Truth Magazine

By Russell H. Dunaway

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues among brethren today is that which arises concerning the child of God and his sins of ignorance. Some brethren teach that if a child of God sins through ignorance, that sin of ignorance will not separate him from God; rather, this sin of ignorance will be cleansed with the blood of Christ unconditionally. In this lesson, we shall see that this is simply not taught in the Bible. Throughout the history of God’s dealings with man, provisions for a sin committed in ignorance have been made, but these provisions were conditional.

Sins Of Ignorance Under The Law Of Moses

As one studies the law of Moses, he will learn in Leviticus 4 that it was possible for a man to sin through ignorance under the law of Moses. If you will take the time to read Leviticus 4 in its entirety, you will learn that it was possible for the priest to sin through ignorance (v. 2); that it was possible for the whole congregation to sin through ignorance (v. 13); that it was possible for the rulers to sin through ignorance (v. 22); and that it was possible for the common man to sin through ignorance (v. 27). But, as you read this chapter you will also learn there were provisions made in the law for the sins these people committed in ignorance. God had provided for an atonement to be made for their sins of ignorance, but only after they had learned of the sin and only as the conditions were met (notice vv. 3, 14, 23, 28). The provisions for the sins of ignorance committed under the law of Moses were conditional.

In Leviticus 5:17, 18, we learn that not only was it possible for a person to sin through ignorance, but also that these sins of ignorance brought with them guilt (v. 17). Thus, the sins of ignorance committed under the law of Moses separated sinners from God. This is consistent with other passages found in the Old Testament dealing with sin such as in Isaiah 59:1, 2 or Ezekiel 18:4, 20. God said, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Leviticus 5:17 teaches that this is just as true of a sin committed through ignorance as it is of any other sin; “though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.” Verse 18 goes on to teach that sins committed through ignorance could be forgiven, but only as the conditions were met. It does not teach that sins of ignorance were unconditionally forgiven. Provisions were made, but they did not provide for an unconditional forgiveness.

As you study further in the law of Moses, there were provisions made for the sins of ignorance, but you will also see that there were no provisions made for the man that had sinned presumptuously (Num. 15:22-31). Even in this passage, however, the provisions that God made for the sins committed in ignorance were conditional. As long as a man had not met the conditions for forgiveness of a sin committed in ignorance, he was guilty of that sin.

In Ezekiel 18, we learn that “the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die” (Ezek. 18:20, 21). Again we see that a man is guilty of his sins (whether committed in ignorance or not) and that he shall bear the iniquity of those sins, unless he meets the conditions that God has given. He is a sinner and must seek forgiveness on God’s terms.

It is quite common for those who teach an unconditional cleansing of the sins which a child of God commits in ignorance to refer to Psalms 19:12 where David said, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Therefore, let us look at this passage and see if it teaches an unconditional forgiveness of sins of ignorance. In the first place, let us consider, “Who can understand his errors?” Is David here teaching that we cannot understand what our sins are? Of course not! Sin is defined by John as “transgression of the law.” Thus, if a man could not understand what his sins were, he could not understand what the law of God is. Paul said that we could understand God’s law when we read it (Eph. 3:3-5). Thus, David could not be saying that it is impossible for a man to understand what his sins were, for we can understand that, if we will read the word of God and study it. The word of God gives warning to the servant of God and he receives the reward for keeping the word of God (Psa. 19:11). I suggest to you that David is here saying the same thing that Solomon said in Proverbs 16:2, i.e., “every man’s way is clean in his own eyes.” We have the tendency to say, “I am satisfied with my life,” but those who say that are confused about the whole matter. The question is not, “Am I satisfied,” but “Is God satisfied?” Man has a tendency to think in terms of his own reasoning and understanding and thus, by my own understanding, it is not possible for me to understand my errors. But I can understand my errors by looking into the perfect law of liberty (Jas. 1:25; Jer. 10:23). This is what David is saying in Psalm 19. No man, in and of himself can understand his errors. We must rely upon the word of God (vv. 7-11), rather than on human wisdom.

In the second place, when David said, “cleanse me from secret faults,” of what was he speaking? Was he speaking of sins committed through ignorance? Well, that certainly is one opinion! But, that is not the only opinion. It could be argued as well that the secret faults of Psalm 19:12 are those faults of which other people were not aware. The whole argument made from Psalm 19 is based upon an opinion of what is said, rather than the fact of what is said. It begins with an assumption, and thus, if the assumption is false, then the conclusion that follows from that assumption would also be false.

However, let us assume that David is speaking of sins that he has committed of which he is unaware. Would this mean that David was asking for an unconditional forgiveness of his sins of ignorance? Not at all! The whole point that David makes in Psalm 19 is that the word of the Lord reveals the will of the Lord, and that as we study and learn the will of the Lord, we can keep His will and be rewarded when this life is over. Nature reveals the existence of God (Psa. 19:1-6). The word of God reveals the will of God (Psa. 19:7-11). Keeping the will of God secures the reward of God (v. 11). Thus, David is not here asking for an unconditional forgiveness (i.e., forgiveness without the appropriate sacrifices) of sins of ignorance; rather, he is asking for the ability to learn of his sins, so that he can turn from them, keep God’s will, and receive the reward. As Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:5, “And if a man strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned except he strive lawfully.” David had to learn the rules and abide by them to receive the prize, the reward.

Jesus’ Teaching On The Sins of Ignorance

In Luke 12:47, 48 Jesus makes a distinction in the punishment of the man who sins against his knowledge, and the man who sins in ignorance. The man who sins against his knowledge will be “beaten with many stripes,” while the man who sins through ignorance will be beaten with “few stripes.” It should be observed that the man who sinned through ignorance was still accountable for his sins. He was punished for them; he did receive stripes, though they were few stripes. Thus, ignorance does not excuse a man from the responsibility for his sins. Jesus taught that the man who sinned in ignorance, “though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and he shall bear his iniquity.”

Sins Of Ignorance and the Crucifixion of Christ

Concerning those who crucified Christ, Jesus prayed, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:47). Peter acknowledged in Acts 3:17 that Jesus was crucified because of ignorance, but in Acts 2:38 he also commanded them to “repent and be baptized every one of you.” Jesus prayed that they would be forgiven, and that prayer was answered only as they met the conditions that God gave. Sins of ignorance are forgiven only as the conditions are met.

Sins of Ignorance and The Israelites In Paul’s Day

In Romans 10:1-3 we learn that the Israelites of Paul’s day were zealous, but they were ignorant of God’s righteousness (the gospel – Rom. 1:17). Thus, they set out to establish their own righteousness. Theirs was a sin of ignorance, yet, they were lost and in need of salvation. Yet, Paul went on to teach that they could be saved if they met all of the conditions that God gave them (Rom. 10:9, 10).

Sins Of Ignorance And The Works Of The Flesh

In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul gives a listing of some of the works of the flesh, and he states that “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” If you will notice the first of these sins of the flesh, you will see that it is “adultery.” There are some people who are members of the body of Christ and yet are engaged in an adulterous relationship (perhaps it is an unscriptural marriage relationship). Sometimes this baptized believer is ignorant of there being anything wrong with his unscriptural marriage relationship, and so, he continues to be united with a woman that he is unscripturally married to, thinking that there is nothing wrong with it (some preachers take the position that baptism will somehow wash away the first marriage of the person involved in a second unscriptural marriage relationship). Does this man have any grounds on which to hope for a home in heaven when this life is over? Will God automatically cover his sin of ignorance with the blood of Christ until he learns better? The Apostle said that it was not possible for such a person to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Ignorance will not change the law of God, and the violation of the law of God will not go unpunished because of ignorance (Heb. 2:2). This is true of adultery, of fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, etc. The only way that we can read in the Bible for a man to be forgiven of his sins of ignorance is for him to repent and turn from them, confessing them to the Lord and asking forgiveness of them. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Cor. 6:9).

Sins Of Ignorance And 1 John 1

In 1 John 1:5, John said, “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” Whenever a Christian sins through ignorance, is that sin in the light, or is it in darkness? John said that it was in darkness, for there is no sin in God. John went on to say, “If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Whenever a child of God sins, even if he sins through ignorance, he is in darkness. If he is in darkness, he is not in fellowship with God. Thus, the only way that he can have fellowship with God is to get back into the light (v. 6). How does a man get from darkness to light? John tells us in verse 9. He said, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” We enter fellowship with God when we obey the gospel; we continue in fellowship with God as we walk in the light. We depart from fellowship with God when we sin. We re-enter fellowship with God when we turn from our sins and ask God to forgive us of them. Thus it is that Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The only way that one can read in the Bible by which the sins of a child of God are forgiven, including those committed in ignorance, is to learn of them, turn from them, and seek forgiveness on God’s terms. He must meet the conditions that God has given. Not one passage in the Bible teaches that God forgives sins of ignorance unconditionally!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 12, pp. 372-373
June 16, 1983

By Dan King

The Signs of the Destruction

Matthew 24:4-33 relates the signs which were to give warning to the disciples of Christ that the fall of Jerusalem was imminent. They were not to be the signs of the end (v. 6), as the dispensationalists argue, but of the beginning of sorrows (v. 8)! We shall list them as they were offered by Jesus, discussing them in his order.

(1) False Christs (v. S). Josephus says that the days before the Roman devastation of Jerusalem were times when importers were in abundance. “The land was overrun with magicians, seducers, and importers, who drew the people after them into solitudes and deserts to see the signs and miracles which they promised to show them by. the power of God.”

(2) Wars and Rumors of Wars (vv. 6-8). The years before 70 AD were years of instability and insurrection both in Palestine and throughout the Roman world. In June 68 AD, Nero died and a blood-bath ensured; three emperors arose in quick succession (Galba, Otho, Vitellius); each died violently. The last murder (within a year) brought Vespasian to the throne. He was the emperor who dispatched Titus to Jerusalem to carry out his fateful mission.

(3) Persecution of the Saints (vv. 9-10). The first wave of persecution occurred in Palestine at the hands of the Jews. The second came at the instigation of Jewish leaders in the diaspora and unhappy pagans. The third wave began in 64 AD under Nero, who blamed Christians for the burning of Rome. The book of Acts records the murder of Stephen (chap. 7), the persecution of Saul of Tarsus (8:1-3; 9:1-2), the death of James by the hand of Herod (Acts 12:1-2), numerous instances of persecution of Paul and his associates as they worked in different localities to spread the gospel, and even evidences the beginning of Imperial persecution in the imprisonment of Paul and his trial before Nero.

(4) False Prophets (v. 11). Such men were many in number in the days before the final war. Times of great instability have always bred them in abundance. False prophets among the Christians also arose. Their presence is confirmed in the New Testament at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:13-15), Galatia (1:7), etc.

(5) Departures from the Faith (vv. 12-13). Each false prophet and challenge to the truth naturally brought losses numerically.

(6) Gospel to All the World (v. 14). Most premillennialists try to make much of the fact that mass communication today is necessary to fulfill the letter of this sign. The invention of television and radio, satellite communication, etc., make this a possibility, according to them. But this expression has the meaning it has elsewhere: it refers to that portion of the world then known and ruled by Rome (cf. Lk. 2:1). Paul says that this feat was already accomplished in his own day: “The truth of the gospel… is come unto you; even as it is also in all the world bearing fruit and increasing… the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven’. . .” (Col. 1:6, 23).

(7) The Abomination of Desolation (vv. IS-20): This was to be the signal for Christians to flee the place – destruction was near at hand. “When therefore you see… then let them that are in Judaea flee. . .” (w. 15-16). What this “desolating sacrilege” was precisely has been debated in modern times. Whether it was Titus and his soldiers in the proximity of Jerusalem or in the Holy places with their pagan emblems, or yet some sacrilege which we do not know about that they committed – we cannot be sure. Perhaps the clue of Mark is a help, when he says: “the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be. . .” (13:4). Some have surmised that this is a reference to the Zealots installing in the final days of the sanctuary the imbecile Phannias, an unrighteous man, who thus “usurped a position that was not his.” I am sure they had less difficulty understanding what this meant than do we.

(8) Great Tribulation (v. 21). The bloodshed at the fall of Jerusalem and her Temple along with the other cities and towns of the land at the coming of Titus and his Tenth legion in 70 was utterly indescribable, shocking to our sensibilities. Josephus gives us some impression of the horrors of that time in his history, but written history can never truly capture the red of blood or the sight of carnage. Neither can it give a true impression of the agony of human suffering in the wake of such an awful tragedy.

(9) Apocalyptic Signs (vv. 29-31). On account of its graphic symbolism some authors wish to assign this portion of the chapter as answer to the final question and see it in connection with the speech without explanation. Too, it takes no notice of similar language in the Old Testament prophets. Actually each expression has its counterpart in Old Testament prophecy.

There is also the problem of Christ’s use of the word “immediately” in the context of the events of 70 AD: “But immediately after the tribulation of those days. . .” (v. 29). The view which makes this refer to the end of the world is forced to either ignore this word or assume Jesus was mistaken about it. The modernist does the latter without a blink of the eye. Those who have respect for Scripture would be better served by a more reasonable way of reading it.

Since most people are not overly familiar with the figures of biblical prophecy, we will include here a brief series of parallels from the Old Testament. The stars becoming dark, the moon not giving its light, etc. (v. 29), is paralleled in the picture of the fall of Babylon (Isa. 13:10), the fall of Idumea (Isa. 34:4, 5), and the judgment against Egypt in Ezekiel 32:7-8. The “sign of the Son of Man,” the coming, etc., have parallels in the day of judgment on Egypt and Ethiopia (“a day of clouds”) in Ezekiel 30:3-4; in Ezekiel 19:1 Jehovah rides on a swift cloud to bring judgment on Egypt. The picture of His “coming” is consistent with other quotations from Jesus which do not necessitate an actual physical return but instead a “presence” in some event or happening (cf. Matt. 16:28; 26:64). This “coming” cannot be the second coming, for Luke 21:27 and Mark 13:26 refer it to the fall of Jerusalem. See also Isaiah 19:1 and Zephaniah 2:7. The “Gathering of the Elect” (v. 31) is a figurative picture of the Christians fleeing the city. Comparison may be made with Zechariah 2:6ff.; Hosea 1:11, etc. When the revolt against the Romans broke out in 66 AD, the Christian community (having been warned by Jesus) forsook the city and fled to Pella, one of the cities of the Decapolis. Christians did not return until after 135 AD.

(10) The Lesson of the Fig Tree (vv. 32-33). As the fig tree gives obvious and incontrovertible proof of the nearness of summer, so the signs which Jesus gave would indicate the end of the Jewish state. The “signs of the times” were, therefore, indicators of the fall of Jerusalem and were fulfilled in the years preceding 70 AD. They do not refer to the end of the world or to the second coming of Christ. To argue for a “second fulfillment” (as do all premillennialists) is to make a case without any scriptural support whatever. The proof of this view must come from somewhere besides the Bible, because it cannot be found therel Some claim “the language transcends what happened in 70 AD,” but in doing so they ignore the essential nature of prophetic language, which is regularly hyperbolical. We would urge the reader to spend some time in the prophets, reading their messages and paying special attention to their use of figures and symbolism. Study of the prophets, you will find, is the best possible refutation of false theories having to do with prophecy.

Time of Fulfillment: One Generation

Jesus said that within one generation Jerusalem would come under attack and the Temple would be devastated (vv. 34-35): “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” All that He had mentioned in His foregoing remarks, the signs and signals of Jerusalem’s catastrophic demise, all these were to take place before the end of one generation. Attempts by dispensationalists to make “this generation” and end-time generation are doomed to failure on account of the context. If I said to you that certain things would happen before the end of “this generation,” would you not understand me to be speaking of the generation in which we today live? Of course you would. Why would we want to take the words of Jesus any differently? I suggest to you that we would not – unless we were bent upon proving something which Jesus Himself did not say or intend by his words. Premillennialists know “one generation” in the Bible is roughly forty years (Hebrew dor, Greek genea), the time between a man’s birth and the birth of his son (though some are now saying it is seventy to avoid the passage of time since the beginning of the modern state of Israel in 1948). Among the Greeks a “generation” was from 30 to 33 years (Herodotus 2.142; et al.; Heraclitus, ch. 11). They avoid, or attempt to avoid, the conclusion “this generation” meant the one in which the hearers lived by assuming the ones who should see the signs would be distinct from those first hearers. But that generation did see the signs and did flee the city just as Jesus warned them to do! Jesus spoke in the year 30 AD, the fall of Jerusalem occurred in 70, so the forty year mark was very precise. We cannot find a single reason for looking for another fulfillment of this great prophecy. In point of fact, it stands as a testimony to the power and foreknowledge of Christ, who predicted the event in such great detail during a time of peace and prosperity many years previous.

All sorts of mental gymnastics have been attempted to avoid the plain meaning of Christ’s words. Some who reject premillennialism but think this portion alludes to the second coming of Christ (McGarvey, Fourfold Gospel, p. 632) see it as a reference to “the Jewish family or race,” so that it “becomes a prophecy that the Jewish people shall be preserved as such until the coming of Christ.” The Greek word genea does at times have the meaning “race, stock, or family,” but the context is too clear to allow it to have this definition here. The entire sentiment and mood of the first portion of the chapter was such as to give the hearers the distinct impression they would live to see that of which the Lord spoke. If this is not true, then Jesus definitely gave the wrong impression by what he said, and we are not ready to say that.

What is the relation of Matthew 24 to the existence of the modern state of Israel? Simply put, there is none. The return of Israel to her land, the existence of a modern state, the rebuilding of the Temple, etc., are nowhere mentioned in this chapter or its parallels. The Israel of Jesus’ day, the nation of Jesus’ day, the Temple of Jesus’ day, and the generation of Jesus’ day – these are the indisputable objects of Christ’s words!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 12, pp. 369-371
June 16, 1983

By Frank Jamerson

When we think of unity among God’s people, we usually think of doctrinal agreement. While this is important, much of the division that exists is a product of lives that are not committed to Christ. Many are more interested in their own cause than they are in the cause of Christ. Many have just enough religion to make them miserable. Someone said that some brethren have been “immunized.” When the doctor wants to immunize you against a disease, he gives you a little of the disease by vaccination. This protects the patient against the real disease! Some brethren have been “immunized” against the real thing, by having just a little of it! True spiritual unity cannot exist between those who are committed to Christ and those who have simply been immunized.

The apostle Paul said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3). Notice that he discusses the “manner of life” before he discusses the facts (doctrinal facts) that are necessary for unity. We need to pay special attention to the kind of lives that Christians must live in order to maintain the “unity of the Spirit.”

We will come back to this passage at the end of the article, but notice with us other passages in the book of Ephesians that discuss the “walk,” or manner of life, that should characterize followers of Christ.

We are to “no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart; who being past feeling gave themselves up to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (4:17-19). Gentiles, non-believers, are not the only ones who can “harden their hearts”! When brethren choose to walk in lasciviousness and uncleanness they can be as hardened and darkened as any unbeliever. Brethren who “walk as the Gentiles” cannot be united with those who “walk worthily,” even if they agree on doctrinal issues.

We are also to “walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell” (5:2). God’s love was demonstrated in His forgiving attitude. What if God forgave us like we forgive one another? He does (Matt. 6:12)! “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and railing, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you” (4:31, 32). Just think of all the division that could have been avoided if brethren had demonstrated the right manner of life! Minor problems have been nurtured into major issues because of an unforgiving spirit. Brethren who have worked together for the truth, and still agree on doctrinal matters, have been divided because of a lack of love and forgiveness.

Those who are in Christ are not to partake in fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, idolatry, etc., but are to “walk as children of light” (5:8). When our “manner of life” is worthy of the gospel we will “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (5:11). Again, how can unity exist when some want to participate in or condone the “works of darkness” while others want to walk “as children of light”? We cannot agree with or condone the works of darkness and reprove them at the same time.

The writer of Ephesians also said, “Look therefore carefully how ye walk, not as unwise, but as wise; redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (5:15, 16). The expression “redeeming the time” means to “buy up the opportunity.” Every Christian needs to use his opportunities to grow spiritually, to reprove the works of darkness and to teach the way of truth to those who know it not. When every member of the church is doing this, we will have attained the unity in our “manner of life” that the Spirit teaches.

Now, back to the first three verses of the fourth chapter. Paul there described “walking worthily” as walking with “lowliness” (humility), “meekness” (gentleness and submissiveness), “longsuffering” (long temper), “forbearing” (restraining or holding back) in love, and “giving diligence” (due attention) to keeping the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” A “bond” is something that binds together. It is “peace” that holds together the unity that the Spirit teaches. James said, “For where jealousy and faction are, there is confusion and every vile deed. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without variance, without hypocrisy” (James 3:16, 17). Men with a contentious spirit are not “easy to be entreated” and are not “walking worthily of the calling” with which they were called.

The next article will discuss the facts of unity, but brethren may agree on the facts and still not attain the “unity of the Spirit” unless their manner of life is that described by the Holy Spirit.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 12, pp. 368-369
June 16, 1983

By R.L. Whiteside (1869-1951)

The evidence that elders were intended to be a permanent feature in churches of Christ seems so clear as to admit of no doubt. It is not my purpose to argue this point at length. However, I call attention to two considerations, which, to my mind, settle the matter without further argument.

1. In every group of men there must be leaders, some one or more, to take the oversight, or there can be no order or system. That has always been true, as all men of experience and discernment must admit. It is as true of the church as of any other group of men. Certainly they are as much needed now as in the days of the apostles. Then they were called “elders” or “overseers.” If men of age and experience now direct the affairs of a church, are they not elders and overseers? The whole contention on this point seems to me to be a war about words to no profit.

2. It is assumed by some that elders, or bishops, were made such by spiritual gifts, belonging, at least, to the class of inspired men. Is that so? God selected the men upon whom he bestowed spiritual gifts. “But all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will” (1 Cor. 12:11). For that reason it was not necessary for the Lord to tell the church, or any member of it, what qualifications men must have in order to the reception and use of these spiritual gifts. Men did not appoint miracle workers, prophets, unknown tongue speakers, etc. But men did select and appoint elders, and for that reason we needed to know what sort of men to select. And so God gave full directions as to the necessary qualifications for elders. Develop this argument; it completely refutes the idea that elders were spiritually gifted men and passed away with the passing of spiritual gifts.

“Take heed unto your selves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye” (Acts 20:28-31). The word from which we have “bishop” is defined by Liddell and Scott as “an overseer, watcher, guardian.” This definition harmonizes with the duties laid down by Paul in the foregoing quotation. As a guardian, the elder is to see that the flock is fed and cared for; as a watcher, he is to see that no enemy comes in and destroys the flock. The overseer is an inspector. Any one can see trouble after it develops. An elder, by close and constant inspection, should be able to detect the seeds of trouble without waiting till the ripened fruits appear. Not many people apostatize suddenly. A little watchfulness at the right time might save a soul. Neither does division in a church come suddenly. Complaints come that a preacher has run things over the elders and the more conservative members by majority rule. How did it happen? The elders employed a preacher and allowed him gradually to assume control. When he reaches a point where they can stand him no longer, they find that he is the ruler and they are the ruled. It is too late then to save the congregation from ruin.

The responsibility of the watchman is set forth in Ezekiel 33:1-6. If the watchman ~ does not sufficiently inform himself so as to be able to recognize an enemy, how is he to be of use as a watchman? The watchman on the walls must know the enemy when he sees him approaching. Any man who divides churches in an enemy. If we do not inform ourselves concerning such men, how can we obey Paul’s injunction? “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and turn away from them” (Rom. 16:17, 18). Because we have not informed ourselves concerning such men so as to avoid them, much harm has come to many good churches. Sometimes the watchers, instead of giving the alarm when such enemies appear, go out and invite them in, and practically turn matters over to them. Then, before the elders realize it, the enemy has spiked their guns and is in full charge. In a recent letter from a .friend where the church was in trouble, I found a statement like this: “If we had investigated Brother Blank’s record, we never would have had him here.” Because of that failure, trouble has been stirred up that may never be settled. Instead of giving alarm at the approach of the enemy, they went out and hired him to come in, thinking he was a friend. The preacher who runs over the elders and divides a church is doubly a sinner, but the elders must share their part of the blame. They frequently wake up too late. But trouble may be expected when the command to watch is disregarded, and also when God’s order both in nature and the Bible is disregarded, as it is when mere boys are given practical charge of a church. Also, Absaloms are too much in demand for the welfare of the kingdom.

The Bible tells us to submit to those who have the rule over us, but gives no hint that we are to submit to majority rule. In majority rule Paul would count no more than Mr. Care Less, who cusses, gets drunk sometimes, and goes fishing on Sunday. Generally there is no such thing as real majority rule, even when it is claimed. That is especially true when the party spirit runs high. A group rallies around a leader, and he dictates every move. He votes his followers. Instead of going through the farce of calling for votes, the leader might as well say: “I control the votes, of my two hundred followers, and I cast their votes so and so.” When the preacher is the bone of contention, he naturally becomes the party leader. As he has more experience in public speaking and manipulating a body of people than the elders have, he has a decided advantage over them, even if they should care to resort to his tricks. And Paul says of such men that their god is their belly, and they will work all the harder for their bread and butter. As he votes all his followers, there is really only one voice raised on that side. All he needs to do is to tell how he stands and how many followers he has. That is all there is to such voting as that, and it is folly to call it “majority rule.” And we are told that the ballot is a safeguard against the unfair rulings of the elders!

It is readily conceded that God’s plan of church government is imperfectly carried out. The best men make mistakes. Elders have a heavy responsibility and a hard task. They are not infallible. They may, at times, deal unjustly with a preacher; but is better that the preacher suffer wrong than to divide a church. If the preacher thinks it unfair for them to put him out, how does he figure that it is fair for him to put them out?

Whereto shall this voting lead? Where will it stop? It is contended, of course, that only matters of opinion shall be voted on; but who shall decide what are matters of opinion? The Methodists and some others have decided that the form of baptism is a mere matter of opinion. If you believe in voting, and your congregation decides by popular vote that these things are matters of opinion, what can you do about it?

But it is contended that every expression of a preference is a vote. If that is so, some men, when a political campaign is on, vote several times a day for months before election day! If that is voting, most of the votes are cast prior to the election and are never counted. But the claim is too absurd for serious consideration. (Originally appeared in the Gospel Advocate, 1 Jan. 1932, p. 42, and reprinted in Whiteside’s Doctrinal Discourses [Denton, TX: Inys Whiteside, 1955, reprint 1977], pp. 90-94.)

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 12, pp. 367-368
June 16, 1983