Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah - David Canfield

Admin · 05-09-2009, 01:59 PM

Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah
David Canfield • Chicago, Illinois
7th May 2009

During the recent turmoil many of us were thoroughly disappointed that so many elders and leading ones among us went along with the Blended Brothers’ efforts to subvert the churches’ testimony to Christ. However, the Old Testament book of Nehemiah provides a clear picture that may give us a better understanding of this failure. It is found in the history of a man named Eliashib. As we consider the very negative, even tragic, example of this man, may we keep in mind that it is always and only God’s mercy than enables any of us to be faithful to the Lord.

Eliashib was high priest in Jerusalem during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1, 13:28), when the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt. In addition, he was “appointed over the chambers of the house of our God” (Neh. 13:4). Clearly he was a man of considerable standing among the people of God at that time. Moreover, it is clear that he was for God and God’s desire not only in terms of his position, but personally as well, since the Bible records that when Nehemiah spoke to the Jews to encourage them to rebuild the wall, the very first one to respond and actually rise up for the rebuilding work was this Eliashib:

Then [Nehemiah] said to them, “You see the bad situation we are in, that Jerusalem is desolate and its gates
burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach.”... (Neh. 2:17).

Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brothers the priests and built the Sheep Gate; they consecrated it and
hung its doors. They consecrated the wall to the Tower of the Hundred and the Tower of Hananel (Neh. 3:1).

And yet, the book of Nehemiah goes on to record that Eliashib’s ending was not positive, but rather, quite negative and sad. In fact, it was Eliashib himself who, after the Lord’s servant left Jerusalem, gave place to the enemies of God in the very temple of God:

Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the chambers of the house of our God, being related to Tobiah, had prepared
a large room for him, where formerly they put the grain offerings, the frankincense, the utensils, and the tithes of grain, wine,
and oil prescribed for the Levites, the singers, and the gatekeepers, and the contributions for the priests (13:4-5).

This is almost unbelievable, and yet it is recorded in the Bible. The high priest—even the very same one who first rose up to begin rebuilding the wall—was the very one to make a place for God’s enemy in the temple! The one who had been “appointed over the chambers of the house of our God” removed “the grain offerings, the frankincense, the utensils and the tithes of grain, wine, and oil” to make room for the enemy of God and of His people!

Eliashib does not appear to have been an evil man himself, but rather, a good man—one who was for God’s testimony and had a good beginning in his service to the Lord. Nevertheless, in the end what he did was remarkably evil and a great shame to God’s testimony. How could such a one have behaved in this way? The answer is, because he was “related” (13:4) to an enemy of God’s people.

It is quite striking that Eliashib’s name is not recorded among those who participated in the dedication of the wall in Nehemiah 12:27-43, which was a joyful time for celebrating the Jew’s victory, even though he was the high priest and the first to start the building work on the wall. Rather, the last mention of Eliashib is at the end of the book of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah was dealing with a number of negative situations among the Jews in Jerusalem:

Even one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was a son-inlaw
of Sanballat the Horonite, so I drove him away from me (13:28).

Although the one whom Nehemiah drove away appears to have been the grandson of Eliashib, it may indicate that he drove Eliashib away as well. In any event, it is clear how far the high priest had fallen from his first standing by mingling himself and his family with the enemies of God’s people.

Actually, the book of Nehemiah shows that it was not only Eliashib who was related to God’s enemies; to the contrary, many of the leading ones among the Jews at that time were also connected to Tobiah, even at the time Nehemiah was having to deal with the plots of these enemies against the rebuilding work. Nehemiah wrote:

In those days many letters went from the nobles of Judah to Tobiah, and Tobiah’s letters came to them. For many
in Judah were bound by oath to him because he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah, and his son Jehohanan
had married the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Moreover, they were speaking about his good deeds in
my presence and reported my words to him. Then Tobiah sent letters to frighten me (6:17-19).

These were not base men, but “the nobles of Judah.” Nor were they the ones who had chosen to remain in Babylon to enjoy the pleasures of life there. Rather, they and their forbears, in faithfulness to God, had paid the price to return to Jerusalem as God desired. Nonetheless, even while in Jerusalem they were still connected to the enemies of God, and this became a great frustration to the building work.

No doubt it is the Lord in His sovereignty who has provided us with this record for our instruction today. We have often referred to ourselves as “the Lord’s recovery,” in part as a reference to the history of the Jew’s return from captivity to build up God’s house and God’s city. We felt that the positive aspect of this picture applied so much to us; now, however, we can see at least one negative aspect that applies to us as well.

In the churches we always sought to stand as the testimony of Christ, with the Lord as our unique center, to be His temple so that He could have His dwelling among us; the Lord blessed us very much for taking such a stand. Eventually, however, the Blended Brothers rose up to turn the churches away from Christ to being, instead, a testimony of their ministry. Beginning with the release of their “Publication Work” statement in the summer of 2005 they made oneness with themselves, rather than oneness with Christ, the practical test of fellowship among us.

The elders and leading ones in the churches should have recognized that evil work to tear down the genuine church life for what it was and stood against it; only such a stand could have avoided the needless divisions that have ensued. Yet instead of taking such a stand, so many of them have “prepared rooms” for the Blended Brothers in God’s building, the church—how the Blended Brothers’ ministry is exalted among the saints today! And so long as such a situation exists, “the grain offerings, the frankincense, the utensils, and the tithes of grain, wine, and oil”—signifying such items as the humanity of Christ, the fragrance of His resurrection life, and the enjoyment of Christ—cannot have their rightful place in the church life (13:5).

As in the case of Eliashib, all of this does not indicate that the ones who stood with the Blended Brothers were themselves evil, or that they did not still have a desire to carry out God’s purpose; we know that many of these were dear brothers with a real heart for the church. The failure was, instead, that they did not maintain a clear separation from those who, in this matter, were performing quite an evil work.

In contrast to Eliashib, both Nehemiah and Ezra maintained a very definite standing apart from the enemies of the Jews. Scofield has a very good statement concerning them:

The lives of Ezra and Nehemiah afford many illustrations of true separation (Ezra 4:2, footnote 1).

In particular, Nehemiah was firm and courageous and was not dissuaded by the enemies of God from fulfilling the work for which he had been commissioned by God. When he returned to Jerusalem he dealt very forcibly and absolutely with the situation regarding Tobiah. He writes:

I came to Jerusalem and learned about the evil that Eliashib had done for Tobiah, by preparing a room for him in the
courts of the house of God. It was very displeasing to me,so I threw all of Tobiah’s household goods out of the room.
Then I gave an order and they cleansed the rooms; and I returned there the utensils of the house of God
with the grain offerings and the frankincense (13:7-9).

There is much for us to learn from Nehemiah’s example! May the Lord in His mercy grant us to follow such a positive example for the carrying out of His building work. And may we be clearly and definitely separated in this work from all who would oppose God’s building, rather than ally ourselves to them as did Eliashib and the nobles of Judah.

UntoHim · 05-13-2009, 08:51 AM

I am a little - strike that - I am more then a little confused about what David Canfield is trying accomplish with this paper. (maybe he's not trying to accomplish anything, but simply making his views known?)

This paper is filled with copious amounts of Local Church talk. And even though I am fully fluent in this language, I can't seem to decipher exactly what David is getting at. The "recovery" theme of Nehemiah is one quite familiar to us all, but his particular application here "does not compute" I'm afraid.

Canfield uses the term "among us"...suggesting that he considers himself still in The Local Church. My understanding is that he is one of the ones quarantined or just left on his own accord. So who is the "us" he is speaking to?

"subvert the churches’ testimony to Christ"... I'm not altogether sure what he means here. What have the Blended brothers actually said or done that is subverting the testimony of the Local Churches? Like them or not, they are doing exactly what Witness Lee did to protect the religious institution and culture he initiated and fostered for about 50 years. Furthermore, they are doing this in the exact same manner as Witness Lee - bowling over and attempting to defame and destroy every thing and every one that has even the smallest of disagreements or difference of opinion. These guys are acting as clones of Witness Lee and this is what Lee taught us to be. Think the same thing. Do the same thing. Act the same way.

"gave place to the enemies of God" "The answer is, because he was “related” (13:4) to an enemy of God’s people"...How is the current leadership of The Local Church giving place to or acting as enemies of God? There is no doubt that they have made enemies out of many brothers and sisters (such as Canfield himself) but there is a disconnect here - how does that make them enemies of God or of his people? Again, Lee and his followers have been quarantining and speaking against former members and other Christians for decades, why all of the sudden do they deserve this label of giving place to the enemies of God or being related to an enemy of God's people?

In the churches we always sought to stand as the testimony of Christ, with the Lord as our unique center, to be His temple so that He could have His dwelling among us; the Lord blessed us very much for taking such a stand.... I strongly disagree with this general characterization. We always sought to stand for, spread and defend at any cost the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee, and this is exactly why the Local Church movement is in the condition it is in today. I don't know about each and every individual, but the facts of history show that the Lord was never the unique center of the LC movement. This is clear.

Eventually, however, the Blended Brothers rose up to turn the churches away from Christ to being, instead, a testimony of their ministry....Again, the objective facts don't back this claim up, or I should say that they don't back them up in the manner that Canfield is implying. The facts are that the Blended brothers have kept them dead on the course that Witness Lee set for the movement in the years before his passing. They have not wavered from the teachings and practices established by Lee to any significant degree. As recently as a few weeks ago there were "trainings" conducted in many localities instructing everyone how to carry out "The God Ordained Way" by becoming "vital people" (whatever the heck that means), joining up with other "vital groups" and by preaching the gospel in the (you guessed it) "God Ordained Way" by using nothing but "The Ministry".

The elders and leading ones in the churches should have recognized that evil work to tear down the genuine church life for what it was and stood against it; "Stood against it"? Huh? I suppose this MAY have been somewhat possible if the elders and leading ones would have had a little practice of standing against all the evil work of Witness Lee and his sons way back in the day...but then again we know what happen to those who stood against evil work back then, now don't we. Really we can't blame anybody for not wanting to end up in the Local Church "rebellion" dumpster, especially after you have decades invested.

-

OBW · 05-13-2009, 11:00 AM

First, I have a question. Who is David Canfield? My fuzzy memory brings to mind someone in Chicago who was for a while of uncertain allegiance during the Titus Chu debacle, but who eventually sided with the LSM. If that is wrong, Please let me know. But besides that, I have no knowledge of him and his history with the LC.

Assuming I am right about his recent history in relation to the TC quarantine, I note that this little article now puts him squarely in the sights of the LSM to be the next one purged. But if he is already quarantined, as UntoHim has indicated I still see a pattern that is not so difficult to understand.

UntoHim first noted that David’s paper is full of LC lingo and yet stands in opposition to the BBs and the LSM. While it may seem confusing to some, what I see at work here is our miss-categorization of the people who have current or past relationship with the LC in any way. In simplistic terms, all people who have been more than passing members of the LC are members of two of four groups. These groups are in pairs. The first is those who currently hold to overall LC teachings and practices v those who do not. The second pairing is those who are currently in the LC v those who are not. (When I say that my pairings are simplistic, I am ignoring whether adherents to the overall LC teachings and practices do or do not believe in the supremacy of “the apostle of the age” or even that Lee was infallible. While in a broader view this and other issues would need to be factored in, we are ignoring those for now.)

While someone may find exceptions, those who do not believe in the LC teachings and practices are also not currently members of the LC. And those who are in the LC do believe in the LC teachings and practices. This accounts for 2 of three possible groupings. The third grouping is those who believe in the teachings and practices of the LC but are not currently members of the LC.

It is in this latter group that the reality of the issues that I ignored in creating these two overlapping views of all who are or have been associated with the LC arises. For those who believe in the basic teachings of the LC, there are other teachings and practices that they find to be divergent either from Lee (if they consider him without fault) or from the scripture if they care only for truth and not for other sources.

I see this group at work when they are willing to stand in opposition to an edict from the LSM to quarantine someone for grounds they do not accept as from scripture. I see it when some take on the LSM and the DCP, as the Concerned Brothers have done. While there may be some attempts to actually reform the LC to be something less exclusive and even truly mainstream within Christianity, it mostly appears to be a desire to return to a better time when elders cared for congregations and any ministry was for the church rather than the church for any ministry.

I also see hints of it in some of us who have become well-attached in some Christian group when we long for no name, universal fellowship, popcorn testimonies, less formal worship environment, etc., or when we revert to LC dogma by calling denominations “Babylon.”

To me, the real issue is how it all came to be. Did this turn of events that has the LC divided into two primary camps happen strictly as the result of something the BBs did now that Lee is dead? Or is it that the problem was just less pronounced for some longer period of time and people simply tolerated it? David seems to think that any divergence from the right path is recent. Others think it may be further back. But either way, the desire is to return to a “more pure” form of practice. I could go on about my distrust of even the early days. I also could debate what teachings and practices from the LC should get more "play" in Christianity. But we can reserve those discussions for other threads.

Ohio · 05-13-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

First, I have a question. Who is David Canfield? My fuzzy memory brings to mind someone in Chicago who was for a while of uncertain allegiance during the Titus Chu debacle, but who eventually sided with the LSM. If that is wrong, Please let me know. But besides that, I have no knowledge of him and his history with the LC.

DaveC has long served in the Church in Chicago (since the 80's) and attempted earnestly to prevent Chicago (especially the leaders JR and BB) from joining LSM for the Quarantine. He has a several articles posted at the CB site. He is probably around your age, OBW. I don't think he ever sided with the LSM BB's though. I do believe at that time he wrote, he espoused the "good WL, bad BB" paradigm which marked TC and so many other GLA brothers.

Here are his articles:

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Can...in_Chicago.pdf

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/His...006-08-021.pdf

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Can...___10___18.pdf

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Can...he_Midwest.pdf

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Can...2006_03_25.pdf

I too felt this latest writing was not indicative of former articles by him.

OBW · 05-14-2009, 07:11 AM

Ohio,

Thanks for the information. While me goal was not to categorize, from your comments and the general positions in both the various documents published on the Concerned Brothers site and the short article posted here, he fits in nicely, even if not entirely square on, with Nigel, John Myer and many of the others in the GLA, along with some elsewhere that we know. While I still may have issues with some of the principal teachings of the LC, I see these men as leading toward a different kind of LC, primarily one that ceases from its exclusiveness and is more connected with its brethren in Christianity that have been so maligned under the prior and even current dogmas.

In any case, my real point was to understand rather than be confused by the use of so much LC lingo while taking on the LSM/BB establishment. It is fully understandable and probably to be expected. It may not always be that way, but for now that's what it is.

Admin · 05-25-2009, 07:54 PM

Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah

Part Two

David Canfield • Chicago, Illinois

21st May 2009

In Part One we considered the situation among the children of Israel at the time of Nehemiah, when the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt, and saw that some of the leaders of Israel actually became a source of frustration to God’s building work. They did this by allying themselves with the enemies of God. Now we want to go on to consider the question of how these ones could have been brought into such an alliance, so that we may learn the lessons from this very negative case and be warned ourselves.

Concerning Tobiah and the other enemies of God, Nehemiah tells us:

When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard

about [my coming to Jerusalem], it was very displeasing to them that

someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel.

—Nehemiah 2:10

—

And as the work on the wall was progressing he writes:

All of them conspired together to come and fight

against Jerusalem and cause confusion in it.

—Nehemiah 4:8.

In fact, all during the time the wall was being rebuilt we see these two conflicting themes: the building work under Nehemiah and the work of frustration carried out by these enemies of God and of God’s people (2:19; 4:1-12, 6:1-19). The Concise Bible Dictionary, in its entry on Sanballat, has a very telling comment about this: His case is an illustration of the way in which, whenever God has a work in progress, Satan finds an agent to oppose it (p. 690).

Nehemiah himself was very clear regarding these enemies, telling them after they had mocked the work he was doing:

You have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem.

—Nehemiah 2:20b

This was the very work on the earth that God desired to carry out at that time, and they gave themselves to oppose and mock it; they had nothing to do with Jerusalem. How terrible, how serious, was their situation! We must ask, then, how could so many of the leading ones among the Jews have allowed themselves to become related to ones such as these, who had “no portion, nor right, nor memorial” in the city of God’s dwelling place?

We may gain some insight, initially, from the names of the two leading opponents, Tobiah and Sanballat. Although they were closely allied with each other, the meanings of their names contrast quite strongly. “Tobiah” means “Jehovah is Good”1 or “Goodness of Jehovah.”2 We may think it quite strange that one who was such an enemy of God would have such a name. However, this actually illustrates an important principle in knowing the enemy’s work: the outward appearance of that work is often very different from its inward reality. In this case, that inward reality is conveyed in the meaning of the second name, that is, “Sanballat,” which means “Hatred in Secret.”3

In the case of both Eliashib and of the nobles, it states that their direct relationship was almost entirely with Tobiah (13:4-5, 6:18), who was an official in the land (2:10, NASB), rather than with Sanballat; Nehemiah even speaks of the nobles as being “sworn to [Tobiah’s] cause” (6:18). Evidently, the nobles of Judah were deceived by a good appearance on the part of Tobiah. They may have believed that whatever benefits he conferred on them for their allegiance to him were the “goodness of Jehovah” to them — without realizing that in giving their allegiance to him they had also become connected with one who was filled with “hatred in secret” against God and His purpose. Such are the subtle ways of the enemy.

There is a real lesson for us today in this. Even in the church life the enemy, Satan, may tempt us in a very similar way, using our ambition to subtly turn us away from the Lord. Some ones may come to us, saying that if we become loyal to them we can gain some kind of benefit for ourselves; perhaps we will share the platform, or take some leadership role in the work, or be appreciated among the saints. This reward may have a good appearance, and it may even seem that we are being used by the Lord. Thus, we feel it is the “goodness of Jehovah” to us. Actually, however, all such alliances are an abomination to the Lord; they are fully of the flesh and are condemned by Him. God knows far more clearly than we do that while the flesh may have a good appearance, it is always, even “secretly,” at enmity with Him.

Moreover, we should not feel that the enemy’s efforts to tempt us in this way will be so overt that we will easily be able to avoid the snare. From Nehemiah’s history it may seem that the hostility of Tobiah and Sanballat towards the work in Jerusalem was quite obvious and open, but that is only because Nehemiah himself was very clear, and he made the situation very clear for us to see as well.

Eliashib and the nobles of Judah, in contrast, seem to have been completely oblivious to the real situation. After speaking several times of Tobiah’s plots against the building work, Nehemiah records (6:19) that these nobles even spoke of Tobiah’s “good deeds” before him! And, as previously noted, Eliashib the high priest went so far as to prepare a room for Tobiah in the temple (13:4-5). Clearly, they felt that Tobiah was their friend; his hatred and that of his allies towards God truly was kept a secret from them.

Now we must consider another, related question: Why were the nobles of Judah susceptible to the wiles of these enemies, whereas Nehemiah was not? We can be helped in this matter by considering briefly the very positive example of Nehemiah. What we see in him is a picture of what it means to serve the Lord with a healthy ambition, and without self-interest, very much along the lines of the Lord’s words in the New
Testament:

Whoever wants to save his soul-life shall lose it; but whoever loses his soullife

for My sake shall find it. For what shall a man be profited if he gains the

whole world, but forfeits his soul-life? Or what shall a man give in exchange

for his soul-life? For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father

with His angels, and then He will repay each man according to his doings.

—Matthew 16:25-27

Yet, the picture given to us in the person of Nehemiah may not be at all according to our concept; rather, as we read the book of Nehemiah we might feel that Nehemiah was proud or was promoting himself. To begin with, whereas almost all of the other books of history in the Old Testament are written in the third person, and do not identify the author, Nehemiah wrote his book mostly in the first person, letting us know from the beginning that this book is his own record of his faithful service to the Lord; how proud is that!

Moreover, when we first read the book of Nehemiah we may be struck by how often he speaks of himself and of his standing for the Lord’s purpose, and how often he asks the Lord to remember his good deeds (5:19; 13:14, 22, 31b), even closing his book with such a request based on his service:

Remember me, O my God, for good.
—Nehemiah 13:31b

However, all of this does not mean that Nehemiah was actually proud or self-interested. Rather, like the apostle Paul in the New Testament, Nehemiah was ambitious to please His Lord (2 Cor. 5:9). He was one who was deeply concerned for God’s interest and for His people (Neh. 1:1-11), to the point of sacrificing his own rights and privileges to carry out God’s purpose. Although Nehemiah was governor over the province of Judah at this time (and also, while in Susa, had a prominent position in the court of Artaxerxes king of Persia as his cupbearer; 1:11b), he never refers to himself as being of the nobility. Rather, he served as a slave, foregoing the benefits of his position for the sake of God’s purpose and of the Jews who had returned, preferring instead the reward of the Lord Himself (5:14-19).

He was a real servant of God! He could write as he did, objectively recording the facts of his service, just because he was not for his own interest. Rather, he was clear concerning what the Lord had committed him with and was very bold and determined to carry out that commission. As such a one, he also cared very much for the Lord’s reward and sought it, rather than any earthly benefit, above all else. It was because he had such a lack of self-interest on the one hand, and such a healthy and proper ambition on the other, that Nehemiah could be used by the Lord to the extent that he was.

In contrast, there is no indication that the nobles of Judah had such a godly attitude or such self-renunciation. Rather, at one point Nehemiah even had to rebuke the nobles and rulers for taking advantage of their fellow Israelites (5:1-13, esp. v. 7). And of course, even the fact that they were classed as the “nobles” indicates that they considered themselves to be above their brothers; there was absolutely no such God-ordained office among the Israelites.

While it is proper for the saints to appreciate and respect the ones who have served them, any thought we have that we are of the “nobility” in the church life in this way, i.e., considering ourselves to have some position above the saints in general, is already a great corruption and degradation, and will leave us very much open to the kind of temptation represented by Tobiah and Sanballat. It will terminate our actual service to the Lord, to the point that we, like the nobles of Judah, may even become a frustration to the Lord’s building work—even if we, as they did, continue to have some outward standing among the saints and in the Lord’s move. It is in fact the seed of a clergy-laity system, which is something truly hated by God (cf. Rev. 2:6; 15; the Greek word “Nicolaitan” means literally, “to conquer the laity.”)

In God’s thought, the genuine nobility among His people is not an office, but a description of those who dig the wells so that His people may drink the living water:

From there they continued to Beer, that is the well where Jehovah

said to Moses, “Assemble the people, that I may give them water.”

Then Israel sang this song:

“Spring up, O well! Sing to it!”

“The well, which the leaders sank,

Which the nobles of the people dug,

With the scepter and with their staffs.”

—Numbers 21:16-18

—

It is also true that if we live in God’s presence, this will surely confer on us a kind of nobility in our person. This is seen in the case of the elders who went up the mountain with Moses; when they saw God and ate and drank with Him, they are referred to not as elders but, in a very positive way, as “the nobles of the children of Israel” (Exo. 24:9-11).

The book of Nehemiah shows us three very distinct cases in relation to God and His purpose. First, in Tobiah, Sanballat, and the others with them we see ones who were truly evil, who directly opposed what God was doing. Next, in Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah we see those who were not evil in themselves, but who nonetheless became a frustration to God’s work because of the evil things within them, namely, their ambition and self-interest, that were not fully dealt with. Finally, we see Nehemiah, who was used by the Lord in a very substantial way because he set aside his own interest and gave himself fully for what was on God’s heart.

We are not in any position to condemn others, but we need to be warned by the negative example of Eliashib and the nobles of Judah, and encouraged to follow the positive example of Nehemiah. May these lessons be deeply impressed upon us, causing us to cast ourselves more fully on the Lord as we seek to serve Him and carry out of His purpose.

1 Cyrus Potts, Dictionary of Bible Proper Names, reprinted by Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, Illinois.
2 J.B. Jackson, A Dictionary of Scripture Proper Names, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, New Jersey, 1909,
3rd edition 1957.
3 Ibid.

05-09-2009, 01:59 PM	#1
Admin He came not to be Served but Serve Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 39	Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah - David Canfield Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah David Canfield • Chicago, Illinois 7th May 2009 During the recent turmoil many of us were thoroughly disappointed that so many elders and leading ones among us went along with the Blended Brothers’ efforts to subvert the churches’ testimony to Christ. However, the Old Testament book of Nehemiah provides a clear picture that may give us a better understanding of this failure. It is found in the history of a man named Eliashib. As we consider the very negative, even tragic, example of this man, may we keep in mind that it is always and only God’s mercy than enables any of us to be faithful to the Lord. Eliashib was high priest in Jerusalem during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1, 13:28), when the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt. In addition, he was “appointed over the chambers of the house of our God” (Neh. 13:4). Clearly he was a man of considerable standing among the people of God at that time. Moreover, it is clear that he was for God and God’s desire not only in terms of his position, but personally as well, since the Bible records that when Nehemiah spoke to the Jews to encourage them to rebuild the wall, the very first one to respond and actually rise up for the rebuilding work was this Eliashib: Then [Nehemiah] said to them, “You see the bad situation we are in, that Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach.”... (Neh. 2:17). Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brothers the priests and built the Sheep Gate; they consecrated it and hung its doors. They consecrated the wall to the Tower of the Hundred and the Tower of Hananel (Neh. 3:1). And yet, the book of Nehemiah goes on to record that Eliashib’s ending was not positive, but rather, quite negative and sad. In fact, it was Eliashib himself who, after the Lord’s servant left Jerusalem, gave place to the enemies of God in the very temple of God: Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the chambers of the house of our God, being related to Tobiah, had prepared a large room for him, where formerly they put the grain offerings, the frankincense, the utensils, and the tithes of grain, wine, and oil prescribed for the Levites, the singers, and the gatekeepers, and the contributions for the priests (13:4-5). This is almost unbelievable, and yet it is recorded in the Bible. The high priest—even the very same one who first rose up to begin rebuilding the wall—was the very one to make a place for God’s enemy in the temple! The one who had been “appointed over the chambers of the house of our God” removed “the grain offerings, the frankincense, the utensils and the tithes of grain, wine, and oil” to make room for the enemy of God and of His people! Eliashib does not appear to have been an evil man himself, but rather, a good man—one who was for God’s testimony and had a good beginning in his service to the Lord. Nevertheless, in the end what he did was remarkably evil and a great shame to God’s testimony. How could such a one have behaved in this way? The answer is, because he was “related” (13:4) to an enemy of God’s people. It is quite striking that Eliashib’s name is not recorded among those who participated in the dedication of the wall in Nehemiah 12:27-43, which was a joyful time for celebrating the Jew’s victory, even though he was the high priest and the first to start the building work on the wall. Rather, the last mention of Eliashib is at the end of the book of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah was dealing with a number of negative situations among the Jews in Jerusalem: Even one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was a son-inlaw of Sanballat the Horonite, so I drove him away from me (13:28). Although the one whom Nehemiah drove away appears to have been the grandson of Eliashib, it may indicate that he drove Eliashib away as well. In any event, it is clear how far the high priest had fallen from his first standing by mingling himself and his family with the enemies of God’s people. Actually, the book of Nehemiah shows that it was not only Eliashib who was related to God’s enemies; to the contrary, many of the leading ones among the Jews at that time were also connected to Tobiah, even at the time Nehemiah was having to deal with the plots of these enemies against the rebuilding work. Nehemiah wrote: In those days many letters went from the nobles of Judah to Tobiah, and Tobiah’s letters came to them. For many in Judah were bound by oath to him because he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah, and his son Jehohanan had married the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Moreover, they were speaking about his good deeds in my presence and reported my words to him. Then Tobiah sent letters to frighten me (6:17-19). These were not base men, but “the nobles of Judah.” Nor were they the ones who had chosen to remain in Babylon to enjoy the pleasures of life there. Rather, they and their forbears, in faithfulness to God, had paid the price to return to Jerusalem as God desired. Nonetheless, even while in Jerusalem they were still connected to the enemies of God, and this became a great frustration to the building work. No doubt it is the Lord in His sovereignty who has provided us with this record for our instruction today. We have often referred to ourselves as “the Lord’s recovery,” in part as a reference to the history of the Jew’s return from captivity to build up God’s house and God’s city. We felt that the positive aspect of this picture applied so much to us; now, however, we can see at least one negative aspect that applies to us as well. In the churches we always sought to stand as the testimony of Christ, with the Lord as our unique center, to be His temple so that He could have His dwelling among us; the Lord blessed us very much for taking such a stand. Eventually, however, the Blended Brothers rose up to turn the churches away from Christ to being, instead, a testimony of their ministry. Beginning with the release of their “Publication Work” statement in the summer of 2005 they made oneness with themselves, rather than oneness with Christ, the practical test of fellowship among us. The elders and leading ones in the churches should have recognized that evil work to tear down the genuine church life for what it was and stood against it; only such a stand could have avoided the needless divisions that have ensued. Yet instead of taking such a stand, so many of them have “prepared rooms” for the Blended Brothers in God’s building, the church—how the Blended Brothers’ ministry is exalted among the saints today! And so long as such a situation exists, “the grain offerings, the frankincense, the utensils, and the tithes of grain, wine, and oil”—signifying such items as the humanity of Christ, the fragrance of His resurrection life, and the enjoyment of Christ—cannot have their rightful place in the church life (13:5). As in the case of Eliashib, all of this does not indicate that the ones who stood with the Blended Brothers were themselves evil, or that they did not still have a desire to carry out God’s purpose; we know that many of these were dear brothers with a real heart for the church. The failure was, instead, that they did not maintain a clear separation from those who, in this matter, were performing quite an evil work. In contrast to Eliashib, both Nehemiah and Ezra maintained a very definite standing apart from the enemies of the Jews. Scofield has a very good statement concerning them: The lives of Ezra and Nehemiah afford many illustrations of true separation (Ezra 4:2, footnote 1). In particular, Nehemiah was firm and courageous and was not dissuaded by the enemies of God from fulfilling the work for which he had been commissioned by God. When he returned to Jerusalem he dealt very forcibly and absolutely with the situation regarding Tobiah. He writes: I came to Jerusalem and learned about the evil that Eliashib had done for Tobiah, by preparing a room for him in the courts of the house of God. It was very displeasing to me,so I threw all of Tobiah’s household goods out of the room. Then I gave an order and they cleansed the rooms; and I returned there the utensils of the house of God with the grain offerings and the frankincense (13:7-9). There is much for us to learn from Nehemiah’s example! May the Lord in His mercy grant us to follow such a positive example for the carrying out of His building work. And may we be clearly and definitely separated in this work from all who would oppose God’s building, rather than ally ourselves to them as did Eliashib and the nobles of Judah.

05-13-2009, 08:51 AM	#2
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah - David Canfield I am a little - strike that - I am more then a little confused about what David Canfield is trying accomplish with this paper. (maybe he's not trying to accomplish anything, but simply making his views known?) This paper is filled with copious amounts of Local Church talk. And even though I am fully fluent in this language, I can't seem to decipher exactly what David is getting at. The "recovery" theme of Nehemiah is one quite familiar to us all, but his particular application here "does not compute" I'm afraid. Canfield uses the term "among us"...suggesting that he considers himself still in The Local Church. My understanding is that he is one of the ones quarantined or just left on his own accord. So who is the "us" he is speaking to? "subvert the churches’ testimony to Christ"... I'm not altogether sure what he means here. What have the Blended brothers actually said or done that is subverting the testimony of the Local Churches? Like them or not, they are doing exactly what Witness Lee did to protect the religious institution and culture he initiated and fostered for about 50 years. Furthermore, they are doing this in the exact same manner as Witness Lee - bowling over and attempting to defame and destroy every thing and every one that has even the smallest of disagreements or difference of opinion. These guys are acting as clones of Witness Lee and this is what Lee taught us to be. Think the same thing. Do the same thing. Act the same way. "gave place to the enemies of God" "The answer is, because he was “related” (13:4) to an enemy of God’s people"...How is the current leadership of The Local Church giving place to or acting as enemies of God? There is no doubt that they have made enemies out of many brothers and sisters (such as Canfield himself) but there is a disconnect here - how does that make them enemies of God or of his people? Again, Lee and his followers have been quarantining and speaking against former members and other Christians for decades, why all of the sudden do they deserve this label of giving place to the enemies of God or being related to an enemy of God's people? In the churches we always sought to stand as the testimony of Christ, with the Lord as our unique center, to be His temple so that He could have His dwelling among us; the Lord blessed us very much for taking such a stand.... I strongly disagree with this general characterization. We always sought to stand for, spread and defend at any cost the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee, and this is exactly why the Local Church movement is in the condition it is in today. I don't know about each and every individual, but the facts of history show that the Lord was never the unique center of the LC movement. This is clear. Eventually, however, the Blended Brothers rose up to turn the churches away from Christ to being, instead, a testimony of their ministry....Again, the objective facts don't back this claim up, or I should say that they don't back them up in the manner that Canfield is implying. The facts are that the Blended brothers have kept them dead on the course that Witness Lee set for the movement in the years before his passing. They have not wavered from the teachings and practices established by Lee to any significant degree. As recently as a few weeks ago there were "trainings" conducted in many localities instructing everyone how to carry out "The God Ordained Way" by becoming "vital people" (whatever the heck that means), joining up with other "vital groups" and by preaching the gospel in the (you guessed it) "God Ordained Way" by using nothing but "The Ministry". The elders and leading ones in the churches should have recognized that evil work to tear down the genuine church life for what it was and stood against it; "Stood against it"? Huh? I suppose this MAY have been somewhat possible if the elders and leading ones would have had a little practice of standing against all the evil work of Witness Lee and his sons way back in the day...but then again we know what happen to those who stood against evil work back then, now don't we. Really we can't blame anybody for not wanting to end up in the Local Church "rebellion" dumpster, especially after you have decades invested. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-13-2009, 11:00 AM	#3
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah - David Canfield First, I have a question. Who is David Canfield? My fuzzy memory brings to mind someone in Chicago who was for a while of uncertain allegiance during the Titus Chu debacle, but who eventually sided with the LSM. If that is wrong, Please let me know. But besides that, I have no knowledge of him and his history with the LC. Assuming I am right about his recent history in relation to the TC quarantine, I note that this little article now puts him squarely in the sights of the LSM to be the next one purged. But if he is already quarantined, as UntoHim has indicated I still see a pattern that is not so difficult to understand. UntoHim first noted that David’s paper is full of LC lingo and yet stands in opposition to the BBs and the LSM. While it may seem confusing to some, what I see at work here is our miss-categorization of the people who have current or past relationship with the LC in any way. In simplistic terms, all people who have been more than passing members of the LC are members of two of four groups. These groups are in pairs. The first is those who currently hold to overall LC teachings and practices v those who do not. The second pairing is those who are currently in the LC v those who are not. (When I say that my pairings are simplistic, I am ignoring whether adherents to the overall LC teachings and practices do or do not believe in the supremacy of “the apostle of the age” or even that Lee was infallible. While in a broader view this and other issues would need to be factored in, we are ignoring those for now.) While someone may find exceptions, those who do not believe in the LC teachings and practices are also not currently members of the LC. And those who are in the LC do believe in the LC teachings and practices. This accounts for 2 of three possible groupings. The third grouping is those who believe in the teachings and practices of the LC but are not currently members of the LC. It is in this latter group that the reality of the issues that I ignored in creating these two overlapping views of all who are or have been associated with the LC arises. For those who believe in the basic teachings of the LC, there are other teachings and practices that they find to be divergent either from Lee (if they consider him without fault) or from the scripture if they care only for truth and not for other sources. I see this group at work when they are willing to stand in opposition to an edict from the LSM to quarantine someone for grounds they do not accept as from scripture. I see it when some take on the LSM and the DCP, as the Concerned Brothers have done. While there may be some attempts to actually reform the LC to be something less exclusive and even truly mainstream within Christianity, it mostly appears to be a desire to return to a better time when elders cared for congregations and any ministry was for the church rather than the church for any ministry. I also see hints of it in some of us who have become well-attached in some Christian group when we long for no name, universal fellowship, popcorn testimonies, less formal worship environment, etc., or when we revert to LC dogma by calling denominations “Babylon.” To me, the real issue is how it all came to be. Did this turn of events that has the LC divided into two primary camps happen strictly as the result of something the BBs did now that Lee is dead? Or is it that the problem was just less pronounced for some longer period of time and people simply tolerated it? David seems to think that any divergence from the right path is recent. Others think it may be further back. But either way, the desire is to return to a “more pure” form of practice. I could go on about my distrust of even the early days. I also could debate what teachings and practices from the LC should get more "play" in Christianity. But we can reserve those discussions for other threads. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-14-2009, 07:11 AM	#5
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah - David Canfield Ohio, Thanks for the information. While me goal was not to categorize, from your comments and the general positions in both the various documents published on the Concerned Brothers site and the short article posted here, he fits in nicely, even if not entirely square on, with Nigel, John Myer and many of the others in the GLA, along with some elsewhere that we know. While I still may have issues with some of the principal teachings of the LC, I see these men as leading toward a different kind of LC, primarily one that ceases from its exclusiveness and is more connected with its brethren in Christianity that have been so maligned under the prior and even current dogmas. In any case, my real point was to understand rather than be confused by the use of so much LC lingo while taking on the LSM/BB establishment. It is fully understandable and probably to be expected. It may not always be that way, but for now that's what it is. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-25-2009, 07:54 PM	#6
Admin He came not to be Served but Serve Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 39	Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah - Part 2 Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah Part Two David Canfield • Chicago, Illinois 21st May 2009 In Part One we considered the situation among the children of Israel at the time of Nehemiah, when the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt, and saw that some of the leaders of Israel actually became a source of frustration to God’s building work. They did this by allying themselves with the enemies of God. Now we want to go on to consider the question of how these ones could have been brought into such an alliance, so that we may learn the lessons from this very negative case and be warned ourselves. Concerning Tobiah and the other enemies of God, Nehemiah tells us: When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about [my coming to Jerusalem], it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel. —Nehemiah 2:10 — And as the work on the wall was progressing he writes: All of them conspired together to come and fight against Jerusalem and cause confusion in it. —Nehemiah 4:8. In fact, all during the time the wall was being rebuilt we see these two conflicting themes: the building work under Nehemiah and the work of frustration carried out by these enemies of God and of God’s people (2:19; 4:1-12, 6:1-19). The Concise Bible Dictionary, in its entry on Sanballat, has a very telling comment about this: His case is an illustration of the way in which, whenever God has a work in progress, Satan finds an agent to oppose it (p. 690). Nehemiah himself was very clear regarding these enemies, telling them after they had mocked the work he was doing: You have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem. —Nehemiah 2:20b This was the very work on the earth that God desired to carry out at that time, and they gave themselves to oppose and mock it; they had nothing to do with Jerusalem. How terrible, how serious, was their situation! We must ask, then, how could so many of the leading ones among the Jews have allowed themselves to become related to ones such as these, who had “no portion, nor right, nor memorial” in the city of God’s dwelling place? We may gain some insight, initially, from the names of the two leading opponents, Tobiah and Sanballat. Although they were closely allied with each other, the meanings of their names contrast quite strongly. “Tobiah” means “Jehovah is Good”1 or “Goodness of Jehovah.”2 We may think it quite strange that one who was such an enemy of God would have such a name. However, this actually illustrates an important principle in knowing the enemy’s work: the outward appearance of that work is often very different from its inward reality. In this case, that inward reality is conveyed in the meaning of the second name, that is, “Sanballat,” which means “Hatred in Secret.”3 In the case of both Eliashib and of the nobles, it states that their direct relationship was almost entirely with Tobiah (13:4-5, 6:18), who was an official in the land (2:10, NASB), rather than with Sanballat; Nehemiah even speaks of the nobles as being “sworn to [Tobiah’s] cause” (6:18). Evidently, the nobles of Judah were deceived by a good appearance on the part of Tobiah. They may have believed that whatever benefits he conferred on them for their allegiance to him were the “goodness of Jehovah” to them — without realizing that in giving their allegiance to him they had also become connected with one who was filled with “hatred in secret” against God and His purpose. Such are the subtle ways of the enemy. There is a real lesson for us today in this. Even in the church life the enemy, Satan, may tempt us in a very similar way, using our ambition to subtly turn us away from the Lord. Some ones may come to us, saying that if we become loyal to them we can gain some kind of benefit for ourselves; perhaps we will share the platform, or take some leadership role in the work, or be appreciated among the saints. This reward may have a good appearance, and it may even seem that we are being used by the Lord. Thus, we feel it is the “goodness of Jehovah” to us. Actually, however, all such alliances are an abomination to the Lord; they are fully of the flesh and are condemned by Him. God knows far more clearly than we do that while the flesh may have a good appearance, it is always, even “secretly,” at enmity with Him. Moreover, we should not feel that the enemy’s efforts to tempt us in this way will be so overt that we will easily be able to avoid the snare. From Nehemiah’s history it may seem that the hostility of Tobiah and Sanballat towards the work in Jerusalem was quite obvious and open, but that is only because Nehemiah himself was very clear, and he made the situation very clear for us to see as well. Eliashib and the nobles of Judah, in contrast, seem to have been completely oblivious to the real situation. After speaking several times of Tobiah’s plots against the building work, Nehemiah records (6:19) that these nobles even spoke of Tobiah’s “good deeds” before him! And, as previously noted, Eliashib the high priest went so far as to prepare a room for Tobiah in the temple (13:4-5). Clearly, they felt that Tobiah was their friend; his hatred and that of his allies towards God truly was kept a secret from them. Now we must consider another, related question: Why were the nobles of Judah susceptible to the wiles of these enemies, whereas Nehemiah was not? We can be helped in this matter by considering briefly the very positive example of Nehemiah. What we see in him is a picture of what it means to serve the Lord with a healthy ambition, and without self-interest, very much along the lines of the Lord’s words in the New Testament: Whoever wants to save his soul-life shall lose it; but whoever loses his soullife for My sake shall find it. For what shall a man be profited if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul-life? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul-life? For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will repay each man according to his doings. —Matthew 16:25-27 Yet, the picture given to us in the person of Nehemiah may not be at all according to our concept; rather, as we read the book of Nehemiah we might feel that Nehemiah was proud or was promoting himself. To begin with, whereas almost all of the other books of history in the Old Testament are written in the third person, and do not identify the author, Nehemiah wrote his book mostly in the first person, letting us know from the beginning that this book is his own record of his faithful service to the Lord; how proud is that! Moreover, when we first read the book of Nehemiah we may be struck by how often he speaks of himself and of his standing for the Lord’s purpose, and how often he asks the Lord to remember his good deeds (5:19; 13:14, 22, 31b), even closing his book with such a request based on his service: Remember me, O my God, for good. —Nehemiah 13:31b However, all of this does not mean that Nehemiah was actually proud or self-interested. Rather, like the apostle Paul in the New Testament, Nehemiah was ambitious to please His Lord (2 Cor. 5:9). He was one who was deeply concerned for God’s interest and for His people (Neh. 1:1-11), to the point of sacrificing his own rights and privileges to carry out God’s purpose. Although Nehemiah was governor over the province of Judah at this time (and also, while in Susa, had a prominent position in the court of Artaxerxes king of Persia as his cupbearer; 1:11b), he never refers to himself as being of the nobility. Rather, he served as a slave, foregoing the benefits of his position for the sake of God’s purpose and of the Jews who had returned, preferring instead the reward of the Lord Himself (5:14-19). He was a real servant of God! He could write as he did, objectively recording the facts of his service, just because he was not for his own interest. Rather, he was clear concerning what the Lord had committed him with and was very bold and determined to carry out that commission. As such a one, he also cared very much for the Lord’s reward and sought it, rather than any earthly benefit, above all else. It was because he had such a lack of self-interest on the one hand, and such a healthy and proper ambition on the other, that Nehemiah could be used by the Lord to the extent that he was. In contrast, there is no indication that the nobles of Judah had such a godly attitude or such self-renunciation. Rather, at one point Nehemiah even had to rebuke the nobles and rulers for taking advantage of their fellow Israelites (5:1-13, esp. v. 7). And of course, even the fact that they were classed as the “nobles” indicates that they considered themselves to be above their brothers; there was absolutely no such God-ordained office among the Israelites. While it is proper for the saints to appreciate and respect the ones who have served them, any thought we have that we are of the “nobility” in the church life in this way, i.e., considering ourselves to have some position above the saints in general, is already a great corruption and degradation, and will leave us very much open to the kind of temptation represented by Tobiah and Sanballat. It will terminate our actual service to the Lord, to the point that we, like the nobles of Judah, may even become a frustration to the Lord’s building work—even if we, as they did, continue to have some outward standing among the saints and in the Lord’s move. It is in fact the seed of a clergy-laity system, which is something truly hated by God (cf. Rev. 2:6; 15; the Greek word “Nicolaitan” means literally, “to conquer the laity.”) In God’s thought, the genuine nobility among His people is not an office, but a description of those who dig the wells so that His people may drink the living water: From there they continued to Beer, that is the well where Jehovah said to Moses, “Assemble the people, that I may give them water.” Then Israel sang this song: “Spring up, O well! Sing to it!” “The well, which the leaders sank, Which the nobles of the people dug, With the scepter and with their staffs.” —Numbers 21:16-18 — It is also true that if we live in God’s presence, this will surely confer on us a kind of nobility in our person. This is seen in the case of the elders who went up the mountain with Moses; when they saw God and ate and drank with Him, they are referred to not as elders but, in a very positive way, as “the nobles of the children of Israel” (Exo. 24:9-11). The book of Nehemiah shows us three very distinct cases in relation to God and His purpose. First, in Tobiah, Sanballat, and the others with them we see ones who were truly evil, who directly opposed what God was doing. Next, in Eliashib and the Nobles of Judah we see those who were not evil in themselves, but who nonetheless became a frustration to God’s work because of the evil things within them, namely, their ambition and self-interest, that were not fully dealt with. Finally, we see Nehemiah, who was used by the Lord in a very substantial way because he set aside his own interest and gave himself fully for what was on God’s heart. We are not in any position to condemn others, but we need to be warned by the negative example of Eliashib and the nobles of Judah, and encouraged to follow the positive example of Nehemiah. May these lessons be deeply impressed upon us, causing us to cast ourselves more fully on the Lord as we seek to serve Him and carry out of His purpose. 1 Cyrus Potts, Dictionary of Bible Proper Names, reprinted by Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, Illinois. 2 J.B. Jackson, A Dictionary of Scripture Proper Names, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, New Jersey, 1909, 3rd edition 1957. 3 Ibid.