Wrested Scriptures (4) - "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

For as long as I can remember I've been hearing Amos 3:3 quoted in support of the argument that there must be doctrinal uniformity on all points in order for there to be "unity" in an ecclesia, or in order for an individual or ecclesia to be accepted "in fellowship".

The King James Version translates this verse: "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

As with the other "wrested Scriptures" I've already examined in this series, this verse is made to mean something totally different to what it was intended to mean, and this peculiar interpretation is reached only by taking the verse out of its context and then relying on a translation which is at odds with almost all other translators.

The Hebrew word translated here in the KJV as "agreed" is ya'ad. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon says this word (in the niphal tense) means:

1) to meet
2) to meet by appointment
3) to gather, assemble by appointment

Here is how some other translations render this verse:

• "Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?" (Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible)
• "Can two people walk together without agreeing to meet?" (Contemporary English Version)
• "Do two walk together if they have not met?" (Young's Literal Translation)

Gesenius says it means "to come together at an appointed time or place". The "agreement" here relates only to the intention to meet together at a particular time and place. There is nothing in this word, or its context, to suggest that there has to be agreement about anything else in order for the parties to "walk together" or meet together. In fact, in other contexts this root word took on the meaning of an engagement or espousal to marry. It did not refer to the marriage itself, but rather to the intention to marry. Similarly, the word could be used of a summons to a court. It did not refer to the court trial but to the summons issued to appear for trial. In this case the parties did not meet together because they "agreed" but rather that they might debate their differences.

One commentator has noted the use of the verse in the context of divisions in the church:

"It is an interesting observation that those who head for Amos 3:3 for a text of unity, actually are not trying to promote unity at all. They are searching for grounds on which to justify their separation from others." (W. Carl Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures, St. Louis Missouri, 1992).

The passage in Amos goes on to say that God does not pour out His judgment on a city without first revealing His intention to His prophets (verse 7). The whole passage is about God declaring His intention, and not about reaching agreement.

One of the reasons why there is so much dis-unity in the Christadelphian community is that too many people have tried to create unity on their own terms by demanding that everyone else has to agree with them. Amos 3:3 is often quoted as "proof" that unity can only be achieved through doctrinal conformity. As long ago as December 1993 I wrote an article in the Christadelphian Forum magazine about the failure of the Australian Unity Agreement to achieve any kind of meaningful unity (and at the time "block disfellowship" was being practiced by several ecclesias which adopted the Agreement against other ecclesias which were parties to the same Agreement). In that article I wrote the following:

I would suggest that the Australian Unity Agreement has failed chiefly because of a lack of commitment to the idea of Unity. In fact, our history as a community has shown that we have never been terribly committed to the idea ...

Before we could ever be committed to unity we would have to decide that we wanted it ...

This is why the Unity Agreement didn’t work. It was a formality, a technicality, a legal document encompassing a credal formula which was open to interpretation. It could not, however, compel the parties to it to love each other. For a while the threat of exclusion from the ‘fellowship’ of the wider community was sufficient to encourage ecclesias to support the concept of ‘Unity’, but it didn’t take long for some brethren and ecclesias to realise that nothing needed to change. They could still insist that their interpretation of Scripture was the only valid one; if they didn’t like the way other brethren said or did things they could try to isolate them in various ways; they could criticise, condemn or denigrate their brethren; and they didn’t have to do anything at all to help their brethren in any way! And everything was fine because we had ‘Unity’ ...

We must want Unity. We must do more than think Unity would be a nice ideal. There must be a genuine yearning for it.

Perhaps I'll post the entire article on this blog later because it's still relevant, not only in Australia where the 'celebrations' for the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement have been marred by still more fellowship controversies, but also in North America where the unity discussions broke down (as I publicly predicted as soon as I knew of the involvement of certain brethren who were renowned for their refusal to compromise or negotiate).

I hear that the Australian celebrations have included references to Amos 3:3 and that, regrettably, the mistranslation of the KJV is being pushed in an effort to bully ecclesias who aren't conforming into accepting the exclusivist approach to fellowship. Hopefully common sense will soon prevail and there will be something to celebrate.

Wrested Scriptures (2) - "offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned"

In my last post I showed that one of the Scriptures which are frequently quoted in support of "withdrawing fellowship" when read in it's context actually means something quite different from the meaning attached to it by religious purists*. In this post I want to consider another passage whose meaning has been reversed by the purists.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. (Romans 16:17 KJV)

Of all the scriptures which have wrested (twisted or distorted) by the purists, this one may have suffered more maltreatment than most others. Written for the very purpose of protecting and preserving the church from division, it has become one of the chief instruments of such division.

What did Paul mean when he wrote about "the doctrine you have learned"? We first need to look at the context to see what Paul had been teaching the Romans which would cause them to avoid those who were divisive. The context shows that Paul had been teaching them that division among brethren is a sin. The "doctrine" he is referring to is the teaching that no one should cause division ("doctrine" literally means "teaching"). In a nutshell, that teaching in Romans is summed up in 14:19 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification".

The verse we are looking at comes at the end of a body of teaching which commences in Romans 12:1. Paul devotes the next 4 chapters to Christian conduct, especially as related to unity in the community of God's people. His primary teaching is that God's people should not be divided and its members should not put obstacles in front of another believer.
Here are some key verses from that body of teaching:

• "In Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others" (12:5).
• "Love must be sincere." (12:9)
  
• "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." (12:10)
• "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited." (12:16)
• "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another". (13:8)
• Chapter 14 deals at length with the attitudes necessary to preserve unity in spite of differences. The foundation of Paul's teaching about this is laid in verse one: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."

After having given this extensive teaching about avoiding division and preserving unity, Paul recognises there will be those who will not follow this teaching. There will always be people who refuse to follow the example of Christ, but who create a factional atmosphere. Almost every church at some time will encounter people who want to set up their own power bases, who recognize as brethren only those who agree with their opinions, and who will drive out the believers who will not submit to their authority. Jesus encountered this in the religious leaders of His day, the New Testament letters show how such people infiltrated the church from an early stage, and the divided state of Christendom in general is evidence of this factionalism.

So what should be done about a person who insists that his/her view is the right one and that everyone else should agree with it? How do we handle a person (or group of people) who is/are threatening to divide a church or group of believers by making a big issue out of a difference of opinion? Paul says "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them" (Rom 16:17 NIV).

We should note several things about these words:

1. Paul is not advocating any public or corporate action here. He is not telling a congregation that they should excommunicate or disfellowship any one.
2. The "avoiding" recommended by Paul is an individual thing - they are simply told to steer clear of those who create division and stay out of their way.
3. The KJV says "Mark them which cause division." The word "mark" is from the Greek skopeo and literally means "to observe, watch, to keep an eye on." The person is not "marked" in any way and nothing is actually done to them. They are simply put under surveillance, or carefully watched.
4. The word "divisions" is from dichostasia which literally means "standing apart" and here it refers to "alienating one from another." It is seen in a party-spirit where people who hold the same opinion cluster together and vote or act as a group.
5. The word "avoid" is from ekklino which means "to turn away from, to hold aloof from, to stay out of the way." There is nothing in the word which implies any formal or organised disciplinary action. W.E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of NT Words says, "In exhorting them to turn away from false teachers, the Apostle is not speaking of excommunication, but of personal dissociation from the offenders." Commentator Albert Barnes puts it this way: "That is, avoid them as teachers; do not follow them. It does not mean that they were to be treated harshly; but that they were to be avoided in their instructions. They were to disregard all that they could say tending to produce alienation and strife; and resolve to cultivate the spirit of peace and union."

Here are some ways other translations paraphrase this verse:

• "And now I implore you, my brothers, to keep a watchful eye on those who cause troubles and make difficulties among you, in plain opposition to the teaching you have been given, and steer clear of them." (J. B. Phillips)
• "One final word of counsel, friends. Keep a sharp eye out for those who take bits and pieces of the teaching that you learned and then use them to make trouble. Give these people a wide berth." (The Message)

Everyone who uses this verse as justification for separating from people with different views, who equate "this doctrine" with some form of creedal statement (such as a statement of faith), or some other definition of "the true faith", or who insist on agreement with a doctrinal interpretation of some sort, are the very people who are disrupting unity and who Paul says we should avoid!

It is sadly ironic that the chief offenders against unity are the ones most likely to quote this verse to justify the divisions they are causing. Such is the nature of the religious purists that they wrest, or twist Scripture to make it say the opposite of what it was intended to mean.


* I will explain this term "religious purists" later when we get to a Scripture about it.

Wrested Scriptures (1) - "withdraw fellowship"

In earlier posts I've written about Jesus' teachings on the injustice of exclusivism (especially as it was practiced by the religious leaders of His day) and the "good news" that God was welcoming into His Kingdom those who had been excluded, marginalised, disenfranchised and rejected by the religious purists.

In this short series I'd like to look at the Scriptures quoted by the religious purists of our own day to support their practice of "withdrawing fellowship" from people who disagree with them. We will see that these Scriptures have been "wrested" in order to make them mean something quite different from what they actually say.

The expression "withdraw fellowship" is often regarded by Christadelphians as preferable to "disfellowship" (although that is still a very common term) or "excommunicate", because it is claimed to be a Biblical expression. Christadelphians almost certainly adopted this practice from the Disciples/Churches of Christ (sometimes called "Campbellites" by Christadelphians, but more accurately described as the Stone-Campbell Movement) who also use the term "withdraw fellowship" in some circles. Robert Roberts' Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian ecclesias (1883, aka "The Ecclesial Guide") in referring to an "offender" says it is an ecclesia's "duty to separate him from their fellowship by withdrawal".

The expression "withdraw fellowship" does not occur in the Bible. However, religious purists usually quote 2 Thessalonians 3:6 from the King James Version in support of their fellowship practices.

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

To understand this verse we first need to understand the context. Thessalonica was a free city (urbs libera) within the Roman Empire. One of the privileges of being a free city was that freedom from taxation (libertas cum immunitate) was granted, and direct descendants of original families, as well as retired soldiers, were supported by the dole if they registered and requested it.

This status as a free city provided a lot of opportunity for leisure. Being devoid of scholastic opportunities, the tendency was for many of the men to degenerate into lazy and irresponsible louts and loungers, ready for any excitement which might be aroused to offset the monotony (and Acts 17:5 provides a hint as to how easy it was to find people of that type in Thessalonica).

This explains why Paul emphasised to the Thessalonian believers the necessity of securing honest employment, holding it, and earning one's own livelihood. He mentioned this in his first letter:

• Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. (1 Th 4:11-12).
• Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. (1 Th 2:9)

This teaching provides the background for Paul's instructions in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (NIV).

We should especially note the immediate context. Paul's makes it clear in the words that follow that he is referring to the problem of laziness which was rife in the Thessalonian community.

• For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Th 3:7-10).

The KJV expression "walketh disorderly" has been used by religious purists to expel anyone who doesn't measure up to their standards, doctrinal or behavioural. In the Thessalonian context we can see that the NIV's translation "every brother who is idle" is a reference to the problem of idleness in Thessalonica. Other translations render it similarly:

• "Keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness" (RSV)
• "Refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest." (The Message)
• "Withdraw and keep away from every brother (fellow believer) who is slack in the performance of duty and is disorderly, living as a shirker" (Amplified Bible)
• "Keep away from all brothers who are living a lazy life." (TEV)
• "Hold aloof from every Christian brother who falls into idle habits." (NEB)

The brethren in Thessalonica were simply commanded to refrain from extending hospitality to loafers and shirkers. They were not to feed them for the command was that "if any would not work neither should he eat". If one of these lazy brethren appeared at the front door just before mealtime he was to be offered a job instead of food. If he refused the former he was to be refused the latter. One who shunned honest toil was to be gently shunted from the dinner table.

The word "withdraw" is from the Greek stello which means "to avoid, to hold aloof." There is not the slightest hint of congregational, ecclesial or corporate action. There is no public or formal discipline. Nothing is done to the idle person. He is simply left where he is while the brethren step back from him. To "withdraw yourselves" means to step back, to retreat, or to retire from the scene. It does not mean to expel or remove. The phrase "have no company with him" (v. 14) is intended to forbid the extending of hospitality. It would preclude invitations to social gatherings to which the idle might flock and at which they would eat at the expense of others.

We should also note that the one from whom the brethren are to step back or hold themselves aloof is referred to as a brother, although a lazy one who is living in idleness. Paul twice refers to the lazy individual as a brother. There is absolutely no justification for the practice amongst religious purists of refusing to call a disfellowshipped person a brother. This practice in the Christadelphian community began with John Thomas and Robert Roberts who, after they had fallen out with a brother, thereafter referred to him as "Mr". But there is no Scriptural justification for it - a brother does not cease to be a brother just because you disagree with him, or even if you "withdraw" from him.

It is almost impossible to imagine how the tangled maze of disciplinary action - accusation, boycott, disfellowship, and congregational exclusivism - has grown out of this passage. When authoritarians seek justification for their bullying attitudes they undoubtedly find that the words "withdraw yourselves" provide a handy tool to satisfy their divisiveness and they appropriate them as a weapon in the arsenal of factionalism.

Characteristics of Christian Leaders (8)

It's nearly a year since I last wrote something under this thread, but in response to some recent events and questions from readers I'm picking up the theme again.

I am convinced that Jesus did not come to build a ‘church’ (as in an institution or organisation), as I've probably made clear in my posts under other threads - He came to establish a community He called ‘the Kingdom of God’. Institutionalised churches generally aren’t communities, and nor are rule-keeping, legalistic, dogmatic denominations (unless we use ‘community’ very loosely in its broadest sense).

The King James Version of the Bible was intentionally mis-translated on King James’s instructions to ensure that the ‘authority’ of the Bishops - and more importantly from his perspective, the King – was maintained. So we have ‘bishops’ and ‘deacons’ instead of ‘leaders’ and ‘servants’, and we have verses which instruct Christians to "obey them who have the rule over you". A lot of Christadelphian ‘rulers’ have latched on to King James’s self-serving distortion of the Bible to serve their own interests, and so we have the mess that we see in Christadelphia today.

Hebrews 13:17 is one of the passages often quoted to enforce submission to the decisions of Arranging (or Managing) Brethren (and sometimes even committees such as the Bible Missions!). "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

We should first look at verse 7 which says “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation”.

There are a couple of things we should note about verse 7:

(a) It is in the past tense but has been translated to read as though it were in the present tense.

(b) The word over (“rule over you”) in this verse has no corresponding word in the Greek and was added by the translators (humon means “of you” not “over you”).

(c) The phrase, "them which have the rule over" is a paraphrase of one Greek word - hegeomai - a verb - meaning to lead, to go before as a guide. In a Christian context hegeomai is descriptive of the act of guiding, going on ahead, leading the way as an example, not sitting as overlords.

(d) It is referring to those who have died in the faith, not to living individuals presiding over the body of Christ.

Hebrews 11-12 is filled with accounts of those who have gone before us as examples of those who have walked by faith. The reader is exhorted to remember such, to reflect on their faith, calling to memory "the end of their conversation" (or "the outcome of their way of life" NIV). These were some of the exemplary guides, the hegeomai that were to be remembered. So Heb 13:7 is saying “remember those who have gone before and follow in their footsteps”. The NIV has “remember your leaders ...” and “leaders” in this context means those who “led” the way.

The KJV translators also changed the intent of verse 17 to suit the King. The Greek word, peitho that was translated obey appears only 55 times in the New Testament. It is only translated obey seven times. The word peitho is in the passive voice and simply means be persuaded, as the following lexicons demonstrate.

"Peitho: To persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe. To make friends of, to win one's favour, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one. To tranquillise. To persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something. Be persuaded. To be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing. To believe." (Thayer and Smith’s Greek Lexicon)

"peitho, to persuade, to win over, in the Passive and Middle voices, to be persuaded, to listen to.... (Acts 5:40, Passive Voice, "they agreed"); The obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion." (W. E. Vine Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

Acts18:4 is a good example of how this word is used in the NT: “And he (Paul) reasoned (dialegomai…'To think different things with one's self, mingle thought with thought. To ponder, revolve in mind. To converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss'. Thayer and Smith's Greek Lexicon) …in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded (pietho) the Jews and the Greeks." Here Paul is reasoning with Jews and Greeks in the synagogue. He did not command them to obey him. Rather, he persuaded them.

In this verse pietho means “listen to the reasoning of your leaders” or “be persuaded by your leaders”, but not “obey them”.

The Greek word that was translated submit in verse 17 is hupeiko. It occurs only here in the NT and means yield. Hupeiko in no way infers any kind of outward force being placed on the person yielding. It is a voluntary act. In the body of Christ you cannot demand that someone “submit” to your authority. If you do, it proves that you really do not have authority. He is not fit to lead who is not capable of guiding.

The Message translates this “Be responsive to your pastoral leaders. Listen to their counsel.” This conveys the sense of deferring to the wise counsel of wise leaders more accurately than the authoritarian language of the KJV.

Verse 7 is a call to remember those who led the way (e.g the faithful in ch 11), and verse 17 follows the theme with advice to follow the counsel and example of the present generation of leaders.

Authoritarian leaders cannot be trusted. It seems to me that these two things are related: a bullying, authoritarianism which attempts to control other people, and immorality. We often see these go hand in hand. Alarm bells should always ring when we see authoritarianism in the Body of Christ. Behind it there will always be abuse of some kind.

“Many are called but few are chosen”

In response to my last post, where I said "remnant theology is wrong", some people will undoubtedly reply "but Jesus' said 'Many are called but few are chosen'."

Indeed, in two places in Matthew’s Gospel we read of Jesus saying these words (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). This saying appears to be contrary to the idea of God’s overflowing generosity which we see repeatedly throughout Jesus’ teachings. It appears that Jesus is saying that only a small number of people are actually chosen by God to enjoy His Kingdom and that even many of those who respond to His invitation will be rejected. This is so radically different from the rest of Jesus’ teachings that we need to look at this saying carefully in its context.

In actual fact Jesus is only recorded as saying these words on one occasion. While the King James Version (KJV) also places them at Matthew 20:16, most translations do not include it here. It seems that the KJV is based on a manuscript which incorrectly included the saying here, as the best and most ancient manuscripts omit it.

So we need to look at the one place where Jesus used these words: at the end of the parable about the wedding feast (Matthew 22:14).

This is quite different to another parable about a wedding recorded in Luke 14:16-24 so we shouldn’t confuse the two. A dominant theme in Matthew’s Gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God because of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. This is highlighted in the words “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:43). It is this message which is being emphasized in this parable.

The parable is in two parts. In the first part (verses 1-10) the people who are invited to the wedding ignore the invitation so the invitation is extended to anyone the king’s servants can find – good or bad – so the wedding hall is filled with guests. The message here is clearly a reference to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, and therefore His kingdom, and the invitation going to the Gentiles instead.

The second part of the story (vv. 11-14) has a very unexpected twist. The king notices one guest without an appropriate wedding garment, and has him bound and thrown outside. There are two unusual features of this twist.

(1) It seems strange that someone who was invited at very short notice would be criticized for not dressing appropriately; and

(2) the consequences seem overly harsh in the circumstances.

However, this is no ordinary wedding: it is the King’s son! It would have been a great honour to have been invited and it seems that everyone else had time to dress appropriately. So the harsh treatment of the one person who didn’t take the honour seriously may not have been overly harsh after all (although we must remember that Jesus often used exaggeration for emphasis).

The story ends then with the punchline: "For many are invited, but few are chosen” (verse 14). If many people were thrown out of the wedding hall and only a few allowed to remain then this saying would clearly refer to those who remained for the banquet. However, in the story many stay for the banquet and only one is rejected. If this saying referred to the fact that one person was “not chosen” because he wasn’t properly dressed then it would have been more accurate to say “many are invited and most are chosen, but a few will be rejected”. Obviously Jesus has something else in mind.

A parable usually has one main point, or two at the most. The closing line, the “punch line” (also called the “end-stress”), relates to this main point. In this story the main point is that the people who were originally invited to the wedding banquet rejected this invitation and therefore others were invited in their place. The final line takes us back to this point. Many people make the mistake of interpreting this line to mean “many are called (from the world), but few are chosen (from those who are called)”. This interpretation has no connection to the context.

The “many” who are called, or invited, refers to the second group to be invited. The story makes it clear that a large number were included in this second invitation. “'Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.” On the other hand the first group appears to be relatively small: “one to his field, another to his business”. So the saying is better interpreted “many are called (from the world) but few are chosen (from the world)” and there is a contrast between being called and being chosen (there is possibly even a play on words in the Greek, where the word “called” or ‘invited” is kletos and the word chosen is eklektos).

The word “chosen” (Greek eklektos) has the meaning of being “picked out”. It is a great honour to be “chosen” or “hand-picked”. In this story the ones who were “hand-picked” to be at the wedding banquet were those who were initially invited. From all the people in his realm the king chose these people to celebrate with him on this special occasion. But they treated this honour with contempt, and so they too were rejected.

The person in the second part of the story had a similar attitude. Although he came to the wedding he did not take the honour seriously of being invited to such a special occasion. He was very casual in his attitude, and in this way was similar to those earlier who casually chose to carry on with their business rather than answer the king’s summons.

We could paraphrase it this way: “It is a great privilege to be invited, and many have been invited; but it is an even greater honour to be hand-picked, and only a few have that honour – so don’t take it lightly.”

This story emphasizes the great honour which is offered to us when God invites us to the celebration in the kingdom of His Son. Israel suffered severely because they rejected that honour, and those who come into the church “casually” without considering what an enormous honour it is will also be treated severely. While we are saved by grace we must never take grace lightly. We have been given a wonderful privilege.