Even to the Tenth Generation?
Kerry Duke

One of the Puritans who came to this country seeking religious liberty was Roger Williams. Because of strong disagreement with the Church of England and fear of persecution, Williams left his home in England and arrived in Boston in 1631. There was a congregation of Puritans meeting there, but he refused to join them because they "would not make public declaration of their repentance for having been in communion with the church of England."¹ His conscientiousness is commendable, for if the Church of England was wrong, they should have had no problem admitting this. But Williams went to extremes. He taught that it was wrong to worship with the unregenerate, even if they were members of one's family.² Eventually he became so strict that he withdrew from virtually everyone:

A minister of the Church of England, he left that body to become an Independent, then he became a Baptist by self-appointment in a church of his own organizing, and afterward left that, to die outside of any Christian Church. One historian speaks of Roger Williams as "separating himself not only from the English Church, but from all who would not separate from it, and from all who would not separate from these, until he could no longer, for conscience' sake, hold fellowship with his wife in family prayers."³

A century earlier Menno Simons had shown an extreme application of Bible teaching on withdrawal or "shunning" or "the ban" as Mennonites call it. In "A Clear Account of Excommunication" written in 1550, Simons showed there are no new questions under the sun regarding Bible topics. He addressed questions such as: Should we withdraw from members who refuse to withdraw from persons who have been disciplined? Should a wife withdraw from her husband if the church withdraws from him? Should we greet a withdrawn-from person with such expressions as "Good morning"? Is it acceptable to extend acts of mercy to disciplined persons? Can we do business with non-Christians or with persons who have been disciplined? If a disciplined person is in the same ship or coach as a faithful member, should the member eat with the shunned person?

Simons said that if we love Christ more than husband or wife, we will withdraw from them if the church does: "Our view is that the husband should shun his wife, and the wife her husband, parents their children, and the children their parents, when they become apostate."⁴ He did not believe a wife should divorce her disciplined husband but simply withdraw from him. So Simons held that the "ban" was limited on this point. But therein lies his inconsistency. The Bible also says that a husband and wife are to satisfy each other's needs (I Cor. 7:1-5). If the command not to divorce (Matt. 19:6) qualifies the command to withdraw from the disorderly, then the teaching in I Corinthians 7:1-5, which is designed to prevent fornication, also qualifies the command to withdraw. God never intended for church discipline to override the responsibilities of marriage. There is question about how consistently Simons actually practiced what he preached on this subject, but his writings themselves show just how far a man can go in his application of Bible teaching on this subject.

Long before Roger Williams or Menno Simons, the Jewish rabbis took certain commandments of God to ridiculous lengths. A curious statement in the Mishnah can only be understood in light of this extremism: "All scrolls of Scripture render the hands unclean excepting the scroll used in the Temple Court" (Kelim, 15.6). How could the scribes and rabbis think that touching a copy of the sacred Scriptures could defile the hands? The custom of the Jews was to store the scrolls with the heave offering. Mice would trample on the scrolls, and since mice were unclean (Lev. 11:29), the scrolls were made unclean. Their reasoning was that a mouse was unclean, so if a mouse touched a scroll and the scroll touched human hands, those hands became unclean. Of course, the law said that if a dead mouse fell on an object, that object was unclean (Lev. 11:31-35). But this example does illustrate the extent to which Jewish rabbis went.

The Jewish tradition of washing hands before eating and washing utensils bought at the market also shows this tendency. By the time of Christ, Jewish custom allowed no close social intercourse with Gentiles. Contact, even physical contact, with Gentiles was avoided. Jewish rabbis reasoned as follows: If contact with a Gentile renders a Jew unclean then anything a Gentile touches is unclean. This meant that if a Jew touched a pot or cup that a Gentile handled, without washing it first, he was made unclean.

How far the Jews tried to follow the links in this chain I do not know. Was a Jew unclean who touched a person who touched a Jew who handled a cup without washing it when that cup had been touched by a Gentile? How many generations of the ceremonial infection were liable? These questions are so laborious it is impossible to try to answer them and pursue more important duties at the same time. The tendency of the Jews, however, was clear. They were never satisfied with the level of specificity found in the law of God. Using rigid argumentation, they traced the "implications" of their positions to unbearable lengths, refusing to recognize qualifying or overriding principles of Scripture rooted in weightier aspects of the law.

In the heat of religious conflict, it is easy to overreact. Recent years have been trying times for those in the church who still hold to the undenominational nature of the church, the principle of biblical authority, and the need for purity of life and doctrine. A sizeable part of the brotherhood has decided to abandon these concerns and blend in with the evangelical world while retaining the name "Church of Christ." Some in the church have strenuously opposed and publicly refuted the teachings of the progressive element, while others have disagreed with their agenda in other settings yet have publicly participated with them in seminars, workshops, and lectureships. To varying degrees these otherwise conservative-minded brethren have spoken in such generic terms that the false teachings of the progressive brethren they were working with has gone unchecked. These brethren have not taught false doctrine themselves, but they would not speak against it when its very promoters were fellow speakers on the same program. They have made the same mistake J. W. McGarvey made when he opposed the use of instrumental music in worship, but, as Jesse P. Sewell said, lent his fellowship and influence to the Christian Church by going along with them. McGarvey himself said toward the end of this life that he had made a mistake in this. I agree, and I believe that preachers who water down the Truth have shirked their duty as gospel preachers to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. These brethren have worked right in the midst of the very leaders of the progressive movement that now has resulted in a reunion with the Christian Church and have said little or nothing about their liberal doctrines while working with them. Some of them have complained that they were being charged with "guilt by association." But that is not the problem. The problem is that they have been silent where the Bible speaks! Had some of them spoken as boldly before 2006 as they are writing now, they might have made a difference. Since 2006 the line has been drawn between the reunion and the no-reunion camp, so there is not as much conservative traffic into liberal venues, though there are and always will be such situations where the two mindsets cross paths. The smoke has settled somewhat from the battles fought a few years ago on this front. Now we can see more clearly, and though our judgment may not be 20/20, we have the time and the calm now to reflect and learn. I believe it is right to call attention to the refusal of preachers to speak clearly against the progressive agenda when they are working with progressives. At the same time, I believe that the emphasis given to these preachers and to preachers who fellowshipped them has been at times unbalanced, and I believe some of the arguments made about fellowship are unsound. I have made my share of mistakes on both counts, but I have determined to be more balanced in emphasis and more precise and consistent in argumentation on this subject without compromising the Truth.

Part of this imbalance has been placing more focus on preachers who fellowship someone who fellowships a false teacher than on the error of the false teacher himself. Connecting the dots back to the false teacher then takes precedence over refuting the false doctrine. By the time an average member tracks the names and places back to the false teacher, he may have trouble remembering just what the false doctrine was. A person would have to spend an enormous amount of time to keep up with all these connections; in fact, it is practically impossible to stay abreast of every one of them. A more serious consequence of this level of investigation is that it leaves little time for Bible study. It is good to be watchful of false teachers and false doctrines, but if we spend so much time and effort reading brotherhood articles on liberalism that we neglect the study of the Word, we are unbalanced. But here is another undesired result: if by our example we teach members to devote more attention to connecting the dots of fellowship than to learning the Truth and refuting false doctrine, how will they or we as teachers be able to recognize the error for what it is or discern how serious it is?

Another aspect of this imbalance is that concern over liberalism in the brotherhood sometimes diverts attention away from the needs of and responsibilities to the local congregation. I suppose this is somewhat natural, as when leaders of the nation turn their attention away from domestic concerns to save the nation itself in time of war. But the result is that such care has been given to avoiding a preacher who fellowshipped a preacher who fellowshipped a false teacher that discipline in the local congregation, which is a prior obligation, has been neglected. Of course, other aspects of the local work can be neglected when attention is turned away from the congregation, but this problem is most ironic. How can we deal with problems and needs in the church if our energies are directed elsewhere? In its worst form, this inconsistency occurs when a preacher refuses to participate on a program with a brother because of a position he holds or because of a fault in his life or teaching, but that preacher participates every Sunday in worship with a brother or brothers who hold equally or even more serious views and have much more glaring faults in their life!

Obviously, the source of the mistakes I am discussing is not for the most part elders. It is preachers, and that is perhaps one of the most fundamental problems we are facing. God put elders over a congregation. It is usually not elders, but preachers who become so interested in brotherhood currents that they neglect the local church. But it is a fact that in too many congregations the preacher, not the elders, runs the church.

The charge that a man who fellowships a false teacher is just as guilty or as bad as the false teacher himself needs qualifying. This is true in some cases, but it is not true of everyone. Jehoshaphat was a good king of Judah who sometimes got tied in with the wrong people. The first time he joined forces with wicked King Ahab to battle the Syrians. After the battle, the prophet Jehu met Jehoshaphat and said, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord" (II Chron. 19:2). Does this mean that Jehoshaphat was just as bad as Ahab? No, it does not. Read what Jehu said to Jehoshaphat just after he rebuked him: "Nevertheless there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast taken away the groves out of the land, and hast prepared thine heart to seek God" (II Chron. 19:3). If Jehoshaphat were just as bad as Ahab, Jehu would not have said these things. Jehoshaphat put idols out of Judah; Ahab erected them all over Israel. Jehoshaphat prepared his heart to seek God; Ahab sold himself to do wickedness. None of the prophets say the good things about Ahab that are said about Jehoshaphat.

Why would such a good man work with such an evil man? Before we look at this question, we need to consider two other times when this good man made the same mistake. One was the story of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram (II Kings 3). Jehoram was an evil king, and Jehoshaphat agreed to join him to battle the Moabites. When they and the king of Edom went to Elisha the prophet, the man of God said these interesting words to Jehoram: "As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee" (v. 14). If going with this wicked man made Jehoshaphat just as guilty as Jehoram, then why did Elisha make a distinction between them? Elisha said, "I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat," that is, he had respect for him, but not for Jehoram. The other time was when Jehoshaphat joined with Ahaziah, a very wicked king of Israel (II Chron. 20:35-37). At first he would not go along with Ahaziah (I Kings 22:49), but for some reason he eventually "joined himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish" (v. 36). Then Eliezer the prophet said to Jehoshaphat, "Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath broken thy works" (II Chron. 20:37).

Surely Jehoshaphat was aware of how evil these men were. It is more likely that he acted out of weakness, perhaps overlooking the wicked character of these men in order to help the nation of Israel because they were fellow Hebrews. Regardless of what he was thinking, these men were not his kind, and being allied with them in these works was out of character for him. This story is important because it shows that an otherwise good man sometimes joins himself to the wrong people. What are we to conclude about such a man? He is wrong when he fellowships them, but that does not mean that he is just as bad as they are or that we should deal with him as severely as we do those who are high-handed in their sin. Good men sometimes fall short because of fear or weakness. Peter lied about knowing Jesus, but it would not be fair to call him a liar because that was not the overall character of his life (Matt. 26:69-75). He was guilty of dissimulation or hypocrisy on one occasion (Gal. 2:11-14), but that does not mean he was a hypocrite like many of the scribes and Pharisees or that hypocrisy was the overarching tendency in his life. A man who works or worships with the wrong people on certain occasions may be in spirit just like them, and the more often he does so without opposing them, the more likely it is that he is their kind. But we must be fair. There are men like Jehoshaphat.

Even less would it be right to say that a man like Jehoshaphat was worse than Ahab or that he did more harm to the cause of Truth than this wicked king. Ahab was an idolater; Jehoshaphat was not. Ahab sold himself to work wickedness; good things were found in Jehoshaphat. Ahab's rule of life was serving idols; Jehoshaphat's rule of life was opposing idols, and his joining with Ahab was wrong but it was not the overall characteristic of his behavior. A man who as a rule teaches the Truth is wrong for joining in some kind of work with a false teacher and keeping quiet about his error, but that does not mean he does more harm than the false teacher. It is true that his influence weakens the hands of good brethren. But the fact remains that if people in the local congregation who listen to him obey his teaching, they will be saved. This cannot be said of people who follow a false teacher.

But is this man, who has compromised the Truth in such a situation, a false teacher by his example? It is neither consistent nor biblical to make this charge. When the Bible speaks of a false teacher, the word teacher refers to someone who gives the wrong verbal instruction to others (II Tim. 4:3; II Peter 2:1, etc). If we apply the label "false teacher" to a person guilty of any wrong action, then we would have to say that a man who forsakes the assembly or a husband who gets mad and says bitter things to his wife is a false teacher, since both of these are wrong (Heb. 10:25; Col. 3:19). "False teacher" is not this general an expression.

The problem of otherwise good men working beside progressive thinkers and false teachers and saying little if anything to indicate that they disagree with these men has been a thorn in the side of the church in recent years. Admittedly, some were not aware that they were working with preachers who taught false doctrine and promoted the liberal agenda. But others knew and worked with them and allowed the progressive current to go unchecked. They let their audiences go away thinking everything was all right when it was not. Were they required to call the names of false teachers? Were they obligated to specifically mention every false doctrine associated with the work or the speakers? No, but they should have made an effort to oppose the wrong in the situation by speaking out against it, and those of them who tried to forbid the calling of names were definitely unbiblical in doing so (I Tim. 1:19-20). Now that liberalism has taken a significant number of churches and especially schools into "Babylonian captivity," some of these same brethren are speaking boldly against the movement. They should have done this years ago instead of criticizing those who were warning against it.

This problem was and still is a concern. But to say that it is "the" issue, the most crucial challenge facing the church, is unjustified. How would anyone prove this terminology biblically? Compromise at lectureships and other venues is wrong, but there are a lot of other issues facing the church than who has been on a certain program. Most members of the church have neither the time nor the resources to connect all the dots of speakers on these programs, and the immediate concerns in their own family and home congregation take precedence over a lectureship hundreds of miles away. Let us keep things in proportion.

A man who teaches false doctrine is guilty. That much is clear. It is also clear that anyone who supports and encourages that man in word or in deed is "partaker of his evil deeds" (II John 9-11). But what about the next link in the chain — a person who endorses the person who supports the false teacher? And what about the next link, and the link after that? Does guilt extend indefinitely in this chain? Is a man who is five links removed from the false teacher as guilty as he is? Since we are to mark and avoid those who cause divisions and offences (Rom. 16:17), are we to mark and avoid those who do not mark and avoid those who do not mark and avoid . . . to endless levels? Are there any biblical principles that shed light on these questions? I offer the following observations on this most tedious aspect of the issue:

1. It is obvious that the same guilt does not extend to endless generations or levels of fellowship. If this were true, then a person will eventually end up like Roger Williams — in fellowship with no one. He will withdraw from a congregation the first time something is not corrected, then from any other congregation that does not avoid them, until finally he is worshipping alone.
2. This question is the same in principle as that which can happen in the local congregation. We are to withdraw from the disorderly (II Thess. 3:6). The church is not to eat with that person (I Cor. 5:11). What should be done with a man who eats with the withdrawn-from person, and the one who eats with this man, and the member who eats with this one?
3. I am not convinced that II Thessalonians 3:14-15 is a command to withdraw from those who refuse to withdraw from the disorderly as commanded in verse 6. How can it be proved that "our word by this epistle" in verse 14 refers specifically to the command in verse 6? This "word" may refer to this warning about not working (vv. 10-12), and Paul in verses 14-15 may simply be elaborating on the command to withdraw by giving additional exhortation and instructions on how to deal with those who refused to heed this warning.
4. The question of how to deal with false teachers and those who fellowship them is in principle the same as the question of withdrawal in a local congregation, but it is not the same in each detail. The instruction in I Corinthians 5:11 and II Thessalonians 3:6 is a congregational action taken toward a member of that congregation. It does not command a congregation to discipline a wayward member of another congregation. If this is not true, then how would we know that passages on the authority of elders like Hebrews 13:17 mean that elders have authority only in the congregation of which they are members? If "obey them that have the rule over you" means to obey the elders in your congregation, then "with such a one no not to eat" applies to members in your congregation, not members of another congregation. One church can "withdraw from" or refuse to "fellowship" another congregation because of its false practices by not supporting or endorsing but rather noting and avoiding it, but that is not withdrawal in the specific sense of I Corinthians 5:11 and II Thessalonians 3:6.
5. The Bible warns about the first and second link in this chain, that is, the false teacher and the one who supports him in word or in deed (II John 9-11). That is the emphasis given in Scripture. And note that the sin of the partaker of false teaching in II John 9-11 is that he gave material help to the false teacher by receiving him into his house (this means to give him a place to stay, feed him, and help him on his way; it does not mean merely to allow him to enter the house, especially if one reproves him) or that he positively endorsed and encouraged him (by bidding him God speed, that is, by wishing him well in his teaching).
6. If a congregation does what it should in disciplining wayward members, it will have its hands full. The problem of dealing with members who refuse to consistently honor the withdrawal may remain, but practically speaking, there will be little time left to pursue the question of whether we should withdraw from them and from those who refuse to withdraw from them and so on if we take care of the first order of business—which most congregations don't do anyway. The same is true of false teachers. Our warnings and actions to keep the church pure should focus on them.
7. The question is not association but participation, and, more specifically, what a person teaches. A man may never appear on a lectureship with a false teacher, but when he tells others that this false teacher is a good man, then he is guilty even though he has never worked with him on a program.
8. I believe there is generally a lessening of culpability as this chain extends to the second, third, fourth, etc. level, and I believe this is only natural because normally the closer a person is to a false teacher, the more aware he is of his ways and therefore the more deliberate his joint participation with him is.
9. Not every error of doctrine or of Bible interpretation is equally serious. Some are worthy of concern and even some controversy but are not worthy of division and disfellowship. This man fellowships a man who fellowships a man who fellowships a false teacher — but what is he teaching that is false?
10. I believe a man who finds himself on a program with speakers who clearly promote the current liberal agenda should speak so clearly in his lessons against this agenda that people know where he stands. How explicit he must be I cannot say, and I can no more legislate in this area than I can tell a man how specific he must be in confessing sin. I know of no one who can! But suppose a man who does not agree with this agenda and says so plainly in other settings fails to speak against this agenda when he is with these people. I believe he has failed in his duty to preach the Truth. He is worthy of the admonition and reproof of other brethren, but does his failure necessarily put him on the same level of guilt as those promoting this agenda, and does his compromise mean that he should be marked and avoided? A thing can be worthy of censure and not deserving of disfellowship, and this distinction needs to be remembered. Also, even if a brother is guilty of compromise, should we immediately mark him off our list? Is this what we do in the local church? Do we withdraw from a brother the first time he forsakes the assembly? Do we not admonish him and give him space to repent, considering his circumstances and attitude as well as our own?
11. Interestingly, though Jesse P. Sewell had written up J. W. McGarvey in the Gospel Advocate in December, 1902 for going along with digressives, he did not withdraw from him, since it was at the church where Sewell was preaching (the Pearl and Bryan Streets church in Dallas) that McGarvey held a meeting in January, 1902 or 1903 when McGarvey expressed his regrets about his course of action. Even after that time McGarvey continued to write for the Christian Standard. So though brother Sewell staunchly opposed brother McGarvey's activities, he did not consider him to be on the same level as the digressives.
12. The difficulty in determining just how far guilt extends in this "chain" is the same difficulty encountered in certain practical moral decisions. For instance, drinking is wrong, and most Christians I know refuse to have a part in making alcoholic beverages or in selling them. But what about a person who works, say, in a retail store that sells beer as well as other items? Some refuse to handle it directly in such situations, and I appreciate their conscientiousness. But if they work in another part of the store, they are still part of a business that distributes alcoholic beverages. Does this mean that everyone in this "chain," even a janitor or night watchman, is culpable? I am not saying they are; I am just pointing out a parallel in terms of difficulty. The same question arises in buying stock in certain companies. Is a person who owns stock in General Electric liable morally because of the filthy television shows on its NBC stations? Who among us has all the answers to questions of this nature? Each individual must do the best he knows how and respect his own conscience, and all of us must admit that there are some issues that are clear-cut while others are not so clear-cut. Let us be as firm and specific as the Bible is on the clear-cut matters, and by all means let us be patient and tolerant on matters that are not so plainly stated in Scripture
13. Fellowship is a natural thing. "Birds of a feather flock together." Normally men who preach the Truth and the whole Truth will not find themselves invited to programs where some of that Truth is rejected. But for whatever reason, this does happen. But it will be the exception to the rule if we're doing our job teaching the Truth. Teach and defend the whole counsel of God, expose false teaching and false teachers, and the whole question of this article will be minimal.

Footnotes
¹John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 10, p. 999.
²Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth, p. 86.
³Ibid.
⁴The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 479.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

Jesus often went into the temple to preach. We find Him teaching and preaching in the temple in Matthew 21:23. Jesus taught daily in the temple (Matt. 26:25). Mark tells us Jesus went into the temple (Mark 11:27). We are told by Mark that Jesus went into the temple and taught (Mark 11:11-13). Again we see Jesus in the temple in Mark 11:27. We are told Jesus taught in the temple (Mark 12:35).

The early Christians went into the temple and taught (Acts 2:46). Peter and John went into the temple and taught (Acts 2-3). God told the apostles to preach and teach in the temple (Acts 5:18-20). The apostles taught daily in the temple (Acts 5:42). There are many other citations to be given of the early preachers preaching in various places. We suppose there is no place that a man of God cannot go and preach if he will preach the truth and preach what is needed. One may go to the Catholic Church and preach if he will preach what is needed. One may go to the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, the Pentecostal Church, and all denominations and preach the gospel if he will preach what is needed.

But we are seeing some things that are foreign to the Bible these days. The people who do not like Tennessee Bible College are constantly writing about those who preach on our programs as if those who participate are sinning by doing so. What these haters of the school are trying to do is scare brethren away from the school; it seems for some reason they want to destroy the school. It is strange, is it not? But it is not strange if one knows what envy, jealousy, politics, and pride will do. If the apostles could preach in the temple and not sin, could not men preach on our programs at Tennessee Bible College and not sin? We have never limited what participants on our lectures and programs preach and teach. We do have a period after each lecture and lesson where we may engage in a discussion of what has been said in the lecture or lesson.

Jesus ate with and taught sinners as well as taught in the temple without sin. These fellows who want to condemn men for appearing on our programs at Tennessee Bible College would have condemned Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians had they followed the same reasoning. If Jesus and the apostles could go into the temple area and preach the gospel without sin, why is it a sin for men to appear on programs at Tennessee Bible College? Can you imagine such? These criticizers condemn men for appearing on our programs and they condemn when they refuse to appear. We have particular reference to those extreme right-wing, cultic, political, radical preachers and teachers in our brotherhood today. They compass sea and land to make one proselyte and when he is made, he is three-fold worse than before. They want to be heard from no matter what it takes and their tribe is dwindling down because of the civil war taking place among them. They are doing exactly what Paul said in Galatians 5:15. They are devouring each other.

We are living in some very challenging times in the church at the present. Anti-ism plagued the church in the 1950s and 1960s and still does to some extent. The problem with anti-ism is one does things their way or they will have nothing to do with you. They legislate for God, which is a terrible sin (Rev. 22:18-19). We have people today that we call liberal antis for the lack of a better term. They also legislate for God. If one does not see it their way, they will have no fellowship with you. God does not determine their fellowship (I John 1:7); they decide this for themselves. They are not anti orphan home. They are anti fellowship with those who do not agree with them. This group extends all the way from the right unto all the way to the left with many in between. What is our position? It is follow the Bible wherever it leads and pay little attention to those who do otherwise no matter who they are and what great name they may have.

Cataract Bible Reading
Kerry Duke

This is not an article about premillennialism. I am simply using this doctrine to illustrate a tendency in Bible reading.

A doctrine men invent is like a legend about some hero of the past. As time passes, the doctrine grows and develops. Each new generation of believers adds insights and revisions as they think through the implications of the original teaching. The idea begins as a seed that grows into a great tree that branches out in new directions while it takes root deeper in those who teach and believe it.

This is the nature of an unbiblical doctrine. It is not the truth; it is a lie. As the old saying goes, a liar must tell more and more lies to cover up the first lie he tells. Eventually, he spins a web of deceit so complex even he can't make sense of it. The Catholic attempt to be consistent with the doctrine of original sin is a good example. This doctrine leads logically to the question "Was Jesus born with original sin?" Catholics would not dare say that He was, so they invented another false doctrine to be consistent with the first one: the immaculate conception of Mary or the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. From this doctrine came ideas such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and her bodily assumption or ascension to heaven.

Theories of a future earthly kingdom began at least as early as Papias in the second century. Though many have toyed and speculated with the idea through the centuries following Papias, it was not until the last 200 years that it has taken on many added features. Most premillennialists now believe in a rapture — a doctrine that is of relatively recent origin compared to the general idea of a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. With the addition of this doctrine came ideas such as the 7-year tribulation, the antichrist who will head up a one-world government, a physical battle of Armageddon, and the development of the real driving force behind premillennialism: the belief in the restoration of the Old Testament nation of Israel. This latter idea has another logical consequence that recently is being admitted and expounded more than in previous generations: the reinstitution of the law of Moses, the rebuilding of the temple, and the offering of animal sacrifices! To add to this complex theory, premillennialists insist that there will be multiple resurrections of the dead, multiple judgments, and multiple comings of the Lord! Then there are different views of how to fit the rapture with the 7-year tribulation. Some believe the rapture will occur before the tribulation (the pre-tribulation view). Others believe it will occur after the tribulation (the post-tribulation view). Still others think it will come in the middle of the tribulation (the mid-tribulation view). What a confusing doctrine to have to learn!

There is another danger often associated with this view. It is the tendency to see everything through the eyeglasses of premillennialism. Proponents of this theory tend to see every major event, especially natural catastrophes and political conflict in the Middle East, as having some connection with their end-of-time view. They are news addicts who see any unusual event as a sign that the end is near. Even worse, they try to force-fit scriptures onto these events and claim that these occurrences are the fulfillment of these passages. They attempt to pour the Bible into their premillennial mold, twisting verses that have nothing to do with the circumstance or have already been fulfilled. As the Dictionary of Premillennial Theology shows, premillennialists are not content to use the passages that are traditionally cited to support the doctrine. Premillennialism colors the way they read the whole Bible. They "see" some aspect of their view in passages so unrelated to the view and so insufficient to establish its claims that the rest of us are left scratching our heads:

1. Nimrod, Baalam, and the Pharoah of the exodus are all types of the Antichrist (pp. 43-44).
2. Joel 2:28-32 will be fulfilled when God pours out the Holy Spirit on all Israel toward the end of the Great Tribulation, in spite of the fact that Peter said, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16-17; p. 215).
3. I Thessalonians 1:9-10, which says to "wait for his Son from heaven," is a "powerful rapture passage" (p. 335).
4. Jesus gave the parable of the sower and other kingdom parables in Matthew 13, but "the actual establishment of the kingdom in these passages is entirely future, immediately following the Second Advent" (p. 234)!

This imaginative and speculative method of Bible study has virtually no end. John Hagee sees details of the war with Iraq in Jeremiah 51. Pat Robertson sees the modern construction of a super-highway in Egypt in Isaiah 19:23. Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and Benny Hinn find their views of the end in passages not even remotely connected to the subject.

This is what happens when a cause, in this case a false one, becomes an obsession. Proponents of the view look for proof of it every time they read any part of the Bible, and they inevitably distort more and more passages. Their pet view gets out of perspective even with their own theology; they say other doctrines are more important, but their actions show that they place far more emphasis on proving their speculations about their favorite idea.

This can and does happen with a true conclusion from the Bible. A man sees a truth he has never thought about. He has never heard or read it. In fact, when he shares it with others, they ignore him or reject the idea. But he is confident he has the truth. And he may be right. But in his eagerness to prove the point he fails to assess its relative importance when it is weighed against the fundamentals and weightier matters of the law. A thing may be true, but it may not be all that important. So the champion of this truth, who is often a preacher, begins a crusade. He searches the Scriptures as never before looking for passages to support his view rather than being open to receive whatever truths they contain. This is a dangerous approach. If you have your mind made up to find a passage to prove a point, it's easy to take statements out of context. You may not be deliberately dishonest, but if you're overly anxious you will be more apt to handle the Scriptures carelessly. This is what happens when a man "sees" his view in some less than clear passages to say the least. If a man has the truth and that truth is really important, he will find that it is plainly stated in the Bible. But even more tragic is that a man who thinks he has a special calling to prove such a point allows it to take precedence over truths he admits are far more important. It is hard for us to see ourselves; it is hard for a preacher to admit that he has gotten a matter out of proportion, even though he may be right about it. Doctrinal disputes can become quite personal, and when the emotions are racing, our judgment is not best. Curiosity can get the better of our prudence, and enthusiasm can outrun our judgment. The result is that a man is unbalanced and doesn't realize it. He compounds the problem by reading literature on his special subject more than he reads the Bible, and he makes the situation worse still as he begins to enjoy this material more than he enjoys the pure Word of God!

This can happen with many topics. It can happen with a concern about political corruption. We ought to pray for and honor our civil rulers, and good judgment leads us to seek leaders who show the most evidence of honesty, integrity, and the fear of God. But even if we change the political landscape, we do not thereby save souls. Some get this concern out of perspective; they are more concerned with saving the government than they are with saving souls. The work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians is another example. How many times in the past 200 years have preachers become so absorbed with intricate questions about this subject that they lose their zeal for the more central and important elements of the gospel? Sometimes they admit that these questions are not matters of fellowship and that the answers to them are not vital to salvation, yet they spend more time and effort on these issues than they spend on the fundamental truths of the gospel. Does this make sense? The same syndrome occurs with complex questions about different degrees of fellowship. If we are not diligent, we can get anything out of proportion and allow that one concern to override more important matters and color the way we look at everything.

Read the Bible more than you read anything else. Love it more than any other book. Emphasize most what it emphasizes the most. Be most bold about the things it is the most plain about. Be honest and humble. Read the Bible for your edification and not just to answer some controversial or intriguing question. Keep your perspective by helping widows and orphans and by teaching the lost. We can easily get so caught up in our own situation that we forget the vast majority of people don't even know the first principles of the oracles of God.

Who is the Greatest in the Kingdom?
Glenn B. Ramsey

The general inclination of man is to pursue the course of pride. This leads to, it is supposed, what is considered "greatness." This attitude should be put away when one decides to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. In the Christian's life humbleness of mind and meekness of spirit should replace pride (Col. 3:12). Regrettably this does not happen.

In Matthew 18:1-4 we have this reading:

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

The disciples involved here had not learned the proper attitude they were to have toward themselves as they regarded the nature of the kingdom of heaven. They did not even know then that the kingdom of heaven was not a material or earthly kingdom!

In Matthew 11:11 (earlier than chapter 18!) Jesus had talked about the wonderful blessings of the kingdom of heaven. He said that the one who is the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the baptist! How could this be? Jesus was talking of the nature of spiritual blessings available to John (before the kingdom existed) and the blessings available to Christians today (who are in the kingdom). Jesus explained that there had not been a man born of woman (the normal birth — not like the miraculous conception of Jesus) who was greater than John. No man had arisen greater than John. John, then, was on the same level as Abraham and the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets, and all other men of history as well as those who lived at the time of Jesus' words.

The Lord further instructs His disciples in Luke 9:48 by saying:

"Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great."

Obviously Jesus is teaching His disciples, then and now, that the greatest in the kingdom is the greatest servant in the kingdom! But the greatest servant is so busy serving that he does not think or care about being so great! Most often members of the church today become depressed (if not discouraged) if others do not praise them as being great! What about men who can't wait to tell others how many meetings, lectures, etc., they have held! Those who strive to "toot" their own horns have an attitude that is contrary to the instruction of Jesus.

O, how we need great men and women in the kingdom! O, how we need great servants in the kingdom! May our Lord bless us to understand this sublime instruction of the Lord.