Truth Magazine

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 Some close to the one withdrawn from often find some flaw about the process or some obscure fact that in their opinion did not receive appropriate attention.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

By Dorris V. Rader

Trends and dangers among the people of God are frequently discussed by faithful watchmen in spiritual Israel. But people are generally slow to heed such warnings. This is not new. Paul and other faithful preachers warned in their day, of things that would happen after they were gone from the scene (Acts 20:28-31). While few would profit from such warnings, at least Paul would be free from their blood.

When our nation was suddenly plunged into the bloodiest and most costly war on December 7, 1941, it was not without warning. Some of our own wise statesmen had been saying that we had better get our house in order; that we would somehow be drawn into the world conflict. The exact mechanism of it, was not spelled out but the warnings were being sounded. But they fell on deaf ears until we found ourselves gravely crippled and only then were some willing to listen to danger signals. Somehow, brethren generally are like that. Only when the havoc of division and its heartaches are upon us, are we willing to get our heads out of the sand and see the trends and dangers that lurk in the way. Only then, will some be willing to study issues that already have brought havoc.

Recently, in a gospel meeting here at Westwood a lesson was presented by my son on some “trends” among us and the question posed was, “Where are we headed?” Reception of the lesson was apparently very favorable. Someone raised a very sobering question to me, “When do you reckon this church will depart? Not, “will it depart,” but “when”? He then made the observation that all the great churches we read about in the Scriptures did so, sooner or later.

Where is the Jerusalem church? That church had so much glorious history associated with it. It was there the church had its beginning (Acts 2:1-47). It was one of the largest churches ever, numerically strong. They were also of “one heart and one soul” (Acts 4:32). You know the great and wonderful things that happened among them. Yet, where is that church? How long did it remain true?

Where is the Antioch church that was such a radiating center for Christianity in those early days (Acts 13:1-14:28)? It was here that disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). But where is Antioch now? How long did they hold out and remain a faithful congregation? The same observations can be made for Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi and others. Soon they were gone and no longer stood as a monument to the Lord’s cause. Such has happened to other great churches closer to us in time. Churches that once were radiating centers of the old Jerusalem Gospel have either died out or departed into digressive practices. That causes us to raise the sobering question, “When will it happen to this congregation?”

No claim is made to being a prophet or having any special insight into such matters, but I am going to tell you “when” such will happen to this church (the Westwood Church of Christ)

This church will depart when it says, “no” to God on any point of teaching or practice. You see, the church of the Lord is in the business of saying “yes” to God. Its role is to say “yes” to God in all things wherein God has spoken. The church belongs to God. He planned it (Eph. 3:10). Christ purchased it (Acts 20:28). Christ is head over all things to it (Eph. 1:22-23). Christ is king  he is the lawgiver (Jas. 4:12). The church is not a democracy but a supreme monarchy. Moses said in prophesying of Christ, “It shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people” (Acts 3:22). Whatever we do, in word or in deed, we are to do it by his authority (Col. 3:17). It becomes treason to say “no” to the King.

The nation of Israel decided they would say “no” to God regarding the kind of government they would have. They said to Samuel, “Nay, but we will have a king …” This was not God’s will and he had stated his desire. But they said, “No” we will have a king. God said in effect, “You can say ‘no’ if you want to, but this is a bitter day for you.” He told them the manner of their king and what he would do. Still they said, “no” give us a king. God later declared that he gave them their king in his wrath and took him away in his anger (Hoz. 13:11). This was not the only time that nation said “no” to God. They adjusted themselves to the idea of telling God “no.” In Jeremiah’s day, when God pleaded with them through Jeremiah to walk in “the old paths,” they bluntly refused saying, “We will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:16). Their rebellion and arrogant spirit became more and more pronounced and set a pattern until it reached the ultimate in the rejection and brutal crucifixion of the spotless One himself. Finally, God’s longsuffering with them as a people came to an end with the crushing devastating destruction of Jerusalem the center of their national life. They brought upon themselves such tribulation as was not known prior to nor since. Their house was left desolate. But, bear in mind that they set for themselves a pattern of saying “no” to God.

When this church willingly says “no” to God on any point of doctrine, practice, precept or expression of his will, any biblical principle, that will be the beginning of the end for this church as his! Is it that serious? It was with Israel of old. Just one thing is important with God (read Jas. 2:10; Gal. 1:6-8; Mark 10:21). Can you name one thing in the will of God we can say “no” to God about with impunity?

Again, when this church decides to give more heed to human feelings than to God’s approval, it will be gone. There were those who would not confess Christ because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42). Surely we are to be conscious of human feelings and human association. But getting and maintaining human association on any basis other than what is God-pleasing is self destructive. Nobody was more sympathetic, and compassionate than Jesus, and yet there was never a human feeling or emotion that he was willing to allow to interfere with the Father’s will. In agony he prayed three times in the garden, “Not my will but thine be done.” Anytime this church becomes so concerned with getting people and keeping people at the expense of anything in the will of God, it will have gone! I have known of congregations, when disciplinary action was clearly a requirement of the Lord, to say, “we can’t afford to lose anybody.” Some have said, “I know the Bible says to do this, but he is too good of a giver and we can’t afford to lose his contribution.” Who can afford to lose the Lord’s approval? Who can afford to just let people go on their merry way to torment? In any matter if we become more concerned about human will than divine will, this church is no longer his.

Finally, if we allow just one untaught generation to grow up among us, the church will drift and be gone. This can happen either by neglecting to teach them fundamentals, or by their being taught falsely. In Judges 2:6-13 we read about a generation growing up and forsaking the God that their fathers served. They did evil and forgot God and were influenced by the doings of the people of the land in which they dwelt. The people served God all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders that outlived him. They had seen the mighty works of God. But, a generation grew up untaught and unappreciative of God’s works.

Generally when a generation goes wrong, the preceding generation has to accept some of the blame for a lack of training, and preparation. This is not to say, that the generation that departs has no blame, for they do. Every person bears guilt for his own sins (Ezek. 18:20). Every one will give answer to God for his own deeds (2 Cor. 5:10). But, our children are our greatest heritage and each generation is responsible for teaching and training for the next. Someone asked, “When should one start training a child?” The reply given was, “Start with their grandparents before them.” There is much truth in that observation. Had the prior generation in Judges 2 followed instructions given in Deuteronomy 6:6, 4 it would have been a likely deterrent to their departure.

What safeguards are we setting that the next generation will be strong in the Lord, faithful to the book, true to God? Let me tell you if you are not doing what you can to teach your child true principles and set before that child a good example in Christianity, then you need not whine and wring your hands and say, “I don’t know what happened. I did the best I could.” Well, some have and despite their best efforts, the child as a free moral agent took a wrong course. Samuel was a good man, a man of God, but that was not an absolute guarantee against boys going wrong when they were on their own. But, I am talking about parents neglecting to teach, who will not put forth the effort to equip themselves to do the job, and maybe on top of all that become poor examples to their children in other matters of Bible principles.

That prior generation did not fight against the wickedness in the land as God directed (see Judg. 2:2-3). God scolded them for not obeying his voice in this. It was not enough to teach about the one God, they needed to aggressively oppose and fight the idols. They had not done so.

Brethren, neither we nor our children can hold idols in our hearts and serve God. Such idols become a snare to us and our children. An idol is anything we allow to come between us and loyalty to God. Idolatry is not dead. Money, prestige, affluency, popularity, pleasure, are a few that plague this generation.

It is a great tribute to Joshua’s influence that the people remained faithful all the days of Joshua. Joshua was a great and good influence on his time. Whatever others may do, remember that you are an individual and you will stand alone before God. Nobody will be able to answer for you. And even as you must one day stand alone in judgment, you should be willing, if need be, to stand alone to be faithful to him. You may think, “I am only one” or, “my voice is not being heard.” But, remember God hears, and God sees. And he it is that we are to serve.

Yes, somewhere in time, if it continues, this congregation will doubtless go the way of all others. It will eventually make its departure, like others. But, my resolve is that when it happens it will not be because of my influence and teaching, but rather in spite of it. Let each of us so resolve. And let us make our purpose and aim, “to serve the living God.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 22-23
December 2, 1993