When questions of fellowship — ecclesial or interecclesial — are considered, Paul’s parable of the One Body is often referred to. This is as it should be. However, a superficial review, or a first impression, of the One Body may lead one to suppose that the only thing to be desired is “unity”, unity without artificial “barriers” or pesky “requirements”.

True unity is, of course, something to be greatly desired. But it simply cannot be achieved by brushing aside the scruples and concerns of other brethren. It can, perhaps, be achieved by all prospective parties becoming aware of those scruples and concerns, and by a loving and submissive spirit willing to go “the second mile” in addressing them.

“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free — and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” (1 Cor. 12:12-27).

“The body is one” (v 12). The Father generally places believers together in “families”. The ecclesia is more often the object of concern than is the individual standing alone. No man should live to himself; that would be a direct contradiction of Paul’s elaborate allegory in 1 Cor. 12:12-27. A very important lesson of one’s spiritual education is to learn to think and to act unselfishly as part of the One Body, and not selfishly as a separate individual, even as regards one’s own salvation.

The body is one, yet it has many members (v. 14). Some are weaker or less beautiful than others (vv. 22,23), but these too are necessary. “God has combined the members of the body” (v. 24); GOD has welded these individuals together to form the ecclesia. That the work of preaching and teaching and baptizing is carried out by mortal men and women in no way mitigates the fact that God (and His Son) are actively at work in the whole process. In faith and obedience these believers have been washed in the blood of the Lamb and have become members of the One Body. Those for whom Christ died — those who are the workmanship of the Son (and his Father) — must not be treated with disdain or indifference.

The beauty and purpose of the human body is in its diversity. A severed foot or hand is repulsive and ludicrous. It is obviously dead and useless. But a living, healthy body, with all its parts functioning smoothly together, all perfectly coordinated in movement and purpose, is attractive and powerful and useful.

Likewise with the spiritual Body of Christ. No single member can be a body in itself – no matter how skilled or wise. No one of us can stand alone. We may, by unavoidable circumstance, find ourselves in lonely isolation, but we are still part of the Body; and we must think and act as part of the Body. Those who live for themselves alone, no matter how holy they may strive to be, are — like the severed hand — a monstrosity.

So it would be very wrong for an individual to leave the One Body, for some real or imagined shortcoming or fault, of his or her own, or of someone else:

“If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body” (vv. 15,16).

Indeed, the strength of the human body is in its diversity of abilities and characteristics: “If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be?” (vv. 17-19).

A human body with eyes but no ears would be clearly deficient. A human body with ears but no nose would similarly be deficient.

And the analogy works on many other levels. Imagine a baseball team, with 20 of the best pitchers available, but no catchers, no fielders, and no hitters. Imagine a football team with 30 great offensive and defensive linemen, but no quarterbacks, no running backs, and no receivers. Or a choir composed solely of sopranos. Or an ecclesia with many fine speaking brothers, but no one to teach Sunday School, no one to manage the finances, no one to set up the emblems, no one to visit the sick and the elderly, no one to clean and maintain the meeting hall, no one to plan and organize ecclesial activities, no one to entertain visitors. Etcetera, etcetera.

Just as it would be wrong for any individual to leave the One Body of Christ, thinking he was not needed, so it would be wrong for any individual to push others away from the One Body, as though they were not needed:

“The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ ” (v. 21).

So Paul presses home the point: there should be no division (schism) in the Body (v. 25). “And if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it” (v. 26). Life itself teaches everyone that pain in one member affects the whole body; and the loss of one part, even a small toe, can seriously affect the balance of the whole. True believers have always been concerned about the whole Body: Moses interposed himself as a would-be sacrifice on behalf of his blind and erring countrymen (Exod. 32:30-33). Nehemiah and David and Daniel and the other prophets showed no sign of dissociating themselves from Israel, no matter how wayward their brethren became. These men had learned the Bible doctrine of the One Body long before Paul articulated it. They lived fully Paul’s exhortation in 1 Cor. 13 (which, not coincidentally, follows immediately after the “One Body” analogy of 1 Cor. 12):

“LOVE suffers long” (v. 4).

“LOVE thinks no evil” (v. 5).

“LOVE keeps no score of wrong, does not gloat over other men’s sins, but delights in truth” (v. 6, NEB).

“LOVE bears all things, hopes all things” (v. 7).

In all the foregoing, it should be realized (although a superficial review might not reveal the force of this point!) that Paul is exhorting individuals who are — or should be — participating members in the same religious organization. And — let it be noted — the same is true of what follows.

In Romans 12:4,5, Paul gives what might be called the “abridged” version of 1 Cor. 12, but the same points are made, more succinctly:

“Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.”

That last phrase adds another dimension: “each member BELONGS to all the others!” There is a price to be paid, a toll to be exacted, for the privilege of belonging to the One Body — and it is this: that every member is not just his own any more. Rather, every member, in some sense, belongs to all the other members! There is a mutual responsibility and accountability and obligation attached to membership in the One Body. Being a member of the One Body means being aware of, and concerned about, and committed to that which is of benefit to the whole — even if it must come at the expense of one’s own personal comforts and desires.

God did not design any part of the human body merely to act as a “parasite” and draw nourishment from the rest! Instead, He has designed every part to give something back, to “pull its own weight”! And the same point should be made about the One Body of Christ. So we might truly take as our motto: ‘Ask not what your ecclesia can do for you; ask what you can do for your ecclesia.’ How important to each of us is the local ecclesia? Do we truly feel a part of all it does? Do we ask how we can help the whole, not just how the whole can help us? Do we look for the areas, and the activities, where a helping hand is needed, and pitch in without being asked or solicited? Are we always considering how we can build up and edify? Or are we only concerned about our own ease and comfort and “edification”?

There are other metaphors for unity in the New Testament, each one adding facets to this divine picture of the One Body:

1. The shepherd and his flock (John 10:1-30), with its implicit reminder: ‘Keep close to the rest of the flock. Don’t stray into far fields and lose sight of the shepherd.’
2. The one vine (John 15:1-17) — calling to mind the exhortation: “Remain, or abide, in the vine!” A severed branch is like an amputated hand — useless and unfruitful.
3. The one temple, with one foundation and one cornerstone, serving one God (Eph. 2:11-22). Here Paul explains how “two” (in the first century, Jew and Gentile) became one when the “barrier” — the wall of separation between the court of the Gentiles (those “far away”) and the inner court of Jews only (those “near”) — was removed in Christ. And so both Jew and Gentile found their unity in a shared access to the Glory of God in Christ, and the resultant “peace” or reconciliation this brought. The Jew, finding his sins forgiven, discovers now a mutual affinity with his “neighbor” the Gentile, whom previously he probably despised, if he even noticed at all! And the two former enemies became brethren in the fellowship of need, and the fellowship of shared blessings!
4. Likewise, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female all become one in Christ, without distinction, and all become heirs of the promises made to their “father” Abraham (Gal. 3:25-29). Thus, in Christ, there is a unity of parentage.
5. The husband and wife, in marriage, become “one flesh” (Eph. 5:22-33) — just as Adam and Eve, once (as Adam alone) one body, then (when Eve was created) two, became one again in the sight of God (Gen. 2:21-25). And all this is a “mystery”, which eloquently portrays Christ and the “church”!
6. The one “creation” of Christ the “creator” (Col. 1:15-29). Every member of the spiritual “new creation” owes his or her very existence to Christ. Thus there is, in Christ, a unity of spiritual origin.
7. The one house, one priesthood, and one nation (1 Pet. 2:2-10) — Jews and Gentiles again, in a unity of “construction” and “constitution”!
8. And the one “bread” (1 Cor. 10:16,17), even as weekly it recalls the literal body of Christ, becomes weekly a participatory reminder of the unity of his One spiritual Body.

Do not all these metaphors derive their force from the common theme of a single, unified entity? Is not their force drastically dissipated when set alongside a reality of two, or three, or many distinct and competing entities?

The “One Body” also finds expression in Eph. 4:4-16, where it appears as one (indeed, the first!) of the seven “unities” of the Gospel:

“There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (vv. 4-6).

It is worth noting here, and stressing, that unity implies exclusivity. What does this mean? Consider, for example, the implication of “one God and Father of all”: surely, it must be that there cannot be two, or three, or seventeen “gods” — because such a multiplicity would negate the essential unity: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Hebrew Yahweh] our God [Hebrew Elohim], the LORD [Yahweh] is one!” (Deut. 6:4-6). Likewise, can there be more than “one Lord [Greek kurios]”? Of course not! There is no other name under heaven whereby we may be saved (Acts 4:12), and if we were to preach another Savior alongside Christ, it would surely render our witness powerless and pointless.

And on and on we might go through the seven “unities” of Ephesians 4. Do we appreciate how deep and profound is the Biblical exhortation, then, to preserve and edify and strengthen the One Body of God’s Son? It is no less than a travesty of Bible teaching if we allow ourselves to be satisfied with the prospect of two, or three, or a dozen separate bodies of believers all claiming, implicitly, to be the One Body! Brethren, such things ought not to be!

Paul concludes his thought about the seven “unities” in Ephesians 4:16, where he writes: “From him [Christ] the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” It is essential, he is saying, that each part of the One Body be joined together with the other parts, bound together and interconnected by whatever means possible, doing its work and upholding its mutual obligation — with all other parts — to strengthen the collective Body, of which it is itself a part! None of this can be done — it should be pointed out — from outside the Body!

We learn several important lessons from the contemplation of the One Body as presented in Scripture:

The Bible teaching about the One Body demonstrates that all true believers belong together. We are obliged to work for and encourage this unity; i.e., to seek reconciliation with one another [consider such passages as 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Matt. 5:23,24; James 3:13-18], and to integrate all true believers, if possible, into the One Body.

At this point, an interesting question must be raised: how do we define the “One Body”? The answers we give may lead us, in fact, in very different directions. On the one hand, we may say that, ideally, the “One Body” consists of all individual believers in the true gospel — wherever they are found and whatever they call themselves and however (if in any way!) they organize themselves.

On the other hand, however, we may say that, practically or pragmatically, the “One Body” must be the largest group of true believers that are — like the “body” of 1 Cor. 12 and Rom. 12 — actually bound together and organized and arranged so as to strengthen and edify one another and the whole in some meaningful fashion.

In the real world, so to speak, this latter definition must lead us to the Central Fellowship, which comprises by far the greatest number of Christadelphians worldwide (approximately 95% of the whole). Why? Because to see any other entity as the One Body would immediately rule out of the equation the overwhelming majority of all Christadelphians. And because even the idealistic definition of the “One Body” must take into account the overwhelming majority of true believers. Furthermore, in terms of edifying the whole Body; providing welfare and other assistance to those members in need; and proclaiming the gospel in an effective and organized manner… in all this, the worldwide Central Fellowship may be seen to fit the definition of the One Body far better than any other “organization” or “fellowship”. (Does this mean that Central brethren or Central ecclesias are in any sense more righteous than their counterparts which are not “in Central”? No, nothing of the sort! But it does suggest that, if we are looking for the practical reality of the “One Body” in today’s world, we must start there.)

Members of smaller groups may share the same gospel hope, and may see themselves as, ideally, members of the “One Body” that includes Central brothers and sisters. But, organizationally, they do not function as members of that Body. There is the incongruity between New Testament analogy and our modern situation. Seeing this, we begin to appreciate the urgent need for the minorities (IF they believe the same gospel) to join the majority and make the “One Body”, not just a pleasant abstraction, but a practical reality.

The “ideal” view of the One Body — i.e., that it defines all true believers regardless of organization — has merit in theory: on the day of judgment Christ, with all authority committed to him by the Father, will undoubtedly determine who will eternally belong to his One Body.

But such a definition is unworkable in practice, as a guide to conduct now, for several reasons:

The Central Fellowship, by and large, will not accept such a definition in application, because it blurs the line of distinction and demarcation between itself and “others”, and at least has the potential to “open the doors” to various false teachings and wrong practices;

Such a definition would be subjective in the extreme, continually changing and always changeable, and would vary greatly from one person to another, and one ecclesia to another;

It would incorporate, in some measure, many individual “believers” into the One Body who had no real intention of being meaningful members of that Body, and no intention of understanding — much less abiding by — generally accepted “rules of order” of that Body [Should not a minimum requirement for membership in an organization be… a personal commitment to become a member?!]; and

For an ecclesia to follow such a definition in practice (i.e., in the breaking of bread) would probably result in its being disfellowshiped by Central. Thus the (idealistic) decision to “fellowship” all true believers would lead to the (practical) result of NOT “fellowshipping” the great majority of them! And a commendable desire for the greater unity would inevitably contribute to a continuing disunity.

Furthermore, the Bible teaching of the One Body emphasizes that every believer has responsibilities and obligations to other believers — and to his own local ecclesia, which are outlined in such passages as Rom. 12:16; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:8; and 5:5; and may be summarized in the words: “Submit to one another” and “All of you be subject to one another.” In practical terms, this must mean that — where first principles are not at stake — every believer is duty-bound to abide by the will of the majority of his ecclesia, and not to foment unrest and discontent and division, but rather to seek what is positive and upbuilding for the ecclesia as a whole. Is this easy? Not necessarily, human pride being what it is. But it is, nevertheless, the requirement.

To carry this one step further, Bible teaching about the One Body also emphasizes that every ecclesia has responsibilities and obligations to all ecclesias within the One Body. Just as the individual is a single “part” of the local ecclesial “body”, so the individual ecclesia is a single “part” of the whole worldwide “Body”. Historically, we have tended to think first of the “ecclesia” in terms of the local group of believers. But there is also Biblical precedent — quite a number of passages, actually — for seeing the whole of the worldwide community of believers as THE “ecclesia” (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 1:22; 3:10,21; 5:23,24…; Col. 1:18,24; Heb. 12:23; etc.). It is to THIS “ecclesia” — so long as the fundamentals of the gospel are maintained by it as a whole — that every individual, and every ecclesia, owes some degree of allegiance and submission and subjection.

If we are, individually or ecclesially, to belong to the One Body (nearly all of whom work together in the Central Fellowship of Christadelphians worldwide), then — it is humbly but firmly suggested — we cannot have it both ways: we cannot claim we are part of the One Body, and (a) expect or insist that other believers or ecclesias in the Central Fellowship recognize us as such, in the breaking of bread, and then (b) the next week take ourselves away to a mountaintop, or a private place of retreat from the Central Fellowship, and contend that we are separate from that Body, and free to pursue our objectives (e.g., “fellowship practice”) in a manner that our would-be “brothers” in Central would find objectionable or confusing or inconsistent.

The Bible teaching of the One Body, examined carefully, yields two points of view which ought to be balanced against one another. For one, the teaching reminds us of the blessings and privileges we should share in common with all members in that Body. But it also reminds us of the shared duties and responsibilities that go along with membership in that One Body.

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

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

This is the sort of question for which there is no provable answer, if by “fellowship” is meant merely the technical participation in the “Last Supper”. A reasonable reading of the four gospel narratives leads to the conclusion that Jesus did indeed break bread with Judas, knowing full well his traitorous intentions. Brothers Thomas and Roberts both subscribed to this view, as their writings show. But nowhere do the records specifically spell this out.

The partaking of the emblems, however, is not the actual issue. We know that Jesus would have broken bread with Judas, even if it is felt that Judas in fact excused himself and went out before that point in the evening’s activities. We know this because Jesus did wash the feet of Judas, as well as the other eleven. We know that because Jesus offered the sop to Judas. (This was traditionally a mark of great love and esteem, for the host to give the choicest morsel in the common bowl to a special guest.) Indeed, we know this by a simple observation: for more than three years Judas ate and slept and traveled with Jesus and the other apostles, and never once did Jesus do or say anything that might have led the others to suspect that Judas was the one who would betray him. These were all instances of “fellowship” just as much as the symbolic common partaking of bread and wine; all together, they show that Jesus had admitted a man whom he knew to be a hypocrite into the innermost circle of his companionship for an extended time.

In 1847, after learning the Truth and being baptized, Brother John Thomas was the subject of certain charges made by the hierarchy of the Campbellite (“Church of Christ”) congregations. They demanded that Brother Thomas leave the “fellowship” of their congregations, because his “Confession and Abjuration” (written March 3, 1847) implied that many members of those congregations did not believe the full gospel. At such a demand Brother Thomas became highly indignant and fired off the following reply:

“Without comparing you [some of the Campbellite “brethren”] to Judas, I would inquire, Was not he in his sins when Jesus broke the loaf with him as well as the rest of the twelve? This will be a sufficient quid for your quo, that I necessarily abjure churches, because there are those among them who on my principles are in their sins….There are many in the American reform-churches who believe in….the ‘immortality of the soul’. We have learned, however, the important lesson of bearing and forbearing with one another, in hope that all will come to see the real truth….But your dogma is that I ought to reject them….We, however, do not think so” (From a personal letter, quoted by Robert Roberts in Dr. Thomas: His Life and Work, 1954 Edition, p. 168).

We must not, of course, suppose that Brother Thomas retained such a “liberal” view of “fellowship” for the rest of his days. There did come a time when it was desirable from his viewpoint, as well as those who made him their enemy, that he no longer be affiliated in any sense with the “reform” churches. But we might note with care that this was at least two years after his true immersion into the hope of Israel. And at any rate his point about Judas may be well taken, as far as it goes, even by us today. We see Brother Thomas as a man much like the apostle Paul, willing to recognize holders of false doctrine as “brethren”, so long as there was reasonable expectation of their further enlightenment and reform.

Robert Roberts, in his “True Principles and Uncertain Details”, says:

“Judas was a thief and Jesus knew it, but tolerated him till he manifested himself. Was Jesus responsible [i.e. for Judas’ sins] while he fellowshipped him? Certainly not” (The Christadelphian, Vol. 92, No. 1097 — Nov. 1955 — p. 417).

The parables of Christ are beautifully polished jewels, which present an infinite variety of sparkling views. Many lessons both broad and subtle may be suggested from their reverent contemplation. For our purposes one lesson stands out in the parable of the pounds.

Brother John Carter has incisively noted (Parables of the Messiah, p. 258) that, in contrast to the talents of a similar parable (Matt. 25:14-30), the pounds were distributed evenly to a large company — indicative of the gift of the gospel itself, bestowed equally upon all who hear. Each recipient was instructed by the nobleman to occupy himself by making gain of his gift. What concerns us especially is the subsequent attitude and actions of the unfaithful servant, of whom we read in Luke 19:20,21:

“And another came, saying, ‘Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.’ ”

This servant no doubt had the cleanest pound of all, but it had not grown! He had not been totally indifferent to his lord’s gift, but his fear of failure had compelled him carefully to “protect” his pound. So he had wrapped it in a cloth and laid it up in some safe place, perhaps checking it from time to time, maybe even bringing it out, like some housewives do with fine silver, to polish and admire it.

Our attitude toward the Gospel truth that we have received can be similar to the attitude of this man. If we are fearful that we may “lose the Truth” and conscious only of “keeping the Truth pure”, then we are in danger of forgetting what we are told to DO with it! The gospel is not a frail greenhouse flower that must have just the right temperature and humidity, and just the correct amount of light and water in order to survive. The gospel is very hardy; it is meant like the pound to be carried into the “market” of life, to the highways and byways, and to make gain for its user. We need have no fear for the Truth itself — it springs from God and is impervious to corruption. We must only be careful that we put it to the use for which it is intended.

This same point is subtly made in other parables of Christ — for example, the parables of the sower and the wheat and tares (see Chapter 4 of this book). Is it enough that we as husbandmen of the Lord’s “field” be concerned with the uprooting of “weeds” or “tares”? Is it enough that we keep the field “pure”? There must be at least as much effort — and more, much more — directed toward the positive endeavor of sowing the seed. The farmer expects some imperfection in his field, and he puts up with it, knowing that his paramount interest must be in the production of grain. The harvest is soon enough for the last weeds or tares to be separated from the good grain.

It is so simple when we see it this way. But how many frustrated “sowers” have consumed their lives in the Truth in worry and agitation about the “purity” of the “field”, so to speak, and never gotten around to their real duty? Let us strive for a proper balance in our service in the Truth, lest our intolerable and unbalanced attitude condemn us outright before our Judge (Luke 19:22).

James calls Elijah “a man of life nature with ourselves” (5:17, RSV), and nowhere is this more evident than in Elijah’s confrontation with God on mount Horeb. This austere prophet had just been instrumental in a great victory for the honor of the Lord over Baal, on mount Carmel (1 Kings 18). But from the heights of spiritual exaltation Elijah was plunged into the depths of despair when he realized that his great accomplishments had not softened the heart of Ahab, and had served only to intensify Jezebel’s hatred for himself. Fleeing for his life, and yet in his despondency losing all desire to live, he came into the wilderness, to Horeb (19:8). In a pathetic prayer Elijah reveals that he has given up on Israel, and that he sees himself as the only true believer remaining:

“I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thy altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (v. 10).

We have all heard such laments as this, generally for much less reason than Elijah’s. In the circumstances we may understand his pessimism, but God saw fit to dispel the mistaken notions that led to his negative state of mind. A contemplation of this incident might also cure the state of mind of any brother who, more or less self-righteously, isolates himself from ‘less worthy’ brethren.

God called Elijah forth from his cave, and paraded before him a tremendous panorama of His power — strong winds, earthquake, and fire. But the Lord was not in these; Elijah saw that something was missing. At last came a still small voice, and Elijah, bracing himself, came out of the cave where he had fled for fear at the previous manifestations. The soft voice had a soothing effect; now at last the frightened prophet felt, when he heard it, the presence of God. Thus was the message driven home to him: God is best known, not in works of judgment, but in the still small voice which calls His people, when properly prepared by adversity, to repentance.

And Elijah was to be that voice!

“Go, return on thy way” (v. 15).

Like Samuel before him, Elijah was carefully taught that wickedness is primarily an affront against God, not against any individual (1 Sam. 8:7); and consequently no man (no matter how “righteous”) has any prerogative to turn his back on his brethren. Elijah must minister to the remnant that remains in Israel; in the midst of gross apostasy he is not to flee in fear, but rather to stand firm for God and provide a rallying point for the sheep of Israel.

“Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him” (v. 18).

How seriously wrong had been Elijah’s estimation that there were no righteous ones remaining in Israel. He had let his despair get the better of his judgment and he had forgotten his responsibility. It was one thing to stand strong against entrenched error on Carmel, but he had not been perceptive enough to see his duty afterward, to strengthen those who remained faithful against the evil in the midst of the nation.

This verse is cited by Paul in his letter to the Romans, with the comment that “God hath not cast away his people” (Rom. 11:2). It is a thought worth remembering for all time: God knows in every age who His “seven thousand” are. In many Scriptural lessons He directs those who would flee in despair from troubles to turn around, to “go, return on thy way”, to find their brethren and strengthen them. Those who would hold firmly to the Truth in the midst of trials must combine their forces, strengthening and building up one another in God’s service, sharing in good times and bad the fellowship of the saints.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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