I love how ably this book demonstrates the connection ...€¦ · I love how ably this book demonstrates the connection between local church health and ... Through careful biblical

I love how ably this book demonstrates the connection between local church health and missional effectiveness. Those most serious about the Great Commission will also be serious about the body life of their church, because there really is no greater catalyst for the evangelization of a community than the presence of a healthy local church in that community. The writing is theological and practical, wise and passionate. The interaction of biblical scholars, church historians, and pastor-theologians throughout this book is unique and results in a very well-rounded work. We are using it to train elders, pastors, and leaders at our church. I thank God for it.J. D. GreearLead Pastor of Summit Church, Raleigh, North Carolina

The authors of Those Who Must Give an Account have done us a great honor in giving us a bookthat deals with church discipline as well as church membership.If there is one great need within the context of our Southern Baptist churches, it is accountability. This book must be read by every member.

Johnny HuntSenior Pastor of First Baptist Church Woodstock, Woodstock, Georgia

A generation ago Southern Baptists reclaimed their heritage on the doctrine of the Scriptures when they fought for and, by Gods grace, won the battle for the Bible.This generation faces a task even more daunting, to reclaim our heritage regarding regenerate church membership and the practice of church discipline.Those Who Must Give an Account provides a biblical, historical, and practical guide to a leaner and healthier convention of churches which bring glory to God.

Al JacksonPastor, Lakeview Baptist Church, Auburn, Alabama

What is needed in the church today? One would find a myriad of answers to this question, and indeed there is much to be done. Sadly, few seem to put the recovery of biblical church discipline and the practice of meaningful church membership on the short list. But what is more important than caring for Jesus people through these practices? Along with the faithful preaching of Gods Word, these are some of the primary marks of the church. For this reason, Im thrilled to see Those Who Must Give an Account address essential issues that are often undervalued, overlooked, and misunderstood by many. Through careful biblical exegesis and wise pastoral application, these authors have produced a must-read book. I was personally convicted, challenged, and informed as I read it. I pray that it will help pastors, leaders, and congregations better understand the nature of true Christian community, for the glory of Christ, the good of His church, and the advancement of the gospel among the nations.

Tony MeridaAssociate Professor of Preaching, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Lead Pastor of Imago Dei Church, Raleigh, North Carolina

In a day when the church is growing stronger in numbers but weaker in influence, this book is a clarion call to return to the biblical model of a church where membership is important and discipline is practiced. This book is extremely convicting, and it will take great courage to apply its truthsbut the medicine is sorely needed!

James MerrittSenior Pastor of Cross Pointe Church, Duluth, Georgia

Trying to get modern-day people to understand the importance of church membership and the need for church discipline is one of the most difficult things I do as a pastor. We live in a culture that is sick with an autonomous, individualistic spirit that shuns accountability and commitment. Biblical church membership and discipline are the cure for this dreaded illness. Those Who Must Give an Account is a timely book for a timeless challenge.

Darrin PatrickLead Pastor of The Journey Church, St. Louis, Missouri

With the provocative and biblical title, Those Who Must Give an Account, editors John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle have provided a substantive work of monumental importance for all churchmen whose desire is to model a church after the intention and purposes of God. As one who belongs to the more evangelistic wing of a major denomination, I have often cringed at the irresponsibility of many Baptists in this area of church membership. This book provides a fabulous antidote for the problem.

Paige PattersonPresident, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Forth Worth, Texas

Those Who Must Give an Account strikes the perfect balance between biblical foundations and practical insights on issues vital to the health of the local church. In these pages, church leaders find a helpful toolbox to use as they work through complex issues pertaining to membership and discipline. I wish I had had this collection of wise counsel when I was a young pastor!

Thom S. RainerPresident and CEO, LifeWay Christian Resources

With a remarkably gifted group of contributors, Those Who Must Give an Account provides a much-needed practical and theological look at church membership and church discipline. This book is a must read for all pastors as it reminds us that we must one day give account for those members under our watch while providing insight into how to hear those longed for words, Well done, my good and faithful servant.

Thomas WhiteVice President for Student Services and Communications and Associate Professor of Theology School of Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas

Nashville , Tennessee

Nashville , Tennessee

Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline

Copyright 2012 by John S. Hammett and Benjamin Merkle

All rights reserved.

9781433671197

Published by B&H Publishing Group Nashville, TN

Dewey Decimal Classification: 262.7Subject Heading: CHURCH MEMBERSHIP \

CHURCH DISCIPLINE \ LEADERSHIP

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Copyright 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 16 15 14 13 12VP

v

ContentsAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiContributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiiIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

IntroductionCHURCH IDENTITY

1 . Church Membership, Church Discipline, and the Nature of the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

John S. Hammett

Part 1 CHURCH MEMBERSHIPTHE CHURCH

AS GODS GATHERED PEOPLE

2 . The Biblical Basis for Church Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Benjamin L. Merkle

3 . A Historical Analysis of Church Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Nathan A. Finn

4 . The Practical Issues of Church Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Mark E. Dever

Part 2CHURCH DISCIPLINETHE CHURCH

AS GODS HOLY PEOPLE

5 . The Biblical Basis for Church Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105Thomas R. Schreiner

6 . A Historical Analysis of Church Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131Gregory A. Wills

vi Those Who Must Give an Account

7 . The Practical Issues of Church Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157Andrew M. Davis

Conclusion CHURCH WITNESS

8 . The Missional Implications of Church Membership and Church Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189

Bruce Riley Ashford and Danny Akin

9 . Those Who Must Give an Account: A Pastoral Reflection . . . . .205Andrew M. Davis

Select Bibliography on Church Membership and Discipline . . . . . .223Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

105

Chapter 5

The Biblical Basis for Church Discipline

Thomas R. Schreiner

Church discipline, according to the popular perception, is practiced by narrow-minded zealots who intervene in matters that are none of their business. Indeed, proponents of church discipline are consid-ered to be psychologically stunted, finding their joy in rebuking those who are enjoying life. Caricatures sometimes capture one dimension of the truth. Some of those enchanted with church discipline, both his-torically and in our contemporary world, have severe personalities. But for those who understand the biblical witness, the motive for church discipline is invariably love, and the goal is the restoration of the one who has fallen. Discipline, after all, is one dimension of discipleship. Naturally those who misunderstand or reject the biblical witness can-not grasp the purpose of church discipline. But if one comprehends the larger story line of the Scripturesif one sees the significance of creation, fall, redemption, and final restorationthen church discipline fits well in the overall drama of redemption. Church discipline is prac-ticed so that members will escape the judgment to come, so that they will enjoy forever the life of the coming age.

In this chapter the focus is on church discipline that has reached the critical stage where expulsion and public rebuke may be neces-sary. It is imperative to note that such situations are exceptional. What typically occurs in a church is formative discipline. Formative disci-pline takes place in the ongoing ministry of the church, in the regular discipleship and care of every member. All members are disciplined

106 Church Discipline

or discipled through teaching, encouragement, correction, exhorta-tions, and reproof, which are given through the loving care of fellow believers. Such formative discipline is the lifeblood of the church, and yet this chapter examines what the Scriptures say when discipline has reached the corrective stage, when radical surgery or radical repen-tance is needed. The goal of the chapter is to explore what the bibli-cal text says about such corrective church discipline. I will begin by considering Jesus instructions on church discipline and then exam-ine 1Corinthians5. The themes that emerge in 1Corinthians 5 will become the springboard for including other texts that address church discipline.1 Finally, a few reflections on the discipline of leaders will conclude the chapter.

JESUS INSTRUCTIONS ON CHURCH DISCIPLINE

The Context

The foundational text for corrective church discipline is Matt 18:1520, for here our Lord Himself instructs His disciples on the matter. In particular Jesus spells out the process which should be fol-lowed when discipline is necessary. Modern readers are prone to see the instructions as harsh, but the wider context breathes an atmosphere of love. As Turner says:

Jesus has been speaking tenderly of his disciples as humble chil-dren (18:5), little ones (18:6), lost sheep (18:1213), and broth-ers (or sisters; 18:15,21,35). He has emphasized the necessity of proper care of these little ones (18:614). He will go on to stress the necessity of forgiveness (18:2135). Even the discipline pro-cess allows three chances for repentance. Those who are involved in it should view themselves as agents of the Father/Shepherd seeking straying little ones/sheep.2

The goal of discipline is not the humiliation or public rebuke of those straying. Rather, the design is to restore them to the fellowship of the redeemed community.

1 I will discuss these themes in the midst of interpreting 1Corinthians 5, for it would be unnecessarily repetitive to look at each text separately.

2 David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 446.

The Biblical Basis for Church DisciplineThomas R . Schreiner 107

The Process of Church Discipline

The process of discipline begins at the individual level where a brother sins against you (Matt 18:15). The words against you are textually disputed but are probably original.3 The parallel text in Luke indicates that reproof should not be limited to personal injury: If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him (Luke 17:3). In any case, the dignity and honor of the person who sinned are pre-served. The sin must not be broadcasted to friends or to other church members. Nor should the one detecting the sin bring a bevy of sup-porters with him to uncover the sin committed. Instead he should go privately to the one who offended him and rebuke (elengchon) him (Matt 18:15). The word rebuke (tell in the ESV) means that the fault should be exposed for what it is. The word is similar in Luke 17:3: rebuke (epitimson) signifies disapproval and censure for what the person has done. It does not mean the person who sinned is upbraided and vilified. Clearly the tone of the reproof should be redemptive so that the one who is reproving pleads urgently for the repentance of the one who committed the offense. If the one who has sinned listens, i.e., repents upon hearing his sin, then you have won your brother (18:15). Luke says, If he repents, forgive him (Luke 17:3). Indeed, Luke says we must extend extraordinary patience, for-giving even seven times in a day if he repents of his sin (Luke 17:4). The number seven should not be taken literally; it signifies completion and perfection, showing that forgiveness should be granted every time someone repents.4 The word won (kerdain, Matt 18:15) elsewhere often refers to the obtaining of final salvation (see 1 Cor 9:1922; Phil3:8; 1Pet 3:1; cf. Matt 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25). Hence, the gain here is not merely the restoration of friendly relations between two Christians. The one who repents demonstrates that he belongs to the circle of the redeemed.

Conversely, if he fails to repentthat is, if he refuses to listen to and heed the words of the brother or sister admonishing him (18:16)then one or two others should be brought along to speak to the

3 See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, Commentary on Matthew VIIIXVIII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 782, n. 3.

4 Naturally if one repeats an action over and over again, the question of whether repentance is genuine surfaces. Jesus does not answer such a question here. Wisdom and charity are indispensable for discerning the best course of action.


person who sinned. It is not entirely clear whether they are brought in because they are witnesses to the original sin or if they function as witnesses in the sense that they support the original charges being made. The latter scenario is more likely, for it seems that the original sin was kept private and was known only to the person who sinned and the one who was the object of the malfeasance. Jesus appeals to the OT standard of two witnesses to support the accusations (Deut 19:15). Interestingly, Jesus applies a principle that relates to civil matters to a church context, and we shall see in 1Corinthians 5 that Paul will do the same.5 Again, the privacy of the offender is protected at this stage in the process. The matter is not advertised to the entire church but is restricted to a small circle of people. By implication those who are adduced as witnesses are people of integrity, for their testimony is intended to bring about the repentance and restoration of the one who sinned. The witnesses must not have a personal vendetta against the person who sinned. Instead, those who are irreproachable in their behavior should function as witnesses. The task of the witnesses is to establish impartially what has occurred. For instance, they may deter-mine that the alleged sin was not truly a sin, and then the matter should be dropped, and the one who brought the original complaint should trust the judgment of others who are impartial.

In Matthew, however, the text deals with a situation where the charges are verified by the witnesses. If the sin is substantiated and the person who sinned repents, then the issue should be forgotten. But if the person is stubborn and inflexible and refuses to listen to the reproof of two or three witnesses, then the matter should be brought to the church as a whole. Remarkably, the matter is brought to the entire congregation and is not restricted to the leadership of the church.6 The congregation as a whole exercises final responsibility regarding the status of the brother or sister in question. If the sinning believer repents upon hearing the admonition of the church, then forgiveness and love are to be shown to the one who turns from his sin. But if the person refuses to turn away from his sin, the church should treat him like an unbeliever and a tax collector (Matt 18:17). In the latter case the person is now considered to be an unbeliever and outside the circle of the people of God. Such a decision is not the prerogative of a few but

5 See the comments under 1Cor 5:13 below.6 Luz remarks that the church, not leaders or some ecclesiastical court, disciplines

those who persist in sin; Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans. J.B. Robinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 105.


belongs to the whole congregation. Hence, treating one like an unbe-liever and a tax collector is the consequence of careful deliberation by the entire congregation. Such action by the congregation does not preclude an important role for the elders of the church in bringing the matter to the church. Nevertheless, the congregation as a whole ren-ders a final decision and not merely the leaders of the church.

The three steps in the process underscore the patience and love which is to be shown to one who is straying. No immediate decision is made about one who is guilty of serious sin. Every attempt is made to induce those who are rebelling to repent. Only after one has stub-bornly resisted repeated attempts to secure repentance is discipline to be administered. After such a careful process it has become clear that the person will not be deterred from his sinful course of action. Even when the entire church agrees that his actions are wrong and harmful, he still persists in following his own judgment. It becomes evident to all that the person being disciplined is stubborn and defiant; nothing will move him from the course he is following.

Treating the person disciplined as a Gentile or tax collector means that he is no longer considered to be a member of the church of Jesus Christ.7 The church is called upon to extend love to unbelievers, and surely the love of Christ should be shown to one who has been disci-plined. The church continues to pray for the repentance of the one who has transgressed, reaching out to him in appropriate ways. At the same time, the relationship has changed between the congregation and the one disciplined. He is no longer a part of the fellowship of believers. He is not considered to be a brother and therefore must not partake of the Lords Supper. Hence, the church should not relate to him as if he is a believer. Believers would give the one disciplined the wrong impression if they communicated in overt or subtle ways that nothing has changed. Interaction with him is colored by the precipice upon which he hangs so that genuine love never loses sight of the danger which faces the one disciplined.

Binding and Loosing

Verses 1820 do not introduce a new topic. Jesus continues to discuss church discipline, and His major aim is to grant assurance and

7 France underestimates the disciplinary function of the church here, though he rightly sees the emphasis on restoration; R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 24849.


confidence to the church so that believers can be convinced they are doing the will of God in enforcing church discipline. Naturally there is no carte blanche authority so that the church is guaranteed of carrying out Gods will no matter what they do, as if any arbitrary and capri-cious action is permissible. Still, v. 18 emphasizes that the church can have assurance that what it does on earth represents the will of God. Binding and loosing refer to what is forbidden or permitted, and in this context binding signifies the refusal to forgive sins, loosing the granting of such forgiveness.8 If the church, after carefully assessing a disciplinary situation, determines that a person is repentant, then it represents Gods will in pronouncing that the offenders sins are for-given. Conversely, if someone stubbornly refuses to repent, the church authoritatively and rightly excludes such a recalcitrant one from the fellowship of the church. It is important to recognize from v. 17 that the authority to bind and loose is given to the church as a whole. Binding and loosing are not the private prerogative of individual believers. Jesus assures believers that what they do on earth accords with Gods will in heaven, for the church naturally shrinks back from exercising such authority. Of course, there are cases in which churches and indi-viduals are swollen with pride and blindly abuse authority. We shall see shortly that Diotrephes falls into such a category (2John 1011). Nevertheless, Matthew 18 does not concentrate on such abuses but promises the church divine guidance.

Scholars have long debated the future-perfect verb tenses (shall be bound and shall be loosed, ESV). Some maintain that the future-perfects demonstrate that the church only binds and looses what has already been decided in heaven.9 Thereby the church avoids the arbitrary imposition of its own desires. Other scholars, however, question whether the future-perfects should be interpreted in such a way. Nolland thinks the temporal relationship is simultaneous; what is bound on earth is bound at the same time in heaven.10 Still oth-ers argue that the future-perfects should be interpreted in a differ-ent way, maintaining that Gods decision is subsequent to what the church determines.11 According to this reading, God ratifies what is already decided upon on earth (cf. the perfect periphrastics in Isa8:17;

8 So Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1428, WBC 33B (Dallas: Word, 1995), 47274.9 France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 247, n. 11.10 John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text,

NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 681.11 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIIIXVIII, 63839.


Heb2:13). It is difficult to resolve the meaning here based on the tenses alone, and it is wise to avoid determining ones interpretation on the basis of the tenses. What is clear is that the Lord does not endorse whatever churches do in disciplining erring members. Jesus teaches here that the churchs binding and loosing is authoritative insofar as it corresponds with the divine will.

Answers to Prayer

Verse 19 does not introduce a new subject but continues the thought begun in v. 18, and this is confirmed by the word again, which intro-duces the verse. Jesus assures His disciples that the heavenly Father will respond favorably to what they request. The any matter (pantos pragmatos) on which two agree relates here to church discipline and should not be applied haphazardly to individual requests that stem from selfish desires. The reference to two continues the corporate empha-sis that permeates the previous verses (vv. 1517). So what is agreed upon in context likely relates to the binding and loosing described in v. 18. The close relationship between vv. 1819 is confirmed by the repetition of earth and heaven in v. 19. In v. 18 the words earth and heaven occur twice, and they are reiterated once more in v. 19. Hence, what the two agree upon relates to the disciplinary matters broached in v. 18. Jesus again assures the church that whatever they ask for will be given to them by their heavenly Father. In other words, what is done on earth reflects the transcendent will of the Father in heaven. The church may be confident they are doing the will of God. Disciplining errant members cannot be dismissed as crankiness or a misperception of the divine will. Such discipline reflects the desire of the Father.

Verse 20 is closely linked to v. 19 with the word for. Verse 20 answers the question why the Father will carry out what is requested by the church on earth. The reason given is that what believers ask for (in accord with v. 19) does not reflect their own selfish desires. The requests offered by believers are answered affirmatively because believers are gathered in the name of Jesus. The reference to two or three, as in vv. 16 and 19, focuses on the corporate nature of the church. Indeed, the use of the word gathered also calls attention to the role of the assembled community, as does the word church (v. 17). When believers gather in the name of Christ, then the Father answers their requests because they are carrying out Christs will.


Gathering in Christs name is no mere formality, and His name can-not be magically invoked to justify evil agendas. Gathering in Christs name means the churchs discipline is in accord with the message of Christ and with His character. Hence, this verse is misunderstood if it is used to justify any and every decision a church makes.

The heavenly and supernatural character of what the church does when it gathers in Christs name is underlined by the last phrase in v. 20. If the church gathers in Christs name, He is present in the assembly. In other words, His will is being implemented in the church. Christs transcendence and deity are clearly articulated here, for believers should only gather to worship in Gods name, and yet here they gather in Christs name, showing that Christ shares the same sta-tus as God. Furthermore, even though Christ is not physically present, He is spiritually present when the church assembles. He transcends the boundaries of space and time, and hence the church is assured that they are doing what pleases Him. What Jesus says here fits well with the end of Matthew where he affirms, And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matt 28:20). Similarly, when the church disciplines erring members, it can be confident that Jesus is in its midst, doing the will of God.

Conclusion

Jesus instructions regarding church discipline can be summa-rized in the two major movements of the text. First, in vv. 1517, the process of church discipline is set forth. The process protects as far as possible the privacy of the person charged with sin. Even more important, the deliberate process ensures that the charges are substan-tiated at every level so that baseless accusations do not stand. If the sin is verified at every stage of the threefold process and the person refuses to repent, then he or she should be removed from the church. Second, in vv.1820, Jesus assures believers that when they gather in His name and discipline rebellious members they are carrying out Gods will. The promise of Jesus presence and guidance must be tied to the process outlined in vv. 1517, for the assurance that they are doing Gods will cannot be separated from the careful process enunci-ated in vv.1517. Confronting others with sin is difficult, and Jesus words confirm that such discipline constitutes His will for the church. Indeed, Jesus said little about the church during His ministry, and the


fact that He spoke particularly about church discipline shows how important it is for the life of the church.

1CORINTHIANS 5:113

Introduction

The most important text regarding corrective church discipline in Pauls writings is 1 Cor 5:113.12 In the process of explaining 1 Corinthians 5, I will pick up other texts in the epistles that dis-cuss church discipline and integrate these texts into the exposition of 1Corinthians 5. Hence, this section of my chapter not only consists of an exegesis of 1Corinthians 5; it also considers themes from other letters introduced by 1Corinthians.

The Response to Sin in the Church

Pauls astonishment at the Corinthians behavior surfaces in v. 1. Even unbelievers do not tolerate what the Corinthians are permitting, for a believer in the church was guilty of incest in having a sexual rela-tionship with his fathers wife (cf. Lev 18:8).13 Apparently he was not having sexual relations with his mother but his stepmother since Paul refers to his fathers wife instead of his mother (v. 1).14 Surely, Paul would have clarified if the person was his mother since the sin would have been even more flagrant.

Paul was outraged, for even unbelievers would condemn such an illicit relationship, and yet the Corinthians were inflated with pride (v. 2). Perhaps they believed that their response testified to the gospel of grace, thinking that being bound by moral norms was legalistic or

12 I do not understand what Fee means when he says that Paul is not here dealing with church discipline as such; rather, out of his Jewish heritage he is expressing what should be the normal consequences of being the people of God, who are called to be his holy people; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 203. In response to Fee, church discipline is the normal response to blatant sin in the life of the community.

13 For Greco-Roman attitudes toward incest, see David E. Garland, 1Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 156, n. 7.

14 Hans Conzelmann, 1Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 96. Thiselton suggests that the two were married; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: ACommentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 386.


contrary to life in the Spirit. Perhaps they believed they were already part of the age to come and hence could not be limited by the moral norms of the present evil age (1Cor 4:813).15 Or, perhaps they were proud not because of the mans sin but in spite of his sin.16 In any case, Paul rebukes the Corinthians, enjoining them to mourn for their sin instead of exulting over their tolerance.17 Paul not only commands them to mourn; he also calls them to action, and so it is clear that genuine grief expresses itself concretely. They were to evict the one committing incest from the church (v. 2). We should not miss the allu-sion to Jesus teaching in Matthew 18. Jesus says that He is in their midst (my translation; en mes autn, Matt 18:20). But Paul says the sinner should be removed from your midst (my translation; ek mesou humn, 1Cor 5:2). Such blatant sin must not remain in the midst of the Corinthians when Jesus Himself is in their midst.

Does Paul contravene the process given by Jesus in Matthew 18, for he counsels immediate expulsion? The situations addressed are distinct. In Matthew Jesus addresses a situation where the sin is not of public nature and not widely known in the church. Paul responds to an instance where the sin was flagrant and evident to all in Corinth. The public and gross character of the sin demanded a public and immedi-ate response by the church. The person being removed from the church was unwilling to repent, for if he had ceased the behavior, excommu-nication would be unnecessary. Apparently the man was determined and resolute to continue the relationship with his stepmother.

The Call to Judge the One Sinning

Verses 35 explain (see the for in v. 3) further the admonition in v. 2 to remove the man from the community. Even though Paul was absent bodily, he was present in spirit. Paul refers to his human spirit, but the emphasis is on the Holy Spirit. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit that Paul is present.18 Paul announces his authoritative decision or, more precisely, his judgment on the man who had committed such

15 Cf. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2012; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 38890.

16 For a vigorous defense of this view, see Garland, 1Corinthians, 16063.17 Perhaps the Corinthians refrained from disciplining the man because of his high

social position; so Garland, 1Corinthians, 158, 16263.18 Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 391. Also see Fee, First Epistle to the

Corinthians, 2045.


a sin.19 Some who read the Scriptures superficially appeal to Jesus admonition not to judge (see Matt 7:15), concluding that judgment of any kind is forbidden. A careful reading of Jesus words, however, reveals that He does not forbid all judgment. Indeed, Jesus says that after someone has removed the log from his eye, then he will be able to remove the speck from his brothers eye. Removing a speck is only possible for one who sees and evaluates the life of another, which clearly involves judgment. Still, helping a brother with a speck should only occur if someone has removed the log from his own eye. Only those who are deeply conscious of and actively opposing their own sin, and hence are filled with humility, should speak to others about their sins. Thus, Jesus does not forbid all judging. He opposes judging that is censorious, harsh, and arrogant.

Paul affirms the same truth in Gal 6:1: Brothers, if someone is caught in any wrongdoing, you who are spiritual should restore such a person with a gentle spirit, watching out for yourselves so you also wont be tempted. Judgment and discipline are required in this verse, for the person who inadvertently sins should be restored. Such resto-ration implies confrontation, which is the consequence of evaluating the behavior of another. And yet the confrontation must be suffused with gentleness and humility. The tone of the confrontation must be tender but firm, loving but strong. The admonishing should be done in a brotherly or sisterly way. Indeed, in correcting another we should always be vigilant, reminding ourselves that we are equally prone to fall into sin. Hence, there is no place for an attitude of moral superior-ity or pride.

Delivering Over to Satan

Pauls pronouncement of judgment in 1Cor 5:3, then, fits with the teaching of Jesus. Furthermore, we have seen from Gal 6:1 that correction must always be done gently. Still, gentleness must not be confused with weakness. Verses 45 unpack the judgment which Paul has in mind. The main point is communicated in v. 5. The man was to be handed over to Satan. In other words, he should be expelled from the church and removed from the fellowship of believers. What does it mean to say that he was handed over to Satan? The answer is that all those who are outside of Christ and not members of the church are

19 Garland rightly explains that Pauls decision does not rule out or negate the congregations role in choosing to judge the incestuous man; 1Corinthians, 16869.


in Satans sphere, for the whole world is under the sway of the evil one (1John 5:19). The devil is the ruler of this world (John 12:31) and the god of this age (2Cor 4:4). He is the one working in the disobedient (Eph 2:2). Delivering the man to Satan means that he is removed from the sphere of salvation and that he resides in Satans sphere.20

Verse 4 informs us, however, that the delivery of the man to Satan was not arbitrary, nor was it Pauls decision alone. Indeed, we have another allusion to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18. The decision to hand the man over to Satan is to be made when you are assembled (1 Cor 5:4). Jesus spoke of being gathered together in My name (Matt 18:20). Paul uses virtually the same expression, for the word assembled (sunachthentn) in 1 Cor 5:4 is the same word as the word gathered (sungmenoi) in Matt 18:20. And both texts speak of being gathered in Jesus name.21 Pauls reuse of such phrases in a church-discipline context confirms my exegesis above where I argued that Matt 18:20 focuses on church discipline.

As we saw in Matthew 18, Paul did not call upon the leaders of the church to expel the incestuous man. We might expect that Paul would direct the leaders to carry out his instructions. Instead the dis-cipline is to take place when the congregation is gathered formally in Jesus name, indicating that the decision to excommunicate is the task of the entire congregation. Nor is the congregation pursuing its own agenda; it gathers in Jesus name to carry out His will for the church. Paul emphasizes that the power of the Lord Jesus is present with them. Perhaps he called attention to Jesus power to assure them that the action they take is effective.

The purpose of delivering the man to Satan is so that his flesh will be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord (v. 5). Some understand the destruction of the flesh to refer to physical death, construing the verse along the lines of 1Cor 11:30 where some are sick or have died because of partaking of the Lords Supper in an unworthy manner.22 But it is more likely that the word flesh is used here to

20 See Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 209.21 The syntax here is complex. For the different options, see Fee, First Epistle to

the Corinthians, 2068. I think it is most likely that Paul alludes to Matthew 18 and hence speaks of being gathered in Jesus name. Garland complains that such a read-ing states the obvious (1Corinthians, 165). But the obvious is highly significant, especially if Paul alludes to the words of Jesus.

22 So Conzelmann, 1Corinthians, 97.


denote who human beings are in Adam and apart from Christ. We find this meaning of the word flesh in Rom 8:9 (and many other places in Paul) where Paul says that those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit are not in the flesh. According to this view, Pauls hope is that the old Adam, i.e., the power of sin which rules in the life of the offender, will be dethroned by the act of church discipline. In other words, the act of discipline will be the means by which the man is aroused from his sin so that he turns in repentance to the Lord. Thereby he will be saved from Gods wrath on the day of the Lord.23

The Motive and Goal in Discipline

We must be careful in interpreting the purpose clause in v. 5. Paul does not guarantee that the man will be saved on the last day. The purpose of the discipline is for the mans salvation, but Paul was not granted a vision of the future. He did not know whether the man would repent. Hence, there is no promise that the discipline will have the desired effect. Nevertheless, the ultimate aim and goal of discipline is salvific. Recognizing the goal of discipline must not be underes-timated. The purpose of discipline is not ultimately punishment but salvation. This is confirmed by Gal 6:1 where the erring brother is to be restored. The word restore (katartiz) is used of rebuilding walls (Ezra 4:12,13) and of mending fishing nets (Matt 4:19). The church practices discipline to rebuild what has been torn down in someones life.

The restorative purpose of discipline is confirmed by 1Tim 1:20. Paul informs Timothy regarding Hymenaeus and Alexander that he had handed [them] over to Satan (paredka t satana), so that they may be taught not to blaspheme. The same expression reappears in 1Cor 5:5, to hand over to Satan (paradounai ... t satana).24 In both instances the persons mentioned were expelled from the church and therefore resided in Satans sphere. What should be observed here is the restorative purpose of the discipline. Paul hoped that Hymenaeus and Alexander would be prevented from blaspheming through the dis-cipline. The objective in discipline was not to humiliate Hymenaeus

23 For excellent defenses of this view, see Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 20913; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 39599. It is unlikely that the churchs salvation rather than the mans is in view here. For a full discussion, see Garland, 1Corinthians, 16977.

24 The translation of 1Cor 5:5 is my own.


and Alexander publicly. Paul prayed that the discipline would provoke them to repent, so that they would be spared from final judgment and be saved.

James confirms that restoration is the motive when those straying are corrected. My brothers, if any among you strays from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that whoever turns a sin-ner from the error of his way will save his life from death and cover a multitude of sins (Jas 5:1920). James does not directly address the matter of discipline here. Still, the disapproval of the church toward the one erring is probably presupposed. The one pursuing the sinner is intent on bringing him back. Presumably if the sinner failed to return, the church would formally exclude the one wandering from the Lord, though it is possible that the one straying had already been removed and was now being retrieved. In any case, the erring brother is sought out for redemptive reasons. Biblical discipline is not vindictive but restorative. The ardent desire is to save sinners from spiritual and eter-nal death so that the sins committed by those who have fallen away will be covered.

The New Testament canon acknowledges that some who disci-pline may do so out of wrong motives, and consequently they are not carrying out the Fathers will. For instance, Diotrephes, a leader in the church, stubbornly refused to carry out Johns instructions, for he did not welcome and support the brothers sent to his church (2John 10). The fundamental problem with Diotrephes was that he was moti-vated by his selfish will, for he likes to put himself first (2John 9). Not only did Diotrephes refuse to welcome the brothers sent to him, but he even stops those who want to do so and expels them from the church (3John 10). So here we have an example of church dis-John 10). So here we have an example of church dis-John 10). So here we have an example of church dis-cipline, of people being expelled from the church, which is entirely illegitimate. Diotrephes did not long for the spiritual growth and holi-ness of those under his charge. Instead, he desired to preserve his own stature and power. Church discipline that accords with Scripture is not an expression of the selfish will but longs for the good of the person being disciplined. Indeed, it is instructive that Diotrephes apparently acted alone in this endeavor, showing us the danger of an individual acting alone in discipline apart from the congregation as a whole. We have seen from both Matthew 18 and 1Corinthians 5 that church dis-Corinthians 5 that church dis-Corinthians 5 that church dis-cipline is a corporate decision. In addition, it is clear from the example of Diotrophes that churches may actually be violating Gods will in


exercising discipline. Matthew 18:1520 is wrongly interpreted if it is understood to teach that whenever a church disciplines it is carry-ing out Gods will. Churches may stray from Gods will if they do not discipline in accord with scriptural teaching and norms.

The loving motive that stands behind church discipline is exempli-fied by Paul in 2Corinthians. Paul found no pleasure in correcting the Corinthians. Indeed, he avoided coming to the city in order to spare the Corinthians (2 Cor 1:23). Contrary to Diotrophes, Paul did not conceive himself as lording it over the faith of the Corinthians, even though he was an apostle (2Cor 1:24). Paul recognized his limitations, realizing that corrective discipline is not the fundamental pattern of the Christian life. Instead, Pauls primary role was to be a coworker in their joy (2Cor 1:24). Hence, Paul decided not to make a painful visit, for his goal was mutual joy (2Cor 2:12). What is striking is that Paul avoided, if at all possible, the course that led to discipline. He hoped that the Corinthians would repent so that he could avoid disci-plining them. He longed to bring them joy instead of producing pain in their lives. Therefore, Paul wrote his severe letter to bring about repen-tance in their lives before his visit so that his visit would be one of joy (2Cor 2:34). The writing of such a letter moved Paul to tears, for he loved the Corinthians deeply. The humanity of Paul bleeds through his writing, making it apparent that he did not relish discipline. He only pursued the course of discipline because it was a necessity. Indeed, his reproving words sprang from a heart of love.

Pauls reaction to the man disciplined illustrates the redemptive motive of church discipline (2Cor 2:511).25 Most New Testament scholars agree that the man in question here was not the same per-son guilty of committing incest in 1Corinthians 5.26 They maintain that in 2 Corinthians the situation was different. The man in ques-tion rejected Pauls authority, and Paul exhorted the Corinthians to discipline him and to take their stand with Paul. This reconstruction of events is uncertain. It is possible, despite the majority view, that the man under consideration is the one who was guilty of incest in

25 For instance, Pauls refusal to name the person may show that he spares the sinners dignity; so D. E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC 29 (Nashville: Broadman, 1999), 117.

26 See, e.g., Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 32A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 16368; Ralph P. Martin, 2Corinthians, WBC 40 (Waco: Word, 1986), 3234; Garland, 2Corinthians, 11823, 130.


1Corinthians 5.27 I slightly favor the notion that the person in view in 2Corinthians is the same man guilty of incest. This seems to be sup-ported by v. 5 where Paul says that the one who caused grief did not grieve him. Instead, the sin of the man in question brought distress to the Corinthians themselves. The claim that the sin burdened the entire congregation is modified, for Paul does not want to exaggerate the impact of the mans sin. It is not as if the sin of the one man sapped the vitality of everyone in the church. On the other hand, his sin had a significant impact on the church. Regardless of the situation, Pauls advice remains fundamentally the same, and hence reconstructing the situation is not crucial for interpreting what Paul says here.

Perhaps the pain Paul referred to here was the exclusion of the man from the church in accord with 2Cor 2:6. As in 1Corinthians 5, the congregation imposed the discipline on the errant member. It was the act of the majority (tn pleionn) which excluded the man from the church.28 The vital participation of the congregation as a whole in the act of discipline seems to confirm a congregational model of church government. In any case the Corinthians needed to beware of taking the discipline too far. Apparently the man in question had repented, and hence additional retribution would have contradicted the spirit of charity that should characterize the church.

The redemptive purpose of discipline is evident, for since the one punished had repented, the Corinthians were to forgive and encourage him (2Cor 2:7). As Hughes says, Discipline which is so inflexible as to leave no place for repentance and reconciliation has ceased to be truly Christian.29 Clearly the intention in discipline is not puni-tive, as if the churchs goal is to castigate those who have strayed. Discipline is intended for the benefit of the one corrected, and if one responds positively, then love and encouragement must be shown to the one who responds in a suitable way. Paul fears that the man may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow (2 Cor 2:7). Those who see the importance of church discipline may become unbalanced and too severe, and thus they may discourage and deflate a person who has repented of his sin. As a result, the one being disciplined may lose

27 Hughes defends this interpretation (P. E. Hughes, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962], 5964).

28 Furnish rightly says that these verses (2Cor 2:511) convey the impression of some formal disciplinary action decided on and carried out by the congregation (IICorinthians, 155).

29 Hughes, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 66.


heart and forsake the faith altogether, concluding that there is no hope since he has sinned so dramatically. Exercising church discipline is not a formulaic matter. It requires spiritual wisdom and discernment, for churches may become too tolerant or too severe.

In this instance Paul exhorts the Corinthians to reaffirm their love for the one who had strayed but had now repented (2Cor 2:8).30 The errant brother must recognize that their reason for disciplining him was fundamentally redemptive. And the church should gladly readmit the repentant one into membership. Paul was initially concerned about the leniency of the Corinthians (2Cor 2:9), and hence he summoned them to obedience. But since the man who was disciplined repented, the focus should be on forgiveness (2 Cor 2:10).31 Pauls hesitancy to speak of his own forgiveness, including his acknowledgment that there is a question whether he had anything to forgive, makes it less likely that the person being disciplined had sinned against Paul.32 Paul introduces himself, it seems, so that he can function as an example for the Corinthians. He forgave, so to speak, so that the Corinthians would follow the same example. Failure to forgive lands believers in one of Satans snares, and hence Paul warns the Corinthians that they must be as vigilant to love as they were to discipline. As Garland says, Satan can be behind both moral laxityanything goesand a callous inflexibilityeveryone goes who does not toe the line. ... Therefore we should be wary because Satan can be at work even in attempts to purify the church.33 And yet, at the conclusion of the letter, Paul warns a minority group in Corinth who had not repented that he would not spare them if they refused to turn from their sin (2Cor12:2013:2). To sum up, the aim of church discipline is restoration and the motive is love, and such love expresses itself in disciplinary action for those who become stubborn and refuse to renounce their sin.

Clean Out the Leaven

We return at this juncture to the line of thought in 1Corinthians5, picking up the argument in v. 6. Paul is astonished that the Corinthians

30 The verb is a legal term; so Furnish, II Corinthians, 157; Hughes, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 67.

31 Scott J. Hafemann rightly says, The Corinthians struggled with knowing when to stop the punishment; in our time we struggle with whether we should ever start; 2Corinthians, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 95.

32 So Hughes, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 70.33 Garland, 2Corinthians, 132.


were boastful when such egregious sin existed in their midst. What troubles Paul even more than the sin of the man committing incest was the impact of the sin upon the entire church, for a little yeast perme-ates the whole batch of dough (1Cor 5:6). Paul draws upon the OT Passover traditions where leaven (or yeast) was to be removed for the Feast of Unleavened Bread that immediately followed Passover (Exod 12:1520; 13:67). The leaven represents evil that insidiously creeps into a community. If the Corinthians tolerated the sin of the man com-mitting incest, the church would lose its purity, for it would have no grounds for opposing sin in its midst. Evil would spread like an infec-tion if the Corinthians did not act to remove it.

Therefore, the Corinthians must clean out the old yeast by removing the unrepentant man from the church (1Cor 5:7). Thereby they will be a new batch, i.e., a pure and righteous community. The expectation here is not perfection. What Paul expects, however, is that blatant sin will be dealt with by the church. Still, the indicative always functions as the foundation for the imperative. The church needs to preserve its purity because it was already pure, for they were in fact unleavened (1Cor 5:7). How can Paul say they were unleavened? He bases this statement on the great Passover sacrifice of Christ. Christ has been sacrificed as the Passover offering. Just as the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are closely intertwined in the OT (Exodus 1213), so too here. Christians have been delivered from the power and dominion of sin by virtue of the death of Christ.34 In Christ, therefore, the Corinthians were already unleavened. The call to remove the leaven in their midst, so that they might be a new lump, must not be misunderstood. The imperative is always rooted in the indicative. The Corinthians were already a new creation in Christ, but they must live out what they already were in Christ. If they toler-ated an unrepentant sinner in the church, they contradicted what they were in Christ. The Corinthians were called upon, as OT Israel was (Exod 12:14), to observe the feast (1Cor 5:8). The demand that Israel remove leaven from their houses symbolized the need to be cleansed of evil. For the Corinthians to tolerate the man committing incest would contradict their calling as believers and compromise the purity of the church.

34 See Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 406.


Sins that Warrant Church Discipline

Paul now clarifies a misunderstanding in vv. 913. Paul wrote a letter, which is now lost, in which he instructed the Corinthians not to associate with those who are sexually immoral (v. 9). Apparently the Corinthians misunderstood the Pauline instructions, concluding that he required them to cut off contact with unbelievers who were living sinfully (v. 10). Perhaps the Corinthians responded with perplexity to Pauls advice, or perhaps they ignored it since it was impractical. Paul explains, however, that his advice was not referring to unbeliev-ers living unrighteously. For in that case the Corinthians would be required to cut off all contact with the world, which is wildly unreal-istic. Indeed, believers should not be surprised if unbelievers practice evil, nor should they refuse to interact with them. If believers severed relationships with unbelievers who were living sinfully, they would have no contact with the world and opportunities to proclaim the gos-pel would be lost.

Pauls admonition to abstain from fellowship with those living unrighteously is limited to fellow believers. Those who claim the name brother must be reproved if they fall into sin (v. 10). Sins that warrant breaking fellowship are listed representatively: sexual immo-rality, coveting, stealing, idolatry, defaming speech, and drunkenness (vv. 1011). Clearly the list does not intend to be comprehensive, for corrective discipline is not restricted to moral failures. For instance, those who teach heretical doctrine are also to be disciplined. It is clear from Pauls words about false teachers in his letters (Gal 1:69; 2:35; 5:712; 6:1213; Phil 3:211; Col 2:823; 2Tim 3:15) that those who spread false teachings contrary to the gospel must be removed from membership. Similarly, we read in Rom 16:17 (ESV), I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and cre-ate obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. Those who are divisive and fractious, and introduce teaching that is contrary to the gospel, must be avoided.35 Hence, John says that believers must not warmly greet and give financial support to those propagating false doctrine (2John 10), for the one who does so shares in his evil works (2John 11).

35 It is important, of course, to distinguish between teachings that warrant church discipline and matters over which there are legitimate differences of opinion. Fundamentalists have tended to divide over doctrinal matters which are not central, and liberals have failed to guard the truth of the gospel.


Believers often ask which sins warrant discipline, particularly since all believers sin daily. Why should any distinctions be made among sins? Paul focuses, however, on sins that are publicly expressed and blatant. For instance, coveting, which is listed here, does not war-rant public censure unless it expresses itself in extortion, embezzle-ment, or theft. In the same way virtually all believers struggle with lust. Believers who are fighting against lust are not to be excommuni-cated. When someone is struggling and fighting against sin, we help one another instead of excluding the one struggling from the church. But when lust expresses itself in sexual immorality and the offender does not repent of his sin, then discipline is necessary. Similarly, all believers sin in their speech. James, considering the speech of believ-ers, says that we all stumble in many ways (Jas 3:2). All believers need formative discipline, which includes reproof for sins of speech and a variety of other sins. Corrective discipline, however, is only nec-essary if one engages in slander and gossip and refuses to apologize or repent. Then the church must act to preserve its purity. The inter-pretation proposed here is supported by Titus 3:10: Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning. We must discipline those who refuse to heed warningsthose who obstinately continue in their self-ish behavior. If they do not submit after receiving warnings, then dis-cipline must follow. So too, those who promulgate teachings contrary to the gospel and deny central teachings of the faith (the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, etc.) and refuse to recant their teaching should be removed from the body.

Refusing to Associate with Those Disciplined

Believers must not associate (sunanamignusthai) with those who have been disciplined (vv. 9,11). Paul uses the same expression in 2Thess 3:14. Those who stubbornly refuse to pay heed to the instruc-Thess 3:14. Those who stubbornly refuse to pay heed to the instruc-Thess 3:14. Those who stubbornly refuse to pay heed to the instruc-tions conveyed in the letter should be identified. Pauls hope is that they will be ashamed of their behavior and turn from their sin. Again Paul worries that the church will overreact, and hence he admonishes the Thessalonians, Dont treat him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother (2Thess 3:15). In our sensitive age the refusal to associate with others seems unloving, but, according to Paul, such dissociation flows from a heart of love and with a longing for repentance in the one avoided. What does this refusal to associate involve? Paul remarks


in 1Cor 5:11 that we should not eat with a so-called brother who refuses to repent of his sin. Does Paul refer to the Lords Supper here or to ordinary meals as well? Certainly the Lords Supper is in view, for it would be inconceivable that the Lords Supper should be given to someone in blatant rebellion (see 1Cor 11:1734). Probably Paul has ordinary meals in mind as well. The instruction given here should not be applied in a legalistic way. Thiselton rightly says that Paul has in mind association, support, and compromise of community-identity.36 What concerns Paul is that believers do not treat one who stubbornly persists in sin in the same way they did when he was a member in good standing.37

The church must not give the impression to the one being disci-plined that everything is just fine, so that life with him proceeds just as it did before. On the contrary, any interaction with him must have as its motive and intention the repentance of the one who has strayed. If a believer eats with a person in sin and does not solemnly warn him to repent, the message that is conveyed to the person under discipline is that his sin is not a big deal, for life goes on as normal. Under no circumstances, Paul warns, must life go on as normal. The salvation of the person being disciplined is at stake, and this must be commu-nicated in interactions with him. Paul says in Titus 3:10 that believers must reject (paraitou) those who refuse to respond to reproof. Such people are self-condemned and apparently intractable (Titus 3:11). This fits with 2Thess 3:6 where believers are to keep away from (stellesthai) those who live an idle life and refuse to change. Believers must avoid (ekklinete) those who are divisive and live contrary to apos-tolic doctrine (Rom 16:17). These severe words are designed to pre-vent the leaven of sin from infecting the church. Furthermore, they remind the person in sin that he is in mortal danger. If he does not repent, he will not be saved on the last day.

Paul concludes his discussion with words that are surprising in 1Cor 5:1213: For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders? Dont you judge those who are inside? But God judges outsiders. Put away the evil person from among yourselves. First, Paul reaf-firms that it is not the role of the church to judge outsiders, i.e., unbelieversthose who are not members of the church. God will pro-nounce judgment upon them on the final day. Second, Paul asks in

36 Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 415 (italics his).37 Fee separates too rigidly private and public relationships with the one sinning

(First Epistle to the Corinthians, 226).


v. 12 whether we should judge those inside the church. In the Greek text the question expects an affirmative answer. Indeed, v. 13b also functions as the answer to the question. Believers are to judge in this instance by purging the evil person from the church. We see again that not all judging is forbidden. If we judge fellow believers arrogantly and self-righteously, we fall under the strictures of Jesus words (Matt 7:15). But 1Cor 5:1213 make clear that a kind of judgment is fit-ting and appropriate. We are to reprove and judge gently but firmly (see Gal 6:1). Indeed, godly judgment must lead to action. The one who is practicing evilin this case the one committing incestmust be removed from the community. Paul alludes here to the words of the OT (cf. Deut 13:5; 17:7,12; 21:21; 22:21,22,24).38 In the OT the com-mand to purge someone from the community appears in civil contexts and often refers to the death penalty. Paul applies this injunction in a fresh way to the church of Jesus Christ. Believers are not summoned to put an evil man to death, for the church is not a civil and political entity. Rather, believers are to remove the person from membership in the church, thereby preserving the holiness of the church. The purity of Israel was maintained by putting to death those who violated certain stipulations, but the purity of the church is not realized through physi-cal violence. The unrepentant person is removed from the community so that it might be a new batch (1Cor 5:7).

Conclusion

The primary reason for discipline is the purity of the church and hence the glory of God. If the church tolerates blatant sin in its midst, then sin will spread like an infection, and the church will lose its wit-ness to the world. The great deliverance accomplished by Christ in His Passover sacrifice will be compromised. Hence, Paul calls upon the believers to be what they are in Christ. Therefore, they must judge those who are in sin and refuse to repent by removing them from the church. Such judgment does not violate what Jesus said about judg-ing (Matt 7:15). Indeed, it fulfills Jesus instructions on discipline (Matt 18:1520). Self-righteous judgment violates Jesus words in Matt 7:16. Those who reprove others must be gentle (Gal 6:1) and beware of being puffed up with their own righteousness. True

38 See here the careful work of Brian S. Rosner, who explores OT citations and allusions: Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1Corinthians 57 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 6193.


discipline comes from a humble heart, and the motive of discipline is the salvation of the one who strayed. Those who give way to sin and fail to repent are in danger of final destruction. Discipline is a shock treatment designed to provoke those who are rebellious to return to the Lord. Hence, the goal and aim of discipline are not punishment or criticism but the health and salvation of the one who has strayed from the truth.

DISCIPLINE OF LEADERS

What do the Scriptures say about disciplining a leader or elder? We are not surprised to discover that there is not much information on the subject given the brevity of the New Testament. First Timothy 5:1725 is instructive, however, since Paul addresses the matter of elders in this text. In v. 19 he considers the situation where a charge is raised against an elder. Any accusation must be substantiated by two or three witnesses in accord with the OT (see Deut 17:6; 19:15). The language of two or three witnesses must not be interpreted literally. Paul means that the evidence to support a charge against an elder must be clear enough to warrant a charge. Capricious and arbitrary accusa-tions should not be taken seriously, for there are almost always people willing to speak a defaming word. If an accusation of sin is verified, then the elder guilty of sin must be rebuked in the presence of all (1Tim5:20 ESV). Paul probably means that elders who transgress are to be reproved in front of the entire congregation, and hence the charges are not kept private and confined only to fellow elders. The whole congregation should be informed about the sin of an elder.

What sins, however, warrant such a public rebuke? We have already noted that James says we all stumble in many ways (Jas 3:2). Should elders be reproved regularly before the congregation since they sin often? The ESV says that those who persist in sin should be rebuked before all (1Tim 5:20). The translation is debatable, for Paul uses a substantival participle which means those who sin (tous hamartanontas). It is probably illegitimate to press the present tense of the participle to yield the meaning persist in sin. Recent study on verbal aspect warns us against overreading the temporal signifi-cance of tenses.39 Indeed, scholars generally agree, regardless of their view of verbal aspect, that tense does not clearly attest to temporal

39 See especially, Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New


distinctions outside of the indicative mood. Still, Paul does not intend for elders to be reproved publicly for every sin they commit. We saw in 1Corinthians 5 that sins are to be reproved which are of a public character and bring reproach on Gods name and the church of Jesus Christ. Hence, an elder may commit adultery on only one occasion or embezzle funds once, but the sins are so egregious that they warrant public rebuke. Discerning which sins warrant public reproof must be grounded on all the Scriptures teach and requires the wise delibera-tions of the elders and the congregation. There is every reason to think that they are the same kinds of sins specified in 1Corinthians 5.40

We receive some illumination from Pauls rebuke of Peter in Gal2:1114. Peter acted hypocritically and ceased eating with Gentile Christians, fearing the disapproval of others. Paul emphasized that he reproved Peter before them all (v. 14 ESV) since he was acting in a way contrary to the gospel. Peters sin in this case was not a moral failing like adultery or stealing. Still he needed to be rebuked since his behavior called into question the gospel Paul proclaimed. Why did Peter need to be corrected publicly? Should Paul have confronted him privately instead of embarrassing him publicly? A public confrontation was fitting, for Peters sin was public and had public consequences. The rest of the Jews followed his example, and even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy (v. 13). A private word was scarcely sufficient since Peters behavior influenced many others. Peters sin had public consequences, and hence a public rebuke was necessary. Such a principle explains why Paul in 1Tim 5:20 also said that elders who sin are to be reproved before all. As leaders they influence others for good or for ill. It will not do for elders to hide significant sins that bring reproach upon Christ and the church, for then the congregation is deceived about the spiritual life of the elder. Furthermore, public rebuke brings a healthy fear of sin to the rest of the congregation or the rest of the elders (1Tim 5:20). It is difficult to be sure what Paul means by the rest here, but in any case he surely includes all the elders. When elders see that significant sin receives a public rebuke, they will be warned not to allow sin to dominate their lives. Furthermore, they know that if they are hiding sin they are acting hypocritically, and they should bring such sin to the light. Naturally such fear is not the only reason to avoid sin, but the Scriptures themselves indicate that it can

Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies in Biblical Greek 1 (New York: Peter Lang, 1989).

40 See the discussion above on which sins warrant discipline.


function as one of the motivations. In 1Tim 5:21Paul warns leaders to be impartial. Indeed, he calls them to be impartial before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels. No elder should receive favoritism because of a special friendship or because he is especially influential. The integrity of the church will be undermined if different standards are applied to different leaders.

Leaders are not exempt from discipline, and they must not be treated with partiality. If leaders are guilty of significant sin, they should confess it before the congregation and most likely be removed from office. The sin of leaders has a public character, even if the sin has been committed in private and therefore warrants a public rebuke. Leaders must not deceive the congregation about what is happening in their lives if in private they are not fighting against sin but giving way to its dominion in significant ways.

CONCLUSION

As I noted at the outset of this essay, church discipline seems unloving in our sensitive and affirming culture. We have seen, how-ever, that corrective discipline is the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul. Discipline is necessary so the church retains its purity and power. If sin is tolerated in the community, the difference between the church and the world is erased. If the churchs purity is compro-mised, then the message of the gospel is diluted, and the message of salvation and the glory of God are besmirched.

The church is summoned to judge sin in its midst and to remove from membership and fellowship those who refuse to repent of their sin. Jesus instructions make clear, however, that the church must not act too quickly. Those who are sinning must be given every opportu-nity to repent. Hence, Jesus specifies a deliberate process before one is excluded. The man guilty of incest in 1Corinthians 5 is not really an exception to the rules Jesus set forth. The sin was so blatant and public that immediate action was necessary. Still, if the person had repented, which would be verified by his breaking off his relationship with his stepmother, then the church should forgive and reinstate the person into the church body. That forgiveness is to be granted to one who repents is the clear teaching of 2Cor 2:511. I argued that the sin of leaders functions as an exception to what Jesus taught in Matt 18:1520. Even if they repent of their sin, if the sin is blatant enough, leaders


should confess their sin before the congregation and be removed from their office. If they are repentant, they should not be excommunicated, but retaining their office is a different matter since leaders must live by a higher standard (Jas 3:1).

The motive for discipline is love, and the goal is the final salvation of the one who has strayed from God. Hence, discipline, if it is shorn of arrogance and pride, is not contrary to love but an expression of it. The goal of discipline is not punishment but rescue from the wrath of God. Therefore, ironically enough, those who refuse to discipline are actually guilty of lack of love.

Documents

I love how ably this book demonstrates the connection ...€¦ · I love how ably this book demonstrates the connection between local church health and ... Through careful biblical