Christian Conduct
How far is a Christian to purge himself from unbelievers, and would it involve church membership?
2 Corinthians 6:14-18 forbids the “unequal yoke” of believers with unbelievers for the reasons stated: Righteousness cannot have fellowship with unrighteousness, nor can light have communion with darkness. A “yoke” is that which unites two or more in a common purpose, and the passage therefore clearly forbids the marriage of believers with unbelievers, or business partnerships where the same “unequal” state exists. To make the passage teach the doctrine of the separation of believers from the churches is therefore to take the ground — alike uncharitable and untrue — that the churches are composed of unbelievers. Doubtless there are mere professors in the churches, and doubtless there are carnal sect-divisions among them, but that condition is clearly foreseen in Scripture, and the path of the obedient child of God pointed out. Looking on, as 2 Timothy does, to the last of the last days, the condition of the professing church is clearly disclosed. It has become a “great house.”’ In the great house “there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and earth; and some to honor and some to dishonor” (2 Tim. 2:20).
What now is the path of the one who, at whatever cost, would be (whether of gold, silver, wood or earth) a vessel unto honor?
“If a man therefore purge himself from these (i. e., the vessels unto dishonor), he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified (or “‘separated’’), and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21).
There is not an intimation that the servant “unto honor’ is to get out of the “great house,” but to purge himself from vessels unto dishonor in the “great house.”
Needless to say this often involves far more pain and persecution than would be incurred by withdrawing. The message to Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22) contemplates the church in her last and utterly apostate condition. The Lord is quite outside, and the church proud, boastful, self-satisfied — what the religious cant of the day calls “‘optimistic’’ — is really “poor, and miserable, and blind and naked.’ Yet, even here, the Lord, knocking at the door, says, “If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me.”
It should be needless to add that there might easily be, nay, often is, such a condition of things in a local church as makes it impossible for a loyal child of God to remain connected with it. A church which suffers in its pulpit an apostate preacher who denies (however covertly) the full and absolute eternal being and deity of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ without works; and which allows the practice as part of the church life and work of flagrant worldliness, is a church with which fellowship is impossible to an obedient child of God.
But a church is not the Church. What might often be a local necessity might not be a universal necessity.
It is either ignorance or arrogancy to say that the churches are so composed of unbelievers that the separation of 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 applies broadly to them. The writer believes that a majority of the members of those churches, evangelical in creed, which require the confession of faith in Jesus Christ as a condition of fellowship, is made up of sincere, though alas! unfed and untaught believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Since the church has become so largely apostate, should not true believers obey the call to “‘come out of her” (Rev. 18:4)?
The call, ‘“‘Come out of her,” is for the time immediately preceding the doom and destruction of Babylon. There is no “call” to come out of the churches. Even in the last and worst state of the professing church — Laodicea — Christ stands at the door and knocks, saying, “If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me.”’ In other words, Christ does not call His people out, but asks to be let in.
To just what extent is the prohibition “Judge not’’ to be followed?
The Bible in many places forbids us to judge one another, and in 1 Corinthians 4:5 discloses the reason. “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring into light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.”” And this is but another way of saying that we are inhibited from judgment because we do not know, and cannot know, all of the facts. It was a great saying of Bushnell’s, “The thing we shall be most ashamed of in eternity is our judgment of our brethren.” But judgment implies condemnation, and the inhibition of judgment is not to be used to blur moral distinctions. Right is right, and wrong is wrong; and while we may not condemn our brethren, we may and must discern what is evil and refuse to fellowship it (2 Tim. 2:19; Eph. 5:1-11).
The fellowship of evil doctrine is even more sternly condemned in Scripture than the fellowship with evil practices (2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 John 1: 9-11).
How are we to reconcile David’s hatred of his enemies, as seen in 2 Samuel 5:8, with the command to love our enemies?
The difficulty arises from applying the ethics of the Christian dispensation to the conduct of a man who was an executioner of the divine justice upon a corrupt race. It is not necessary to overpress the word “hateth.” It implies no personal malice (see Luke 14:26).
How may we know the will of God for our lives?
Upon two conditions. First, consecration; which is yieldedness to the will of God before we know it. Note the order in Romans 12:1, 2. First, the presentation of the body (verse 1); second, the refusal of world conformity (v. 2); and, thirdly, the proving or knowing of the will of God (v. 2). And the second condition is, to ask God for the revelation of His will (James 1:5). Having honestly and in trustful confidence in God complied with these conditions, the responsibility is wholly upon Him. We need not ask how He will make his will known to us; and we must be especially careful not to prescribe to Him the means which He must use for the revelation of His will. It cannot be too strongly stated that to do so is to invade His sovereignty. Faith rests upon the confident assurance that God can speak loudly enough to make a willing child hear. Our part is to wait quietly until we are sure.
What can be done im a church where the people claim it is impossible to raise the pastor’s salary without socials, fairs and outside solicitation?
The only biblical “means” of raising money for Christian uses is a converted hand in its own pocket. In the sphere of practical righteousness there is no subject more urgently demanding faithful testimony from ministers of the gospel. ‘The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord.” He has nowhere commissioned His servants to ask the world for money for Him. When the Son of God was on earth He toiled with his own hands for His support until His public ministry began, and then was ministered unto by converted and loving souls. It seems inconceivable that a self-respecting minister should consent to begging from the world, and to the pitiful trafficking of “socials,” suppers, and the like, to provide means for his support.
The true course for a minister of Jesus Christ who finds himself in a church or community where such things are customary, is: (1) Lovingly to teach his people out of God’s Word what is His will as to giving. (2) “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:25). (8) Lovingly to refuse to conform to that or any other unbiblical practice. Such a minister, be he ever so wise and patient, must prepare his soul for persecution. He may deny the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ or the resurrection, and arouse less vindictive opposition. He will hear from the self-styled ‘““Marthas” in no uncertain way. But let him possess his soul in patience, meekness and prayer, and God will give him a great victory.;
In 1 Corinthians 5:11 did Paul mean that a Christian should separate himself entirely from a fellow Christian who was a drunkard, etc., and how is the judgment of verses 12 and 13 to be understood?
No. Paul meant that a Christian ought to separate from one who called himself a brother, but whose actions and life proved him to be otherwise — a mere professor, of which there were some in the early church, as now. He was to be excluded from the communion table until he repented. The word judge has a two-fold meaning, illustrated by a jury and a judge. The first judges the actions and words of the one on trial, — the latter pronounces sentence. God alone can judge in the latter sense. Those who are spiritual may judge or discern, in the former sense (1 Cor. 2:15) — judge actions, and separate from those whose lives are ungodly. But God alone is the judge to pronounce sentence on men.
Since Paul made vows, is it not right for Christians now to do the same?
The only instance of vow-making in the New Testament is in Acts 21:18-26 where Paul, at the instance of James, ceremonially “purified himself’? with four men who had “a vow on them.” This cannot, however, be made a precedent for vowing in this dispensation. For, without asking whether the noble apostle to the Gentiles had not in this acted inconsistently with his own writings, it is to be observed, (1) that the ground upon which James urged Paul to ‘“‘be at. charges’ with these men cannot possibly exist for any believer today. ‘Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law.” In other words, James pleaded with Paul to comply with a ceremonial in order to avoid or remove a prejudice against himself. (2) The whole context shows that vowing belongs to the dispensation of law, and “‘ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Law is the testing of man to demonstrate his utter incapacity to keep vows, or to do any other good thing. When this is demonstrated, grace, which is unmerited favor to a guilty, hell-deserving, sinful wretch, comes in and freely saves him. Being saved, he is dependent utterly upon the power of God to keep him (Heb. 7:25; 1 Pet. 1:5). He can do all things through Christ (Phil. 4:13), but he is to have no independent will such as is involved in making vows, “for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). No wonder, then, that vow-making is not so much as mentioned in New Testament Scripture. One is not even to say he will go here or there without adding, ‘if the Lord will” (James 4:15).
How are we to understand the many references in 1 Corinthians to the carnal minded — unspiritual; are these saved or unsaved?
The duality in 1 Corinthians is not of saved and unsaved, believers and unbelievers, but of spiritual and carnal believers (8:1, etc.). In Hebrews the hortatory passages have professors in mind; in 1 Corinthians such passages (e. g., 6:19) have carnal Christians in mind.
In what sense is the believer to separate himself from the world?
The biblical thought of separation is from whatever is necessarily dishonoring to God. The Christian is separate from the world in that he does not make the world the object of his hopes and ambitions. He is separate from unbelievers in that he does not yoke himself with them in a common purpose. There is a deeper principle of separation stated in 2 Timothy, 2nd chapter: “But in a great house’’ — etc. Here obviously the thought is not so much of separation from the “great house,’ as from the vessels unto dishonor in the great house. In the application of these principles, each believer must under the light of the Word, act upon his own convictions.
How far can we depend upon conscience?
Only so far as it has been educated according to the Word of God. The Word is the only infallible guide to action. If your conscience troubles you on any question, to violate it would be sinful. But we must seek to educate our consciences, not by other people’s consciences or views, but by the Word itself. One thing we dare not do, however, is to judge another for doing something which our conscience will not allow us to do. “Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind,’ but follow Romans 14 concerning others.
Why the prohibition of things strangled, and of blood in Acts 15:20, and why is this not binding upon Christians today?
It would seem as though the thought was to guard the sacredness of the precious blood of Christ, even in type. Strangulation would produce death without the shedding of blood; His blood was shed. To use blood as food would tend to make common that which Scripture had made sacred as a type of the precious blood of Christ as of “a Jamb without spot or blemish.”
As to all this being binding upon Christians today, we must remember that those were not authoritative commandments, since the council at Jerusalem had no authority to put the Church under law, but were counsels of grace having in view Jewish scruples and Gentile grossness. They were applications of the law of love stated in 1 Corinthians 10:31, 88. These applications must be made by every believer under his own conscience. The law of love is not a standard by which we may judge others, for such judgment the law of love expressly forbids.
Is the principle involved in 1 Corinthians 10:27 as to eating what is set before you, asking no questions for conscience’s sake, one by which a Christian may be guided in these days, and to what extent?
There is no reason why the principle is not operative today. The principle of the verse mentioned is, that if a Christian guest is told concerning anything set before him something which would raise a question of conscience, then the Christian guest is not to eat. Such a question might arise about food prepared with alcoholic sauces, or about animal food cruelly slain. In the cases cited, the principle would be that the Christian guest would be under no obligation to ask questions about the food, but if such facts should be disclosed, the Christian should not eat.
How is Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7, concerning brothers going to law against each other, to be considered?
The force of this passage is that Christians should not go to law with each other. Arbitration is suggested, but the passage is really ironical — a forcible way of showing how offensive to the divine mind is that inability of some Christians to “take joyfully the spoiling of their goods’ which leads them into law suits.
Is it not out of the divine order to use leavened bread for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in view of the fact that leaven is always a type of evil?
Bread for the communion of the Lord’s Supper should, we believe, be unleavened. And this for two reasons: (1) The bread used by our Lord in the institution of the supper was the bread of the passover, which was required to be unleavened (Ex. 12:18). (2) The bread symbolizes Christ’s body, which was sinless, “unleavened.”’ It should be added, however, that these considerations do not constitute a new Leviticus — a new ceremonial law — but are matters concerning which every Christian must be “fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Does not John 13 make it clear that foot-washing is a scriptural ordinance?
It is, we think, an entire misapprehension of the meaning of our Lord’s action to make an ordinance of the literal washing of feet. His words in verse 7 show that his action was symbolical: ‘What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” For Peter certainly knew that his Lord was washing his feet. What he did not know was the spiritual meaning of that act. In effect our Lord explains, in verses 8 and 10, the spiritual significance of what He had done. “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part (partnership, communion) with me.” “He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet” (R.V.). It is, in a word, the great truth taught typically in the tabernacle worship. There is first atonement at the brazen altar and then cleansing at the laver. The guilt of sin is removed by Christ’s sacrifice, but as we walk through a world like this we contract defilements. We do not, in such case, need to be saved over again (i. e., “bathed,” verse 10), but we need to be cleansed. ‘He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet.”” The same truth precisely is taught in Ephesians 5:25-27. The feet-washing of John 13 symbolizes the “washing of water with the word” of Ephesians 5. It is also the truth of 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
But verses 14 and 15 teach the important additional truth that in this work we may and should serve one another. The washing is “by the word,” and we may often wash a brother’s feet by calling attention to some neglected truth or precept of Scripture. “If a brother be overtaken by a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness’” (Gal. 6:1). “In meekness instructing them that oppose themselves (as Peter, who said, “Thou shalt never wash my feet’), if peradventure God may give them repentance” (2 Tim. 2:25).
Is it possible to give one or more Scripture references which tell precisely what one must do to become consecrated?
Yes. See Romans 6:18, “Yield yourselves (the ego, self-hood, inner self, including spirit and soul) unto God;... and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” This yieldedness is (1) an act (Rom. 12:1, 20) and (2) a state, — “‘yet not I’ (Gal. 2:20); “always bearing about in the body the putting to death of the Lord Jesus’ (2 Cor. 4:10). The definite act of yielding is the beginning of a state of yieldedness. That is consecration. If the state of yieldedness is departed from by a lapse into self will, the remedy is not “re-consecration” (of which Scripture knows nothing), but confession.