly (Mark 12:37) were to be cleansed by his offering for sin.

It appears also that “shearers” (plural) has a relevance unmatched by the singular “shearer”. Only four men in Scripture are said to have employed “shearers”: Laban (Gen 31:19), Judah (Gen 38:12,13), Nabal (1Sa 25:2,4,7,11), and Absalom (2Sa 13:23,24). Not one of the four was spoken of as a shearer personally, but each had shearers working for him. (This typifies the Jewish elite class, which engineered the “shearing” of Christ, though the actual operation was performed by the “employed” Romans.)

Not one of these four was a righteous man. In fact, in each case the employer of the shearers had at the time of the shearing some evil intention — toward a victim — which intention, however, never worked out as intended:

1. Laban intended to cheat Jacob of his rightful property, but his son-in-law finally left him, taking great wealth and Laban’s two daughters.
2. Judah sought only to satisfy his lusts with a harlot, but inadvertently fulfilled the Levirate function and fathered a son by Tamar in the Messianic line.
3. Nabal boldly and contemptuously denied the rightfully anointed King David. For his trouble, however, he lost his property, his wife, and his life.
4. Absalom hid his royal ambitions in a cloak of righteous vengeance, but the outcome of his murder of Amnon was Absalom’s own loss of favor and exile.

All this reminds us very much of the antitypical “shearing” of Christ. Sheep-shearing was generally performed in the spring, at Passover; it was a season of great rejoicing (1Sa 25:2-13; 2Sa 13:23-29). But for a certain sort of man it was also the time for theft, lust, greed, and murder. And so the leaders of Israel, at the last true Passover, blindly plotted to fulfill this unnoticed Scriptural type of “shearing”: to steal from the Anointed One his rightful title, to satisfy their lusts in assuring their political supremacy, to protect their treasured wealth, and to murder the supposed rival for the Father’s affection. “Now shall the inheritance be ours!” But it could not be, and in the conclusion of the tragedy and subsequent triumph, men like Peter, Stephen, and Paul confronted the Jews with the foreordained outcome of their evil intentions:

“Him… ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain… (but now) let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2; 23,36).

“The Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers… (but now) I see… the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (7:52,56).

“And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead” (13:29,30).

Verse 8

“He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”

“He was taken from prison and from judgment” — “Prison” is “atser”, literally “restraint”, and may simply mean “arrest” (as in NIV and NEB) and not incarceration (although it is possible Jesus was thrown in a dungeon for a brief time). “Judgment is “mishpat”, the pronouncing of sentence “After arrest and sentence he was taken away” (NEB). Compare this whole phrase with Psa 22; 16:

“Dogs have encompassed me. The assembly (‘edah’ — appointed meeting; probably the Sanhedrin) of the wicked have inclosed me.”

“And who shall declare his generation?” — When a man dies childless, not only is his own life cut off, but his name also perishes, not being perpetuated to succeeding generations. In a psalm prophetic of Christ’s betrayal:

“Mine enemies speak evil of me, ‘When shall he die and his name perish?’ ” (Psa 41:5).

But the death of Jesus was the making and not the perishing of his name, though this did not appear so to the Jews and Gentiles of his generation. Multitudes of redeemed ones would come into being through the redemptive work of Jesus. These would be his “generations”, his “seed”:

“He shall see his seed… (the fruit of) the travail of his soul” (Isa 53:10,11).

“A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come and declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born” (Psa 22:30,31).

But no one, except the Lord, could “declare” (Heb “siach” — to produce or bring forth) these succeeding generations, because they would be born spiritually and not naturally.

“For he was cut off out of the land of the living” — “Cut off” implies a violent death (Dan 9:26). Literally it means “cut in two” (ie, 1Ki 3:25; Psa 136:13), perhaps as a covenant-victim (cp Isa 49:8 with Gen 15:10). The cutting in two also holds subtle undertones of the garden of Eden, where the Lord God took a rib (or a “side”) from Adam, out of which He made Eve. Thus Adam was literally “cut in two”; one became two, so that two could become one again (Gen 2:21-24; Eph 5:31,32)! The lovely spiritual allegory should be obvious to all. As Jesus “slept” in a garden tomb, out of the “side” pierced by a Roman spear. God fashioned a companion for him — one who would be “child” of the “last Adam” as well as “bride”! “They two shall be one flesh.”

“For the transgression of my people was he stricken” — Recalling vv 4,5.

Verse 9

“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.”

“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death” — At first glance the two phrases seem to be reversed. “The wicked” is plural, recalling the two malefactors, with whom Jesus met his death! “The rich” is singular (“a rich man” — RSV), referring to Joseph of Arimathea, in whose grave Jesus was placed! However, if the connective “and” is changed to “but”, a new meaning emerges:

“He (Pilate) appointed that he would be buried with the (two) wicked men; but (God appointed) that when he died he would be (buried) with the (one) rich man.”

Had Jesus’ body been consigned to Gehenna, as generally with the bodies of executed “criminals”, it would have “seen corruption” (Psa 16:10), which was not to be permitted by God. Furthermore, a subsequent resurrection out of such a “grave” would not have provided the irrefutable evidence of an open sepulchre and “bewildered guards. So Providence overruled the original intention of the authorities. Joseph of Arimathea, a previously secret disciple, was moved against all “reason” to ask for the body of Jesus. Pilate, the same man who signed the death warrant, granted him the “body (Mat 27:57-60). By a remarkable series of twists, then, this prophecy was fulfilled contrary to all natural expectations.

“Because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” – If the previous two phrases are taken to be parenthetical, the “because” links with the last portion of v 8: He was “stricken” for the transgressions of others, because he had done no violence. In other words, it was only because Jesus was without sin that his death could be an atonement for the sins of others. (An alternative viewpoint would substitute “although” for “because”, thus linking this phrase with the immediately The important fact concerning the sinlessness of Jesus is wonderfully illustrated by no less than Pilate himself, as well as other observers, in the scenes of Luke 23:

1. Pilate — “I find no fault in this man” (v 4).
2. Pilate again — “(I) have found no fault in this man” (v 14).
3. And again — “Why, what evil hath he done?” (v 22).
4. A malefactor — “This man hath done nothing amiss” (v 41).
5. A centurion — “Certainly this was a righteous man” (v 47).

New Testament Quotations

1. Verse 7 — Mark 15:5: When Jesus was before the Roman governor he “yet answered nothing”, the equivalent of “he opened not his mouth”. Mark’s next phrase is; “so that Pilate marveled”, recalling Isa 52:15.
2. Verse 7 — John 1:29,36; Rev 5:6,12; 13:8; etc: “A lamb to the slaughter” becomes one of the principal designations of Christ in the New Testament, and particularly in the Apocalypse: “a Lamb as it had been slain”.
3. Verses 7,8 — Acts 8:32,33: The Ethiopian eunuch was, as best he was able, a worshipper of the God of Israel. But his physical disability excluded him from the closest fellowship. Therefore, he would be particularly struck by the picture Isaiah painted, of a man cut off without generation, who would yet see his “seed”! How could this be? rut when Philip “preached unto him Jesus” (v 35), the meaning was obvious. Now, in direct contrast to the exclusionary provisions of the Law, nothing could “hinder” him “to be baptized” (v 36). All that was necessary was faith and confession. And the Ethiopian became one of those eunuchs who take hold of God’s covenant, who will receive in His house a name better than of sons and daughters, an everlasting name that shall not be cut off (Isa 56:4,5).
4. Verse 9 — Rev 14:5: The 144, 000 redeemed stand on Mount Zion, commended because in their mouths was found no guile. They have become like the Lamb of Isaiah’s prophecy, who stands there with them. That is why they are there — because a Lamb without blemish has been offered on their behalf, and they have emulated his character, and made his speech theirs.