Truth Magazine

By Bobby Holmes

This book not only advocates the right of women attending church business meeting but it also teaches that it is the only scriptural way it can be done! This book includes a special essay by Joan Rieber, wife of Ney Reiber, gospel preacher in North Carolina. I greatly respect both Ney and Joan and count them as personal friends as well as a brother and sister in Christ, but I do disagree on the conclusion she reached on the subject of women attending business meetings of the local church where leadership roles are exercised (decision making). I do not know brother Trefethen but I have talked to the Riebers about this article and they are aware of this presentation. I have assured them that I will send them a copy of this article and also one to brother Trefethen. Brother Reiber tells me that he knows brother Trefethen personally and that he is a very sincere and honest person. I have no doubt about this and I pray that none will look upon this as any kind of personal attack on anyone. There are too many times that this happens and I would never be party to anything of that sort. The material was published and presented to the public and I felt that someone should deal with it in an objective public way which is what I have tried to do in this article.

I have not read of any voice being raised in objection to the material this book contains, thus here I am. I believe the devil is constantly trying to undermine God’s plan for his people and their service to him. He tries to alter it a little here and a little there. This amounts to an adulterating (contamination) of God’s way and the result is sin! Please read carefully what I have written.

Perhaps you would be wise to first read a copy of the above book that is under consideration in order to properly understand what is being presented. (It is available from Guardian of Truth Bookstore: 1-800-428-0121.) I realize that this view is not a new one (women attending church business meeting) and that it has been advocated by different people in different centuries, but time doesn’t make something right or wrong. Only God’s word determines authority in religion for those interested in serving him. Again, please read what I have written in the light of God’s word and make your decision based on that alone. Rememberwe shall all give account before our God. Let us study.

This book is “laced” through with the term “decision making process.” This simply defined, without the “double-talk” means taking on a “leadership role.” I will prove this as we go along. The overall theme of this book is clearly outlined on page 3 in paragraph 4, ” a call for allowing on increased role for women in the decision making process of local churches” (emp. mine, b.h.). I believe the truth of the matter is contained as the writer continues by saying, “This position happens to coincide with what some feminists might also believe, but that does not mean that I believe in the Feminist Movement.” I might also add that I do not oppose all the ideas of the Feminist Movement (equal pay for equal work, etc.) but I do oppose their attempt to place themselves in leadership roles in the home and church. This is what this book is advocating! Look past the “veil” of the constantly used term “decision making process” used to allow women in business meetings either with or without elders. The book clearly forbids elders from excluding women from even their meetings.

There is some “double-talk” on page 96, paragraph 1 about “private meetings” where the writer says, “There were never any private meetings that made decisions for (instead of) any local church in the New Testament. But there were private meetings to discuss the word of God and the work of the church.” I don’t really understand what the writer is talking about when he says (“instead of “). The church business meetings that I have attended for the past forty-three years have been to discuss either the word of God or the work of the church in one area or another. Thus, business meetings, according to this book, would have to include women as decisions are made “for” the local church regarding the work of the church and the work of God. This “double-talk” continues on page 97 as the writer concludes from Acts 20:17-38 that this private “elders meeting” was to receive “instructions to the elders on their work as shepherds, telling them to feed the flock and protect it from wolves, or false teachers, who would arise even from their own number (18-30)” (page 97, paragraph 2). At the bottom of that page and continuing into page 98 he affirms (rightfully so) that elders may meet privately to discuss the work of the local church. In that first paragraph on page 98 he says, “interestingly, however, no decisions were made ‘for’ the Ephesian church by the elders at this private meeting.” Do we really believe that a decision was not made to “feed the flock” and “keep the wolves” out? Look at the statement dear soul! What is inferred is that they must have a congregational meeting (including the women) and “discuss and `decide these things. There would of necessity be the need of a “congregational meeting” in order to get a “consensus” (actually permission) before any decisions could be made (page 39, paragraph 2).

Lest you think I have misrepresented his position, our author continues on page 36, paragraph 7: “If inspired men needed the presence of the whole church before any congregational decisions could be made, can there be any leaders in churches today who have more wisdom or more decision-making power than the apostles?” (emp. mine. b.h.) He states on the bottom of page 24 that the only time that an example can be found of a small group making a decision for the local church was Diotrephes in 3 John 9-10. He continues in the first paragraph of page 25, “Any individual or small group that make its private decisions binding on the whole congregation falls into the category of ‘loving to have the preeminence among them’ and needs repentance.” He states on page 58, paragraph 3, “The flock must listen to and be convinced by the teaching of leading men (including elders) when they instruct saints from the word of God.”

Our author states on page 35, paragraph 4 that the elders in Acts 15:6 only came together to “consider” the subject at hand and not to decide anything. Mr. Thayer says on page 173 of his Greek-English Lexicon that the word “consider” as used in Acts 15:6 means: “to see about something (A.V. to consider of), i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it, Acts 15:6” (emp. mine, b.h.). Can any honest student of God’s word believe that these elders and apostles did not make a decision but had to wait on a “congregational meeting” to get a “consensus” (approval) before they acted? If we can’t reason better than that, then may God help us for we are in darkness!

Lest you think I have misrepresented his position, our author continues on page 36, paragraph 7: “If inspired men needed the presence of the whole church before any congregational decisions could be made, can there be any leaders in churches today who have more wisdom or more decision-making power than the apostles?” (emp. mine. b.h.) He states on the bottom of page 24 that the only time that an example can be found of a small group making a decision for the local church was Diotrephes in 3 John 9-10. He continues in the first paragraph of page 25, “Any individual or small group that make its private decisions binding on the whole congregation falls into the category of ‘loving to have the preeminence among them’ and needs repentance.” He states on page 58, paragraph 3, “The flock must listen to and be convinced by the teaching of leading men (including elders) when they instruct saints from the word of God.”

I have a question at this point. What if some of the flock refuse to listen and be convinced? Do these elders have any authority to enforce what they taught? If not what is their function in the light of Hebrews 13:17 and other related passages?

He states on pages 49-50 that elders making decisions in matters of expediencies can lead to “dangerous consequences” since this is what happened in the “Boston Movement” where elders made decisions in the realm of “expediency” regarding “who one could date or marry, what house you may buy, whether you move to another city.” So  our writer concludes that since this could have “dangerous consequences,” the solution is to have the “congregational meetings” to decide matters of expediency. But the same danger exists in “congregational meetings.” In fact, it was the members that were led by their group leaders that put pressure on people in these areas and not the elders. In fact, the elders were gradually pushed aside in the decision making until they became but ‘figure-heads.” Does this sound familiar? Godly elders will be watchful of such things and prevent them from happening instead of causing them.

A misuse of Luke 22:25-26 is found on page 56, paragraph 3, as he seeks to remove authority from the eldership over the flock. He states, “But the authoritarian rule of governors and commanders is out of the question because of Luke 22:25-26, where the word ‘chief’ is from the same Greek word. Jesus said the ‘chief’ (hegeomai) does not rule over others in his kingdom the way the Gentiles rule. Therefore, we must look to other aspects of the word to find the application to elders.” Certainly, no one is to “iron-rule” over God’s people. This is why the Holy Spirit forbids the “lording it over” God’s people (1 Pet. 5:3).

Our writer states on page 2, paragraph 4: “A growing number of preachers, teachers, and ordinary saints are realizing there is a pattern for decision making (emp. mine, b.h.) in the local church … and that the churches they worship with are not following it” (emp. mine, b.h.). One page 5, paragraph 2 he states, “The method local churches use to decide matters of congregational judgment has been established by God in a clear New Testament pattern, and we must follow that pattern” (emp. mine, b.h.). Page 6, paragraph 2 he continues, “But if God has spoken on the matter, then only his method of congregational decision making (leadership role, b.h.) is correct, and all others operate without divine authority” (emp. mine, b.h.). His conclusion is summed up on page 91, last paragraph by saying, “All women and some men are restricted from leadership roles in the local church by several Bible passages yet they may still participate in discussing and deciding the affairs of the congregation under qualified male leadership. Women may (and should) attend and participate in congregational business meetings, as long as they are in subjection ‘as also saith the law’ and as long as they do not ‘teach or usurp authority over the man” (emp. mine, b.h.). The writer does not seem to understand that when women attend church business meetings and help decide the affairs of that local church, she takes part in a leadership role! She is in a leadership role as well as any of the men in this instance. If not, why not?

Again: I have a question, could a woman speak before the “whole church,” providing she did it “in subjection” as she does in the “congregational meetings”? If our author says she cannot, I want to know why not? She is allowed to speak before the “whole church” in “congregational meetings” in “discussing and deciding the work of the local church” so why cannot she stand before the entire church and speak as long as it is “under the ‘leader-ship’ of the men” ? If our author says she can speak before the “whole church” as long as she is in subjection “as also saith the law” (page 91, paragraph 3) then he has “arrived” at where this position is leading him and others. God forbid!

On page 59, paragraph 3 he states, “Elders are charged with watchful care and concern for the spiritual well-being of every member of the flock. They must pay close attention to the spiritual needs and problems of the group, both collectively and individually, to see that the needs are satisfiedand the problems are dealt with” (emp. mine, b.h.). Brethren, how can they when they are not allowed to do so without a “congregational meeting” to get a “consensus”? Such is the “double-talk” over and over.

We need to read again 1 Timothy 2:12. Thayer says (page 84) that the word “usurp” as used here means “to govern one, exercise dominion over one.” Thus the word “usurp” carried with it the idea of “governing” or “do-minion.” In church business meetings there is a “governing” or “dominion” over the affairs of the local church, and when women became a part ofthis process they are violating God’s word!

Lest you think you have misunderstood what kind of decisions that women are to help make in these business meetings, he lists some on page 5, paragraph 2. “We (men and women in business meeting) must make decisions in areas where no specific revelation has been given. The support of preachers, but which ones? For how long? With how much money? In what location?” Page 4 of the book is spent discussing “power.” In paragraph 1 he states, “decision making processes (leadership role, b.h.) attract so much concern and controversy because they determine the distribution of a commodity that is highly esteemed among the majority of mankind. Power. The power to make decisions and control the affairs of others is highly sought after …” (emp. mine, b.h.).

Readers, you just heard the bottom line of it all. It is an attempt to introduce women into the position of decision making and controlling the affairs of the local church. Why else would a woman desire to attend a church business meeting but to have part in a leadership role? Certainly, women and all others need to be kept informed as to the decisions that are made, but a neglect to do this does not authorize the violating of 1 Timothy 2:12. In paragraph 4 he states, “God has also allotted decision making power in the spiritual realm …” Indeed he has and in his majestic wisdom he has made it clear where it is. Read again 1 Timtohy 2:12! This is why women are not permitted to stand in the pulpit and preach, stand before a mixed group of men and women and teach, or stand before a mixed group and lead singing. There are those who would love to do so, but God has forbidden it!

He states on page 2, paragraph 4, “A growing number of preachers, teachers, and ordinary saints are realizing there is a pattern for decision making in the local church … and that the churches they worship with are not following it. While we hear words about following the pattern and having authority for all we do, we often see something different in practice.” He goes on to say in paragraph 5 that there are two major reasons for this problem. The first is ignorance. He says that the practice of “excluding many or most of the members” is believed by many to be only a matter of “expediency.” This may be believed by some, but all I have known understand that women do not attend church business meetings because they wish to obey God’s word (I Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 14:34). Expediency has nothing to do with it!

He says the second reason is “over-reaction to the mistakes of the Feminist Movement.” Again, God-fearing women will submit to his instruction and remain in the role he has placed them in — that of subjection. Call me a male chauvinist if you desire. I have been called by worse names. In fact, the Feminist Movement says the same of the apostle Paul. The fact is that God gives three reasons why women are to be in subjection and not in leadership roles. (1) Man was formed first (1 Tim. 2:13); (2) woman was deceived, not man (I Tim. 2:14  This does not excuse man but rather indicates that he knew what he was doing when he ate of the forbidden fruit); and (3) after going through the “chains of authority” (I Cor. 11:3) the Holy Spirit goes on the subjective role in verse 9. You may choose to argue with God on these points. It is your choice!

Let me assure you that I believe in total equality in Christ (Gal. 3:28). “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” However, this changes nothing when it comes to leadership roles, and when women enter a church business meeting and help in making decisions concerning such things as to what preacher will be supported, where, how long and so forth, she is in a leadership role! You can slice it any way you want to or fly it under any flag you care, but it doesn’t change the fact that she is out of place in her role as a woman.

Churches can and should take into consideration the suggestions of women that are passed on for consideration. These can be taken up and discussed and decided upon in the business meetings, but she is to have no part in the “decision making process” (actually leadership role). God has forbidden it! The decisions as to what preacher to support, how much, where, when, etc. are to be made by the elders of the local church, and in the absence of elders the men serve in decision making as an expediency! Some churches have their business meetings (with or without elders) and never inform the membership as to the decisions that have been made. This is wrong! An informed membership works together in a harmonious way.

Sister Rieber points out that some churches permit women to teach high school and college level classes of mixed sutdents. This is clearly wrong! It violates 1 Timothy 2:12. Priscilla helped her husband teach Apollos the word of God  this isn’t a thirty-second cousin to a woman teaching a mixed class, preaching or attending a church business meeting! These items place people in leadership roles! Can’t we see that? Priscilla taught with her husband in a private setting!

The reference on page 94, paragraph 3 that says, “both male and female saints are told to come together ‘to provoke each other to love and good works cannot be applied to the “decision making process” (leadership role) that is being “peddled.” It is forbidden by God! Again, on page 94, paragraph 4 she states, “One of the responsibilities I had to accept was attending the assemblies of the ‘whole church’ to discuss and decide the work of the local church” (emp. mine, b.h.). Her conclusion is reached on page 95. The last paragraph says, “There are also scriptures that prevent the exclusion of even one woman from congregational assemblies” (Acts 6:2-5; 15:12,22). First, “congregational assemblies” are not under consideration here. It is in business meetings that decisions are made regarding the work of the local church. There is no proof from these scriptures that women had any open part in the decisions made. It simply states “it pleased the whole multitude.” Surely the women can give her input, but that is an entirely different matter than taking a leadership role in “discussing and deciding the work of the local church” (page 94, paragraph 4). In Acts 15 the apostles and elders came together to discuss and decide a subject of eternal importance (Acts 15:1-6). Our author says the “multitude” was made up of “the apostles and elders on one hand and the Judaizing teachers on the other,” but Paul tells us in his account of this meeting when he wrote Galatians that these false teachers were not allowed to speak (Gal. 2:1-5). Verse 22 states that the decision that was made on this day “pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas …” in order that others might also know of this binding decision not only for the local church there but also in Antioch. Yes, the local church made a decision as to who to send on this journey, but one will have to “read into” the verses to get a congregational meeting where the women joined in openly to decide who would go. The text simply states that it “pleased the whole church.” Some-times we are so anxious to “see” something in a verse that we wind up seeing nothing at all.

Think about this! A “men’s business meeting” functions in the absence of elders as an expedient means to exercise leadership, which requires the same decision making process as in an elders meeting. The inclusion of women participants in business meetings thus violates her role given in 1 Timothy 2:12 just as it would if she was a part of an elders meeting. Are we to understand that women are to attend elders meetings? If she is to be in meetings to “discuss and decide the work of the local church,” then she has placed herself in a leadership role. Is she to be allowed into the elders meetings that are to “discuss and decide the work of the local church” (page 94)? If these decisions are to be made by the “whole church” including women, then for what purpose do the elders serve? Brethren, we are drifting! No, we have drifted! this is a renewed effort to undermine the organization of the local church as God designed it! Don’t be deceived!

Our author uses several “syllogisms” in his book. A “syllogistic” argument is good, but it must be a true syllogism. It is made up of a major premise and a minor premise. If both of the premises are true (and properly formulated  pkw) then the conclusion will be true. However, if either of the premises is false then the conclusion is also false. Some of our brother’s syllogisms are flawed and others are simply “sillygisms.” Let me give him one that I do not believe he will agree with, and yet he teaches it in his book. (1) Major premise: Women not only can but should attend meetings of the “whole church” where discussions and decisions are engaged in. (2) Minor premis: Women are allowed and encouraged to speak publicly in these assemblies of the “whole church” as long as they remain “in subjection.” (3) Conclusion: Women may speak publicly to the “whole church” as long as they are “in subjection.” How about it brethren? Are you ready to buy that? If I have correctly stated the proposition of belief the author of this book is advocating, then the conclusion cannot be denied! Women preachers are ahead in the Lord’s church!

In conclusion, I am not minimizing the need and worth of women in the Lord’s church. In some places the greatest spiritual strength comes from godly women and in some places I am convinced that the cause of Christ would fail in that area were it not for them. This does not change the teaching of God regarding the God-given place he has assigned them. Thank God for our godly mothers, daughters, sisters and wives. Let us look upon them with the great respect they deserve, but let none of us let down the “vanguard” of God on the woman’s place. There are many today who are pressing for women to fill the pulpits. Some denominations already have them and some in the “liberal camp” are already at it. The things discussed in this article point to a direction forbidden by God. Let us be satisfied with “doing God’s work in God’s way.” Thank God for his godly women! May their tribe increase.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 16-19
December 2, 1993

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Withdrawal of fellowship from brethren is an issue about which there have developed diverse views. In some communities, the issue is a burning one and in other communities, it is hardly, if ever, practiced. When it does occur, there are varigated reactions to it. Some close to the one withdrawn from often find some flaw about the process or some obscure fact that in their opinion did not receive appropriate attention. Others believe that it is presumptuous to withdraw from another and that such an act is, in fact, an act of arrogance of the first degree.

Some congregations are so concerned about the behavior in other congregations that they feel that those congregations are not withdrawing as they should. In this context, they proceed to withdraw from those congregations because they are considered to be unsound. It is in this context, no doubt, that the question being considered in the article was asked.

Question: Can one congregation withdraw fellowship from another congregation?

Response: A definition of terms is needed for clarity and communication in the response. Withdraw is a commonly used term among the brethren. And in like manner, so is the term fellowship. Both of these terms need consideration so that each of us will be able to interact. One needs to know what I mean when I use the terms in order to have a benchmark against which to compare my comments, observations, and arguments in relation to the teaching of the Bible. Otherwise, there could be gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding about what is said.

Several words in the New Testament are used in relation to not keeping company with sinful brethren or avoiding them. It will be most fruitful for us to consider these terms with their specific meanings in given contexts. One word stello is translated withdraw in 2 Thessalonians 3:6. It originally had the sense of bringing together the sails of a ship or boat. Vine points out that in the middle voice it “signifies to shrink from a person or thing.” In this sense it means to avoid. It is used one other time in the New Testament (2 Cor. 8:20) in which passage it had reference to Paul’s conduct by which he wanted to avoid blame in the way in which the contribution to poor saints was handled.

Another term used is sunanamignumi which literally means “to mix up with or to have . . . signifies to have, company with” (Vine). Thayer basically gives the same sense. He also states in the reflexive and metaphorical sense it means “to keep company with, be intimate with, one.” This term is used in the following passages: 1 Corinthians 5:9,11; 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

Another term that needs consideration in this context is fellowship. Probably, there are senses given to this term which are unwarranted and, no doubt, lead to erroneous inferences about relationships. A commonly used term in the English translations, this term is actually from three different Greek nouns. Koinonia means to share in common and is translated sometimes as communion, fellowship, and communication. Another term in the original text is metoche which means partnership and is translated fellow-ship. A third term is koinonos which means a partaker or partner. It is translated partner, partaker, fellowship, and companion. The verbs having this sense are koinoneo, to have fellowship or to communicate, and sunkoinoneo, to have fellowship with or to communicate with. According to Thayer the verbs convey the idea of joint participation, jointly sharing, being a partner, a companion, or an associate.

Basically, fellowship is to be in communion, partner-ship, joint sharing, close association, and sharing in common. When two practice the same things, and share the same things, they can be said to have fellowship. Sometimes, the notion of fellowship is used to mean something like a mist that surrounds or envelops people who are together or in close proximity. One fellowships when one participates jointly. On one occasion, I was accused of fellowshipping error when I went to hear a preacher whom I believed taught error when he spoke at a neighboring congregation. After the services, I engaged the preacher in discussion trying to point out to him his error; this discussion lasted almost two hours. He did not believe I came to support him in his teaching; in fact, he asked me why I was there and my discussion with him sharpened why I took the occasion to hear him. However, a fellow preacher of the gospel said that I had fellowshipped error. He admitted that nothing I had participated in was error, except my being in attendance. From the meaning of the term fellowship in the scriptures, it is obvious that I had done nothing wrong.

One fellowships that with which one agrees or in which one participates as a partner or sharer. Light has no fellowship with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14) because what one is the other is not. There is nothing in common, no sharing. To have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness is to participate in doing them (Eph. 5:11). To have communion or fellowship with an idol is to worship an idol (1 Cor. 10:20). To have communion with the body and blood of Christ is to partake properly of the Lord’s supper, consisting of bread and fruit of the vine. To believe and practice what is taught is to have fellowship with the teacher who taught (Gal. 6:6). When the Philippians sent to assist Paul in his work, they had fellowship or partner-ship with him in that work (Phil. 4:15). If one were to engage in the sinful deeds that another does, then he is in fellowship or partnership with him and his sins (1 Tim. 5:22). When one shares flesh and blood such as another has, they are partakers or fellows in that respect (Heb. 2;14). Through fiery trials that bring sufferings to Christians because they so suffer because doing right as did Christ, they become partakers or have fellowship with his sufferings (1 Pet. 4:13). One is the partaker of the evil deeds of another when one encourages or aids that person in the doing of the evil work (2 In. 11). A person distributing to the necessity of saints is sharing with them, fellowshipping (Rom. 14:23). When Gentiles obeyed the gospel, they became partakers with Jews in their spiritual things because they had obeyed the gospel and when Gentiles shared with Jewish brethren their means, they were partakers with them in carnal things (Rom. 15:26,27). These passages are especially instructive and informative in relation to the meaning of fellowship.

One fellowships that which he believes and does, as well as those who do likewise. God intends for his people to be separated from the practice of sin and unrighteousness. In fact, saints are told, “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 6:17-7:1). To do otherwise is to fellowship defilement of the flesh and the spirit.

“Right hands of fellowship” is an expression Paul used to indicate that when he laid before James, Peter, and John his ministry to the Gentiles, which they accepted and were convinced that the gospel was for the Gentiles also, they signified their participating in the gospel’s proclamation by extending a token of their agreement, their right hands (Gal. 2:9). “Right hands of fellowship” is a metaphor indicating that they were engaged in the same gospel work, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. The extending of the right hands was not the fellowship but the sign of what they shared together, the proclamation of the gospel.

It should be most obvious that one fellowships that in which he shares or jointly participates. If a person is a thief and another does not steal, they have no fellowship in that deed. If one were to endorse another’s thievery, he would become a partaker in his evil deed. One who teaches error fellowships all those who so teach or if one endorses error taught, he becomes a partaker of the false doctrine (2 In. 9-11). If one by physical assistance or means aids another in the preaching of the gospel, he fellowships the gospel (Phil. 1:5). One who obeys the Christ by that obedience is in fellowship with the Son and if in fellowship with him, then one is also in fellowship with the Father and the Holy Spirit (1 In. 1:1-3). But if one walks in darkness, he cannot say that he is in fellowship with Christ because he is light and in him is no darkness at all (1 Jn. 1:6-7).

Understanding what fellowship is will be most helpful in understanding the withdrawal talked about in the scriptures. If one has not participated in the sin, he cannot withdraw from it because he is not in it. However, he can avoid doing the sin and endorsing those who practice it. He can refrain from mixing up with, or being intimately associated with sinners such as adulterers and false teachers.

A study of passages in context that deal with the concept of withdrawing or not keeping company with should be most helpful and informative in arriving at what the scriptures really teach on the subject. The objects of such withdrawal should be carefully noted also.

Paul instructed the Corinthians not to company with those brethren who were fornicators, covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or extortioners; they were not even to eat with them. This latter activity would indicate an intimate association which they were not to have with such brethren. He did not exclude company with non-believers guilty of similar sins (1 Cor. 5:10). The relation between brethren is such that having company with those who practice such sins as detailed above would indicate some approval and not condemnation of their behavior.

The Corinthians were instructed to “put away the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). Put away is translated from exairo which is derived from ek from, and airo, to take up or remove. It is used also in Ephesians 4:31 in reference to putting away bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, railing, and malice. One is to remove from close, intimate association and company those who are willful, continuous sinners lest one appear to endorse their behavior or demonstrate that they are not concerned about the aberrant behavior.

A case of gross fornication was practiced among the Corinthians and they had tolerated it, not doing anything to indicate their disapproval of such behavior. Paul instructed them that in the assembly they were to deliver such a person to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Coming face to face with the withdrawal of their association with the sinner was designed to have the effect metaphorically of his subduing the flesh in order that his spirit might be saved. By this means, they would put him away from among them (1 Cor. 5:2). If he later attended an assembly, there would be no fellowshipping of him unless some one endorsed him. But this having been publicly delivered to Satan at an assembly was visible evidence that they in no way endorsed him in this sin.

That brother or brethren who walked not after the teaching of the gospel as delivered by Paul were those from whom the Thessalonians should shrink or whom they should avoid (2 Thess. 3:6). They were not in any way to give the appearance of approving or being undisturbed by disorderly behavior of brethren. Accordingly, they were to have no company with such an individual to the end that he might be ashamed (2 Thess. 3:14). But, on the other hand, they were not to count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thess. 3:15). To admonish him there would have to be some means of contact but the context in which this occurs makes clear the disapproval of the behavior. There was to be no association or company that would leave an impression of unconcern or endorsement.

It should be observed that there is instruction for both the individual and the assembly of brethren. Whatever may or may not be done in assembly, the individual Christian has a responsibility in relation to brethren in sin.

It is appropriate to point out that individuals are the ones to be withdrawn from or with whom no company is to be kept. There is no instance in the New Testament teaching or practice for one congregation to withdraw from another congregation. In fact, let us observe what such action might bring about in relation to God. Generally, Sardis was a congregation that did not perfect works before God. However, there were a few who did not defile their garments and accordingly “shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4). Suppose the congregation at Sardis had been withdrawn from and, therefore, one would have no company with a member of that congregation, in that event one would have condemned one whom God praised. Certainly, one ought to want to fellowship one whom God fellowships.

The congregation at Thyatira had certain sinners within such as fornicators and false teachers (Rev. 2:20-24). But there were some there that did not engage in or practice such teaching as is condemned; they “know not the deep things of Satan” as some were wont to say (Rev. 2:24). If the congregation at Thyatira had been withdrawn from, then one would find himself condemning some whom God commended. It is clear that individuals are to be withdrawn from and not congregations.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 5-7
December 2, 1993

By Andy Alexander

The Messiah who was to enter the world and bruise the head of Satan was to come through the seed of woman (Gen. 3:15). Genesis 12 teaches that this seed was to come from the family of a man by the name of Abram, whose name was later changed to Abraham (Gen. 12: I -3). But, of all the people on the face of the earth, why did God choose Abraham? God does not leave us to wonder about this question. He states concerning Abraham, “For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Gen. 18:19).

Abraham was chosen by God because of his character. He was not chosen because he was sinless or would live a sinless life after being chosen, but because he was the type of individual who would want to please God and raise his family with that same desire. We want to look at this verse concerning Abraham’s character and notice some qualities that all fathers would do well to emulate in their life.

Abraham was an authoritative leader of his family. “He will command his children and his household after him” is a statement which illustrates this quality. Abraham was obviously not afraid of his children. Instead of letting his children and household dictate the rules, he commanded them! How different from the average household of today. Some fathers in today’s society seem to be intimidated by their sons and daughters. They are unsure of themselves and their authority; therefore, they make poor leaders and poor role models for their children.

Fathers, we are commanded by God to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Our children are not to be left alone to raise themselves. They are not to be taught by the television set and disciplined by the school principal or local police. Their mother is not to be burdened with this job alone, but fathers are to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. An early start in life is one of the main keys to success in this job.

Secondly, Abraham was not a hypocrite. He commanded his family “after him.” In other words he set the proper example before them and then commanded them to follow. It is difficult, though not impossible, to follow orders from someone who will not live the life he teaches you to lead. One of the problems that our nation’s military is grappling with today is following a commander-in-chief who would not practice the things he may command others to do. The same is true in a household: children and wives have difficulty obeying fathers who will not practice the things they teach.

Fathers are not to provoke their children to anger and one of the surest ways of provoking them is to command them to refrain from some behavior that you are not refraining from yourself (Eph. 6:4). Teaching our children not to use tobacco while we continue to use it and make excuses for not quitting sends a contradictory message. Commanding them not to curse while continuing to curse and excusing ourselves because it is a habit that we just cannot seem to control is another mixed signal. Usually the child accepts the idea that it is really not that important and when the opportunity presents itself; the child experiments with various forms of vice. These are just a couple of examples. Many more could be added, but we can easily understand that children can see through our hypocritical commands.

A third characteristic of Abraham was that he commanded his children and his household to “keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.” He commanded them in the right way, the only way. Some parents today seem to care little if their children depart from the faith. They bring them up in a haphazard manner allowing them to choose their own friends and when they reach dating age they allow them to date any and every-body that comes along. These parents give their children little or no guidance during their early years. Later, when these children fall away from the Lord, the parents lament the fact that they did not spend more time raising their children properly.

Abraham chose his son’s wife. Our customs differ somewhat from those of Abraham’s day, but parents today can have a much greater impact on their children’s future if they would just spend the time necessary to effectively do the job.

Fathers need to be more involved with their children and their children’s friends early in their life. There are times when a father needs to say to his child that he or she cannot date a certain person. This should be done very early in the relationship before a bond is formed between the two who are dating. Parents must also have earned their children’s trust through the years so that when decisions like this must be made, the child will trust their parent’s judgment even when they do not see the same danger their parents see.

Abraham was a man of good character and chosen by God as the man through whom the seed would come to bless all nations. He is an excellent role model for fathers today. He trusted God and led his family in his precepts. Families today need men like Abraham to lead them in “the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 20
December 2, 1993

By By J.W. McGarvey  (Submitted by Ron Halbrook)

In answer to a query, I recently stated my opinion that the innocent party to a divorce is not prohibited by our Lord from marrying again. The following thoughtful article takes issue with me:

Marriage is a divine institution ordained of God; from the days of creation to the time of Moses there was one law, and this law made husband and wife one flesh until death severed the relation (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:3-8).

Moses permitted a man to put away his wife, and from Christ’s answer to the Pharisees it is evident that the divorce law in question never applied only to the one cause (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:3,8,9).

This divorce law did not belong to the patriarchal dispensation; it was a Mosaic law given because of the hard-heartedness of that people. Now, the question arises, Has it a place in Christianity? The very fact that Moses granted this law because the people were hard-hearted, should brand it with grave suspicion, for Christianity is longsuffering and forgiving.

Here I quote the Scripture to which our brother referred. “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is divorced, committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32). This Scripture certainly does not imply the conclusion drawn by our brother; quite the reverse. It plainly declares that the innocent wife and the one she marries become fornicators. Her former husband hath caused it, she being innocent when he put her away. This is as plain as any declaration on any subject can be.

When the Pharisees were through questioning Christ regarding the Mosaic divorce law, his disciples asked him of the same matter, and this was the impression they received; “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to many” (Matt. 19:10; Mark 10:2-12).

Paul says, “And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband: but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (I Cor. 7:10,11). Again Paul declares a woman to be bound by the law to her husband, and that she has liberty to many another only if her husband is dead (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). “The law” referred to by Paul here is not the Mosaic law; it is that rule, ordained of God, which Christ declared existed from the beginning. If there is an exception to this rule or law, I have never found where Christ taught it to his disciples, or where the apostles taught it to the churches, but all to the contrary. “Scriptural grounds for divorce” ended with the beginning of Christianity. A man may leave his wife or the wife may depart from her husband, yet are they husband and wife, companions by covenant. Christ said God bath made them one. “What God hath joined together, let not man put as under.”

The church of God is polluted; the time has come that an Ezra appear and demand that they put away their strange wives or be separated from the congregation themselves. How would he be received?

Hialdsburg, Cal., C. E. Sandborn

Reply

When I said that the innocent party to a divorce is not prohibited by our Lord from marrying again, I meant the innocent party to a Scriptural divorce; that is, a divorce because of fornication. In his well-known words (Matt. 5:32) he condemns two things: (1) Putting away a wife saving for the cause of fornication, and (2) marrying a woman who is thus divorced. By the first it is necessarily implied that if the wife is put away for the cause of fornication, the husband is not censured, and the absence of any word to the contrary leaves him free to marry again. If Jesus had said, “Whosoever shall smite his neighbor, except in self-defense, is guilty of sin, “it would follow by necessary implication that a blow given in self-defense is not prohibited. So in all expressions of this kind.

In Matthew 19:9, the case stated is slightly different: “Whosoever putteth away his wife except for fornication and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” This is the case of a husband putting away his wife not for fornication. If he marries another, his is guilty; but, as in the other case, if he puts away his wife for the cause of fornication, it follows that he is not guilty in marrying another.

In I Corinthians 7:0, 11 and Romans 7:1-3, no fornication is supposed to have been committed. The womans duty is considered entirely apart from this, and Pauls teaching agrees perfectly with that of Jesus.

Brother Sandborns concluding statement, that “Scripture grounds of divorce ended with the beginning of Christianity,” should read, Divorce for any cause which satisfied the husband ended with the beginning of Christianity; for it is the latter which was temporarily permited by the law, and which Jesus no longer permits.

I fully agree with Brother Sandborn that the church of God is polluted by adulterous marriages of divorced persons, and that an Ezra is needed to purify it. We need an Ezra to weep over it, and a Nehemiah to pluck out the hair of the refractory; but the efforts at reform must always prove a failure if in condemning the guilty they also condemn the innocent. The General Council of the Episcopal Church broke down in its recent effort to suppress this sin in its own body, because so many of its members took the very position advocated by Brother Sandborn (Reprinted from Christian Standard, 6 Jan. 106, p.9)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 15
December 2, 1993