Search
Scripture Reading: 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 John 1-2; 3 John 3-4; Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10; 2 John 7-11; 1 Cor. 5:2, 11-13; 11:19; 4:1-5; 2 Cor. 5:10
In this chapter we shall cover the way to face the present divisive situation in the Lord’s recovery. But before we do this, I would like to present to you a list of truths that can help us to clear up the dimmed vision of the Lord’s recovery among us today.
In his withdrawal from the eldership of the church in Anaheim on March 19, 1989, Brother John Ingalls charged us with a number of accusations concerning our present situation. Hence, I have the burden to present to the saints in the Lord’s recovery some truths that will blow away the cloud that has dimmed the clear vision of the Lord’s recovery among us and will bring back to us a clear sky with a clear view in the recovery. These practical truths are versus some of John’s dissenting accusations.
“The nature of what we call the Lord’s recovery has changed.”
The Lord’s recovery is the recovery of:
А. The church ground of oneness versus division.
B. The church as the organic Body of Christ, the fullness of the One who fills all in all.
C. The all-inclusive Christ as the mystery of God.
D. The life-giving and compound Spirit.
E. The divine life in Christ.
F. The divine revelation of the holy Word.
These six items are the main contents of the Lord’s recovery, and the nature of the Lord’s recovery should be the very nature of the elements of these items as the contents of the Lord’s recovery. Whatever changes have been made in our practice up to the present time, not one of them can be considered as something that has caused the Lord’s recovery to change in its nature.
“There has been a change of emphasis to the building up of the work or the ministry more than the local churches...it seems that in the past years...there has been more emphasis on the churches being for the ministry. The ministry has been promoted, exalted, and built up, and the churches have suffered greatly in the process.”
The basic problem in the matter that John covers in this accusation concerns the understanding of the relationship between the ministry and the churches. Concerning the relationship between the ministry or the work and the churches, it has been our practice, from Brother Nee’s time up to the present time, that whatever the ministry or the work does is absolutely for the churches. Even in the building up of the work or the ministry, the purpose and goal are for the churches. The initial purpose and final goal of our ministry or work are absolutely and utterly for the churches. We have received our ministry from the Lord with a definite commission, that is, to build up the churches as the organic Body of Christ. Whatever we do — preaching the gospel to save the sinners, feeding the new believers that they may grow, perfecting the saints that they may do the work that the gifted persons can do to build up the Body of Christ, teaching the word and expounding the Bible that the saints may be edified both in the truth and life, training the saints that they may be built up in the Lord’s service and work, and even establishing the ministry or the work itself — is for the building up of the churches. Our history has fully proved this.
In such a practice as ours, we also stress that all the churches with all the saints should cooperate and be one with the ministry so that the ministry will be strengthened and be more effective and so that the churches with all the saints may benefit more in the ultimate goal for the Lord’s interest, that is, to have His organic Body fully built up. In the apostle Paul’s ministry such a coordination (fellowship) and oneness were rendered to him by the churches and the saints. The church in Philippi with all the saints there, and the church in Corinth and the churches in Galatia with the saints, all did this (Phil. 1:5; 4:16, 18; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). The apostle even praised this kind of fellowship as a “good work” begun by the Lord and believed that the Lord would complete such a good work until the day of His appearing (Phil. 1:6). The thought in John’s accusation concerning the relationship between the ministry and the churches with all the saints can only weaken the ministry in its work for the church and deprive the churches and the saints of their enjoyment of the benefit of the ministry’s work. Without the cooperation of the churches and the saints, it would be difficult for the ministry to be strong and effective in its work, and without the churches with the saints being one with the ministry, it would be difficult for the Lord’s recovery to be prevailing in its spreading. To carry out the New Testament economy of God, the ministry, the churches, and the saints all must be one with one another.
“There has been a great effort and promotion to unite the saints and the churches around a certain leader and organization.”
This kind of great effort and promotion should be condemned. To unite the saints and the churches around a certain leader and organization is to build up a hierarchy. There has never been such a thing in the Lord’s recovery from its beginning. However, this does not mean that there is no need for a proper leadership under the Lord that brings the divine revelation to the Lord’s people and keeps the Lord’s interest from suffering the damage of confusion. According to the New Testament revelation, in the church the elders take the lead (Heb. 13:24; Rom. 12:8), and in the ministry Peter took the lead in the Lord’s work among the Jews (Gal. 2:7b), and Paul took the lead in the Lord’s work among the Gentiles (v. 7a; Rom. 11:13). Without the proper leadership under the Lord, the kingdom of God on the earth today would become an anarchy.
“There has been much pressure with full expectation that all the saints and the churches will conform to the burden of the ministry and be identical with one another in full uniformity of practice, to carry it out.”
Surely, to have any kind of uniformity is wrong. However, to have intentional differences among the churches also is wrong. The problem lies in the matter of what vision we are under and what motive we have.
“In February 1986 there was an elders’ training in Anaheim...At the end of that training, the brothers wrote a letter which, with perhaps two or three exceptions, we all signed...At the present time and for the past year and a half, we have regretted very much that we signed that letter, and even more, that such a letter was ever written. There is no precedent of that in the Word; furthermore there is no scriptural basis for the contents of such a letter. We agreed in that letter that we would be identical with all the churches, that we would follow the ministry absolutely, and that we realized Brother Lee’s leading was indispensable to our oneness. Then, at the bottom of the letter we said that all these things were according to the teaching of the Word of God. But those things are not according to the teaching of the Word, and we regret very much that we subscribed to them. I want to state publicly and make it clear that I would retract my signature.”
The letter John referred to in this accusation is related to the one accord that I spoke about to the elders in February 1986. Now, John and some of those who are with him condemn the writing of that letter. Concerning such a matter, again I would say that it all depends on what vision he and some of those who are with him are under, what view they hold, and what motive they have. In principle, according to the Lord’s prayer in John 17 that all His believers would be one, the Lord is always pleased when we, the believers, are one in the things that are for His interest, and the Lord is surely offended if in anything that is for His interest we would not be one. At any rate, to be one is better than to be divided, than not to be one; to be in one accord is better than to be in confusion, in discord. Thank the Lord that those who would retract their signatures from the letter that John spoke about in the above paragraph are few, a small percentage of the more than four hundred who appreciate their signing of that letter. Some of the signers did express to me that they would like to keep that letter, with their signatures, for the sake of history.
“There has been quite an emphasis, at least in practice, on a kind of centralization of the churches and the work, which we also find contrary to the Word of God.”
In the Lord’s recovery there is no such practice of a “centralization of the churches” and a “centralization of the work.” We do emphasize that all the churches should be one in the Body of Christ, not by the way of forming a federation but in the way of adequate fellowship in the Spirit in the organic union of the divine life. We also stress that the co-workers should not work independently but corporately under one leadership. It is clearly revealed in the New Testament that the co-workers among the Jews worked together corporately under the leadership of Peter, and the co-workers among the Gentiles worked corporately under the leadership of Paul. This does not mean that all the co-workers are centralized, but it does mean that the co-workers who are working in a certain region all work as one. This is the way to bring in the Lord’s blessing. We do not practice any kind of centralization; we treasure only the proper oneness in the Spirit by the divine life, both of which unite us together organically, whether in the church life or in the work for the Lord.
“There has been a pervasive control exercised over the church. Now at least I can speak for Anaheim. I know this to be a fact, and I’m in a position to know this. There has been much outside influence exercised upon the church which has made it very difficult to go on by getting our leading directly from the Lord. This control has not been exercised so much directly, but very much indirectly, through videos, conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings.”
In this point John condemns “a pervasive control exercised over the church.” He also defines this control, saying that “this control has not been exercised so much directly, but very much indirectly, through videos, conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings.” Is there among us such “a pervasive control exercised over the church,” that is, a control that pervades all the churches? I would say here and now that there is no such thing! I do not exercise any control over any church, nor do I have any intention to do this. Here John has pointed out clearly that “this control has not been exercised so much directly.” This word of his indicates definitely that the pervasive control that he condemns is not one that is carried out directly by me or by anyone other than me but “very much indirectly,” as he says, “through videos, conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings.” His clear word indicates that the means to carry out the indirect, pervasive control mentioned in his accusation are “videos, conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings.” The videos, conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings refer, no doubt, to the messages I have put out at different times and on different occasions. To say that through the messages that I gave I exercised a pervasive control over the church is not true. Whenever I gave a message, I never had the thought to control any church or anyone. In speaking for the Lord, I have only a sincere intention that through the Lord’s word that I speak, sinners may be saved, saints may be edified and perfected, and the church may be built up for the carrying out of the New Testament economy of God. The thought of speaking for the Lord with an intention to exercise control over others is evil.
Here John says also, “At least I can speak for Anaheim. I know this to be a fact, and I’m in a position to know this.” This must refer to the pervasive control that has been exercised “very much indirectly, through videos, conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings,” as he indicated. The messages given by me in conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings that were recorded on video were sent to all the churches, not only to the church in Anaheim. Hence, not only John, but all the elders of all the churches who have listened to my tapes, are in a position to know this pervasive control. Do some of you brothers, who are the elders of the churches and who are present in this meeting, have the same kind of realization that John has — that I exercise a pervasive control over your churches indirectly through the messages on the videos?
My messages are always spoken with the Word of God as their base, structure, and element, which always conveys not only the divine revelation and the supply of the divine life but also regulations, corrections, exhortations, and even reproofs (2 Tim. 3:16). How could John consider my messages, with such contents, a means that I use in order to exercise a pervasive control over the churches? If all the churches had the same kind of realization that John has, what would be left of the building up? This is a real devastation.
John also says, “There has been much outside influence exercised upon the church.” Since what was mentioned in his accusation was an “influence,” especially an “outside” influence, it should not refer to anything within but to something outside the church that was under his care. Even if there were such an outside influence, such an outside influence should not be considered as a control that I exercised over the church under his care.
John went further to say that this outside influence “has made it very difficult to go on by getting our leading directly from the Lord.” In the Lord’s recovery we work and serve in the Body of Christ. So, in our work and service to the Lord, we are related both to the Lord as our Head and to the ones who work and serve together with us as fellow members of the Lord’s Body. Hence, the New Testament teaches us to be subject not only to the Lord but also to one another in the fear of the Lord (Eph. 5:24a, 21). Thus, in the Lord’s work and service, in the matter of “getting our leading directly from the Lord,” we need to consider our relationship with the ones who work and serve together with us. It is hardly possible for us to receive a leading directly from the Lord without taking care of the ones with whom we work and serve. If we get our leading directly from the Lord without considering the fellow members of the Lord’s Body who are laboring with us, we will surely jeopardize the oneness of the Body. We constantly need the cooperation and the coordination to keep us in a balanced situation in which we take care not only of the Lord’s leading directly but also of the co-working ones’ realization. On the other hand, when we take care of the co-working ones’ realization, we should also seek the Lord’s leading directly. This way of balance is the safe way and the proper way to save us from being independent, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and to keep the oneness of the Body so that the Body can be built up without the suffering of any loss.
“Church history reveals that in the history of one denomination after another, not all started as a denomination...The Lord did something among His people in a fresh way, with His presence and blessing. But after the saints in that group multiplied and other groups were formed, they all agreed together and decided to affiliate in order to preserve what they had received. The second thing they did again and again was to start a training center, a Bible School, or a Seminary to educate their people in the truth they had received. From there on out, it was a full-blown denomination. The first step is affiliation under one leadership; the second is some sort of training center. That is the way group after group has gone, and...we are also going that way.”
We have never had a training center to “educate” our people as “a Bible School, or a Seminary” does. Our training is to train mainly the young saints to grow in the divine life and in the divine truth, to fulfill the New Testament priesthood of the gospel of God, to feed the lambs of the Lord, to perfect the saints, and to build up the organic Body of Christ. We never had the intention to “educate” our people in a system of belief, in a kind of creed that will lead to the formation of a “full-blown denomination”; neither have we ever affiliated the saints in the Lord’s recovery “under one leadership.” We have never had any kind of “affiliation.” What we stress, according to the divine revelation in the holy Word, is the unique oneness both in the church as the organic Body of Christ and in the work to carry out the unique New Testament ministry. For keeping such a oneness according to the heart’s desire of the Lord and according to the attributes of oneness that characterize the Body of Christ with the elements of the Divine Trinity (Eph. 4:3-6), there is the need of the proper leadership of the elders in the church life and the genuine leadership of the ministers in the Lord’s ministry. This is our real practice.
“He [Brother Lee] has been exalted and honored above what is written, according to 1 Corinthians 4:6...We repent of having ourselves taken part in this. One of the brothers said to me at one time, ‘I’m going to put a sign up outside the meeting hall here — The Local Church of Witness Lee.’ I would hate that there would be in reality any such thing, but there has been a strong tendency toward this. The church should not be the church of anyone but Christ.”
Thank the Lord that, by His grace, the ministry that He has given me has been greatly blessed by Him in the past years. Because of this, in all the years a certain regard has been rendered to me by the dear saints. But compared with the regard that the ancient saints rendered to the apostle Paul because of his excellent ministry, the regard that I have received from the saints is much less. Paul was never accused of being overly regarded throughout the past centuries. No one ever said that he was “exalted and honored above what is written, according to 1 Corinthians 4:6.”
“A spiritual leader should never be made an issue or a factor of division, but Brother Lee and his ministry have been made a great issue and factor of division among us.”
The first clause of John’s word here indicates that he admits that there are spiritual leaders, but the second clause makes an accusation regarding a matter that does not exist. There has never been a “division among us” that was made with me and my ministry as “a great issue and factor.” The intention of John, and of those who are for him, in trying to put my ministry aside is the real issue and factor of the division among us.
“In Matthew 22 the Lord...asked...the question..., ‘What do you think of Christ?...’ Everyone has to answer that question...But I’m afraid, that question has been changed among us to read this way — ‘What do you think of Witness Lee? What is your relationship to him?’...Such a question should never become an issue or factor among us, so that our going on or our relationship with the saints and with the church is made to depend on our relationship to him. But this has been the case.”
John said that “our going on or our relationship with the saints and with the church is made to depend on our relationship to him [Witness Lee].” A servant of the Lord who ministers the word of God to the saints is very much related to the saints, and the saints are very much related to him. Hence, such a relationship is not only right but also needed. Therefore, the saints’ “going on” and their relationship with each other and with the church should depend on their relationship to the one who ministers the word of God to them. This also is needed. If there were not such a thing, the church could not be healthy and would be left in a miserable state.
“We have...applied this teaching [concerning the ground of oneness] in a divisive and sectarian way, so that we divide ourselves from other Christians. This is due to an improper attitude and application of the truth...I feel that in the local churches we have become very narrow and small; narrow in view, in our outlook, and in our reception of other saints.”
To take the ground of oneness requires us to be separated from divisive and sectarian Christians, because they are on a divisive and sectarian ground. This does not mean that we are divisive and sectarian. We are standing on the ground of oneness; they are remaining on the ground of division. Thus, the taking of the ground of oneness should not be condemned as “an improper attitude and application of the truth.”
Further, our taking of the ground of oneness surely makes us “narrow and small,” because the majority of Christians are taking the broad way and the way of greatness, which we would not take in following Jesus today on this earth outside the camp, bearing His reproach (Heb. 13:13). However, this does not mean that we are “narrow in view.” By standing on the ground of oneness, our view has been very much broadened to be the broad view that the Head, Christ, holds over His entire Body universally. And “in our reception of other saints” we are absolutely not narrow; rather, we are as broad as the Lord is in this matter, because we receive, as the Lord and God do (Rom. 14:3; 15:7), every kind of genuine Christian who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hearts are for them, and our arms and bosom are open to them. Yet regardless of how broad our view is in the receiving of other saints, the majority of the saints will not come to us, because they prefer, and some insist, to remain in their denominations or divisive groups, not having the broad view to care for the whole Body of Christ.
“Our attitude toward other Christians is one of belittling them and thinking we’re superior to them. I don’t know how many times we’ve heard this expression, ‘Poor Christianity!’ We say that we’re speaking only of the system, not of the people, but our attitude has definitely spilled over to the people.”
Concerning John’s accusation in this item, we must distinguish Christianity from the Christians and the genuine church that is according to the divine revelation of the New Testament. In Matthew 13 the Lord Jesus showed us clearly in His parables the difference between the wheat (the real Christians) and the tares (the nominal Christians); the difference between meal (fine flour — Christ as food to God and men) and leaven (evil things such as heresies, false teachings, and evil practices); the difference between the mustard seed (Christ as the seed of life) and a big tree (the abnormal development of the church — Christianity); and the difference between the tares, leaven, and the abnormally developed tree, and the treasure hidden in the field (the kingdom of the heavens) and the pearl of great value (the genuine church). The nominal Christians, the heresies, the evil practices, and the abnormal development have transmuted the church, which is composed of the genuine Christians and Christ as the seed of life and the spiritual food to be the precious pearl and the hidden treasure, into Christianity, which is not acceptable to God. Today, for the Lord’s recovery, we must realize the difference between the genuine church, composed of the real Christians, and the abnormal Christianity. When we say “Poor Christianity!” we refer to the abnormal Christianity, with no intention of belittling or despising any real Christian. We do recognize real Christians as our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ and respect those among them who are seeking the Lord and His kingdom. However, we cannot justify the very Christianity of which they are members and for which they work. Hence, in the Lord’s recovery, quite often in teaching the saints we must present the truth concerning the genuine church of the Lord as His organic Body by pointing out the poor situation of today’s Christianity. We prefer to speak about others in a positive way, but in today’s abnormal situation we simply cannot avoid pointing out the abnormality that exists among Christians.
“There has been to some extent an atmosphere of fear brought in among the saints and among the churches, bringing the conscience of the saints into bondage. I believe this has been done by an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning deputy authority. This has brought the saints into a condition where they are fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns.”
John’s word here is an accusation against the teaching of deputy authority in the Lord’s recovery. According to the divine revelation in the holy Word, there is deputy authority in God’s economy, both in the Old Testament, such as with Moses and the priests who taught the people the divine oracle, and in the New Testament, such as with the elders, who take care of the church (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17; Heb. 13:17), and the apostles, who establish the churches and teach the saints (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 1 Cor. 4:21). A local church is under the authority of Christ as the Head, represented by the elders. Hence, the saints in a local church should obey the elders (Heb. 13:17). The churches as the Body of Christ are under their Head, Christ, represented by the apostles. Hence, the churches should obey the apostles (2 Cor. 2:9; 7:15; 10:6). To obey the elders in a local church and to obey the apostles among the churches does not mean that the obeying one does not need to obey the Lord directly. When he is seeking the leading directly from the Lord, he should also take care of the elders in the local church, because he is living and working in the church as a part of the Body. When the churches are seeking the leading directly from the Lord, they should also take care of the apostles, because they are all living and working with the apostles in the churches as the Body of Christ. Whether in a local church or among all the churches, we should be Body-conscious, taking care not only of the Head but also of His Body. Since we are living and working in the Body, we have the Body with the Head. We cannot have the Head without the Body; neither can we have the Body without the Head. We should seek to obey the Head with a relationship to the Body, and we should also seek to obey the Body with a relationship to the Head. We all need to realize that in our natural life we are very independent. So, to take care of obeying both the Lord and the elders or the apostles at the same time is not an easy thing for us. Hence, we may unconsciously feel that the teaching concerning the obeying of God’s deputy authority is overly stressed or even unscriptural. In any case, to say that there is no deputy authority of the Lord is surely unscriptural.
The fear within those who are not willing to obey the elders in a local church or the apostles in the churches might, according to their feeling, bring their conscience into bondage. Any kind of fear that causes the saints to feel bound in their conscience and not free to do whatever they feel led of the Lord is not needed or healthy. Such a fear might be due to the saints’ independence, or to their unwillingness to be one with the elders, or to their holding of a view concerning the church life that is different from the view held generally by the church. If it is due to the saints’ independence, then the saints need to learn how to live the Body life; if it is due to the saints’ unwillingness to be one with the elders, then they need to learn more concerning how to be in one accord with the elders in the church life; if they are holding a different view than the church’s view, then they need to learn more lessons that they may go along with the church or the churches in the Lord’s recovery. Regardless of what the fear is due to, it is always better to obey the elders in a church or the apostles among the churches at the same time as one obeys the Lord, rather than to obey only the Lord without caring for the elders in the church or the apostles among the churches. All the saints need to be ushered into a Body-consciousness and to be helped to pay the price of the giving up of their independence, their freedom to be different, and their subjective view so that the Body of Christ can be built up in the Lord’s way.
“There has been too much emphasizing of methods more than the inner anointing, and external big success more than the experience of the inner life. This is surely a deviation from the central lane of God’s economy.”
Yes, we do need the inner anointing and the experience of the inner life. However, if we lack the proper external methods to match the inner anointing, and an adequate external success in fruit-bearing to encourage the experience of the inner life, and we emphasize the inner anointing without the adequate methods with which to labor, and the experience of the inner life without the success of fruit-bearing, we will not have the capable way to carry out God’s economy in the central lane. Such a situation would be a real abuse of the central lane in God’s economy. No one should put forth the accusation that to emphasize the necessary methods that we may work prevailingly through the inner anointing and to emphasize a satisfactory success that we may be encouraged to seek more experience of the inner life are a “deviation from the central lane of God’s economy.” To abide in the vine is a matter of the inner life, and it is for fruit-bearing. If the abiding does not issue in fruit-bearing but in barrenness, such an abiding should be condemned as an abusing of the inner life of the vine.
Based on our study concerning the genuine oneness, the proper one accord, and the tests of these two matters, and based on the listing of some practical truths versus some dissenting accusations, we can come to consider the way to face the present divisive situation among us. This way can be considered a scriptural remedy to meet our present need.
To face the present divisive situation, we need to pay our full attention to the truth concerning the church as the Body of Christ and as the house and kingdom of God. First Timothy 3:15 tells us that the church is the pillar and base of the truth. Thus, we must help the saints to have the full knowledge concerning these matters.
In 2 John 1-2 and in 3 John 3-4, the aged apostle John was happy to know that his children kept the truth.
I do feel that all the churches must do something to help the saints to know the real situation in the recovery. The saints must be helped to realize that a “contagious disease” is now among us, and, as in the field of medicine, we must quarantine the diseased ones. To quarantine does not mean that we do not love those who are “ill,” nor does it mean that we cut them off. It means that we do something to preserve both the contagious ones and the rest of the Body.
According to Romans 16:17 and Titus 3:10, we need to exercise to quarantine the divisive ones. Romans 16:17 charges us to turn away from those who make divisions. To turn away from them is to exercise to quarantine them. Titus 3:10 says that we should refuse a factious (sectarian, divisive) person after a first and second admonition. To refuse such a one also is to exercise to quarantine him.
We also need to quarantine the heretical ones, those who go beyond the teaching concerning Christ (2 John 7-11). According to 2 John 10, we should not receive such persons into our home, and even we should not greet them. This also is to quarantine them.
In addition, according to 1 Corinthians 5:2 and 11 through 13, we need to quarantine the fornicators, who live in such a gross sin, by removing them from the fellowship of the church.
First Corinthians 11:19 says that divisions are unavoidable that the approved ones might be made manifest. The kind of turmoil and rebellion that we are now experiencing always sifts the congregation. In such a situation some are sifted, and some are manifested as being approved.
Most people pay their attention to the matter of being right or wrong. However, in today’s situation it is not a matter of right or wrong; it is a matter of whether we are divisive or not.
Being neutral does not build up (2 Cor. 13:8, 10) but destroys the Body of Christ. Being neutral may come out of a good heart, but it is the wrong way.
To keep the truth, we need to overcome personal affection with the vow of a Nazarite. In Numbers 6:6-7 the Nazarites were charged not to be contaminated by any kind of death, even by the death of their blood relatives. Therefore, we must be careful about anyone who is “dying” or who is spreading death. If we realize that one who is near us is “dying” or is spreading death, we must keep ourselves away. Otherwise, if we remain near such a person, we will be contaminated by the germs of death. This will nullify our vow, and we will have to begin our vow over again (vv. 9-12). In some cases, to avoid the contagion of death, we need to overcome our personal affection, especially for those with whom we are well acquainted. Leviticus 10:6-7, Exodus 32:25-29, and Deuteronomy 33:8-9 all stress the need of the overcoming of our personal affection in the service of our priesthood. Both Exodus 32:25-29 and Deuteronomy 33:8-9 tell us that when the children of Israel worshipped the golden calf, offending the Lord to the uttermost, Moses spoke the word asking all the Levites to kill their relatives and those who were close to them. They obeyed, and as a result they obtained the priesthood. The Urim and Thummim were with them, meaning that they had the revelation; they had the vision of the Lord’s oracle because of their faithfulness to God’s person. God hates to see His people worship anyone besides Him. So He demands that His faithful people “kill” all the idol worshippers. One of these worshippers might be our father, and one might be our sister. In order to be faithful to the Lord, we must overcome our personal affection.
At such a time as this, we need to stress not only the matter of life but also the matter of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). We need to stress the truth concerning the Body and concerning the church ground.
We need to remember that whatever we do and whatever we say will be judged by the Lord’s coming back at His judgment seat (1 Cor. 4:1-5; 2 Cor. 5:10). Paul was strongly criticized. In such a situation he was forced to say that he did not judge himself, nor did he justify himself; rather, he was waiting for the Lord’s judgment at His coming back (1 Cor. 4:3-5). We must walk in this kind of light. It is not just a matter of what we are today. Whatever we are today affects what we will be in the future.
Even the apostle Paul was greatly criticized; hence, we should not be disappointed if we are criticized, defamed, and slandered. We ourselves must exercise to have a conscience without offense (Acts 24:16).
