The Assembly as Judge: What Do We Learn From Deuteronomy 17:8-13? [Brochure]

The Assembly as Judge: What Do We Learn From Deuteronomy 17:8-13? by Adrian Roach
PREVIEW YOUR CUSTOM IMPRINT HERE
Tract back page
Author:
BTP#:
#9056-56
Cover:
Brochure
Pages:
6 pages
Price:
Quantity
Price Each
1-11
$0.40
12-99
$0.33
100+
$0.32
Note: The minimum quantity for this product with a custom imprint is 100.

Full Text of This Product

The Assembly as Judge

or

What Do We Learn from

Deut. 17:8-13?

Do not ye judge them that are within? (1 Cor. 5:12)

The Lord Jesus in Matt. 7:1 enjoins us, “Judge

not that ye be not judged.” By nature we are

prone to judge our neighbor’s motives. We form a

judgment of him in which he suffers by comparison with us. King Saul thus judged David when he

said: “. . . he is not clean; surely he is not clean”

(1 Sam.20:26). He did not attribute David's

absence to a good motive. Only God can look

within and know what is there -- “the Lord is a

God of knowledge, and by Him actions are

weighed” (1 Sam.2:3, also 16:7). We therefore

err in judging motives as we are not omniscient.

Clearly, Matt. 7:1 applies to individuals

judging one another and not to the assembly judging with the Lord's authority in the midst

(Matt.18:18-20). The risen Lord said to His disciples collectively: “Whose soever sins ye remit,

they are remitted unto them; and whose soever

sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23).

Every time the assembly receives persons into it,

the sins of such are remitted administratively.

When the assembly acts to purge itself of evil

(doctrinal or practices) it retains (binds) in the

same way the sins of those disciplined. At Corinth

they first retained (bound) and then remitted

(loosed) the sin of the evildoer (1 Cor.5: 9-13 and

2 Cor. 2:1-11).

Divine Provision for Settlement of

Difficulties Between Individuals

Furthermore, the Lord has always made provision

for difficulties arising between individuals when

the assembly as such is not directly involved. In

Israel separate judges were appointed to make

decisions. As judges they stood alone and judged

apart from the witnesses or the accused. God is

not the author of confusion (1 Cor.14:40) and

never mixes up the witnesses or the accused with

the judge in making the decision. The divinely

given instructions are as follows:

And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren,

and judge righteously between every man

and his brother, the stranger that is with

him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as

the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face

of man; for the judgment is God's: and the

cause that is too hard I or you, bring it unto

me, and I will hear it (Deut. 1:16-17).

There are seven cogent points in this passage:

1. Hear the causes -- do not decide without

all the facts.

2. Between your brethren -- listen carefully

to both sides before forming an opinion.

3. Judge righteously -- that is, according to

established fact.

4. Without respect of persons -- not influenced by friendship, relationship, importance bribes or gifts.

5. Hear the small as well as the great -- all

should get an equal hearing.

6. Not afraid of man -- courageous judgment.

7. The judgment is God’s -- divine authority

which should be bowed to.

Difficult judgments were to be referred to Moses

who was still living (v. 17). Later, provision was

made that could be followed after the death of

Moses (Deut. 17:8-13). The judges had to act

upon adequate witness:

. . . at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the

mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be

established (Deut.19:15, see also 17:6).

The testimony of the witnesses would help the

judge in his decision, but it would be his decision,

not that of the witnesses. He alone was the judge

before God.

What confusion would result in a human

court of law if the witnesses, the counsel or attorney, were to share with the judge the making of

the decision! Their testimony and pleas would be

considered by the judge, but they would not be

part of the judge in determining the issue.

Settlement of Especially

Hard Difficulties

We have seen that the difficult cases between individuals were referred to Moses; but God in Deut.

17:8-13 makes provision for individuals with hard

problems after the death of this honored servant.

Peter could bind and loose but upon his death this

ceased; but the power continued in the assembly

(Matt.18:18-20).

It is clear that Deut.17:8-l3 applies to individuals with difficulties, not to the people collectively. The passage reads:

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in

judgment, between blood and blood,

between plea and plea, and between stroke

and stroke, being matters of controversy

within thy gates then shalt thou arise, and

get thee up into the place which the Lord

thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come

unto the priests the Levites, and unto the

judge that shall be in those days, and

enquire: and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do

according to the sentence, which they of

that place which the Lord shall choose shall

shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do

according to all that they inform thee:

according to the sentence of the law which

they shall teach thee, and according to the

judgment which they shall tell thee, thou

shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the

right hand, nor to the left. And the man that

will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister

there before the Lord thy God, or unto the

judge, even that man shall die: and thou

shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all

the people shall hear, and fear, and do no

more presumptuously.

Here there are three things mentioned as to judgment:

1. Blood and blood -- or quarrels between

those closely related (Luke 12:13-14).

2. Plea and plea -- a dispute as to the boundary of property, or other possessions. The

landmark might have been removed (Deut.

19:14).

3. Stroke and stroke -- a question of injury

between two persons, or the measure of penalty for the guilty (Ex. 21:18-19 and 26-27,

Deut.25:1-3).

None of these pertains to assembly issues as such,

but to difficulties between individuals. Judgment

is then referred to Gods center -- the place in

which He chose to place His Name (Deut. 12:5).

Shiloh was later designated as this center. There

was but one such center in all Israel. Now every

company gathered to the Lord’s Name is God’s

center (Matt. 18:20). There is no one assembly

today that is more God's center than another. Two

or three, or two or three hundred, thus gathered

have the Lord s authority in the midst. If brothers

in a local gathering have problems between them,

they do not have to go far for God s center. In

Israel it was different -- Shiloh was God’s center

when they entered the land; later Jerusalem

became that center.The individuals involved

present their case and the judge hears all on the

basis of Deut. 1:16-17 and he (the judge), in this

instance aided by the priests the Levites, pronounces final judgment which is binding on all (v.

12). Judgment being thus given at God’s center

with His authority (v. 12), it was a serious matte

not to abide by it.

Today this authority is in the assembly as

gathered to the Lord’s Name, the Lord being in

the midst. In Deut. 17 it is not one assembly

appealing to another assembly, but rather individuals looking to God s center for judgment.

Responsibility Between Assemblies

The responsibility between assemblies is rather set

forth in Deut. 13: 12-18:

If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities,

which the Lord thy God hath given thee to

dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among

you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of

their city, saying, Let us go and serve other

gods, which ye have not known; then shalt

thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the

thing certain, that such abomination is

wrought among you; thou shalt surely smite

the inhabitants of that city with the edge of

the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that

is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the

edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all

the spoil of it into the midst of the street

thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city,

and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the

Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for

ever; it shall not be built again. And there

shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to

thine hand: that the Lord may turn from the

fierceness of his anger, and shew thee

mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and

multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy

fathers; when thou shalt hearken to the

voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all his

commandments which I command thee this

day, to do that which is right in the eyes of

the Lord thy God.

Here we have “thy cities” which represent what is

234 5

collective instead of what is individual. If evil is

thought to be harbored in a city (or assembly),

other cities (or assemblies) were to make diligent

search, and if it be so, judgment was to follow. In

Israel any city from Dan to Beersheba could make

inquiry and bring the conscience of the whole

nation into exercise This was done with much failure and weakness in Judg. 20:1-48. But if a city,

or assembly, did purge itself of the evil in its

midst, it would be evil to try to make that city, or

assembly, revert to the previous state in which it

allowed the evil in its midst.

Similar order we have in the New Testament.

First individual matters -- “blood and blood, plea

and plea, stroke and stroke.” Matt. 18:18-20

makes full provision for this by referring all to

God's center where Christ is in the midst. Other

instructions are given in 1 Cor.6:1-8. The difference between the Israelite and the Christian is that

the former had to go to Shiloh but the latter has

immediate recourse to his local gathering. The

judgment in Matt.18:18 is as final as that of Deut.

17:9-12 and must be bowed to as the Lord s

authority. It is rebellion against this authority to

weaken the discipline by consorting with and

helping persons put away by the assembly.

Our Present Danger

We are now in danger of giving up these Scriptural principles. It should be clear by what has

been seen so far that brethren called in by an

assembly to help it have no authority to judge the

matter, as this rests entirely with the assembly.

These brothers form no part of the “judge” and

when they have given advice their work is done.

At Corinth the assembly as such was called

upon to act as the assembly, although Paul as an

apostle had already judged the case. He would be

satisfied with nothing less. He calls on them to put

away from “among yourselves” (not 'ourselves')

that wicked person (1 Cor. 5:13). They were to

judge them that are “within.” This discipline (not

interfered in by other assemblies) wrought repentance, and then restoration was by the Corinthian

assembly as such (2 Cor.2:6-10 and 7:11).

Brethren who are called to give advice to an

assembly have no permanent status over that gathering but are responsible in the unity of the body

(Eph.4:2-4) to accept the decision rendered by

that assembly.

Some time ago the writer and another brother

were called in to help a gathering in a local matter. At our final meeting with responsible brothers

from that gathering, the brother with me made a

statement to this effect: “We can only advise you

as brothers and if you feel that our advice should

be acted on you must submit it to the assembly for

approval, as the authority is there.” Wholesome

words indeed! The assembly did take our advice

and acted on it. When we left our work was finished; we had no more to do with it unless called

again. If further exercise led the assembly later to

reverse its action, we would have no scriptural

ground to force them to return to the original decision. This would put “brothers” above the authority of the Lord in the midst. If another assembly

tried to reverse it, then the unity is denied! It is

rebellion!

Lack of Discernment Is

Due to Our Low State

Why is it that we have difficulty in discerning evil

doctrine in our midst? Why is it that we do not

hold Matt.18:18 as firmly as the gathered saints of

yesteryear? Have the Philistines put out our eyes,

by worldliness and lack of subjection to the Word,

as they did to Samson?

“There is one body.” A believer received by

one assembly is received everywhere, and if put

out he is out everywhere. We do not eat an ordinary meal with such (1 Cor.5:11). The apostle did

not need to tell them not to eat the Lord s supper

with such, for they were to “put away from

among” themselves that wicked person. But Paul

did not want the discipline of the assembly weakened by social activities where the person so put

out would be treated as though nothing was

wrong. “. . . With such an one no not to eat.”

JND points out that if such were hungry he could

in grace feed him, but would not sit down and eat

with him. Where is this faithfulness today? We

have become as Samson, blinded to what is so

clear in the Word. Evil doctrine, because it undermines the Person and work of Christ, is more

serious than the heinous crime at Corinth.

There is a mistaken thought that a person can

hold “error” and remain at the Lord s table.

While an error can be a mistake, it becomes evil if

persisted in after the offender has been warned.

One meaning of error is “false doctrine, which is

not agreeable to the Word of God.”

Can anyone hold that the “error of Balaam”

was not evil? Did not God s wrath fall on Balaam?

(Num. 31:8, Jude 11.) Paul delivered Hymenaeus

to Satan because of blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:20). In

2 Tim. 2:17-18 this same man is associated with

“error” (gone astray, missed the mark). He did

not deny the resurrection; he only held and taught

that it was past already. He seemed to have a semblance of Scriptural support for this in Matt.

27:52-53. It is clear to the simple that to say that

the resurrection is past already is a subtle denial

of resurrection. This error is against the Lord

(Isa.32:6).

When erroneous doctrine is set forth it also

produces consequences. The Corinthians did not

deny directly the resurrection of Christ, but the

apostle infers or concludes that by denying the

resurrection of the dead they are in result denying

the resurrection (1 Cor.15:12-13). From this we

learn that the consequential inferences of a doctrine demand the same attention as a direct statement of evil. Based on these principles we must

recognize as evil the inferential consequences of a

doctrine which, although it claims to maintain the

a-toning value of the blood of Christ, nevertheless

teaches that “all was finished before the soldier

pierced His side.” Thus the only blood of His

cross identified by Scripture as shed for sins is set

aside. Another has aptly said:

The teaching of a teacher must be judged by

the teaching itself, not by what the teacher

says about it.

If the assembly cannot purge itself of “error

against the Lord” (Isa.32:6), it is in a pitiful state

and position. If one assembly disowns the action

of another in so judging evil, it sets aside the

authority of the Holy and True One in the midst.

How then can it expect others to honor its actions

when it has rejected the very authority it claims

for itself? The true path is:

If he neglect to hear the church [assembly],

let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a

publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever

ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in

heaven . . . and whatsoever ye shall loose

on earth shall be loosed in heaven. For

where two or three are gathered together in

[unto] My Name, there am I in the midst of

them (Matt.18:17-20).

Adrian Roach

 

 

Quantity: