A Christadelphian Commentary
by
John S. Peake
This document was originally written
as a report to the ecclesias of the Unamended community on the North American
Continent. That report dealt with the six major issues upon which
doctrinal agreement could not be reached during an 11-year period of
negotiations between the continental reunion committees representing the
Unamended and Amended communities, respectively.
A further aim of the report was to explain
as simply as possible the Scriptural basis for the beliefs on these issues held
by the Unamended community. It was hoped that these simple explanations
might lead some to a clearer understanding of these doctrines and a greater
interest in fundamental truth.
The evident shift in recent years away from
emphasis upon fundamental doctrine toward visible, present-day concerns and interpersonal
relationships has led some to suggest making the contents of this report
readily available to all in the Unamended community. The hope is that an
understanding of the content of these pages will not only help others to a
better grasp of the fundamental doctrines treated therein, but also that an
enlivened interest in things eternal may supplant concerns with things merely
temporal. Unmistakable signs in the world about us herald the imminent
return of our Lord and Master to judge his household. These pages are
thus offered for use by those, like the virgins in our Lord's parable (Matt.
25:1-13), who desire to keep their lamps trimmed so that they may be able with
joy to welcome the Bridegroom upon his arrival.
"Sanctify them through
thy truth; thy word is truth" (John 17:17). In these few and simple
words Jesus made one of the most profound and all-important statements ever
uttered from human lips. Though Jesus would in several hours go to arrest,
trial and a most cruel death, his thoughts were not upon himself primarily, but
upon his heavenly Father and upon the few simple men for whose protection and
salvation he was anxiously concerned. He knew that in the coming
confrontation they would become utterly confused and would forsake him and
flee. He knew that only the Father could protect them and keep them from
making a fatal mistake.
But the thoughts of Jesus extended far
beyond that little company of men who were gathered around that table. As
Jesus continued in earnest prayer to the Father he said, "And for their
sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word..." (vss. 19-20).
All who would believe on Jesus unto
salvation should mark the import of those words here quoted from the prayer of
Jesus. They set forth the basis for the sanctification of any individual
in this or any age following our Lord's ministry. That basis is faith in
and obedience to God's truth. Jesus had made a similar statement earlier
to the woman of Samaria: "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit: and they that
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John
4:22-23). In his prayer Jesus had said specifically, "Thy word
is truth."
Because of its sanctifying power and of its
ability to make a person "wise unto salvation through faith which is in
Christ Jesus," God's word, the Holy Scriptures, must be hallowed and
feared by all seeking salvation. Not only is faithful adherence to the
truth able to make us wise unto salvation, but God's word has been the means of
our begettal as children of God. James wrote, "Of his own begat he
us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of
his creatures" (James 1:18). The availability to us of sonship to
God is only through that Word, from which alone we can come to know the will of
God and the means provided by God for our reconciliation to himself, namely
through his giving of his beloved and only begotten Son as an offering for
taking away the sin of mankind.
It is written, "For the Lord is good;
his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations" (Psa.
100:5). God's truthfulness is a fundamental part of his character;
consequently it is everlasting. It is as inseparable from God as are his
mercy, his goodness, his righteousness, his faithfulness, and all of the other
aspects of the perfection of God's character. It would be both
inconsistent and impossible for God's word to be otherwise than truth. By
overcoming the propensities of his human nature, Jesus proved himself to be faithful
and true; he has now been invested with his Father's nature and a full measure
of the characteristics thereof. Paul wrote, "If we believe not, yet
he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself" (I Tim. 2:13). We, on
our part, can learn to be faithful only through developing a reverence for
God's word, by being guided therein through the teachings of our Master and of
his disciples and apostles, and by steadfastly refusing to accept the
insinuation into that truth of the alloying elements of human thinking.
It may appear unnecessary to attempt to
establish for the benefit of Christadelphian readers a reason for unquestioning
and total acceptance of the Bible as wholly inspired and infallible. It
could logically be argued that if Jesus stated that "...the scripture
cannot be broken..." (John 10:35), why attempt to belabor the matter?
To such a question we must respond that history has demonstrated that
differing interpretations of certain passages of Scripture have crept into the
reading and understanding of those passages. If these interpretations are
repeatedly emphasized by brethren held in esteem, and if those interpretations
are heard often enough, they become fixed in our understanding and in our
habits of thought, so that we may find it difficult (if not almost impossible)
to imagine that there could be any other way than ours of understanding those
portions of Scripture. This problem of thought-reinforcement is not
unique to the understanding of Biblical writings; it is a problem generally associated
with any form of either written or spoken communication.
We humans are limited in our ability to
understand what we read or what we hear spoken. We are limited by the
extend of our training in the use of languages and by our experiences in life.
Words, spoken or written, are only symbols for thoughts or concepts. Our
experiences and training exert definite influences upon the ways in which we
perceive the thoughts that words are intended to express. They may or may
not have given us the ability to understand accurately the concepts someone
else intended to express through his choice of words. The greater our
familiarity with the thinking of a writer or a speaker, the better we can
perceive the meanings that he intended his words to express. When it
comes to the Bible, we have only translations out of the languages in which the
text was originally written. Few of us have adequate backgrounds in those
languages. As a result, we can get only occasional and incidental help
from analytical concordances. In any event, since it takes years of
constant use of a language for full comprehension of what has been written or
spoken in that language, the humble servant of our Lord will not be tempted to
regard himself as expert in the use of either Hebrew or Greek.
In spite of the difficulties imposed by the
use of other languages in the writing of the Biblical text, God has seen to it
that an excellent translation out of those ancient languages into English has
been made available to us. Only in relatively rare cases must we depend
upon authorities in the use of those tongues for the conveying to our minds of
important details of God's life-giving message. We can be most thankful
that our salvation does not hang in the balance, depending on whether or not we
understand either Hebrew or Greek. In fact, our suspicions should be
aroused whenever someone attempts to put over a doctrinal point by justifying
his interpretation (or attempting to do so) upon some "technical"
meaning of a word in the original language - a language which he can neither
speak nor write. God is not so obscure in the revelation of his will to
his honest servants that they must rely upon a grammatical construction in a
foreign language.
The mind of man can become very ingenious
when it comes to "selling" one's favorite viewpoint to others.
The realm of religion (particularly within such a highly unstructured
organization as the Christadelphian body, wherein is no authoritative hierarchy
backed by political and military might, as was the case with the Papacy between
800 and 1800 A.D.) offers a very fertile field for self-promotion on the part
of individuals with ambition to lead a following. Not only are there
those who desire to be leaders, but there are also those who find it far easier
and more comfortable to follow those individuals who appear to them to have
leadership qualities. This combination results in a spiritually unhealthy
situation closely paralleling the set-up in the popular churches. In such
cases the majority may give physical attendance at worship and financial
support, but they leave in the hands of self-appointed leaders important
decisions in matters of faith and doctrine.
The main purpose of this commentary is to
urge and to warn our brethren and sisters against neglecting the careful study
of God's Word against leaving decisions affecting their salvation, particularly
in doctrinal matters, up to others. We would be very foolish to fully
entrust our salvation to someone else, as is the rule in popular churches.
Our present manner of conducting our lives is establishing day-by-day a record
in God's memory and in that of our Lord, which will in time become the basis
for determining our eternal welfare. How we shall be rewarded by our Lord
will depend upon our faithfulness to God's truth, as demonstrated by the
quality of our works throughout our lives in the truth. If we have
allowed ourselves to be led out of truth's way under the influence of wrong
teaching, wrong advice, or wrong example, we are the ones who must give account
to our Lord; it is we who must bear the consequences of our lack of dedication
to God's truth. As was the case with Eve, so can we be beguiled out of
the way of truth and suffer disaster for ourselves.
From these considerations it should be
evident that the critical issue in our lives of probation is whether or not our
association with God's truth has caused us to become true through emulation of
the examples of our Lord and of his apostles. It is written,
"...holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, forever" (Psa.
93:5). Holiness involves separation from the deceitful ways of the human
heart (Jer. 17:9) and to the sanctity of truth. It therefore behooves us
to be careful as to what we accept from the lips or from the pens of
others. It requires dedication to and a love for truth to motivate us to
subject what we hear or read to the test of Scripture. It is far easier
and fashionable in our day to assume a careless and "broad-minded"
attitude toward what becomes widely publicized in Christadelphian literature,
so becoming very tolerant of the speculations of others - especially of those
who have attained a considerable measure of popularity. It is entirely
possible for us to be careful and judicious in subjecting what we hear or read
to the test of Scripture, yet avoiding being hyper-critical for the evident
objective of drawing attention to our personal erudition. We can
modestly and humbly follow the counsel given through Isaiah: "To the law
and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because
there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20). No truly sincere and honest
brother in Christ wishes to lead others astray, even to his own ideas and
interpretations.
The better we have become grounded in God's
Word, the lower is the probability that someone else will be able to confuse us
and to convince us that he has found a new or fundamental doctrine with which
to enlighten us. The converse is, of course, true, namely that the weaker
our grounding in Scripture, the more easily can we be led astray and be
"tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine..."
(Eph. 4:14). Such was the state of his people during the days of the
ministry of Jesus. The people had been led astray by their leaders who
were interested more in guarding their power and control over the people than
in teaching God's way in truth. If the inspired apostle Paul was able to
state categorically to the brethren at Ephesus, "For I have not shunned to
declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), then we
may have confidence in understanding that there has arisen no new doctrine
in our time that is Scriptural. Because of the appetite of the human mind
for self-expression, there may be times when someone may come to us wishing to
"straighten us out" doctrinally. Upon such occasions our minds
should be sufficiently open to permit us to be both discerning and courteous,
but sufficiently guarded to cause us to apply the test of Scripture to what is
being propounded.
As a matter of record, the Christadelphian
body has been plagued for a century by strife and contention. Certain
doctrinal points have been at issue for decades. Many articles and
pamphlets have been written - even books - setting forth various
interpretations on doctrine and prophecy. Some of these propounded ideas
have led to bitter controversy and even division within the body supposedly
dedicated to the service of God, to the sharing of a glorious hope engendered
by knowledge of God's will, and to constructive reinforcement of the mutual
faith of the membership. Clearly erroneous doctrines must of necessity be
dealt with successfully in the past; they have been discarded and almost
forgotten. There remain, however, certain doctrines about which the
Scriptural basis (or lack of it) cannot be as clearly delineated. The
efforts made in hope of establishing a Scriptural basis in support of these
doctrines involve an extensive amount of arbitrary assignment of meanings to
words in chosen Scriptural texts and an insistence that such words may have
those assigned meanings and no others. The object of this attempt to
rule out other meanings that the words properly have is to try to limit
interpretation of the portion of Scripture as being supportive of the doctrine
that is being urged. What this amounts to is building into the text the
conclusion that the proponents of the doctrine wish to be drawn. When the
conclusion is built into the text, the text is valueless as proof, since the
conclusion has already been drawn arbitrarily. In the general field of
logic this is known as circular reasoning, also as begging the question.
Among people experienced in the science of argument such "arguments"
are never accepted as valid proof.
All mature believers in God's Word will
concur in the conviction that Scripture is wholly inspired and
infallible. They will, however, recognize that God's truth as set forth
in the Bible contains a mixture of elements of varying difficulty and
complexity. In the fifth chapter of Hebrews the writer employs such terms
as "milk," "strong meat," and "first principles,"
indicating thereby gradations in difficulty, both in understanding the meanings
of certain portions of Scripture and in developing "the mind of the spirit."
In the wisdom of God we have been provided with a supply of spiritual food to
nourish both the "babes" in Christ and those with the spiritual
stature of "full-grown men."
Even though we are expected to grow in
knowledge of God's truth and his grace by regular study toward showing ourselves
"approved unto God" and workmen without need to be ashamed,
"rightly dividing the word of truth," each one of us has his own
limitations. Not all of those who take upon themselves the Name of Jesus
Christ can attain unto the spiritual stature of full-grown manhood. God
"knoweth our frame," and he does not expect of us more than our
capabilities make possible. We are expected, however, to utilize the
totality of our potential with which we have been endowed and not to become
slothful or careless. This means that we must become "rooted and
grounded" both in love and in the hope of our calling. However
difficult we may find some of the "strong meat" of the truth, this
does not excuse us from becoming established in accurate knowledge of the first
principles of our belief. These constitute the "bed rock" upon
which our hope for eternal life must be built. Jesus made this fact
extremely clear in his parable at the end of his "Sermon on the
Mount," in which he contrasted two men - the one who heard his words and
kept them being likened to a man who built his house upon a rock, while the
other man who did not give the teachings of Jesus his attention and diligent
observance was likened to one who was foolish enough to build his house upon
sand. We could hardly be given more important and pointed advice and
admonition.
It is our objective in preparing this
commentary to review certain of the first principles of our faith - not all of
them, but only certain ones about which varied interpretations have been taught
within the Christadelphian body as a whole. Since the beliefs of
Christadelphians have in the past been quite distinct from doctrines held
within the popular churches, it may surprise some to learn that significant
variations exist as to how certain Scriptural teachings long considered to be
first principles are presently understood within the Christadelphian
body. Accordingly, we shall attempt to set forth as clearly as possible
how these doctrines are generally understood within that section of the body
designated on the North American Continent as the Unamended - this designation
arising from the fact that this portion of the body subscribes to the
Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith.
In the early days of the
truth's revival such writers as Dr. Thomas, Robert Roberts, and Thomas Williams
laid great stress upon Biblical teaching regarding the nature of man, drawing a
clear distinction between it and the commonly-held doctrine of the
"immortality of the soul." The fundamental fabric of Biblical
truth as expressed in both Old and New Testaments hangs upon the basic truth as
to the kind of nature that we bear and of the effect of this nature upon our
position in God's sight according as we may be in Christ or without Christ.
Among present-day Christadelphians there is
no observable tendency to believe that man possesses an immortal soul.
However, reunion negotiations have brought to light the fact that differences
exist among believers relative to Scriptural teaching as to the meaning and
import of our mortality. Mention was made in the previous section of the
role played by interpretation. In fact, interpretation cannot but have an
effect in the formulation of one's religious beliefs. The Bible contains
many statements symbolic in character which require interpretation as, for
example, in prophecy. Unless these are interpreted carefully and in the
light of general Scriptural teaching, our interpretations can lead to some
unscriptural conclusions. The Word of God contains all that is required
for our spiritual instruction in matters both fundamental and of greater depth;
however, the Bible was not organized in the manner of a textbook on basic
science. We must acquire a good, general knowledge of the contents of
both testaments before we can form a dependably accurate understanding of
"the whole counsel of God," and before we can become grounded well
enough to be proof against being confused by the arguments others may put
forth. Until we acquire such a background of Scriptural knowledge, we are
in danger of becoming confused and of taking up with one or another
questionably founded school of interpretation.
Stated most simply, man is mortal because of
sin: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom.
5:12). No one can deny these facts. The force of the
physical consequences of Adam's transgression is frequently brought painfully
to our attention as we see our loved ones taken from us, and as we experience
the steady declension of both our mental and physical powers. Divergence
in interpretation has arisen with regard to the effect produced by Adam's sin
upon our relationship to God, both as members of the human race and as we may
have become baptized believers of the gospel. This important matter is
currently given different interpretations among Christadelphians, with
consequent difference of perception as to its spiritual implications. As
we advance into the realm of spiritual significance, we are forced to take into
account the role played by the interpretation.
While it is necessary to employ
interpretation in arriving at the meanings of many passages of Scripture, we
need to be very cautious so as to avoid speculation, the injection of our own
ideas into the process. It is quite natural for us to be tempted to
speculate, especially when we have an idea that makes a strong appeal to our
emotions or prejudices. For example, people have indulged in much speculation
as to the details and implications of what transpired in the garden of
Eden. The Genesis account is extremely brief regarding this crucial
period in human history that has had such a profound effect upon the lives of
all of us. However, speculations can lead to conclusions that may
conflict with later Biblical revelation regarding God's ways, , especially as
to his magnanimous arrangement for reconciling human beings unto himself.
We can form an estimate of the way God regards man's injection of his
own ideas into divine arrangements by considering God's warning to the children
of Israel regarding altars: "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me,
and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy
sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto
thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone,
thou shalt not built it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon
it, thou hast polluted it" (Ex. 20:24-25). What God then said
of altars - devices for worship and for thanksgiving unto God - must have
similar application against man's tampering with God's Word, also an essential
element in the worship of God. God confirms this in his message given
through Isaiah: "...but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor
and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word" (Isa.
66:2).
While we dare not inject speculative details
into our understanding and our exposition of the Bible message, there is a
fully legitimate way for going about satisfying our desire to know more about
certain passages found in the Old Testament. Jesus and the inspired
apostles made frequent reference to Old Testament writings, calling attention
to the fulfillment of matters foretold, or using earlier writings as proof for
the arguments put forth. As an example, were it not for the enlightenment
given us by the Letter to the Hebrews, we would have far less understanding of
an appreciation for the beauty and spiritual significance of the Mosaic
law. It is through "comparing spiritual things with spiritual"
(I Cor. 2:13) that we can build up and "round out" our spiritual
understanding. We should take to ourselves the admonition given to the Hebrew
brethren: "...of whom [Jesus] we have many things to say, and hard to be
uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to
be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first
principles of the oracles of God...Therefore leaving the principles of the
doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection...And this we will do, if God
permit" (Heb. 5:11-6:3).
We must all acknowledge the fact that our
dying and disease-susceptible nature has been inherited from our first parents;
we are all held in bondage to this nature for the duration of our mortal lives
(Heb. 2:15). This life holds for us no promise of anything better.
As born into this world, human beings are in the desperate position that
applied to the Ephesian brethren before they took upon themselves the Name of
Jesus Christ, as described by Paul: "That at that time ye were without
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph.
2:12). In Old Testament times the hope of salvation was available only
through God's nation of Israel, either by being born an Israelite or by being
adopted into that nation which God had chosen out of love for Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. God chose, in fact, on occasion to identify himself as the God
of these faithful fathers of the nation (Ex. 3:16; Matt. 22:32).
Furthermore, God said to the nation, "You only have I known of all the
families of the earth..." (Amos 3:2). This restriction applied, even
though God had revealed in certain prophecies his intent to open the way of
salvation to the Gentiles. Paul wrote of this as a mystery (something
known only to the initiated) "Which in other ages was not made known unto
the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by
the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and
partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel..." (Eph. 3:5-6).
This purpose of God revealed to Peter and to Paul, in particular, made possible
the formerly desperate situation of the unbaptized Ephesians and of any other
unbaptized Jew or Gentile in our day to be set aside and for them to become the
beneficiaries of an incomparable privilege, as Paul expressed it: "But now
in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God..."
(Eph. 2:13,19).
By disobedience to the law God gave to our
first parents in Eden they separated themselves from the free fellowship with
God and the angels that they had enjoyed in the garden. This estrangement
or alienation from God was dramatized by their expulsion from the garden and by
their access to the tree of life being barred; that access has been guarded
ever since and is restricted to those who in the future will have it granted to
them (Rev. 2:7).
Just as the foretold consequence of
disobedience, "Dying thou shalt die" (Gen. 2:17), took physical
effect upon Adam and Eve following their transgression, there was a concurrent
mental effect (Gen. 3:7-9). This was reflected in their attitude toward
the angels, with whom they had been in friendly fellowship and with their
Creator, whom the angels represented. These physical and mental
consequences of Adam's disobedience have been passed on to all of his
descendants, even though it has not been possible for his descendants to
transgress in the same way and under the same conditions as did their first
parents. Thus, though suffering the consequences of the original sin
(Rom. 5:12-14, 17-19), these descendants cannot be guilty of that sin.
The dying process is a part of our nature, as scientific evidence can
prove. The law of Moses taught very graphically that death is a defiling
phenomenon in God's sight (Num. 19) because of its connection with sin, to say
nothing of its obvious uncleanness. Even degenerative processes short of
death (e.g. leprosy, issues) created ceremonial defilement under the law and
were to be treated as defiling the tabernacle of God.
If physical defilement in humans is
abhorrent to God, the corruption of the mind, the true individual, would be
even more so (Jer. 17:9). The very spontaneity of evil thoughts and the
almost superhuman effort required to overcome them demonstrate that they are
inherent in human nature, just as are the physical effects of Adam's
transgression. In his teaching Jesus laid bare the fact that all sinful
acts have their origin in evil thoughts, the evil tendencies of the human mind
(Matt. 5:21-30). No truly dedicated servant of God will try to dispute
the revelations of Holy Writ regarding this inherent uncleanness of his human
nature, nor will he attempt to limit impurity to acts of transgression.
The very fact that he cannot avoid transgressing God's laws should tell him
quite eloquently that there is a spirit within him that promotes rebellion
against God. Even though parents tend to idolize their infants and to
consider them the acme of innocence, no psychologically discerning parent can
fail to see the evidence in that tiny and inexperienced bit of humanity a
determination to try to get its own way. This desire to follow his own
ways, rather than God's, has been man's besetting sin ever since the transgression
in Eden. This is not a matter of psychological speculation or
interpretation; the Scriptural record bears eloquent testimony to this
principle of sin that dwells within us. If the inspired apostle, Paul,
agonized over this force within himself that made him do contrary to the
dictates of his enlightened conscience, who among more nearly ordinary mortals,
such as ourselves, can make a Scriptural case against belief that we possess a
nature wherein sin dwells?
In his agonizings over the difficult
struggle going on within his conscience (Rom. 7:13-25), Paul mentioned the two
opposing forces or "laws," as he termed them. One of these he
referred to as "the law of my mind," which we can understand from our
similar experience to have been what today we would call Paul's conscience
enlightened, both by his knowledge of the Old Testament and by the
"visions and revelations of the Lord" (II Cor. 12:1-7) that Paul had
been given. The other force contending for his service Paul termed
"the law of sin which is in my members." What Paul referred to
as "laws" in both cases are not understood as having legal
significance, but rather as active principles or influences. This
"law of sin" Paul referred to was no abstract, philosophical concept
having only theoretical significance, but a dominating force or tendency,
against which Paul had to fight with all of the determination that he could
muster - and even then with far less success than he could wish. It was a
force, irresistible at times, that produced sin in the form of actual
transgressions, as it does in all of us. This "law of sin"
leads us into temptation through the lusts that are common to mankind and a
part of our nature and of its defilement. James attributes temptation to
the drawing power of these desires (James 1:12-15) that are common to us all;
even Jesus could experience temptation, even though he had the moral and
spiritual strength to rule over it perfectly.
We must logically regard any influence that
would draw us away from God as evil, whether or not we may on many occasions be
able to rule over it. Since this force is in all of us, it is
unquestionably related to our nature. We cannot attribute it to God, who
does not oppose himself; God did not create sin - man did. Its universality
within the human race argues for a commonality of origin, and the Bible tells
us that the origin lies with one man, through whom sin entered into the
world. Sin was the antecedent of death, and both have passed universally
upon the whole human race. Because sin is utterly abhorrent to God, the
presence in humans of this defiling influence has put a barrier between man and
his Creator, as has been mentioned in connection with the expulsion of our
first parents from the garden in Eden. As a consequence of this tragedy,
God has provided a way - the only way - whereby weak, sinful man may be
forgiven for those things that he cannot avoid doing because of the nature that
he bears. In this the incomparable mercy and goodness of God are
demonstrated on behalf of repentant and deliberately obedient sinners.
For this unmerited mercy man owes to God a debt of gratitude and devotion and
obedience. He must, however, respond willingly and from his heart - not
from threat or coercion.
We read: "But when the fullness of the
time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the
law..." (Gal. 4:4). The law here referred to (as Paul's argument
clearly implies) was what we commonly call the law of Moses. It
should more properly be called God's law given through Moses, as Paul
testified, "...it was ordained by angels in the hand of a
mediator." It being God's law, it was "...holy, and the
commandment holy, and just, and good." Jesus also testified,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
That law, remaining in force up to its fulfillment in the sacrifice of Jesus,
required that a woman, upon giving birth, had to offer at a specified time
(Lev. 12) two offerings for her purification - one for a burnt offering and the
other for a sin offering. This Mary did following the birth of Jesus
(Luke 2:22-24).
There can be no question or suggestion
whatever of transgression having been involved in any sense in connection with
the birth of our Lord. The requirement in the law of a sin offering in
such a connection had a spiritual significance, and the law being directly from
God can in no way be considered as inconsistent or frivolous. Every
requirement of the law was designed to teach truth and righteousness,
even thought it could not, through a routine observance of it, confer life and
the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:20-21; Gal. 2:16). In God's wisdom,
therefore, the law taught that in human birth this sin principle, called by
Paul in Romans 8:2 "the law of sin and death," is passed on from one
generation to another, quite apart from involvement of mother or offspring in
any overt transgression. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "That which is
born of the flesh is flesh..." (John 3:6). Flesh reproduces only its
own kind, and even in the unique instance of our Lord's divine paternity, it
was necessary that God's beloved Son inherit the same nature as that of those
whom Jesus was sent into the world to save (Heb. 2:14-18). We shall have
more to say about this matter in the following section dealing with the nature
and sacrifice of our Lord.
There are other illustrations brought out by
the provisions of the Mosaic law of the existence of sin as a principle in
human nature, which are not merely consequences of an individual's
transgressions. There are some who would argue that the essence of saving
truth is to be found only in the gospel as preached by Jesus and the
apostles, and that what is written in the law is of little more than historical
significance. It is readily granted that Jesus and his work constitute a
critical aspect of God's plan and purpose with the human race, being the focus
of the means through which salvation has been made possible. However, the
whole purpose of God was determined from the very beginning, and God's plan was
a gradually developing one. Correspondingly, we cannot say that the only
important part of an individual's existence begins at birth; the pre-natal
influences and development play a crucial part in the process of human
reproduction. The law has enlightened us considerably as to God's way of
thinking in relation to human affairs (Isa. 55:8-11). Moreover, the later
teachings of Jesus give us an even more intimate and comprehensive insight into
the operations of the mind of God.
Following his expulsion of our first parents
from the garden, God has tried repeatedly to impress upon human minds his
abhorrence of sin in all of its manifestations. God revealed this
indwelling sin principle to Cain (Gen. 4:7). Its effect upon the minds
and behavior of humans has necessitated admonitions that are to be found
throughout the Scripture record against God's people obeying the lusts
generated by it. Paul's intense struggle (already referred to) against
this "law of sin" in his members, which was, as he wrote,
"warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the
law of sin which is in my members," caused him to describe it as "the
law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2) - this because death is the final
outworking of the sin principle in every one of us. It is essential to an
understanding of the gospel and of God's graciously provided atoning sacrifice
that we have a clear and correct understanding regarding the existence of this
principle that dwells in all human flesh without exception.
The universality of this indwelling
principle is vividly demonstrated by the fact that infants can and do die
before they have an opportunity consciously to disobey God. In fact,
they can and do die even before entering into this sinful world. This is
no fault of the infant; it is the consequence of their inheritance as one of
Adam's posterity. If mere absence of transgression were the basis for
immortality, then such infants should be granted immortality, as the popular
churches teach. Were such a doctrine true, we all would have been better
off not to have survived to the age when transgression against God's laws is
possible.
However innocent we are of personal
transgression through our possession of human nature, the fact that this
sin-producing propensity is resident in us constitutes a barrier to our true
fellowship with God in the absence of a sin-covering principle named by Paul
"the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus," which alone can free
us from "the law of sin and death." This latter principle more
simply termed sin by Paul (Rom. 7:8,11,14,17), unless covered by faith
and the redemption for those in Christ Jesus, leaves us "without
Christ...having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:12).
Returning to the consideration of how the
Mosaic law related sin to human nature quite apart from any overt transgression
by the individual, we find this illustrated by at least three commandments of
the law. These are illustrated by (1) the commandment of a sin offering
required for a person having had contact with a dead person, a bone, or a
grave, however accidentally (Num. 19); (2) the requirement of a sin offering as
part of the ceremonial cleansing of a leper (Lev. 14); and (3) the command to
exclude from the congregation of the Lord those individuals whose accident of
birth caused them to be a bastard, an Ammonite, or a Moabite (Deut.
23:2-4). The bastard, the Ammonite, or the Moabite had not transgressed
personally through being born of parents offensive to God; yet there had to
have been something arising through their birth that rendered them as unclean,
as contrasted with those born or adopted into the family of Israel and
circumcised, if male. This discrimination was not based upon a physical
distinction, but upon a moral or spiritual contamination associated with the
sins of ancestors who earned the anger of God. These and other defiling
influences (e.g. washing of clothes and bathing of flesh) and even sacrifices
were required for purification and restoration to a state of ceremonial
cleanness.
To summarize this section on the nature of
man, we can do no better than to quote Paul's words: "Therefore as by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of
life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made (katestathesan =
were constituted) sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made (katestathesontai = will be constituted) righteous" (Rom. 5:18-19).
Thus we see that our personal transgression or lack of such is not the
whole determining factor in our being constituted either sinners or righteous;
the actions of another (outside of our own actions) have a determinative effect.
Adam's actions constituted us all sinners; whereas, the actions of our Lord
Jesus Christ in being perfectly righteous and obedient unto death are the
essential factor in obedient sinners (bearing his Name and proving themselves
faithful and obedient) being constituted righteous. Paul expressed it
thus: "But of him are we in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption..." (I Cor.
1:30).
We of the Unamended Christadelphian
community believe firmly that it is essential to saving faith to accept with
all due reverence before God his revelation of our former status of being
without him and without hope, quite apart from the alienation increased by our
personal transgressions. Only by our confession of a need for removal of
that status as a basic element in saving faith can we become covered by the
righteousness of Jesus Christ through baptism into his saving Name, whereupon
past transgressions are forgiven for his sake. We believe that it is
essential to avoid the gross error of presumption, in common with that of the
popular churches, of believing that our personal transgressions are all that
could separate from God. By God's grace and compassion the separation due
to both causes is removed for us when we come to God through Jesus Christ (John
14:6). This relates us to the Father and the Son, as Paul explained (Eph.
2:13-22). To err on the Scriptural teachings on the nature of man is to
throw the whole process of reconciliation and justification into confusion and,
in effect, to glorify the flesh through denying its inherent uncleanness.
Man cannot fathom all of the
sublime wisdom and righteousness of the heavenly Father in trying to understand
the modus operandi that God has provided for justifying such miserable
sinners as all of us are. The great miracle of reconciliation (or
atonement) must remain, in part, a mystery to us. It should be our part
to accept God's provision on our behalf with extreme gratitude and reverence
and not to exploit this "unspeakable gift" from God as an excuse for
controversy.
This, however, does not imply that we may
justly ignore what the Father has chosen to reveal for inquiring minds to
search out. It is evidence of human pride and that love of controversy
which expresses pride that this sublime subject has been made an excuse for
more strife, bitterness, and un-Christian conflict than almost any other
theological doctrine. It is our purpose in this commentary to set forth
as simply and as clearly as we are able the understanding of the subject that
is prevalent in Unamended Christadelphian communities.
The truth concerning the nature that our
Lord Jesus Christ bore between the events of his birth and of his being raised
to the divine nature is most closely tied to what is revealed concerning the
nature of man. In spite of his divine paternity, having been begotten by
the Holy Spirit and not by man, our Lord entered this world in exactly the same
manner that we all do. He was, thus, a man, having been born of a woman
according to the Father's determinate counsel and purpose. Luke's gospel
tells us that Jesus was accounted to be a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, a son
of David, as well as being Son of God. The Biblical account is explicit
as to these facts; therefore they are beyond controversy.
Having been born of a human being in
accordance with God's intent and wisdom, Jesus inherited through his human
ancestry the same nature as the one we bear. "Wherefore in all
things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren..." (Heb.
2:17). It was necessary that Jesus bear our nature so that he might
overcome it and "come to grips" with sin where it dwells - in human
flesh. This human nature was his inheritance from his mother and his
other ancestors. However, it is now well known that a child inherits
characteristics from both parents. Jesus was unique in his inheritance,
for no other human being has had God for a parent by begettal. From his
Father our Lord evidently inherited a mind with a capacity for moral and
spiritual strength and perception such as no other human being has ever
possessed. This is evident from the fact that Jesus was able to live a
life without ever submitting to the temptations that, of whatever kind, involve
all of the rest of us in transgression. In addition to his moral and
spiritual powers, Jesus had an intelligence superior to that of any other human
being, as witnessed by his being able to outwit every one of the devices of his
learned enemies.
The fact that Jesus possessed the nature in
which sin dwells is demonstrated by his ability to be tempted to do evil in the
sense of using the Holy Spirit power given to him at his baptism - using it for
his own personal advantage. Jesus knew full well what had been prophesied
of him, and there was the obvious temptation to test its fulfillment at that
time and thereby to reassure himself that he was indeed the Son of God.
There was also the temptation to take unto himself the rulership of the world
without having to undergo the horrible death that he knew was required of him
(Isa. 53:5-10; Luke 12:50). Had Jesus been free from human weaknesses (II
Cor. 13:4) in the form of temptation to gratify self and otherwise to submit to
the promptings of his nature, he would not have had to learn
obedience by the things that he suffered (Heb. 5:8). With an
intelligence such as Jesus possessed, learning obedience through suffering
would not have been required for one who had no tendencies to disobey.
That there was a conflict between his will and that of the Father was fully
demonstrated in his agony in the garden of Gethsemane.
Some have thought through their reasoning to
absolve Jesus of any taint of the flesh, and to make his sacrifice solely an
altruistic act on behalf of the rest of us. We have no intent or desire
to downgrade Jesus' love for his friends for whom he laid down his life in the
greatest exhibition of love ever witnessed. The angel's assurance to Mary
that the child she would bear would be an "holy thing" does not rule
out the fact of the existence of the sin principle in Jesus. He was most
certainly holy, since the word holy means "set apart" or
"dedicated." Jesus was dedicated to the purpose of God as being
a sin-bearer, though innocent of transgression, for his role as "the lamb
of God that taketh away the sin of the world," and that he might bring
"life and immortality to light through the gospel." The term holy
was applied to a variety of people in Scripture. The Mosaic high priest bore
on his head the golden crown inscribed with "HOLINESS TO THE
LORD." The prophets were termed holy by Peter (Acts 3:21;
II Pet. 1:21). The apostles were also termed holy (Eph.
3:5). The Hebrew brethren in Christ were termed "holy
brethren," and so were the members in the ecclesia in Colosse (Col.
3:12). There is no question that of all of God's children none was as
holy in the complete sense of the word as was Jesus; however, such holiness
does not rule out the possession by Jesus of sin nature. His possession
of it was essential for his performance of the work given him by the Father -
the overcoming of sin, in particular. In fact, those who would attempt to
glorify Jesus by denying that sin was present in his nature actually rob Jesus
of his great accomplishment in being able to overcome sin. He was able to
give comfort to his disciples at the Last Supper by reminding them of his
accomplishment: "...but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world"
(John 16:33). What greater accomplishment could there be than overcoming
perfectly what no other human being has been able to do, except only partially;
Jesus deserves our highest praise and admiration for this. By gaining
this victory over sin, Jesus could say in his prayer to the Father, "I
have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to
do." As reward for his glorifying the Father, the Father has
glorified Jesus with his own nature and by delivering into his hand "all
power in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18).
The work that the Father gave to the Son to
accomplish had a number of aspects, which, in part, we may list as follows:
1. to overcome sin in himself (John 16:33),
2. to show the character of God by his conformity to
God's requirements and thinking (John 3:11; 14:9),
3. to confirm the promises made to the fathers
(Abrahamic covenant) (Rom. 15:8-9),
4. to testify to the world that its works are evil (John
7:7),
5. to bear witness to God's nation that God was visiting
his people by sending the Messiah, as witnessed by the Father's words and by
the works that Jesus performed by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 15:22),
6. to teach mankind righteousness (Psa. 40:9),
7. to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb.
9:2),
8. to obtain eternal redemption for himself and others
(Heb. 5:5-7; 9:12), and
9.
to "abolish death and
bring life and immortality to light through the gospel" (II Tim. 1:10).
With such a momentous assignment to carry
out, and to do so without a single error or transgression while still bearing
the same nature as his brethren and under extreme provocation by his enemies,
our Lord had to wage an exhausting struggle against the sin-tendency within
himself. For such an accomplishment we can properly have nothing other
than the greatest marvel and reverence. The humility of a man with such
exalted parentage and with the ability to perform flawlessly marks Jesus as
perfect in every moral and spiritual aspect of his character. Thus, with
his perfection of character he was a true image of the Father (Heb. 1:3), so
that he could truthfully say to Philip, "...he that hath seen me hath seen
the Father..." In spite of the perfect character of Jesus, his
nature inherited from his mother was not perfect. God arranged that Jesus
be born under the Mosaic law and under "the law of sin and death," so
that he could redeem the Jew from the curse of the Mosaic law (Gal. 3:13) and
both Jew and Gentile from the entail of the law of sin and death.
In the face of this marvel of God's grace and
goodness wrought through his Son, how can we lay claim to being God's grateful
servants if we make of this sublime truth an issue for wrangling over rival
claims to spiritual erudition?
Consideration of the
significance of and the changes resulting from baptism follows logically upon
our considerations of the nature of man and of the nature and sacrifice of
Jesus Christ. It is also very logically connected with a consideration of
the significance of the Abrahamic covenant and of an individual's amenability
or responsibility to a resurrectional judgment.
Our first Biblical acquaintance with the
process of baptism is met in the New Testament with the baptism performed by
John who was called the Baptist. In a publication intended mainly for use
by Christadelphians it would be useless to devote space to Scriptural
justification for limiting the act of baptism to total immersion of the human
body in water - this as contrasted with a mere sprinkling with water, which
popular churches term "baptism." Two references alone suffice
for dismissing this point: Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:4-5.
The principal occasions for controversy
among Christadelphians are related to the nature and significance of the
changes in an individual's relationships to God resulting from a valid baptism,
and to the role of baptism in relating the individual to a resurrectional
judgment.
Since use has been made of the term, a valid
baptism, the significance of the limiting term should be explained. In
the minds of some the word "baptism" has been associated almost
entirely with the outward, physical ceremony of dipping in water. That
outward ceremony is an essential and required part of the process of assuring
that a person is validly baptized, but it is only a part of the process.
As has always been true of human thinking, ceremony long practiced tends to
become the emphasis and a substitute for what the ceremony was intended to
symbolize. For those whose minds do not seek to delve below the surface
of things to discover the underlying reasons for required ceremonies, the
ceremony itself is about all that concerns them. This emphasis upon the
symbol can result in the association of the symbol with some other substance
than that for which the symbol was originally designed. For example, it
is entirely possible for some to think of the ritual of baptism solely as the
means by which one becomes a member of a religious organization, and little
more. It could well be that our Lord, with his thorough knowledge of
human nature, commanded only two rituals to be observed by his servants.
These are baptism and the breaking of bread. By his omission of other
rituals in the service of the Father and of himself, our Lord may have intended
to minimize the opportunity for free rein in divine worship on the part of his
servants. His own nation had in their attention to minute detail lost
sight of the spiritual significance of the Mosaic law and ritual. Human
fascination with ritual is evident from the ceremonies that characterize man's
"religions."
Since baptism is intended to mark a decisive
turning point in an individual's life and in his relationship to God and to
Christ, merely submitting to a physical ceremony does not produce the change in
that person's way of thinking and mode of living that God requires. A
commitment to the fundamental change from following the ways of the flesh to
following the commandments of our Lord can only be made as a result of
enlightenment of conscience based upon a sufficient amount of knowledge of what
God has revealed in the Scriptures concerning himself, his ways, and his
will. Such a change cannot come about as the result of a sudden
"conversion," but only following adequate study and instruction in
the way of righteousness to lead one to a true repentance and a desire to
devote the remainder of one's life to the service of God and of Christ, rather
than following the way which seems right in one's own eyes. In the
absence of such a solemn commitment, one might be totally buried in water a
thousand times, and not one of those times would constitute a valid
baptism.
An individual's reasons for desiring to
undergo the process of baptism should be governed by his clear understanding as
to what is to be accomplished through baptism. Understanding as to what
is accomplished by baptism is not uniform throughout all sectors of the
Christadelphian body. Some seek to limit its effect to the washing away
of personal transgressions, plus the taking upon one's self the Name of our
Lord Jesus Christ. There is no question in the minds of members of the
Unamended sector of the body that these are both essential aspects of the
significance and results of a valid baptism. However, they believe firmly
that there are additional elements in the overall process.
Paul wrote in the sixth chapter of his
Epistle to the Romans about the fundamental change in an individual's life
symbolized by baptism. It is a symbolic death on the part of the
individual - not a physical death, obviously, but a planting together in the
likeness of Christ's death - to be followed by a raising "in the likeness
of his resurrection." It implies a solemn obligation to walk in
"newness of life" and for the remainder of the individual's
life. We may then say that an individual's baptism is the critical
turning point in that person's life. As indicated above, if there is
no commitment to such a change in style and purpose in life, that individual
has not been truly baptized; the outward ceremony of immersing in water has
neither significance nor power to affect the individual's relationship with God
- the "baptism" was not valid. Peter termed baptism
"the answer of a good conscience toward God;" i.e., the prescribed
response by the individual to having acquired a consciousness as to what God
wants of him.
In the above quotation there are tied
together for our enlightenment several consequences of a valid baptism:
1. we put on Christ,
2. in the sight of God all present distinctions that
play important roles in the world (nationality, social or economic status, or
sex) are eliminated, so that each one of us stands before God and Jesus Christ
solely on the basis of character, with no respect of persons shown or to be
expected,
3. we become accounted as members of the spiritual
family of Abraham, the patriarch of the faithful, and thus reckoned as true or
spiritual Israelites; and
4.
as members of Abraham's
spiritual family we become heirs of the glorious promises that God made to him
and to his seed.
By putting on Christ through being
"baptized into his death" we identify ourselves with him, assuming
that we do indeed walk in newness of life upon arising from the water.
This obligates us to "follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth."
As Paul wrote, "It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we
shall also live with him: if we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we
deny him, he also will deny us: if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he
cannot deny himself" (II Tim. 2:11-13). This identification with
Jesus is not a matter of mere doctrinal formality. The close
identification between Jesus and his brethren (Christadelphians in the
definitive sense of the name) is made clear from two examples taken from
Scripture:
1. "And the King shall answer and say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto me" (Matt. 25:40, and
2.
"For we are members of
his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph. 5:30).
Such close identification with Christ
implies a close identification with our Lord's Father. Adding a verse to
a quotation made above we are told, "For ye are all the children of God by
faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). This relationship of children to
God is amplified by Paul as follows: "The Spirit itself beareth witness
with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs;
heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him,
that we may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:16-17).
Sonship to God begins at baptism, upon which
one enters the remaining period of his natural life under probation. What
requires proving is whether the individual will remain faithful to his
commitment to God and Christ. The problems and trials of life in this
world serve to establish clearly in the minds of our God and of our Judge
whether one serves them or one's self. The record that one thus
establishes in their infallible memories serves to determine whether the
individual may be deemed worthy of permanent sonship and fellowship with the
Father and the Son. The children of God in this probationary state can
enjoy the benefits of the degree of fellowship with the Father that is granted
to them. John wrote, "...and truly our fellowship is with the
Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ...If we say that we have fellowship with
him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth...But if we walk in the
light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:3,
6-7).
Important as a valid baptism is to our
salvation, the walking in light thereafter is a necessary condition for
maintenance of that all-essential cleansing from all unrighteousness through
the effectiveness for us of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. As John
wrote, if we do not walk in the light of God's truth, but in the darkness of
the world's ways, we make ourselves liars and are merely pretenders to
righteousness and fellowship with our Maker and his Son. Those who do not
understand or who do not value sufficiently the change of relationship
attendant upon baptism, namely from being only in Adam and, consequently
"without hope and without God in the world' to being in personal
fellowship with God and with Christ will realize too late their tragic
mistake. For such their baptism will not have served the purpose
intended. Even though their pre-baptismal sins may have been forgiven,
they will suffer the consequences of the far greater sin of having, in effect,
"counted the blood of the covenant" wherewith they had been sanctified
an unholy (common) thing; they will have "done despite unto the Spirit of
grace" (Heb. 10:29).
In view of the magnitude of the importance
and the significance of true baptism, the decision to take that step is the
most important and serious decision that a human being can make. It
definitely should not be made under duress, urgent persuasion, or other kinds
of psychological pressure from anyone else. With full appreciation of the
mercy of God. He does not approve of people taking His Name upon themselves
in vain (Psa. 50:16). God is preparing a glorious and holy temple; in it
he purposes to dwell "for an habitation of God through the Spirit"
(Eph. 2:21-22). As when God commanded Moses concerning the building of
the tabernacle in the wilderness, "Speak unto the children of Israel, that
they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart
ye shall take my offering...And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell
among them" (Ex. 25:2,8). From this and from the freewill offerings
under the law we can readily conclude that God is honored only by voluntary and
joyful service out of reverence and gratitude for God's goodness - not because
people are motivated largely by fear.
A definite trend away from the
study of the writings of the pioneers of our denomination is readily
discernible within the Christadelphian body as a whole. Also, there is an
increasing tendency to pay less attention to the Old Testament foundations of
our beliefs, and to center attention around Jesus Christ and modern-day
interpretations of his teachings. There can be no doubt whatever of the
fact that Jesus occupies a central place in the outworking of God's plan and
purpose with the human race and man's salvation. As Paul wrote to the
Ephesian brethren, both Jewish and Gentile believers, "...are built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
chief cornerstone..." (Eph. 2:20). But the cornerstone is not the
whole foundation, however prominently it figures in the finished building,
bearing as it does the honor of having engraved upon it significant testimony
as to the purpose that the building serves, and serving as the junction of two
walls of the building.
God's purpose of and plan for the salvation
of mankind existed in God's Mind from the very beginning. As mentioned
earlier, it was to be an unfolding plan, of which only a "hint" was
revealed in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:15). As time went on, more details
were revealed on appropriate occasions. Abraham's obedience and
faithfulness were rewarded with a vision of the future affecting him and his
seed in the form of glorious promises certified by God's oath and a covenant
with him offered by God. These promises to Abraham embraced momentous
developments (Rom. 4:13), and referred to a seed, both singular and
multitudinous, through whom and through Abraham all nations will be
blessed. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul wrote in the above reference,
"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of
faith." To emphasize the solemnity and importance of his promise to
Abraham and to Abraham's seed, God confirmed the immutability of his purpose by
adding his solemn oath to his promise, in neither of which could the only true
God ever lie (Heb. 6:13-20). We dare not minimize the importance of
making a matter that God regarded with such seriousness an integral part of the
foundation of our belief. The critically important part that Jesus and
his teachings play in God's truth in no way reduces the incomparable importance
of this fundamental doctrine. The work and teachings of Jesus were, in
fact, based upon that foundation. Otherwise, why would Jesus have said,
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was
glad?"
God's promises on behalf of Abraham and of
those accounted to him for a seed were considered by Paul to be such glorious
revelations that he termed them "the gospel" or good news
(Gal. 3:8). For one to whom God had revealed "the mystery of
Christ" (Eph. 3:1-7), and to whom had been given "visions and
revelations of the Lord" (II Cor. 12:1), Paul had the authority of
inspiration for designating the promises made to Abraham as "the
gospel." In view of this, what justification can there be for anyone
attempting to relegate this great and fundamental doctrine to mere background
history? Jesus quoted his Father as having said, "I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob..." (Matt.
22:32). Jesus used his Father's statement to establish the surety of a
resurrection, because, though the fathers of the nation were dead at the time
Jesus was speaking, God's immutable promises to them could only be fulfilled by
their resurrection. Thus, the fulfillment of God's covenant with the
fathers was inseparably linked with the gospel that Jesus preached: the gospel
preached to Abraham and the gospel of the kingdom of God preached by Jesus were
fundamentally the same. The true gospel was not an entirely new
phenomenon in the days of Jesus and the apostles; it was only more fully
elaborated through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit granted to them.
Our understanding of the gospel of the kingdom of God is heavily dependent upon
our knowledge of the writings of the Old Testament prophets, who made many
references to God's covenant.
It is vitally important to keep these
matters in perspective, for when we neglect to emphasize the fundamentally
Israelitish foundation of the gospel message, we then drift (even though
gradually and imperceptibly) very close to the camp of Protestantism. In
similar manner the Jewish rulers of Jesus' day had drifted into Judaism,
Hellenism, and a totally ritual observance of the Mosaic law.
The apostle Paul termed the glorious and
saving gospel "the Hope of Israel." It ceases to be such when
Israelitish foundations are discarded. Paul also expressed the hope given
us through our possession of the truth as our "inheritance" (Eph.
1:11); he termed Christ's servants "heirs" (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29;
Titus 3:7). We find such terms used also by Peter (I Pet. 3:7) and by
James (James 2:5). For individuals to have the status of heirs there has
to be either a familial or a legal relationship between the source of the
inheritance and any who may properly be considered as heirs. In the case
of those who are in Christ, the relationship is both familial (through adoption
into the family of Abraham) and legal through the covenants of promise; both adoption
and covenants are legal devices. Few, even worldly people, would consider
discarding what is commonly known as a "last will and testament" of
their benefactor, if such a testament (covenant) were entrusted to their care.
The Hebrew word berith (covenant),
occurs over 275 times in the Old Testament. Examination of its
occurrences in the text shows in the majority of such passages either God's
covenant or the ark of the covenant involved. From this large number of
references to God's covenant one is justified in concluding that God has always
had a deep concern for his covenant and as to whether those accounted as his
servants observed it faithfully. Any breaking of that covenant is
regarded by God as a very serious offence against him, since God proclaims his
own faithfulness to it.
As discussed before in the section, THE
NATURE OF MAN, Paul emphasized the great contrast in the positions before God
of the Ephesian brethren after they had put on Christ and the one they had
occupied before so doing (Eph. 2). Their status beforehand Paul termed
"strangers from the covenants [plural] of promise." Mention so
far has been made principally to the Abrahamic covenant and of its renewal to
Isaac and to Jacob under different conditions and in different words. But
in the development of God's purpose and of his progressive revelations of it to
man there followed later covenants.
When the nation of Israel was born out of
Egypt and "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (I Cor.
10:2), God brought them to Sinai. There God met with his people through
his angel (Acts 7:38), and he revealed to them both his covenant (Ex. 19:5) and
his awesome power. That covenant given at Sinai is usually spoken of as
the Mosaic covenant or law. It was a temporal arrangement "...till
the seed should come to whom the promise was made..." (Gal. 3:19); Paul
called it a "schoolmaster" (v. 24) to bring God's people to
Christ. The law could not give the people life, since "it was weak
through the flesh;" human flesh is not able to keep it perfectly, the only
exception being our Lord Jesus Christ. When his perfect observance of the
law had fulfilled it, the law was taken out of the way through Jesus
"nailing it to his cross" (Col. 2:14).
Until the fullness of time arrived, the
Mosaic covenant was to be observed rigorously by all Israelites and by the
sojourner among them. Great temporal benefits would attend the nation for
faithful adherence to God's covenant (Ex. 19:5-6; Lev. 26:1-13; Deut.
28:1-14). Though the blessings specifically pronounced were to be
temporal, the Spirit revealed through the prophets eternal benefits for those
in whom the spirit of the law inspired faith and righteousness. The
chapters referred to above from both Leviticus and Deuteronomy laid out in considerable
detail both the blessings that would attend the keeping of the Mosaic covenant
and the dire and long-lasting punishments that would befall a faithless Israel
reprobate in its observance of that covenant. The pages of human history
give abundant testimony to the fulfillment of what had been predicted would
happen to God's disobedient nation.
As matters progressed and as God's purpose
unfolded, we find God making a further covenant of momentous import with
another faithful man, King David. It provided important details regarding
God's plan and purpose that had not been specifically revealed to
Abraham. It promised to David a special seed who would be God's Son who
should reign upon David's throne and establish it forever (II Sam. 7:8-17).
Thus we can see that God's purpose in providing Jesus for the work that he was
given to perform was implicit in both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.
They together with the confirming sacrifice of our Lord are all elements
of the everlasting covenant, through which mankind may have hope for
salvation. David recognized that this further development would come at
some future time and that God's promise to him would have a sure fulfillment,
as expressed in his own words: "Although my house be not so with God; yet
he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure:
for this is all my salvation and all my desire..." (II Sam. 23:5).
It has already been mentioned in connection
with the discussion on the nature and sacrifice of Christ that Paul stated,
"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the
truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers..." (Rom.
15:8). By his sacrifice the Abrahamic covenant, which had been only
typically ratified in the ceremony described in Genesis 15, was finally
ratified. In anticipation of what would be very shortly accomplished by
his death, Jesus instituted at the "Last Supper" a memorial ritual of
that confirmation when he said, "This cup is the new testament [diatheke
= covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). The
blood which it signifies is referred to in Hebrews 13:20 as "the blood of
the everlasting covenant," through which "the great shepherd of the
sheep" was brought again from the dead. Jesus is also referred to in
Hebrews 12:24 as "the mediator of the new covenant." Thus the
work and teachings of Jesus cannot be truly and scripturally separated from the
everlasting covenant, and any effort to relegate the covenants of promise to
background history reveals a marked drifting away from the fundamentals of our
faith.
As a final note on a matter that proved very
confusing to Jewish believers who had been brought up on the Mosaic covenant
and who therefore looked to it to give them life, the temporary nature of the
Mosaic covenant was difficult for them to grasp. In Scripture this
problem was addressed in the Epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to
the Hebrews. wrote, "Is the law then against the promises of
God? God forbid;; for if there had been a law which could have given
life, verily righteousness should have been by the law" (Gal. 3:21).
Life was in all ages conditional upon faith and righteousness. The
Jews as a nation failed because, in spite of a kind of zeal for God (Rom. 10:2),
they did not attain "to the law of righteousness...because they sought it
not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law" (Rom.
9:31-32). With the appointment of Jesus to his foretold high priesthood,
we are told, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity
a change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12). Instead of the law of Moses
being opposed to the everlasting covenant, we may consider it as having been
ancillary to it, having been "a schoolmaster" to bring God's people
to Christ and to the implications of the everlasting covenant.
In the introductory part of
this commentary a few of the difficulties that are encountered in the process
of communication were mentioned. Not only is it true that a high
percentage of the words in the English language have more than one meaning, but
if all shades of meaning that exist in human minds were to be taken into
account, we should possibly have as many for each word as there are
people. There was also mentioned the compounding of the problem brought
about by the necessity of translating what has been written or spoken in one
language into the best equivalent rendering in another language.
This problem caused by words having
different meanings to different people is the source of serious difficulties
within the Christadelphian body. Few words have inspired a wider range in
behavior among ourselves than has the word fellowship. However,
before discussing the variant behavior, it would be well to give careful
attention to the basic meaning (denotation) of this word fellowship.
However, before discussing the variant behavior, it would be well to give
careful attention to the basic meaning (denotation) of this word fellowship.
This word is obviously based upon the word fellow,
fellowship being the condition that exists among those who may be termed fellows.
Fellows are individuals having strong, common interests. This
English word is used in the translation of a prophetic statement made by God
concerning Jesus in which God made reference to Jesus as "the man that is
my fellow" (Zech. 13:7). We know of the complete harmony of mind and
purpose that existed between the Father and the Son. Jesus expressed it
thus, "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone;
for I do always those things that please him." The harmony between
Jesus and God was so complete that Jesus could say truthfully to Philip,
"...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Thus, Jesus was
God's fellow through a complete harmony of purpose and affection. The
character of Jesus demonstrated by his words and his behavior reflected a true
image of the Father's character, as stated in Hebrews 1:3. This would be
understood by those with sufficient spiritual discernment. Those with
such discernment and the sincere desire to serve God would be classed as the
fellows of Jesus, as indicated in Psalm 45:7: "Thou lovest righteousness,
and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows." In similar vein Jesus said, "For
whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my
brother, and sister, and mother" (Matt. 12:50).
In the New Testament fellowship is
the English translation of the word koinonia in the original, whose basic
meaning (according to Thayer's Lexicon) is that of sharing in what one
has, of communion. The uses of the word in the New Testament are in
complete agreement with this concept. For example, Paul wrote, "God
is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ
our Lord" (I Cor. 1:9). We have been called to share in a glorious
hope, the Hope of Israel, and of eternal life in the company of our Lord, of
the angels, and ultimately of the Almighty. What else that may be shared
is in any way comparable to such a hope? Therefore, when we use the word fellowship
we should have this sharing uppermost in our minds. John wrote, "And
truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (I
John 1:3). What more exalted association than this could there be?
The contemplation of such an association should be inspiring; it should
motivate us to display the noblest behavior of which we are capable, for the
honorable association carries with it an awesome responsibility to demonstrate
by our behavior that we are indeed the true fellows of the Father and the Son.
Just as Jesus had been given the highest
position of honor and power next to the Father on the basis of his loving
righteousness and hating wickedness, what hope we may have for future honor and
power will depend upon our ability to manifest similar characteristics.
Paul admonished us, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of
those things which are done of them in secret" (Eph. 5:11-12). On
the contrary, we are directed to "...take upon us the fellowship of the
ministering to the saints" (II Cor. 8:4). In the same epistle Paul
poses the rhetorical questions, "...for what fellowship hath righteousness
with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"
This concept of our having fellowship with
the Father and with the Son, of sharing something with them, should put
fellowship upon the highest mental and spiritual plane. We cannot
conceive of either the Father or the Son having fellowship with anything less
than the maximum dignity and purity of which human flesh is capable. John
stated that "God is light, an in him is no darkness at all" (I John
1:5). That being true, those in fellowship with God and the Son must
exhibit light in their relationships, for John continues, "If we say that
we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not
the truth." Thus whether we have fellowship with God is not based
primarily upon the knowledge we have in our heads or upon the human
organization to which we belong, but upon our walk - what we do; for, as John
wrote, the truth is to be done, not merely assented to. Our
thoughts and the deeds that spring therefrom bespeak fellowship with God or the
absence of it. Our principal business in this life of probation is to
acquire the ability to think in harmony with God and with Christ, to develop
that true fellowship with them. This is primarily an individual task and
responsibility; others can neither do it for us nor prevent us from doing what
we must, provided we do not allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by others
who would confuse us and "take our crown." This most important
fellowship, our individual fellowship with the Father and the Son, cannot be denied
us by others - none can snatch Jesus' sheep out of his or the Father's
hand. For those with sufficient faith to stand upon their own commitment
to God, regardless of the actions of others, this should be a most fortifying
assurance. The sad fact is that far too many, as was true with the
Galatian brethren, allow themselves to be "bewitched" by others.
So far, this commentary has dealt only with
the fellowship of the individual with the Father and the Son. But
whatever our behavior may be, it has its effect upon others. Others are
watching our behavior, and they are influenced by it in one way or another and
to a greater or lesser extent. For this reason we must be thoughtful as
to how others may be affected by our behavior, as Paul was so careful to point
out in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8. The example that we set has a
greater influence over others than our attempts to persuade or to
admonish. Preaching can serve the necessary function of informing others
of the way of life, but our example will have the greater influence in either
converting them or in driving them away from the truth.
As in other fields of human interest and endeavor,
a common interest in spiritual matters, if consistently demonstrated by
behavior in keeping, should stimulate a condition of true, spiritual
fellowship. This would be the kind of fellowship urged by the writings of
the apostles. Again quoting from John's epistle, "But if we walk in
the light, as he [God] is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John
1:7). Since God is light (vs. 5), light must characterize any who could
possibly be in fellowship with him. Thus, mutual walking in light is the
only proper basis for human beings having true, spiritual fellowship with one
another. Those who love God sufficiently to be motivated to control
their lives by his commandments and to esteem "the blood of the covenant,
wherewith he was sanctified" a most precious privilege extended to them -
these individuals are qualified to "have fellowship one with
another." Such fellowship should be an inspiring and spiritually
uplifting relationship, ministering to the spiritual health and welfare of each
individual. This expresses the ideal situation and the one that Jesus
desired his followers to have, as he stated, "By this shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
But in this far from ideal and very
imperfect world the ideal is seldom, if ever, realized. Human nature with
its gross imperfections leaves its mark upon all institutions with which it is
associated, which means all human institutions without exception. Not
only does it compound the difficulties of the individual believer with possible
internal conflict, but it also produces internal conflict within the
organization with potentially disruptive results, no matter how lofty may have
been the original purpose for which the organization was founded. The
passions and rival ambitions that are so characteristic of humans sooner or
later give rise to internal strife. James wrote, "From whence come
wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war
in your members?" (James 4:1). These stumbling blocks in the way of
spiritual fellowship have taken a tragic toll.
The Christadelphian body has demonstrated
itself to be an outstanding example of this departure from ideality. In
some areas it has established a reputation for itself of internal strife and
division, also of behavior uncharacteristic of that of the apostles of our
Lord. While it is definitely and characteristically human to err, the
very humanity of it does not justify aberrant behavior. As witnesses for
the saving truth that we espouse and proclaim, we have a responsibility to give
consistent witness by our actions, a witness that is being constantly observed
by those with whom we must associate in our daily lives. The people of
the world have a right to look for consistency between our professions and our
behavior. They see the indisputable logic of our Master's standard
of judgment: "By their fruits ye shall know them." Most
unhappily, the history of the Christadelphian body has not given adequate
witness to the body's appreciation, even comprehension, of the true concept of
fellowship. Any human organization is made up of people who differ as to
value standards and temperaments. The Christadelphian body contains
within its fold humble, obedient, and self-denying individuals. It
contains also outspoken, self-willed individuals who appropriate to themselves
the prominent positions, and into whose hands those less self-willed leave
judgments affecting ecclesial policies. The aggressive individuals are
usually the ones who precipitate controversies, being totally confident of the
"rightness" of their opinions. Thus, the meek tend to defer to
them as the spokesmen for the organization. This is often most
unfortunate, because personal ambition and self-confidence, while indicative of
greater energy, are seldom accompanied by greater spirituality and by sounder
judgment.
It is instructive and profitable in relation
to this modern problem to study the history of the early church that is
generally regarded as Christian, particularly during the two centuries
following the disappearance through death of the holy apostles. The
epistles of both John and Paul give testimony to the fact that even in their
days pagan doctrines and the corrupting effect of rival ambitions for
leadership were destroying the tranquility within the ecclesias and polluting
the saving gospel. Paul warned, "For the mystery of iniquity doth
already work..." (II Thess. 2:7). If the inspired apostles
possessing the gifts of the Holy Spirit could scarcely restrain the development
of the apostasy, we should e able to understand how difficult it must be in
these days with only the written Word to guide us and to enable the body of
Christ to maintain its purity of both doctrine and walk. The almost
irresistible infiltration of the thinking and standards of this ungodly
generation confronts the believers at almost every step. The impact of
these upon the minds of the children of Christadelphians is particularly
strong, because children tend to accept the behavior that they observe as
normal; they lack a grounding in divine principles that would enable them to
condemn what they see.
Confronted with these difficulties, the
Christadelphian body has a thoroughly challenging problem in trying to maintain
itself in a spiritually healthy condition. Some people now recognize that
the first and essential step toward solving a problem is to recognize the
existence and the nature of the problem. Unfortunately, there is evidence
that the existence of a real problem is not widely recognized. Some
people may recognize that a problem exists, but the exact nature of the problem
and how to deal with it may not be understood. The same old methods that
have been used unsuccessfully for decades are still being employed.
It has been pointed out above that
fellowship, by Scriptural definition, is a matter of walking in the light;
therefore in a given situation fellowship either exists or it does not exist,
either as to the relationship between individuals with the Father and Son or as
to the relationships between individuals. Since "walking in
light" is a metter of behavior, fellowship can neither be legislated nor
defined according to documents, regardless of traditional views that such is
possible. The Statements of Faith are merely definitions and
codifications of beliefs in terms of doctrines; they give little guidance, if
any, about the walk of individuals. Hence, they are not criteria of real
fellowship, but only of the doctrinal beliefs and preferences of the
individuals or communities ascribing to them. When they are used as
criteria for accepting or for excluding individuals from the privilege of
worship at the table of the Lord, they are being used legalistically with the
force of a code of laws - as shibboleths.
There can be no question as to the fact that
we are under obligation to uphold the purity of God's truth. The vexing
problem lies in determining what methods members should employ in the attempt
to uphold it. Paul gave us clear guidance as to what should be done in
one type of situation that must be dealt with. In admonishing the
Corinthian brethren to purge out the leavening influence caused by toleration
of the wickedness in their midst Paul wrote, "Therefore put away from
among yourselves that wicked person" (I Cor. 5:7-13). This tells us
that we should keep no company with moral offenders. It is important to
recognize that Paul limited this putting away to individuals, not to ecclesias
or to ecclesial federations.
There can also be no question that such
purging out of wicked persons becomes necessary for the sake of the honorable
Name that we bear. Paul wrote further, "Do not be deceived: Bad
company ruins good morals" (I Cor. 15:33, RSV). All spiritually
mature members are well aware of the truth of that quotation. They know
that bad examples are especially dangerous for their effect upon the young and
upon those weak in the faith. We have already referred to the appraising
and critical eye with which people of the world scrutinize our behavior; all
too often they hope to find something to condemn in both our behavior and our
doctrine. For this reason we must strive, as Paul admonished, to
"Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:22). This
admonition is not primarily for the sake of our personal reputations, but for
the reputation of the gospel that we preach and for that of the One whom we
claim to follow. If the world's citizens observe us using tactics in our internal
relationships that they can see clearly are far removed from the teachings of
the Master, it will be evident to them that we have very little appreciation of
the basic meaning of the word fellowship, even as they perceive it.
While we have commented upon our obligation
to rid the body of wicked persons by putting such away from our midst, we must
not overlook the mercy and forbearance that God demonstrated in dealing with
his nation in that he first warned them of their sinful ways and then allowed
them time for repentance. Also, we should recall the opportunities for
repentance given to most of the seven ecclesias to which John was commissioned
by the glorified Jesus to write (Revelation 2 and 3). Jesus pointed out
to each ecclesia the specific errors of its ways, but he also commended each
one on the basis of those ways in which it was walking acceptably.
Thus, both God and our Lord have demonstrated their restraint in their dealings
with those who offend. If they who are flawless in righteousness can exercise
restraint with those who are out of the way (Heb. 5:2), why do we, who are
anything but flawless in righteousness, find it too difficult to show restraint
in passing judgment upon our errant members? They, too, need first
warning and then opportunity for repentance, before we invoke the last resort
in our effort to keep the body as pure as is possible. We need to be
mindful of the fact that those who have been prodigal with respect to their
baptismal covenant remain the Lord's property (not ours) up to the time that
they may renounce him totally; we should be most careful in how we treat the
property of God and of our Lord. With this in mind we should make every
attempt to salvage whatever may be salvageable for our Lord's sake and theirs.
In the problem area of how to deal with the
wicked person the Scriptural guidelines are relatively clear. When it
comes to the problem of how to deal with error in doctrine, the course to
follow is less clearly defined. The problem is more subtle for the reason
that judgment is required in discerning the cause or motive for a person
entertaining beliefs that are at odds with what has been generally understood
to be true and accurate. If possible, this cause should first be
ascertained, because it is entirely possible for an individual or group of
individuals to become confused when such are insufficiently grounded in the
fundamentals of sound doctrine and to be misled. We should remember
Paul's example in this: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,
that ye should not obey the truth...?" If a member is either confused or
has been led astray, that member needs help from loving and capable brethren -
not a stern rebuke, which may drive away the faint-hearted and possibly cause
him to lose his salvation. The attitude of the individual will soon
become evident through his reaction to patient and understanding counsel.
If such a person responds willingly and cheerfully to sound (not dogmatic)
reasoning from the Scriptures, then that person is no heretic and is
salvageable. It is only when a person steadfastly refuses to listen to
reasonable, friendly instruction that the situation calls for serious
disciplinary action.
It should also be pointed out that for the
person being deserving of disfellowship the errors he entertains must be
limited to what can clearly be established as first principles of
truth. In matters beyond first principles and passages which require
interpretation, others must be willing to allow for latitude in
understanding. Though Christadelphians traditionally limit their
identification of the term first principles to the theological
elements of doctrine, there are also doctrines that pertain to our manner of
"living the truth" that truly deserve to be classed as first
principles. Since living the truth is the essence of true
fellowship, such latter class of first principles should always be taken into
account in questions regarding fellowship. Interpretations of Scripture
aimed at rationalizing aberrant behavior cannot be permitted to be
promulgated. Here mature and sound judgment on the part of the ecclesia
is required. In matters of living the truth the Statements of Faith give
little or no help and do not teach that kind of first principles, being only
the theological documents that they are.
When the problems associated with fellowship
and disfellowship are extended beyond the consideration of individuals to that
of ecclesias or ecclesial federations, finding correct and spiritual solutions
to the problems that arise becomes even more difficult and the guidelines
definitely "fuzzy." For example, there is no record in the New
Testament of one first-century ecclesia "disfellowshipping" another
ecclesia. Neither do we find a record of any of the apostles who
possessed the gift of the Holy Spirit with the knowledge and judgment such
possession gave cutting off an ecclesia or recommending that one ecclesia
"disfellowship" another ecclesia. Of ecclesial problems and
problem ecclesias there were many, as Paul testified. We find none other
than the glorified Jesus with the authority to "remove a candlestick"
from any ecclesia. Each ecclesia was charged with dealing with its own
problems, except for whatever help the traveling apostles might give them,
either through a visit or by letter. The messages of the glorified Jesus
to the seven ecclesias of Asia Minor give evidence of the fact that not all of
those ecclesias had equivalent spiritual health. It is no marvel that
today there is also considerable variation in spiritual health of the ecclesias
that make up the Christadelphian body.
As mentioned earlier, the situation within
the body today is far from ideal. The proper question is: What can and
should be done about it? Some delude themselves into thinking that they
have a simple answer and proceed upon that assumption. People tend to
like simple "solutions" or "quick fixes."
Unfortunately, these simple "solutions" seldom solve the real
problems, but give rise to a number of other problems which defy solution.
The body of Christ is not a mechanical entity that can be repaired by
following simple instructions from within a "handbook," in spite of
the fact that some wish to use just such a method in their attempts to solve
very complex problems arising from the complexity of human beings and human
organizations. Jesus said, "It is impossible but that offenses will
come: but woe unto him, through whom they come" (Luke 17:1). From
this broad statement of Jesus we may conclude that we have every reason to
expect problems to arise within the body of Christ. They are part of our
trial and the development of our characters as true brethren of Christ.
How we handle our problems will demonstrate whether or not we deserve that
designation; how we handle our problems will demonstrate whether or not we are
"walking in light," hence whether we have fellowship with the Father
and the Son. If we rely upon humanly-devised, formal, organizational
rules instead of relying upon the guidance of the Holy Scriptures, we shall end
up (as the present situation in the Christadelphian body demonstrates) with
virtually unresolvable situations.
The "easy solutions" that too many
elect to employ fall into two broad categories:
1. ignore the problem and hope that it will go away, and
2.
try to dispose of the problem
by means of quick, "heroic," surgical methods - in other words, apply
the mechanical, "rule-of-thumb" method of
"disfellowshipping" those at odds with those in position of
responsibility and authority.
The first of these "easy
solutions" solves nothing. It assures that the problem will not only
stay around, but it will also grow worse, until one may observe an ecclesial
situation exactly comparable to that described by the glorified Jesus as
existing in the ecclesia at Laodicea; the ecclesia can adapt so completely to
the problem that it finally becomes unaware that a problem exists. This
results in a hopeless situation, and Jesus promised in his message how he would
deal with the membership.
The second of these "easy
solutions" has only a marginally and apparently better degree of
success, spiritually regarded, than the first. Human organizations are
complex entities made up of units that are likewise complex, and which have
very complex interactions. If we may be pardoned for using a physical
analogy, an electronic appliance cannot be repaired unto the source of the
malfunction has been located; you cannot repair a computer with a pipe
wrench. In similar fashion, human organizations cannot be restored to
health and the internal cooperation, upon which their proper functioning
depends, without careful and understanding analysis for the purpose of
isolating the cause of the malfunction. It is well nigh impossible for
aggressive, opinionated brethren, who regard themselves as being divinely ordained
to "lead" the flock, to employ healing methods; such methods do not
accord with their dispositions. They tend to regard gentle persuasion as
being weak-kneed and temporizing. One cannot be assured that gentle
persuasion will solve the problem, but healing methods should be given their
opportunity before surgery is resorted to. Surgery always leaves its
wounds, and some of these never heal. Even though our efforts with regard
to ecclesias may be less than totally effective, we need to recall the words of
Jesus to Sardis: "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not
defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are
worthy (Rev. 3:4). Thus, our Lord discerns as to those who are his, and
he will not cut off those who are worthy of his fellowship on the basis of
those with whom they are associated in ecclesial relationship.
In all situations involving human
relationships it is entirely possible to look too closely - to let the present
irritation blind us to the ultimate objective that we should be seeking to
achieve. It is the Lord's body with which we are dealing in matters of
fellowship, every unit of which is his property, as has been pointed out.
We usually take very tender care of those parts of our own bodies that may be
either injured or ill. We try to give such parts every opportunity to
become healed. Should we not have comparable concern for our Lord's
body? In Matthew 25:31-46 we have the prediction of Jesus as to how he
will judge his servants at his forthcoming judgment seat. That judgment
will take into account in every case of how the servant being judged had
treated his fellow-servants during his period of probation. Whether that
treatment was given with their Lord's property in mind will have a significant bearing
upon the kind of reward the particular servant will receive. The same
words of the Master apply in either case: "Inasmuch as ye have done (or did
it not) unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done (or did
it not) UNTO ME" (vss. 40, 45).
Finally, members whose objectives are
effectively dictated by God's Word will not go beyond what is written, for they
will recognize that to do so is human presumption. David prayed,
"Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have
dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the
great transgression" (Psa. 19:13). We all know how Moses was
punished for one presumptuous slip.
As the final doctrinal issue
to be dealt with in this commentary, the one that has been largely the focus of
controversy between the Unamended and Amended communities upon the North
American Continent will now be addressed. What is usually termed the
"Responsibility Question" has to do with the only significant
difference between the two Statements of Faith in use upon this
continent. For the benefit of our members who have not lived in areas
containing Amended ecclesias, or who may not have had the opportunity of having
acquaintances from within the Amended community, the corresponding clauses from
the two Statements of Faith are reproduced below.
Clause XXV -
Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith: "That at the appearing of Christ
prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (faithful and
unfaithful), dead and living of both classes, will be summoned before his
judgment seat "to be judged according to their works;" "and
receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or
bad" (II Cor. 5:10; II Tim. 4:1; Rom. 2:5-6,16; 14:10-12; Rev. 11:18).
Clause XXIV - Birmingham Amended Statement
of Faith: "That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of
the Kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of
God, and have been called upon to submit to it) dead and living - obedient
and disobedient - will be summoned before his judgment seat "to be judged
according to their works;" and "receive in body according to what
they have done, whether it be good or bad." (Note: Reverences cited are
identical in both Statements of Faith.)
The Amendment, which is the basis
of the designation, "Amended," to distinguish the community of
Christadelphians ascribing to the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF)
from those who ascribe to the Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith (BUSF),
has been italicized in the above copy of Clause XXIV of the BASF. From
this it can readily be seen how few words and concepts serve to document the
avowed cause of division between the two communities of Christadelphians.
It is important for all to realize this formal basis for division. As is
true in nearly all of the complex interactions of human society, there are
other factors which contribute to the problems encountered than those which are
clearly "spelled out."
It may be seen from the nature of the Amendment
that it is an attempt to give a narrower definition in the BASF to the group
designated more generally in the BUSF as "the responsible." It
is the doctrinal position of the Amended community and of other Christadelphian
communities on other continents who use the BASF that this distinction based
upon the Amendment constitutes a first principle of saving faith and
should be made a test of fellowship. In other words, those communities
regard the BUSF as inadequate and those ascribing to it as "out of
fellowship" with the Amended community. It is from the fact that
there exist differences of understanding as to exactly who will be adjudged
responsible by our Lord at his return that this passionately debated matter has
become known as the "RESPONSIBILITY QUESTION." This controversy
has raged in some areas ever since the "turn of the century."
In contrast to the Amended community, the members
of the Unamended community have not regarded the Amendment as defining a first
principle of saving faith. The opinion of the majority of Unamended
Christadelphians has been that the determination as to whatever persons outside
of the body of Christ, whom God and Jesus may decide, should be raised and
judged, is the prerogative solely of the Father and the Son; they do not regard
it as proper for them to attempt to specify who, outside of Abraham's seed,
will be subject to a resurrectional judgment.
Even though the words, responsible
and responsibility, do not occur in the King James Version (A.V.) of
the Bible, there are related words carrying similar connotations. The
word responsible has the meaning of being able to render a response or
an account. A Scriptural passage conveying such a meaning follows
immediately upon a verse which speaks of the members of the Lord's household
having to appear before his judgment seat: "But why dost thou judge thy
brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand
before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I lie, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to
God" (Rom. 14:10-12). This passage is one of those listed by both Statements
of Faith as proof of a coming judgment for the members of the household, one
part of whom Paul was addressing. As to whom Paul was writing there can
be no question. It becomes a matter of interpretation as to how this
specific admonition to the Roman ecclesia is to be applied to other individuals
not of God's household and living in an age far removed in time from that in
which Paul lived.
The questions as to why and how a division
came about over this interpretive matter is not a profitable matter for this
commentary to discuss. The fact is that a division did take place and
that the fruits of suspicion and bitterness resulting from it are evident in
our day over eighty years later. Widely differing explanations as to the
cause of an the justification for the division may be obtained, depending upon
which community or which person the explanation comes from. Both the
cause and the avowed justification for the division having taken place are now
a matter of record in the Mind of God. Present-day Christadelphians are
not responsible for its origins; however, they are responsible for their
attitudes toward its preservation. We need to examine ourselves and our
motives very thoroughly and carefully in an effort to determine whether our
decisions for or against the existing division are truly grounded in Scripture,
or whether they are based upon tradition and a party spirit - the latter being
a "work of the flesh" (Gal. 5:20).
It is not the intent of this commentary to debate
the issue of the "responsibility of enlightened rejectors." As
mentioned in the introductory section, its intent is to explain as clearly,
simply, and Scripturally as is possible the view of the majority of the members
of the Unamended Christadelphian Continental Reunion Committee on the doctrinal
issues that the committee has attempted to negotiate with Amended
representatives. The committee has been keenly aware of its
responsibility to the Unamended community's membership to represent the
community and its beliefs as accurately and concernedly as is possible.
It should be understood clearly that both
the Unamended community and the Amended community believe that the members of
Christ's body must appear before their Lord's judgment seat, as is sated both
in Romans 14:10 and II Corinthians 5:10. These two passages are the only
ones in scripture in which the Greek word bema (judgment seat) appears
in connection with Jesus' judgment for the purpose of making a distinction
between the righteous and unrighteous, faithful and unfaithful, and for the
purpose of rewarding eternal life to the faithful, but wrath and punishment to
the unfaithful. The word bema is used elsewhere in Scripture in
connection with the administration of worldly justice under the rule of the
Romans (e.g., John 19:13; Acts 18:12-17; 25:6,10,17). Thus, the use of
the word bema has to do with the appearance of individuals in the
presence of one in authority for the purpose of having a sentence pronounced,
either favorable or unfavorable. Our English word judgment is used in
several senses in Scripture that are not necessarily connected with an
appearance before an authority for having sentence pronounced (e.g., Matt.
7:1-2; Rom. 2:2-3; II Thess. 1:5); these are translated from words other than bema.
Upon another point regarding their
understanding as to what classes of people who will be required to appear at
our Lord's judgment seat the two communities are, at least formally, in
agreement. Both agree that the following classes would be exempt from a
resurrectional judgment: perished infants, mental incompetents, and people
living in total ignorance of their responsibility to God. Of the latter
class of Gentiles Paul wrote, "...having the understanding darkened, being
alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them..."
(Eph. 4:18. Similarly, the Spirit said through Isaiah, "O Lord our
God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us; ...they are dead, they
shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou
visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish" (Isa.
26:13-14).
The Unamended Christadelphian community
members do not presume to prescribe as to how God and Christ will or will not
deal with unbaptized individuals from among the Gentiles at the return of our
Lord with respect to appearance at the judgment seat of Christ. Whatever
decisions may be involved in such cases belong exclusively in the hands of God
and of Jesus, neither of whom has need of our judgment or speculation regarding
their prerogatives in administering divine justice.
The Unamended firmly believe that they must
limit their assertions regarding these matters to what may be learned from
clear, specific, an unambiguous statements in the Word of God. We believe
that there can be no salvation for any citizen of this age outside of
Christ and of the everlasting covenant. Those who are and those who are
not the true children of God will be made manifest at our Lord's judgment seat
to be instituted upon his return to this earth. We have been told in
general terms by Jesus and by his apostles what the rewards for faithful
continuance in well doing will be. Also, we have been told in general
terms what will be the punishment of those whose walk has not been acceptable
to God and Christ. Beyond such general statements we do not consider
ourselves authorized to affirm.
It has been pointed out that both Statements
of Faith use an identical list of references as proofs for the clauses that
attempt to define beliefs regarding the forthcoming resurrectional
judgment. The difference in the beliefs held in the respective
communities of Christadelphians must therefore have its basis in the differing
interpretations of these passages. The Amended community employs several
other passages, or rather their interpretations of those passages, in an effort
to justify their differing conclusions. To cite those other passages here
and to comment upon the interpretations given to them by the Amended community
would be to enter into polemics, which is not the intent of this commentary.
Such written commentaries belong to other types of publications, and to
enter into debate on this matter would unduly lengthen this commentary.
This is not to imply that the Unamended do not have fully Scriptural and adequate
reasoning for rejecting the interpretations put forth by the Amended; it means
only that we are seeking to avoid becoming embroiled in polemical argument at
this time.
The two clear statements in
Scripture regarding the judgment seat (bema) of Jesus Christ specifically
name those who must appear before it as "we." Since these
passages appear in letters (Rom. 14:10 and II Cor. 5:10), the "we"
must refer to those to whom the letters were addressed. The former letter
was addressed to "...the called of Jesus Christ: to all that be
in Rome beloved of God, called to be saints..." (Rom.
1:6-7). The latter letter was addressed to "...the church of God
which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in Achaia..."
(II Cor. 1:1). In applying Scripture messages written to or about people
living in an age remote from ours, we must be careful to limit the application
to those in our age who most closely correspond to those who were the
recipients or objects of the inspired message. We should be very
conscientious in avoiding error in "going beyond" what is
written. In other words, if we find nothing in the way of a specific
reference to Gentiles outside of the household appearing before the judgment
seat of Christ, then we have no Scriptural authority for applying to such in
our age an interpretation involving the judgment seat. The words krima
and krisis in the original which are rendered as judgment in
our English translation, are general terms and imply nothing specific about a bema
(judgment seat). To make such an implication is to go beyond what is
written and to be in danger of being presumptuous.
Since it has been stated that the Unamended,
in being faithful to the written word, dare not go beyond what is
written, it must be pointed out carefully and emphatically to them that they
must resist a temptation on their part to do so. For example, your
committee has stated clearly to the Amended committee members that it will not
defend as Scriptural an interpretation that some have made to the effect that
God cannot, will not, or may not raise for judgment a single unbaptized
person, if God and his Son determine that such should be raised for
judgment. To make such an assertion is definitely to go beyond what is
written and to be guilty of the sin of presumption. We are merely
justified in saying that we find no statement in Scripture that such Gentiles
will experience such a resurrectional judgment. As the apostle Paul
wrote, "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not
ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth..."
(I Cor. 5:12-13). We clearly recognize from the context of the chapter
that Paul was dealing with intra-ecclesial matters and, therefore, matters of
the present, rather than with those of the great day of judgment. Such a
statement as the foregoing does not dispute the truth of the principle that
Paul states, namely that God judges them that are without the household;
however, it in no way implies the exact form of the judgment that God in his
wisdom and justice may determine should be executed upon such
individuals. The Scriptures have pointed out very clearly that God judges
(punishes) nations according to his standards of justice, and a host of
individuals suffer in such temporal judgments. As an example we have
God's promise to Abraham concerning the future deliverance of Abraham's
descendants from their captivity in Egypt: "And also that nation, whom
they shall serve, will I judge..." (Gen. 15:14). This passage was
quoted by Stephen in his defense before the Sanhedrin, as recorded in Acts 7.
It has not been due to an attitude of
stubbornness or to a party spirit that the members of the Unamended
Christadelphian Continental Reunion Committee have found that they must refuse
to accept as a first principle of truth essential for salvation the
teaching that Gentiles in this age who know the revealed will of God must of
necessity face our Lord at his judgment seat to be consigned to the second
death. They simply and clearly do not find any unambiguous
statements in Scripture that establish such a conclusion as a first principle
of truth. They are fearful of taking such a presumptuous doctrinal stand
on the basis of a rationalized conclusion based upon circular reasoning
(begging the question). Through being confronted with the arguments put
forth in defense of that conclusion, its members have been forced to make a
thorough and extensive study of this question. As a result of that
laborious study, they have found the doctrine that is very popular within the
Christadelphian body worldwide lacking in solid, Scriptural proof. As
already indicated, this commentary makes no claim whatever of having set forth
a thorough examination of the respective interpretations advanced by the two communities
of believers. It has, on the contrary, presented only a relatively brief
and incomplete explanation for the benefit of the members of the Unamended
community of how and why their committee has represented them as it has.
This commentary was not designed to be a
challenge to the members of the Amended community; how such brethren and
sisters choose to believe is a matter of their own responsibility, as it is for
the members of the Unamended community. As Paul wrote, "But why dost
thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set t nought thy brother?..."
(Rom. 14:10). The issues will be clarified at the judgment seat of
Christ, as Paul wrote further: "Therefore judge nothing before the time,
until the Lord come, who both will bright to light the hidden things of
darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall
every man have praise of God" (I Cor. 4:5). Whether or not this
commentary is challenged and answered by others will be their sole
responsibility. The Unamended community is sufficiently confident of the
Scriptural soundness of its doctrinal position to experience no compulsion to
be sensitively defensive of it. Its members have continued for over eight
decades in this position, despite the ostracism imposed upon them by those who
insist that they ascribe to the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as a
basis for their fellowship and a healing of the division. We firmly
believe that God wills that all men might come to the knowledge of the truth;
nevertheless, we know that by no means will all willingly come to that
knowledge and the willing offer of themselves to his service. Whatever
decisions in that regard that people make is their personal responsibility, and
each person is liable to whatever reward or punishment the righteous Judge of
all flesh may determine.
God's truth is absolute and
everlasting (Psa. 100:5), expressing the mind and purpose of Deity, regardless
of our attitude or response to it. It is intended to impart to us knowledge
of heavenly things, that we may learn to number our days and to apply our
hearts unto wisdom (Psa. 90:12). God wills that none of us perish, but
that we should all come to repentance (II Pet. 3:9). Deity desires that
his Word of Truth be properly, intelligently, and reverently used (II Tim.
2:15), that our minds might be renewed and transformed from their worldly bent
toward ignorance and folly to active demonstration of the good and perfect will
of God (Rom. 12:2).
Unless we know what is truth, that
transformation and renewal of our minds will be impossible. We cannot DO
truth (I John 1:6) without knowing it. Furthermore, we cannot teach
truth without both knowing it and understanding it. Pure truth, as
living water, can become to one who partakes of it "a well of water
springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14). For it to be such,
it must be kept pure and free from contamination from human sources, as with a
stream of pure water We need to remember always that the truth is God's
property - not ours to attempt to alter in the interest of our ambitions or
other lusts.
God's truth is, in itself, unassailable; but
when corrupted by human thought, its status as truth is destroyed, and its
power to save becomes lost. Corruption of that truth began in the Garden
of Eden, and the forces of corruption and human ignorance have been at work
ever since. God's chosen people have been the cause of great offense to
him. Through Jeremiah (ch. 9:3), God said of them, "And they bend their
tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon
the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the
Lord."
This and many other passages from Scripture
inform us unmistakably that Deity is very jealous of his truth, as well as of
his glory. Those who defile it and who keep it from those who might have
"ears to hear" are the objects of his wrath. Such could not be
more forcefully stated than in Paul's words in Rom. 1:18: "For the wrath
of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold [HINDER, RESTRAIN - Thayer's Lexicon] the truth in
unrighteousness." We may safely surmise that, among the dire sins of
the Roman apostasy, its withholding of God's truth from untold millions of
human beings will rank high among those that will justify the dire punishments
upon her, such as those prophesied in Revelation 17 and 18.
In spite of the unique role that truth plays
in establishing a covenant relationship between the Deity and a human being
(Isa. 55:3), hence being incomparably the most precious and important
possession that a person may have, we humans vary widely in our perception of
its importance to us. God's complaint against Judah through Jeremiah,
quoted above, demonstrates how careless with that most precious of all
possessions we humans can be. It is not surprising that many really do
not comprehend its importance and power. For example, some have not had
wise and capable teachers who could rightly explain to them the implications of
the truth's importance, power, and the responsibility that it places upon those
who covenant to obey it.
In many societies what passes for religion
is largely a matter of custom, rather than of personal conviction. Many
traditional beliefs have been accepted with little or no question as to their
true import. The same can be true within families, even Christadelphian
families. If one merely "inherits" his beliefs without diligent
study, there is the possibility that he possesses merely credence with little
strength of conviction. Where such is the case, that individual has
developed little or no real faith, it having not been put to the test.
Such persons are most susceptible to any "wind of doctrine,"
particularly when such doctrines are presented with great appeal to the senses
and when accompanied by "good words and fair speeches [which] deceive the
hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:18).
Another influence that will destabilize
those weak in faith is controversy, because controversy involves a conflict of
ideas and interpretations of Scripture. The stresses, both mental and
emotional, induced by legitimate controversy test the mettle of those within
the body. Those whose faith is weak dread controversy since they are
unsure of their foundations in the Word of God. Such would stifle all
airing of discordant views. By so doing they imagine that they will avoid
unsettling the faith and confidence of "Christ's little ones."
Controversy for the sake of controversy has
little to commend it; but avoiding the defense of truth when that precious
entity is being misrepresented is both cowardly and unworthy of the holy Name
that we bear. Most will assent to the fact that our Lord is the example
given for us to follow. Jesus fearlessly defended both his Father and the
Father's truth when confronted and challenged by those of worldly motivations,
who only hypocritically honored and obeyed the Father's Word and will (Matt.
23:13-36; John 8:13-47). Moreover, Paul minced no words with the Galatian
brethren, who were being led astray by false teachers (Gal. 1:6-9;
3:1-3). Paul admonished Titus similarly, and Jude teaches that we should
"contend earnestly" (v. 3). Contending earnestly in defense of
the faith (truth) is a far cry from merely being contentious. Paul warned
Timothy, and us (II Tim. 2:16-26), that challenges to God's truth will arise,
which must be answered, but in the proper spirit of meekness, lest our defense
be not for truth but our own opinions. It is all too human for people,
even believers in God's truth, to identify so emotionally with their own
understandings, ideas, organizations, and pride that they lose sight of God's
concerns in their sensitive concern for themselves or the group with which they
have become identified. When controversy reaches that subjective a level
it becomes unprofitable and destructive. Then, instead of being servants
of God's truth, we actually use it for the defense of ourselves and for our own
justification.
To follow the course of indifference as to
whether God's truth is being misused or corrupted is to tell God that we are
really not much concerned about what to him is so intensely important.
This tells God that our human interrelationships, which we do not want
jeopardized, are more important to us than God is. We would deeply resent
another human being relegating us to unimportance. Can we reasonably
imagine that God is pleased by our indifference toward him and his
distinguishing excellence? To urge that our brethren overlook, out of a
totally mistaken sense of compassion for others, corruption of God's Holy Word
is to offend God's holiness and spotless righteousness. Jesus told us
that if we love others, even those nearest of kin to us, more than we love him,
we are not worthy of him. This is the divine standard of love, far
transcending the love of our brethren, about which so much is made in these
days of widespread confusion. Jesus stated clearly that the words that he
spoke were not his, but the Father's.
What is tragic for the body of Christ is for
an erring brother for reasons of his own to persist in teaching error, and
thereby to lead astray a following to the hazard of their individual
salvations. This is no new phenomenon; Paul and John had to contend with
it in their days of inspired leadership. Though in these days we are
without benefit of inspired shepherds of the flock, that does not relieve those
of full (spiritual) age (Heb. 5:14) from the responsibility to do whatever may
lie within their power to counteract the onslaught upon pure truth. They
bear a responsibility to the whole body of Christ to call attention to
developing apostasy. As Ezekiel was warned of his responsibility to the
Jews of the Babylonian captivity (Ez. 33) to be their watchman and to warn them
lest they die in their sins, so in like manner mature and sound brethren in
these climactic days just before our Lord comes to judge his people - so also
those brethren might have the blood of the "sheep" upon their own
heads, if they give not due warning to the straying flock. If they be
indeed mature and responsible brethren, they will undertake to warn the errant
with the meekness and humility enjoined by Paul (Gal. 6:1-3). The
discharge of such responsibility would not gain them present glory, but rather
scorn and suffering; nevertheless their Lord will know the quality of their
motives; however their contemporaries may misjudge them.
To those who hold truth precious, because it
is from God and of God fully as much as is love (I John 4:7), the adulteration
of that precious truth pains such individuals. To love truth is to love
God and his faithful Son; this is love in its highest sense, the greatest and
most abiding of the godly virtues (I Cor. 13:13). The pain experienced
by these true brethren of Christ is in a way comparable to that which they
would feel, if one were grossly to slander their dearest relative. The
pain is felt for those defamed. As with Elijah, we should be "very
jealous for the Lord God of hosts" (I Kings 19:14). We should also
be pained for what effect such corruption of truth could possibly have upon
Christ's "little ones;" they are often too confused to be able to
look out for their own spiritual welfare and to discern between good and evil,
particularly in such fundamentally important points of doctrine as the atoning
sacrifice of our Lord.
The winds of change have swept violently
over this world in the last half-century, changing radically its social
structure and sense of values. Our Christadelphian body has not escaped
altogether from these worldly influences. We and our children must have
much contact with the world as we strive to survive in an increasingly complex
society whose increased pace of life leaves people confused and
exhausted. Our children are subjected to the new ways of thinking and
standards of morality; they naturally accept without too much question what
they learn in schools and from their worldly associates. Humanism and
even atheism are increasingly supplanting religious thought in the more
populous churches. What people feel is good for survival and human
concerns largely displaces concern for divine standards of human conduct.
As earnest and mature brethren witness the
inroads of worldly thinking and values into the minds of the members of the
brotherhood, they cannot avoid becoming deeply concerned. It is tragic
enough to see brethren and sisters of Christ succumbing to the worldly
attitudes and values that surround them in their daily lives. Walking in
the "straight and narrow way that leads unto life" has never been
easy, even in bygone days when life was much simpler, proceeded at a slower
pace, and when parents could guide their children with the expectation of
accepted values surviving in worldly society - especially that what was morally
right or wrong would continue to be the standard that society would uphold.
What is even more tragic is for modern,
humanistic concepts to have become alloyed with Bible teaching and to have
become a part of accepted thinking within the Christadelphian body
itself. Again, this is not an altogether new phenomenon. The flesh
has always lusted against the spirit; hence, there has always been a struggle
between those who would keep both doctrine and practice pure, on the one hand,
and those seeking to make the way to the Kingdom of God less restrictive, on
the other hand. Natural human laziness and the desire to make life easy
and pleasing to the emotions make any teaching that will pander to these
desires far more attractive. The wider the gate and the broader the way
the road of life can be made to appear, the more popular will be the appeal of
those who represent that philosophy.
Regrettably, the trend to liberalization and
the lowering of standards, both of behavior and of the concept of fellowship,
common in popular churches, has its parallel within the Christadelphian
body. What is gratifying to human emotion has been made by some teachers
and leaders within the body to appear both beautiful and the "true spirit
of Christ." Of particular appeal to many are those passages in the
New Testament that mention the Greek word, AGAPE. This word is translated
in the A.V. by the two English words LOVE and CHARITY (almost
exclusively). No one can deny the fact that love is a most fundamental
Biblical concept, as has already been mentioned, and no mature believer would
seek to relegate it to minor importance.
The problem generated by the current,
popular overemphasis on love is that far too many view AGAPE in a predominantly
emotional and interpersonal context. It is expressed in its highest form
in keeping of the first and great commandment (Matt. 22:37). In verbal
form it is defined by Jesus (John 14:21) as the having and keeping of his
commandments. This is not primarily an interpersonal function; it has its
roots in accurate knowledge of truth and obedience to it. To lull
believers to complacency by making them think that because they have a good and
kindly feeling toward their brethren and others is not an act of love; it could
mean their going astray and losing their salvation.
An outgrowth of this emphasis upon
interpersonal affection is the idea that because of our love for
"fellow-Christians," we should lower the standards of fellowship and
take into the body as our brethren and sisters those who hold a number of
doctrines in common with the Unamended community of Christadelphians, but who
also hold certain beliefs that are contrary to what we very seriously regard as
FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE. We are commanded to come out from among
those who believe what is not in accord with fundamental truth, or those who do
not walk according to truth. Jesus shared many beliefs with the scribes
and Pharisees, yet he vigorously opposed them and warned his disciples to have
no fellowship with their teachings or works. Jesus made it very specific
by repeating the concept that the Father seeks only those who worship him in
spirit AND IN TRUTH (John 4:23-24). It is not through pride of
exclusiveness that concerned brethren view with alarm the trend toward
welcoming into fellowship those who believe untruth; it is a commandment from
our Lord and from his apostles. It is not in a spirit of divisiveness
that concerned brethren seek to awaken the body of believers to a realization
of the fact that many have lost their hold upon truth and their concern for its
purity. There is division of thinking already well established as a
result of a trend toward popularizing God's truth and lowering the barriers of
fellowship - this on the part of some within our ranks.
In conclusion, it is the desire of every
spiritually-minded, mature brother in Christ to do whatever lies within his
power to impress upon every member of the Unamended community that he or she is
sanctified (constituted a saint) only through walking in truth (John 17:17; II
Tim. 2:15-19; I John 4:1-3; Rev. 22:18-19). We all know that salvation is
an individual matter; but we know also that "no man liveth unto
himself." Therefore it is the responsibility of every one to try to
build one another up in our most holy faith, warning those who are ignorant or
out of the way (Heb. 5:2) that they may "In meekness instruct those that
oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth..." (II Tim. 2:25). As James wrote (ch.
5:20), "Let him know. that he which converteth the sinner from the error
of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of
sins."