When Jude wrote his warning to the saints of the first century, he certainly had reason to be alarmed. There seems to have been a tremendously dangerous problem at large; those who were disrupting the ecclesias were not even described as brethren — they were “certain men…. ungodly men” (v. 4). Jude’s other terms for them are even worse: lascivious, brute beasts, greedy, lustful, mockers, sensual. It is hard to imagine sins heinous enough among the brethren of today ever to justify such terms.

Even though Jude says that these men “deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 4), it is most unlikely that they would deny association with Christ altogether. More likely they were such as those against whom John warned in his second epistle: teachers who so confounded the nature and the work of the Savior that in their minds the gospel message was hopelessly distorted.

In judging from the catalogue of vices of these men, and considering those with whom they were compared, it would appear that they were of the “libertine” school. To such men nothing done in the flesh was truly sin, for they possessed a superior knowledge. It was the old lie of the serpent: that there is nothing wrong in “experiencing” all aspects of life — the evil with the good. “Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound.”

“The question must be asked: were these monstrously dangerous false brethren in fellowship with those to whom Jude wrote? From verse 12 it would seem they were: ‘these are a blot on your love feasts, where they eat and drink without reverence’ (NEB). On the other hand in verse 19 Jude says of them; ‘it is they who set up divisions.’ Presumably if they were in the ecclesia it was only in order to draw it away from the faithful brotherhood into an orbit of their own in which they would be ‘wandering stars’ “ (A. Eyre, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, No. 1283 — May 1971 — pp. 210,211).

In such a distressing situation it is certainly understandable that Jude would rise to sound an alarm. If ever there were a time to protect the flock from the wolves, it was then.

“It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (v. 3).

However, considering the enormity of the errors rampant (worse, it must be admitted, than anything that has troubled the brotherhood in modern times), Jude shows a remarkable restraint in his instructions as to the type of contention to be waged. First, he emphasizes the positive actions that should counteract the evil influences:

“Build up yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God….” (vv. 20,21).

And secondly, he implies that God will judge these sinners in due time — all of his examples and comparisons tending toward this view. It was God Himself who singled out the generation of Israel to die in the wilderness (v. 5); it was God who sent forth the fire and earthquake against Korah and his followers (v. 11). Even Michael, an archangel, does not bring a railing accusation against his adversary (whoever that might be is irrelevant to this discussion), but merely promises that God will rebuke him (v. 9). These evil men against whom Jude warns were present at the “love feasts” (v. 12) — the Breaking of Bread! — yet Jude writes not a word commanding their exclusion!

Despite the seriousness of the sins, Jude does not command a blanket disfellowship of the false teachers, much less of their deluded followers. His view is the same as that of Brother Thomas, who, in writing of the same period, stated his belief that the “Antipas” class could “contend earnestly for the faith” quite effectively and Scripturally even while continuing as members of very imperfect ecclesias (Eureka, Vol. 1, p. 335).

As with some of the other passages we have just been considering, Jude 3 is made by some to carry a very heavy weight. Much more is inferred from it than the context will bear. True, there are times when brethren must “contend for the faith”, but must that “contention” involve the excommunication of guilty, possibly guilty, and uninformed “tolerators” alike? And how much of all the “contention” which seeks its justification from Jude 3 is contention for one’s own views and opinions and importance rather than contention for the faith?

“It is easy for men to deceive themselves into thinking that unrighteous and unjust extremes are simply the evidence of their zeal for truth. Even a readiness to listen to the accused is regarded as weakness. Such extremists cry shame on the very effort to be fair, and in their determination to have no compromise with error they sometimes exaggerate faults, and so grossly misrepresent the objects of their attack that they become guilty of offences worse than all the error against which they are trying to fight.

“We must not fall into the mistake of taking an extreme view even of the extremist. God has been merciful to such men in the past, and we must be merciful now even in our thoughts. We may state most emphatically, however, that it is wrong to exaggerate the faults of anyone or to find ugly and misleading names with which to label those who do not quite see eye to eye with us. It is quite possible to be valiant for the Truth and zealous for the Lord without being unfair even to those who are mistaken, and it is always wrong to be unfair. In faithfulness we must point out the danger that in great zeal for the jots and tittles of the law men may lose sight of the foundation principles. All their faith and works may become valueless through lack of charity” (I. Collyer, “The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 722 — Aug. 1924 — p. 344).

It is not necessarily true, then, that all contention is proper or profitable. Jude has more to say of contention than simply in v. 3. It is possible, he says, that men, in thinking they do God service, may “speak evil of those things they know not” (v. 10), and in their accusations and antagonisms become as “raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame” (v. 13). “Indeed there is a spirit which strives against impurity which is itself impure; furthermore where the spirit is right but the method is wrong there may be a generation of heat without light” (C. Tennant, “The Epistle of Jude”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 104, No. 1239 — Sept. 1967 — p. 404). James adds his voice to the same effect:

“Whence come wars and fightings — contentions! — among you?”

Because you are zealous to contend for the truth? Not always!

“Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (4:1)

We must always remember that the greatest abhorrence of sin is not necessarily found in the one who is most condemning of the sinner, and that in contention for truth the loudest and most self-confident voice is not always the best. The example of Christ should serve us well when we are faced with ecclesial problems. From him we learn that patience and tact and love and prayer are our most effective tools. We do possess a “sword”, and we may finally have to use it. But let us not rush headlong into every controversy with it drawn. Like the surgeon’s scalpel, it must be the last resort, after all other possible healing attempts have conclusively failed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he warned the Galatian brethren:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is surely one of the most curious passages quoted by the advocates of “pure fellowship at any price”, inasmuch as their application of it has so very little regard for the context. The verse is used to suggest the notion that only when there is perfect agreement among brethren can they “walk together” in the bonds of fellowship. In the first place such a blanket assertion is not true, and in the second place such a usage of the verse is entirely beside the point.

It is certainly wrong to state as a matter of principle that two men cannot cooperation unless they are perfectly agreed in every particular. In actual practice, nothing is further from the truth. Two men or a group can work together quite well on a common project by agreeing beforehand to submerge their differences in matters of secondary importance. If in their minds there is the same major goal, then minor considerations are modestly set aside so that their full energies may be directed toward its achievement. Such a policy is wise, and Scriptural! Peter’s “Be ye subject one to another” (1 Pet. 5:5) surely expresses such a spirit of “compromise” in the best sense, as does Paul’s exhortation to the strife-prone Corinthians:

“There should be no schism in the body… the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Cor. 12:25).

What then is the point of Amos 3:3? Perhaps the RSV rendering here would be helpful:

“Do two walk together, unless they have made an appointment?”

Or, as the Hebrew: ‘unless they have met together?’ This sounds very much like the thoughts expressed above: two men can and do walk together IF they have agreed beforehand to walk together; it is as simple as that.

However, a consideration of the prophet’s message in the broader sense indicates that the two who must agree in order to walk together are God and man. God knew Israel in the sense that to Israel He had committed His laws (v. 2; Psa. 147:19,20). This knowledge placed upon Israel the burden of responsibility to obey God, to agree to walk with Him; else Israel would be punished above all the nations for her transgressions. But, responsibilities aside, there are also great privileges in such a close association with the Almighty:

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

Man must walk in communion and harmony of heart and purpose with God. In doing so his blessings will be many, but if he deserts such a partnership then he may expect fiery judgment. God is saying, ‘Can you think to ignore My advice and still claim to be My friend?’

The very first thing God asks us to agree with Him about is that we are sinners, not that we are as perfect as He is. An awareness of our weaknesses before God should make us considerably more sympathetic toward the weaknesses of our brethren. The goal of all is that we learn day by day to walk more and more in conformity with God’s will. In the awesome shadow cast by our Father, we are all no better than toddlers, and our petty quarrels with His other babes are just so much futility, and are due to our limited horizons. The Lord of all creation has condescended to grasp each of us by the hand; like a natural father, He has shortened His pace so that we may be helped and guided in our first faltering steps upward toward manhood. Let us set our attentions upon His standard and strive to conform to it; let us walk with God (Gen. 5:22; 6:9; 17:1), and not be so concerned to scrutinize the faltering steps of our brothers.

One final thought: Today divorce has become a widespread practice in the world around us, so much so that many young people enter marriages fully intending to terminate them at the first sign of trouble, on such flimsy grounds as “incompatibility”. It is as if they are saying, ‘We can no longer walk together, because we do not agree on such-and-such.’ There are few in the brotherhood who would not deplore such a childish disregard for the marriage bond. And yet how often do brethren put forward this same excuse for “divorcing” themselves from a bond just as sacred — the tie that binds (or should bind) all Christ’s brethren together! They thus put asunder in the spiritual realm what they would never think of dissolving on the domestic level; and this means a debris of broken homes and lingering recriminations. And all because they will not apply the same restraint and reasonableness and patience and understanding in the ecclesial family that every husband and wife knows is essential in the natural family.

“Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thes. 3:6,14).

The argument for a “pure fellowship” achieved through broad excommunication goes as follows: “It is part of Paul’s word by this letter that we ‘withdraw’ from any brother who ‘walks disorderly’. If this withdrawal is not enforced, then it is necessary to ‘have no company’ not only with the original sinner, but also with all who disregard Paul’s instruction.”

This rather casually constructed logic runs afoul of several considerations:

• Verse 6 describes not false teachers, but those whose way of life is contrary to the apostolic norm. The “disorderly” meant the idlers, or loafers, who rapidly turned into “busybodies” (vv. 7,10,11). The word translated “disorderly” here is also translated “unruly” in 1 Thessalonians 5:14. It is actually a military term for those “out of step” when marching, and thus “insubordinate” (A. Hall, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, p. 147). This lack of discipline in the case of the Thessalonian ecclesia was manifested in a refusal to work (vv. 8,10,12), perhaps because of a misguided belief that Christ’s imminent return rendered labor unnecessary.
• It must not be supposed, because Christadelphians conventionally use the milder “withdraw” instead of the more appropriate “disfellowship” or “excommunicate”, that the severing of fellowship ties is the meaning of “withdraw” wherever it occurs. As a matter of fact, the word stello (withdraw) signifies “to avoid”, the idea being that the ways of the unruly are to be shunned. The brethren themselves, however, are exhorted by Paul to work (v. 12); they have not been cast out of the meeting! He speaks to them directly in terms that would seem highly inappropriate to evildoers no longer worthy of fellowship at all. Verse 15 uses the word “admonish”, a quite mild term. The parallel passage (1 Thes. 5:14) says that such disorderly brethren are to be “warned”, again a degree of discipline much less severe than excommunication.
• Verse 14: “Have no company with” merely means: ‘Do not join such brethren in their idle ways. By your aloofness you can express dissatisfaction. And perhaps the busybodies will become ashamed (v. 15) and begin to reform themselves.’

We see, therefore, that 2 Thessalonians 3 does deal with matters of ecclesial order, but only as pertaining to local matters of personal conduct. The terms of separation do not necessarily imply disfellowship. Even if disfellowship were the final outcome of an unrepentant attitude, the basis of that disfellowship would be improper conduct and not false doctrine. Finally, there is no suggestion that ecclesias failing to act as severely as Paul commands should themselves be disfellowshiped en masse by all other ecclesias. Yet all use of this passage to justify “block disfellowship” or “guilt by association” assumes that it clearly says this.

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

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

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

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

It has been my experience that such verses have been sadly distorted by those who justify divisions. Their reasoning is circuitous and tortuous: ‘Paul says we should all agree perfectly and have no divisions. Our ecclesial members do not agree perfectly on such-and-such. Consequently we must divide from those who disagree, in order that we have no divisions among us!’

It does not take a genius to see that there is something wrong with such logic. The point overlooked is this: Paul is admonishing the brethren to the pursuit of an ideal — perfect oneness in mind and spirit among the brethren. Just because the ecclesia does not immediately achieve such harmony is no reason to throw up one’s hands and separate. Does Paul say here anything about separation? Even an imperfect unity must be preserved and nurtured, not dismantled because it has a flaw.

“Fellowship is primarily a ‘community of interest’ rather than individual advantage. It is the family sharing which keeps Father, Son and believers in a unity of belief as well as purpose; and as far as Father and Son are concerned, this unity is an unbreakable one. But in the hands of believers in the ecclesia it can be a fragile thing, so unpredictable is the human heart. Paul was very conscious of this and exhorted the Corinthian ecclesia: ‘Now I beseech you, brethren,.. that ye be perfectly joined together.’

“In practice this vital doctrine of the unity of the Household cannot be manifested without the dedicated effort of every member of each ecclesia. It is, by the Father’s will and help, a cooperative and precious creation made possible by the shed blood of Jesus. This whole conception of fellowship is at once magnificent and humbling; but it can be broken: by the disagreement of an individual member with his ecclesia, or vice-versa” (J. Marshall, “The Living Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, No. 1280 — Feb. 1971 — p. 56).

In the same context of his Corinthian letter, the apostle stresses that the brethren were called unto the fellowship of God’s Son (v. 9). It is a striking concept, reminiscent of the Lord’s words: “I will draw all men to me” (John 12:32) and “Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out” (6:37). Here is the strongest affirmation of the principle that our “fellowship” is not ours alone — it is God’s and Christ’s. And any unilateral attempts by men to subvert or destroy this sublime unity, without clear and certain and incontrovertible evidence from the Bible, is a direct affront to Heaven.

Far from commanding an absolute unity as a condition of fellowship, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:10 strongly suggest just the opposite: that differences of opinion and internal schisms already existed in Corinth, and whilst not approved, were at the least preferable to out-and-out division. For Paul to say ‘Brethren, we must agree’ is certainly not the same as saying ‘We must excommunicate all those who do not agree’. Paul was far from being a Pope!

Such fallacious reasoning reminds us of what we might call the “divorce syndrome”. To wit: ‘Paul says our marriage must conform to the divine ideal. Since it does not, then it is not a proper marriage. Therefore we will divorce and each seek another marriage that will reflect the perfect ideal.’ Such an attitude, we trust, will be seen by all to be hopelessly unrealistic. Who can fail to see that the divine ideal of marriage is something to be sought by all husbands and wives, as they seek to overcome their failures and press on toward the mark? Why cannot we all see, also, that this is the proper attitude toward that “marriage” of brethren in the ecclesia? Why must we demand “perfection of fellowship” as the price of unity when experience sadly shows us that nothing else in this life is ever perfect? Why cannot we learn to conquer petty differences and put up with relatively trivial abrasions on our way to achieving a closer approximation of the divine ideal? This is all that Christ — and Paul — would have us to do.

In the first-century ecclesias some were “unskillful” while others were able to partake of “strong meat” (Heb. 5:11-14). Some were “babes” while others were “fathers”. Some were “yet carnal” (1 Cor. 3:3) while others possessed high degrees of spirituality. And it is the same today. In the absolute sense, then, it is impossible that all brethren have “the same mind and the same judgment”. Some will always be more advanced than others, and some will always present problems to the rest. True fellowship, like true freedom, does not consist in a rigid like-mindedness on all things — that is an impossible wish! True fellowship and true freedom does consist in the limited toleration of differences, allowing scope for development in the truth at an individual pace, while the strong patiently help rather than criticize and condemn the weak.

“It must be confessed that divisions oftentimes take place which could be avoided without prejudicing the truth in any way. A little more patience, a little more kindness, a little less sense of personal pride and self-importance, a little more discrimination between essential and non-essential elements of belief — How many a division would thus have been avoided!

“To create a division would appear to be considered by some as a very meritorious act, and a proof of zeal and stability in the truth, whereas it often arises that it is a proof of pride, bitterness, and a wayward determination to get one’s way at any cost. The truth is that the making of divisions has become far too easy a process, and the time has come when a little resistance should be made to the disintegrating spirit in our midst; and which, if allowed to go unchecked, will work disaster and split the brotherhood into useless shreds… These little ecclesias of ours up and down the land are worth keeping; and any needless disruptive tendency must be strongly resisted” (D. Hughes, “A House Divided”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 40, No. 467 — May 1903 — pp. 203,204).

Paul continues in his Corinthian letter:

“Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, ‘I am of Paul’, and ‘I of Apollos’; and ‘I of Cephas’; and ‘I of Christ’. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:12,13).

In another section (Chapter 18) I considered the teaching of this verse on the matter of fellowship. Now I shall simply note some of the other similar passages in the apostolic writings, which stress this same all-out commitment to unity and peace and edification, or (negatively expressed) to what C.C. Walker calls “the resistance of unnecessary division” (The Christadelphian, Vol. 40, No. 467 — May 1903 — p. 204). Paul himself commands the Roman brethren:

“Be of the same mind one toward another… Condescend to men of low estate… Be not wise in your own conceits” (Rom. 12:16).

Peter also:

“Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing” (1 Pet. 3:8,9).

And:

“Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility” (5:5).

In all of the above, it is to be pointedly stressed that the way to achieve “the same mind” is not to divide from those of a different mind, but as the apostles say, to be condescending, compassionate, and humble. Have we as a brotherhood sincerely and in a wholehearted manner sought this peace and unity? Or have we too often, for the most personal and self-serving of motives, undermined the ecclesial good in the perpetuation of controversies of quite secondary importance? The article by Brother Hughes, quoted above, written in 1903, concludes with some words of almost prophetic import:

“If we go on everlastingly agitating on unimportant points, everlastingly dividing and subdividing, the superstructure of the truth, which it has cost so much to re-erect in these latter years, will crumble away and leave behind an irreparable loss. ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to destruction, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand’ (Matt. 12:25; Luke 11:17)” (Op. cit., p. 204).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The answer is that the very plainness of these commands helps us, for Scripture passes judgment on such matters. Truly we have to apply the judgment of Scripture, and there is danger of mistake in the application. It is the will of God that such responsibility should be ours and we must discharge the duty as faithfully as we can. We must try to remember the teaching of the Word as a whole, and we must be honest in the application of specific rules. If one quotes the passage regarding unfruitful works of darkness, things done in secret ‘of which it is a shame even to speak’, and applies the passage to one well reported of for good works, the only real complaint against him being that he is too reluctant to be severe with offenders, surely it is evident that in such an application there is the most amazing perversity. If one in resentment of a difference of judgment as to the precise application of these commands denounces his brother as guilty of disorderly walk, repudiation of the faith, and re-crucifixion of the Lord, it is difficult to believe in such a case that there is even an attempt to find righteous judgment” (I. Collyer, “The Principles Governing Fellowship”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 721 — July 1924 — pp. 297,298).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We shall briefly summarize the passage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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