The Truth
In Print, Nov. 2006 Vol. 12 Issue 10
The Church Acting In Discipline
Some familiar teaching of Jesus concerning
the church is found in Matthew 18. Here He said,
“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. [16] 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. [17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell
it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee
as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17)
This instruction may be used to show the
difference between God given and revealed actions such as “individual,”
“concurrent,” and the church as a church working collectively.
We see “individual” action in one going to
the brother who sinned against him and thus seeking to gain his brother. Upon
failing to do, for the brother did not hear, then he is instructed to take with
him one or two more with the hopes that he will hear them. Thus, their going
illustrates “concurrent action” where two or more go together. The next
distinction made, should he not hear, is “tell it to the church” with the hopes
that he will hear the church and repent.
Discipline As A Work of The Church
Among the members of the church at Corinth a
brother had his father’s wife. Such had been reported by some who were
concerned about the well being of the church. Paul addressed this and said,
“It is reported commonly that there is
fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among
the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. [2] And ye are puffed up,
and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken
away from among you. [3] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in
spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath
so done this deed, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are
gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, [5]
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. [6] Your glorying is not
good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? [7] Purge out
therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For
even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:” (1 Cor. 5:1-7).
This Was To Be Dealt With When They Came Together
In that assembly they were to deliver such a
one to Satan with a view to him putting to death the deeds of the flesh, thus
repenting, and once again being in a saved state. I would say that they had a
common agreement to do such based upon Paul’s instructions. Also, it would be a
public declaration of removing him from among them.
Was He Removed Or Wasn’t He?
Paul’s instruction was that they, when
assembled, deliver such a one to Satan in order that he might be removed from
among them. Certainly there is agreement here, but there is more taking place
than just agreement that he needs to be removed and delivered to Satan. He is
to be removed by the church acting as the church, functioning collectively. I believe
that’s what takes place via that assembly of the church. He is removed and
delivered to Satan, a spiritual removal, before some member outside that
assembly has to tell him, should it need be, that they can’t keep company with
or eat with him.
Instruction That Applies To Individual Members Appears In
This Chapter As Well
“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to
company with fornicators: [10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this
world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must
ye needs go out of the world. [11] But now I have written unto you not to keep
company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or
an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no
not to eat.” (1 Cor. 5:9-11)
Paul had already addressed in a prior
epistle the matter of keeping company (regular associations with) with one who
is an ungodly member of the church. Breaking regular association with such is the
individual’s duty. Obviously, it may follow closely the work the church does in
removing an ungodly member who does not repent when addressed by the
church.
To what extent Paul had dealt with the
matter of associating with ungodly Christians in a prior letter I don’t know. I
do know that verses 9 through 11 do not mean that all there is or can be to
withdrawal is individuals acting—”individual action.” Who called that assembly where one was
delivered to Satan? The church. Moreover, the declaration was given “publicly”
by the church in its assembly. The church acted collectively regardless of the
fact that each member individually had a responsibility to not eat with such,
or keep company with such. The church acting as a church is not in the dining
together business either with the world or with brethren; the “social” is not a
work of the local church.
The Judging Process
“For what have I to do to judge them
also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? [13] But them that
are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked
person.” (1 Cor. 5:12-13)
When their members associated familiarly
with
non-christians I know that wasn’t the church acting collectively — as an
organization. The association in verse 10 is on an individual basis. However I
do know that the judging of those “within” in this context included the
assembly, and the public declaration was indeed the point of withdrawal from
that member who among them was committing fornication. In that assembly called
by the church the man was delivered to Satan and removed by the authority of
Christ!
If that man wanted to lead the closing
prayer in the very assembly that delivered him to Satan was he removed or could
he lead it as a member? If not, what would stop him? The removal! Who stopped
him? The church acting as a church! (Or was he to be considered removed only in
the sense that members individually could not associate with him as they did
the world?) There’s more than just individual action in withdrawal when a
church does it. Part of the judging
process is the removal and it is clearly the church. Nor does 2 Cor. 2:6 which
refers to the punishment “of many” change the “removal” to being strictly each
individuals not associating with the man as they could associate with the
world.
We know what the church accomplished in that
assembly. He was removed! The work of discipline that includes withdrawal is
just as much a work of the church as is edification and worship.
By Bob Lovelace
evangelist