Among present-day Christadelphians there is no observable tendency to believe that man possesses an immortal soul.  However, reunion negotiations have brought to light the fact that differences exist among believers relative to Scriptural teaching as to the meaning and import of our mortality.  Mention was made in the previous section of the role played by interpretation.  In fact, interpretation cannot but have an effect in the formulation of one's religious beliefs.  The Bible contains many statements symbolic in character which require interpretation as, for example, in prophecy.   Unless these are interpreted carefully and in the light of general Scriptural teaching, our interpretations can lead to some unscriptural conclusions.  The Word of God contains all that is required for our spiritual instruction in matters both fundamental and of greater depth; however, the Bible was not organized in the manner of a textbook on basic science.  We must acquire a good, general knowledge of the contents of both testaments before we can form a dependably accurate understanding of "the whole counsel of God," and before we can become grounded well enough to be proof against being confused by the arguments others may put forth.  Until we acquire such a background of Scriptural knowledge, we are in danger of becoming confused and of taking up with one or another questionably founded school of interpretation.

Stated most simply, man is mortal because of sin: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12).  No one can deny these facts.  The force of the physical consequences of Adam's transgression is frequently brought painfully to our attention as we see our loved ones taken from us, and as we experience the steady declension of both our mental and physical powers.  Divergence in interpretation has arisen with regard to the effect produced by Adam's sin upon our relationship to God, both as members of the human race and as we may have become baptized believers of the gospel.   This important matter is currently given different interpretations among Christadelphians, with consequent difference of perception as to its spiritual implications.  As we advance into the realm of spiritual significance, we are forced to take into account the role played by the interpretation.

While it is necessary to employ interpretation in arriving at the meanings of many passages of Scripture, we need to be very cautious so as to avoid speculation, the injection of our own ideas into the process.  It is quite natural for us to be tempted to speculate, especially when we have an idea that makes a strong appeal to our emotions or prejudices.  For example, people have indulged in much speculation as to the details and implications of what transpired in the garden of Eden.  The Genesis account is extremely brief regarding this crucial period in human history that has had such a profound effect upon the lives of all of us.  However, speculations can lead to conclusions that may conflict with later Biblical revelation regarding God's ways, , especially as to his magnanimous arrangement for reconciling human beings unto himself.   We can form an estimate of the way God regards man's injection of his own ideas into divine arrangements by considering God's warning to the children of Israel regarding altars: "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.  And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not built it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it" (Ex. 20:24-25).  What God then said of altars - devices for worship and for thanksgiving unto God - must have similar application against man's tampering with God's Word, also an essential element in the worship of God.   God confirms this in his message given through Isaiah: "...but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word" (Isa. 66:2).

While we dare not inject speculative details into our understanding and our exposition of the Bible message, there is a fully legitimate way for going about satisfying our desire to know more about certain passages found in the Old Testament.  Jesus and the inspired apostles made frequent reference to Old Testament writings, calling attention to the fulfillment of matters foretold, or using earlier writings as proof for the arguments put forth.  As an example, were it not for the enlightenment given us by the Letter to the Hebrews, we would have far less understanding of an appreciation for the beauty and spiritual significance of the Mosaic law.  It is through "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Cor. 2:13) that we can build up and "round out" our spiritual understanding.  We should take to ourselves the admonition given to the Hebrew brethren: "...of whom [Jesus] we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.  For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God...Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection...And this we will do, if God permit" (Heb. 5:11-6:3).

We must all acknowledge the fact that our dying and disease-susceptible nature has been inherited from our first parents; we are all held in bondage to this nature for the duration of our mortal lives (Heb. 2:15).  This life holds for us no promise of anything better.  As born into this world, human beings are in the desperate position that applied to the Ephesian brethren before they took upon themselves the Name of Jesus Christ, as described by Paul: "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:12).  In Old Testament times the hope of salvation was available only through God's nation of Israel, either by being born an Israelite or by being adopted into that nation which God had chosen out of love for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  God chose, in fact, on occasion to identify himself as the God of these faithful fathers of the nation (Ex. 3:16; Matt. 22:32).   Furthermore, God said to the nation, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth..." (Amos 3:2).  This restriction applied, even though God had revealed in certain prophecies his intent to open the way of salvation to the Gentiles.  Paul wrote of this as a mystery (something known only to the initiated) "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel..." (Eph. 3:5-6).  This purpose of God revealed to Peter and to Paul, in particular, made possible the formerly desperate situation of the unbaptized Ephesians and of any other unbaptized Jew or Gentile in our day to be set aside and for them to become the beneficiaries of an incomparable privilege, as Paul expressed it: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God..." (Eph. 2:13,19).

By disobedience to the law God gave to our first parents in Eden they separated themselves from the free fellowship with God and the angels that they had enjoyed in the garden.  This estrangement or alienation from God was dramatized by their expulsion from the garden and by their access to the tree of life being barred; that access has been guarded ever since and is restricted to those who in the future will have it granted to them (Rev. 2:7).

Just as the foretold consequence of disobedience, "Dying thou shalt die" (Gen. 2:17), took physical effect upon Adam and Eve following their transgression, there was a concurrent mental effect (Gen. 3:7-9).  This was reflected in their attitude toward the angels, with whom they had been in friendly fellowship and with their Creator, whom the angels represented.  These physical and mental consequences of Adam's disobedience have been passed on to all of his descendants, even though it has not been possible for his descendants to transgress in the same way and under the same conditions as did their first parents.  Thus, though suffering the consequences of the original sin (Rom. 5:12-14, 17-19), these descendants cannot be guilty of that sin.  The dying process is a part of our nature, as scientific evidence can prove.  The law of Moses taught very graphically that death is a defiling phenomenon in God's sight (Num. 19) because of its connection with sin, to say nothing of its obvious uncleanness.  Even degenerative processes short of death (e.g. leprosy, issues) created ceremonial defilement under the law and were to be treated as defiling the  tabernacle of God.

If physical defilement in humans is abhorrent to God, the corruption of the mind, the true individual, would be even more so (Jer. 17:9).  The very spontaneity of evil thoughts and the almost superhuman effort required to overcome them demonstrate that they are inherent in human nature, just as are the physical effects of Adam's transgression.   In his teaching Jesus laid bare the fact that all sinful acts have their origin in evil thoughts, the evil tendencies of the human mind (Matt. 5:21-30).  No truly dedicated servant of God will try to dispute the revelations of Holy Writ regarding this inherent uncleanness of his human nature, nor will he attempt to limit impurity to acts of transgression.  The very fact that he cannot avoid transgressing God's laws should tell him quite eloquently that there is a spirit within him that promotes rebellion against God.  Even though parents tend to idolize their infants and to consider them the acme of innocence, no psychologically discerning parent can fail to see the evidence in that tiny and inexperienced bit of humanity a determination to try to get its own way.   This desire to follow his own ways, rather than God's, has been man's besetting sin ever since the transgression in Eden.  This is not a matter of psychological speculation or interpretation; the Scriptural record bears eloquent testimony to this principle of sin that dwells within us.  If the inspired apostle, Paul, agonized over this force within himself that made him do contrary to the dictates of his enlightened conscience, who among more nearly ordinary mortals, such as ourselves, can make a Scriptural case against belief that we possess a nature wherein sin dwells?

In his agonizings over the difficult struggle going on within his conscience (Rom. 7:13-25), Paul mentioned the two opposing forces or "laws," as he termed them.   One of these he referred to as "the law of my mind," which we can understand from our similar experience to have been what today we would call Paul's conscience enlightened, both by his knowledge of the Old Testament and by the "visions and revelations of the Lord" (II Cor. 12:1-7) that Paul had been given.   The other force contending for his service Paul termed "the law of sin which is in my members."  What Paul referred to as "laws" in both cases are not understood as having legal significance, but rather as active principles or influences.  This "law of sin" Paul referred to was no abstract, philosophical concept having only theoretical significance, but a dominating force or tendency, against which Paul had to fight with all of the determination that he could muster - and even then with far less success than he could wish.  It was a force, irresistible at times, that produced sin in the form of actual transgressions, as it does in all of us.  This "law of sin" leads us into temptation through the lusts that are common to mankind and a part of our nature and of its defilement.  James attributes temptation to the drawing power of these desires (James 1:12-15) that are common to us all; even Jesus could experience temptation, even though he had the moral and spiritual strength to rule over it perfectly.

We must logically regard any influence that would draw us away from God as evil, whether or not we may on many occasions be able to rule over it.  Since this force is in all of us, it is unquestionably related to our nature.  We cannot attribute it to God, who does not oppose himself; God did not create sin - man did.  Its universality within the human race argues for a commonality of origin, and the Bible tells us that the origin lies with one man, through whom sin entered into the world.  Sin was the antecedent of death, and both have passed universally upon the whole human race.   Because sin is utterly abhorrent to God, the presence in humans of this defiling influence has put a barrier between man and his Creator, as has been mentioned in connection with the expulsion of our first parents from the garden in Eden.  As a consequence of this tragedy, God has provided a way - the only way - whereby weak, sinful man may be forgiven for those things that he cannot avoid doing because of the nature that he bears.  In this the incomparable mercy and goodness of God are demonstrated on behalf of repentant and deliberately obedient sinners.  For this unmerited mercy man owes to God a debt of gratitude and devotion and obedience.  He must, however, respond willingly and from his heart - not from threat or coercion.

We read: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..." (Gal. 4:4).  The law here referred to (as Paul's argument clearly implies) was what we commonly call the law of Moses.   It should more properly be called God's law given through Moses, as Paul testified, "...it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."  It being God's law, it was "...holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."  Jesus also testified, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."  That law, remaining in force up to its fulfillment in the sacrifice of Jesus, required that a woman, upon giving birth, had to offer at a specified time (Lev. 12) two offerings for her purification - one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.  This Mary did following the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:22-24).

There can be no question or suggestion whatever of transgression having been involved in any sense in connection with the birth of our Lord.  The requirement in the law of a sin offering in such a connection had a spiritual significance, and the law being directly from God can in no way be considered as inconsistent or frivolous.  Every requirement of the law was designed to teach truth and righteousness, even thought it could not, through a routine observance of it, confer life and the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:20-21; Gal. 2:16).  In God's wisdom, therefore, the law taught that in human birth this sin principle, called by Paul in Romans 8:2 "the law of sin and death," is passed on from one generation to another, quite apart from involvement of mother or offspring in any overt transgression.  Jesus said to Nicodemus, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh..." (John 3:6).  Flesh reproduces only its own kind, and even in the unique instance of our Lord's divine paternity, it was necessary that God's beloved Son inherit the same nature as that of those whom Jesus was sent into the world to save (Heb. 2:14-18).  We shall have more to say about this matter in the following section dealing with the nature and sacrifice of our Lord.

There are other illustrations brought out by the provisions of the Mosaic law of the existence of sin as a principle in human nature, which are not merely consequences of an individual's transgressions.  There are some who would argue that the essence of saving truth is to be found only in the gospel as preached by Jesus and the apostles, and that what is written in the law is of little more than historical significance.  It is readily granted that Jesus and his work constitute a critical aspect of God's plan and purpose with the human race, being the focus of the means through which salvation has been made possible.  However, the whole purpose of God was determined from the very beginning, and God's plan was a gradually developing one.   Correspondingly, we cannot say that the only important part of an individual's existence begins at birth; the pre-natal influences and development play a crucial part in the process of human reproduction.  The law has enlightened us considerably as to God's way of thinking in relation to human affairs (Isa. 55:8-11).  Moreover, the later teachings of Jesus give us an even more intimate and comprehensive insight into the operations of the mind of God.

Following his expulsion of our first parents from the garden, God has tried repeatedly to impress upon human minds his abhorrence of sin in all of its manifestations.  God revealed this indwelling sin principle to Cain (Gen. 4:7).  Its effect upon the minds and behavior of humans has necessitated admonitions that are to be found throughout the Scripture record against God's people obeying the lusts generated by it.  Paul's intense struggle (already referred to) against this "law of sin" in his members, which was, as he wrote, "warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members," caused him to describe it as "the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2) - this because death is the final outworking of the sin principle in every one of us.  It is essential to an understanding of the gospel and of God's graciously provided atoning sacrifice that we have a clear and correct understanding regarding the existence of this principle that dwells in all human flesh without exception.

The universality of this indwelling principle is vividly demonstrated by the fact that infants can and do die before they have an opportunity consciously to disobey God.   In fact, they can and do die even before entering into this sinful world.   This is no fault of the infant; it is the consequence of their inheritance as one of Adam's posterity.  If mere absence of transgression were the basis for immortality, then such infants should be granted immortality, as the popular churches teach.  Were such a doctrine true, we all would have been better off not to have survived to the age when transgression against God's laws is possible.

However innocent we are of personal transgression through our possession of human nature, the fact that this sin-producing propensity is resident in us constitutes a barrier to our true fellowship with God in the absence of a sin-covering principle named by Paul "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus," which alone can free us from "the law of sin and death."  This latter principle more simply termed sin by Paul (Rom. 7:8,11,14,17), unless covered by faith and the redemption for those in Christ Jesus, leaves us "without Christ...having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:12).

Returning to the consideration of how the Mosaic law related sin to human nature quite apart from any overt transgression by the individual, we find this illustrated by at least three commandments of the law.  These are illustrated by (1) the commandment of a sin offering required for a person having had contact with a dead person, a bone, or a grave, however accidentally (Num. 19); (2) the requirement of a sin offering as part of the ceremonial cleansing of a leper (Lev. 14); and (3) the command to exclude from the congregation of the Lord those individuals whose accident of birth caused them to be a bastard, an Ammonite, or a Moabite (Deut. 23:2-4).  The bastard, the Ammonite, or the Moabite had not transgressed personally through being born of parents offensive to God; yet there had to have been something arising through their birth that rendered them as unclean, as contrasted with those born or adopted into the family of Israel and circumcised, if male.  This discrimination was not based upon a physical distinction, but upon a moral or spiritual contamination associated with the sins of ancestors who earned the anger of God.  These and other defiling influences (e.g. washing of clothes and bathing of flesh) and even sacrifices were required for purification and restoration to a state of ceremonial cleanness.

To summarize this section on the nature of man, we can do no better than to quote Paul's words: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.  For as by one man's disobedience many were made (katestathesan = were constituted) sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made (katestathesontai = will be constituted) righteous" (Rom. 5:18-19).   Thus we see that our personal transgression or lack of such is not the whole determining factor in our being constituted either sinners or righteous; the actions of another (outside of our own actions) have a determinative effect.  Adam's actions constituted us all sinners; whereas, the actions of our Lord Jesus Christ in being perfectly righteous and obedient unto death are the essential factor in obedient sinners (bearing his Name and proving themselves faithful and obedient) being constituted righteous.  Paul expressed it thus: "But of him are we in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption..." (I Cor. 1:30).

This, however, does not imply that we may justly ignore what the Father has chosen to reveal for inquiring minds to search out.  It is evidence of human pride and that love of controversy which expresses pride that this sublime subject has been made an excuse for more strife, bitterness, and un-Christian conflict than almost any other theological doctrine.  It is our purpose in this commentary to set forth as simply and as clearly as we are able the understanding of the subject that is prevalent in Unamended Christadelphian communities.

The truth concerning the nature that our Lord Jesus Christ bore between the events of his birth and of his being raised to the divine nature is most closely tied to what is revealed concerning the nature of man.  In spite of his divine paternity, having been begotten by the Holy Spirit and not by man, our Lord entered this world in exactly the same manner that we all do.  He was, thus, a man, having been born of a woman according to the Father's determinate counsel and purpose.   Luke's gospel tells us that Jesus was accounted to be a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, a son of David, as well as being Son of God.  The Biblical account is explicit as to these facts; therefore they are beyond controversy.

Having been born of a human being in accordance with God's intent and wisdom, Jesus inherited through his human ancestry the same nature as the one we bear.   "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren..." (Heb. 2:17).  It was necessary that Jesus bear our nature so that he might overcome it and "come to grips" with sin where it dwells - in human flesh.  This human nature was his inheritance from his mother and his other ancestors.  However, it is now well known that a child inherits characteristics from both parents.  Jesus was unique in his inheritance, for no other human being has had God for a parent by begettal.  From his Father our Lord evidently inherited a mind with a capacity for moral and spiritual strength and perception such as no other human being has ever possessed.  This is evident from the fact that Jesus was able to live a life without ever submitting to the temptations that, of whatever kind, involve all of the rest of us in transgression.  In addition to his moral and spiritual powers, Jesus had an intelligence superior to that of any other human being, as witnessed by his being able to outwit every one of the devices of his learned enemies.

The fact that Jesus possessed the nature in which sin dwells is demonstrated by his ability to be tempted to do evil in the sense of using the Holy Spirit power given to him at his baptism - using it for his own personal advantage.  Jesus knew full well what had been prophesied of him, and there was the obvious temptation to test its fulfillment at that time and thereby to reassure himself that he was indeed the Son of God.  There was also the temptation to take unto himself the rulership of the world without having to undergo the horrible death that he knew was required of him (Isa. 53:5-10; Luke 12:50).  Had Jesus been free from human weaknesses (II Cor. 13:4) in the form of temptation to gratify self and otherwise to submit to the promptings of  his nature, he would not have had to learn obedience by the things that he suffered (Heb. 5:8).  With an intelligence such as Jesus possessed, learning obedience through suffering would not have been required for one who had no tendencies to disobey.  That there was a conflict between his will and that of the Father was fully demonstrated in his agony in the garden of Gethsemane.

Some have thought through their reasoning to absolve Jesus of any taint of the flesh, and to make his sacrifice solely an altruistic act on behalf of the rest of us.  We have no intent or desire to downgrade Jesus' love for his friends for whom he laid down his life in the greatest exhibition of love ever witnessed.  The angel's assurance to Mary that the child she would bear would be an "holy thing" does not rule out the fact of the existence of the sin principle in Jesus.  He was most certainly holy, since the word holy means "set apart" or "dedicated."  Jesus was dedicated to the purpose of God as being a sin-bearer, though innocent of transgression, for his role as "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," and that he might bring "life and immortality to light through the gospel."  The term holy was applied to a variety of people in Scripture.  The Mosaic high priest bore on his head the golden crown inscribed with "HOLINESS TO THE LORD."  The prophets were termed holy by Peter (Acts 3:21; II Pet. 1:21).  The apostles were also termed holy (Eph. 3:5).  The Hebrew brethren in Christ were termed "holy brethren," and so were the members in the ecclesia in Colosse (Col. 3:12).  There is no question that of all of God's children none was as holy in the complete sense of the word as was Jesus; however, such holiness does not rule out the possession by Jesus of sin nature.   His possession of it was essential for his performance of the work given him by the Father - the overcoming of sin, in particular.  In fact, those who would attempt to glorify Jesus by denying that sin was present in his nature actually rob Jesus of his great accomplishment in being able to overcome sin.  He was able to give comfort to his disciples at the Last Supper by reminding them of his accomplishment: "...but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).  What greater accomplishment could there be than overcoming perfectly what no other human being has been able to do, except only partially; Jesus deserves our highest praise and admiration for this.  By gaining this victory over sin, Jesus could say in his prayer to the Father, "I have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do."  As reward for his glorifying the Father, the Father has glorified Jesus with his own nature and by delivering into his hand "all power in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18).

The work that the Father gave to the Son to accomplish had a number of aspects, which, in part, we may list as follows:

1. to overcome sin in himself (John 16:33),
2. to show the character of God by his conformity to God's requirements and thinking (John 3:11; 14:9),
3. to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Abrahamic covenant) (Rom. 15:8-9),
4. to testify to the world that its works are evil (John 7:7),
5. to bear witness to God's nation that God was visiting his people by sending the Messiah, as witnessed by the Father's words and by the works that Jesus performed by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 15:22),
6. to teach mankind righteousness (Psa. 40:9),
7. to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb. 9:2),
8. to obtain eternal redemption for himself and others (Heb. 5:5-7; 9:12), and
9. to "abolish death and bring life and immortality to light through the gospel" (II Tim. 1:10).

With such a momentous assignment to carry out, and to do so without a single error or transgression while still bearing the same nature as his brethren and under extreme provocation by his enemies, our Lord had to wage an exhausting struggle against the sin-tendency within himself.  For such an accomplishment we can properly have nothing other than the greatest marvel and reverence.  The humility of a man with such exalted parentage and with the ability to perform flawlessly marks Jesus as perfect in every moral and spiritual aspect of his character.  Thus, with his perfection of character he was a true image of the Father (Heb. 1:3), so that he could truthfully say to Philip, "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father..."   In spite of the perfect character of Jesus, his nature inherited from his mother was not perfect.  God arranged that Jesus be born under the Mosaic law and under "the law of sin and death," so that he could redeem the Jew from the curse of the Mosaic law (Gal. 3:13) and both Jew and Gentile from the entail of the law of sin and death.

Our first Biblical acquaintance with the process of baptism is met in the New Testament with the baptism performed by John who was called the Baptist.  In a publication intended mainly for use by Christadelphians it would be useless to devote space to Scriptural justification for limiting the act of baptism to total immersion of the human body in water - this as contrasted with a mere sprinkling with water, which popular churches term "baptism."  Two references alone suffice for dismissing this point: Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:4-5.

The principal occasions for controversy among Christadelphians are related to the nature and significance of the changes in an individual's relationships to God resulting from a valid baptism, and to the role of baptism in relating the individual to a resurrectional judgment.

Since use has been made of the term, a valid baptism, the significance of the limiting term should be explained.  In the minds of some the word "baptism" has been associated almost entirely with the outward, physical ceremony of dipping in water.  That outward ceremony is an essential and required part of the process of assuring that a person is validly baptized, but it is only a part of the process.  As has always been true of human thinking, ceremony long practiced tends to become the emphasis and a substitute for what the ceremony was intended to symbolize.  For those whose minds do not seek to delve below the surface of things to discover the underlying reasons for required ceremonies, the ceremony itself is about all that concerns them.  This emphasis upon the symbol can result in the association of the symbol with some other substance than that for which the symbol was originally designed.  For example, it is entirely possible for some to think of the ritual of baptism solely as the means by which one becomes a member of a religious organization, and little more.  It could well be that our Lord, with his thorough knowledge of human nature, commanded only two rituals to be observed by his servants.  These are baptism and the breaking of bread.  By his omission of other rituals in the service of the Father and of himself, our Lord may have intended to minimize the opportunity for free rein in divine worship on the part of his servants.   His own nation had in their attention to minute detail lost sight of the spiritual significance of the Mosaic law and ritual.  Human fascination with ritual is evident from the ceremonies that characterize man's "religions."

Since baptism is intended to mark a decisive turning point in an individual's life and in his relationship to God and to Christ, merely submitting to a physical ceremony does not produce the change in that person's way of thinking and mode of living that God requires.  A commitment to the fundamental change from following the ways of the flesh to following the commandments of our Lord can only be made as a result of enlightenment of conscience based upon a sufficient amount of knowledge of what God has revealed in the Scriptures concerning himself, his ways, and his will.  Such a change cannot come about as the result of a sudden "conversion," but only following adequate study and instruction in the way of righteousness to lead one to a true repentance and a desire to devote the remainder of one's life to the service of God and of Christ, rather than following the way which seems right in one's own eyes.  In the absence of such a solemn commitment, one might be totally buried in water a thousand times, and not one of those times would constitute a valid baptism.

An individual's reasons for desiring to undergo the process of baptism should be governed by his clear understanding as to what is to be accomplished through baptism.  Understanding as to what is accomplished by baptism is not uniform throughout all sectors of the Christadelphian body.  Some seek to limit its effect to the washing away of personal transgressions, plus the taking upon one's self the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  There is no question in the minds of members of the Unamended sector of the body that these are both essential aspects of the significance and results of a valid baptism.  However, they believe firmly that there are additional elements in the overall process.

Paul wrote in the sixth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans about the fundamental change in an individual's life symbolized by baptism.  It is a symbolic death on the part of the individual - not a  physical death, obviously, but a planting together in the likeness of Christ's death - to be followed by a raising "in the likeness of his resurrection."   It implies a solemn obligation to walk in "newness of life" and for the remainder of the individual's life.  We may then say that an individual's baptism is the critical turning point in that person's life.  As indicated above, if there is no commitment to such a change in style and purpose in life, that individual has not been truly baptized; the outward ceremony of immersing in water has neither significance nor power to affect the individual's relationship with God - the "baptism" was not valid.  Peter termed baptism "the answer of a good conscience toward God;" i.e., the prescribed response by the individual to having acquired a consciousness as to what God wants of him.

In the above quotation there are tied together for our enlightenment several consequences of a valid baptism:

1. we put on Christ,
2. in the sight of God all present distinctions that play important roles in the world (nationality, social or economic status, or sex) are eliminated, so that each one of us stands before God and Jesus Christ solely on the basis of character, with no respect of persons shown or to be expected,
3. we become accounted as members of the spiritual family of Abraham, the patriarch of the faithful, and thus reckoned as true or spiritual Israelites; and
4. as members of Abraham's spiritual family we become heirs of the glorious promises that God made to him and to his seed.

By putting on Christ through being "baptized into his death" we identify ourselves with him, assuming that we do indeed walk in newness of life upon arising from the water.  This obligates us to "follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth."  As Paul wrote, "It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: if we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself" (II Tim. 2:11-13).  This identification with Jesus is not a matter of mere doctrinal formality.  The close identification between Jesus and his brethren (Christadelphians in the definitive sense of the name) is made clear from two examples taken from Scripture:

1. "And the King shall answer and say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. 25:40, and
2. "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph. 5:30).

Such close identification with Christ implies a close identification with our Lord's Father.  Adding a verse to a quotation made above we are told, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26).  This relationship of children to God is amplified by Paul as follows: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:16-17).

Sonship to God begins at baptism, upon which one enters the remaining period of his natural life under probation.  What requires proving is whether the individual will remain faithful to his commitment to God and Christ.  The problems and trials of life in this world serve to establish clearly in the minds of our God and of our Judge whether one serves them or one's self.  The record that one thus establishes in their infallible memories serves to determine whether the individual may be deemed worthy of permanent sonship and fellowship with the Father and the Son.  The children of God in this probationary state can enjoy the benefits of the degree of fellowship with the Father that is granted to them.  John wrote, "...and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ...If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth...But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:3, 6-7).

Important as a valid baptism is to our salvation, the walking in light thereafter is a necessary condition for maintenance of that all-essential cleansing from all unrighteousness through the effectiveness for us of the shed blood of Jesus Christ.  As John wrote, if we do not walk in the light of God's truth, but in the darkness of the world's ways, we make ourselves liars and are merely pretenders to righteousness and fellowship with our Maker and his Son.  Those who do not understand or who do not value sufficiently the change of relationship attendant upon baptism, namely from being only in Adam and, consequently "without hope and without God in the world' to being in personal fellowship with God and with Christ will realize too late their tragic mistake.  For such their baptism will not have served the purpose intended.  Even though their pre-baptismal sins may have been forgiven, they will suffer the consequences of the far greater sin of having, in effect, "counted the blood of the covenant" wherewith they had been sanctified an unholy (common) thing; they will have "done despite unto the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29).

God's purpose of and plan for the salvation of mankind existed in God's Mind from the very beginning.  As mentioned earlier, it was to be an unfolding plan, of which only a "hint" was revealed in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:15).  As time went on, more details were revealed on appropriate occasions.  Abraham's obedience and faithfulness were rewarded with a vision of the future affecting him and his seed in the form of glorious promises certified by God's oath and a covenant with him offered by God.  These promises to Abraham embraced momentous developments (Rom. 4:13), and referred to a seed, both singular and multitudinous, through whom and through Abraham all nations will be blessed.  In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul wrote in the above reference, "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."  To emphasize the solemnity and importance of his promise to Abraham and to Abraham's seed, God confirmed the immutability of his purpose by adding his solemn oath to his promise, in neither of which could the only true God ever lie (Heb. 6:13-20).  We dare not minimize the importance of making a matter that God regarded with such seriousness an integral part of the foundation of our belief.   The critically important part that Jesus and his teachings play in God's truth in no way reduces the incomparable importance of this fundamental doctrine.  The work and teachings of Jesus were, in fact, based upon that foundation.  Otherwise, why would Jesus have said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was glad?"

God's promises on behalf of Abraham and of those accounted to him for a seed were considered by Paul to be such glorious revelations that he termed them "the gospel" or good news (Gal. 3:8).  For one to whom God had revealed "the mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:1-7), and to whom had been given "visions and revelations of the Lord" (II Cor. 12:1), Paul had the authority of inspiration for designating the promises made to Abraham as "the gospel."  In view of this, what justification can there be for anyone attempting to relegate this great and fundamental doctrine to mere background history?  Jesus quoted his Father as having said, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob..." (Matt. 22:32).  Jesus used his Father's statement to establish the surety of a resurrection, because, though the fathers of the nation were dead at the time Jesus was speaking, God's immutable promises to them could only be fulfilled by their resurrection.  Thus, the fulfillment of God's covenant with the fathers was inseparably linked with the gospel that Jesus preached: the gospel preached to Abraham and the gospel of the kingdom of God preached by Jesus were fundamentally the same.  The true gospel was not an entirely new phenomenon in the days of Jesus and the apostles; it was only more fully elaborated through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit granted to them.  Our understanding of the gospel of the kingdom of God is heavily dependent upon our knowledge of the writings of the Old Testament prophets, who made many references to God's covenant.

It is vitally important to keep these matters in perspective, for when we neglect to emphasize the fundamentally Israelitish foundation of the gospel message, we then drift (even though gradually and imperceptibly) very close to the camp of Protestantism.  In similar manner the Jewish rulers of Jesus' day had drifted into Judaism, Hellenism, and a totally ritual observance of the Mosaic law.

The apostle Paul termed the glorious and saving gospel "the Hope of Israel."  It ceases to be such when Israelitish foundations are discarded.  Paul also expressed the hope given us through our possession of the truth as our "inheritance" (Eph. 1:11); he termed Christ's servants "heirs" (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; Titus 3:7).  We find such terms used also by Peter (I Pet. 3:7) and by James (James 2:5).  For individuals to have the status of heirs there has to be either a familial or a legal relationship between the source of the inheritance and any who may properly be considered as heirs.  In the case of those who are in Christ, the relationship is both familial (through adoption into the family of Abraham) and legal through the covenants of promise; both adoption and covenants are legal devices.  Few, even worldly people, would consider discarding what is commonly known as a "last will and testament" of their benefactor, if such a testament (covenant) were entrusted to their care.

The Hebrew word berith (covenant), occurs over 275 times in the Old Testament.  Examination of its occurrences in the text shows in the majority of such passages either God's covenant or the ark of the covenant involved.  From this large number of references to God's covenant one is justified in concluding that God has always had a deep concern for his covenant and as to whether those accounted as his servants observed it faithfully.   Any breaking of that covenant is regarded by God as a very serious offence against him, since God proclaims his own faithfulness to it.

As discussed before in the section, THE NATURE OF MAN, Paul emphasized the great contrast in the positions before God of the Ephesian brethren after they had put on Christ and the one they had occupied before so doing (Eph. 2).  Their status beforehand Paul termed "strangers from the covenants [plural] of promise."  Mention so far has been made principally to the Abrahamic covenant and of its renewal to Isaac and to Jacob under different conditions and in different words.  But in the development of God's purpose and of his progressive revelations of it to man there followed later covenants.

When the nation of Israel was born out of Egypt and "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (I Cor. 10:2), God brought them to Sinai.  There God met with his people through his angel (Acts 7:38), and he revealed to them both his covenant (Ex. 19:5) and his awesome power.  That covenant given at Sinai is usually spoken of as the Mosaic covenant or law.  It was a temporal arrangement "...till the seed should come to whom the promise was made..." (Gal. 3:19); Paul called it a "schoolmaster" (v. 24) to bring God's people to Christ.  The law could not give the people life, since "it was weak through the flesh;" human flesh is not able to keep it perfectly, the only exception being our Lord Jesus Christ.  When his perfect observance of the law had fulfilled it, the law was taken out of the way through Jesus "nailing it to his cross" (Col. 2:14).

Until the fullness of time arrived, the Mosaic covenant was to be observed rigorously by all Israelites and by the sojourner among them.  Great temporal benefits would attend the nation for faithful adherence to God's covenant (Ex. 19:5-6; Lev. 26:1-13; Deut. 28:1-14).  Though the blessings specifically pronounced were to be temporal, the Spirit revealed through the prophets eternal benefits for those in whom the spirit of the law inspired faith and righteousness.   The chapters referred to above from both Leviticus and Deuteronomy laid out in considerable detail both the blessings that would attend the keeping of the Mosaic covenant and the dire and long-lasting punishments that would befall a faithless Israel reprobate in its observance of that covenant.  The pages of human history give abundant testimony to the fulfillment of what had been predicted would happen to God's disobedient nation.

As matters progressed and as God's purpose unfolded, we find God making a further covenant of momentous import with another faithful man, King David.  It provided important details regarding God's plan and purpose that had not been specifically revealed to Abraham.  It promised to David a special seed who would be God's Son who should reign upon David's throne and establish it forever (II Sam. 7:8-17).  Thus we can see that God's purpose in providing Jesus for the work that he was given to perform was implicit in both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.   They together with the confirming sacrifice of our Lord are all elements of the everlasting covenant, through which mankind may have hope for salvation.  David recognized that this further development would come at some future time and that God's promise to him would have a sure fulfillment, as expressed in his own words: "Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation and all my desire..." (II Sam. 23:5).

It has already been mentioned in connection with the discussion on the nature and sacrifice of Christ that Paul stated, "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers..." (Rom. 15:8).  By his sacrifice the Abrahamic covenant, which had been only typically ratified in the ceremony described in Genesis 15, was finally ratified.  In anticipation of what would be very shortly accomplished by his death, Jesus instituted at the "Last Supper" a memorial ritual of that confirmation when he said, "This cup is the new testament [diatheke = covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20).  The blood which it signifies is referred to in Hebrews 13:20 as "the blood of the everlasting covenant," through which "the great shepherd of the sheep" was brought again from the dead.  Jesus is also referred to in Hebrews 12:24 as "the mediator of the new covenant."  Thus the work and teachings of Jesus cannot be truly and scripturally separated from the everlasting covenant, and any effort to relegate the covenants of promise to background history reveals a marked drifting away from the fundamentals of our faith.

This problem caused by words having different meanings to different people is the source of serious difficulties within the Christadelphian body.  Few words have inspired a wider range in behavior among ourselves than has the word fellowship.  However, before discussing the variant behavior, it would be well to give careful attention to the basic meaning (denotation) of this word fellowship.

This word is obviously based upon the word fellow, fellowship being the condition that exists among those who may be termed fellows.   Fellows are individuals having strong, common interests.  This English word is used in the translation of a prophetic statement made by God concerning Jesus in which God made reference to Jesus as "the man that is my fellow" (Zech. 13:7).  We know of the complete harmony of mind and purpose that existed between the Father and the Son.  Jesus expressed it thus, "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him."  The harmony between Jesus and God was so complete that Jesus could say truthfully to Philip, "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."  Thus, Jesus was God's fellow through a complete harmony of purpose and affection.  The character of Jesus demonstrated by his words and his behavior reflected a true image of the Father's character, as stated in Hebrews 1:3.  This would be understood by those with sufficient spiritual discernment.  Those with such discernment and the sincere desire to serve God would be classed as the fellows of Jesus, as indicated in Psalm 45:7: "Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."  In similar vein Jesus said, "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matt. 12:50).

In the New Testament fellowship is the English translation of the word koinonia in the original, whose basic meaning (according to Thayer's Lexicon) is that of sharing in what one has, of communion.   The uses of the word in the New Testament are in complete agreement with this concept.  For example, Paul wrote, "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord" (I Cor. 1:9).  We have been called to share in a glorious hope, the Hope of Israel, and of eternal life in the company of our Lord, of the angels, and ultimately of the Almighty.  What else that may be shared is in any way comparable to such a hope?  Therefore, when we use the word fellowship we should have this sharing uppermost in our minds.  John wrote, "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (I John 1:3).   What more exalted association than this could there be?  The contemplation of such an association should be inspiring; it should motivate us to display the noblest behavior of which we are capable, for the honorable association carries with it an awesome responsibility to demonstrate by our behavior that we are indeed the true fellows of the Father and the Son.

Just as Jesus had been given the highest position of honor and power next to the Father on the basis of his loving righteousness and hating wickedness, what hope we may have for future honor and power will depend upon our ability to manifest similar characteristics.  Paul admonished us, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret" (Eph. 5:11-12).  On the contrary, we are directed to "...take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints" (II Cor. 8:4).  In the same epistle Paul poses the rhetorical questions, "...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

This concept of our having fellowship with the Father and with the Son, of sharing something with them, should put fellowship upon the highest mental and spiritual plane.  We cannot conceive of either the Father or the Son having fellowship with anything less than the maximum dignity and purity of which human flesh is capable.  John stated that "God is light, an in him is no darkness at all" (I John 1:5).  That being true, those in fellowship with God and the Son must exhibit light in their relationships, for John continues, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth."  Thus whether we have fellowship with God is not based primarily upon the knowledge we have in our heads or upon the human organization to which we belong, but upon our walk - what we do; for, as John wrote, the truth is to be done, not merely assented to.  Our thoughts and the deeds that spring therefrom bespeak fellowship with God or the absence of it.  Our principal business in this life of probation is to acquire the ability to think in harmony with God and with Christ, to develop that true fellowship with them.  This is primarily an individual task and responsibility; others can neither do it for us nor prevent us from doing what we must, provided we do not allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by others who would confuse us and "take our crown."  This most important fellowship, our individual fellowship with the Father and the Son, cannot be denied us by others - none can snatch Jesus' sheep out of his or the Father's hand.  For those with sufficient faith to stand upon their own commitment to God, regardless of the actions of others, this should be a most fortifying assurance.  The sad fact is that far too many, as was true with the Galatian brethren, allow themselves to be "bewitched" by others.

So far, this commentary has dealt only with the fellowship of the individual with the Father and the Son.  But whatever our behavior may be, it has its effect upon others.  Others are watching our behavior, and they are influenced by it in one way or another and to a greater or lesser extent.   For this reason we must be thoughtful as to how others may be affected by our behavior, as Paul was so careful to point out in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8.  The example that we set has a greater influence over others than our attempts to persuade or to admonish.  Preaching can serve the necessary function of informing others of the way of life, but our example will have the greater influence in either converting them or in driving them away from the truth.

As in other fields of human interest and endeavor, a common interest in spiritual matters, if consistently demonstrated by behavior in keeping, should stimulate a condition of true, spiritual fellowship.  This would be the kind of fellowship urged by the writings of the apostles.  Again quoting from John's epistle, "But if we walk in the light, as he [God] is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7).  Since God is light (vs. 5), light must characterize any who could possibly be in fellowship with him.  Thus, mutual walking in light is the only proper basis for human beings having true, spiritual fellowship with one another.   Those who love God sufficiently to be motivated to control their lives by his commandments and to esteem "the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified" a most precious privilege extended to them - these individuals are qualified to "have fellowship one with another."  Such fellowship should be an inspiring and spiritually uplifting relationship, ministering to the spiritual health and welfare of each individual.  This expresses the ideal situation and the one that Jesus desired his followers to have, as he stated, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

But in this far from ideal and very imperfect world the ideal is seldom, if ever, realized.  Human nature with its gross imperfections leaves its mark upon all institutions with which it is associated, which means all human institutions without exception.  Not only does it compound the difficulties of the individual believer with possible internal conflict, but it also produces internal conflict within the organization with potentially disruptive results, no matter how lofty may have been the original purpose for which the organization was founded.  The passions and rival ambitions that are so characteristic of humans sooner or later give rise to internal strife.  James wrote, "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" (James 4:1).  These stumbling blocks in the way of spiritual fellowship have taken a tragic toll.

The Christadelphian body has demonstrated itself to be an outstanding example of this departure from ideality.  In some areas it has established a reputation for itself of internal strife and division, also of behavior uncharacteristic of that of the apostles of our Lord.  While it is definitely and characteristically human to err, the very humanity of it does not justify aberrant behavior.  As witnesses for the saving truth that we espouse and proclaim, we have a responsibility to give consistent witness by our actions, a witness that is being constantly observed by those with whom we must associate in our daily lives.   The people of the world have a right to look for consistency between our professions and our behavior.  They see the indisputable  logic of our Master's standard of judgment: "By their fruits ye shall know them."  Most unhappily, the history of the Christadelphian body has not given adequate witness to the body's appreciation, even comprehension, of the true concept of fellowship.  Any human organization is made up of people who differ as to value standards and temperaments.   The Christadelphian body contains within its fold humble, obedient, and self-denying individuals.  It contains also outspoken, self-willed individuals who appropriate to themselves the prominent positions, and into whose hands those less self-willed leave judgments affecting ecclesial policies.  The aggressive individuals are usually the ones who precipitate controversies, being totally confident of the "rightness" of their opinions.  Thus, the meek tend to defer to them as the spokesmen for the organization.  This is often most unfortunate, because personal ambition and self-confidence, while indicative of greater energy, are seldom accompanied by greater spirituality and by sounder judgment.

It is instructive and profitable in relation to this modern problem to study the history of the early church that is generally regarded as Christian, particularly during the two centuries following the disappearance through death of the holy apostles.  The epistles of both John and Paul give testimony to the fact that even in their days pagan doctrines and the corrupting effect of rival ambitions for leadership were destroying the tranquility within the ecclesias and polluting the saving gospel.  Paul warned, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work..." (II Thess. 2:7).  If the inspired apostles possessing the gifts of the Holy Spirit could scarcely restrain the development of the apostasy, we should e able to understand how difficult it must be in these days with only the written Word to guide us and to enable the body of Christ to maintain its purity of both doctrine and walk.  The almost irresistible infiltration of the thinking and standards of this ungodly generation confronts the believers at almost every step.  The impact of these upon the minds of the children of Christadelphians is particularly strong, because children tend to accept the behavior that they observe as normal; they lack a grounding in divine principles that would enable them to condemn what they see.

Confronted with these difficulties, the Christadelphian body has a thoroughly challenging problem in trying to maintain itself in a spiritually healthy condition.  Some people now recognize that the first and essential step toward solving a problem is to recognize the existence and the nature of the problem.  Unfortunately, there is evidence that the existence of a real problem is not widely recognized.  Some people may recognize that a problem exists, but the exact nature of the problem and how to deal with it may not be understood.  The same old methods that have been used unsuccessfully for decades are still being employed.

It has been pointed out above that fellowship, by Scriptural definition, is a matter of walking in the light; therefore in a given situation fellowship either exists or it does not exist, either as to the relationship between individuals with the Father and Son or as to the relationships between individuals.  Since "walking in light" is a metter of behavior, fellowship can neither be legislated nor defined according to documents, regardless of traditional views that such is possible.  The Statements of Faith are merely definitions and codifications of beliefs in terms of doctrines; they give little guidance, if any, about the walk of individuals.  Hence, they are not criteria of real fellowship, but only of the doctrinal beliefs and preferences of the individuals or communities ascribing to them.  When they are used as criteria for accepting or for excluding individuals from the privilege of worship at the table of the Lord, they are being used legalistically with the force of a code of laws - as shibboleths.

There can be no question as to the fact that we are under obligation to uphold the purity of God's truth.  The vexing problem lies in determining what methods members should employ in the attempt to uphold it.   Paul gave us clear guidance as to what should be done in one type of situation that must be dealt with.  In admonishing the Corinthian brethren to purge out the leavening influence caused by toleration of the wickedness in their midst Paul wrote, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (I Cor. 5:7-13).   This tells us that we should keep no company with moral offenders.  It is important to recognize that Paul limited this putting away to individuals, not to ecclesias or to ecclesial federations.

There can also be no question that such purging out of wicked persons becomes necessary for the sake of the honorable Name that we bear.  Paul wrote further, "Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals" (I Cor. 15:33, RSV).  All spiritually mature members are well aware of the truth of that quotation.  They know that bad examples are especially dangerous for their effect upon the young and upon those weak in the faith.  We have already referred to the appraising and critical eye with which people of the world scrutinize our behavior; all too often they hope to find something to condemn in both our behavior and our doctrine.  For this reason we must strive, as Paul admonished, to "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:22).  This admonition is not primarily for the sake of our personal reputations, but for the reputation of the gospel that we preach and for that of the One whom we claim to follow.  If the world's citizens observe us using tactics in our internal relationships that they can see clearly are far removed from the teachings of the Master, it will be evident to them that we have very little appreciation of the basic meaning of the word fellowship, even as they perceive it.

While we have commented upon our obligation to rid the body of wicked persons by putting such away from our midst, we must not overlook the mercy and forbearance that God demonstrated in dealing with his nation in that he first warned them of their sinful ways and then allowed them time for repentance.   Also, we should recall the opportunities for repentance given to most of the seven ecclesias to which John was commissioned by the glorified Jesus to write (Revelation 2 and 3).  Jesus pointed out to each ecclesia the specific errors of its ways, but he also commended each one on the basis of those ways  in which it was walking acceptably.   Thus, both God and our Lord have demonstrated their restraint in their dealings with those who offend.  If they who are flawless in righteousness can exercise restraint with those who are out of the way (Heb. 5:2), why do we, who are anything but flawless in righteousness, find it too difficult to show restraint in passing judgment upon our errant members?  They, too, need first warning and then opportunity for repentance, before we invoke the last resort in our effort to keep the body as pure as is possible.  We need to be mindful of the fact that those who have been prodigal with respect to their baptismal covenant remain the Lord's property (not ours) up to the time that they may renounce him totally; we should be most careful in how we treat the property of God and of our Lord.  With this in mind we should make every attempt to salvage whatever may be salvageable for our Lord's sake and theirs.

In the problem area of how to deal with the wicked person the Scriptural guidelines are relatively clear.  When it comes to the problem of how to deal with error in doctrine, the course to follow is less clearly defined.  The problem is more subtle for the reason that judgment is required in discerning the cause or motive for a person entertaining beliefs that are at odds with what has been generally understood to be true and accurate.  If possible, this cause should first be ascertained, because it is entirely possible for an individual or group of individuals to become confused when such are insufficiently grounded in the fundamentals of sound doctrine and to be misled.  We should remember Paul's example in this: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth...?" If a member is either confused or has been led astray, that member needs help from loving and capable brethren - not a stern rebuke, which may drive away the faint-hearted and possibly cause him to lose his salvation.  The attitude of the individual will soon become evident through his reaction to patient and understanding counsel.  If such a person responds willingly and cheerfully to sound (not dogmatic) reasoning from the Scriptures, then that person is no heretic and is salvageable.  It is only when a person steadfastly refuses to listen to reasonable, friendly instruction that the situation calls for serious disciplinary action.

It should also be pointed out that for the person being deserving of disfellowship the errors  he entertains must be limited to what can clearly be established as first principles of truth.  In matters beyond first principles and passages which require interpretation, others must be willing to allow for latitude in understanding.  Though Christadelphians traditionally limit their identification of the term first principles to the theological elements of doctrine, there are also doctrines that pertain to our manner of "living the truth" that truly deserve to be classed as first principles.  Since living the truth is the essence of true fellowship, such latter class of first principles should always be taken into account in questions regarding fellowship.   Interpretations of Scripture aimed at rationalizing aberrant behavior cannot be permitted to be promulgated.  Here mature and sound judgment on the part of the ecclesia is required.  In matters of living the truth the Statements of Faith give little or no help and do not teach that kind of first principles, being only the theological documents that they are.

When the problems associated with fellowship and disfellowship are extended beyond the consideration of individuals to that of ecclesias or ecclesial federations, finding correct and spiritual solutions to the problems that arise becomes even more difficult and the guidelines definitely "fuzzy."  For example, there is no record in the New Testament of one first-century ecclesia "disfellowshipping" another ecclesia.  Neither do we find a record of any of the apostles who possessed the gift of the Holy Spirit with the knowledge and judgment such possession gave cutting off an ecclesia or recommending that one ecclesia "disfellowship" another ecclesia.  Of ecclesial problems and problem ecclesias there were many, as Paul testified.  We find none other than the glorified Jesus with the authority to "remove a candlestick" from any ecclesia.   Each ecclesia was charged with dealing with its own problems, except for whatever help the traveling apostles might give them, either through a visit or by letter.   The messages of the glorified Jesus to the seven ecclesias of Asia Minor give evidence of the fact that not all of those ecclesias had equivalent spiritual health.   It is no marvel that today there is also considerable variation in spiritual health of the ecclesias that make up the Christadelphian body.

As mentioned earlier, the situation within the body today is far from ideal.  The proper question is: What can and should be done about it?  Some delude themselves into thinking that they have a simple answer and proceed upon that assumption.  People tend to like simple "solutions" or "quick fixes."  Unfortunately, these simple "solutions" seldom solve the real problems, but give rise to a number of other problems which defy solution.   The body of Christ is not a mechanical entity that can be repaired by following simple instructions from within a "handbook," in spite of the fact that some wish to use just such a method in their attempts to solve very complex problems arising from the complexity of human beings and human organizations.  Jesus said, "It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come" (Luke 17:1).  From this broad statement of Jesus we may conclude that we have every reason to expect problems to arise within the body of Christ.  They are part of our trial and the development of our characters as true brethren of Christ.  How we handle our problems will demonstrate whether or not we deserve that designation; how we handle our problems will demonstrate whether or not we are "walking in light," hence whether we have fellowship with the Father and the Son.  If we rely upon humanly-devised, formal, organizational rules instead of relying upon the guidance of the Holy Scriptures, we shall end up (as the present situation in the Christadelphian body demonstrates) with virtually unresolvable situations.

The "easy solutions" that too many elect to employ fall into two broad categories:

1. ignore the problem and hope that it will go away, and
2. try to dispose of the problem by means of quick, "heroic," surgical methods - in other words, apply the mechanical, "rule-of-thumb" method of "disfellowshipping" those at odds with those in position of responsibility and authority.

The first of these "easy solutions" solves nothing.  It assures that the problem will not only stay around, but it will also grow worse, until one may observe an ecclesial situation exactly comparable to that described by the glorified Jesus as existing in the ecclesia at Laodicea; the ecclesia can adapt so completely to the problem that it finally becomes unaware that a problem exists.  This results in a hopeless situation, and Jesus promised in his message how he would deal with the membership.

The second of these "easy solutions" has only a marginally and apparently better degree of success, spiritually regarded, than the first.  Human organizations are complex entities made up of units that are likewise complex, and which have very complex interactions.  If we may be pardoned for using a physical analogy, an electronic appliance cannot be repaired unto the source of the malfunction has been located; you cannot repair a computer with a pipe wrench.  In similar fashion, human organizations cannot be restored to health and the internal cooperation, upon which their proper functioning depends, without careful and understanding analysis for the purpose of isolating the cause of the malfunction.  It is well nigh impossible for aggressive, opinionated brethren, who regard themselves as being divinely ordained to "lead" the flock, to employ healing methods; such methods do not accord with their dispositions.  They tend to regard gentle persuasion as being weak-kneed and temporizing.  One cannot be assured that gentle persuasion will solve the problem, but healing methods should be given their opportunity before surgery is resorted to.  Surgery always leaves its wounds, and some of these never heal.  Even though our efforts with regard to ecclesias may be less than totally effective, we need to recall the words of Jesus to Sardis: "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy (Rev. 3:4).  Thus, our Lord discerns as to those who are his, and he will not cut off those who are worthy of his fellowship on the basis of those with whom they are associated in ecclesial relationship.

In all situations involving human relationships it is entirely possible to look too closely - to let the present irritation blind us to the ultimate objective that we should be seeking to achieve.  It is the Lord's body with which we are dealing in matters of fellowship, every unit of which is his property, as has been pointed out.  We usually take very tender care of those parts of our own bodies that may be either injured or ill.  We try to give such parts every opportunity to become healed.  Should we not have comparable concern for our Lord's body?  In Matthew 25:31-46 we have the prediction of Jesus as to how he will judge his servants at his forthcoming judgment seat.  That judgment will take into account in every case of how the servant being judged had treated his fellow-servants during his period of probation.  Whether that treatment was given with their Lord's property in mind will have a significant bearing upon the kind of reward the particular servant will receive.  The same words of the Master apply in either case: "Inasmuch as ye have done (or did it not) unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done (or did it not) UNTO ME" (vss. 40, 45).

Clause XXV - Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith: "That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (faithful and unfaithful), dead and living of both classes, will be summoned before his judgment seat "to be judged according to their works;" "and receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad" (II Cor. 5:10; II Tim. 4:1; Rom. 2:5-6,16; 14:10-12; Rev. 11:18).

Clause XXIV - Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith: "That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it) dead and living - obedient and disobedient - will be summoned before his judgment seat "to be judged according to their works;" and "receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad." (Note: Reverences cited are identical in both Statements of Faith.)

This commentary was not designed to be a challenge to the members of the Amended community; how such brethren and sisters choose to believe is a matter of their own responsibility, as it is for the members of the Unamended community.  As Paul wrote, "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set t nought thy brother?..." (Rom. 14:10).  The issues will be clarified at the judgment seat of Christ, as Paul wrote further: "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bright to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God" (I Cor. 4:5).  Whether or not this commentary is challenged and answered by others will be their sole responsibility.  The Unamended community is sufficiently confident of the Scriptural soundness of its doctrinal position to experience no compulsion to be sensitively defensive of it.  Its members have continued for over eight decades in this position, despite the ostracism imposed upon them by those who insist that they ascribe to the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as a basis for their fellowship and a healing of the division.  We firmly believe that God wills that all men might come to the knowledge of the truth; nevertheless, we know that by no means will all willingly come to that knowledge and the willing offer of themselves to his service.   Whatever decisions in that regard that people make is their personal responsibility, and each person is liable to whatever reward or punishment the righteous Judge of all flesh may determine.

Epilogue: What Is Truth to Us?

God's truth is absolute and everlasting (Psa. 100:5), expressing the mind and purpose of Deity, regardless of our attitude or response to it.  It is intended to impart to us knowledge of heavenly things, that we may learn to number our days and to apply our hearts unto wisdom (Psa. 90:12).  God wills that none of us perish, but that we should all come to repentance (II Pet. 3:9).  Deity desires that his Word of Truth be properly, intelligently, and reverently used (II Tim. 2:15), that our minds might be renewed and transformed from their worldly bent toward ignorance and folly to active demonstration of the good and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2).

In conclusion, it is the desire of every spiritually-minded, mature brother in Christ to do whatever lies within his power to impress upon every member of the Unamended community that he or she is sanctified (constituted a saint) only through walking in truth (John 17:17; II Tim. 2:15-19; I John 4:1-3; Rev. 22:18-19).  We all know that salvation is an individual matter; but we know also that "no man liveth unto himself."  Therefore it is the responsibility of every one to try to build one another up in our most holy faith, warning those who are ignorant or out of the way (Heb. 5:2) that they may "In meekness instruct those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth..." (II Tim. 2:25).  As James wrote (ch. 5:20), "Let him know. that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

By: Bro. John S. Peake