31. Old Testament “General Teachings”
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.