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.