24. Hezekiah and the Imperfect Passover (2 Chronicles 30)
The following is a condensation and revision of
the article “Conflict of Loyalties”, by H. Whittaker (The
Testimony, Vol. 38, No. 454 — Oct. 1968 — pp.
377-380).
It was the time of the great reformation that the
zeal of Hezekiah had set going. The appeal had gone out to all the tribes of
Israel, regardless of boundaries or political loyalties, that they come up to
Jerusalem to keep the Passover after the manner of their fathers. And although
the messengers of the king had met with much derision and contempt, there were
also many in the region of Galilee who responded and came with gladness to join
in their new surge of godliness.
But there were hindrances of many kinds, with the
result that it was not found possible to hold the Feast at the normal time
— the fourteenth of the first month. However, the Law of Moses provided
for a second celebration a month later (a kind of supplementary Breaking of
Bread!) for the benefit of those who were unclean through contact with the dead
or who were away on a journey when the proper time came round. Strictly
speaking, neither of these “exceptive clauses” applied to these
latecomers from the north. Even less were they a valid excuse for the people of
Judah and Jerusalem.
Nevertheless the Feast went forward in the second
month with zeal and rejoicing. It was not that king or priests or people were
ignorant of what the Law lay down. There was no disposition to cover up or evade
the technical infringement with any kind of clever argument. Rather, the issue
became quite simply this: ‘Is it better for us and more to the honor and
glory of God that we keep the Passover with an irregularity of procedure, or
that we do not keep it at all this year?’ Faced with this alternative
— especially in such circumstances — the proper decision was
obvious.
Yet it was not to be denied that some commandment
of the Law was infringed. Had they desisted altogether, still the Law said that
the Passover must be kept. Had they kept it in the second month, then they were
found guilty of appropriating to themselves the concessions of Numbers 9:10
which clearly did not apply in their case. Also, many of those coming from the
north were not ceremonially purified to keep the Passover (2 Chron. 30:18). Here
the Law was infringed again in unmistakable fashion. Yet the Feast was kept,
“for Hezekiah prayed for them, saying,
‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the
Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification
of the sanctuary’, and the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the
people.”
None would dispute that, infringements and
irregularities aside, Hezekiah and the people did the right thing — or,
rather, the best thing possible — in the circumstances.
This kind of tension between two conflicting laws
and principles of God’s appointing, both of which apply in a given case,
is not uncommon. It happened under the Law of Moses, as for example the dilemma
of circumcision on the eight day when it chanced to fall on a Sabbath; Jesus
entered into several controversies between the traditional interpretations of
the Sabbath law and his own greater law of loving service to
mankind.
Similar situations are not unusual in the life of
the disciple today. If a young Christadelphian is commanded by his unbelieving
parents to miss the Breaking of Bread so as to accompany them on a visit to an
aged relative, which commandment does he break: “Do this in remembrance of
me”, or “Honor thy father and thy mother”?
Is it right to buy some magazine which will
further one’s study of the Signs of the Times if this means giving
indirect support to some unrighteous cause which that publication happens to
advocate?
Should an ecclesia spend thousands of dollars on
the purchase of a fine organ to enhance its worship and praise of God if a
quarter of its members believe that this money should be devoted instead, say,
to the Bible Mission?
We begin to see now the bearing of the foregoing
considerations on the vexed question of fellowship. Without any doubt, division
and fragmentation arise because brethren resolve in different irreconcilable
fashion yet another conflict of principles:
‘Here is the beginning of apostasy,’
says one; ‘I cannot with clear conscience belong to a community which
tolerates such denials of truth; no matter what the cost, the Faith must be kept
pure.’ And he gathers round him some of like persuasion and goes away to
make a fresh, clean start — until the day when a like situation recurs
once more, and then the process begins all over again.
Says another: ‘Here is teaching which
grieves me very much and which may well show itself ultimately to be destructive
of our Faith. I do not like it. I am worried by it. Then I must do all in my
power to counteract it. Since my brethren who are in a better position than I
to exercise a good influence do nothing about it, ought I not to withdraw for
the sake of purity of the Faith? But then, there is also my responsibility to
the rest who do not assess the situation as urgently as I do. These sheep, what
shall they do? Have I no duty to them, to nurture and guide and warn
them?’
Thus the conflict rages in the minds and hearts
of faithful men. Undefiled separateness? Or love of the brethren in time of
difficulty? This is the great issue. How is it to be resolved? Some have one
solution, some another, and the outcome is mutual recrimination and division.
Stark tragedy!
What, then, is the right way, and therefore the
best way, to resolve this greatest of all spiritual contests for the loyalty of
the believer? Whatever decision is reached, it is almost certain that a serious
disadvantage will be involved. One evaluation, however, seems quite suitable in
facilitating our choice, and this is the test of Jesus: “By their fruits
ye shall know them.”
Apply this test, then, to the
“purity-at-all-costs” school of thought. What fruits have been
gathered from this tree? The largely unchallenged assumption that
root-and-branch disfellowship en masse is demanded by the Bible has left a
phenomenal trail of Christadelphian wreckage scattered across the past century.
Even at the present day several small boats toss on the waves, when united
effort to manage one adequate vessel and keep it seaworthy would be an obvious
policy of sanity. More than this, an invariable result of every crusade of every
secessionist has been a long-sustained campaign of harsh criticism and
self-righteous censure against those from whom the separation has been made.
“By their fruits ye shall know them!” What a contrast with Daniel
who, belonging to a nation hardened in apostasy and riddled with guilt, prayed
for them and for himself as though he shared their sin and their condemnation.
So the “separatist” solution has been
weighed in the balances and found wanting. But the more
“broad-minded” school of thought may also be lacking when
“fruits” are considered, for false teachers if allowed to run wild
do damage to others as well as themselves, and the lines of demarcation between
Truth and Error may become blurred.
Is there an alternative to either of these
extremes? As long as an ecclesia holds to a true foundation of faith, that
ecclesia should not be abandoned. There may be unfaithfulness latent in any
ecclesia, but if the formal basis of fellowship is sound, then as long as
faithful brethren exist there, they should continue an unfaltering witness
against error. This was the function of the prophets in a decadent Israel, and
the counsel of the apostles to ecclesias with doctrinal and moral problems in
the first century.
Such an attitude of mind and the solution here
proposed can hardly be altogether satisfactory to the out-and-out idealist, but
like Hezekiah he must learn to make the best of imperfect situations. The great
evils are schism and apathy. Let us shun both, and choose instead the middle
road, of loving, careful, unceasing entreaty and witness for truth. If we do
this then we have the assurance that Hezekiah had, that God will pardon the
failings of those who prepare their hearts to serve Him, even though their
service may prove less than perfect.