What
does the Bible say about Discipline? By
Jack
Kettler
In this study, we
will seek to understand church discipline.
What does the Bible say about
discipline? How does the process of
discipline happen in the church? Some
churches use the formula “It’s my way or the
highway.” Is this process biblical
in light of Matthew 18:15-17? Why is church
discipline needed? These questions
will be examined in this study.
As in previous studies,
we will look at definitions, scriptures,
commentary evidence and confessional
support for the glorifying of God in how we
live.
“Shew me thy ways, O
LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
Definition:
Church discipline
Corrective measures
taken church leaders or a congregation
regarding a matter of sin in the life of
a member, with the goal of the loving
restoration of the fallen member, if
possible, and the strengthening of the
church for the glory of Christ. *
Definition:
Question: “What does
the Bible say about church discipline?”
Answer: Church
discipline is the process of correcting
sinful behavior among members of a
local church body for the purpose of
protecting the church, restoring the
sinner to a right walk with God, and
renewing fellowship among the church
members. In some cases, church discipline
can proceed all the way to
excommunication, which is the formal removal
of an individual from church
membership and the informal separation from
that individual. **
Why Church Discipline?
There are numerous warnings
to stay faithful in Scripture and avoid
false teachers, unrepentant sinners,
especially those who are called brothers.
Warning passages for the
church to
beware of doctrinal and lifestyle sins:
“For they that are
such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but
their own belly; and by good words
and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the
simple.” (Romans 16:18)
“And you are
arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let
him who has done this be removed
from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:2)
“I wrote unto you in
an epistle not to company with fornicators.”
(1 Corinthians 5:9)
“But them that are
without God judgeth. Therefore put away from
among yourselves that wicked
person” (1 Corinthians 5:13)
“And this I say, lest
any man should beguile you with enticing
words.” (Colossians 2:4)
“Now we command you,
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ that ye withdraw yourselves from
every brother that walketh disorderly, and
not after the tradition which he
received of us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
“Having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof:
from such turn away.” (2 Timothy 3:5)
“But there were false
prophets also among the people, even as
there shall be false teachers among
you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them, and bring upon themselves swift
destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1)
Comments:
The above passages
speak of false believers, false prophets,
and immoral brothers. When
encountering falsehood like this, the
apostle tells us to “turn away,”
“withdraw yourselves,” and to “put away.”
For example, in the Corinthian
Church, you had the case of the sexually
immoral brother whom Paul said, “Therefore
put away from among yourselves that wicked
person” (1 Corinthians 5:13). How do
you do this? Is there a biblical process to
follow to keep order in the church?
There is a biblical
process. The following Scriptures and
commentary provide a way for discipline
to happen. In addition, why discipline
should happen.First, we should consider the
teaching of our
Lord:
From Scripture:
“Moreover if thy
brother shall trespass against thee, go and
tell him his fault between thee and
him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother. But if he will
not hear thee, then take with thee one or
two more, that in the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word may be
established. And if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the church: but if he
neglects to hear the church, let him
be unto thee as a heathen man and a
publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17)
Matthew Poole's
Commentary on Matthew 18:15-17 describes
the process of discipline:
“Ver. 15-17. Our
Saviour very appositely addeth this to his
former discourse concerning avoiding
offences, that none might think that by the
former doctrine he had made void
the law, Leviticus 19:17, which commanded
all in any wise to rebuke their
neighbour, and not to suffer sin upon him,
pretending that it was their duty in
some cases to offend any person by that law.
He here telleth them that he would
not be so understood, as if they might not
tell offenders of their sins for
fear of offending them, this had been to
have withheld charity from their souls
under a presence of charity. Only in these
reproofs we must keep an order,
which order he here prescribes.
1. Doing it
privately, between them and him alone.
2. If that had not
its effect, then taking two or three with
them.
3. If that also
proved ineffectual, then telling it to the
church.
4. If that he would
not hear the church, then, let him be unto
thee (saith Christ) as a heathen and
a publican.
If thy brother shall
trespass against thee. By brother here he
meaneth any Christian; for what hath
the church to do to judge those that are
without? 1 Corinthians 5:12.
Trespass against
thee. Some interpret this of offences done
so privately, that none else knoweth
them but one single person; but it is
objected, that then there needed no going
to him, much less were there need of any
witnesses, for they could prove
nothing. Others therefore understand the
precept of private injuries, which are
in man’s power to forgive, Luke 17:3. Others
think such injuries are primarily
intended, but yet the precept is not to be
restrained to them, but to be
understood of all offences, whether against
God, ourselves, or our neighbours;
and that our Saviour useth this term against
thee only to distinguish the
offences he is here speaking of from public
scandals; for, 1 Timothy 5:20, it
appeareth to be the will of God, that public
and open sinners should be rebuked
before all, that others may fear. The rule
therefore seemeth to be given
concerning private miscarriages; not such
only as are done in the sight or
hearing of a single person, but such as are
not the matter of public fame, nor
openly committed before a multitude, but
being committed more secretly, are
come only to the knowledge of some
particular person or persons. In such cases
it is the will of God, not that we should
blazon and publish them, but, being
certain that any Christian hath so offended,
it is our duty first to go to him,
and tell him of it; that is, not only tell
him what thou knowest, or hast heard
in matter of fact, that he hath spoken or
done, but show him also the
sinfulness of it.
If he shall hear
thee, thou hast gained thy brother; that is,
if he confesseth the sin, and be
brought to a sight of it, a sorrow for it,
and a resolution against it for the
time to come, thou hast gained the soul of
thy brother.
But if he will not
hear thee, if he either denieth the matter
of fact, that he did such a thing,
or (admitting that) standeth to justify the
fact, as what he might do, then
take with thee one or two more, that in the
mouth of two or three witnesses
every word may be established: one or two
more, either such as may be of more
authority with him, whose words may probably
be of more weight than thine with
him, or who may witness the matter of fact
if it be denied, or at least witness
by charitable admonition of him, and his
contumacy, if he refuseth to hearken
to thee, and to repent and reform. What was
the law of God in civil and
judicial causes, Deuteronomy 19:15?
God would have
observed in ecclesiastical causes: One
witness shall not rise up against a man
for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin
that he sinneth: at the mouth of
two witnesses, or at the mouth of three
witnesses, shall the matter be
established. And so the words in Matthew
should be translated, or at least
understood; every word, that is, every
matter, be confirmed.
And if he shall
neglect to hear them; either refuse to speak
with them, or to suffer them to
speak with him; or, hearing them with his
ears, if he persists to deny the
fact, or to justify the fact, as if it were
no sin, or go on still in the same
course; (all these things are to be
understood by the term of not hearing); if
he shall not hear them, tell it to the
church. That the term church is a noun
of multitude is evident, and therefore
cannot be understood of any particular
person. Some would by the church here
understand the political magistrate; but
as this sense is embraced by very few, so it
is very improbable that our
Saviour should send Christians in that age
to the civil magistrates, when they
were all great haters and persecutors of the
Christian religion, especially in
cases that were not punishable by the
judges; for no deliberate person will
say, that the offences mentioned in this
text were all of that nature as a
civil judicature might take notice of them.
Others say, that by the church is
here meant the Jewish court called the
Sanhedrim, which had a mixed cognizance,
both of civil and ecclesiastical causes.
There are three prejudices against
this:
1. That the Jewish
court was never in Scripture called’ Ekklhsia.
2. That it is not
probable that our Saviour would direct
Christians to go to the Jewish courts in
such cases.
3. That the Sanhedrim
was too great a court to be troubled with
all scandals, though they did take
cognizance of some things in religion, which
were of a grand concern; such as
blasphemy, idolatry, false prophets, &c.
Others therefore
understand it of the Christian church.
Against this opinion there is this great
prejudice, that there was no such thing in
being at that time; but I take this
to be a lighter objection than those against
the two other opinions:
a) Because we need
not understand our Saviour speaking with
relation to the present time, but the
time to come, and giving laws which should
take place and abide from the gathering
of the Christian church to the end of the
world.
b) Nor is it
necessary that we should take the term
church here in the strict sense, in
which it is most generally used in the
Scriptures of the New Testament for the
general notion of the word is only a company
of people called together; and in
this sense, Tell the church, is no more
than, Tell the multitude, make his
crime more public: now what that multitude
was which our Saviour meant, would
easily be understood when the churches came
to be formed.
But the next verse
will make it more plain; Matthew 18:18,
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, &c. By the church then must
be meant those who had power to bind and
loose. Now though at this time there
was no particular church formed, yet there
were some who had a power to bind
and loose. Christ had given such a power to
his apostles. These were the
present church, and at this time in being.
They were afterwards to constitute
particular churches, to whom, (when
constituted), in force of this precept,
such offences were to be told. There are yet
further disputes, whether this
offence and contumacy be to be told only to
the rulers, or to the multitude. I
say, to the whole church, but first to the
rulers, then by them to the
multitude, not to judge of it, but for their
consent in casting a person out of
the communion of the church. Thus the
incestuous person was first accused to
Paul, then cast out by the consent of the
whole church, 1 Corinthians 5:3-5.
For it is unreasonable to think that people
should deny communion to any
without knowing a justifiable cause; and to
no purpose for rulers in a church
to cast one out of its communion with whom
the members will have communion.
If he neglect to hear
the church, let him be unto thee as an
heathen man and a publican; that is,
esteem him as a vile person, for so they
esteemed all heathens and publicans.
How far this could reach beyond having an
intimacy of civil communion with
them, and a communion with them in the
sacrament, I cannot understand; for as
Christians were licensed to a civil commerce
with heathens and publicans, so
neither were heathens and publicans ever,
that we read of in holy writ, denied
the benefit of their prayers, and hearing
the apostles preach. I am very well
satisfied, that the primitive church did not
deny to persons excommunicated
liberty to be present at the prayers of the
church, but it was long after the
apostles’ times, and whether grounded upon
any practice of theirs I much doubt.
Christians had a liberty to pray for any who
had not sinned the sin unto death:
that they might not be present at such
prayers I cannot learn from any thing in
holy writ.” (1)
Comments:
The strategy “It’s
our way or the highway” is the easy way out.
It short-circuits the process just
seen in the Matthew passage. In the next
passage, Paul the Church in
Thessalonica has no company with those who
reject the apostolic word.
“And if any man obey
not our word by this epistle, note that man,
and have no company with him, that
he may be ashamed.” (2 Thessalonians 3:14)
Barnes' Notes on the
Bible on 2 Thessalonians
3:14 explains this passage:
“And if any man obey
not our word by this epistle - Margin, "or
signify that man by an
epistle." According to the marginal reading,
this would mean, “signify,
mark out, or designate that man to me by an
epistle.” The difference is merely
whether we unite the words “by the epistle”
with what goes before, or what
follows. The Greek would admit of either
construction (Winer, p. 93), but it
seems to me that the construction in the
text is the correct one, because:
(1) The requirement
was to proceed to discipline such a man by
withdrawing from him,
(2) In order to do
this it was not necessary that the case
should be made known to Paul, for there
was no supposable difficulty in it, and the
effect would be only needless
delay;
(3) Paul regarded the
right of discipline as residing in the
church itself, and did not require that
cases should be referred to him to
determine; see the notes on 1 Corinthians
5:2-4.
(4) Though the Greek
will admit of either construction, yet it
rather favors this; see Oldhhausen,
in loc. Note that man. The word here used,
means to mark; to sign; to note with
marks; and the idea is, set such a mark upon
him that he shall be shunned; that
is, withdraw all Christian fellowship from
him.
And have no company
with him - The Greek word here means, to mix
up together; then to mingle
together with; to have contact with. The
idea is that they were not to mingle
with him as a Christian brother, or as one
of their own number. They were not
to show that they regarded him as a worthy
member of the church, or as having a
claim to its privileges. The extent of their
discipline was, that they were to
withdraw from him; see the 2 Thessalonians
3:6 note, and Matthew 18:17 note;
compare 2 John 1:10-11.” (2)
The next passage from
Timothy does not contradict Matthew it
highlights one part of the process of
discipline.
“Them that sin rebuke
before all, that others also may fear.” (1
Timothy 5:20)
Gill's Exposition of
the Entire Bible on 1 Timothy 5:20
illuminates this passage:
“Them that sin rebuke
before all,.... This the apostle adds to the
above rule, to show that he was
far from screening wicked ministers, or
elders, guilty of flagitious crimes,
and gross enormities: for these words,
though they may be applied unto, and may
hold good of all offenders, that are members
of churches; yet they seem chiefly
to regard elders, even such who sin, who
continue to sin, who live in sin, in
some notorious sin or another; which is
evident and known, to the great scandal
of religion, and dishonour of the Gospel:
and so some read the words,
"them that sin before all, rebuke"; not only
admonish once and again,
but degrade them from their office, and
withdraw from them, as from other
disorderly persons, and cut them off, and
cast them out of the church, and that
in a public manner; and so the Arabic
version renders it, “before the
congregation”: which was done only in case
of notorious offences: and which
rule is observed by the Jews, and runs thus
(h);
“a wise man, an elder
in wisdom, and so a prince, or the father of
the sanhedrim, that sins, they do
not excommunicate him (with Niddui) always
“publicly”, unless he does as
Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his
companions; but when he sins other sins,
they
chastise him privately.”'
The end is, that others
also may fear; that other elders, or other
members of the church, or both, may
fear to do the same evil things, lest they
incur the same censure and
punishment: the Syriac version reads, “other
men”; and the Arabic version, “the
rest of the people”. The phrase seems to be
taken out of Deuteronomy 13:11.” (3)
Now for an excellent
dictionary article
on the subject of discipline. It is an
ample overview of discipline:
Discipline
The Old Testament
Concept of Discipline. The notion of the
discipline of God, and eventually the
concept of the community and its leaders
effecting God's discipline, derives
from the notion of domestic discipline
(Deut. 21:18-21; 22:15; 23:13). God is
portrayed as a father who guides his child
(i.e., the nation, more rarely an
individual) to do right by the experience of
physical suffering (Deut. 8:5;
Prov. 3:11-12). Key ideas include
“chasten/chastise” (Lev. 26:18; Psalm 94:12;
Hosea 7:12), “discipline” (Lev. 26:23; Deut.
4:36; Prov. 12:1), and “reproof”
(Job 5:17; Prov. 6:23). While God generally
administers discipline to the
nation, the community through its leaders is
charged with the responsibility to
administer the legal code for individuals.
This code deals almost exclusively
with severe offenses that require the
“cutting off” (normally, education) of
the offender and gives few details
concerning lesser offenses and remedial
disciplinary measures. Furthermore, because
Israel does not yet perceive itself
in the modern (or even New Testament) sense
as a religious community within a
larger society, it is difficult to detect
religious discipline as distinct from
the Old Testament legal code. The seeds of
accountability among the faithful
may be seen in several strands of the
tradition: removal from the assembly for
ritual impurity (Exod. 12:14-20; Lev
17:3-9); standards for the evaluation of
prophets (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:15-22); and
admonitions to reprove other adults
(Prov. 5:12-13; 9:7; 10:10; 19:25).
The New Testament and
Personal Discipline. The notion of
discipline as familial chastisement remains
in the New Testament (Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim 2:25;
Heb. 12:5-11). In addition, the
concept is derived from Hellenistic
athletics of the Christian life as
“training”
for righteousness (1 Col 9:24-27; 1 Tim
4:7-8; Heb. 5:14). Akin to these
notions is the recurrent promise that
instruction, submission to others, and
experiences of pain will prepare the
believer for greater righteousness and
heavenly reward (Rom 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 5:16-18;
2 Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 2:18-21).
Community Discipline
in Judaism and the Early Church. Community
discipline was characteristic of
Christian groups in the New Testament
period. Paul, for example, probably
borrowed some notions from Jewish groups
like the Pharisees of whose
disciplinary procedures he was himself a
recipient. These systems of discipline
developed during the intertestamental period
as reform movements among the
Jews, who developed ways to establish and
regulate the boundaries between
themselves and outsiders.
The Qumran sectaries
developed an elaborate system of penalties
intended to safeguard the purity and
order of the community. This included a
formal reproof procedure, short-term
reduction of food allowance, exclusion from
ritual meals, and permanent
expulsion. Rabbinic traditions suggest that
the Pharisees commonly imposed a “ban,”
a temporary state of social isolation
imposed for deviation from ritual purity
laws or for heretical views and designed to
recall the offender to full
participation in the community. The right to
put someone under the ban was
originally limited to the Sanhedrin, but
some time before the destruction of
the temple it was extended to groups of
scribes acting together. Rabbinic
sources are not clear with respect to
complete expulsion from Pharisaic
communities in the New Testament era, but it
is reasonable to assume that
unrepentant banned persons and heretics like
Christians would incur more severe
judgment. Paul himself five times received a
severe form of punishment
administered by the synagogue for heresy,
the “forty lashes minus one” (2 Cor.
11:24). The number of lashes was reduced
from the forty prescribed in
Deuteronomy 25:2-3, presumably in order to
safeguard against excessive
punishment.
Luke 17:3-4 may
represent the seed of an originally
interpersonal “reproof, apology,
forgiveness” formula that occurs in expanded
form for community action in
Matthew 18:15-17. The community becomes
involved through its leaders when
personal confrontation is ineffective;
community action in the form of
expulsion is a last resort. This deceptively
simple formula combines redemptive
purpose and caution with firm resolve in the
process of community
accountability, and it appears to be the
basis of later New Testament practice.
Community Discipline
in New Testament Churches. There is
insufficient material to establish a
“program”
or “system” of community discipline for the
New Testament period or even for
the Pauline churches. It is possible,
however, to gain some insights into
disciplinary practice in the early Christian
churches by examining key Pauline
texts for evidence of procedural elements,
culpable behaviors, and intended
effects.
Galatians 6:1-5
suggests that the first step in correction
of an erring believer is personal,
private, and gentle (cf. 2 Col 2:5-11; Eph.
4:29-32; Col. 3:12-13; 1 Thess.
5:14-15). The stress on humility and
readiness to forgive on the part of the
person who admonishes recalls the teaching
of Jesus (Matt. 7:1-5; 18:21-35).
The notions of self-searching censure and
eagerness to effect heartfelt
reconciliation, practically nonexistent in
Qumran and rabbinic sources, are
pervasive in Paul's letters. Indeed, Paul's
disciplinary practices are
convincing as remedial rather than punitive
measures only to the extent that
they are infused from start to finish with a
pure desire for the good of the
offender.
Some offenses, or the
stubbornness of some offenders, require that
the wider community of believers
and its leaders become involved. The command
to “take special note of” (2 Thess.
3:14) those who are disobedient may be
understood as a command to “keep written
records concerning” such persons (cf. “watch
out for” dissenters, Rom. 16:17).
This formal element, employed at Qumran, may
have been appropriate in the case
of more serious offenses, especially if the
accumulation of witnesses would
have a bearing on further action. “Rebuke”
or “refutation” is a common term in
the Pastoral Epistles, which may pertain
more to doctrinal correction by
community leaders (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim.
2:25-26; 4:2; Titus 1:9 Titus 1:13;
2:15). Either “marking” or “rebuking” on the
part of community leaders may
constitute “witnesses” as required in the
case of divisive persons in Titus
3:10-11 and in the case of elders in 1
Timothy 5:19. Paul equates warnings with
witnesses when he writes of his impending
third visit to the Corinthians (2 Cor.
13:1-2). It is not clear whether warnings
could be construed as witnesses ex
post facto, but this may have been an
intentional flexibility designed to avoid
the legal elaborations of the Qumran
sectaries and Pharisees. It also allowed
the apostle and his delegates to
“troubleshoot” freely with the immature and
often contentious local communities.
A survey of the key
passages does not strongly support the view
that disciplinary action becomes
increasingly centralized and formalized
through the New Testament period.
Rather, it appears that a pattern exists
wherein jurisdiction rises in the
community hierarchy according to the
severity of the offense. Thus we observe
that commonly occurring misbehavior is
handled by all believers individually
(Gal. 6:1-5; and parallels); warnings are
administered generally by the
community (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6-15); the
factious and elders are
disciplined by apostolic delegates (1 Tim
5:19-22; 2 Tim 2:25-26; Titus
3:10-11); and the most serious cases are
taken up by the apostle himself (2 Cor.
13:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:19-20; probably 1 Col.
5:3-4; cf. Acts 5:1-11; 8:20-24).
Admittedly, the evidence is too sparse to
insist on a rigid structure. It is
equally possible that, as in the case of
Qumran, the group acted through its
local community leaders when problems were
brought to their attention, and
higher authorities like Paul or his
delegates acted when they deemed it
appropriate. As in the case of the
witness-warning sequence, a flexible
adaptation of contemporary Jewish practice
fit the dynamic spirit of the
movement and the occasional aberrations of
its local leadership.
When an individual
did not respond to warning(s) or committed a
serious offense, it became
necessary to effect social isolation. The
expressions used in the New Testament
to convey this idea do not specify what is
meant. Matthew 18:17 commands the
community to treat the offender “as a pagan
or a tax collector.” Romans 16:17
tells believers to “watch out” for
wrongdoers; 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2
Thessalonians 3:14 enjoin, “do not
associate” with offenders; 2 Thessalonians
3:6 commands, “keep away from” the
disobedient. First Corinthians 5:11 is more
specific in instructing believers not to eat
with those under discipline (cf. 2
John 10-11). This recollects the Pharisaic
ban, under which the offender was
cut off socially from all but his immediate
family. As in the case of the ban,
the individual feels ashamed (2 Thess. 3:14)
and, when proven repentant (it is
not clear how), is welcomed back “as a
brother” (2 Thess. 3:15; cf. 2 Cor.
2:5-11; Gal. 6:1).
In several instances,
it appears that Paul goes beyond measures
intended to recall erring individuals
to a final expulsion from the community. The
key text in this regard is 1
Corinthians 5:1-5, where Paul responds to a
case of incest by commanding, “hand
this man over to Satan,” an expression
employed similarly in 1 Timothy 1:20. It
is clear that the early church understood
the realm of Satan to be everywhere
outside the fellowship of believers (2 Cor.
4:4; Gal 1:4; Eph. 2:2) and that
Paul's expression here denotes expulsion
from the community. That the sentence
is reformatory is confirmed by the fact that
Paul ends the pronouncement in 1
Corinthians 5:5 with the express intent that
the offender's spirit may be “saved
in the day of the Lord”; similarly, 1
Timothy 1:20 notes that “Hymenaeus and
Alexander were handed over to Satan to be
taught not to blaspheme.” The phrase
in 1 Corinthians 5:5, “so the sinful nature
may be destroyed,” is ambiguous. It
almost certainly denotes physical suffering,
but it is unclear whether the
sufferer's life will be spared by
repentance.
Behaviors Subject to
Discipline. Doctrinal deviations that create
division in the community are a
problem for Paul (1 Cor. 1:10-11; 11:18-19;
cf. Heb. 12:15), and the
disciplinary measures in Romans 16:17 and 2
Corinthians 13:1-2 appear to
respond to division caused by heterodoxy
(cf. Gal. 5:2-12 ). The Pastoral
Epistles are dominated by this concern and 1
Timothy 1:20 is a clear case in
point. The danger of heresy and resultant
factions to the integrity of local
communities and the movement as a whole is
obvious. It is not clear, however,
to what extent aberrant views that did not
cause splits could be tolerated.
Moral deviations are in view in the two most
lengthy passages, 2 Thessalonians
3:6-15 and 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 (1 Tim.
5:19-22; is ambiguous cf. James
5:19-20; 1 John 5:16-17). The charge that
some were “idle” in Thessalonica is
taken by many to denote inactivity in
expectation of an imminent parousia, but
it is more likely that Paul's instruction
reflects a social situation typical
of a large port city, where many laborers
were inactive for periods of time and
dependent on patrons. Within the community
of believers, some appear to have
begun to presume upon the Christian goodness
of patrons, and the system was in
danger of devolving into freeloading,
resentment, and division (perhaps echoed
in 1 Cor. 11:18-19). In 1 Corinthians 5,
Paul is obviously concerned about porneia
[porneiva], sexual sin (vv. 1,
9, 11), but he also condemns any “so-called”
brother (cf. simply “brother” in 2 Thess.
3:15) who is “greedy, or is an
idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber” (v.
11 NRSV). The fact that the list is
expanded in 6:9-10 with special attention to
sexual and property values
suggests that it is not random, after the
fashion of contemporary moralists,
but is consciously directed at the sins of
Corinth. These are of course not the
only offenses subject to discipline (cf.
Gal. 5:19-21), but they are
particularly dangerous to the Corinthians.
Although the list does not specify
the extent of the sin, it does convey a very
strict moral accountability. The
reason for this ethical rigorism is implied
in Paul's allusion to Deuteronomy
17:7 in 5:13, “Expel the wicked man from
among you.” The opposite of wickedness
for Paul is not cultic purity but holiness
in the sense of the
Spirit-controlled life of each member of the
unified community. Deviation from
holiness will retard the growth of the
entire body, or “leaven the lump.”
Effective Community
Discipline. For the individual offender, the
New Testament practice is clearly
intended to produce repentance in an
atmosphere of support and forgiveness. For
the community, to hold its members
accountable through disciplinary measures
will maintain the moral integrity of the
group. All of these principles are
present at least to some extent in the
contemporary Jewish practices that were
apparently adapted by the primitive church,
albeit in a less systematized form.
The unique and potentially potent aspect of
the New Testament concept of
discipline is the infusion of Christ-like
love into disciplinary practice.
Philippians 2:1-5, although it does not
address discipline directly, expresses
concisely the principle behind the scattered
references on the subject. The
incentive of love, the sharing of the
Spirit, the humble attitude that is, the
mind of Christ is that which makes it
possible to hold another person
accountable. Thus the key to effective
discipline is its reflexive element. The
one who holds another accountable is first
accountable to be a loving person.
When this is true of a community of
believers, isolation of an offender will be
a compelling remedial force; the community's
power to persuade or to punish
brings a person back into obedient
fellowship. It is the community's ability to
demonstrate love in its Spirit-transformed
living that constitutes a
compellingly attractive force. Thomas E.
Schmidt (4)
From the historic Westminster
Confession of Faith on discipline:
Chapter XXX - Of
Church Censures
III. Church censures
are necessary, for the reclaiming and
gaining of offending brethren, for
deterring of others from the like offenses,
for purging out of that leaven
which might infect the whole lump, for
vindicating the honor of Christ, and the
holy profession of the Gospel, and for
preventing the wrath of God, which might
justly fall upon the Church, if they should
suffer His covenant, and the seals
thereof, to be profaned by notorious and
obstinate offenders.
IV. For the better
attaining of these ends, the officers of the
Church are to proceed by
admonition; suspension from the sacrament of
the Lord’s Supper for a season;
and by excommunication from the Church;
according to the nature of the crime,
and demerit of the person.
In conclusion:
What if there is a
false witness against a brother, see (Psalm
27:12)? Bearing false witness is
warned against in God’s law, (Exodus 20:16).
Do the accused have rights to be
heard and make a defense? See *** below for
a Presbyterian book of church order
and how to conduct a biblical trial that
provides for both the accused and the
accuser
biblical protection.
As a personal note, I
have been involved in a case of church
discipline where I brought charges
against a person for holding false doctrine.
The case made it to the presbytery
(regional) level of the church since the
local church where this happened was
unable to handle the case properly and
needed help from the larger church body.
The trial was avoided when the presbytery
appointed advisors to work with the
local church session (elders) and the person
accused. It was not a fun process,
but there was a process, which avoided the
situation getting out of hand and
causing disruption in the local church.
Finally, the objective of
discipline is
always the restoration of the sinner:
“To deliver such an
one unto Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved
in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1
Corinthians 5:5).
Quotes on discipline:
“There is no purpose
in having a basis or a confession of faith
unless it is applied. So we must assert
the element of discipline as being essential
to the true life of the church.
And what calls itself a church which does
not believe in discipline, and does
not use it and apply it, is therefore not a
true church.” (5)
“Discipline which is
so inflexible as to leave no place for
repentance and reconciliation has ceased
to be truly Christian; for it is no less a
scandal to cut off the penitent
sinner from all hope of re-entry into the
comfort and security of the
fellowship of the redeemed community than it
is to permit flagrant wickedness
to continue unpunished in the Body of
Christ.” (6)
“The principal use of
this public discipline is not for the
offender himself, but for the Church. It
exceedingly tends to deter others from the
like crimes, and so to keep the
congregation and their worship pure. Seneca
could say, “He who excuses present evils
transmits them to posterity.” And elsewhere,
“He who spares the guilty harms
the good.” (7)
Notes:
1.Matthew
Poole, Matthew
Poole's Commentary on the
Holy Bible, Matthew, Vol. 3, (Peabody,
Massachusetts, Hendrickson
Publishers, 1985), p. 85-86.
2.Albert
Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY,
Barnes’
Notes
on the Bible, 2 Thessalonians, p.
3818-3819.
3.John
Gill, Exposition
of the Old and New
Testaments, 1 Timothy, 9 Volumes,
(Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p.
92-93.
4.Walter
A. Elwell, Editor Baker's
Evangelical
Dictionary of Biblical Theology,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book
House), pp. 177-180.
5.Martyn
Lloyd-Jones, What is
an Evangelical?
(Carlisle, Pennsylvania, The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1992), p. 83.
7.Richard
Baxter, The
Reformed Pastor,
(Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth
Trust Chapter 2, Section 5), p. 98.
Mr. Kettler has
previously published articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend
the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr.
Kettler is the author of the book defending
the Reformed Faith against attacks,
titled: The Religion That Started in
a Hat. Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com