Excommunication in the scriptures...

by cognac 11 Replies latest jw friends

  • cognac
    cognac

    It seems to me that the following would be reasons for excommunication in the scriptures as long as the person was flagrant and unrepentant in this regard:

    1 Cor. 5:10 – A brother who is a:

    Fornicator

    Greedy

    Idolater

    Reviler

    Drunkard

    Extortioner

    And 1 Tim. 5:20 –

    Blasphemer

    Then, in 2 John - anti-Christ

    How do we know how far the 1st century Christians took excommunication back then? As far as the Anti-Christ goes, Christians would not receive them into there homes. However, in the case of the person who had relations with his fathers wife in Cor, was he allowed to say a greeting with the other members? Did "mix in company with" mean he wasn't allowed at the meetings, or that they weren't supposed to talk with him at all?

    After how long was the excommunication ban lifted? Was he even repentant when the ban was lifted?

    Also, it seems that the entire congregation made the judicial decisions. On what scriptural basis does JWs form a committee instead of the entire congregation?

    If excommunication is used in the scriptires, would we not be getting the scriptures principles if we then didn't pass the same judgement on a murderer or rapist? And then, if judgement was passed on them, where would a line be drawn? Which sins would be fall under the excommunication rule?

    And if sin is breaking a law according to the scriptures, which law shows the sins we are to stay away from - Noahs law or the Mosaic one?

  • jamiebowers
    jamiebowers

    A lot of the questions you have on this thread were answered by Mary in the thread you started in Private Discussion.

  • cognac
    cognac

    I didn't think these ones were, but I'll go reread it...

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    May you have peace! I would like to respond, if I may. Thank you!

    How do we know how far the 1st century Christians took excommunication back then?

    1st century christians did not excommunicate. Paul did try to start that practice... as well as "marking,"... but neither were received by the 12. In fact, Paul's attempt in the Corinthian congregation almost destroyed that congregation. His admonishment at 1 Corinthians 5:9, 10 literally divided the congregation and caused a rift between him and the 12 that lasted 14 years.

    As far as the Anti-Christ goes, Christians would not receive them into there homes.

    This was not for spiritual reasons, though, so much as it was for SAFETY reasons. The Jews were seeking to silence christians and one way of doing this was to "bear false witness" against them to the Romans, who had no problem using them [christians] for sport (i.e., including feeding to the lions). Since one could only say, "JahEshua is Lord," by means of holy spirit, if such one DIDN'T bring the proper greeting or "healthful teachings" about the Christ... one was understandably suspect a the safety of the entire congregation could have been jeopardized.

    However, in the case of the person who had relations with his father’s wife in Cor, was he allowed to say a greeting with the other members?

    Did "mix in company with" mean he wasn't allowed at the meetings, or that they weren't supposed to talk with him at all?

    Paul TRIED to get the congregation to excommunicate this man; however, while some would not greet him, not all of the congregation agreed, and certainly the 12 did not. This is because Christ never taught such a thing; rather, he taught that they should FORGIVE each one his/her trespasses. In addition, when the Pharisees excommunicated (expelled/disfellowshipped) a blind man, he personally went after such man.

    After how long was the excommunication ban lifted? Was he even repentant when the ban was lifted?

    It never took effect. Although Paul, a former Pharisee, tried in his 2 nd letter to the Corinthians (1st Corinthians is Paul's 2nd letter - 1 Corinhians 5:9) to have it done, it caused SO much controversy in the congregation that he changed his position in his 3 rd letter (2 nd Corinthians is Paul's 3rd letter - 2 Corithians 13:1, 2 - was written shortly after the second letter). This was because many in the congregation… and the apostles… were of the mind that nothing more than a rebuke by the congregation was needed, because that's what the Christ taught. (Matthew 18:17). However, rather than the congregation being built UP… it was being torn apart directly because of Paul’s admonition. Paul, therefore, had to reverse his former position… which he did… or be held responsible for “stumbling” members of the Body of Christ and destroying a congregation. (2 Corinthians 2:6-8, 10).

    Also, it seems that the entire congregation made the judicial decisions. On what scriptural basis does JWs form a committee instead of the entire congregation?

    There is NO “scriptural” basis. The procedure under the NEW Covenant, as set forth by Christ, is recorded at Matthew 18:15-17. However, even if the matter should get to the congregation level and still not be resolved, the person only becomes “like the tax collectors” and so is still entitled to love, mercy, and forgiveness… as an “enemy.” Matthew 5:44-46

    The WTBTS, however, uses Paul’s words recorded at 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13, as their “basis,” which admonition was totally incorrect, as Paul himself latter admits by his words at 2 Corinthians 2:1-10 and Romans 2:1; 14:1. Most people don’t realize it, because of where it is located in the Bible canon (after Romans), but the letter to the Romans was actually written AFTER those to the Corinthians. It is placed where it is… to mislead. Putting Romans first gives the impression that Paul changed his position from NOT judging TO judging. It was just the opposite.

    If excommunication is used in the scriptures, would we not be getting the scriptures principles if we then didn't pass the same judgment on a

    murderer or rapist? And then, if judgment was passed on them, where would a line be drawn? Which sins would be fall under the

    excommunication rule?

    There are none that fall under such a line. Even Christ did not condemn the murderer on the pole next to him, but forgave him for his faith. Nor did he condemn those who were “condemned” under the law (i.e., the woman caught in the act of adultery, the woman with the flow of blood, those with demons, etc.). He didn’t judge such ones… neither are we to judge ANYONE. My Lord hung out with “sinners.”

    Does that mean we are to do nothing about “blasphemers”? We are not. Such ones are left to God; He will judge… and if He chooses… condemn them. We would do good to not hang around them so much; however, if we saw them “in need” and we had the means to meet those needs, we cannot shut the door of our tender compassions upon them. Otherwise, we are in fact judging.

    What about “criminals”? Same thing except such ones have the world to judge them. Since they are breaking “Caesar’s” laws… they have put themselves in line with and thus are subject to “Caesar’s” judgments and condmenation. “Caesar” retains the right TO judge and condemn them… as far as this life is concerned.

    And if sin is breaking a law according to the scriptures, which law shows the sins we are to stay away from - Noahs law or the Mosaic one?

    It really depends on which “law” you “live” by. If you are under the law of Noah or Moses, then it the features of those laws that you must adhere to. Keep in mind, however, whatever Law you are live by… you are under ALL of it; you cannot live by part of it and disregard another part of it. For example, if you are under the Law of Moses, not only cannot you not commit adultery or covet… you cannot eat ham. You cannot eat shrimp. You cannot pierce your ears. You cannot have a tattoo.

    There is another Law, however: the Law mediated by Christ, the NEW Covenant… which is the law… of love. THAT Law says “love covers a multitude of transgressions,” and so, if YOU love… if YOU forgive… if YOU show mercy… if YOU release… you will BE loved… you will BE forgiven… you will be SHOWN mercy… and you will BE released. It says that if YOU judge… you will BE judged… and if you do NOT judge… you won’t BE judged.

    For ME… this is the EASIER of the three… and fulfillment of the second. IF you love God… you won’t profane His name. You won’t HAVE any other gods before Him. You won’t MAKE a graven image and call it God. You won’t commit adultery. IF you love your neighbor… you won’t covet his ox… or his wife… or his maidservant. IF you love your brother, you won’t bear false witness against him/her. IF you love even your enemies… you won’t murder anyone.

    However, under the NEW Covenant… if you DO commit any of these things… IT CAN BE FORGIVEN you. Unlike under the OLD Covenant (Law of Moses).

    Given the features of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant… I can’t see any choice but the New. It requires nothing more of me than love… and faith. True, I have to DEMONSTRATE that love… and EXERCISE that faith… but even those things are not burdensome. For Christ’s yoke is kindly… and his yoke is light.

    I hope this helps, dear Cognac, and please forgive my caps at the end. I grew tired of trying to format as the forum just doesn't like it much.

    Again, I bid you peace.

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • cognac
    cognac

    Paul's attempt in the Corinthian congregation almost destroyed that congregation. His admonishment at 1 Corinthians 5:9, 10 literally divided the congregation and caused a rift between him and the 12 that lasted 14 years.

    Thanks for all this info!!! I'm still reading through it. But, how do you know he caused a rift with the othe Apostles because he did this? Hoe do you know the other Apostles didn't agree with him on this?

  • iknowall558
    iknowall558

    Interesting info AGuest. Much appreciated.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Cognac,

    It would also be interesting to think about the shunning enforcement, under which circumstances SHOULD not speaking to someone apply as compared to the rules enforced by the Watchtower leaders.

    Excommunication does not need to lead to the shunning that JW's are told to do. My understanding is that the only ones to avoid greeting were those attempting to introduce a false teaching into the congregation. It seems that other Bible-based religions are closer to the spirit of what the Bible says when they withhold privileges and sacraments, but hardly any religions enforce shunning to the point of even removing those who say a greeting to former members and to the point of cutting off their family members.

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    May you have peace!

    I do not know if it is referred to specifically; however, it is recorded historically... and it is what my Lord told me. By the Spirit, I am to direct you to read Paul's letters in the order written, starting with his letters to the Galatians and Thessalonians. Then read his letters to the Corinthians, focusing on the change he manifests in his 3rd letter to that congregation (2nd Corinthians). That letter is a appeal to the Corinthians to accept him, in spite of what he had written to them previously in his very first letter (which apparently was considered as so harsh the compilers of the Bible canon chose not to include it) and his second letter (1 Corinthians). Throughtouth his third letter - 2nd Corinthians - Paul asks the Corinthians to "put up with him", "accept him," "widen out and welcome him" etc. He tells them that the reason he said what he did previously is because he promised the congregation as a "chaste virgin" to Christ and so wanted them to be "clean." However, his words indicate that while he wasn't going to apologize for what he advised, he understood that it wasn't beneficial. Then read his letter to the Romans, which is pretty much a full about face.

    Regarding his relationship with the apostles, he alluded to this in the 10th through 12th chapters of 2nd Corinthians. There, he addressed his chagrin at having to validate his "authority" and qualify his teachings before the Corinthians, while the others (which he referred to as "superfine apostles") did not... and how he was a bit put out that such ones were readily accepted and he was not. The WTBTS and others teach that these "superfine apostles" were not the 12. They were not all twelve, true, as he had no problem with Peter (or James, who was not one of the 12). But the two groups had a couple of significantly different teachings. For instance, some of the twelve were teaching, along with others, that new converts from the nations needed to be circumcised. Paul, the apostles to the nations, disputed this; however, he didn't have the "authority" to override it.... any more than he the "authority" to make the Corinthians disfellowship the man in question. In both cass, the matter was taken to the 12 "and older men" - the df'ing of the man was taken by members in the congregation who disputed this act; the circumcision matter was taken by Paul and Barnabas themselves.

    Peter later defended Paul's teachings as set forth in his letters because he believed some (including certain "apostles") were misstating and/or misapplying them. He admitted, however, that they contained "some things hard to understand," which things were causing stumbling. Do we completely accept Peter's advocacy? Well, for the most part, yes. But what I understand from my Lord is not entirely because Peter proved himself to be "partial" on more than one occasion and had to be corrected several times, even by Paul. The BEST thing to do... is listen to the Spirit, who will lead you into the TRUTH of this matter.

    Bottom line - I cannot quote specific verses for you because it is discerned not by reading one or two verses, but the entire scenario. There is a specific reason that Paul wrote his 3rd letter (2nd Corinthians) and it was the matter you've raised reagrding the man he advised df'ing.

    I hope this helps and bids you peace... and ears to hear the Spirit and HIS truth on this, if you so wish it.

    Your servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • boyzone
    boyzone

    Yes, thanks AGuest, I enjoyed reading your posts.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    A couple of things to consider on this Cognac. In the ancient Middle East eating a meal with someone was much more intimate an affair as it is today. Now many feel that since the context of Paul's counsel at 1 Co 5 is in the context of the cong, Paul is speaking of simply not eating a meal of worship with such a person. But, even if he is speaking beyond that, the fact that eating a meal was an initmate affair at that time he is simply saying not to become overly close to such a person...nothing on shunning.

    2 John 9 is a totally different situation- not involving the persons spoken of in 1 Cor 5. At that time traveling preachers were common and the counsel at 2 John 9 said not to let preachers into you home (or wish them well in their course) in reference to preachers who denied Jesus coming in the flesh.

    A final though- there is not ONE example of someone being dfed for talking to someone who is dfed. In 2nd Cor 2, the reinstatement of this man occurs. The rebuke is said to be given by the 'majority'- not all.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit